[G.R. No. 142801-802.

July 10, 2001]

BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB, CESAR OSADA, RE!EDIOS G. RINCESA, BENJA!IN K"O,
BENIGNO !ANGA, LULU !ENDO#A, petitioners, vs. "ON. E$ECU%I&E SECRE%AR' RONALDO
B. #A!ORA, "ON. SECRE%AR' JOSE ARDO, DEAR%!EN% O( (INANCE, "ON. SECRE%AR'
BENJA!IN DIOKNO, DEAR%!EN% O( BUDGE% AND !ANAGE!EN%, "ON. SECRE%AR'
AR%E!IO %U)UERO, DEAR%!EN% O( JUS%ICE, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SANDO&AL-GU%IERRE#, J.*
In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, petitioners Buklod Ng Kawaning EIIB, Cesar Posada,
Remedios Princesa, Benjamin Kho, Benigno anga and !ulu endo"a, for themsel#es and in behalf of others
with whom the$ share a common or general interest, seek the nullification of Executive Order No.
191 %& and Executive Order No. 223 %' on the ground that the$ were issued b$ the (ffice of the President with
gra#e abuse of discretion and in #iolation of their constitutional right to securit$ of tenure)
*he facts are undisputed+
(n ,une -., &/01, former President Cora"on C) 23uino, issued E4ecuti#e (rder No) &'1 %- establishing the
Economic Intelligence and In#estigation Bureau 5EIIB6 as part of the structural organi"ation of the inistr$ of
7inance) %8 *he EIIB was designated to perform the following functions+
+,- Recei#e, gather and e#aluate intelligence reports and information and e#idence on the nature, modes and
e4tent of illegal acti#ities affecting the national econom$, such as, but not limited to, economic sabotage,
smuggling, ta4 e#asion, and dollar9salting, in#estigate the same and aid in the prosecution of cases:
+.- Coordinate with e4ternal agencies in monitoring the financial and economic acti#ities of persons or
entities, whether domestic or foreign, which ma$ ad#ersel$ affect national financial interest with the goal of
regulating, controlling or pre#enting said acti#ities:+/- Pro#ide all intelligence units of operating Bureaus or
(ffices under the inistr$ with the general framework and guidelines in the conduct of intelligence and
in#estigating works:+0- ;uper#ise, monitor and coordinate all the intelligence and in#estigation operations of
the operating Bureaus and (ffices under the inistr$:+1- In#estigate, hear and file, upon clearance b$ the
inister, anti9graft and corruption cases against personnel of the inistr$ and its constituents units:
+2- Perform such other appropriate functions as ma$ be assigned b$ the inister or his deputies)%<
In a desire to achie#e harmon$ of efforts and to pre#ent possible conflicts among agencies in the course of their
anti9smuggling operations, President 23uino issued emorandum (rder No) ''< on arch &1, &/0/, pro#iding,
among others, that the EIIB shall be the agency of primary responsibility for anti-smuggling operations in all
land areas and inland waters and waterways outside the areas of sole jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. %=
Ele#en $ears after, or on ,anuar$ 1, '..., President ,oseph Estrada issued E4ecuti#e (rder No) &/&
entitledDeactivation of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau. %1 oti#ated b$ the fact that the
designated functions of the EIIB are also being performed b$ the other e4isting agencies of the go#ernment and
that there is a need to constantl$ monitor the o#erlapping of functions among these agencies, former President
Estrada ordered the deacti#ation of EIIB and the transfer of its functions to the Bureau of Customs and the
National Bureau of In#estigation)
eanwhile, President Estrada issued E4ecuti#e (rder No) &/= %0 creating the Presidential 2nti9;muggling *ask
7orceAduana) %/
*hen the da$ feared b$ the EIIB emplo$ees came) (n arch '/, '..., President Estrada issued E4ecuti#e (rder
No) ''- %&. pro#iding that all EIIB personnel occup$ing positions specified therein shall be deemed separated
from the ser#ice effecti#e 2pril -., '..., pursuant to a bona fide reorgani"ation resulting to abolition,
redundanc$, merger, di#ision, or consolidation of positions) %&&
2goni"ing o#er the loss of their emplo$ment, petitioners now come before this Court in#oking our power of
judicial re#iew of E4ecuti#e (rder Nos) &/& and ''-) *he$ anchor their petition on the following arguments+
2) E31/u4561 O7017 No8. 191 ,:0 22; 8<oul0 .1 ,::ull10 ,8 4<1y ,71 u:/o:8454u45o:,l 2o7 .15:= 65ol,4561 o2
S1/45o: 2+;-, A745/l1 I$-B o2 4<1 <5l5>>5:1 Co:8454u45o: ,:0?o7 2o7 <,65:= .11: 588u10 @54< =7,61 ,.u81 o2
058/7145o: ,Aou:45:= 4o l,/B o7 13/188 o2 Cu75805/45o:.
B) %<1 ,.ol545o: o2 4<1 EIIB 58 , <o,3. S5A5l,7ly, 52 E31/u4561 O7017 No8. 191 ,:0 22; ,71 /o:8501710 4o
1221/4 , 71o7=,:5D,45o: o2 4<1 EIIB, 8u/< 71o7=,:5D,45o: @,8 A,01 5: .,0 2,54<.
C)%<1 718501:4 <,8 :o ,u4<o754y 4o ,.ol58< 4<1 EIIB.
Petitioners contend that the issuance of the afore9mentioned e4ecuti#e orders is+ +,- a #iolation of their right to
securit$ of tenure: +.- tainted with bad faith as the$ were not actuall$ intended to make the bureaucrac$ more
efficient but to gi#e wa$ to *ask 7orce 2duana, the functions of which are essentiall$ and substantiall$ the same
as that of EIIB: and +/- a usurpation of the power of Congress to decide whether or not to abolish the EIIB)
2rguing in behalf of respondents, the ;olicitor >eneral maintains that+ +,- the President enjo$s the totalit$ of the
e4ecuti#e power pro#ided under ;ections & and 1, 2rticle ?II of the Constitution, thus, he has the authorit$ to
issue E4ecuti#e (rder Nos) &/& and ''-: +.- the said e4ecuti#e orders were issued in the interest of national
econom$, to a#oid duplicit$ of work and to streamline the functions of the bureaucrac$: and +/- the EIIB was
not abolished, it was onl$ deactivated)
*he petition is bereft of merit)
@espite the presence of some procedural flaws in the instant petition, such as, petitioners disregard of the
hierarch$ of courts and the non9e4haustion of administrati#e remedies, we deem it necessar$ to address the issues)
It is in the interest of the ;tate that 3uestions relating to the status and e4istence of a public office be settled
without dela$) Ae are not without precedent) In Dario v. ison! %&' we liberall$ decreed+
*he Court disregards the 3uestions raised as to procedure, failure to e4haust administrati#e remedies, the standing
of certain parties to sue, for two reasons, E[.]1/,u81 o2 4<1 01A,:08 o2 >u.l5/ 5:417184, 5:/lu05:= 4<1 :110 2o7
84,.5l54y 5: 4<1 >u.l5/ 81765/1,B and because of the serious implications of these cases on the administration of the
Philippine ci#il ser#ice and the rights of public ser#ants)
2t first glance, it seems that the resolution of this case hinges on the 3uestion 9 Does the deactivation of EIIB
constitute abolition of an office" Cowe#er, after coming to terms with the pre#ailing law and jurisprudence, we
are certain that the ultimate 3ueries should be ,- Does the #resident have the authority to reorgani$e the e%ecutive
department" and! .- &ow should the reorgani$ation be carried out"
;urel$, there e4ists a distinction between the words deactivate and abolish) *o deactivate means to render
inacti#e or ineffecti#e or to break up b$ discharging or reassigning personnel, %&- while to abolish means to do
awa$ with, to annul, abrogate or destro$ completel$) %&8 In essence, abolition denotes an intention to do awa$
with the officewholly and permanently) %&< *hus, while in abolition! the office ceases to e4ist, the same is not true
in deactivationwhere the office continues to e4ist, albeit remaining dormant or inoperati#e) Be that as it ma$,
deacti#ation and abolition are both reorgani"ation measures)
*he ;olicitor >eneral onl$ in#okes the abo#e distinctions on the mistaken assumption that the President has no
power to abolish an office)
*he general rule has alwa$s been that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature) %&= *his
proceeds from the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to destro$) 2 public office is either
created b$ the Constitution, b$ statute, or b$ authorit$ of law) %&1 *hus, e4cept where the office was created b$
the Constitution itself, it ma$ be abolished b$ the same legislature that brought it into e4istence) %&0
*he e4ception, howe#er, is that as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the e4ecuti#e department are concerned,
the Presidents power of control ma$ justif$ him to inacti#ate the functions of a particular office, %&/ or certain
laws ma$ grant him the broad authorit$ to carr$ out reorgani"ation measures) %'. *he case in point is 'arin v.
E%ecutive (ecretary. %'& In this case, it was argued that there is no law which empowers the President to
reorgani"e the BIR) In decreeing otherwise, this Court sustained the following legal basis, thus+
Initiall$, it is argued that there is no law $et which empowers the President to issue E)() No) &-' or to reorgani"e
the BIR)
Ae do not agree)
;ection 80 of R)2) 1=8< pro#ides that+
S1/. 48) (caling Down and #hase )ut of Activities of Agencies *ithin the E%ecutive Branch) *he heads of
departments, bureaus and offices and agencies are hereb$ directed to identif$ their respecti#e acti#ities which are
no longer essential in the deli#er$ of public ser#ices and which ma$ be scaled down! phased out or
abolished! subject to ci#il ser#ice rules and regulations) D 4 4) Actual scaling down! phasing out or abolition of
the acti#ities shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or (rders issued for the purpose b$ the (ffice of the
President)
;aid pro#ision clearl$ mentions the acts of 8/,l5:= 0o@:, ><,85:= ou4 ,:0 ,.ol545o: of offices onl$ and does not
co#er the creation of offices or transfer of functions) Ne#ertheless, the act of creating and decentrali"ing is
included in the subse3uent pro#ision of ;ection =' which pro#ides that+
S1/. F2. +nauthori$ed organi$ational charges.- Enless otherwise created b$ law or directed b$ the President of
the Philippines, no organi"ational unit or changes in ke$ positions in an$ department or agenc$ shall be
authori"ed in their respecti#e organi"ation structures and be funded from appropriations b$ this 2ct) 5italics ours6
%<1 2o71=o5:= >7o6585o: 16501:4ly 8<o@8 4<,4 4<1 718501:4 58 ,u4<o75D10 4o 1221/4 o7=,:5D,45o:,l /<,:=18
5:/lu05:= 4<1 /71,45o: o2 o225/18 5: 4<1 01>,74A1:4 o7 ,=1:/y /o:/17:10.
2nother legal basis of E)() No) &-' is ;ection '., Book III of E)() No) '/' which states+
;ec) '.) Residual Powers) Enless Congress pro#ides otherwise, the President shall e4ercise such other powers
and functions vested in the #resident which are provided for under the laws and which are not specificall$
enumerated abo#e or which are not delegated b$ the President in accordance with law) 5italic ours6
%<58 >7o6585o: 8>1,B8 o2 8u/< o4<17 >o@178 618410 5: 4<1 718501:4 u:017 4<1 l,@. W<,4 l,@ 4<1: =5618 <5A
4<1 >o@17 4o 71o7=,:5D1G I4 58 718501:45,l D1/711 No. 1HH2 @<5/< ,A1:010 718501:45,l D1/711 No. 141F.
%<181 01/7118 13>7188ly =7,:4 4<1 718501:4 o2 4<1 <5l5>>5:18 4<1 /o:45:u5:= ,u4<o754y 4o 71o7=,:5D1 4<1
:,45o:,l =o617:A1:4, @<5/< 5:/lu018 4<1 >o@17 4o =7ou>, /o:8ol50,41 .u71,u8 ,:0 ,=1:/518, 4o ,.ol58<
o225/18, 4o 47,:8217 2u:/45o:8, 4o /71,41 ,:0 /l,8852y 2u:/45o:8, 81765/18 ,:0 ,/45654518 ,:0 4o 84,:0,705D1
8,l,7518 ,:0 A,4175,l8. *he #alidit$ of these two decrees are un3uestionable) *he &/01 Constitution clearl$
pro#ides that all laws, decrees, e4ecuti#e orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other e4ecuti#e
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operati#e until amended, repealed or re#oked) ;o
far, there is $et no law amending or repealing said decrees) 5Emphasis supplied6
Now, let us take a look at the assailed e4ecuti#e order)
In the whereas clause of E)() No) &/&, former President Estrada anchored his authorit$ to deacti#ate EIIB on
;ection 11 of Republic 2ct 018< 5,- ./// 0eneral Appropriations Act6, a pro#ision similar to ;ection =' of R)2)
1=8< 3uoted in!arin! thus:
S1/. HH. )rgani$ed Changes) U:l188 otherwise pro#ided b$ law or 0571/410 .y 4<1 718501:4 o2 4<1 <5l5>>5:18,
no changes in ke$ positions or organi"ational units in an$ department or agenc$ shall be authori"ed in their
respecti#e organi"ational structures and funded from appropriations pro#ided b$ this 2ct)
Ae adhere to the precedent or ruling in !arin that this pro#ision recogni"es the authorit$ of the President to effect
organi"ational changes in the department or agenc$ under the e4ecuti#e structure) ;uch a ruling further finds
support in ;ection 10 of Republic 2ct No) 01=.) %'' Ender this law, the heads of departments, bureaus, offices
and agencies and other entities in the E4ecuti#e Branch are directed +,- to conduct a comprehensi#e re#iew of
their respecti#e mandates, missions, objecti#es, functions, programs, projects, acti#ities and s$stems and
procedures:+.- identif$ acti#ities which are no longer essential in the deli#er$ of public ser#ices and which ma$
be scaled down, phased9out or abolished: and +/- adopt measures that will result in the streamlined organi"ation
and impro#ed o#erall performance of their respecti#e agencies) %'- ;ection 10 ends up with the mandate that
the actual streamlining and productivity improvement in agency organi$ation and operation shall be effected
pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for te purpose !" te Office of te President. %'8 *he law has spoken
clearl$) Ae are left onl$ with the dut$ to sustain)
But of course, the list of legal basis authori"ing the President to reorgani"e an$ department or agenc$ in the
e4ecuti#e branch does not ha#e to end here) Ae must not lose sight of the #er$ source of the power that which
constitutes an e4press grant of power) Ender ;ection -&, Book III of E4ecuti#e (rder No) '/' 5otherwise known
as the Administrative Code of ./126, 4<1 718501:4, 8u.C1/4 4o 4<1 >ol5/y 5: 4<1 E31/u4561 O225/1 ,:0 5: o7017
4o ,/<5161 si#plicit", econo#" ,:0 efficienc", 8<,ll <,61 4<1 /o:45:u5:= ,u4<o754y 4o 71o7=,:5D1 4<1
,0A5:5847,4561 847u/4u71 o2 4<1 O225/1 o2 4<1 718501:4. 7or this purpose, he ma$ transfer the functions of other
@epartments or 2gencies to the (ffice of the President) In Canoni$ado v. Aguirre! %'< we ruled that
reorgani"ation5:6ol618 4<1 710u/45o: o2 >178o::1l, /o:8ol50,45o: o2 o225/18, o7 ,.ol545o: 4<171o2 .y 71,8o: o2
1/o:oAy o7 710u:0,:/y o2 2u:/45o:8. It takes place when there is an alteration of the e4isting structure of
go#ernment offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authorit$ and responsibilit$ between them) *he
EIIB is a bureau attached to the @epartment of 7inance) %'= It falls under the (ffice of the President) Cence, it is
subject to the Presidents continuing authorit$ to reorgani"e)
It ha#ing been dul$ established that the President has the authorit$ to carr$ out reorgani"ation in an$ branch or
agenc$ of the e4ecuti#e department, what is then left for us to resol#e is whether or not the reorgani"ation is #alid)
In this jurisdiction, reorgani"ations ha#e been regarded as #alid pro#ided the$ are pursued in good faith)
Reorgani"ation is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of econom$ or to make bureaucrac$ more
efficient)%'1 Pertinentl$, Republic 2ct No) ==<= %'0 pro#ides for the circumstances which ma$ be considered as
e#idence of bad faith in the remo#al of ci#il ser#ice emplo$ees made as a result of reorgani"ation, to
wit+ +,- where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the
department or agenc$ concerned:+.- wherean office is abolished and another performing substantiall$ the same
functions is created: +/- where incumbents are replaced b$ those less 3ualified in terms of status of appointment,
performance and merit: +0-where there is a classification of offices in the department or agenc$ concerned and the
reclassified offices perform substantiall$ the same functions as the original offices, and +1- where the remo#al
#iolates the order of separation)%'/
Petitioners claim that the deacti#ation of EIIB was done in bad faith because four da$s after its deacti#ation,
President Estrada created the *ask 7orce Aduana.
Ae are not con#inced)
2n e4amination of the pertinent E4ecuti#e (rders %-. shows that the deacti#ation of EIIB and the creation of
*ask 7orce 2duana were done in good faith) It was not for the purpose of remo#ing the EIIB emplo$ees, but to
achie#e the ultimate purpose of E)() No) &/&, which is econom$) Ahile *ask 7orce 2duana was created to take
the place of EIIB, its creation does not entail e4pense to the go#ernment)
,irstly , 4<171 58 :o 1A>loyA1:4 o2 :1@ >178o::1l 4o A,: 4<1 %,8B (o7/1. E.O. No. 19F >7o65018 4<,4 4<1
41/<:5/,l, ,0A5:5847,4561 ,:0 8>1/5,l 84,228 o2 EIIB ,71 4o .1 /oA>o810 o2 >1o>l1 @<o ,71 ,l71,0y 5: 4<1
>u.l5/ 81765/1, 4<1y .15:= 1A>loy118 o2 o4<17 135845:= ,=1:/518. %<157 41:u71 @54< 4<1 %,8B (o7/1 @oul0
o:ly .1 41A>o7,7y, 5.1., o:ly @<1: 4<1 ,=1:/y @<171 4<1y .1lo:= 58 /,ll10 u>o: 4o ,88584 4<1 %,8B (o7/1.
S5:/1 4<157 1A>loyA1:4 @54< 4<1 %,8B 2o7/1 58 o:ly .y @,y o2 detail or assi$n#ent, 4<1y 714,5: 4<157
1A>loyA1:4 @54< 4<1 135845:= ,=1:/518. A:0 8<oul0 4<1 :110 2o7 4<1A /1,81, 4<1y @oul0 .1 81:4 .,/B 4o 4<1
,=1:/y /o:/17:10.
(econdly , the thrust of E)() No) &/= is to ha#e a small group of militar$ men under the direct control and
super#ision of the President as base of the go#ernments anti9smuggling campaign) ;uch a smaller base has the
necessar$ powers 1- to enlist the assistance of an$ department, bureau, or office and to use their respecti#e
personnel, facilities and resources: and 2- to select and recruit personnel from within the P;> and I;27P
for assignment to the *ask 7orce) O.65ou8ly, 4<1 501, 58 4o 1:/ou7,=1 4<1 u45l5D,45o: o2 >178o::1l, 2,/5l54518
,:0 718ou7/18 o2 4<1 ,l71,0y 135845:= 01>,74A1:48, ,=1:/518, .u71,u8, 14/., 5:841,0 o2 A,5:4,5:5:= ,:
5:01>1:01:4 o225/1 @54< , @<ol1 814 o2 >178o::1l ,:0 2,/5l54518. *he EIIB had pro#en itself burdensome for the
go#ernment because it maintained separate offices in e#er$ region in the Philippines)
2nd thirdly! it is e#ident from the $earl$ budget appropriation of the go#ernment that the creation of the *ask
7orce 2duana was especiall$ intended to lessen EIIBs e4penses) *racing from the $earl$ >eneral 2ppropriations
2ct, it appears that the allotted amount for the EIIBs general administration, support, and operations for the $ear
&//<, was 128,0;1,000: %-& for &//=, 182,1IF,000J %-' for &//0, 219,889,000J %-- and, for
&///,2;8,H4;,000. %-8 *heseamounts were far abo#e the I0,000,000 %-< allocation to the *ask
7orce Aduana for the $ear '...)
Ahile basicall$, the functions of the EIIB ha#e de#ol#ed upon the *ask 7orce 2duana, we find the latter to ha#e
additional new powers) *he *ask 7orce 2duana, being composed of elements from the Presidential ;ecurit$
>roup 5P;>6 and Intelligence ;er#ice 2rmed 7orces of the Philippines 5I;27P6, %-= has the essential power to
effect searches! sei$ures and arrests. *he EIIB did not ha#e this power) *he *ask 7orce 2duana has the power to
enlist the assistance of an$ department, bureau, office, or instrumentalit$ of the go#ernment, including
go#ernment9owned or controlled corporations: and to use their personnel, facilities and resources) 2gain, the EIIB
did not ha#e this power) 2nd, the *ask 7orce 2duana has the additional authorit$ to conduct in#estigation of
cases in#ol#ing ill9gotten wealth) *his was not e4pressl$ granted to the EIIB)
Conse3uentl$, it cannot be said that there is a feigned reorgani"ation) In Bla3uera v. Civil (evice
Commission, %-1 we ruled that a reorgani"ation in good faith is one designed to trim the fat off the bureaucrac$
and institute econom$ and greater efficienc$ in its operation)
!astl$, we hold that petitioners right to securit$ of tenure is not #iolated) Nothing is better settled in our law than
that the abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate bod$ if done in good faith suffers from no
infirmit$) ?alid abolition of offices is neither remo#al nor separation of the incumbents) %-0 In the instructi#e
words laid down b$ this Court in Dario v. ison! %-/ through ,ustice 2braham 7) ;armiento+
Reorgani"ations in this jurisdiction ha#e been regarded as #alid pro#ided the$ are pursued in good faith) 2s a
general rule, a reorgani"ation is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of econom$ or to make
bureaucrac$ more efficient) I: 4<,4 161:4, :o 058A588,l +5: /,81 o2 058A588,l- o7 81>,7,45o: ,/4u,lly o//u78
.1/,u81 4<1 >o8545o: 5481l2 /1,818 4o 13584. A:0 5: 4<,4 /,81, 81/u754y o2 41:u71 @oul0 :o4 .1 , C<5:181
@,ll. Be that as it ma$, if the abolition, which is nothing else but a separation or remo#al, is done for political
reasons or purposel$ to defeat securit$ of tenure, otherwise not in good faith, no #alid abolition takes and
whate#er abolition is done, is #oid ab initio) *here is an in#alid abolition as where there is merel$ a change of
nomenclature of positions, or where claims of econom$ are belied b$ the e4istence of ample funds)
Indeed, there is no such thing as an absolute right to hold office) E4cept constitutional offices which pro#ide for
special immunit$ as regards salar$ and tenure, no one can be said to ha#e an$ #ested right in an office or its
salar$)%8.
Ahile we cast a commiserating look upon the plight of all the EIIB emplo$ees whose li#es perhaps are now torn
with uncertainties, we cannot ignore the unfortunate realit$ that our go#ernment is also battling the impact of a
plummeting econom$) Enless the go#ernment is gi#en the chance to recuperate b$ instituting econom$ and
efficienc$ in its s$stem, the EIIB will not be the last agenc$ to suffer the impact) Ae cannot frustrate #alid
measures which are designed to rebuild the e4ecuti#e department)
W"ERE(ORE, the petition is hereb$ @ENIE@) No costs)
;( (R@ERE@)
G.R. No. 12HF8I. July 2;, 1998
BLAS (. OLE, #etitioner, vs. RUBEN D. %ORRES, ALE$ANDER AGUIRRE, "EC%OR
&ILLANUE&A, CIELI%O "ABI%O, ROBER% BARBERS, CAR!ENCI%A REODICA, CESAR
SARINO, RENA%O &ALENCIA, %O!AS . A(RICA, "EAD O( %"E NA%IONAL CO!U%ER
CEN%ER and C"AIR!AN O( %"E CO!!ISSION ON AUDI%, 4espondents)
D E C I S I O N
UNO, J.*
*he petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of ;enator Blas 7) (ple to pre#ent the shrinking of the
right to pri#ac$, which the re#ered r) ,ustice Brandeis considered as Fthe most comprehensi#e of rights and the
right most #alued b$ ci#ili"ed men)F
&
Petitioner (ple pra$s that we in#alidate 2dministrati#e (rder No) -.0
entitled F2doption of a National Computeri"ed Identification Reference ;$stemF on two important constitutional
grounds, #i"+ one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibl$ intrudes on
our citi"enr$Bs protected "one of pri#ac$) Ae grant the petition for the rights sought to be #indicated b$ the
petitioner need stronger barriers against further erosion)
2)() No) -.0 was issued b$ President 7idel ?) Ramos on @ecember &', &//= and reads as follows+
F2@(P*I(N (7 2 N2*I(N2! C(PE*ERIGE@ I@EN*I7IC2*I(N RE7ERENCE ;H;*E
ACERE2;, there is a need to pro#ide 7ilipino citi"ens and foreign residents with the facilit$ to con#enientl$
transact business with basic ser#ice and social securit$ pro#iders and other go#ernment instrumentalities:
ACERE2;, this will re3uire a computeri"ed s$stem to properl$ and efficientl$ identif$ persons seeking basic
ser#ices on social securit$ and reduce, if not totall$ eradicate, fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations:
ACERE2;, a concerted and collaborati#e effort among the #arious basic ser#ices and social securit$ pro#iding
agencies and other go#ernment instrumentalities is re3uired to achie#e such a s$stem:
N(A, *CERE7(RE, I, 7I@E! ?) R2(;, President of the Republic of the Philippines, b$ #irtue of the powers
#ested in me b$ law, do hereb$ direct the following+
;EC*I(N &) Establishment of a 5ational Computeri$ed Identification 4eference (ystem) 2 decentrali"ed
Identification Reference ;$stem among the ke$ basic ser#ices and social securit$ pro#iders is hereb$ established)
;EC) ' Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee) 2n Inter92genc$ Coordinating Committee 5I2CC6 to draw9up the
implementing guidelines and o#ersee the implementation of the ;$stem is hereb$ created, chaired b$ the
E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$, with the following as members+
Cead, Presidential anagement ;taff: ;ecretar$, National Economic @e#elopment 2uthorit$: ;ecretar$,
@epartment of the Interior and !ocal >o#ernment: ;ecretar$, @epartment of Cealth: 2dministrator, >o#ernment
;er#ice Insurance ;$stem: 2dministrator, ;ocial ;ecurit$ ;$stem: 2dministrator, National ;tatistics (ffice
anaging @irector, National Computer Center)
;EC) -) (ecretariat) *he National Computer Center 5NCC6 is hereb$ designated as secretariat to the I2CC and as
such shall pro#ide administrati#e and technical support to the I2CC) ;EC) 8) 'in6age Among Agencies) *he
Population Reference Number 5PRN6 generated b$ the N;( shall ser#e as the common reference number to
establish a linkage among concerned agencies) *he I2CC ;ecretariat shall coordinate with the different ;ocial
;ecurit$ and ;er#ices 2gencies to establish the standards in the use of Biometrics *echnolog$ and in computer
application designs of their respecti#e s$stems) ;EC) <) Conduct of Information Dissemination Campaign) *he
(ffice of the Press ;ecretar$, in coordination with the National ;tatistics (ffice, the >;I; and ;;; as lead
agencies and other concerned agencies shall undertake a massi#e tri9media information dissemination campaign
to educate and raise public awareness on the importance and use of the PRN and the ;ocial ;ecurit$ Identification
Reference);EC) =) ,unding) *he funds necessar$ for the implementation of the s$stem shall be sourced from the
respecti#e budgets of the concerned agencies);EC) 1) (ubmission of 4egular 4eports) *he N;(, >;I; and ;;;
shall submit regular reports to the (ffice of the President, through the I2CC, on the status of implementation of
this undertaking);EC) 0) Effectivity) *his 2dministrati#e (rder shall take effect immediatel$)
@(NE in the Cit$ of anila, this &'th da$ of @ecember in the $ear of (ur !ord, Nineteen Cundred and Ninet$9
;i4)
5;>@)6 7I@E! ?) R2(;F
2)() No) -.0 was published in four newspapers of general circulation on ,anuar$ '', &//1 and ,anuar$ '-, &//1)
(n ,anuar$ '8, &//1, petitioner filed the instant petition against respondents, then E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$ Ruben
*orres and the heads of the go#ernment agencies, who as members of the Inter92genc$ Coordinating Committee,
are charged with the implementation of 2)() No) -.0) (n 2pril 0, &//1, we issued a temporar$ restraining order
enjoining its implementation)
14545o:17 /o:41:08+
FA) *CE E;*2B!I;CEN* (7 2 N2*I(N2! C(PE*ERIGE@ I@EN*I7IC2*I(N RE7ERENCE
;H;*E REIEIRE; 2 !E>I;!2*I?E 2C*) *CE I;;E2NCE (7 2)() N() -.0 BH *CE PRE;I@EN* (7
*CE REPEB!IC (7 *CE PCI!IPPINE; I;, *CERE7(RE, 2N ENC(N;*I*E*I(N2! E;ERP2*I(N (7
*CE !E>I;!2*I?E P(AER; (7 *CE C(N>RE;; (7 *CE REPEB!IC (7 *CE PCI!IPPINE;)B ) *CE
2PPR(PRI2*I(N (7 PEB!IC 7EN@; BH *CE PRE;I@EN* 7(R *CE IP!EEN*2*I(N (7 2)() N()
-.0 I; 2N ENC(N;*I*E*I(N2! E;ERP2*I(N (7 *CE EDC!E;I?E RI>C* (7 C(N>RE;; *(
2PPR(PRI2*E PEB!IC 7EN@; 7(R EDPEN@I*ERE)C) *CE IP!EEN*2*I(N (7 2)() N() -.0
IN;I@I(E;!H !2H; *CE >R(EN@A(RK 7(R 2 ;H;*E ACICC AI!! ?I(!2*E *CE BI!! (7
RI>C*; EN;CRINE@ IN *CE C(N;*I*E*I(N)F
'
R18>o:01:48 /ou:417-,7=u1+
A ) *CE IN;*2N* PE*I*I(N I; N(* 2 ,E;*ICI2B!E C2;E 2; A(E!@ A2RR2N* 2 ,E@ICI2!
RE?IEA:B ) 2)() N() -.0 %&//=J A2; I;;EE@ AI*CIN *CE EDECE*I?E 2N@ 2@INI;*R2*I?E
P(AER; (7 *CE PRE;I@EN* AI*C(E* ENCR(2CCIN> (N *CE !E>I;!2*I?E P(AER; (7
C(N>RE;;:C ) *CE 7EN@; NECE;;2RH 7(R *CE IP!EEN*2*I(N (7 *CE I@EN*I7IC2*I(N
RE7ERENCE ;H;*E 2H BE ;(ERCE@ 7R( *CE BE@>E*; (7 *CE C(NCERNE@ 2>ENCIE;:D)
2)() N() -.0 %&//=J PR(*EC*; 2N IN@I?I@E2!B; IN*ERE;* IN PRI?2CH)
-
Ae now resol#e)
I) 2s is usual in constitutional litigation, respondents raise the threshold issues relating to the standing to sue of
the petitioner and the justiciabilit$ of the case at bar) ore specificall$, respondents a#er that petitioner has no
legal interest to uphold and that the implementing rules of 2)() No) -.0 ha#e $et to be promulgated)
*hese submissions do not deser#e our s$mpathetic ear) Petitioner (ple is a distinguished member of our ;enate)
2s a ;enator, petitioner is possessed of the re3uisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of
2)() No) -.0 is a usurpation of legislati#e power)
8
2s ta4pa$er and member of the >o#ernment ;er#ice Insurance
;$stem 5>;I;6, petitioner can also impugn the legalit$ of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of
>;I; funds to implement 2)() No) -.0)
<
*he ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected b$ the fact that the implementing rules of 2)()
No) -.0 ha#e $et to be promulgated) Petitioner (ple assails 2)() No) -.0 as in#alid per se and as infirmed on its
face) Cis action is not premature for the rules $et to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects) oreo#er, the
respondents themsel#es ha#e started the implementation of 2)() No) -.0 without waiting for the rules) 2s earl$
as ,anuar$ &/, &//1, respondent ;ocial ;ecurit$ ;$stem 5;;;6 caused the publication of a notice to bid for the
manufacture of the National Identification 5I@6 card)
=
Respondent E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$ *orres has publicl$
announced that representati#es from the >;I; and the ;;; ha#e completed the guidelines for the national
identification s$stem)
1
2ll signals from the respondents show their unswer#ing will to implement 2)() No) -.0
and we need not wait for the formalit$ of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionalit$) In this light, the
dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on standing is not a commendable stance as its result would be to
throttle an important constitutional principle and a fundamental right)
II) W1 :o@ /oA1 4o 4<1 /o71 588u18. 14545o:17 /l,5A8 4<,4 A.O. No. ;08 58 :o4 , A171 ,0A5:5847,4561 o7017
.u4 , l,@ ,:0 <1:/1, .1yo:0 4<1 >o@17 o2 4<1 718501:4 4o 588u1) Ce alleges that 2)() No) -.0 establishes a
s$stem of identification that is all9encompassing in scope, affects the life and libert$ of e#er$ 7ilipino citi"en and
foreign resident, and more particularl$, #iolates their right to pri#ac$)
PetitionerBs sedulous concern for the E4ecuti#e not to trespass on the lawmaking domain of Congress is
understandable) *he blurring of the demarcation line between the power of the !egislature to make laws and the
power of the E4ecuti#e to e4ecute laws will disturb their delicate balance of power and cannot be allowed) Cence,
the e4ercise b$ one branch of go#ernment of power belonging to another will be gi#en a 8475/417 8/7u45:y b$ this
Court)
*he line that delineates !egislati#e and E4ecuti#e power is not indistinct) L1=58l,4561 >o@17 is Fthe authorit$,
under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them)F
0
*he Constitution, as the will of the people in
their original, so#ereign and unlimited capacit$, has #ested this power in the Congress of the Philippines)
/
*he
grant of legislati#e power to Congress is broad, general and comprehensi#e)
&.
*he legislati#e bod$ possesses
plenar$ power for all purposes of ci#il go#ernment)
&&
2n$ power, deemed to be legislati#e b$ usage and tradition,
is necessaril$ possessed b$ Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere)
&'
In fine, e4cept as limited
b$ the Constitution, either e4pressl$ or impliedl$, legislati#e power embraces all subjects and e4tends to matters
of general concern or common interest)
&-
Ahile Congress is #ested with the power to enact laws, 4<1 718501:4 131/u418 4<1 l,@8)
&8
*he e4ecuti#e power
is #ested in the President)
&<
It is generall$ defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws)
&=
It is the
power of carr$ing the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due obser#ance)
&1
2s head of the E4ecuti#e @epartment, the President is the Chief E4ecuti#e) Ce represents the go#ernment as a
whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced b$ the officials and emplo$ees of his department)
&0
Ce has control
o#er the e4ecuti#e department, bureaus and offices) *his means that he has the authorit$ to assume directl$ the
functions of the e4ecuti#e department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its
officials)
&/
Corollar$ to the power of control, the President also has the dut$ of super#ising the enforcement of
laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order) *hus, he is granted ,0A5:5847,4561 >o@17 o#er
bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effecti#el$)
'.
A0A5:5847,4561 >o@17 58 /o:/17:10 @54< 4<1 @o7B o2 ,>>ly5:= >ol5/518 ,:0 1:2o7/5:= o70178 ,8 01417A5:10
.y >7o>17 =o617:A1:4,l o7=,:8.[21] I4 1:,.l18 4<1 718501:4 4o 253 , u:52o7A 84,:0,70 o2 ,0A5:5847,4561
1225/51:/y ,:0 /<1/B 4<1 o225/5,l /o:0u/4 o2 <58 ,=1:48.[22] %o 4<58 1:0, <1 /,: 588u1 ,0A5:5847,4561 o70178,
7ul18 ,:0 71=ul,45o:8)
718/5:05:= 27oA 4<181 >71/1>48, @1 <ol0 4<,4 A.O. No. ;08 5:6ol618 , 8u.C1/4 4<,4 58 :o4 ,>>7o>75,41 4o .1
/o61710 .y ,: ,0A5:5847,4561 o7017) 2n administrati#e order is+
F;ec) -) Administrative )rders)99 2cts of the President which relate to particular aspects of go#ernmental
operation in pursuance of his duties as administrati#e head shall be promulgated in administrati#e orders)F
'-
2n administrati#e order is an ordinance issued b$ the President which relates to specific aspects in the
administrati#e operation of go#ernment) I4 Au84 .1 5: <,7Ao:y @54< 4<1 l,@ ,:0 8<oul0 .1 2o7 4<1 8ol1
>u7>o81 o2 5A>l1A1:45:= 4<1 l,@ ,:0 /,77y5:= ou4 4<1 l1=58l,4561 >ol5/y.[24] W1 71C1/4 4<1 ,7=uA1:4 4<,4
A.O. No. ;08 5A>l1A1:48 4<1 l1=58l,4561 >ol5/y o2 4<1 A0A5:5847,4561 Co01 o2 198H) *he Code is a general law
and Fincorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles of
go#ernanceF
'<
and Fembodies changes in administrati#e structures and procedures designed to ser#e the
people)F
'=
*he Code is di#ided into se#en 516 Books+ Book I deals with ;o#ereignt$ and >eneral 2dministration,
Book II with the @istribution of Powers of the three branches of >o#ernment, Book III on the (ffice of the
President, Book I? on the E4ecuti#e Branch, Book ? on the Constitutional Commissions, Book ?I on National
>o#ernment Budgeting, and Book ?II on 2dministrati#e Procedure) *hese Books contain pro#isions on the
organi"ation, powers and general administration of the e4ecuti#e, legislati#e and judicial branches of go#ernment,
the organi"ation and administration of departments, bureaus and offices under the e4ecuti#e branch, the
organi"ation and functions of the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional bodies, the rules on the
national go#ernment budget, as well as guidelines for the e4ercise b$ administrati#e agencies of 3uasi9legislati#e
and 3uasi9judicial powers) *he Code co#ers both the internal administration of go#ernment, i)e, internal
organi"ation, personnel and recruitment, super#ision and discipline, and the effects of the functions performed b$
administrati#e officials on pri#ate indi#iduals or parties outside go#ernment)
'1
It cannot be simplisticall$ argued that 2)() No) -.0 merel$ implements the 2dministrati#e Code of &/01) It
establishes for the first time a National Computeri"ed Identification Reference ;$stem) ;uch a ;$stem re3uires a
delicate adjustment of #arious contending state policies99 the primac$ of national securit$, the e4tent of pri#ac$
interest against dossier9gathering b$ go#ernment, the choice of policies, etc) Indeed, the dissent of r) ,ustice
endo"a states that the 2)() No) -.0 in#ol#es the all9important freedom of thought) 2s said administrati#e order
redefines the parameters of some basic rights of our citi"enr$ #is9a9#is the ;tate as well as the line that separates
the administrati#e power of the President to make rules and the legislati#e power of Congress, it ought to be
e#ident that it deals with a subject that should be co#ered b$ law)
Nor is it correct to argue as the dissenters do that 2)() No) -.0 is not a law because it confers no right, imposes
no dut$, affords no protection, and creates no office) Ender 2)() No) -.0, a citi"en cannot transact business with
go#ernment agencies deli#ering basic ser#ices to the people without the contemplated identification card) No
citi"en will refuse to get this identification card for no one can a#oid dealing with go#ernment) It is thus clear as
da$light that without the I@, a citi"en will ha#e difficult$ e4ercising his rights and enjo$ing his pri#ileges) >i#en
this realit$, the contention that 2)() No) -.0 gi#es no right and imposes no dut$ cannot stand)
2gain, with due respect, the dissenting opinions undul$ e4pand the limits of administrati#e legislation and
conse3uentl$ erodes the plenar$ power of Congress to make laws) *his is contrar$ to the established approach
defining the traditional limits of administrati#e legislation) 2s well stated b$ 7isher+ F4 4 4 !,:y 71=ul,45o:8
<o@1617, .1,7 0571/4ly o: 4<1 >u.l5/. I4 58 <171 4<,4 ,0A5:5847,4561 l1=58l,45o: Au84 .1 718475/410 5: 548 8/o>1
,:0 ,>>l5/,45o:. R1=ul,45o:8 ,71 :o4 8u>>o810 4o .1 , 8u.8454u41 2o7 4<1 =1:17,l >ol5/y-A,B5:= 4<,4
Co:=7188 1:,/48 5: 4<1 2o7A o2 , >u.l5/ l,@. Al4<ou=< ,0A5:5847,4561 71=ul,45o:8 ,71 1:454l10 4o 718>1/4, 4<1
,u4<o754y 4o >718/75.1 7ul18 ,:0 71=ul,45o:8 58 :o4 ,: 5:01>1:01:4 8ou7/1 o2 >o@17 4o A,B1 l,@8.K[28]
III) A88uA5:=, ,7=u1:0o, 4<,4 A.O. No. ;08 :110 :o4 .1 4<1 8u.C1/4 o2 , l,@, 845ll 54 /,::o4 >,88
/o:8454u45o:,l Au8417 ,8 ,: ,0A5:5847,4561 l1=58l,45o: .1/,u81 2,/5,lly 54 65ol,418 4<1 75=<4 4o >756,/y) *he
essence of pri#ac$ is the Fright to be let alone)F
'/
In the &/=< case of G758@ol0 6. Co::1/45/u4,
-.
the Enited
;tates ;upreme Court ga#e more substance to the right of pri#ac$ when it ruled that the right has a constitutional
foundation) It held that there is a right of pri#ac$ which can be found within the penumbras of the 7irst, *hird,
7ourth, 7ifth and Ninth 2mendments,
-&
#i"+
F;pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights ha#e penumbras formed b$ emanations from these guarantees that help
gi#e them life and substance 4 4 4) ?arious guarantees create "ones of pri#ac$) *he right of association contained
in the penumbra of the 7irst 2mendment is one, as we ha#e seen) *he *hird 2mendment in its prohibition against
the 3uartering of soldiers Kin an$ houseB in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that
pri#ac$) *he 7ourth 2mendment e4plicitl$ affirms the Kright of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and sei"ures)B *he 7ifth 2mendment in its ;elf9Incrimination
Clause enables the citi"en to create a "one of pri#ac$ which go#ernment ma$ not force him to surrender to his
detriment) *he Ninth 2mendment pro#ides+ K*he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to den$ or disparage others retained b$ the people)BF
In the &/=0 case of !o721 6. !u4u/,
-'
we adopted the G758@ol0 ruling that 4<171 58 , /o:8454u45o:,l 75=<4 4o
>756,/y) ;peaking thru r) ,ustice, later Chief ,ustice, Enri3ue 7ernando, we held+
*he >riswold case in#alidated a Connecticut statute which made the use of contracepti#es a criminal offense on
the ground of its amounting to an unconstitutional in#asion of the right of pri#ac$ of married persons: rightfull$ it
stressed Fa relationship l$ing within the "one of pri#ac$ created b$ se#eral fundamental constitutional
guarantees)F It has wider implications though) *he constitutional right to pri#ac$ has come into its own)
;o it is likewise in our jurisdiction) *he right to pri#ac$ as such is accorded recognition independentl$ of its
identification with libert$: in itself, it is full$ deser#ing of constitutional protection) *he language of Prof)
Emerson is particularl$ apt+ B*he concept of limited go#ernment has alwa$s included the idea that go#ernmental
powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citi"en) *his is indeed one of the basic
distinctions between absolute and limited go#ernment) Eltimate and per#asi#e control of the indi#idual, in all
aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the absolute state) In contrast, a s$stem of limited go#ernment safeguards a
pri#ate sector, which belongs to the indi#idual, firml$ distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can
control) Protection of this pri#ate sector99 protection, in other words, of the dignit$ and integrit$ of the
indi#idual99has become increasingl$ important as modern societ$ has de#eloped) 2ll the forces of a technological
age 99industriali"ation, urbani"ation, and organi"ation99 operate to narrow the area of pri#ac$ and facilitate
intrusion into it) In modern terms, the capacit$ to maintain and support this encla#e of pri#ate life marks the
difference between a democratic and a totalitarian societ$)BF
I:0110, 52 @1 1341:0 ou7 Cu05/5,l =,D1 @1 @5ll 25:0 4<,4 4<1 75=<4 o2 >756,/y 58 71/o=:5D10 ,:0 1:8<75:10 5:
81617,l >7o6585o:8 o2 ou7 Co:8454u45o:)
--
It is e4pressl$ recogni"ed in ;ection -5&6 of the Bill of Rights+
F(ec. 7) 5&6 *he pri#ac$ of communication and correspondence shall be in#iolable e4cept upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safet$ or order re3uires otherwise as prescribed b$ law)F
(ther facets of the right to pri#ac$ are protected in #arious pro#isions of the B5ll o2 R5=<48, #i"+
-8
F(ec. .) No person shall be depri#ed of life, libert$, or propert$ without due process of law, nor shall an$ person
be denied the e3ual protection of the laws)(ec. 8 ) *he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei"ures of whate#er nature and for an$ purpose shall be
in#iolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e4cept upon probable cause to be determined
personall$ b$ the judge after e4amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma$
produce, and particularl$ describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei"ed) (ec. 9 ) *he
libert$ of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed b$ law shall not be impaired e4cept upon
lawful order of the court) Neither shall the right to tra#el be impaired e4cept in the interest of national securit$,
public safet$, or public health, as ma$ be pro#ided b$ law) (ec. 1 ) *he right of the people, including those
emplo$ed in the public and pri#ate sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrar$ to
law shall not be abridged) (ec. .2 ) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself)F
#o:18 o2 >756,/y are likewise recogni"ed and protected in our l,@8) *he C565l Co01 pro#ides that F%eJ#er$
person shall respect the dignit$, personalit$, pri#ac$ and peace of mind of his neighbors and other personsF and
punishes as actionable torts se#eral acts b$ a person of meddling and pr$ing into the pri#ac$ of another)
-<
It also
holds a public officer or emplo$ee or an$ pri#ate indi#idual liable for damages for an$ #iolation of the rights and
liberties of another person,
-=
and recogni"es the pri#ac$ of letters and other pri#ate
communications)
-1
*he R165810 1:,l Co01 makes a crime the #iolation of secrets b$ an officer,
-0
the re#elation
of trade and industrial secrets,
-/
and trespass to dwelling)
8.
In#asion of pri#ac$ is an offense in 8>1/5,l l,@8 like
the 2nti9Airetapping !aw,
8&
the ;ecrec$ of Bank @eposit 2ct
8'
and the Intellectual Propert$ Code)
8-
*he Rul18 o2
Cou74 on pri#ileged communication likewise recogni"e the pri#ac$ of certain information)
88
U:l5B1 4<1 05881:4178, @1 >718/5:0 27oA 4<1 >71A581 4<,4 4<1 75=<4 4o >756,/y 58 , 2u:0,A1:4,l 75=<4
=u,7,:4110 .y 4<1 Co:8454u45o:, <1:/1, 54 58 4<1 .u701: o2 =o617:A1:4 4o 8<o@ 4<,4 A.O. No. ;08 58 Cu8452510
.y 8oA1 /oA>1ll5:= 84,41 5:417184 ,:0 4<,4 54 58 :,77o@ly 07,@:) 2)() No) -.0 is predicated on two
considerations+ 5&6 the need to pro#ide our citi"ens and foreigners with the facilit$ to con#enientl$ transact
business with basic ser#ice and social securit$ pro#iders and other go#ernment instrumentalities and 5'6 the need
to reduce, if not totall$ eradicate, fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations b$ persons seeking basic
ser#ices) It is debatable whether these interests are compelling enough to warrant the issuance of 2)() No)
-.0) Bu4 @<,4 58 :o4 ,7=u,.l1 58 4<1 .7o,0:188, 4<1 6,=u1:188, 4<1 o617.71,04< o2 A.O. No. ;08 @<5/< 52
5A>l1A1:410 @5ll >u4 ou7 >1o>l1L8 75=<4 4o >756,/y 5: /l1,7 ,:0 >7181:4 0,:=17)
*he <1,74 o2 A.O. No. ;08 lies in its ;ection 8 which pro#ides for a Population Reference Number 5PRN6 as a
Fcommon reference number to establish a linkage among concerned agenciesF through the use of FBiometrics
*echnolog$F and Fcomputer application designs)F
B5oA147y o7 .5oA1475/8 is Fthe science of the application of statistical methods to biological facts: a
mathematical anal$sis of biological data)F
8<
%<1 417A K.5oA1475/8K <,8 :o@ 16ol610 5:4o , .7o,0 /,41=o7y o2
41/<:olo=518 @<5/< >7o6501 >71/581 /o:257A,45o: o2 ,: 5:05650u,lL8 501:454y 4<7ou=< 4<1 u81 o2 4<1
5:05650u,lL8 o@: ><y85olo=5/,l ,:0 .1<,65o7,l /<,7,/4175845/8.[4F] A ><y85olo=5/,l /<,7,/4175845/ is a
relati#el$ stable ph$sical characteristic such as a fingerprint, retinal scan, hand geometr$ or facial features)
2 .1<,65o7,l /<,7,/4175845/ is influenced b$ the indi#idualBs personalit$ and includes #oice print, signature and
ke$stroke)
81
ost biometric identification s$stems use a card or personal identification number 5PIN6 for initial
identification) *he biometric measurement is used to #erif$ that the indi#idual holding the card or entering the
PIN is the legitimate owner of the card or PIN)
80
2 most /oAAo: 2o7A of biological encoding is 25:=17-8/,::5:= where technolog$ scans a fingertip and turns
the uni3ue pattern therein into an indi#idual number which is called a biocr$pt) *he .5o/7y>4 is stored in
computer data banks
8/
and becomes a means of identif$ing an indi#idual using a ser#ice) *his technolog$ re3uires
oneBs fingertip to be scanned e#er$ time ser#ice or access is pro#ided)
<.
2nother method is the 7145:,l 8/,:)
Retinal scan technolog$ emplo$s optical technolog$ to map the capillar$ pattern of the retina of the e$e) *his
technolog$ produces a uni3ue print similar to a finger print)
<&
2nother biometric method is known as
the K,74525/5,l :o81.K *his de#ice chemicall$ anal$"es the uni3ue combination of substances e4creted from the
skin of people)
<'
*he latest on the list of biometric achie#ements is the 4<17Ao=7,A) ;cientists ha#e found that b$
taking pictures of a face using infra9red cameras, a uni3ue heat distribution pattern is seen) *he different densities
of bone, skin, fat and blood #essels all contribute to the indi#idualBs personal Fheat signature)F
<-
In the last few decades, technolog$ has progressed at a galloping rate) ;ome science fictions are now science
facts)%o0,y, .5oA1475/8 58 :o lo:=17 l5A5410 4o 4<1 u81 o2 25:=17>75:4 4o 501:452y ,: 5:05650u,l) It is a new
science that uses #arious technologies in encoding an$ and all biological characteristics of an indi#idual for
identification) I4 58 :o41@o74<y 4<,4 A.O. No. ;08 0o18 :o4 84,41 @<,4 8>1/525/ .5olo=5/,l /<,7,/4175845/8 ,:0
@<,4 >,745/ul,7 .5oA1475/8 41/<:olo=y 8<,ll .1 u810 4o 501:452y >1o>l1 @<o @5ll 811B 548 /o617,=1.
Co:850175:= 4<1 .,:Mu14 o2 o>45o:8 ,6,5l,.l1 4o 4<1 5A>l1A1:4o78 o2 A.O. No. ;08, 4<1 21,7 4<,4 54 4<71,41:8
4<1 75=<4 4o >756,/y o2 ou7 >1o>l1 58 :o4 =7ou:0l188)
A.O. No. ;08 8<oul0 ,l8o 7,581 ou7 ,:41::,8 2o7 , 2u74<17 looB @5ll 8<o@ 4<,4 54 0o18 :o4 84,41 @<14<17
1:/o05:= o2 0,4, 58 l5A5410 4o .5olo=5/,l 5:2o7A,45o: ,lo:1 2o7 501:4525/,45o: >u7>o818) In fact, the ;olicitor
>eneral claims that the adoption of the Identification Reference ;$stem will contribute to the Fgeneration of
population data for de#elopment planning)F
<8
*his is an admission that the PRN will not be used solel$ for
identification but for the generation of other data with remote relation to the a#owed purposes of 2)() No)
-.0) Cl1,7ly, 4<1 5:0125:541:188 o2 A.O. No. ;08 /,: =561 4<1 =o617:A1:4 4<1 7o65:= ,u4<o754y 4o 84o71 ,:0
71475161 5:2o7A,45o: 2o7 , >u7>o81 o4<17 4<,: 4<1 501:4525/,45o: o2 4<1 5:05650u,l 4<7ou=< <58 RN)
%<1 >o41:45,l 2o7 A58u81 o2 4<1 0,4, 4o .1 =,4<1710 u:017 A.O. No. ;08 /,::o4 .1 u:017>l,y10 ,8 4<1
05881:4178 0o) Pursuant to said administrati#e order, an indi#idual must present his PRN e#er$time he deals with
a go#ernment agenc$ to a#ail of basic ser#ices and securit$) Cis transactions with the go#ernment agenc$ will
necessaril$ be recorded99 whether it be in the computer or in the documentar$ file of the agenc$) *he indi#idualBs
file ma$ include his transactions for loan a#ailments, income ta4 returns, statement of assets and liabilities,
reimbursements for medication, hospitali"ation, etc) %<1 Ao71 271Mu1:4 4<1 u81 o2 4<1 RN, 4<1 .14417 4<1
/<,:/1 o2 .u5l05:= , <u=1 ,:0 2o7A50,.l1 5:2o7A,45o: .,81 4<7ou=< 4<1 1l1/47o:5/ l5:B,=1 o2 4<1 25l18.
[II] %<1 0,4, A,y .1 =,4<1710 2o7 =,5:2ul ,:0 u812ul =o617:A1:4 >u7>o818J .u4 4<1 135841:/1 o2 4<58 6,84
718176o57 o2 >178o:,l 5:2o7A,45o: /o:8454u418 , /o6174 5:654,45o: 4o A58u81, , 41A>4,45o: 4<,4 A,y .1 4oo
=71,4 2o7 8oA1 o2 ou7 ,u4<o754518 4o 718584)
<=
Ae can e#en grant, arguendo, that the computer data file will be limited to the name, address and other basic
personal information about the indi#idual)
<1
E#en that hospitable assumption will not sa#e 2)() No) -.0 from
constitutional infirmit$ 2o7 ,=,5: 8,50 o7017 0o18 :o4 41ll u8 5: /l1,7 ,:0 /,41=o75/,l 417A8 <o@ 4<181
5:2o7A,45o: =,4<1710 8<,ll .1 <,:0l10. I4 0o18 :o4 >7o6501 @<o 8<,ll /o:47ol ,:0 ,//188 4<1 0,4,, u:017
@<,4 /57/uA84,:/18 ,:0 2o7 @<,4 >u7>o81) *hese factors are essential to safeguard the pri#ac$ and guarant$ the
integrit$ of the information)
<0
Aell to note, the computer linkage gi#es other go#ernment agencies access to the
information) '14, 4<171 ,71 :o /o:47ol8 4o =u,70 ,=,5:84 l1,B,=1 o2 5:2o7A,45o:) Ahen the access code of the
control programs of the particular computer s$stem is broken, an intruder, without fear of sanction or penalt$, can
make use of the data for whate#er purpose, or worse, manipulate the data stored within the s$stem)
</
It is plain and we hold that 2)() No) -.0 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be gathered
about our people will onl$ be processed for u:1Mu56o/,lly 8>1/52510 >u7>o818)
=.
*he lack of proper safeguards in
this regard of 2)() No) -.0 ma$ interfere with the indi#idualBs libert$ of abode and tra#el b$ enabling authorities
to track down his mo#ement: it ma$ also enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential information and
circum#ent the right against self9incrimination: it ma$ pa#e the wa$ for Ffishing e4peditionsF b$ go#ernment
authorities and e#ade the right against unreasonable searches and sei"ures)
=&
%<1 >o885.5l54518 o2 ,.u81 ,:0
A58u81 o2 4<1 RN, .5oA1475/8 ,:0 /oA>u417 41/<:olo=y ,71 ,//1:4u,410 @<1: @1 /o:85017 4<,4 4<1
5:05650u,l l,/B8 /o:47ol o617 @<,4 /,: .1 71,0 o7 >l,/10 o: <58 ID, Au/< l188 61752y 4<1 /o771/4:188 o2 4<1
0,4, 1:/o010.[F2] %<1y 4<71,41: 4<1 617y ,.u818 4<,4 4<1 B5ll o2 R5=<48 811B8 4o >7161:4)
=-
*he abilit$ of a sophisticated data center to generate a comprehensi#e /7,0l1-4o-=7,61 0o88517 on an indi#idual
and transmit it o#er a national network is one of the most graphic threats of the computer re#olution)
=8
*he
computer is capable of producing a comprehensi#e dossier on indi#iduals out of information gi#en at different
times and for #aried purposes)
=<
It can continue adding to the stored data and keeping the information up to date)
Retrie#al of stored data is simple) Ahen information of a pri#ileged character finds its wa$ into the computer, it
can be e4tracted together with other data on the subject)
==
(nce e4tracted, the information is putt$ in the hands of
an$ person) *he end of pri#ac$ begins)
*hough 2)() No) -.0 is undoubtedl$ not narrowl$ drawn, the dissenting opinions would dismiss its danger to the
right to pri#ac$ as speculati#e and h$pothetical) 2gain, we cannot countenance such a laidback posture) *he
Court will not be true to its role as the ultimate guardian of the peopleBs libert$ if it would not immediatel$
smother the sparks that endanger their rights but would rather wait for the fire that could consume them)
W1 71C1/4 4<1 ,7=uA1:4 o2 4<1 Sol5/54o7 G1:17,l 4<,4 ,: 5:05650u,l <,8 , 71,8o:,.l1 13>1/4,45o: o2 >756,/y
@54< 71=,70 4o 4<1 N,45o:,l ID ,:0 4<1 u81 o2 .5oA1475/8 41/<:olo=y ,8 54 84,:08 o: Mu5/B8,:0) *he
reasonableness of a personBs e4pectation of pri#ac$ depends on a two9part test+ 5&6 whether b$ his conduct, the
indi#idual has e4hibited an e4pectation of pri#ac$: and 5'6 whether this e4pectation is one that societ$ recogni"es
as reasonable)
=1
*he factual circumstances of the case determines the reasonableness of the
e4pectation)
=0
Cowe#er, other factors, such as customs, ph$sical surroundings and practices of a particular
acti#it$, ma$ ser#e to create or diminish this e4pectation)
=/
*he use of biometrics and computer technolog$ in
2)() No) -.0 does not assure the indi#idual of a reasonable e4pectation of pri#ac$)
1.
2s technolog$ ad#ances, the
le#el of reasonabl$ e4pected pri#ac$ decreases)
1&
*he measure of protection granted b$ the reasonable e4pectation
diminishes as rele#ant technolog$ becomes more widel$ accepted)
1'
*he securit$ of the computer data file
depends not onl$ on the ph$sical inaccessibilit$ of the file but also on the ad#ances in hardware and software
computer technolog$) A.O. No. ;08 58 8o @501ly 07,@: 4<,4 , A5:5AuA 84,:0,70 2o7 , 71,8o:,.l1
13>1/4,45o: o2 >756,/y, 71=,70l188 o2 41/<:olo=y u810, /,::o4 .1 5:217710 27oA 548 >7o6585o:8)
%<1 7ul18 ,:0 71=ul,45o:8 4o .1 07,@: .y 4<1 IACC /,::o4 71A10y 4<58 2,4,l 0121/4) Rules and regulations
merel$ implement the polic$ of the law or order) (n its face, 2)() No) -.0 gi#es the I2CC #irtuall$ unfettered
discretion to determine the metes and bounds of the I@ ;$stem)
No7 0o ou7 >7181:4 l,@8 >7o6501 ,01Mu,41 8,21=u,708 2o7 , 71,8o:,.l1 13>1/4,45o: o2 >756,/y)
Commonwealth 2ct No) </& penali"es the disclosure b$ an$ person of data furnished b$ the indi#idual to the
N;( with imprisonment and fine)
1-
Republic 2ct No) &&=& prohibits public disclosure of ;;; emplo$ment
records and reports)%18 *hese laws, howe#er, appl$ to records and data with the N;( and the ;;;) It is not clear
whether the$ ma$ be applied to data with the other go#ernment agencies forming part of the National I@ ;$stem)
*he need to clarif$ the penal aspect of 2)() No) -.0 is another reason wh$ its enactment should be gi#en to
Congress)
Ne4t, the ;olicitor >eneral urges us to #alidate 2)() No) -.0Bs abridgment of the right of pri#ac$ b$ using
the 7,45o:,l 71l,45o:8<5> 4184)
1<
Ce stressed that the purposes of 2)() No) -.0 are+ 5&6 to streamline and speed up
the implementation of basic go#ernment ser#ices, 5'6 eradicate fraud b$ a#oiding duplication of ser#ices, and 5-6
generate population data for de#elopment planning) Ce concludes that these purposes justif$ the incursions into
the right to pri#ac$ for the means are rationall$ related to the end)
1=
Ae are not impressed b$ the argument) In !o721 6. !u4u/,
11
we upheld the constitutionalit$ of R)2) -.&/, the
2nti9>raft and Corrupt Practices 2ct, as a #alid police power measure) Ae declared that the law, in compelling a
public officer to make an annual report disclosing his assets and liabilities, his sources of income and e4penses,
did not infringe on the indi#idualBs right to pri#ac$) *he law was enacted to promote moralit$ in public
administration b$ curtailing and minimi"ing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of
honest$ in the public ser#ice)
10
*he same circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar) 7or one, R)2) -.&/ is a statute, not an administrati#e
order) ;econdl$, R)2) -.&/ itself is sufficientl$ detailed) *he law is clear on what practices were prohibited and
penali"ed, and it was narrowl$ drawn to a#oid abuses) In the case at bar, 2)() No) -.0 ma$ ha#e been impelled
b$ a worth$ purpose, but, it cannot pass constitutional scrutin$ for it is not narrowl$ drawn) A:0 @1 :o@ <ol0
4<,4 @<1: 4<1 5:41=754y o2 , 2u:0,A1:4,l 75=<4 58 ,4 84,B1, 4<58 /ou74 @5ll =561 4<1 /<,ll1:=10 l,@,
,0A5:5847,4561 o7017, 7ul1 o7 71=ul,45o: , 8475/417 8/7u45:y. I4 @5ll :o4 0o 2o7 4<1 ,u4<o754518 4o 5:6oB1 4<1
>718uA>45o: o2 71=ul,754y 5: 4<1 >172o7A,:/1 o2 o225/5,l 0u4518. No7 58 54 1:ou=< 2o7 4<1 ,u4<o754518 4o >7o61
4<,4 4<157 ,/4 58 :o4 577,45o:,l 2o7 , .,85/ 75=<4 /,: .1 05A5:58<10, 52 :o4 0121,410, 161: @<1: 4<1
=o617:A1:4 0o18 :o4 ,/4 577,45o:,lly. %<1y Au84 8,4582,/4o75ly 8<o@ 4<1 >7181:/1 o2 /oA>1ll5:= 84,41
5:4171848 ,:0 4<,4 4<1 l,@, 7ul1, o7 71=ul,45o: 58 :,77o@ly 07,@: 4o >71/lu01 ,.u818) *his approach is
demanded b$ the &/01 Constitution whose entire matri4 is designed to protect human rights and to pre#ent
authoritarianism) In case of doubt, the least we can do is to lean towards the stance that will not put in danger the
rights protected b$ the Constitution)
*he case of W<,l1: 6. Ro1
1/
cited b$ the ;olicitor >eneral is also off9line) In W<,l1:, the Enited ;tates ;upreme
Court was presented with the 3uestion of whether the ;tate of New Hork could keep a centrali"ed computer
record of the names and addresses of all persons who obtained certain drugs pursuant to a doctorBs prescription)
*he New Hork ;tate Controlled ;ubstances 2ct of &/1' re3uired ph$sicians to identif$ patients obtaining
prescription drugs enumerated in the statute, i)e), drugs with a recogni"ed medical use but with a potential for
abuse, so that the names and addresses of the patients can be recorded in a centrali"ed computer file of the ;tate
@epartment of Cealth) *he plaintiffs, who were patients and doctors, claimed that some people might decline
necessar$ medication because of their fear that the computeri"ed data ma$ be readil$ a#ailable and open to public
disclosure: and that once disclosed, it ma$ stigmati"e them as drug addicts)
0.
*he plaintiffs alleged that the statute
in#aded a constitutionall$ protected "one of pri#ac$, i)e, the indi#idual interest in a#oiding disclosure of personal
matters, and the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions) *he E);) ;upreme Court
held that while an indi#idualBs interest in a#oiding disclosure of personal matters is an aspect of the right to
pri#ac$, the statute did not pose a grie#ous threat to establish a constitutional #iolation) *he Court found that the
statute was necessar$ to aid in the enforcement of laws designed to minimi"e the misuse of dangerous drugs) %<1
>,451:4-501:4525/,45o: 71Mu571A1:4 @,8 , >7o0u/4 o2 ,: o7017ly ,:0 7,45o:,l l1=58l,4561 01/585o: A,01 u>o:
71/oAA1:0,45o: .y , 8>1/5,lly ,>>o5:410 /oAA5885o: @<5/< <1l0 1341:8561 <1,75:=8 o: 4<1 A,4417.
!o71o617, 4<1 84,4u41 @,8 :,77o@ly 07,@: ,:0 /o:4,5:10 :uA17ou8 8,21=u,708 ,=,5:84 5:058/75A5:,41
058/lo8u71) *he statute laid down the procedure and re3uirements for the gathering, storage and retrie#al of the
information) It enumerated who were authori"ed to access the data) It also prohibited public disclosure of the data
b$ imposing penalties for its #iolation) In #iew of these safeguards, the infringement of the patientsB right to
pri#ac$ was justified b$ a #alid e4ercise of police power) 2s we discussed abo#e, 2)() No) -.0 lacks these #ital
safeguards)
E61: @<5l1 @1 8475B1 0o@: A.O. No. ;08, @1 8>1ll ou4 5: :1o: 4<,4 4<1 Cou74 58 :o4 >17 81 ,=,5:84 4<1 u81 o2
/oA>u4178 4o ,//uAul,41, 84o71, >7o/188, 71475161 ,:0 47,:8A54 0,4, 4o 5A>7o61 ou7 .u71,u/7,/y)
Computers work wonders to achie#e the efficienc$ which both go#ernment and pri#ate industr$ seek) an$
information s$stems in different countries make use of the computer to facilitate important social objecti#es, such
as better law enforcement, faster deli#er$ of public ser#ices, more efficient management of credit and insurance
programs, impro#ement of telecommunications and streamlining of financial acti#ities)
0&
Esed wisel$, data stored
in the computer could help good administration b$ making accurate and comprehensi#e information for those who
ha#e to frame polic$ and make ke$ decisions)
0'
*he benefits of the computer has re#olutioni"ed information
technolog$) It de#eloped the internet,
0-
introduced the concept of c$berspace
08
and the information superhighwa$
where the indi#idual, armed onl$ with his personal computer, ma$ surf and search all kinds and classes of
information from libraries and databases connected to the net)
I: :o u:/174,5: 417A8, @1 ,l8o u:0178/o71 4<,4 4<1 75=<4 4o >756,/y 0o18 :o4 .,7 ,ll 5:/u785o:8 5:4o
5:05650u,l >756,/y. %<1 75=<4 58 :o4 5:41:010 4o 8452l1 8/51:4525/ ,:0 41/<:olo=5/,l ,06,:/1A1:48 4<,4
1:<,:/1 >u.l5/ 81765/1 ,:0 4<1 /oAAo: =oo0) It merel$ re3uires that the law be narrowl$ focused
0<
and a
compelling interest justif$ such intrusions)
0=
Intrusions into the right must be accompanied b$ proper safeguards
and well9defined standards to pre#ent unconstitutional in#asions) Ae reiterate that an$ law or order that in#ades
indi#idual pri#ac$ will be subjected b$ this Court to strict scrutin$) *he reason for this stance was laid down
in !o721 6. !u4u/, to wit+
F*he concept of limited go#ernment has alwa$s included the idea that go#ernmental powers stop short of certain
intrusions into the personal life of the citi"en) *his is indeed one of the basic distinctions between absolute and
limited go#ernment) Eltimate and per#asi#e control of the indi#idual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of
the absolute state) In contrast, a s$stem of limited go#ernment safeguards a pri#ate sector, which belongs to the
indi#idual, firml$ distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can control) Protection of this pri#ate
sector99 protection, in other words, of the dignit$ and integrit$ of the indi#idual99 has become increasingl$
important as modern societ$ has de#eloped) 2ll the forces of a technological age99 industriali"ation, urbani"ation,
and organi"ation99 operate to narrow the area of pri#ac$ and facilitate intrusion into it) In modern terms, the
capacit$ to maintain and support this encla#e of pri#ate life marks the difference between a democratic and a
totalitarian societ$)F
01
I?) %<1 75=<4 4o >756,/y 58 o:1 o2 4<1 Ao84 4<71,41:10 75=<48 o2 A,: l565:= 5: , A,88 8o/514y) *he threats
emanate from #arious sources99 go#ernments, journalists, emplo$ers, social scientists, etc)
00
In the case at bar, the
threat comes from the e4ecuti#e branch of go#ernment which b$ issuing 2)() No) -.0 pressures the people to
surrender their pri#ac$ b$ gi#ing information about themsel#es on the prete4t that it will facilitate deli#er$ of
basic ser#ices)G561: 4<1 71/o70-B11>5:= >o@17 o2 4<1 /oA>u417, o:ly 4<1 5:0522171:4 @5ll 2,5l 4o >17/1561 4<1
0,:=17 4<,4 A.O. No. ;08 =5618 4<1 =o617:A1:4 4<1 >o@17 4o /oA>5l1 , 016,84,45:= 0o88517 ,=,5:84
u:8u8>1/45:= /545D1:8) It is timel$ to take note of the well9worded warning of Kal#in, ,r), Fthe disturbing result
could be that e#er$one will li#e burdened b$ an unerasable record of his past and his limitations) In a wa$, the
threat is that because of its record9keeping, the societ$ will ha#e lost its benign capacit$ to forget)F
0/
(bli#ious to
this counsel, the dissents still sa$ we should not be too 3uick in labelling the right to pri#ac$ as a fundamental
right) Ae close with the statement that the right to pri#ac$ was not engra#ed in our Constitution for flatter$)
IN &IEW W"EREO(, the petition is granted and 2dministrati#e (rder No) -.0 entitled F2doption of a
National Computeri"ed Identification Reference ;$stemF declared null and #oid for being unconstitutional)
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 1I2IH4. No61A.17 1H, 2004
(RANCISCO ABELLA JR., Petitioner, vs. CI&IL SER&ICE CO!!ISSION, 4espondent)
D E C I S I O N
ANGANIBAN, J.%
Both the appointing authorit$ and the appointee are the real parties in interest, and both ha#e legal standing, in a
suitassailing a Ci#il ;er#ice Commission 5C;C6 order disappro#ing an appointment) @espite ha#ing legal interest
and standing, herein petitioner unsuccessfull$ challenges the constitutionalit$ of the C;C circular that classifies
certain positions in the career ser#ice of the go#ernment) In sum, petitioner was appointed to a Career E4ecuti#e
;er#ice 5CE;6 position, but did not ha#e the corresponding eligibilit$ for it: hence, the C;C correctl$ disappro#ed
his appointment)
*he Case
Before us is a Petition for Re#iew
&
under Rule 8< of the Rules of Court, challenging the No#ember &=, '..&
@ecision
'
and the arch 0, '..' Resolution
-
of the Court of 2ppeals 5C26 in C29>R ;P No) <0/01) *he 2ssailed
@ecision disposed as follows+
W"ERE(ORE, the petition for re#iew is DENIED for lack of merit)
8
*he challenged Resolution denied petitioners otion for Reconsideration)
*he 7acts
*he C2 narrates the factual antecedents in this wise+
Petitioner 7rancisco 2) 2bella, ,r), a law$er, retired from the E4port Processing Gone 2uthorit$ 5EPG26, now the
Philippine Economic Gone 2uthorit$ 5PEG26, on ,ul$ &, &//= as @epartment anager of the !egal ;er#ices
@epartment) Ce held a ci#il ser#ice eligibilit$ for the position of @epartment anager, ha#ing completed the
training program for E4ecuti#e !eadership and anagement in &/0' under the Ci#il ;er#ice 2cadem$, pursuant
to C;C Resolution No) 0<. dated 2pril &=, &/1/, which was then the re3uired eligibilit$ for said position)
It appears, howe#er, that on a$ -&, &//8, the Ci#il ;er#ice Commission issued emorandum Circular No) '&,
series of &//8, the pertinent pro#isions of which read+
&) #ositions Covered by the Career E%ecutive (ervice
5b6 In addition to the abo#e identified positions and other positions of the same categor$ which had been
pre#iousl$ classified and included in the CE;, all other third le#el positions of e3ui#alent categor$ in all branches
and instrumentalities of the national go#ernment, including go#ernment owned and controlled corporations with
original charters are embraced within the Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice pro#ided that the$ meet the following criteria+
&) the position is a career position: ') the position is abo#e di#ision chief le#el -) the duties and responsibilities of
the position re3uire the performance of e4ecuti#e or managerial functions) 8) (tatus of Appointment of Incumbents
of #ositions Included +nder the Coverage of the CE(. Incumbents of positions which are declared to be Career
E4ecuti#e ;er#ice positions for the first time pursuant to this Resolution who hold permanent appointments
thereto shall remain under permanent status in their respecti#e positions) Cowe#er, upon promotion or transfer to
other Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice 5CE;6 positions, these incumbents shall be under temporar$ status in said other
CE; positions until the$ 3ualif$)
*wo $ears after his retirement, petitioner was hired b$ the ;ubic Ba$ etropolitan 2uthorit$ 5;B26 on a
contractual basis) (n ,anuar$ &, &///, petitioner was issued b$ ;B2 a permanent emplo$ment as @epartment
anager III, !abor and Emplo$ment Center) Cowe#er, when said appointment was submitted to respondent Ci#il
;er#ice Commission Regional (ffice No) III, it was disappro#ed on the ground that petitioners eligibilit$ was not
appropriate) Petitioner was ad#ised b$ ;B2 of the disappro#al of his appointment) In #iew thereof, petitioner
was issued a temporar$ appointment as @epartment anager III, !abor and Emplo$ment Center, ;B2 on ,ul$
/, &///)
Petitioner appealed the disappro#al of his permanent appointment b$ respondent to the Ci#il ;er#ice Commission,
which issued Resolution No) ....</, dated ,anuar$ &., '..., affirming the action taken b$ respondent)
Petitioners motion for reconsideration thereof was denied b$ the C;C in Resolution No) ..&&8- dated a$ &&,
'...)
Endaunted, petitioner filed with %the C2J a petition for re#iew seeking the re#ersal of the C;C Resolutions dated
,anuar$ &., '... and a$ &&, '... on the ground that C;C emorandum Circular No) '&, s) &//8 is
unconstitutional as it rendered his earned ci#il ser#ice eligibilit$ ineffecti#e or inappropriate for the position of
@epartment anager %IIIJ
<
Ruling of the Court of 2ppeals
*he C2 shunned the issue of constitutionalit$, arguing that a constitutional 3uestion should not be passed upon if
there are other grounds upon which the case ma$ be decided)
=
Citing C;C emorandum Circular 8., s) &//0
andathay v. Civil (ervice Commission,
1
the appellate court ruled that onl$ the appointing officer ma$ re3uest
reconsideration of the action taken b$ the C;C on appointments) *hus, it held that petitioner did not ha#e legal
standing to 3uestion the disappro#al of his appointment)
0
(n reconsideration, the C2 added that petitioner was not the real part$ in interest, as his appointment was
dependent on the C;Cs appro#al) 2ccordingl$, he had no #ested right in the office, since his appointment was
disappro#ed)
/
Ensatisfied, petitioner brought this recourse to this Court)
&.
*he Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration+
2) Ahether or not Respondent Court committed gra#e abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
ruling that petitioner lacks the personalit$ to 3uestion the disappro#al b$ respondent office of petitioners
appointment as @epartment anager III, !abor and Emplo$ment Center, ;B2)
B) Ahether or not Respondent Court committed gra#e abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
ruling that petitioner is not the real part$ in interest to 3uestion the disappro#al b$ respondent office of petitioners
appointment as @epartment anager III, !abor and Emplo$ment Center, ;B2)
C) Ahether or not Respondent Court committed gra#e abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in
dismissing petitioners appeal on a mere technicalit$ considering that petitioner is 3uestioning the constitutionalit$
of respondent office issuance of ;ection 8 of C;C emorandum Circular No) '&, s) &//8, which depri#ed
petitioner his propert$ right without due process of law)
&&
*he Courts Ruling
*he Petition is partl$ meritorious)
7irst Issue+
*ho ay ,ile 4econsideration or Appeal
Preliminar$ (bser#ation
Petitioner imputes to the C2 gra#e abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for ruling that he had no
legal standing to contest the disappro#al of his appointment)
&'
>ra#e abuse of discretion is a ground for a petition
for certiorari under Rule =< of the Rules of Court) Ne#ertheless, this Court resol#ed to grant due course to the
Petition and to treat it appropriatel$ as a petition for re#iew on certiorari under Rule 8< of the Rules of Court) *he
grounds shall be deemed re#ersible errors, not gra#e abuse of discretion)
Approval 4e3uired for
#ermanent Appointment
2 permanent appointment in the career ser#ice is issued to a person who has met the re3uirements of the position
to which the appointment is made in accordance with the pro#isions of law, the rules and the standards
promulgated pursuant thereto)
&-
It implies the ci#il ser#ice eligibilit$ of the appointee)
&8
*hus, while the
appointing authorit$ has the discretion to choose whom to appoint, the choice is subject to the ca#eat that the
appointee possesses the re3uired 3ualifications)
&<
*o make it full$ effecti#e, an appointment to a ci#il ser#ice position must compl$ with all legal
re3uirements)
&=
*hus, the law re3uires the appointment to be submitted to the C;C which will ascertain, in the
main, whether the proposed appointee is 3ualified to hold the position and whether the rules pertinent to the
process of appointment were obser#ed)
&1
*he applicable pro#ision of the Ci#il ;er#ice !aw reads+
;EC*I(N /) #owers and ,unctions of the Commission) *he Commission shall administer the Ci#il ;er#ice and
shall ha#e the following powers and functions+
5h6 2ppro#e all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the ci#il ser#ice, e4cept those of
presidential appointees, members of the 2rmed 7orces of the Philippines, police forces, firemen, and jailguards,
and disappro#e those where the appointees do not possess the appropriate eligibilit$ or re3uired 3ualifications) 2n
appointment shall take effect immediatel$ upon issue b$ the appointing authorit$ if the appointee assumes his
duties immediatel$ and shall remain effecti#e until it is disappro#ed b$ the Commission, if this should take place,
without prejudice to the liabilit$ of the appointing authorit$ for appointments issued in #iolation of e4isting laws
or rules+ Pro#ided, finall$, *hat the Commission shall keep a record of appointments of all officers and emplo$ees
in the ci#il ser#ice) 2ll appointments re3uiring the appro#al of the Commission as herein pro#ided, shall be
submitted to it b$ the appointing authorit$ within thirt$ da$s from issuance, otherwise, the appointment becomes
ineffecti#e thirt$ da$s thereafter)
&0
*he appointing officer and the C;C acting together, though not concurrentl$ but consecuti#el$, make an
appointment complete)
&/
In acting on the appointment, the C;C determines whether the appointee possesses the
appropriate ci#il ser#ice eligibilit$ or the re3uired 3ualifications) If the appointee does, the appointment must be
appro#ed: if not, it should be disappro#ed)
'.
2ccording to the appellate court, onl$ the appointing authorit$ had
the right to challenge the C;Cs disappro#al) It relied on ;ection ' of Rule ?I of C;C emorandum Circular 8.,
s) &//0 5(mnibus Rules on 2ppointment and (ther Personal 2ctions6, which pro#ides+
;ection ') Re3uest for Reconsideration of, or appeal from, the disappro#al of an appointment ma$ be made b$ the
appointing authorit$ and submitted to the Commission within fifteen 5&<6 calendar da$s from receipt of the
disappro#ed appointment)
Appointing Authoritys 4ight to
Challenge C(C Disapproval
Ahile petitioner does not challenge the legalit$ of this pro#ision, he now claims that it is merel$ a technicalit$,
which does not pre#ent him from re3uesting reconsideration)
Ae clarif$) *he power of appointment necessaril$ entails the e4ercise of judgment and discretion)
'&
'uego v. Civil
(ervice Commission
''
declared+
2ppointment is an essentiall$ discretionar$ power and must be performed b$ the officer in which it is #ested
according to his best lights, the onl$ condition being that the appointee should possess the 3ualifications re3uired
b$ law) If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better 3ualified who
should ha#e been preferred) *his is a political 3uestion in#ol#ing considerations of wisdom which onl$ the
appointing authorit$ can decide)
'-
;ignificantl$, the selection of the appointee 99 taking into account the totalit$ of his 3ualifications, including those
abstract 3ualities that define his personalit$ 99 is the prerogati#e of the appointing authorit$)
'8
No tribunal, not
e#en this Court,
'<
ma$ compel the e4ercise of an appointment for a fa#ored person)
'=
*he C;Cs disappro#al of an appointment is a challenge to the e4ercise of the appointing authorit$s discretion)
*he appointing authorit$ must ha#e the right to contest the disappro#al) *hus, ;ection ' of Rule ?I of C;C
emorandum Circular 8., s) &//0 is justified insofar as it allows the appointing authorit$ to re3uest
reconsideration or appeal)
In Central Ban6 v. Civil (ervice Commission,
'1
this Court has affirmed that the appointing authorit$ stands to be
ad#ersel$ affected when the C;C disappro#es an appointment) *hus, the said authorit$ can defend its appointment
since it knows the reasons for the same)
'0
It is also the act of the appointing authorit$ that is being 3uestioned
when an appointment is disappro#ed)
'/
Appointees 'egal (tanding to
Challenge the C(C Disapproval
Ahile there is justification to allow the appointing authorit$ to challenge the C;C disappro#al, there is none to
preclude the appointee from taking the same course of action) 2ggrie#ed parties, including the Ci#il ;er#ice
Commission, should be gi#en the right to file motions for reconsideration or to appeal)
-.
(n this point, the
concepts of legal standing and real part$ in interest become rele#ant)
2lthough commonl$ directed towards ensuring that onl$ certain parties can maintain an action, legal standing and
real part$ in interest are different concepts) :ilosbayan v. orato
-&
e4plained+
*he difference between the rule on standing and real part$9in9interest has been noted b$ authorities thus+ It is
important to note ) ) ) that standing because of its constitutional and public polic$ underpinnings, is #er$ different
from 3uestions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real part$9in9interest or has capacit$ to sue)
2lthough all three re3uirements are directed towards ensuring that onl$ certain parties can maintain an action,
standing restrictions re3uire a partial consideration of the merits, as well as broader polic$ concerns relating to the
proper role of the judiciar$ in certain areas) 57RIE@EN*C2!, K2NE 2N@ I!!ER, CI?I! PR(CE@ERE -'0
%&/0<J6
;tanding is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases suits are brought not b$ parties who
ha#e been personall$ injured b$ the operation of a law or b$ official action taken, but b$ concerned citi"ens,
ta4pa$ers or #oters who actuall$ sue in the public interest) Cence the 3uestion in standing is whether such parties
ha#e alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the contro#ers$ to assure that concrete ad#erseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largel$ depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional 3uestions) 5Baker #) Carr, -=/ E);) &0=, 1 !) Ed) 'd =-- 5&/='66
(n the other hand, the 3uestion as to real part$9in9interest is whether he is the part$ who would be %benefitedJ or
injured b$ the judgment, or the part$ entitled to the a#ails of the suit) 5;alonga #) Aarner Barnes L Co), !td), 00
Phil) &'<, &-& %&/<&J6
-'
If legal standing is granted to challenge the constitutionalit$ or #alidit$ of a law or go#ernmental act despite the
lack of personal injur$ on the challengers part, then more so should petitioner be allowed to contest the C;C
(rder disappro#ing his appointment) Clearl$, he was prejudiced b$ the disappro#al, since he could not continue
his office)
2lthough petitioner had no #ested right to the position,%-- it was his eligibility that was being 3uestioned)
Corollar$ to this point, he should be granted the opportunit$ to pro#e his eligibilit$) Ce had a personal stake in the
outcome of the case, which justifies his challenge to the C;C act that denied his permanent appointment)
;he Appointee a 4eal
#arty in Interest
2 real part$ in interest is one who would be benefited or injured b$ the judgment, or one entitled to the a#ails of
the suit)
-8
Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest or an interest in issue and to be affected
b$ the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the 3uestion in#ol#ed or a mere incidental
interest)
-<
(therwise stated, the rule refers to a real or present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere
e4pectanc$: or from a future, contingent, subordinate, or conse3uential interest)
-=
2s a general rule, one who has
no right or interest to protect cannot in#oke the jurisdiction of the court as a part$9plaintiff in an action)
-1
2lthough the earlier discussion demonstrates that the appointing authorit$ is ad#ersel$ affected b$ the C;Cs
(rder and is a real part$ in interest, the appointee is rightl$ a real part$ in interest too) Ce is also injured b$ the
C;C disappro#al, because he is pre#ented from assuming the office in a permanent capacit$) oreo#er, he would
necessaril$ benefit if a fa#orable judgment is obtained, as an appro#ed appointment would confer on him all the
rights and pri#ileges of a permanent appointee)
Appointee Allowed
#rocedural 4elief
;ection ' of Rule ?I of C;C emorandum Circular 8., s) &//0 should not be interpreted to restrict solely to the
appointing authorit$ the right to mo#e for a reconsideration of, or to appeal, the disappro#al of an appointment)
P@ 0.1 and E( '/', from which the C;C deri#es the authorit$ to promulgate its rules and regulations, are silent
on whether appointees ha#e a similar right to file motions for reconsideration of, or appeals from, unfa#orable
decisions in#ol#ing appointments) Indeed, there is no legislati#e intent to bar appointees from challenging the
C;Cs disappro#al)
*he #iew that onl$ the appointing authorit$ ma$ re3uest reconsideration or appeal is too narrow) *he appointee
should ha#e the same right) Parentheticall$, C;C Resolution //9&/-=
-0
recogni"es the right of the ad#ersel$
affected part$ to appeal to the C;C Regional (ffices prior to ele#ating a matter to the C;C Central (ffice)
-/
*he
ad#ersel$ affected part$ necessaril$ includes the appointee)
*his judicial pronouncement does not o#erride athay v. Civil (ervice Commission,
8.
which the C2 relied on)
*he Court merel$ noted in passing 99 b$ wa$ of obiter 99 that based on a similar pro#ision,
8&
onl$ the appointing
officer could re3uest reconsideration of actions taken b$ the C;C on appointments)
In that case, Iue"on Cit$ a$or Ismael 2) atha$ ,r) sought the nullification of C;C Resolutions that recalled
his appointment of a cit$ go#ernment officer) Ce filed a Petition assailing the C2 @ecision, which had pre#iousl$
denied his Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remed$ and for being filed out of time) Ae obser#ed then
that the C;C Resolutions were alread$ final and could no longer be ele#ated to the C2)
8'
7urthermore, atha$s
Petition for Certiorari filed with the C2 was improper, because there was an a#ailable remed$ of appeal) 2nd the
C;C could not ha#e acted without jurisdiction, considering that it was empowered to recall an appointment
initiall$ appro#ed)
8-
*he right of the appointee to seek reconsideration or appeal was not the main issue in athay. 2t an$ rate, the
present case is being decided en banc, and the ruling ma$ re#erse pre#ious doctrines laid down b$ this Court)
88
;econd Issue+
Constitutionality of
(ection <! C(C emorandum
Circular 8.! (eries of .//<
2lleging that his ci#il ser#ice eligibilit$ was rendered ineffecti#e and that he was conse3uentl$ depri#ed of a
propert$ right without due process,
8<
petitioner challenges the constitutionalit$ of C;C emorandum Circular '&,
s) &//8)
8=
*he pertinent part of this Circular reads+
&) Positions Co#ered b$ the Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice)
5a6 *he Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice includes the positions of Endersecretar$, 2ssistant ;ecretar$, Bureau @irector,
2ssistant Bureau @irector, Regional @irector 5department9wide and bureau9wide6, 2ssistant Regional @irector
5department9wide and bureau9wide6 and Chief of @epartment ;er#ice%)J
5b6 In addition to the abo#e identified positions and other positions of the same categor$ which had been
pre#iousl$ classified and included in the CE;, all other third le#el positions in all branches and instrumentalities
of the national go#ernment, including go#ernment9owned or controlled corporations with original charters are
embraced within the Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice pro#ided that the$ meet the following criteria+
&) the position is a career position:
') the position is abo#e di#ision chief le#el:
-) the duties and responsibilities of the position re3uire the performance of e4ecuti#e or managerial functions)
8) ;tatus of 2ppointment of Incumbents of Positions Ender the Co#erage of the CE; ) Incumbents of positions
which are declared to be Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice positions for the first time pursuant to this Resolution who
hold permanent appointments thereto shall remain under permanent status in their respecti#e positions) Cowe#er,
upon promotion or transfer to other Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice 5CE;6 positions, these incumbents shall be under
temporar$ status in said other CE; positions until the$ 3ualif$)
Petitioner argues that his eligibilit$, through the E4ecuti#e !eadership and anagement 5E!6 training program,
could no longer be affected b$ a new eligibilit$ re3uirement) Ce claims that he was eligible for his pre#ious
position as department manager of the !egal ;er#ices @epartment, PEG2: hence, he should retain his eligibilit$
for the position of department manager III, !abor and Emplo$ment Center, ;B2, notwithstanding the
classification of the latter as a CE; position)
C(C Authori$ed to Issue
4ules and 4egulations
*he Constitution mandates that, as the central personnel agenc$ of the go#ernment,
81
the C;C should establish a
career ser#ice and adopt measures to promote the morale, efficienc$, integrit$, responsi#eness, progressi#eness,
and courtes$ in the Ci#il ;er#ice)
80
It further re3uires that appointments in the ci#il ser#ice be made onl$ through
merit and fitness to be determined b$ competiti#e e4amination)
8/
Ci#il ;er#ice laws ha#e e4pressl$ empowered
the C;C to issue and enforce rules and regulations to carr$ out its mandate)
In the e4ercise of its authorit$, the C;C deemed it appropriate to clearl$ define and identif$ positions co#ered b$
the Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice)
<.
!ogicall$, the C;C had to issue guidelines to meet this objecti#e, specificall$
through the issuance of the challenged Circular)
Career (ervice
Classified by 'evels
Positions in the career ser#ice, for which appointments re3uire e4aminations, are grouped into three major le#els+
5a6 *he first le#el shall include clerical, trades, crafts, and custodial ser#ice positions which in#ol#e non9
professional or sub%9Jprofessional work in a non9super#isor$ or super#isor$ capacit$ re3uiring less than four $ears
of collegiate studies:
5b6 *he second le#el shall include professional, technical, and scientific positions which in#ol#e professional,
technical, or scientific work in a non9super#isor$ or super#isor$ capacit$ re3uiring at least four $ears of college
work up to @i#ision Chief le#el: and
5c6 *he third le#el shall co#er positions in the Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice)
<&
Entrance to the different le#els re3uires the corresponding ci#il ser#ice eligibilit$) *hose in the third le#el 5CE;
positions6 re3uire Career ;er#ice E4ecuti#e Eligibilit$ 5C;EE6 as a re3uirement for permanent appointment)
<'
*he challenged Circular did not re#oke petitioners E! eligibilit$) Ce was appointed to a CE; position:
howe#er, his eligibilit$ was inade3uate) Eligibilit$ must necessaril$ conform to the re3uirements of the position,
which in petitioners case was a C;EE)
4ights #rotected
*he challenged Circular protects the rights of incumbents as long as the$ remain in the positions to which the$
were pre#iousl$ appointed) *he$ are allowed to retain their positions in a permanent capacit$, notwithstanding the
lack of C;EE) Clearl$, the Circular recogni"es the rule of prospecti#it$ of regulations:
<-
hence, there is no basis to
argue that it is an e4 post facto law
<8
or a bill of attainder)
<<
*hese terms, which ha#e settled meanings in criminal
jurisprudence, are clearl$ inapplicable here)
*he go#ernment ser#ice of petitioner ended when he retired in &//=: thus, his right to remain in a CE; position,
notwithstanding his lack of eligibilit$, also ceased) Epon his reemployment
<=
$ears later as department manager
III at ;B2 in '..&, it was necessar$ for him to compl$ with the eligibilit$ prescribed at the time for that
position)
(ecurity of ;enure
5ot Impaired
*he argument of petitioner that his securit$ of tenure is impaired is uncon#incing) ,irst, securit$ of tenure in the
Career E4ecuti#e ;er#ice 99 e4cept in the case of first and second le#el emplo$ees in the ci#il ser#ice 99 pertains
onl$ to rank, not to the position to which the emplo$ee ma$ be appointed)
<1
(econd, petitioner had neither rank
nor position prior to his reemplo$ment) (ne cannot claim securit$ of tenure if one held no tenure prior to
appointment)
Due #rocess
5ot =iolated
Petitioner contends that his due process rights, as enunciated in Ang ;ibay v. Court of Appeals,
<0
were
#iolated)
</
Ae are not con#inced) Ce points in particular to the C;Cs alleged failure to notif$ him of a hearing
relating to the issuance of the challenged Circular)
*he classification of positions in career ser#ice was a 3uasi9legislati#e, not a 3uasi9judicial, issuance) *his
distinction determines whether prior notice and hearing are necessar$)
In e4ercising its 3uasi9judicial function, an administrati#e bod$ adjudicates the rights of persons before it, in
accordance with the standards laid down b$ the law)
=.
*he determination of facts and the applicable law, as basis
for official action and the e4ercise of judicial discretion, are essential for the performance of this function)
=&
(n
these considerations, it is elementar$ that due process re3uirements, as enumerated in Ang ;ibay, must be
obser#ed) *hese re3uirements include prior notice and hearing)
='
(n the other hand, 3uasi9legislati#e power is e4ercised b$ administrati#e agencies through the promulgation of
rules and regulations within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non9delegation of certain
powers flowing from the separation of the great branches of the go#ernment)
=-
Prior notice to and hearing of e#er$
affected part$, as elements of due process, are not re3uired since there is no determination of past e#ents or facts
that ha#e to be established or ascertained) 2s a general rule, prior notice and hearing are not essential to the
#alidit$ of rules or regulations promulgated to go#ern future conduct)
=8
;ignificantl$, the challenged Circular was an internal matter addressed to heads of departments, bureaus and
agencies) It needed no prior publication, since it had been issued as an incident of the administrati#e bod$s power
to issue guidelines for go#ernment officials to follow in performing their duties)
=<
7inal Issue+
Disapproval of Appointment
;ince petitioner had no CE; eligibilit$, the C;C correctl$ denied his permanent appointment) *he appointee need
not ha#e been pre#iousl$ heard, because the nature of the action did not in#ol#e the imposition of an
administrati#e disciplinar$ measure)
==
*he C;C, in appro#ing or disappro#ing an appointment, merel$ e4amines
the conformit$ of the appointment with the law and the appointees possession of all the minimum 3ualifications
and none of the dis3ualification)
=1
In sum, while petitioner was able to demonstrate his standing to appeal the C;C Resolutions to the courts, he
failed to pro#e his eligibilit$ to the position he was appointed to)
W"ERE(ORE, the Petition is 04A5;ED insofar as it seeks legal standing for petitioner, but DE5IED insofar
as it pra$s for the re#ersal of the C;C Resolutions disappro#ing his appointment as department manager III of the
!abor and Emplo$ment Center, ;ubic Ba$ etropolitan 2uthorit$) Costs against petitioner)
SO ORDERED)
G.R. No. L-;21FF O/4o.17 18, 19HH
%"E EOLE O( %"E "ILIINES, plaintiff9appellant, #s) "ON. !A$I!O A. !ACEREN C(I, S4,.
C7uD, L,=u:,, JOSE BUENA&EN%URA, GODO(REDO RE'ES, BENJA!IN RE'ES, NA#ARIO
A)UINO ,:0 CARLO DEL ROSARIO,accused9appellees)
)ffice of the (olicitor 0eneral for appellant.chanrobles virtual law library
Rustics 7) de los Re$es, ,r) for appellees)
A)UINO, J.% chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*his is a case in#ol#ing the #alidit$ of a &/=1 regulation, penali"ing electro fishing in fresh water fisheries,
promulgated b$ the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of 7isheries under the
old 7isheries !aw and the law creating the 7isheries Commission)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual
law librar$
(n arch 1, &/=/ ,ose Buena#entura, >odofredo Re$es, Benjamin Re$es, Na"ario 23uino and Carlito del
Rosario were charged b$ a Constabular$ in#estigator in the municipal court of ;ta) Cru", !aguna with ha#ing
#iolated 7isheries 2dministrati#e (rder No) 089&)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It was alleged in the complaint that the fi#e accused in the morning of arch &, &/=/ resorted to electro fishing in
the waters of Barrio ;an Pablo Norte, ;ta) Cru" b$ Fusing their own motor banca, e3uipped with motor: with a
generator colored green with attached d$namo colored gra$ or somewhat white: and electrocuting de#ice locall$
known as sensored with a somewhat webbed copper wire on the tip or other end of a bamboo pole with electric
wire attachment which was attached to the d$namo direct and with the use of these de#ices or e3uipments catches
fish thru electric current, which destro$ an$ a3uatic animals within its cuffed reach, to the detriment and prejudice
of the populaceF 5Criminal Case No) <8'/6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Epon motion of the accused, the municipal court 3uashed the complaint) *he prosecution appealed) *he Court of
7irst Instance of !aguna affirmed the order of dismissal 5Ci#il Case No) ;C9-=6) *he case is now before this
Court on appeal b$ the prosecution under Republic 2ct No) <88.)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual
law librar$
*he lower court held that electro fishing cannot be penali"e because electric current is not an obno4ious or
poisonous substance as contemplated in section I I of the 7isheries !aw and that it is not a substance at all but a
form of energ$ conducted or transmitted b$ substances) *he lower court further held that, since the law does not
clearl$ prohibit electro fishing, the e4ecuti#e and judicial departments cannot consider it
unlawful)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2s legal background, it should be stated that section && of the 7isheries !aw prohibits Fthe use of an$ obno4ious
or poisonous substanceF in fishing)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ection 1= of the same law punishes an$ person who uses an obno4ious or poisonous substance in fishing with a
fine of not more than fi#e hundred pesos nor more than fi#e thousand, and b$ imprisonment for not less than si4
months nor more than fi#e $ears)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It is noteworth$ that the 7isheries !aw does not e4pressl$ punish )electro fishing)F Notwithstanding the silence of
the law, the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of
7isheries, promulgated 7isheries 2dministrati#e (rder No) 08 5=' ()>) &''86, prohibiting electro fishing in all
Philippine waters) *he order is 3uoted below+
;EB,EC*+ PR(CIBI*IN> E!EC*R( 7I;CIN> IN 2!! A2*ER; (7 *CE PCI!IPPINE;)
Pursuant to ;ection 8 of 2ct No) 8..-, as amended, and ;ection 8 of R)2) No) -<&', the following rules and
regulations regarding the prohibition of electro fishing in all waters of the Philippines are promulgated for the
information and guidance of all concerned)
;EC*I(N &) 9 Definition) 9 Aords and terms used in this (rder && construed as follows+ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
5a6 Philippine waters or territorial waters of the PhilippinesB includes all waters of the Philippine 2rchipelago, as
defined in the t between the Enited ;tates and ;pain, dated respecti#el$ the tenth of @ecember, eighteen hundred
ninet$ eight and the se#enth of No#ember, nineteen hundred) 7or the purpose of this order, ri#ers, lakes and other
bodies of fresh waters are included)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5b6 Electro ,ishing) 9 Electro fishing is the catching of fish with the use of electric current) *he e3uipment used
are of man$ electrical de#ices which ma$ be batter$ or generator9operated and from and a#ailable source of
electric current)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5c6 BPersonsB includes firm, corporation, association, agent or emplo$ee)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
5d6 B7ishB includes other a3uatic products)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;EC) ') 9 #rohibition) 9 It shall be unlawful for an$ person to engage in electro fishing or to catch fish b$ the use
of electric current in an$ portion of the Philippine waters e4cept for research, educational and scientific purposes
which must be co#ered b$ a permit issued b$ the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources which shall be
carried at all times)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;EC) -) 9 #enalty) 9 2n$ #iolation of the pro#isions of this 2dministrati#e (rder shall subject the offender to a
fine of not e4ceeding fi#e hundred pesos 5P<..)..6 or imprisonment of not e4tending si4 5=6 months or both at the
discretion of the Court)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;EC) 8) 9 4epealing #rovisions) 9 2ll administrati#e orders or parts thereof inconsistent with the pro#isions of this
2dministrati#e (rder are hereb$ re#oked)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;EC) <) 9 Effectivity) 9 *his 2dministrati#e (rder shall take effect si4 5=.6 da$s after its publication in the (ffice
>a"ette)
(n ,une '0, &/=1 the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources, upon the recommendation of the 7isheries
Commission, issued 7isheries 2dministrati#e (rder No) 089&, amending section ' of 2dministrati#e (rder No)
08, b$ restricting the ban against electro fishing to fresh water fisheries 5=- ()>)
//=-6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*hus, the phrase Fin an$ portion of the Philippine watersF found in section ', was changed b$ the amendator$
order to read as follows+ Fin fresh water fisheries in the Philippines, such as ri#ers, lakes, swamps, dams,
irrigation canals and other bodies of fresh water)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he Court of 7irst Instance and the prosecution 5p) && of brief6 assumed that electro fishing is punishable under
section 0- of the 7isheries !aw 5not under section 1= thereof6, which pro#ides that an$ other #iolation of that law
For of an$ rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall subject the offender to a fine of not more than two
hundred pesos 5P'..6, or in t for not more than si4 months, or both, in the discretion of the court)F chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
*hat assumption is incorrect because - of the afore3uoted 2dministrati#e (rder No) 08 imposes a fm of not
e4ceeding P<.. on a person engaged in electro fishing, which amount the 0-) It seems that the @epartment of
7isheries prescribed their own penalt$ for swift fishing which penalt$ is less than the se#ere penalt$ imposed in
section 1= and which is not Identified to the at penalt$ imposed in section
0-)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Cad 2dministrati#e (rder No) 08 adopted the fighter penalt$ prescribed in on 0-, then the crime of electro fishing
would be within the e%clusive original jurisdiction of the inferior court 5;ec) 88 %fJ, ,udiciar$ !aw: People #s)
Ragasi, !9'0==-, ;eptember '', chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Ae ha#e discussed this pre point, not raised in the briefs, because it is ob#ious that the crime of electro fishing
which is punishable with a sum up to P<.., falls within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the inferior courts
and the Court of 7irst instance 5People #s) Na"areno, !98..-1, 2pril -., &/1=, 1. ;CR2 <-& and the cases cited
therein6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2nd since the instant case was filed in the municipal court of ;ta) Cru", !aguna, a pro#incial capital, the order of
d rendered b$ that municipal court was directl$ appealable to the Court, not to the Court of 7irst Instance of
!aguna 5;ec) 8< and last par) of section 01 of the ,udiciar$ !aw: Esperat #s) 2#ila, !9'<//', ,une -., &/=1, '.
;CR2 </=6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It results that the Court of 7irst Instance of !aguna had no appellate jurisdiction o#er the case) Its order affirming
the municipal courtBs order of dismissal is #oid for lack of motion) *his appeal shall be treated as a direct appeal
from the municipal court to this Court) 5;ee People #s) @el Rosario, /1 Phil)
=16)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In this appeal, the prosecution argues that 2dministrati#e (rders Nos) 08 and 089& were not issued under section
&& of the 7isheries !aw which, as indicated abo#e, punishes fishing b$ means of an obno4ious or poisonous
substance) *his contention is not well9taken because, as alread$ stated, the Penal pro#ision of 2dministrati#e
(rder No) 08 implies that electro fishing is penali"ed as a form of fishing b$ means of an obno4ious or poisonous
substance under section &&)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he prosecution cites as the legal sanctions for the prohibition against electro fishing in fresh water fisheries 5&6
the rule9making power of the @epartment ;ecretar$ under section 8 of the 7isheries !aw: 5'6 the function of the
Commissioner of 7isheries to enforce the pro#isions of the 7isheries !aw and the regulations Promulgated
thereunder and to e4ecute the rules and regulations consistent with the purpose for the creation of the 7isheries
Commission and for the de#elopment of fisheries 5;ec) 8%cJ and %hJ Republic 2ct No) -<&': 5-6 the declared
national polic$ to encourage, Promote and conser#e our fishing resources 5;ec) &, Republic 2ct No) -<&'6, and
586 section 0- of the 7isheries !aw which pro#ides that Fan$ other #iolation ofF the 7isheries !aw or of an$ rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder Fshall subject the offender to a fine of not more than two hundred pesos,
or imprisonment for not more than si4 months, or both, in the discretion of the court)F chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
2s alread$ pointed out abo#e, the prosecutionBs reference to section 0- is out of place because the penalt$ for
electro fishing under 2dministrati#e order No) 08 is not the same as the penalt$ fi4ed in section
0-)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Ae are of the opinion that the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of 7isheries
e4ceeded their authorit$ in issuing 7isheries 2dministrati#e (rders Nos) 08 and 089& and that those orders are not
warranted under the 7isheries Commission, Republic 2ct No) -<&')chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual
law librar$
*he reason is that the 7isheries !aw does not e4pressl$ prohibit electro fishing) 2s electro fishing is not banned
under that law, the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of 7isheries are
powerless to penali"e it) In other words, 2dministrati#e (rders Nos) 08 and 089&, in penali"ing electro fishing, are
de#oid of an$ legal basis)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Cad the lawmaking bod$ intended to punish electro fishing, a penal pro#ision to that effect could ha#e been easil$
embodied in the old 7isheries !aw)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*hat law punishes 5&6 the use of obno4ious or poisonous substance, or e4plosi#e in fishing: 5'6 unlawful fishing in
deepsea fisheries: 5-6 unlawful taking of marine molusca, 586 illegal taking of sponges: 5<6 failure of licensed
fishermen to report the kind and 3uantit$ of fish caught, and 5=6 other
#iolations)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Nowhere in that law is electro fishing specificall$ punished) 2dministrati#e (rder No) 08, in punishing electro
fishing, does not contemplate that such an offense fails within the categor$ of Fother #iolationsF because, as
alread$ shown, the penalt$ for electro fishing is the penalt$ ne4t lower to the penalt$ for fishing with the use of
obno4ious or poisonous substances, fi4ed in section 1=, and is not the same as the penalt$ for Fother #iolationsF of
the law and regulations fi4ed in section 0- of the 7isheries !aw)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
*he lawmaking bod$ cannot delegate to an e4ecuti#e official the power to declare what acts should constitute an
offense) It can authori"e the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalt$ pro#ided for in the law
itself) 5People #s) E4conde &.& Phil) && '<, citing && 2m) ,ur) /=< on p) &&
-'6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(riginall$, 2dministrati#e (rder No) 08 punished electro fishing in all waters) !ater, the ban against electro
fishing was confined to fresh water fisheries) *he amendment created the impression that electro fishing is not
condemnable per se) It could be tolerated in marine waters) *hat circumstances strengthens the #iew that the old
law does not eschew all forms of electro fishing)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Cowe#er, at present, there is no more doubt that electro fishing is punishable under the 7isheries !aw and that it
cannot be penali"ed merel$ b$ e4ecuti#e re#olution because Presidential @ecree No) 1.8, which is a re#ision and
consolidation of all laws and decrees affecting fishing and fisheries and which was promulgated on a$ &=, &/1<
51& ()>) 8'=/6, e4pressl$ punishes electro fishing in fresh water and salt water
areas)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*hat decree pro#ides+
(EC. 77. 9 Illegal fishing! dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery>a3uatic products) 9 It shall he unlawful for an$
person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or fisher$Ma3uatic products in
Philippine waters with the use of e4plosi#es, obno4ious or poisonous substance, or b$ the use of electricit$ as
defined in paragraphs 5&6, 5m6 and 5d6, respecti#el$, of ;ection - hereof+ )))
*he decree 2ct No) 8..-, as amended, Republic 2cts Nos) 8'0, -.80, -<&' and -<0=, Presidential @ecrees Nos)
8-, <-8 and <<-, and all , 2cts, E4ecuti#e (rders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with it 5;ec)
8/, P) @) No) 1.86)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he inclusion in that decree of pro#isions defining and penali"ing electro fishing is a clear recognition of the
deficienc$ or silence on that point of the old 7isheries !aw) It is an admission that a mere e4ecuti#e regulation is
not legall$ ade3uate to penali"e electro fishing)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Note that the definition of electro fishing, which is found in section & 5c6 of 7isheries 2dministrati#e (rder No) 08
and which is not pro#ided for the old 7isheries !aw, is now found in section -5d6 of the decree) Note further that
the decree penalt$ electro fishing b$ Fimprisonment from two 5'6 to four 586 $earsF, a punishment which is more
se#ere than the penalt$ of a time of not e4cluding P<.. or imprisonment of not more than si4 months or both
fi4ed in section - of 7isheries 2dministrati#e (rder No) 08)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
2n e4amination of the rule9making power of e4ecuti#e officials and administrati#e agencies and, in particular, of
the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources 5now ;ecretar$ of Natural Resources6 under the 7isheries !aw
sustains the #iew that he e4 his authorit$ in penali"ing electro fishing b$ means of an administrati#e
order)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2dministrati#e agent are clothed with rule9making powers because the lawmaking bod$ finds it impracticable, if
not impossible, to anticipate and pro#ide for the multifarious and comple4 situations that ma$ be encountered in
enforcing the law) 2ll that is re3uired is that the regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the
law and that it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes 5People #s) E4conde &.& Phil) &&'<:
@irector of 7orestr$ #s) u:o", !9'81/=, ,une '0, &/=0, '- ;CR2 &&0-, &&/0: >eukeko #s) 2raneta, &.' Phil)
1.=, 1&'6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he lawmaking bod$ cannot possibl$ pro#ide for all the details in the enforcement of a particular statute 5E);) #s)
*upasi olina, '/ Phil) &&/, &'<, citing E);) #s) >rimaud ''. E);) <.=: Interpro#incial 2utobus Co), Inc) #s)
Coll) of Internal Re#enue, /0 Phil) '/., '/<9=6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he grant of the rule9making power to administrati#e agencies is a rela4ation of the principle of separation of
powers and is an e4ception to the nondeleption of legislati#e, powers) 2dministrati#e regulations or Fsubordinate
legislation calculated to promote the public interest are necessar$ because of Fthe growing comple4it$ of modem
life, the multiplication of the subjects of go#ernmental regulations, and the increased difficult$ of administering
the lawF Calalang #s) Ailliams, 1. Phil) 1'=: People #s) Rosenthal and (sme:a, =0 Phil)
-'06)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2dministrati#e regulations adopted under legislati#e authorit$ b$ a particular department must be in harmon$
with the pro#isions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carr$ing into effect its general pro#isions) B$
such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be e4tended) 5E);) #s) *upasi olina, supra6) 2n administrati#e
agenc$ cannot amend an act of Congress 5;antos #s) Esten"o, &./ Phil) 8&/, 8'': *eo4on #s) embers of the d of
2dministrators, !9'<=&/, ,une -., &/1., -- ;CR2 <0<: anuel #s) >eneral 2uditing (ffice, !9'0/<', @ecember
'/, &/1&, 8' ;CR2 ==.: @eluao #s) Casteel, !9'&/.=, 2ugust '/, &/=/, '/ ;CR2
-<.6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he rule9making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carr$ into effect the
law as it his been enacted) *he power cannot be e4tended to amending or e4panding the statutor$ re3uirements or
to embrace matters not co#ered b$ the statute) Rules that sub#ert the statute cannot be sanctioned) 5Eni#ersit$ of
;anto *omas #s) Board of *a4 2 /- Phil) -1=, -0', citing &' C),) 08<98=) 2s to in#alid regulations, see of Internal
Re#enue #s) ?illaflor =/ Phil) -&/, Aise L Co) #s) eer, 10 Phil) =<<, =1=: @el arch #s) Phil) ?eterans
2dministrati#e, !9'1'//, ,une '1, &/1-, <& ;CR2 -8., -8/6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
*here is no 3uestion that the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources has rule9making powers) ;ection 8
of the 7isheries law pro#ides that the ;ecretar$ Fshall from time to time issue instructions, orders, and regulations
consistentF with that law, Fas ma$ be and proper to carr$ into effect the pro#isions thereof)F *hat power is now
#ested in the ;ecretar$ of Natural Resources b$ on 1 of the Re#ised 7isheries law, Presidential @ecember No)
1.8)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ection 85h6 of Republic 2ct No) -<&' empower the Co of 7isheries Fto prepare and e4ecute upon the appro#al of
the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources, forms instructions, rules and regulations consistent with the
purposeF of that enactment Fand for the de#elopment of fisheries)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ection 1/5B6 of the Re#ised 2dministrati#e Code pro#ides that Fthe @epartment Cead shall ha#e the power to
promulgate, whene#er he ma$ see fit do so, all rules, regulates, orders, memorandums, and other instructions, not
contrary to law, to regulate the proper working and harmonious and efficient administration of each and all of the
offices and dependencies of his @epartment, and for the strict enforcement and proper e4ecution of the laws
relati#e to matters under the jurisdiction of said @epartment: but none of said rules or orders shall prescribe
penalties for the #iolation thereof, e4cept as e4pressl$ authori"ed b$ law)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2dministrati#e regulations issued b$ a @epartment Cead in conformit$ with law ha#e the force of law 5?alerie #s)
;ecretar$ of culture and Natural Resources, &&1 Phil) 1'/, 1--: 2nti3ue ;awmills, Inc) #s) Ga$co, !9 '..<&, a$
-., &/==, &1 ;CR2 -&=6) 2s he e4ercises the rule9making power b$ delegation of the lawmaking bod$, it is a
re3uisite that he should not transcend the bound demarcated b$ the statute for the e4ercise of that power:
otherwise, he would be improperl$ e4ercising legislati#e power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the
lawmaking bod$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2rticle 1 of the Ci#il Code embodies the basic principle that administrati#e or e4ecuti#e acts, orders and
regulations shall be #alid onl$ when the$ are not contrar$ to the laws or the Constitution)F chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
2s noted b$ ,ustice 7ernando, Fe4cept for constitutional officials who can trace their competence to act to the
fundamental law itself, a public office must be in the statute relied upon a grant of power before he can e4ercise
it)F Fdepartment "eal ma$ not be permitted to outrun the authorit$ conferred b$ statute)F 5Radio Communications
of the Philippines, Inc) #s) ;antiago, !9'/'-=, 2ugust '&, &/18, <0 ;CR2 8/-, 8/=9
06)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
FRules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authorit$ conferred upon the
administrati#e agenc$ b$ law, partake of the nature of a statute, and compliance therewith ma$ be enforced b$ a
penal sanction pro#ided in the law) *his is so because statutes are usuall$ couched in general terms, after
e4pressing the polic$, purposes, objecti#es, remedies and sanctions intended b$ the legislature) *he details and the
manner of carr$ing out the law are oftentimes left to the administrati#e agenc$ entrusted with its enforcement) In
this sense, it has been said that rules and regulations are the product of a delegated power to create new or
additional legal pro#isions that ha#e the effect of law)F *he rule or regulation should be within the scope of the
statutor$ authorit$ granted b$ the legislature to the administrati#e agenc$) 5@a#is, 2dministrati#e !aw, p) &/8,
&/1, cited in ?ictories illing Co), Inc) #s) ;ocial ;ecurit$ Commission, &&8 Phil) <<<,
<<06)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In case of discrepanc$ between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law
pre#ails because said rule or regulation cannot go be$ond the terms and pro#isions of the basic law 5People #s)
!im, &.0 Phil) &./&6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*his Court in its decision in the !im case, supra, promulgated on ,ul$ '=, &/=., called the attention of technical
men in the e4ecuti#e departments, who draft rules and regulations, to the importance and necessit$ of closel$
following the legal pro#isions which the$ intend to implement so as to a#oid an$ possible misunderstanding or
confusion)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he rule is that the #iolation of a regulation prescribed b$ an e4ecuti#e officer of the go#ernment in conformit$
with and based upon a statute authori"ing such regulation constitutes an offense and renders the offender liable to
punishment in accordance with the pro#isions of the law 5E);) #s) *upasi olina, '/ Phil) &&/,
&'86)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In other words, a #iolation or infringement of a rule or regulation #alidl$ issued can constitute a crime punishable
as pro#ided in the authori"ing statute and b$ #irtue of the latter 5People #s) E4conde &.& Phil) &&'<,
&&-'6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It has been held that Fto declare what shall constitute a crime and how it shall be punished is a power #ested
e4clusi#el$ in the legislature, and it ma$ not be delegated to an$ other bod$ or agenc$F 5& 2m) ,ur) 'nd, sec) &'1,
p) /-0: *e4as Co) #s) ontgomer$, 1- 7) ;upp) <'16)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In the instant case the regulation penali"ing electro fishing is not strictl$ in accordance with the 7isheries !aw,
under which the regulation was issued, because the law itself does not e%pressly punish electro
fishing)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he instant case is similar to #eople vs. (antos, =- Phil) -..) *he (antos case in#ol#es section '0 of 7ish and
>ame 2dministrati#e (rder No) ' issued b$ the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources pursuant to the
aforementioned section 8 of the 7isheries !aw)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ection '0 contains the pro#iso that a fishing boat not licensed under the 7isheries !aw and under the said
administrati#e order ma$ fish within three kilometers of the shoreline of islands and reser#ations o#er which
jurisdiction is e4ercised b$ na#al and militar$ reser#ations authorities of the Enited ;tates onl$ upon recei#ing
written permission therefor, which permission ma$ be granted b$ the ;ecretar$ upon recommendation of the
militar$ or na#al authorities concerned) 2 #iolation of the pro#iso ma$ be proceeded against under section 8< of
the 7ederal Penal Code)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2ugusto 2) ;antos was prosecuted under that pro#ision in the Court of 7irst Instance of Ca#ite for ha#ing caused
his two fishing boats to fish, loiter and anchor without permission from the ;ecretar$ within three kilometers from
the shoreline of Corrigidor Island)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*his Court held that the 7isheries !aw does not prohibit boats not subject to license from fishing within three
kilometers of the shoreline of islands and reser#ations o#er which jurisdiction is e4ercised b$ na#al and militar$
authorities of the Enited ;tates, without permission from the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources upon
recommendation of the militar$ and na#al authorities concerned)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
2s the said law does not penali"e the act mentioned in section '0 of the administrati#e order, the promulgation of
that pro#ision b$ the ;ecretar$ Fis e3ui#alent to legislating on the matter, a power which has not been and cannot
be delegated to him, it being e4pressl$ reser#edF to the lawmaking bod$) F;uch an act constitutes not onl$ an
e4cess of the regulator$ power conferred upon the ;ecretar$ but also an e4ercise of a legislati#e power which he
does not ha#e, and thereforeF the said pro#ision Fis null and #oid and without effectF) Cence, the charge against
;antos was dismiss)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2 penal statute is strictl$ construed) Ahile an administrati#e agenc$ has the right to make ranks and regulations to
carr$ into effect a law alread$ enacted, that power should not be confused with the power to enact a criminal
statute) 2n administrati#e agenc$ can ha#e onl$ the administrati#e or policing powers e4pressl$ or b$ necessar$
implication conferred upon it) 5>lustrom #s) ;tate, '.= >a) 1-8, <0 ;econd 'd <-8: ;ee ' 2m) ,r) 'nd &'/9
&-.6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Ahere the legislature has delegated to e4ecuti#e or administrati#e officers and boards authorit$ to promulgate
rules to carr$ out an e4press legislati#e purpose, the rules of administrati#e officers and boards, which ha#e the
effect of e4tending, or which conflict with the authorit$ granting statute, do not represent a #alid precise of the
rule9making power but constitute an attempt b$ an administrati#e bod$ to legislate 5;tate #s) iles, Aash) 'nd
-'', &.< Pac) 'nd <&6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In a prosecution for a #iolation of an administrati#e order, it must clearl$ appear that the order is one which falls
within the scope of the authorit$ conferred upon the administrati#e bod$, and the order will be scrutini"ed with
special care) 5;tate #s) iles supra6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he iles case in#ol#ed a statute which authori"ed the ;tate >ame Commission Fto adopt, promulgate, amend
andMor repeal, and enforce reasonable rules and regulations go#erning andMor prohibiting the ta6ing of the #arious
classes of game)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Ender that statute, the >ame Commission promulgated a rule that Fit shall be unlawful to offer, pa$ or recei#e an$
reward, pri"e or compensation for the hunting, pursuing, taking, killing or displaying of an$ game animal, game
bird or game fish or an$ part thereof)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Ber$l ;) iles, the owner of a sporting goods store, regularl$ offered a ten9down cash pri"e to the person
displa$ing the largest deer in his store during the open for hunting such game animals) 7or that act, he was
charged with a #iolation of the rule Promulgated b$ the ;tate >ame
Commission)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It was held that there was no statute penali"ing the display of game) Ahat the statute penali"ed was the taking of
game) If the lawmaking bod$ desired to prohibit the displa$ of game, it could ha#e readil$ said so) It was not
lawful for the administrati#e board to e4tend or modif$ the statute) Cence, the indictment against iles was
3uashed) *he iles case is similar to this case)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ACERE7(RE, the lower courtBs decision of ,une /, &/1. is set aside for lack of appellate jurisdiction and the
order of dismissal rendered b$ the municipal court of ;ta) Cru", !aguna in Criminal Case No) <8'/ is affirmed)
Costs de oficio)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;( (R@ERE@)
[G.R. No. 1F820; * !,7/< 09, 2010]
NA%IONAL ELEC%RI(ICA%ION AD!INIS%RA%ION, E%I%IONER, &S. &AL L. &ILLANUE&A,
RESONDEN%.
D E C I S I O N
ERAL%A, J.*
Before the Court is a petition for re#iew on certiorari under Rule 8< of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and
set aside the @ecision
%&J
dated No#ember &', '..8 and Resolution
%'J
of 2pril =, '..< of the Regional *rial Court
5R*C6 of Cabadbaran, 2gusan del Norte, Branch -8, in ;P) Ci#il Case No) .-9.- entitled =al '. =illanueva!
#etitioner! versus 5ational Electrification Administration and the Agusan del 5orte Electric Cooperative! Inc.!
4espondents.
*he undisputed facts are as follows+
Cerein respondent ?al !) ?illanue#a 5?illanue#a6 was an elected member of the Board of @irectors 5B(@6 of
2gusan del Norte Electric Cooperati#e 52NEC(6 for a term of three $ears, from '..& to '..-) Cowe#er, with the
subse3uent redistricting of the area he represented, his term was e4tended until '..=)
In '..', while ser#ing as a member of the 2NEC( B(@, he was elected as Barangay Chairman ofBarangay &',
in the unicipalit$ of Cabadbaran, 2gusan del Norte) *hereafter, he was also elected as President of what was
formerl$ known as the 2ssociation of Barangay Captains 52BC6, now known as'iga ng mga Barangay 5!iga6, of
Cabadbaran) B$ #irtue of his position as !iga President, he sat as e%-officio member of the (angguniang Bayan of
Cabadbaran)
;ubse3uentl$, the >eneral anager of 2NEC( sought the opinion of herein petitioner National Electrification
2dministration 5NE26 as to whether or not respondent is still 3ualified to sit as member of the 2NEC( B(@)
In response to such 3uer$, the NE2 @irector for Co9(p (perations came out with the opinion, dated @ecember
&., '..', that respondent could no longer ser#e as a member of the 2NEC( B(@, because he was considered
automaticall$ resigned from the said position when he took his oath of office as !iga President) 2s basis of its
opinion, the NE2 @irector for Co9(p (perations cited as authorit$ the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&, NE2
emorandum dated 7ebruar$ &-, &//0, and the >uidelines in the Conduct of Electric Cooperati#e @istrict
Elections)
%-J
In a letter dated ,anuar$ -, '..-, respondent sought the opinion of the Pro#incial @irector of the @epartment of
Interior and !ocal >o#ernment 5@I!>6 relati#e to his dis3ualification as a member of the 2NEC( B(@)
In his letter
%8J
dated ,anuar$ 1, '..-, the @I!> Pro#incial @irector ga#e the #iew that his office could not issue an
official opinion on the matter being sought, considering that another agenc$ had jurisdiction o#er it) Nonetheless,
he stated the #iew that respondent was not a regular member of the(angguniang Bayan: instead, he occupied the
office onl$ in an e%-officio capacit$, because he was not dul$ elected thereto b$ the registered #oters of
Cabadbaran, but occupied the said position onl$ b$ reason of his being the president of the !iga)
(n ,anuar$ -&, '..-, respondent re3uested re#iew and reconsideration of the disputed opinion of the NE2
@irector for Co9(p (perations, but the same was denied in a letter dated 7ebruar$ &1, '..- b$ the NE2 Chief
(perating (fficerM@eput$ 2dministrator for Co9(p @e#elopment)
%<J
2ggrie#ed b$ such denial, respondent filed with the R*C of Cabadbaran, 2gusan del Norte, a petition
for certiorari with pra$er for preliminar$ injunction against NE2 and 2NEC()
%=J
*he case was docketed as ;P
Ci#il Case No) .-9.-)
(n @ecember ', '..-, the R*C issued a *emporar$ Restraining (rder enjoining NE2 and 2NEC( and their
representati#es, attorne$s and agents from dis3ualif$ing respondent as member of the 2NEC( B(@ or allowing
him to continue attending meetings or sessions of the said B(@ and granting him back all benefits, emoluments
and remunerations due him on account of his dis3ualification)
%1J
NE2 and 2NEC( filed separate motions for reconsideration)
(n ,anuar$ 1, '..8, the R*C issued an (rder
%0J
den$ing the motions for reconsideration of NE2 and 2NEC( and
directing the issuance of a preliminar$ injunction, which enjoined NE2 and 2NEC( from enforcing the
dis3ualification of respondent as member of the 2NEC( B(@ and directing them to put up a bond in the amount
of P-..,...)..)
Conse3uentl$, on 7ebruar$ &., '..8, the R*C issued a Arit of Preliminar$ Injunction)
%/J
(n No#ember &', '..8 the R*C rendered its presentl$ assailed @ecision, the dispositi#e portion of which reads,
thus+
ACERE7(RE, the petition is hereb$ granted) *he injunction issued against respondent is hereb$ made
permanent)
Respondents are likewise ordered to pa$ to petitioner the amount of Ph<.,...).. as attorne$Bs fees and
Ph<.,...).. as e4penses of litigation)
SO ORDERED.
%&.J
NE2 filed a motion for reconsideration, but the R*C denied it in its Resolution
%&&J
dated 2pril =, '..<)
Cence, the present petition raising the following issues+
&) Ahether or not the Con) (rlando 7) @o$on, in his capacit$ as Presiding ,udge of the Regional *rial Court of
Cabadbaran, 2gusan del Norte, Branch -8, e4ercised gra#e abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in
e4cess of jurisdiction in deciding the case in an action for certiorari with pra$er for Preliminar$ Injunction it
resol#ed to nullif$ an order issued b$ an administrati#e agenc$ without sufficient legal basis:
') Ahether or not the instant case should be dismissed for lack of cause of action on the ground of respondentBs
failure to e4haust administrati#e remedies: and
-) Ahether or not the law was correctl$ applied b$ the trial court in the issuance of the *emporar$ Restraining
(rder and Arit of Preliminar$ Injunction)
%&'J
Petitioner contends that respondent went to court without first e4hausting the administrati#e remedies a#ailable to
him making his action premature or his case not ripe for judicial determination and, for that reason, he has no
cause of action to #entilate in court)
Petitioner also a#ers that in coming up with its decision nullif$ing the order issued b$ the NE2, the R*C, in
effect, depri#ed the (ffice of the President of its power to re#iew the disputed order)
Petitioner further argues that the pro#ision under the >uidelines in the Conduct of Electric Cooperati#e @istrict
Elections, which prohibits persons who hold an electi#e office in the go#ernment or appointed to an electi#e
position abo#e the le#el of Barangay Captain from being members of the B(@ of an electric cooperati#e, applies
not onl$ to candidates for membership in the B(@ but also to incumbent members thereof)
!astl$, petitioner asserts that the temporar$ restraining order issued b$ the R*C is in#alid, because it was made
effecti#e be$ond the '.9da$ period pro#ided under the Rules of Court)
*he Court finds the petition meritorious)
Aith respect to the procedural aspect of the case, respondent should ha#e first e4hausted the administrati#e
remedies still a#ailable to him b$ appealing the challenged order of the NE2 to the (ffice of the President, which
e4ercises the power of super#ision o#er it) ;ection &-, Chapter II of Presidential @ecree No) '=/ 5P@ '=/6,
otherwise known as the 5ational Electrification Administration Decree, pro#ides that+
;ec) &- 9 (upervision over 5EA? #ower Development Council 9 *he NE2 shall be under the super#ision of the
(ffice of the President of the Philippines) All o70178, 7ul18 ,:0 71=ul,45o:8 >7oAul=,410 .y 4<1 NEA 8<,ll .1
8u.C1/4 4o 4<1 ,>>7o6,l o2 4<1 O225/1 o2 4<1 718501:4 o2 4<1 <5l5>>5:18) 5Emphasis supplied6
Considering that the President has the power to re#iew on appeal the orders or acts of petitioner NE2, the failure
of respondent to undertake such an appeal bars him from resorting to a judicial suit)
%&-J
It is settled that under the
doctrine of e4haustion of administrati#e remedies, recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such
administrati#e remedies ha#e first been e4hausted)
%&8J
If remed$ is a#ailable within the administrati#e machiner$,
this should be resorted to before recourse can be made to courts) *he part$ with an administrati#e remed$ must
not onl$ initiate the prescribed administrati#e procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate
conclusion before seeking judicial inter#ention in order to gi#e the administrati#e agenc$ an opportunit$ to decide
the matter itself correctl$ and pre#ent unnecessar$ and premature resort to the court)
%&<J
*he non9obser#ance of the
doctrine of e4haustion of administrati#e remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in
the Rules of Court justif$ing the dismissal of the complaint)
%&=J
In the present case, respondent failed to e4haust his administrati#e remedies when he filed a case with the R*C
without appealing the decision of the NE2 to the (ffice of the President) 2s such, his petition filed with the R*C
must necessaril$ fail)
In an$ case, the main issue of whether respondent can still continue to be a member of the 2NEC( B(@ after
becoming an e%-officio member of the (angguniang Bayan of Cabadbaran must be answered in the negati#e)
;ection 1 506, 2rticle II of the >uidelines in the Conduct of Electric Cooperati#e @istrict Elections issued b$ the
NE2 ain (ffice, through its Board of 2dministrators, on ,une '-, &//-, pro#ides+
;ection 1 9 @ualification for Board of Directors) 9 Bona fide members who possess the following 3ualifications
are eligible to become andMor to remain as member of Board of @irectors+
&) CeMshe is a 7ilipino citi"en
4 4 4 4
0) CeMshe does not hold electi#e office in the go#ernment nor appointed to an electi#e position abo#e the le#el of a
Baranga$ Captain)
4 4 4 4
%&1J
In the same manner, the emorandum
%&0J
dated 7ebruar$ &-, &//0 issued b$ the NE2 ain (ffice states+
')-)&) Book III, 2rticle *hree, ;ec) 88= of R)2) 1&=. listed the composition of the ;angguniang Ba$an which
includes, among others, the President of the unicipal Chapter of the !iga ng mga Baranga$ 4 4 4) 2s such,
therefore, the$ are considered as an e%-officio member of the ;anggunian, as likewise pro#ided for in Rule DDID,
2rticle '&& 5d6 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R2 1&=.)
')-)') 2ll coop officials and emplo$ees who are subse3uentl$ elected to the post of President of the unicipal
Chapter of the !iga ng mga Baranga$, after ha#ing won in the baranga$ elections, shall be considered
automaticall$ resigned upon taking hisMher oath of office as !iga President)
*he abo#e93uoted pro#isions find support in (alomon v. 5ational Electrification Administration
%&/J
ABC a case
decided b$ the Court more than a decade prior to respondentBs filing of his petition with the R*C) In the said case,
the petitioner, an elected Barangay Captain, sought the nullification of a ruling issued b$ the NE2 which
dis3ualified her from further acting as a member of the Board of @irectors of !a Enion Electric Cooperati#e, Inc)
5!EE!C(6 b$ reason of the fact that she was appointed as an e%-officiomember of the (angguniang
#anlalawigan of !a Enion, representing the barangay officials of the pro#ince) *his Court, in upholding the
dis3ualification of therein petitioner as a member of the Board of @irectors, held+
2lthough the dis3ualification mandated b$ the pro#isions %of P@ '=/J pertains to electi#e officers of the
go#ernment, e4cept barrio captains and councilors, the same is e3uall$ applicable to an appointed member of the
;angguniang Panlalawigan which is an electi#e office) *he prohibition should be construed to refer to a person
holding an office, the assumption to which, while generall$ determined b$ an election, is not precluded b$
appointment) %<1 >u7>o81 o2 4<1 058Mu,l525/,45o: 58 4o >7161:4 5:/uA.1:48 o2 1l1/4561 o225/18 27oA 131745:=
>ol545/,l 5:2lu1:/1 ,:0 >7188u71 o: 4<1 A,:,=1A1:4 o2 4<1 ,22,578 o2 4<1 /oo>17,4561. %<58 >u7>o81 /,::o4
.1 2ully ,/<51610 52 o:1 @<o 58 ,>>o5:410 4o ,: 1l1/4561 o225/1 58 :o4 A,01 8u.C1/4 4o 4<1 8,A1
058Mu,l525/,45o:.
A >178o: ,>>o5:410 4o ,: 1l1/4561 o225/1 /,: 1317/581 ,ll >o@178 ,:0 >717o=,45618 ,44,/<10 4o 8,50 o225/1.
%<u8, ,: ,>>o5:410 A1A.17 o2 , S,:==u:5,:= ,:l,l,@5=,:, l5B1 >14545o:17, /,: @51l0 ,8 Au/< >7188u71
,:0 5:2lu1:/1 o: ,: 1l1/475/ /oo>17,4561, ,8 ,: 1l1/410 A1A.17 4<171o2.
Petitioner, ha#ing been appointed as member of the ;angguniang Panlalawigan of !a Enion, a position decidedl$
abo#e the rank of Baranga$ Captain, cannot remain as @irector of !EE!C( without #iolating the spirit and intent
of ;ection '& P)@) No) '=/, as amended 4 4 4)
%'.J
*he Court finds that, while the position to which the petitioner in the abo#e93uoted ruling was appointed is
different from the position to which herein respondent was named, the rule or principle enunciated abo#e,
nonetheless, applies s3uarel$ to the present case) Conse3uentl$, and in consonance with the >uidelines and
emorandum issued b$ the NE2, when respondent was designated as member of the (angguniang Bayan of
Cabadbaran, he became ineligible, and was thereb$ dis3ualified as member of the 2NEC( B(@)
2s to the issue of whether the temporar$ restraining order issued b$ the R*C remained #alid e#en if it was
be$ond the '.9da$ period pro#ided under the Rules of Court, it is settled that under ;ection <, Rule <0
%'&J
of the
Rules of Court, a judge ma$ issue a temporar$ restraining order within a limited life of twent$ 5'.6 da$s from date
of issue) If before the e4piration of the twent$ 5'.69da$ period the application for preliminar$ injunction is denied,
the temporar$ restraining order would be deemed automaticall$ #acated) If no action is taken b$ the judge on the
application for preliminar$ injunction within the said twent$ 5'.6 da$s, the temporar$ restraining order would
automaticall$ e4pire on the '.th da$ b$ the sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being
necessar$ and the courts ha#ing no discretion to e4tend the same)
%''J
*he rule against the non9e4tendibilit$ of the
twent$ 5'.69da$ limited period of effecti#it$ of a temporar$ restraining order is absolute if issued b$ a regional
trial court)
%'-J
Cence, the R*C committed error when it ruled that the temporar$ restraining order it issued on
@ecember ', '..- was effecti#e until ,anuar$ <, '..8, a period that was be$ond the twent$ 5'.6 da$s allowed
under the Rules of Court) *his does not mean, howe#er, that the entire *R( was in#alidated) *he same remained
#alid and in effect, but onl$ within the '.9da$ period, after which it automaticall$ e4pired)
ACERE7(RE, the petition is GRAN%ED) *he assailed @ecision of the Regional *rial Court of Cabadbaran,
2gusan @el Norte, Branch -8, dated No#ember &', '..8, and its Resolution dated 2pril =, '..< in ;P) Ci#il Case
No) .-9.-, are RE&ERSED AND SE% ASIDE. *he petition for certiorari therein filed is DIS!ISSED)
SO ORDERED)
G.R. No. 1H8HFH * J,:u,7y ;0, 2008
NOR!A A%ALING"UG, EUGENE ESEDIDO, RE'NALDO BERDIN, NOR!AN CODILLA,
BOBIE CUENCA, E(REN "ERRERA, LOREN#O IGO%, JR., ALBER%INO !A%A, JR., !IC"AEL
C#AR OUANO, RA!ON A%ALING"UG, (RANCISCO SENERIDA ,:0 C"ARLES
&AILOCES, petitioners, v) CO!!ISSION ON ELEC%IONS, AR%URO RADA#A, !ARIO A!ORES,
)UEENIE A!!ANN, JUNARD C"AN, EDUARDO CUI#ON, ALE$ANDER GES%OA, JR., DA!IAN
GO!E#, JR., CORNELIO A"A'AG, RODOL(O O%O%, (LORI%O O#ON, !ELISSA &IDAL,
!ARCIAL 'CONG, A%%'. ANN JANE%%E C"UA-"U LA!BAN, CI%' ELEC%ION O((ICER,
LEONILO OLI&A, A%%'. E&ANGELINE GICALE, AND %"E O%"ER !E!BERS O( %"E CI%'
BOARD O( CAN&ASSERS, 4espondents.
RESOLU%ION
NAC"URA, J.*
7or the resolution of the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule =< assailing 5a6 the a$ '<, '..1 (rder
&
of
the Commission on Elections 5C(E!EC6 7irst @i#ision in Ref) No) .19.'0: 5b6 the ,une 8, '..1 Resolution
'
of
the C(E!EC 7irst @i#ision in ;PC No) .19.&&: and 5c6 the ,une '0, '..1 Resolution No) 0'&'
-
or the
(mnibus Resolution on Pending Cases issued b$ the C(E!EC en banc)
*he factual antecedents of the case follow)
In the a$ &8, '..1 national and local elections, petitioners ran for the local positions 5ma$or, #ice9ma$or and
councilor6 in !apu9!apu Cit$) 2t the start of and during the can#assing, petitioners 3uestioned the composition of
the Board of Can#assers 5B(C6, and objected to the inclusion of se#eral election returns 5ERs6) 2s the B(C ruled
against them, petitioners filed their notices of appeal,
8
and conse3uentl$, initiated with the C(E!EC a Pre9
Proclamation Petition
<
docketed as ;PC No) .19.&&, seeking the declaration of the composition and the
proceedings of the B(C as illegal)
=
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
Petitioners also filed an 2ppeal
1
docketed as SC No. 0H-180 with the C(E!EC, pra$ing for the non9inclusion
in the can#ass of &0' ERs on alleged grounds under ;ections '8- 5b6, 5c6 and 5d6, and '&8 of the (mnibus
Election Code 5(EC6 or Batas #ambansa DB.#.E Blg. 11.)
0
cra
(n a$ '<, '..1, the C(E!EC 7irst @i#ision issued in Ref) No) .19.'0 the first assailed (rder
/
directing the
B(C to proclaim the winning candidates in the official can#ass)
&.
52s alleged in the petition, the petitioners
recei#ed a cop$ of this (rder on a$ '1, '..1)6
&&
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
(n the following da$, a$ '=, '..1, the B(C proclaimed pri#ate respondents as the dul$ elected officials of
!apu9!apu Cit$)
&'
@issatisfied, petitioners mo#ed, in ;PC No) .19&0., for the recall andMor nullification of the
said proclamation on a$ '/, '..1)
&-
cra
(n ,une 8, '..1, the C(E!EC 7irst @i#ision in SC No. 0H-011 rendered the second assailed
Resolution
&8
dismissing the said case) 52gain, as alleged in the petition, petitioners recei#ed a cop$ of this
resolution on ,une &<, '..1)6
&<
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
2ggrie#ed, petitioners on ,une '=, '..1 Ao610 2o7 4<1 71/o:85017,45o: of the said Resolution in ;PC No) .19
.&&)
Conse3uentl$, on ,une '0, '..1, the C(E!EC en banc issued the third assailed R18olu45o: No. 8212 or the
(mnibus Resolution on Pending Cases)
&=
5Petitioners allege that the$ recei#ed a cop$ of this Resolution on July
12, 200H)6
&1
In the said Resolution, petitionersB cases9;PC Nos) .19&& and .19&0.9were not included in the list of
pre9proclamation cases that shall remain acti#e after ,une -., '..1 pursuant to ;ection &= of Republic 2ct 5R)2)6
No) 1&==)
&0
cra
@iscontented with the said C(E!EC issuances, petitioners, on July 2F, 200H,
&/
instituted the instant petition
forcertiorari under Rule =<)
'.
cra
Respondents in their Comment
'&
countered, among others,
''
that C(E!EC Resolution No) 0'&' could not be
3uestioned #ia a petition for certiorari because it was not issued in the C(E!ECBs e4ercise of 3uasi9judicial
functions) It was rather issued in the e4ercise of its power to enforce and administer all laws relati#e to the
conduct of elections as enunciated in ;ection <' of the (EC) 7urthermore, the petition was filed be$ond the -.9
da$ reglementar$ period for 3uestioning #ia certiorari final orders and resolutions of the C(E!EC)
'-
cra
2 crucial issue in the resolution of this case is the propriet$ of the instant certiorari petition to challenge
C(E!EC Resolution No) 0'&') (f e3ual significance is the issue of whether petitioners ha#e sufficientl$
shown that the C(E!EC gra#el$ abused its discretion in issuing the challenged resolutions)
Ahile petitioners correctl$ filed the instant certiorari petition to 3uestion C(E!EC Resolution No) 0'&', the$
failed to sufficientl$ show gra#e abuse of discretion on the part of the C(E!EC in its issuance of the said
Resolution)
*o elucidate, the C(E!EC en banc, on ,une '0, '..1, issued R18olu45o: No. 8212 or the (mnibus Resolution
on Pending Cases, which e4cluded ;PC Nos) .19.&& and .19&0. from the list of pre9proclamation cases that shall
remain acti#e after ,une -., '..1) *he e4clusion of petitionersB cases is, in effect, , 01:5,l .y 4<1 CO!ELEC en
!anco2 >14545o:178L >1:05:= Ao45o: 2o7 71/o:85017,45o: 5: SC No. 0H-011, ,:0 , 058A588,l o2 SC No. 0H-
180) *he Court notes that, at the time Resolution No) 0'&' was issued, the C(E!EC 7irst @i#ision had not $et
made a definiti#e ruling in ;PC No) .19&0. 5as opposed to what it did in ;PC No) .19&&6 and the C(E!EC en
banc had not $et resol#ed the motion for reconsideration in ;PC No) .19&&)
Necessaril$, as the cases were alread$ e4cluded from the aforesaid list, petitioners no longer had an$ reason to
e4pect a fa#orable ruling b$ the di#ision in ;PC No) .19&0. and b$ the banc in ;PC No) .19&&) It would ha#e
been futile then for petitioners to still adhere to the procedure mandated b$ ;ection - of 2rticle ID9C of the &/01
Constitution,
'8
await the decision of the C(E!EC in the main cases, and then challenge the same
on certioraribefore this Court)
'<
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
2ccordingl$, the appropriate recourse was for petitioners to timel$ assail C(E!EC Resolution No) 0'&' before
this Court, which the$, in fact, did, #ia the special ci#il action of certiorari, following Rules =8 and =< of the
Rules of Court)
'=
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
Ae clarif$, at this point, that C(E!EC Resolution No) 0'&' is an issuance in the e4ercise of the
C(E!ECBs,0Cu05/,4o7y or Mu,85-Cu05/5,l function) *he same was issued pursuant to the second paragraph of
;ection &= of R)2) No) 1&==, which states that 9
%aJll pre9proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the
term of the office in#ol#ed and the rulings of the boards of can#assers concerned shall be deemed affirmed,
without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest b$ the aggrie#ed part$) Cowe#er, proceedings may
continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented! the Commission determines that the petition
appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order
has been issued b$ the ;upreme Court in a petition for certiorari)DItalics suppliedE
'1
*he determination b$ the C(E!EC of the merits of a pre9proclamation case definitel$ in#ol#es the e4ercise of
adjudicator$ powers) *he C(E!EC e4amines and weighs the partiesB pieces of e#idence vis-F-vis their
respecti#e arguments, and considers whether, on the basis of the e#idence thus far presented, the case appears to
ha#e merit) Ahere a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not
in#ol#e the e4ercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is
deemed 3uasi9judicial)
'0
cra
*he Court, in this case, therefore finds the instant petition to be the correct remed$ in challenging C(E!EC
Resolution No) 0'&')
Noticeable in the petition, howe#er, is that petitioners, instead of denominating their petition as one under Rules
=8 and =< of the Rules, merel$ captioned it as one under Rule =<, and further erroneousl$ in#oked the =.9da$
reglementar$ period in the said Rule
'/
rather than the -.9da$ period in Rule =8)
-.
But respondents also erred in
their counter9arguments that the petition is the wrong recourse and is belatedl$ filed)
*he Court is disinclined to dismiss the petition based onl$ on petitionersB alleged errors because, in realit$, the$
filed a Rule =8 cum Rule =< petition within the -.9da$ reglementar$ period)
Ae merel$ mentioned the said mistakes to emphasi"e the perple4it$ among man$ candidates and election law
practitioners brought about b$ the issuance of C(E!EC resolutions pursuant to ;ection &=, R)2) No) 1&==) In
the instant case, se#eral factors further contributed to the confusion9the absence of a definiti#e ruling b$ the
C(E!EC di#ision in ;PC No) .19&0.: the absence of a final ruling b$ the C(E!EC en banc on petitionersB
motion for reconsideration in ;PC No) .19.&&: and the issuance of the said C(E!EC Resolution No) 0'&'
e4cluding petitionersB cases from the list of acti#e cases without, as aforesaid, an$ definite resolution of the issues
raised)
*o a#oid similar instances of confusion and for the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court takes this
opportunit$ to la$ down the following guidelines on the appropriate recourse to assail C(E!EC resolutions
issued pursuant to ;ection &= of R)2) No) 1&==)
7irst, 52 , >71->7o/l,A,45o: /,81 58 13/lu010 27oA 4<1 l584 o2 4<o81 5anne4ed to the )mnibus 4esolution on
#ending Cases6 4<,4 8<,ll /o:45:u1 ,2417 4<1 .1=5::5:= o2 4<1 417A o2 4<1 o225/1 5:6ol610, the remed$ of the
aggrie#ed part$ is to timel$ file a certiorari petition assailing the (mnibus Resolution before the Court under
Rules =8 and =<, regardless of whether a C(E!EC di#ision is $et to issue a definiti#e ruling in the main case or
the C(E!EC en bancis $et to act on a motion for reconsideration filed if there is an$)
It follows that if the resolution on the motion for reconsideration b$ the banc precedes the e4clusion of the said
case from the list, what should be brought before the Court on certiorari is the decision resol#ing the motion)
;econd, 52 , >71->7o/l,A,45o: /,81 58 058A58810 .y , CO!ELEC 056585o: ,:0, o: 4<1 8,A1 0,41 o2 058A588,l
o7 @54<5: 4<1 >175o0 4o 25l1 , Ao45o: 2o7 71/o:85017,45o:, 4<1 CO!ELEC en !anc 13/lu010 4<1 8,50 /,81
27oA 4<1 l584 ,::1310 4o 4<1 OA:5.u8 R18olu45o:, the remed$ of the aggrie#ed part$ is also to timel$ file
a certiorari petition assailing the (mnibus Resolution before the Court under Rules =8 and =<) *he aggrie#ed
part$ need no longer file a motion for reconsideration of the di#ision ruling)
*he rationale for this is that the e4clusion b$ the C(E!EC en banc of a pre9proclamation case from the list of
those that shall continue is alread$ deemed a final dismissal of that case not onl$ b$ the di#ision but also b$ the
C(E!ECen banc) 2s alread$ e4plained earlier, the aggrie#ed part$ can no longer e4pect an$ fa#orable ruling
from the C(E!EC)
2nd third, 52 , >71->7o/l,A,45o: /,81 58 058A58810 .y , CO!ELEC 056585o: .u4, o: 4<1 8,A1 0,41 o2
058A588,l o7 @54<5: 4<1 >175o0 4o 25l1 , Ao45o: 2o7 71/o:85017,45o:, 4<1 CO!ELEC en !anc 5:/lu010 4<1
/,81 5: 4<1 l584 ,::1310 4o 4<1 OA:5.u8 R18olu45o:, the remed$ of the aggrie#ed part$ is to timel$ file a motion
for reconsideration with the C(E!EC en banc) *he reason for this is that the challenge to the ruling of the
C(E!EC di#ision will ha#e to be resol#ed definiti#el$ b$ the entire bod$)
In la$ing down the said guidelines, the Court is not unaware of its ruling in (antos v. Commission on
Elections,
-&
that the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the C(E!EC en banc of a di#isionBs dismissal of
a pre9proclamation case, and the 85Aul4,:1ou8 filing of a certiorari petition before this Court 3uestioning the
(mnibus ResolutionMlist constitutes forum shopping) *he (antos doctrine shall continue to appl$ to e#er$ case
with a similar or parallel factual setting)
?iewed in light of these guidelines, the instant petition is timel$ filed and is still the proper recourse to 3uestion
C(E!EC Resolution No) 0'&')
Cowe#er, the Court resol#es to dismiss the petition)
7or an action for certiorari to prosper, there must be a showing that the C(E!EC acted with Fgra#e abuse of
discretion,F which means such capricious and whimsical e4ercise of judgment e3ui#alent to lack of jurisdiction or
e4cess thereof)
-'
*he abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an e#asion of positi#e dut$ or a
#irtual refusal to perform a dut$ enjoined b$ law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is
e4ercised in an arbitrar$ and despotic manner b$ reason of passion and hostilit$)
--
cra
In the present case, petitioners ha#e not sufficientl$ shown that the C(E!EC gra#el$ abused its discretion in
e4cluding their cases from the list of those that shall continue) 2part from petitionersB bare allegations, the record
is bereft of an$ e#idence to pro#e that petitionersB pre9proclamation cases appear meritorious) !et it be stressed
that under ;ection &= of 2rticle 1&==, the proceedings ma$ continue when Fon the basis of the e#idence thus far
presented,F the C(E!EC determines that the pre9proclamation petition appears meritorious)
7inall$, the Court notes that with the proclamation of the winning candidates for the positions contested, the
3uestion of whether the petition raised issues proper for a pre9proclamation contro#ers$ is alread$ of no
conse3uence, since the well9entrenched rule in such situation is that a pre9proclamation case before the
C(E!EC is no longer #iable, the more appropriate remed$ being a regular election protest or a petition for 3uo
warranto)
-8
cra
W"ERE(ORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is DIS!ISSED)
SO ORDERED)
(R!2N@( !) ;2!?2@(R, for and in behalf of the
Presidential 2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest
!oans,
#etitioner!
v.
P!2CI@( !) 2P2, ,R), R272E! 2) ;I;(N,
R(!2N@( ) G(;2, CE;2R C) G2!2E2,
BEN,2IN B2R(*, C2;IIR( *2NE@(, ,)?) @E
(C2P(, 2!ICI2 !) REHE;, BIEN?ENI@( R)
*2N*(C(, ,R), BIEN?ENI@( R) *2N*(C(, ;R),
7R2NCI; B) B2NE;, ERNE;*( ) C2RIN>2!,
R(E( ?) ,2CIN*(, and 2NEE! @) *2N>!2(,
4espondents.
>)R) No) &-<.0.
#resentG
HN2RE;9;2N*I2>(,
2cting C),), Chairperson,
2E;*RI292R*INEG,
CCIC(9N2G2RI(,
N2CCER2, and
REHE;, HH)
#romulgatedG
No#ember '0, '..1
49999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999994
@ECI;I(N
N2CCER2, H.G
*he Presidential 2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest !oans, 5the Committee6, through 2tt$) (rlando !)
;al#ador 52tt$) ;al#ador6, filed this Petition for Re#iew on Certiorari seeking to nullif$ the (ctober /, &//1
Resolution
&
of the (ffice of the (mbudsman in (B9.9/=9'8'0, dismissing the criminal complaint against
respondents on ground of prescription, and the ,ul$ '1, &//0 (rder
'
den$ing petitionerBs motion for
reconsideration)
(n (ctober 0, &//' then President 7idel ?) Ramos issued 2dministrati#e (rder No) &- creating the Presidential
2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest !oans, which reads+cra+nad
ACERE2;, ;ec) '0, 2rticle II of the &/01 Constitution pro#ides that F;ubject to reasonable conditions
prescribed b$ law, the ;tate adopts and implements a polic$ of full public disclosure of all its transactions
in#ol#ing public interestF:
ACERE2;, ;ec) &<, 2rticle DI of the &/01 Constitution pro#ides that F*he right of the state to reco#er
properties unlawfull$ ac3uired b$ public officials or emplo$ees, from them or from their nominees or transferees,
shall not be barred b$ prescription, laches or estoppelF:
ACERE2;, there ha#e been allegations of loans, guarantees, and other forms of financial accommodations
granted, directl$ or indirectl$, b$ go#ernment9owned and controlled bank or financial institutions, at the behest,
command, or urging b$ pre#ious go#ernment officials to the disad#antage and detriment of the Philippines
go#ernment and the 7ilipino people:
2CC(R@IN>!H, an F2d9Coc 72C* 7IN@IN> C(I**EE (N BECE;* !(2N;F is hereb$ created to be
composed of the following+
Chairman of the Presidential
Commission on >ood >o#ernment 9 Chairman
*he ;olicitor >eneral 9 ?ice9Chairman
Representati#e from the
(ffice of the E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$ 9 ember
Representati#e from the
@epartment of 7inance 9 ember
Representati#e from the
@epartment of ,ustice 9 ember
Representati#e from the
@e#elopment Bank of the Philippines 9 ember
Representati#e from the
Philippine National Bank 9 ember
Representati#e from the
2sset Pri#ati"ation *rust 9 ember
>o#ernment Corporate Counsel 9 ember
Representati#e from the
Philippine E4port and 7oreign
!oan >uarantee Corporation 9 ember
*he 2d Coc Committee shall perform the following functions+cra+nad
&) In#entor$ all behest loans: identif$ the lenders and borrowers, including the principal officers and stockholders
of the borrowing firms, as well as the persons responsible for granting the loans or who influenced the grant
thereof:
') Identif$ the borrowers who were granted Ffriendl$ wai#ers,F as well as the go#ernment officials who granted
these wai#ers: determine the #alidit$ of these wai#ers:
-) @etermine the courses of action that the go#ernment should take to reco#er those loans, and to recommend
appropriate actions to the (ffice of the President within si4t$ 5=.6 da$s from the date hereof)
*he Committee is hereb$ empowered to call upon an$ department, bureau, office, agenc$, instrumentalit$ or
corporation of the go#ernment, or an$ officer or emplo$ee thereof, for such assistance as it ma$ need in the
discharge of its functions)
-
cra B$ emorandum (rder No) =& dated No#ember /, &//', the functions of the
Committee were subse3uentl$ e4panded, #i")+cra+nad
ACERE2;, among the underl$ing purposes for the creation of the 2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest
!oans is to facilitate the collection and reco#er$ of defaulted loans owing go#ernment9owned and controlled
banking andMor financing institutions:
ACERE2;, this end ma$ be better ser#ed b$ broadening the scope of the fact9finding mission of the Committee
to include all non9performing loans which shall embrace behest and non9behest loans:
N(A *CERE7(RE, I, 7I@E! ?) R2(;, President of the Republic of the Philippines, b$ #irtue of the power
#ested in me b$ law, do hereb$ order+cra+nad
;ec) &) *he 2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest !oans shall include in its in#estigation, in#entor$, and
stud$, all non9performing loans which shall embrace both behest and non9behest loans+cra+nad
*he following criteria ma$ be utili"ed as a frame of reference in determining a behest loan+cra+nad
&) It is under9collaterali"ed:
') *he borrower corporation is undercapitali"ed:
-) @irect or indirect endorsement b$ high go#ernment officials like presence of marginal notes:
8) ;tockholders, officers or agents of the borrower corporation are identified as cronies:
<) @e#iation of use of loan proceeds from the purpose intended:
=) Ese of corporate la$ering:
1) Non9feasibilit$ of the project for which financing is being sought: and
0) E4traordinar$ speed in which the loan release was made)
oreo#er, a behest loan ma$ be distinguished from a non9behest loan in that while both ma$ in#ol#e ci#il liabilit$
for non9pa$ment or non9reco#er$, the former ma$ likewise entail criminal liabilit$)
8
cra ;e#eral loan accounts
were referred to the Committee for in#estigation, including the loan transactions between etals E4ploration
2sia, Inc) 5E26, now Philippine Eagle ines, Inc) 5PEI6 and the @e#elopment Bank of the Philippines 5@BP6)
2fter e4amining and stud$ing the documents relati#e to the loan transactions, the Committee determined that the$
bore the characteristics of behest loans, as defined under emorandum (rder No) =& because the stockholders
and officers of PEI were known cronies of then President 7erdinand arcos: the loan was under9collaterali"ed:
and PEI was undercapitali"ed at the time the loan was granted)
;pecificall$, the in#estigation re#ealed that in &/10, PEI applied for a foreign currenc$ loan and bank
in#estment on its preferred shares with @BP) *he loan application was appro#ed on 2pril '<, &/1/ per Board
Resolution 5BMR6 No) &'/1, but the loan was ne#er released because PEI failed to compl$ with the conditions
imposed b$ @BP) *o accommodate PEI, @BP subse3uentl$ adopted BMR No) '-&< dated ,une &/0., amending
BMR No) &'/1, authori"ing the release of PEIBs foreign currenc$ loan proceeds, and e#en increasing the same)
Per BMR No) /< dated (ctober &=, &/0., PEI was granted a foreign currenc$ loan of N&/,=0.,'=1)..
or P&8=,=.&,/1/).., and it was released despite non9compliance with the conditions imposed b$ @BP) *he
Committee claimed that the loan had no sufficient collaterals and PEI had no sufficient capital at that time
because its ac3uired assets were onl$ #alued atP1',.8<,1..).., and its paid up capital was onl$ P8=,800,0-8)..)
Conse3uentl$, 2tt$) (rlando !) ;al#ador, Consultant of the 7act97inding Committee, and representing the
Presidential Commission on >ood >o#ernment 5PC>>6, filed with the (ffice of the (mbudsman 5(mbudsman6
a sworn complaint for #iolation of ;ections -5e6 and 5g6 of Republic 2ct No) -.&/, or the 2nti9>raft and Corrupt
Practices 2ct, against the respondents Placido I) apa, ,r), Rafael 2) ;ison: Rolando ) Gosa: Cesar C) Galamea:
Benjamin Barot, Casimiro *anedo, ,)?) de (campo, Bien#enido R) *antoco, ,r), 7rancis B) Banes, Ernesto )
Caringal, Romeo ?) ,acinto, anuel @) *anglao and 2licia !l) Re$es)
<
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
2fter considering the CommitteeBs allegation, the (mbudsman handed down the assailed Resolution,
=
dismissing
the complaint) *he (mbudsman conceded that there was ground to proceed with the conduct of preliminar$
in#estigation) Nonetheless, it dismissed the complaint holding that the offenses charged had alread$ prescribed,
#i")+cra+nad
%AJhile apparentl$, PEI was undercapitali"ed at the time the subject loans were entered into: the financial
accommodations were undercollaterali"ed at the time the$ were granted: the stockholders and officers of the
borrower corporation are identified cronies of then President arcos: and the release of the said loans was made
despite non9compliance b$ PEI of the conditions attached therewith, which conse3uentl$ gi#e a semblance that
the subject 7oreign Currenc$ !oans are indeed Behest !oans, the prosecution of the offenses charged cannot, at
this point, prosper on grounds of prescription)
It bears to stress that ;ection && of R)2) No) -.&/ as originall$ enacted, pro#ides that the prescripti#e period for
#iolations of the said 2ct 5R)2) -.&/6 is ten 5&.6 $ears) ;ubse3uentl$, BP &/<, enacted on arch &=, &/0',
amended the period of prescription from ten 5&.6 $ears to fifteen 5&<6 $ears
oreo#er as enunciated in %theJ case of People #s) ;andiganba$an, '&& ;CR2 '8&, the computation of the
prescripti#e period of a crime #iolating a special law like R)2) -.&/ is go#erned b$ 2ct No) --'= which pro#ides,
thus+
4 4 4
;ection ') Prescription shall begin to run from the da$ of the commission of the #iolation of law, and if the same
be not known at the time, from the disco#er$ thereof and the institution of the judicial proceedings for its
in#estigation and punishment)
*he prescription shall be interrupted when the proceedings are instituted against the guilt$ person, and shall begin
to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopard$)
Corollar$ thereto, the ;upreme Court in the case of People #s) @insa$, C)2) 8. ()>) &'th ;upp), <., ruled that
when there is nothing which was concealed or needed to be disco#ered because the entire series of transactions
were b$ public instruments, the period of prescription commenced to run from the date the said instrument were
e4ecuted)
*he aforesaid principle was further elucidated in the cases of People #s) ;andiganba$an, '&& ;CR2 '8&, &//',
and People #s) ?illalon, &/' ;CR2 <'&, &//., where the ;upreme Court pronounced that when the transactions
are contained in public documents and the e4ecution thereof ga#e rise to unlawful acts, the #iolation of the law
commences therefrom) *hus, the reckoning period for purposes of prescription shall begin to run from the time
the public instruments came into e4istence)
In the case at bar, the subject financial accommodations were entered into b$ #irtue of public documents 5e)g),
notari"ed contracts, board resolutions, appro#ed letter9re3uest6 during the period of &/10 to &/0& and for purposes
of computing the prescripti#e period, the aforementioned principles in the @insa$, ?illalon and ;andiganba$an
cases will appl$) Records show that the complaint was referred and filed with this (ffice on (ctober 8, &//= or
after the lapse of more than fifteen 5&<6 $ears from the #iolation of the law) %@eductibl$J therefore, the offenses
charged had alread$ prescribed or fore#er barred b$ ;tatute of !imitations)
It bears mention that the acts complained of were committed before the issuance of BP &/< on arch ', &/0')
Cence, the prescripti#e period in the instant case is ten 5&.6 $ears as pro#ided in the 5sic6 ;ection && of R)2) -.&/,
as originall$ enacted)
E3uall$ important to stress is that the subject financial transactions between &/10 and &/0& transpired at the time
when there was $et no Presidential (rder or @irecti#e naming, classif$ing or categori"ing them as Behest or Non9
Behest !oans)
*o reiterate, the Presidential 2d Coc Committee on Behest !oans was created on (ctober 0, &//' under
2dministrati#e (rder No) &-) ;ubse3uentl$, emorandum (rder No) =&, dated No#ember /, &//', was issued
defining the criteria to be utili"ed as a frame of reference in determining behest loans) 2ccordingl$, if these
(rders are to be considered the bases of charging respondents for alleged offenses committed, the$ become e49
post facto laws which are proscribed b$ the Constitution) *he ;upreme Court in the case of People #)
;andiganba$an, supra, citing Ailensk$ ?) 7ields, 7la, '=1 ;o 'dl, <, held that Fan e49post facto law is defined as
a law which pro#ides for infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which when it was committed,
was innocent)F
1
cra *hus, the (mbudsman disposed+cra+nad
ACERE7(RE, premises considered, it is hereb$ respectfull$ recommended that the instant case be @I;I;;E@)
;( RE;(!?E@)
0
cra *he Committee filed a otion for Reconsideration, but the (mbudsman denied it on ,ul$
'1, &//0)
Cence, this petition positing these issues+cra+nad
2) ACE*CER (R N(* *CE CRIE @E7INE@ BH ;EC) -5e6 2N@ 5g6 (7 R)2) -.&/ C2; 2!RE2@H
PRE;CRIBE@ 2* *CE *IE *CE PE*I*I(NER 7I!E@ I*; C(P!2IN*)
B) ACE*CER (R N(* 2@INI;*R2*I?E (R@ER N() &- 2N@ E(R2N@E (R@ER N() =& 2RE
ED9P(;* 72C*( !2A%;J)
/
cra *he Court shall deal first with the procedural issue)
Commenting on the petition, *antoco, Re$es, apa, Galamea and Caringal argued that the petition suffers from a
procedural infirmit$ which warrants its dismissal) *he$ claimed that the PC>> a#ailed of the wrong remed$ in
ele#ating the case to this Court)
Indeed, what was filed before this Court is a petition captioned as Petition for Re#iew on Certiorari ) Ae ha#e
ruled, time and again, that a petition for re#iew on certiorari is not the proper mode b$ which resolutions of the
(mbudsman in preliminar$ in#estigations of criminal cases are re#iewed b$ this Court) *he remed$ from the
ad#erse resolution of the (mbudsman is a petition for certiorari under Rule =<,
&.
not a petition for re#iew
on certiorari under Rule 8<)
Cowe#er, though captioned as a #etition for 4eview on Certiorari! we will treat this petition as one filed under
4ule 9I since a reading of its contents reveals that petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to the
)mbudsman for dismissing the complaint. ;he averments in the complaint! not the nomenclature given by the
parties! determine the nature of the action.
..
In previous rulings! we have treated differently labeled actions as
special civil actions for certiorari under 4ule 9I for reasons such as justice! e3uity! and fair play.
.8
cra &aving
resolved the procedural issue! we proceed to the merits of the case.
As the Committee puts it! the issues to be resolved areG DiE whether or not the offenses subject of its criminal
complaint have prescribed! and DiiE whether Administrative )rder 5o. .7 and emorandum )rder 5o. 9. are e%
post facto laws.
;he issue of prescription has long been settled by this Court in #residential Ad &oc ,act-,inding Committee on
Behest 'oans v. Desierto!
.7
thusGcraGnad
JIKt is well-nigh impossible for the (tate! the aggrieved party! to have 6nown the violations of 4.A. 5o. 7L./ at the
time the 3uestioned transactions were made because! as alleged! the public officials concerned connived or
conspired with the Mbeneficiaries of the loans.M ;hus! we agree with the C)I;;EE that the prescriptive
period for the offenses with which the respondents in )B-L-/9-L/91 were charged should be computed from the
discovery of the commission thereof and not from the day of such commission.
.<
cra ;he ruling was reiterated in
#residential Ad &oc ,act-,inding Committee on Behest 'oans v. )mbudsman Desierto!
.I
wherein the Court
e%plainedGcraGnad
In cases involving violations of 4.A. 5o. 7L./ committed prior to the ,ebruary ./19 ED(A 4evolution that
ousted #resident ,erdinand E. arcos! we ruled that the government as the aggrieved party could not have
6nown of the violations at the time the 3uestioned transactions were made. oreover! no person would have
dared to 3uestion the legality of those transactions. ;hus! the counting of the prescriptive period commenced
from the date of discovery of the offense in .//8 after an e%haustive investigation by the #residential Ad &oc
Committee on Behest 'oans.
.9
cra ;his is now a well-settled doctrine which the Court has applied in subse3uent
cases involving the #C00 and the )mbudsman.
.2
chanroblesvirtuallawlibary
(ince the prescriptive period commenced to run on the date of the discovery of the offenses! and since discovery
could not have been made earlier than )ctober 1! .//8! the date when the Committee was created! the criminal
offenses allegedly committed by the respondents had not yet prescribed when the complaint was filed on )ctober
<! .//9.
Even the )mbudsman! in its anifestation N otion DIn 'ieu of CommentE!
.1
conceded that the prescriptive
period commenced from the date the Committee discovered the crime! and not from the date the loan documents
were registered with the 4egister of Deeds. As a matter of fact! it re3uested that the record of the case be referred
bac6 to the )mbudsman for a proper evaluation of its merit.
'i6ewise! we cannot sustain the )mbudsmanOs declaration that Administrative )rder 5o. .7 and emorandum
)rder 5o. 9. violate the prohibition against e% post facto laws for ostensibly inflicting punishment upon a person
for an act done prior to their issuance and which was innocent when done.
;he constitutionality of laws is presumed. ;o justify nullification of a law! there must be a clear and une3uivocal
breach of the Constitution! not a doubtful or arguable implication? a law shall not be declared invalid unless the
conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. ;he presumption is always in favor of
constitutionality. ;o doubt is to sustain.
./
Even this Court does not decide a 3uestion of constitutional dimension!
unless that 3uestion is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case and is necessary to a determination
of the case! i.e.! the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.
8L
chanroblesvirtuallawlibary
,urthermore! in Estarija v. 4anada!
8.
where the petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality of 4epublic Act 5o.
922L in his motion for reconsideration of the )mbudsmanOs decision! we had occasion to state that the
)mbudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain 3uestions on the constitutionality of a law. ;he )mbudsman!
therefore! acted in e%cess of its jurisdiction in declaring unconstitutional the subject administrative and
memorandum orders.
In any event! we hold that Administrative )rder 5o. .7 and emorandum )rder 5o. 9. are not e% post facto
laws.
An e% post facto law has been defined as one - DaE which ma6es an action done before the passing of the law and
which was innocent when done criminal! and punishes such action? or DbE which aggravates a crime or ma6es it
greater than it was when committed? or DcE which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law anne%ed to the crime when it was committed? or DdE which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives
less or different testimony than the law re3uired at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict
the defendant.
88
;his Court added two D8E more to the list! namelyG DeE that which assumes to regulate civil rights
and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful? or DfE
that which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled! such
as the protection of a former conviction or ac3uittal! or a proclamation of amnesty.
87
chanroblesvirtuallawlibary
;he constitutional doctrine that outlaws an e% post facto law generally prohibits the retrospectivity of penal laws.
#enal laws are those acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their
violations? or those that define crimes! treat of their nature! and provide for their punishment.
8<
;he subject
administrative and memorandum orders clearly do not come within the shadow of this definition. Administrative
)rder 5o. .7 creates the #residential Ad &oc ,act-,inding Committee on Behest 'oans! and provides for its
composition and functions. It does not mete out penalty for the act of granting behest loans. emorandum )rder
5o. 9. merely provides a frame of reference for determining behest loans. 5ot being penal laws! Administrative
)rder 5o. .7 and emorandum )rder 5o. 9. cannot be characteri$ed as e% post facto laws. ;here is! therefore!
no basis for the )mbudsman to rule that the subject administrative and memorandum orders are e% post facto.
)ne final note. 4espondents apa and Palamea! in their respective comments! moved for the dismissal of the
case against them. apa claims that he was granted transactional immunity from all #C00-initiated
cases!
8I
while Palamea denied participation in the approval of the subject loans.
89
;he arguments advanced by
apa and Palamea are matters of defense which should be raised in their respective counter-affidavits. (ince the
)mbudsman erroneously dismissed the complaint on ground of prescription! respondentsO respective defenses
were never passed upon during the preliminary investigation. ;hus! the complaint should be referred bac6 to the
)mbudsman for proper evaluation of its merit.
*&E4E,)4E! the petition is 04A5;ED. ;he assailed 4esolution and )rder of the )ffice of )mbudsman in
)B-L-/9-8<81! are (E; A(IDE. ;he )ffice of the )mbudsman is directed to conduct with dispatch an
evaluation of the merits of the complaint against the herein 4espondents.
() )4DE4ED.
G.R. No. 84111 D1/1A.17 22, 1989
JI!!' O. 'AOKASIN, #etitioner, #s) %"E CO!!ISSIONER O( CUS%O!S, SAL&ADOR !. !ISON
,:0 4<1 DIS%RIC% COLLEC%OR O( %"E OR% O( %ACLOBAN, &ICEN%E D.
'U%ANGCO, 4espondents)chanrobles #irtual law librar$

GRINO-A)UINO, J.%
*his petition 3uestions the power of automatic re#iew of the Commissioner of Customs o#er the decision of the
Collector of Customs in protest and sei"ure cases)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n a$ '1, &/00, the Philippine Coast >uard sei"ed /... bagsM sacks of refined sugar, which were being
unloaded from the M? *acloban, and turned them o#er to the custod$ of the Bureau of
Customs)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he petitioner presented a sales in#oice from the ,ordan *rading of Iloilo 52nne4 2, Petition6 to pro#e that the
sugar was purchased locall$) *he @istrict Collector of Customs, howe#er, proceeded with the sei"ure of the bags
of sugar)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ,une - and =, &/00, show9cause hearings were conducted) (n ,une 1, &/00, the @istrict Collector of Customs
ordered the release of the sugar as follows+
ACERE7(RE, premises considered subject Nine *housand 5/,...6 sacksMbags of refined sugar are hereb$
ordered released to r) ,imm$ () Haokasin, consigneeMclaimant and the immediate withdrawal of Customs >uard
within its bodegaBs premises) 5p) '1=, Rollo)6
(n ,une &., &/00, the decision, together with the entire records of the case, were transmitted to, and recei#ed b$,
the Commissioner of Customs 52nne4 C, Petition, p) '11, Rollo6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual
law librar$
(n ,une &8, &/00, without modif$ing his decision, the @istrict Collector of Customs ordered the warehouse,
wherein the bags of sugar were stored, to be sealed)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ,une &/, &/00, the Economic Intelligence and In#estigation Board 5EIIB6 filed a otion for Reconsideration
52nne4 I, Petition, p) '10, Rollo6, for Ffurther hearing on the meritsF 5p) '1/, Rollo6, based on e#idence that the
sei"ed sugar was of foreign origin) Petitioner opposed the motion for being merel$ pro forma andMor that the same
was, in effect, a motion for new trial)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Cearing (fficer Paula 2lca"aren set the otion for reconsideration for hearing on ,ul$ &-,
&/00)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
But before that, or on ,ul$ 8, &/00, the Commissioner of Customs b$ F'nd IndorsementF returned to the @istrict
Collector of Customs the+
))) folder of *acloban ;)I) No) .=9.& 5R)P) #s) /... bagsMsacks of refined sugar, R) ,IH H2(K2;IN,
consigneeMclaimant6, together with theproposed decision! for hearing and>or resolution of the government is
motion for reconsideration ))) ) 5p) 8-1, Rollo, Emphasis (urs)6
(n the same date, ,ul$ 8, &/00, petitioner applied for and secured a writ of replevin from the Regional *rial
Court of !e$te 5CC 1='1, Branch ?II6, through a PetitionMComplaint for certiorari Prohibition with Reple#in and
@amages with Preliminar$ Injunction andMor Restraining (rder 52nne4 !, Petition, p) '00,
Rollo6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ,ul$ &', &/00, respondent @istrict Collector of Customs filed an 2nswer assailing the courtBs jurisdiction) (n
the same da$, the @istrict Collector and the Commissioner of Customs filed in the Court of 2ppeals a Petition for
certiorari and Prohibition with 2pplication for a Arit of Preliminar$ Injunction andMor Restraining (rder to annul
the ,ul$ 8, &/00 9 F(rder >ranting Reple#in with *emporar$ Restraining (rderF 5C29>)R) ;P N() &<./.: p) -/=,
Rollo6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ,ul$ &<, &/00, the Collector of Customs reconsidered his ,une 1, &/00 decision, as follows+
ACERE7(RE, the undersigned hereb$ reconsiders his @ecision, finds that the /,... bagsMsacks of refined sugar
in 3uestion are of foreign origin, smuggled into the countr$, and declares them forfeited in fa#or of the
go#ernment)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Considering the pro#ision in the 3uoted Customs emorandum (rder, especiall$ the latter part thereof
prohibiting the release of the articles in 3uestion to the claimant, and considering also that the said sacks of sugar
are presentl$ stored in the bodega of claimant, and considering further that there are no facilities for storage in
*acloban Cit$, for securit$ reasons, the &onorable Commissioner of Customs is respectfully and earnestly urged
to order the immediate transfer of the sugar from the said bodega to any Customs *arehouse! preferably in
anila and to this end to order the setting aside of such sum of money in order to effectively accomplish this
purpose.M 5p) &&, Rollo)6
2lso, on the same da$, the Court of 2ppeals+ 5a6 ga#e due course to respondentBs petition: and 5b6 restrained ,udge
Pedro ;) Espina, Regional *rial Court, !e$te, from further proceeding in Ci#il Case No) 1='1, and from enforcing
his (rder of ,ul$ 8, &/00)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It is petitionerBs contention that the ,une 1, &/00 decision of the @istrict Collector of Customs became final and
e4ecutor$, in #iew of the absence of an appeal therefrom b$ the Faggrie#ed part$F 5himself6 within the &<9da$
period pro#ided for in ;ec) '-&- of the *ariff and Customs Code) Cence, the release of the /,... bags of sugar
must be upheld)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n the other hand, the @istrict Collector and the Commissioner of Customs argue that since the ,une 1, &/00
decision is adverse to the go#ernment, the case should go to the Commissioner of Customs on automatic review,
pursuant to emorandum (rder No) '.901, dated a$ &0, &/01, of former 2cting Commissioner of Customs
2le4ander Padilla, which pro#ides+
CE;*(; E(R2N@E (R@ER chanrobles #irtual law librar$
N() '.901 chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*(+ 2ll Collectors of Customs and (thers Concerned chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Effecti#e immediatel$, $ou are hereb$ directed to implement strictl$ the following 9
@ecisions of the Collector of Customs in sei"ure and protest cases are subject to re#iew b$ the Commissioner
upon appeal as pro#ided under e4isting laws: provided! however! that where a decision of the Collector of
Customs in such sei$ure and protest cases is adverse to the government it shall automatically be reviewed b$ the
Commissioner of Customs) 5P@) No) &, 2nne4 C)6
In #iew thereof, no releases in an$ sei"ure or like cases ma$ be effected unless and until the decision of the
Collector has been confirmed in writing b$ the Commissioner of Customs)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
7or immediate and strict compliance)
5;gd)6 2!ED2N@ER 2) P2@I!!2
2cting Commissioner of Customs
5p) 8-=, Rollo: Emphasis (urs6
*he memorandum order implements ;ection &' 52rt) I?, Part) I?, ?ol) I6 of the Integrated Reorgani"ation Plan
5hereafter, FP!2NF6 which pro#ides+
&') *he Collector of Customs at each principal port of entr$ shall be the official head of the customs ser#ice in his
port and district responsible to the Commissioner) Ce shall ha#e the authorit$ to take final action on the
enforcement of tariff and customs laws within his collection district and on administrati#e matters in accordance
with Chapter III, Part II of this Plan) @ecisions of the Collector of Customs in sei"ure and protest cases are subject
to re#iew b$ the Commissioner upon appeal as pro#ided under e4isting laws: provided! however! that where a
decision of a Collector of Customs in such sei$ure and protest cases is adverse to the government! it shall
automatically be reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs which! if affirmed! shall automatically be elevated for
final review by the (ecretary of ,inance? provided! further that if within thirty days from receipt of the records of
the case by the Commissioner of Customs or the (ecretary of ,inance! no decision is rendered by the
Commissioner of Customs or the (ecretary of ,inance! the decision under review shall become final and
e%ecutory) 5Emphasis supplied6
In Presidential @ecree No) &, dated ;eptember '8, &/1', former President arcos decreed and ordered that the
Plan be 58 adopted, appro#ed, and made as part of the law of the land)F Ender the &/01 Constitution, F%aJll
e4isting laws, decrees, e4ecuti#e orders, proclamations, letters of instruction, and other e4ecuti#e issuances not
inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operati#e until amended, repealed, or re#okedF 5;ec) -, 2rt)
D?III6) Ahile some pro#isions of the Plan ha#e ceased to be operati#e because of subse3uent reorgani"ations,
other pro#isions, such as ;ection &' ha#e not been repealed b$ subse3uent
legislation)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ection &' of the Plan applies to petitionerBs shipment of /,... bags of sugar) *a4es being the lifeblood of the
>o#ernment, ;ection &', which the Commissioner of Customs in his Customs emorandum (rder No) '.901,
enjoined all collectors to follow strictl$, is intended to protect the interest of the >o#ernment in the collection of
ta4es and customs duties in those sei"ure and protest cases which, without the automatic re#iew pro#ided therein,
neither the Commissioner of Customs nor the ;ecretar$ of 7inance would probabl$ e#er know about) Aithout the
automatic re#iew b$ the Commissioner of Customs and the ;ecretar$ of 7inance, a collector in an$ of our
countr$Bs far9flung ports, would ha#e absolute and unbridled discretion to determine whether goods sei"ed b$ him
are locall$ produced, hence, not dutiable or of foreign origin, and therefore subject to pa$ment of customs duties
and ta4es) Cis decision, unless appealed b$ the aggrie#ed part$ 5the owner of the goods6, would become final with
Bthe no one the wiser e4cept himself and the owner of the goods) *he owner of the goods cannot be e4pected to
appeal the collectorBs decision when it is fa#orable to him) 2 decision that is fa#orable to the ta4pa$er would
correspondingl$ be unfa#orable to the >o#ernment, but who will appeal the collectorBs decision in that case
certainl$ not the collector)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
E#identl$, it was to cure this anomalous situation 5which ma$ ha#e alread$ defrauded our go#ernment of huge
amounts of uncollected ta4es6, that the pro#ision for automatic re#iew b$ the Commissioner of Customs and the
;ecretar$ of 7inance of unappealed sei"ure and protest cases was concei#ed to protect the go#ernment against
corrupt and conni#ing customs collectors)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ection &' of the Plan and ;ection '-&- of the *ariff and Customs Code do not conflict with each other) *he$
ma$ co9e4ist) ;ection '-&- of the Code pro#ides for the procedure for the re#iew of the decision of a collector in
sei"ure and protest cases upon appeal b$ the aggrie#ed part$, i)e), the importer or owner of the goods) (n the
other hand, ;ection &' of the Plan refers to the general procedure in appeals in sei"ure and protest cases with a
special pro#iso on automatic re#iew when the collectorBs decision is ad#erse to the go#ernment) ;ection '-&- and
the pro#iso in ;ection &', although the$ both relate to the re#iew of sei"ure and protest cases, refer to two
different situations 9 when the collectorBs decision is ad#erse to the importer or owner of the goods, and when the
decision is ad#erse to the go#ernment)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he decision of the Court in the case of (y an vs. Hacinto 5/- Phil) &./- %&/<-&J6, which the petitioner in#okes
as precedent, is riot in point) In the present case the 2cting Commissioner, in issuing the memorandum circular,
was directing strict compliance with an e%isting pro#ision of law, which mandates automatic re#iew of decisions
of collectors in sei"ure and protest cases which are ad#erse to the go#ernment) (n the other hand, in (y an, the
memorandum order of the Insular Collector of Customs directed the ele#ation of records in sei"ure and forfeiture
cases for automatic re#iew e#en if he had not been e4pressl$ granted such power under the then e4isting
law)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he objection to the enforcement of ;ection &' of the Plan and C( No) '.901 on the ground that the$ had not
been published in the (fficial >a"ette, is not well taken) *he Plan, as part of P)@) No) &, was Fadopted, appro#ed
and made as part of the law of the landF and published in ?olume =0, No) 8., p) 11/1 of the (fficial >a"ette issue
of (ctober ', &/1')chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2rticle ' of the Ci#il Code, which re3uires laws to be published in the (fficial >a"ette, does not appl$ to C(
No) '.901 which is onl$ an administrati#e order of the Commissioner of Customs addressed to his subordinates)
the customs collectors)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Commonwealth 2ct No) =-0 5an 2ct to Pro#ide for the Eniform Publication and @istribution of the (fficial
>a"ette6 enumerates what shall be published in the (fficial >a"ette besides legislati#e acts and resolutions of a
public nature of the Congress of the Philippines) E4ecuti#e and administrati#e orders and proclamations, shall
also be published in the (fficial >a"ette, e%cept such as have no general applicability.M C( No) '.901 re3uiring
collectors of customs to compl$ strictl$ with ;ection &' of the Plan, is an issuance which is addressed onl$
to particular persons or a class of persons 5the customs collectors6) FIt need not be published, on the assumption
that it has been circulari"ed to all concernedF 5*anada #s) *u#era, &-= ;CR2
'16)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ACERE7(RE, the petition for re#iew is denied for lack of merit) *he temporar$ restraining order which we
issued in this case is hereb$ made permanent) Cost against the petitioner)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
;( (R@ERE@)
G.R. No. 1FHH98 * A>75l 19, 200F
KILUSANG !A'O UNO, NA%IONAL (EDERA%ION O( LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG !A'O UNO
+NA(LU-K!U-, JOSELI%O &. US%ARE#, E!ILIA . DAULANG, SAL&ADOR %. CARRAN#A,
!AR%IN %. CUS%ODIO, JR. ,:0 RO)UE !. %AN, #etitioners! v) %"E DIREC%OR-GENERAL,
NA%IONAL ECONO!IC DE&ELO!EN% AU%"ORI%', ,:0 %"E SECRE%AR', DEAR%!EN%
O( BUDGE% ,:0 !ANAGE!EN%, 4espondents.
G.R. No. 1FH9;0 * A>75l 19, 200F
BA'AN !UNA R1>7181:4,45618 SA%UR C. OCA!O, %EODORO A. CASINO, ,:0 JOEL G.
&IRADOR, GABRIELA WO!ENLS AR%' R1>7181:4,4561 LI#A L. !A#A, ANAKAWIS
R1>7181:4,45618 RA(AEL &. !ARIANO ,:0 CRISIN B. BEL%RAN, R1>. (RANCIS G. ESCUDERO,
R1>. EDUARDO C. #IALCI%A, R1>. LOREN#O R. %ANADA III, DR. CAROL AGADUAN-
ARAULLO ,:0 RENA%O !. RE'ES, JR. o2 BA'AN, !ARIE "ILAO-ENRI)UE# o2 KARAA%AN,
AN%ONIO L. %INIO o2 AC%, (ERDINAND GAI%E o2 COURAGE, GIO&ANNI A. %AANG o2
AG"A!, WIL(REDO !ARBELLA GARCIA, o2 K!, LANA LINABAN o2 GABRIELA, A!ADO
GA% INCIONG, RENA%O CONS%AN%INO, JR., DEAN ACI(ICO ". AGABIN, S"ARON R.
DURE!DES o2 4<1 NA%IONAL COUNCIL O( C"URC"ES IN %"E "ILIINES, ,:0 BRO.
ED!UNDO L. (ERNANDE# +(SC- o2 4<1 ASSOCIA%ION O( !AJOR RELIGIOUS SUERIORS O(
%"E "ILIINES +A!RS-, #etitioners! v) EDUARDO ER!I%A, 5: <58 /,>,/54y ,8 E31/u4561 S1/714,7y,
RO!ULO NERI, 5: <58 /,>,/54y ,8 D571/4o7-G1:17,l o2 4<1 NA%IONAL ECONO!IC ,:0
DE&ELO!EN% AU%"ORI%' +NEDA- ,:0 4<1 A0A5:5847,4o7 o2 4<1 NA%IONAL S%A%IS%ICS
O((ICE +NSO-,4espondents.
@ E C I ; I ( N
CARIO, J.%
*his case in#ol#es two consolidated petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule =< of the
Rules of Court, seeking the nullification of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 8'. 5E( 8'.6 on the ground that it is
unconstitutional)
E( 8'., issued b$ President >loria acapagal92rro$o on &- 2pril '..<, reads+cra+nad
REIEIRIN> 2!! >(?ERNEN* 2>ENCIE; 2N@ >(?ERNEN*9(ANE@ 2N@ C(N*R(!!E@
C(RP(R2*I(N; *( ;*RE2!INE 2N@ C2R(NIGE *CEIR I@EN*I7IC2*I(N 5I@6 ;H;*E;, 2N@
2E*C(RIGIN> 7(R ;ECC PERP(;E *CE @IREC*(R9>ENER2!, N2*I(N2! EC(N(IC 2N@
@E?E!(PEN* 2E*C(RI*H *( IP!EEN* *CE ;2E, 2N@ 7(R (*CER PERP(;E;
W"EREAS, good go#ernance is a major thrust of this 2dministration:
W"EREAS, the e4isting multiple identification s$stems in go#ernment ha#e created unnecessar$ and costl$
redundancies and higher costs to go#ernment, while making it incon#enient for indi#iduals to be holding se#eral
identification cards:
W"EREAS, there is urgent need to streamline and integrate the processes and issuance of identification cards in
go#ernment to reduce costs and to pro#ide greater con#enience for those transacting business with go#ernment:
W"EREAS, a unified identification s$stem will facilitate pri#ate businesses, enhance the integrit$ and reliabilit$
of go#ernment9issued identification cards in pri#ate transactions, and pre#ent #iolations of laws in#ol#ing false
names and identities)
NOW, %"ERE(ORE, I, GLORIA !ACAAGAL-ARRO'O, President of the Republic of the Philippines b$
#irtue of the powers #ested in me b$ law, do hereb$ direct the following+cra+nad
S1/45o: 1. &doption of a unified #ulti'purpose identification ()*+ s"ste# for $overn#ent. ' 2ll go#ernment
agencies, including go#ernment9owned and controlled corporations, are hereb$ directed to adopt a unified multi9
purpose I@ s$stem to ensure the attainment of the following objecti#es+
a) *o reduce costs and thereb$ lessen the financial burden on both the go#ernment and the public brought about
b$ the use of multiple I@ cards and the maintenance of redundant database containing the same or related
information:
b) *o ensure greater con#enience for those transacting business with the go#ernment and those a#ailing of
go#ernment ser#ices:
c) *o facilitate pri#ate businesses and promote the wider use of the unified I@ card as pro#ided under this
e4ecuti#e order:
d) *o enhance the integrit$ and reliabilit$ of go#ernment9issued I@ cards: and
e) *o facilitate access to and deli#er$ of 3ualit$ and effecti#e go#ernment ser#ice)
S1/45o: 2. Covera$e ' 2ll go#ernment agencies and go#ernment9owned and controlled corporations issuing I@
cards to their members or constituents shall be co#ered b$ this e4ecuti#e order)
S1/45o: ;. *ata re,uire#ent for te unified )* s"ste# ' *he data to be collected and recorded b$ the
participating agencies shall be limited to the following+
Name
Come 2ddress
;e4
Picture
;ignature
@ate of Birth
Place of Birth
arital ;tatus
Names of Parents
Ceight
Aeight
*wo inde4 fingers and two thumbmarks
2n$ prominent distinguishing features like moles and others
*a4 Identification Number 5*IN6
Pro#ided that a corresponding I@ number issued b$ the participating agenc$ and a common reference number
shall form part of the stored I@ data and, together with at least the first fi#e items listed abo#e, including the print
of the right thumbmark, or an$ of the fingerprints as collected and stored, shall appear on the face or back of the
I@ card for #isual #erification purposes)
S1/45o: 4. &utori-in$ te *irector'.eneral, National Econo#ic and *evelop#ent &utorit", to /ar#oni-e
&ll .overn#ent )dentification 0"ste#s) 9 *he @irector9>eneral, National Economic @e#elopment 2uthorit$, is
hereb$ authori"ed to streamline and harmoni"e all go#ernment I@ s$stems)
S1/45o: I. 1unctions and responsi!ilities of te *irector'.eneral, National Econo#ic and *evelop#ent
&utorit". 9 In addition to his organic functions and responsibilities, the @irector9>eneral, National Economic and
@e#elopment 2uthorit$, shall ha#e the following functions and responsibilities+
a) 2dopt within si4t$ 5=.6 da$s from the effecti#it$ of this e4ecuti#e order a unified go#ernment I@ s$stem
containing onl$ such data and features, as indicated in ;ection - abo#e, to #alidl$ establish the identit$ of the card
holder+cra+nad
b) Enter into agreements with local go#ernments, through their respecti#e leagues of go#ernors or ma$ors, the
Commission on Elections 5C(E!EC6, and with other branches or instrumentalities of the go#ernment, for the
purpose of ensuring go#ernment9wide adoption of and support to this effort to streamline the I@ s$stems in
go#ernment:
b) Call on an$ other go#ernment agenc$ or institution, or create sub9committees or technical working groups, to
pro#ide such assistance as ma$ be necessar$ or re3uired for the effecti#e performance of its functions: and
d) Promulgate such rules or regulations as ma$ be necessar$ in pursuance of the objecti#es of this e4ecuti#e order)
S1/45o: F. 0afe$uards. ' *he @irector9>eneral, National Economic and @e#elopment 2uthorit$, and the pertinent
agencies shall adopt such safeguard as ma$ be necessar$ and ade3uate to ensure that the right to pri#ac$ of an
indi#idual takes precedence o#er efficient public ser#ice deli#er$) ;uch safeguards shall, as a minimum, include
the following+
a) *he data to be recorded and stored, which shall be used onl$ for purposes of establishing the identit$ of a
person, shall be limited to those specified in ;ection - of this e4ecuti#e order:
b) In no case shall the collection or compilation of other data in #iolation of a personBs right to pri#ac$ shall be
allowed or tolerated under this order:
c) ;tringent s$stems of access control to data in the identification s$stem shall be instituted:
d) @ata collected and stored for this purpose shall be kept and treated as strictl$ confidential and a personal or
written authori"ation of the (wner shall be re3uired for access and disclosure of data:
e) *he identification card to be issued shall be protected b$ ad#anced securit$ features and cr$ptographic
technolog$: and
f) 2 written re3uest b$ the (wner of the identification card shall be re3uired for an$ correction or re#ision of
rele#ant data, or under such conditions as the participating agenc$ issuing the identification card shall prescribe)
S1/45o: H. 1undin$. ' ;uch funds as ma$ be recommended b$ the @epartment of Budget and anagement shall
be pro#ided to carr$ out the objecti#es of this e4ecuti#e order)
S1/45o: 8. Repealin$ clause. ' 2ll e4ecuti#e orders or issuances, or portions thereof, which are inconsistent with
this e4ecuti#e order, are hereb$ re#oked, amended or modified accordingl$)
S1/45o: 9. Effectivit". ' *his e4ecuti#e order shall take effect fifteen 5&<6 da$s after its publication in two 5'6
newspapers of general circulation)
@(NE in the Cit$ of anila, this &-th da$ of 2pril, in the $ear of (ur !ord, *wo *housand and 7i#e)
*hus, under E( 8'., the President directs all go#ernment agencies and go#ernment9owned and controlled
corporations to adopt a uniform data collection and format for their e4isting identification 5I@6 s$stems)
Petitioners in >)R) No) &=11/0 allege that E( 8'. is unconstitutional because it constitutes usurpation of
legislati#e functions b$ the e4ecuti#e branch of the go#ernment) 7urthermore, the$ allege that E( 8'. infringes
on the citi"enBs right to pri#ac$)
&
cra
Petitioners in >)R) No) &=1/-. allege that E( 8'. is #oid based on the following grounds+
&) E( 8'. is contrar$ to law) It completel$ disregards and #iolates the decision of this Conorable Court in )ple v.
;orres et al), >)R) No) &'1=0<, ,ul$ '-, &//0) It also #iolates R2 0'0' otherwise known as the ;ocial ;ecurit$
2ct of &//1)
') *he E4ecuti#e has usurped the legislati#e power of Congress as she has no power to issue E( 8'.)
7urthermore, the implementation of the E( will use public funds not appropriated b$ Congress for that purpose)
-) E( 8'. #iolates the constitutional pro#isions on the right to pri#ac$
5i6 It allows access to personal confidential data without the ownerBs consent)
5ii6 E( 8'. is #ague and without ade3uate safeguards or penalties for an$ #iolation of its pro#isions)
5iii6 *here are no compelling reasons that will legitimi"e the necessit$ of E( 8'.)
8) >ranting without conceding that the President ma$ issue E( 8'., the E4ecuti#e (rder was issued without
public hearing)
<) E( 8'. #iolates the Constitutional pro#ision on e3ual protection of laws and results in the discriminator$
treatment of and penali"es those without I@)
'
Issues
Essentiall$, the petitions raise two issues) 7irst, petitioners claim that E( 8'. is a usurpation of legislati#e power
b$ the President) ;econd, petitioners claim that E( 8'. infringes on the citi"enBs right to pri#ac$)
Respondents 3uestion the legal standing of petitioners and the ripeness of the petitions) E#en assuming that
petitioners are bereft of legal standing, the Court considers the issues raised under the circumstances of paramount
public concern or of transcendental significance to the people) *he petitions also present a justiciable contro#ers$
ripe for judicial determination because all go#ernment entities currentl$ issuing identification cards are mandated
to implement E( 8'., which petitioners claim is patentl$ unconstitutional) Cence, the Court takes cogni"ance of
the petitions)
*he CourtBs Ruling
*he petitions are without merit)
(n the 2lleged Esurpation of !egislati#e Power
;ection ' of E( 8'. pro#ides, FCo#erage) 9 2ll go#ernment agencies and go#ernment9owned and controlled
corporations issuing I@ cards to their members or constituents shall be co#ered b$ this e4ecuti#e order)F E( 8'.
applies onl$ to go#ernment entities that issue I@ cards as part of their functions under e4isting laws) *hese
go#ernment entities ha#e alread$ been issuing I@ cards e#en prior to E( 8'.) E4amples of these go#ernment
entities are the >;I;,
-
;;;,
8
Philhealth,
<
a$orBs (ffice,
=
!*(,
1
PRC,
0
and similar go#ernment entities)
;ection & of E( 8'. directs these go#ernment entities to Fadopt a unified multi9purpose I@ s$stem)F *hus, all
go#ernment entities that issue I@s as part of their functions under e4isting laws are re3uired to adopt a uniform
data collection and format for their I@s) ;ection & of E( 8'. enumerates the purposes of the uniform data
collection and format, namel$+
a) *o reduce costs and thereb$ lessen the financial burden on both the go#ernment and the public brought about
b$ the use of multiple I@ cards and the maintenance of redundant database containing the same or related
information:
b) *o ensure greater con#enience for those transacting business with the go#ernment and those a#ailing of
go#ernment ser#ices:
c) *o facilitate pri#ate businesses and promote the wider use of the unified I@ card as pro#ided under this
e4ecuti#e order:
d) *o enhance the integrit$ and reliabilit$ of go#ernment9issued I@ cards: and
e) *o facilitate access to and deli#er$ of 3ualit$ and effecti#e go#ernment ser#ice)
In short, the purposes of the uniform I@ data collection and I@ format are to reduce costs, achie#e efficienc$ and
reliabilit$, insure compatibilit$, and pro#ide con#enience to the people ser#ed b$ go#ernment entities)
;ection - of E( 8'. limits the data to be collected and recorded under the uniform I@ s$stem to onl$ &8 specific
items, namel$+ 5&6 Name: 5'6 Come 2ddress: 5-6 ;e4: 586 Picture: 5<6 ;ignature: 5=6 @ate of Birth: 516 Place of
Birth: 506 arital ;tatus: 5/6 Name of Parents: 5&.6 Ceight: 5&&6 Aeight: 5&'6 *wo inde4 fingers and two
thumbmarks: 5&-6 2n$ prominent distinguishing features like moles or others: and 5&86 *a4 Identification
Number)
*hese limited and specific data are the usual data re3uired for personal identification b$ go#ernment entities, and
e#en b$ the pri#ate sector) 2n$ one who applies for or renews a dri#erBs license pro#ides to the !*( all these &8
specific data)
2t present, go#ernment entities like !*( re3uire considerabl$ more data from applicants for identification
purposes) E( 8'. will reduce the data re3uired to be collected and recorded in the I@ databases of the
go#ernment entities) >o#ernment entities cannot collect or record data, for identification purposes, other than the
&8 specific data)
?arious laws allow se#eral go#ernment entities to collect and record data for their I@ s$stems, either e4pressl$ or
impliedl$ b$ the nature of the functions of these go#ernment entities) Ender their e4isting I@ s$stems, some
go#ernment entities collect and record more data than what E( 8'. allows) 2t present, the data collected and
recorded b$ go#ernment entities are disparate, and the I@s the$ issue are dissimilar)
In the case of the ;upreme Court,
/
the I@s that the Court issues to all its emplo$ees, including the ,ustices,
contain &< specific data, namel$+ 5&6 Name: 5'6 Picture: 5-6 Position: 586 (ffice Code Number: 5<6 I@ Number:
5=6 Ceight: 516 Aeight: 506 Comple4ion: 5/6 Color of Cair: 5&.6 Blood *$pe: 5&&6 Right *humbmark: 5&'6 *a4
Identification Number: 5&-6 >;I; Polic$ Number: 5&86 Name and 2ddress of Person to be Notified in Case of
Emergenc$: and 5&<6 ;ignature) If we consider that the picture in the I@ can generall$ also show the se4 of the
emplo$ee, the CourtBs I@ actuall$ contains &= data)
In contrast, the uniform I@ format under ;ection - of E( 8'. re3uires onl$ Fthe first fi#e items listedF in ;ection
-, plus the fingerprint, agenc$ number and the common reference number, or onl$ eight specific data) *hus, at
present, the ;upreme CourtBs I@ contains far more data than the proposed uniform I@ for go#ernment entities
under E( 8'.) *he nature of the data contained in the ;upreme Court I@ is also far more financiall$ sensiti#e,
specificall$ the *a4 Identification Number)
aking the data collection and recording of go#ernment entities unified, and making their I@ formats uniform,
will admittedl$ achie#e substantial benefits) *hese benefits are sa#ings in terms of procurement of e3uipment and
supplies, compatibilit$ in s$stems as to hardware and software, ease of #erification and thus increased reliabilit$
of data, and the user9friendliness of a single I@ format for all go#ernment entities)
*here is no dispute that go#ernment entities can indi#iduall$ limit the collection and recording of their data to the
&8 specific items in ;ection - of E( 8'.) *here is also no dispute that these go#ernment entities can indi#iduall$
adopt the I@ format as specified in ;ection - of E( 8'.) ;uch an act is certainl$ within the authorit$ of the heads
or go#erning boards of the go#ernment entities that are alread$ authori"ed under e4isting laws to issue I@s)
2 unified I@ s$stem for all these go#ernment entities can be achie#ed in either of two wa$s) 7irst, the heads of
these e4isting go#ernment entities can enter into a memorandum of agreement making their s$stems uniform) If
the go#ernment entities can indi#iduall$ adopt a format for their own I@ pursuant to their regular functions under
e4isting laws, the$ can also adopt b$ mutual agreement a uniform I@ format, especiall$ if the uniform format will
result in substantial sa#ings, greater efficienc$, and optimum compatibilit$) *his is purel$ an administrati#e
matter, and does not in#ol#e the e4ercise of legislati#e power)
;econd, the President ma$ b$ e4ecuti#e or administrati#e order direct the go#ernment entities under the E4ecuti#e
department to adopt a uniform I@ data collection and format) ;ection &1, 2rticle ?II of the &/01 Constitution
pro#ides that the FPresident shall ha#e control of all e4ecuti#e departments, bureaus and offices)F *he same
;ection also mandates the President to Fensure that the laws be faithfull$ e4ecuted)F
Certainl$, under this constitutional power of control the President can direct all go#ernment entities, in the
e4ercise of their functions under e4isting laws, to adopt a uniform I@ data collection and I@ format to achie#e
sa#ings, efficienc$, reliabilit$, compatibilit$, and con#enience to the public) *he PresidentBs constitutional power
of control is self9e4ecuting and does not need an$ implementing legislation)
(f course, the PresidentBs power of control is limited to the E4ecuti#e branch of go#ernment and does not e4tend
to the ,udiciar$ or to the independent constitutional commissions) *hus, E( 8'. does not appl$ to the ,udiciar$,
or to the C(E!EC which under e4isting laws is also authori"ed to issue #oterBs I@ cards)
&.
*his onl$ shows that
E( 8'. does not establish a national I@ s$stem because legislation is needed to establish a single I@ s$stem that
is compulsor$ for all branches of go#ernment)
*he Constitution also mandates the President to ensure that the laws are faithfull$ e4ecuted) *here are se#eral
laws mandating go#ernment entities to reduce costs, increase efficienc$, and in general, impro#e public
ser#ices)
&&
*he adoption of a uniform I@ data collection and format under E( 8'. is designed to reduce costs,
increase efficienc$, and in general, impro#e public ser#ices) *hus, in issuing E( 8'., the President is simpl$
performing the constitutional dut$ to ensure that the laws are faithfull$ e4ecuted)
Clearl$, E( 8'. is well within the constitutional power of the President to promulgate) *he President has not
usurped legislati#e power in issuing E( 8'.) E( 8'. is an e4ercise of E4ecuti#e power 9 the PresidentBs
constitutional power of control o#er the E4ecuti#e department) E( 8'. is also compliance b$ the President of the
constitutional dut$ to ensure that the laws are faithfull$ e4ecuted)
!egislati#e power is the authorit$ to make laws and to alter or repeal them) In issuing E( 8'., the President did
not make, alter or repeal an$ law but merel$ implemented and e4ecuted e4isting laws) E( 8'. reduces costs, as
well as insures efficienc$, reliabilit$, compatibilit$ and user9friendliness in the implementation of current I@
s$stems of go#ernment entities under e4isting laws) *hus, E( 8'. is simpl$ an e4ecuti#e issuance and not an act
of legislation)
*he act of issuing I@ cards and collecting the necessar$ personal data for imprinting on the I@ card does not
re3uire legislation) Pri#ate emplo$ers routinel$ issue I@ cards to their emplo$ees) Pri#ate and public schools also
routinel$ issue I@ cards to their students) E#en pri#ate clubs and associations issue I@ cards to their members)
*he purpose of all these I@ cards is simpl$ to insure the proper identification of a person as an emplo$ee, student,
or member of a club) *hese I@ cards, although imposed as a condition for e4ercising a pri#ilege, are #oluntar$
because a person is not compelled to be an emplo$ee, student or member of a club)
Ahat re3uire legislation are three aspects of a go#ernment maintained I@ card s$stem) 7irst, when the
implementation of an I@ card s$stem re3uires a special appropriation because there is no e4isting appropriation
for such purpose) ;econd, when the I@ card s$stem is compulsor$ on all branches of go#ernment, including the
independent constitutional commissions, as well as compulsor$ on all citi"ens whether the$ ha#e a use for the I@
card or not) *hird, when the I@ card s$stem re3uires the collection and recording of personal data be$ond what is
routinel$ or usuall$ re3uired for such purpose, such that the citi"enBs right to pri#ac$ is infringed)
In the present case, E( 8'. does not re3uire an$ special appropriation because the e4isting I@ card s$stems of
go#ernment entities co#ered b$ E( 8'. ha#e the proper appropriation or funding) E( 8'. is not compulsor$ on
all branches of go#ernment and is not compulsor$ on all citi"ens) E( 8'. re3uires a #er$ narrow and focused
collection and recording of personal data while safeguarding the confidentialit$ of such data) In fact, the data
collected and recorded under E( 8'. are far less than the data collected and recorded under the I@ s$stems
e4isting prior to E( 8'.)
E( 8'. does not establish a national I@ card s$stem) E( 8'. does not compel all citi"ens to ha#e an I@ card) E(
8'. applies onl$ to go#ernment entities that under e4isting laws are alread$ collecting data and issuing I@ cards
as part of their go#ernmental functions) E#er$ go#ernment entit$ that presentl$ issues an I@ card will still issue its
own I@ card under its own name) *he onl$ difference is that the I@ card will contain onl$ the fi#e data specified
in ;ection - of E( 8'., plus the fingerprint, the agenc$ I@ number, and the common reference number which is
needed for cross9#erification to ensure integrit$ and reliabilit$ of identification)
*his Court should not interfere how go#ernment entities under the E4ecuti#e department should undertake cost
sa#ings, achie#e efficienc$ in operations, insure compatibilit$ of e3uipment and s$stems, and pro#ide user9
friendl$ ser#ice to the public) *he collection of I@ data and issuance of I@ cards are da$9to9da$ functions of man$
go#ernment entities under e4isting laws) E#en the ;upreme Court has its own I@ s$stem for emplo$ees of the
Court and all first and second le#el courts) *he Court is e#en tr$ing to unif$ its I@ s$stem with those of the
appellate courts, namel$ the Court of 2ppeals, ;andiganba$an and Court of *a4 2ppeals)
*here is nothing legislati#e about unif$ing e4isting I@ s$stems of all courts within the ,udiciar$) *he same is true
for go#ernment entities under the E4ecuti#e department) If go#ernment entities under the E4ecuti#e department
decide to unif$ their e4isting I@ data collection and I@ card issuance s$stems to achie#e sa#ings, efficienc$,
compatibilit$ and con#enience, such act does not in#ol#e the e4ercise of an$ legislati#e power) *hus, the issuance
of E( 8'. does not constitute usurpation of legislati#e power)
(n the 2lleged Infringement of the Right to Pri#ac$
2ll these $ears, the >;I;, ;;;, !*(, Philhealth and other go#ernment entities ha#e been issuing I@ cards in the
performance of their go#ernmental functions) *here ha#e been no complaints from citi"ens that the I@ cards of
these go#ernment entities #iolate their right to pri#ac$) *here ha#e also been no complaints of abuse b$ these
go#ernment entities in the collection and recording of personal identification data)
In fact, petitioners in the present cases do not claim that the I@ s$stems of go#ernment entities prior to E( 8'.
#iolate their right to pri#ac$) ;ince petitioners do not make such claim, the$ e#en ha#e less basis to complain
against the unified I@ s$stem under E( 8'.) *he data collected and stored for the unified I@ s$stem under E(
8'. will be limited to onl$ &8 specific data, and the I@ card itself will show onl$ eight specific data) *he data
collection, recording and I@ card s$stem under E( 8'. will e#en re3uire less data collected, stored and re#ealed
than under the disparate s$stems prior to E( 8'.)
Prior to E( 8'., go#ernment entities had a free hand in determining the kind, nature and e4tent of data to be
collected and stored for their I@ s$stems) Ender E( 8'., go#ernment entities can collect and record onl$ the &8
specific data mentioned in ;ection - of E( 8'.) In addition, go#ernment entities can show in their I@ cards onl$
eight of these specific data, se#en less data than what the ;upreme CourtBs I@ shows)
2lso, prior to E( 8'., there was no e4ecuti#e issuance to go#ernment entities prescribing safeguards on the
collection, recording, and disclosure of personal identification data to protect the right to pri#ac$) Now, under
;ection < of E( 8'., the following safeguards are instituted+
a) *he data to be recorded and stored, which shall be used onl$ for purposes of establishing the identit$ of a
person, shall be limited to those specified in ;ection - of this e4ecuti#e order:
b) In no case shall the collection or compilation of other data in #iolation of a personBs right to pri#ac$ be allowed
or tolerated under this order:
c) ;tringent s$stems of access control to data in the identification s$stem shall be instituted:
d) @ata collected and stored for this purpose shall be kept and treated as strictl$ confidential and a personal or
written authori"ation of the (wner shall be re3uired for access and disclosure of data:
e) *he identification card to be issued shall be protected b$ ad#anced securit$ features and cr$ptographic
technolog$:
f) 2 written re3uest b$ the (wner of the identification card shall be re3uired for an$ correction or re#ision of
rele#ant data, or under such conditions as the participating agenc$ issuing the identification card shall prescribe)
(n its face, E( 8'. shows no constitutional infirmit$ because it e#en narrowl$ limits the data that can be
collected, recorded and shown compared to the e4isting I@ s$stems of go#ernment entities) E( 8'. further
pro#ides strict safeguards to protect the confidentialit$ of the data collected, in contrast to the prior I@ s$stems
which are bereft of strict administrati#e safeguards)
*he right to pri#ac$ does not bar the adoption of reasonable I@ s$stems b$ go#ernment entities) ;ome one
hundred countries ha#e compulsor$ national I@ s$stems, including democracies such as ;pain, 7rance, >erman$,
Belgium, >reece, !u4embourg, and Portugal) (ther countries which do not ha#e national I@ s$stems, like the
Enited ;tates, Canada, 2ustralia, New Gealand, Ireland, the Nordic Countries and ;weden, ha#e sectoral cards for
health, social or other public ser#ices)
&'
E#en with E( 8'., the Philippines will still fall under the countries that
do not ha#e compulsor$ national I@ s$stems but allow onl$ sectoral cards for social securit$, health ser#ices, and
other specific purposes)
Aithout a reliable I@ s$stem, go#ernment entities like >;I;, ;;;, Philhealth, and !*( cannot perform
effecti#el$ and efficientl$ their mandated functions under e4isting laws) Aithout a reliable I@ s$stem, >;I;, ;;;,
Philhealth and similar go#ernment entities stand to suffer substantial losses arising from false names and
identities) *he integrit$ of the !*(Bs licensing s$stem will suffer in the absence of a reliable I@ s$stem)
*he dissenting opinion cites three 2merican decisions on the right to pri#ac$, namel$, >riswold #)
Connecticut,
&-
+.(.,ustice @epartment #) Reporters Committee for 7reedom of the Press,
&8
and Ahalen #)
Roe)
&<
*he last two decisions actuall$ support the #alidit$ of E( 8'., while the first is inapplicable to the present
case)
In >riswold, the E);) ;upreme Court declared unconstitutional a state law that prohibited the use and distribution
of contracepti#es because enforcement of the law would allow the police entr$ into the bedrooms of married
couples) @eclared the E);) ;upreme Court+ FAould we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of the
marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contracepti#esO *he #er$ idea is repulsi#e to the notions of
pri#ac$ surrounding the marriage relationship)F Because the facts and the issue in#ol#ed in >riswold are
materiall$ different from the present case, >riswold has no persuasi#e bearing on the present case)
In E);) ,ustice @epartment, the issue was not whether the ;tate could collect and store information on indi#iduals
from public records nationwide but whether the ;tate could withhold such information from the press) *he
premise of the issue in E);) ,ustice @epartment is that the ;tate can collect and store in a central database
information on citi"ens gathered from public records across the countr$) In fact, the law authori"ed the
@epartment of ,ustice to collect and preser#e fingerprints and other criminal identification records nationwide)
*he law also authori"ed the @epartment of ,ustice to e4change such information with Fofficials of ;tates, cities
and other institutions)F *he @epartment of ,ustice treated such information as confidential) 2 CB; news
correspondent and the Reporters Committee demanded the criminal records of four members of a famil$ pursuant
to the 7reedom of Information 2ct) *he E);) ;upreme Court ruled that the 7reedom of Information 2ct e4pressl$
e4empts release of information that would Fconstitute an unwarranted in#asion of personal pri#ac$,F and the
information demanded falls under that categor$ of e4empt information)
Aith the e4ception of the 0 specific data shown on the I@ card, the personal data collected and recorded under E(
8'. are treated as Fstrictl$ confidentialF under ;ection =5d6 of E( 8'.) *hese data are not onl$ strictl$
confidential but also personal matters) ;ection 1, 2rticle III of the &/01 Constitution grants the Fright of the
people to information on matters of public concern)F Personal matters are e4empt or outside the co#erage of the
peopleBs right to information on matters of public concern) *he data treated as Fstrictl$ confidentialF under E(
8'. being pri#ate matters and not matters of public concern, these data cannot be released to the public or the
press) *hus, the ruling in E);) ,ustice @epartment does not collide with E( 8'. but actuall$ supports the #alidit$
E( 8'.)
Ahalen #) Roe is the leading 2merican case on the constitutional protection for control o#er information) In
Ahalen, the E);) ;upreme Court upheld the #alidit$ of a New Hork law that re3uired doctors to furnish the
go#ernment reports identif$ing patients who recei#ed prescription drugs that ha#e a potential for abuse) *he
go#ernment maintained a central computeri"ed database containing the names and addresses of the patients, as
well as the identit$ of the prescribing doctors) *he law was assailed because the database allegedl$ infringed the
right to pri#ac$ of indi#iduals who want to keep their personal matters confidential) *he E);) ;upreme Court
rejected the pri#ac$ claim, and declared+cra+nad
@isclosures of pri#ate medical information to doctors, to hospital personnel, to insurance companies, and to
public health agencies are often an essential part of modern medical practice e#en when the disclosure ma$ reflect
unfa#orabl$ on the character of the patient) Re3uiring such disclosures to representati#es of the ;tate ha#ing
responsibilit$ for the health of the communit$ does not automaticall$ amount to an impermissible in#asion of
pri#ac$) 5Emphasis supplied6
Compared to the personal medical data re3uired for disclosure to the New Hork ;tate in Ahalen, the &8 specific
data re3uired for disclosure to the Philippine go#ernment under E( 8'. are far less sensiti#e and far less personal)
In fact, the &8 specific data re3uired under E( 8'. are routine data for I@ s$stems, unlike the sensiti#e and
potentiall$ embarrassing medical records of patients taking prescription drugs) Ahalen, therefore, carries
persuasi#e force for upholding the constitutionalit$ of E( 8'. as non9#iolati#e of the right to pri#ac$)
;ubse3uent E);) ;upreme Court decisions ha#e reiterated Ahalen) In Planned Parenthood of Central issouri #)
@anforth,
&=
the E);) ;upreme Court upheld the #alidit$ of a law that re3uired doctors performing abortions to fill
up forms, maintain records for se#en $ears, and allow the inspection of such records b$ public health officials)
*he E);) ;upreme Court ruled that Frecordkeeping and reporting re3uirements that are reasonabl$ directed to the
preser#ation of maternal health and that properl$ respect a patientBs confidentialit$ and pri#ac$ are permissible)F
2gain, in Planned Parenthood of ;outheastern Penns$l#ania #) Case$,
&1
the E);) ;upreme Court upheld a law that
re3uired doctors performing an abortion to file a report to the go#ernment that included the doctorBs name, the
womanBs age, the number of prior pregnancies and abortions that the woman had, the medical complications from
the abortion, the weight of the fetus, and the marital status of the woman) In case of state9funded institutions, the
law made such information publicl$ a#ailable) In Case$, the E);) ;upreme Court stated+ F*he collection of
information with respect to actual patients is a #ital element of medical research, and so it cannot be said that the
re3uirements ser#e no purpose other than to make abortion more difficult)F
Compared to the disclosure re3uirements of personal data that the E);) ;upreme Court ha#e upheld in Ahalen,
@anforth and Case$ as not #iolati#e of the right to pri#ac$, the disclosure re3uirements under E( 8'. are far
benign and cannot therefore constitute #iolation of the right to pri#ac$) E( 8'. re3uires disclosure of &8 personal
data that are routine for I@ purposes, data that cannot possibl$ embarrass or humiliate an$one)
Petitioners ha#e not shown how E( 8'. will #iolate their right to pri#ac$) Petitioners cannot show such #iolation
b$ a mere facial e4amination of E( 8'. because E( 8'. narrowl$ draws the data collection, recording and
e4hibition while prescribing comprehensi#e safeguards) (ple #) *orres
&0
is not authorit$ to hold that E( 8'.
#iolates the right to pri#ac$ because in that case the assailed e4ecuti#e issuance, broadl$ drawn and de#oid of
safeguards, was annulled solel$ on the ground that the subject matter re3uired legislation) 2s then Associate
Hustice, now Chief Hustice 2rtemio ?) Panganiban noted in his concurring opinion in (ple #) *orres, F*he #oting
is decisi#e onl$ on the need for appropriate legislation, and it is onl$ on this ground that the petition is granted b$
this Court)F
E( 8'. applies onl$ to go#ernment entities that alread$ maintain I@ s$stems and issue I@ cards pursuant to their
regular functions under e4isting laws) E( 8'. does not grant such go#ernment entities an$ power that the$ do not
alread$ possess under e4isting laws) In contrast, the assailed e4ecuti#e issuance in (ple #) *orres sought to
establish a FNational Computeri"ed Identification Reference ;$stem,F
&/
a national I@ s$stem that did not e4ist
prior to the assailed e4ecuti#e issuance) (b#iousl$, a national I@ card s$stem re3uires legislation because it
creates a new national data collection and card issuance s$stem where none e4isted before)
In the present case, E( 8'. does not establish a national I@ s$stem but makes the e4isting sectoral card s$stems
of go#ernment entities like >;I;, ;;;, Philhealth and !*( less costl$, more efficient, reliable and user9friendl$
to the public) Cence, E( 8'. is a proper subject of e4ecuti#e issuance under the PresidentBs constitutional power
of control o#er go#ernment entities in the E4ecuti#e department, as well as under the PresidentBs constitutional
dut$ to ensure that laws are faithfull$ e4ecuted)
W"ERE(ORE, the petitions are DIS!ISSED) E4ecuti#e (rder No) 8'. is declared &ALID)
SO ORDERED.
[G.R. No. 18;I1H * Ju:1 22, 2010]
"ILIINE IN%ERNA%IONAL %RADING CORORA%ION, E%I%IONER, &S. CO!!ISSION ON
AUDI%, RESONDEN%.
D E C I S I O N
ERE#, J.*
*he inclusion of allowances in the computation of the retirementMseparation benefits of the emplo$ees of
petitioner Philippine International *rading Corporation 5PI*C6 is at issue in this petition for certiorari filed
pursuant to Rules =8 and =< of the .//2 4ules of Civil #rocedure, seeking the nullification and setting aside of the
ad#erse rulings dated ,ul$ 8, '..- and 7ebruar$ &<, '..0 issued b$ respondent Commission on 2udit 5C(26)
2e 1acts
Created pursuant to Presidential @ecree No) '<' dated ,ul$ '&, &/1-, petitioner is a go#ernment9owned and
controlled corporation tasked with promoting and de#eloping Philippine trade in pursuance of national economic
de#elopment) ;ubse3uent to the repeal of said law with the a$ /, &/11 issuance of Presidential @ecree No)
&.1&, otherwise known as the 4evised Charter of the #hilippine International ;rading Corporation, then
President 7erdinand E) arcos issued E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= on @ecember '0, &/0&, authori"ing the
reorgani"ation of petitioner pursuant to his legislati#e powers to amend charters of go#ernment corporations
through e4ecuti#e orders in turn issued pursuant to Presidential @ecree No) &8&=, as amended b$ Presidential
@ecree No) &11') (n 7ebruar$ &0, &/0-, President arcos issued E4ecuti#e (rder No) 011, authori"ing further
the reorgani"ation of petitioner for the purpose of accelerating and e4panding the countr$Bs e4port concerns)
%&J
(n @ecember -&, &/0-, Eligia Romero, an officer of petitioner, opted to retire under Republic 2ct No) &=&= and
recei#ed a total of P'0=,10.).. as gratuit$ benefits for ser#ices rendered from &/<< to &/0-) Immediatel$ re9
hired on contractual basis, it appears that said emplo$ee remained in the ser#ice of petitioner until her compulsor$
retirement on 2pril '1, '...) In receipt of retirement benefits in the total sum of P&,.&-,/<').. for the period
,ul$ &, &/<< to 2pril '1, '..., net of the P'0=,1.).. gratuit$ benefits she recei#ed in &/0-, s) Romero filed a
,ul$ &=, '..& re3uest, seeking from petitioner pa$ment of retirement differentials on the strength of ;ection = of
E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<=) ;aid pro#ision states that Fan$ officer or emplo$ee who retires, resigns, or is separated
from the ser#ice shall be entitled to one month pa$ for e#er$ $ear of ser#ice computed at highest salar$ recei#ed
including allowances, in addition to the other benefits pro#ided b$ law, regardless of an$ pro#ision of law or
regulations to the contrar$)F
%'J
Confronted with the 3uestion of whether the computation of s) RomeroBs retirement benefits should include the
allowances she had recei#ed while under its emplo$, petitioner sent 3ueries to respondent and the (ffice of the
>o#ernment Corporate Counsel regarding the application of ;ection = of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<=) (n 2ugust
'., '..', then >o#ernment Corporate Counsel 2mado @) ?alde" issued (pinion No) &/1, ;eries of '..',
espousing a literal interpretation and application of the aforesaid pro#ision) In#oking the principle that retirement
laws should be liberall$ construed and administered in fa#or of the persons intended to be benefited thereb$, said
opinion declared that, pursuant to the subject pro#ision, the basis for the computation of the retirement benefits of
petitionerBs emplo$ees should be the highest basic salar$ recei#ed b$ them, including allowances not integrated
into the basic pa$)
%-J
(n the other hand, on ,ul$ 8, '..-, C(2 2ssistant Commissioner and >eneral Counsel Ra3uel R) Cabitan issued
the first assailed ruling, the =
th
Indorsement dated ,ul$ 8, '..-, finding the denial of s) RomeroBs claim for
retirement differentials in order) *aking appropriate note of the fact that the Reser#e for Retirement >ratuit$ and
Commutation of !ea#e Credits of petitionerBs emplo$ees did not include allowances outside of the basic salar$,
said officer ruled that E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= was a special law issued onl$ for the specific purpose of
reorgani"ing petitioner corporation) 2lthough it was subse3uentl$ ad#erted to in E4ecuti#e (rder No) 011,
;ection = of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= was determined to be intended for emplo$ees retired, separated or resigned
in connection with petitionerBs reorgani"ation and was not meant to be a permanent retirement scheme for its
emplo$ees)
%8J
Ele#ated b$ petitioner on appeal before the respondent,
%<J
the foregoing ruling was affirmed in the second assailed
ruling, the @ecision No) '..09.'- dated 7ebruar$ &<, '..0,
%=J
which likewise discounted the legal basis for s)
RomeroBs claim for retirement differentials) 7inding that ;ection = of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= was simpl$ an
incenti#e to encourage emplo$ees to resign or retire at the height of petitionerBs reorgani"ation, said decision went
on to make the following pronouncements, to wit+
Foreo#er, R2 No) 8/=0 prohibits the creation of an$ insurance retirement plan b$ an$ go#ernment agenc$ and
go#ernment9owned or controlled corporation other than the >;I;, #i")+
K;ection &.) ;ubsection 5b6 of ;ection twent$9eight of the same 2ct, as amended is hereb$ amended to read as
follows+
5b6 Cereafter no insurance or retirement plan for officers or emplo$ees shall be created b$ the emplo$er) 2ll
supplementar$ retirement or pension plans heretofore in force in an$ go#ernment office, agenc$, or
instrumentalit$ or corporation owned or controlled b$ the go#ernment, are hereb$ declared inoperati#e or
abolished+ #rovided, *hat the rights of those who are alread$ eligible to retire thereunder shall not be affected)B
*he ;upreme Court e4plained the rationale of the abo#e pro#isions in 2#elina B) Conte et al) #s) Commission on
2udit, >)R) No) &&=8'', No#ember 8, &//=, thusl$+
K;aid ;ec) '0 5b6 as amended b$ R2 8/=0 in no uncertain terms bars the creation of an$ insurance or retirement
plan 9 other than the >;I; 9 for go#ernment officers and emplo$ees, 5: o7017 4o >7161:4 4<1 u:0u1 ,:0
5:5Mu54ou8 >7ol5217,45o: o2 8u/< >l,:8. It is be$ond ca#il that Res) <= contra#enes the said pro#ision of law and
is therefore in#alid, #oid and of no effect) *o ignore this and rule otherwise would be tantamount to permitting
e#er$ other go#ernment office or agenc$ to put up its own supplementar$ retirement benefit plan under the guise
of such Kfinancial assistance)B 5Emphasis ours6
*o hold that ;ection = of E)() 1<= is a retirement law for P*IC emplo$ees other than the >;I; law would run
counter to the polic$ of the state to pre#ent the undue and ini3uitous proliferation of retirement plans that would
undul$ promote the ine3ualit$ of treatment in the retirement benefits of go#ernment emplo$ees)F
%1J
Cence, this petition)
2e )ssues
Petitioner seeks the nullification and setting aside of the assailed rulings on the following grounds, to wit+
A.
RESONDEN% CO!!ISSION GRA&EL' ABUSED I%S DISCRE%ION A!OUN%ING %O LACK OR
E$CESS O( JURISDIC%ION IN ISSUING %"E (IRS% ASSAILED RULING, OINING %"A%
SEC%ION F O( EO HIF WAS NO% !EAN% %O BE A ER!ANEN% RE%IRE!EN% SC"E!E O(
%"E I%C.
B.
RESONDEN% CO!!ISSION GRA&EL' ABUSED I%S DISCRE%ION A!OUN%ING %O LACK OR
E$CESS O( JURISDIC%ION IN ISSUING %"E SECOND ASSAILED RULING DEN'ING I%CLS
RE)UES% (OR RECONSIDERA%ION O( %"E ABO&E OINION O( COA GENERAL COUNSEL
RA)UEL "ABI%AN, LIKEWISE "OLDING %"A% SEC%ION F o2 EO HIF WAS NO% !EAN% %O BE
A ER!ANEN% SC"E!E O( %"E I%C.
C.
RESONDEN% CO!!ISSION GRA&EL' ABUSED I%S DISCRE%ION A!OUN%ING %O LACK OR
E$CESS O( JURISDIC%ION IN ISSUING %"E ASSAILED RULINGS W"IC" ARE CON%RAR' %O
SE%%LED JURISRUDENCE %"A% RE%IRE!EN% LAWS ARE LIBERALL' CONS%RUED AND
AD!INIS%ERED IN (A&OR O( %"E ERSONS IN%ENDED %O BE BENE(I%%ED AND %"A% ALL
DOUB%S AS %O %"E IN%EN% O( %"E LAW S"OULD BE RESOL&ED IN (A&OR O( %"E
RE%IREE %O AC"IE&E I%S "U!ANI%ARIAN UROSES.
D.
RESONDEN% CO!!ISSION GRA&EL' ABUSED I%S DISCRE%ION A!OUN%ING %O LACK OR
E$CESS O( JURISDIC%ION IN REL'ING ON SEC%ION 10 o2 RA 49F8 AS %O %"E ALLEGED
RO"IBI%ION AGAINS% AN' INSURANCE OR RE%IRE!EN% LAN OR RE%IRE!EN% LAN
O%"ER %"AN %"E GSIS, SAID LAW "A&ING BEEN ASSED RIOR %O %"E ISSUANCE O( EO
HIF. O%"ERWISE S%A%ED, SEC%ION 10 O( RA 49F8 IS DEE!ED RE&ISED, A!ENDED,
SUERSEDED OR REEALED B' EO HIF URSUAN% %O %"E REEALING CLAUSE O( SAID EO
HIF.
[8]
2e Court3s Rulin$
Ae find the petition bereft of merit)
It is a rule in statutor$ construction that e#er$ part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the
conte4t, i.e., that e#er$ part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subser#ient to
the general intent of the whole enactment)
%/J
Because the law must not be read in truncated parts, its pro#isions
must be read in relation to the whole law) *he statuteBs clauses and phrases must not, conse3uentl$, be taken as
detached and isolated e4pressions, but the whole and e#er$ part thereof must be considered in fi4ing the meaning
of an$ of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole)
%&.J
Consistent with the fundamentals of statutor$
construction, all the words in the statute must be taken into consideration in order to ascertain its meaning)
%&&J
2ppl$ing the foregoing principles to the case at bench, we find it well worth emphasi"ing at the outset that
E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<=
%&'J
was meant to reorgani"e petitionerBs corporate set9up) Ahile incorporating
amendments of petitionerBs Re#ised Charter under Presidential @ecree No) &.1& with pro#isions relating to the
subscription of its capital,
%&-J
the establishment of subsidiaries, including joint #entures,
%&8J
the composition
%&<J
and
grant of additional powers to its Board of @irectors,
%&=J
the appointment of its President,
%&1J
the grant of incenti#e
scheme to its officers and emplo$ees
%&0J
as well as its authorit$ to deputi"e commercial attaches
%&/J
and to grant
franchises to operate Philippine trade houses abroad,
%'.J
;ection 8 5&6 of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= specificall$
authori"ed petitionerBs Board of @irectors to F reorgani"e the structure of the Corporation, in accordance with its
e4panded role in the de#elopment of Philippine trade, with such officers and emplo$ees as ma$ be needed and
determine their competiti#e salaries and reasonable allowances and other benefits to effecti#el$ carr$ out its
powers and functions)F 7or this purpose, ;ection = of the same law pro#ides as follows+
;EC*I(N =) E4emption from (CPC) 99 In recognition of the special nature of its operations, the Corporation
shall continue to be e4empt from the application of the rules and regulations of the (ffice of the Compensation
and Position Classification or an$ other similar agencies that ma$ be established hereafter as pro#ided under
Presidential @ecree No) &.1&) !ikewise, any officer or employee who retires! resigns! or is separated from the
service shall be entitled to one month pay for every year of service computed at highest salary received including
all allowances! in addition to the other benefits provided by law! regardless of any provision of law or
regulations to the contrary: Pro#ided, *hat the emplo$ee shall ha#e ser#ed in the Corporation continuousl$ for at
least two $ears+ Pro#ided, further, *hat in case of separated emplo$ees, the separation or dismissal is not due to
con#iction for an$ offense the penalt$ for which includes forfeiture of benefits+ and Pro#ided, finall$, *hat in the
commutation of lea#e credits earned, the emplo$ees who resigned, retired or is separated shall be entitled to the
full pa$ment therefor computed with all the allowances then being enjo$ed at the time of resignation, retirement
of separation regardless of an$ restriction or limitation pro#ided for in other laws, rules or regulations) 5Italics
supplied6
2s an adjunct to the reorgani"ation mandated under E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<=, we find that the foregoing
pro#ision cannot be interpreted independent of the purpose or intent of the law) Rather than the permanent
retirement law for its emplo$ees that petitioner now characteri"es it to be, we find that the pro#ision of gratuities
e3ui#alent to Fone month pa$ for e#er$ $ear of ser#ice computed at highest salar$ recei#ed including all
allowancesF was clearl$ meant as an incenti#e for emplo$ees who retire, resign or are separated from ser#ice
during or as a conse3uence of the reorgani"ation petitionerBs Board of @irectors was tasked to implement) 2s a
temporar$ measure, it cannot be interpreted as an e4ception to the general prohibition against separate or
supplementar$ insurance andMor retirement or pension plans under ;ection '0, ;ubsection 5b6 of Commonwealth
2ct No) &0=,
%'&J
amended) Pursuant to ;ection &. of Republic 2ct No) 8/=0
%''J
which was appro#ed on ,une &1,
&/=1, said latter pro#ision was amended to read as follows+
;ection &.) ;ubsection 5b6 of ;ection twent$9eight of the same 2ct, as amended is hereb$ further amended to
read as follows+
5b6 Cereafter no insurance or retirement plan for officers or emplo$ees shall be created b$ an$ emplo$er) 2ll
supplementar$ retirement or pension plans heretofore in force in an$ go#ernment office, agenc$, or
instrumentalit$ or corporation owned or controlled b$ the go#ernment, are hereb$ declared inoperati#e or
abolished+ Pro#ided, *hat the rights of those who are alread$ eligible to retire thereunder shall not be affected)F
In reconciling ;ection = of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= with ;ection '0, ;ubsection 5b6 of Commonwealth 2ct No)
&0=,
%'-J
as amended, uppermost in the mind of the Court is the fact that the best method of interpretation is that
which makes laws consistent with other laws which are to be harmoni"ed rather than ha#ing one considered
repealed in fa#or of the other)
%'8J
*ime and again, it has been held that e#er$ statute must be so interpreted and
brought in accord with other laws as to form a uniform s$stem of jurisprudence 9 interpretere et concordare
legibus est optimus interpretendi)
%'<J
*hus, if di#erse statutes relate to the same thing, the$ ought to be taken into
consideration in construing an$ one of them, as it is an established rule of law that all acts in pari materia are to
be taken together, as if the$ were one law)
%'=J
Ae find that a temporar$ and limited application of the more
beneficent gratuities pro#ided under ;ection = of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= is in accord with the pre9e4isting and
general prohibition against separate or supplementar$ insurance retirement andMor pension plans under ;ection '0,
;ubsection 5b6 of Commonwealth 2ct No) &0=)
In the absence of a manifest and specific intent from which the same ma$ be gleaned, moreo#er, ;ection = of
E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= cannot be construed as an additional alternati#e to e4isting general retirement laws
andMor an e4ception to the prohibition against separate or supplementar$ insurance retirement or pension plans as
aforesaid) 2side from the fact that a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the #er$
language of the statute cannot be placed therein b$ construction,
%'1J
petitioner would likewise do well to
remember that repeal of laws should be made clear and e4press) Repeals b$ implication are not fa#ored as laws
are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws e4isting on the subject,
%'0J
the
congruent application of which the courts must generall$ presume)
%'/J
7or this reason, it has been held that the
failure to add a specific repealing clause particularl$ mentioning the statute to be repealed indicates that the intent
was not to repeal an$ e4isting law on the matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistenc$ and repugnanc$ e4ists in
the terms of the new and old laws)
%-.J
*he dearth of merit in petitionerBs position is rendered e#en more e#ident when it is borne in mind that E4ecuti#e
(rder No) 1<= was subse3uentl$ repealed b$ E4ecuti#e (rder No) 011 which was issued on 7ebruar$ &0, &/0- to
hasten the reorgani"ation of petitioner, in light of changing circumstances and de#elopments in the world market)
7or purposes of clarit$, the full te4t of E4ecuti#e (rder No 011 is reproduced hereunder, #i")+
FEDECE*I?E (R@ER N() 011
2E*C(RIGIN> *CE RE(R>2NIG2*I(N (7 *CE PCI!IPPINE IN*ERN2*I(N2! *R2@IN>
C(RP(R2*I(N CRE2*E@ EN@ER PRE;I@EN*I2! @ECREE N() &.1&, 2; 2EN@E@
ACERE2;, it is the declared polic$ of the New Republic to pursue national de#elopment with renewed
dedication and determination:
ACERE2;, there is a need to position and gear up the countr$Bs e4port marketing resources in anticipation of a
reco#er$ in the world econom$:
ACERE2;, the Philippine International *rading Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, is in the
#anguard of marketing Philippine e4ports worldwide:
ACERE2;, in order to accelerate and e4pand its e4ports, there is a need to upgrade the management and
marketing e4pertise of the Corporation consistent with the re3uirements of international marketing:
ACERE2;, in the light of the foregoing, the reorgani"ation of the Corporation becomes imperati#e:
ACERE2;, under Presidential @ecree No) &8&=, as amended, the President is empowered to undertake such
organi"ational changes as ma$ be necessar$ in the light of changing circumstances and de#elopment:
N(A, *CERE7(RE, I, 7ER@IN2N@ E) 2RC(;, President of the Philippines, b$ #irtue of the powers #ested
in me b$ the Constitution, and the authorit$ #ested on me b$ Presidential @ecree No) &8&=, as amended, do
hereb$ order and direct+
&) Reorgani"ation) 99 *he inister of *rade and Industr$ is hereb$ designated Chief E4ecuti#e (fficer of the
Corporation with full powers to restructure and reorgani"e the Corporation and to determine or fi4 its staffing
pattern, compensation structure and related organi"ational re3uirements) ;he Chairman shall complete such
restructuring and reorgani$ation within si% D9E months from the date of this E%ecutive )rder. 2ll personnel of the
Corporation who are not reappointed b$ the Chairman under the new reorgani"ed structure of the Corporation
shall be deemed laid off: pro#ided, that personnel so laid off shall be entitled to the benefits accruing to separated
emplo$ees under E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= amending the Re#ised Chapter of the Corporation)
') 7unctions of Chairman) 99 *he Chairman of the Corporation shall ha#e the following functions and powers+
a) E4ercise all the powers incident to the functions of a Chief E4ecuti#e (fficer, including super#ision and control
o#er all personnel of the Corporation:
b) Re#iew, de#elop, super#ise and direct the e4port marketing thrusts and strateg$ of the Corporation:
c) Epon recommendation of the President of the Corporation, appoint personnel of the Corporation in e4ecuti#e
and senior management positions:
d) Call meetings of the Board of @irectors and of the E4ecuti#e Committee of the Corporation)
-) Personnel Recruitment and (ther ;er#ices) 99 In recognition of the special nature of its operation, the
Corporation shall, in recruiting personnel and in a#ailing of outside technical ser#ices, continue to be e4empt
from (CPC rules and regulations pursuant to ;ection = of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= and ;ection '0 of Presidential
@ecree No) &.1&) In addition, the pro#ision of ;ection 1 of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= is hereb$ reaffirmed)
8) Repealing Clause) 99 All provisions of Presidential @ecree No) &.1& and E%ecutive )rder 5o. 2I9, as well as of
other laws, decrees, e4ecuti#e orders or issuances, or parts thereof, that are in conflict with this E%ecutive )rder!
are hereby repealed or modified accordingly)
<) Effecti#it$) 99 *his E4ecuti#e (rder shall take effect immediatel$)
@(NE in the Cit$ of anila, this &0th da$ of 7ebruar$, in the $ear of (ur !ord, Nineteen Cundred and Eight$9
*hree)F 5Italics supplied6
;pecificall$ mandated to be accomplished within the limited timeframe of si4 months from the issuance of the
law, the reorgani"ation under E4ecuti#e (rder No) 011 clearl$ supplanted that which was pro#ided under
E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<=) Nowhere is this more e#ident than ;ection 8 of said latter law which pro#ides that,
F2ll pro#isions of Presidential @ecree No) &.1& and E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<=, as well as of other laws, decrees,
e4ecuti#e orders or issuances, or parts thereof that are in conflict with this E4ecuti#e (rder, are hereb$ repealed
or modified accordingl$)F In utili"ing the computation of the benefits pro#ided under ;ection = of E4ecuti#e
(rder No) 1<= for emplo$ees considered laid off for not being reappointed under petitionerBs new reorgani"ed
structure, E4ecuti#e (rder No) 011 was correctl$ interpreted b$ respondent to e#ince an intent not to e4tend said
gratuit$ be$ond the si49month period within which the reorgani"ation is to be accomplished)
In the case of Conte v. Commission on Audit!
%-&J
this Court ruled that the prohibition against separate or
supplementar$ insurance andMor retirement plan under ;ection '0, ;ubsection 5b6 of Commonwealth 2ct No) &0=
was meant to pre#ent the undue and ini3uitous proliferation of such plans in different go#ernment offices) Both
before the issuance and after the effecti#it$ of E4ecuti#e (rder Nos) 1<= and 011, petitionerBs emplo$ees were
go#erned b$ and a#ailed of the same retirement laws applicable to other go#ernment emplo$ees in #iew of the
absence of a specific pro#ision thereon under Presidential @ecree No) '<',
%-'J
its organic law, and Presidential
@ecree No) &.1&, otherwise known as the 4evised Charter of the #I;C) 2s appropriatel$ pointed out b$
respondent, petitionerBs obser#ance of said general retirement laws ma$ be gleaned from the fact that the Reser#e
for Retirement >ratuit$ and Commutation of !ea#e Credits for its emplo$ees were based onl$ on their basic
salar$ and did not include allowances the$ recei#ed) No less than Eligia Romero, petitionerBs emplo$ee whose
claim for retirement differentials triggered the instant in3uir$, was granted benefits under Republic 2ct No) &=&=
upon her retirement on @ecember -&, &/0-)
It doesnBt help petitionerBs cause an$ that ;ection = of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<=, in relation to ;ection - of
E4ecuti#e (rder No) 011, was further amended b$ Republic 2ct No) =1<0,
%--J
otherwise known as
the Compensation and Classification Act of ./1/) andated under 2rticle ID B, ;ection <
%-8J
of the Constitution,
%-<J
;ection 8
%-=J
of Republic 2ct No) =1<0 specificall$ e4tends its co#erage to go#ernment owned and controlled
corporations like petitioner) Aith this CourtBs ruling in #hilippine International ;rading Corporation v.
Commission on Audit
%-1J
to the effect that petitioner is included in the co#erage of Republic 2ct No) =1<0, it is
e#identl$ no longer e4empted from (CPC rules and regulations, in keeping with said lawBs intent to do awa$ with
multiple allowances and other incenti#e packages as well as the resultant differences in compensation among
go#ernment personnel)
In the conte4t of petitions for certiorari like the one at bench, gra#e abuse of discretion is understood to be such
capricious and whimsical e4ercise of jurisdiction as is e3ui#alent to lack of jurisdiction)
%-0J
It is tantamount to an
e#asion of a positi#e dut$ or to #irtual refusal to perform a dut$ enjoined b$ law, or to act at all in contemplation
of law, as when the power is e4ercised in an arbitrar$ or despotic manner b$ reason of passion or personal
hostilit$)
%-/J
2s the Constitutional office tasked with the dut$ to e4amine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining
to the re#enue, and receipts of and e4penditures or uses of funds and propert$, owned or held in trust b$ or
pertaining to the go#ernment or an$ of its subdi#isions,
%8.J
respondent committed no gra#e abuse of discretion in
disappro#ing petitionerBs utili"ation of ;ection = of E4ecuti#e (rder No) 1<= in the computation of its emplo$eesB
retirement benefits)
W"ERE(ORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit)
SO ORDERED.
G. R. No. 1I9H4H - Ju:1 1I, 2004
SENA%OR GREGORIO B. "ONASAN II, #etitioner, #s) %"E ANEL O( IN&ES%IGA%ING
ROSECU%ORS O( %"E DEAR%!EN% O( JUS%ICE +LEO DACERA, SUSAN (. DACANA', EDNA
A. &ALEN#UELA AND SEBAS%IAN (. CAONONG, JR.-, CIDG-N-?DIREC%OR EDUARDO
!A%ILLANO, AND %"E "ON. O!BUDS!AN SI!EON &. !ARCELO, 4espondents)
R E S O L U % I O N
AUS%RIA-!AR%INE#, J.*
Before the Court is the motion filed b$ petitioner to cite respondent @(, Panel of In#estigating Prosecutors
5respondent for bre#it$6 in contempt of court for alleged blatant disregard and defiance of the agreement of the
parties with this Court to maintain the status 3uo before the filing of their petition for certiorari under Rule =< of
the Rules of Court)
(n ;eptember '', '..-, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with pra$er for the issuance of a temporar$
restraining order and writ of preliminar$ injunction against respondents alleging gra#e abuse of discretion on the
part of respondent Panel for assuming jurisdiction to conduct the preliminar$ in#estigation on the charge of coup
detat against petitioner) Respondents filed their respecti#e comments and petitioner his repl$ thereto) 2n oral
argument on the case was held on No#ember &0, '..-) Parties submitted their respecti#e memoranda as re3uired
b$ the Court) (n 2pril &-, '..8, the Court rendered a decision dismissing the petition and upholding the
concurrent jurisdiction of the respondent to conduct the preliminar$ in#estigation) Petitioner recei#ed a cop$ of
the decision on 2pril '', '..8, thus he has until a$ 1, '..8 to file his motion for reconsideration)
(n 2pril '-, '..8, respondent issued its assailed order as follows+
In the light of the ruling of the ;upreme Court in >)R) No) &</181 dated &- 2pril '..8, confirming that this
In#estigating Panel has jurisdiction to in#estigate the instant complaint against respondent ;enator >regorio B)
Conasan II, et al), and to afford respondent full opportunit$ to contro#ert the allegations of the complaint and to
adduce e#idence:
Aherefore, in the interest of justice, respondent5s6 thru counsel are hereb$ gi#en a final e4tension of up to - a$
'..8 within which to file their counter9affida#it and contro#erting e#idence furnishing with a cop$ thereof
complainant with proof of ser#ice thereof to this Panel)
Petitioner now comes before this Court with a motion to cite respondent in contempt alleging that the issuance of
the assailed order is in direct contra#ention and flagrant #iolation of the agreement of the parties as stated in the
Courts Resolution dated No#ember &0, '..-, which categoricall$ pro#ides+
7urther, it was agreed that the @epartment of ,ustice, with the assurance of the Chief ;tate Prosecutor ,o#encito
R) GuPo, will maintain the ;*2*E; IE( before the filing of the petition)
Petitioner argues that he still has &< da$s from receipt of the Courts decision to file a motion for reconsideration,
i)e), until a$ 1, '..8, and therefore, until that period, the decision dated 2pril &-, '..8 is not $et final and
e4ecutor$: he intends to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementar$ period: the assailed order
re3uiring him to submit his counter9affida#it is premature and intended to pre9empt and render futile and nugator$
an$ action of petitioner with respect to the Courts decision dated 2pril &-, '..8, sub#erting his right to due
process: the Courts decision dated 2pril &-, '..8 has not lifted said directi#es to the parties to maintain the status
3uo nor did the decision automaticall$ lift the status 3uo order: the submission of petitioners counter9affida#it
would upset the status 3uo sought to be maintained: with the assailed order of the respondent panel re3uiring him
to submit his counter9affida#it, the latter has belittled, degraded, obstructed and impeded the administration of
justice and has wantonl$ defied the Courts authorit$: and the Panels order onl$ confirms his fear that his
preliminar$ in#estigation and detention are being railroaded)
In its Comment, respondent contends that+ contempt of court presupposes a contumacious attitude, a flouting or
arrogant belligerence, a #irtual defiance of the court: no such attitude or intent is discernible from its assailed
action in proceeding with the preliminar$ in#estigation since the respondent issued the assailed (rder in good
faith and in the conscientious implementation of the Courts decision upholding the concurrent jurisdiction of the
@(, to in#estigate the charges against petitioner for the crime of coup detat: it has no intention to willfull$
disregard the authorit$ of the Court since the assailed order was promulgated in furtherance and in the e4ercise of
their authorit$ to conduct preliminar$ in#estigation on charges against public officers and emplo$ees as mandated
b$ the Constitution and laws as confirmed b$ the Courts decision dated 2pril &-, '..8: the charges against
petitioner was filed in 2ugust '..- and the preliminar$ in#estigation was pending since then because of the
jurisdictional issue raised before this Court which was decided on 2pril &-, '..8: upon receipt of such decision,
respondent issued the assailed order with the objecti#e of resol#ing the in#estigation taking into account
petitioners right to a speed$ disposition of the case against him: the subject order was not in an$ manner effected
to railroad petitioners arrest and detention but to ser#e his right to due process b$ gi#ing him all the opportunit$ to
contro#ert the accusations against him and to adduce e#idence in his behalf: otherwise, the respondent could ha#e
immediatel$ filed the information against petitioner the moment he failed to submit his counter9affida#it: as a
manifestation of good faith, respondent desisted from further proceeding with the in#estigation and deferred an$
action until after the Courts decision on 2pril &-, '..8: in contempt proceeding, intent, howe#er, goes to the
gra#amen of the offense, and the good faith or lack of it, of the alleged contemnor should be considered: contempt
partakes of the nature of a criminal offense, and doubts should be resol#ed in fa#or of the person against whom
proceedings ha#e been brought: and onl$ in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obe$ should the power to
punish for contempt of court be e4ercised)
Ae den$ the motion to cite respondent Panel in contempt of court)
Contempt of court is defined as disobedience to the court b$ acting in opposition to its authorit$, justice and
dignit$) It signifies not onl$ a willful disregard or disobedience of the courts orders, but such conduct as tends to
bring the authorit$ of the court and administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due
administration of justice)
&
*he power to punish for contempt of court should be e4ercised on the preser#ati#e and
not on the #indicti#e principle)
'
(nl$ occasionall$ should the court in#oke its inherent power in order to retain
that respect without which the administration of justice ma$ falter or fail) ;uch power being drastic and
e4traordinar$ in its nature should not be resorted to unless necessar$ in the interest of justice)
-
In compliance with the Courts Resolution dated No#ember &0, '..-, respondent had stopped from further
proceeding with the preliminar$ in#estigation while the case is pending before the court) Respondent issued its
assailed order re3uiring petitioner to submit his counter9affida#it after receipt of the Courts decision dated 2pril
&-, '..8 upholding respondents authorit$ to conduct the preliminar$ in#estigation on the charge of coup
detat against petitioner) 2lthough the Courts decision dated 2pril &-, '..8 is not $et final as of the date of the
issuance of the said assailed order, the court finds no contemptuous intent on the part of respondent to impede the
administration of justice) 2s respondent has e4plained in its Comment, the charges against petitioner was filed
with the @(, in 2ugust '..- and since then, the preliminar$ in#estigation has been pending, thus with the Courts
decision upholding their jurisdiction, respondent issued the assailed order taking into account petitioners right to a
speed$ disposition of his case) Clearl$, respondents intention is to gi#e respondent all the opportunit$ to
contro#ert the accusation against him and to adduce e#idence in his behalf) *he Court finds respondents
e4planation satisfactor$ and does not see the act of respondent as contumacious, as herein earlier defined b$ the
Court)
Petitioner asserts in his otion that he recei#ed on 2pril '', '..8, a cop$ of the Courts decision upholding
respondents authorit$ to conduct preliminar$ in#estigation, and that he has until a$ 1, '..8 to file his motion
for reconsideration) Cowe#er, #erification with the Courts docket section re#eals that petitioner filed his motion
for reconsideration onl$ on ,une 0, '..8, or thirt$ da$s late) *he Courts decision dated 2pril &-, '..8 has alread$
attained finalit$ as of a$ 0, '..8) Cence, there is no longer an$ impediment for respondent to proceed with the
preliminar$ in#estigation and for petitioner to compl$ with the respondents order to submit his counter9affida#it)
W"ERE(ORE, petitioners motion to cite respondent in contempt of court is DENIED) Respondent is re3uired
to gi#e petitioner a fresh period from receipt of this Resolution to submit his counter9affida#it)
SO ORDERED.
(R!2N@( !) ;2!?2@(R, for and in behalf of the
Presidential 2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest
!oans,
#etitioner!
v.
P!2CI@( !) 2P2, ,R), R272E! 2) ;I;(N,
R(!2N@( ) G(;2, CE;2R C) G2!2E2,
>)R) No) &-<.0.
#resentG
HN2RE;9;2N*I2>(,
2cting C),), Chairperson,
2E;*RI292R*INEG,
BEN,2IN B2R(*, C2;IIR( *2NE@(, ,)?) @E
(C2P(, 2!ICI2 !) REHE;, BIEN?ENI@( R)
*2N*(C(, ,R), BIEN?ENI@( R) *2N*(C(, ;R),
7R2NCI; B) B2NE;, ERNE;*( ) C2RIN>2!,
R(E( ?) ,2CIN*(, and 2NEE! @) *2N>!2(,
4espondents.
CCIC(9N2G2RI(,
N2CCER2, and
REHE;, HH)
#romulgatedG
No#ember '0, '..1
49999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999994
@ECI;I(N
N2CCER2, H.G
*he Presidential 2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest !oans, 5the Committee6, through 2tt$) (rlando !)
;al#ador 52tt$) ;al#ador6, filed this Petition for Re#iew on Certiorari seeking to nullif$ the (ctober /, &//1
Resolution
&
of the (ffice of the (mbudsman in (B9.9/=9'8'0, dismissing the criminal complaint against
respondents on ground of prescription, and the ,ul$ '1, &//0 (rder
'
den$ing petitionerBs motion for
reconsideration)
(n (ctober 0, &//' then President 7idel ?) Ramos issued 2dministrati#e (rder No) &- creating the Presidential
2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest !oans, which reads+cra+nad
ACERE2;, ;ec) '0, 2rticle II of the &/01 Constitution pro#ides that F;ubject to reasonable conditions
prescribed b$ law, the ;tate adopts and implements a polic$ of full public disclosure of all its transactions
in#ol#ing public interestF:
ACERE2;, ;ec) &<, 2rticle DI of the &/01 Constitution pro#ides that F*he right of the state to reco#er
properties unlawfull$ ac3uired b$ public officials or emplo$ees, from them or from their nominees or transferees,
shall not be barred b$ prescription, laches or estoppelF:
ACERE2;, there ha#e been allegations of loans, guarantees, and other forms of financial accommodations
granted, directl$ or indirectl$, b$ go#ernment9owned and controlled bank or financial institutions, at the behest,
command, or urging b$ pre#ious go#ernment officials to the disad#antage and detriment of the Philippines
go#ernment and the 7ilipino people:
2CC(R@IN>!H, an F2d9Coc 72C* 7IN@IN> C(I**EE (N BECE;* !(2N;F is hereb$ created to be
composed of the following+
Chairman of the Presidential
Commission on >ood >o#ernment 9 Chairman
*he ;olicitor >eneral 9 ?ice9Chairman
Representati#e from the
(ffice of the E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$ 9 ember
Representati#e from the
@epartment of 7inance 9 ember
Representati#e from the
@epartment of ,ustice 9 ember
Representati#e from the
@e#elopment Bank of the Philippines 9 ember
Representati#e from the
Philippine National Bank 9 ember
Representati#e from the
2sset Pri#ati"ation *rust 9 ember
>o#ernment Corporate Counsel 9 ember
Representati#e from the
Philippine E4port and 7oreign
!oan >uarantee Corporation 9 ember
*he 2d Coc Committee shall perform the following functions+cra+nad
&) In#entor$ all behest loans: identif$ the lenders and borrowers, including the principal officers and stockholders
of the borrowing firms, as well as the persons responsible for granting the loans or who influenced the grant
thereof:
') Identif$ the borrowers who were granted Ffriendl$ wai#ers,F as well as the go#ernment officials who granted
these wai#ers: determine the #alidit$ of these wai#ers:
-) @etermine the courses of action that the go#ernment should take to reco#er those loans, and to recommend
appropriate actions to the (ffice of the President within si4t$ 5=.6 da$s from the date hereof)
*he Committee is hereb$ empowered to call upon an$ department, bureau, office, agenc$, instrumentalit$ or
corporation of the go#ernment, or an$ officer or emplo$ee thereof, for such assistance as it ma$ need in the
discharge of its functions)
-
cra B$ emorandum (rder No) =& dated No#ember /, &//', the functions of the
Committee were subse3uentl$ e4panded, #i")+cra+nad
ACERE2;, among the underl$ing purposes for the creation of the 2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest
!oans is to facilitate the collection and reco#er$ of defaulted loans owing go#ernment9owned and controlled
banking andMor financing institutions:
ACERE2;, this end ma$ be better ser#ed b$ broadening the scope of the fact9finding mission of the Committee
to include all non9performing loans which shall embrace behest and non9behest loans:
N(A *CERE7(RE, I, 7I@E! ?) R2(;, President of the Republic of the Philippines, b$ #irtue of the power
#ested in me b$ law, do hereb$ order+cra+nad
;ec) &) *he 2d Coc 7act97inding Committee on Behest !oans shall include in its in#estigation, in#entor$, and
stud$, all non9performing loans which shall embrace both behest and non9behest loans+cra+nad
*he following criteria ma$ be utili"ed as a frame of reference in determining a behest loan+cra+nad
&) It is under9collaterali"ed:
') *he borrower corporation is undercapitali"ed:
-) @irect or indirect endorsement b$ high go#ernment officials like presence of marginal notes:
8) ;tockholders, officers or agents of the borrower corporation are identified as cronies:
<) @e#iation of use of loan proceeds from the purpose intended:
=) Ese of corporate la$ering:
1) Non9feasibilit$ of the project for which financing is being sought: and
0) E4traordinar$ speed in which the loan release was made)
oreo#er, a behest loan ma$ be distinguished from a non9behest loan in that while both ma$ in#ol#e ci#il liabilit$
for non9pa$ment or non9reco#er$, the former ma$ likewise entail criminal liabilit$)
8
cra ;e#eral loan accounts
were referred to the Committee for in#estigation, including the loan transactions between etals E4ploration
2sia, Inc) 5E26, now Philippine Eagle ines, Inc) 5PEI6 and the @e#elopment Bank of the Philippines 5@BP6)
2fter e4amining and stud$ing the documents relati#e to the loan transactions, the Committee determined that the$
bore the characteristics of behest loans, as defined under emorandum (rder No) =& because the stockholders
and officers of PEI were known cronies of then President 7erdinand arcos: the loan was under9collaterali"ed:
and PEI was undercapitali"ed at the time the loan was granted)
;pecificall$, the in#estigation re#ealed that in &/10, PEI applied for a foreign currenc$ loan and bank
in#estment on its preferred shares with @BP) *he loan application was appro#ed on 2pril '<, &/1/ per Board
Resolution 5BMR6 No) &'/1, but the loan was ne#er released because PEI failed to compl$ with the conditions
imposed b$ @BP) *o accommodate PEI, @BP subse3uentl$ adopted BMR No) '-&< dated ,une &/0., amending
BMR No) &'/1, authori"ing the release of PEIBs foreign currenc$ loan proceeds, and e#en increasing the same)
Per BMR No) /< dated (ctober &=, &/0., PEI was granted a foreign currenc$ loan of N&/,=0.,'=1)..
or P&8=,=.&,/1/).., and it was released despite non9compliance with the conditions imposed b$ @BP) *he
Committee claimed that the loan had no sufficient collaterals and PEI had no sufficient capital at that time
because its ac3uired assets were onl$ #alued atP1',.8<,1..).., and its paid up capital was onl$ P8=,800,0-8)..)
Conse3uentl$, 2tt$) (rlando !) ;al#ador, Consultant of the 7act97inding Committee, and representing the
Presidential Commission on >ood >o#ernment 5PC>>6, filed with the (ffice of the (mbudsman 5(mbudsman6
a sworn complaint for #iolation of ;ections -5e6 and 5g6 of Republic 2ct No) -.&/, or the 2nti9>raft and Corrupt
Practices 2ct, against the respondents Placido I) apa, ,r), Rafael 2) ;ison: Rolando ) Gosa: Cesar C) Galamea:
Benjamin Barot, Casimiro *anedo, ,)?) de (campo, Bien#enido R) *antoco, ,r), 7rancis B) Banes, Ernesto )
Caringal, Romeo ?) ,acinto, anuel @) *anglao and 2licia !l) Re$es)
<
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
2fter considering the CommitteeBs allegation, the (mbudsman handed down the assailed Resolution,
=
dismissing
the complaint) *he (mbudsman conceded that there was ground to proceed with the conduct of preliminar$
in#estigation) Nonetheless, it dismissed the complaint holding that the offenses charged had alread$ prescribed,
#i")+cra+nad
%AJhile apparentl$, PEI was undercapitali"ed at the time the subject loans were entered into: the financial
accommodations were undercollaterali"ed at the time the$ were granted: the stockholders and officers of the
borrower corporation are identified cronies of then President arcos: and the release of the said loans was made
despite non9compliance b$ PEI of the conditions attached therewith, which conse3uentl$ gi#e a semblance that
the subject 7oreign Currenc$ !oans are indeed Behest !oans, the prosecution of the offenses charged cannot, at
this point, prosper on grounds of prescription)
It bears to stress that ;ection && of R)2) No) -.&/ as originall$ enacted, pro#ides that the prescripti#e period for
#iolations of the said 2ct 5R)2) -.&/6 is ten 5&.6 $ears) ;ubse3uentl$, BP &/<, enacted on arch &=, &/0',
amended the period of prescription from ten 5&.6 $ears to fifteen 5&<6 $ears
oreo#er as enunciated in %theJ case of People #s) ;andiganba$an, '&& ;CR2 '8&, the computation of the
prescripti#e period of a crime #iolating a special law like R)2) -.&/ is go#erned b$ 2ct No) --'= which pro#ides,
thus+
4 4 4
;ection ') Prescription shall begin to run from the da$ of the commission of the #iolation of law, and if the same
be not known at the time, from the disco#er$ thereof and the institution of the judicial proceedings for its
in#estigation and punishment)
*he prescription shall be interrupted when the proceedings are instituted against the guilt$ person, and shall begin
to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopard$)
Corollar$ thereto, the ;upreme Court in the case of People #s) @insa$, C)2) 8. ()>) &'th ;upp), <., ruled that
when there is nothing which was concealed or needed to be disco#ered because the entire series of transactions
were b$ public instruments, the period of prescription commenced to run from the date the said instrument were
e4ecuted)
*he aforesaid principle was further elucidated in the cases of People #s) ;andiganba$an, '&& ;CR2 '8&, &//',
and People #s) ?illalon, &/' ;CR2 <'&, &//., where the ;upreme Court pronounced that when the transactions
are contained in public documents and the e4ecution thereof ga#e rise to unlawful acts, the #iolation of the law
commences therefrom) *hus, the reckoning period for purposes of prescription shall begin to run from the time
the public instruments came into e4istence)
In the case at bar, the subject financial accommodations were entered into b$ #irtue of public documents 5e)g),
notari"ed contracts, board resolutions, appro#ed letter9re3uest6 during the period of &/10 to &/0& and for purposes
of computing the prescripti#e period, the aforementioned principles in the @insa$, ?illalon and ;andiganba$an
cases will appl$) Records show that the complaint was referred and filed with this (ffice on (ctober 8, &//= or
after the lapse of more than fifteen 5&<6 $ears from the #iolation of the law) %@eductibl$J therefore, the offenses
charged had alread$ prescribed or fore#er barred b$ ;tatute of !imitations)
It bears mention that the acts complained of were committed before the issuance of BP &/< on arch ', &/0')
Cence, the prescripti#e period in the instant case is ten 5&.6 $ears as pro#ided in the 5sic6 ;ection && of R)2) -.&/,
as originall$ enacted)
E3uall$ important to stress is that the subject financial transactions between &/10 and &/0& transpired at the time
when there was $et no Presidential (rder or @irecti#e naming, classif$ing or categori"ing them as Behest or Non9
Behest !oans)
*o reiterate, the Presidential 2d Coc Committee on Behest !oans was created on (ctober 0, &//' under
2dministrati#e (rder No) &-) ;ubse3uentl$, emorandum (rder No) =&, dated No#ember /, &//', was issued
defining the criteria to be utili"ed as a frame of reference in determining behest loans) 2ccordingl$, if these
(rders are to be considered the bases of charging respondents for alleged offenses committed, the$ become e49
post facto laws which are proscribed b$ the Constitution) *he ;upreme Court in the case of People #)
;andiganba$an, supra, citing Ailensk$ ?) 7ields, 7la, '=1 ;o 'dl, <, held that Fan e49post facto law is defined as
a law which pro#ides for infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which when it was committed,
was innocent)F
1
cra *hus, the (mbudsman disposed+cra+nad
ACERE7(RE, premises considered, it is hereb$ respectfull$ recommended that the instant case be @I;I;;E@)
;( RE;(!?E@)
0
cra *he Committee filed a otion for Reconsideration, but the (mbudsman denied it on ,ul$
'1, &//0)
Cence, this petition positing these issues+cra+nad
2) ACE*CER (R N(* *CE CRIE @E7INE@ BH ;EC) -5e6 2N@ 5g6 (7 R)2) -.&/ C2; 2!RE2@H
PRE;CRIBE@ 2* *CE *IE *CE PE*I*I(NER 7I!E@ I*; C(P!2IN*)
B) ACE*CER (R N(* 2@INI;*R2*I?E (R@ER N() &- 2N@ E(R2N@E (R@ER N() =& 2RE
ED9P(;* 72C*( !2A%;J)
/
cra *he Court shall deal first with the procedural issue)
Commenting on the petition, *antoco, Re$es, apa, Galamea and Caringal argued that the petition suffers from a
procedural infirmit$ which warrants its dismissal) *he$ claimed that the PC>> a#ailed of the wrong remed$ in
ele#ating the case to this Court)
Indeed, what was filed before this Court is a petition captioned as Petition for Re#iew on Certiorari ) Ae ha#e
ruled, time and again, that a petition for re#iew on certiorari is not the proper mode b$ which resolutions of the
(mbudsman in preliminar$ in#estigations of criminal cases are re#iewed b$ this Court) *he remed$ from the
ad#erse resolution of the (mbudsman is a petition for certiorari under Rule =<,
&.
not a petition for re#iew
on certiorari under Rule 8<)
Cowe#er, though captioned as a #etition for 4eview on Certiorari! we will treat this petition as one filed under
4ule 9I since a reading of its contents reveals that petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to the
)mbudsman for dismissing the complaint. ;he averments in the complaint! not the nomenclature given by the
parties! determine the nature of the action.
..
In previous rulings! we have treated differently labeled actions as
special civil actions for certiorari under 4ule 9I for reasons such as justice! e3uity! and fair play.
.8
cra &aving
resolved the procedural issue! we proceed to the merits of the case.
As the Committee puts it! the issues to be resolved areG DiE whether or not the offenses subject of its criminal
complaint have prescribed! and DiiE whether Administrative )rder 5o. .7 and emorandum )rder 5o. 9. are e%
post facto laws.
;he issue of prescription has long been settled by this Court in #residential Ad &oc ,act-,inding Committee on
Behest 'oans v. Desierto!
.7
thusGcraGnad
JIKt is well-nigh impossible for the (tate! the aggrieved party! to have 6nown the violations of 4.A. 5o. 7L./ at the
time the 3uestioned transactions were made because! as alleged! the public officials concerned connived or
conspired with the Mbeneficiaries of the loans.M ;hus! we agree with the C)I;;EE that the prescriptive
period for the offenses with which the respondents in )B-L-/9-L/91 were charged should be computed from the
discovery of the commission thereof and not from the day of such commission.
.<
cra ;he ruling was reiterated in
#residential Ad &oc ,act-,inding Committee on Behest 'oans v. )mbudsman Desierto!
.I
wherein the Court
e%plainedGcraGnad
In cases involving violations of 4.A. 5o. 7L./ committed prior to the ,ebruary ./19 ED(A 4evolution that
ousted #resident ,erdinand E. arcos! we ruled that the government as the aggrieved party could not have
6nown of the violations at the time the 3uestioned transactions were made. oreover! no person would have
dared to 3uestion the legality of those transactions. ;hus! the counting of the prescriptive period commenced
from the date of discovery of the offense in .//8 after an e%haustive investigation by the #residential Ad &oc
Committee on Behest 'oans.
.9
cra ;his is now a well-settled doctrine which the Court has applied in subse3uent
cases involving the #C00 and the )mbudsman.
.2
chanroblesvirtuallawlibary
(ince the prescriptive period commenced to run on the date of the discovery of the offenses! and since discovery
could not have been made earlier than )ctober 1! .//8! the date when the Committee was created! the criminal
offenses allegedly committed by the respondents had not yet prescribed when the complaint was filed on )ctober
<! .//9.
Even the )mbudsman! in its anifestation N otion DIn 'ieu of CommentE!
.1
conceded that the prescriptive
period commenced from the date the Committee discovered the crime! and not from the date the loan documents
were registered with the 4egister of Deeds. As a matter of fact! it re3uested that the record of the case be referred
bac6 to the )mbudsman for a proper evaluation of its merit.
'i6ewise! we cannot sustain the )mbudsmanOs declaration that Administrative )rder 5o. .7 and emorandum
)rder 5o. 9. violate the prohibition against e% post facto laws for ostensibly inflicting punishment upon a person
for an act done prior to their issuance and which was innocent when done.
;he constitutionality of laws is presumed. ;o justify nullification of a law! there must be a clear and une3uivocal
breach of the Constitution! not a doubtful or arguable implication? a law shall not be declared invalid unless the
conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. ;he presumption is always in favor of
constitutionality. ;o doubt is to sustain.
./
Even this Court does not decide a 3uestion of constitutional dimension!
unless that 3uestion is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case and is necessary to a determination
of the case! i.e.! the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.
8L
chanroblesvirtuallawlibary
,urthermore! in Estarija v. 4anada!
8.
where the petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality of 4epublic Act 5o.
922L in his motion for reconsideration of the )mbudsmanOs decision! we had occasion to state that the
)mbudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain 3uestions on the constitutionality of a law. ;he )mbudsman!
therefore! acted in e%cess of its jurisdiction in declaring unconstitutional the subject administrative and
memorandum orders.
In any event! we hold that Administrative )rder 5o. .7 and emorandum )rder 5o. 9. are not e% post facto
laws.
An e% post facto law has been defined as one - DaE which ma6es an action done before the passing of the law and
which was innocent when done criminal! and punishes such action? or DbE which aggravates a crime or ma6es it
greater than it was when committed? or DcE which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law anne%ed to the crime when it was committed? or DdE which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives
less or different testimony than the law re3uired at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict
the defendant.
88
;his Court added two D8E more to the list! namelyG DeE that which assumes to regulate civil rights
and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful? or DfE
that which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled! such
as the protection of a former conviction or ac3uittal! or a proclamation of amnesty.
87
chanroblesvirtuallawlibary
;he constitutional doctrine that outlaws an e% post facto law generally prohibits the retrospectivity of penal laws.
#enal laws are those acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their
violations? or those that define crimes! treat of their nature! and provide for their punishment.
8<
;he subject
administrative and memorandum orders clearly do not come within the shadow of this definition. Administrative
)rder 5o. .7 creates the #residential Ad &oc ,act-,inding Committee on Behest 'oans! and provides for its
composition and functions. It does not mete out penalty for the act of granting behest loans. emorandum )rder
5o. 9. merely provides a frame of reference for determining behest loans. 5ot being penal laws! Administrative
)rder 5o. .7 and emorandum )rder 5o. 9. cannot be characteri$ed as e% post facto laws. ;here is! therefore!
no basis for the )mbudsman to rule that the subject administrative and memorandum orders are e% post facto.
)ne final note. 4espondents apa and Palamea! in their respective comments! moved for the dismissal of the
case against them. apa claims that he was granted transactional immunity from all #C00-initiated
cases!
8I
while Palamea denied participation in the approval of the subject loans.
89
;he arguments advanced by
apa and Palamea are matters of defense which should be raised in their respective counter-affidavits. (ince the
)mbudsman erroneously dismissed the complaint on ground of prescription! respondentsO respective defenses
were never passed upon during the preliminary investigation. ;hus! the complaint should be referred bac6 to the
)mbudsman for proper evaluation of its merit.
*&E4E,)4E! the petition is 04A5;ED. ;he assailed 4esolution and )rder of the )ffice of )mbudsman in
)B-L-/9-8<81! are (E; A(IDE. ;he )ffice of the )mbudsman is directed to conduct with dispatch an
evaluation of the merits of the complaint against the herein 4espondents.
() )4DE4ED
[G.R. No. 1;94FI. J,:u,7y 18, 2000]
SECRE%AR' O( JUS%ICE, Petitioner, vs. "ON. RAL" C. LAN%ION, 718505:= Ju0=1, R1=5o:,l %75,l
Cou74 o2 !,:5l,, B7,:/< 2I, ,:0 !ARK B. JI!ENE#, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
!ELO, J.*
*he indi#idual citi"en is but a speck of particle or molecule #is99#is the #ast and o#erwhelming powers of
go#ernment) Cis onl$ guarantee against oppression and t$rann$ are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of
Rights which shield him in times of need) *he Court is now called to decide whether to uphold a citi"ens basic
due process rights, or the go#ernments ironclad duties under a treat$) *he bugle sounds and this Court must once
again act as the faithful guardian of the fundamental writ)
*he petition at our doorstep is cast against the following factual backdrop+
(n ,anuar$ &-, &/11, then President 7erdinand E) arcos issued Presidential @ecree No) &.=/ FPrescribing the
Procedure for the E4tradition of Persons Aho Ca#e Committed Crimes in a 7oreign Countr$F) *he @ecree is
founded on+ the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution: the mutual concern for the suppression of crime
both in the state where it was committed and the state where the criminal ma$ ha#e escaped: the e4tradition treat$
with the Republic of Indonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into similar treaties with other
interested countries: and the need for rules to guide the e4ecuti#e department and the courts in the proper
implementation of said treaties)
(n No#ember &-, &//8, then ;ecretar$ of ,ustice 7ranklin ) @rilon, representing the >o#ernment of the
Republic of the Philippines, signed in anila the FE4tradition *reat$ Between the >o#ernment of the Republic of
the Philippines and the >o#ernment of the Enited ;tates of 2mericaF 5hereinafter referred to as the RP9E;
E4tradition *reat$6) *he ;enate, b$ wa$ of Resolution No) &&, e4pressed its concurrence in the ratification of said
treat$) It also e4pressed its concurrence in the @iplomatic Notes correcting Paragraph 5<65a6, 2rticle 1 thereof 5on
the admissibilit$ of the documents accompan$ing an e4tradition re3uest upon certification b$ the principal
diplomatic or consular officer of the re3uested state resident in the Re3uesting ;tate6)
(n ,une &0, &///, the @epartment of ,ustice recei#ed from the @epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs E) ;) Note ?erbale
No) .<'' containing a re3uest for the e4tradition of pri#ate respondent ark ,imene" to the Enited ;tates)
2ttached to the Note ?erbale were the >rand ,ur$ Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued b$ the E);) @istrict
Court, ;outhern @istrict of 7lorida, and other supporting documents for said e4tradition) Based on the papers
submitted, pri#ate respondent appears to be charged in the Enited ;tates with #iolation of the following
pro#isions of the Enited ;tates Code 5E;C6+
26......&0 E;C -1& 5Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the +nited (tates: two %'J counts: a4imum
Penalt$ < $ears on each count6:
B6......'= E;C 1'.& 5Attempt to evade or defeat ta%: four %8J counts: a4imum Penalt$ < $ears on each count6:
C6......&0 E;C &-8- 5,raud by wire! radio! or television: two %'J counts: a4imum Penalt$ < $ears on each
count6:
@6......&0 E;C &..& 5,alse statement or entries: si4 %=J counts: a4imum Penalt$ < $ears on each count6:
E6......' E;C 88&f 5Election contributions in name of another: thirt$9three %--J counts: a4imum Penalt$ less
than one $ear6)
5p) &8, Rollo)6
(n the same da$, petitioner issued @epartment (rder No) '8/ designating and authori"ing a panel of attorne$s to
take charge of and to handle the case pursuant to ;ection <5&6 of Presidential @ecree No) &.=/) 2ccordingl$, the
panel began with the Ftechnical e#aluation and assessmentF of the e4tradition re3uest and the documents in
support thereof) *he panel found that the Fofficial English translation of some documents in ;panish were not
attached to the re3uest and that there are some other matters that needed to be addressedF 5p) &<, Rollo6)
Pending e#aluation of the aforestated e4tradition documents, pri#ate respondent, through counsel, wrote a letter
dated ,ul$ &, &/// addressed to petitioner re3uesting copies of the official e4tradition re3uest from the E) ;)
>o#ernment, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith: and that he be gi#en ample time to
comment on the re3uest after he shall ha#e recei#ed copies of the re3uested papers) Pri#ate respondent also
re3uested that the proceedings on the matter be held in abe$ance in the meantime)
!ater, pri#ate respondent re3uested that preliminaril$, he be gi#en at least a cop$ of, or access to, the re3uest of
the Enited ;tates >o#ernment, and after recei#ing a cop$ of the @iplomatic Note, a period of time to amplif$ on
his re3uest)
In response to pri#ate respondents ,ul$ &, &/// letter, Petitioner, in a repl$9letter dated ,ul$ &-, &/// 5but recei#ed
b$ pri#ate respondent onl$ on 2ugust 8, &///6, denied the foregoing re3uests for the following reasons+
&) Ae find it premature to furnish $ou with copies of the e4tradition re3uest and supporting documents from the
Enited ;tates >o#ernment, pending e#aluation b$ this @epartment of the sufficienc$ of the e4tradition documents
submitted in accordance with the pro#isions of the e4tradition treat$ and our e4tradition law) 2rticle 1 of the
E4tradition *reat$ between the Philippines and the Enited ;tates enumerates the documentar$ re3uirements and
establishes the procedures under which the documents submitted shall be recei#ed and admitted as e#idence)
E#identiar$ re3uirements under our domestic law are also set forth in ;ection 8 of P)@) No) &.=/)
E#aluation b$ this @epartment of the aforementioned documents is not a preliminar$ in#estigation nor akin to
preliminar$ in#estigation of criminal cases) Ae merel$ determine whether the procedures and re3uirements under
the rele#ant law and treat$ ha#e been complied with b$ the Re3uesting >o#ernment) *he constitutionall$
guaranteed rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions are therefore not a#ailable)
It is onl$ after the filing of the petition for e4tradition when the person sought to be e4tradited will be furnished
b$ the court with copies of the petition, re3uest and e4tradition documents and this @epartment will not pose an$
objection to a re3uest for ample time to e#aluate said documents)
') *he formal re3uest for e4tradition of the Enited ;tates contains grand jur$ information and documents obtained
through grand jur$ process co#ered b$ strict secrec$ rules under Enited ;tates law) *he Enited ;tates had to
secure orders from the concerned @istrict Courts authori"ing the Enited ;tates to disclose certain grand jur$
information to Philippine go#ernment and law enforcement personnel for the purpose of e4tradition of r)
,imene") 2n$ further disclosure of the said information is not authori"ed b$ the Enited ;tates @istrict Courts) In
this particular e4tradition re3uest the Enited ;tates >o#ernment re3uested the Philippine >o#ernment to pre#ent
unauthori"ed disclosure of the subject information) *his @epartments denial of $our re3uest is consistent with
2rticle 1 of the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$ which pro#ides that the Philippine >o#ernment must represent the
interests of the Enited ;tates in an$ proceedings arising out of a re3uest for e4tradition) *he @epartment of ,ustice
under P)@) No) &.=/ is the counsel of the foreign go#ernments in all e4tradition re3uests)
-) *his @epartment is not in a position to hold in abe$ance proceedings in connection with an e4tradition re3uest)
2rticle '= of the ?ienna Con#ention on the !aw of *reaties, to which we are a part$ pro#ides that F%EJ#er$ treat$
in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed b$ them in good faithF) E4tradition is a tool of
criminal law enforcement and to be effecti#e, re3uests for e4tradition or surrender of accused or con#icted
persons must be processed e4peditiousl$)
5pp) 11910, Rollo)6
;uch was the state of affairs when, on 2ugust =, &///, pri#ate respondent filed with the Regional *rial Court of
the National Capital ,udicial Region a petition against the ;ecretar$ of ,ustice, the ;ecretar$ of 7oreign 2ffairs,
and the @irector of the National Bureau of In#estigation, for mandamus 5to compel herein petitioner to furnish
pri#ate respondent the e4tradition documents, to gi#e him access thereto, and to afford him an opportunit$ to
comment on, or oppose, the e4tradition re3uest, and thereafter to e#aluate the re3uest impartiall$, fairl$ and
objecti#el$6:certiorari 5to set aside herein petitioners letter dated ,ul$ &-, &///6: and prohibition 5to restrain
petitioner from considering the e4tradition re3uest and from filing an e4tradition petition in court: and to enjoin
the ;ecretar$ of 7oreign 2ffairs and the @irector of the NBI from performing an$ act directed to the e4tradition of
pri#ate respondent to the Enited ;tates6, with an application for the issuance of a temporar$ restraining order and
a writ of preliminar$ injunction 5pp) &.89&.<, Rollo6)
*he aforementioned petition was docketed as Ci#il Case No) //9/8=08 and thereafter raffled to Branch '< of said
regional trial court stationed in anila which is presided o#er b$ the Conorable Ralph C) !antion)
2fter due notice to the parties, the case was heard on 2ugust /, &///) Petitioner, who appeared in his own behalf,
mo#ed that he be gi#en ample time to file a memorandum, but the same was denied)
(n 2ugust &., &///, respondent judge issued an order dated the pre#ious da$, disposing+
ACERE7(RE, this Court hereb$ (rders the respondents, namel$+ the ;ecretar$ of ,ustice, the ;ecretar$ of
7oreign 2ffairs and the @irector of the National Bureau of In#estigation, their agents andMor representati#es to
maintain the status 3uo b$ refraining from committing the acts complained of: from conducting further
proceedings in connection with the re3uest of the Enited ;tates >o#ernment for the e4tradition of the petitioner:
from filing the corresponding Petition with a Regional *rial court: and from performing an$ act directed to the
e4tradition of the petitioner to the Enited ;tates, for a period of twent$ 5'.6 da$s from ser#ice on respondents of
this (rder, pursuant to ;ection <, Rule <0 of the &//1 Rules of Court)
*he hearing as to whether or not this Court shall issue the preliminar$ injunction, as agreed upon b$ the counsels
for the parties herein, is set on 2ugust &1, &/// at /+.. oclock in the morning) *he respondents are, likewise,
ordered to file their written comment andMor opposition to the issuance of a Preliminar$ Injunction on or before
said date)
;( (R@ERE@)
5pp) &&.9&&&, Rollo)6
7orthwith, petitioner initiated the instant proceedings, arguing that+
PEB!IC RE;P(N@EN* 2C*E@ AI*C(E* (R IN EDCE;; (7 ,ERI;@IC*I(N (R AI*C >R2?E
2BE;E (7 @I;CRE*I(N 2(EN*IN> *( !2CK (R EDCE;; (7 ,ERI;@IC*I(N IN I;;EIN> *CE
*EP(R2RH RE;*R2ININ> (R@ER BEC2E;E+--_
I.
BH (R@ERIN> CEREIN PE*I*I(NER *( RE7R2IN 7R( C(I**IN> *CE 2C*; C(P!2INE@
(7, I. E), *( @E;I;* 7R( RE7E;IN> PRI?2*E RE;P(N@EN* 2CCE;; *( *CE (77ICI2!
ED*R2@I*I(N REIEE;* 2N@ @(CEEN*; 2N@ 7R( @ENHIN> PRI?2*E RE;P(N@EN* 2N
(PP(R*ENI*H *( 7I!E 2 C(EN* (N, (R (PP(;I*I(N *(, *CE REIEE;*, *CE 2IN PR2HER
7(R 2 ARI* (7 2N@2E; IN *CE PE*I*I(N 7(R 2N@2E;, CER*I(R2RI 2N@ PR(CIBI*I(N
A2;, IN E77EC*, >R2N*E@ ;( 2; *( C(N;*I*E*E 2N 2@,E@IC2*I(N (N *CE ERI*; (7 *CE
2N@2E; I;;EE;:
II.
PE*I*I(NER A2; ENIE2!I7IE@!H PRE?EN*E@ 7R( PER7(RIN> !E>2! @E*IE; EN@ER *CE
ED*R2@I*I(N *RE2*H 2N@ *CE PCI!IPPINE ED*R2@I*I(N !2A:
III.
*CE PE*I*I(N 7(R 52N@2E;6, CER*I(R2RI 2N@ PR(CIBI*I(N I;, (N I*; 72CE, 7(R2!!H
2N@ ;EB;*2N*I2!!H @E7ICIEN*: 2N@
I&.
PRI?2*E RE;P(N@EN* C2; N( RI>C* I5 E((E *C2* NEE@; PR(*EC*I(N 2N@ EN7(RCEEN*,
2N@ AI!! N(* ;E77ER 2NH IRREP2R2B!E IN,ERH)
5pp) &/9'., Rollo)6
(n 2ugust &1, &///, the Court re3uired pri#ate respondent to file his comment) 2lso issued, as pra$ed for, was a
temporar$ restraining order 5*R(6 pro#iding+_-"
N(A, *CERE7(RE, effecti#e immediatel$ and continuing until further orders from this Court, Hou, Respondent
,udge Ralph C) !antion, $our agents, representati#es or an$ person or persons acting in $our place or stead are
hereb$ (R@ERE@ to CE2;E and @E;I;* from enforcing the assailed order dated 2ugust /, &/// issued b$
public respondent in Ci#il Case No) //9/8=08)
>I?EN b$ the Conorable CI!2RI( >) @2?I@E, ,R), Chief ,ustice, ;upreme Court of the Philippines, this &1th
da$ of 2ugust &///)
5pp) &'.9&'&, Rollo)6
*he case was heard on oral argument on 2ugust -&, &///, after which the parties, as directed, filed their
respecti#e memoranda)
7rom the pleadings of the opposing parties, both procedural and substanti#e issues are patent) Cowe#er, a re#iew
of these issues as well as the e4tensi#e arguments of both parties, compel us to delineate the focal point raised b$
the pleadings+ @uring the e#aluation stage of the e4tradition proceedings, is pri#ate respondent entitled to the two
basic due process rights of notice and hearingO 2n affirmati#e answer would necessaril$ render the proceedings at
the trial court, moot and academic 5the issues of which are substantiall$ the same as those before us now6, while a
negati#e resolution would call for the immediate lifting of the *R( issued b$ this Court dated 2ugust '8, &///,
thus allowing petitioner to fast9track the process leading to the filing of the e4tradition petition with the proper
regional trial court) Corollaril$, in the e#ent that pri#ate respondent is adjudged entitled to basic due process rights
at the e#aluation stage of the e4tradition proceedings, would this entitlement constitute a breach of the legal
commitments and obligations of the Philippine >o#ernment under the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$O 2nd assuming
that the result would indeed be a breach, is there an$ conflict between pri#ate respondents basic due process rights
and the pro#isions of the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$O
*he issues ha#ing transcendental importance, the Court has elected to go directl$ into the substanti#e merits of the
case, brushing aside peripheral procedural matters which concern the proceedings in Ci#il Case No) //9/8=08,
particularl$ the propriet$ of the filing of the petition therein, and of the issuance of the *R( of 2ugust &1, &///
b$ the trial court)
*o be sure, the issues call for a re#iew of the e4tradition procedure) *he RP9E; E4tradition *reat$ which was
e4ecuted onl$ on No#ember &-, &//8, ushered into force the implementing pro#isions of Presidential @ecree No)
&.=/, also called as the Philippine E4tradition !aw) ;ection '5a6 thereof defines e4tradition as Fthe remo#al of an
accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the
re3uesting state or go#ernment to hold him in connection with an$ criminal in#estigation directed against him or
the e4ecution of a penalt$ imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the re3uesting state or go#ernment)F
*he portions of the @ecree rele#ant to the instant case which in#ol#es a charged and not con#icted indi#idual, are
abstracted as follows+
%<1 E347,0545o: R1Mu184
*he re3uest is made b$ the 7oreign @iplomat of the Re3uesting ;tate, addressed to the ;ecretar$ of 7oreign
2ffairs, and shall be accompanied b$+
&) *he original or an authentic cop$ of the criminal charge and the warrant of arrest issued b$ the authorit$ of the
Re3uesting ;tate ha#ing jurisdiction o#er the matter, or some other instruments ha#ing e3ui#alent legal force:
') 2 recital of the acts for which e4tradition is re3uested, with the fullest particulars as to the name and identit$ of
the accused, his whereabouts in the Philippines, if known, the acts or omissions complained of, and the time and
place of the commission of these acts:_-_
-) *he te4t of the applicable law or a statement of the contents of said law, and the designation or description of
the offense b$ the law, sufficient for e#aluation of the re3uest: and
8) ;uch other documents or information in support of the re3uest)
5;ection 8, Presidential @ecree No) &.=/)6
;ection < of the Presidential @ecree, which sets forth the dut$ of the ;ecretar$ of 7oreign 2ffairs, pertinentl$
pro#ides+
) ) ) 5&6 Enless it appears to the ;ecretar$ of 7oreign 2ffairs that the re3uest fails to meet the re3uirements of this
law and the rele#ant treat$ or con#ention, he shall forward the re3uest together with the related documents to the
;ecretar$ of ,ustice, who shall immediatel$ designate and authori"e an attorne$ in his office to take charge of the
case)
*he abo#e pro#ision shows onl$ too clearl$ that the e4ecuti#e authorit$ gi#en the task of e#aluating the
sufficienc$ of the re3uest and the supporting documents is the ;ecretar$ of 7oreign 2ffairs) Ahat then is the
co#erage of this taskO
In accordance with Paragraphs ' and -, 2rticle 1 of the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$, the e4ecuti#e authorit$ must
ascertain whether or not the re3uest is supported b$+
&) @ocuments, statements, or other t$pes of information which describe the identit$ and probable location of the
person sought:
') 2 statement of the facts of the offense and the procedural histor$ of the case:
-) 2 statement of the pro#isions of the law describing the essential elements of the offense for which e4tradition is
re3uested:
8) 2 statement of the pro#isions of law describing the punishment for the offense:_-
<) 2 statement of the pro#isions of the law describing an$ time limit on the prosecution or the e4ecution of
punishment for the offense:
=) @ocuments, statements, or other t$pes of information specified in paragraph - or paragraph 8 of said 2rticle, as
applicable)
5Paragraph ', 2rticle 1, Presidential @ecree No) &.=/)6
1) ;uch e#idence as, according to the law of the Re3uested ;tate, would pro#ide probable cause for his arrest and
committal for trial if the offense had been committed there:
0) 2 cop$ of the warrant or order of arrest issued b$ a judge or other competent authorit$: and
/) 2 cop$ of the charging document)
5Paragraph -, ibid.6
*he e4ecuti#e authorit$ 5;ecretar$ of 7oreign 2ffairs6 must also see to it that the accompan$ing documents
recei#ed in support of the re3uest had been certified b$ the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the
Re3uested ;tate resident in the Re3uesting ;tate 5Embass$ Note No) .<' from E) ;) Embass$: Embass$ Note No)
/<&-./ from the @epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs6)
In this light, Paragraph -, 2rticle - of the *reat$ pro#ides that F%eJ4tradition shall not be granted if the e4ecuti#e
authorit$ of the Re3uested ;tate determines that the re3uest is politicall$ moti#ated, or that the offense is a
militar$ offense which is not punishable under non9militar$ penal legislation)F
%<1 E347,0545o: 14545o:
Epon a finding made b$ the ;ecretar$ of 7oreign 2ffairs that the e4tradition re3uest and its supporting documents
are sufficient and complete in form and substance, he shall deli#er the same to the ;ecretar$ of ,ustice, who shall
immediatel$ designate and authori"e an attorne$ in his office to take charge of the case 5Paragraph %&J, ;ection <,
P) @) No) &.=/6) *he law$er designated shall then file a written petition with the proper regional trial court of the
pro#ince or cit$, with a pra$er that the court take the e4tradition re3uest under consideration 5Paragraph
%'J, ibid.6)
*he presiding judge of the regional trial court, upon receipt of the petition for e4tradition, shall, as soon as
practicable, issue an order summoning the prospecti#e e4traditee to appear and to answer the petition on the da$
and hour fi4ed in the order) *he judge ma$ issue a warrant of arrest if it appears that the immediate arrest and
temporar$ detention of the accused will best ser#e the ends of justice 5Paragraph %&J, ;ection =, ibid.6, particularl$
to pre#ent the flight of the prospecti#e e4traditee)
%<1 E347,0545o: "1,75:=
*he E4tradition !aw does not specificall$ indicate whether the e4tradition proceeding is criminal, ci#il, or a
special proceeding) Ne#ertheless, Paragraph %&J, ;ection / thereof pro#ides that in the hearing of the e4tradition
petition, the pro#isions of the Rules of Court, insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summar$ nature
of the proceedings, shall appl$) @uring the hearing, ;ection 0 of the @ecree pro#ides that the attorne$ ha#ing
charge of the case ma$, upon application b$ the Re3uesting ;tate, represent the latter throughout the proceedings)
Epon conclusion of the hearing, the court shall render a decision granting the e4tradition and gi#ing the reasons
therefor upon a showing of the e4istence of a prima facie case, or dismiss the petition 5;ection &., ibid.6) ;aid
decision is appealable to the Court of 2ppeals, whose decision shall be final and immediatel$ e4ecutor$ 5;ection
&',ibid.6) *he pro#isions of the Rules of Court go#erning appeal in criminal cases in the Court of 2ppeals shall
appl$ in the aforementioned appeal, e4cept for the re3uired &<9da$ period to file brief 5;ection &-, ibid.6)
*he trial court determines whether or not the offense mentioned in the petition is e4traditable based on the
application of the dual criminalit$ rule and other conditions mentioned in 2rticle ' of the RP9E; E4tradition
*reat$) *he trial court also determines whether or not the offense for which e4tradition is re3uested is a political
one 5Paragraph %&J, 2rticle -, RP9E; E4tradition *reat$6)
Aith the foregoing abstract of the e4tradition proceedings as backdrop, the following 3uer$ presents itself+ Ahat
is the nature of the role of the @epartment of ,ustice at the e#aluation stage of the e4tradition proceedingsO
2 strict obser#ance of the E4tradition !aw indicates that the onl$ dut$ of the ;ecretar$ of ,ustice is to file the
e4tradition petition after the re3uest and all the supporting papers are forwarded to him b$ the ;ecretar$ of
7oreign 2ffairs) It is the latter official who is authori"ed to e#aluate the e4tradition papers, to assure their
sufficienc$, and under Paragraph %-J, 2rticle - of the *reat$, to determine whether or not the re3uest is politicall$
moti#ated, or that the offense is a militar$ offense which is not punishable under non9militar$ penal
legislation) Ipso facto, as e4pressl$ pro#ided in Paragraph %&J, ;ection < of the E4tradition !aw, the ;ecretar$ of
,ustice has the ministerial dut$ of filing the e4tradition papers)
Cowe#er, looking at the factual milieu of the case before us, it would appear that there was failure to abide b$ the
pro#isions of Presidential @ecree No) &.=/) 7or while it is true that the e4tradition re3uest was deli#ered to the
@epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs on ,une &1, &///, the following da$ or less than '8 hours later, the @epartment of
,ustice recei#ed the re3uest, apparentl$ without the @epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs discharging its dut$ of
thoroughl$ e#aluating the same and its accompan$ing documents) *he statement of an assistant secretar$ at the
@epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs that his @epartment, in this regard, is merel$ acting as a post office, for which
reason he simpl$ forwarded the re3uest to the @epartment of ,ustice, indicates the magnitude of the error of the
@epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs in taking lightl$ its responsibilities) *hereafter, the @epartment of ,ustice took it
upon itself to determine the completeness of the documents and to e#aluate the same to find out whether the$
compl$ with the re3uirements laid down in the E4tradition !aw and the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$) Petitioner
ratiocinates in this connection that although the @epartment of ,ustice had no obligation to e#aluate the
e4tradition documents, the @epartment also had to go o#er them so as to be able to prepare an e4tradition petition
5tsn, 2ugust -&, &///, pp) '89'<6) Notabl$, it was also at this stage where pri#ate respondent insisted on the
following+ 5&6 the right to be furnished the re3uest and the supporting papers: 5'6 the right to be heard which
consists in ha#ing a reasonable period of time to oppose the re3uest, and to present e#idence in support of the
opposition: and 5-6 that the e#aluation proceedings be held in abe$ance pending the filing of pri#ate respondentBs
opposition to the re3uest)
*he two @epartments seem to ha#e misread the scope of their duties and authorit$, one abdicating its powers and
the other enlarging its commission) *he @epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs, moreo#er, has, through the ;olicitor
>eneral, filed a manifestation that it is adopting the instant petition as its own, indirectl$ con#e$ing the message
that if it were to e#aluate the e4tradition re3uest, it would not allow pri#ate respondent to participate in the
process of e#aluation)
Plainl$ then, the record cannot support the presumption of regularit$ that the @epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs
thoroughl$ re#iewed the e4tradition re3uest and supporting documents and that it arri#ed at a well9founded
judgment that the re3uest and its anne4ed documents satisf$ the re3uirements of law) *he ;ecretar$ of ,ustice,
eminent as he is in the field of law, could not pri#atel$ re#iew the papers all b$ himself) Ce had to officiall$
constitute a panel of attorne$s) Cow then could the @72 ;ecretar$ or his undersecretar$, in less than one da$,
make the more authoritati#e determinationO
*he e#aluation process, just like the e4tradition proceedings proper, belongs to a class b$ itself) It is sui generis) It
is not a criminal in#estigation, but it is also erroneous to sa$ that it is purel$ an e4ercise of ministerial functions)
2t such stage, the e4ecuti#e authorit$ has the power+ 5a6 to make a technical assessment of the completeness and
sufficienc$ of the e4tradition papers: 5b6 to outrightl$ den$ the re3uest if on its face and on the face of the
supporting documents the crimes indicated are not e4traditable: and 5c6 to make a determination whether or not
the re3uest is politicall$ moti#ated, or that the offense is a militar$ one which is not punishable under non9militar$
penal legislation 5tsn, 2ugust -&, &///, pp) '09'/: 2rticle ' L and Paragraph %-J, 2rticle -, RP9E; E4tradition
*reat$6) Cence, said process ma$ be characteri"ed as an in#estigati#e or in3uisitorial process in contrast to a
proceeding conducted in the e4ercise of an administrati#e bod$s 3uasi9judicial power)__-
In administrati#e law, a 3uasi9judicial proceeding in#ol#es+ 5a6 taking and e#aluation of e#idence: 5b6 determining
facts based upon the e#idence presented: and 5c6 rendering an order or decision supported b$ the facts pro#ed 5De
'eon! 2dministrati#e !aw+ *e4t and Cases, &//- ed), p) &/0, citing organ vs. +nited (tates, -.8 E);) &6)
In3uisitorial power, which is also known as e4amining or in#estigator$ power, is one of the determinati#e powers
of an administrati#e bod$ which better enables it to e4ercise its 3uasi9judicial authorit$ 5Cru$, Phil)
2dministrati#e !aw, &//= ed), p) '=6) *his power allows the administrati#e bod$ to inspect the records and
premises, and in#estigate the acti#ities, of persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction 5Ibid), p) '16, or to
re3uire disclosure of information b$ means of accounts, records, reports, testimon$ of witnesses, production of
documents, or otherwise 5De 'eon, op. cit.! p) =86)
*he power of in#estigation consists in gathering, organi"ing, and anal$"ing e#idence, which is a useful aid or tool
in an administrati#e agenc$s performance of its rule9making or 3uasi9judicial functions) Notabl$, in#estigation is
indispensable to prosecution)
In 4uperto v. ;orres 5&.. Phil) &./0 %&/<1J, unreported6, the Court had occasion to rule on the functions of an
in#estigator$ bod$ with the sole power of in#estigation) It does not e4ercise judicial functions and its power is
limited to in#estigating the facts and making findings in respect thereto) *he Court laid down the test of
determining whether an administrati#e bod$ is e4ercising judicial functions or merel$ in#estigator$ functions+
2djudication signifies the e4ercise of power and authorit$ to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the
parties before it) Cence, if the onl$ purpose for in#estigation is to e#aluate e#idence submitted before it based on
the facts and circumstances presented to it, and if the agenc$ is not authori"ed to make a final pronouncement
affecting the parties, then there is an absence of judicial discretion and judgment)_"_-
*he abo#e description in 4uperto applies to an administrati#e bod$ authori"ed to e#aluate e4tradition documents)
*he bod$ has no power to adjudicate in regard to the rights and obligations of both the Re3uesting ;tate and the
prospecti#e e4traditee) Its onl$ power is to determine whether the papers compl$ with the re3uirements of the law
and the treat$ and, therefore, sufficient to be the basis of an e4tradition petition) ;uch finding is thus merel$ initial
and not final) *he bod$ has no power to determine whether or not the e4tradition should be effected) *hat is the
role of the court) *he bod$s power is limited to an initial finding of whether or not the e4tradition petition can be
filed in court)
It is to be noted, howe#er, that in contrast to ordinar$ in#estigations, the e#aluation procedure is characteri"ed b$
certain peculiarities) Primaril$, it sets into motion the wheels of the e4tradition process) Eltimatel$, it ma$ result
in the depri#ation of libert$ of the prospecti#e e4traditee) *his depri#ation can be effected at two stages+ ,irst! the
pro#isional arrest of the prospecti#e e4traditee pending the submission of the re3uest) *his is so because the
*reat$ pro#ides that in case of urgenc$, a contracting part$ ma$ re3uest the pro#isional arrest of the person sought
pending presentation of the re3uest 5Paragraph %&J, 2rticle /, RP9E; E4tradition *reat$6, but he shall be
automaticall$ discharged after =. da$s if no re3uest is submitted 5Paragraph 86) Presidential @ecree No) &.=/
pro#ides for a shorter period of '. da$s after which the arrested person could be discharged 5;ection '.%dJ6)
!ogicall$, although the E4tradition !aw is silent on this respect, the pro#isions onl$ mean that once a re3uest is
forwarded to the Re3uested ;tate, the prospecti#e e4traditee ma$ be continuousl$ detained, or if not, subse3uentl$
rearrested 5Paragraph %<J, 2rticle /, RP9E; E4tradition *reat$6, for he will onl$ be discharged if no re3uest is
submitted) Practicall$, the purpose of this detention is to pre#ent his possible flight from the Re3uested
;tate)(econd, the temporar$ arrest of the prospecti#e e4traditee during the pendenc$ of the e4tradition petition in
court 5;ection =, Presidential @ecree No) &.=/6)
Clearl$, there is an impending threat to a prospecti#e e4traditees libert$ as earl$ as during the e#aluation stage) It
is not onl$ an imagined threat to his libert$, but a #er$ imminent one)
Because of these possible conse3uences, we conclude that the e#aluation process is akin to an administrati#e
agenc$ conducting an in#estigati#e proceeding, the conse3uences of which are essentiall$ criminal since such
technical assessment sets off or commences the procedure for, and ultimatel$, the depri#ation of libert$ of a
prospecti#e e4traditee) 2s described b$ petitioner himself, this is a FtoolF for criminal law enforcement 5p) 10,
Rollo6) In essence, therefore, the e#aluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal in#estigation) In a number
of cases, we had occasion to make a#ailable to a respondent in an administrati#e case or in#estigation certain
constitutional rights that are ordinaril$ a#ailable onl$ in criminal prosecutions) 7urther, as pointed out b$ r)
,ustice endo"a during the oral arguments, there are rights formerl$ a#ailable onl$ at the trial stage that had been
ad#anced to an earlier stage in the proceedings, such as the right to counsel and the right against self9
incrimination 5tsn, 2ugust -&, &///, p) &-<: Escobedo vs. Illinois, -10 E);) 810: 0ideon vs. *ainwright, -1' E);)
--<: iranda vs. Ari$ona, -08 E);) 8-=6)
In #ascual v. Board of edical E%aminers 5'0 ;CR2 -88 %&/=/J6, we held that the right against self9
incrimination under ;ection &1, 2rticle III of the &/01 Constitution which is ordinaril$ a#ailable onl$ in criminal
prosecutions, e4tends to administrati#e proceedings which possess a criminal or penal aspect, such as an
administrati#e in#estigation of a licensed ph$sician who is charged with immoralit$, which could result in his loss
of the pri#ilege to practice medicine if found guilt$) *he Court, citing the earlier case of Cabal vs. :apunan 5=
;CR2 &.</ %&/='J6, pointed out that the re#ocation of ones license as a medical practitioner, is an e#en greater
depri#ation than forfeiture of propert$)
Cabal vs. :apunan 5supra6 in#ol#ed an administrati#e charge of une4plained wealth against a respondent which
was filed under Republic 2ct No) &-1/, or the 2nti9>raft !aw) 2gain, we therein ruled that since the
in#estigation ma$ result in forfeiture of propert$, the administrati#e proceedings are deemed criminal or penal,
and such forfeiture partakes the nature of a penalt$) *here is also the earlier case of Almeda! (r. vs. #ere$ 5<
;CR2 /1. %&/='J6, where the Court, citing 2merican jurisprudence, laid down the test to determine whether a
proceeding is ci#il or criminal+ If the proceeding is under a statute such that if an indictment is presented the
forfeiture can be included in the criminal case, such proceeding is criminal in nature, although it ma$ be ci#il in
form: and where it must be gathered from the statute that the action is meant to be criminal in its nature, it cannot
be considered as ci#il) If, howe#er, the proceeding does not in#ol#e the con#iction of the wrongdoer for the
offense charged, the proceeding is ci#il in nature)__-_
*he cases mentioned abo#e refer to an impending threat of depri#ation of ones propert$ or propert$ right) No less
is this true, but e#en more so in the case before us, in#ol#ing as it does the possible depri#ation of libert$, which,
based on the hierarch$ of constitutionall$ protected rights, is placed second onl$ to life itself and enjo$s
precedence o#er propert$, for while forfeited propert$ can be returned or replaced, the time spent in incarceration
is irretrie#able and be$ond recompense)
B$ comparison, a fa#orable action in an e4tradition re3uest e4poses a person to e#entual e4tradition to a foreign
countr$, thus salientl$ e4hibiting the criminal or penal aspect of the process) In this sense, the e#aluation
procedure is akin to a preliminar$ in#estigation since both procedures ma$ ha#e the same result the arrest and
imprisonment of the respondent or the person charged) ;imilar to the e#aluation stage of e4tradition proceedings,
a preliminar$ in#estigation, which ma$ result in the filing of an information against the respondent, can possibl$
lead to his arrest, and to the depri#ation of his libert$)
Petitioners reliance on *right vs. Court of Appeals 5'-< ;CR2 '8& %&//'J6 5p) 0, Petitioners emorandum6 that
the e4tradition treat$ is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural statute is not well9
taken) *right is not authorit$ for petitioners conclusion that his preliminar$ processing is not akin to a
preliminar$ in#estigation) *he characteri"ation of a treat$ in *right was in reference to the applicabilit$ of the
prohibition against an e% post factolaw) It had nothing to do with the denial of the right to notice, information, and
hearing)
2s earl$ as &008, the Enited ;tates ;upreme Court ruled that Fan$ legal proceeding enforced b$ public authorit$,
whether sanctioned b$ age or custom, or newl$ de#ised in the discretion of the legislati#e power, in furtherance of
the general public good, which regards and preser#es these principles of libert$ and justice, must be held to be due
process of lawF 5&urtado vs. California, &&. E);) <&=6) Compliance with due process re3uirements cannot be
deemed non9compliance with treat$ commitments)
*he Enited ;tates and the Philippines share a mutual concern about the suppression and punishment of crime in
their respecti#e jurisdictions) 2t the same time, both ;tates accord common due process protection to their
respecti#e citi"ens)
*he due process clauses in the 2merican and Philippine Constitutions are not onl$ worded in e4actl$ identical
language and terminolog$, but more importantl$, the$ are alike in what their respecti#e ;upreme Courts ha#e
e4pounded as the spirit with which the pro#isions are informed and impressed, the elasticit$ in their
interpretation, their d$namic and resilient character which make them capable of meeting e#er$ modern problem,
and their ha#ing been designed from earliest time to the present to meet the e4igencies of an undefined and
e4panding future) *he re3uirements of due process are interpreted in both the Enited ;tates and the Philippines as
not den$ing to the law the capacit$ for progress and impro#ement) *oward this effect and in order to a#oid the
confines of a legal straitjacket, the courts instead prefer to ha#e the meaning of the due process clause Fgraduall$
ascertained b$ the process of inclusion and e4clusion in the course of the decisions of cases as the$ ariseF
5;wining vs. 5ew Hersey, '&& E);) 106) Capsuli"ed, it refers to Fthe embodiment of the sporting idea of fair pla$F
5Ermita-alate &otel and otel )wners Association vs. City ayor of anila, '. ;CR2 08/ %&/=1J6) It relates
to certain immutable principles of justice which inhere in the #er$ idea of free go#ernment 5&olden vs. &ardy,
&=/ E);) -==6)
@ue process is comprised of two components substanti#e due process which re3uires the intrinsic #alidit$ of the
law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, libert$, or propert$, and procedural due process which
consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard b$ an impartial and
competent tribunal 5Cru$, Constitutional !aw, &//- Ed), pp) &.'9&.=6)
*rue to the mandate of the due process clause, the basic rights of notice and hearing per#ade not onl$ in criminal
and ci#il proceedings, but in administrati#e proceedings as well) Non9obser#ance of these rights will in#alidate
the proceedings) Indi#iduals are entitled to be notified of an$ pending case affecting their interests, and upon
notice, the$ ma$ claim the right to appear therein and present their side and to refute the position of the opposing
parties 5Cru$, Phil) 2dministrati#e !aw, &//= ed), p) =86)
In a preliminar$ in#estigation which is an administrati#e in#estigator$ proceeding, ;ection -, Rule &&' of the
Rules of Court guarantees the respondents basic due process rights, granting him the right to be furnished a cop$
of the complaint, the affida#its, and other supporting documents, and the right to submit counter9affida#its and
other supporting documents within ten da$s from receipt thereof) oreo#er, the respondent shall ha#e the right to
e4amine all other e#idence submitted b$ the complainant)
*hese twin rights ma$, howe#er, be considered dispensable in certain instances, such as+
&) In proceedings where there is an urgent need for immediate action, like the summar$ abatement of a
nuisanceper se 52rticle 1.8, Ci#il Code6, the pre#enti#e suspension of a public ser#ant facing administrati#e
charges 5;ection =-, !ocal >o#ernment Code, B) P) Blg) --16, the padlocking of filth$ restaurants or theaters
showing obscene mo#ies or like establishments which are immediate threats to public health and decenc$, and the
cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution:
') Ahere there is tentati#eness of administrati#e action, that is, where the respondent is not precluded from
enjo$ing the right to notice and hearing at a later time without prejudice to the person affected, such as the
summar$ distraint and le#$ of the propert$ of a delin3uent ta4pa$er, and the replacement of a temporar$
appointee: and
-) Ahere the twin rights ha#e pre#iousl$ been offered but the right to e4ercise them had not been claimed)
2ppl$ing the abo#e principles to the case at bar, the 3uer$ ma$ be asked+ @oes the e#aluation stage of the
e4tradition proceedings fall under an$ of the described situations mentioned abo#eO
!et us take a brief look at the nature of 2merican e4tradition proceedings which are 3uite noteworth$ considering
that the subject treat$ in#ol#es the E);) >o#ernment)
2merican jurisprudence distinguishes between interstate rendition or e4tradition which is based on the E4tradition
Clause in the E);) Constitution 52rt) I?, ' cl '6, and international e4tradition proceedings) In interstate rendition
or e4tradition, the go#ernor of the as$lum state has the dut$ to deli#er the fugiti#e to the demanding state) *he
E4tradition Clause and the implementing statute are gi#en a liberal construction to carr$ out their manifest
purpose, which is to effect the return as swiftl$ as possible of persons for trial to the state in which the$ ha#e been
charged with crime 5-&2 Am Hur 'd 1<891<<6) In order to achie#e e4tradition of an alleged fugiti#e, the
re3uisition papers or the demand must be in proper form, and all the elements or jurisdictional facts essential to
the e4tradition must appear on the face of the papers, such as the allegation that the person demanded was in the
demanding state at the time the offense charged was committed, and that the person demanded is charged with the
commission of the crime or that prosecution has been begun in the demanding state before some court or
magistrate 5-< C.H.(. 8.=98.16) *he e4tradition documents are then filed with the go#ernor of the as$lum state,
and must contain such papers and documents prescribed b$ statute, which essentiall$ include a cop$ of the
instrument charging the person demanded with a crime, such as an indictment or an affida#it made before a
magistrate) ;tatutor$ re3uirements with respect to said charging instrument or papers are mandator$ since said
papers are necessar$ in order to confer jurisdiction on the go#ernor of the as$lum state to effect the e4tradition
5-< C.H.(. 8.098&.6) & statutor" provision re,uirin$ duplicate copies of te indict#ent, infor#ation, affidavit,
or 4ud$#ent of conviction or sentence and oter instru#ents acco#pan"in$ te de#and or re,uisitions !e
furnised and delivered to te fu$itive or is attorne" is director". /owever, te ri$t !ein$ suc a !asic one
as !een eld to !e a ri$t #andator" on de#and 5Ibid), p) 8&., citing E% parte oore, '<= ;)A) 'd &.-, &<0
*e4) Cr) 8.1 and E% parte ;uc6er, Cr), -'8, ;)A)'d 0<-6)
In international proceedings, e4tradition treaties generall$ pro#ide for the presentation to the e4ecuti#e authorit$
of the Re3uested ;tate of a re3uisition or demand for the return of the alleged offender, and the designation of the
particular officer ha#ing authorit$ to act in behalf of the demanding nation 5-&2 Am Hur 'd 0&<6)
In petitioners memorandum filed on ;eptember &<, &///, he attached thereto a letter dated ;eptember &-, &///
from the Criminal @i#ision of the E);) @epartment of ,ustice, summari"ing the E);) e4tradition procedures and
principles, which are basicall$ go#erned b$ a combination of treaties 5with special reference to the RP9E;
E4tradition *reat$6, federal statutes, and judicial decisions, to wit+
&) 2ll re3uests for e4tradition are transmitted through the diplomatic channel) In urgent cases, re3uests for the
pro#isional arrest of an indi#idual ma$ be made directl$ b$ the Philippine @epartment of ,ustice to the E);)
@epartment of ,ustice, and vice-versa) In the e#ent of a pro#isional arrest, a formal re3uest for e4tradition is
transmitted subse3uentl$ through the diplomatic channel)
') *he @epartment of ;tate forwards the incoming Philippine e4tradition re3uest to the @epartment of ,ustice)
Before doing so, the @epartment of ;tate prepares a declaration confirming that a formal re3uest has been made,
that the treat$ is in full force and effect, that under 2rticle &1 thereof the parties pro#ide reciprocal legal
representation in e4tradition proceedings, that the offenses are co#ered as e4traditable offenses under 2rticle '
thereof, and that the documents ha#e been authenticated in accordance with the federal statute that ensures
admissibilit$ at an$ subse3uent e4tradition hearing)
-) 2 judge or magistrate judge is authori"ed to issue a warrant for the arrest of the prospecti#e e4traditee 5&0
E);)C) -&086) ;aid judge or magistrate is authori"ed to hold a hearing to consider the e#idence offered in support
of the e4tradition re3uest 5Ibid)6
8) 2t the hearing, the court must determine whether the person arrested is e4traditable to the foreign countr$) *he
court must also determine that 5a6 it has jurisdiction o#er the defendant and jurisdiction to conduct the hearing: 5b6
the defendant is being sought for offenses for which the applicable treat$ permits e4tradition: and 5c6 there is
probable cause to belie#e that the defendant is the person sought and that he committed the offenses charged
5Ibid)6
<) *he judge or magistrate judge is #ested with jurisdiction to certif$ e4traditabilit$ after ha#ing recei#ed a
Fcomplaint made under oath, charging an$ person found within his jurisdictionF with ha#ing committed an$ of the
crimes pro#ided for b$ the go#erning treat$ in the countr$ re3uesting e4tradition 5Ibid)6 %In this regard, it is noted
that a long line of 2merican decisions pronounce that international e4tradition proceedings partake of the
character of a preliminar$ e4amination before a committing magistrate, rather than a trial of the guilt or innocence
of the alleged fugiti#e 5-&2 Am Hur 'd 0'=6)J
=) If the court decides that the elements necessar$ for e4tradition are present, it incorporates its determinations in
factual findings and conclusions of law and certifies the persons e4traditabilit$) *he court then forwards this
certification of e4traditabilit$ to the @epartment of ;tate for disposition b$ the ;ecretar$ of ;tate) *he ultimate
decision whether to surrender an indi#idual rests with the ;ecretar$ of ;tate 5&0 E);)C) -&0=6)
1) *he subject of an e4tradition re3uest ma$ not litigate 3uestions concerning the moti#es of the re3uesting
go#ernment in seeking his e4tradition) Cowe#er, a person facing e4tradition ma$ present whate#er information he
deems rele#ant to the ;ecretar$ of ;tate, who makes the final determination whether to surrender an indi#idual to
the foreign go#ernment concerned)
7rom the foregoing, it ma$ be obser#ed that in the Enited ;tates, e4tradition begins and ends with one entit$ the
@epartment of ;tate which has the power to e#aluate the re3uest and the e4tradition documents in the beginning,
and, in the person of the ;ecretar$ of ;tate, the power to act or not to act on the courts determination of
e4traditabilit$) In the Philippine setting, it is the @epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs which should make the initial
e#aluation of the re3uest, and ha#ing satisfied itself on the points earlier mentioned 5see pp) &.9&'6, then forwards
the re3uest to the @epartment of ,ustice for the preparation and filing of the petition for e4tradition) ;adl$,
howe#er, the @epartment of 7oreign 2ffairs, in the instant case, perfunctoril$ turned o#er the re3uest to the
@epartment of ,ustice which has taken o#er the task of e#aluating the re3uest as well as thereafter, if so
warranted, preparing, filing, and prosecuting the petition for e4tradition)_
Pri#ate respondent asks what prejudice will be caused to the E);) >o#ernment should the person sought to be
e4tradited be gi#en due process rights b$ the Philippines in the e#aluation stage) Ce emphasi"es that petitioners
primar$ concern is the possible dela$ in the e#aluation process)
Ae agree with pri#ate respondents citation of an 2merican ;upreme Court ruling+
*he establishment of prompt efficacious procedures to achie#e legitimate state ends is a proper state interest
worth$ of cogni"ance in constitutional adjudication) But the Constitution recogni"es higher #alues than speed and
efficienc$) Indeed, one might fairl$ sa$ of the Bill of Rights in general, and the @ue Process Clause, in particular,
that the$ were designed to protect the fragile #alues of a #ulnerable citi"enr$ from the o#erbearing concern for
efficienc$ and efficac$ that ma$ characteri"e praiseworth$ go#ernment officials no less, and perhaps more, than
mediocre ones)
5(tanley vs. Illinois, 8.8 E);) =8<, =<=6
*he Enited ;tates, no doubt, shares the same interest as the Philippine >o#ernment that no right that of libert$
secured not onl$ b$ the Bills of Rights of the Philippines Constitution but of the Enited ;tates as well, is
sacrificed at the altar of e4pedienc$)
5pp) 8.98&, Pri#ate Respondents emorandum)6
In the Philippine conte4t, this Courts ruling is in#oked+
(ne of the basic principles of the democratic s$stem is that where the rights of the indi#idual are concerned, the
end does not justif$ the means) It is not enough that there be a #alid objecti#e: it is also necessar$ that the means
emplo$ed to pursue it be in keeping with the Constitution) ere e4pedienc$ will not e4cuse constitutional
shortcuts) *here is no 3uestion that not e#en the strongest moral con#iction or the most urgent public need,
subject onl$ to a few notable e4ceptions, will e4cuse the b$passing of an indi#iduals rights) It is no e4aggeration
to sa$ that a person in#oking a right guaranteed under 2rticle III of the Constitution is a majorit$ of one e#en as
against the rest of the nation who would den$ him that right 5Association of (mall 'andowners in the #hilippines!
Inc. vs. (ecretary of Agrarian 4eform, &1< ;CR2 -8-, -1<9-1= %&/0/J6)
*here can be no dispute o#er petitioners argument that e4tradition is a tool of criminal law enforcement) *o be
effecti#e, re3uests for e4tradition or the surrender of accused or con#icted persons must be processed
e4peditiousl$) Ne#ertheless, accelerated or fast9tracked proceedings and adherence to fair procedures are,
howe#er, not alwa$s incompatible) *he$ do not alwa$s clash in discord) ;ummar$ does not mean precipitous
haste) It does not carr$ a disregard of the basic principles inherent in Fordered libert$)F
Is there reall$ an urgent need for immediate action at the e#aluation stageO 2t that point, there is no e4traditee $et
in the strict sense of the word) E4tradition ma$ or ma$ not occur) In interstate e4tradition, the go#ernor of the
as$lum state ma$ not, in the absence of mandator$ statute, be compelled to act fa#orabl$ 5-1 C),);) -016 since
after a close e#aluation of the e4tradition papers, he ma$ hold that federal and statutor$ re3uirements, which are
significantl$ jurisdictional, ha#e not been met 5-& 2m ,ur 'd 0&/6) ;imilarl$, under an e4tradition treat$, the
e4ecuti#e authorit$ of the re3uested state has the power to den$ the behest from the re3uesting state) 2ccordingl$,
if after a careful e4amination of the e4tradition documents the ;ecretar$ of 7oreign 2ffairs finds that the re3uest
fails to meet the re3uirements of the law and the treat$, he shall not forward the re3uest to the @epartment of
,ustice for the filing of the e4tradition petition since non9compliance with the aforesaid re3uirements will not #est
our go#ernment with jurisdiction to effect the e4tradition)
In this light, it should be obser#ed that the @epartment of ,ustice e4erted notable efforts in assuring compliance
with the re3uirements of the law and the treat$ since it e#en informed the E);) >o#ernment of certain problems in
the e4tradition papers 5such as those that are in ;panish and without the official English translation, and those that
are not properl$ authenticated6) In fact, petitioner e#en admits that consultation meetings are still supposed to take
place between the law$ers in his @epartment and those from the E);) ,ustice @epartment) Aith the meticulous
nature of the e#aluation, which cannot just be completed in an abbre#iated period of time due to its intricacies,
how then can we sa$ that it is a proceeding that urgentl$ necessitates immediate and prompt action where notice
and hearing can be dispensed withO
Aorth$ of in3uir$ is the issue of whether or not there is tentati#eness of administrati#e action) Is pri#ate
respondent precluded from enjo$ing the right to notice and hearing at a later time without prejudice to himO Cere
lies the peculiarit$ and de#iant characteristic of the e#aluation procedure) (n one hand, there is $et no e4traditee,
but ironicall$ on the other, it results in an administrati#e determination which, if ad#erse to the person in#ol#ed,
ma$ cause his immediate incarceration) *he grant of the re3uest shall lead to the filing of the e4tradition petition
in court) *he FaccusedF 5as ;ection '%cJ of Presidential @ecree No) &.=/ calls him6, faces the threat of arrest, not
onl$ after the e4tradition petition is filed in court, but e#en during the e#aluation proceeding itself b$ #irtue of the
pro#isional arrest allowed under the treat$ and the implementing law) *he prejudice to the FaccusedF is thus
blatant and manifest)
Plainl$, the notice and hearing re3uirements of administrati#e due process cannot be dispensed with and shel#ed
aside)
2part from the due process clause of the Constitution, pri#ate respondent likewise in#okes ;ection 1 of 2rticle III
which reads+_"_-
;ec) 1) *he right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recogni"ed) 2ccess to official
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
go#ernment research data used as basis for polic$ de#elopment, shall be afforded the citi"en, subject to such
limitations as ma$ be pro#ided b$ law)
*he abo#e pro#ision guarantees politiights which are a#ailable to citi"ens of the Philippines, namel$+ 5&6 the right
to information on matters of public concern, and 5'6 the corollar$ right of access to official records and
documents) *he general right guaranteed b$ said pro#ision is the right to information on matters of public
concern) In its implementation, the right of access to official records is likewise conferred) *hese cognate or
related rights are Fsubject to limitations as ma$ be pro#ided b$ lawF 5Bernas, *he &/01 Phil) Constitution 2
Re#iewer9Primer, &//1 ed), p) &.86 and rel$ on the premise that ultimatel$ it is an informed and critical public
opinion which alone can protect the #alues of democratic go#ernment 5Ibid.6)
Petitioner argues that the matters co#ered b$ pri#ate respondents letter9re3uest dated ,ul$ &, &/// do not fall
under the guarantee of the foregoing pro#ision since the matters contained in the documents re3uested are not of
public concern) (n the other hand, pri#ate respondent argues that the distinction between matters #ested with
public interest and matters which are of purel$ pri#ate interest onl$ becomes material when a third person, who is
not directl$ affected b$ the matters re3uested, in#okes the right to information) Cowe#er, if the person in#oking
the right is the one directl$ affected thereb$, his right to information becomes absolute)
*he concept of matters of public concern escapes e4act definition) ;trictl$ speaking, e#er$ act of a public officer
in the conduct of the go#ernmental process is a matter of public concern 5Bernas, *he &/01 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines, &//= ed), p) --=6) *his concept embraces a broad spectrum of subjects which the
public ma$ want to know, either because these directl$ affect their li#es or simpl$ because such matters arouse the
interest of an ordinar$ citi"en 5'egaspi v. Civil (ervice Commission! &<. ;CR2 <-. %&/01J6) Cence, the real part$
in interest is the people and an$ citi"en has FstandingF)"_
Ahen the indi#idual himself is in#ol#ed in official go#ernment action because said action has a direct bearing on
his life, and ma$ either cause him some kind of depri#ation or injur$, he actuall$ in#okes the basic right to be
notified under ;ection & of the Bill of Rights and not e4actl$ the right to information on matters of public concern)
2s to an accused in a criminal proceeding, he in#okes ;ection &8, particularl$ the right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him)
*he right to information is implemented b$ the right of access to information within the control of the go#ernment
5Bernas, *he &/01 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, &//= ed), p) --16) ;uch information ma$ be
contained in official records, and in documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions)
In the case at bar, the papers re3uested b$ pri#ate respondent pertain to official go#ernment action from the E) ;)
>o#ernment) No official action from our countr$ has $et been taken) oreo#er, the papers ha#e some relation to
matters of foreign relations with the E) ;) >o#ernment) Conse3uentl$, if a third part$ in#okes this constitutional
pro#ision, stating that the e4tradition papers are matters of public concern since the$ ma$ result in the e4tradition
of a 7ilipino, we are afraid that the balance must be tilted, at such particular time, in fa#or of the interests
necessar$ for the proper functioning of the go#ernment) @uring the e#aluation procedure, no official
go#ernmental action of our own go#ernment has as $et been done: hence the in#ocation of the right is premature)
!ater, and in contrast, records of the e4tradition hearing would alread$ fall under matters of public concern,
because our go#ernment b$ then shall ha#e alread$ made an official decision to grant the e4tradition re3uest) *he
e4tradition of a fellow 7ilipino would be forthcoming)
Ae now pass upon the final issue pertinent to the subject matter of the instant contro#ers$+ Aould pri#ate
respondents entitlement to notice and hearing during the e#aluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of
the legal duties of the Philippine >o#ernment under the RP9E4tradition *reat$O 2ssuming the answer is in the
affirmati#e, is there reall$ a conflict between the treat$ and the due process clause in the ConstitutionO
7irst and foremost, let us categoricall$ sa$ that this is not the proper time to pass upon the constitutionalit$ of the
pro#isions of the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$ nor the E4tradition !aw implementing the same) Ae limit oursel#es
onl$ to the effect of the grant of the basic rights of notice and hearing to pri#ate respondent on foreign relations)
*he rule of pacta sunt servanda! one of the oldest and most fundamental ma4ims of international law, re3uires the
parties to a treat$ to keep their agreement therein in good faith) *he obser#ance of our countr$Bs legal duties under
a treat$ is also compelled b$ ;ection ', 2rticle II of the Constitution which pro#ides that F%tJhe Philippines
renounces war as an instrument of national polic$, adopts the generall$ accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land, and adheres to the polic$ of peace, e3ualit$, justice, freedom, cooperation and amit$
with all nations)F Ender the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land
and no further legislati#e action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere 5(alonga N -ap,
Public International !aw, &//' ed), p) &'6)
*he doctrine of incorporation is applied whene#er municipal tribunals 5or local courts6 are confronted with
situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the pro#isions of the
constitution or statute of the local state) Efforts should first be e4erted to harmoni"e them, so as to gi#e effect to
both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generall$ accepted
principles of international law in obser#ance of the Incorporation Clause in the abo#e9cited constitutional
pro#ision 5Cru$!Philippine Political !aw, &//= ed), p) <<6) In a situation, howe#er, where the conflict is
irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence
dictates that municipal law should be upheld b$ the municipal courts 5Ichong vs. &ernande$! &.& Phil) &&<<
%&/<1J: 0on$ales vs. &echanova! / ;CR2 '-. %&/=-J: In reG 0arcia! ' ;CR2 /08 %&/=&J6 for the reason that
such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingl$ bound b$ it in all circumstances 5(alonga N -ap! op.
cit., p) &-6) *he fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or impl$
the primac$ of international law o#er national or municipal law in the municipal sphere) *he doctrine of
incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are gi#en e3ual standing with,
but are not superior to, national legislati#e enactments) 2ccordingl$, the principle le% posterior derogat
priori takes effect a treat$ ma$ repeal a statute and a statute ma$ repeal a treat$) In states where the constitution is
the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties ma$ be in#alidated if
the$ are in conflict with the constitution 5Ibid.6)
In the case at bar, is there reall$ a conflict between international law and municipal or national lawO En contrario,
these two components of the law of the land are not pitted against each other) *here is no occasion to choose
which of the two should be upheld) Instead, we see a #oid in the pro#isions of the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$, as
implemented b$ Presidential @ecree No) &.=/, as regards the basic due process rights of a prospecti#e e4traditee
at the e#aluation stage of e4tradition proceedings) 7rom the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the
e4tradition petition and during the judicial determination of the propriet$ of e4tradition, the rights of notice and
hearing are clearl$ granted to the prospecti#e e4traditee) Cowe#er, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these
rights) Reference to the E);) e4tradition procedures also manifests this silence)
Petitioner interprets this silence as una#ailabilit$ of these rights) Conse3uentl$, he describes the e#aluation
procedure as an Fe% parte technical assessmentF of the sufficienc$ of the e4tradition re3uest and the supporting
documents)
Ae disagree)
In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must appl$ the rules of fair pla$) 2n application of the basic twin
due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against the treat$ or the implementing law) Neither the *reat$
nor the E4tradition !aw precludes these rights from a prospecti#e e4traditee) ;imilarl$, 2merican jurisprudence
and procedures on e4tradition pose no proscription) In fact, in interstate e4tradition proceedings as e4plained
abo#e, the prospecti#e e4traditee ma$ e#en re3uest for copies of the e4tradition documents from the go#ernor of
the as$lum state, and if he does, his right to be supplied the same becomes a demandable right 5-< C.H.(. 8&.6)
Petitioner contends that the Enited ;tates re3uested the Philippine >o#ernment to pre#ent unauthori"ed disclosure
of confidential information) Cence, the secrec$ surrounding the action of the @epartment of ,ustice Panel of
2ttorne$s) *he confidentialit$ argument is, howe#er, o#erturned b$ petitioners re#elation that e#er$thing it
refuses to make a#ailable at this stage would be obtainable during trial) *he @epartment of ,ustice states that the
E);) @istrict Court concerned has authori"ed the disclosure of certain grand jur$ information) If the information is
trul$ confidential, the #eil of secrec$ cannot be lifted at an$ stage of the e4tradition proceedings) Not e#en during
trial)--"_
2 libertarian approach is thus called for under the premises)
(ne will search in #ain the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$, the E4tradition !aw, as well as 2merican jurisprudence
and procedures on e4tradition, for an$ prohibition against the conferment of the two basic due process rights of
notice and hearing during the e#aluation stage of the e4tradition proceedings) Ae ha#e to consider similar
situations in jurisprudence for an application b$ analog$)
Earlier, we stated that there are similarities between the e#aluation process and a preliminar$ in#estigation since
both procedures ma$ result in the arrest of the respondent or the prospecti#e e4traditee) In the e#aluation process,
a pro#isional arrest is e#en allowed b$ the *reat$ and the E4tradition !aw 52rticle /, RP9E; E4tradition *reat$:
;ec) '., Presidential @ecree No) &.=/6) 7ollowing petitioners theor$, because there is no pro#ision of its
a#ailabilit$, does this impl$ that for a period of time, the pri#ilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended,
despite ;ection &<, 2rticle III of the Constitution which states that F%tJhe pri#ilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended e4cept in cases of in#asion or rebellion when the public safet$ re3uires itFO
Petitioners theor$ would also infer that bail is not a#ailable during the arrest of the prospecti#e e4traditee when
the e4tradition petition has alread$ been filed in court since Presidential @ecree No) &.=/ does not pro#ide
therefor, notwithstanding ;ection &-, 2rticle III of the Constitution which pro#ides that F%aJll persons, e4cept
those charged with offenses punishable b$ reclusion perpetuawhen e#idence of guilt is strong, shall, before
con#iction, be bailable b$ sufficient sureties, or be released on recogni"ance as ma$ be pro#ided b$ law) *he right
to bail shall not be impaired e#en when the pri#ilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended F Can petitioner
#alidl$ argue that since these contra#entions are b$ #irtue of a treat$ and hence affecting foreign relations, the
aforestated guarantees in the Bill of Rights could thus be subser#ient theretoO
*he basic principles of administrati#e law instruct us that Fthe essence of due process in administrati#e
proceedings is an opportunit$ to e4plain ones side or an opportunit$ to seek reconsideration of the actions or
ruling complained of 5irano vs. 5'4C, '1. ;CR2 /= %&//1J: #adilla vs. 5'4C, '1- ;CR2 8<1 %&//1J: #'D;
vs. 5'4C, '1= ;CR2 & %&//1J:&elpmate! Inc. vs. 5'4C, '1= ;CR2 -&< %&//1J: A3uinashool vs. agnaye, '10
;CR2 =.' %&//1J: Hamer vs. 5'4C, '10 ;CR2 =-' %&//1J6) In essence, procedural due process refers to the
method or manner b$ which the law is enforced 5Corona vs. +nited &arbor #ilots Association of the #hils), '0-
;CR2 -& %&//1J6) *his Court will not tolerate the least disregard of constitutional guarantees in the enforcement
of a law or treat$) Petitioners fears that the Re3uesting ;tate ma$ ha#e #alid objections to the Re3uested ;tates
non9performance of its commitments under the E4tradition *reat$ are insubstantial and should not be gi#en
paramount consideration)
Cow then do we implement the RP9E; E4tradition *reat$O @o we limit oursel#es to the four corners of
Presidential @ecree No) &.=/O
(f analogous application are the rulings in 0overnment (ervice Insurance (ystem vs. Court of Appeals 5'.&
;CR2 ==& %&//&J6 and 0o vs. 5ational #olice Commission 5'1& ;CR2 881 %&//1J6 where we ruled that in
summar$ proceedings under Presidential @ecree No) 0.1 5Pro#iding for the (rgani"ation of the Ci#il ;er#ice
Commission in 2ccordance with Pro#isions of the Constitution, Prescribing its Powers and 7unctions and for
(ther Purposes6, and Presidential @ecree No) /1& 5Pro#iding !egal 2ssistance for embers of the Integrated
National Police who ma$ be charged for ;er#ice9Connected (ffenses and Impro#ing the @isciplinar$ ;$stem in
the Integrated National Police, 2ppropriating 7unds *herefor and for other purposes6, as amended b$ Presidential
@ecree No) &1.1, although summar$ dismissals ma$ be effected without the necessit$ of a formal in#estigation,
the minimum re3uirements of due process still operate) 2s held in 0(I( vs. Court of Appeals+
))) %IJt is clear to us that what the opening sentence of ;ection 8. is sa$ing is that an emplo$ee ma$ be remo#ed or
dismissed e#en without formal in#estigation, in certain instances) It is e3uall$ clear to us that an emplo$ee must
be informed of the charges preferred against him, and that the normal wa$ b$ which the emplo$ee is so informed
is b$ furnishing him with a cop$ of the charges against him) *his is a basic procedural re3uirement that a statute
cannot dispense with and still remain consistent with the constitutional pro#ision on due process) *he second
minimum re3uirement is that the emplo$ee charged with some misfeasance or malfeasance must ha#e a
reasonable opportunit$ to present his side of the matter, that is to sa$, his defenses against the charges le#elled
against him and to present e#idence in support of his defenses) --"
5at p) =1&6
;aid summar$ dismissal proceedings are also non9litigious in nature, $et we upheld the due process rights of the
respondent)
In the case at bar, pri#ate respondent does not onl$ face a clear and present danger of loss of propert$ or
emplo$ment, but of libert$ itself, which ma$ e#entuall$ lead to his forcible banishment to a foreign land) *he
con#ergence of petitioners fa#orable action on the e4tradition re3uest and the depri#ation of pri#ate respondents
libert$ is easil$ comprehensible)
Ae ha#e ruled time and again that this Courts e3uit$ jurisdiction, which is aptl$ described as Fjustice outside
legalit$,F ma$ be a#ailed of onl$ in the absence of, and ne#er against, statutor$ law or judicial pronouncements
5(mith Bell N Co.! Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, '=1 ;CR2 <-. %&//1J: David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals, '=0
;CR2 =11 %&//1J6) *he constitutional issue in the case at bar does not e#en call for Fjustice outside legalit$,F
since pri#ate respondents due process rights, although not guaranteed b$ statute or b$ treat$, are protected b$
constitutional guarantees) Ae would not be true to the organic law of the land if we choose strict construction
o#er guarantees against the depri#ation of libert$) *hat would not be in keeping with the principles of democrac$
on which our Constitution is premised)
?eril$, as one tra#erses treacherous waters of conflicting and opposing currents of libert$ and go#ernment
authorit$, he must e#er hold the oar of freedom in the stronger arm, lest an errant and wa$ward course be laid)
W"ERE(ORE, in #iew of the foregoing premises, the instant petition is hereb$ @I;I;;E@ for lack of merit)
Petitioner is ordered to furnish pri#ate respondent copies of the e4tradition re3uest and its supporting papers, and
to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting e#idence) *he incidents in
Ci#il Case No) //9/8=08 ha#ing been rendered moot and academic b$ this decision, the same is hereb$ ordered
dismissed)
SO ORDERED. F?2?00 2*12 !
G.R. No. 88404 O/4o.17 18, 1990
"ILIINE LONG DIS%ANCE %ELE"ONE CO. [LD%], #etitioner, #s) %"E NA%IONAL
%ELECO!!UNICA%IONS CO!!ISSION AND CELLCO!, INC., +E$RESS
%ELECO!!UNICA%IONS CO., INC. [E%CI]-, 4espondents)

!ELENCIO-"ERRERA, J.%
Petitioner Philippine !ong @istance *elephone Compan$ 5P!@*6 assails, b$ wa$ of certiorari and Prohibition
under Rule =<, two 5'6 (rders of public respondent National *elecommunications Commission 5N*C6, namel$,
the (rder of &' @ecember &/00 granting pri#ate respondent E4press *elecommunications Co), Inc) 5E*CI6
pro#isional authorit$ to install, operate and maintain a Cellular obile *elephone ;$stem in etro9anila 5Phase
26 in accordance with specified conditions, and the (rder, dated 0 a$ &/00, den$ing
reconsideration)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n '' ,une &/<0, Rep) 2ct No) './., was enacted, otherwise known as F2n 2ct >ranting 7eli4 2lberto and
Compan$, Incorporated, a 7ranchise to Establish Radio ;tations for @omestic and *ransoceanic
*elecommunications)F 7eli4 2lberto L Co), Inc) 572CI6 was the original corporate name, which was changed to
E*CI with the amendment of the 2rticles of Incorporation in &/=8) uch later, FCE!!C(, Inc)F was the name
sought to be adopted before the ;ecurities and E4change Commission, but this was withdrawn and
abandoned)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n &- a$ &/01, alleging urgent public need, E*CI filed an application with public respondent N*C 5docketed
as N*C Case No) 0190/6 for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Con#enience and Necessit$ 5CPCN6 to
construct, install, establish, operate and maintain a Cellular obile *elephone ;$stem and an 2lpha Numeric
Paging ;$stem in etro anila and in the ;outhern !u"on regions, with a pra$er for pro#isional authorit$ to
operate Phase 2 of its proposal within etro anila)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
P!@* filed an (pposition with a otion to @ismiss, based primaril$ on the following grounds+ 5&6 E*CI is not
capacitated or 3ualified under its legislati#e franchise to operate a s$stemwide telephone or network of telephone
ser#ice such as the one proposed in its application: 5'6 E*CI lacks the facilities needed and indispensable to the
successful operation of the proposed cellular mobile telephone s$stem: 5-6 P!@* has itself a pending application
with N*C, Case No) 0=90=, to install and operate a Cellular obile *elephone ;$stem for domestic and
international ser#ice not onl$ in anila but also in the pro#inces and that under the Fprior operatorF or Fprotection
of in#estmentF doctrine, P!@* has the priorit$ or preference in the operation of such ser#ice: and 586 the
pro#isional authorit$, if granted, will result in needless, uneconomical and harmful duplication, among
others)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In an (rder, dated &' No#ember &/01, N*C o#erruled P!@*Bs (pposition and declared that Rep) 2ct No) './.
5&/<06 should be liberall$ construed as to include among the ser#ices under said franchise the operation of a
cellular mobile telephone ser#ice)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In the same (rder, E*CI was re3uired to submit the certificate of registration of its 2rticles of Incorporation with
the ;ecurities and E4change Commission, the present capital and ownership structure of the compan$ and such
other e#idence, oral or documentar$, as ma$ be necessar$ to pro#e its legal, financial and technical capabilities as
well as the economic justifications to warrant the setting up of cellular mobile telephone and paging s$stems) *he
continuance of the hearings was also directed)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2fter e#aluating the reconsideration sought b$ P!@*, the N*C, in (ctober &/00, maintained its ruling that
liberall$ construed, applicantBs franchise carries with it the pri#ilege to operate and maintain a cellular mobile
telephone ser#ice)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n &' @ecember &/00, N*C issued the first challenged (rder) (pining that Fpublic interest, con#enience and
necessit$ further demand a second cellular mobile telephone ser#ice pro#ider and finds PRI2 72CIE e#idence
showing applicantBs legal, financial and technical capabilities to pro#ide a cellular mobile ser#ice using the 2P;
s$stem,F N*C granted E*CI pro#isional authorit$ to install, operate and maintain a cellular mobile telephone
s$stem initiall$ in etro anila, Phase 2 onl$, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the same (rder)
(ne of the conditions prescribed 5Condition No) <6 was that, within ninet$ 5/.6 da$s from date of the acceptance
b$ E*CI of the terms and conditions of the pro#isional authorit$, E*CI and P!@* Fshall enter into an
interconnection agreement for the pro#ision of ade3uate interconnection facilities between applicantBs cellular
mobile telephone switch and the public switched telephone network and shall jointl$ submit such interconnection
agreement to the Commission for appro#al)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In a Fotion to ;et 2side the (rderF granting pro#isional authorit$, P!@* alleged essentiall$ that the
interconnection ordered was in #iolation of due process and that the grant of pro#isional authorit$ was
jurisdictionall$ and procedurall$ infirm) (n 0 a$ &/0/, N*C denied reconsideration and set the date for
continuation of the hearings on the main proceedings) *his is the second 3uestioned
(rder)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
P!@* urges us now to annul the N*C (rders of &' @ecember &/00 and 0 a$ &/0/ and to order E*CI to desist
from, suspend, andMor discontinue an$ and all acts intended for its
implementation)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n &< ,une &/0/, we resol#ed to dismiss the petition for its failure to compl$ full$ with the re3uirements of
Circular No) &900) Epon satisfactor$ showing, howe#er, that there was, in fact, such compliance, we reconsidered
the order, reinstated the Petition, and re3uired the respondents N*C and E*CI to submit their respecti#e
Comments)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n '1 7ebruar$ &//., we issued a *emporar$ Restraining (rder enjoining N*C to FCease and @esist from all or
an$ of its on9going proceedings and E*CI from continuing an$ and all acts intended or related to or which will
amount to the implementationMe4ecution of its pro#isional authorit$)F *his was upon P!@*Bs urgent manifestation
that it had been ser#ed an N*C (rder, dated &8 7ebruar$ &//., directing immediate compliance with its (rder of
&' @ecember &/00, Fotherwise the Commission shall be constrained to take the necessar$ measures and bring to
bear upon P!@* the full sanctions pro#ided b$ law)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Ae re3uired P!@* to post a bond of P <) It has complied, with the statement that it was Fpost5ing6 the same on
its agreement andMor consent to ha#e the same forfeited in fa#or of Pri#ate Respondent E*CIMCE!!C( should
the instant Petition be dismissed for lack of merit)F E*CI took e4ception to the sufficienc$ of the bond
considering its initial in#estment of appro4imatel$ P ''<, but accepted the forfeiture
proferred)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
E*CI mo#ed to ha#e the *R( lifted, which we denied on = arch &//.) Ae stated, howe#er, that the inaugural
ceremon$ E*CI had scheduled for that da$ could proceed, as the same was not co#ered b$ the
*R()chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
P!@* relies on the following grounds for the issuance of the Arits pra$ed for+
&) Respondent N*CBs subject order effecti#el$ licensed andMor authori"ed a corporate entit$ without an$ franchise
to operate a public utilit$, legislati#e or otherwise, to establish and operate a telecommunications
s$stem)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
') *he same order #alidated stock transactions of a public ser#ice enterprise contrar$ to andMor in direct #iolation
of ;ection '.5h6 of the Public ;er#ice 2ct)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
-) Respondent N*C adjudicated in the same order a contro#erted matter that was not heard at all in the
proceedings under which it was promulgated)
2s correctl$ pointed out b$ respondents, this being a special ci#il action for certiorari and Prohibition, we onl$
need determine if N*C acted without jurisdiction or with gra#e abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e4cess of
jurisdiction in granting pro#isional authorit$ to E*CI under the N*C 3uestioned (rders of &' @ecember &/00 and
0 a$ &/0/)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he case was set for oral argument on '& 2ugust &//. with the parties directed to address, but not limited to, the
following issues+ 5&6 the status and co#erage of Rep) 2ct No) './. as a franchise: 5'6 the transfer of shares of
stock of a corporation holding a CPCN: and 5-6 the principle and procedure of interconnection) *he parties were
thereafter re3uired to submit their respecti#e emoranda, with which the$ ha#e
complied)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Ae find no gra#e abuse of discretion on the part of N*C, upon the following considerations+ chanrobles #irtual
law librar$
&) 5;C Hurisdiction
*here can be no 3uestion that the N*C is the regulator$ agenc$ of the national go#ernment with jurisdiction o#er
all telecommunications entities) It is legall$ clothed with authorit$ and gi#en ample discretion to grant a
pro#isional permit or authorit$) In fact, N*C ma$, on its own initiati#e, grant such relief e#en in the absence of a
motion from an applicant)
;ec) -) #rovisional 4elief. 9 Epon the filing of an application, complaint or petition or at an$ stage thereafter, the
Board ma$ grant on motion of the pleaders or on its own initiati#e, the relief pra$ed for, based on the pleading,
together with the affida#its and supporting documents attached thereto, without prejudice to a final decision after
completion of the hearing which shall be called within thirt$ 5-.6 da$s from grant of authorit$ asked for) 5Rule &<,
Rules of Practice and Procedure Before the Board of Communications 5now N*C6)
Ahat the N*C granted was such a pro#isional authorit$, with a definite e4pir$ period of eighteen 5&06 months
unless sooner renewed, and which ma$ be re#oked, amended or re#ised b$ the N*C) It is also limited to etro
anila onl$) Ahat is more, the main proceedings are clearl$ to continue as stated in the N*C (rder of 0 a$
&/0/)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he pro#isional authorit$ was issued after due hearing, reception of e#idence and e#aluation thereof, with the
hearings attended b$ #arious oppositors, including P!@*) It was granted onl$ after a prima facie showing that
E*CI has the necessar$ legal, financial and technical capabilities and that public interest, con#enience and
necessit$ so demanded)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
P!@* argues, howe#er, that a pro#isional authorit$ is nothing short of a Certificate of Public Con#enience and
Necessit$ 5CPCN6 and that it is merel$ a Fdistinction without a difference)F *hat is not so) Basic differences do
e4ist, which need not be elaborated on) Ahat should be borne in mind is that pro#isional authorit$ would be
meaningless if the grantee were not allowed to operate) oreo#er, it is clear from the #er$ (rder of &' @ecember
&/00 itself that its scope is limited onl$ to the first phase, out of four, of the proposed nationwide telephone
s$stem) *he installation and operation of an alpha numeric paging s$stem was not authori"ed) *he pro#isional
authorit$ is not e4clusi#e) Its lifetime is limited and ma$ be re#oked b$ the N*C at an$ time in accordance with
law) *he initial e4penditure of P&-. more or less, is rendered necessar$ e#en under a pro#isional authorit$ to
enable E*CI to pro#e its capabilit$) 2nd as pointed out b$ the ;olicitor >eneral, on behalf of the N*C, if what
had been granted were a CPCN, it would constitute a final order or award re#iewable onl$ b$ ordinar$ appeal to
the Court of 2ppeals pursuant to ;ection /5-6 of BP Blg) &'/, and not b$ certiorari before this
Court)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he final outcome of the application rests within the e4clusi#e prerogati#e of the N*C) Ahether or not a CPCN
would e#entuall$ issue would depend on the e#idence to be presented during the hearings still to be conducted,
and onl$ after a full e#aluation of the proof thus presented)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
') ;he Coverage of E;CIOs ,ranchise
Rep) 2ct No) './. grants E*CI 5formerl$ 72CI6 Fthe right and pri#ilege of constructing, installing, establishing
and operating in the entire Philippines radio stations for reception and transmission of messages on radio stations
in the foreign and domestic public fi4ed point9to9point and public base, aeronautical and land mobile stations, )))
with the corresponding rela$ stations for the reception and transmission of wireless messages on radiotelegraphy
and>or radiotelephony ))))F P!@* maintains that the scope of the franchise is limited to Fradio stationsF and
e4cludes telephone ser#ices such as the establishment of the proposed Cellular obile *elephone ;$stem
5C*;6) Cowe#er, in its (rder of &' No#ember &/01, the N*C construed the technical term Fradiotelephon$F
liberall$ as to include the operation of a cellular mobile telephone s$stem) It said+
In resol#ing the said issue, the Commission takes into consideration the different definitions of the term
Fradiotelephon$)F 2s defined b$ the New International Aebster @ictionar$ the term Fradiotelephon$F is defined
as a telephone carried on b$ aid of radiowa#es without connecting wires) *he International *elecommunications
Enion 5I*E6 defines a Fradiotelephone callF as a Ftelephone call, originating in or intended on all or part of its
route o#er the radio communications channels of the mobile ser#ice or of the mobile satellite ser#ice)F 7rom the
abo#e definitions, while under Republic 2ct './. a s$stem9wide telephone or network of telephone ser#ice b$
means of connecting wires ma$ not ha#e been contemplated, it can be construed liberall$ that the operation of a
cellular mobile telephone ser#ice which carries messages, either #oice or record, with the aid of radiowa#es or a
part of its route carried o#er radio communication channels, is one included among the ser#ices under said
franchise for which a certificate of public con#enience and necessit$ ma$ be applied for)
*he foregoing is the construction gi#en b$ an administrati#e agenc$ possessed of the necessar$ special
knowledge, e4pertise and e4perience and deser#es great weight and respect 52sturias ;ugar Central, Inc) #)
Commissioner of Customs, et al), !9&/--1, ;eptember -., &/=/, '/ ;CR2 =&16) It can onl$ be set aside on proof
of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law 5*upas !ocal Chapter No) /1/ #) N!RC, et al), !9=.<-'9--,
No#ember <, &/0<, &-/ ;CR2 8106) Ae discern none of those considerations sufficient to warrant judicial
inter#ention)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
-) ;he (tatus of E;CI ,ranchise
P!@* alleges that the E*CI franchise had lapsed into none4istence for failure of the franchise holder to begin and
complete construction of the radio s$stem authori"ed under the franchise as e4plicitl$ re3uired in ;ection 8 of its
franchise, Rep) 2ct No) './.)
1
P!@* also in#okes Pres) @ecree No) -=, enacted on ' No#ember &/1', which
legislates the mandator$ cancellation or in#alidation of all franchises for the operation of communications
ser#ices, which ha#e not been a#ailed of or used b$ the part$ or parties in whose name the$ were
issued)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Cowe#er, whether or not E*CI, and before it 72CI, in contra#ention of its franchise, started the first of its radio
telecommunication stations within 5'6 $ears from the grant of its franchise and completed the construction within
ten 5&.6 $ears from said date: and whether or not its franchise had remained unused from the time of its issuance,
are 3uestions of fact be$ond the pro#ince of this Court, besides the well9settled procedural consideration that
factual issues are not subjects of a special ci#il action for certiorari 5Central Bank of the Philippines #s) Court of
2ppeals, >)R) No) 8&0</, 0 arch &/0/, &1& ;CR2 8/: Hga$ #s) Escareal, >)R) No) 88&0/, 0 7ebruar$ &/0<,
&-< ;CR2 10: 7ilipino erchantBs Insurance Co), Inc) #s) Intermediate 2ppellate Court, >)R) No) 1&=8., '1 ,une
&/00, &=' ;CR2 ==/6) oreo#er, neither ;ection 8, Rep) 2ct No) './. nor Pres) @ecree No) -= should be
construed as self9e4ecuting in working a forfeiture) 7ranchise holders should be gi#en an opportunit$ to be heard,
particularl$ so, where, as in this case, E*CI does not admit an$ breach, in consonance with the rudiments of fair
pla$) *hus, the factual situation of this case differs from that in Angeles 4y Co. vs. City of 'os Angeles 5/' Pacific
Reporter 8/.6 cited b$ P!@*, where the grantee therein admitted its failure to complete the conditions of its
franchise and $et insisted on a decree of forfeiture)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ore importantl$, P!@*Bs allegation partakes of a Collateral attack on a franchise Rep) 2ct No) './.6, which is
not allowed) 2 franchise is a propert$ right and cannot be re#oked or forfeited without due process of law) *he
determination of the right to the e4ercise of a franchise, or whether the right to enjo$ such pri#ilege has been
forfeited b$ non9user, is more properl$ the subject of the prerogati#e writ of 3uo warranto, the right to assert
which, as a rule, belongs to the ;tate Fupon complaint or otherwiseF 5;ections &, ' and -, Rule ==, Rules of
Court6,
2
the reason being that the abuse of a franchise is a public wrong and not a pri#ate injur$) 2 forfeiture of a
franchise will ha#e to be declared in a direct proceeding for the purpose brought b$ the ;tate because a franchise
is granted b$ law and its unlawful e4ercise is primaril$ a concern of >o#ernment)
2 ))) franchise is ))) granted b$ law, and its ))) unlawful e4ercise is the concern primaril$ of the >o#ernment)
Cence, the latter as a rule is the part$ called upon to bring the action for such ))) unlawful e4ercise of franchise)
5I?9B ?) 7R2NCI;C(, '/0 %&/=- ed)J, citing Cru" #s) Ramos, 08 Phil) ''=6)
8) E;CIOs (toc6 ;ransactions
E*CI admits that in &/=8, the 2lbertos, as original owners of more than 8.Q of the outstanding capital stock sold
their holdings to the (rbes) In &/=0, the 2lbertos re9ac3uired the shares the$ had sold to the (rbes) In &/01, the
2lbertos sold more than 8.Q of their shares to Coracio Halung) *hereafter, the present stockholders ac3uired
their E*CI shares) oreo#er, in &/=8, E*CI had increased its capital stock from P8.,...).. to P-=.,...)..: and
in &/01, from P-=.,...).. to P8.)
P!@* contends that the transfers in &/01 of the shares of stock to the new stockholders amount to a transfer of
E*CIBs franchise, which needs Congressional appro#al pursuant to Rep) 2ct No) './., and since such appro#al
had not been obtained, E*CIBs franchise had been in#alidated) *he pro#ision relied on reads, in part, as
follows+ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;EC*I(N &.) *he grantee shall not lease, transfer, grant the usufruct of, sell or assign this franchise nor the rights
and pri#ileges ac3uired thereunder to an$ person, firm, compan$, corporation or other commercial or legal entit$
nor merge with an$ other person, compan$ or corporation organi"ed for the same purpose, without the appro#al of
the Congress of the Philippines first had) )))
It should be noted, howe#er, that the foregoing pro#ision is, directed to the FgranteeF of the franchise, which is the
corporation itself and refers to a sale, lease, or assignment of that franchise) It does not include the transfer or sale
of shares of stock of a corporation b$ the latterBs stockholders)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
*he sale of shares of stock of a public utilit$ is go#erned b$ another law, i)e), ;ection '.5h6 of the Public ;er#ice
2ct 5Commonwealth 2ct No) &8=6) Pursuant thereto, the Public ;er#ice Commission 5now the N*C6 is the
go#ernment agenc$ #ested with the authorit$ to appro#e the transfer of more than 8.Q of the subscribed capital
stock of a telecommunications compan$ to a single transferee, thus+
;EC) '.) 2cts re3uiring the appro#al of the Commission) ;ubject to established stations and e4ceptions and
sa#ing pro#isions to the contrar$, it shall be unlawful for an$ public ser#ice or for the owner, lessee or operator
thereof, without the appro#al and authori"ation of the Commission pre#iousl$ had chanrobles #irtual law librar$
444 444 444 chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5h6 *o sell or register in its books the transfer or sale of shares of its capital stock, if the result of that sale in itself
or in connection with another pre#ious sale, shall be to #est in the transferee more than fort$ per centum of the
subscribed capital of said public ser#ice) 2n$ transfer made in #iolation of this pro#ision shall be #oid and of no
effect and shall not be registered in the books of the public ser#ice corporation) Nothing herein contained shall be
construed to pre#ent the holding of shares lawfull$ ac3uired) 52s amended b$ Com) 2ct No) 8<86)
In other words, transfers of shares of a public utilit$ corporation need onl$ N*C appro#al, not Congressional
authori"ation) Ahat transpired in E*CI were a series of transfers of shares starting in &/=8 until &/01) *he
appro#al of the N*C ma$ be deemed to ha#e been met when it authori"ed the issuance of the pro#isional
authorit$ to E*CI) *here was full disclosure before the N*C of the transfers) In fact, the N*C (rder of &'
No#ember &/01 re3uired E*CI to submit its Fpresent capital and ownership structure)F 7urther, E*CI e#en filed a
otion before the N*C, dated 0 @ecember &/01, or more than a $ear prior to the grant of pro#isional authorit$,
seeking appro#al of the increase in its capital stock from P-=.,...).. to P8., and the stock transfers made b$
its stockholders)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2 distinction should be made between shares of stock, which are owned b$ stockholders, the sale of which
re3uires onl$ N*C appro#al, and the franchise itself which is owned b$ the corporation as the grantee thereof, the
sale or transfer of which re3uires Congressional sanction) ;ince stockholders own the shares of stock, the$ ma$
dispose of the same as the$ see fit) *he$ ma$ not, howe#er, transfer or assign the propert$ of a corporation, like
its franchise) In other words, e#en if the original stockholders had transferred their shares to another group
of shareholders, the franchise granted to the corporation subsists as long as the corporation, as an entit$, continues
to e4ist *he franchise is not thereb$ in#alidated b$ the transfer of the shares) 2 corporation has a personalit$
separate and distinct from that of each stockholder) It has the right of continuit$ or perpetual succession
5Corporation Code, ;ec) '6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*o all appearances, the stock transfers were not just for the purpose of ac3uiring the E*CI franchise, considering
that, as heretofore stated, a series of transfers was in#ol#ed from &/=8 to &/01) 2nd, contrar$ to P!@*Bs assertion,
the franchise was not the onl$ propert$ of E*CI of meaningful #alue) *he F"eroF book #alue of E*CI assets, as
reflected in its balance sheet, was plausibl$ e4plained as due to the accumulated depreciation o#er the $ears
entered for accounting purposes and was not reflecti#e of the actual #alue that those assets would command in the
market)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
But again, whether E*CI has offended against a pro#ision of its franchise, or has subjected it to misuse or abuse,
ma$ more properl$ be in3uired into in 3uo warranto proceedings instituted b$ the ;tate) It is the condition of
e#er$ franchise that it is subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal when the common good so re3uires 5&/01
Constitution, 2rticle DII, ;ection &&6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
<) ;he 5;C Interconnection )rder
In the pro#isional authorit$ granted b$ N*C to E*CI, one of the conditions imposed was that the latter and P!@*
were to enter into an interconnection agreement to be jointl$ submitted to N*C for
appro#al)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
P!@* #ehementl$ opposes interconnection with its own public switched telephone network) It contends+ that
while P!@* welcomes interconnections in the furtherance of public interest, onl$ parties who can establish that
the$ ha#e #alid and subsisting legislati#e franchises are entitled to appl$ for a CPCN or pro#isional authorit$,
absent which, N*C has no jurisdiction to grant them the CPCN or interconnection with P!@*: that the 1-
telephone s$stems operating all o#er the Philippines ha#e a #iabilit$ and feasibilit$ independent of an$
interconnection with P!@*: that Fthe N*C is not empowered to compel such a pri#ate raid on P!@*Bs legitimate
income arising out of its gigantic in#estment:F that Fit is not public interest, but purel$ a pri#ate and selfish
interest which will be ser#ed b$ an interconnection under E*CIBs terms:F and that Fto compel P!@* to
interconnect merel$ to gi#e #iabilit$ to a prospecti#e competitor, which cannot stand on its own feet, cannot be
justified in the name of a non9e4istent public needF 5P!@* emorandum, pp) 80 and
<.6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
P!@* cannot justifiabl$ refuse to interconnect)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Rep) 2ct No) =08/, or the unicipal *elephone 2ct of &/0/, appro#ed on 0 7ebruar$ &//., mandates
interconnection pro#iding as it does that Fall domestic telecommunications carriers or utilities ))) shall be
interconnected to the public switch telephone network)F ;uch regulation of the use and ownership of
telecommunications s$stems is in the e4ercise of the plenar$ police power of the ;tate for the promotion of the
general welfare) *he &/01 Constitution recogni"es the e4istence of that power when it pro#ides)
;EC) =) *he use of propert$ bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good)
Indi#iduals and pri#ate groups, including corporations, cooperati#es, and similar collecti#e organi"ations, shall
ha#e the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the dut$ of the ;tate to promote
distributi#e justice and to inter#ene when the common good so demands 52rticle DII6)
*he interconnection which has been re3uired of P!@* is a form of Finter#entionF with propert$ rights dictated b$
Fthe objecti#e of go#ernment to promote the rapid e4pansion of telecommunications ser#ices in all areas of the
Philippines, ))) to ma4imi"e the use of telecommunications facilities a#ailable, ))) in recognition of the #ital role of
communications in nation building ))) and to ensure that all users of the public telecommunications service have
access to all other users of the service wherever they may be within the #hilippines at an acceptable standard of
service and at reasonable costF 5@(*C Circular No) /.9'806) Endoubtedl$, the encompassing objecti#e is the
common good) *he N*C, as the regulator$ agenc$ of the ;tate, merel$ e4ercised its delegated authorit$ to
regulate the use of telecommunications networks when it decreed
interconnection)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he importance and emphasis gi#en to interconnection dates back to inistr$ Circular No) 0'90&, dated =
@ecember &/0', pro#iding+
;ec) &) *hat the go#ernment encourages the pro#ision and operation of public mobile telephone ser#ice within
local sub9base stations, particularl$, in the highl$ commerciali"ed areas: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ec) <) *hat, in the e#ent the authorit$ to operate said ser#ice be granted to other applicants, other than the
franchise holder, the franchise operator shall be under obligation to enter into an agreement with the domestic
telephone network, under an interconnection agreement:
@epartment of *ransportation and Communication 5@(*C6 Circular No) 019&00, issued in &/01, also decrees+
&') 2ll public communications carriers shall interconnect their facilities pursuant to comparati#el$ efficient
interconnection 5CEI6 as defined b$ the N*C in the interest of economic efficienc$)
*he sharing of re#enue was an additional feature considered in @(*C Circular No) /.9'80, dated &8 ,une &//.,
la$ing down the FPolic$ on Interconnection and Re#enue ;haring b$ Public Communications Carriers,F thus+
ACERE2;, it is the objecti#e of go#ernment to promote the rapid e4pansion of telecommunications ser#ices in
all areas of the Philippines: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ACERE2;, there is a need to ma4imi"e the use of telecommunications facilities a#ailable and encourage
in#estment in telecommunications infrastructure b$ suitabl$ 3ualified ser#ice pro#iders: chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
ACERE2;, in recognition of the #ital role of communications in nation building, there is a need to ensure that all
users of the public telecommunications ser#ice ha#e access to all other users of the ser#ice where#er the$ ma$ be
within the Philippines at an acceptable standard of ser#ice and at reasonable
cost)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ACERE7(RE, ))) the following @epartment policies on interconnection and re#enue sharing are hereb$
promulgated+
&) 2ll facilities offering public telecommunication ser#ices shall be interconnected into the nationwide
telecommunications networkMs)
444 444 444
8) *he interconnection of networks shall be effected in a fair and non9discriminator$ manner and within the
shortest time9frame practicable)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
<) *he precise points of interface between ser#ice operators shall be as defined b$ the N*C: and the
apportionment of costs and di#ision of re#enues resulting from interconnection of telecommunications networks
shall be as appro#ed andMor prescribed b$ the N*C)
444 444 444
;ince then, the N*C, on &' ,ul$ &//., issued emorandum Circular No) 19&-9/. prescribing the FRules and
Regulations >o#erning the Interconnection of !ocal *elephone E4changes and Public Calling (ffices with the
Nationwide *elecommunications NetworkMs, the ;haring of Re#enue @eri#ed *herefrom, and for (ther
Purposes)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he N*C order to interconnect allows the parties themsel#es to discuss and agree upon the specific terms and
conditions of the interconnection agreement instead of the N*C itself la$ing down the standards of
interconnection which it can #er$ well impose) *hus it is that P!@* cannot justifiabl$ claim denial of clue
process) It has been heard) It will continue to be heard in the main proceedings) It will surel$ heard in the
negotiations concerning the interconnection agreement)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2s disclosed during the hearing, the interconnection sought b$ E*CI is b$ no means a Fparasitic dependenceF on
P!@*) *he E*CI s$stem can operate on its own e#en without interconnection, but it will be limited to its own
subscribers) Ahat interconnection seeks to accomplish is to enable the s$stem to reach out to the greatest number
of people possible in line with go#ernmental policies laid down) Cellular phones can access P!@* units and #ice
#ersa in as wide an area as attainable) Aith the broader reach, public interest and con#enience will be better
ser#ed) *o be sure, E*CI could pro#ide no mean competition 5although P!@* maintains that it has nothing to fear
from the Finnocuous interconnectionF6, and eat into P!@*Bs own toll re#enue cream P!@* re#enue,F in its own
words6, but all for the e#entual benefit of all that the s$stem can reach)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
=) +ltimate Considerations
*he decisi#e consideration are public need, public interest, and the common good) *hose were the o#erriding
factors which moti#ated N*C in granting pro#isional authorit$ to E*CI) 2rticle II, ;ection '8 of the &/01
Constitution, recogni"es the #ital role of communication and information in nation building) It is likewise a ;tate
polic$ to pro#ide the en#ironment for the emergence of communications structures suitable to the balanced flow
of information into, out of, and across the countr$ 52rticle D?I, ;ection &., Ibid)6) 2 modern and dependable
communications network rendering efficient and reasonabl$ priced ser#ices is also indispensable for accelerated
economic reco#er$ and de#elopment) *o these public and national interests, public utilit$ companies must bow
and $ield)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
@espite the fact that there is a #irtual monopol$ of the telephone s$stem in the countr$ at present) ser#ice is sadl$
inade3uate) Customer demands are hardl$ met, whether fi4ed or mobile) *here is a unanimous cr$ to hasten the
de#elopment of a modern, efficient, satisfactor$ and continuous telecommunications ser#ice not onl$ in etro
anila but throughout the archipelago) *he need therefor was dramaticall$ emphasi"ed b$ the destructi#e
earth3uake of &= ,ul$ &//.) It ma$ be that users of the cellular mobile telephone would initiall$ be limited to a
few and to highl$ commerciali"ed areas) Cowe#er, it is a step in the right direction towards the enhancement of
the telecommunications infrastructure, the e4pansion of telecommunications ser#ices in, hopefull$, all areas of the
countr$, with chances of complete disruption of communications minimi"ed) It will thus impact on, the total
de#elopment of the countr$Bs telecommunications s$stems and redound to the benefit of e#en those who ma$ not
be able to subscribe to E*CI)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
7ree competition in the industr$ ma$ also pro#ide the answer to a much9desired impro#ement in the 3ualit$ and
deli#er$ of this t$pe of public utilit$, to impro#ed technolog$, fast and hand$ mobile ser#ice, and reduced user
dissatisfaction) 2fter all, neither P!@* nor an$ other public utilit$ has a constitutional right to a monopol$
position in #iew of the Constitutional proscription that no franchise certificate or authori"ation shall be e4clusi#e
in character or shall last longer than fift$ 5<.6 $ears 5ibid), ;ection &&: 2rticle DI? ;ection <, &/1- Constitution:
2rticle DI?, ;ection 0, &/-< Constitution6) 2dditionall$, the ;tate is empowered to decide whether public interest
demands that monopolies be regulated or prohibited 5&/01 Constitution) 2rticle DII, ;ection
&/6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ACERE7(RE, finding no gra#e abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of or e4cess of jurisdiction, on the part of
the National *elecommunications Commission in issuing its challenged (rders of &' @ecember &/00 and 0 a$
&/0/ in N*C Case No) 019-/, this Petition is @I;I;;E@ for lack of merit) *he *emporar$ Restraining (rder
heretofore issued is !I7*E@) *he bond issued as a condition for the issuance of said restraining (rder is declared
forfeited in fa#or of pri#ate respondent E4press *elecommunications Co), Inc) Costs against
petitioner)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;( (R@ERE@)
[G.R. No. H81F; * D1/1A.17 10, 1990.]
192 SCRA 199
ANGELINA . SAN%IAGO, Petitioner, vs. %<1 "o:o7,.l1 DEU%' E$ECU%I&E SECRE%AR' ,:0 "I-
CE!EN% CORORA%ION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

ARAS, J.%

*his is a special ci#il action for Certiorari and prohibition, with preliminar$ injunction, to re#iew and annul the
decision of the respondent @eput$ E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$ RR dated ;eptember &, &/0= in ()P) Case No) -'18 5NR
Case No) =-1=6, entitled FCi9Cement Corporation #s) 2ngelina P) ;antiago and Philippine @e#elopment and
Industrial CorporationF setting aside the decision of the inistr$ of Natural Resources RRR 5now @epartment of
En#ironment and Natural Resources6 dated arch '=, &/0= and reinstating the decision of the Bureau of ines
and >eo9;ciences, RRRR dated a$ &1, which cancelled Iuarr$ !icense No) -1 of petitioner and ordered her
andMor her operator to immediatel$ #acate and turn o#er the possession of the mining area to the respondent Ci9
Cement Corporation)
2s gathered from the records, the antecedent facts are as follows+
Ci9Cement Corporation 5Ci9Cement, for short6 is a manufacturer of cement with plant located at Bo) atiktik,
Nor"agara$, Bulacan) 7or its operation, Ci9Cement leased and ac3uired se#eral placer mining claims from the
Bureau of ines and >eo9;ciences 5B>;6, namel$ ining !ease Contract 5!C6 Nos) ?910, 0<, /., &<., '=&,
and '=/) !C ?9/. co#ers mining claim Red ;tar ?III, Red ;tar ID and Cunter I in the name of Red ;tar
2ssociation) ;aid mining claims were transferred to Ci9Cement b$ #irtue of a deed of assignment dated @ecember
&-, &/=< dul$ appro#ed b$ the @irector of B>;)
(n 7ebruar$ '8, &/08, B>; issued Iuarr$ !icense 5I!6 No) -1 in the name of 2ngelina P) ;antiago, petitioner
herein, co#ering &/)< hectares which are entirel$ within the mining claims of respondent Ci9Cement despite the
fact that its lease contract has not been declared abandoned or cancelled b$ the B>; 5Rollo, p) <<6) (n 2pril &.,
&/08, ;antiago entered into an (perating 2greement with the Philippine @e#elopment and Industrial Corporation
5P@IC6)
eanwhile, the @irector of B>;, in a letter dated 2pril -, &/08, informed Nicolas Katigbak, ;enior ?9president
of Ci9Cement, that per field #erification conducted, Ci9Cement has complied with the annual work obligation
re3uirements #is9a9#is !C ?9/. and that the B>; recogni"es the #alidit$ of Ci9Cement mining lease
contracts) Ne#ertheless, the @irector recogni"ed as #alid the inter#ening rights prior to the field #erification,
although the same would no longer be subject to renewal 5Rollo, p) 0/6)+ nad

(n (ctober '., &/08, Ci9Cement filed a petition with the B>;, amended on ,anuar$ '0, &/0<, pra$ing for the
re#ocation of I! No) -1 on the following grounds+
&) Ci9Cement is the lessee and surface titled owner of the area co#ered b$ I! No) -1 of ;antiago 5Rollo, p) '16:
') Ci9CementBs mining claims co#ered under !C ?9/. has ne#er been declared abandoned nor cancelled 5Rollo,
p) '/6:
-) *hat under ;ec) =-, P@ 8=- and its implementing rules and regulations, areas co#ered b$ #alid and e4isting
mining lease shall not be subject to an$ 3uarr$ permit or license 5Ibid), p) '06:
8) *hat ;antiago has misled the B>; into issuing a 3uarr$ license b$ misrepresenting the area to be public land
5Rollo, p) -.6)
In her answer to the abo#e petition, ;antiago alleged, among others, that the failure of Ci9Cement to file
2ffida#its of 2nnual Aork (bligations 522A(6 for more than two 5'6 consecuti#e $ears constituted automatic
abandonment of the mining claims under ;ec) '1 of P@ 8=-, as amended 5Rollo, p) -=6 and that Ci9CementBs title
o#er the disputed area is #oid as it co#ers mineral lands 5Ibid), p) <-6)
(n a$ &1, &/0<, the (fficer9In9Charge 5(IC6 of the B>;, Benjamin >on"ales, issued a decision, the
dispositi#e portion of which is as follows+
F?IEAE@ IN *CE !I>C* (7 *CE 7(RE>(IN>, this office, finding the instant petition of CI9CEEN*
Corporation to be well9founded, the same is hereb$ granted) 2ccordingl$, Iuarr$ !icense No) -1 of Respondent
2ngelina ;antiago is hereb$ declared cancelled and she andMor her operator is ordered to immediatel$ #acate and
turn o#er the possession of the mining area subject of this case to the petitioner)F 5Rollo, p) =-6)
(n ,ul$ &, &/0<, ;antiago filed an appeal with the then inistr$ of Natural Resources, alleging that+
&) *he (IC erred in rendering and signing the aforesaid decision considering that he has no legal authorit$ to do
so 5Rollo, p) ==6)
') *he (IC erred in not holding that Red ;tar ?III under !C9/. was not automaticall$ abandoned for failure of
Ci9Cement to compl$ with the filing of the 22AP for more than two consecuti#e $ears 5Rollo, p) 1'6)
-) *he (IC erred in stating that ;antiago committed misrepresentation or deception fatal enough to cause the
cancellation of her I! No) -1 5Rollo, p) 0&6)
(n arch '=, &/0=, the inister of Natural Resources issued a decision, the dispositi#e portion of which reads+
FIN *CE !I>C* (7 2!! *CE 7(RE>(IN> C(N;I@ER2*I(N;, the decision dated a$ &1, &/0< of the
(IC of the Bureau of ines and >eo9;ciences should be, as hereb$ it is, ;E* 2;I@E) Iuarr$ !icense No) -1 of
2ngelina P) ;antiago is hereb$ ordered REIN;*2*E@ and be entered in the records as I)P) or 3uarr$ permit
subject to renewal upon compliance with the re3uirements of law, and the area co#ered thereb$ e4cluded from the
co#erage of !C No) ?9/. of CI9CEEN* Corporation)
;( (R@ERE@) 5Rollo, P) &.'6
7rom said decision, Ci9Cement filed an appeal with the (ffice of the President, dated a$ &/, &/0=, assigning the
following errors, to wit+
&) *he Con) inister of Natural Resources erred in declaring as null and #oid the @ecision of the (IC of the
B>;: + rd
') *he Con) inister of Natural Resources erred in declaring as automaticall$ abandoned the Placer !ease
Contract of Ci9Cement Corporation for failure to file proof of annual work obligation despite lessee ha#ing
performed the work obligation re3uired, and despite the fact that no pre#ious hearing was e#en conducted in
accordance with ;ection 88 of the Consolidated ines 2dministrati#e (rder, implementing P@ 8=-: and
-) *he Con) inister of Natural Resources erred in not taking into consideration the *ransfer Certificate of *itle
of Ci9Cement Corporation, as well as the ;upreme Court and Court of 2ppeals decisions as proof of the
misrepresentation of ;antiago) 5Rollo, p) &/.6)
(n ;eptember &, &/0=, the then @eput$ E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$ rendered a decision, holding thus+
FIN ?IEA (7 2!! *CE 7(RE>(IN>, the decision of the inistr$ of Natural Resources, dated arch '=, &/0=
is hereb$ ;E* 2;I@E, and this office hereb$ REIN;*2*E; the decision of the Bureau of ines and >eo9
;ciences dated a$ &1, &/0<)
;( (R@ERE@)F 5Rollo, p) &.=6
(n No#ember 0, &/0=, ;antiago filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision 5Rollo, p) &&&6 but
was denied b$ the @eput$ E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$ not onl$ because it was filed late but her motion contained mere
reiterations of the matters alread$ considered and found to be without merit 5Rollo, p) &&16)
Cence, the instant petition)
*he issues to be resol#ed in this case are as follows+
&) Ahether or not pri#ate respondent automaticall$ abandoned its mining claim on !C ?9/. b$ reason
of its failure to file affida#it of annual work obligations for two $ears, as re3uired b$ ;ection '1 of
P@ 8=-, as amended)
') Ahether or not I! No) -1 of ;antiago is a #alid inter#ening right that pre#ails o#er the mining claim
of pri#ate respondent)
-) Ahether or not the decision issued b$ the (IC of B>; dated a$ &1, &/0< is #alid)
*he petition is de#oid of merit)
I
Petitioner contends that Ci9Cement abandoned its mining claim o#er !C ?9/. when it failed to file affida#it of
annual work obligations 522A(6 as re3uired b$ ;ec) '1, P@ 8=-, as amended, which states+
F;ec) '1) 2nnual Aork (bligations) S *he claim9owner shall submit proof of compliance with the annual work
obligations b$ filing an affida#it therefor and the statement of e4penditures and technical report in the prescribed
form in support thereof with the ines Regional (fficer concerned within one hundred twent$ da$s from the end
of the $ear in which the work obligation is re3uired+ Pro#ided, *hat failure of the claim9owner to compl$
therewith for two 5'6 consecuti#e $ears shall constitute automatic abandonment of the mining claim+ Pro#ided,
further, *hat, if it is found upon field #erification that no such work was actuall$ done on the mining claim, the
claim ownerMlessee shall automaticall$ lose all his right thereto notwithstanding submission of the aforesaid
documents+ Pro#ided, finall$, *hat the @irector, in cases of unstable peace and order conditions andMor
in#ol#ement in mining conflicts ma$ grant further e4tensions)F
*he argument is untenable)+ nad
Contrar$ to petitionerBs claim, there is no rule of automatic abandonment with respect to mining claims for failure
to file 22A() Ender the Consolidated ines 2dministrati#e (rder 5C2(6, implementing P@ 8=-, as
amended, the rule that has been consistentl$ applied is that it is the failure to perform the re3uired assessment
work, not the failure to file the 22A( that gi#es rise to abandonment) Interpreted within the conte4t of P@ &/.',
the last amending decree of P@ 8=-, it is intended, among others, to accelerate the de#elopment of our natural
resources and to accelerate mineral productions, abandonment under the afore3uoted ;ec) '1 refers to the failure
to perform work obligations which in turn is one of the grounds for the cancellation of the lease contract 5;ec) 8-
5a6, Consolidated ines 2dministrati#e (rder, implementing P@ 8=-6)
*he 3uestion of whether or not the failure to submit 22A( for more than two 5'6 consecuti#e $ears constitutes
abandonment as ground for cancellation of a mining lease contract has been the subject matter of man$ cases in
the inistr$ of Natural Resources 5now @epartment of En#ironment and Natural Resources6) Public respondent
had made the following significant findings, to 3uote+
FIn a number of cases, the NR answered the 3uestion in the negati#e) 5;ec) &, ala$an Integrated industries
Corporation #) 2po Cement Corporation: ') FIn the matter of the denial b$ the @irector of ines *emporar$
Permit 2pplication No) ?9'10. of the Republic >lass CorporationF and -) FIn Re+ @enial of ines *emporar$
Permit 2pplication No) ?9'-8., Bonan"a Consolidated ines, Inc), 2ppellantF, docketed as NR Case Nos)
<.-=, 8-0=, 88</, respecti#el$6) 2s there e4plained, it is the continued failure to perform the annual work
obligations, N(* the failure to file 22A(, that gi#es rise to abandonment as ground for cancellation of a mining
lease contract: that compliance with 22A( re3uirements, not being related to the essence of the acts to be
performed, is a matter of con#enience rather than substance: and that non9submission of 22A( does not
preclude the lessee from pro#ing performance of such working obligation in some other wa$)F 5Rollo, p) &.=:
@ecision, ()P), p) =6
oreo#er, before an$ mining lease contract is cancelled, Consolidated ines 2dministrati#e (rder, ;ection 88
thereof, re3uires notice and healing) ;aid B>; (IC @irector >on"ales+
F*he pro#ision of ;ec) 88 of Consolidated ines 2dministrati#e (rder 5C2(6 specificall$ pro#ides for the
necessit$ of the cancellation of the ining !ease Contract before the same can be considered open to relocation)
2nd in cases of non9compliance with the filing of 22A(, it has been a long consistent polic$ of this office to
first re3uire field #erification before an$ recommendation for cancellation be endorsed to the inistr$ of Natural
Resources 5NR6) But the field #erification re#eals that cancellation is not in order and neither can it be said that
the #erification conducted was improperl$ made)F 5Rollo, p) &.16
It is significant to note that the then inister of Natural Resources Ernesto aceda reiterated the inistr$Bs
pre#ious ruling in his decision dated 2pril &., &/0=, in NR Case No) =-.., entitled FRE P!2CER !E2;E
2PP!IC2*I(N N() ?9-0/< (7 C(N*INEN*2! 2RB!E C(RP(R2*I(N)F *o 3uote+
F*his office has been consistent on its ruling that it is the continued failure to undertake the work obligation that
causes a mining claim to lapse) *he affida#it 5of annual work obligation6 is merel$ a prima facie proof of
performance of said work obligations, and the omission to submit said affida#it raised onl$ a disputable
presumption that no work had been done and shift upon the claim owner the burden of proof to show otherwise)
*he claim9owner is not precluded from making proof of performance in some other wa$) 5ala$an Integrated
Industries #) 2po Cement Corporation, et al) NR Case No) <.-=, ,ul$ =, &/0', Republic >lass Corporation,
NR Case 8--= and ;to) Rosario 7ertili"er Corporation, NR Case No) 8-=/6) *hese decided cases fall s3uarel$
with the facts of the instant case)F 5Rollo, p) &/<6
*he aforesaid decision was penned after the then inister Ernesto aceda o#erturned the decision of the B>;
in the case of Ci9Cement #) 2ngelina ;antiago) 2s can be seen therefore, it has alwa$s been an administrati#e
polic$ that the re3uirement to file 22A( is a matter of con#enience rather than substance as it is not related to
the essence of the acts performed) *hese administrati#e policies enacted b$ administrati#e bodies to interpret the
law ha#e the force and effect of law and entitled to great respect 5*a$ug #) Central Bank, >)R) 8=&<0, No#) '0,
&/0=: Aarren anufacturing Aorkers Enion #) Bureau of !abor Relations, &</ ;CR2 -01 %&/00J6) It is the
general polic$ of this Court to sustain the decision of administrati#e authorities not onl$ on the basis of the
doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed knowledge abilit$ and e#en e4pertise in the laws the$
are entrusted to enforce 5Cuerdo #) C(2, &== ;CR2 =<1 %&/00J6)+9cralaw
Conse3uentl$, Ci9Cement has ne#er abandoned its mining claim) It ma$ not ha#e filed the 22A( but it has
actuall$ performed the annual work obligations as found b$ the B>;) 2dministrati#e findings of facts are
sufficient if supported b$ substantial e#idence on record and as a general rule, actions of administrati#e agencies
need not be disturbed b$ the judicial department 5anahan #) People, >)R) -1.&., No#) 1, &/00: >ordon #)
?eridiano, &=1 ;CR2 <&%&/-0J: apa #) 2rro$o >)R) 10<0<, ,ul$ <, &/0/: Neddle Iueen Corporation #)
Nicolas, et al) >)R) =.18&98<, @ec) '', &/0/6) *his court finds no reason to disturb such findings)
II
Petitioner insists that her Iuarr$ !icense No) -1 is a #alid inter#ening right that pre#ails o#er the mining claims
of Ci9Cement as its claims were automaticall$ abandoned without need for an$ proceeding or declaration for
cancellation)
>i#en the fact that Ci9Cement ining !ease Contract has ne#er been cancelled not its mining claim abandoned,
this Court rules that ;antiago cannot ha#e an$ #alid inter#ening right o#er the mining claims of the respondent for
the following reasons+ 7irst, the license of the respondent co#ers an area which is closed to mining location under
;ec) &-, P@ 8=-, as amended)
F;ec) &-) 2reas Closed to ining !ocation) S No prospecting and e4ploration shall be allowed+
4 4 4
FC) In lands co#ered b$ #alid and subsisting mining claims located, and leases ac3uired, under pre#ious mining
laws and in accordance with the pro#isions of this @ecree)F
;econd, ;ec) =- of the Consolidated ines 2dministrati#e (rder categoricall$ states that+
F) ) ) 2reas co#ered b$ #alid and subsisting mining claims and mining leases shall not be the subject of a 3uarr$
permit or license)F
Cence, it is onl$ when the mining lease contract has been cancelled or terminated in the manner pro#ided b$ law
that a leased mining area ma$ be open to location and lease b$ other 3ualified persons) ;ince the mining lease
contract of Ci9Cement o#er the area co#ered b$ the 3uarr$ license of petitioner is still #alid and e4isting at the
time the license was obtained b$ the petitioner, her license is null and #oid and, therefore, cannot be considered as
a #alid inter#ening right that pre#ails o#er the mining claim of Ci9Cement)
*hird, both the B>; and the public respondent found the petitioner guilt$ of misrepresentation) ;aid the public
respondent+
) ) ) ;antiago misrepresented in her application for a 3uarr$ license that the area applied for was a public land
when, in realit$, it is co#ered b$ *C* No) *9='='0 in the name of Ci9Cement) In this regard, the pro#isions of P@
<&' re3uire the locator or prospector before entering a pri#ate land to gi#e prior notification to the landowner who
is thereb$ entitled to compensation and ro$alt$)F 5Rollo, p) &&.6)
;uch finding is binding on this Court) 7indings of the administrati#e agenc$ on matters falling within its
competence will not be disturbed b$ the courts, especiall$ with respect to factual findings, the$ are accorded
respect if not finalit$, because of the special knowledge and e4pertise gained b$ the tribunals from handling
specific matters falling under their jurisdiction 5apa #) 2rro$o, >)R) 10<0<, ,ul$ <, &/0/: Needle Iueen Corp)
#) Nicolas, et al), supra6)+ nad
;ection 8- of the Consolidated ines 2dministrati#e (rder has pro#ided a ground for cancellation of a ining
!ease Contract, among others, as follows+
F&)6 2n$ falsehood in the statements in the application or support thereof, which ma$ alter, change or affect
substantiall$ the facts set in said statements)F
PetitionerBs I! No) -1, therefore, cannot be a #alid inter#ening right o#er the mining claims of Ci9Cement)
III
Petitioner assails the decision rendered b$ (IC Benjamin 2) >on"ales of the B>;) ;he claims that under
;pecial (rder No) 0= dated arch &/, &/0< which states+
FE4cept appointments and matters in#ol#ing polic$, the 2ssistant director or the (fficer9in9charge of his office
shall sign on official papers: ) ) )F 5p) &0, Rollo6)
the jurisdiction to e4ercise 3uasi9judicial authorit$ to resol#e mining contro#ersies lies solel$ with the @irector of
B>;) Cence, she alleges that the decision of a$ &1, &/0< is null and #oid for want of authorit$ 5Rollo, pp)
''09'-.6)
*he argument is untenable)
Ahat is actuall$ e4cluded in the aforesaid order is the formulation of new policies of the B>;) (IC >on"ales
did not formulate new policies) Ce merel$ upheld and reiterated the long and consistent polic$ of the Bureau in
similar disputes pre#iousl$ passed upon not onl$ b$ the @irector of ines but also b$ the ;ecretar$ of
En#ironment and Natural Resources based on the applicable law) Besides, as the public respondent said, Fthe
more important consideration is that the decision correctl$ disposes of the contro#ers$F 5Rollo, p) &&.6)+9cralaw
Cence, the decision issued b$ the (IC is #alid)
PREI;E; C(N;I@ERE@, the instant petition is hereb$ @I;I;;E@ for lack of merit and the decision of the
@eput$ E4ecuti#e ;ecretar$, dated ;eptember &, &/0=, is hereb$ 277IRE@) Aith costs against the petitioner)
;( (R@ERE@)
G!A NE%WORK, INC., >)R) N() &=.1.-
#etitioner,
BPresent+
@a#ide, ,r), C.H ) 5Chairman6,
9 #ersus 9 Iuisumbing,
Hnares9;antiago,
Carpio, and
2"cuna, HH.
ABS-CBN BROADCAS%ING
CORORA%ION, CEN%RAL
CA%&, INC., ILIINO CABLE Promulgated+
CORORA%ION ,:0 "ILIINE
"O!E CABLE "OLDINGS, INC.,
Respondents) ;eptember '-, '..<
4 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 4

*EC)0)ON


'NARES-SAN%IAGO, J )+


Petitioner >2 Network, Inc) 5>2B6 filed on a$ =, '..- before the Regional *rial Court of Iue"on Cit$ a
complaint for damages %&J against respondents 2B;9CBN Broadcasting Corporation 52B;9CBNB6, Central
C2*?, Inc) 5;k$CableB6, Philippine Come Cable Coldings, Inc) 5Come CableB6 and Pilipino Cable Corporation
5;un CableB6, which was raffled to Branch /1 %'J and docketed as Ci#il Case No) I.-98/<..)

In its complaint, >2 alleged that respondents engaged in unfair competition when the cable companies
arbitraril$ re9channeled petitionerBs cable tele#ision broadcast on 7ebruar$ &, '..-, in order to arrest and destro$
its upswing performance in the tele#ision industr$)

>2 argued that respondents were able to perpetrate such unfair business practice through a common ownership
and interlocking businesses) ;k$Cable and ;un Cable are wholl$9owned subsidiaries of ;k$ ?ision Corporation
5;k$ ?isionB6 which is allegedl$ controlled b$ !ope", Inc) (n the other hand, Come Cable is a wholl$9owned
subsidiar$ of Enilink Communications Corporation 5EnilinkB6, which is owned b$ edia3uest Coldings, Inc), a
compan$ controlled b$ the Pension *rust 7und of the P!@* Emplo$ees 5P!@* >roupB6)

Pursuant to a aster Consolidation Agreement, the ownership, rights and interests in ;k$ ?ision and Enilink
were purportedl$ placed under a holding compan$ known as BBe$ond CableB, ==)< Q of which is owned b$ the
Benpres >roup, composed of !ope" Inc), Benpres Coldings and 2B;9CBN, while --)<Q thereof is owned b$ the
P!@* >roup) 2s a result of this business combination, respondents ha#e cornered at least 1&Q of the total cable
tele#ision market in ega anila) *he$ are thus able to dictate the signal transmission, channel position, and the
airing of shows, programs, and broadcast of non9cable companies like 2B;9CBN and >2, which the law
re3uires them to carr$)

>2 alleged that the re9channeling of its cable tele#ision broadcast resulted in damage to its business operations,
thus+

)))

&1) 7ollowing their arbitrar$ act of re9channeling the cable position of plaintiff >2 from
BChannel &' to BChannel &8B, the defendants ;k$Cable and Pilipino Cable 5or B;un CableB6
deliberatel$ failed to transmit the signal of plaintiff >2 to their channels in clear audio
transmission resulting in noticeable dropouts and spillo#er of e4traneous sound and in clear #isual
transmission resulting in distorted andMor degraded #isual presentation:
&0) ;oon thereafter, numerous complaints of distortions, degradations and disorders of >2Bs
shows on the cable channels were recei#ed b$ plaintiff >2 from subscribers of the defendant
cable companies B;k$CableB, BCome Cable and B;un CableB, such as Bsnow$ receptionB, Bno signalB,
and Bno audio) *hese complaints escalated to alarming proportions when plaintiff >2 made
public the audio and #isual distortions of its *? shows on the cable channels:

&/) *he audio disorder and the #isual distortion andMor degradation of plaintiff >2Bs signal
transmission happened mostl$ during the showing of plaintiff >2Bs top rating programs:
&/)&) *hese distortions did not occur in the cable *? shows of defendant 2B;9
CBN on the channels of the co9defendant cable companies:

'.) It is a matter of common knowledge, and defendants are full$ aware, that the 3ualit$ of signal
and audio transmission and established channel position in cable *? of a non9cable tele#ision
network, like plaintiff >2, are crucial factors in arri#ing at the ratings of the network and its
programs and which ratings are, in turn, determinati#e of the business judgment of commercial
ad#ertisers, producers and blocktimers to sign broadcast contracts with the network, which
contracts are the lifeblood of *? networks and stations like plaintiff >2:

'.)&) @efendants are also aware that <.Q of so9called Bpeople meter which is a
de#ice used b$ the ratings suppliers 52>B Philippines and 2C Nielsen6 to
determine the ratings and audience shares of *? programs are placed in cable
*?)

'.)') *hese unjust, high9handed and unlawful acts of the defendants ad#ersel$
affected the #iewership, 3ualit$ of the programs, and ratings of plaintiff >2 for
which defendants are liable:

)))

'') 2s a result of defendantsB acts of unfair competition, corporate combinations and
manipulations as well as unjust, oppressi#e, high9handed and unlawful business practices,
plaintiff suffered business interruptions and injur$ in its operations for which it should be
compensated in the amount of P&.illion b$ wa$ of actual and compensator$ damages%)J %-J


(n ,ul$ &<, '..-, ;k$Cable and ;un Cable mo#ed for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of litis
pendentia and forum9shopping since there was a similar case pending before the National *elecommunications
Commission 5N*C6 entitled B0A 5etwor6! Inc. v. Central CA;=! Inc.! #hilippine &ome Cable &oldings! Inc.!
and #ilipino Cable Corporation) *he case, docketed as N*C 2@ Case No) '..-9.0<, allegedl$ in#ol#ed the
same cause of action and the same parties, e4cept for 2B;9CBN) ;k$Cable and ;un Cable also asserted that it is
the N*C that has primar$ jurisdiction o#er the issues raised in the complaint) oreo#er, >2 had no cause of
action against the two entities and failed to e4haust administrati#e remedies) %8J

(n ,ul$ &1, '..-, Come Cable filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims %<J pleading, as affirmati#e
defenses, the same matters alleged in the motion to dismiss of ;k$Cable and ;un Cable) 2B;9CBN also filed
an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims %=J contending that >2 had no cause of action against it and that
the complaint failed to state an$)

>2 opposed the motion to dismiss %1J and filed a 4eply to the answer of Come Cable %0J and 2B;9CBN) %/J 2
preliminar$ hearing was held on the motion to dismiss as well as the affirmati#e defenses)

In due course, the trial court issued the assailed resolution %&.J dismissing the complaint) *he trial court held that
the resolution of the legal issues raised in the complaint re3uired the determination of highl$ technical, factual
issues o#er which the N*C had primar$ jurisdiction) 2dditionall$, it held that >2 had no cause of action
against 2B;9CBN because+

))) It is e#ident that plaintiffBs cause of action is against the cable companies and not against 2B;9
CBN since it does not establish that defendant 2B;9CBN had a hand in the re9channeling of
plaintiffBs cable transmission because essentiall$ defendant 2B;9CBN is similarl$ situated as
plaintiff) *he mere fact that the people behind 2B;9CBN is allegedl$ the same people who are at
the helm of these cable companies, and thus were Bengaged in unfair competition andMor unfair
trade practicesB is a conclusion of law and does not satisf$ the re3uirement that the plaintiff state
Bultimate factsB in asserting its cause of action) B %&&J

Cence, this petition filed b$ >2 under ;ection '5c6, Rule 8& in relation to Rule 8< of the Rules of Court,
asserting that+

2

*CE *RI2! C(ER* ERRE@ IN RE!IN> *C2* *CE N*C C2; PRI2RH ,ERI;@IC*I(N
(?ER PE*I*I(NERB; C(P!2IN* 7(R @22>E; 2N@ IN @I;I;;IN> *CE C2;E
7(R !2CK (7 ,ERI;@IC*I(N)

B

*CE *RI2! C(ER* ERRE@ IN RE!IN> *C2* PE*I*I(NERB; C(P!2IN* ;*2*E; N(
C2E;E (7 2C*I(N 2>2IN;* RE;P(N@EN* 2B;9CBN) %&'J
>2 asserts that the resolution of the issues raised in the complaint does not entail highl$ technical matters
re3uiring the e4pertise of the N*C) Petitioner insists that the subject matter of the complaint merel$ in#ol#es
respondentsB wrongful acts of unfair competition andMor unfair trade practices resulting to damages, jurisdiction
o#er which lies with the regular courts and not the N*C)
Ae disagree)

>2Bs complaint for damages is based on the alleged arbitrar$ re9channeling of its broadcast o#er the cable
companiesB tele#ision s$stems, thereb$ resulting in the distortion and degradation of its #ideo and audio signals)
*he re9channeling was allegedl$ made possible through the common ownership and interlocking businesses of
respondent corporations and was designed to thwart petitionerBs upswing performance in the tele#ision ratings
game) In other words, the wrongful acts complained of and upon which the damages pra$ed for are based, ha#e to
do with the operations and ownership of the cable companies) *hese factual matters undoubtedl$ pertain to the
N*C and not the regular courts)

*hat the matters complained of b$ >2 are within the N*CBs e4clusi#e domain can be discerned from the
statutes go#erning the broadcasting and cable tele#ision industr$) ;ection &< of E4ecuti#e (rder No) <8=, %&-J b$
which the N*C was created, pro#ides for its general functions as follows+

a) Issue Certificate of Public Con#enience for the operation of communications utilities and
ser#ices, radio communications s$stems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph s$stem, radio
and tele#ision broadcasting s$stem and other similar public utilities:
b) Establish, prescribe and regulate areas of operation of particular operators of public ser#ice
communications: and determine and prescribe charges or rates pertinent to the operation of such
public utilit$ facilities and ser#ices e4cept in cases where charges or rates are established b$
international bodies or associations of which the Philippines is a participating member or b$
bodies recogni"ed b$ the Philippine >o#ernment as the proper arbiter of such charges or rates:

)))

g) Promulgate such rules and regulations, as public safet$ and interest ma$ re3uire, to encourage
a larger and more effecti#e use of communications, radio and tele#ision broadcasting facilities,
and to maintain effecti#e competition among pri#ate entities in these acti#ities whene#er the
Commission finds it reasonabl$ feasible%)J

In &/01, E4ecuti#e (rder No) '.< %&8J was issued which empowers the N*C to grant certificates of authorit$ for
the operation of cable antenna tele#ision s$stem subject to the limitation that the authorit$ to operate shall not
infringe on the tele#ision and broadcast markets) E4ecuti#e (rder No) 8-= %&<J issued in &//1, specificall$ #ests
the N*C with the 8ol1 power of regulation and super#ision o#er the cable tele#ision industr$)

In Batangas CA;=! Inc. v. Court of Appeals, %&=J we held that the N*CBs regulator$ power o#er the broadcasting
and cable tele#ision industr$ e4tends to matters which are peculiarl$ within its competence) *hese include the+ 5&6
determination of rates, 5'6 issuance of certificates of authorit$, 5-6 establishment of areas of operation, 586
e4amination and assessment of the legal, technical and financial 3ualifications of applicant operators, 5<6 granting
of permits for the use of fre3uencies, 5=6 71=ul,45o: o2 o@:178<5> ,:0 o>17,45o:, 516 adjudication of issues
arising from its functions, and 506 other similar matters) %&1J Aith respect to the foregoing, therefore, the N*C
e4ercises e4clusi#e, original and primar$ jurisdiction to the e4clusion of the regular courts)
In the case at bar, before the trial court can resol#e the issue of whether >2 is entitled to an award of damages,
it would ha#e to initiall$ ascertain whether there was arbitrar$ re9channeling which distorted and downgraded
>2Bs signal) *he ascertainment of these facts, which relate to the operations of the cable companies, would
re3uire the application of technical standards imposed b$ the N*C as well as determination of signal 3ualit$
Bwithin the limitations imposed b$ the technical state of the art) %&0J *hese factual 3uestions would necessaril$
entail speciali"ed knowledge in the fields of communications technolog$ and engineering which the courts do not
possess) It is the N*C which has the e4pertise and skills to deal with such matters)

*he regulation of ownership of tele#ision and cable tele#ision companies is likewise within the e4clusi#e concern
of the N*C, pursuant to its broader regulator$ power of ensuring and promoting a Blarger and more effecti#e use
of communications, radio and tele#ision broadcasting facilitiesB in order that the public interest ma$ well be
ser#ed) *he N*C is mandated to maintain effecti#e competition among pri#ate entities engaged in the operation
of public ser#ice communications) It is also the agenc$ tasked to grant certificates of authorit$ to cable tele#ision
operators, pro#ided that the same Bdoes not infringe on the tele#ision and broadcast markets)

2s such, >2Bs allegations of unlawful business combination and unjust business practices also properl$ pertain
to the N*C) It is in the best position to judge matters relating to the broadcasting industr$ as it is presumed to
ha#e an unparalleled understanding of its market and commercial conditions) oreo#er, it is the N*C that has the
information, statistics and data peculiar to the tele#ision broadcasting industr$) It is thus the bod$ that is ideall$
suited to act on petitionerBs allegations of market control and manipulation)

In Industrial Enterprises! Inc. v. Court of Appeals, %&/J the Court held that+

It ma$ occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cogni"ance of a particular case, which means
that the matter in#ol#ed is also judicial in character) Cowe#er, if the case is such that its
determination re3uires the e4pertise, speciali"ed skills and knowledge of the proper
administrati#e bodies because technical matters or intricate 3uestions of facts are in#ol#ed, then
relief must first be obtained in an administrati#e proceeding before a remed$ will be supplied b$
the courts e#en though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court) *his is the doctrine
of primar$ jurisdiction) It applies Bwhere a claim is originally cogni$able in the courts, and comes
into pla$ whene#er enforcement of the claim re3uires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulator$ scheme, ha#e been placed within the special competence of an administrati#e bod$: in
such case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative
body for its view%)J %'.J

Conse3uentl$, while it is true that the regular courts are possessed of general jurisdiction o#er actions for
damages, it would nonetheless be proper for the courts to $ield its jurisdiction in fa#or of an administrati#e bod$
when the determination of underl$ing factual issues re3uires the special competence or knowledge of the latter) In
this era of clogged court dockets, administrati#e boards or commissions with special knowledge, e4perience and
capabilit$ to promptl$ hear and determine disputes on technical matters or intricate 3uestions of facts, subject to
judicial re#iew in case of gra#e abuse of discretion, are well nigh indispensable) Between the power lodged in an
administrati#e bod$ and a court, therefore, the unmistakable trend is to refer it to the former) %'&J

In this regard, we note that there is a pending case before the N*C in which the factual issues raised in petitionerBs
complaint ha#e also been pleaded) 2lthough petitioner pra$s in the N*C case for the administrati#e remed$ of
cancellation of the cable companiesB certificates of authorit$, licenses and permits, it is ine#itable that, in granting
or den$ing this pra$er, the N*C would ha#e to pass upon the same factual issues posed in petitionerBs complaint
before the trial court) *he latter was thus correct in appl$ing the doctrine of primar$ jurisdiction if onl$ to a#oid
conflicting factual findings between the court and the N*C)
7inall$, the complaint failed to state a cause of action against 2B;9CBN and the other respondents, considering
that the ultimate facts upon which the complaint for damages depends fall within the technical competence of an
administrati#e bod$) (therwise stated, pending determination b$ the N*C of the factual 3uestions in#ol#ed in the
case, petitionerBs complaint, which is founded upon such factual issues, would be premature)

W"ERE(ORE, the petition is DENIED) *he assailed resolution dated (ctober -., '..- of the Regional *rial
Court of Iue"on Cit$, Branch /1, is A((IR!ED)

SO ORDERED.
[G.R. No. 104HF8. July 21, 200;]
R1>u.l5/ o2 4<1 <5l5>>5:18, Petitioner, v. S,:05=,:.,y,:, !,Co7 G1:17,l Jo81><u8 ). R,A,8 ,:0
El5D,.14< D5A,,:o, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARIO, J.*
*he Case
Before this Court is a petition for re#iew on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the ;andiganba$an
57irst @i#ision6
&
dated &0 No#ember &//& and '< arch &//' in Ci#il Case No) ..-1) *he first Resolution
dismissed petitioners 2mended Complaint and ordered the return of the confiscated items to respondent Eli"abeth
@imaano, while the second Resolution denied petitioners otion for Reconsideration) Petitioner pra$s for the
grant of the reliefs sought in its 2mended Complaint, or in the alternati#e, for the remand of this case to the
;andiganba$an 57irst @i#ision6 for further proceedings allowing petitioner to complete the presentation of its
e#idence)
2ntecedent 7acts
Immediatel$ upon her assumption to office following the successful E@;2 Re#olution, then President Cora"on C)
23uino issued E4ecuti#e (rder No) & 5E( No) &6 creating the Presidential Commission on >ood >o#ernment
5PC>>6) E( No) & primaril$ tasked the PC>> to reco#er all ill9gotten wealth of former President 7erdinand E)
arcos, his immediate famil$, relati#es, subordinates and close associates) E( No) & #ested the PC>> with the
power 5a6 to conduct in#estigation as ma$ be necessar$ in order to accomplish and carr$ out the purposes of this
order and the power 5h6 to promulgate such rules and regulations as ma$ be necessar$ to carr$ out the purpose of
this order) 2ccordingl$, the PC>>, through its then Chairman ,o#ito R) ;alonga, created an 27P 2nti9>raft
Board 527P Board6 tasked to in#estigate reports of une4plained wealth and corrupt practices b$ 27P personnel,
whether in the acti#e ser#ice or retired)
'
Based on its mandate, the 27P Board in#estigated #arious reports of alleged une4plained wealth of respondent
ajor >eneral ,osephus I) Ramas 5Ramas6) (n '1 ,ul$ &/01, the 27P Board issued a Resolution on its findings
and recommendation on the reported une4plained wealth of Ramas) *he rele#ant part of the Resolution reads+
III) 7IN@IN>; and E?2!E2*I(N+
E#idence in the record showed that respondent is the owner of a house and lot located at &<9Hakan ;t), !a ?ista,
Iue"on Cit$) Ce is also the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu Cit$) *he lot has an area of -,-'1 s3uare
meters)
*he #alue of the propert$ located in Iue"on Cit$ ma$ be estimated modestl$ at P1..,...)..)
*he e3uipmentMitems and communication facilities which were found in the premises of Eli"abeth @imaano and
were confiscated b$ elements of the PC Command of Batangas were all co#ered b$ in#oice receipt in the name of
C2P*) E7REN ;2!I@(, R;( Command Co$, ;C, P2) *hese items could not ha#e been in the possession of
Eli"abeth @imaano if not gi#en for her use b$ respondent Commanding >eneral of the Philippine 2rm$)
2side from the militar$ e3uipmentMitems and communications e3uipment, the raiding team was also able to
confiscate mone$ in the amount of P',01.,...).. and N<.,... E; @ollars in the house of Eli"abeth @imaano on
- arch &/0=)
2ffida#its of members of the ilitar$ ;ecurit$ Enit, ilitar$ ;ecurit$ Command, Philippine 2rm$, stationed at
Camp Eldridge, !os Baos, !aguna, disclosed that Eli"abeth @imaano is the mistress of respondent) *hat
respondent usuall$ goes and sta$s and sleeps in the alleged house of Eli"abeth @imaano in Baranga$ *engga,
Itaas, Batangas Cit$ and when he arri#es, Eli"abeth @imaano embraces and kisses respondent) *hat on 7ebruar$
'<, &/0=, a person who rode in a car went to the residence of Eli"abeth @imaano with four 586 attache cases filled
with mone$ and owned b$ >en Ramas)
;worn statement in the record disclosed also that Eli"abeth @imaano had no #isible means of income and is
supported b$ respondent for she was formerl$ a mere secretar$)
*aking in toto the e#idence, Eli"abeth @imaano could not ha#e used the militar$ e3uipmentMitems sei"ed in her
house on arch -, &/0= without the consent of respondent, he being the Commanding >eneral of the Philippine
2rm$) It is also impossible for Eli"abeth @imaano to claim that she owns the P',01.,...).. and N<.,... E;
@ollars for she had no #isible source of income)
*his mone$ was ne#er declared in the ;tatement of 2ssets and !iabilities of respondent) *here was an intention to
co#er the e4istence of these mone$ because these are all ill9gotten and une4plained wealth) Aere it not for the
affida#its of the members of the ilitar$ ;ecurit$ Enit assigned at Camp Eldridge, !os Baos, !aguna, the
e4istence and ownership of these mone$ would ha#e ne#er been known)
*he ;tatement of 2ssets and !iabilities of respondent were also submitted for scrutin$ and anal$sis b$ the Boards
consultant) 2lthough the amount of P',01.,...).. and N<.,... E; @ollars were not included, still it was
disclosed that respondent has an une4plained wealth of P&.8,&-8) =.)
I?) C(NC!E;I(N+
In #iew of the foregoing, the Board finds that a prima facie case e4ists against respondent for ill9gotten and
une4plained wealth in the amount of P',/18,&-8).. and N<.,... E; @ollars)
?) REC(EN@2*I(N+
Aherefore it is recommended that aj) >en) ,osephus I) Ramas 5ret)6 be prosecuted and tried for #iolation of R2
-.&/, as amended, otherwise known as 2nti9>raft and Corrupt Practices 2ct and R2 &-1/, as amended,
otherwise known as *he 2ct for the 7orfeiture of Enlawfull$ 2c3uired Propert$)
-
*hus, on & 2ugust &/01, the PC>> filed a petition for forfeiture under Republic 2ct No) &-1/ 5R2 No)
&-1/6 %8 against Ramas)
Before Ramas could answer the petition, then ;olicitor >eneral 7rancisco I) Cha#e" filed an 2mended Complaint
naming the Republic of the Philippines 5petitioner6, represented b$ the PC>>, as plaintiff and Ramas as
defendant) *he 2mended Complaint also impleaded Eli"abeth @imaano 5@imaano6 as co9defendant)
*he 2mended Complaint alleged that Ramas was the Commanding >eneral of the Philippine 2rm$ until &/0=)
(n the other hand, @imaano was a confidential agent of the ilitar$ ;ecurit$ Enit, Philippine 2rm$, assigned as
a clerk9t$pist at the office of Ramas from & ,anuar$ &/10 to 7ebruar$ &/1/) *he 2mended Complaint further
alleged that Ramas ac3uired funds, assets and properties manifestl$ out of proportion to his salar$ as an arm$
officer and his other income from legitimatel$ ac3uired propert$ b$ taking undue ad#antage of his public office
andMor using his power, authorit$ and influence as such officer of the 2rmed 7orces of the Philippines and as a
subordinate and close associate of the deposed President 7erdinand arcos)%<
*he 2mended Complaint also alleged that the 27P Board, after a pre#ious in3uir$, found reasonable ground to
belie#e that respondents ha#e #iolated R2 No) &-1/)%= *he 2mended Complaint pra$ed for, among others, the
forfeiture of respondents properties, funds and e3uipment in fa#or of the ;tate)
Ramas filed an 2nswer with ;pecial andMor 2ffirmati#e @efenses and Compulsor$ Counterclaim to the 2mended
Complaint) In his 2nswer, Ramas contended that his propert$ consisted onl$ of a residential house at !a ?ista
;ubdi#ision, Iue"on Cit$, #alued at P1..,..., which was not out of proportion to his salar$ and other legitimate
income) Ce denied ownership of an$ mansion in Cebu Cit$ and the cash, communications e3uipment and other
items confiscated from the house of @imaano)
@imaano filed her own 2nswer to the 2mended Complaint) 2dmitting her emplo$ment as a clerk9t$pist in the
office of Ramas from ,anuar$9No#ember &/10 onl$, @imaano claimed ownership of the monies, communications
e3uipment, jewelr$ and land titles taken from her house b$ the Philippine Constabular$ raiding team)
2fter termination of the pre9trial,%1 the court set the case for trial on the merits on /9&& No#ember &/00)
(n / No#ember &/00, petitioner asked for a deferment of the hearing due to its lack of preparation for trial and
the absence of witnesses and #ital documents to support its case) *he court reset the hearing to &1 and &0 2pril
&/0/)
(n &- 2pril &/0/, petitioner filed a motion for lea#e to amend the complaint in order to charge the delin3uent
properties with being subject to forfeiture as ha#ing been unlawfull$ ac3uired b$ defendant @imaano alone 4 4 4)
%0
Ne#ertheless, in an order dated &1 2pril &/0/, the ;andiganba$an proceeded with petitioners presentation of
e#idence on the ground that the motion for lea#e to amend complaint did not state when petitioner would file the
amended complaint) *he ;andiganba$an further stated that the subject matter of the amended complaint was on
its face #ague and not related to the e4isting complaint) *he ;andiganba$an also held that due to the time that the
case had been pending in court, petitioner should proceed to present its e#idence)
2fter presenting onl$ three witnesses, petitioner asked for a postponement of the trial)
(n '0 ;eptember &/0/, during the continuation of the trial, petitioner manifested its inabilit$ to proceed to trial
because of the absence of other witnesses or lack of further e#idence to present) Instead, petitioner reiterated its
motion to amend the complaint to conform to the e#idence alread$ presented or to change the a#erments to show
that @imaano alone unlawfull$ ac3uired the monies or properties subject of the forfeiture)
*he ;andiganba$an noted that petitioner had alread$ dela$ed the case for o#er a $ear mainl$ because of its man$
postponements) oreo#er, petitioner would want the case to re#ert to its preliminar$ stage when in fact the case
had long been read$ for trial) *he ;andiganba$an ordered petitioner to prepare for presentation of its additional
e#idence, if an$)
@uring the trial on '- arch &//., petitioner again admitted its inabilit$ to present further e#idence) >i#ing
petitioner one more chance to present further e#idence or to amend the complaint to conform to its e#idence, the
;andiganba$an reset the trial to &0 a$ &//.) *he ;andiganba$an, howe#er, hinted that the re9setting was
without prejudice to an$ action that pri#ate respondents might take under the circumstances)
Cowe#er, on &0 a$ &//., petitioner again e4pressed its inabilit$ to proceed to trial because it had no further
e#idence to present) 2gain, in the interest of justice, the ;andiganba$an granted petitioner =. da$s within which
to file an appropriate pleading) *he ;andiganba$an, howe#er, warned petitioner that failure to act would constrain
the court to take drastic action)
Pri#ate respondents then filed their motions to dismiss based on Repu!lic v. 5i$rino.%/ *he Court held
in 5i$rinothat the PC>> does not ha#e jurisdiction to in#estigate and prosecute militar$ officers b$ reason of
mere position held without a showing that the$ are subordinates of former President arcos)
(n &0 No#ember &//&, the ;andiganba$an rendered a resolution, the dispositi#e portion of which states+
ACERE7(RE, judgment is hereb$ rendered dismissing the 2mended Complaint, without pronouncement as to
costs) *he counterclaims are likewise dismissed for lack of merit, but the confiscated sum of mone$,
communications e3uipment, jewelr$ and land titles are ordered returned to Eli"abeth @imaano)
*he records of this case are hereb$ remanded and referred to the Con) (mbudsman, who has primar$ jurisdiction
o#er the forfeiture cases under R)2) No) &-1/, for such appropriate action as the e#idence warrants) *his case is
also referred to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Re#enue for a determination of an$ ta4 liabilit$ of
respondent Eli"abeth @imaano in connection herewith)
;( (R@ERE@)
(n 8 @ecember &//&, petitioner filed its otion for Reconsideration)
In answer to the otion for Reconsideration, pri#ate respondents filed a ,oint CommentM(pposition to which
petitioner filed its Repl$ on &. ,anuar$ &//')
(n '< arch &//', the ;andiganba$an rendered a Resolution den$ing the otion for Reconsideration)
Ruling of the ;andiganba$an
*he ;andiganba$an dismissed the 2mended Complaint on the following grounds+
5&)6 *he actions taken b$ the PC>> are not in accordance with the rulings of the ;upreme Court in Cru$! Hr.
v. (andiganbayan%&. and 4epublic v. igrino
&&
which in#ol#e the same issues)
5')6 No pre#ious in3uir$ similar to preliminar$ in#estigations in criminal cases was conducted against Ramas
and @imaano)
5-)6 *he e#idence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie case against him)
58)6 *here was an illegal search and sei"ure of the items confiscated)
*he Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues+
2) RE;P(N@EN* C(ER* ;ERI(E;!H ERRE@ IN C(NC!E@IN> *C2* PE*I*I(NER;
E?I@ENCE C2NN(* 2KE 2 C2;E 7(R 7(R7EI*ERE 2N@ *C2* *CERE
A2; N( ;C(AIN> (7 C(N;PIR2CH, C(!!E;I(N (R RE!2*I(N;CIP BH
C(N;2N>EINI*H (R 277INI*H BH 2N@ BE*AEEN RE;P(N@EN* R22;
2N@ RE;P(N@EN* @I22N( N(*AI*C;*2N@IN> *CE 72C* *C2* ;ECC
C(NC!E;I(N; AERE C!E2R!H EN7(EN@E@ 2N@ PRE2*ERE, C2?IN>
BEEN REN@ERE@ PRI(R *( *CE C(P!E*I(N (7 *CE PRE;EN*2*I(N (7
*CE E?I@ENCE (7 *CE PE*I*I(NER)
B) RE;P(N@EN* C(ER* ;ERI(E;!H ERRE@ IN C(!@IN> *C2* *CE 2C*I(N; *2KEN
BH *CE PE*I*I(NER, INC!E@IN> *CE 7I!IN> (7 *CE (RI>IN2!
C(P!2IN* 2N@ *CE 2EN@E@ C(P!2IN*, ;C(E!@ BE ;*RECK (E* IN
!INE AI*C *CE RE!IN>; (7 *CE ;EPREE C(ER* IN CREG, ,R) #)
;2N@I>2NB2H2N, &/8 ;CR2 818 2N@ REPEB!IC #) I>RIN(, &0/ ;CR2 '0/,
N(*AI*C;*2N@IN> *CE 72C* *C2*+
&) *he cases of Cru", ,r) #) ;andiganba$an, supra, and Republic #) igrino, supra, are
clearl$ not applicable to this case:
') 2n$ procedural defect in the institution of the complaint in Ci#il Case No) ..-1 was
cured andMor wai#ed b$ respondents with the filing of their respecti#e answers
with counterclaim: and
-) *he separate motions to dismiss were e#identl$ improper considering that the$ were
filed after commencement of the presentation of the e#idence of the petitioner
and e#en before the latter was allowed to formall$ offer its e#idence and rest its
case:
C) RE;P(N@EN* C(ER* ;ERI(E;!H ERRE@ IN C(!@IN> *C2* *CE 2R*IC!E; 2N@
*CIN>; ;ECC 2; ;E; (7 (NEH, C(ENIC2*I(N; EIEIPEN*,
,EAE!RH 2N@ !2N@ *I*!E; C(N7I;C2*E@ 7R( *CE C(E;E (7
RE;P(N@EN* @I22N( AERE I!!E>2!!H ;EIGE@ 2N@ *CERE7(RE
EDC!E@E@ 2; E?I@ENCE)
&'
*he Courts Ruling
,irst IssueG #C00s Hurisdiction to Investigate #rivate 4espondents
*his case in#ol#es a re#isiting of an old issue alread$ decided b$ this Court in Cru-, Jr. v.
0andi$an!a"an%&- andRepu!lic v. 5i$rino)
&8
*he primar$ issue for resolution is whether the PC>> has the jurisdiction to in#estigate and cause the filing of a
forfeiture petition against Ramas and @imaano for une4plained wealth under R2 No) &-1/)
Ae hold that PC>> has no such jurisdiction)
*he PC>> created the 27P Board to in#estigate the une4plained wealth and corrupt practices of 27P personnel,
whether in the acti#e ser#ice or retired)
&<
*he PC>> tasked the 27P Board to make the necessar$
recommendations to appropriate go#ernment agencies on the action to be taken based on its findings)%&= *he
PC>> ga#e this task to the 27P Board pursuant to the PC>>s power under ;ection - of E( No) & to conduct
in#estigation as ma$ be necessar$ in order to accomplish and to carr$ out the purposes of this order) E( No) &
ga#e the PC>> specific responsibilities, to wit+
;EC) ') *he Commission shall be charged with the task of assisting the President in regard to the following
matters+
5a6 *he reco#er$ of all ill9gotten wealth accumulated b$ former President 7erdinand E) arcos, his
immediate famil$, relati#es, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the
Philippines or abroad, including the takeo#er and se3uestration of all business enterprises and
entities owned or controlled b$ them, during his administration, directl$ or through nominees,
b$ taking undue ad#antage of their public office andM or using their powers, authorit$,
influence, connections or relationship)
5b6 *he in#estigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President ma$ assign to the
Commission from time to time)
4 4 4)
*he PC>>, through the 27P Board, can onl$ in#estigate the une4plained wealth and corrupt practices of 27P
personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in ;ection ' of E( No) &) *hese are+ 5&6 27P
personnel who ha#e accumulated ill9gotten wealth during the administration of former President arcos b$ being
the latters immediate famil$, relati#e, subordinate or close associate, taking undue ad#antage of their public office
or using their powers, influence 4 4 4:
&1
or 5'6 27P personnel in#ol#ed in other cases of graft and corruption
pro#ided the President assigns their cases to the PC>>)%&0
Petitioner, howe#er, does not claim that the President assigned Ramas case to the PC>>) *herefore, Ramas case
should fall under the first categor$ of 27P personnel before the PC>> could e4ercise its jurisdiction o#er him)
Petitioner argues that Ramas was undoubtedl$ a subordinate of former President arcos because of his position
as the Commanding >eneral of the Philippine 2rm$) Petitioner claims that Ramas position enabled him to recei#e
orders directl$ from his commander9in9chief, undeniabl$ making him a subordinate of former President arcos)
Ae hold that Ramas was not a subordinate of former President arcos in the sense contemplated under E( No) &
and its amendments)
ere position held b$ a militar$ officer does not automaticall$ make him a subordinate as this term is used in E(
Nos) &, ', &8 and &892 absent a showing that he enjo$ed close association with former President
arcos) 5i$rinodiscussed this issue in this wise+
2 close reading of E( No) & and related e4ecuti#e orders will readil$ show what is contemplated within the term
subordinate) *he Ahereas Clauses of E( No) & e4press the urgent need to reco#er the ill9gotten wealth amassed
b$ former President 7erdinand E) arcos, his immediate famil$, relati#es, and close associates both here and
abroad)
E( No) ' free"es all assets and properties in the Philippines in which former President arcos andMor his wife,
rs) Imelda arcos, their close relati#es, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents, or nominees ha#e
an$ interest or participation)
2ppl$ing the rule in statutor$ construction known as ejusdem generis that is9
%AJhere general words follow an enumeration of persons or things b$ words of a particular and specific meaning,
such general words are not to be construed in their widest e4tent, but are to be held as appl$ing onl$ to persons or
things of the same kind or class as those specificall$ mentioned %;mith, Bell L Co, !td) #s) Register of @eeds of
@a#ao, /= Phil) <-, <0, citing Black on Interpretation of !aws, '
nd
Ed), '.-J)
%*Jhe term subordinate as used in E( Nos) & L ' refers to one who enjo$s a close association with former
President arcos andMor his wife, si#ilar to te i##ediate fa#il" #e#!er, relative, and close associate in EO
No. 1 and te close relative, !usiness associate, du##", a$ent, or no#inee in EO No. 2)
4 4 4
It does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or was a go#ernment official or emplo$ee during the
administration of former President arcos) 2ere #ust !e a pri#a facie sowin$ tat te respondent
unlawfull" accu#ulated wealt !" virtue of is close association or relation wit for#er Pres. 5arcos and6or
is wife) 5Emphasis supplied6
Ramas position alone as Commanding >eneral of the Philippine 2rm$ with the rank of ajor >eneral%&/ does
not suffice to make him a subordinate of former President arcos for purposes of E( No) & and its amendments)
*he PC>> has to pro#ide a prima facie showing that Ramas was a close associate of former President arcos, in
the same manner that business associates, dummies, agents or nominees of former President arcos were close to
him);uch close association is manifested either b$ Ramas complicit$ with former President arcos in the
accumulation of ill9gotten wealth b$ the deposed President or b$ former President arcos ac3uiescence in Ramas
own accumulation of ill9gotten wealth if an$)
*his, the PC>> failed to do)
Petitioners attempt to differentiate the instant case from 5i$rino does not con#ince us) Petitioner argues that
unlike in 5i$rino, the 27P Board Resolution in the instant case states that the 27P Board conducted the
in#estigation pursuant to E( Nos) &, ', &8 and &892 in relation to R2 No) &-1/) Petitioner asserts that there is a
presumption that the PC>> was acting within its jurisdiction of in#estigating cron$9related cases of graft and
corruption and that Ramas was trul$ a subordinate of the former President) Cowe#er, the same 27P Board
Resolution belies this contention) 2lthough the Resolution begins with such statement, it ends with the following
recommendation+
?) REC(EN@2*I(N+
Aherefore it is recommended that aj) >en) ,osephus I) Ramas 5ret)6 be prosecuted and tried for #iolation of R2
-.&/, as amended, otherwise known as 2nti9>raft and Corrupt Practices 2ct and R2 &-1/, as amended,
otherwise known as *he 2ct for the 7orfeiture of Enlawfull$ 2c3uired Propert$)
'.
*hus, although the PC>> sought to in#estigate and prosecute pri#ate respondents under E( Nos) &, ', &8 and &89
2, the result $ielded a finding of #iolation of Republic 2cts Nos) -.&/ and &-1/ without an$ relation to E( Nos)
&, ', &8 and &892) *his absence of relation to E( No) & and its amendments pro#es fatal to petitioners case) E(
No) & created the PC>> for a specific and limited purpose, and necessaril$ its powers must be construed to
addresssuch specific and limited purpose)
oreo#er, the resolution of the 27P Board and e#en the 2mended Complaint do not show that the properties
Ramas allegedl$ owned were accumulated b$ him in his capacit$ as a subordinate of his commander9in9chief)
Petitioner merel$ enumerated the properties Ramas allegedl$ owned and suggested that these properties were
disproportionate to his salar$ and other legitimate income without showing that Ramas amassed them because of
his close association with former President arcos) Petitioner, in fact, ad#its that the 27P Board resolution does
not contain a finding that Ramas accumulated his wealth because of his close association with former President
arcos, thus+
&.) Ahile it is true that 4<1 718olu45o: o2 4<1 A:45-G7,24 Bo,70 o2 4<1 N1@ A7A10 (o7/18 o2 4<1 <5l5>>5:18
050 :o4 /,41=o75/,lly 25:0 , pri#a facie 16501:/1 8<o@5:= 4<,4 718>o:01:4 R,A,8 u:l,@2ully ,//uAul,410
@1,l4< .y 6574u1 o2 <58 /lo81 ,88o/5,45o: o7 71l,45o: @54< 2o7A17 718501:4 !,7/o8 ,:0?o7 <58 @521, 54 58
8u.A54410 4<,4 8u/< oA5885o: @,8 :o4 2,4,l. *he resolution of the 2nti9>raft Board should be read in the
conte4t of the law creating the same and the objecti#e of the in#estigation which was, as stated in the abo#e,
pursuant to Republic 2ct Nos) -.&/ and &-1/ in relation to E4ecuti#e (rder Nos) &, ', &8 and &89a:%'& 5Emphasis
supplied6
;uch omission is fatal) Petitioner forgets that it is precisel$ a prima facie showing that the ill9gotten wealth was
accumulated b$ a subordinate of former President arcos that #ests jurisdiction on PC>>) E( No) &%'' clearl$
premises the creation of the PC>> on the urgent need to reco#er all ill9gotten wealth amassed b$ former
President arcos, his immediate famil$, relati#es, subordinates and close associates) *herefore, to sa$ that such
omission was not fatal is clearl$ contrar$ to the intent behind the creation of the PC>>)
In Cru-, Jr. v. 0andi$an!a"an,%'- the Court outlined the cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the PC>>
pursuant to E( Nos) &, ',
'8
&8,
'<
&892+
'=
2 careful reading of ;ections '5a6 and - of E4ecuti#e (rder No) & in relation with ;ections &, ' and - of
E4ecuti#e (rder No) &8, shows what the authorit$ of the respondent PC>> to in#estigate and prosecute co#ers+
5a6 the in#estigation and prosecution of the ci#il action for the reco#er$ of ill9gotten wealth under Republic 2ct
No) &-1/, ,//uAul,410 .y 2o7A17 718501:4 !,7/o8, <58 5AA105,41 2,A5ly, 71l,45618, 8u.o705:,418 ,:0 /lo81
,88o/5,418, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the take9o#er or se3uestration of all business
enterprises and entities owned or controlled b$ them, during his administration, directl$ or through his
nominees, .y 4,B5:= u:0u1 ,06,:4,=1 o2 4<157 >u.l5/ o225/1 ,:0?o7 u85:= 4<157 >o@178, ,u4<o754y ,:0
5:2lu1:/1, /o::1/45o:8 o7 71l,45o:8<5>8: and
5b6 the in#estigation and prosecution of such offenses committed in the ac3uisition of said ill9gotten wealth as
contemplated under ;ection '5a6 of E4ecuti#e (rder No) &)
Cowe#er, o4<17 65ol,45o:8 o2 4<1 A:45-G7,24 ,:0 Co77u>4 7,/45/18 A/4 :o4 o4<17@581 2,ll5:= u:017 4<1
2o71=o5:= /,41=o7518, 71Mu571 , >7165ou8 ,u4<o754y o2 4<1 718501:4 2o7 4<1 718>o:01:4 CGG 4o 5:61845=,41
,:0 >7o81/u41 5: ,//o70,:/1 @54< S1/45o: 2 +.- o2 E31/u4561 O7017 No. 1. O4<17@581, Cu75805/45o: o617 8u/<
/,818 58 618410 5: 4<1 OA.u08A,: ,:0 o4<17 0uly ,u4<o75D10 5:61845=,45:= ,=1:/518 8u/< ,8 4<1 >7o65:/5,l
,:0 /54y >7o81/u4o78, 4<157 ,88584,:48, 4<1 C<512 S4,41 7o81/u4o7 ,:0 <58 ,88584,:48 ,:0 4<1 84,41
>7o81/u4o78. 5Emphasis supplied6
*he proper go#ernment agencies, and not the PC>>, should in#estigate and prosecute forfeiture petitions not
falling under E( No) & and its amendments) *he preliminar$ in#estigation of une4plained wealth amassed on or
before '< 7ebruar$ &/0= falls under the jurisdiction of the (mbudsman, while the authorit$ to file the
corresponding forfeiture petition rests with the ;olicitor >eneral)
'1
*he (mbudsman 2ct or Republic 2ct No)
=11. 5R2 No) =11.6 #ests in the (mbudsman the power to conduct preliminar$ in#estigation and to file forfeiture
proceedings in#ol#ing une4plained wealth amassed after '< 7ebruar$ &/0=)%'0
2fter the pronouncements of the Court in Cru-, the PC>> still pursued this case despite the absence of a prima
faciefinding that Ramas was a subordinate of former President arcos) *he petition for forfeiture filed with the
;andiganba$an should be dismissed for lack of authorit$ b$ the PC>> to in#estigate respondents since there is
noprima facie showing that E( No) & and its amendments appl$ to respondents) *he 27P Board Resolution and
e#en the 2mended Complaint state that there are #iolations of R2 Nos) -.&/ and &-1/) *hus, the PC>> should
ha#e recommended Ramas case to the (mbudsman who has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminar$ in#estigation
of ordinar$ une4plained wealth and graft cases) 2s stated in 5i$rino+
%ButJ in #iew of the patent lack of authorit$ of the PC>> to in#estigate and cause the prosecution of pri#ate
respondent for #iolation of Rep) 2cts Nos) -.&/ and &-1/, the PC>> must also be enjoined from proceeding with
the case, without prejudice to an$ action that ma$ be taken b$ the proper prosecutor$ agenc$) *he rule of law
mandates that an agenc$ of go#ernment be allowed to e4ercise onl$ the powers granted to it)
Petitioners argument that pri#ate respondents ha#e wai#ed an$ defect in the filing of the forfeiture petition b$
submitting their respecti#e 2nswers with counterclaim deser#es no merit as well)
Petitioner has no jurisdiction o#er pri#ate respondents) *hus, there is no jurisdiction to wai#e in the first place)
*he PC>> cannot e4ercise in#estigati#e or prosecutorial powers ne#er granted to it) PC>>s powers are specific
and limited) Enless gi#en additional assignment b$ the President, PC>>s sole task is onl$ to reco#er the ill9gotten
wealth of the arcoses, their relati#es and cronies)
'/
Aithout these elements, the PC>> cannot claim jurisdiction
o#er a case)
Pri#ate respondents 3uestioned the authorit$ and jurisdiction of the PC>> to in#estigate and prosecute their cases
b$ filing their otion to @ismiss as soon as the$ learned of the pronouncement of the Court in 5i$rino. *his case
was decided on -. 2ugust &//., which e4plains wh$ pri#ate respondents onl$ filed their otion to @ismiss on 0
(ctober &//.) Ne#ertheless, we ha#e held that the parties ma$ raise lack of jurisdiction at an$ stage of the
proceeding)
-.
*hus, we hold that there was no wai#er of jurisdiction in this case) ,urisdiction is #ested b$ law and
not b$ the parties to an action)
-&
Conse3uentl$, the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction b$ the PC>> to conduct the preliminar$
in#estigation) *he (mbudsman ma$ still conduct the proper preliminar$ in#estigation for #iolation of R2 No)
&-1/, and if warranted, the ;olicitor >eneral ma$ file the forfeiture petition with the ;andiganba$an)
-'
*he right
of the ;tate to forfeit une4plained wealth under R2 No) &-1/ is not subject to prescription, laches or estoppel)
--
(econd IssueG #ropriety of Dismissal of Case
Before Completion of #resentation of Evidence
Petitioner also contends that the ;andiganba$an erred in dismissing the case before completion of the presentation
of petitioners e#idence)
Ae disagree)
Based on the findings of the ;andiganba$an and the records of this case, we find that petitioner has onl$ itself to
blame for non9completion of the presentation of its e#idence) 7irst, this case has been pending for four $ears
before the ;andiganba$an dismissed it) Petitioner filed its 2mended Complaint on && 2ugust &/01, and onl$
began to present its e#idence on &1 2pril &/0/) Petitioner had almost two $ears to prepare its e#idence) Cowe#er,
despite this sufficient time, petitioner still dela$ed the presentation of the rest of its e#idence b$ filing numerous
motions for postponements and e4tensions) E#en before the date set for the presentation of its e#idence, petitioner
filed, on &- 2pril &/0/, a otion for !ea#e to 2mend the Complaint)%-8 *he motion sought to charge the
delin3uent properties 5which comprise most of petitioners e#idence6 with being subject to forfeiture as ha#ing
been unlawfull$ ac3uired b$ defendant @imaano alone 4 4 4)
*he ;andiganba$an, howe#er, refused to defer the presentation of petitioners e#idence since petitioner did not
state when it would file the amended complaint) (n &0 2pril &/0/, the ;andiganba$an set the continuation of the
presentation of e#idence on '09'/ ;eptember and /9&& (ctober &/0/, gi#ing petitioner ample time to prepare its
e#idence) ;till, on '0 ;eptember &/0/, petitioner manifested its inabilit$ to proceed with the presentation of its
e#idence) *he ;andiganba$an issued an (rder e4pressing its #iew on the matter, to wit+
*he Court has gone through e4tended in3uir$ and a narration of the abo#e e#ents because this case has been read$
for trial for o#er a $ear and much of the dela$ hereon has been due to the inabilit$ of the go#ernment to produce
on scheduled dates for pre9trial and for trial documents and witnesses, allegedl$ upon the failure of the militar$ to
suppl$ them for the preparation of the presentation of e#idence thereon) (f e3ual interest is the fact that this Court
has been held to task in public about its alleged failure to mo#e cases such as this one be$ond the preliminar$
stage, when, in #iew of the de#elopments such as those of toda$, this Court is now faced with a situation where a
case alread$ in progress will re#ert back to the preliminar$ stage, despite a fi#e9month pause where appropriate
action could ha#e been undertaken b$ the plaintiff Republic)
-<
(n / (ctober &/0/, the PC>> manifested in court that it was conducting a preliminar$ in#estigation on the
une4plained wealth of pri#ate respondents as mandated b$ R2 No) &-1/)%-= *he PC>> pra$ed for an additional
four months to conduct the preliminar$ in#estigation) *he ;andiganba$an granted this re3uest and scheduled the
presentation of e#idence on '=9'/ arch &//.) Cowe#er, on the scheduled date, petitioner failed to inform the
court of the result of the preliminar$ in#estigation the PC>> supposedl$ conducted) 2gain, the ;andiganba$an
ga#e petitioner until &0 a$ &//. to continue with the presentation of its e#idence and to inform the court of
what lies ahead insofar as the status of the case is concerned 4 4 4)
-1
;till on the date set, petitioner failed to
present its e#idence) 7inall$, on && ,ul$ &//., petitioner filed its Re92mended Complaint)
-0
*he ;andiganba$an
correctl$ obser#ed that a case alread$ pending for $ears would re#ert to its preliminar$ stage if the court were to
accept the Re92mended Complaint)
Based on these circumstances, ob#iousl$ petitioner has onl$ itself to blame for failure to complete the
presentation of its e#idence) *he ;andiganba$an ga#e petitioner more than sufficient time to finish the
presentation of its e#idence) *he ;andiganba$an o#erlooked petitioners dela$s and $et petitioner ended the long9
string of dela$s with the filing of a Re92mended Complaint, which would onl$ prolong e#en more the disposition
of the case)
oreo#er, the pronouncements of the Court in 5i$rino and Cru- prompted the ;andiganba$an to dismiss the
case since the PC>> has no jurisdiction to in#estigate and prosecute the case against pri#ate respondents) *his
alone would ha#e been sufficient legal basis for the ;andiganba$an to dismiss the forfeiture case against pri#ate
respondents)
*hus, we hold that the ;andiganba$an did not err in dismissing the case before completion of the presentation of
petitioners e#idence)
;hird IssueG 'egality of the (earch and (ei$ure
Petitioner claims that the ;andiganba$an erred in declaring the properties confiscated from @imaanos house as
illegall$ sei"ed and therefore inadmissible in e#idence) *his issue bears a significant effect on petitioners case
since these properties comprise most of petitioners e#idence against pri#ate respondents) Petitioner will not ha#e
much e#idence to support its case against pri#ate respondents if these properties are inadmissible in e#idence)
(n - arch &/0=, the Constabular$ raiding team ser#ed at @imaanos residence a search warrant captioned Illegal
Possession of 7irearms and 2mmunition) @imaano was not present during the raid but @imaanos cousins
witnessed the raid) *he raiding team sei"ed the items detailed in the sei"ure receipt together with other
items not included in the search warrant) *he raiding team sei"ed these items+ one bab$ armalite rifle with two
maga"ines: 8. rounds of <)<= ammunition: one pistol, caliber )8<: communications e3uipment, cash consisting
of P',01.,... and E;N<.,..., jewelr$, and land titles)
Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team conducted the search and sei"ure on arch
-, &/0= or fi#e da$s after the successful E@;2 re#olution)%-/ Petitioner argues that a re#olutionar$ go#ernment
was operati#e at that time b$ #irtue of Proclamation No) & announcing that President 23uino and ?ice President
!aurel were taking power in the name and b$ the will of the 7ilipino people)
8.
Petitioner asserts that the
re#olutionar$ go#ernment effecti#el$ withheld the operation of the &/1- Constitution which guaranteed pri#ate
respondents e4clusionar$ right)
oreo#er, petitioner argues that the e4clusionar$ right arising from an illegal search applies onl$ beginning '
7ebruar$ &/01, the date of ratification of the &/01 Constitution) Petitioner contends that all rights under the Bill of
Rights had alread$ re#erted to its embr$onic stage at the time of the search) *herefore, the go#ernment ma$
confiscate the monies and items taken from @imaano and use the same in e#idence against her since at the time of
their sei"ure, pri#ate respondents did not enjo$ an$ constitutional right)
Petitioner is partl$ right in its arguments)
*he E@;2 Re#olution took place on '-9'< 7ebruar$ &/0=) 2s succinctl$ stated in President 23uinos
Proclamation No) - dated '< arch &/0=, the E@;2 Re#olution was done in defiance of te provisions of te
1973 Constitution)
8&
*he resulting go#ernment was indisputabl$ a re#olutionar$ go#ernment bound b$ no
constitution or legal limitations e4cept treat$ obligations that the re#olutionar$ go#ernment, as the de
jure go#ernment in the Philippines, assumed under international law)
*he correct issues are+ 5&6 whether the re#olutionar$ go#ernment was bound b$ the Bill of Rights of the &/1-
Constitution during the interre$nu#, that is, after the actual and effecti#e take9o#er of power b$ the re#olutionar$
go#ernment following the cessation of resistance b$ lo$alist forces up to '8 arch &/0= 5immediatel$ before the
adoption of the Pro#isional Constitution6: and 5'6 whether the protection accorded to indi#iduals under the
International Co#enant on Ci#il and Political Rights 5Co#enant6 and the Eni#ersal @eclaration of Cuman Rights
5@eclaration6 remained in effect during the interregnum)
Ae hold that the Bill of Rights under the &/1- Constitution was not operati#e during the interregnum) Cowe#er,
we rule that the protection accorded to indi#iduals under the Co#enant and the @eclaration remained in effect
during the interregnum)
@uring the interregnum, the directi#es and orders of the re#olutionar$ go#ernment were the supreme law because
no constitution limited the e4tent and scope of such directi#es and orders) Aith the abrogation of the &/1-
Constitution b$ the successful re#olution, there was no municipal law higher than the directi#es and orders of the
re#olutionar$ go#ernment) *hus, during the interregnum, a person could not in#oke an$ e4clusionar$ right under
a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum) 2s the Court
e4plained in 8etter of &ssociate Justice Re"nato 0. Puno+%8'
2 re#olution has been defined as the complete o#erthrow of the established go#ernment in an$ countr$ or state b$
those who were pre#iousl$ subject to it or as a sudden, radical and fundamental change in the go#ernment or
political s$stem, usuall$ effected with #iolence or at least some acts of #iolence) In KelsenBs book, >eneral
*heor$ of !aw and ;tate, it is defined as that which occurs whene#er the legal order of a communit$ is nullified
and replaced b$ a new order ) ) ) a wa$ not prescribed b$ the first order itself)
It was through the 7ebruar$ &/0= re#olution, a relati#el$ peaceful one, and more popularl$ known as the people
power re#olution that the 7ilipino people tore themsel#es awa$ from an e4isting regime) *his re#olution also saw
the unprecedented rise to power of the 23uino go#ernment)
7rom the natural law point of #iew, the right of re#olution has been defined as an inherent right of a people to cast
out their rulers, change their polic$ or effect radical reforms in their s$stem of go#ernment or institutions b$ force
or a general uprising when the legal and constitutional methods of making such change ha#e pro#ed inade3uate or
are so obstructed as to be una#ailable) It has been said that the locus of positi#e law9making power lies with the
people of the state and from there is deri#ed the right of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter an$ e4isting
form of go#ernment without regard to the e4isting constitution)
)t is widel" 9nown tat 5rs. &,uinos rise to te presidenc" was not due to constitutional processes: in fact, it
was acieved in violation of te provisions of te 1973 Constitution as a ;atasan$ Pa#!ansa resolution ad
earlier declared 5r. 5arcos as te winner in te 19<= presidential election. *hus it can be said that the
organi"ation of rs) 23uinos >o#ernment which was met b$ little resistance and her control of the state
e#idenced b$ the appointment of the Cabinet and other ke$ officers of the administration, the departure of the
arcos Cabinet officials, re#amp of the ,udiciar$ and the ilitar$ signaled the point were te le$al s"ste# ten
in effect, ad ceased to !e o!e"ed !" te 1ilipino. 5Emphasis supplied6
*o hold that the Bill of Rights under the &/1- Constitution remained operati#e during the interregnum would
render #oid all se3uestration orders issued b$ the Philippine Commission on >ood >o#ernment 5PC>>6 before
the adoption of the 7reedom Constitution) *he se3uestration orders, which direct the free"ing and e#en the take9
o#er of pri#ate propert$ b$ mere e4ecuti#e issuance without judicial action, would #iolate the due process and
search and sei"ure clauses of the Bill of Rights)
@uring the interregnum, the go#ernment in power was concededl$ a re#olutionar$ go#ernment bound b$ no
constitution) No one could #alidl$ 3uestion the se3uestration orders as #iolati#e of the Bill of Rights because there
was no Bill of Rights during the interregnum) Cowe#er, upon the adoption of the 7reedom Constitution, the
se3uestered companies assailed the se3uestration orders as contrar$ to the Bill of Rights of the 7reedom
Constitution)
In ;ataan 0ip"ard > En$ineerin$ Co. )nc. vs. Presidential Co##ission on .ood .overn#ent,%8- petitioner
Baseco, while conceding there was no Bill of Rights during the interregnum, 3uestioned the continued #alidit$ of
the se3uestration orders upon adoption of the 7reedom Constitution in #iew of the due process clause in its Bill of
Rights) *he Court ruled that the 7reedom Constitution, and later the &/01 Constitution, expressl" reco$ni-ed the
#alidit$ of se3uestration orders, thus+
If an$ doubt should still persist in the face of the foregoing considerations as to the #alidit$ and propriet$ of
se3uestration, free"e and takeo#er orders, it should be dispelled b$ the fact that these particular remedies and the
authorit$ of the PC>> to issue them ha#e recei#ed constitutional approbation and sanction) 2s alread$
mentioned, the Pro#isional or 7reedom Constitution recogni"es the power and dut$ of the President to enact
measures to achie#e the mandate of the people to ) ) ) 5r6eco#er ill9gotten properties amassed b$ the leaders and
supporters of the pre#ious regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of se3uestration or free"ing
of assets or accounts) 2nd as also alread$ ad#erted to, ;ection '=, 2rticle D?III of the &/01 Constitution treats of,
and ratifies the authorit$ to issue se3uestration or free"e orders under Proclamation No) - dated arch '<, &/0=)
*he framers of both the 7reedom Constitution and the &/01 Constitution were full$ aware that the se3uestration
orders would clash with the Bill of Rights) *hus, the framers of both constitutions had to include specific
language recogni"ing the #alidit$ of the se3uestration orders) *he following discourse b$ Commissioner ,oa3uin
>) Bernas during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission is instructi#e+
7R) BERN2;+ adam President, there is something schi"ophrenic about the arguments in defense of the present
amendment)
7or instance, I ha#e carefull$ studied inister ;alongas lecture in the >regorio 2raneta Eni#ersit$ 7oundation, of
which all of us ha#e been gi#en a cop$) (n the one hand, he argues that e#er$thing the Commission is doing is
traditionall$ legal) *his is repeated b$ Commissioner Romulo also) inister ;alonga spends a major portion of
his lecture de#eloping that argument) (n the other hand, almost as an afterthought, he sa$s that in the end what
matters are the results and not the legal niceties, thus suggesting that the PC>> should be allowed to make some
legal shortcuts, another word for niceties or e4ceptions)
Now, if e#er$thing the PC>> is doing is legal, wh$ is it asking the C(NC( for special protectionO *he answer
is clear) ?at te" are doin$ will not stand te test of ordinar" due process, ence te" are as9in$ for
protection, for exceptions. >randes malos, grandes remedios, fine, as the sa$ing stands, but let us not sa$ grandes
malos, grande $ malos remedios) *hat is not an allowable e4trapolation) Cence, we should not gi#e the e4ceptions
asked for, and let me elaborate and gi#e three reasons+
7irst, the whole point of the 7ebruar$ Re#olution and of the work of the C(NC( is to hasten constitutional
normali"ation) ?er$ much at the heart of the constitutional normali"ation is the full effecti#it$ of the Bill of
Rights) Ae cannot, in one breath, ask for constitutional normali"ation and at the same time ask for a temporar$
halt to the full functioning of what is at the heart of constitutionalism) *hat would be h$pocritical: that would be a
repetition of arcosian protestation of due process and rule of law) *he New ;ociet$ word for that is backsliding)
It is tragic when we begin to backslide e#en before we get there)
;econd, this is reall$ a corollar$ of the first) Cabits tend to become ingrained) *he committee report asks for
e4traordinar$ e4ceptions from the Bill of Rights for si4 months after the con#ening of Congress, and Congress
ma$ e#en e4tend this longer)
>ood deeds repeated ripen into #irtue: bad deeds repeated become #ice) Ahat the committee report is asking for
is that we should allow the new go#ernment to ac3uire the #ice of disregarding the Bill of Rights)
?ices, once the$ become ingrained, become difficult to shed) *he practitioners of the #ice begin to think that the$
ha#e a #ested right to its practice, and the$ will fight tooth and nail to keep the franchise) *hat would be an
unhealth$ wa$ of consolidating the gains of a democratic re#olution)
*hird, the argument that what matters are the results and not the legal niceties is an argument that is #er$
disturbing) Ahen it comes from a staunch Christian like Commissioner ;alonga, a inister, and repeated
#erbatim b$ another staunch Christian like Commissioner *ingson, it becomes doubl$ disturbing and e#en
discombobulating) *he argument makes the PC>> an auctioneer, placing the Bill of Rights on the auction block)
If the price is right, the search and sei"ure clause will be sold) (pen $our ;wiss bank account to us and we will
award $ou the search and sei"ure clause) Hou can keep it in $our pri#ate safe)
2lternati#el$, the argument looks on the present go#ernment as hostage to the hoarders of hidden wealth) *he
hoarders will release the hidden health if the ransom price is paid and the ransom price is the Bill of Rights,
specificall$ the due process in the search and sei"ure clauses) ;o, there is something positi#el$ re#ol#ing about
either argument) *he Bill of Rights is not for sale to the highest bidder nor can it be used to ransom capti#e
dollars) *his nation will sur#i#e and grow strong, onl$ if it would become con#inced of the #alues enshrined in
the Constitution of a price that is be$ond monetar$ estimation)
7or these reasons, the honorable course for the Constitutional Commission is to delete all of ;ection 0 of the
committee report and allow the new Constitution to take effect in full #igor) If ;ection 0 is deleted, the PC>> has
two options) 7irst, it can pursue the ;alonga and the Romulo argument that what the PC>> has been doing has
been completel$ within the pale of the law) If sustained, the PC>> can go on and should be able to go on, e#en
without the support of ;ection 0) If not sustained, howe#er, the PC>> has onl$ one honorable option, it must bow
to the majest$ of the Bill of Rights)
*he PC>> e4trapolation of the law is defended b$ staunch Christians) !et me conclude with what another
Christian replied when asked to to$ around with the law) 7rom his prison cell, *homas ore said, FIBll gi#e the
de#il benefit of law for m$ nations safet$ sake) I ask the Commission to gi#e the de#il benefit of law for our
nations sake) 2nd we should delete ;ection 0)
*hank $ou, adam President) 5Emphasis supplied6
@espite the impassioned plea b$ Commissioner Bernas against the amendment e4cepting se3uestration orders
from the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Commission still adopted the amendment as ;ection '=,%88 2rticle
D?III of the &/01 Constitution) *he framers of the Constitution were full$ aware that absent ;ection '=,
se3uestration orders would not stand the test of due process under the Bill of Rights)
*hus, to rule that the Bill of Rights of the &/1- Constitution remained in force during the interregnum, absent a
constitutional pro#ision e4cepting se3uestration orders from such Bill of Rights, would clearl$ render all
se3uestration orders #oid during the interregnum) Ne#ertheless, e#en during the interregnum the 7ilipino people
continued to enjo$, under the Co#enant and the @eclaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of
the &/1- Constitution)
*he re#olutionar$ go#ernment, after installing itself as the de jure go#ernment, assumed responsibilit$ for the
;tates good faith compliance with the Co#enant to which the Philippines is a signator$) 2rticle '5&6 of the
Co#enant re3uires each signator$ ;tate to respect and to ensure to all indi#iduals within its territor$ and subject to
its jurisdiction the rights
8<
recogni"ed in the present Co#enant) Ender 2rticle &15&6 of the Co#enant, the
re#olutionar$ go#ernment had the dut$ to insure that %nJo one shall be subjected to arbitrar$ or unlawful
interference with his pri#ac$, famil$, home or correspondence)
*he @eclaration, to which the Philippines is also a signator$, pro#ides in its 2rticle &15'6 that %nJo one shall be
arbitraril$ depri#ed of his propert$) 2lthough the signatories to the @eclaration did not intend it as a legall$
binding document, being onl$ a declaration, the Court has interpreted the @eclaration as part of the generall$
accepted principles of international law and binding on the ;tate)
8=
*hus, the re#olutionar$ go#ernment was also
obligated under international law to obser#e the rights
81
of indi#iduals under the @eclaration)
*he re#olutionar$ go#ernment did not repudiate the Co#enant or the @eclaration during the interregnum) Ahether
the re#olutionar$ go#ernment could ha#e repudiated all its obligations under the Co#enant or the @eclaration is
another matter and is not the issue here) ;uffice it to sa$ that the Court considers the @eclaration as part of
customar$ international law, and that 7ilipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of international
law laid down in the Co#enant) *he fact is the re#olutionar$ go#ernment did not repudiate the Co#enant or the
@eclaration in the same wa$ it repudiated the &/1- Constitution) 2s the de jure go#ernment, the re#olutionar$
go#ernment could not escape responsibilit$ for the ;tates good faith compliance with its treat$ obligations under
international law)
It was onl$ upon the adoption of the Pro#isional Constitution on '< arch &/0= that the directi#es and orders of
the re#olutionar$ go#ernment became subject to a higher municipal law that, if contra#ened, rendered such
directi#es and orders #oid) *he Pro#isional Constitution adopted #erbatim the Bill of Rights of the &/1-
Constitution)
80
*he Pro#isional Constitution ser#ed as a self9limitation b$ the re#olutionar$ go#ernment to a#oid
abuses of the absolute powers entrusted to it b$ the people)
@uring the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights e4isted, directi#es and orders issued b$ go#ernment
officers were #alid so long as these officers did not e4ceed the authorit$ granted them b$ the re#olutionar$
go#ernment) *he directi#es and orders should not ha#e also #iolated the Co#enant or the @eclaration) In this case,
the re#olutionar$ go#ernment presumpti#el$ sanctioned the warrant since the re#olutionar$ go#ernment did not
repudiate it) *he warrant, issued b$ a judge upon proper application, specified the items to be searched and sei"ed)
*he warrant is thus #alid with respect to the items specificall$ described in the warrant)
Cowe#er, the Constabular$ raiding team sei"ed items not included in the warrant) 2s admitted b$ petitioners
witnesses, the raiding team confiscated items not included in the warrant, thus+
@irect E4amination of Capt) Rodolfo ;ebastian
2, 2(RE;
I) 2ccording to the search warrant, $ou are supposed to sei"e onl$ for weapons) Ahat else, aside from the
weapons, were sei"ed from the house of iss Eli"abeth @imaanoO
2) *he communications e3uipment, mone$ in Philippine currenc$ and E; dollars, some jewelries, land titles, sir)
I) Now, the search warrant speaks onl$ of weapons to be sei"ed from the house of Eli"abeth @imaano) @o
$ou know the reason wh$ $our team also sei"ed other properties not mentioned in said search warrantO
2) @uring the con#ersation right after the conduct of said raid, I was informed that the reason wh$ the$ also
brought the other items not included in the search warrant was because the mone$ and other jewelries were
contained in attach cases and cartons with markings ;on$ *rinitron, and I think three 5-6 #aults or steel safes)
Belie#ing that the attach cases and the steel safes were containing firearms, the$ forced open these containers
onl$ to find out that the$ contained mone$)
I) Hou said $ou found mone$ instead of weapons, do $ou know the reason wh$ $our team sei"ed this mone$
instead of weaponsO
2) I think the o#erall team leader and the other two officers assisting him decided to bring along also the
mone$ because at that time it was alread$ dark and the$ felt most secured if the$ will bring that because the$
might be suspected also of taking mone$ out of those items, $our Conor)%8/
Cross9e4amination
2tt$) Banaag
I) Aere $ou present when the search warrant in connection with this case was applied before the unicipal
*rial Court of Batangas, Branch &O
2) Hes, sir)
I) 2nd the search warrant applied for b$ $ou was for the search and sei"ure of fi#e 5<6 bab$ armalite rifles
9&= and fi#e 5<6 bo4es of ammunitionO
2) Hes, sir)
2, 2(RE;
I) Before $ou applied for a search warrant, did $ou conduct sur#eillance in the house of iss Eli"abeth
@imaanoO
2) *he Intelligence (perati#es conducted sur#eillance together with the ;E elements, $our Conor)
I) 2nd this part$ belie#ed there were weapons deposited in the house of iss Eli"abeth @imaanoO
2) Hes, $our Conor)
I) 2nd the$ so swore before the unicipal *rial ,udgeO
2) Hes, $our Conor)
I) But the$ did not mention to $ou, the applicant for the search warrant, an$ other properties or contraband
which could be found in the residence of iss Eli"abeth @imaanoO
2) *he$ just ga#e us still unconfirmed report about some hidden items, for instance, the communications
e3uipment and mone$) Cowe#er, I did not include that in the application for search warrant considering that
we ha#e not established concrete e#idence about that) ;o when
I) ;o that when $ou applied for search warrant, $ou had reason to belie#e that onl$ weapons were in the
house of iss Eli"abeth @imaanoO
2) Hes, $our Conor)
<.
I) Hou stated that a )8< caliber pistol was sei"ed along with one armalite rifle 9&= and how man$
ammunitionO
2) 7ort$, sir)
I) 2nd this became the subject of $our complaint with the issuing Court, with the fiscals office who charged
Eli"abeth @imaano for Illegal Possession of 7irearms and 2mmunitionO
2) Hes, sir)
I) @o $ou know what happened to that caseO
2) I think it was dismissed, sir)
I) In the fiscals officeO
2) Hes, sir)
I) Because the armalite rifle $ou sei"ed, as well as the )8< caliber pistol had a emorandum Receipt in the
name of 7elino elegrito, is that not correctO
2) I think that was the reason, sir)
I) *here were other articles sei"ed which were not included in the search warrant, like for instance,
jewelries) Ah$ did $ou sei"e the jewelriesO
2) I think it was the decision of the o#erall team leader and his assistant to bring along also the jewelries and
other items, sir) I do not reall$ know where it was taken but the$ brought along also these articles) I do not
reall$ know their reason for bringing the same, but I just learned that these were taken because the$ might
get lost if the$ will just lea#e this behind)
I) Cow about the mone$ sei"ed b$ $our raiding team, the$ were not also included in the search warrantO
2) Hes sir, but I belie#e the$ were also taken considering that the mone$ was disco#ered to be contained in
attach cases) *hese attach cases were suspected to be containing pistols or other high powered firearms, but
in the course of the search the contents turned out to be mone$) ;o the team leader also decided to take this
considering that the$ belie#ed that if the$ will just lea#e the mone$ behind, it might get lost also)
I) *hat holds true also with respect to the other articles that were sei"ed b$ $our raiding team, like *ransfer
Certificates of *itle of landsO
2) Hes, sir) I think the$ were contained in one of the #aults that were opened)%<&
It is ob#ious from the testimon$ of Captain ;ebastian that the warrant did not include the monies,
communications e3uipment, jewelr$ and land titles that the raiding team confiscated) *he search warrant did not
particularl$ describe these items and the raiding team confiscated them on its own authorit$) *he raiding team had
no legal basis to sei"e these items without showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless search and
sei"ure)
<'
Clearl$, the raiding team e4ceeded its authorit$ when it sei"ed these items)
*he sei"ure of these items was therefore #oid, and unless these items are contraband per se,
<-
and the$ are not,
the$ must be returned to the person from whom the raiding sei"ed them) Cowe#er, we do not declare that such
person is the lawful owner of these items, merel$ that the search and sei"ure warrant could not be used as basis to
sei"e and withhold these items from the possessor) Ae thus hold that these items should be returned immediatel$
to @imaano)
W"ERE(ORE, the petition for certiorari is @I;I;;E@. *he 3uestioned Resolutions of the ;andiganba$an
dated &0 No#ember &//& and '< arch &//' in Ci#il Case No) ..-1, remanding the records of this case to the
(mbudsman for such appropriate action as the e#idence ma$ warrant, and referring this case to the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Internal Re#enue for a determination of an$ ta4 liabilit$ of respondent Eli"abeth @imaano, are
277IRE@)
SO ORDERED)
G.R. No. 9FF81 D1/1A.17 2, 1991
"ON. ISIDRO CARINO, 5: <58 /,>,/54y ,8 S1/714,7y o2 4<1 D1>,74A1:4 o2 E0u/,45o:, Cul4u71 O S>o748,
DR. ERLINDA LOLARGA, 5: <17 /,>,/54y ,8 Su>175:41:01:4 o2 C54y S/<ool8 o2 !,:5l,, #etitioners,
#s) %"E CO!!ISSION ON "U!AN RIG"%S, GRACIANO BUDO', JULIE%A BABARAN, ELSA
IBABAO, "ELEN LUO, A!ARO GON#ALES, LU# DEL CAS%ILLO, ELSA RE'ES ,:0
AOLINARIO ESBER, 4espondents.
NAR&ASA, J.%
*he issue raised in the special ci#il action of certiorari and prohibition at bar, instituted b$ the ;olicitor >eneral,
ma$ be formulated as follows+ where the relief sought from the Commission on Cuman Rights b$ a part$ in a
case consists of the re#iew and re#ersal or modification of a decision or order issued b$ a court of justice or
go#ernment agenc$ or official e4ercising 3uasi9judicial functions, ma$ the Commission take cogni"ance of the
case and grant that reliefO ;tated otherwise, where a particular subject9matter is placed b$ law within the
jurisdiction of a court or other go#ernment agenc$ or official for purposes of trial and adjudgment, ma$ the
Commission on Cuman Rights take cogni"ance of the same subject9matter for the same purposes of hearing and
adjudicationO chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he facts narrated in the petition are not denied b$ the respondents and are hence taken as substantiall$ correct for
purposes of ruling on the legal 3uestions posed in the present action) *hese facts, 1 together with others in#ol#ed
in related cases recentl$ resol#ed b$ this Court 2 or otherwise undisputed on the record, are hereunder set
forth)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
&) (n ;eptember &1, &//., a onda$ and a class da$, some 0.. public school teachers, among them members of
the anila Public ;chool *eachers 2ssociation 5P;*26 and 2lliance of Concerned *eachers 52C*6 undertook
what the$ described as Fmass concerted actionsF to Fdramati"e and highlightF their plight resulting from the
alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grie#ances that had time and again been brought to the latterBs
attention) 2ccording to them the$ had decided to undertake said Fmass concerted actionsF after the protest rall$
staged at the @EC; premises on ;eptember &8, &//. without disrupting classes as a last call for the go#ernment
to negotiate the granting of demands had elicited no response from the ;ecretar$ of Education) *he Fmass actionsF
consisted in sta$ing awa$ from their classes, con#erging at the !iwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peaceable
assemblies, etc) *hrough their representati#es, the teachers participating in the mass actions were ser#ed with an
order of the ;ecretar$ of Education to return to work in '8 hours or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing
the @EC; officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not compl$ and to hire their
replacements) *hose directi#es notwithstanding, the mass actions continued into the week, with more teachers
joining in the da$s that followed) ;
2mong those who took part in the Fconcerted mass actionsF were the eight 506 pri#ate respondents herein,
teachers at the Ramon agsa$sa$ Cigh ;chool, anila, who had agreed to support the non9political demands of
the P;*2) 4
') 7or failure to heed the return9to9work order, the CCR complainants 5pri#ate respondents6 were administrati#el$
charged on the basis of the principalBs report and gi#en fi#e 5<6 da$s to answer the charges) *he$ were also
pre#enti#el$ suspended for ninet$ 5/.6 da$s Fpursuant to ;ection 8& of P)@) 0.1F and temporaril$ replaced
5unmarked CCR E4hibits, 2nne4es 7, >, C6) 2n in#estigation committee was conse3uentl$ formed to hear the
charges in accordance with P)@) 0.1) I
-) In the administrati#e case docketed as Case No) @EC; /.9.0' in which CCR complainants >raciano Budo$,
,r), ,ulieta Babaran, !u" del Castillo, 2polinario Esber were, among others, named respondents, F the latter filed
separate answers, opted for a formal in#estigation, and also mo#ed Ffor suspension of the administrati#e
proceedings pending resolution b$ ) ) 5the ;upreme6 Court of their application for issuance of an injuncti#e
writMtemporar$ restraining order)F But when their motion for suspension was denied b$ (rder dated No#ember 0,
&//. of the In#estigating Committee, which later also denied their motion for reconsideration orall$ made at the
hearing of No#ember &8, &//., Fthe respondents led b$ their counsel staged a walkout signif$ing their intent to
bo$cott the entire proceedings)F H *he case e#entuall$ resulted in a @ecision of ;ecretar$ CariPo dated @ecember
&1, &//., rendered after e#aluation of the e#idence as well as the answers, affida#its and documents submitted b$
the respondents, decreeing dismissal from the ser#ice of 2polinario Esber and the suspension for nine 5/6 months
of Babaran, Budo$ and del Castillo) 8
8) In the meantime, the FP;*2 filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional *rial Court of anila against
petitioner 5CariPo6, which was dismissed 5unmarked CCR E4hibit, 2nne4 I6) !ater, the P;*2 went to the
;upreme Court 5on certiorari, in an attempt to nullif$ said dismissal, grounded on the6 alleged #iolation of the
striking teachersF right to due process and peaceable assembl$ docketed as >)R) No) /<88<, supra) *he 2C* also
filed a similar petition before the ;upreme Court ) ) ) docketed as >)R) No) /<</.)F 9 Both petitions in this Court
were filed in behalf of the teacher associations, a few named indi#iduals, and Mother teacher-members so
numerous similarly situatedM or Mother similarly situated public school teachers too numerous to be impleaded)M
<) In the meantime, too, the respondent teachers submitted sworn statements dated ;eptember '1, &//. to the
Commission on Cuman Rights to complain that while the$ were participating in peaceful mass actions, the$
suddenl$ learned of their replacements as teachers, allegedl$ without notice and conse3uentl$ for reasons
completel$ unknown to them) 10
=) *heir complaints 9 and those of other teachers also Fordered suspended b$ the ) ) ) 5@EC;6,F all numbering
fort$9two 58'6 9 were docketed as M(tri6ing ;eachers C&4 Case 5o) /L22I)F In connection therewith the
Commission scheduled a FdialogueF on (ctober &&, &//., and sent a subpoena to ;ecretar$ CariPo re3uiring his
attendance therein) 11
(n the da$ of the Fdialogue,F although it said that it was Fnot certain whether he 5;ec) CariPo6 recei#ed the
subpoena which was ser#ed at his office, ) ) ) 5the6 Commission, with the Chairman presiding, and Commissioners
Cesi3uio R) allilin and Narciso C) onteiro, proceeded to hear the case:F it heard the complainantsB counsel 5a6
e4plain that his clients had been Fdenied due process and suspended without formal notice, and unjustl$, since
the$ did not join the mass lea#e,F and 5b6 e4patiate on the grie#ances which were Fthe cause of the mass lea#e of
P;*2 teachers, 5and6 with which causes the$ 5CCR complainants6 s$mpathi"e)F 12 *he Commission thereafter
issued an (rder 1; reciting these facts and making the following disposition+
*o be properl$ apprised of the real facts of the case and be accordingl$ guided in its in#estigation and resolution
of the matter, considering that these fort$ two teachers are now suspended and depri#ed of their wages, which
the$ need #er$ badl$, ;ecretar$ Isidro CariPo, of the @epartment of Education, Culture and ;ports, @r) Erlinda
!olarga, school superintendent of anila and the Principal of Ramon agsa$sa$ Cigh ;chool, anila, are
hereb$ enjoined to appear and enlighten the Commission en banc on (ctober &/, &//. at &&+.. 2)) and to bring
with them an$ and all documents rele#ant to the allegations aforestated herein to assist the Commission in this
matter) (therwise, the Commission will resol#e the complaint on the basis of complainantsB e#idence)
1) *hrough the (ffice of the ;olicitor >eneral, ;ecretar$ CariPo sought and was granted lea#e to file a motion to
dismiss the case) Cis motion to dismiss was submitted on No#ember &8, &//. alleging as grounds therefor, Fthat
the complaint states no cause of action and that the CCR has no jurisdiction o#er the case)F 14
0) Pending determination b$ the Commission of the motion to dismiss, judgments affecting the Fstriking teachersF
were promulgated in two 5'6 cases, as aforestated, vi$)+
a6 *he @ecision dated @ecember l1, &//. of Education ;ecretar$ CariPo in Case No) @EC; /.9.0', decreeing
dismissal from the ser#ice of 2polinario Esber and the suspension for nine 5/6 months of Babaran, Budo$ and del
Castillo: 1I and chanrobles #irtual law librar$
b6 *he joint Resolution of this Court dated 2ugust =, &//& in >)R) Nos) /<88< and /<</. dismissing the petitions
Fwithout prejudice to an$ appeals, if still timel$, that the indi#idual petitioners ma$ take to the Ci#il ;er#ice
Commission on the matters complained of,F 1F andinter alia Fruling that it was prima facie lawful for petitioner
CariPo to issue return9to9work orders, file administrati#e charges against recalcitrants, pre#enti#el$ suspend them,
and issue decision on those charges)F 1H /<,:7o.l18 6574u,l l,@ l5.7,7y
/) In an (rder dated @ecember '0, &//., respondent Commission denied ;ec) CariPoBs motion to dismiss and
re3uired him and ;uperintendent !olarga Fto submit their counter-affidavits within ten D.LE days ) ) ) Dafter whichE
the Commission shall proceed to hear and resolve the case on the merits with or without respondents counter
affidavit)F 18It held that the Fstriking teachersF Fwere denied due process of law: ) ) ) the$ should not ha#e been
replaced without a chance to repl$ to the administrati#e charges:F there had been a #iolation of their ci#il and
political rights which the Commission was empowered to in#estigate: and while e4pressing its Futmost respect to
the ;upreme Court ) ) ) the facts before ) ) ) 5it6 are different from those in the case decided b$ the ;upreme CourtF
5the reference being unmistakabl$ to this CourtBs joint Resolution of 2ugust =, &//& in >)R) Nos) /<88< and
/<</., supra6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It is to in#alidate and set aside this (rder of @ecember '0, &//. that the ;olicitor >eneral, in behalf of petitioner
CariPo, has commenced the present action of certiorari and prohibition)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
*he Commission on Cuman Rights has made clear its position that it does not feel bound b$ this CourtBs joint
Resolution in >)R) Nos) /<88< and /<</., supra) It has also made plain its intention Fto hear and resol#e the case
5i)e), ;triking *eachers CRC Case No) /.911<6 on the merits)F It intends, in other words, to try and decide or hear
and determine! i.e.! e%ercise jurisdiction o#er the following general issues+ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
&6 whether or not the striking teachers were denied due process, and just cause e4ists for the imposition of
administrati#e disciplinar$ sanctions on them b$ their superiors: and chanrobles #irtual law librar$
'6 whether or not the grie#ances which were Fthe cause of the mass lea#e of P;*2 teachers, 5and6 with which
causes the$ 5CCR complainants6 s$mpathi"e,F justif$ their mass action or
strike)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he Commission e#identl$ intends to itself adjudicate, that is to sa$, determine with character of finalit$ and
definiteness, the same issues which ha#e been passed upon and decided b$ the ;ecretar$ of Education, Culture L
;ports, subject to appeal to the Ci#il ;er#ice Commission, this Court ha#ing in fact, as aforementioned, declared
that the teachers affected ma$ take appeals to the Ci#il ;er#ice Commission on said matters, if still
timel$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he threshold 3uestion is whether or not the Commission on Cuman Rights has the power under the Constitution
to do so: whether or not, like a court of justice, 19 or e#en a 3uasi9judicial agenc$, 20 it has jurisdiction or
adjudicator$ powers o#er, or the power to tr$ and decide, or hear and determine, certain specific t$pe of cases,
like alleged human rights #iolations in#ol#ing ci#il or political rights)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
*he Court declares the Commission on Cuman Rights to ha#e no such power: and that it was not meant b$ the
fundamental law to be another court or 3uasi9judicial agenc$ in this countr$, or duplicate much less take o#er the
functions of the latter)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he most that ma$ be conceded to the Commission in the wa$ of adjudicati#e power is that it
ma$ investigate, i)e), recei#e e#idence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights #iolations
in#ol#ing ci#il and political rights) But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial
function of a court of justice, or e#en a 3uasi9judicial agenc$ or official) *he function of recei#ing e#idence and
ascertaining therefrom the facts of a contro#ers$ is not a judicial function, properl$ speaking) *o be considered
such, the facult$ of recei#ing e#idence and making factual conclusions in a contro#ers$ must be accompanied b$
the authorit$ of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or
determined authoritatively! finally and definitively! subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be
provided by law) 21 *his function, to repeat, the Commission does not ha#e) 22
*he proposition is made clear b$ the constitutional pro#isions specif$ing the powers of the Commission on
Cuman Rights)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he Commission was created b$ the &/01 Constitution as an independent office) 2; Epon its constitution, it
succeeded and superseded the Presidential Committee on Cuman Rights e4isting at the time of the effecti#it$ of
the Constitution) 24 Its powers and functions are the following 2I
5&6 In#estigate, on its own or on complaint b$ an$ part$, all forms of human rights #iolations in#ol#ing ci#il and
political rights: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5'6 2dopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for #iolations thereof in
accordance with the Rules of Court: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5-6 Pro#ide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as
well as 7ilipinos residing abroad, and pro#ide for pre#enti#e measures and legal aid ser#ices to the
underpri#ileged whose human rights ha#e been #iolated or need protection: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
586 E4ercise #isitorial powers o#er jails, prisons, or detention facilities: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5<6 Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primac$ of
human rights: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5=6 Recommend to the Congress effecti#e measures to promote human rights and to pro#ide for compensation to
#ictims of #iolations of human rights, or their families: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
516 onitor the Philippine >o#ernmentBs compliance with international treat$ obligations on human
rights: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
506 >rant immunit$ from prosecution to an$ person whose testimon$ or whose possession of documents or other
e#idence is necessar$ or con#enient to determine the truth in an$ in#estigation conducted b$ it or under its
authorit$: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5/6 Re3uest the assistance of an$ department, bureau, office, or agenc$ in the performance of its
functions: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5&.6 2ppoint its officers and emplo$ees in accordance with law: and chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5&&6 Perform such other duties and functions as ma$ be pro#ided b$ law)
2s should at once be obser#ed, onl$ the first of the enumerated powers and functions bears an$ resemblance to
adjudication or adjudgment) *he Constitution clearl$ and categoricall$ grants to the Commission the power
toinvestigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights) It can e4ercise that power on
its own initiati#e or on complaint of an$ person) It ma$ e4ercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as
it ma$ adopt and, in cases of #iolations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court) In
the course of an$ in#estigation conducted b$ it or under its authorit$, it ma$ grant immunit$ from prosecution to
an$ person whose testimon$ or whose possession of documents or other e#idence is necessar$ or con#enient to
determine the truth) It ma$ also re3uest the assistance of an$ department, bureau, office, or agenc$ in the
performance of its functions, in the conduct of its in#estigation or in e4tending such remed$ as ma$ be re3uired
b$ its findings) 2F
But it cannot tr$ and decide cases 5or hear and determine causes6 as courts of justice, or e#en 3uasi9judicial bodies
do) *o in#estigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge) Ahether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms ha#e
well understood and 3uite distinct meanings)
MInvestigate!M commonl$ understood, means to e4amine, e4plore, in3uire or del#e or probe into, research on,
stud$) *he dictionar$ definition of Fin#estigateF is Fto obser#e or stud$ closel$+ in3uire into s$stematicall$) Fto
search or in3uire into+ ) ) ) to subject to an official probe ) ) )+ to conduct an official in3uir$)F 2H *he purpose of
in#estigation, of course, is to disco#er, to find out, to learn, obtain information) Nowhere included or intimated is
the notion of settling, deciding or resol#ing a contro#ers$ in#ol#ed in the facts in3uired into b$ application of the
law to the facts established b$ the in3uir$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he legal meaning of Fin#estigateF is essentiall$ the same+ F5t6o follow up step b$ step b$ patient in3uir$ or
obser#ation) *o trace or track: to search into: to e4amine and in3uire into with care and accurac$: to find out b$
careful in3uisition: e4amination: the taking of e#idence: a legal in3uir$:F 28 Fto in3uire: to make an
in#estigation,F Fin#estigationF being in turn describe as F5a6n administrati#e function, the e4ercise of which
ordinaril$ does not re3uire a hearing) ' 2m ,'d 2dm ! ;ec) '<1: ) ) ) an in3uir$, judicial or otherwise, for the
disco#er$ and collection of facts concerning a certain matter or matters)F 29
MAdjudicate!M commonl$ or popularl$ understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resol#e,
rule on, settle) *he dictionar$ defines the term as Fto settle finall$ 5the rights and duties of the parties to a court
case6 on the merits of issues raised+ ) ) ) to pass judgment on+ settle judiciall$+ ) ) ) act as judge)F ;0 2nd FadjudgeF
means Fto decide or rule upon as a judge or with judicial or 3uasi9judicial powers+ ) ) ) to award or grant judiciall$
in a case of contro#ers$ ) ) ) )F ;1
In the legal sense, FadjudicateF means+ F*o settle in the e4ercise of judicial authorit$) *o determine finall$)
;$non$mous with adjudge in its strictest sense:F and FadjudgeF means+ F*o pass on judiciall$, to decide, settle or
decree, or to sentence or condemn) ) ) ) Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entr$ of a judgment)F ;2
Cence it is that the Commission on Cuman Rights, ha#ing merel$ the power Fto in#estigate,F cannot and should
not Ftr$ and resol#e on the meritsF 5adjudicate6 the matters in#ol#ed in ;triking *eachers CRC Case No) /.911<,
as it has announced it means to do: and it cannot do so e#en if there be a claim that in the administrati#e
disciplinar$ proceedings against the teachers in 3uestion, initiated and conducted b$ the @EC;, their human
rights, or ci#il or political rights had been transgressed) ore particularl$, the Commission has no power to
Fresol#e on the meritsF the 3uestion of 5a6 whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in b$ the teachers
constitute and are prohibited or otherwise restricted b$ law: 5b6 whether or not the act of carr$ing on and taking
part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue those actions, and return to their classes despite
the order to this effect b$ the ;ecretar$ of Education, constitute infractions of rele#ant rules and regulations
warranting administrati#e disciplinar$ sanctions, or are justified b$ the grie#ances complained of b$ them: and 5c6
what where the particular acts done b$ each indi#idual teacher and what sanctions, if an$, ma$ properl$ be
imposed for said acts or omissions)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*hese are matters undoubtedl$ and clearl$ within the original jurisdiction of the ;ecretar$ of Education, being
within the scope of the disciplinar$ powers granted to him under the Ci#il ;er#ice !aw, and also, within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Ci#il ;er#ice Commission)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Indeed, the ;ecretar$ of Education has, as abo#e narrated, alread$ taken cogni"ance of the issues and resol#ed
them, ;; and it appears that appeals ha#e been seasonabl$ taken b$ the aggrie#ed parties to the Ci#il ;er#ice
Commission: and e#en this Court itself has had occasion to pass upon said issues) ;4
Now, it is 3uite ob#ious that whether or not the conclusions reached b$ the ;ecretar$ of Education in disciplinar$
cases are correct and are ade3uatel$ based on substantial e#idence: whether or not the proceedings themsel#es are
#oid or defecti#e in not ha#ing accorded the respondents due process: and whether or not the ;ecretar$ of
Education had in truth committed Fhuman rights #iolations in#ol#ing ci#il and political rights,F are matters which
ma$ be passed upon and determined through a motion for reconsideration addressed to the ;ecretar$ Education
himself, and in the e#ent of an ad#erse #erdict, ma$ be re#iewed b$ the Ci#il ;er#ice Commission and e#entuall$
the ;upreme Court)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he Commission on Cuman Rights simpl$ has no place in this scheme of things) It has no business intruding into
the jurisdiction and functions of the Education ;ecretar$ or the Ci#il ;er#ice Commission) It has no business
going o#er the same ground tra#ersed b$ the latter and making its own judgment on the 3uestions in#ol#ed) *his
would accord success to what ma$ well ha#e been the complaining teachersB strateg$ to abort, frustrate or negate
the judgment of the Education ;ecretar$ in the administrati#e cases against them which the$ anticipated would be
ad#erse to them)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*his cannot be done) It will not be permitted to be done)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In an$ e#ent, the in#estigation b$ the Commission on Cuman Rights would ser#e no useful purpose) If its
in#estigation should result in conclusions contrar$ to those reached b$ ;ecretar$ CariPo, it would ha#e no power
an$wa$ to re#erse the ;ecretar$Bs conclusions) Re#ersal thereof can onl$ b$ done b$ the Ci#il ;er#ice
Commission and lastl$ b$ this Court) *he onl$ thing the Commission can do, if it concludes that ;ecretar$ CariPo
was in error, is to refer the matter to the appropriate >o#ernment agenc$ or tribunal for assistance: that would be
the Ci#il ;er#ice Commission) ;I It cannot arrogate unto itself the appellate jurisdiction of the Ci#il ;er#ice
Commission)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ACERE7(RE, the petition is granted: the (rder of @ecember '/, &//. is 2NNE!!E@ and ;E* 2;I@E, and the
respondent Commission on Cuman Rights and the Chairman and embers thereof are prohibited Fto hear and
resol#e the case 5i)e), ;triking *eachers CRC Case No) /.911<6 on the merits)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;( (R@ERE@)
G.R. No. 1I9149 * Ju:1 2F, 200F
%<1 "ONORABLE SECRE%AR' &INCEN% S. ERE#, 5: <58 /,>,/54y ,8 4<1 S1/714,7y o2 4<1
D1>,74A1:4 o2 E:17=y,#etitioner! v) LG RE(ILLERS ASSOCIA%ION O( %"E "ILIINES,
INC., 4espondent.
@ E C I ; I ( N
)UISU!BING, J.%
Before us is a petition for re#iew on certiorari under Rule 8<, assailing the @ecision
&
and (rder
'
of the Regional
*rial Court of Pasig Cit$, Branch &=&, in ;C2 Case No) '-&0, which nullified Circular No) '...9.=9.&. of the
@epartment of Energ$ 5@(E6)
*he facts are undisputed)
Batas Pambansa Blg) --, as amended, penali"es illegal trading, hoarding, o#erpricing, adulteration, underdeli#er$,
and underfilling of petroleum products, as well as possession for trade of adulterated petroleum products and of
underfilled li3uefied petroleum gas 5!P>6 c$linders)
-
*he said law sets the monetar$ penalt$ for #iolators to a
minimum of P'.,... and a ma4imum of P<.,...)
8
cra
(n ,une /, '..., Circular No) '...9.=9.&. was issued b$ the @(E to implement B)P) Blg) --, thus+
SEC%ION 4. NO PR)CE *)0P8&@ ;O&R* -
LG !,7B1417?LG D1,l17?LG R14,5l Ou4l14
&st (ffense 9 ReprimandMwarning letter
'nd (ffense 9 Recommend suspension of business operation to the proper local go#ernment unit
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit and initiate criminal proceedings
SEC%ION I. NO ?E)./)N. 0C&8E -
A. LG R125ll17?!,7B1417
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P<,...
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P&.,...
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
B. D1,l17
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P-,...
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P1,...
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
C. LG R14,5l Ou4l14
&st (ffense 9 Reprimand
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P<..)..
-rd (ffense 9 7ine of P&,...)..
SEC%ION F. NO 2&RE ?E)./2 OR )NCORREC2 2&RE ?E)./2 5&RA)N.0. (REBC)RE5EN2 ON
EN.R&DE* 2&RE ?E)./2 0/&88 2&AE E11EC2 2?O (2+ @E&R0 &12ER E11EC2)D)2@ O1 2/)0
C)RCC8&R+
A. LG R125ll17?!,7B1417
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P-,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P<,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
B. D1,l17
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P',... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P8,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
C. LG R14,5l Ou4l14
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P&,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P',... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
SEC%ION H. NO &PPROPR)&2E OR &C2/OR)EE* 8P. 0E&8
A. LG R125ll17?!,7B1417
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P-,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P<,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
B. D1,l17
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P',... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P8,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
C. LG R14,5l Ou4l14
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P&,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P',... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
SEC%ION 8. NO 2R&*E N&5E, CN;R&N*E* 8P. C@8)N*ER0, NO 0ER)&8 NC5;ER, NO
*)02)N.C)0/)N. CO8OR, NO E5;O00E* )*EN2)1@)N. 5&RA)N.0 ON C@8)N*ER OR
*)02)NC2)DE CO88&R OR *E0).N (REBC)RE5EN2 ON 0ER)&8 NC5;ER &N* *)02)NC2)DE
CO88&R OR *E0).N 0/&88 2&AE E11EC2 2?O (2+ @E&R0 &12ER E11EC2)D)2@ O1 2/)0
C)RCC8&R+
A. LG R125ll17?!,7B1417
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P8,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P<,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
B. D1,l17
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P-,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P8,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
C. LG R14,5l Ou4l14
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P&,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P',... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
SEC%ION 9. CN*ER1)88E* 8P. C@8)N*ER0
A. LG RE(ILLER?!ARKE%ER
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P8,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P=,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
B. DEALER
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P-,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P8,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
C. LG RE%AIL OU%LE%
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P&,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P',... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
SEC%ION 10. 2&5PER)N., &82ER)N., OR 5O*)1@)N. O1 8P. C@8)N*ER 2/RC &N@ 5E&N0
0CC/ &0 ;C2 NO2 8)5)2E* 2O C/&N.)N. 2/E D&8DE, REP&)N2)N., &N* RE8&;E88)N. ;@
&N@ PER0ON OR EN2)2@ O2/ER 2/&N 2/E 8E.)2)5&2E &N* RE.)02ERE* O?NER O1 2/E
0&5E. 1OR 2/)0 PCRPO0E, 8P. RE1)88ER, 5&RAE2ER, *E&8ER, OR RE2&)8 OC28E2, &0 2/E
C&0E 5&@ ;E, ?/O /&0 PO00E00)ON O1 0CC/ )88E.&88@ 2&5PERE*, &82ERE*, OR
O2/ER?)0E 5O*)1)E* 8P. C@8)N*ER 0/&88 ;E /E8* 8)&;8E 1OR 2/)0 O11EN0E
A. LG R125ll17?!,7B1417
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P<,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P&.,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
B. D1,l17
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P-,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P<,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
C. LG R14,5l Ou4l14
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P&,<.. for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P-,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
SEC%ION 11. CN&C2/OR)EE* *EC&N2)N. OR RE1)88)N. O1 8P. C@8)N*ER0
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P<,... for each c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 7ine of P&.,... for each c$linder
-rd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
SEC%ION 12. /O&R*)N. O1 PE2RO8EC5 PRO*CC20 )NC8C*)N. 8)BCE1)E* PE2RO8EC5 .&0
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P&.,... per c$linder
'nd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit plus the filing of appropriate
criminal action
SEC%ION 1;. RE1C0&8 2O &88O? OR COOPER&2E ?)2/ *C8@ &C2/OR)EE* )N0PEC2OR0 O1
2/E ENER.@ )N*C02R@ &*5)N)02R&2)ON ;CRE&C (E)&;+ O1 2/E *EP&R25EN2 O1 ENER.@
)N 2/E CON*CC2 O1 2/E)R )N0PEC2)ON6)NDE02).&2)ON, ?/E2/ER RE.C8&R &N*
ROC2)N&R@ OR CO5P8&)N2')N)2)&2E*
&st (ffense 9 7ine of P&.,...
'nd (ffense 9 Recommend business closure to the proper local go#ernment unit
SEC%ION 14. RE1C0&8 OR 1&)8CRE 2O P&@ 1)NE 9 ;he Department of Energy shall recommend to the
proper local government unit the closure of business of a respondent who refuses or fails to pay any
administrative fine without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate criminal action if warranted)
<
Respondent !P> Refillers 2ssociation of the Philippines, Inc) asked the @(E to set aside the Circular for being
contrar$ to law) *he @(E, howe#er, denied the re3uest for lack of merit)
Respondent then filed a petition for prohibition and annulment with pra$er for temporar$ restraining order andMor
writ of preliminar$ injunction before the trial court)
2fter trial on the merits, the trial court nullified the Circular on the ground that it introduced new offenses not
included in the law)
=
*he court intimated that the Circular, in pro#iding penalties on a per c$linder basis for each
#iolation, might e4ceed the ma4imum penalt$ under the law) *he decretal part of its @ecision reads+cra+nad
IN ?IEA (7 *CE 7(RE>(IN>, this Court renders judgment declaring @(E Circular No) '...9.=9.&. null and
#oid and prohibits the respondent from implementing the same)
;( (R@ERE@)
1
cra
*he trial court denied for lack of merit petitionerBs motion for reconsideration) Cence this petition, raising the
following issues+
I
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE C(ER* & BCO >R2?E!H ERRE@ IN C(!@IN> *C2* F2 C!(;E ;CRE*INH
(7 BP --, P@ &0=< 2N@ R)2) N() 081/ ;C(A; *C2* (77EN;E; !IKE N( PRICE @I;P!2H %B(2R@J,
N( AEI>CIN> ;C2!E, E*C) ;E* 7(R*C IN *CE CIRCE!2R 2RE N(* PR(?I@E@ 7(R IN 2NH (7
*CE *CREE 5-6 !2A;F)
II
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE C(ER* & BCO >R2?E!H ERRE@ IN C(!@IN> *C2* F2 ;CRE*INH (7
*CE NEA ;E* (7 PEN2!*IE; PR(?I@E@ BH *CE CIRCE!2R ;C(A; *C2* *CE PEN2!*IE; *CI;
*IE 2RE B2;E@ (N PER CH!IN@ER B2;I;F: *C2* FBEIN> ;ECC, N( CEI!IN> A2; PR(?I@E@
7(R 2; *( *CE 2@INI;*R2*I?E 7INE;F: *C2* F2; I!!E;*R2*E@ BH *CE PE*I*I(NER, 7(R
,E;* (NE !P> CH!IN@ER 7(EN@ ?I(!2*IN> 2* !E2;* ;EC%*I(N;J =, 1, 0, /, &. 2N@ && (7 *CE
%CIRCE!2RJ, 2 7INE (7 P'8,...).. I; IP(;E@:F 2N@ *C2* F*CI; AI!! C!E2R!H BE BEH(N@
*CE P&.,...).. PR(?I@E@ BH *CE !2A;)F
III
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE C(ER* & BCO >R2?E!H ERRE@ IN C(!@IN> *C2* ;EC*I(N &= (7
PE*I*I(NERB; CIRCE!2R ACICC 2E*C(RIGE; *CE IP(;I*I(N (7 PECENI2RH PEN2!*IE;
AI*C *CE *(*2! 7INE N(* EDCEE@IN> P'.,...).. 7(R RE*2I! (E*!E*; ?I(!2*E; *CE
PEN2!*H CEI!IN> (7 P&.,...).. ;E* EN@ER BP B!>) --, 2; 2EN@E@)
I&
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE C(ER* & BCO >R2?E!H ERRE@ IN C(!@IN> *C2* ;INCE ;EC*I(N <5g6
(7 R)2) 1=-0 7IN@; N( RE7ERENCE IN @(E CIRCE!2R N() '...9.=9.&., *CE ;2E ;C(E!@ BE
@I;RE>2R@E@)
&
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE C(ER* & BCO >R2?E!H ERRE@ IN C(!@IN> *C2* F(N *CE NEA
(77EN;E; IN*R(@ECE@ IN *CE CIRCE!2R ;ECC 2; ;EC*I(N; 8, <, &., &- 2N@ &8 2N@ *CE
IP(;I*I(N (7 *CE >R2@E2*E@ PEN2!*IE; (N B2 PER CH!IN@ER B2;I;B, *CI; C(ER* 7IN@;
%N(J RE2;(N *( @I;*ERB I*; 7IN@IN>; *C2* RE;P(N@EN*9(?2N* EDCEE@E@ I*;
2E*C(RI*H) D D D I* ;C(E!@ BE REEBERE@ *C2* BP B!>) -- 2; 2EN@E@ 2N@ P)@) &0=<
2RE CRIIN2! ;*2*E*E; 2N@ E;* BE C(N;*REE@ AI*C ;ECC ;*RIC*NE;; 2; *(
C2RE7E!!H ;27E>E2R@ *CE RI>C*; (7 *CE @E7EN@2N*)F
&I
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE C(ER* & BCO ERRE@ IN C(!@IN> *C2* F*CE 2;;2I!E@ CIRCE!2R
;E*; N( 2DIE !II* 2; *( *CE 7INE *C2* 2H BE IP(;E@ (N 2N ERRIN> PER;(N (R
EN*I*H *( ACICC 72C* (?2N* C(NCE@E;) 7(R (NE 5&6 CH!IN@ER 2!(NE, N(* (N!H @(E;
*CE CIRCE!2R 2KE *CE 7INE EDCE;;I?E *( *CE ED*EN* (7 BEIN> C(N7I;C2*(RH, BE* I*
E?EN IP(;E; 2 PEN2!*H ACICC 2H E?EN >( BEH(N@ *C2* 2DIE IP(;2B!E 7INE
(7 P<.,...).. ;E* BH P)@) &0=< IN I*; ;EC) 8 27*ER 2 CRIIN2! PR(CEE@IN>)F
0
*o our mind, the issue raised b$ petitioner ma$ be reduced to the sole issue of whether the Regional *rial Court
of Pasig erred in declaring the pro#isions of the Circular null and #oid, and prohibiting the CircularBs
implementation)
Petitioner argues that the penalties for the acts and omissions enumerated in the Circular are sanctioned b$
;ections &
/
and -92
&.
of B)P) Blg) -- and ;ection '-
&&
of Republic 2ct No) 081/)
&'
Petitioner adds that ;ections
<5g6
&-
and '&
&8
of Republic 2ct No) 1=-0
&<
also authori"e the @(E to impose the penalties pro#ided in the
Circular)
Respondent counters that the enabling laws, B)P) Blg) -- and R)2) No) 081/, do not e4pressl$ penali"e the acts
and omissions enumerated in the Circular) Neither is the Circular supported b$ R)2) No) 1=-0, respondent claims,
since the said law does not pertain to !P> traders) Respondent maintains that the Circular is not in conformit$
with the law it seeks to implement)
Ae resol#e to grant the petition)
7or an administrati#e regulation, such as the Circular in this case, to ha#e the force of penal law, 5&6 the #iolation
of the administrati#e regulation must be made a crime b$ the delegating statute itself: and 5'6 the penalt$ for such
#iolation must be pro#ided b$ the statute itself)
&=
cra
*he Circular satisfies the first re3uirement) B)P) Blg) --, as amended, criminali"es illegal trading, adulteration,
underfilling, hoarding, and o#erpricing of petroleum products) Ender this general description of what constitutes
criminal acts in#ol#ing petroleum products, the Circular merel$ lists the #arious modes b$ which the said criminal
acts ma$ be perpetrated, namel$+ no price displa$ board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or incorrect tare
weight markings, no authori"ed !P> seal, no trade name, unbranded !P> c$linders, no serial number, no
distinguishing color, no embossed identif$ing markings on c$linder, underfilling !P> c$linders, tampering !P>
c$linders, and unauthori"ed decanting of !P> c$linders) *hese specific acts and omissions are ob#iousl$ within
the contemplation of the law, which seeks to curb the pernicious practices of some petroleum merchants)
2s for the second re3uirement, we find that the Circular is in accord with the law) Ender B)P) Blg) --, as
amended, the monetar$ penalt$ for an$ person who commits an$ of the acts aforestated is limited to a minimum
of P'.,... and a ma4imum of P<.,...) Ender the Circular, the ma4imum pecuniar$ penalt$ for retail
outlets is P'.,...,
&1
an amount within the range allowed b$ law) Cowe#er, for the refillers, marketers,
and dealers, the Circular is silent as to an$ ma4imum monetar$ penalt$) *his mere silence, nonetheless, does not
amount to #iolation of the aforesaid statutor$ ma4imum limit) 7urther, the mere fact that the Circular pro#ides
penalties on a per c$linder basis does not in itself run counter to the law since all that B)P) Blg) -- prescribes are
the minimum and the ma4imum limits of penalties)
Clearl$, it is B)P) Blg) --, as amended, which defines what constitute punishable acts in#ol#ing petroleum
products and which set the minimum and ma4imum limits for the corresponding penalties) *he Circular merel$
implements the said law, albeit it is silent on the ma4imum pecuniar$ penalt$ for refillers, marketers, and dealers)
Nothing in the Circular contra#enes the law)
Noteworth$, the enabling laws on which the Circular is based were specificall$ intended to pro#ide the @(E with
increased administrati#e and penal measures with which to effecti#el$ curtail rampant adulteration and
shortselling, as well as other acts in#ol#ing petroleum products, which are inimical to public interest) *o nullif$
the Circular in this case would be to render inutile go#ernment efforts to protect the general consuming public
against the nefarious practices of some unscrupulous !P> traders)
W"ERE(ORE, the petition is GRAN%ED) *he assailed Circular No) '...9.=9.&. of @(E is declared #alid)
*he @ecision and (rder of the Regional *rial Court of Pasig Cit$, Branch &=&, in ;C2 Case No) '-&0, nullif$ing
said Circular and prohibiting its implementation are hereb$ RE&ERSED and SE% ASIDE)
No pronouncement as to costs)
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 110120 !,7/< 1F, 1994
LAGUNA LAKE DE&ELO!EN% AU%"ORI%', #etitioner, #s) COUR% O( AEALS, "ON.
!ANUEL JN. SERAIO, 718505:= Ju0=1 R%C, B7,:/< 12H, C,loo/,: C54y, "ON. !ACARIO A.
ASIS%IO, JR., C54y !,yo7 o2 C,loo/,: ,:0?o7 %"E CI%' GO&ERN!EN% O(
CALOOCAN, 4espondents)
RO!ERO, J.% chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he clash between the responsibilit$ of the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan to dispose off the -<. tons of garbage it
collects dail$ and the growing concern and sensiti#it$ to a pollution9free en#ironment of the residents of
Baranga$ Camarin, *ala Estate, Caloocan Cit$ where these tons of garbage are dumped e#er$da$ is the hub of
this contro#ers$ ele#ated b$ the protagonists to the !aguna !ake @e#elopment 2uthorit$ 5!!@26 for
adjudication)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he instant case stemmed from an earlier petition filed with this Court b$ !aguna !ake @e#elopment 2uthorit$
5!!@2 for short6 docketed as >)R)
No) &.1<8' against the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan, et al) In the Resolution of No#ember &., &//', this Court
referred >)R) No) &.1<8' to the Court of 2ppeals for appropriate disposition) @ocketed therein as C29>)R) ;P
No) '/88/, the Court of 2ppeals, in a decision
1
promulgated on ,anuar$ '/, &//- ruled that the !!@2 has no
power and authorit$ to issue a cease and desist order enjoining the dumping of garbage in Baranga$ Camarin,
*ala Estate, Caloocan Cit$) *he !!@2 now seeks, in this petition, a re#iew of the decision of the Court of
2ppeals)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he facts, as disclosed in the records, are undisputed)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n arch 0, &//&, the *ask 7orce Camarin @umpsite of (ur !ad$ of !ourdes Parish, Baranga$ Camarin,
Caloocan Cit$, filed a letter9complaint
2
with the !aguna !ake @e#elopment 2uthorit$ seeking to stop the
operation of the 0)=9hectare open garbage dumpsite in *ala Estate, Baranga$ Camarin, Caloocan Cit$ due to its
harmful effects on the health of the residents and the possibilit$ of pollution of the water content of the
surrounding area)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n No#ember &<, &//&, the !!@2 conducted an on9site in#estigation, monitoring and test sampling of the
leachate
;
that seeps from said dumpsite to the nearb$ creek which is a tributar$ of the arilao Ri#er) *he !!@2
!egal and *echnical personnel found that the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite at
the Camarin area without first securing an En#ironmental Compliance Certificate 5ECC6 from the En#ironmental
anagement Bureau 5EB6 of the @epartment of En#ironment and Natural Resources, as re3uired under
Presidential @ecree No) &<0=,
4
and clearance from !!@2 as re3uired under Republic 2ct No) 80<.,
I
as amended
b$ Presidential @ecree No) 0&- and E4ecuti#e (rder No) /'1, series of &/0-)
F
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2fter a public hearing conducted on @ecember 8, &//&, the !!@2, acting on the complaint of *ask 7orce
Camarin @umpsite, found that the water collected from the leachate and the recei#ing streams could considerabl$
affect the 3ualit$, in turn, of the recei#ing waters since it indicates the presence of bacteria, other than coliform,
which ma$ ha#e contaminated the sample during collection or handling)
H
(n @ecember <, &//&, the !!@2 issued
a Cease and @esist (rder
8
ordering the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan, etropolitan anila 2uthorit$, their
contractors, and other entities, to completel$ halt, stop and desist from dumping an$ form or kind of garbage and
other waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he dumping operation was forthwith stopped b$ the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan) Cowe#er, sometime in
2ugust &//' the dumping operation was resumed after a meeting held in ,ul$ &//' among the Cit$ >o#ernment
of Caloocan, the representati#es of *ask 7orce Camarin @umpsite and !!@2 at the (ffice of En#ironmental
anagement Bureau @irector Rodrigo E) 7uentes failed to settle the
problem)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2fter an in#estigation b$ its team of legal and technical personnel on 2ugust &8, &//', the !!@2 issued another
order reiterating the @ecember <, &//&, order and issued an 2lias Cease and @esist (rder enjoining the Cit$
>o#ernment of Caloocan from continuing its dumping operations at the Camarin
area)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ;eptember '<, &//', the !!@2, with the assistance of the Philippine National Police, enforced its 2lias Cease
and @esist (rder b$ prohibiting the entr$ of all garbage dump trucks into the *ala Estate, Camarin area being
utili"ed as a dumpsite)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Pending resolution of its motion for reconsideration earlier filed on ;eptember &1, &//' with the !!@2, the Cit$
>o#ernment of Caloocan filed with the Regional *rial Court of Caloocan Cit$ an action for the declaration of
nullit$ of the cease and desist order with pra$er for the issuance of writ of injunction, docketed as Ci#il Case No)
C9&<</0) In its complaint, the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan sought to be declared as the sole authorit$
empowered to promote the health and safet$ and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan Cit$ to a balanced
ecolog$ within its territorial jurisdiction)
9
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ;eptember '<, &//', the E4ecuti#e ,udge of the Regional *rial Court of Caloocan Cit$ issued a temporar$
restraining order enjoining the !!@2 from enforcing its cease and desist order) ;ubse3uentl$, the case was
raffled to the Regional *rial Court, Branch &'= of Caloocan which, at the time, was presided o#er b$ ,udge
anuel ,n) ;erapio of the Regional *rial Court, Branch &'1, the pairing judge of the recentl$9retired presiding
judge)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he !!@2, for its part, filed on (ctober ', &//' a motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that under
Republic 2ct No) -/-&, as amended b$ Presidential @ecree No) /08, otherwise known as the Pollution Control
!aw, the cease and desist order issued b$ it which is the subject matter of the complaint is re#iewable both upon
the law and the facts of the case b$ the Court of 2ppeals and not b$ the Regional *rial Court)
10
chanrobles #irtual
law librar$
(n (ctober &', &//' ,udge anuel ,n) ;erapio issued an order consolidating Ci#il Case No) C9&<</0 with Ci#il
Case No) C9&<<0., an earlier case filed b$ the *ask 7orce Camarin @umpsite entitled F7r) ,ohn oran, et al) #s)
Con) acario 2sistio)F *he !!@2, howe#er, maintained during the trial that the foregoing cases, being
independent of each other, should ha#e been treated separatel$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
(n (ctober &=, &//', ,udge anuel ,n) ;erapio, after hearing the motion to dismiss, issued in the consolidated
cases an order
11
den$ing !!@2Bs motion to dismiss and granting the issuance of a writ of preliminar$ injunction
enjoining the !!@2, its agent and all persons acting for and on its behalf, from enforcing or implementing its
cease and desist order which pre#ents plaintiff Cit$ of Caloocan from dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite
during the pendenc$ of this case andMor until further orders of the court)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
(n No#ember <, &//', the !!@2 filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with pra$er for
restraining order with the ;upreme Court, docketed as >)R) No) &.1<8', seeking to nullif$ the aforesaid order
dated (ctober &=, &//' issued b$ the Regional *rial Court, Branch &'1 of Caloocan Cit$ den$ing its motion to
dismiss)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he Court, acting on the petition, issued a Resolution
12
on No#ember &., &//' referring the case to the Court of
2ppeals for proper disposition and at the same time, without gi#ing due course to the petition, re3uired the
respondents to comment on the petition and file the same with the Court of 2ppeals within ten 5&.6 da$s from
notice) In the meantime, the Court issued a temporar$ restraining order, effecti#e immediatel$ and continuing
until further orders from it, ordering the respondents+ 5&6 ,udge anuel ,n) ;erapio, Presiding ,udge, Regional
*rial Court, Branch &'1, Caloocan Cit$ to cease and desist from e4ercising jurisdiction o#er the case for
declaration of nullit$ of the cease and desist order issued b$ the !aguna !ake @e#elopment 2uthorit$ 5!!@26:
and 5'6 Cit$ a$or of Caloocan andMor the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping its
garbage at the *ala Estate, Baranga$ Camarin, Caloocan Cit$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
Respondents Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan and a$or acario 2) 2sistio, ,r) filed on No#ember &', &//' a
motion for reconsideration andMor to 3uashMrecall the temporar$ restraining order and an urgent motion for
reconsideration alleging that F) ) ) in #iew of the calamitous situation that would arise if the respondent cit$
go#ernment fails to collect -<. tons of garbage dail$ for lack of dumpsite 5i6t is therefore, imperati#e that the
issue be resol#ed with dispatch or with sufficient leewa$ to allow the respondents to find alternati#e solutions to
this garbage problem)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n No#ember &1, &//', the Court issued a Resolution
1;
directing the Court of 2ppeals to immediatel$ set the case
for hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the temporar$ restraining order issued b$ the Court
should be lifted and what conditions, if an$, ma$ be re3uired if it is to be so lifted or whether the restraining order
should be maintained or con#erted into a preliminar$ injunction)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
*he Court of 2ppeals set the case for hearing on No#ember '1, &//', at &.+.. in the morning at the Cearing
Room, -rd 7loor, New Building, Court of 2ppeals)
14
2fter the oral argument, a conference was set on @ecember
0, &//' at &.+.. oBclock in the morning where the a$or of Caloocan Cit$, the >eneral anager of !!@2, the
;ecretar$ of @ENR or his dul$ authori"ed representati#e and the ;ecretar$ of @I!> or his dul$ authori"ed
representati#e were re3uired to appear)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It was agreed at the conference that the !!@2 had until @ecember &<, &//' to finish its stud$ and re#iew of
respondentBs technical plan with respect to the dumping of its garbage and in the e#ent of a rejection of
respondentBs technical plan or a failure of settlement, the parties will submit within &. da$s from notice their
respecti#e memoranda on the merits of the case, after which the petition shall be deemed submitted for
resolution)
1I
Notwithstanding such efforts, the parties failed to settle the
dispute)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n 2pril -., &//-, the Court of 2ppeals promulgated its decision holding that+ 5&6 the Regional *rial Court has
no jurisdiction on appeal to tr$, hear and decide the action for annulment of !!@2Bs cease and desist order,
including the issuance of a temporar$ restraining order and preliminar$ injunction in relation thereto, since appeal
therefrom is within the e4clusi#e and appellate jurisdiction of the Court of 2ppeals under ;ection /, par) 5-6, of
Batas Pambansa Blg) &'/: and 5'6 the !aguna !ake @e#elopment 2uthorit$ has no power and authorit$ to issue a
cease and desist order under its enabling law, Republic 2ct No) 80<., as amended b$ P)@) No) 0&- and E4ecuti#e
(rder
No) /'1, series of &/0-)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he Court of 2ppeals thus dismissed Ci#il Case No) &<</0 and the preliminar$ injunction issued in the said case
was set aside: the cease and desist order of !!@2 was likewise set aside and the temporar$ restraining order
enjoining the Cit$ a$or of Caloocan andMor the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping
its garbage at the *ala Estate, Baranga$ Camarin, Caloocan Cit$ was lifted, subject, howe#er, to the condition that
an$ future dumping of garbage in said area, shall be in conformit$ with the procedure and protecti#e works
contained in the proposal attached to the records of this case and found on pages &<'9&=. of the 4ollo, which was
thereb$ adopted b$ reference and made an integral part of the decision, until the corresponding restraining andMor
injuncti#e relief is granted b$ the proper Court upon !!@2Bs institution of the necessar$ legal
proceedings)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Cence, the !aguna !ake @e#elopment 2uthorit$ filed the instant petition for re#iew on certiorari, now docketed
as >)R) No) &&.&'., with pra$er that the temporar$ restraining order lifted b$ the Court of 2ppeals be re9issued
until after final determination b$ this Court of the issue on the proper interpretation of the powers and authorit$ of
the !!@2 under its enabling law)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ,ul$, &/, &//-, the Court issued a temporar$ restraining order
1F
enjoining the Cit$ a$or of Caloocan andMor
the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping its garbage at the *ala Estate, Baranga$
Camarin, Caloocan Cit$, effecti#e as of this date and containing until otherwise ordered b$ the
Court)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It is significant to note that while both parties in this case agree on the need to protect the en#ironment and to
maintain the ecological balance of the surrounding areas of the Camarin open dumpsite, the 3uestion as to which
agenc$ can lawfull$ e4ercise jurisdiction o#er the matter remains highl$ open to
3uestion)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan claims that it is within its power, as a local go#ernment unit, pursuant to the
general welfare pro#ision of the !ocal >o#ernment Code,
1H
to determine the effects of the operation of the
dumpsite on the ecological balance and to see that such balance is maintained) (n the basis of said contention, it
3uestioned, from the inception of the dispute before the Regional *rial Court of Caloocan Cit$, the power and
authorit$ of the !!@2 to issue a cease and desist order enjoining the dumping of garbage in the Baranga$
Camarin o#er which the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan has territorial
jurisdiction)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he Court of 2ppeals sustained the position of the Cit$ of Caloocan on the theor$ that ;ection 1 of Presidential
@ecree No) /08, otherwise known as the Pollution Control law, authori"ing the defunct National Pollution
Control Commission to issue an e%-parte cease and desist order was not incorporated in Presidential @ecree No)
0&- nor in E4ecuti#e (rder No) /'1, series of
&/0-) *he Court of 2ppeals ruled that under ;ection 8, par) 5d6, of Republic 2ct No) 80<., as amended, the
!!@2 is instead re3uired Fto institute the necessar$ legal proceeding against an$ person who shall commence to
implement or continue implementation of an$ project, plan or program within the !aguna de Ba$ region without
pre#ious clearance from the 2uthorit$)F chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he !!@2 now assails, in this partition for re#iew, the abo#ementioned ruling of the Court of 2ppeals,
contending that, as an administrati#e agenc$ which was granted regulator$ and adjudicator$ powers and functions
b$ Republic 2ct No) 80<. and its amendator$ laws, Presidential @ecree No) 0&- and E4ecuti#e (rder No) /'1,
series of &/0-, it is in#ested with the power and authorit$ to issue a cease and desist order pursuant to ;ection 8
par) 5c6, 5d6, 5e6, 5f6 and 5g6 of E4ecuti#e (rder No) /'1 series of &/0- which pro#ides, thus+
;ec) 8) Additional #owers and ,unctions) *he authorit$ shall ha#e the following powers and functions+
444 444 444 chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5c6 Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the pro#isions of this E4ecuti#e (rder and its
implementing rules and regulations onl$ after proper notice and hearing)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
5d6 ake, alter or modif$ orders re3uiring the discontinuance of pollution specif$ing the conditions and the time
within which such discontinuance must be accomplished)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5e6 Issue, renew, or den$ permits, under such conditions as it ma$ determine to be reasonable, for the pre#ention
and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for the installation or operation of
sewage works and industrial disposal s$stem or parts thereof)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
5f6 2fter due notice and hearing, the 2uthorit$ ma$ also re#oke, suspend or modif$ an$ permit issued under this
(rder whene#er the same is necessar$ to pre#ent or abate pollution)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual
law librar$
5g6 @eputi"e in writing or re3uest assistance of appropriate go#ernment agencies or instrumentalities for the
purpose of enforcing this E4ecuti#e (rder and its implementing rules and regulations and the orders and decisions
of the 2uthorit$)
*he !!@2 claims that the appellate court deliberatel$ suppressed and totall$ disregarded the abo#e pro#isions of
E4ecuti#e (rder No) /'1, series of &/0-, which granted administrati#e 3uasi9judicial functions to !!@2 on
pollution abatement cases)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In light of the rele#ant en#ironmental protection laws cited which are applicable in this case, and the
corresponding o#erlapping jurisdiction of go#ernment agencies implementing these laws, the resolution of the
issue of whether or not the !!@2 has the authorit$ and power to issue an order which, in its nature and effect was
injuncti#e, necessaril$ re3uires a determination of the threshold 3uestion+ @oes the !aguna !ake @e#elopment
2uthorit$, under its Charter and its amendator$ laws, ha#e the authorit$ to entertain the complaint against the
dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Baranga$ Camarin authori"ed b$ the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan
which is allegedl$ endangering the health, safet$, and welfare of the residents therein and the sanitation and
3ualit$ of the water in the area brought about b$ e4posure to pollution caused b$ such open garbage
dumpsiteO chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he matter of determining whether there is such pollution of the en#ironment that re3uires control, if not
prohibition, of the operation of a business establishment is essentiall$ addressed to the En#ironmental
anagement Bureau 5EB6 of the @ENR which, b$ #irtue of ;ection &= of E4ecuti#e (rder No) &/', series of
&/01,
18
has assumed the powers and functions of the defunct National Pollution Control Commission created
under Republic 2ct No) -/-&) Ender said E4ecuti#e (rder, a Pollution 2djudication Board 5P2B6 under the
(ffice of the @ENR ;ecretar$ now assumes the powers and functions of the National Pollution Control
Commission with respect to adjudication of pollution cases)
19
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2s a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generall$ pertains to the Pollution 2djudication Board
5P2B6, e4cept in cases where the special law pro#ides for another forum) It must be recogni"ed in this regard that
the !!@2, as a speciali"ed administrati#e agenc$, is specificall$ mandated under Republic 2ct No) 80<. and its
amendator$ laws to carr$ out and make effecti#e the declared national polic$
20
of promoting and accelerating the
de#elopment and balanced growth of the !aguna !ake area and the surrounding pro#inces of Ri"al and !aguna
and the cities of ;an Pablo, anila, Pasa$, Iue"on and Caloocan
21
with due regard and ade3uate provisions for
environmental management and control! preservation of the 3uality of human life and ecological systems! and the
prevention of undue ecological disturbances! deterioration and pollution) Ender such a broad grant and power
and authorit$, the !!@2, b$ #irtue of its special charter, ob#iousl$ has the responsibilit$ to protect the inhabitants
of the !aguna !ake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from
the surrounding areas) In carr$ing out the aforementioned declared polic$, the !!@2 is mandated, among others,
to pass upon and appro#e or disappro#e all plans, programs, and projects proposed b$ local go#ernment
officesMagencies within the region, public corporations, and pri#ate persons or enterprises where such plans,
programs andMor projects are related to those of the !!@2 for the de#elopment of the region)
22
chanrobles #irtual
law librar$
In the instant case, when the complainant *ask 7orce Camarin @umpsite of (ur !ad$ of !ourdes Parish,
Baranga$ Camarin, Caloocan Cit$, filed its letter9complaint before the !!@2, the latterBs jurisdiction under its
charter was #alidl$ in#oked b$ complainant on the basis of its allegation that the open dumpsite project of the
Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan in Baranga$ Camarin was undertaken without a clearance from the !!@2, as
re3uired under ;ection 8, par) 5d6, of Republic 2ct) No) 80<., as amended b$ P)@) No) 0&- and E4ecuti#e (rder
No) /'1) Ahile there is also an allegation that the said project was without an En#ironmental Compliance
Certificate from the En#ironmental anagement Bureau 5EB6 of the @ENR, the primar$ jurisdiction of the
!!@2 o#er this case was recogni"ed b$ the En#ironmental anagement Bureau of the @ENR when the latter
acted as intermediar$ at the meeting among the representati#es of the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan, *ask 7orce
Camarin @umpsite and !!@2 sometime in ,ul$ &//' to discuss the possibilit$ of
re9opening the open dumpsite)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Ca#ing thus resol#ed the threshold 3uestion, the in3uir$ then narrows down to the following issue+ @oes the
!!@2 ha#e the power and authorit$ to issue a Fcease and desistF order under Republic 2ct No) 80<. and its
amendator$ laws, on the basis of the facts presented in this case, enjoining the dumping of garbage in *ala Estate,
Baranga$ Camarin, Caloocan Cit$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he irresistible answer is in the affirmati#e)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he cease and desist order issued b$ the !!@2 re3uiring the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan to stop dumping its
garbage in the Camarin open dumpsite found b$ the !!@2 to ha#e been done in #iolation of Republic 2ct No)
80<., as amended, and other rele#ant en#ironment laws,
2;
cannot be stamped as an unauthori"ed e4ercise b$ the
!!@2 of injuncti#e powers) B$ its e4press terms, Republic 2ct No) 80<., as amended b$ P)@) No) 0&- and
E4ecuti#e (rder No) /'1, series of &/0-, authori"es the !!@2 to Fma6e, alter or modif$ order re3uiring the
discontinuance or pollution)F
24
5Emphasis supplied6 ;ection 8, par) 5d6 e4plicitl$ authori"es the !!@2
to ma6e whate#er order ma$ be necessar$ in the e4ercise of its jurisdiction)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
*o be sure, the !!@2 was not e4pressl$ conferred the power Fto issue and e%-parte cease and desist orderF in a
language, as suggested b$ the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan, similar to the e4press grant to the defunct National
Pollution Control Commission under ;ection 1 of P)@) No) /08 which, admittedl$ was not reproduced in P)@) No)
0&- and E)() No) /'1, series of &/0-) Cowe#er, it would be a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion that there
is a denial of the power to issue the order in 3uestion when the power Fto ma6e, alter or modif$ orders re3uiring
the discontinuance of pollutionF is e4pressl$ and clearl$ bestowed upon the !!@2 b$ E4ecuti#e (rder No) /'1,
series of &/0-)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
2ssuming arguendo that the authorit$ to issue a Fcease and desist orderF were not e4pressl$ conferred b$ law,
there is jurisprudence enough to the effect that the rule granting such authorit$ need not necessaril$ be
e4press)
2I
Ahile it is a fundamental rule that an administrati#e agenc$ has onl$ such powers as are e4pressl$
granted to it b$ law, it is likewise a settled rule that an administrati#e agenc$ has also such powers as are
necessaril$ implied in the e4ercise of its e4press powers)
2F
In the e4ercise, therefore, of its e4press powers under
its charter as a regulator$ and 3uasi9judicial bod$ with respect to pollution cases in the !aguna !ake region, the
authorit$ of the !!@2 to issue a Fcease and desist orderF is, perforce, implied) (therwise, it ma$ well be reduced
to a FtoothlessF paper agenc$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In this connection, it must be noted that in #ollution Adjudication Board v) Court of Appeals! et al),
2H
the Court
ruled that the Pollution 2djudication Board 5P2B6 has the power to issue an e%-parte cease and desist order when
there isprima facie e#idence of an establishment e4ceeding the allowable standards set b$ the anti9pollution laws
of the countr$) *he ponente, 2ssociate ,ustice 7lorentino P) 7eliciano, declared+
E% parte cease and desist orders are permitted b$ law and regulations in situations like that here presented
precisel$ because stopping the continuous discharge of polluti#e and untreated effluents into the ri#ers and other
inland waters of the Philippines cannot be made to wait until protracted litigation o#er the ultimate correctness or
propriet$ of such orders has run its full course, including multiple and se3uential appeals such as those which
;olar has taken, which of course ma$ take se#eral $ears) *he rele#ant pollution control statute and implementing
regulations were enacted and promulgated in the e4ercise of that per#asi#e, so#ereign power to protect the safet$,
health, and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant and animal life, commonl$
designated as the police power) It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinar$ re3uirements of procedural
due process $ield to the necessities of protecting #ital public interests like those here in#ol#ed, through the
e4ercise of police power) ) ) )
*he immediate response to the demands of Fthe necessities of protecting #ital public interestsF gi#es #italit$ to the
statement on ecolog$ embodied in the @eclaration of Principles and ;tate Policies or the &/01 Constitution)
2rticle II, ;ection &= which pro#ides+
*he ;tate shall protect and ad#ance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog$ in accord with the
rh$thm and harmon$ of nature)
2s a constitutionall$ guaranteed right of e#er$ person, it carries the correlati#e dut$ of non9impairment) *his is
but in consonance with the declared polic$ of the state Fto protect and promote the right to health of the people
and instill health consciousness among them)F
28
It is to be borne in mind that the Philippines is part$ to the
Eni#ersal @eclaration of Cuman Rights and the 2lma Conference @eclaration of &/10 which recogni"e health as
a fundamental human right)
29
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he issuance, therefore, of the cease and desist order b$ the !!@2, as a practical matter of procedure under the
circumstances of the case, is a proper e4ercise of its power and authorit$ under its charter and its amendator$
laws) Cad the cease and desist order issued b$ the !!@2 been complied with b$ the Cit$ >o#ernment of
Caloocan as it did in the first instance, no further legal steps would ha#e been
necessar$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he charter of !!@2, Republic 2ct No) 80<., as amended, instead of conferring upon the !!@2 the means of
directl$ enforcing such orders, has pro#ided under its ;ection 8 5d6 the power to institute Fnecessar$ legal
proceeding against an$ person who shall commence to implement or continue implementation of an$ project, plan
or program within the !aguna de Ba$ region without pre#ious clearance from the !!@2)F chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
Clearl$, said pro#ision was designed to in#est the !!@2 with sufficientl$ broad powers in the regulation of all
projects initiated in the !aguna !ake region, whether b$ the go#ernment or the pri#ate sector, insofar as the
implementation of these projects is concerned) It was meant to deal with cases which might possibl$ arise where
decisions or orders issued pursuant to the e4ercise of such broad powers ma$ not be obe$ed, resulting in the
thwarting of its laudabe objecti#e) *o meet such contingencies, then the writs of mandamus and injunction which
are be$ond the power of the !!@2 to issue, ma$ be sought from the proper
courts)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Insofar as the implementation of rele#ant anti9pollution laws in the !aguna !ake region and its surrounding
pro#inces, cities and towns are concerned, the Court will not dwell further on the related issues raised which are
more appropriatel$ addressed to an administrati#e agenc$ with the special knowledge and e4pertise of the
!!@2)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ACERE7(RE, the petition is >R2N*E@) *he temporar$ restraining order issued b$ the Court on ,ul$ &/, &//-
enjoining the Cit$ a$or of Caloocan andMor the Cit$ >o#ernment of Caloocan from dumping their garbage at the
*ala Estate, Baranga$ Camarin, Caloocan Cit$ is hereb$ made permanent)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles
#irtual law librar$
;( (R@ERE@)
%>)R) No) &-'=.&) ,anuar$ &/, &///J
!E( ECCE>2R2H, #etitioner! vs. ;ECRE*2RH (7 ,E;*ICE, E* 2!), 4espondents)
R E ; ( ! E * I ( N
PEN(, H)+
7or resolution are public respondentsB Ergent otion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of this Court dated
,anuar$ 8, &/// temporaril$ restraining the e4ecution of petitioner and ;upplemental otion to Ergent otion
for Reconsideration) It is the submission of public respondents that+
F5&6 *he @ecision in this case ha#ing become final and e4ecutor$, its e4ecution enters the e4clusi#e ambit of
authorit$ of the e4ecuti#e authorit$) *he issuance of the *R( ma$ be construed as trenching on that sphere of
e4ecuti#e authorit$:
5'6 *he issuance of the temporar$ restraining order 4 4 4 creates dangerous precedent as there will ne#er be an
end to litigation because there is alwa$s a possibilit$ that Congress ma$ repeal a law)
5-6 Congress had earlier deliberated e4tensi#el$ on the death penalt$ bill) *o be certain, whate#er 3uestion ma$
now be raised on the @eath Penalt$ !aw before the present Congress within the =9month period gi#en b$ this
Conorable Court had in all probabilit$ been full$ debated upon 4 4 4)
586 Ender the time honored ma4im le4 futuro, jude4 praeterito, the law looks forward while the judge looks at the
past, 4 4 4 the Conorable Court in issuing the *R( has transcended its power of judicial re#iew)
5<6 2t this moment, certain circumstancesMsuper#ening e#ents transpired to the effect that the repeal or
modification of the law imposing death penalt$ has become nil, to wit+
a) *he public pronouncement of President Estrada that he will #eto an$ law imposing the death penalt$
in#ol#ing heinous crimes)
b) *he resolution of Congressman >ole", et al), that the$ are against the repeal of the law:
c) *he fact that ;enator RocoBs resolution to repeal the law onl$ bears his signature and that of ;enator
Pimentel)F
In their ;upplemental otion to Ergent otion for Reconsideration, public respondents attached a cop$ of Couse
Resolution No) ='/ introduced b$ Congressman >ole" entitled FResolution e4pressing the sense of the Couse of
Representati#e to reject an$ mo#e to re#iew Republic 2ct No) 1=</ which pro#ided for the re9imposition of death
penalt$, notif$ing the ;enate, the ,udiciar$ and the E4ecuti#e @epartment of the position of the Couse of
Representati#es on this matter, and urging the President to e4haust all means under the law to immediatel$
implement the death penalt$ law)F *he Resolution was concurred in b$ one hundred thirteen 5&&-6 congressmen)
In their Consolidated Comment, petitioner contends+ 5&6 the sta$ order 4 4 4 is within the scope of judicial power
and dut$ and does not trench on e4ecuti#e powers nor on congressional prerogati#es: 5'6 the e4ercise b$ this
Court of its power to sta$ e4ecution was reasonable: 5-6 the Court did not lose jurisdiction to address incidental
matters in#ol#ed or arising from the petition: 586 public respondents are estopped from challenging the CourtBs
jurisdiction: and 5<6 there is no certaint$ that the law on capital punishment will not be repealed or modified until
Congress con#enes and considers all the #arious resolutions and bills filed before it)
Prefatoril$, the Court likes to emphasi"e that the instant motions concern matters that are not incidents in >)R)
No) &&181', where the death penalt$ was imposed on petitioner on automatic re#iew of his con#iction b$ this
Court) *he instant motions were filed in this case, >)R) No) &-'=.&, where the constitutionalit$ of R)2) No) 0&11
5!ethal Injection !aw6 and its implementing rules and regulations was assailed b$ petitioner) 7or this reason, the
Court in its Resolution of ,anuar$ 8, &/// merel$ noted the otion to ;et 2side of Rodessa FBab$F R) Echegara$
dated ,anuar$ 1, &/// and Entr$ of 2ppearance of her counsel dated ,anuar$ <, &///) Clearl$, she has no legal
standing to inter#ene in the case at bar, let alone the fact that the interest of the ;tate is properl$ represented b$
the ;olicitor >eneral)
Ae shall now resol#e the basic issues raised b$ the public Respondents)
I
(5784) Ae do not agree with the sweeping submission of the public respondents that this Court lost its jurisdiction
o#er the case at bar and hence can no longer restrain the e4ecution of the petitioner) (b#iousl$, public
respondents are in#oking the rule that final judgments can no longer be altered in accord with the principle that Fit
is just as important that there should be a place to end as there should be a place to begin litigation)F%& *o start
with, the Court is not changing e#en a comma of its final @ecision) It is appropriate to e4amine with precision the
metes and bounds of the @ecision of this Court that became final) *hese metes and bounds are clearl$ spelled out
in the E:47y o2 Ju0=A1:4 in this case, vi$+
FEN*RH (7 ,E@>EN*
*his is to certif$ that on (ctober &', &//0 a decision rendered in the abo#e9entitled case was filed in this (ffice,
the dispositi#e part of which reads as follows+
KACERE7(RE, the petition is @ENIE@ insofar as petitioner seeks to declare the assailed statute 5Republic 2ct
No) 0&116 as unconstitutional: but >R2N*E@ insofar as ;ections &1 and &/ of the Rules and Regulations to
Implement Republic 2ct No) 0&11 are concerned, which are hereb$ declared IN?2!I@ because 5a6 ;ection &1
contra#enes 2rticle 0- of the Re#ised Penal Code, as amended b$ ;ection '< of Republic 2ct No) 1=</: and 5b6
;ection &/ fails to pro#ide for re#iew and appro#al of the !ethal Injection anual b$ the ;ecretar$ of ,ustice, and
unjustifiabl$ makes the manual confidential, hence una#ailable to interested parties including the accusedMcon#ict
and counsel) Respondents are hereb$ enjoined from enforcing and implementing Republic 2ct No) 0&11 until the
aforesaid ;ections &1 and &/ of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic 2ct No) 0&11 are appropriatel$
amended, re#ised andMor corrected in accordance with this @ecision)
;( (R@ERE@)B
and that the same has, on No#ember =, &//0 become final and e4ecutor$ and is hereb$ recorded in the Book of
Entries of ,udgment)
anila, Philippines)
Clerk of Court
B$+ 5;>@6 *ERE;I*2 >) @I2I;IP
2cting Chief
,udicial Records (fficeF
*he records will show that before the Entr$ of ,udgment, the ;ecretar$ of ,ustice, the Conorable ;erafin Cue#as,
filed with this Court on (ctober '&, &//0 a CoA>l5,:/1 where he submitted the 2mended Rules and Regulations
implementing R)2) No) 0&11 in compliance with our @ecision) (n (ctober '0, &//0, ;ecretar$ Cue#as submitted
a anifestation informing the Court that he has caused the publication of the said 2mended Rules and
Regulations as re3uired b$ the 2dministrati#e Code) I4 58 /7y84,ll5:1 4<,4 4<1 D1/585o: o2 4<58 Cou74 4<,4
.1/,A1 25:,l ,:0 u:,l417,.l1 A,:0,410+ 5&6 that R)2) No) 0&11 is not unconstitutional: 5'6 that sections &1 and
&/ of the Rules and Regulations to Implement R)2) No) 0&11 are in#alid, and 5-6 R)2) No) 0&11 cannot be
enforced and implemented until sections &1 and &/ of the Rules and Regulations to Implement R)2) No) 0&11 are
amended) It is also da$light clear that this @ecision was :o4 ,l41710 a whit b$ this Court) Co:47,7y 4o 4<1
8u.A5885o: o2 4<1 Sol5/54o7 G1:17,l, 4<1 7ul1 o: 25:,l54y o2 Cu0=A1:4 /,::o4 056184 4<58 Cou74 o2 548
Cu75805/45o: 4o 131/u41 ,:0 1:2o7/1 4<1 8,A1 Cu0=A1:4. Retired ,ustice Camilo Iuiason s$nthesi"ed the well
established jurisprudence on this issue as follows+%'
4 4 4
K4<1 25:,l54y o2 , Cu0=A1:4 0o18 :o4 A1,: 4<,4 4<1 Cou74 <,8 lo84 ,ll 548 >o@178 :o7 4<1 /,81) B$ the finalit$
of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modif$ or alter the same) E#en after the
judgment has become final the court retains its jurisdiction to e4ecute and enforce it)%-

%<171 58 , 0522171:/1
.14@11: 4<1 Cu75805/45o: o2 4<1 /ou74 4o 131/u41 548 Cu0=A1:4 ,:0 548 Cu75805/45o: 4o ,A1:0, Ao052y o7 ,l417
4<1 8,A1. %<1 2o7A17 /o:45:u18 161: ,2417 4<1 Cu0=A1:4 <,8 .1/oA1 25:,l 2o7 4<1 >u7>o81 o2 1:2o7/1A1:4
o2 Cu0=A1:4J 4<1 l,4417 417A5:,418 @<1: 4<1 Cu0=A1:4 .1/oA18 25:,l)%8

4 4 4 7or after the judgment has
become final facts and circumstances ma$ transpire which can render the e4ecution unjust or impossible)%<
In truth, the argument of the ;olicitor >eneral has long been rejected b$ this Court) 2s aptl$ pointed out b$ the
petitioner, as earl$ as &/&<, this Court has une3ui#ocabl$ ruled in the case of D571/4o7 o2 758o:8 6. Ju0=1 o2
(5784 I:84,:/1,%= #i"+
F*his ;upreme Court has repeatedl$ declared in #arious decisions, which constitute jurisprudence on the subject,
that in criminal cases, after the sentence has been pronounced and the period for reopening the same has elapsed,
the court cannot change or alter its judgment, as its jurisdiction has terminated ) ) ) Ahen in cases of appeal or
re#iew the cause has been returned thereto for e4ecution, in the e#ent that the judgment has been affirmed, it
performs a ministerial dut$ in issuing the proper order) But 54 0o18 :o4 2ollo@ 27oA 4<58 /188,45o: o2 2u:/45o:8
o: 4<1 >,74 o2 4<1 /ou74 @54< 712171:/1 4o 4<1 1:05:= o2 4<1 /,u81 4<,4 4<1 Cu05/5,l ,u4<o754y 417A5:,418 .y
<,65:= 4<1: >,8810 /oA>l141ly 4o 4<1 E31/u4561. *he particulars of the e4ecution itself, which are certainl$ not
alwa$s included in the judgment and writ of e4ecution, in an$ e#ent are absolutel$ under the control of the
judicial authorit$, while the e4ecuti#e has no power o#er the person of the con#ict e4cept to pro#ide for carr$ing
out of the penalt$ and to pardon)
>etting down to the solution of the 3uestion in the case at bar, which is that of e4ecution of a capital sentence, 54
Au84 .1 ,//1>410 ,8 , <y>o4<1858 4<,4 >o84>o:1A1:4 o2 4<1 0,41 /,: .1 71Mu18410. %<171 /,: .1 :o 058>u41
o: 4<58 >o5:4. I4 58 , @1ll-B:o@: >75:/5>l1 4<,4 :o4@54<84,:05:= 4<1 o7017 o2 131/u45o: ,:0 4<1 131/u4o7y
:,4u71 4<171o2 o: 4<1 0,41 814 o7 ,4 4<1 >7o>17 45A1, 4<1 0,41 4<1712o7 /,: .1 >o84>o:10, 161: 5: 81:41:/18
o2 01,4<.Ender the common law this postponement can be ordered in three wa$s+ 5&6 B$ command of the King:
5'6 b$ discretion 5arbitrioE of the court: and 5-6 b$ mandate of the law) It is sufficient to state this principle of the
common law to render impossible that assertion in absolute terms that after the con#ict has once been placed in
jail the trial court can not reopen the case to in#estigate the facts that show the need for postponement) I2 o:1 o2
4<1 @,y8 58 .y 0571/45o: o2 4<1 /ou74, 54 58 ,/B:o@l10=10 4<,4 161: ,2417 4<1 0,41 o2 4<1 131/u45o: <,8 .11:
25310, ,:0 :o4@54<84,:05:= 4<1 =1:17,l 7ul1 4<,4 ,2417 4<1 +/ou74- <,8 >172o7A10 548 A5:584175,l 0u4y o2
o70175:= 4<1 131/u45o: . . . ,:0 548 >,74 58 1:010, 52 <o@1617 , /57/uA84,:/1 ,75818 4<,4 ou=<4 4o 01l,y 4<1
131/u45o:, ,:0 4<171 58 ,: 5A>17,4561 0u4y 4o 5:61845=,41 4<1 1A17=1:/y ,:0 4o o7017 , >o84>o:1A1:4. *hen
the 3uestion arises as to whom the application for postponing the e4ecution ought to be addressed while the
circumstances is under in#estigation and as to who has jurisdiction to make the in#estigation)F
*he power to control the e4ecution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction) It cannot be the subject of
substantial subtraction for our Constitution%1 #ests the e:45714y o2 Cu05/5,l >o@17 in one ;upreme Court and in
such lower courts as ma$ be estabished b$ law) %o .1 8u71, 4<1 Ao84 5A>o74,:4 >,74 o2 , l545=,45o:, @<14<17
/565l o7 /75A5:,l, 58 4<1 >7o/188 o2 131/u45o: o2 01/585o:8 @<171 8u>1761:5:= 161:48 A,y /<,:=1 4<1
/57/uA84,:/1 o2 4<1 >,74518 ,:0 /oA>1l /ou748 4o 5:41761:1 ,:0 ,0Cu84 4<1 75=<48 o2 4<1 l545=,:48 4o >7161:4
u:2,57:188. I4 58 .1/,u81 o2 4<181 u:2o7811:, 8u>1761:5:= /o:45:=1:/518 4<,4 /ou748 <,61 .11: /o:/1010 4<1
5:<171:4 ,:0 :1/188,7y >o@17 o2 /o:47ol o2 548 >7o/18818 ,:0 o70178 4o A,B1 4<1A /o:2o7A,.l1 4o l,@ ,:0
Cu845/1)%0 7or this purpose, ;ection = of Rule &-< pro#ides that Fwhen b$ law jurisdiction is conferred on a court
or judicial officer, ,llau4iliar$ writs, processes and other means necessar$ to carr$ it into effect ma$ be emplo$ed
b$ such court or officer,:0 52 4<1 >7o/10u71 4o .1 2ollo@10 5: 4<1 1317/581 o2 8u/< Cu75805/45o: 58 :o4
8>1/525/,lly >o5:410 ou4 .y l,@ o7 .y 4<181 7ul18, ,:y 8u54,.l1 >7o/188 o7 Ao01 o2 >7o/1105:= A,y .1
,0o>410 @<5/< ,>>1,78 /o:2o7A,.l1 4o 4<1 8>5754 o2 8,50 l,@ o7 7ul18.F It bears repeating that what the Court
restrained temporaril$ is the e4ecution of its own @ecision to gi#e it reasonble time to check its fairness in light of
super#ening e#ents in Congress as alleged b$ petitioner) *he Court, contrar$ to popular misimpression, did not
restrain the effecti#it$ of a law enacted b$ Congress)
*he more dis3uieting dimension of the submission of the public respondents that this Court has no jurisdiction to
restrain the e4ecution of petitioner is that it can diminish the independence of the judiciar$) ;ince the implant of
republicanism in our soil, our courts ha#e been conceded the jurisdiction to enforce their final decisions) In accord
with this un3uestioned jurisdiction, this Court promulgated rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure
which, among others, 8>1ll10 ou4 4<1 7ul18 o: 131/u45o: o2 Cu0=A1:48. %<181 7ul18 ,71 ,ll >7105/,410 o: 4<1
,88uA>45o: 4<,4 /ou748 <,61 4<1 5:<171:4, :1/188,7y ,:0 5:/501:4,l >o@17 4o /o:47ol ,:0 8u>176581 4<1
>7o/188 o2 131/u45o: o2 4<157 01/585o:8. Rule -/ go#erns e4ecution, satisfaction and effects of judgments in ci#il
cases) Rule &'. go#erns judgments in criminal cases) I4 8<oul0 .1 84718810 4<,4 4<1 >o@17 4o >7oAul=,41 7ul18
o2 >l1,05:=, >7,/45/1 ,:0 >7o/10u71 @,8 =7,:410 .y ou7 Co:8454u45o:8 4o 4<58 Cou74 4o 1:<,:/1 548
5:01>1:01:/1, for in the words of ,ustice Isagani Cru" Fwithout independence and integrit$, courts will lose that
popular trust so essential to the maintenance of their #igor as champions of justice)F%/ Cence, our Constitutions
continuousl$ #ested this power to this Court for it enhances its independence) Ender the 19;I Co:8454u45o:, the
power of this Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure was granted .u4 54 ,>>1,710
4o .1 /o-135841:4 @54< l1=58l,4561 >o@17 2o7 54 @,8 8u.C1/4 4o 4<1 >o@17 o2 Co:=7188 4o 71>1,l, ,l417 o7
8u>>l1A1:4) *hus, its ;ection &-, 2rticle ?III pro#ides+
F;ec) &-) *he ;upreme Court shall ha#e the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law) ;aid rules shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modif$ substanti#e rights) *he e4isting laws on pleading, practice
and procedure are hereb$ repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the
;upreme Court to alter and modif$ the same) %<1 Co:=7188 8<,ll <,61 4<1 >o@17 4o 71>1,l, ,l417 o7
8u>>l1A1:4 4<1 7ul18 /o:/17:5:= >l1,05:=, >7,/45/1 ,:0 >7o/10u71, ,:0 4<1 ,0A5885o: 4o 4<1 >7,/45/1 o2 l,@
5: 4<1 <5l5>>5:18.F
*he said power of Congress, howe#er, is not as absolute as it ma$ appear on its surface) In I: 71
Cu:,:,:%&.Congress in the e4ercise of its power to amend rules of the ;upreme Court regarding admission to
the practice of law, enacted the Bar 7lunkers 2ct of &/<-%&& which considered as a passing grade, the a#erage of
1.Q in the bar e4aminations after ,ul$ 8, &/8= up to 2ugust &/<& and 1&Q in the &/<' bar e4aminations) %<58
Cou74 847u/B 0o@: 4<1 l,@ ,8 u:/o:8454u45o:,l) In his ponencia, r) ,ustice @iokno held that F4 4 4 the
disputed law is not a legislation: it is a judgment 9 a judgment promulgated b$ this Court during the aforecited
$ears affecting the bar candidates concerned: and although this Court certainl$ can re#oke these judgments e#en
now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that o:ly 4<58 Cou74, and not the legislati#e nor e4ecuti#e
department, that ma$ do so) 2n$ attempt on the part of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its
function, as is the case with the law in 3uestion)F%&' *he #enerable jurist further ruled+ FIt is ob#ious, therefore,
that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs 13/lu8561ly to this Court, and the law
passed b$ Congress on the matter is of permissi#e character, or as other authorities sa$, merel$ to fi4 the
minimum conditions for the license)F By 548 7ul5:=, 4<58 Cou74 Mu,l52510 4<1 ,.8olu4584 4o:1 o2 4<1 >o@17 o2
Co:=7188 to Frepeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the admission
to the practice of law in the Philippines)
*he ruling of this Court in I: 71 Cu:,:,: was not changed b$ the 19H; Co:8454u45o:) 7or the 19H; Co:8454u45o:
715417,410 the power of this Court Fto promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
4 4 4 which, howe#er, ma$ be repealed, altered or supplemented b$ the Batasang Pambansa 4 4 4)F ore
completel$, ;ection <5'6< of its 2rticle D pro#ided+
4 4 4
F;ec) <) *he ;upreme Court shall ha#e the following powers)
4 4 4
5<6 Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of
law, and the integration of the Bar, which, howe#er, ma$ be repealed, altered, or supplemented b$ the Batasang
Pambansa) ;uch rules shall pro#ide a simplified and ine4pensi#e procedure for the speed$ disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modif$ substanti#e rights)F
Aell worth noting is that the 19H; Co:8454u45o: 2u74<17 8471:=4<1:10 the independence of the judiciar$ b$
gi#ing to it the additional power to promulgate rules go#erning the integration of the Bar)%&-
*he 198H Co:8454u45o: molded an e#en 847o:=17 ,:0 Ao71 5:01>1:01:4 Cu05/5,7y) 2mong others, 54 1:<,:/10
4<1 7ul1 A,B5:= >o@17 o2 4<58 Cou74. Its ;ection <5<6, 2rticle ?III pro#ides+
4 4 4
F;ection <) *he ;upreme Court shall ha#e the following powers+
4 4 4
5<6 7oAul=,41 7ul18 /o:/17:5:= 4<1 >7o41/45o: ,:0 1:2o7/1A1:4 o2 /o:8454u45o:,l 75=<48, pleading, practice
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underpri#ileged) ;uch rules shall pro#ide a simplified and ine4pensi#e procedure for the speed$ disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modif$ substanti#e
rights) Rul18 o2 >7o/10u71 o2 8>1/5,l /ou748 ,:0 Mu,85-Cu05/5,l .o0518 8<,ll 71A,5: 1221/4561 u:l188
058,>>7o610 .y 4<1 Su>71A1 Cou74)F
%<1 7ul1 A,B5:= >o@17 o2 4<58 Cou74 @,8 13>,:010. *his Court for the 25784 45A1 was gi#en the power to
promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights) *he Court was also granted
for the 25784 45A1 the power to disappro#e rules of procedure of special courts and 3uasi9judicial bodies) Bu4 Ao84
5A>o74,:4ly, 4<1 198H Co:8454u45o: 4ooB ,@,y 4<1 >o@17 o2 Co:=7188 4o 71>1,l, ,l417, o7 8u>>l1A1:4 7ul18
/o:/17:5:= >l1,05:=, >7,/45/1 ,:0 >7o/10u71) In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
procedure is no longer shared b$ this Court with Congress, more so with the E4ecuti#e) If the manifest intent of
the &/01 Constitution is to strengthen the independence of the judiciar$, it is inutile to urge, as public respondents
do, that this Court has no jurisdiction to control the process of e4ecution of its decisions, a power conceded to it
and which it has e4ercised since time immemorial)
*o be sure, it is 4oo l,41 5: 4<1 0,y for public respondents to assail the jurisdiction of this Court to control and
super#ise the implementation of its decision in the case at bar) 2s aforestated, our @ecision became final and
e4ecutor$ on No#ember =, &//0) *he records re#eal that after No#ember =, &//0, or on @ecember 0, &//0, :o
l188 4<,: 4<1 S1/714,7y o2 Ju845/1 71/o=:5D10 4<1 Cu75805/45o: o2 4<58 Cou74 b$ filing a anifestation and
Ergent otion to compel the trial judge, the Conorable *helma 2) Ponferrada, R*C, Br) &.8, Iue"on Cit$ to
pro#ide him F4 4 4 a certified true cop$ of the Aarrant of E4ecution dated No#ember &1, &//0 bearing the
designated e4ecution da$ of death con#ict !eo Echegara$ and allow 5him6 to re#eal or announce the contents
thereof, particularl$ the e4ecution date fi4ed b$ such trial court to the public when re3uested)F *he rele#ant
portions of the anifestation and Ergent otion filed b$ the ;ecretar$ of ,ustice .1811/<5:= 4<58 Cou74 K4o
>7o6501 4<1 ,>>7o>75,41 71l512F state+
4 4 4
<) Instead of filing a comment on ,udge PonferradaBs anifestation howe#er, herein respondent is submitting the
instant anifestation and otion 5a6 to stress, inter alia, that the non9disclosure of the date of e4ecution depri#es
herein respondent of #ital information necessar$ for the e4ercise of his statutor$ powers, as well as renders
nugator$ the constitutional guarantee that recogni"es the peopleBs right to information of public concern, ,:0 +.-
4o ,8B 4<58 "o:o7,.l1 Cou74 4o >7o6501 4<1 ,>>7o>75,41 71l512.
=) *he non9disclosure of the date of e4ecution depri#es herein respondent of #ital information necessar$ for the
e4ercise of his power of super#ision and control o#er the Bureau of Corrections pursuant to ;ection -/, Chapter 0,
Book I? of the 2dministrati#e Code of &/01, in relation to *itle III, Book I? of such 2dministrati#e Code,
insofar as the enforcement of Republic 2ct No) 0&11 and the 2mended Rules and Regulations to Implement
Republic 2ct No) 0&11 is concerned and for the discharge of the mandate of seeing to it that laws and rules
relati#e to the e4ecution of sentence are faithfull$ obser#ed)
1) (n the other hand, the willful omission to re#eal the information about the precise da$ of e4ecution limits the
e4ercise b$ the President of e4ecuti#e clemenc$ powers pursuant to ;ection &/, 2rticle ?II 5E4ecuti#e
@epartment6 of the &/01 Philippine Constitution and 2rticle 0& of the Re#ised Penal Code, as amended, which
pro#ides that the death sentence shall be carried out Kwithout prejudice to the e4ercise b$ the President of his
e4ecuti#e clemenc$ powers at all times)F 5Enderscoring supplied6 7or instance, the President cannot grant
reprie#e, i.e.! postpone the e4ecution of a sentence to a da$ certain 5#eople v. =era, =< Phil) <=, &&. %&/-1J6 in the
absence of a precise date to reckon with) *he e4ercise of such clemenc$ power, at this time, might e#en work to
the prejudice of the con#ict and defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the applicable statute as when the date
of e4ecution set b$ the President would be earlier than that designated b$ the court)
0) oreo#er, the deliberate non9disclosure of information about the date of e4ecution to herein respondent and the
public #iolates ;ection 1, 2rticle III 5Bill of Rights6 and ;ection '0, 2rticle II 5@eclaration of Principles and ;tate
Policies6 of the &/01 Philippine Constitution which read+
;EC) 1) *he right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recogni"ed) 2ccess to official
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
go#ernment research data used as basis for polic$ de#elopment, shall be afforded the citi"en, subject to such
limitations as ma$ be pro#ided b$ law)
;EC) '0) ;ubject to reasonable conditions prescribed b$ law, the ;tate adopts and implements a polic$ of full
public disclosure of all its transactions in#ol#ing public interest)
/) *he Kright to informationB pro#ision is self9e4ecuting) It supplies Bthe rules b$ means of which the right to
information ma$ be enjo$ed 5Coole$, 2 *reatise on the Constitutional !imitations, &=1 %&/1'J6 b$ guaranteeing
the right and mandating the dut$ to afford access to sources of information) Cence, the fundamental right therein
recogni"ed ma$ be asserted b$ the people upon the ratification of the Constitution without need for an$ ancillar$
act of the !egislature 5Id), at p) &=<6 Ahat ma$ be pro#ided for b$ the !egislature are reasonable conditions and
limitations upon the access to be afforded which must, of necessit$, be consistent with the declared ;tate polic$ of
full public disclosure of all transactions in#ol#ing public interest 5Constitution, 2rt) II, ;ec) '06) Cowe#er, it
cannot be o#eremphasi"ed that whate#er limitation ma$ be prescribed b$ the !egislature, the right and the dut$
under 2rt) III, ;ec) 1 ha#e become operati#e and enforceable b$ #irtue of the adoption of the New Charter)F
5@ecision of the ;upreme Court En Banc in 'egaspi v. Civil (ervice Commission, &<. ;CR2 <-., <-89<-<
%&/01J)F
*he same motion to compel ,udge Ponferrada to re#eal the date of e4ecution of petitioner Echegara$ was filed b$
his counsel, 2tt$) *heodore *e, on @ecember 1, &//0) Ce in#oked his clientBs right to due process and the publicBs
right to information) %<1 Sol5/54o7 G1:17,l, ,8 /ou:81l 2o7 >u.l5/ 718>o:01:48, 050 :o4 o>>o81 >14545o:17L8
Ao45o: o: 4<1 =7ou:0 4<,4 4<58 Cou74 <,8 :o Ao71 Cu75805/45o: o617 4<1 >7o/188 o2 131/u45o: o2
E/<1=,7,y. *his Court granted the relief pra$ed for b$ the ;ecretar$ of ,ustice and b$ the counsel of the
petitioner in its Resolution of @ecember &<, &//0) *here was not a whimper of protest from the public
respondents and the$ are now 184o>>10from contending that this Court has lost its jurisdiction to grant said relief)
*he jurisdiction of this Court does not depend on the con#enience of litigants)
II
S1/o:0) Ae likewise reject the public respondentsB contention that the Fdecision in this case ha#ing become final
and e4ecutor$, 548 131/u45o: 1:4178 4<1 13/lu8561 ,A.54 o2 ,u4<o754y o2 4<1 131/u4561 01>,74A1:4 3 3 3. By
=7,:45:= 4<1 %RO, 4<1 "o:o7,.l1 Cou74 <,8 5: 1221/4 =7,:410 71>75161 @<5/< 58 ,: 131/u4561
2u:/45o:.F%&8 Public respondents cite as their authorit$ for this proposition, ;ection &/, 2rticle ?II of the
Constitution which reads+
FE4cept in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise pro#ided in this Constitution, the President ma$ grant reprie#es,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures after con#iction b$ final judgment) Ce shall also ha#e
the power to grant amnest$ with the concurrence of a majorit$ of all the members of the Congress)F
*he te4t and tone of this pro#ision will not $ield to the interpretation suggested b$ the public respondents) *he
pro#ision is 85A>ly 4<1 8ou7/1 o2 >o@17 of the President to grant reprie#es, commutations, and pardons and remit
fines and forfeitures after con#iction b$ final judgment) It also pro#ides the authorit$ for the President to grant
amnest$ with the concurrence of a majorit$ of all the members of the Congress) *he pro#ision, howe#er, cannot
be interpreted as den$ing the power of courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after their finalit$) I:
47u4<, ,: ,//u810 @<o <,8 .11: /o:65/410 .y 25:,l Cu0=A1:4 845ll >o8818818 /oll,417,l 75=<48 ,:0 4<181 75=<48
/,: .1 /l,5A10 5: 4<1 ,>>7o>75,41 /ou748. 7or instance, a death con#ict who becomes insane after his final
con#iction cannot be e4ecuted while in a state of insanit$)%&< 2s obser#ed b$ 2ntieau, Ftoda$, it is generall$
assumed that due process of law will pre#ent the go#ernment from e4ecuting the death sentence upon a person
who is insane at the time of e4ecution)F%&= *he suspension of such a death sentence is undisputabl$ an e4ercise of
judicial power) It is not a usurpation of the presidential power of reprie#e though its effect is the same 99 the
temporar$ suspension of the e4ecution of the death con#ict) In the same #ein, it cannot be denied that Congress
can at an$ time amend R)2) No) 1=</ b$ reducing the penalt$ of death to life imprisonment) *he effect of such an
amendment is like that of commutation of sentence) But b$ no stretch of the imagination can the e4ercise b$
Congress of its plenar$ power to amend laws be considered as a #iolation of the power of the President to
commute final sentences of con#iction) %<1 >o@178 o2 4<1 E31/u4561, 4<1 L1=58l,4561 ,:0 4<1 Ju05/5,7y 4o 8,61
4<1 l521 o2 , 01,4< /o:65/4 0o :o4 13/lu01 1,/< o4<17 2o7 4<1 85A>l1 71,8o: 4<,4 4<171 58 :o <5=<17 75=<4 4<,:
4<1 75=<4 4o l521. Indeed, in #arious ;tates in the Enited ;tates, laws ha#e e#en been enacted e4pressl$ granting
courts the power to suspend e4ecution of con#icts and their constitutionalit$ has been upheld o#er arguments that
the$ infringe upon the power of the President to grant reprie#es) 7or the public respondents therefore to contend
that onl$ the E4ecuti#e can protect the right to life of an accused after his final con#iction is to #iolate the
principle of co9e3ual and coordinate powers of the three branches of our go#ernment)
III
%<570) *he CourtBs resolution temporaril$ restraining the e4ecution of petitioner must be put in its >7o>17
>178>1/4561 as it has been =7516ou8ly 0584o7410 18>1/5,lly .y 4<o81 @<o A,B1 , l565:= .y 65l52y5:=
/ou748.Petitioner filed his ?er$ Ergent otion for Issuance of *R( on D1/1A.17 28, 1998 at about &&+-. p)m)
Ce in#oked se#eral grounds, #i"+ 5&6 that his e4ecution has been set on ,anuar$ 8, the first working da$ of &///:
5b6 that members of Congress had either sought for his e4ecuti#e clemenc$ andMor re#iew or repeal of the law
authori"ing capital punishment: 5b)&6 that ;enator 23uilino PimentelBs resolution asking that clemenc$ be granted
to the petitioner and that capital punishment be re#iewed has been concurred b$ thirteen 5&-6 other senators: 5b)'6
;enate President arcelo 7ernan and ;enator iriam ;) @efensor ha#e publicl$ declared the$ would seek a
re#iew of the death penalt$ law: 5b)-6 ;enator Raul Roco has also sought the repeal of capital punishment, and
5b)86 Congressman ;alacrib Baterina, ,r), and thirt$ fi#e 5-<6 other congressmen are demanding re#iew of the
same law)
Ahen the ?er$ Ergent otion was filed, the Court was alread$ in its traditional recess and would onl$ resume
session on ,anuar$ &0, &///) E#en then, Chief ,ustice Cilario @a#ide, ,r) called the Court to a ;pecial ;ession on
,anuar$ 8, &///%&1 at &.) a)m) to deliberate on petitionerBs ?er$ Ergent otion) *he Court hardl$ had fi#e 5<6
hours to resol#e petitionerBs motion as he was due to be e4ecuted at - p)m) *hus, the Court had the difficult
problem of resol#ing whether petitionerBs allegations about the mo#es in Congress to repeal or amend the @eath
Penalt$ !aw are mere 8>1/ul,45o:8 o7 :o4. *o the CourtBs majorit$, there were good reasons wh$ the Court
should not immediatel$ dismiss petitionerBs allegations as mere speculations and surmises) *he$ noted that
petitionerBs allegations were made in a pleading u:017 o,4< and were widel$ publici"ed in the print and broadcast
media) It was also of judicial notice that the &&th Congress is a :1@ Co:=7188 ,:0 <,8 :o l188 4<,: o:1 <u:0710
4<574y +1;0- :1@ A1A.178 @<o81 651@8 o: /,>54,l >u:58<A1:4 ,71 845ll u:13>718810) *he present Congress is
therefore different from the Congress that enacted the @eath Penalt$ !aw 5R)2) No) 1=</6 and the !ethal
Injection !aw 5R)2) No) 0&116) In contrast, the CourtBs minorit$ felt that petitionerBs allegations lacked clear
factual bases) *here was hardl$ a time to #erif$ petitionerBs allegations as his e4ecution was set at - p)m) 2nd
#erification from Congress was impossible as Congress was not in session) >i#en these constraints, the CourtBs
majorit$ did not rush to judgment but took an 13471A1ly /,u45ous stance b$ temporaril$ restraining the e4ecution
of petitioner) *he 8u8>1:85o: @,8 41A>o7,7y 9 9 9 Funtil ,une &<, &///, coe#al with the constitutional duration of
the present regular session of Congress, u:l188 54 8oo:17 .1/oA18 /174,5: 4<,4 :o 71>1,l o7 Ao0525/,45o: o2 4<1
l,@ 58 =o5:= 4o .1 A,01)F *he e4treme caution taken b$ the Court was compelled, among others, b$ the fear
that ,:y 177o7 o2 4<1 Cou74 5: :o4 84o>>5:= 4<1 131/u45o: o2 4<1 >14545o:17 @5ll >71/lu01 ,:y 2u74<17 71l512
2o7 ,ll 75=<48 84o> ,4 4<1 =7,61y,70. 2s life was at stake, the Court refused to constitutionali"e haste and the
h$steria of some partisans) *he CourtBs majorit$ felt it needed the certaint$ that the legislature will not change the
circumstance of petitioner as alleged b$ his counsel) It was belie#ed that law and e3uitable considerations demand
no less before allowing the ;tate to take the life of one its citi"ens)
%<1 41A>o7,7y 71847,5:5:= o7017 o2 4<58 Cou74 <,8 >7o0u/10 its desired result, i)e), the /7y84,ll5D,45o: o2 4<1
588u1whether Congress is disposed to re#iew capital punishment) *he public respondents, thru the ;olicitor
>eneral, cite>o84175o7 161:48 that negate be$ond doubt the possibilit$ that Congress will repeal or amend the
death penalt$ law) Ce names these 8u>1761:5:= 161:48 as follows+
4 4 4
Fa) *he public pronouncement of President Estrada that he will #eto an$ law repealing the death penalt$ in#ol#ing
heinous crimes)
b) *he resolution of Congressman >ole", et al), that the$ are against the repeal of the law:
c) *he fact that ;enator RocoBs resolution to repeal the law onl$ bears his signature and that of ;enator
Pimentel)F%&0
In their ;upplemental otion to Ergent otion for Reconsideration, the ;olicitor >eneral cited Couse Resolution
No) ='/ introduced b$ Congressman >ole" entitled FResolution e4pressing the sense of the Couse of
Representati#es to reject an$ mo#e to re#iew R)2) No) 1=</ which pro#ided for the reimposition of death penalt$,
notif$ing the ;enate, the ,udiciar$ and the E4ecuti#e @epartment of the position of the Couse of Representati#es
on this matter and urging the President to e4haust all means under the law to immediatel$ implement the death
penalt$ law)F *he >ole" resolution was signed b$ &&- congressmen as of ,anuar$ &&, &///) In a marathon session
$esterda$ that e4tended up to - oBclock in the morning, the Couse of Representati#es with minor amendments
formall$ adopted the >ole" resolution b$ an o#erwhelming #ote) Couse Resolution No) '< e4pressed the
sentiment that the Couse F4 4 4 does not desire at this time to re#iew Republic 2ct 1=</)F In addition, the
President has stated that he will not re3uest Congress to ratif$ the ;econd Protocol in #iew of the pre#alence of
heinous crimes in the countr$) In light of these de#elopments, the CourtBs *R( should now be lifted as it has
ser#ed its legal and humanitarian purpose)
A l,84 :o41) In &/'', the famous Clarence @arrow predicted that F4 4 4 the 3uestion of capital punishment has
been the subject of endless discussion and @5ll >7o.,.ly :1617 .1 8144l10 8o lo:= ,8 A1: .1l5161 5:
>u:58<A1:4.F%&/ In our clime and time when heinous crimes continue to be unchecked, the debate on the legal
and moral predicates of capital punishment has been regrettabl$ blurred b$ emotionalism because of the
unfaltering faith of the pro and anti9death partisans on the right and righteousness of their postulates) *o be sure,
an$ debate, e#en if it is no more than an e4change of epithets is health$ in a democrac$) Bu4 @<1: 4<1 01.,41
014175o7,418 4o 058/o70 0u1 4o 4<1 o617u81 o2 @o708 4<,4 @ou:0, @<1: ,:=17 4<71,41:8 4o 4u7: 4<1 A,Co754y
7ul1 4o 4y7,::y, 54 58 4<1 18>1/5,l 0u4y o2 4<58 Cou74 4o ,88u71 4<,4 4<1 =u,7,:4118 o2 4<1 B5ll o2 R5=<48 4o 4<1
A5:o754y 2ully <ol0) 2s ,ustice Brennan reminds us F4 4 4 it is the #er$ purpose of the Constitution 9 9 9 and
particularl$ the Bill of Rights 9 9 9 to declare/174,5: 6,lu18 47,:8/1:01:4, be$ond the reach of temporar$ political
majorities)F%'. !,: <,8 y14 4o 5:61:4 , .14417 <,4/<17y o2 Cu845/1 4<,: 4<1 /ou748. I4 58 , <,4/<17y @<171
Cu845/1 @5ll .looA o:ly @<1: @1 /,: >7161:4 4<1 7oo48 o2 71,8o: 4o .1 .lo@: ,@,y .y 4<1 @5:08 o2 7,=1. %<1
2l,A1 o2 4<1 7ul1 o2 l,@ /,::o4 .1 5=:5410 .y 7,=1, 18>1/5,lly 4<1 7,=1 o2 4<1 Ao. @<5/< 58 4<1 Ao4<17 o2
u:2,57:188. %<1 .u85:188 o2 /ou748 5: 71:0175:= Cu845/1 58 4o .1 2,57 ,:0 4<1y /,: >,88 4<157 l54Au8 4184 o:ly
@<1: 4<1y /,: .1 2,57 4o <5A @<o 58 AoA1:4,75ly 4<1 Ao84 <,410 .y 8o/514y)%'&
IN &IEW W"EREO(, the Court grants the public respondentsB Ergent otion for Reconsideration and
;upplemental otion to Ergent otion for Reconsideration and lifts the *emporar$ Restraining (rder issued in
its Resolution of ,anuar$ 8, &///)
*he Court also orders respondent trial court judge 5Con) *helma 2) Ponferrada, Regional *rial Court, Iue"on
Cit$, Branch &.86 to set anew the date for e4ecution of the con#ictMpetitioner in accordance with applicable
pro#isions of law and the Rules of Court, without further dela$)
SO ORDERED.
DEAR%!EN% O( AGRARIAN G.R. No. 1F20H0
RE(OR!, 71>7181:410 .y SECRE%AR'
JOSE !ARI B. ONCE +OIC-, 7181:4*
14545o:17, D,6501, C.J.,
u:o,
,:=,:5.,:,
)u58uA.5:=,
':,718-S,:45,=o,
S,:0o6,l-Gu451771D,
C,7>5o,
- 6178u8L - Au8475,-!,745:1D,
Co7o:,,
C,7>5o !o7,l18,
C,ll1Co, S7.,
AD/u:,,
%5:=,,
C<5/o-N,D,75o ,:0
G,7/5,, JJ.
DELIA %. SU%%ON, ELLA %.
SU%%ON-SOLI!AN ,:0 7oAul=,410*
"ARR' %. SU%%ON,
L R18>o:01:48. O/4o.17 19, 200I
3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3


DECISION


UNO, J.*


*his is a petition for re#iew filed b$ the @epartment of 2grarian Reform 5@2R6 of the @ecision and Resolution of
the Court of 2ppeals, dated ;eptember &/, '..- and 7ebruar$ 8, '..8, respecti#el$, which declared @2R
2dministrati#e (rder 52)()6 No) /, series of &//-, null and #oid for being #iolati#e of the Constitution)

*he case at bar in#ol#es a land in 2roro$, asbate, inherited b$ respondents which has been de#oted e4clusi#el$
to cow and calf breeding) (n (ctober '=, &/01, pursuant to the then e4isting agrarian reform program of the
go#ernment, respondents made a #oluntar$ offer to sell 5?(;6[1] their landholdings to petitioner @2R to a#ail of
certain incenti#es under the law)

(n ,une &., &/00, a new agrarian law, Republic 2ct 5R)2)6 No) ==<1, also known as the Comprehensi#e 2grarian
Reform !aw 5C2R!6 of &/00, took effect) It included in its co#erage farms used for raising li#estock, poultr$ and
swine)

(n @ecember 8, &//., in an en banc decision in the case of LuD (,7A8 6. S1/714,7y o2 DAR,[2] this Court ruled
that lands de#oted to li#estock and poultr$9raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land) Cence,
we declared as unconstitutional certain pro#isions of the C2R! insofar as the$ included li#estock farms in the
co#erage of agrarian reform)
In #iew of the LuD (,7A8 7ul5:=, respondents filed with petitioner @2R a formal re3uest to withdraw their ?(;
as their landholding was de#oted e4clusi#el$ to cattle9raising and thus e4empted from the co#erage of the
C2R!) [;]

(n @ecember '&, &//', the unicipal 2grarian Reform (fficer of 2roro$, asbate, inspected respondentsB land
and found that it was de#oted solel$ to cattle9raising and breeding) Ce recommended to the @2R ;ecretar$ that it
be e4empted from the co#erage of the C2R!)

(n 2pril '1, &//-, respondents reiterated to petitioner @2R the withdrawal of their ?(; and re3uested the return
of the supporting papers the$ submitted in connection therewith) [4] Petitioner ignored their re3uest)

(n @ecember '1, &//-, @2R issued A.O. No. 9, 817518 o2 199;, [I] which pro#ided that onl$ portions of pri#ate
agricultural lands used for the raising of li#estock, poultr$ and swine as of ,une &<, &/00 shall be e4cluded from
the co#erage of the C2R!) In determining the area of land to be e4cluded, the 2)() fi4ed the following retention
limits, vi$+ &+& animal9land ratio 5i.e.! & hectare of land per & head of animal shall be retained b$ the landowner6,
and a ratio of &)10&< hectares for li#estock infrastructure for e#er$ '& heads of cattle shall likewise be e4cluded
from the operations of the C2R!)

(n 7ebruar$ 8, &//8, respondents wrote the @2R ;ecretar$ and ad#ised him to consider as final and irre#ocable
the withdrawal of their ?(; as, under the LuD (,7A8 0o/475:1, their entire landholding is e4empted from the
C2R!) [F]

(n ;eptember &8, &//<, then @2R ;ecretar$ Ernesto @) >arilao issued an (rder [H] partiall$ granting the
application of respondents for e4emption from the co#erage of C2R!) 2ppl$ing the retention limits outlined in
the @2R 2)() No) /, petitioner e4empted &,'./ hectares of respondentsB land for gra"ing purposes, and a
ma4imum of &.')<=-< hectares for infrastructure) Petitioner ordered the rest of respondentsB landholding to be
segregated and placed under Compulsor$ 2c3uisition)

Respondents mo#ed for reconsideration) *he$ contend that their entire landholding should be e4empted as it is
de#oted e4clusi#el$ to cattle9raising) *heir motion was denied) [8] *he$ filed a notice of appeal [9] with the
(ffice of the President assailing+ 5&6 the reasonableness and #alidit$ of @2R 2)() No) /, s) &//-, which pro#ided
for a ratio between land and li#estock in determining the land area 3ualified for e4clusion from the C2R!, and 5'6
the constitutionalit$ of @2R 2)() No) /, s) &//-, in #iew of the LuD (,7A8 /,81 which declared cattle9raising
lands e4cluded from the co#erage of agrarian reform)

(n (ctober /, '..&, the (ffice of the President affirmed the impugned (rder of petitioner @2R)[10] It ruled that
@2R 2)() No) /, s) &//-, does not run counter to the LuD (,7A8 /,81 as the 2)() pro#ided the guidelines to
determine whether a certain parcel of land is being used for cattle9raising) Cowe#er, 4<1 588u1 o: 4<1
/o:8454u45o:,l54y o2 4<1 ,88,5l10 A.O. @,8 l124 2o7 4<1 01417A5:,45o: o2 4<1 /ou748 ,8 4<1 8ol1 ,7.54178 o2 8u/<
588u1.

(n appeal, the Court of 2ppeals ruled in fa#or of the respondents) It declared @2R 2)() No) /, s) &//-, #oid for
being contrar$ to the intent of the &/01 Constitutional Commission to e4clude li#estock farms from the land
reform program of the go#ernment) *he dispositi#e portion reads+
W"ERE(ORE, premises considered, @2R 2dministrati#e (rder No) ./, ;eries of &//- is
hereb$DECLARED null and #oid) *he assailed order of the (ffice of the President dated ./
(ctober '..& in so far as it affirmed the @epartment of 2grarian ReformBs ruling that petitionersB
landholding is co#ered b$ the agrarian reform program of the go#ernment
is RE&ERSED and SE% ASIDE.
;( (R@ERE@) [11]
Cence, this petition)
*he main issue in the case at bar is the constitutionalit$ of @2R 2)() No) /, series of &//-, which prescribes a
ma4imum retention limit for owners of lands de#oted to li#estock raising)
In#oking its rule9making power under ;ection 8/ of the C2R!, petitioner submits that it issued @2R 2)() No) /
to limit the area of li#estock farm that ma$ be retained b$ a landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public
and pri#ate agricultural lands under the co#erage of agrarian reform) Petitioner also contends that the 2)() seeks
to remed$ reports that some unscrupulous landowners ha#e con#erted their agricultural farms to li#estock farms
in order to e#ade their co#erage in the agrarian reform program)

PetitionerBs arguments fail to impress)

2dministrati#e agencies are endowed with powers legislati#e in nature, i.e.! the power to make rules and
regulations) *he$ ha#e been granted b$ Congress with the authorit$ to issue rules to regulate the implementation
of a law entrusted to them) @elegated rule9making has become a practical necessit$ in modern go#ernance due to
the increasing comple4it$ and #ariet$ of public functions) Cowe#er, while administrati#e rules and regulations
ha#e the force and effect of law, the$ are not immune from judicial re#iew) [12] *he$ ma$ be properl$ challenged
before the courts to ensure that the$ do not #iolate the Constitution and no gra#e abuse of administrati#e
discretion is committed b$ the administrati#e bod$ concerned)

*he fundamental rule in administrati#e law is that, 4o .1 6,l50, ,0A5:5847,4561 7ul18 ,:0 71=ul,45o:8 must be
issued b$ authorit$ of a law and Au84 :o4 /o:47,61:1 4<1 >7o6585o:8 o2 4<1 Co:8454u45o:. [1;] *he rule9making
power of an administrati#e agenc$ ma$ not be used to abridge the authorit$ gi#en to it b$ Congress or b$ the
Constitution) No7 /,: 54 .1 u810 4o 1:l,7=1 4<1 >o@17 o2 4<1 ,0A5:5847,4561 ,=1:/y .1yo:0 4<1 8/o>1
5:41:010) Co:8454u45o:,l ,:0 84,4u4o7y >7o6585o:8 /o:47ol @54< 718>1/4 4o @<,4 7ul18 ,:0 71=ul,45o:8 A,y .1
>7oAul=,410 .y ,0A5:5847,4561 ,=1:/518 ,:0 4<1 8/o>1 o2 4<157 71=ul,45o:8. [14]

In the case at bar, we find that the impugned 2)() is in#alid as it contra#enes the Constitution) *he 2)() sought to
regulate li#estock farms b$ including them in the co#erage of agrarian reform and prescribing a ma4imum
retention limit for their ownership) Cowe#er, 4<1 01l5.17,45o:8 o2 4<1 198H Co:8454u45o:,l CoAA5885o: 8<o@ ,
/l1,7 5:41:4 4o 13/lu01, inter alia, ,ll l,:08 13/lu8561ly 016o410 4o l56184o/B, 8@5:1 ,:0 >oul47y- 7,585:=. *he
Court clarified in the LuD (,7A8 case that li#estock, swine and poultr$9raising are industrial acti#ities and do not
fall within the definition of Bagriculture or Bagricultural acti#it$) *he raising of li#estock, swine and poultr$ is
different from crop or tree farming) It is an industrial, not an agricultural, acti#it$) 2 great portion of the
in#estment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fi4ed assets, such as+ animal housing structures and
facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mi4ers, con#e$ors, e4hausts and generators,
e4tensi#e warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti9pollution e3uipment like bio9gas and digester
plants augmented b$ lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, ele#ated water tanks, pumphouses, spra$ers, and
other technological appurtenances)[1I]

Clearl$, petitioner DAR <,8 :o >o@17 4o 71=ul,41 l56184o/B 2,7A8 @<5/< <,61 .11: 131A>410 .y 4<1
Co:8454u45o: 27oA 4<1 /o617,=1 o2 ,=7,75,: 712o7A. It has e4ceeded its power in issuing the assailed 2)()

*he subse3uent case of N,4,l5, R1,l4y, I:/. 6. DAR [1F] reiterated our ruling in the LuD (,7A8case) In N,4,l5,
R1,l4y, the Court held that industrial, commercial and residential lands are not co#ered b$ the C2R!) [1H] Ae
stressed anew that @<5l1 S1/45o: 4 o2 R.A. No. FFIH >7o65018 4<,4 4<1 CARL 8<,ll /o617 ,ll >u.l5/ ,:0
>756,41 ,=75/ul4u7,l l,:08, 4<1 417A ,=75/ul4u7,l l,:0 0o18 :o4 5:/lu01 l,:08 /l,8852510 ,8 A5:17,l, 2o7184,
718501:45,l, /oAA17/5,l o7 5:0u8475,l. *hus, in N,4,l5, R1,l4y , e#en portions of the 2ntipolo Cills ;ubdi#ision,
which are,7,.l1 y14 845ll u:0161lo>10, could not be considered as agricultural lands subject to agrarian reform as
these lots were alread$ classified as residential lands)

2 similar logical deduction should be followed in the case at bar) !ands de#oted to raising of li#estock, poultr$
and swine ha#e been classified as industrial, not agricultural, lands and thus e4empt from agrarian reform)
Petitioner @2R argues that, in issuing the impugned 2)(), it was seeking to address the reports it has recei#ed
that some unscrupulous landowners ha#e been con#erting their agricultural lands to li#estock farms to a#oid their
co#erage b$ the agrarian reform) 2gain, we find neither merit nor logic in this contention) %<1 u:01857,.l1
8/1:,75o @<5/< >14545o:17 811B8 4o >7161:4 @54< 4<1 588u,:/1 o2 4<1 A.O. /l1,7ly 0o18 :o4 ,>>ly 5: 4<58
/,81. RespondentsB famil$ ac3uired their landholdings as earl$ as &/80) *he$ ha#e long been in the business of
breeding cattle in asbate which is popularl$ known as the cattle9breeding capital of the
Philippines) [18] Petitioner @2R does not dispute this fact) Indeed, there is no e#idence on record that
respondents ha#e just recentl$ engaged in or con#erted to the business of breeding cattle after the enactment of
the C2R! that ma$ lead one to suspect that respondents intended to e#ade its co#erage) It must be stressed that
what the C2R! prohibits is the /o:61785o: o2 ,=75/ul4u7,l l,:08 2o7 :o:-,=75/ul4u7,l >u7>o818 after the
effecti#it$ of the C2R!) %<171 <,8 .11: :o /<,:=1 o2 .u85:188 5:417184 5: 4<1 /,81 o2 718>o:01:48.

oreo#er, it is a fundamental rule of statutor$ construction that the reenactment of a statute b$ Congress without
substantial change is an implied legislati#e appro#al and adoption of the pre#ious law) (n the other hand, b$
making a new law, Congress seeks to supersede an earlier one) [19] In the case at bar, after the passage of the &/00
C2R!, Congress enacted R)2) No) 100& [20] which amended certain pro#isions of the C2R!) ;pecificall$, 4<1
:1@ l,@ /<,:=10 4<1 0125:545o: o2 4<1 417A8 L,=75/ul4u7,l ,/45654y ,:0 L/oAA17/5,l 2,7A5:= .y 07o>>5:=
27oA 548 /o617,=1 l,:08 4<,4 ,71 016o410 4o /oAA17/5,l l56184o/B, >oul47y ,:0 8@5:1-7,585:=. [21] W54< 4<58
85=:525/,:4 Ao0525/,45o:, Co:=7188 /l1,7ly 8ou=<4 4o ,l5=: 4<1 >7o6585o:8 o2 ou7 ,=7,75,: l,@8 @54< 4<1
5:41:4 o2 4<1 198H Co:8454u45o:,l CoAA5885o: 4o 13/lu01 l56184o/B 2,7A8 27oA 4<1 /o617,=1 o2 ,=7,75,:
712o7A.

In sum, it is doctrinal that rules of administrati#e bodies must be in harmon$ with the pro#isions of the
Constitution) *he$ cannot amend or e4tend the Constitution) *o be #alid, the$ must conform to and be consistent
with the Constitution) In case of conflict between an administrati#e order and the pro#isions of the Constitution,
the latter pre#ails) [22] *he assailed 2)() of petitioner @2R was properl$ stricken down as unconstitutional as it
enlarges the co#erage of agrarian reform be$ond the scope intended b$ the &/01 Constitution)

IN &IEW W"EREO(, the petition is @I;I;;E@) *he assailed @ecision and Resolution of the Court of
2ppeals, dated ;eptember &/, '..- and 7ebruar$ 8, '..8, respecti#el$, are 277IRE@) No pronouncement as to
costs)

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 14;I9F * D1/1A.17 11, 200;]
JUDGE %O!AS C. LE'NES, #etitioner, v. *CE C(I;;I(N (N 2E@I* 5C(26, C(N) >RE>(RI2 ;)
(N>, @IREC*(R, C(I;;I(N (N 2E@I* and C(N) ;2!?2CI(N @2!I;2H, PR(?INCI2!
2E@I*(R, 4espondents)
@ E C I ; I ( N
C(R(N2, H.+
Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule =< in relation to ;ection ', Rule =8 of the Rules of Court, seeking
to re#erse and set aside the decision%& dated ;eptember &8, &/// of the Commission on 2udit 5C(26, affirming
the resolution of C(2 Regional @irector >regoria ;) (ng dated arch '/, &//8 which in turn affirmed the
opinion dated (ctober &/, &//- of the Pro#incial 2uditor of (riental indoro, ;al#acion ) @alisa$) 2ll three
denied the grant ofP&,=.. monthl$ allowance to petitioner ,udge *omas C) !e$nes b$ the unicipalit$ of Naujan,
(riental indoro)
72C*E2! 2N*ECE@EN*;
Petitioner ,udge *omas C) !e$nes who, at present, is the presiding judge of
the Regional *rial Court of Calapan Cit$, (riental indoro, Branch 8. was formerl$ assigned to
the unicipalit$ of Naujan, (riental indoro as the sole presiding judge of the unicipal *rial Court thereof) 2s
such, his salar$ and representation and transportation allowance 5R2*26 were drawn from the budget of the
;upreme Court) In addition, petitioner recei#ed a monthl$ allowance of P/88 from the local funds%' of
the unicipalit$ of Naujan starting &/08.%-
(n arch &<, &//-, the (angguniang Bayan of Naujan, through Resolution No) .<1, sought the opinion of the
Pro#incial 2uditor and the Pro#incial Budget (fficer regarding an$ budgetar$ limitation on the grant of a
monthl$ allowance b$ the municipalit$ to petitioner judge) (n a$ 1, &//-, the (angguniang Bayan unanimousl$
appro#ed Resolution No) &.& increasing petitioner judges monthl$ allowance from P/88 to P&,=.. 5an increase
of P=<=6 starting a$ &//-)%8 B$ #irtue of said resolution, the municipal go#ernment 5the unicipal a$or and
the(angguniang Bayan6 appro#ed a supplemental budget which was likewise appro#ed b$
the (angguniang #anlalawiganand the (ffice of Pro#incial Budget and anagement of (riental indoro) In
&//8, the unicipal >o#ernment of Naujan again pro#ided for petitioner judges P&,=.. monthl$ allowance in its
annual budget which was again appro#ed b$ the (angguniang #anlalawigan and the (ffice of Pro#incial Budget
and anagement of (riental indoro)%<
(n 7ebruar$ &1, &//8, Pro#incial 2uditor ;al#acion ) @alisa$ sent a letter to the unicipal a$or and
the(angguniang Bayan of Naujan directing them to stop the pa$ment of the P&,=.. monthl$ allowance or R2*2
to petitioner judge and to re3uire the immediate refund of the amounts pre#iousl$ paid to the latter) ;he opined
that the unicipalit$ of Naujan could not grant R2*2 to petitioner judge in addition to the R2*2 the latter was
alread$ recei#ing from the ;upreme Court) Cer directi#e was based on the following+
;ection -=, R2 No) 1=8<, >eneral 2ppropriations 2ct of &//-
Representation and *ransportation 2llowances) *he following officials and those of e3ui#alent rank as ma$ be
determined b$ the @epartment of Budget and anagement 5@B6 while in the actual performance of their
respecti#e functions are hereby granted monthly commutable representation and transportation allowances
payable from the programmed appropriations provided for their respective offices! not e%ceeding the rates
indicated below . ) )
National Compensation Circular No) =1 dated ,anuar$ &, &//', of the @epartment of Budget and anagement
;ubject+ Representation and *ransportation 2llowances of National >o#ernment (fficials and Emplo$ees
4 4 4
8) 7unding ;ource+ In all cases, commutable and reimbursable R2*2 shall be paid from the amount appropriated
for the purpose and other personal ser#ices sa#ings of the agenc$ or project from where the officials and
employees covered under this Circular draw their salaries. 5o one shall be allowed to collect 4A;A from more
than one source)%=5emphasis supplied6
Petitioner judge appealed to C(2 Regional @irector >regoria ;) (ng who, howe#er, upheld the opinion of
Pro#incial 2uditor @alisa$ and who added that Resolution No) &.&, ;eries of &//- of the (angguniang Bayan of
Naujan failed to compl$ with ;ection - of !ocal Budget Circular No) <- dated ;eptember &, &//- outlining the
conditions for the grant of allowances to judges and other national officials or emplo$ees b$ the local go#ernment
units 5!>Es6) ;ection - of the said budget circular pro#ides that+
;ec) - 2llowances) T !>Es ma$ grant allowancesMadditional compensation to the national go#ernment
officialsMemplo$ees assigned to their localit$ at rates authori"ed b$ law, rules and regulations and subject to the
following preconditions+
a) *hat the annual income or finances of the municipalit$, cit$ or pro#ince as certified b$ the 2ccountant
concerned will allow the grant of the allowancesMadditional compensation without e4ceeding the general
limitations for personal ser#ices under ;ection -'< of R2 1&=.:
b) *hat the budgetar$ re3uirements under ;ection -'8 of R2 1&=. including the full re3uirement of R2 =1<0
ha#e been satisfied and pro#ided full$ in the budget as certified b$ the Budget (fficer and C(2 representati#e in
the !>E concerned:
c) *hat the !>E has full$ implemented the de#olution of personnelMfunctions in accordance with the pro#isions of
R2 1&=.:
d) *hat the !>E has alread$ created mandator$ positions prescribed in R2 1&=.: and
e) *hat similar allowancesMadditional compensation are not granted b$ the national go#ernment to the
officialsMemplo$ees assigned to the !>E)%1
Petitioner judge appealed the unfa#orable resolution of the Regional @irector to the Commission on 2udit) In the
meantime, a disallowance of the pa$ment of the P&,=.. monthl$ allowance to petitioner was issued) *hus he
recei#ed his P&,=.. monthl$ allowance from the unicipalit$ of Naujan onl$ for the period a$ &//- to ,anuar$
&//8)
(n ;eptember &8, &///, the C(2 issued its decision affirming the resolution of Regional @irector >regoria ;)
(ng+
*he main issue ) ) ) is whether or not the unicipalit$ of Naujan, (riental indoro can #alidl$ pro#ide R2*2 to
its unicipal ,udge, in addition to that pro#ided b$ the ;upreme Court)
>enerall$, the grant of 5R2*26 %sicJ to 3ualified national go#ernment officials and emplo$ees pursuant to ;ection
-= of R)2) 1=8< %>eneral 2ppropriations 2ct of &//-J and NCC No) =1 dated .& ,anuar$ &//' is subject to the
following conditions to wit+
&) Pa$able from the programmed Mappropriated amount and others from personal ser#ices sa#ings of the
respecti#e offices where the officials or emplo$ees draw their salaries:
') Not e4ceeding the rates prescribed b$ the 2nnual >eneral 2ppropriations 2ct:
-) (fficials Memplo$ees on detail with other offices or assigned to ser#e other offices or agencies shall be paid
from their parent agencies:
8) No one shall be allowed to collect R2*2 from more than one source)
(n the other hand, the municipal go#ernment ma$ pro#ide additional allowances and other benefits to judges and
other national go#ernment officials or emplo$ees assigned or stationed in the municipalit$, pro#ided, that the
finances of the municipalit$ allow the grant thereof pursuant to ;ection 881, Par) & 54i6, R)2) 1&=., and pro#ided
further, that similar allowanceMadditional compensation are not granted b$ the national go#ernment to the
officialMemplo$ee assigned to the local go#ernment unit as pro#ided under ;ection -5e6 of !ocal Budget Circular
No) <-, dated .& ;eptember &//-)
;he conflicting provisions of (ection <<2! #ar. D.E D%iE of the 'ocal 0overnment Code of .//. and (ection 79 of
the 0eneral Appropriations Act of .//7 J4A 29<IK have been harmoni$ed by the 'ocal Budget Circular 5o. I7
dated L. (eptember .//7! issued by the Department of Budget and anagement pursuant to its powers under
(ection 8I and (ection 782 of the 'ocal 0overnment Code. *he said circular must be adhered to b$ the local
go#ernment units particularl$ ;ection - thereof which pro#ides the implementing guidelines of ;ection 881, Par)
5&6 54i6 of the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//& in the grant of allowances to national go#ernment
officialsMemplo$ees assigned or stationed in their respecti#e local go#ernment units)
Conse3uentl$, the subject ;B Resolution No) &.& dated && a$ &//- of the ;angguniang Ba$an of Naujan,
(riental indoro, ha#ing failed to compl$ with the inherent precondition as defined in ;ection - 5e6) ) ) is null and
#oid) 7urthermore, the Conorable ,udge *omas C) !e$nes, being a national go#ernment official is prohibited to
recei#e additional R2*2 from the local go#ernment fund pursuant to ;ection -= of the >eneral 2ppropriations
2ct 5R)2) 1=8< for &//-6 and National Compensation Circular No) =1 dated & ,anuar$ &//')%0 5emphasis ours6
2;;I>NEN*; (7 ERR(R
Petitioner judge filed a motion for reconsideration of the abo#e decision but it was denied b$ the Commission in a
resolution dated a$ -., '...) 2ggrie#ed, petitioner filed the instant petition, raising the following assignments
of error for our consideration+
I
ACE*CER (R N(* RE;(!E*I(N N() &(&, ;ERIE; (7 &//- (7 N2E,2N, (RIEN*2! IN@(R(,
ACICC >R2N*E@ 2@@I*I(N2! 2!!(A2NCE *( *CE ENICIP2! *RI2! ,E@>E (7 N2E,2N,
(RIEN*2! IN@(R( 2N@ INCRE2;IN> CI; CERREN* REPRE;EN*2*I(N 2N@ *R2?E!!IN>
2!!(A2NCE 5R2*26 *( 2N 2(EN* EIEI?2!EN* *( *C2* RECEI?E@ (N*C!H BH
;2N>>ENI2N> EBER; IN PE;(;+ (NE *C(E;2N@ ;ID CEN@RE@ 5P&,=..)..6 E77EC*I?E &//-,
I; ?2!I@)
II
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE P(AER (7 ENICIP2! >(?ERNEN*; *( >R2N* 2@@I*I(N2!
2!!(A2NCE; 2N@ (*CER BENE7I*; *( N2*I(N2! >(?ERNEN* EP!(HEE; ;*2*I(NE@ IN
*CEIR ENICIP2!I*H I; ?ERH EDP!ICI* 2N@ ENEIEI?(C2! EN@ER *CE !(C2!
>(?ERNEN* C(@E (7 &//& P2R*ICE!2R!H ;EC*I(N 881 IN RE!2*I(N *( ;EC*I(N; &1 2N@
'' *CERE(7)
III
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE @EP2R*EN* (7 BE@>E* 2N@ 2N2>EEN* 5@B6 C2N, BH *CE
I;;E2NCE (7 BE@>E* CIRCE!2R;, RE;*RIC* 2 ENICIP2! >(?ERNEN* 7R( EDERCI;IN>
I*; >I?EN !E>I;!2*I?E P(AER; (7 PR(?I@IN> 2@@I*I(N2! 2!!(A2NCE; 2N@ (*CER
BENE7I*; *( N2*I(N2! EP!(HEE; ;*2*I(NE@ (R 2;;I>NE@ *( *CEIR ENICIP2!I*H 7(R
2; !(N> 2; *CEIR 7IN2NCE; ;( 2!!(A)
I?
ACE*CER (R N(* *CE !(C2! >(?ERNEN* C(@E (7 &//& P2R*ICE!2R!H ;EC*I(N 881 5a6 5&6
54i6 A2; EDPRE;;!H (R IP!IE@!H REPE2!E@ (R (@I7IE@ BH REPEB!IC 2C* 1=8< 2N@ *CE
>ENER2! 2PPR(PRI2*I(N; 2C* (7 &//-)
?
ACE*CER (R N(* PE*I*I(NER A2; EN*I*!E@ *( RECEI?E *CE 2@@I*I(N2! 2!!(A2NCE;
>R2N*E@ *( CI BH *CE ENICIP2!I*H (7 N2E,2N, (RIEN*2! IN@(R( BH ?IR*EE (7 I*;
RE;(!E*I(N N() &.&, ;ERIE; (7 &//-)
P(;I*I(N (7 C(2
Respondent Commission on 2udit opposes the grant b$ the unicipalit$ of Naujan of the P&,=.. monthl$
allowance to petitioner ,udge !e$nes for the reason that the municipalit$ could not grant R2*2 to judges in
addition to the R2*2 alread$ recei#ed from the ;upreme Court)%/ Respondent bases its contention on the
following+
&) National Compensation Circular No) =1 5hereafter NCC No) =16 dated ,anuar$ &, &//' of the @epartment of
Budget and anagement 5@B6 which pro#ides that 5a6 the R2*2 of national officials and emplo$ees shall be
pa$able from the programmed appropriations or personal ser#ices sa#ings of the agenc$ where such officials or
emplo$ees draw their salar$ and 5b6 no one shall be allowed to collect R2*2 from more than one source:
') the >eneral 2ppropriations 2ct of &//- 5R2 1=8<6 which pro#ided that the R2*2 of national officials shall be
pa$able from the programmed appropriations of their respecti#e offices and
-) !ocal Budget Circular No) <- 5hereafter !BC No) <-6 dated ;eptember &, &//- of the @B which prohibits
local go#ernment units from granting allowances to national go#ernment officials or emplo$ees stationed in their
localities when such allowances are also granted b$ the national go#ernment or are similar to the allowances
granted b$ the national go#ernment to such officials or emplo$ees)%&.
P(;I*I(N (7 PE*I*I(NER
Petitioner judge, on the other hand, asserts that the municipalit$ is e4pressl$ and une3ui#ocall$ empowered b$
R2 1&=. 5the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&6 to enact appropriation ordinances granting allowances and other
benefits to judges stationed in its territor$) ;ection 8815a65&654i6 of the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//& imposes
onl$ one condition, that is, when the finances of the municipal go#ernment allow) *he Code does not impose an$
other restrictions in the e4ercise of such power b$ the municipalit$) Petitioner also asserts that the @B cannot
amend or modif$ a substanti#e law like the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//& through mere budget circulars)
Petitioner emphasi"es that budget circulars must conform to, not modif$ or amend, the pro#isions of the law it
seeks to implement)%&&
CI;*(RH (7 >R2N* (7
2!!(A2NCE; *( ,E@>E;
*he power of local go#ernment units 5!>Es6 to grant allowances to judges stationed in their respecti#e territories
was originall$ pro#ided b$ !etter of Instruction No) &8&0 dated ,ul$ &0, &/08 5hereafter !(I No) &8&06+
ACERE2;, *CE ;*2*E I; C(>NIG2N* (7 *CE NEE@ *( 2IN*2IN *CE IN@EPEN@ENCE (7 *CE
,E@ICI2RH:
ACERE2;, *CE BE@>E*2RH 2!!(*EN* (7 *CE ,E@ICI2RH C(N;*I*E*E; (N!H 2 ;2!!
PERCEN*2>E (7 *CE N2*I(N2! BE@>E*:
ACERE2;, PRE;EN* EC(N(IC C(N@I*I(N; 2@?ER;E!H 277EC*E@ *CE !I?E!IC((@ (7 *CE
EBER; (7 *CE ,E@ICI2RH:
ACERE2;, ;(E !(C2! >(?ERNEN* ENI*; 2RE RE2@H, AI!!IN> 2N@ 2B!E *(
P2H ADDI;I)5A' A'')*A5CE( ;) H+D0E( ), =A4I)+( C)+4;( AI*CIN *CEIR RE;PEC*I?E
*ERRI*(RI2! ,ERI;@IC*I(N:
Now, therefore, I, 7erdinand E) arcos, President of the Republic of the Philippines, do hereb$ direct+
&) ;ection - of !etter of Implementation No) /= is hereb$ amended to read as follows+
-) *he allowances pro#ided in this letter shall be borne e4clusi#el$ b$ the National
>o#ernment)&owever! provincial! city and municipal governments may pay additional
allowances to the members and personnel of the Hudiciary assigned in their respective
areas out of available local funds but not to e4ceed P&,<..)..: Pro#ided, that in
etropolitan anila, the cit$ and municipal go#ernments therein ma$ pa$ additional
allowances not e4ceeding P-,...)..) 5emphasis ours6%&'
(n ,une '<, &//&, the @B issued Circular No) /&91 outlining the guidelines for the continued receipt of
allowances b$ judges from !>Es+
Consistent with the constitutional pro#ision on the fiscal autonom$ of the judiciar$ and the polic$ of the National
>o#ernment of allowing greater autonom$ to local go#ernment units, judges of the Hudiciary are hereby allowed
to continue to receive allowances at the same rates which they have been receiving from the 'ocal 0overnment
+nits as of Hune 7L! ./1/, subject to the following guidelines+
&) *hat the continuance of pa$ment of subject allowance to the recipient judge shall be entirel$ #oluntar$ and
non9compulsor$ on the part of the !ocal >o#ernment Enits:
') *hat pa$ment of the abo#e shall alwa$s be subject to the a#ailabilit$ of local funds:
-) *hat it shall be made onl$ in compliance with the polic$ of non9diminution of compensation recei#ed b$ the
recipient judge before the implementation of the salar$ standardi"ation:
8) *hat the subject allowance shall be gi#en onl$ to judges who were recei#ing the same as of ,une -., &/0/ and
shall be co9terminous with the incumbent judges: and
<) *hat the subject allowance shall automaticall$ terminate upon transfer of a judge from one local go#ernment
unit to another local go#ernment unit) 5emphasis ours6
(n (ctober &., &//&, Congress enacted R2 1&=., otherwise known as the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&)
%&- *he power of the !>Es to grant allowances and other benefits to judges and other national officials stationed
in their respecti#e territories was e4pressl$ pro#ided in ;ections 8815a65&654i6, 8<05a65&654i6 and 8=05a65&654i6 of
the Code)
(n arch &<, &//8, the @B issued !ocal Budget Circular No) << 5hereafter !BC No) <<6 setting out the
ma4imum amount of allowances that !>Es ma$ grant to judges) 7or pro#inces and cities, the amount should not
e4ceedP&,... and for municipalities, P1..)
(n @ecember -, '..', we struck down the abo#e circular in Dadole! et al. vs. C)A.%&8 Ae ruled there that the
!ocal >o#ernment Code of &//& clearl$ pro#ided that !>Es could grant allowances to judges, subject onl$ to the
condition that the finances of the !>Es allowed it. Ae held that setting a uniform amount for the grant of
allowances 5was6 an inappropriate wa$ of enforcing said criterion) 2ccordingl$, we declared that the @B
e4ceeded its power of super#ision o#er !>Es b$ imposing a prohibition that did not jibe with the !ocal
>o#ernment Code of &//&)%&<
E;*2B!I;CE@ PRINCIP!E; IN?(!?E@
7rom the foregoing histor$ of the power of !>Es to grant allowances to judges, the following principles should
be noted+
&) the power of !>Es to grant allowances to judges has long been recogni"ed 5since &/08 b$ #irtue of !(I No)
&8&06 and, at present, it is e4pressl$ and une3ui#ocall$ pro#ided in ;ections 881, 8<0 and 8=0 of the !ocal
>o#ernment Code of &//&:
') the issuance of @B Circular No) /&91 dated ,une '<, &//& and !BC No) << dated arch &<, &//8 indicates
that the national go#ernment recogni"es the power of !>Es to grant such allowances to judges:
-) in Circular No) /&91, the national go#ernment merel$ pro#ides the guidelines for the continued receipt of
allowances b$ judges from !>Es while in !BC No) <<, the national go#ernment merel$ tries to limit the amount
of allowances !>Es ma$ grant to judges and
8) in the recent case of Dadole! et al. vs. C)A! the Court upheld the constitutionall$ enshrined autonom$ of !>Es
to grant allowances to judges in any amount deemed appropriate, depending on a#ailabilit$ of funds, in
accordance with the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&)
(ER RE!IN>
Ae rule in fa#or of petitioner judge) Respondent C(2 erred in opposing the grant of the P&,=.. monthl$
allowance b$ the unicipalit$ of Naujan to petitioner ,udge !e$nes)
@I;CE;;I(N (7 (ER RE!IN>
;ection 8815a65&654i6 of R2 1&=., the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&, pro#ides+
5a6 *he sangguniang ba$an, as the legislati#e bod$ of the municipalit$, shall enact ordinances, appro#e
resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipalit$ and its inhabitants ) ) ), and shall+
5&6 2ppro#e ordinances and pass resolutions necessar$ for an efficient and effecti#e municipal go#ernment, and
in this connection shall+
4 4 4
54i6 *hen the finances of the municipal government allow, pro#ide for additional allowances and other benefits to
judges, prosecutors, public elementar$ and high school teachers, and other national go#ernment officials stationed
in or assigned to the municipalit$: 5emphasis ours6
Respondent C(2, howe#er, contends that the abo#e section has been repealed, modified or amended b$ NCC No)
=1 dated ,anuar$ &, &//', R2 1=8< 5the >eneral 2ppropriations 2ct of &//-6 and !BC No) <- dated ;eptember
&, &//-)%&=
It is elementar$ in statutor$ construction that an administrati#e circular cannot supersede, abrogate, modif$ or
nullif$ a statute) 2 statute is superior to an administrati#e circular, thus the latter cannot repeal or amend it)%&1 In
the present case, NCC No) =1, being a mere administrati#e circular, cannot repeal a substanti#e law like R2 1&=.)
It is also an elementar$ principle in statutor$ construction that repeal of statutes b$ implication is not fa#ored,
unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended) *he legislature is assumed to know the e4isting laws on the
subject and cannot be presumed to ha#e enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes)%&0 Respondent C(2 alleges
that ;ection -= of R2 1=8< 5the >22 of &//-6 repealed ;ection 8815a65l654i6 of R2 1&=. 5the !>C of &//&6) 2
re#iew of the two laws, howe#er, shows that this was not so) ;ection -= of R2 1=8< merel$ pro#ided for the
different rates of R2*2 pa$able to national go#ernment officials or emplo$ees, depending on their position, and
stated that these amounts were pa$able from the programmed appropriations of the parent agencies to which the
concerned national officials or emplo$ees belonged) 7urthermore, there was no other pro#ision in R2 1=8< from
which a repeal of ;ection 8815a6 5l654i6 of R2 1&=. could be implied) In the absence, therefore, of an$ clear
repeal of ;ection 8815a65l654i6 of R2 1&=., we cannot presume such intention on the part of the legislature)
oreo#er, the presumption against implied repeal becomes stronger when, as in this case, one law is special and
the other is general)%&/ *he principle is e4pressed in the ma4im generalia specialibus non derogant! a general law
does not nullif$ a specific or special law) *he reason for this is that the legislature, in passing a law of special
character, considers and makes special pro#isions for the particular circumstances dealt with b$ the special law)
*his being so, the legislature, b$ adopting a general law containing pro#isions repugnant to those of the special
law and without making an$ mention of its intention to amend or modif$ such special law, cannot be deemed to
ha#e intended an amendment, repeal or modification of the latter)%'.
In this case, R2 1&=. 5the !>C of &//&6 is a special law%'& which e4clusi#el$ deals with local go#ernment units
5!>Es6, outlining their powers and functions in consonance with the constitutionall$ mandated polic$ of local
autonom$) R2 1=8< 5the >22 of &//-6, on the other hand, was a general law%'' which outlined the share in the
national fund of all branches of the national go#ernment) R2 1=8< therefore, being a general law, could not ha#e,
b$ mere implication, repealed R2 1&=.) Rather, R2 1&=. should be taken as the e4ception to R2 1=8< in the
absence of circumstances warranting a contrar$ conclusion)%'-
*he contro#ers$ actuall$ centers on the seemingl$ sweeping pro#ision in NCC No) =1 which states that no one
shall be allowed to collect R2*2 from more than one source) @oes this mean that judges cannot recei#e
allowances from !>Es in addition to the R2*2 from the ;upreme CourtO 7or reasons that will hereinafter be
discussed, we answer in the negati#e)
*he pertinent pro#isions of NCC No) =1 read+
-) Rules and Regulations+
-)&)& Pa$ment of R2*2, whether commutable or reimbursable, shall be in accordance with the
rates prescribed for each of the following officials and emplo$ees and those of e3ui#alent
ranks, and the conditions enumerated under the pertinent sections of the >eneral
Pro#isions of the annual >eneral 2ppropriations 2ct 5>226+
4 4 4
8) 7unding ;ource+
In all cases! commutable and reimbursable 4A;A shall be paid from the amount appropriated for the purpose
and other personal services savings of the agency or project from where the officials and employees covered
under this Circular draw their salaries. 5o one shall be allowed to collect 4A;A from more than one
source. 5emphasis ours6
In construing NCC No) =1, we appl$ the principle in statutor$ construction that force and effect should not be
narrowl$ gi#en to isolated and disjoined clauses of the law but to its spirit, broadl$ taking all its pro#isions
together in one rational #iew)%'8 Because a statute is enacted as a whole and not in parts or sections, that is, one
part is as important as the others, the statute should be construed and gi#en effect as a whole) 2 pro#ision or
section which is unclear b$ itself ma$ be clarified b$ reading and construing it in relation to the whole statute)%'<
*aking NCC No) =1 as a whole then, what it seeks to pre#ent is the dual collection of R2*2 b$ a national official
from the budgets of more than one national agenc$) Ae emphasi"e that the other source referred to in the
prohibition isanother national agency) *his can be gleaned from the fact that the sentence no one shall be allowed
to collect R2*2 from more than one source 5the contro#ersial prohibition6 immediatel$ follows the sentence that
R2*2 shall be paid from the budget of the national agenc$ where the concerned national officials and emplo$ees
draw their salaries) *he fact that the other source is another national agenc$ is supported b$ R2 1=8< 5the >22 of
&//-6 in#oked b$ respondent C(2 itself and, in fact, b$ all subse3uent >22s for that matter, because the >22s
all essentiall$ pro#ide that 5&6 the R2*2 of national officials shall be pa$able from the budgets of their respecti#e
national agencies and 5'6 those officials on detail with other national agencies shall be paid their R2*2 onl$ from
the budget of their parent national agenc$+
;ection -=, R2 1=8<, >eneral 2ppropriations 2ct of &//-+
4epresentation and ;ransportation Allowances. ;he following officials and those of e3uivalent ran6 as may be
determined by the Department of Budget and anagement DDBE while in the actual performance of their
respective functions are hereby granted monthly commutable representation and transportation allowances
payable from the programmed appropriations provided for their respective offices! not e%ceeding the rates
indicated below! which shall apply to each type of allowanceG
4 4 4
)fficials on detail with other offices! including officials of the Commission of Audit assigned to serve other offices
or agencies! shall be paid the allowance herein authori$ed from the appropriations of their parent agencies)
5emphasis ours6
Clearly therefore! the prohibition in 5CC 5o. 92 is only against the dual or multiple collection of 4A;A by a
national official from the budgets of two or more national agencies. (tated otherwise! when a national official is
on detail with another national agency! he should get his 4A;A only from his parent national agency and not
from the other national agency he is detailed to.
;ince the other source referred in the contro#ersial prohibition is another national agency, said prohibition clearl$
does not appl$ to !>Es like the unicipalit$ of Naujan) National agenc$ of course refers to the different offices,
bureaus and departments comprising the national go#ernment) *he budgets of these departments or offices are
fi4ed annuall$ b$ Congress in the >eneral 2ppropriations 2ct)%'= 2n !>E is ob#iousl$ not a national agenc$) Its
annual budget is fi4ed b$ its own legislati#e council 5(angguniang Bayan, Panlungsod or #anlalawigan6, not b$
Congress) Aithout doubt, NCC No) =1 does not appl$ to !>Es)
*he prohibition in NCC No) =1 is in fact an administrati#e tool of the @B to pre#ent the much9abused practice
of multiple allowances, thus standardi"ing the grant of R2*2 b$ national agencies) *hus, the purpose clause of
NCC No) =1 reads+
*his Circular is being issued to ensure uniformit$ and consistenc$ of actions on claims for representation and
transportation allowance 5R2*26 which is primaril$ granted b$ law to national go#ernment officials and
emplo$ees to co#er e4penses incurred in the discharge or performance of their duties and responsibilities)
B$ no stretch of the imagination can NCC No) =1 be construed as nullif$ing the power of !>Es to grant
allowances to judges under the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&) It was issued primaril$ to make the grant of
R2*2 to national officials under the national budget uniform) In other words, it applies onl$ to the national funds
administered b$ the @B, not the local funds of !>Es)
*o rule against the power of !>Es to grant allowances to judges as what respondent C(2 would like us to do
will sub#ert the principle of local autonom$ "ealousl$ guaranteed b$ the Constitution)%'1 *he !ocal >o#ernment
Code of &//& was speciall$ promulgated b$ Congress to ensure the autonom$ of local go#ernments as mandated
b$ the Constitution) B$ upholding, in the present case, the power of !>Es to grant allowances to judges and
lea#ing to their discretion the amount of allowances the$ ma$ want to grant, depending on the a#ailabilit$ of local
funds, we ensure the genuine and meaningful local autonom$ of !>Es)
Ae now discuss the ne4t contention of respondent C(2+ that the resolution of the (angguniang Bayan of Naujan
granting the P&,=.. monthl$ allowance to petitioner judge was null and #oid because it failed to compl$ with
!BC No) <- dated ;eptember &, &//-+
;ec) - 2llowances) T !>Es ma$ grant allowancesMadditional compensation to the national go#ernment
officialsMemplo$ees assigned to their localit$ at rates authori"ed b$ law, rules and regulations and subject to the
following preconditions+
a) *hat the annual income or finances of the municipalit$, cit$ or pro#ince as certified b$ the
2ccountant concerned will allow the grant of the allowancesMadditional compensation
without e4ceeding the general limitations for personal ser#ices under ;ection -'< of R2
1&=.:
b) *hat the budgetar$ re3uirements under ;ection -'8 of R2 1&=. including the full re3uirement of
R2 =1<0 ha#e been satisfied and pro#ided full$ in the budget as certified b$ the Budget
(fficer and C(2 representati#e in the !>E concerned:
c) *hat the !>E has full$ implemented the de#olution of personnelMfunctions in accordance with
the pro#isions of R2 1&=.:
d) *hat the !>E has alread$ created mandator$ positions prescribed in R2 1&=.)
e) *hat similar allowancesMadditional compensation are not granted b$ the national go#ernment to
the officialsMemplo$ees assigned to the !>E)
*hough !BC No) <- of the @B ma$ be considered within the ambit of the PresidentBs power of general
super#ision o#er !>Es,%'0 we rule that ;ection -, paragraph 5e6 thereof is in#alid) R2 1&=., the !ocal
>o#ernment Code of &//&, clearl$ pro#ides that pro#incial, cit$ and municipal go#ernments ma$ grant
allowances to judges as long as their finances allow) ;ection -, paragraph 5e6 of !BC No) <-, b$ outrightl$
prohibiting !>Es from granting allowances to judges whene#er such allowances are 5&6 also granted b$ the
national go#ernment or 5'6 similar to the allowances granted b$ the national go#ernment, #iolates ;ection 8815a6
5l654i6 of the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&)%'/ 2s alread$ stated, a circular must conform to the law it seeks to
implement and should not modif$ or amend it)%-.
oreo#er, b$ prohibiting !>Es from granting allowances similar to the allowances granted b$ the national
go#ernment, ;ection - 5e6 of !BC No) <- practicall$ prohibits !>Es from granting allowances to judges and, in
effect, totall$ nullifies their statutor$ power to do so) Being undul$ restricti#e therefore of the statutor$ power of
!>Es to grant allowances to judges and being #iolati#e of their autonom$ guaranteed b$ the Constitution, ;ection
-, paragraph 5e6 of !BC No) <- is hereb$ declared null and #oid)
Paragraphs 5a6 to 5d6 of said circular, howe#er, are #alid as the$ are in accordance with ;ections -'8%-& and
-'<%-'of the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&: these respecti#el$ pro#ide for the budgetar$ re3uirements and
general limitations on the use of pro#incial, cit$ and municipal funds) Paragraphs 5a6 to 5d6 are proper guidelines
for the condition pro#ided in ;ections 881, 8<0 and 8=0 of the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//& that !>Es ma$
grant allowances to judges if their funds allow)%--
Respondent C(2 also argues that Resolution No) &.& of the (angguniang Bayan of Naujan failed to compl$ with
paragraphs 5a6 to 5d6 of !BC No) <-, thus it was null and #oid)
*he argument is misplaced)
>uidelines 5a6 to 5d6 were met when the (angguniang #anlalawigan of (riental indoro appro#ed Resolution
No) &.& of the (angguniang Bayan of Naujan granting the P&,=.. monthl$ allowance to petitioner judge as well
as the corresponding budgets of the municipalit$ pro#iding for the said monthl$ allowance to petitioner judge)
Ender ;ection -'1 of the !ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&, the (angguniang #anlalawigan was specificall$
tasked to re#iew the appropriation ordinances of its component municipalities to ensure compliance with ;ections
-'8 and -'< of the Code) Considering said dut$ of the ;angguniang #anlalawigan! we will assume, in the
absence of proof to the contrar$, that the (angguniang #anlalawigan of (riental indoro performed what the law
re3uired it to do, that is, re#iew the resolution and the corresponding budgets of the unicipalit$ of Naujan to
make sure that the$ complied with ;ections -'8 and -'< of the Code)%-8 Ae presume the regularit$ of
the (angguniang #anlalawigans official act)
oreo#er, it is well9settled that an ordinance must be presumed #alid in the absence of e#idence showing that it is
not in accordance with the law)%-< Respondent C(2 had the burden of pro#ing that Resolution No) &.& of
the(angguniang Bayan of Naujan did not compl$ with the condition pro#ided in ;ection 881 of the Code, the
budgetar$ re3uirements and general limitations on the use of municipal funds pro#ided in ;ections -'8 and -'< of
the Code and the implementing guidelines issued b$ the @B, i)e), paragraphs 5a6 to 5d6, ;ection - of !BC No)
<-) Respondent C(2 also had the burden of showing that the (angguniang #anlalawigan of (riental indoro
erroneousl$ appro#ed said resolution despite its non9compliance with the re3uirements of the law) It failed to
discharge such burden) (n the contrar$, we find that the resolution of the unicipalit$ of Naujan granting
the P&,=.. monthl$ allowance to petitioner judge full$ complied with the law) *hus, we uphold its #alidit$)
In sum, we hereb$ affirm the power of the unicipalit$ of Naujan to grant the 3uestioned allowance to petitioner
,udge !e$nes in accordance with the constitutionall$ mandated polic$ of local autonom$ and the pro#isions of the
!ocal >o#ernment Code of &//&) Ae also sustain the #alidit$ of Resolution No) &.&, ;eries of &//-, of
the(angguniang Bayan of Naujan for being in accordance with the law)
W"ERE(ORE, the petition is hereb$ >R2N*E@) *he assailed decision dated ;eptember &8, &/// of the
Commission of 2udit is hereb$ ;E* 2;I@E and ;ection -, paragraph 5e6 of !BC No) <- is hereb$ declared
NE!! and ?(I@)
No costs)
;( (R@ERE@)
G.R. No. 1F8990 * Ju:1 1F, 200F
%ERESI%A S. BARRANCO, #etitioner! v) CO!!ISSION ON %"E SE%%LE!EN% O( LAND
ROBLE!S, 4espondent.
@ E C I ; I ( N
'NARES-SAN%IAGO, J.%
*his Petition for Re#iew on Certiorari
&
under Rule 8< of the Rules of Court assails the ;eptember -, '..8
@ecision
'
of the Court of 2ppeals in C29>)R) ;P No) =/08< and its ,ul$ '8, '..< Resolution
-
den$ing the
otion for Reconsideration of petitioner *eresita ;) Barranco) *he Court of 2ppeals re#ersed and set aside the
(ctober '/, '..& (rder
8
of the Regional *rial Court of Iloilo Cit$, Branch -- in ;pecial Ci#il Case No) .&9'=0//
enjoining the respondent Commission on the ;ettlement of !and Problems 5C(;!2P6 from implementing the
writ of demolition it issued for being null and #oid for lack of jurisdiction as well as the ,anuar$ &&, '..'
(rder
<
den$ing reconsideration thereof)
*he facts of the case as found b$ the Court of 2ppeals are as follows+cra+nad
*he Commission on the ;ettlement of !and Problems 5C(;!2P for bre#it$6 is a go#ernment entit$ under the
@epartment of ,ustice, created and e4isting b$ #irtue of E4ecuti#e (rder No) <=&) It was created as a means of
pro#iding a more effecti#e mechanism for the e4peditious settlement of land problems in general, which are
fre3uentl$ the source of conflicts among settlers, landowners and cultural minorities) 5BaPaga #s Coslap, &0&
;CR2 <//6, 5*he Enited #s Coslap, et al, >)R) No) &-</8<, arch 1, '..&6)
(n 2pril '=, '..., ,osefina Beliran, the daughter of Crestituto @iolosa wrote two handwritten letter9complaints in
Ilonggo to C(;!2P against *eresita Barranco and Paciencia ;iatong which were docketed as C(;!2P Cases
Nos) I!9..9.=9&- and I!9..9.=9&8, respecti#el$, alleging that the structures built b$ Barranco and ;iatong
encroached on the propert$ owned b$ her father located at Corner Compania and ;an ,uan, olo, Iloilo Cit$)
2cting on the said letter9complaints, C(;!2P Iloilo thru 2ttorne$ Cansel () @idulo issued summons to enjoin
the appearance of the parties therein)
2fter receipt of the summons, Barranco filed a anifestationMotion dated a$ '/, '... which pra$ed for the
dismissal of the complaint on the ground, among others, of lack of jurisdiction)
*he anifestationMotion was denied in an (rder dated ,une &=, '... for being a prohibited pleading under Rule
?III, ;ection & of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission)
@uring the mediation conference held on ,une ', '... b$ C(;!2P Iloilo, Beliran and Barranco, through her
2ttorne$9in97act, 2tt$) ,osefa *abares, entered into an 2micable ;ettlement and agreed on the following terms+
F2IC2B!E ;E**!EEN*F
F@uring a mediation conference held on ,une ', '..., both parties agreed to settle their case amicabl$)
*he$ agreed on the following matters+cra+nad
5&6 *hat the disputed propert$ is to be subjected to a relocation sur#e$ to be conducted b$ an independent
sur#e$or on ,une &<, '...) E4pense of the sur#e$ is to be shouldered b$ the complainant: and
5'6 *hat the respondent agrees that she will respect the result of the sur#e$) In case the structure she built %isJ
inside the complainantBs propert$ she will #acate the area within one 5&6 month after the issuance of the result of
the sur#e$ and without cost on the part of the owner of the propert$)F
Cowe#er, on ,une &<, '..., Barranco repudiated the 2micable ;ettlement and reiterated the pra$er in her
anifestation dated a$ '/, '... for the dismissal of the case) *he ;P2 e4ecuted in fa#or of the attorne$9in9fact
was re#oked on ,une &8, '... in a document FRe#ocation of ;pecial Power of 2ttorne$)F
(n the same da$, C(;!2P Iloilo issued a resolution appro#ing the 2micable ;ettlement and enjoined the parties
to strictl$ compl$ with the terms thereof) 2t the same time, the relocation sur#e$ agreed on the 2micable
;ettlement was conducted)
(n ,une '&, '... C(;!2P Iloilo thru 2tt$) @odulo denied BarrancoBs otion for Repudiation of 2micable
;ettlement dated ,une &<, '...)
2fterwards, on ,ul$ '&, '..., >eodetic Engineer Rogelio ;antome submitted his ;ur#e$ Report which found that
the house of Paciencia ;iatong is inside !ot &=&&9@9& 5*C* No) &&='=-6, a parcel of land formerl$ owned b$
BeliranBs father 5Crestituto @iolosa6 and sold to C)2) >reenworld @e#elopment Corp), while a portion of the
house of *eresita Barranco was inside !ot &=&&9@9- 5*C* No) &&='=<6 also owned b$ @iolosa)
In a Resolution dated ,une '0, '..., C(;!2P ain (ffice appro#ed the 2micable ;ettlement and rendered
judgment in accordance therewith on the ground that it is not contrar$ to law, morals, good custom, public order
and polic$)
@issatisfied with the Resolution, Barranco filed a otion for Reconsideration with otion to Inhibit Cearing
(fficer dated 2ugust 8, '...) *his was denied b$ C(;!2P in a Resolution dated (ctober &0, '...)
2ggrie#ed, Barranco filed a Petition for Certiorari with pra$er for a writ of preliminar$ prohibitor$ injunction
dated ,anuar$ '., '..& with the ;upreme Court assailing the jurisdiction of the C(;!2P) *he Petition was
docketed as >)R) No) &8=1'/ captioned F*eresita Barranco #s) ,osefina Beliran, Conorable *eresita Re$es9
@omingo, in her capacit$ as (IC9Commission ChairPerson III, Commission on the ;ettlement of !and Problems,
@epartment of ,ustice, Iue"on Cit$, 2tt$) Cansel () @idulo, in his capacit$ as Cearing (fficer, Commission on
the ;ettlement of !and Problems, Iloilo)F
*he Petition was howe#er dismissed b$ the ;upreme Court in a Resolution dated arch &', '..& for late filing as
the petition was filed be$ond the reglementar$ period of si4t$ 5=.6 da$s as fi4ed in ;ection 8, Rule =< of the &//1
Code of Ci#il Procedure)
2 otion for Reconsideration of the afore9stated Resolution was filed but likewise denied with finalit$ b$ the
;upreme Court in a Resolution dated ,une &0, '..&)
2ccordingl$, an Entr$ of ,udgment was issued b$ the ;upreme Court certif$ing that the resolution dismissing the
case had become final and e4ecutor$ on ,ul$ &&, '..&)
Prior howe#er to the filing of the Petition for Certiorari with the ;upreme Court b$ Barranco, Beliran alread$
mo#ed for the issuance of a writ of e4ecution to enforce the said C(;!2P Resolution on @ecember &8, '...)
(n 7ebruar$ &=, '..&, C(;!2P issued a Arit of E4ecution in the two cases) *he same was howe#er returned
unsatisfied, compelling Beliran to file a otion for the Issuance of a Arit of @emolition dated 2pril ', '..&)
2cting on said motion of Beliran, C(;!2P issued a Arit of @emolition on 2ugust /, '..&)
*eresita Barranco, Paciencia ;iatong and heirs of ,ulia Rodrigue", represented b$ their attorne$9in9fact ,osefa
*abaras, filed a special ci#il action for Injunction and Prohibition with pra$er for the issuance of a restraining
order in the court a 3uo on ;eptember 8, '..& against C(;!2P, Beliran and the Cit$ ;heriff of Iloilo) *he said
ci#il action was docketed as Ci#il Case No) .&9'=0// and was raffled to the respondent judge for the proper
disposition thereof)
=
cra
(n (ctober '/, '..&, the trial court issued an (rder
1
enjoining the implementation of the writ of demolition based
on its findings that C(;!2P did not ac3uire jurisdiction o#er the dispute because the letters of Beliran did not
constitute as #alid complaints in accordance with C(;!2PBs Rule of Procedure) *he trial court denied C(;!2PBs
motion for reconsideration
0
hence it filed before the Court of 2ppeals a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and
andamus with Pra$er for the Issuance of a Arit of Preliminar$ Injunction which was granted b$ the appellate
court, to wit+cra+nad
ACERE7(RE, in #iew of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereb$ rendered b$ us >R2N*IN> the petition
filed in this case, ;E**IN> 2;I@E the (rders issued b$ the respondent judge on (ctober '/, '..& and ,anuar$
&&, '..' and (R@ERIN> the respondent judge to dismiss Ci#il Case No) .&9'=0//)
/
cra
2ccording to the Court of 2ppeals, the trial court committed gra#e abuse of discretion when it unjustifiabl$ failed
to dismiss the Petition for Injunction and Prohibition with Pra$er for the Issuance of Restraining (rder filed
before it on the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping) *he appellate court pointed out that there is res
judicata since this Court alread$ dismissed a similar petition in >)R) No) &8=1'/ on arch &', '..&
&.
which
decision became final and e4ecutor$ on ,ul$ &&, '..&)
&&
*he Court of 2ppeals also found petitioner guilt$ for
forum shopping because after getting an unfa#orable decision from this Court due to the dismissal of the petition
for certiorari, she again filed before the trial court another petition based on the same facts and against the same
parties which similarl$ sought to restrain the e4ecution of the (rders of C(;!2P) 7inall$, the appellate court
declared that trial courts cannot restrain C(;!2P from e4ecuting its (rders or Resolutions because the latter,
being a 3uasi9judicial agenc$ e4ercising 3uasi9judicial functions, is co9e3ual in power and competence with the
former)
&'
cra
PetitionerBs motion for reconsideration was denied,
&-
hence this petition based on the following grounds+
5a6
*CE C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; ERRE@ 2N@ 72I!E@ IN N(* RE!IN> (N *CE I;;EE (7 ACE*CER (R
N(* RE;P(N@EN* C(I;;I(N (N *CE ;E**!EEN* (7 !2N@ PR(B!E; C2;, 2* *CE
(N;E*, ,ERI;@IC*I(N (?ER *CE 2**ER; ;EB,EC* (7 *CE !E**ER9REIEE;* (7 ,(;E7IN2 @)
BE!IR2N 2N@ IN N(* 7IN@IN> *C2* *CE ARI*; (7 EDECE*I(N 2N@ @E(!I*I(N I;;EE@ BH
*CE RE;P(N@EN* C(I;;I(N (N *CE ;E**!EEN* (7 !2N@ PR(B!E;, 2RE ?(I@ 7(R
!2CK (7 ,ERI;@IC*I(N:
5b6
*CE C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; ERRE@ IN ;E**IN> 2;I@E *CE (R@ER; I;;EE@ BH *CE RE>I(N2!
*RI2! C(ER*, BR2NCC -- *CERE(7, @2*E@ (C*(BER '/, '..& 2N@ ,2NE2RH &&, '..', 2N@ IN
(R@ERIN> *CE PRE;I@IN> ,E@>E *CERE(7 *( @I;I;; *CE CI?I! C2;E, PE*I*I(N 7(R
IN,ENC*I(N 2N@ PR(CIBI*I(N, @(CKE*E@ 2; CI?I! C2;E N() .&9'=0//, 7I!E@ BH PE*I*I(NER
CEREIN, P2CENCI2 ;I2(*(N>, 2N@ *CE CEIR; (7 ,E!I2 R(@RI>EEG ;2!2;:
5c6
*CE C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; ERRE@ IN I*; 7IN@IN> *C2* *CE PE*I*I(N 7(R IN,ENC*I(N 2N@
PR(CIBI*I(N 7I!E@ BH CEREIN PE*I*I(NER AI*C *CE RE>I(N2! *RI2! C(ER* @(CKE*E@ 2;
;PECI2! CI?I! C2;E N() .&9'=0//, I; B2RRE@ BH RE; ,E@IC2*2: '6 *C2* *CERE I; 7(RE
;C(PPIN> IN *CE 7I!IN> (7 *CE ;2E: 2N@ -6 *C2* *CE (R@ER; (7 *CE RE>I(N2! *RI2!
C(ER* %IJ; *2IN*E@ AI*C >R2?E 2BE;E (7 @I;CRE*I(N)
&8
*he issues for resolution are+ &6 Ahether the filing b$ petitioner of the Petition for Injunction and Prohibition
before the Regional *rial Court of Iloilo Cit$, Branch -- and docketed as ;pecial Ci#il Case No) .&9'=0// is
barred b$ res judicata considering the prior dismissal b$ this Court of petitionerBs petition for certiorari with
pra$er for a writ of preliminar$ injunction docketed as >)R) No) &8=1'/: '6 Ahether petitioner is guilt$ of forum
shopping: and -6 Ahether the C(;!2P has jurisdiction o#er the dispute between petitioner and Beliran)
Petitioner maintains that the dismissal b$ this Court of the Petition for Certiorari docketed as >)R) No) &8=1'/ is
not a bar to the filing of the instant case as the dismissal was based on a mere technicalit$, i)e), for late filing)
*here being no judgment rendered on the merits, then the principle of res judicata cannot be successfull$
in#oked)
Ae agree) 2 cursor$ e4amination of the records shows that res judicata will not appl$)
7or res judicata to appl$ the following elements must concur+ 5a6 the former judgment must be final: 5b6 the court
which rendered it had jurisdiction o#er the subject matter and the parties: 5c6 it must be a judgment on the merits:
and, 5d6 there must be as between the first and second actions identit$ of parties, subject matter and causes of
action)
&<
cra
*he ;upreme Court resol#ed to dismiss the petition for certiorari in >)R) No) &8=1'/ for late filing, as the
petition was filed be$ond the reglementar$ period of =. da$s fi4ed in ;ection 8, Rule =< of the Rules of Court)
*he arch &', '..& Resolution of this Court in >)R) No) &8=1'/ reads+cra+nad
In accordance with Rule =< and other related pro#isions of the &//1 Rules of Ci#il Procedure as amended
go#erning petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed with the ;upreme Court, onl$ petitions which
are accompanied b$ or which compl$ strictl$ with the re3uirements specified therein shall be entertained) (n the
basis thereof, the Court Resol#es to @I;I;; the instant special ci#il action for certiorari, with pra$er for a writ
of preliminar$ prohibitor$ injunction andMor the issuance of a temporar$ restraining order, assailing the resolution
of the Commission on the ;ettlement on !and Problems dated (ctober &0, '... for late filing, as the petition was
filed be$ond the reglementar$ period of si4t$ 5=.6 da$s fi4ed in ;ec) 8, Rule =<)
&=
cra
Clearl$ the dismissal was based on sheer technicalit$) ;ince no judgment on the merits was rendered after
consideration of the e#idence or stipulation submitted b$ the parties at the trial of the case, it falls short of one of
the essential re3uisites of res judicata that the judgment should be one on the merits)
*he appellate court howe#er correctl$ ruled that petitioner is guilt$ of forum shopping) Petitioner deliberatel$
sought another forum, i)e), the Regional *rial Court of Iloilo Cit$, to grant her relief after this Court dismissed her
petition 3uestioning the jurisdiction of C(;!2P) Ahat petitioner should ha#e done after C(;!2P dismissed the
motion to dismiss and after this Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for late filing, was to wait for the final
#erdict of C(;!2P and to appeal therefrom, instead of seeking recourse from the trial court through a petition to
enjoin the enforcement of C(;!2PBs writ of demolition and the order den$ing the repudiation of the amicable
settlement)
*he Court is full$ aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simpl$ disregarded for these prescribed
procedures insure an orderl$ and speed$ administration of justice) Cowe#er, it is e3uall$ true that litigation is not
merel$ a game of technicalities) !aw and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogati#e to rela4 compliance with
procedural rules of e#en the most mandator$ character, mindful of the dut$ to reconcile both the need to put an
end to litigation speedil$ and the partiesB right to an opportunit$ to be heard)
&1
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
In (anche$ v. Court of Appeals,
&0
the Court restated the reasons which ma$ pro#ide justification for a court to
suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such as+ 5a6 matters of life, libert$, honor or propert$: 5b6 the
e4istence of special or compelling circumstances, 5c6 the merits of the case, 5d6 a cause not entirel$ attributable to
the fault or negligence of the part$ fa#ored b$ the suspension of the rules, 5e6 a lack of an$ showing that the
re#iew sought is merel$ fri#olous and dilator$, and 5f6 the other part$ will not be unjustl$ prejudiced thereb$)
*hus, an$ procedural lapse that ma$ ha#e been committed b$ the petitioner should not deter us from resol#ing the
merits of the instant case considering that the dismissal of the present appeal would unlawfull$ depri#e the
petitioner of her possessorial right o#er !ot No) &=&&9@9-)
Ae now come to the core issue of whether C(;!2P has jurisdiction o#er the dispute between petitioner and
Beliran)
Petitioner mainl$ argues that C(;!2P was without jurisdiction in entertaining BeliranBs complaints and in
promulgating the assailed (rderMResolution because the matter falls within the primar$ and e4clusi#e original
jurisdiction of the @epartment of 2grarian Reform 2djudication Board 5@2R2B6)
In resol#ing this issue, an account of the laws creating C(;!2P and its predecessor, the Presidential 2ction
Committee on !and Problems 5P2C!2P6, is in order)
C(;!2P was created on ;eptember '&, &/1/ b$ #irtue of E4ecuti#e (rder 5E)()6 No) <=&) Its forerunner, the
P2C!2P, was created on ,ul$ -&, &/1., pursuant to E)() No) '<&) 2s originall$ concei#ed, the committee was
tasked to e4pedite and coordinate the in#estigation and resolution of land disputes, streamline and shorten
administrati#e procedures, adopt bold and decisi#e measures to sol#e land problems, andMor recommend other
solutions) It was gi#en the power to issue subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum and to call upon an$
department, office, agenc$ or instrumentalit$ of the go#ernment, including go#ernment owned or controlled
corporations, and local go#ernment units, for assistance in the performance of its functions)
&/
cra
Ender Presidential @ecree 5P)@)6 No) 0-' issued on No#ember '1, &/1<, the President enlarged the functions and
duties of the P2C!2P, to include 3uasi9judicial functions, thus+cra+nad
;ection ') 7unctions and duties of the P2C!2P) *he P2C!2P shall ha#e the following functions and duties+
&) @irect and coordinate the acti#ities, particularl$ the in#estigation work, of the #arious go#ernment agencies and
agencies in#ol#ed in land problems or disputes, and streamline administrati#e procedures to relie#e small settlers
and landholders and members of cultural minorities of the e4pense and time9consuming dela$ attendant to the
solution of such problems or disputes:
') Refer for immediate action an$ land problem or dispute brought to the attention of the P2C!2P, to an$
member agenc$ ha#ing jurisdiction thereof+ Pro#ided, *hat when the E4ecuti#e Committee decides to act on a
case, its resolution, order or decision thereon, shall ha#e the force and effect of a regular administrati#e resolution,
order or decision, and shall be binding upon the parties therein in#ol#ed and upon the member agenc$ ha#ing
jurisdiction thereof:
4 4 4
8) E#ol#e and implement a s$stem of procedure for the speed$ in#estigation and resolution of land disputes or
problems at pro#incial le#el, if possible:
4 4 4 4)
(n ;eptember '&, &/1/, P2C!2P was abolished and its functions were transferred to C(;!2P b$ #irtue of E)()
No) <=& which granted C(;!2P the following adjudicator$ functions+cra+nad
;EC*I(N -) #owers and ,unctions) 9 *he Commission shall ha#e the following powers and functions+
4 4 4
') Refer and follow9up for immediate action b$ the agenc$ ha#ing appropriate jurisdiction an$ land problem or
dispute referred to the Commission+ Pro#ided, *hat the Commission may! in the following cases! assume
jurisdiction and resolve land problems or disputes which are critical and e%plosive in nature considering! for
instance! the large number of the parties involved! the presence or emergence of social tension or unrest! or other
similar critical situations re3uiring immediate actionG
DaE Between occupants>s3uatters and pasture lease agreement holders or timber concessionaires?
DbE Between occupants>s3uatters and government reservation grantees?
DcE Between occupants>s3uatters and public land claimants or applicants?
DdE #etitions for classification! release and>or subdivision of lands of the public domain? and
DeE )ther similar land problems of grave urgency and magnitude.
*he Commission shall promulgate such rules and procedures as will insure e4peditious resolution and action on
the abo#e cases) *he resolution, order or decision of the Commission on an$ of the foregoing cases shall ha#e the
force and effect of a regular administrati#e resolution, order or decision and shall be binding upon the parties
therein and upon the agenc$ ha#ing jurisdiction o#er the same) ;aid resolution, order or decision shall become
final and e4ecutor$ within thirt$ 5-.6 da$s from its promulgation and shall be appealable b$ certiorari onl$ to the
;upreme Court)
4 4 4 4) 5Emphasis added6
2dministrati#e agencies, like the C(;!2P, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and, as such, could wield onl$
such as are specificall$ granted to them b$ the enabling statutes)
'.
Ender E)() No) <=&, C(;!2P has two options
in acting on a land dispute or problem lodged before it, to wit+ 5a6 refer the matter to the agenc$ ha#ing
appropriate jurisdiction for settlementMresolution: or 5b6 assume jurisdiction if the matter is one of those
enumerated in paragraph '5a6 to 5e6 of the law, if such case is critical and e4plosi#e in nature, taking into account
the large number of parties in#ol#ed, the presence or emergence of social unrest, or other similar critical situations
re3uiring immediate action) In resol#ing whether to assume jurisdiction o#er a case or to refer the same to the
particular agenc$ concerned, the C(;!2P has to consider the nature or classification of the land in#ol#ed, the
parties to the case, the nature of the 3uestions raised, and the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to
pre#ent injuries to persons and damage or destruction to propert$) *he law does not #est jurisdiction on the
C(;!2P o#er an$ land dispute or problem)
'&
cra
*he instances when C(;!2P ma$ resol#e land disputes are limited onl$ to those in#ol#ing public lands or lands
of the public domain or those co#ered with a specific license from the go#ernment such as a pasture lease
agreement, a timber concession, or a reser#ation grant)
''
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
!ot &=&&9@9- is a pri#ate propert$, ha#ing been registered under the *orrens s$stem in the name of the Ceirs of
,ulia Rodrigue" ;alas) *he parties claiming the propert$ are herein petitioner and Beliran, none of whom is a
s3uatter, patent lease agreement holder, go#ernment reser#ation grantee, public land claimant or occupant, or a
member of an$ cultural minorit$)
'-
*he dispute between them was not critical or e4plosi#e in nature as would
generate social tension or unrest, or a critical situation which re3uired immediate action) Clearl$, the present
dispute did not fall within C(;!2PBs jurisdiction)
Neither does the dispute fall within the jurisdiction of @2R2B, as claimed b$ the petitioner) *he jurisdiction of
the @2R2B is pro#ided in ;ection <. of Republic 2ct 5R)2)6 No) ==<1 which reads+cra+nad
;EC) <.) @uasi-Hudicial #owers of the @2R) 9 *he @2R is hereb$ #ested with the primar$ jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall ha#e e4clusi#e original jurisdiction o#er all matters
in#ol#ing the implementation of agrarian reform, e4cept those falling under the e4clusi#e jurisdiction of the
@epartment of 2griculture 5@26 and the @epartment of En#ironment and Natural Resources 5@ENR6)
7urthermore, it is pro#ided in ;ection &, Rule II of the @2R2B Rules of Procedure of &//8 that+cra+nad
;ec) &) #rimary and E%clusive )riginal and Appellate Hurisdiction) *he Board shall ha#e primar$ e4clusi#e
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes in#ol#ing the
implementation of the Comprehensi#e 2grarian Reform Program 5C2RP6 under Republic 2ct No) ==<1,
E4ecuti#e (rder Nos) ''0, and &'/92, Republic 2ct No) -088 as amended b$ Republic 2ct No)
=-0/, 718501:45,l D1/711 No. 2H%,J and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations)
;pecificall$, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to cases in#ol#ing the following+cra+nad
a6 *he rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, culti#ation and
use of all agricultural lands co#ered b$ the C2RP and other agrarian laws 4 4 4) 5Emphasis added6
Ae clarified, howe#er, in Isidro v. Court of Appeals
'8
that+cra+nad
4 4 4 a case in#ol#ing an agricultural land does not automaticall$ make such case an agrarian dispute, upon which
the @2R2B has jurisdiction) 4 4 4 *he law states that an agrarian dispute must be a contro#ers$ relating to a
tenurial arrangement o#er lands de#oted to agriculture) 2nd as pre#iousl$ mentioned, such arrangement ma$ be
leasehold, tenanc$ or stewardship)
Ae also held in @uremdes #) @uremdes
'<
that+cra+nad
4 4 4 7or the @2R2B to ha#e jurisdiction o#er the case, there must be a tenanc$ relationship between the parties)
In order for a tenanc$ agreement to take hold o#er a dispute, it is essential to establish all its indispensable
elements, to wit+cra+nad
&6 %*Jhat the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee: '6 that the subject matter of the
relationship is an agricultural land: -6 that there is consent between the parties to the relationship: 86 that the
purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production: <6 that there is personal culti#ation on the
part of the tenant or agricultural lessee: and =6 that the har#est is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee)
In the case before us, petitioner does not ha#e tenurial arrangement of an$ kind with Beliran or @iolasa, and the
necessar$ elements enumerated in Duremdes v. Duremdes are wanting as well) *here being no agrarian dispute
between the parties, the @2R2B has no jurisdiction o#er the case)
W"ERE(ORE, the instantpetition is >R2N*E@) *he ;eptember -, '..8 @ecision and the ,ul$ '8, '..<
Resolution of the Court of 2ppeals in C29>)R) ;P No) =/08< are ;E* 2;I@E) *he (ctober '/, '..& (rder of
the Regional *rial Court of Iloilo Cit$, Branch -- in ;pecial Ci#il Case No) .&9'=0// which issued a temporar$
restraining order enjoining C(;!2P from implementing its writ of demolition for being null and #oid for lack of
jurisdiction, as well as the ,anuar$ &&, '..' (rder den$ing reconsideration thereof, are REIN;*2*E@) *he
Commission on the ;ettlement of !and Problems is hereb$ (R@ERE@ to dismiss C(;!2P Case No) I!9..9.=9
.&- for lack of jurisdiction)
SO ORDERED.
[G.R. No8. 14H9;;-;4. D1/1A.17 12, 2001]
UBLIC ES%A%ES AU%"ORI%',, #etitioner, v. E!PI@I( ;) EH, doing business under the name and st$le
E@I;(N @E?E!(PEN* L C(N;*REC*I(N, 2N@ *CE C(ER* (7 2PPE2!;, 4espondents)
@ E C I ; I ( N
HN2RE;9;2N*I2>(, H)+
*his is a petition for re#iew of the ,oint @ecision dated ;eptember '<, '... %& and the ,oint Resolution dated
2pril '<, '..& %' of the Court of 2ppeals in the consolidated cases C29>)R) ;P Nos) </-.0 and </08/)
Petitioner Public Estates 2uthorit$ is the go#ernment agenc$ tasked b$ the Bases Con#ersion @e#elopment
2uthorit$ to de#elop the first9class memorial park known as the Ceritage Park, located in 7ort Bonifacio, *aguig,
etro anila) (n No#ember '., &//=, petitioner e4ecuted with respondent Elpidio ;) E$, doing business under
the name and st$le Edison @e#elopment L Construction, a !andscaping and Construction 2greement, whereb$
respondent undertook to perform all landscaping works on the &.<9hectare Ceritage Park) *he 2greement
stipulated that the completion date for the landscaping job was within 8<. da$s, commencing within &8 da$s after
receipt b$ respondent from petitioner of a written notice to proceed) @ue to dela$s, the contracted period was
e4tended to =/- da$s) 2mong the causes of the dela$ was petitioners inabilit$ to deli#er to respondent 8< hectares
of the propert$ for landscaping, because of the e4istence of s3uatters and a public cemeter$)
Respondent instituted with the Construction Industr$ 2rbitration Commission an action, docketed as CI2C Case
No) .'9'..., seeking to collect from petitioner damages arising from its dela$ in the deli#er$ of the entire
propert$ for landscaping) ;pecificall$, respondent alleged that he incurred additional rental costs for the
e3uipment which were kept on stand9b$ and labor costs for the idle manpower) !ikewise, the dela$ incurred b$
petitioner caused the topsoil at the original supplier to be depleted, which compelled respondent to obtain the
topsoil from a farther source, thereb$ incurring added costs) Ce also claims that he had to mobili"e water trucks
for the plants and trees which ha#e alread$ been deli#ered at the site) 7urthermore, it became necessar$ to
construct a nurser$ shade to protect and preser#e the $oung plants and trees prior to actual transplanting at the
landscaped area)
(n a$ &=, '..., the CI2C rendered a decision, the dispositi#e portion of which reads+
W"ERE(ORE, judgment is hereb$ rendered in fa#or of the Claimant Contractor ELIDIO S.
U' and A@,70 is hereb$ made on its monetar$ claim as follows+
Respondent UBLIC ES%A%ES AU%"ORI%' is directed to pa$ the Claimant the following amounts+
19,F04,1;2.0F 999 for the cost of idle time of e3uipment)
2,2HI,H21.00 999 for the cost of idled manpower)
F,0I0,1FI.0I 999 for the construction of the nurser$ shade net area)
F0I,01F.I0 999 for attorne$s fees)
Interest on the amount of F,0I0,1FI.0I as cost for the construction of the nurser$ shade net area shall be paid at
the rate of =Q per annum from the date the Complaint was filed on &' ,anuar$ '...) Interest on the total amount
of 21,8H9,8I;.0F for the cost of idled manpower and e3uipment shall be paid at the same rate of =Q per annum
from the date this @ecision is promulgated) 2fter finalit$ of this @ecision, interest at the rate of 12P per annum
shall be paid on the total of these - awards amounting to 2H,9;0,018.11 until full pa$ment of the awarded
amount shall ha#e been made, this interim period being deemed to be at that time already a forbearance of credit
DEastern (hipping 'ines! Inc. v. Court of Appeals! et al.! '8- ;CR2 10 %&//8J: :eng &ua #aper #roducts Co.!
Inc. v. Court of Appeals! '0= ;CR2 '<1 %&//0J: Crismina 0arments! Inc. v. Court of Appeals! >)R) No) &'01'&,
arch /, &///6)
;( (R@ERE@) %-
Both petitioner and respondent filed petitions for re#iew with the Court of 2ppeals) In C29>)R) ;P No) </-.0,
petitioner contested the monetar$ awards gi#en b$ the CI2C) (n the other hand, respondent filed C29>)R) ;P
No) </08/, arguing that the CI2C erred in awarding a reduced amount for e3uipment stand9b$ costs and for
den$ing his claims for additional costs for topsoil hauling and operating costs of water trucks)
*he two petitions were consolidated) (n ;eptember '<, '..., the Court of 2ppeals rendered the now assailed
,oint @ecision, dismissing the petitions, to wit+
ACERE7(RE, premises considered, the petitions in C29>)R) ;P No) </-.0, entitled Pu!lic Estates &utorit" v.
Elpidio 0. C", doin$ !usiness under te na#e and st"le of Edison *evelop#ent > Construction! and C29>)R)
;P No) </08/, Elpidio 0. C", doin$ !usiness under te na#e and st"le of Edison *evelop#ent > Construction
v. Pu!lic Estates &utorit"! are both hereb$ @ENIE@ @EE C(ER;E and accordingl$, @I;I;;E@, for lack of
merit)
Conse3uentl$, the 2wardM@ecision issued b$ the Construction Industr$ 2rbitration Commission on a$ &=, '...
in CI2C Case No) .'9'.., entitled Elpidio 0. C", doin$ !usiness under te na#e and st"le of Edison
*evelop#ent > Construction v. Pu!lic Estates &utorit"! is hereb$ 277IRE@ in toto)
No pronouncement as to costs)
;( (R@ERE@)%8
Both parties filed motions for reconsideration) ;ubse3uentl$, petitioner filed with the Court of 2ppeals an Ergent
otion for Issuance of a *emporar$ Restraining (rder andMor Arit of Preliminar$ Injunction, seeking to enjoin
the CI2C from proceeding with CI2C Case No) .-9'..&, which respondent has filed) Petitioner alleged that the
said case in#ol#ed claims b$ respondent arising from the same !andscaping and Construction 2greement, subject
of the cases pending with the Court of 2ppeals)
(n 2pril '<, '..&, the Court of 2ppeals issued the assailed ,oint Resolution, thus+
ACERE7(RE, the present otionMs for Reconsideration in C29>)R) ;P No) </-.0 and C29>)R) ;P No) </08/
are hereb$ both @ENIE@, for lack of merit)
2ccordingl$, let an injunction issue permanentl$ enjoining the Construction Industr$ 2rbitration Commission
from proceeding with CI2C Case No) .-9'..&, entitled E8P)*)O 0. C@, doin$ !usiness under te na#e and
st"le of E*)0ON *EDE8OP5EN2 > CON02RCC2)ON v. PC;8)C E02&2E0 &C2/OR)2@ and6or
/ONOR&;8E C&R8O0 P. *O;8E.
;( (R@ERE@)%<
Cence, this petition for re#iew, raising the following arguments+
I
*CE C(N(R2B!E C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; >R2?E!H ERRE@ IN @ENHIN> @EE C(ER;E
PE*I*I(NER; D(ICE PE*I*I(N 7I!E@ PER;E2N* *( RE!E 8- (7 *CE &//1 RE!E; (7 CI?I!
PR(CE@ERE 2PPE2!IN> *CE 2@?ER;E @ECI;I(N (7 *CE CI2C 2 IE(
II
*CE C(N(R2B!E C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; >R2?E!H ERRE@ IN @ENHIN> *CE CEREIN PE*I*I(NER;
(*I(N 7(R REC(N;I@ER2*I(N (N *CE ,(IN* @ECI;I(N PR(E!>2*E@ (N ;EP*EBER '<,
'...)
III
*CE C(N(R2B!E C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; >R2?E!H ERRE@ IN N(* 2!!(AIN> *CE 2PPE2! (N
*CE ERI*; *( BE *CRE;CE@ (E* PER;E2N* *( EDI;*IN> !2A; 2N@ ,ERI;PRE@ENCE 2!!
IN IN*ERE;* (7 @EE PR(CE;;,)
I?
*CE C(N(R2B!E C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; ERRE@ IN @ENHIN> PE*I*I(NER; C!2I 7(R
ENREC(EPE@ B2!2NCE IN *CE &<Q 2@?2NCE P2HEN*: ENREC(EPE@ B2!2NCE (N PRE9
P2I@ 2*ERI2!;, 2N@ (?ERP2HEN* B2;E@ (N 2C*E2! P2HEN* 2@E 2; 2>2IN;*
PCH;IC2! 2CC(P!I;CEN*;)
?
*CE C(N(R2B!E C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; ERRE@ IN 277IRIN> *CE CI2C @ECI;I(N 7IN@IN>
RE;P(N@EN* EN*I*!E@ *( 2**(RNEH; 7EE; IN *CE 2(EN* (7 P=.<,./=)<. ACICC I; &.Q (7
*CE 2(EN* 2A2R@E@ 7(R *CE C!2I (7 NER;ERH ;C2@E C(N;*REC*I(N ACI!E
@ENHIN> PE*I*I(NER; C(EN*ERC!2I 7(R 2**(RNEH; 7EE;)
?I
*CE C(N(R2B!E C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; ERRE@ IN N(* 7IN@IN> *C2* PE*I*I(NER; (B!I>2*I(N,
I7 2NH, C2; BEEN E77EC*I?E!H ED*IN>EI;CE@)
?II
*CE C(N(R2B!E C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; ERRE@ IN N(* (R@ERIN> *CE RE;P(N@EN* *(
REIBER;E *CE PE*I*I(NER *CE 2(EN* (7 P-8<,<0-)'. *CE !2**ER P2I@ *( *CE
C(N;*REC*I(N IN@E;*RH 2RBI*R2*I(N C(I;;I(N)%=
2fter respondent filed its comment %1 on 2ugust '., '..&, this Court issued a resolution dated ;eptember -,
'..&%0 re3uiring petitioner to file its repl$ within ten da$s from notice) @espite ser#ice of the resolution on
petitioner and its counsel on (ctober &, '..&, no repl$ has been filed with this Court to date) *herefore, we
dispense with the filing of petitioners repl$ and decide this case based on the pleadings on record)
*he petition is without merit)
Petitioner assails the dismissal of its petition b$ the Court of 2ppeals based on a technicalit$, i.e.! the #erification
and certification of non9forum shopping was signed b$ its (fficer9in9Charge, who did not appear to ha#e been
authori"ed b$ petitioner to represent it in the case) Petitioner moreo#er argues that in an earlier resolution, the
7irst @i#ision of the Court of 2ppeals ga#e due course to its petition) @espite this, it was the ;e#enteenth
@i#ision of the Court of 2ppeals which rendered the ,oint @ecision dismissing its petition)
*he contention is untenable) Petitioner, being a go#ernment owned and controlled corporation, can act onl$
through its dul$ authori"ed representati#es) In the case of #remium arble 4esources! Inc. v. Court of
Appeals! %/ which the Court of 2ppeals cited, we made it clear that in the absence of an authorit$ from the board
of directors, no person, not e#en the officers of the corporation, can #alidl$ bind the corporation) %&. *hus, we
held in that case+
Ae agree with the finding of public respondent Court of 2ppeals, that in the absence of an$ board resolution from
its board of directors the %sicJ authorit$ to act for and in behalf of the corporation, the present action must
necessar$ fail) *he power of the corporation to sue and be sued in an$ court is lodged with the board of directors
that e4ercises its corporate powers) *hus, the issue of authorit$ and the in#alidit$ of plaintiff9appellants
subscription which is still pending, is a matter that is also addressed, considering the premises, to the sound
judgment of the ;ecurities and E4change Commission)%&&
*herefore, the Court of 2ppeals did not err in finding that, in #iew of the absence of a board resolution
authori"ing petitioners (fficer9in9Charge to represent it in the petition, the #erification and certification of non9
forum shopping e4ecuted b$ said officer failed to satisf$ the re3uirement of the Rules) In this connection, Rule 8-,
;ection 1, of the &//1 Rules of Ci#il Procedure categoricall$ pro#ides+
Effect of failure to comply with re3uirements. 999 *he failure of the petition to compl$ with an$ of the foregoing
re3uirements regarding the pa$ment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of ser#ice of
the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompan$ the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof)
2nent petitioners contention that its petition had alread$ been gi#en due course, it is well to note that under the
Internal Rules of the Court of 2ppeals, each case is raffled to a ,ustice twice 999 the first raffle for completion of
records and the second raffle for stud$ and report) %&' Cence, there was nothing unusual in the fact that its
petition was first raffled to the 7irst @i#ision of the Court of 2ppeals but was later decided b$ the ;e#enteenth
@i#ision thereof) Petitioners imputations of irregularit$ ha#e no basis whatsoe#er, and can onl$ #iewed as a
desperate attempt to muddle the issue b$ nit9picking on non9essential matters) !ikewise, the gi#ing of due course
to a petition is not a guarantee that the same will be granted on its merits)
;ignificantl$, the dismissal b$ the Court of 2ppeals of the petition was based not onl$ on its fatal procedural
defect, but also on its lack of substanti#e merit: specificall$, its failure to show that the CI2C committed gross
abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law, such as to warrant the re#ersal of its factual findings)
Ae ha#e carefull$ gone o#er the decision of the CI2C in CI2C Case No) .'9'..., and we ha#e found that it
contains an e4hausti#e discussion of all claims and counterclaims of respondent and petitioner, respecti#el$) ore
importantl$, its findings are well supported b$ e#idence which are properl$ referred to in the record) In all, we
ha#e found no ground to disturb the decision of the CI2C, especiall$ since it possesses the re3uired e4pertise in
the field of construction arbitration) It is well settled that findings of fact of administrati#e agencies and 3uasi9
judicial bodies, which ha#e ac3uired e4pertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are
generall$ accorded not onl$ respect, but finalit$ when affirmed b$ the Court of 2ppeals) %&-
*hus, we affirm the factual findings and conclusions of the CI2C as regards the arbitral awards to respondent)
*he records clearl$ show that these are ampl$ supported b$ substantial e#idence)
Coming now to petitioners counterclaims, we find that the CI2C painstakingl$ sifted through the records to
discuss these, despite its initial obser#ation that petitioner absolutel$ omitted to make an$ arguments to
substantiate the same) %&8 2s far as the unrecouped balance on prepaid materials are concerned, the CI2C found+
*he 2rbitral *ribunal finds the e#idence adduced b$ the Respondents 5petitioner herein6 sorel$ lacking to
establish this counterclaim) *he affida#it of r) ,aime illan touched on this matter b$ merel$ stating this
additional claim a6+nrecouped balance on prepaid materials amounting to #<I!728!I1/.1I. No further
elaboration was made of this bare statement) *he affida#it of r) Roigelio 2) Cantoria merel$ states that as
;enior 2ccountant, it was he who prepared the computation for the recoupment of prepaid materials and ad#ance
pa$ment marked as A::13 B of RespondentsCoA>l5,:/1?Su.A5885o: dated &= arch '...) E4amination of that
single page document shows that for the '
nd
Billing, the amount of P-',=/<,&-0)0= was 1<Q 71>,50 for some
unspecified aterials on Cand) *he rest of the other items were pa$ments for trees and shrubs! 4C#! Baluster N
Cons. #aver! and 0,4C DBalusterE in #arious amounts taken from other billings) *he billings themsel#es ha#e not
been introduced in e#idence) No testimonial e#idence was also offered to e4plain how these computations were
made, if onl$ to e4plain the meaning of those terms abo#e93uoted and wh$ the recoupment of amounts of the
#arious billings were generall$ much lower than the pa$ment for materials) 2s stated at the outset of the
discussion of these additional claims, it is not the burden of this ;ribunal to dig into the haystac6 to loo6 for the
proverbial needle to support these counterclaims.%&<
(n the other hand, we find that the CI2C correctl$ deferred determination of the counterclaim for unrecouped
balance on the ad#ance pa$ment) It e4plained that the amount of this claim is determined b$ deducting from
respondents progress billing a proportionate amount e3ual to the percentage of work accomplished) Cowe#er, this
could not be done since petitioner terminated the construction contract) 2t the time the CI2C rendered its
decision, the issue of the #alidit$ of the termination was still pending determination b$ the Regional *rial Court of
Paraa3ue) *hus, in #iew of the non9fulfillment of that precondition to the grant of petitioners counterclaim, the
CI2C deferred resolution of the same) %&= In the case at bar, petitioner still failed to show that its termination of
the construction contract was upheld b$ the court as #alid)
2nent petitioners claim for attorne$s fees, suffice it to state that it was represented b$ the >o#ernment Corporate
Counsel in the proceedings before the CI2C) 2ttorne$Bs fees are in the nature of actual damages, which must be
dul$ pro#ed) %&1 Petitioner failed to show with con#incing e#idence that it incurred attorne$s fees)
Petitioner further argues that its liabilit$ to respondent has been e4tinguished b$ no#ation when it assigned and
turned o#er all its contracted works at the Ceritage Park to the Ceritage Park anagement Corporation) %&0 *his,
howe#er, can not bind respondent, who was not a part$ to the assignment) oreo#er, it has not been shown that
respondent ga#e his consent to the turn9o#er) 2rticle &'/- of the Ci#il Code e4pressl$ pro#ides+
No#ation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, ma$ be made e#en without
the knowledge or against the will of the latter, .u4 :o4 @54<ou4 4<1 /o:81:4 o2 4<1 /71054o7) Pa$ment b$ the new
debtor gi#es him the rights mentioned in articles &'-= and &'-1) 5emphasis ours6
!astl$, petitioner argues that respondent should reimburse to it all fees paid to the CI2C b$ reason of the case) *o
be sure, this contention is based on the premise that the suit filed b$ respondent was unwarranted and without
legal and factual basis) But as shown in the CI2C decision, this was not so) In fact, respondent was adjudged
entitled to the arbitral awards made b$ the CI2C) *hese awards ha#e been sustained b$ the Court of 2ppeals, and
now b$ this Court)
It appears that there is a pending motion to consolidate the instant petition with >)R) No) &81/'<9'=, filed b$
respondent) Considering, howe#er, that the instant petition has no merit, the motion for consolidation is rendered
also without merit, as there will be no more petition to consolidate with the said case) Cence, the motion to
consolidate filed in this case must be denied)
Cowe#er, in order not to prejudice the deliberations of the Courts ;econd @i#ision in >)R) No) &81/'<9'=, it
should be stated that the findings made in this case, especiall$ as regards the correctness of the findings of the
CI2C, are limited to the arbitral awards granted to respondent Elpidio ;) E$ and to the denial of the
counterclaims of petitioner Public Estates 2uthorit$) (ur decision in this case does not affect the other claims of
respondent E$ which were not granted b$ the CI2C in its 3uestioned decision, the merits of which were not
submitted to us for determination in the instant petition)
W"ERE(ORE , in #iew of the foregoing, the petition for re#iew is @ENIE@) *he otion to Consolidate this
petition with >)R) No) &81/'<9'= is also @ENIE@)
;( (R@ERE@)
[G.R. No. 1;8081. !,7/< ;0, 2000]
%"E BUREAU O( CUS%O!S +BOC- ,:0 %"E ECONO!IC IN%ELLIGENCE AND IN&ES%IGA%ION
BUREAU +EIIB-,#etitioners, vs) NE!;(N (>2RI( and 2RK (N*E!IB2N(, 4espondents) Ju75 8A58
D E C I S I O N
!ENDO#A, J.*
*he 3uestion for decision in this case is whether the Regional *rial Court has jurisdiction to enjoin forfeiture
proceedings in the Bureau of Customs) In accordance with what is now settled law, we hold it does not)
*he facts are as follows+ (n @ecember /, &//0, 7elipe 2) Bartolome, @istrict Collector of Customs of Cebu,
issued a Aarrant of ;ei"ure and @etention
&
of '<,... bags of rice, bearing the name of F;N(A2N, illed in
PalawanF shipped on board the M? F2lberto,F which was then docked at Pier = in Cebu Cit$) *he warrant was
issued on the basis of the report of the Economic Intelligence and In#estigation Bureau 5EIIB6, Region ?II that
the rice had been illegall$ imported) *he report stated that the rice was landed in Palawan b$ a foreign #essel and
then placed in sacks marked F;N(A2N, illed in Palawan)F It was then shipped to Cebu Cit$ on board the
#essel M? F2lberto)F 7orfeiture proceedings were started in the customs office in Cebu, docketed as Cebu
;ei"ure Identification Case No) &19/0)
(n @ecember &., &//0, respondent ark ontelibano, the consignee of the sacks of rice, and his bu$er,
respondent Elson (gario, filed a complaint for injunction 5Ci#il Case No) CEB9'-.116 in the Regional *rial
Court of Cebu Cit$, alleging+
8)6 *hat upon arri#al of the herein9mentioned sacks of rice at the PIER < of Cebu Cit$, Philippines on the 1th da$
of @ecember &//0 all of the defendants rushed to the port with long arms commanding the plaintiffs laborer%sJ to
stopped %sicJ the unloading of the same from the #essel named M? 2lberto) *he defendants alleged that the
herein9mentioned rice were %sicJ smuggled from abroad without e#en proof that the same were %sicJ purchased
from a particular countr$)
<)6 B$ the mere suspicion of the defendants that the goods were smuggled from abroad, the$ immediatel$ put on
hold the release of the goods from the ship and at the same time the$ jointl$ barred unloading and loading
acti#ities of the plaintiffs laborers of the herein9mentioned rice)
=)6 *he plaintiffs then presented all the pertinent and necessar$ documents to all of the defendants but the latter
refused to belie#e that the same is from Palawan because their minds are closed due to some reason or another
%whileJ the plaintiffs belie#ed that the same is merel$ an act of harassment) *he documents are as follows+
2)6 Certification from the National 7ood 2uthorit$ that the same is from Palawan) *his is hereto attached as
2nne4 2)
B)6 Bill of !ading issued b$ 2N2 PCI!IPPINE; ;hipping Compan$) *his is hereto attached as 2nne4 B)
1)6 *he acts of the defendants in stopping the loading and unloading acti#ities of the plaintiffs laborers %ha#eJ no
basis in law and in fact: thus, unlawful and illegal) 2 mere suspicion which is not coupled with an$ proof or
e#idence to that effect is %aJ matter which the law prohibits)
0)6 *hat for more than three da$s and despite the repeated plea of the plaintiffs that their goods should be released
to them and the defendants should stop from barring the unloading and loading acti#ities, the latter blindl$ refused
%toJ heed the same)
/)6 *hat the acts of all of the defendants which are greatl$ unlawful and erroneous would caused %sicJ irreparable
damage, injur$, and gra#e injustice to the plaintiffs)
&.)6 *hat b$ wa$ of e4ample or correction for the public good and to deter the defendants from doing the same
acts to other businessmen, defendants should be held liable for e4emplar$ damages in the amount of not less than
(ne Cundred *housand Pesos 5P&..,...)..6)
&&)6 *hat the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief pra$ed in this complaint and the whole or part of such reliefs
consist in restraining perpetuall$ the defendants from holding the herein9mentioned twent$9fi#e thousand sacks of
rice) *hat defendants should be restrained perpetuall$ from barring the unloading and loading acti#ities of the
plaintiffs laborers)
&')6 *hat allowing the defendants to continue their unlawful acts would work gra#e injustice to the plaintiffs)
Enless a preliminar$ injunction be granted e49parte, gra#e and irreparable injur$ and damage would result to the
plaintiffs before the latter can be heard on notice)
&-)6 *hat if the defendants be not restrained perpetuall$ from their unlawful acts, the herein9mentioned rice will
deteriorate and turn into dusts %sicJ if not properl$ disposed)
&8)6 *hat a Aarrant of ;ei"ure and detention issued b$ the Collector of Custom%sJ dated @ecember /, &//0 be
3uashed because the defendants act of sei"ing and detaining the herein9mentioned sacks of rice are illegal) *he
continuing act of detaining the herein9mentioned sacks of rice will lead to the deterioration of the same) *hat no
public auction sale of the same should be conducted b$ the Bureau of Custom%sJ or an$ go#ernment agenc%$J)
&<)6 *hat plaintiffs are read$ and willing to file a bond e4ecuted to the defendants in an amount to be fi4ed b$ this
Conorable Court to the effect that plaintiffs will pa$ to the defendants all damages which the$ ma$ sustain b$
reason of the injunction if this Conorable Court should finall$ decide that the plaintiffs are not entitled thereto)
PR2HER
ACERE7(RE, Premised on the foregoing, it is most respectfull$ pra$ed before this Conorable Court that a
restraining order or temporar$ injunction be immediatel$ issued prohibiting the defendants from holding plaintiffs
abo#e9mentioned goods) *hat it is further pra$ed that a restraining order or temporar$ injunction be issued
prohibiting the defendants from barring the unloading and loading acti#ities of the plaintiffs laborers) 7urther, the
plaintiffs pra$ed that the warrant of sei"ure and detention issued b$ the Collector of Custom%sJ dated @ecember /,
&//0 be 3uashed and no public auction sale of the same should be conducted b$ an$ go#ernment agenc$ or
authorit$)
It is further pra$ed that after due hearing, judgment be rendered+
&)6 aking the restraining order andMor preliminar$ injunction permanent)
')6 (rdering the defendants jointl$ to pa$ e4emplar$ or correcti#e damages to the plaintiff%sJ in the amount of
(ne Cundred *housand Pesos 5P&..,...)..6
;uch other relief which are just and demandable under the circumstances are also pra$ed for)
'
In separate motions, petitioners Bureau of Customs 5B(C6, Port of Cebu
-
and the EIIB, as well as the Philippine
Na#$ and Coast >uard, sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the R*C had no jurisdiction, but
their motions were denied) In its resolution, dated ,anuar$ &&, &///, the R*C said+
*he Aarrant of ;ei"ure and @etention issued b$ the Bureau of Customs cannot di#est this court of jurisdiction
since its issuance is without legal basis as it was anchored merel$ on suspicion that the items in 3uestion were
imported or smuggled) It is #er$ clear that the defendants are bereft of an$ e#idence to pro#e that the goods were
indeed imported or smuggled, that is wh$ the plaintiffs ha#e #er$ #igorousl$ protested against the sei"ure of
cargoes b$ the defendants) In fact, as re#ealed b$ defendants counsel, the Aarrant of ;ei"ure and @etention was
issued merel$ to shift the burden of proof to the shippers or owners of the goods to pro#e that the bags of rice
were not imported or smuggled) Cowe#er, the court feels this is unfair because the settled rule is that he who
alleges must pro#e the same) Besides, at this time when our econom$ is not good, it would be a %disJser#ice to the
nation to use the strong arm of the law to make things hard or difficult for the businessmen)
8
*he '<,... bags of rice were ordered returned to respondents upon the posting b$ them of an P0,...,...)..
bond)
Petitioners B(C and EIIB mo#ed for a reconsideration, but their motion was denied b$ the R*C in its order dated
,anuar$ '<, &///)
<
In the same order, the R*C also increased the amount of respondents bond to P'',<..,...)..)
(n certiorari to the Court of 2ppeals, the resolution and order of the R*C were sustained)
=
2ccordingl$, on 2pril '=, &///, upon motion of respondents, the R*C ordered the sheriff to place in respondents
possession the '<,... bags of rice)
eanwhile, in the forfeiture proceedings before the Collector of Customs of Cebu 5Cebu ;ei"ure Identification
Case No) &19/06, a decision was rendered, the dispositi#e portion of which reads+
ACERE7(RE, b$ #irtue of the authorit$ #ested in me b$ law, it is hereb$ ordered and decreed that the #essel
M? F2lbertoF: the '<,... bags of rice brand F;nowmanF: and the two 5'6 trucks bearing Plate Nos) >CC 088
and >CG -00 are all 7(R7EI*E@ in fa#or of the go#ernment to be disposed of in the manner prescribed b$ law
while the se#en 516 trucks bearing Plate Nos) >7D <<1: >7D '81: *P? 1'=: >BH 018: >?E /0/: and >@7 <80
are RE!E2;E@ in fa#or of their respecti#e owners upon proper identification and compliance with pertinent
laws, rules and regulations)
;ince this decision in#ol#es the release of some of the articles subject matter of herein case which is considered
ad#erse to the go#ernment, the same is hereb$ ele#ated to the Commissioner of Customs for automatic re#iew
pursuant to Republic 2ct 1=<&)
1
*he @istrict Collector of Customs found Fstrong reliable, and con#incing e#idenceF that the '<,... bags of rice
were smuggled) ;aid e#idence consisted of certifications b$ the Philippine Coast >uard, the Philippine Ports
2uthorit$, and the 2rrastre ;te#edoring (ffice in Palawan that M? F2lbertoF had ne#er docked in Palawan since
No#ember, &//0: a certification b$ (fficer9in9Charge Elenita >anelo of the National 7ood 2uthorit$ 5N726
Palawan that her signature in N72 >rains Permit Control No) ../0=, attesting that the '<,... bags of rice
originated from Palawan, was forged: and the result of the laborator$ anal$sis of a sample of the subject rice b$
the International Rice Research Institute 5IRRI6 stating that the sample Fdoes not compare with an$ of our IRRI
released #arieties)F
Respondent ontelibano did not take part in the proceedings before the @istrict Collector of Customs despite due
notice sent to his counsel because he refused to recogni"e the #alidit$ of the forfeiture proceedings)
0
(n 2pril -., &///, petitioners filed the present petition for re#iew on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
2ppeals, dated 2pril &<, &///, upholding the resolution of the R*C den$ing petitioners motions to dismiss) *he$
contend that+
I) ;INCE *CE RE>I(N2! *RI2! C(ER* (7 CEBE CI*H @(E; N(* C2?E ,ERI;@IC*I(N (?ER *CE
;EB,EC* 2**ER (7 *CE IN;*2N* C(N*R(?ER;H, 2N@ *CE BERE2E (7 CE;*(; C2@
2!RE2@H EDERCI;E@ EDC!E;I?E (RI>IN2! ,ERI;@IC*I(N (?ER *CE ;2E, *CE C(ER* (7
2PPE2!; ;ERI(E;!H ERRE@ IN ;E;*2ININ> *CE EDERCI;E BH *CE *RI2! ,E@>E (7
,ERI;@IC*I(N (?ER *CE C2;E BE!(A 2N@ IN 277IRIN> *CE *RI2! ,E@>E; RE;(!E*I(N
@2*E@ ,2NE2RH &&, &/// 2N@ (R@ER @2*E@ ,2NE2RH '<, &/// IN CI?I! C2;E N() CEB9'-.11)
II) ;INCE RE;P(N@EN*; C2?E N(* EDC2E;*E@ 2!! *CE 2@INI;*R2*I?E REE@IE;
PR(?I@E@ 7(R BH !2A, *CE C(ER* (7 2PPE2!; ;ERI(E;!H ERRE@ IN EPC(!@IN> *CE *RI2!
,E@>E; @ENI2!; (7 PE*I*I(NER; ;EP2R2*E (*I(N; *( @I;I;; 2N@ (*I(N; 7(R
REC(N;I@ER2*I(N)
/
In ,ao #) Court of 2ppeals,
&.
this Court, reiterating its ruling in a long line of cases, said+
*here is no 3uestion that Regional *rial Courts are de#oid of an$ competence to pass upon the #alidit$ or
regularit$ of sei"ure and forfeiture proceedings conducted b$ the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or otherwise
interfere with these proceedings) *he Collector of Customs sitting in sei"ure and forfeiture proceedings
has e%clusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all 3uestions touching on the sei"ure and forfeiture of dutiable
goods) *he Regional *rial Courts are precluded from assuming cogni"ance o#er such matters e#en through
petitions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus)
It is likewise well9settled that the pro#isions of the *ariff and Customs Code and that of Republic 2ct No) &&'<,
as amended, otherwise known as F2n 2ct Creating the Court of *a4 2ppeals,F specif$ the proper fora and
procedure for the #entilation of an$ legal objections or issues raised concerning these proceedings) *hus, actions
of the Collector of Customs are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs, whose decision, in turn, is subject to
the e4clusi#e appellate jurisdiction of the Court of *a4 2ppeals and from there to the Court of 2ppeals)
*he rule that Regional *rial Courts ha#e no re#iew powers o#er such proceedings is anchored upon the polic$ of
placing no unnecessar$ hindrance on the go#ernments dri#e, not onl$ to pre#ent smuggling and other frauds upon
Customs, but more importantl$, to render effecti#e and efficient the collection of import and e4port duties due the
;tate, which enables the go#ernment to carr$ out the functions it has been instituted to perform)
E#en if the sei"ure b$ the Collector of Customs were illegal, which has $et to be pro#en, we ha#e said that such
act does not depri#e the Bureau of Customs of jurisdiction thereon)
Respondents cite the statement of the Court of 2ppeals that regular courts still retain jurisdiction Fwhere, as in
this case, for lack of probable cause, there is serious doubt as to the propriet$ of placing the articles under
Customs jurisdiction through sei"ureMforfeiture proceedings)F
&&
*he$ o#erlook the fact, howe#er, that under the
law, the 3uestion of whether probable cause e4ists for the sei"ure of the subject sacks of rice is not for the
Regional *rial Court to determine) *he customs authorities do not ha#e to pro#e to the satisfaction of the court
that the articles on board a #essel were imported from abroad or are intended to be shipped abroad before the$
ma$ e4ercise the power to effect customs searches, sei"ures, or arrests pro#ided b$ law and continue with the
administrati#e hearings)
&'
2s the Court held in #once Enrile v. =inuya+
&-
*he go#ernmental agenc$ concerned, the Bureau of Customs, is #ested with e4clusi#e authorit$) E#en if it be
assumed that in the e4ercise of such e4clusi#e competence a taint of illegalit$ ma$ be correctl$ imputed, the most
that can be said is that under certain circumstances the gra#e abuse of discretion conferred ma$ oust it of such
jurisdiction) It does not mean howe#er that correspondingl$ a court of first instance is #ested with competence
when clearl$ in the light of the abo#e decisions the law has not seen fit to do so) *he proceeding before the
Collector of Customs is not final) 2n appeal lies to the Commissioner of Customs and thereafter to the Court of
*a4 2ppeals) It ma$ e#en reach this Court through the appropriate petition for re#iew) *he proper #entilation of
the legal issues raised is thus indicated) Certainl$ a court of first instance is not therein included) It is de#oid of
jurisdiction)
It is noteworth$ that because of the indiscriminate issuance of writs of injunction, the ;upreme Court issued on
,une '<, &/// 2dministrati#e Circular No) .19// to all judges of lower courts entitled re+ e4ercise of utmost
caution, prudence, and judiciousness in issuance of temporar$ restraining orders and writs of preliminar$
injunction) *he circular states in part+
7inall$, judges should ne#er forget what the Court categoricall$ declared inn #) Nati#idad 5'&- ;CR2 1-8, 18'
%&//'J6 that F%bJ$ e4press pro#ision of law, ampl$ supported b$ well9settled jurisprudence, the Collector of
Customs has e4clusi#e jurisdiction o#er sei"ure and forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts cannot interfere
with his e4ercise thereof or stifle or put it to naught)F
*he (ffice of the Court 2dministrator shall see to it that this circular is immediatel$ disseminated and shall
monitor implementation thereof)
;*RIC* (B;ER?2NCE 2N@ C(P!I2NCE of this Circular is hereb$ enjoined)
W"ERE(ORE , the temporar$ restraining order issued on a$ &1, &/// is hereb$ made permanent) *he
decision, dated 2pril &<, &///, of the Court of 2ppeals is RE?ER;E@ and Ci#il Case No) CEB9'-.11 in the
Regional *rial Court, Branch <, Cebu Cit$ is @I;I;;E@)
SO ORDERED.
[G.R. No. 12IH9H. (1.7u,7y 1I, 2002]
DEAR%!EN% O( EN&IRON!EN% ,:0 NA%URAL RESOURCES +DENR-, R1=5o: &III, %,/lo.,:
C54y, R1>7181:410 .y R1=5o:,l E31/u4561 D571/4o7 I87,1l C. G,005,, #etitioner, #s) >RE>(RI( @2R22N,
N2RCI;( !ECENECI( and Con) C!EEN*E C) R(;2!E;, Presiding ,udge, Regional *rial Court, Branch
-', Calba$og Cit$, 4espondents)
@ E C I ; I ( N
P2N>2NIB2N, H)+
Ender the Re#ised 7orestr$ Code of the Philippines, particularl$ ;ection =092, the @epartment of En#ironment
and Natural Resources secretar$ or a dul$ authori"ed representati#e ma$ order the confiscation in fa#or of the
go#ernment of, among others, the #ehicles used in the commission of offenses punishable b$ the said Code)
*he Case
Before us is a Petition for Re#iew on Certiorari under Rule 8< of the Rules of Court, assailing the @ecember =,
&//< @ecision%& and the ,une -, &//= (rder%' of the Regional *rial Court 5R*C6 of Calba$og Cit$ 5Branch -'6 in
Criminal Case No) &/<0) *he assailed @ecision disposed as follows+
ACERE7(RE, for insufficienc$ of e#idence, the Court hereb$ declares accused >RE>(RI( @2R22N and
N2RCI;( !ECENECI( ac3uitted of the crime charged, with costs de %oJficio)
*he bond of the accused is hereb$ cancelled)
*he court hereb$ orders the CENR (fficer of ;amar, or an$ @ENR emplo$ee who is taking custod$ of the Col$
Cross 7uneral ;er#ices #ehicle ;t) ,ude, with Plate No) C2,9080, to return the said #ehicle to the owner thereof)%-
*he assailed (rder denied the otion for Reconsideration challenging the last paragraph of the @ecision
regarding the return of the subject #ehicle to herein respondents)
*he 7acts
In the assailed @ecision, the trial court summari"ed the facts of this case as follows+
*he accused herein >regorio @araman and Narciso !ucenecio are charged %withJ #iolation of ;ection =0 of
Presidential @ecree No) 1.< as amended b$ E4ecuti#e (rder No) '11 in an information which is 3uoted herein
below+
*hat on or about the -.th da$ of No#ember, &//-, at about &+.. oclock in the afternoon, at Baranga$ Bulao,
unicipalit$ of ;an ,orge, Pro#ince of ;amar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Conorable Court,
the abo#e9named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutuall$ helping one another, did then and
there wilfull$, unlawfull$ and feloniousl$ gather, collect and possess se#ent$ two 51'6 pieces of assorted si"es of
lumber, with a total #olume of 1')/- board feet #alued at ;E?EN CEN@RE@ *AEN*H NINE PE;(;
5P1'/)-.6 and *CIR*H CEN*2?(;, without first securing and obtaining an$ permit or license therefor from the
proper authorities, thus ?iolating ;ection =0 of Presidential @ecree No) 1.<, as amended and further 2mended b$
E4ecuti#e (rder No) '11, series of &/0/)
C(N*R2RH *( !2A)
2ssisted b$ their counsels, the accused were arraigned and the$ entered the plea of not guilt$)
*hereafter trial was conducted)
*he prosecution presented Pablo (pinion who testified as follows+
*hat he is an emplo$ee of the @epartment of En#ironment and Natural Resources as a 7orest Ranger)
(n No#ember -., &//- at about &+.. oclock in the afternoon, while he was in his house in Brg$) Bulao, ;an
,orge, ;amar, a #ehicle named ;t) ,ude with Plate No) C2,9080 coming from baranga$ Blanca 2urora passed b$)
Ce stopped the said #ehicle and found some lumber of assorted si"es %andJ wood sha#ings inside) *he lumber
consisted of =' pieces of & 4 ' 4 8, &= pieces of & 4 '8 4 ')- and & piece of & 4 ' 4 8) In his estimate at the price
of P&.).. per board foot the total #alue of the lumber would be P1'/)-.) Ce asked the dri#er for %theJ owner of
the lumber and he was informed that it was a certain 2san of Brg$) Blanca 2urora) *he dri#er also informed him
that the #ehicle was owned b$ his emplo$er, Narciso !ucenecio of the Col$ Cross 7uneral ;er#ices
in Calba$og Cit$) Ce then took hold of the #ehicle and the assorted lumber and, thereafter, he issued a ;ei"ure
Receipt marked as E4hs) B and series) Ce also took photographs of the lumber which are now marked as E4hs) C
and series) Besides, he signed a ,oint 2ffida#it with (ligario abansag, also a 7orest Ranger) Ahen he asked the
dri#er >regorio @araman for some papers for the assorted lumber, the latter replied that he had none because the$
were not his) @araman further told him that %the$J went to Brg$) Blanca 2urora to secure some wood sha#ings
from the furniture shop owned b$ 2san and 2san merel$ asked him a fa#or of loading his assorted lumbers in the
#ehicle of the Col$ Cross 7uneral ;er#ices to be brought to his 52sans6 house in Baranga$
2brero, Calba$og Cit$)
*he prosecution has still another witness in the person of (ligario abansag, but both the prosecution and the
defense agreed to dispense with his testimon$ considering that the case would be merel$ corroborati#e %ofJ those
alread$ offered b$ Pablo (pinion) *he prosecution rested its case with the admission of E4hs) 2 and B and their
series) Its E4hs) C and series were rejected because the photographer who took them did not testif$ to identif$
%themJ)
7or the defense, onl$ accused >regorio @araman testified because his co9accused would merel$ offer
corroborati#e testimon$) 7rom his testimon$, the following facts ha#e been established+
*hat on No#ember -., &//- in the afternoon his emplo$er Bab$ !ucenecio instructed him to procure some wood
sha#ings 5sinap$o6 in ;an ,orge, ;amar) Ce used the ser#ice #ehicle of the Col$ Cross 7uneral ;er#ices) Cis
companion%sJ were elio Bedo$a, 7ann$ 7iel and Ragi abutol) *he$ went to baranga$ Blanca 2urora, ;an
,orge,;amar and thereat, the$ got some wood sha#ings from the furniture shop owned b$ a certain 2san 2bing)
*he$ loaded '. sacks of wood sha#ings, each sack measuring '' inches in height b$ -' &M' inches in
circumference as he demonstrated in court) *he wood sha#ings %wereJ being used b$ the Col$ Cross 7uneral
;er#ices as cushions in the coffin) 2fter the '. sacks of wood sha#ings were loaded, 2san 2bing asked him a
fa#or to bring his 52san6 assorted lumber to his house in Brg$) (brero, Calba$og Cit$ where the Col$ Cross
7uneral ;er#ices %wasJ also located) 2san himself personall$ loaded his assorted lumber into the #ehicle) *he
subject assorted lumber were alread$ in the furniture shop where the$ got the wood sha#ings) (n their wa$ home
as the$ passed b$ Brg$) Bulao, Pablo (pinion stopped him and took the wood sha#ings) (pinion also in3uired
about the assorted lumber and he told him that the$ were owned b$ 2san, owner of the furniture shop in Brg$)
Blanca 2urora, who loaded them in his #ehicle to be brought to his 52sans6 house in Baranga$
(brero, Calba$og Cit$) Ce told (pinion also that 2san ad#ised him that if somebod$ would %askJ about his
lumber, just to tell the person that 2san had the papers for the lumber with him in his furniture shop at Brg$)
Blanca 2urora, ;an ,orge, ;amar) Pablo (pinion, howe#er, did not take his word and he instead impounded the
#ehicle together with the assorted lumber) 2t about <+.. oclock in the afternoon, the #ehicle was still not returned
to him and so >regorio @araman left and returned to his emplo$er at Brg$) (brero, Calba$ogCit$ and told the
latter about what happened)%8
2fter trial, the R*C ac3uitted both accused and ordered the return of the disputed #ehicle to !ucenecio)
Prior to these court proceedings, the @epartment of En#ironment and Natural Resources9Communit$ and
En#ironment and Natural Resources (ffice 5@ENR9CENR(6 of Catbalogan, ;amar conducted administrati#e
confiscation proceedings on the sei"ed lumber and #ehicle in the presence of pri#ate respondents)%< *he two
failed to present documents to show the legalit$ of their possession and transportation of the lumber sei"ed)
Cence, CENR( (fficer arciano *) *ala#era recommended to the Regional E4ecuti#e @irector 5RE@6 the final
confiscation of the sei"ed lumber and con#e$ance)%= 2tt$) Pastor C) ;ala"ar filed a emorandum dated ,anuar$
'=, &//8, concurring with the recommendation to forfeit the lumber and the #ehicle sei"ed from pri#ate
respondents) *he emorandum was appro#ed b$ RE@ 2ugustus !) omongan and 2rt$) 7iel I) armita, chief
of the !egal @i#ision of the @ENR, Region ?III, *acloban Cit$)%1
2tt$) Rogelio >) Bato ,r) of @ENR, Region 0, *acloban Cit$, mo#ed for the reconsideration of the assailed
@ecision, onl$ insofar as it ordered the return of the said #ehicle to the owner thereof)%0 Ce contended that the
#ehicle had alread$ been administrati#el$ confiscated b$ the @ENR on @ecember ', &//-, and that the RE@
appro#ed its forfeiture on ,anuar$ '=, &//8)%/ Ce further claimed that the @ENR had e4clusi#e jurisdiction o#er
the con#e$ance, which had been used in #iolation of the Re#ised 7orestr$ Code pursuant to ;ection =092 of P@
1.<, as amended b$ E( '11)
*he trial court denied the otion #ia the assailed (rder)
Ruling of the *rial Court
*he trial court ac3uitted pri#ate respondents for insufficienc$ of e#idence) *he unrebutted testimon$ of
Respondent @araman was that, in e4change for the wood sha#ings from 2san, the former agreed to take the
lumber to the latters house in Calba$og Cit$, where the Col$ Cross 7uneral ;er#ices office was also located) 2san
ad#ised @araman to repl$, when asked, that the papers showing the authori"ation for the lumber were in the
formers shop in Baranga$ Blanca 2urora) 7inding the e#idence against Respondent !ucenecio to be likewise
insufficient, the R*C considered the #ehicle as an effect of the crime and ordered its deli#er$ to him)
In the challenged (rder, the trial court ruled that the otion for Reconsideration was untenable on procedural and
substanti#e grounds) ;ince 2ssistant Pro#incial Prosecutor 7eliciano 2guilar did not sign the otion, the R*C
deemed his silence a sign of his disappro#al of the otion)
;ubstanti#el$, the trial court ruled+
4 4 4 %*Jhe Court finds the motion still wanting in merits considering that as found b$ the Court the owner of the
#ehicle in 3uestion, ;t) ,ude, which is the Col$ Cross 7uneral Parlor owned b$ accused Narciso !ucenecio, did
not commit an$ #iolation of P)@) 1.<) !ikewise, the prosecution failed to sufficientl$ establish that accused
>regorio @araman had taken or kept control of the lumber subject of the motion which would thereb$
demonstrate that he had 4 4 4 possession of the subject forest products) Instead, as established b$ the e#idence it
was a certain 2san who owned the subject lumber) 444)
444 444 444
*he decision of the Court has ne#er been brought on appeal, thereb$ the same has long become final and
e4ecutor$)
2gain, as shown b$ the e#idence in the alleged confiscation proceedings conducted b$ the (IC @ENR (fficer
arciano *ala#era of ;amar on @ecember ', &//', the lumber in 3uestion %wasJ found to be owned b$ 2san
2bing) But notwithstanding this fact, for reasons not known to the Court, the said 2san 2bing was ne#er made an
accused in the present case)
;ec) =09& of P)@) 1.< contemplates a situation where the owner of the #ehicle is himself a #iolator of P)@) 1.< or
has been found to ha#e conspired with an$ other persons who committed the #iolation of ;ec) =0 of P)@) 1.< or
consented to the use of his #ehicle in #iolating the said law) In the present case as shown b$ the e#idence, neither
the Col$ Cross 7uneral Parlor or its owner accused Narciso !ucenecio has committed a #iolation of P)@) 1.< as
alread$ declared b$ the Court in its decision of @ecember =, &//< nor the dri#er, accused >regorio @araman) In
fact both were declared ac3uitted of the #iolation charged, and the decision has not been appealed)%&.
Cence, this Petition)%&&
Issues
In its emorandum, petitioner raises the following issues for the Courts consideration+
526 Regional *rial Courts ha#e no jurisdiction andMor authorit$ to order 4 4 4 the return of propert$ alread$ owned
b$ the go#ernment)
5B6 Respondent judge utterl$ disregarded andMor misinterpreted the pro#isions of Presidential @ecree No) 1.<, as
amended b$ E4ecuti#e (rder No) '11, otherwise known as the Re#ised 7orestr$ Code of the Philippines)
5C6 *he go#ernment is not estopped from protecting its interest b$ reason of mistake, error or failure of its
officers to perform their duties)%&'
;tated simpl$, the issues are+ 5&6 whether the R*C had jurisdiction to release the confiscated #ehicle: 5'6 whether
the trial court misconstrued P@ 1.<, as amended: and 5-6 whether, as a result of its filing of the criminal action,
petitioner is estopped from confiscating the #ehicle administrati#el$)
*he Courts Ruling
*he Petition is meritorious)
7irst Issue+
Hurisdiction to )rder 4eturn of =ehicle
Petitioner contends that the R*C o#erstepped its jurisdiction when it ordered the return of the disputed #ehicle,
because the #ehicle had alread$ become go#ernment propert$ b$ #irtue of the forfeiture (rder issued b$ @ENR
on,anuar$ '=, &//8) *he @ENR secretar$ or his dul$ authori"ed representati#e, under ;ection =092 of P@ 1.< as
amended b$ E( '11, ma$ order the confiscation and disposition of all con#e$ances 99 b$ land, water or air 99 used
in illegall$ cutting, gathering, remo#ing, possessing or abandoning forest products)
Ae agree) ,urisdiction is conferred b$ substanti#e law)%&- 2 comparison of the pro#isions of the two rele#ant
sections of P@ 1.<, as amended, shows that the jurisdiction of the R*C co#ers the confiscation of the timber or
forest products as well as the machiner$, e3uipment, implements and tools illegall$ used in the area where the
timber or forest products are found: it is the @ENR that has jurisdiction o#er the confiscation of forest products
and, to stress, all conveyances used in the commission of the offense) ;ection =0 reads+
;ection =0) Cutting! 0athering and>or Collecting ;imber! or )ther ,orest #roducts *ithout 'icense. 99 2n$
person who shall cut, gather, collect, remo#e timber or other forest products from an$ forest land, or timber from
alienable or disposable public land, or from pri#ate land, without an$ authorit$, or possess timber or other forest
products without the legal documents as re3uired under e4isting forest laws and regulations, shall be punished
with the penalties imposed under 2rticles -./ and -&. of the Re#ised Penal Code+ 4 4 4)
*he Court shall further order the confiscation in fa#or of the go#ernment of the timber or an$ forest products cut,
gathered, collected, remo#ed, or possessed, as well as the machiner$, e3uipment, implements and tools illegall$
used in the area where the timber or forest products are found)%&8
;ection =092, in contrast, pro#ides+
;EC) =092) Administrative Authority of the Department &ead or &is Duly Authori$ed 4epresentative to )rder
Confiscation.99 In all cases of #iolations of this Code or other forest laws rules and regulations, the @epartment
Cead or his dul$ authori"ed representati#e, ma$ order the confiscation of an$ forest products illegall$ cut,
gathered, remo#ed, or possessed or abandoned, and all con#e$ances used either b$ land, water or air in the
commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or policies on
the matter)%&<
If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguit$, it must be understood in its literal meaning and applied without
resort to interpretation, on the presumption that its wording correctl$ e4presses its intent or will) *he courts ma$
not construe it differentl$)%&=
achinery is a collecti#e term for machines and appliances used in the industrial arts:%&1 e3uipment co#ers
ph$sical facilities a#ailable for production, including buildings, machineries and tools:
%&0 and implements pertains to whate#er ma$ suppl$ a want, especiall$ an instrument, tool or utensil)%&/ *hese
terms do not include conveyances that are specificall$ co#ered b$ ;ection =092) *he implementing guidelines of
;ection =092 define conveyance in a manner that includes an$ t$pe or class of #ehicle, craft, whether motori"ed
or not, used either in land, water or air, or a combination thereof or an$ mode of transport used in the mo#ement
of an$ forest product)%'.
Cence, the original and e4clusi#e jurisdiction o#er the confiscation of all con#e$ances used either b$ land, water
or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same is #ested in the @epartment of En#ironment and
Natural Resources 5@ENR6 secretar$ or a dul$ authori"ed representati#e) *he @ENR secretar$ has super#ision
and control o#er the enforcement of forestr$, reforestation, parks, game and wildlife laws, rules and regulations)
%'&
*o implement ;ection =092, @ENR promulgated 2dministrati#e (rder 52(6 No) <89/-, amending @epartment
2dministrati#e (rder 5@2(6 No) </9/.) 2( <89/- pro#ides the guidelines for the confiscation, forfeiture and
disposition of con#e$ances used in #iolation of forestr$ laws, rules and regulations)
E#en the Information filed in Criminal Case No) &/<0 limited the acts attributed to pri#ate respondents to
willfull$, unlawfull$ and feloniousl$ gather, collect and possess se#ent$ two 51'6 pieces of assorted si"es of
lumber, 4 4 4 without first securing and obtaining an$ permit or license therefor from the proper authorities, 4 4 4)
*he Information did not contain an$ allegation pertaining to the transportation or con#e$ance of illegall$ cut,
gathered, possessed or abandoned lumber in #iolation of ;ection =092 of P@ 1.<, as amended)
Confiscation *ithout Due #rocess
Pri#ate respondents main defense is that the (rder of 7orfeiture 52nne4 C6 is a false, falsified and perjurious
document) *he (rder was attached to and made part of the record onl$ when petitioner filed its otion for
Reconsideration dated 7ebruar$ =, &//=, or onl$ after the trial court rendered the assailed @ecision) Petitioner
made it appear, according to the pri#ate respondents, that RE@ omongan had appro#ed the emorandum
on ,anuar$ '=, &//8) *his does not appear to be true because 2tt$) armita, officer9in9charge 5(IC6 of the @ENR
!egal @i#ision of *acloban Cit$, signed the emorandum recommending appro#al onl$ on ,anuar$ -&, &//8)
7urther, on 2pril =, &//<, ,udge Rosales of the R*C of Calba$og Cit$ 5Branch -'6 ordered the pro#incial
en#ironment and natural resources officer to transfer the confiscated #ehicle and pieces of lumber in connection
with the prosecution of Criminal Case &/<0)%'' Re$naldo R) ?illafuerte, (IC of the Pro#incial En#ironment and
Natural Resources (ffice 5PENR(6, replied that his office could not deli#er the #ehicle because it was not in
running condition)%'-
Ae are not persuaded) *he #alidit$ and legalit$ of the (rder of 7orfeiture falls outside the ambit of the re#iew of
the assailed @ecision and (rder) *he basis for the assailed (rder to release the #ehicle was pri#ate respondents
ac3uittal of the charge of #iolating ;ection =0) (n the other hand, the forfeiture (rder issued b$ the @ENR was
based on ;ection =092, which in#ol#ed a distinct and separate matter cogni"able b$ it) Petitioner is 3uestioning
onl$ the R*Cs jurisdiction o#er the assailed (rder to release the confiscated #ehicle) Pri#ate respondents ha#e not
appealed the @ENRs (rder of 7orfeiture, the #alidit$ of which can thus be presumed)%'8 *he genuineness of the
(rder and its proper ser#ice upon them are factual issues that will not be dwelt upon b$ this Court, which is not a
trier of facts)%'<
*he jurisdiction of this Court, under Rule 8< of the &//1 Rules of Court, is in the main limited to re#iewing legal
errors committed b$ a lower court)%'= Ender P@ 1.<, the actions and the decisions of the @ENR are re#iewable
b$ the courts onl$ through special ci#il actions for certiorari or prohibition)%'1
;econd Issue+
Construing #D 2LI! as Amended
Petitioner alleges that the R*C misinterpreted the law when it held that ;ection =092, P@ 1.< contemplated a
situation in which the #er$ owner of the #ehicle was the #iolator or was a conspirator with other #iolators of that
law) @epartment (rder No) <8, ;eries of &//-, pro#ides that the proceedings for the confiscation and the
forfeiture of the con#e$ance shall be directed against its owner, and that lack of knowledge of its illegal use shall
not bar its forfeiture)
In the present Petition, the trial court ruled in the assailed (rder that ;ection =092 of P@ 1.< contemplated a
situation in which the #er$ owner of the #ehicle #iolated this law or conspired with other persons who #iolated it
or consented to the use of his or her #ehicle in #iolating it) Respondents !ucenecio and @araman were not shown
to ha#e #iolated P@ 1.<, and their ac3uittals were not appealed)
Ae side with petitioner) *he guilt or the innocence of the accused in the criminal case is immaterial, because what
is punished under ;ection =0 is the transportation, mo#ement or con#e$ance of forest products without legal
documents) *he @ENR secretar$ or the authori"ed representati#es do not possess criminal jurisdiction: thus, the$
are not capable of making such a ruling, which is properl$ a function of the courts) E#en ;ection =092 of P@ 1.<,
as amended, does not clothe petitioner with that authorit$)
Con#ersel$, the same law takes out of the general jurisdiction of the regional trial courts the confiscation of
con#e$ances used in #iolation of forestr$ laws) Cence, we cannot e4pect the @ENR to rule on the criminal
liabilit$ of the accused before it impounds such #ehicles) ;ection =092 co#ers onl$ the mo#ement of lumber or
forest products without proper documents) Ahere the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is
applied according to its e4press terms, and interpretation is resorted to onl$ where a literal interpretation would
lead to either an absurdit$ or an injustice)%'0
Ae also uphold petitioners argument that the release of the #ehicle to pri#ate respondents would defeat the
purpose and undermine the implementation of forestr$ laws) *he preamble of the amendment in E( '11
underscores the urgenc$ to conser#e the remaining forest resources of the countr$ for the benefit of the present
and future generations) (ur forest resources ma$ be effecti#el$ conser#ed and protected onl$ through the #igilant
enforcement and implementation of our forestr$ laws)%'/ ;trong paramount public polic$ should not be degraded
b$ narrow constructions of the law that frustrate its clear intent or unreasonabl$ restrict its scope)%-.
*hird Issue+
Estoppel
In #iew of the foregoing, it becomes unnecessar$ for this Court to resol#e petitioners third issue) It is no longer
material to rule on whether it was erroneous for the R*C to hold that the assistant pro#incial prosecutors failure to
comment on petitioners otion for Reconsideration was an implied disappro#al thereof) *he public prosecutors
disappro#al does not #est in the trial court the jurisdiction or authorit$ to release the #ehicle to pri#ate
respondents)
W"ERE(ORE, the Petition is 04A5;ED and the assailed @ecision and (rder are 4E=E4(ED and (E; A(IDE)
No costs)
SO ORDERED)
G.R. No. 884;I - J,:u,7y 1F, 2002
DE&ELO!EN% BANK O( %"E "ILIINES, JESUS . ES%ANISLAO, DOLORES A. SAN%IAGO,
L'NN ". CA%UNCAN, NOR!A O. %ERREL, !A. AN%ONIA G. REBUENO, #etitioners,
#s) CO!!ISSION ON AUDI%,4espondent.
CARIO, J.%
%<1 C,81
*his is a petition for re#iew on certiorari
&
of the letter9decision of the Chairman of the Commission on
2udit
'
5FC(2F for bre#it$6 and the letter9decision of the C(2 en banc
-
! prohibiting the @e#elopment Bank of the
Philippines 5F@BPF for bre#it$6 from hiring a pri#ate e4ternal auditor) *his petition raises a 3uestion of first
impression, whether or not the constitutional power of the C(2 to e4amine and audit the @BP is e4clusi#e and
precludes a concurrent audit of the @BP b$ a pri#ate e4ternal auditor)
%<1 A:41/101:4 (,/48
In &/0=, the Philippine go#ernment, under the administration of then President Cora"on C) 23uino, obtained from
the Aorld Bank an Economic Reco#er$ !oan 5FER!F for bre#it$6 in the amount of E;N-&. million) *he ER!
was intended to support the reco#er$ of the Philippine econom$, at that time suffering se#erel$ from the financial
crisis that hit the countr$ during the latter part of the arcos regime)
2s a condition for granting the loan, the Aorld Bank re3uired the Philippine go#ernment to rehabilitate the @BP
which was then saddled with huge non9performing loans) 2ccordingl$, the go#ernment committed to rehabilitate
the @BP to make it a #iable and self9sustaining financial institution in recognition of its de#elopmental role in the
econom$) *he @BP was e4pected to continue Fpro#iding principall$ medium and long9term financing to projects
with risks higher than the pri#ate sector ma$ be willing to accept under reasonable terms)F
8
*he go#ernmentBs
commitment was embodied in the #olicy (tatement for the Development Ban6 of the #hilippines which stated in
part+
F8) 7urthermore, like all financial institutions under Central Bank super#ision, @BP will now be re3uired to ha#e
a pri#ate e4ternal audit, and its Board of @irectors will now be opened to ade3uate pri#ate sector representation) It
is hoped that with these commitments, @BP can a#oid the difficulties of the past and can function as a
competiti#e and #iable financial institution within the Philippine financial s$stem)F
<
5Emphasis supplied6
(n No#ember '0, &/0=, the onetar$ Board adopted Resolution No) &.1/ amending the Central BankBs anual
of 4egulations for Ban6s and other ,inancial Intermediaries, in line with the go#ernmentBs commitment to the
Aorld Bank to re3uire a pri#ate e4ternal auditor for @BP) *hus, on @ecember <, &/0=, the Central Bank
>o#ernor issued Central Bank Circular No) &&'8, pro#iding that+
F;EC*I(N &) ;ubsection &&=<)< 5Book I6 is amended to read as follows+
&&=<)< 7inancial 2udit) 9 Each Bank, whether >o#ernment9owned or controlled or pri#ate, shall cause an annual
financial audit to be conducted b$ an e4ternal independent auditor not later than thirt$ 5-.6 da$s after the close of
the calendar $ear or the fiscal $ear adopted b$ the bank) 4 4 4)
4 4 4 *he 2udit of a >o#ernment9owned or controlled bank b$ an e4ternal independent auditor shall be in
addition to and without prejudice to that conducted b$ the Commission on 2udit in the discharge of its mandate
under e4isting law) 4 4 4)
4 4 4
F;EC*I(N -) *he re3uirement for an annual financial audit b$ an e4ternal independent auditor shall e4tend to
speciali"ed and uni3ue go#ernment banks such as the !and Bank of the Philippines and the @e#elopment Bank of
the Philippines)F
=
(n @ecember &', &/0=, pursuant to Central Bank Circular No) &&'8 and the go#ernmentBs commitment to the
Aorld Bank, @BP Chairman ,esus Estanislao wrote the C(2 seeking appro#al of the @BPBs engagement of a
pri#ate e4ternal auditor in addition to the C(2)
1
(n ,anuar$ ', &/01, to formali"e its re3uest for the ER!, the Philippine go#ernment sent the Aorld Bank a letter
assuring the Aorld Bank that pursuant to Central Bank Circular No) &&'8, Fall Banks, including go#ernment
banks, shall be full$ audited b$ e4ternal independent auditors 4 4 4 in addition to that pro#ided b$ the
Commission on 2udit)F *he letter was signed b$ the Central Bank >o#ernor and the inisters of 7inance, *rade
and Industr$, and Economic Planning of the Philippine go#ernment)
0
(n ,anuar$ 0, &/01, the Philippine go#ernment and Aorld Bank negotiating panels reached final agreement on
the pri#ate audit of the @BP, as follows+
F&-) Aith respect to the draft Polic$ ;tatement, it was agreed that ;ections 8, 1 and && would be amended as
follows+
4 4 4 5iii6 ;ection && should in line with the letter of @e#elopment Polic$, confirm that the e4ternal independent
audits would commence with a balance sheet audit as of @ecember -&, &/0= and a full financial audit, including
income statements, starting with the period ,ul$ & to @ecember -&, &/0=) 2 cop$ of C(2Bs letter 5referred to in
par) &, a draft of which is attached as 2nne4 ?III6 regarding @BPBs appointment of a pri#ate e4ternal auditor will
be sent to the Bank before the distribution of the loan documents to the BankBs Board, along with a cop$ of the
scope of audit as appro#ed b$ C(2 and satisfactor$ to the Bank)
Aith regard to the scope of the audit to be undertaken b$ the pri#ate e4ternal auditors, the terms of reference
which will be issued to the selected auditors should be generall$ consistent with the attached model terms of
reference for financial audits 52nne4 ID6) *hese general terms of reference were discussed during negotiations
and form a part of the Aorld BankBs guidelines for financial information on financial institutions)F
/
(n ,anuar$ '., &/01, then C(2 Chairman *eofisto >uingona, ,r) replied to the @ecember &', &/0= letter of the
@BP Chairman) *he C(2 ChairmanBs repl$ stated that+
F4 4 4 the Commission on 2udit 5C(26 will interpose no objection to $our engagement of a pri#ate e4ternal
auditor as re3uired b$ the Economic Reco#er$ Program !oan 2greements of &/01 pro#ided that the terms for said
audit are first re#iewed and appro#ed b$ the Commission)F
&.
*he following da$, the C(2 Chairman also informed the Consultant of the Central Bank that the C(2 interposed
no objection to the proposed scope of audit ser#ices to be undertaken b$ the pri#ate e4ternal auditors to be
engaged b$ the @BP)
&&
(n 7ebruar$ &0, &/01, the Board of @irectors of the @BP appro#ed the hiring of ,oa3uin Cunanan L Co) as the
@BPBs pri#ate e4ternal auditor for calendar $ear &/0= as re3uired b$ Central Bank Circular No) &&'8 and the
Aorld Bank) *he @BP Board of @irectors placed a ceiling on the amount of reimbursable out9of9pocket e4penses
that could be charged b$ the pri#ate auditor)
&'
(n 7ebruar$ '-, &/01, the Aorld Bank President, in his Report to the BankBs E4ecuti#e @irectors on the
Philippine go#ernmentBs application for the ER!, certified that the Philippine go#ernment was compl$ing with the
re3uirement of a pri#ate e4ternal auditor) *he Aorld Bank PresidentBs certification stated that+
F18) 2ccounting and 2uditing) 2ll banks both go#ernment and pri#ate are now subject to accounting and auditing
standards as established b$ the Central Bank) *o ensure full public accountabilit$, the onetar$ Board now
re3uires that all go#ernment banks be subject to annual audits b$ independent pri#ate auditing firms, in addition
to those normall$ undertaken b$ the >o#ernmentBs Commission on 2udit) @BP and PNB ha#e alread$ selected
pri#ate auditors, and audited accounts for &/0= and &/01 will be a re3uirement for the releases of the second and
third tranches, respecti#el$, of the ER!)F
&-
Cowe#er, a change in the leadership of the C(2 suddenl$ re#ersed the course of e#ents) (n 2pril '1, &/01, the
new C(2 Chairman, Eufemio @omingo, wrote the Central Bank >o#ernor protesting the Central BankBs issuance
of Circular No) &&'8 which allegedl$ encroached upon the C(2Bs constitutional and statutor$ power to audit
go#ernment agencies) *he C(2 ChairmanBs letter informed the >o#ernor that+
F*his Commission hereb$ registers its strong objection to that portion of the CBP Circular No) &&'8 which
re3uires go#ernment banks to engage pri#ate auditors in addition to that conducted b$ the Commission on 2udit,
and urges the immediate amendment thereof) It is the position of this Commission that the said re3uirement+ 5a6
infringes on 2rticle ID9@ of the Philippine Constitution: 5b6 #iolates ;ection '= and -' of the >o#ernment
2uditing Code of the Philippines: 5c6 e4poses the financial programs and strategies of the Philippine >o#ernment
to high securit$ risks: 5d6 allows the unnecessar$ and unconscionable e4penditure of go#ernment funds: and 5e6
encourages unethical encroachment among professionals)F
&8
(n a$ &-, &/01, after learning that the @BP had signed a contract with a pri#ate auditing firm for calendar $ear
&/0=, the new C(2 Chairman wrote the @BP Chairman that the C(2 resident auditors were under instructions to
disallow an$ pa$ment to the pri#ate auditor whose ser#ices were unconstitutional, illegal and unnecessar$)
&<
(n ,ul$ &, &/01, the @BP Chairman sent to the C(2 Chairman a cop$ of the @BPBs contract with ,oa3uin
Cunanan L Co), signed four months earlier on arch <, &/01) *he @BP ChairmanBs co#ering handwritten note
sought the C(2Bs concurrence to the contract)
&=
@uring the pendenc$ of the @BP ChairmanBs note9re3uest for concurrence, the @BP paid the billings of the
pri#ate auditor in the total amount of P801,-'&)&8
&1
despite the objection of the C(2) (n (ctober -., &/01, the
C(2 Chairman issued a emorandum disallowing the pa$ments, and holding the following persons personall$
liable for such pa$ment+
F;?P 7ajardo who appro#ed the #oucher for pa$ment: ?P ;antiago who certified that the e4penditure was
authori"ed, necessar$ and lawful: ; *errel, Catuncan and Rebueno who signed the checks: and the head of
office who signed the contract and who is immediatel$ and primaril$ responsible for the funds of the Bank)F
&0
(n ,anuar$ &/, &/00, the @BP Chairman wrote the C(2 Chairman seeking reconsideration of the C(2
ChairmanBs emorandum)
&/
Cowe#er, the @BP recei#ed no response until 2ugust '/, &/00 when the C(2
Chairman issued a letter9decision den$ing petitionerBs ,ul$ &, &/01 note9re3uest for concurrence) *he letter9
decision, one of the two C(2 decisions assailed in this petition, declared in part as follows+
F5a6 In the letter to the Central Bank >o#ernor 4 4 4, this Commission clearl$ stated its non9negotiable stand on
the issue in the following terms+
B 4 4 4 the #er$ essence of the Commission on 2udit as an independent constitutional commission in the total
scheme of >o#ernment, is its singular function to B%EJ4amine, audit, and settle 4 4 4 all accounts pertaining to 4 4
4 the >o#ernment, or an$ of its subdi#isions, 4 4 4 including go#ernment9owned or controlled corporations)B *o
allow pri#ate firms to interfere in this go#ernmental audit domain would be to derogate the Constitutional
supremac$ of ;tate audit as the >o#ernmentBs guardian of the peopleBs treasur$, and as the prime ad#ocate of
econom$ in the use of go#ernment resources)B
4 4 4
F5c6 In the letter to the ;ecretar$ of 7inance dated ,anuar$ '0, &/00 4 4 4, this Commission maintains+
&) BC(2 is in no wa$ prepared to permit Buse of pri#ate auditorsB e4cept insofar as the law allows, which is Bto
deputi"e and retain in the name of the Commission such certified public accountants and other licensed
professionals not in the public ser#ice as it ma$ deem necessar$ to assist go#ernment auditors in undertaking
speciali"ed audit engagementsB 5;ec) -&, P@ No &88<6) (utside of this, the Commission does not consider the
matter of hiring pri#ate auditing firms a negotiable matter, and this we want to emphasi"e to a#oid future
embarrassment to the >o#ernment) *he Commission on 2udit is a constitutionall$9created independent and
separate bod$, and neither Congress nor the E4ecuti#e @epartment has the power to detract from its mandated
duties, functions, and powers)
') B;ince the proceeds of the proposed loan accrue to the Republic of the Philippines as borrower, it follows that
its accounting and audit must compl$ with the laws of this countr$) *o specif$ in the !oan 2greement that the
loan account, once released to the >o#ernment, shall be Baudited b$ independent auditors acceptable to the BankB
is not onl$ to entirel$ b$9pass this Commission but to ignore as well the Constitution and the laws of this countr$
which #ests in this Commission the Bpower, authorit$, and dut$ to e4amine, audit, and settle all accounts
pertaining to the re#enue and receipts of, and e4penditures or uses of funds and propert$ 4 4 4 pertaining to the
>o#ernment)B 5;ec) ', 2rt) ID9@, Phil) Const)6)
B;uch bra"en disregard of the fundamental law of this countr$ cannot be countenanced b$ this Commission)B
FIn #iew of all the foregoing, $ou are hereb$ ad#ised+
F&) *o desist from proceeding with the audit of ,oa3uin Cunanan L Co) of the BankBs financial statements for the
$ear ending @ecember -&, &/01)
F') *o refrain from making an$ pa$ments out of the funds of the @e#elopment Bank of the Philippines, in the
e#ent that such audit ser#ices ha#e alread$ been rendered, attention being in#ited to the following pro#isions of
the >o#ernment 2uditing Code of the Philippines+
B;ec) &.0) >eneral liabilit$ for unlawful e4penditures 9 E4penditures of go#ernment funds or uses of go#ernment
propert$ in #iolation of law or regulations shall be a personal liabilit$ of the official or emplo$ee found to be
directl$ responsible therefore)B
F-) *o restitute, within thirt$ 5-.6 da$s from receipt hereof, the total amount of P<&-,<8/)'8 under C? Nos) /&-=,
<.&8, ='.& and 8.0' for professional ser#ices rendered in the audit of the &/0= financial operations of the Bank)
Pursuant to the afore3uoted pro#isions of law, such unlawful e4penditure is the personal liabilit$ of the official
directl$ responsible therefore)
FPlease be guided accordingl$)F
'.
(n ;eptember '=, &/00, the @BP Chairman appealed the letter9decision to the C(2 en banc. (n a$ '., &/0/,
the C(2 en banc, in a letter9decision, denied the @BPBs appeal) *his letter9decision, now also assailed b$ the
@BP, held that+
FEpon a circumspect e#aluation of the grounds upon which $our instant re3uest is predicated, this Commission
finds the same to be de#oid of merit) 2s hereunder demonstrated, the justifications offered do not inspire rational
belief in the mind of this Commission)
F7irst, it bears stress that CB Circular No) &&'8, series of &/0=, which has earlier been shown to be
constitutionall$ and legall$ infirm, cannot b$ an$ means possess an$ binding and conclusi#e effect upon this
Commission and, hence, ma$ not be properl$ in#oked in support of the instant appeal)
F;econdl$, it was not the International Bank for Reconstruction and @e#elopment which re3uired the audit of
go#ernment banks b$ pri#ate auditing firm, but the Central Bank itself)
F*hirdl$, insofar as this Commission is concerned, P@ '.'/ is an anachronism of sorts if #iewed in the light of
the present Constitution recogni"ing this Commission as the supreme and e4clusi#e audit institution of the
go#ernment) *his is necessaril$ implicit from the bare language of ;ection '5&6, 2rticle ID9@ thereof which,
despite the absence of the 3ualif$ing adjecti#e Fe4clusi#eF that an$wa$ would be a surplusage, ought to be
reasonabl$ construed as #esting in this Commission the Fpower, authorit$, and dut$F to audit all go#ernment
accounts to the e4clusion of an$ other person or entit$, whether in the public or the pri#ate sector) E%pressio
unius est e%clusio alterius) 2 contrar$ interpretation, such as that being pressed upon this Commission, would
reduce this constitutional ordinance to an absurdit$ 5reductio ad absurdum6 as it thereb$ would gi#e rise to the
rather confusing spectacle, as it were, of a go#ernment agenc$ or corporation being audited not onl$ b$ this
Commission but also and in additionthereto b$ one or two or se#eral pri#ate accounting firms 9 certainl$ a
situation ne#er intended b$ the framers of the Constitution)
F!astl$, while this Commission has not lost sight of the letter of then C(2 Chairman >uingona, ,r) to the @BP
Chairman, dated ,anuar$ '., &/01, it has opted to be guided and influenced b$ the more persuasi#e and
controlling C(2 Circular No) 0=.'<8 dated arch '8, &/0=, which in categorical and precise terms ordained
that+
B2ccordingl$, b$ wa$ of reassertion and reaffirmation of its primar$ audit jurisdiction, as herein abo#e defined,
the Commission on 2udit hereb$ issues the following directi#es+
&) 2n$ ongoing audit of a go#ernment9owned andMor controlled corporation or an$ of its subsidiaries or corporate
offsprings being conducted b$ a pri#ate auditor or accounting firm shall cease and terminate on 2pril &<, &/0=)
Cenceforth, from and after said date, the audit of said corporate entit$ shall be undertaken solel$ and e4clusi#el$
b$ the Commission on 2udit) 4 4 4)B
FPremises considered, it is regretted that $our instant re3uest for reconsideration has to be, as it is hereb$,
denied)F
'&
Cence, on ,une &8, &/0/ the @BP filed this petition for re#iew with pra$er for a temporar$ restraining order,
assailing the two C(2 letter9decisions for being contrar$ to the Constitution and e4isting laws) (n ,une &<, &/0/
this Court issued a temporar$ restraining order directing the C(2 to cease and desist from enforcing its
challenged letter9decisions) *he (ffice of the ;olicitor >eneral, in a anifestation dated (ctober &0, &/0/,
declined to appear on behalf of the C(2 on the ground that the ;olicitor >eneral was Ftaking a position ad#erse
to that of the C(2)F Conse3uentl$, a pri#ate counsel on pro bono basis represented the C(2)
%<1 I88u18
*he @BPBs petition raises the following issues+
&) @oes the Constitution #est in the C(2 the sole and e4clusi#e power to e4amine and audit go#ernment banks so
as to prohibit concurrent audit b$ pri#ate e4ternal auditors under an$ circumstanceO
') Is there an e4isting statute that prohibits go#ernment banks from hiring pri#ate auditors in addition to the C(2O
If there is none, is there an e4isting statute that authori"es go#ernment banks to hire pri#ate auditors in addition to
the C(2O
-) If there is no legal impediment to the hiring b$ go#ernment banks of a pri#ate auditor, was the hiring b$ the
@BP of a pri#ate auditor in the case at bar necessar$, and were the fees paid b$ @BP to the pri#ate auditor
reasonable, under the circumstancesO
%<1 Cou74L8 Rul5:=
*he @BPBs petition is meritorious)
1irst )ssue% Power of CO& to &udit under te Constitution
*he resolution of the primordial issue of whether or not the C(2 has the sole and e4clusi#e power to e4amine
and audit go#ernment banks in#ol#es an interpretation of ;ection ', 2rticle ID9@ of the &/01 Constitution) *his
;ection pro#ides as follows+
F;ec) ') 5&6 *he Commission on 2udit shall ha#e the power, authorit$, and dut$ to e4amine, audit, and settle all
accounts pertaining to the re#enue and receipts of, and e4penditures or uses of funds and propert$, owned and
held in trust b$, or pertaining to, the >o#ernment, or an$ of its subdi#isions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including go#ernment9owned or controlled corporations with original charters, 4 4 4)
F5'6 *he Commission shall ha#e the e4clusi#e authorit$, subject to the limitations in this 2rticle, to define the
scope of its audit and e4amination, establish the techni3ues and methods re3uired therefore, and promulgate
accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the pre#ention and disallowance of irregular,
unnecessar$, e4cessi#e, e4tra#agant, or unconscionable e4penditures, or uses of go#ernment funds and
properties)F 5Emphasis supplied6
*he C(2 #igorousl$ asserts that under the first paragraph of ;ection ', the C(2 enjo$s the sole and
e4clusi#epower to e4amine and audit all go#ernment agencies, including the @BP) *he C(2 contends this is
similar to its sole and e4clusi#e authorit$, under the second paragraph of the same ;ection, to define the scope of
its audit, promulgate auditing rules and regulations, including rules on the disallowance of unnecessar$
e4penditures of go#ernment agencies) *he bare language of ;ection ', howe#er, shows that the C(2Bs power
under the first paragraph is not declared e4clusi#e, while its authorit$ under the second paragraph is e4pressl$
declared Fe4clusi#e)F *here is a significant reason for this marked difference in language)
@uring the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner ;erafin >uingona proposed the
addition of the word Fe4clusi#eF in the first paragraph of ;ection ', thereb$ granting the C(2 the sole and
e4clusi#e power to e4amine and audit all go#ernment agencies) Cowe#er, the Constitutional Commission rejected
the addition of the word Fe4clusi#eF in the first paragraph of ;ection ' and >uingona was forced to withdraw his
proposal) Commissioner Christian onsod e4plained the rejection in this manner+
FR) (N;(@) Earlier Commissioner >uingona, in withdrawing his amendment to add FEDC!E;I?EF made a
statement about the preponderant right of C(2)
F7or the record, we would like to clarif$ the reason for not including the word) 7irst, we do not want an 2rticle
that would constitute a disincenti#e or an obstacle to pri#ate in#estment) *here are go#ernment institutions with
pri#ate in#estments in them, and some of these in#estors 9 7ilipinos, as well as in some cases, foreigners 9 re3uire
the presence of pri#ate auditing firms, not e4clusi#el$, but concurrentl$) ;o this does not take awa$ the power of
the Commission on 2udit) ;econd, there are certain instances where pri#ate auditing ma$ be re3uired, like the
listing in the stock e4change) In other words, we do not want this pro#ision to be an unnecessar$ obstacle to
pri#ati"ation of these companies or attraction of in#estments)F
''
5Emphasis supplied6
;hortl$ thereafter, Commissioner >uingona attempted to resurrect his amendment b$ proposing the following
pro#ision+
FPri#ate auditing firms ma$ not e4amine or audit accounts pertaining to the re#enue and receipts of, and
e4penditures or uses of funds and propert$ owned or held in trust b$ or pertaining to the >o#ernment or an$ of its
subdi#isions, agencies or instrumentalities)F
'-
>uingona argued that a pri#ate audit in addition to the C(2 audit would be a useless duplication and an
unnecessar$ e4pense on the part of go#ernment)
*he Constitutional Commission also rejected this proposed pro#ision, after Commissioner onsod made the
following e4planation+
FR) (N;(@) 4 4 4 But it is also a fact that e#en go#ernment agencies, instrumentalities and subdi#isions
sometimes borrow mone$ from abroad) 2nd if we are at all going to preclude the possibilit$ of an$ concurrent
auditing, if that is re3uired, and insist that it is onl$ e4clusi#el$ the go#ernment which can audit, we ma$ be
unnecessaril$ t$ing their hands without reall$ accomplishing much more than what we want) 2s long as the C(2
is there, and the C(2Bs power cannot be eliminated b$ law, b$ decree or an$thing of that sort, then the
go#ernment funds are protected)
2s far as the 3uestion of fees is concerned, this is alwa$s negotiable) Besides, if one talks about auditing fees,
these are go#erned b$ certain regulations within the auditing profession, be$ond which auditing firms cannot go)
7urthermore, the go#ernment can alwa$s refuse to pa$ unconscionable fees) ;o, that matter reall$ is not that
rele#ant) But I think what we want to insist on is that there should be some fle4ibilit$ so that a procedural
re3uirement does not impede a substanti#e transaction as long as C(2 is there)F
'8
5Emphasis supplied6
*he rejection of >uingonaBs second proposal put an end to all efforts to grant the C(2 the sole and e4clusi#e
power to e4amine and audit go#ernment agencies)
In sharp contrast, the Constitutional Commission placed the word Fe4clusi#eF to 3ualif$ the authorit$ of the C(2
under the second paragraph of the same ;ection ') *he word Fe4clusi#eF did not appear in the counterpart
pro#isions of ;ection ' in the &/-< and &/1- Constitutions)
'<
*here is no dispute that the C(2Bs authorit$ under
the second paragraph of ;ection ' is e4clusi#e as the language of the Constitution admits of no other meaning)
*hus, the C(2 has the e4clusi#e authorit$ to decide on disallowances of unnecessar$ go#ernment e4penditures)
(ther go#ernment agencies and their officials, as well as pri#ate auditors engaged b$ them, cannot in an$ wa$
intrude into this e4clusi#e function of the C(2)
*he 3ualif$ing word Fe4clusi#eF in the second paragraph of ;ection ' cannot be applied to the first paragraph
which is another sub9section of ;ection ') 2 3ualif$ing word is intended to refer onl$ to the phrase to which it is
immediatel$ associated, and not to a phrase distantl$ located in another paragraph or sub9section)
'=
*hus, the first
paragraph of ;ection ' must be read the wa$ it appears, without the word Fe4clusi#eF, signif$ing that non9C(2
auditors can also e4amine and audit go#ernment agencies) Besides, the framers of the
Constitution intentionall"omitted the word Fe4clusi#eF in the first paragraph of ;ection ' precisel$ to
allow concurrent audit b$ pri#ate e4ternal auditors)
*he clear and unmistakable conclusion from a reading of the entire ;ection ' is that the C(2Bs power to e4amine
and audit is non9e4clusi#e) (n the other hand, the C(2Bs authorit$ to define the scope of its audit, promulgate
auditing rules and regulations, and disallow unnecessar$ e4penditures is e4clusi#e)
oreo#er, as the constitutionall$ mandated auditor of all go#ernment agencies, the C(2Bs findings and
conclusions necessaril$ pre#ail o#er those of pri#ate auditors, at least insofar as go#ernment agencies and officials
are concerned) *he superiorit$ or preponderance of the C(2 audit o#er pri#ate audit can be gleaned from the
records of the Constitutional Commission, as follows+
FR) >EIN>(N2) adam President, after consultation with the honorable members of the Committee, I ha#e
amended m$ proposed amendment b$ deleting the word EDC!E;I?E because I was made to understand that the
Commission on 2udit will still ha#e the preponderant power and authorit$ to e4amine, audit and
settle)F
'1
5Emphasis supplied6
*he findings and conclusions of the pri#ate auditor ma$ guide pri#ate in#estors or creditors who re3uire such
pri#ate audit) >o#ernment agencies and officials, howe#er, remain bound b$ the findings and conclusions of the
C(2, whether the matter falls under the first or second paragraph of ;ection ', unless of course such findings and
conclusions are modified or re#ersed b$ the courts)
*he power of the C(2 to e4amine and audit go#ernment agencies, while non9e4clusi#e, cannot be taken awa$
from the C(2) ;ection -, 2rticle ID9@ of the Constitution mandates that+
F;ec) -) No law shall be passed e4empting an$ entit$ of the >o#ernment or its subsidiar$ in an$ guise whatsoe#er,
or an$ in#estment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on 2udit)F
*he mere fact that pri#ate auditors ma$ audit go#ernment agencies does not di#est the C(2 of its power to
e4amine and audit the same go#ernment agencies) *he C(2 is neither b$9passed nor ignored since e#en with a
pri#ate audit the C(2 will still conduct its usual e4amination and audit, and its findings and conclusions will still
bind go#ernment agencies and their officials) 2 concurrent pri#ate audit poses no danger whatsoe#er of public
funds or assets escaping the usual scrutin$ of a C(2 audit)
anifestl$, the e4press language of the Constitution, and the clear intent of its framers, point to onl$ one
indubitable conclusion 9 the C(2 does not ha#e the e4clusi#e power to e4amine and audit go#ernment agencies)
*he framers of the Constitution were full$ aware of the need to allow independent pri#ate audit of certain
go#ernment agencies in addition to the C(2 audit, as when there is a pri#ate in#estment in a go#ernment9
controlled corporation, or when a go#ernment corporation is pri#ati"ed or publicl$ listed, or as in the case at bar
when the go#ernment borrows mone$ from abroad)
In these instances the go#ernment enters the marketplace and competes with the rest of the world in attracting
in#estments or loans) *o succeed, the go#ernment must abide with the reasonable business practices of the
marketplace) (therwise no in#estor or creditor will do business with the go#ernment, frustrating go#ernment
efforts to attract in#estments or secure loans that ma$ be critical to stimulate moribund industries or resuscitate a
badl$ shattered national econom$ as in the case at bar) B$ design the Constitution is fle4ible enough to meet these
e4igencies) 2n$ attempt to nullif$ this fle4ibilit$ in the instances mentioned, or in similar instances, will be ultra
vires, in the absence of a statute limiting or remo#ing such fle4ibilit$)
*he deliberations of the Constitutional Commission re#eal elo3uentl$ the intent of ;ection ', 2rticle ID9@ of the
Constitution) 2s this Court has ruled repeatedl$, the intent of the law is the controlling factor in the interpretation
of the law)
'0
If a law needs interpretation, the most dominant influence is the intent of the law)
'/
*he intent of the
law is that which is e4pressed in the words of the law, which should be disco#ered within its four corners aided, if
necessar$, b$ its legislati#e histor$)
-.
In the case of ;ection ', 2rticle ID9@ of the Constitution, the intent of the
framers of the Constitution is e#ident from the bare language of ;ection ' itself) *he deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission confirm e4pressl$ and e#en elucidate further this intent be$ond an$ doubt whatsoe#er)
*here is another constitutional barrier to the C(2Bs insistence of e4clusi#e power to e4amine and audit all
go#ernment agencies) *he C(2Bs claim clashes directl$ with the Central BankBs constitutional power of
Fsuper#isionF o#er banks under ;ection '., 2rticle DII of the Constitution) *his pro#ision states as follows+
F;ec) '.) *he Congress shall establish an independent central monetar$ authorit$, the members of whose
go#erning board must be natural9born 7ilipino citi"ens, of known probit$, integrit$, and patriotism, the majorit$
of whom shall come from the pri#ate sector) *he$ shall also be subject to such other 3ualifications and disabilities
as ma$ be prescribed b$ law) *he authorit$ shall pro#ide polic$ direction in the areas of mone$, banking, and
credit) It shall ha#e super#ision o#er the operations of banks and e4ercise such regulator$ powers as ma$ be
pro#ided b$ law o#er the operations of finance companies and other institutions performing similar functions)F
5Emphasis supplied6
Cistoricall$, the Central Bank has been conducting periodic and special e4amination and audit of banks to
determine the soundness of their operations and the safet$ of the deposits of the public) Endeniabl$, the Central
BankBs power of Fsuper#isionF includes the power to e4amine and audit banks, as the banking laws ha#e alwa$s
recogni"ed this power of the Central Bank)
-&
Cence, the C(2Bs power to e4amine and audit go#ernment banks
must be reconciled with the Central BankBs power to super#ise the same banks) *he ine#itable conclusion is that
the C(2 and the Central Bank ha#e concurrent jurisdiction, under the Constitution, to e4amine and audit
go#ernment banks)
Cowe#er, despite the Central BankBs concurrent jurisdiction o#er go#ernment banks, the C(2Bs audit still pre#ails
o#er that of the Central Bank since the C(2 is the constitutionall$ mandated auditor of go#ernment banks) 2nd in
matters falling under the second paragraph of ;ection ', 2rticle ID9@ of the Constitution, the C(2Bs jurisdiction
is e4clusi#e) *hus, the Central Bank is de#oid of authorit$ to allow or disallow e4penditures of go#ernment banks
since this function belongs e4clusi#el$ to the C(2)
0econd )ssue% 0tatutes Proi!itin$ or &utori-in$ Private &uditors
*he C(2 argues that ;ections '=, -& and -' of P@ No) &88<, otherwise known as the >o#ernment 2uditing Code
of the Philippines, prohibit the hiring of pri#ate auditors b$ go#ernment agencies) ;ection '= of P@ No) &88<
pro#ides that+
F;ection '=) >eneral ,urisdiction) *he authorit$ and powers of the Commission shall e4tend to and comprehend
all matters relating to auditing procedures, s$stems and controls, the keeping of the general accounts of the
>o#ernment, the preser#ation of #ouchers pertaining thereto for a period of ten $ears, the e4amination and
inspection of the books, records, and papers relating to those accounts: and the audit and settlement of the
accounts of all persons respecting funds or propert$ recei#ed or held b$ them in an accountable capacit$, as well
as the e4amination, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of an$ sort due or owing to the >o#ernment or
an$ of its subdi#isions, agencies or instrumentalities) *he said jurisdiction e4tends to all go#ernment9owned or
controlled corporations, including their subsidiaries, and other self9go#erning boards, commissions, or agencies of
the >o#ernment, and as herein prescribed, including non9go#ernmental entities subsidi"ed b$ the go#ernment,
those funded b$ donations through the go#ernment, those re3uired to pa$ le#ies or go#ernment share, and those
for which the go#ernment has put up a counterpart fund or those partl$ funded b$ the go#ernment)F
;ection '= defines the e4tent and scope of the powers of the C(2) Considering the comprehensi#e definition in
;ection '=, the C(2Bs jurisdiction co#ers all go#ernment agencies, offices, bureaus and units, including
go#ernment9owned or controlled corporations, and e#en non9go#ernment entities enjo$ing subsid$ from the
go#ernment) Cowe#er, there is nothing in ;ection '= that states, e4pressl$ or impliedl$, that the C(2Bs power to
e4amine and audit go#ernment banks is e4clusi#e, thereb$ pre#enting pri#ate audit of go#ernment agencies
concurrentl$ with the C(2 audit)
;ection '= is a definition of the C(2Bs Fgeneral jurisdiction)F ,urisdiction ma$ be e4clusi#e or concurrent) ;ection
'= of P@ No) &88< does not state that the C(2Bs jurisdiction is e4clusi#e, and there are other laws pro#iding for
concurrent jurisdiction) *hus, ;ection '= must be applied in harmon$ with ;ection <0
-'
of the >eneral Banking
!aw of '... 5R2 No) 01/&6 which authori"es une3ui#ocall$ the onetar$ Board to re3uire banks to hire
independent auditors) ;ection <0 of the >eneral Banking !aw of '... states as follows+
F;ection <0) Independent 2uditor) 9 *he onetar$ Board ma$ re3uire a bank, 3uasi9bank or trust entit$ to engage
the ser#ices of an independent auditor to be chosen b$ the bank, 3uasi9bank or trust entit$ concerned from a list of
certified public accountants acceptable to the onetar$ Board) *he term of the engagement shall be as prescribed
b$ the onetar$ Board which ma$ either be on a continuing basis where the auditor shall act as resident
e4aminer, or on the basis of special engagements: but in an$ case, the independent auditor shall be responsible to
the bankBs, 3uasi9bankBs or trust entit$Bs board of directors) 2 cop$ of the report shall be furnished to the onetar$
Board) 4 4 4)F 5Emphasis supplied6
oreo#er, ;ection '= must also be applied in conformit$ with ;ections '< and '0
--
of the New Central Bank 2ct
5R2 No) 1=<-6 which authori"e e4pressl$ the onetar$ Board to conduct periodic or special e4amination of all
banks) ;ections '< and '0 of the New Central Bank 2ct state as follows+
F;ec) '<) ;uper#ision and E4amination) *he Bangko ;entral shall ha#e super#ision o#er, and conduct periodic or
special e4aminations of, banking institutions 4 4 4) 5Emphasis supplied6
4 4 4
F;ec) '0) E4amination and 7ees) *he super#ising and e4amining department head, personall$ or b$ deput$,
shall e4amine the books of e#er$ banking institution once in e#er$ twel#e 5&'6 months, and at such other time as
the onetar$ Board b$ an affirmati#e #ote of fi#e 5<6 members ma$ deem e4pedient and to make a report on the
same to the onetar$ Board+ 4 4 4)F 5Emphasis supplied6
*he power #ested in the onetar$ Board under ;ection <0 of the >eneral Banking !aw of '..., and ;ections '<
and '0 of the New Central Bank 2ct, emanates from the Central BankBs e4plicit constitutional mandate to e4ercise
Fsuper#ision o#er the operations of banks)F Ender ;ection 8 of the >eneral Banking !aw of '..., the term
Fsuper#isionF
-8
is defined as follows+
F;ection 8) ;uper#isor$ Powers) *he operations and acti#ities of banks shall be subject to super#ision of the
Bangko ;entral) F;uper#isionF shall include the following+
4 4 4
8)') *he conduct of e4amination to determine compliance with laws and regulations if the circumstances so
warrant as determined b$ the onetar$ Board:
4 4 4
8)8) Regular in#estigation which shall not be oftener than once a $ear from the last date ofe4amination to
determine whether an institution is conducting its business on a safe or sound basis+ Pro#ided, *hat the
deficienciesMirregularities found b$ or disco#ered b$ anaudit shall immediatel$ be addressed:
4 4 4)F 5Emphasis supplied6
Clearl$, under e4isting laws, the C(2 does not ha#e the sole and e4clusi#e power to e4amine and audit
go#ernment banks) *he Central Bank has concurrent jurisdiction to e4amine and audit, or cause the e4amination
and audit, of go#ernment banks)
;ection -& of P@ No) &88<, another pro#ision of law claimed b$ the C(2 to prohibit the hiring of pri#ate auditors
b$ go#ernment agencies, pro#ides as follows+
F;ection -&) @eputi"ation of pri#ate licensed professionals to assist go#ernment auditors) 9 5&6 *he Commission
ma$, when the e4igencies of the ser#ice so re3uire, deputi"e and retain in the name of the Commission such
certified public accountants and other licensed professionals not in the public ser#ice as it ma$ deem necessar$ to
assist go#ernment auditors in undertaking speciali"ed audit engagements)
F5'6 *he deputi"ed professionals shall be entitled to such compensation and allowances as ma$ be stipulated,
subject to pertinent rules and regulations on compensation and fees)F
2ccording to the C(2, ;ection -& is the ma4imum e4tent that pri#ate auditors can participate in auditing
go#ernment agencies and an$thing be$ond this is without legal basis) Cence, the C(2 maintains that the hiring of
pri#ate auditors who act in their own name and operate independentl$ of the C(2 is unlawful)
;ection -& is bereft of an$ language that prohibits, e4pressl$ or impliedl$, the hiring of pri#ate auditors b$
go#ernment agencies) *his pro#ision of law merel$ grants authorit$ to the C(2 to hire and deputi"e pri#ate
auditors to assist the C(2 in the auditing of go#ernment agencies) ;uch pri#ate auditors operate under the
authorit$ of the C(2) B$ no stretch of statutor$ construction can this pro#ision be interpreted as an absolute
statutor$ ban on the hiring of pri#ate auditors b$ go#ernment agencies) E#identl$, the language of the law does
not support the C(2Bs claim)
oreo#er, the C(2 further contends that ;ection -' of P@ No) &88< is another pro#ision of law that prohibits the
hiring of pri#ate auditors b$ go#ernment agencies) ;ection -' pro#ides as follows+
F;ection -') >o#ernment contracts for auditing, accounting, and related ser#ices) 5&6 No go#ernment agenc$ shall
enter into an$ contract with an$ pri#ate person or firm for ser#ices to undertake studies and ser#ices relating to
go#ernment auditing, including ser#ices to conduct, for a fee, seminars or workshops for go#ernment personnel
on these topics, unless the proposed contract is first submitted to the Commission to enable it to determine if it has
the resources to undertake such studies or ser#ices) *he Commission ma$ engage the ser#ices of e4perts from the
public or pri#ate sector in the conduct of these studies)
F5'6 ;hould the Commission decide not to undertake the stud$ or ser#ice, it shall nonetheless ha#e the power to
re#iew the contract in order to determine the reasonableness of its costs)F 5Emphasis supplied6
;ection -' refers to contracts for studies and ser#ices Frelating to go#ernment auditingF which the C(2 ma$ or
ma$ not want to undertake itself for a go#ernment agenc$) ;tated another wa$, ;ection -' speaks of studies and
ser#ices that the C(2 ma$ choose not to render to a go#ernment agenc$) (b#iousl$, the subject of these contracts
is not the audit itself of a go#ernment agenc$ because the C(2 is compelled to undertake such audit and cannot
choose not to conduct such audit) *he Constitution and e4isting law mandate the C(2 to audit all go#ernment
agencies) ;ection ', 2rticle ID9@ of the Constitution commands that the C(2 Fshall ha#e the 4 4 4 dut$ to
e4amine, audit, and settle all accountsF of go#ernment agencies 5Emphasis supplied6) ;imilarl$, the Re#ised
2dministrati#e Code of &/01 directs that the FCommission on 2udit shall ha#e the 4 4 4 dut$ to e4amine, audit,
and settle all accountsF
-<
of go#ernment agencies 5Emphasis supplied6) Cence, the C(2 cannot refuse to audit
go#ernment agencies under an$ circumstance)
*he subject of the contracts referred to in ;ection -' is necessaril$ limited to studies, seminars, workshops,
researches and other ser#ices on go#ernment auditing which the C(2 ma$ or ma$ not undertake at its discretion,
thereb$ e4cluding the audit itself of go#ernment agencies) ;ince the C(2 personnel ha#e the e4perience on
go#ernment auditing and are in fact the e4perts on this subject, it is onl$ proper for the C(2 to be granted the
right of first refusal to undertake such ser#ices if re3uired b$ go#ernment agencies) *his is what ;ection -' is all
about and nothing more) Plainl$, there is nothing in ;ection -' which prohibits the hiring of pri#ate auditors to
audit go#ernment agencies concurrentl$ with the C(2 audit)
(n the other hand, the @BP cites Central Bank Circular No) &&'8
-=
as legal basis for hiring a pri#ate auditor) *his
Circular amended ;ubsection &&=<)< 5Book I6 of the anual of 4egulations for Ban6s and other ,inancial
Intermediariesto re3uire F%EJach bank, whether go#ernment9owned or controlled or pri#ate, 4 4 4 5to6 cause an
annual financial audit to be conducted b$ an e4ternal auditor 4 4 4)F oreo#er, the Circular states that the Faudit
of a go#ernment9owned or controlled bank b$ an e4ternal independent auditor shall be in addition to and without
prejudice to that conducted b$ the Commission on 2udit in the discharge of its mandate under e4isting law)F
7urthermore, the Circular pro#ides that the Fre3uirement for an annual audit b$ an e4ternal independent auditor
shall e4tend to speciali"ed and uni3ue go#ernment banks such as the !and Bank of the Philippines and the
@e#elopment Bank of the Philippines)F
*he Central Bank promulgated Circular No) &&'8 on @ecember <, &/0= pursuant to its power under the 7reedom
Constitution, the fundamental law then in force, as well as pursuant to its general rule making authorit$ under the
>eneral Banking 2ct 5R2 No) --16, the banking law in effect at that time) Ender the 7reedom Constitution, the
Central Bank e4ercised super#isor$ authorit$ o#er the banking s$stem) ;ection &8, 2rticle D? of the &/1-
Constitution, which was re9adopted in the 7reedom Constitution, pro#ided as follows+
F;EC) &8) *he Batasang Pambansa shall establish a central monetar$ authorit$ which shall pro#ide polic$
direction in the areas of mone$, banking and credit) It shall ha#e super#isor$ authorit$ o#er the operations of
banks and e4ercise such regulator$ authorit$ as ma$ be pro#ided b$ law o#er the operations of finance companies
and other institutions performing similar functions) Entil the Batasang Pambansa shall otherwise pro#ide, the
Central Bank of the Philippines, operating under e4isting laws, shall function as the central monetar$ authorit$)F
5Emphasis supplied6
;ection =9@ of the >eneral Banking 2ct 5R2 No) --16 #ested the onetar$ Board with the specific power to
Fre3uire a bank to engage the ser#ices of an independent auditor to be chosen b$ the bank concerned from a list of
certified public accountants acceptable to the onetar$ Board)F
*he &/01 Constitution created an independent central monetar$ authorit$ with substantiall$ the same powers as
the Central Bank under the &/1- Constitution and the 7reedom Constitution) ;ection '., 2rticle DII of the &/01
Constitution pro#ides that the onetar$ Board Fshall ha#e super#ision o#er the operations of banksF) *he specific
power of the Central Bank under the >eneral Banking 2ct 5R2 No) --16 to re3uire an independent audit of banks
was re9enacted in ;ection <0 of the >eneral Banking !aw of '... 5R2 No) 01/&6)
Indubitabl$, the Central Bank had the e4press constitutional and statutor$ power to promulgate Circular No) &&'8
on @ecember <, &/0=) *he power granted to the Central Bank to issue Circular No) &&'8 with respect to the
independent audit of banks is direct, unambiguous, and be$ond dispute) *he Bang6o (entral ng #ilipinas, which
succeeded the Central Bank, retained under the &/01 Constitution and the >eneral Banking !aw of '... 5R2 No)
01/&6 the same constitutional and statutor$ power the Central Bank had under the 7reedom Constitution and the
>eneral Banking 2ct 5R2 No) --16 with respect to the independent audit of banks)
Circular No) &&'8 has the force and effect of law) In a long line of decisions,
-1
this Court has held consistentl$
that the rules and regulations issued b$ the Central Bank pursuant to its super#isor$ and regulator$ powers ha#e
the force and effect of law) *he @BP, being a bank under the constitutional and statutor$ super#ision of the
Central Bank, was under a clear legal obligation to compl$ with the re3uirement of Circular No) &&'8 on the
pri#ate audit of banks) Refusal b$ the @BP to compl$ with the Circular would ha#e rendered the @BP and its
officers liable to the penal pro#isions of the >eneral Banking 2ct,
-0
as well as the administrati#e and penal
sanctions under the Central Bank 2ct)
-/
*he @BP also relies on ;ection 0 of P@ No) '.'/ as its statutor$ basis for hiring a pri#ate auditor) *his ;ection
states in part as follows+
F*he audit of go#ernment corporations b$ the Commission on 2udit shall not preclude go#ernment corporations
from engaging the ser#ices of pri#ate auditing firms+ Pro#ided, howe#er, that e#en if the ser#ices of the latter are
a#ailed of, the audit report of the Commission on 2udit shall ser#e as the report for purposes of compliance with
audit re3uirements as re3uired of go#ernment corporations under applicable law)F
;ection 0 of P@ No) '.'/, howe#er, also pro#ides that the Fpolic$ of withdrawal of resident auditors shall be full$
implemented 4 4 4)F ;ection ' of the same decree also e4cludes from the term Fgo#ernment9owned or controlled
corporationF two classes of corporations) *he first are originall$ pri#ate corporations the majorit$ of the shares of
stock of which are ac3uired b$ go#ernment financial institutions through foreclosure or dacion en pago) *he
second are subsidiar$ corporations of go#ernment corporations, which subsidiaries are organi"ed e4clusi#el$ to
own, manage or lease ph$sical assets ac3uired b$ go#ernment financial institutions through foreclosure or dacion
en pago) Claiming that P@ No) '.'/ operates to e4empt certain go#ernment9owned corporations from the C(2Bs
jurisdiction in #iolation of ;ection -, 2rticle ID9@ of the Constitution, the C(2 is 3uestioning the
constitutionalit$ of P@ No) '.'/)
*here is, howe#er, no compelling need to pass upon the constitutionalit$ of P@ No) '.'/ because the Constitution
and e4isting banking laws allow such hiring) *he issues raised in this case can be resol#ed ade3uatel$ without
resol#ing the constitutionalit$ of P@ No) '.'/) *his Court will lea#e the issue of the constitutionalit$ of P@ No)
'.'/ to be settled in another case where its resolution is an absolute necessit$)
8.
2ird )ssue% Necessit" of Private &uditor and Reasona!leness of te 1ees
*he remaining issue to be resol#ed is whether or not the @BPBs hiring of a pri#ate auditor was necessar$ and the
fees it paid reasonable under the circumstances) *he hiring b$ the @BP of a pri#ate auditor was a condition
imposed b$ the Aorld Bank for the grant to the Philippine go#ernment in earl$ &/01 of a E;N-&. million
Economic Reco#er$ !oan, at a time when the go#ernment desperatel$ needed funds to re#i#e a badl$ battered
econom$) (ne of the salient objecti#es of the E;N-&. million loan was the rehabilitation of the @BP which was
then burdened with enormous bad loans) *he rehabilitation of the @BP was important in the o#erall reco#er$ of
the national econom$)
(n 7ebruar$ '-, &/0=, the Aorld Bank President reported to the BankBs E4ecuti#e @irectors that the pri#atel$
audited accounts of the @BP for &/0= and &/01 Fwill be a re3uirement for the releases of the second and third
tranches, respecti#el$, of the ER!F 5Emphasis supplied6) oreo#er, the Agreed inutes of 5egotiations on the
#hilippine Economic 4ecovery #rogram
8&
signed b$ the Philippine go#ernment and Aorld Bank negotiating
panels on ,anuar$ 0, &/01, re3uired that Fa cop$ of C(2Bs letter 4 4 4 regarding @BPBs appointment of a pri#ate
e4ternal auditor will be sent to the 5Aorld6 Bank before the distribution of the loan documents to the BankBs
Board, along with a cop$ of the scope of audit as appro#ed b$ C(2 and satisfactor$ to the BankF 5Emphasis
supplied6)
2s a creditor, the Aorld Bank needed the pri#ate audit for its own information to monitor the progress of the
@BPBs rehabilitation) *his is apparent from the said Agreed inutes which pro#ided that the Fgeneral terms of
reference 5for the hiring of pri#ate e4ternal audit6 were discussed during the negotiations and form part of the
Aorld BankBsguidelines for financial information on financial institutionsF
8'
5Emphasis supplied6)
*he hiring of a pri#ate auditor being an e4press condition for the grant of the E;N-&. million Economic
Reco#er$ !oan, a major objecti#e of which was the @BPBs rehabilitation, the same was a necessar$ corporate act
on the part of the @BP) *he national go#ernment, represented b$ the Central Bank >o#ernor, as well as the
inisters of 7inance, *rade, and Economic Planning, had alread$ committed to the hiring b$ all go#ernment
banks of pri#ate auditors in addition to the C(2) 7or the @BP to refuse to hire a pri#ate auditor would ha#e
aborted the #ital loan and derailed the national economic reco#er$, resulting in gra#e conse3uences to the entire
nation) *he hiring of a pri#ate auditor was not onl$ necessar$ based on the go#ernmentBs loan co#enant with the
Aorld Bank, it was also necessar$ because it was mandated b$ Central Bank Circular No) &&'8 under pain of
administrati#e and penal sanctions)
*he last matter to determine is the reasonableness of the fees charged b$ ,oa3uin C) Cunanan L Co), the pri#ate
auditor hired b$ the @BP) *he C(2 describes the pri#ate auditorBs fees as an Fe4cessi#e, e4tra#agant or
unconscionable e4penditureF of go#ernment funds) 7or the audit of the @BPBs financial statements in &/0=, the
pri#ate auditor billed the @BP the amount of P801,-'&)&8)
8-
In &/01, the pri#ate auditor billed the @BP the
amount of P<'/,/81)..)
88
In comparison, the C(2 billed the @BP an audit fee of P'1,.&<,/=-)..
8<
in &/00,
andP&<,8'&,==')..
8=
in &/0/) E#en granting that the C(2Bs scope of audit ser#ices was broader,
81
still it could not
be said that the pri#ate auditorBs fees are e4cessi#e, e4tra#agant or unconscionable compared to the C(2Bs
billings)
*he hiring of a pri#ate auditor b$ the @BP being a condition of the E;N-&. million Aorld Bank loan to the
Philippine go#ernment, the fees of such pri#ate auditor are in realit$ part of the go#ernmentBs cost of borrowing
from the Aorld Bank) *he audit report of the pri#ate auditor is primaril$ intended for the Aorld BankBs
information
80
on the financial status of the @BP whose rehabilitation was one of the objecti#es of the loan) 2n
annual pri#ate audit fee of about half a million pesos added to the interest on a E;N-&. million loan would hardl$
make the cost of borrowing e4cessi#e, e4tra#agant or unconscionable) Besides, the condition imposed b$ a lender,
whose mone$ is at risk, re3uiring the borrower or its majorit$9owned subsidiaries to submit to audit b$ an
independent public accountant, is a reasonable and normal business practice)
W"ERE(ORE, the petition is hereb$ GRAN%ED) *he letter9decision of the Chairman of the Commission on
2udit dated 2ugust '/, &/00, and the letter9decision promulgated b$ the Commission on 2udit en banc dated
a$ '., &/0/, are hereb$ SE% ASIDE, and the temporar$ restraining order issued b$ the court enjoining
respondent Commission on 2udit from enforcing the said decisions is hereb$ made ER!ANEN%)
;( (R@ERE@)
G. R. No. 129820 No61A.17 ;0, 200F
NOC-ENERG' DE&ELO!EN% CORORA%ION +NOC-EDC-, #etitioner!
#s)
E!ILIANO G. &ENERACION, JR., 4espondent.
@ E C I ; I ( N
C"ICO-NA#ARIO, J.%
*his is a Petition for Re#iew on Certiorari, under Rule 8< of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the (rder,
dated '& a$ &//1 issued b$ the ines 2djudication Board 52B6 of the @epartment of En#ironmental and
Natural Resources 5@ENR6,
&
declaring that the respondent Emiliano ?eneracion has a preferential right o#er the
contested Block &</)
*his case in#ol#es the conflicting claims of the petitioner Philippine National (il Corporation9Energ$
@e#elopment Corporation and the respondent o#er the mining rights o#er Block &</ of the alangas Coal
Reser#ation, 2licia, Gamboanga del ;ur)
(n -& ,anuar$ &/0/, respondent applied with the ines and >eo9;ciences @e#elopment ;er#ices, @ENR, Region
ID, Gamboanga Cit$ for a @eclaration of !ocation 5@(!6 o#er Block &</ of the alangas Coal Reser#ation,
situated at Baranga$s Pa$ongan and Kauswagan, 2licia, Gamboanga del ;ur) (n &0 a$ &/0/, the (ffice of the
Regional E4ecuti#e @irector 5RE@6 of the @ENR informed the respondent that his @(! cannot be registered
since Block &</ was part of the alangas Coal Reser#ation, as pro#ided under Proclamation No) '08, issued b$
the President on &/ ,ul$ &/-0)
'
Aith the endorsement of the (ffice of Energ$ 2ffairs 5(E26 and the @ENR
;ecretar$, the respondent petitioned the (ffice of the President for the withdrawal of Block &</ from the coal
reser#ation and its con#ersion into a mineral reser#ation)
-
cra
*he petitioner applied for a mineral prospecting permit o#er Block &</ 5and Blocks &'. and &=.6 with the (E2,
which the latter granted on 8 ;eptember &/0/) *he alangas Coal Reser#ation was, at that time, under the
administration of the (E2)
8
Ahen it had initiall$ applied for a mineral prospecting permit o#er lands within the
alangas Coal Reser#ation, the (E2 ad#ised it to obtain the permission of the Bureau of ines and >eo9
;ciences 5B>;6)
<
cra
(n &0 (ctober &//&, petitioner submitted to the @ENR an applicationMproposal for a ineral Production ;haring
2greement 5P;26 o#er Blocks &'., &</ and &=. of the alangas Coal
Reser#ation)
=
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
(n '& 7ebruar$ &//', the (fficer9In9Charge Regional *echnical @irector @ario R) iPo"a of the ines and >eo9
;ciences @e#elopmental ;er#ice 5>@;6 ad#ised the petitioner to amend its application for P;2 b$ e4cluding
Block &</ as the same is co#ered b$ the application of the respondent)
1
Ne#ertheless, the petitioner did not
e4clude Block &</ from its P;2) Records also show that it had not applied for nor was it able to obtain an
E4ploration Permit from the B>; o#er Block &</)
(n &- 2pril &//', Presidential Proclamation No) 0/. was issued, which effecti#el$ e4cluded Block &</ from the
operation of Proclamation No) '08, and declared Block No) &</ as go#ernment mineral reser#ation open for
disposition to 3ualified mining applicants, pursuant to E4ecuti#e (rder No) '1/)
0
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
(n '= a$ &//', petitionerBs application for P;2 co#ering Coal Block Nos) &'., &</ and &=. was accepted for
filing)
/
Respondent immediatel$ filed, on '0 a$ &//', a protest to the petitionerBs inclusion of Block &</ in its
application for P;2 before the RE@ of the @ENR (ffice in Gamboanga Cit$)
&.
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
2fter the parties were heard, the RE@, in an (rder, dated &' 2pril &//-, ruled in fa#or of the respondent and
ordered the petitioner to amend its P;2 b$ e4cluding therefrom Block &</)
&&
(n &0 a$ &//-, petitioner filed
a otion for Reconsideration of the (rder dated &' 2pril &//-,
&'
which the RE@ denied in an (rder dated < ,ul$
&//-)
&-
cra
(n -. ,ul$ &//-, petitioner filed an appeal with the @ENR ;ecretar$ 3uestioning the (rders issued b$ the
RE@)
&8
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
Ahile the case was pending, respondent applied for a P;2) (n -& ,ul$ &//', he paid the processing fee for a
P;2 co#ering Block &</ and was able to compl$ with all other re3uirements of the P;2 application)
&<
cra
(n 8 (ctober &//8, the (ffice of the ;ecretar$ dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitionerBs right to appeal
had alread$ prescribed)
&=
;ection <. of Presidential @ecree No) 8=- pro#ides therefore for a fi#e9da$
reglementar$ period from the receipt of the order or decision of the @irector)
&1
Petitioner recei#ed its cop$ of the
assailed (rder dated &' 2pril &//- on 1 a$ &//-, but filed its otion for Reconsideration onl$ on &0 a$
&//-, or ele#en da$s after its receipt thereof) *hereafter, petitioner recei#ed a cop$ of the (rder dated < ,ul$ &//-
on &= ,ul$ &//-, but filed its appeal onl$ on -. ,ul$ &//- or nine da$s after the allowable period to appeal)
(n '< (ctober &//8, petitioner, through a letter addressed to the @ENR ;ecretar$, sought the reconsideration of
the @ecision, dated 8 (ctober &//8)
&0
In a Resolution, dated '& @ecember &//8, the then @ENR ;ecretar$ 2ngel
C) 2lcala re#ersed the @ecision, dated 8 (ctober &//8, and ga#e due course to the P;2 of the
petitioner)
&/
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
(n & 7ebruar$ &//<, respondent filed a otion for Reconsideration of the Resolution, dated '& @ecember
&//8)
'.
*he now @ENR ;ecretar$ ?ictor () Ramos issued an (rder, dated < 2ugust &//=, re#ersing the
Resolution, dated '& @ecember &//8 and reinstating the @ecision, dated 8 (ctober &//8) It ruled that the (rders
issued b$ the RE@ ha#e alread$ become final and e4ecutor$ when the petitioner failed to file its appeal fi#e da$s
after it had recei#ed the (rders) 2s a result, the @ENR ;ecretar$ no longer had the jurisdiction to issue the
assailed Resolution, dated '& @ecember &//8) It added that after looking into the merits of the case, the (rders of
the RE@ were in accordance with the e#idence on record and the pertinent laws on the matter)
'&
cra
(n '. 2ugust &//=, petitioner filed a otion for Reconsideration of the (rder, dated < 2ugust &//=) (n '& a$
&//1, the 2B resol#ed the motion in fa#or of the respondent and affirmed the assailed (rder, dated < 2ugust
&//=)
''
It took cogni"ance of the appeal filed b$ petitioner, in accordance with ;ection 10 of Republic 2ct No
1/8', otherwise known as *he Philippine ining 2ct of &//<)
'-
*he 2B ruled that the petitioner filed its
appeal be$ond the fi#e9da$ prescripti#e period pro#ided under Presidential @ecree No) 8=-, which was then the
go#erning law on the matter)
*he 2B also decreed that the respondent had preferential mining rights o#er Block &</) It ruled that the proper
procedure with respect to the mining rights application o#er Block &</ when it was still part of the alangas Coal
Reser#ation re3uired the following+ 5&6 application for prospecting permit with the (E2 or other office ha#ing
jurisdiction o#er said reser#ation: 5'6 application for e4ploration permit: 5-6 application for e4clusion of the land
from such reser#ation: 586 Presidential @eclaration on e4clusion as recommended b$ the ;ecretar$: and 5<6
application for !ease thereof with priorit$ gi#en to holder of e4ploration Permit)
*he 2B noted that petitioner did not file for an e4ploration permit nor applied for the e4clusion of Block &</)
oreo#er, petitioner filed a P;2 on &0 (ctober &//&, or almost si4 5=6 months prior to the issuance of
Proclamation No) 0/. e4cluding Block &</ from the alangas Coal Reser#ation and allowing its disposition)
*hus, the application for a P;2 o#er Block &</, while it was still part of a go#ernment reser#ation other than a
mineral reser#ation, was erroneous and improper and could not ha#e been legall$ accepted) 2nd, since the records
show that onl$ one P;2 was filed after the issuance of Proclamation 0/. 9 that of the respondentBs, the
preferential right o#er Block &</ was ac3uired b$ the respondent) *he 2B, ne#ertheless, pointed out that the
said preferential right does not necessaril$ lead to the granting of the respondentBs P;2, but merel$ consists of
the right to ha#e his application e#aluated and the prohibition against accepting other mining applications o#er
Block &</ pending the processing of his P;2)
Cence, this Petition for Re#iew on Certiorari)
*he correct mode of appeal would ha#e been to file a petition for re#iew under Rule 8-, before the Court of
2ppeals) PetitionerBs reliance on ;ection 1/ of the Philippine ining 2ct of &//< is misplaced)
'8
Republic 2ct
No) 1/.' e4panded the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of 2ppeals to include+cra+nad
E4clusi#e appellate jurisdiction o#er all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional *rial
Courts and 3uasi9judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions 4 4 4 e4cept those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the ;upreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the !abor Code of the Philippines
under Presidential @ecree No) 88', as amended, the pro#isions of this 2ct, and of subparagraph 5&6 of the third
paragraph and subparagraph 586 of the fourth paragraph of ;ection &1 of the ,udiciar$ 2ct of &/80)
Aith the enactment of Republic 2ct No) 1/.', this Court issued Circular No) &9/< dated &= a$ &//< go#erning
appeals from all 3uasi9judicial bodies to the Court of 2ppeals b$ petition for re#iew, regardless of the nature of
the 3uestion raised) ;aid circular was incorporated in Rule 8- of the Rules of Ci#il Procedure)
'<
In addition, this
Court held in a line of cases that appeals from judgments and final orders of 3uasi9judicial bodies are re3uired to
be brought to the Court of 2ppeals, under the re3uirements and conditions set forth in Rule 8- of the Rules of
Ci#il Procedure)
'=
Ne#ertheless, this Court has taken into account the fact that these cases were promulgated after
the petitioner filed this appeal on 8 2ugust &//1, and decided to take cogni"ance of the present case)
*here are two main issues that need to be resol#ed in this case+ 5&6 whether or not the petitioner has alread$ lost
its right to appeal the RE@Bs (rder dated &' 2pril &//-: and 5'6 whether or not the petitioner ac3uired a
preferential right on mining rights o#er Block &</)
*his Court finds no merit in this Petition)
Petitioner alleges that ;ection =& of Commonwealth 2ct No) &-1
'1
go#erns the petitionerBs appeal of the (rders,
dated &' 2pril &//- and < ,ul$ &//-, and not ;ection <. of Presidential @ecree No) 8=-) Ce further adds that
e#en if Presidential @ecree No) 8=- was applicable in this case, his appeal should ha#e been allowed on grounds
of substantial justice)
Ahen Presidential @ecree No) 8=- was enacted in &/18, ;ection <. of the law had clearl$ intended to repeal the
corresponding pro#ision found in ;ection =& of Commonwealth 2ct No) &-1, and to shorten the -.9da$ period
within which to file an appeal from the @ecision of the @irector of ines and >eo9;ciences to fi#e da$s) ;ection
=& of Commonwealth 2ct No) &-1, as amended, pro#ides that+cra+nad
;EC) =&) 9 Conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations shall be submitted to the @irector of ines for
decision+ Pro#ided, *hat the decision or order of the @irector of ines ma$ be appealed to the ;ecretar$ of
2griculture and Natural Resources within thirt$ da$s from receipt of such decision or order) In case an$ one of
the parties should disagree from the decision or order of the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources, the
matter ma$ be taken to the Court of 2ppeals or the ;upreme Court, as the case ma$ be, within thirt$ da$s from
the receipt of such decision or order, otherwise the said decision or order shall be final and binding upon the
parties concerned) 4 4 4)
;ection <. of Presidential @ecree No) 8=- reads+cra+nad
;ec) <.) 2ppeals) 9 2n$ part$ not satisfied with the decision or order of the @irector, ma$, within fi#e 5<6 da$s
from receipt thereof, appeal to the inister %now ;ecretar$J) @ecisions of the inister %now ;ecretar$J are
likewise appealable within fi#e 5<6 da$s from receipt thereof b$ the affected part$ to the President whose decision
shall be final and e4ecutor$)
PetitionerBs insistence that the -.9da$ reglementar$ period pro#ided b$ ;ection =& of Commonwealth 2ct No)
&-1, as amended, applies, cannot be sustained b$ this Court) B$ pro#iding a fi#e9da$ period within which to file
an appeal on the decisions of the @irector of ines and >eo9;ciences, Presidential @ecree No) 8=-
un3uestionabl$ repealed ;ection =& of Commonwealth 2ct No) &-1)
In Pearson #) Intermediate 2ppellate Court,
'0
this Court e4tensi#el$ discussed the de#elopment of the law on the
adjudication of mining claims, as seen in the pro#isions of Commonwealth 2ct No) &-1, Presidential @ecree No)
8=-, until its present state under Republic 2ct No) 1/8') It was noted that there was a clear effort to moderni"e
the s$stem of administration and disposition of mineral lands and that the procedure of adjudicating mining
claims had become increasingl$ administrati#e in character)
%AJith the issuance of Presidential @ecree Nos) //92, -./, and 8=-, the procedure of adjudicating conflicting
mining claims has been made completel$ administrati#e in character, with the President as the final appeal
authorit$) ;ection <. of P)@) 8=-, pro#iding for a moderni"ed s$stem of administration and disposition of mineral
lands, to promote and encourage the de#elopment and e4ploitation thereof, mandates on the matter of FProtests,
2d#erse Claims and 2ppeals,F the following procedure+cra+nad
2ppeals 9 2n$ part$ not satisfied with the decision or order of the @irector ma$, within fi#e 5<6 da$s from receipt
thereof appeal, to the ;ecretar$) @ecisions of the ;ecretar$ are likewise appealable within fi#e 5<6 da$s from
receipt thereof b$ the affected part$ to the President of the Philippines whose decision shall be final and
e4ecutor$)
It should be noted that before its amendment, the ining !aw 5C)2) No) &-16 re3uired that after the filing of
ad#erse claim with the Bureau of ines, the ad#erse claimant had to go to a court of competent jurisdiction for
the settlement of the claim) Aith the amendment seeking to e4pedite the resolution of mining conflicts, the
@irector of ines became the mandator$ adjudicator of ad#erse claims, instead of the Court of 7irst instance)
*hus, it cannot escape notice that under ;ection =& of the ining !aw, as amended b$ Republic 2ct Nos) 18= and
8-00, appeals from the decision of the ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources 5then inister of Natural
Resources6 on conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations ma$ be made to the Court of 2ppeals or the
;upreme Court as the case ma$ be) In contrast, under the decrees issued at the onset of martial law, it has been
e4pressl$ pro#ided that the decisions of the same ;ecretar$ in mining cases are appealable to the President of the
Philippines under ;ection <. of the ineral Resources @e#elopment @ecree of &/18 5P)@) No) 8=-6 and ;ection 1
of P)@) No) &'0& in relation to P)@) No) -./)
*he trend at present is to make the adjudication of mining cases a purel$ administrati#e matter) *his does not
mean that administrati#e bodies ha#e complete rein o#er mining disputes) *he #er$ terms of ;ection 1- of the
ining !aw, as amended b$ R)2) No) 8-00, in re3uiring that the ad#erse claim must Fstate in full detail the
nature, boundaries and e4tent of the ad#erse claimF show that the conflicts to be decided b$ reason of such
ad#erse claim refer primaril$ to 3uestions of fact) *he contro#ersies to be submitted and resol#ed b$ the @irector
of ines under the sections referred onl$ to the o#erlapping of claims and administrati#e matters incidental
thereto) Iuestions and contro#ersies that are judicial, not administrati#e, in nature can be resol#ed onl$ b$ the
regular courts in whom is #ested the judicial power to resol#e and adjudicate such ci#il disputes and contro#ersies
between litigants in accordance with the established norms of law and justice) @ecisions of the ;upreme Court on
mining disputes ha#e recogni"ed a distinction between 5&6 the primar$ powers granted b$ pertinent pro#isions of
law to the then ;ecretar$ of 2griculture and Natural Resources 5and the bureau directors6 of an e4ecuti#e or
administrati#e nature, such as Fgranting of license, permits, lease and contracts, or appro#ing, rejecting,
reinstating or cancelling applications, or deciding conflicting applications,F and 5'6 contro#ersies or
disagreements of ci#il or contractual nature between litigants which are 3uestions of a judicial nature that ma$ be
adjudicated onl$ b$ the courts of justice)
*his distinction is carried on e#en under the present law) 7indings of fact b$ the ines 2djudication Board,
which e4ercises appellate jurisdiction o#er decisions or orders of the panel of arbitrators, shall be conclusi#e and
binding on the parties, and its decision or order shall be final and e4ecutor$) But resort to the appropriate court,
through a petition for re#iew b$ certiorari, in#ol#ing 3uestions of law, ma$ be made within thirt$ da$s from the
receipt of the order or decision of the ines 2djudication Board)
Nor can petitioner in#oke the doctrine that rules of technicalit$ must $ield to the broader interest of substantial
justice) Ahile e#er$ litigant must be gi#en the amplest opportunit$ for the proper and just determination of his
cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementar$ period is
not a mere technicalit$) It raises a jurisdictional problem as it depri#es the appellate court of jurisdiction o#er the
appeal) *he right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutor$ pri#ilege to be e4ercised onl$
in the manner and in accordance with the pro#isions of the law)
'/
chanrobles#irtuallawlibar$
Petitioner in#okes the judicial polic$ of allowing appeals, although filed late, when the interest of justice so
re3uires) Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderl$ administration of justice, namel$, to ensure the
effecti#e enforcement of substanti#e rights b$ pro#iding for a s$stem that ob#iates arbitrariness, caprice,
despotism, or whimsicalit$ in the settlement of disputes) Cence, rules of procedure must be faithfull$ followed
e4cept onl$ when for persuasi#e reasons, the$ ma$ be rela4ed to relie#e a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to compl$ with the prescribed procedure) Concomitant to a liberal application of
the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the part$ in#oking liberalit$ to e4plain his failure to abide
b$ the rules)
-.
In the instant case, petitioner failed to state an$ compelling reason for not filing its appeal within
the mandated period) Instead, the records show that after failing to compl$ with the period within which to file
their motion for reconsideration on time, the$ again failed to file their appeal before the (ffice of the @ENR
;ecretar$ within the time pro#ided b$ law)
E#en if petitioner had not lost its right to appeal, it cannot claim an$ mining rights o#er Block &</ for failure to
compl$ with the legal re3uirements) Petitioner applied for an P;2 with the @ENR on &0 (ctober &//&, prior to
the release of Block &</ from the alangas Coal Reser#ation under Proclamation No) 0/. on &- 2pril &//')
*hus, the pro#isions on the ac3uisition of mining rights within a go#ernment reser#ation other than a mineral
reser#ation under Presidential @ecree No) 8=- and the Consolidated ines 2dministrati#e (rder 5C2(6 should
appl$)
2s a general rule, prospecting and e4ploration of minerals in a go#ernment reser#ation is prohibited under ;ection
&- of Presidential @ecree No) 8=-) Cowe#er, the same rule pro#ides an e4ception in#ol#ing instances when the
go#ernment agenc$ concerned allows it)
;ection &-) 2reas Closed to ining !ocation) 9 No prospecting and e4ploration shall be allowed+cra+nad
5a6 In militar$, and other >o#ernment reser#ations e4cept when authori"ed b$ the proper >o#ernment agenc$
concerned)
;ection 0 of Presidential @ecree No) 8=- reiterates the rule and clarifies it further b$ stating that prospecting,
e4ploration and e4ploitation of minerals on reser#ed lands other than mineral reser#ations ma$ be undertaken b$
the proper go#ernment agenc$) 2s an e4ception to this rule, 3ualified persons ma$ undertake the said prospecting,
e4ploration and e4ploitation when the said agencies cannot undertake them)
;ection 0) Prospecting, E4ploration and E4ploitation of inerals in Reser#ed !ands) 9 Prospecting, e4ploration
and e4ploitation of minerals in reser#ed lands other than mineral reser#ations ma$ be undertaken b$ the proper
go#ernment agenc$) In the e#ent that the said agencies cannot undertake the prospecting, e4ploration and
e4ploitation of minerals in reser#ed lands, 3ualified persons ma$ be permitted to undertake such prospecting,
e4ploration and e4ploitation in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated b$ the ;ecretar$ %inisterJ)
*he right to e4ploit the minerals found therein shall be awarded b$ the President under such terms and conditions
as recommended b$ the @irector and appro#ed b$ the ;ecretar$ %inisterJ+ Pro#ided, *hat the part$ who
undertook prospecting, e4ploration and e4ploitation of said are shall be gi#en priorit$)
Notwithstanding the pro#isions of the preceding paragraph, a special permit ma$ be issued b$ the @irector to the
e4ploration permitee to e4tract, remo#e and dispose of minerals in limited 3uantities as #erified b$ the Bureau of
ines %@irector of ines and >eo9;ciencesJ)
;ection &< of the C2( is more straightforward when it states that go#ernment reser#ed lands are open for
prospecting, subject to the rules and regulations pro#ided therein)
;EC) &<) >o#ernment Reser#ed !and) 9 !ands reser#ed b$ the >o#ernment for purposes other than mining are
open to prospecting) 2n$ interested part$ ma$ file an application therefore with the head of the agenc$
administering said land, subject alwa$s to compliance with pertinent laws and rules and regulations co#ering such
reser#ed land) ;uch application shall be acted upon within thirt$ 5-.6 da$s) In such cases, the compensation due
the surface owner shall accrue e3uall$ to the agenc$ administering the reser#ed land and the Bureau of ines)
*he law enumerates the following re3uirements+ 5&6 a prospecting permit from the agenc$ that has jurisdiction
o#er the area, in this case, the (E2:
-&
5'6 an e4ploration permit from the B>;:
-'
5-6 if the e4ploration re#eals
the presence of commercial deposit, the permitee applies before the B>; for the e4clusion of the area from the
reser#ation:
--
586 granting b$ the president of the application to e4clude the area from the reser#ation:
-8
and 5<6 a
mining agreement appro#ed b$ the @ENR ;ecretar$)
In this case, petitioner complied with the first re3uirement and obtained a prospecting permit from the (E2) In its
correspondence with the petitioner, the (E2, howe#er, ad#ised the petitioner on two separate occasions to obtain
a Fprospecting permitF from the B>;, although the (E2 was probabl$ referring to an e4ploration permit)
-<
*he
petitioner did not appl$ for an e4ploration permit with the B>;, nor would the B>; ha#e granted petitioner
an e4ploration permit because when petitioner wrote to the B>; informing the latter of its intention to enter
into an P;2 with the @ENR o#er Block &</, the B>; informed the petitioner that the respondentBs claim
o#er Block &</ had alread$ preceded that of the petitioner)
-=
*he ad#ice gi#en b$ the B>; was justified since
at that time, the respondent alread$ had a pending application for the e4clusion of Block &</ from the alangas
Coal Reser#ation) *hereafter, the petitioner filed his P;2 application, without compl$ing with the second, third
and fourth re3uisites) ;ince it ignored the sound ad#ice of the (E2 and the B>;, the go#ernment agencies
concerned, and stubbornl$ insisted on its incorrect procedure, petitioner cannot complain now that its P;2 was
re#oked for failure to compl$ with the legal re3uirements)
In contrast, the respondent applied for a @(! as earl$ as -. ,anuar$ &/0/) *he @ENR Regional (ffice refused to
register the respondentBs @(! since Block &</ was still part of the alangas Coal Reser#ation and ad#ised the
respondent to appl$ for the e4clusion of the area from the reser#ation) *he respondent followed this ad#ice) *he
B>; then treated the respondentBs application for a @(! as an application for an e4ploration permit and caused
a #erification report of the area applied for, as pro#ided under ;ection // of the C2()
-1
Epon the application of
the respondent, the (E2 and thereafter the @ENR ;ecretar$ endorsed the respondentBs application for the
e4clusion of the area from the reser#ation)
-0
*his application was granted b$ the President, through Proclamation
No) 0/., which pro#ided that the mining rights to Block &</ will be disposed of in accordance with E4ecuti#e
(rder No) '1/) (n -. ,ul$ &//', respondent filed his P;2)
-/
(n &' 2pril &//-, the RE@ of Gamboanga Cit$
ordered that the respondentBs P;2 be gi#en due course)
8.
2lthough the respondentBs applications ma$ not
follow the strict letter of the law, there was substantial compliance with the re3uirements of the law) Cence, the
respondent was able to ac3uire a preferential right on the mining claims o#er Block &</, as pro#ided under
;ection &.& of the C2()
E#en if it were to be assumed that the respondent failed to compl$ with these re3uirements, this would not be fatal
to his cause since he filed his P;2 on -& ,ul$ &//', after the issuance of Proclamation No) 0/.: therefore, the
pro#isions on the application of mining rights o#er go#ernment reser#ations would no longer appl$ to him
because Block &</ was alread$ con#erted into a mineral reser#ation, wherein a different set of rules would appl$)
*he onl$ effect of his failure to compl$ with the re3uirements C2( on go#ernment reser#ations is that he loses
the preferential right o#er the area in#ol#ed) In this case, the respondent was the onl$ applicant to the mining
rights o#er Block &</, apart from the petitioner who was not 3ualified for failure to compl$ with the legal
re3uirements) Proclamation No) 0/. specificall$ pro#ides that E4ecuti#e (rder No) '1/ should be applied)
Records indicate that the pro#isions of E4ecuti#e (rder No) '1/ ha#e been complied with)
8&
cra
IN ?IEA (7 *CE 7(RE>(IN>, the instant Petition is @ENIE@) *he assailed @ecision of the ines
2djudication Board is hereb$ 277IRE@) No costs)
SO ORDERED)
G.R. No. 109H0; July I, 1994
REAL%' E$C"ANGE &EN%URE CORORA%ION AND?OR !AGDIWANG, REAL%'
CORORA%ION, #etitioner, #s)LUCINA S. SENDINO ,:0 4<1 O((ICE O( %"E E$ECU%I&E
SECRE%AR', O225/1 o2 4<1 718501:4, !,l,/,Q,:=, !,:5l,, 4espondents)
KAUNAN, J.% chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Pri#ate respondent !ucina C) ;endino entered into a reser#ation agreement with Realt$ E4change ?enture, Inc)
5RE?I6 for a &'.9s3uare meter lot in Ra$mond#ille ;ubdi#ision in ;ucat, Parana3ue for P-.1,0..).. as its
purchase price)
1
;he paid P&,...).. as partial reser#ation fee on ,anuar$ &<, &/0/ and completed pa$ment of this
fee on ,anuar$ '., &/0/ b$ pa$ing P8,...)..)
2
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ,ul$ &0, &/0/, pri#ate respondent paid RE?I P&=,=..).. as full downpa$ment on the purchase
price)
;
Cowe#er, she was ad#ised b$ RE?I to change her co9maker, which she agreed, asking for an e4tension of
one month to do so)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
7or alleged non9compliance with the re3uirement of submission of the appropriate documents under the terms of
the original agreement,
4
RE?I, through its ?ice9President for arketing, informed respondent of the cancellation
of the contract on the -&st of ,ul$ &/0/)
I
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n 2pril '., &//., pri#ate respondent filed a complaint for ;pecific Performance against RE?I with the office of
2ppeals, 2djudication and !egal 2ffairs 5(22!26 of the Cousing and !and Ese Regulator$ Board 5C!ERB6
asking that respondent be ordered+
&) *o compl$ and continue with the sale of the house and lot, Block 8, !ot &1 at the Ra$mond#ille ;ubdi#ision,
;ucat Road, Parana3ue, etro anila: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
') *o pa$ complainant actual, nominal and moral damages, the amount of which will be pro#ed in the
hearing: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
-) *o pa$ complainant attorne$Bs fee in the sum of P&.,...)..: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
8) *o pa$ complainant e4emplar$ damages in the sum of P&.,...).. to set an e4ample and to a#oid a repetition of
such illegal and unsound business practices of the respondent)
F
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*his petition was amended on 2ugust &1, &//. b$ impleading petitioners agdiwang Realt$ Corporation 5RC6
which appeared to be the registered owner of the subject lot as per *C* No)
1=.'-)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n 2pril -, &//& the C!ERB, whose authorit$ to hear and decide the complaint was challenged b$ RE?I in its
answer,
H
rendered its judgment in fa#or of pri#ate respondent and ordered petitioners to continue with the sale of
the house and lot and to pa$ pri#ate respondent P<,... as moral damages, P<,... as e4emplar$ damages and
P=,... as attorne$Bs fees and costs of the suit)
8
2n appeal from this decision was taken to the C!ERB (22!2
2rbiter, which affirmed the BoardBs decision) *he decision of the (22!2 2rbiter was appealed to the (ffice of
the President, herein public respondent)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
(n ,anuar$ 1, &//-, the public respondent rendered its decision dismissing the petitionersB appeal) otion for
reconsideration of the decision was denied b$ the public respondent on ,anuar$ '=, &//-) Conse3uentl$
petitioners come before this Court, in this petition, which the Court resol#es to treat as a petition for certiorari,
raising the following issues+
I chanrobles #irtual law librar$
PEB!IC RE;P(N@EN* C(I**E@ ;ERI(E; ERR(R IN @EC!2RIN> *C2* *CE C(E;IN> 2N@
!2N@ E;E RE>E!2*(RH B(2R@ C2; @+A(I-H+DICIA' 7ENC*I(N;, N(*AI*C;*2N@IN>
2B;ENCE (7 EDPRE;; >R2N* BH EDECE*I?E (R@ER N() /. (7 @ECEBER &1, &/0= ACICC
CRE2*E@ I*) 2N@ E?EN I7 *CE C!ERB C2; IE2;I9,E@ICI2! 7ENC*I(N;, PEB!IC RE;P(N@EN*
!IKEAI;E ;ERI(E;!H ERRE@ IN @EC!2RIN> *C2* *CE B(2R@ (7 C(I;;I(NER; I;
2!!(AE@ *( ;I* IN 2 @ECI;I(N *( REN@ER ,E@>EN* 2N@ *( @E!E>2*E I*; IE2;I9
,E@ICI2! 2E*C(RI*H *( 2 ;EB(R@IN2*E (77ICE)
II chanrobles #irtual law librar$
PEB!IC RE;P(N@EN* >R2?E!H 2BE;E@ I*; @I;CRE*I(N IN @EC!2RIN> *C2* *CE !(*
;EB,EC* (7 *CE C(N*R2C* ;(E>C* *( BE EN7(RCE@ I; P2R2PCERN2! @E;PI*E 2@I;;I(N
(7 I*; C(N,E>2! N2*ERE)
III chanrobles #irtual law librar$
PEB!IC RE;P(N@EN* >R2?E!H 2BE;E@ I*; @I;CRE*I(N IN @EC!2RIN> *C2* (N!H
N(*2RI2! N(*ICE (7 RE;CI;;I(N 2H ?2!I@!H C2NCE! 2 RE;ER?2*I(N 2>REEEN*
PER;E2N* *( REPEB!IC 2C* N() =<<')
2s the first and third issues raised b$ the petitioners strike at the core of the case at bench, this Court deems it
appropriate to initiall$ dispose of the issue of pri#ate respondentBs capacit$ to bring her complaint before the
C!ERB9(22!2)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
It is settled that rules of procedure are as a matter of course construed liberall$ in proceedings before
administrati#e bodies)
9
In the instant case, the original suit for specific performance and damages was filed b$ the
pri#ate respondent with the C!ERB9(22!2, an administrati#e bod$ not hamstrung b$ the strict procedural
technicalities of the Rules of Court) Ender the circumstances, it was certainl$ appropriate for the C!ERB9
(22!2 to ha#e acted on the substanti#e 3uestions relating to the #alidit$ of petitionersB unilateral rescission of
the contract without undul$ concerning itself with a mere procedural slip, the non9joinder of pri#ate petitionerBs
husband in the original complaint before the C!ERB) oreo#er, since petitioners participated in the
administrati#e proceedings without objecting to or raising the procedural infirmit$, the$ were certainl$ estopped
from raising it on appeal before the (ffice of the President and before this
Court)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Proceeding to the principal issues raised b$ the petitioner, while E)() 0< dated &' @ecember &/0= abolished the
inistr$ of Cuman ;ettlements 5C;6, it is patentl$ clear from a reading of its pro#isions that the said e4ecuti#e
order did not abolish the Cuman ;ettlements Regulator$ Commission 5C;RC6 which continued to e4ercise its
powers and functions e#en after the inistr$ of Cuman ;ettlements ceased to e4ist) In spite of the 23uino
>o#ernmentBs stated intention of eradicating what it considered the #estiges of the pre#ious regime, it was not its
intention to create a #acuum b$ abolishing those juridical entities, agencies, corporations, etc), attached to or
super#ised b$ the C;, which performed #ital administrati#e functions) Pertinentl$, ;ection - of E)() 0<
mandates that+
) ) ) *he final disposition and final organi"ational alignment or attachment of the juridical entities, agencies,
corporations and councils attached to, or under the administrati#e super#ision of the C; including their
respecti#e e4isting projects, appropriations and other assets shall be subject to subse3uent enactments b$ the
President)
Pursuant to this pro#ision therefore, the President subse3uentl$ issued E4ecuti#e (rder No) /., series of &/0=,
recogni"ing the Cuman ;ettlements Regulator$ Commission 5renamed the C!ERB6 as one of the principal
housing agencies of the go#ernment) Prior to this, E4ecuti#e (rder No) =80 in &/0& transferred all the functions
of the National Cousing 2uthorit$ 5pursuant to Presidential @ecrees Nos) /<1, &'&= and &-886 to the Cuman
;ettlements Regulator$ Commission 5C;RC6 consolidating all regulator$ functions relating to land use and
housing de#elopment in a single entit$)
10
Being the sole regulatory bod$ for housing and land de#elopment, the
renamed bod$, the C!ERB,
11
would ha#e been reduced to a functionall$ sterile entit$ if, as the petitioner
contends, it lacked the powers e4ercised b$ its predecessor which included the power to settle disputes concerning
land use and housing de#elopment and ac3uisition) oreo#er, this Court has had the occasion to definiti#el$ rule
on the 3uestion as to whether or not the Cousing and !and Ese Regulator$ Board could e4ercise the same
3uantum of judicial or 3uasi9judicial powers possessed b$ the C;RC under the inistr$ of Cuman ;ettlements in
the e4ercise of its regulator$ functions when it held, in +nited &ousing Corporation vs. &on. Dayrit
12
that+
2s e4plicitl$ pro#ided b$ law, jurisdiction o#er actions for specific performance of contractual and statutor$
obligations filed b$ bu$ers of subdi#ision lot or condominium unit against the owner or de#eloper, is #ested
e4clusi#el$ in the C;RC, ;ection & of P@ &-88, in no uncertain terms, pro#ides+ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ec) &) In the e4ercise of its functions to regulate real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers
pro#ided for in Presidential @ecree No) /<1, the National Cousing 2uthorit$ shall ha#e e4clusi#e jurisdiction to
hear and decide cases of the following nature+
2) Ensound real estate business practices: chanrobles #irtual law librar$
B) Claims in#ol#ing refund and an$ other claims filed b$ subdi#ision lot or condominium unit bu$er against the
project owner, de#eloper, dealer, broker or salesman: and chanrobles #irtual law librar$
C) Cases in#ol#ing specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision
lot or condominium unit against the owner! developer! dealer! bro6er or salesman. 5Emphasis (urs6
*his is reinforced b$ section 0 of E( =80 5otherwise known as the Charter of the Cuman ;ettlements Regulator$
Commission6 which took effect on 7ebruar$ 1, &/0&, thus+ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;ec) 0) ;ransfer of ,unctions) 9 *he Regulator$ functions of the National Cousing 2uthorit$ pursuant to
Presidential @ecree Nos) /<1, &'&=, &-88 and other related laws are hereb$ transferred to the Cuman ;ettlements
Regulator$ Commission) ) ) ) 2mong the regulator$ functions are ) ) ) 5&&6 Cear and decide cases of unsound real
estate business practices, claims in#ol#ing refund filed against project owners, de#elopers, dealers, brokers, or
salesmen and cases of specific performance 5Emphasis (urs6)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law
librar$
Pri#ate respondents reliance, therefore, on sections & and 0 of the ,udiciar$ Reorgani"ation 2ct of &/0. is
untenable) *hus, as correctl$ pointed out b$ petitioner, section &/, paragraph = of said law is material to the issue
of where jurisdiction lies, and Ae 3uote+
;ec) &/) ) ) )chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
5=6 In all other cases not within the e%clusive jurisdiction of any court! tribunal! persons or body e4ercising
judicial or 3uasi9judicial functions)
444 444 444 chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Neither can Ae accede to pri#ate respondentsB claim that resort to the courts is justified under section 8& of P@
/<1 specificall$ under the phrase Flegal remedies that ma$ be available to aggrie#ed subdi#ision lot bu$ers)F
*here is no 3uestion that a statute ma$ #est e4clusi#e original jurisdiction in an administrati#e agenc$ o#er certain
disputes and contro#ersies falling within the agenc$Bs special e4pertise) *he constitutionalit$ of such grant of
e4clusi#e jurisdiction to the National Cousing 2uthorit$ 5now Cousing and !and Ese Regulator$ Board6 o#er
cases in#ol#ing the sale of lots in commercial subdi#isions was upheld in ;ropical &omes Inc. v. 5ational
&ousing Authority 5&<' ;CR2 <8. %&/01J6 and again sustained in a later decision in Antipolo 4ealty Corporation
v. 5ational &ousing Authority 5&<- ;CR2 -// %&/01J6 where Ae restated that the National Cousing 2uthorit$
5now C!ERB6 shall ha#e e4clusi#e jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with
the terms of P@ No) /<1 which defines the 3uantum of judicial or 3uasi-judicial powers of said
agenc$)
1;
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
Clearl$, therefore, the C!ERB properl$ e4ercised its jurisdiction o#er the case filed b$ the petitioners with its
adjudicati#e bod$, the (22!2, in ordering petitioners to compl$ with their obligations arising from the
Reser#ation 2greement) In general, the 3uantum of judicial or 3uasi9judicial powers which an administrati#e
agenc$ ma$ e4ercise is defined in the agenc$Bs enabling act) In #iew of the CourtBs pronouncement in +nited
&ousing Corporation vs. &on. Dayrit! supra, recogni"ing the C!ERB as the successor agenc$ of the C;RCBs
powers and functions, it therefore follows that the transfer of such functions from the NC2 to the CR;C effected
b$ ;ection 0 of E)() =80, series of &/0&, thereb$ resulted in the ac3uisition b$ the C!ERB of adjudicator$
powers which included the power to F5h6ear and decide cases of unsound real estate business practices ) ) ) and
cases of specific performance)F
14
(b#iousl$, in the e4ercise of its powers and functions, the C!ERB must
interpret and appl$ contracts, determine the rights of the parties under these contracts, and award damages
whene#er appropriate)
1I
Ae fail to see how the C;RC 9 which possessed jurisdiction o#er the actions for specific
performance for contractual and statutor$ obligations filed b$ bu$ers of subdi#ision lots against de#elopers 9 had
suddenl$ lots its adjudicator$ powers b$ the mere fiat of a change in name through E)() /.) (ne thrust of the
multiplication of administrati#e agencies is that the interpretation of such contracts and agreements and the
determination of pri#ate rights under these agreements is no longer a uni3uel$ judicial function)
1F
*he absence of
an$ pro#ision, e4press or implied, in E)() /., repealing those 3uasi9judicial powers inherited b$ the C;RC from
the National Cousing 2uthorit$, furthermore militates against petitionersB position on the
3uestion)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
>oing to petitionersB contention that the decision of the (22!2 should ha#e been rendered b$ the Board of
Commissioners sitting en banc, we find ample authorit$ 9 both in the statutes and in jurisprudence9justif$ing the
BoardBs act of di#iding itself into di#isions of three) Ender ;ection < of E)() =80 which defines the powers and
duties of the Commission, the Board is specificall$ mandated to F5a6dopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its
businessF and perform such functions necessar$ for the effecti#e accomplishment of 5its6 abo#e mentioned
functions)F ;ince nothing in the pro#isions of either E)() /. or E)() =80 denies or withholds the power or
authorit$ to delegate adjudicator$ functions to a di#ision, we cannot see how the Board, for the purpose of
effecti#el$ carr$ing out its administrati#e responsibilities and 3uasi9judicial powers as a regulator$ bod$ should
be denied the power, as a matter of practical administrati#e procedure, to constitute its adjudicator$ boards into
#arious di#isions) 2fter all, the power conferred upon an administrati#e agenc$ to issue rules and regulations
necessar$ to carr$ out its functions has been held Fto be an ade3uate source of authorit$ to delegate a particular
function, unless b$ e4press pro#ision of the 2ct or b$ implication it has been withheld)F
1H
*he practical necessit$
of establishing a procedure whereb$ cases are decided b$ three 5-6 Commissioners furthermore assumes greater
significance when one notes that the C!ERB, as constituted, onl$ has four 586 full time commissioners and fi#e
5<6 part time commissioners to deal with all the functions, administrati#e, adjudicator$, or otherwise, entrusted to
it)
18
2s the (ffice of the President noted in its 7ebruar$ '=, &//- Resolution den$ing petitionersB otion for
Reconsideration, Fit is impossible and #er$ impractical to gather the four 586 full time and fi#e 5<6 part time
commissioners 5together6 just to decide a case)F Considering that its part time commissioners act merel$ in an e%-
officio capacit$, re3uiring a majorit$ of the Board to sit en banc on each and e#er$ case brought before it would
result in an administrati#e nightmare)
19
chanrobles #irtual law librar$
7inall$, petitionersB assertion that R2 =<<' is inapplicable in the instant case because the said law does not appl$
to cases of reser#ation agreements finds no merit in the case at bench in #iew of ;ection '8 of P)@) /<1 which
pro#ides+
;ec) '8) ,ailure to #ay Installments 9 *he rights of the bu$er in the e#ent of his failure to pa$ the installments due
for reasons other than the failure of the owner or de#eloper to de#elop the project shall be go#erned b$ Republic
2ct No) =<<')
2s the ;olicitor >eneral correctl$ pointed out, R2 =<<' makes no distinction between FoptionF and
FsaleF
20
which, under P)@) /<1 also includes Fan e4change or attempt to sell, an option of sale or purchase, a
solicitation of a sale or an offer to sell directl$)F
21
*his all9embracing definition #irtuall$ includes all transactions
concerning land and housing ac3uisition, including reser#ation agreements) ;ince R)2) =<<' mandates
cancellation b$ notarial
act 9 among other re3uirements 9 before an$ cancellation of a contract ma$ be effected, petitionersB precipitate
cancellation of its contract with pri#ate respondent without obser#ing the conditions imposed b$ the said law was
in#alid and improper)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
In fine, the C!ERB9(22!2 acted within the scope of its authorit$ in ordering petitioners to compl$ and
continue with the sale of the house and lot subject of the contract between the original parties) It cannot be
gainsaid that the 3uasi9judicial functions e4ercised b$ the bod$ are necessar$ incidents to the proper e4ercise of
its powers and functions under E)() /. and the laws enacted delineating the scope of authorit$ of its Board of
Commissioners) @en$ing the bod$ those functions so necessar$ in carr$ing out its power to regulate housing and
land use results in its effecti#e emasculation as an important regulator$ bod$ in an area #ital to the national
econom$)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
*he acute housing shortage problem has prompted thousands of middle and lower class bu$ers of houses and lots
and condominium units to enter into all sorts of agreements with pri#ate housing de#elopers in#ol#ing all manner
of installment schemes under contracts drawn e4clusi#el$ b$ these de#elopers) an$ of these #irtual contracts of
adhesion entrap innocent bu$ers b$ re3uiring cash deposits under reser#ation agreements which include,
sometimes in the fine print, default clauses guaranteeing huge monetar$ windfalls for the de#elopers in the e#ent
that their bu$ers 5oftentimes for the flimsiest of reasons6 default b$ failing to come up with certain re3uirements)
Ahile the Court can take judicial notice of this pernicious practice, it can onl$ hope that future legislation would
address the need to protect the innocent middle or lower class home purchaser) In the case of the indi#idual
#ictim, this Court can onl$ go to the e4tent of awarding such damages as ma$ be proper under the peculiar
circumstances of the cases brought before it)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$ chanrobles #irtual law librar$
ACERE7(RE, premises considered, the petition is hereb$ @I;I;;E@ for lack of merit) Costs against
petitioners)chanrobles#irtualawlibrar$chanrobles #irtual law librar$
;( (R@ERE@)
[G.R. No. 1;4F2I. Au=u84 ;1, 1999]
UNI&ERSI%' O( %"E "ILIINES BOARD O( REGEN%S, C"ANCELLOR ROGER OSADAS,
DR. E!ERLINDA RO!AN, DEAN CONSUELO A#, DR. ISAGANI !EDINA, DR. !ARIA SERENA
DIOKNO, DR. OLI&IA CAOILI, DR. (RANCISCO NE!EN#O II, DEAN ACI(ICO AGABIN,
CAR!ELI%A GUNO, ,:0 !ARIC"U LA!BINO, Petitioners, vs. "ON. COUR% O( AEALS ,:0
AROKIASWA!' WILLIA! !ARGARE% CELINE, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
!ENDO#A, J.*
7or re#iew before the Court is the decision of the Court of 2ppeals%& in C29>)R) ;P No) 8'100, dated @ecember
&=, &//1, which granted pri#ate respondents application for a writ of mandator$ injunction, and its resolution,
dated ,ul$ &-, &//0, den$ing petitioners motion for reconsideration)
*he antecedent facts are as follows+
Pri#ate respondent 2rokiaswam$ Ailliam argaret Celine is a citi"en of India and holder of a Philippine #isitors
#isa) ;ometime in 2pril &/00, she enrolled in the doctoral program in 2nthropolog$ of the Eni#ersit$ of the
Philippines College of ;ocial ;ciences and Philosoph$ 5C;;P6 in @iliman, Iue"on Cit$)
2fter completing the units of course work re3uired in her doctoral program, pri#ate respondent went on a two9
$ear lea#e of absence to work as *amil Programme Producer of the ?atican Radio in the ?atican and as >eneral
(ffice 2ssistant at the International Right to !ife 7ederation in Rome) ;he returned to the Philippines in ,ul$
&//& to work on her dissertation entitled, *amil Influences in ala$sia, Indonesia and the Philippines)
(n @ecember '', &//', @r) Realidad ;) Rolda, chairperson of the E)P) @epartment of 2nthropolog$, wrote a
letter to @r) aria ;erena @iokno, C;;P 2ssociate @ean and >raduate Program @irector, certif$ing that pri#ate
respondent had finished her dissertation and was read$ for her oral defense) @r) Rolda suggested that the oral
defense be held on ,anuar$ =, &//- but, in a letter, dated 7ebruar$ ', &//-, @r) ;erena @iokno rescheduled it on
7ebruar$ <, &//-) Named as members of the dissertation panel were @rs) E) 2rsenio anuel, ;erafin Iuiason, ;ri
;kandarajah, Noel *eodoro, and Isagani edina, the last included as the deans representati#e)
2fter going o#er pri#ate respondents dissertation, @r) edina informed C;;P @ean Consuelo ,oa3uin9Pa" that
there was a portion in pri#ate respondents dissertation that was lifted, without proper acknowledgment, from
BalfoursCyclopaedia of India and Eastern and (outhern Asia 5&/=16, #olume I, pp) -/'98.& 5- #), Edward
Balfour &00< reprint6 and from ,ohn Ed$es article entitled @escription of the ?arious Classes of ?essels
Constructed and Emplo$ed b$ the Nati#es of the Coasts of Coromandel, alabar, and the Island of Ce$lon for
their Coasting Na#igation in the 4oyal Asiatic (ociety of 0reat Britain and Ireland Hournal, #olume I, pp) &9&8
5&0--6)%'
Nonetheless, pri#ate respondent was allowed to defend her dissertation on 7ebruar$ <, &//-) 7our 586 out of the
fi#e 5<6 panelists ga#e pri#ate respondent a passing mark for her oral defense b$ affi4ing their signatures on the
appro#al form) *hese were @rs) anuel, Iuiason, ;kandarajah, and *eodoro) @r) Iuiason added the following
3ualification to his signature+
s) 2rokiaswam$ must incorporate the suggestions I made during the successful defense of her Ph)@) thesis)%-
@r) edina did not sign the appro#al form but added the following comment+
Pipirmahan ko ang pagsang9a$onMdi pagsang9a$on kapag nakita ko na ang mga re#isions ng dissertation)%8
@r) *eodoro added the following note to his signature+
Kailangang isagawa ang mga mahahalagang pagbabago at ipakita sa panel ang bound copies)%<
In a letter, dated arch <, &//- and addressed to her thesis ad#iser, @r) anuel, pri#ate respondent re3uested a
meeting with the panel members, especiall$ @r) edina, to discuss the amendments suggested b$ the panel
members during the oral defense) *he meeting was held at the deans office with @ean Pa", pri#ate respondent,
and a majorit$ of the defense panel present)%= @uring the meeting, @ean Pa" remarked that a majorit$ #ote of the
panel members was sufficient for a student to pass, notwithstanding the failure to obtain the consent of the @eans
representati#e)
(n arch '8, &//-, the C;;P College 7acult$ 2ssembl$ appro#ed pri#ate respondents graduation pending
submission of final copies of her dissertation)
In 2pril &//-, pri#ate respondent submitted copies of her supposedl$ re#ised dissertation to @rs) anuel,
;kandarajah, and Iuiason, who e4pressed their assent to the dissertation) Petitioners maintain, howe#er, that
pri#ate respondent did not incorporate the re#isions suggested b$ the panel members in the final copies of her
dissertation)
Pri#ate respondent left a cop$ of her dissertation in @r) *eodoros office on 2pril &<, &//- and proceeded to
submit her dissertation to the C;;P without the appro#als of @r) edina and @r) *eodoro, rel$ing on @ean Pa"s
arch <, &//- statement)
@r) *eodoro later indicated his disappro#al, while @r) edina did not sign the appro#al form)%1
@ean Pa" then accepted pri#ate respondents dissertation in partial fulfillment of the course re3uirements for the
doctorate degree in 2nthropolog$)
In a letter to @ean Pa", dated 2pril &1, &//-, pri#ate respondent e4pressed concern o#er matters related to her
dissertation) ;he sought to e4plain wh$ the signature of @r) edina was not affi4ed to the re#ision appro#al form)
Pri#ate respondent said that since she alread$ had the appro#al of a majorit$ of the panel members, she no longer
showed her dissertation to @r) edina nor tried to obtain the latters signature on the re#ision appro#al form) ;he
likewise e4pressed her disappointment o#er the C;;P administration and charged @rs) @iokno and edina with
maliciousl$ working for the disappro#al of her dissertation, and further warned @ean Pa" against encouraging
perfidious acts against her)
(n 2pril &1, &//-, the Eni#ersit$ Council met to appro#e the list of candidates for graduation for the second
semester of school $ear &//'9&//-) *he list, which was endorsed to the Board of Regents for final appro#al,
included pri#ate respondents name)
(n 2pril '&, &//-, @ean Pa" sent a letter to @r) ilagros Ibe, ?ice Chancellor for 2cademic 2ffairs, re3uesting
the e4clusion of pri#ate respondents name from the list of candidates for graduation, pending clarification of the
problems regarding her dissertation) Cer letter reads+%0
2bril '&, &//-
@r) ilagros Ibe
?ice Chancellor for 2cademic 2ffairs
Enibersidad ng Pilipinas
Iue"on Call, @iliman, I)C)
ahal na @r) Ibe,
ahigpit ko pong hinihiling na hwag munang isama ang pangalan ni s) 2rokiaswam%$J Ailliam argaret
Celine sa listahan ng mga bibig$an ng degri na Ph)@) 52nthropolog$6 nga$on%gJ semester, dahil sa mga
malubhang bintang n$a sa ilang m$embro ng panel para sa oral defense ng disertas$on n$a at sa mga akusas$on
ng ilan sa mga ito sa kan$a)
Naniniwala po kami na dapat mailinaw muna ang ilang baga$ bago makonfer ang degri ka$ s) 2rokiaswam%$J)
Kelangan po ito para mapangalagaan ang istandard ng pinakamataas na degree ng Enibersidad)
5;gd)6
C(N;EE!( ,(2IEIN9P2G, Ph)@)
@ekano
2pparentl$, howe#er, @ean Pa"s letter did not reach the Board of Regents on time, because the ne4t da$, 2pril
'', &//-, the Board appro#ed the Eni#ersit$ Councils recommendation for the graduation of 3ualified students,
including pri#ate respondent) *wo da$s later, on 2pril '8, &//-, pri#ate respondent graduated with the degree of
@octor of Philosoph$ in 2nthropolog$)
(n the other hand, @ean Pa" also wrote a letter to pri#ate respondent, dated 2pril '&, &//-, that she would not be
granted an academic clearance unless she substantiated the accusations contained in her letter dated 2pril &1,
&//-)
In her letter, dated 2pril '1, &//-, pri#ate respondent claimed that @r) edinas unfa#orable attitude towards her
dissertation was a reaction to her failure to include him and @r) 7rancisco in the list of panel members: that she
made the re#isions proposed b$ @rs) edina and *eodoro in the re#ised draft of her dissertation: and that @r)
@iokno was guilt$ of harassment)
In a letter addressed to @ean Pa", dated a$ &, &//-, @r) edina formall$ charged pri#ate respondent with
plagiarism and recommended that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn)%/
(n a$ &-, &//-, @ean Pa" formed an ad hoc committee, composed of facult$ members from #arious disciplines
and chaired b$ @r) E#a @uka9?entura, to in#estigate the plagiarism charge against pri#ate respondent)
eanwhile, she recommended to E)P) @iliman Chancellor, @r) Emerlinda Roman, that the Ph)@) degree
conferred on pri#ate respondent be withdrawn)%&.
In a letter, dated ,une 1, &//-, @ean Pa" informed pri#ate respondent of the charges against her)%&&
(n ,une &<, &//-, the ?entura Committee submitted a report to @ean Pa", finding at least ninet$ 5/.6 instances or
portions in pri#ate respondents thesis which were lifted from sources without proper or due acknowledgment)
(n ,ul$ '0, &//-, the C;;P College 2ssembl$ unanimousl$ appro#ed the recommendation to withdraw pri#ate
respondents doctorate degree and forwarded its recommendation to the Eni#ersit$ Council) *he Eni#ersit$
Council, in turn, appro#ed and endorsed the same recommendation to the Board of Regents on 2ugust &=, &//-)
(n ;eptember =, &//-, the Board of Regents deferred action on the recommendation to stud$ the legal
implications of its appro#al)%&'
eanwhile, in a letter, dated ;eptember '-, &//-, E)P) @iliman Chancellor Emerlinda Roman summoned pri#ate
respondent to a meeting on the same da$ and asked her to submit her written e4planation to the charges against
her)
@uring the meeting, Chancellor Roman informed pri#ate respondent of the charges and pro#ided her a cop$ of the
findings of the in#estigating committee)%&- Pri#ate respondent, on the other hand, submitted her written
e4planation in a letter dated ;eptember '<, &//-)
2nother meeting was held on (ctober 0, &//- between Chancellor Roman and pri#ate respondent to discuss her
answer to the charges) 2 third meeting was scheduled on (ctober '1, &//- but pri#ate respondent did not attend
it, alleging that the Board of Regents had alread$ decided her case before she could be full$ heard)
(n (ctober &&, &//-, pri#ate respondent wrote to @r) Emil I) ,a#ier, E)P) President, alleging that some members
of the E)P) administration were pla$ing politics in her case)%&8 ;he sent another letter, dated @ecember &8, &//-,
to @r) 2rmand 7abella, Chairman of the Board of Regents, complaining that she had not been afforded due
process and claiming that E)P) could no longer withdraw her degree since her dissertation had alread$ been
accepted b$ the C;;P)%&<
eanwhile, the E)P) (ffice of !egal ;er#ices justified the position of the Eni#ersit$ Council in its report to the
Board of Regents) *he Board of Regents, in its 7ebruar$ &, &//8 and arch '8, &//8 meetings, further deferred
action thereon)
(n ,ul$ &&, &//8, pri#ate respondent sent a letter to the Board of Regents re3uesting a re9in#estigation of her
case) ;he stressed that under the Rules and Regulations on ;tudent Conduct and @iscipline, it was the student
disciplinar$ tribunal which had jurisdiction to decide cases of dishonest$ and that the withdrawal of a degree
alread$ conferred was not one of the authori"ed penalties which the student disciplinar$ tribunal could impose)
(n ,ul$ '0, &//8, the Board of Regents decided to release pri#ate respondents transcript of grades without
annotation although it showed that pri#ate respondent passed her dissertation with &' units of credit)
(n 2ugust &1, &//8, Chancellor Roger Posadas issued 2dministrati#e (rder No) /89/8 constituting a special
committee composed of senior facult$ members from the E)P) units outside @iliman to re#iew the Eni#ersit$
Councils recommendation to withdraw pri#ate respondents degree) Aith the appro#al of the Board of Regents and
the E)P) @iliman E4ecuti#e Committee, Posadas created a fi#e9man committee, chaired b$ @r) Paulino B)
Gafaralla, with members selected from a list of nominees screened b$ @r) Emerenciana 2rcellana, then a member
of the Board of Regents) (n 2ugust -&, &//8, the members of the Gafaralla committee and pri#ate respondent met
at E)P) !os Baos)
eanwhile, on 2ugust '-, &//8, the E)P) @iliman Registrar released to pri#ate respondent a cop$ of her
transcript of grades and certificate of graduation)
In a letter to Chancellor Posadas, dated ;eptember &, &//8, pri#ate respondent re3uested that the Gafaralla
committee be pro#ided with copies of the E)P) Charter 52ct No) &01.6, the E)P) Rules and Regulations on ;tudent
Conduct and @iscipline, her letter9response to Chancellor Roman, dated ;eptember '<, &//-, as well as all her
other communications)
(n ;eptember &/, &//8, Chancellor Posadas obtained the Gafaralla Committees report, signed b$ its chairman,
recommending the withdrawal of pri#ate respondents doctorate degree) *he report stated+%&=
2fter going through all the pertinent documents of the case and inter#iewing s) 2rokiaswam$ Ailliam, the
following facts were established+
&) *here is o#erwhelming e#idence of massi#e lifting from a published source word for word and, at times,
paragraph b$ paragraph without an$ acknowledgment of the source, e#en b$ a mere 3uotation mark) 2t least ''
counts of such documented liftings were identified b$ the Committee) *hese form part of the appro4imatel$
ninet$ 5/.6 instances found b$ the Committee created b$ the @ean of the College and subse3uentl$ #erified as
correct b$ the ;pecial Committee) *hese instances in#ol#ed the following forms of intellectual dishonest$+ direct
liftingMcop$ing without acknowledgment, fullMpartial lifting with improper documentation and substitution of
terms or words 5e.g), *amil in place of ;anskrit, *amili"ation in place of Indiani"ation6 from an acknowledged
source in support of her thesis 5attached herewith is a cop$ of the documents for reference6: and
') s) 2rokiaswam$ Ailliam herself admits of being guilt$ of the allegation of plagiarism) 7act is, she informed
the ;pecial Committee that she had been admitting ha#ing lifted se#eral portions in her dissertation from #arious
sources since the beginning)
In #iew of the o#erwhelming proof of massi#e lifting and also on the admission of s) 2rokiaswam$ Ailliam
that she indeed plagiari"ed, the Committee strongl$ supports the recommendation of the E)P) @iliman Council to
withdraw the doctoral degree of s) argaret Celine 2rokiaswam$ Ailliam)
(n the basis of the report, the Eni#ersit$ Council, on ;eptember '8, &//8, recommended to the Board of Regents
that pri#ate respondent be barred in the future from admission to the Eni#ersit$ either as a student or as an
emplo$ee)
(n ,anuar$ 8, &//<, the secretar$ of the Board of Regents sent pri#ate respondent the following letter+%&1
8 ,anuar$ &//<
s) argaret Celine 2rokiaswam$ Ailliam
@epartment of 2nthropolog$
College of ;ocial ;ciences and Philosoph$
E)P) @iliman, Iue"on Cit$
@ear s) 2rokiaswam$ Ailliam+
*his is to officiall$ inform $ou about the action taken b$ the Board of Regents at its &.0&st and &.0'nd meetings
held last &1 No#ember and &= @ecember &//8 regarding $our case, the e4cerpts from the minutes of which are
attached herewith)
Please be informed that the members present at the &.0&st B(R meeting on &1 No#ember &//8 resol#ed, b$ a
majorit$ decision, to withdraw $our Ph)@) degree as recommended b$ the E)P) @iliman Eni#ersit$ Council and as
concurred with b$ the E4ternal Re#iew Panel composed of senior facult$ from E)P) !os Baos and E)P) anila)
*hese facult$ members were chosen b$ lot from names submitted b$ the Eni#ersit$ Councils of E)P) !os Baos
and E)P) anila)
In repl$ to $our &8 @ecember &//8 letter re3uesting that $ou be gi#en a good law$er b$ the Board, the Board, at
its &.0'nd meeting on &= @ecember &//8, suggested that $ou direct $our re3uest to the (ffice of !egal 2id,
College of !aw, E)P) @iliman)
;incerel$ $ours,
5;gd)6
?I?ENCI( R) ,(;E
;ecretar$ of the Eni#ersit$
and of the Board of Regents
(n ,anuar$ &0, &//<, pri#ate respondent wrote a letter to Commissioner ;edfre$ (rdoe", Chairman of the
Commission on Cuman Rights, asking the commissions inter#ention)%&0 In a letter, dated 7ebruar$ &8, &//<, to
;ecretar$ Ricardo >loria, Chairman of the Board of Regents, she asked for a rein#estigation of her case) ;he also
sought an audience with the Board of Regents andMor the E)P) President, which re3uest was denied b$ President
,a#ier, in a letter dated ,une ', &//<)
(n 2ugust &., &//<, pri#ate respondent then filed a petition for mandamus with a pra$er for a writ of preliminar$
mandator$ injunction and damages, which was docketed as Ci#il Case No) I9/<9'8=/. and assigned to Branch
0& of the Regional *rial Court of Iue"on Cit$)%&/ ;he alleged that petitioners had unlawfull$ withdrawn her
degree without justification and without affording her procedural due process) ;he pra$ed that petitioners be
ordered to restore her degree and to pa$ her P<..,...).. as moral and e4emplar$ damages and P&,<..,...).. as
compensation for lost earnings)
(n 2ugust =, &//=, the trial court, Branch ''1, rendered a decision dismissing the petition for mandamus for lack
of merit)%'. Pri#ate respondent appealed to the Court of 2ppeals, which on @ecember &=, &//1, re#ersed the
lower court) *he dispositi#e portion of the appellate courts decision reads+%'&
ACERE7(RE, the decision of the court a 3uo is hereb$ re#ersed and set aside) Respondents are ordered to
restore to petitioner her degree of Ph)@) in 2nthropolog$)
No pronouncement as to costs)
SO ORDERED.
"1:/1, 4<58 >14545o:. 14545o:178 /o:41:0*
I
%"E COUR% O( AEALS ERRED ON A )UES%ION O( LAW IN GRAN%ING %"E WRI% O(
!ANDA!US AND ORDERING E%I%IONERS %O RES%ORE RESONDEN%S DOC%ORAL
DEGREE.
II
%"E COUR% O( AEALS ERRED ON A )UES%ION O( LAW IN "OLDING %"A% %"E
DOC%ORAL DEGREE GI&EN RESONDEN% B' U.. CANNO% BE RECALLED WI%"OU%
&IOLA%ING "ER RIG"% %O ENJO'!EN% O( IN%ELLEC%UAL ROER%' AND %O JUS%ICE
AND E)UI%'.
III
%"E COUR% O( AEALS ERRED ON A )UES%ION O( LAW IN DERI&ING E%I%IONERS O(
%"EIR RIG"% %O SUBS%AN%I&E DUE ROCESS.[22
14545o:178 ,7=u1 4<,4 >756,41 718>o:01:4 2,5l10 4o 8<o@ 4<,4 8<1 <,0 .11: u:l,@2ully 13/lu010 27oA 4<1
u81 ,:0 1:CoyA1:4 o2 , 75=<4 o7 o225/1 4o @<5/< 8<1 58 1:454l10 8o ,8 4o Cu8452y 4<1 588u,:/1 o2 4<1 @754
o2#anda#us. %<1y ,l8o /o:41:0 4<,4 8<1 2,5l10 4o >7o61 4<,4 4<1 7184o7,45o: o2 <17 01=711 58 , A5:584175,l
0u4y o2 U.. o7 4<,4 4<1 @54<07,@,l o2 4<1 01=711 65ol,410 <17 75=<4 4o 4<1 1:CoyA1:4 o2 5:41ll1/4u,l
>7o>174y.
O: 4<1 o4<17 <,:0, >756,41 718>o:01:4, u:,8858410 .y /ou:81l, ,7=u1 4<,4 >14545o:178 ,/410 ,7.547,75ly ,:0
@54< =7,61 ,.u81 o2 058/7145o: 5: @54<07,@5:= <17 01=711 161: >75o7 4o 61752y5:= 4<1 47u4< o2 4<1 >l,=5,758A
/<,7=1 ,=,5:84 <17J ,:0 4<,4 ,8 <17 ,:8@17 4o 4<1 /<,7=18 <,0 :o4 .11: 2o7@,7010 4o 4<1 A1A.178 o2 4<1
5:61845=,45:= /oAA544118, 8<1 @,8 01>75610 o2 4<1 o>>o74u:54y 4o /oAA1:4 o7 712u41 4<157 25:05:=8.
I: ,00545o:, >756,41 718>o:01:4 A,5:4,5:8 4<,4 >14545o:178 ,71 184o>>10 27oA @54<07,@5:= <17 0o/4o7,41
01=711J 4<,4 >14545o:178 ,/410 /o:47,7y 4o 9 o2 4<1 U.. C<,7417 ,:0 4<1 U.. Rul18 ,:0 R1=ul,45o:8 o:
S4u01:4 Co:0u/4 ,:0 D58/5>l5:1 o2 4<1 U:5617854y, @<5/< ,//o705:= 4o <17, 0o18 :o4 ,u4<o75D1 4<1
@54<07,@,l o2 , 01=711 ,8 , >1:,l4y 2o7 1775:= 84u01:48J ,:0 4<,4 o:ly 4<1 /oll1=1 /oAA54411 o7 4<1 84u01:4
058/5>l5:,7y 475.u:,l A,y 01/501 058/5>l5:,7y /,818, @<o81 71>o74 Au84 .1 85=:10 .y , A,Co754y o2 548
A1A.178.
W1 25:0 >14545o:178 /o:41:45o: 4o .1 A1754o75ou8.
5anda#us 58 , @754 /oAA,:05:= , 475.u:,l, /o7>o7,45o:, .o,70 o7 >178o: 4o 0o 4<1 ,/4 71Mu5710 4o .1 0o:1
@<1: 54 o7 <1 u:l,@2ully :1=l1/48 4<1 >172o7A,:/1 o2 ,: ,/4 @<5/< 4<1 l,@ 8>1/525/,lly 1:Co5:8 ,8 , 0u4y
718ul45:= 27oA ,: o225/1, 47u84, o7 84,45o:, o7 u:l,@2ully 13/lu018 ,:o4<17 27oA 4<1 u81 ,:0 1:CoyA1:4 o2 ,
75=<4 o7 o225/1 4o @<5/< 8u/< o4<17 58 1:454l10, 4<171 .15:= :o o4<17 >l,5:, 8>110y, ,:0 ,01Mu,41 71A10y 5:
4<1 o705:,7y /ou781 o2 l,@.[2; I: Cniversit" of te Pilippines ;oard of Re$ents v. 8i$ot'2elan,[24 4<58 Cou74
7ul10 4<,4 4<1 @754 @,8 :o4 ,6,5l,.l1 4o 71847,5: U.. 27oA 4<1 1317/581 o2 548 ,/,01A5/ 27110oA. I: 4<,4
/,81, , 84u01:4 @<o @,8 2ou:0 =u5l4y o2 058<o:184y ,:0 o701710 8u8>1:010 2o7 o:1 y1,7 .y 4<1 Bo,70 o2
R1=1:48, 25l10 , >14545o: 2o7 #anda#us ,:0 o.4,5:10 27oA 4<1 lo@17 /ou74 , 41A>o7,7y 71847,5:5:= o7017
84o>>5:= U.. 27oA /,77y5:= ou4 4<1 o7017 o2 8u8>1:85o:. I: 81445:= ,8501 4<1 %RO ,:0 o70175:= 4<1 lo@17
/ou74 4o 058A588 4<1 84u01:48 >14545o:, 4<58 Cou74 8,50*
[%]<1 lo@17 /ou74 =7,61ly ,.u810 548 058/7145o: 5: 588u5:= 4<1 @754 o2 >71l5A5:,7y 5:Cu:/45o: o2 !,y 29,
199;. %<1 588u,:/1 o2 4<1 8,50 @754 @,8 .,810 o: 4<1 lo@17 /ou748 25:05:= 4<,4 4<1 5A>l1A1:4,45o: o2 4<1
058/5>l5:,7y 8,:/45o: o2 8u8>1:85o: o: N,0,l @oul0 @o7B 5:Cu845/1 4o 4<1 >14545o:17 ,8 54 @oul0 01l,y <5A 5:
25:58<5:= <58 /ou781, ,:0 /o:81Mu1:4ly, 5: =1445:= , 01/1:4 ,:0 =oo0 >,y5:= Co.. S,0ly, 8u/< , 7ul5:=
/o:850178 o:ly 4<1 854u,45o: o2 N,0,l @54<ou4 4,B5:= 5:4o ,//ou:4 4<1 /57/uA84,:/18, /l1,7ly o2 <58 o@:
A,B5:=, @<5/< l10 <5A 5:4o 8u/< , >7105/,A1:4. !o71 5A>o74,:4ly, 54 <,8 /oA>l141ly 05871=,7010 4<1
o6177505:= 588u1 o2 ,/,01A5/ 27110oA @<5/< >7o65018 Ao71 4<,: ,A>l1 Cu84525/,45o: 2o7 4<1 5A>o8545o: o2 ,
058/5>l5:,7y 8,:/45o: u>o: ,: 1775:= 84u01:4 o2 ,: 5:8454u45o: o2 <5=<17 l1,7:5:=.
(7oA 4<1 2o71=o5:= ,7=uA1:48, 54 58 /l1,7 4<,4 4<1 lo@17 /ou74 8<oul0 <,61 71847,5:10 5481l2 27oA ,88uA5:=
Cu75805/45o: o617 4<1 >14545o: 25l10 .y N,0,l. !,:0,Au8 58 :1617 588u10 5: 0ou.42ul /,818, , 8<o@5:= o2 ,
/l1,7 ,:0 /174,5: 75=<4 o: 4<1 >,74 o2 4<1 >14545o:17 .15:= 71Mu5710. I4 58 o2 :o ,6,5l ,=,5:84 ,: o225/5,l o7
=o617:A1:4 ,=1:/y @<o81 0u4y 71Mu5718 4<1 1317/581 o2 058/7145o: o7 Cu0=A1:4.[2I
I: 4<58 /,81, 4<1 475,l /ou74 058A58810 >756,41 718>o:01:48 >14545o: >71/581ly o: =7ou:08 o2 ,/,01A5/
27110oA .u4 4<1 Cou74 o2 A>>1,l8 71617810 <ol05:= 4<,4 >756,41 718>o:01:4 @,8 01:510 0u1 >7o/188. I4 8,50*
I4 58 @o74<y 4o :o41 4<,4 0u75:= 4<1 >7o/1105:=8 4,B1: .y 4<1 Coll1=1 A881A.ly /ulA5:,45:= 5: 548
71/oAA1:0,45o: 4o 4<1 U:5617854y Cou:/5l 2o7 4<1 @54<07,@,l o2 >14545o:178 <.D. 01=711, >14545o:17 @,8
:o4 =561: 4<1 /<,:/1 4o .1 <1,70 u:45l ,2417 4<1 @54<07,@,l o2 4<1 01=711 @,8 /o:8uAA,410. 14545o:178
8u.81Mu1:4 l144178 4o 4<1 U.. 718501:4 >7o610 u:,6,5l5:=.[2F
A8 4<1 2o71=o5:= :,77,45o: o2 2,/48 5: 4<58 /,81 8<o@8, <o@1617, 6,75ou8 /oAA544118 <,0 .11: 2o7A10 4o
5:61845=,41 4<1 /<,7=1 4<,4 >756,41 718>o:01:4 <,0 /oAA54410 >l,=5,758A ,:0, 5: ,ll 4<1 5:61845=,45o:8 <1l0,
8<1 @,8 <1,70 5: <17 0121:81. I:0110, 52 ,:y /7545/58A A,y .1 A,01 o2 4<1 u:5617854y >7o/1105:=8 .12o71
>756,41 718>o:01:4 @,8 25:,lly 8475>>10 o2 <17 01=711, 54 58 4<,4 4<171 @171 4oo A,:y /oAA54411 ,:0
5:05650u,l 5:61845=,45o:8 /o:0u/410, ,l4<ou=< ,ll 718ul410 5: , 25:05:= 4<,4 >756,41 718>o:01:4 /oAA54410
058<o:184y 5: 8u.A5445:= <17 0o/4o7,l 0588174,45o: o: 4<1 .,858 o2 @<5/< 8<1 @,8 /o:217710 4<1 <.D. 01=711.
I:0110, 5: ,0A5:5847,4561 >7o/1105:=8, 4<1 1881:/1 o2 0u1 >7o/188 58 85A>ly 4<1 o>>o74u:54y 4o 13>l,5: o:18
8501 o2 , /o:47o6178y o7 , /<,:/1 4o 811B 71/o:85017,45o: o2 4<1 ,/45o: o7 7ul5:= /oA>l,5:10 o2.[2H A >,74y
@<o <,8 ,6,5l10 o2 4<1 o>>o74u:54y 4o >7181:4 <58 >o8545o: /,::o4 41:,.ly /l,5A 4o <,61 .11: 01:510 0u1
>7o/188.[28
I: 4<58 /,81, >756,41 718>o:01:4 @,8 5:2o7A10 5: @7545:= o2 4<1 /<,7=18 ,=,5:84 <17[29 ,:0 ,22o7010
o>>o74u:54518 4o 712u41 4<1A. S<1 @,8 ,8B10 4o 8u.A54 <17 @75441: 13>l,:,45o:, @<5/< 8<1 2o7@,7010 o:
S1>41A.17 2I, 199;.[;0 756,41 718>o:01:4 4<1: A14 @54< 4<1 U.. /<,:/1llo7 ,:0 4<1 A1A.178 o2 4<1
#,2,7,ll, /oAA54411 4o 058/u88 <17 /,81. I: ,00545o:, 8<1 81:4 81617,l l144178 4o 4<1 U.. ,u4<o754518
13>l,5:5:= <17 >o8545o:.[;1
I4 58 :o4 41:,.l1 2o7 >756,41 718>o:01:4 4o ,7=u1 4<,4 8<1 @,8 1:454l10 4o <,61 ,: ,u051:/1 .12o71 4<1 Bo,70
o2 R1=1:48. Du1 >7o/188 5: ,: ,0A5:5847,4561 /o:4134 0o18 :o4 71Mu571 475,l-4y>1 >7o/1105:=8 85A5l,7 4o
4<o81 5: 4<1 /ou748 o2 Cu845/1.[;2 I4 58 :o41@o74<y 4<,4 4<1 U.. Rul18 0o :o4 71Mu571 4<1 ,441:0,:/1 o2
>178o:8 @<o81 /,818 ,71 5:/lu010 ,8 541A8 o: 4<1 ,=1:0, o2 4<1 Bo,70 o2 R1=1:48.[;;
No7 5:0110 @,8 >756,41 718>o:01:4 1:454l10 4o .1 2u7:58<10 , /o>y o2 4<1 71>o74 o2 4<1 #,2,7,ll, /oAA54411
,8 >,74 o2 <17 75=<4 4o 0u1 >7o/188. I: &teneo de 5anila Cniversit" v. Capulon$,[;4 @1 <1l0*
R18>o:01:4 84u01:48 A,y :o4 u81 4<1 ,7=uA1:4 4<,4 85:/1 4<1y @171 :o4 ,//o7010 4<1 o>>o74u:54y 4o 811
,:0 13,A5:1 4<1 @75441: 84,41A1:48 @<5/< .1/,A1 4<1 .,858 o2 >14545o:178 (1.7u,7y 14, 1991 o7017, 4<1y
@171 01:510 >7o/10u7,l 0u1 >7o/188. G7,:45:= 4<,4 4<1y @171 01:510 8u/< o>>o74u:54y, 4<1 8,A1 A,y :o4
.1 8,50 4o 0147,/4 27oA 4<1 o.8176,:/1 o2 0u1 >7o/188, 2o7 058/5>l5:,7y /,818 5:6ol65:= 84u01:48 :110 :o4
:1/188,75ly 5:/lu01 4<1 75=<4 4o /7o88 13,A5:,45o:. A: ,0A5:5847,4561 >7o/1105:= /o:0u/410 4o 5:61845=,41
84u01:48 >,745/5>,45o: 5: , <,D5:= ,/45654y :110 :o4 .1 /lo4<10 @54< 4<1 ,4475.u418 o2 , Cu05/5,l
>7o/1105:=. . .
I: 4<58 /,81, 5: =7,:45:= 4<1 @754 o2 #anda#us, 4<1 Cou74 o2 A>>1,l8 <1l0*
(5784. 14545o:17 =7,0u,410 27oA 4<1 U.. @54< , 0o/4o7,41 01=711 5: A:4<7o>olo=y. A2417 =7,0u,45o:, 4<1
/o:4,/4 .14@11: U.. ,:0 >14545o:17 /1,810. 14545o:17 58 :o lo:=17 @54<5: 4<1 ,A.54 o2 4<1 058/5>l5:,7y
>o@178 o2 4<1 U.. A8 , =7,0u,41, 8<1 58 1:454l10 4o 4<1 75=<4 ,:0 1:CoyA1:4 o2 4<1 01=711 8<1 <,8 1,7:10.
%o 71/,ll 4<1 01=711, ,2417 /o:217A1:4, 58 :o4 o:ly ,7.547,7y, u:71,8o:,.l1, ,:0 ,: ,/4 o2 ,.u81, .u4 ,
2l,=7,:4 65ol,45o: o2 >14545o:178 75=<4 o2 1:CoyA1:4 4o 5:41ll1/4u,l >7o>174y.
S1/o:0. R18>o:01:48 ,617 4<,4 >14545o:178 =7,0u,45o: @,8 , A584,B1.
U:2o74u:,41ly 4<58 A584,B1 @,8 ,775610 ,4 ,2417 ,lAo84 , y1,7 ,2417 =7,0u,45o:. Co:850175:= 4<,4 4<1
A1A.178 o2 4<1 4<1858 >,:1l, 4<1 Coll1=1 (,/ul4y A881A.ly, ,:0 4<1 U.. Cou:/5l ,71 ,ll A1: ,:0 @oA1: o2
4<1 <5=<184 5:41ll1/4u,l ,/uA1: ,:0 5:41=754y, ,8 718>o:01:48 4<1A81l618 ,617, 8u8>5/5o: 58 ,7ou810 4<,4 4<1
,ll1=10 A584,B1 A5=<4 :o4 .1 4<1 /,u81 o2 @54<07,@,l .u4 8oA1 o4<17 <5001: ,=1:0, @<5/< 718>o:01:48 0o
:o4 @58< 4o 7161,l.
A4 ,:y 7,41, W1 /,::o4 /ou:41:,:/1 4<1 >l5=<4 4<1 >14545o:17 25:08 <1781l2 1:A18<10 5: ,8 , /o:81Mu1:/1 o2
4<1 ,/48 /oA>l,5:10 o2. Ju845/1 ,:0 1Mu54y 01A,:0 4<,4 4<58 .1 71/452510 .y 7184o75:= 4<1 01=711 /o:217710
4o <17 ,2417 <17 /oA>l5,:/1 @54< 4<1 ,/,01A5/ ,:0 o4<17 71l,410 71Mu571A1:48.
A74. $I&, I +2- o2 4<1 Co:8454u45o: >7o65018 4<,4 [,]/,01A5/ 27110oA 8<,ll .1 1:Coy10 5: ,ll 5:8454u45o:8 o2
<5=<17 l1,7:5:=. %<58 58 :o4<5:= :1@. %<1 19;I Co:8454u45o:[;I ,:0 4<1 19H; Co:8454u45o:[;F l5B1@581
>7o65010 2o7 4<1 ,/,01A5/ 27110oA o7, Ao71 >71/581ly, 2o7 4<1 5:8454u45o:,l ,u4o:oAy o2 u:5617854518 ,:0
5:8454u45o:8 o2 <5=<17 l1,7:5:=. A8 >o5:410 ou4 .y 4<58 Cou74 5: .arcia v. 1acult" &d#ission Co##ittee,
8o"ola 0cool of 2eolo$",[;H 54 58 , 27110oA =7,:410 4o 5:8454u45o:8 o2 <5=<17 l1,7:5:= @<5/< 58 4<u8 =561: ,
@501 8><171 o2 ,u4<o754y /174,5:ly 1341:05:= 4o 4<1 /<o5/1 o2 84u01:48. I2 8u/< 5:8454u45o: o2 <5=<17 l1,7:5:=
/,: 01/501 @<o /,: ,:0 @<o /,::o4 84u0y 5: 54, 54 /174,5:ly /,: ,l8o 01417A5:1 o: @<oA 54 /,: /o:217 4<1
<o:o7 ,:0 05845:/45o: o2 .15:= 548 =7,0u,418.
W<171 54 58 8<o@: 4<,4 4<1 /o:217A1:4 o2 ,: <o:o7 o7 05845:/45o: @,8 o.4,5:10 4<7ou=< 27,u0, , u:5617854y
<,8 4<1 75=<4 4o 716oB1 o7 @54<07,@ 4<1 <o:o7 o7 05845:/45o: 54 <,8 4<u8 /o:217710. %<58 27110oA o2 ,
u:5617854y 0o18 :o4 417A5:,41 u>o: 4<1 =7,0u,45o: o2 , 84u01:4, ,8 4<1 Cou74 o2 A>>1,l8 <1l0. (o7 54 58
>71/581ly 4<1 =7,0u,45o: o2 8u/< , 84u01:4 4<,4 58 5: Mu1845o:. I4 58 :o41@o74<y 4<,4 4<1 5:61845=,45o: o2
>756,41 718>o:01:48 /,81 .1=,: .12o71 <17 =7,0u,45o:. I2 8<1 @,8 ,.l1 4o Co5: 4<1 =7,0u,45o: /171Ao:518 o:
A>75l 24, 199;, 54 @,8 .1/,u81 o2 4oo A,:y 5:61845=,45o:8 /o:0u/410 .12o71 4<1 Bo,70 o2 R1=1:48 25:,lly
01/5010 8<1 8<oul0 :o4 <,61 .11: ,llo@10 4o =7,0u,41.
W501 5:0110 58 4<1 8><171 o2 ,u4o:oAy =7,:410 4o 5:8454u45o:8 o2 <5=<17 l1,7:5:=, 2o7 4<1 /o:8454u45o:,l
=7,:4 o2 ,/,01A5/ 27110oA, 4o Muo41 ,=,5: 27oA .arcia v. 1acult" &d#ission Co##ittee, 8o"ola 0cool of
2eolo$", 58 :o4 4o .1 /o:847u10 5: , :5==,70ly A,::17 o7 5: , =7u0=5:= 2,8<5o:.
U:017 4<1 U.. C<,7417, 4<1 Bo,70 o2 R1=1:48 58 4<1 <5=<184 =o617:5:= .o0y o2 4<1 U:5617854y o2 4<1
<5l5>>5:18.[;8 I4 <,8 4<1 >o@17 4o /o:217 01=7118 u>o: 4<1 71/oAA1:0,45o: o2 4<1 U:5617854y Cou:/5l.
[;9 I4 2ollo@8 4<,4 52 4<1 /o:217A1:4 o2 , 01=711 58 2ou:010 o: 177o7 o7 27,u0, 4<1 Bo,70 o2 R1=1:48 58 ,l8o
1A>o@1710, 8u.C1/4 4o 4<1 o.8176,:/1 o2 0u1 >7o/188, 4o @54<07,@ @<,4 54 <,8 =7,:410 @54<ou4 65ol,45:= ,
84u01:48 75=<48. A: 5:8454u45o: o2 <5=<17 l1,7:5:= /,::o4 .1 >o@17l188 52 54 058/o6178 4<,4 ,: ,/,01A5/
01=711 54 <,8 /o:217710 58 :o4 75=<42ully 01817610. No4<5:= /,: .1 Ao71 o.C1/45o:,.l1 4<,: .184o@5:= ,
u:5617854y8 <5=<184 ,/,01A5/ 01=711 u>o: ,: 5:05650u,l @<o <,8 o.4,5:10 4<1 8,A1 4<7ou=< 27,u0 o7
01/154. %<1 >u78u54 o2 ,/,01A5/ 13/1ll1:/1 58 4<1 u:5617854y8 /o:/17:. I4 8<oul0 .1 1A>o@1710, ,8 ,: ,/4 o2
81l2-0121:81, 4o 4,B1 A1,8u718 4o >7o41/4 5481l2 27oA 8175ou8 4<71,48 4o 548 5:41=754y.
W<5l1 54 58 47u1 4<,4 4<1 84u01:48 ,71 1:454l10 4o 4<1 75=<4 4o >u78u1 4<157 10u/,45o:, 4<1 USC ,8 ,:
10u/,45o:,l 5:8454u45o: 58 ,l8o 1:454l10 4o >u78u1 548 ,/,01A5/ 27110oA ,:0 5: 4<1 >7o/188 <,8 4<1
/o:/oA54,:4 75=<4 4o 811 4o 54 4<,4 4<58 27110oA 58 :o4 C1o>,705D10.[40
I: 4<1 /,81 ,4 .,7, 4<1 Bo,70 o2 R1=1:48 01417A5:10, ,2417 0u1 5:61845=,45o: /o:0u/410 .y , /oAA54411
/oA>o810 o2 2,/ul4y A1A.178 27oA 0522171:4 U.. u:548, 4<,4 >756,41 718>o:01:4 /oAA54410 :o l188 4<,:
:5:14y +90- 5:84,:/18 o2 5:41ll1/4u,l 058<o:184y 5: <17 0588174,45o:. %<1 Bo,70 o2 R1=1:48 01/585o: 4o
@54<07,@ >756,41 718>o:01:48 0o/4o7,41 @,8 .,810 o: 0o/uA1:48 o: 71/o70 5:/lu05:= <17 ,0A5885o: 4<,4
8<1 /oAA54410 4<1 o221:81.[41
O: 4<1 o4<17 <,:0, >756,41 718>o:01:4 @,8 ,22o7010 4<1 o>>o74u:54y 4o .1 <1,70 ,:0 13>l,5: <17 8501 .u4
2,5l10 4o 712u41 4<1 /<,7=18 o2 >l,=5,758A ,=,5:84 <17. "17 o:ly /l,5A 58 4<,4 <17 718>o:818 4o 4<1 /<,7=18
,=,5:84 <17 @171 :o4 /o:8501710 .y 4<1 Bo,70 o2 R1=1:48 .12o71 54 71:01710 548 01/585o:. "o@1617, 4<58
/l,5A @,8 :o4 >7o61:. A//o705:=ly, @1 Au84 >718uA1 71=ul,754y 5: 4<1 >172o7A,:/1 o2 o225/5,l 0u4518 5: 4<1
,.81:/1 o2 >7oo2 4o 4<1 /o:47,7y.[42
&17y Au/< 4<1 o>>o8541 o2 4<1 >o8545o: o2 4<1 Cou74 o2 A>>1,l8 4<,4, 85:/1 >756,41 718>o:01:4 @,8 :o lo:=17
, 84u01:4 o2 4<1 U.., 4<1 l,4417 @,8 :o lo:=17 @54<5: 4<1 ,A.54 o2 058/5>l5:,7y >o@178 o2 4<1 U.., 58 >756,41
718>o:01:48 /o:41:45o: 4<,4 54 58 4<1 S4u01:4 D58/5>l5:,7y %75.u:,l @<5/< <,0 Cu75805/45o: o617 <17 /,81
.1/,u81 4<1 /<,7=1 58 058<o:184y. 756,41 718>o:01:4 5:6oB18 I o2 4<1 U.. Rul18 ,:0 R1=ul,45o:8 o:
S4u01:4 Co:0u/4 ,:0 D58/5>l5:1 @<5/< >7o65018*
Jurisdiction. All /,818 5:6ol65:= 058/5>l5:1 o2 84u01:48 u:017 4<181 7ul18 8<,ll .1 8u.C1/4 4o 4<1 Cu75805/45o:
o2 4<1 84u01:4 058/5>l5:,7y 475.u:,l, 13/1>4 4<1 2ollo@5:= /,818 @<5/< 8<,ll 2,ll u:017 4<1 Cu75805/45o: o2 4<1
,>>7o>75,41 /oll1=1 o7 u:54J
+,- &5ol,45o: o2 /oll1=1 o7 u:54 7ul18 ,:0 71=ul,45o:8 .y 84u01:48 o2 4<1 /oll1=1, o7
+.- !58/o:0u/4 /oAA54410 .y 84u01:48 o2 4<1 /oll1=1 o7 u:54 @54<5: 548 /l,887ooA8 o7 >71A5818 o7 5: 4<1
/ou781 o2 ,: o225/5,l ,/45654yJ
7o65010, 4<,4 71=5o:,l u:548 o2 4<1 U:5617854y 8<,ll <,61 o75=5:,l Cu75805/45o: o617 ,ll /,818 5:6ol65:=
84u01:48 o2 8u/< u:548.
756,41 718>o:01:4 ,7=u18 4<,4 u:017 2I +,- o2 4<1 8,50 Rul18 ,:0 R1=ul,45o:8, 058<o:184y 5: 71l,45o: 4o
o:18 84u0518 +i.e., >l,=5,758A- A,y .1 >u:58<10 o:ly @54< 8u8>1:85o: 2o7 ,4 l1,84 o:1 +1- y1,7.
A8 4<1 ,.o61-Muo410 >7o6585o: o2 I o2 4<1 Rul18 ,:0 R1=ul,45o:8 5:05/,418, 4<1 Cu75805/45o: o2 4<1 84u01:4
058/5>l5:,7y 475.u:,l 1341:08 o:ly 4o 058/5>l5:,7y ,/45o:8. I: 4<58 /,81, U.. 0o18 :o4 811B 4o 058/5>l5:1
>756,41 718>o:01:4. I:0110, ,8 4<1 ,>>1ll,41 /ou74 o.817610, >756,41 718>o:01:4 58 :o lo:=17 @54<5: 4<1
,A.54 o2 058/5>l5:,7y >o@178 o2 4<1 U.. 756,41 718>o:01:4 /,::o4 161: .1 >u:58<10 85:/1, ,8 8<1 /l,5A8,
4<1 >1:,l4y 2o7 ,/48 o2 058<o:184y 5: ,0A5:5847,4561 058/5>l5:,7y >7o/1105:=8 58 8u8>1:85o: 27oA 4<1
U:5617854y 2o7 ,4 l1,84 o:1 y1,7. W<,4 U.., 4<7ou=< 4<1 Bo,70 o2 R1=1:48, 811B8 4o 0o 58 4o >7o41/4 548
,/,01A5/ 5:41=754y .y @54<07,@5:= 27oA >756,41 718>o:01:4 ,: ,/,01A5/ 01=711 8<1 o.4,5:10 4<7ou=<
27,u0.
W"ERE(ORE, 4<1 01/585o: o2 4<1 Cou74 o2 A>>1,l8 58 <171.y RE&ERSED ,:0 4<1 >14545o: 2o7 A,:0,Au8
58 <171.y DIS!ISSED.
SO ORDERED.
[G.R. Nos. 95203-05 : December 18, 1990.]
192 SCRA 363
SENATR ERNEST !ACEDA, Petitioner, vs. ENERG" REG#$ATR" %ARD &ER%'(
!ARCE$ N. )ERNAND, A$E*ANDR %. A)#RNG( RE+ ,. TANT-NGC( ./0 SCAR E.
A$A, 1/ 23e1r co44ec215e o661c1.4 c.7.c121es .s C3.1rm./ ./0 !embers o6 23e %o.r0 &ER%',
res7ec215e48( CATA$-N !ACARA-G, 1/ 31s 9:.0r:74e o661c1.4 c.7.c121es .s E;ec:215e
Secre2.r8, C3.1rm./ o6 <3141771/e N.21o/.4 14 Com7./8( 661ce o6 23e E/er=8 A66.1rs, ./0
>123 !AN#E$ ESTRE$$A, 1/ 23e1r res7ec215e o661c1.4 c.7.c121es .s C3.1rm./ ./0 <res10e/2
o6 23e <e2ro/ Cor7or.21o/( <-$-<-NAS S?E$$ <ETR$E#! CR<RAT-N( >123 CESAR
%#ENA,ENT#RA ./0 RE" GA!%A .s c3.1rm./ ./0 <res10e/2, res7ec215e48( CA$TE+
<?-$-<<-NES >123 )RANC-S A%$AN, <res10e/2 ./0 C31e6 E;ec:215e 661cer( ./0 23e
<res10e/2s o6 <3141771/e <e2ro4e:m De.4er@s Assoc1.21o/, C.42e; De.4er@s Co., <e2ro/
De.4er@s Asso., S3e44 De.4er@s Asso. o6 23e <314., $19:e61e0 <e2ro4e:m G.s -/s212:2e o6 23e
<314s., ./8 ./0 .44 co/cer/e0 =.so41/e ./0 7e2ro4 0e.4ers or s2.21o/s( ./0 s:c3 o23er
7erso/s, o661c1.4s, ./0 7.r21es, .c21/= 6or ./0 o/ 23e1r be3.46( or 1/ re7rese/2.21o/ o6
./0Aor :/0er 23e1r .:23or128, Respondents.
[G.R. Nos. 95119-21 : December 18, 1990.]
192 SCRA 363
$-,ER . $BAN, Petitioner, vs. ENERG" REG#$ATR" %ARD &ER%', <-$-<-NAS
S?E$$ <ETR$E#! CR<RAT-N, CA$TE+ &<?-$.', -NC., ./0 <ETRN CR<RAT-N,
Respondents.

D E C - S - N

SAR!-ENT, J.:

The petitioners pray for injunctive relief, to stop the Energy Regulatory Board (Board hereinafter)
from implementing its Order, dated September !, !""#, mandating a provisional increase in the
prices of petroleum and petroleum products, as follo$s%
&RO'()TS *+ &ESOS &ER ,*TER
O&S-
&remium .asoline !/00##
Regular .asoline !/00##
1vturbo !/2334
5erosene !/4##
'iesel Oil !/4##
-uel Oil !/4"##
-eedstoc6 !/4"##
,&. #/2420
1sphalts /0!3#
Thinners !/0!! !
*t appears that on September !#, !""#, )alte7 (&hilippines), *nc/, &ilipinas Shell &etroleum
)orporation, and &etron )orporation proferred separate applications $ith the Board for permission
to increase the $holesale posted prices of petroleum products, as follo$s%
)alte7 &8/3"0 per liter
Shell /#882 per liter
&etron /## per liter
and mean$hile, for provisional authority to increase temporarily such $holesale posted prices
pending further proceedings/%9crala$
On September !, !""#, the Board, in a joint (on three applications) Order granted provisional
relief as follo$s%
:;ERE-ORE, considering the foregoing, and pursuant to Section 2 of E7ecutive Order +o/ !0, this
Board hereby grants herein applicants< prayer for provisional relief and, accordingly, authori=es
said applicants a $eighted average provisional increase of O+E &ESO 1+' -ORT>9T:O )E+T1?OS
(&!/4) per liter in the $holesale posted prices of their various petroleum products enumerated
belo$, refined and@or mar6eted by them locally/ 8
The petitioners submit that the above Order had been issued $ith grave abuse of discretion,
tantamount to lac6 of jurisdiction, and correctible by Certiorari/
The petitioner, Senator Ernesto Aaceda, 4 also submits that the same $as issued $ithout proper
notice and hearing in violation of Section 8, paragraph (e), of E7ecutive Order +o/ !0B that the
Board, in decreeing an increase, had created a ne$ source for the Oil &rice Stabili=ation -und
(O&S-), or other$ise that it had levied a ta7, a po$er vested in the legislature, and@or that it had
Cre9collectedC, by an act of ta7ation, ad valorem ta7es on oil $hich Republic 1ct +o/ 3"3D had
abolished/
The petitioner, 1tty/ Oliver ,o=ano, D li6e$ise argues that the Board<s Order $as issued $ithout
notice and hearing, and hence, $ithout due process of la$/
The intervenor, the Trade (nion of the &hilippines and 1llied Services (T(&1S@-SA)9:/-/T/(/, 3
argues on the other hand, that the increase cannot be allo$ed since the respondents oil companies
had not e7hausted their e7isting oil stoc6 $hich they had bought at old prices and that they cannot
be allo$ed to charge ne$ rates for stoc6 purchased at such lo$er rates/
The )ourt set the cases (in ./R/ +os/ "D#89#D) for hearing on October D, !""#, in $hich Senator
Aaceda and his counsel, 1tty/ 1le7ander &adilla, argued/ The Solicitor .eneral, on behalf of the
Board, also presented his arguments, together $ith Board )ommissioner Re7 Tantiangco/ 1ttys/
-ederico 1li6pala, Er/ and Eoselia &oblador represented the oil firms (&etron and )alte7,
respectively)/
The parties $ere thereafter reFuired to submit their memorandums after $hich, the )ourt
considered the cases submitted for resolution/
On +ovember #, !""#, the )ourt ordered these cases consolidated/
On +ovember 0, !""#, $e gave due course to both petitions/
The )ourt finds no merit in these petitions/
Senator Aaceda and 1tty/ ,o=ano, in Fuestioning the lac6 of a hearing, have overloo6ed the
provisions of Section 2 of E7ecutive Order +o/ !0, $hich $e Fuote%
CSE)T*O+ 2/ 1uthority to .rant &rovisional Relief / G The Board may, upon the filing of an
application, petition or complaint or at any stage thereafter and $ithout prior hearing, on the basis
of supporting papers duly verified or authenticated, grant provisional relief on motion of a party in
the case or on its o$n initiative, $ithout prejudice to a final decision after hearing, should the
Board find that the pleadings, together $ith such affidavits, documents and other evidence $hich
may be submitted in support of the motion, substantially support the provisional order% &rovided,
That the Board shall immediately schedule and conduct a hearing thereon $ithin thirty (8#) days
thereafter, upon publication and notice to all affected parties/% nad
1s the Order itself indicates, the authority for provisional increase falls $ithin the above provision/
There is no merit in the Senator<s contention that the CapplicableC provision is Section 8, paragraph
(e) of the E7ecutive Order, $hich $e Fuote%
(e) :henever the Board has determined that there is a shortage of any petroleum product, or
$hen public interest so reFuires, it may ta6e such steps as it may consider necessary, including the
temporary adjustment of the levels of prices of petroleum products and the payment to the Oil
&rice Stabili=ation -und created under &residential 'ecree +o/ !"D3 by persons or entities engaged
in the petroleum industry of such amounts as may be determined by the Board, $hich $ill enable
the importer to recover its cost of importation/
:hat must be stressed is that $hile under E7ecutive Order +o/ !0, a hearing is indispensable, it
does not preclude the Board from ordering, e7 parte, a provisional increase, as it did here, subject
to its final disposition of $hether or not% (!) to ma6e it permanentB () to reduce or increase it
furtherB or (8) to deny the application/ Section 80 paragraph (e) is a6in to a temporary restraining
order or a $rit of preliminary attachment issued by the courts, $hich are given e7 parte, and $hich
are subject to the resolution of the main case/
Section 8, paragraph (e) and Section 2 do not negate each other, or other$ise, operate e7clusively
of the other, in that the Board may resort to one but not to both at the same time/ Section 8(e)
outlines the jurisdiction of the Board and the grounds for $hich it may decree a price adjustment,
subject to the reFuirements of notice and hearing/ &ending that, ho$ever, it may order, under
Section 2, an authority to increase provisionally, $ithout need of a hearing, subject to the final
outcome of the proceeding/ The Board, of course, is not prevented from conducting a hearing on
the grant of provisional authority G $hich is of course, the better procedure G ho$ever, it cannot
be stigmati=ed later if it failed to conduct one/ 1s $e held in )iti=ens< 1lliance for )onsumer
&rotection v/ Energy Regulatory Board/ 0
*n the light of Section 2 Fuoted above, public respondent Board need not even have conducted
formal hearings in these cases prior to issuance of its Order of !4 1ugust !"20 granting a
provisional increase of prices/ The Board, upon its o$n discretion and on the basis of documents
and evidence submitted by private respondents, could have issued an order granting provisional
relief immediately upon filing by private respondents of their respective applications/ *n this
respect, the )ourt considers the evidence presented by private respondents in support of their
applications G i/e/, evidence sho$ing that importation costs of petroleum products had gone upB
that the peso had depreciated in valueB and that the Oil &rice Stabili=ation -und (O&S-) had by
then been depleted G as substantial and hence constitutive of at least prima facie basis for
issuance by the Board of a provisional relief order granting an increase in the prices of petroleum
products/ 2
:e do not therefore find the challenged action of the Board to have been done in violation of the
due process clause/ The petitioners may contest ho$ever, the applications at the hearings proper/
Senator Aaceda<s attac6 on the Order in Fuestion on premises that it constitutes an act of ta7ation
or that it negates the effects of Republic 1ct +o/ 3"3D, cannot prosper/ Republic 1ct +o/ 3"3D
operated to lo$er ta7es on petroleum and petroleum products by imposing specific ta7es rather
than ad valorem ta7es thereonB it is, not, ho$ever, an insurance against an Coil hi6eC, $henever
$arranted, or is it a price control mechanism on petroleum and petroleum products/ The statute
had possibly forestalled a larger hi6e, but it operated no more/% nad
The Board Order authori=ing the proceeds generated by the increase to be deposited to the O&S- is
not an act of ta7ation/ *t is authori=ed by &residential 'ecree +o/ !"D3, as amended by E7ecutive
Order +o/ !80, as follo$s%
SE)T*O+ 2/ There is hereby created a Trust 1ccount in the boo6s of accounts of the Ainistry of
Energy to be designated as Oil &rice Stabili=ation -und (O&S-) for the purpose of minimi=ing
freFuent price changes brought about by e7change rate adjustments and@or changes in $orld
mar6et prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products/ The Oil &rice Stabili=ation -und (O&S-)
may be sourced from any of the follo$ing%
a) 1ny increase in the ta7 collection from ad valorem ta7 or customs duty imposed on petroleum
products subject to ta7 under this 'ecree arising from e7change rate adjustment, as may be
determined by the Ainister of -inance in consultation $ith the Board of EnergyB
b) 1ny increase in the ta7 collection as a result of the lifting of ta7 e7emptions of government
corporations, as may be determined by the Ainister of -inance in consultation $ith the Board of
EnergyB
c) 1ny additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to augment the resources of the
-und through an appropriate Order that may be issued by the Board of Energy reFuiring payment
by persons or companies engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing and@or mar6eting
petroleum productsB
d) 1ny resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs paid by oil companies in the
importation of crude oil and petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed using the
reference foreign e7change rates as fi7ed by the Board of Energy/
1nent claims that oil companies cannot charge ne$ prices for oil purchased at old rates, suffice it
to say that the increase in Fuestion $as not prompted alone by the increase in $orld oil prices
arising from tension in the &ersian .ulf/ :hat the )ourt gathers from the pleadings as $ell as
events of $hich it ta6es judicial notice, is that% (!) as of Eune 8#, !""#, the O&S- has incurred a
deficit of &3/! BillionB () the e7change rate has fallen to &2/## to H!/##B (8) the country<s
balance of payments is e7pected to reach H! BillionB (4) our trade deficit is at H/2DD Billion as of
the first nine months of the year/
Evidently, authorities have been unable to collect enough ta7es necessary to replenish the O&S- as
provided by &residential 'ecree +o/ !"D3, and hence, there $as no available alternative but to hi6e
e7isting prices/
The O&S-, as the )ourt held in the aforecited )1)& cases, must not be understood to be a funding
designed to guarantee oil firms< profits although as a subsidy, or a trust account, the )ourt has no
doubt that oil firms ma6e money from it/ 1s $e held there, ho$ever, the O&S- $as established
precisely to protect the consuming public from the erratic movement of oil prices and to preclude
oil companies from ta6ing advantage of fluctuations occurring every so often/ 1s a buffer
mechanism, it stabili=es domestic prices by bringing about a uniform rate rather than leaving
pricing to the caprices of the mar6et/
*n all li6elihood, therefore, an oil hi6e $ould have probably been imminent, $ith or $ithout trouble
in the .ulf, although trouble $ould have probably aggravated it/% nad
The )ourt is not to be understood as having prejudged the justness of an oil price increase amid
the above premises/ :hat the )ourt is saying is that it thin6s that based thereon, the .overnment
has made out a prima facie case to justify the provisional increase in Fuestion/ ,et the )ourt
therefore ma6e clear that these findings are not finalB the burden, ho$ever, is on the petitioners<
shoulders to demonstrate the fact that the present economic picture does not $arrant a permanent
increase/
There is no doubt that the increase in oil prices in Fuestion (not to mention another one impending,
$hich the )ourt understands has been under consideration by policy9ma6ers) spells hard(er) times
for the -ilipino people/ The )ourt can not, ho$ever, debate the $isdom of policy or the logic behind
it (unless it is other$ise arbitrary), not because the )ourt agrees $ith policy, but because the
)ourt is not the suitable forum for debate/ *t is a Fuestion best judged by the political leadership
$hich after all, determines policy, and ultimately, by the electorate, that stands to be better for it
or $orse off, either in the short or long run/
1t this point, the )ourt shares the indignation of the people over the conspiracy of events and
regrets its o$n po$erlessness, if by this 'ecision it has been po$erless/ The constitutional scheme
of things has simply left it $ith no choice/
*n fine, $e find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the respondent Board in issuing its
Fuestioned Order/
:;ERE-ORE, these petitions are '*SA*SSE'/ +o costs/
SO OR'ERE'/
G.R. No. 159C5D A7r14 D, 2006
NAT-NA$ <EER CR<RAT-N, Petitioner, v/ <?-$-<<-NE E$ECTR-C <$ANT ENERS
ASSC-AT-N &<E<A', -NC., Respondent.
' E ) * S * O +
<ANGAN-%AN, CJ:
The supply of electricity is a public service that affects national security, economic gro$th and public interest/
To achieve coherent and effective policy formulation, coordination, implementation and monitoring $ithin the
energy sector, it became necessary to entrust in one body the regulatory functions covering the energy
sector/ Thus, the Energy Regulatory Board
!
(ERB) $as created/ The ERB $as given the po$er to determine, fi7
and prescribe the rates 99 including penalty charges 99 of all energy providers, including the +ational &o$er
)orporation (+&))/
The )ase
Before us is a &etition for Revie$

under Rule 4D of the Rules of )ourt, assailing the Aarch 8, ##8

'ecision
8
and 1ugust !, ##8 Resolution
4
of the )ourt of 1ppeals ()1) in )19.R S& +o/ D#02/ The
challenged 'ecision disposed as follo$s%cra%nad
C:;ERE-ORE, the instant petition is 'E+*E' and is accordingly '*SA*SSE' for lac6 of merit/C
D
cra
The assailed Resolution denied reconsideration/
The -acts
The +&) is a government9o$ned and 9controlled corporation, e7isting by virtue of )ommon$ealth 1ct +o/ !#
and Republic 1ct +o/ 38"D/ &hilippine Electric &lant O$ners 1ssociation (&E&O1), *nc/, is a non9stoc6
corporation composed of private electric plant operators/
3
Some members of &E&O1 purchase electric po$er
from petitioner to service po$er reFuirements in their respective franchise areas/
0
cra
On 'ecember !D, !""D, &E&O1 filed before the ERB a )omplaint
2
against the +&) for alleged unauthori=ed
collection of rates in the guise of penalty for !) e7cess consumption, double or triple the e7isting ratesB or )
unused consumption, as if fully availed of/
"
The penalties $ere being charged pursuant to the +&)<s Rules on
the Sale of Electricity, specifically +os/ D (Ainimum )harges) and 3 (&enalty for )onsumption in E7cess of the
1llo$able ,imit of the )ontract 'emand@Energy) of the Schedule of )harges/
!#
The provisions read%cra%nad
CD/ A*+*A(A );1R.ES
C:henever )ustomer<s registered demand@ energy falls belo$ the )ontract 'emand and@or )ontract Energy,
the difference shall be billed at applicable demand and@or Energy rates as if the )ontract 'emand and@or
Energy IhaveJ been fully availed of/ &rovided, that during )ustomer<s yearly maintenance of its facilities not to
e7ceed t$o () billing periods in a year, the basis of the minimum charge on energy shall be reduced to only
fifty percent (D#K) of the )ontract EnergyB provided further, that thirty (8#) days advance $ritten notice is
given to )orporation, and that actual maintenance is subject to confirmation of )orporation/
C3/ &E+1,T> -OR )O+S(A&T*O+ *+ EL)ESS O- T;E 1,,O:1B,E ,*A*T O- T;E )O+TR1)T 'EA1+'@
E+ER.>
C)ustomer<s consumption in e7cess of the ma7imum limits set forth in the Service Specifications 7 7 7 in the
)ontract, shall be penali=ed by billing the e7cess demand and@or energy at a Rate EFual to T$ice the unit
price of the highest priced bloc6 in the rate schedule/C
!!
cra
On 'ecember #, !""D, the ERB issued an Order
!
directing the +&) to cease and desist from collecting the
penalties, pending resolution of the case/ On Aay !, !""2, the ERB rendered its 'ecision, the dispositive
portion of $hich reads%cra%nad
CE?ERE)RE, in vie$ of the foregoing, the Board hereby directs respondent +&) to refund or
correspondingly credit to the complainants (affected electric distribution utilities) the total amount
of &2,20#,4"0/#2 corresponding to the said charges as penalties for e7cess consumption over the ma7imum
allo$able demand energy and consumption belo$ the contracted demand@energy, computed as follo$s%
F2) Penalties Billed and Collected for E4cess Consumption from+
F&) 2ngeles Electric Corp) 52EC6 P ',&08,/<')0.
F') ?isa$an Electric Co), Inc) 5?EC(6 P'-,81&,<8')..
F-) Caga$an Electric Power and !ight Co) 5CEP2!C(6 P </.,<&<)'.
FB) Penalt$ Billed and Collected for Below Consumption from+
F8) *arlac Enterprises, Inc) 5*EI6 P ',='-,801).0
*otal Penalties Billed and Collected
P'0,01.,8/1).0
UUUUUUUUUUUUU
C;o$ever, if the payments made under protest by the affected distribution utilities to respondent +&) $ere
passed on to the utilities customers, the reimbursements thereon should also e7tend to the end9users/
C*n the event that the affected distribution utilities have actually refunded the same to its customers, the said
utilities are hereby directed to submit a report to the Board sho$ing that an actual refund $as made to their
customers or end9users/
CThe collection@imposition of penalty for consumption in e7cess of the allo$able unit and penalty for belo$
consumption of the contracted demand@energy or unused energy imposed by +&) shall li6e$ise be not
applicable to electric cooperatives and all other +&) customers/
C-inally, the )ease and 'esist Order issued by the Board in its Order dated 'ecember #, !""D is hereby
made permanent/C
!8
cra
The ERB denied reconsideration on Eanuary !, !"""/
!4
The +&) filed a &etition for Revie$ $ith the )ourt of
1ppeals on Aarch 8, !"""/
Ruling of the )ourt of 1ppeals
The )1 found no errors of fact or la$ that $ould $arrant a reversal of the ERB<s 'ecision/ The imposition of
penalties by the +&) $as tantamount to an increase in rates that reFuired authori=ation by the ERB, $hich
$as mandated to determine, fi7 and prescribe electric rates/
!D
Since the latter<s approval had not been sought,
the charges $ere deemed void/
;ence, this &etition/
!3
cra
The *ssues
&etitioner raises the follo$ing issues%
C*/ :hether or not the Energy Regulatory Board had jurisdiction over the subject matter of imposition of
penalties for contract violations/
C**/ :hether or not the imposition of the penalties is an increase in po$er rates that reFuires authori=ation of
the Energy Regulatory Board/
C***/ :hether or not the discounts provided in the )ontract also reFuires the authori=ation of the Energy
Regulatory Board/
C*?/ :hether or not the issuance of the cease and desist order $ithout the benefit of notice and hearing is
$ithin the authority of the Energy Regulatory Board/
C?/ :hether or not a temporary restraining order@preliminary injunction should be issued pending resolution of
the petition for revie$/C
!0
The issues can be reduced to the follo$ing% !) $hether the ERB has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
caseB and ) $hether its )ease and 'esist Order is justified/
The )ourt<s Ruling
The &etition is unmeritorious/
-irst *ssue%
Eurisdiction Over the )ontroversy
&etitioner contends that the jurisdiction of the ERB to fi7, set and determine rates does not include the
authority to overrule the imposition of penalties stipulated in the )ontract of Sale and 'elivery of &o$er/
!2
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
The +&) adds that only its rate9ma6ing authority $as transferred to the ERB under Section !2 of R1
0382/ Petitioner,ho$ever, retained its po$er to promulgate rules and regulations governing its operations in
order to provide adeFuate, stable, reliable, and reasonably priced electric po$er/
!"
*n conducting its day9to9
day operations, it allegedly had to regulate the system loads of its transmission lines by reFuiring its
customers to have a contractual level and to maintain a ma7imum limit for the demand and the energy
consumption/
#
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
*n effect, the +&) claims that the penalty clauses in their contracts $ith customers are policy matters relating
to the implementation of its corporate purpose, not to the fi7ing of rates/
1uthority to -i7 Rates
To complete this decision on the present controversy, the )ourt needs to trace briefly petitioner<s rate9fi7ing
authority/
)ommon$ealth 1ct +o/ !#
!
created the +&) and gave it the po$er to produce and Csell electric po$er and
to fi7 the rates and provide for the collection of the charges for any service rendered/C

The rates $ere not

subject to revision by the &ublic Service )ommission,
8
$hich $as then the government entity that had
jurisdiction over all public services/
4
cra
Republic 1ct +o/ 38"D
D
revised the charter of the +&), $hose po$er to fi7 the rates and fees $as retained,
but became subject to revie$ by the &ublic Service )ommission/
3
cra
,ater, Republic 1ct +o/ 0382,
0
or the C'epartment of Energy 1ct of !"",C recreated the 'epartment of
Energy and reorgani=ed the functions of some government agencies/
2
The po$er of the +&) to determine and
fi7 the rates being charged its customers $as transferred to the ERB in this $ise%cra%nad
CThe po$er of the +&) to determine, fi7 and prescribe the rates being charged to its customers under Section
4 of Republic 1ct +o/ 38"D, as amended, 7 7 7 are hereby transferred to the Energy Regulatory Board/ 7 7
7/C
"
cra
ERB Eurisdiction
E7ecutive Order +o/ !0
8#
created the ERB to provide the policy guidelines and regulatory frame$or6 for the
activities and operations of the po$er sector/
8!
The ERB $as to regulate the business of importing, e7porting,
re9e7porting, shipping, transporting, processing, refining, mar6eting and distributing energy
resources/
8
(nder Section 4 of the E7ecutive Order, it $as also tas6ed to assume the functions of the Board
of Energy
88
and of the Bureau of Energy (tili=ation/
84
cra
Significantly, Republic 1ct +o/ 0382 transferred the ERB<s non9price regulatory jurisdiction, po$ers and
functions to the 'epartment of Energy/
8D
cra
Republic 1ct +o/ "!83,
83
the CElectric &o$er *ndustry Reform 1ct of ##!C (E&*R1), transferred the po$ers of
the ERB to the Energy Regulatory )ommission (ER))/
80
cra
Rate and Rate9-i7ing 'efined
The cru7 of the controversy is $hether the penalty charges imposed by the +&) are included in the term
Crates/C (nfortunately, the pertinent la$s stated above do not define rates and $hat is involved in rate9fi7ing/
The )ourt, ho$ever, is not precluded from using other means to define these terms/
*n the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, the general rule is that $ords and phrases are to be given
their plain, ordinary and common9usage meaning/
82
*t is presumed that the la$ma6ers employed the $ords in
this sense/
8"
cra
Rate is defined as Ca charge, payment, or price fi7ed according to a ratio, scale, or standardBC
4#
or Can amount
paid or charged for a good or service/C
4!
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
Rates are fi7ed on the basis of the investment amount or property value that the public utility is allo$ed to
earn 99 an amount value other$ise called Crate base/C
4
&roperty valuation is dependent on the particular
circumstances and relevant facts affecting each utility/
48
1fter all, rate9fi7ing calls for a technical e7amination
and a speciali=ed revie$ of specific details primarily entrusted to the administrative or regulating authority 99
in the present case, the ERB/
44
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
There are many factors considered in ascertaining this value, such as the original cost of constructionB the
amount e7pended in permanent improvementsB the amount and mar6et value of the bonds and stoc6 of the
public utilityB the present cost compared $ith the original cost of constructionB the probable earning capacity
of the property under the particular rates prescribedB and the sum reFuired to meet operating e7penses/
4D
*t
must be noted that the government is not bound to apply any particular method or formula for determining
rates/
43
cra
1 just rate is founded on conditions that are fair and reasonable to both the public utility and the public/
40
This
stipulation means that the public utility must have, as profit, a fair return on the reasonable value of the
property/
42
The imposition of the ma7imum rates it charges cannot be confiscatory/
4"
1s to the public,
reasonableness reFuires entitlement to the service at an affordable cost/
D#
cra
&enalties as Rates
The penalties imposed by the +&) in its CRules on the Sale of ElectricityC are covered by the definition of rate/
CAinimum )hargesC and C&enalties for )onsumption in E7cess of 1llo$able ,imitC are e7acted from customers
in relation to the sale of energy/ These charges cannot be imposed $ithout the sale of energy/ *ndeed, a
consideration in fi7ing rates is the purpose for $hich the penalties are constituted% the regulation of the
system loads of transmission lines,
D!
so as to ensure the continuous operation of the public utility or to cover
part of its operating expenses.
The po$er to determine, fi7 and prescribe rates being charged customers is vested in the ERB/ Therefore,
unless it gives prior approval, the penalties cannot be imposed by the +&)/ :ithout that authority, the
challenged provisions in the CRules on the Sale of ElectricityC cannot be imposed on the electric plant
operators that &E&O1 represents/ :hile petitioner may issue rules and regulations consistent $ith its
corporate objectives, provisions that have a bearing on the impositions of rates must be approved by the ERB/
*n determining $hether penalties are included in the term rates, this )ourt upholds the principle that the
authority of a board or commission is construed in the light of the purposes for $hich it $as createdB and that
$hatever is incidentally necessary to a full implementation of the legislative intent should be upheld as
germane to the la$/
D
Eurisdiction over penalties is necessarily part of the ERB<s regulatory functionsB and is in
line $ith the intent of achieving a coherent and effective policy formulation, coordination, implementation and
monitoring $ithin the energy sector/
D8
cra
'iscounts, +ot Rates
&etitioner contends that if the penalties are subject to ERB approval, so too must be the discounts in the
latter<s CRules on the Sale of Electricity/C
D4
The discounts allegedly affect rates and benefit electric plant
operators, $ho must then reimburse the +&) accordingly/
DD
:e do not agree/
*ndeed, petitioner correctly points out that because the discounts affect rates, they should thus be a
consideration in rate9fi7ing/ They are, ho$ever, not amounts paid or charged for the sale of electricity, but
are reductions in rates.
Republic 1ct +o/ 0382 transferred the +&)<s po$er to determine, fi7 and prescribe the rates being charged
customers/ They are charged nothing, though, $hen they are given discounts/ Evidently, the ERB<s approval of
the discounts is not necessary/
Second *ssue%
&rovisional Relief
&etitioner further challenges the ERB<s 'ecember #, !""D Order, $hich directed it to cease and desist from
collecting the penalties, pending resolution of the case/
D3
The +&) contends that the provisional relief reFuired
notice and hearing prior to being granted, similar to the reFuirement of the rule on preliminary injunction
under Rule D2
D0
of the Rules of )ourt/
D2
&etitioner adds that &E&O1 did not submit any supporting documents
or affidavits to sho$ the great or irreparable injury that $ould justify the provisional relief/
D"
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
1uthority to .rant &rovisional Relief
The authority to grant provisional relief $as conferred on the ERB, not under the Rules of )ourt but under
E7ecutive Order !0, $hose pertinent provision reads%cra%nad
CSection 2/ 1uthority to .rant &rovisional Relief/ 9 The Board may, upon the filing of an application, petition or
complaint or at any stage thereafter and $ithout prior hearing, on the basis of supporting papers duly verified
or authenticated, grant provisional relief on motion of a party in the case or on its o$n initiative, $ithout
prejudice to a final decision after hearing, should the Board find that the pleadings, together $ith such
affidavits, documents and other evidence $hich may be submitted in support of the motion, substantially
support the provisional order% &rovided, That the Board shall immediately schedule and conduct a hearing
thereon $ithin thirty (8#) days thereafter, upon publication and notice to all affected parties/C
This )ourt e7plained the cited provision in )iti=ens< 1lliance for )onsumer &rotection v/ Energy Regulatory
Board,
3#
as follo$s%cra%nad
C7 7 7 IERBJ is authori=ed in appropriate cases to grant provisional relief, $hether on its o$n initiative or on
motion of a party, either (!) upon filing of an application, petition or complaintB or () at any state thereafter
and $ithout need of prior hearing, subject, ho$ever, to conducting a hearing thereon $ithin (8#) days
thereafter/ *ssuance of an order granting such provisional relief must rest upon substantial evidence and is
$ithout prejudice, ho$ever, to rendition of a final decision after hearing/C
3!
cra
&lainly, the ERB has the authority to issue provisional relief !) upon motion or on its o$n initiativeB ) $ithout
notice and hearingB and 8) after the filing of an application, a petition or a complaint/
+eed to Substantiate &rovisional Relief
The ERB has the discretion to grant provisional relief/ Section 2 of E7ecutive Order +o/ !0 simply reFuires
that its e7ercise of this discretion be supported by substantial evidence
3
in the form of authenticated or
verified documents/
38
The reason can easily be discerned from the fact that the order is, by its nature,
temporary and subject to adjustment after final hearing/
34
cra
The silence of the la$ cannot be construed as granting limitless discretion to the ERB/ The standard for
granting provisional relief may be found in the la$s creating or relating to the ERB/ 1fter all, statutes should
be construed as a $hole and in relation to their amendments/
3D
Thus, the ERB should e7ercise its discretion in
consideration of its mandate to ensure the Fuality, reliability, security and affordability of the supply of electric
po$er/
33
&rovisional relief cannot be ordered in a $himsical, arbitrary or oppressive manner/
*f supported by substantial evidence, the factual finding of the ERB 99 an administrative body charged $ith a
specific field of e7pertise 99 is conclusive and should not be disturbed/
30
1dministrative bodies are given $ide
latitude in the evaluation of evidence, including the authority to ta6e judicial notice of facts $ithin their special
competence/
32
1bsent any proof to the contrary, the presumption is that official duty has been regularly
performed/
3"
;ence, the ERB is presumed to have performed its duty of studying the available evidence, prior
to the issuance of the provisional relief/
The ERB issued the )ease and 'esist Order in recognition of the fact that end consumers $ould ultimately pay
for the penalties imposed by the +&)/
0#
*t is clear that the latter did not even rebut this justification/
-actual issues may not be raised in a petition for revie$ under Rule 4D/
0!
Even assuming that the present case
falls under the e7ceptions to this rule,
0
the )ourt is precluded from considering the allegation that &E&O1 did
not submit any document or affidavit to support the latter<s prayer for a )ease and 'esist Order/ &etitioner
has made only bare allegations $ithout referring at all to the evidence/
:;ERE-ORE, the &etition is 'E+*E' and the assailed 'ecision and Resolution 1--*RAE'/ )osts against
petitioner/
S RDERED/
G.R. No. 1C131C. A7r14 9, 2003]
RE<#%$-C ) T?E <?-$-<<-NES, RE<RESENTED %" ENERG" REG#$ATR"
%ARD, Petitioner, v. A1+*,1 E,E)TR*) )OA&1+>, respondent/
I./R/ +o/ !4!83"/ 1pril ", ##8J
,1:>ERS 1.1*+ST AO+O&O,> 1+' &O?ERT> (,1A&) consisting of )E-ER*+O &1'(1, )hairman, ./ -(,TO+
1)OST1, .1,*,EO BR*O+, 1+1T1,*1 B(E+1?E+T(R1, &E'RO )1ST*,,O, +1&O,EO+ )ORO+1'O, ROAEO
E);1(M, -ER+1+'O .1*TE, 1,-RE'O 'E .(MA1+, RO.E,*O 51R1.'1., ER/, A1/ ,(M 1RM1.19AE+'OM1,
1+SBERTO &1RE'ES, 1N(*,*+O &*AE+TE, ***, A1R*O RE>ES, EAA1+(E, S1+TOS, R('E.E,*O T1)OR'1,
members, and RO,1+'O 1RM1.1, Secretary9.eneral, E(ST*)E 1BR1;1A S1RA*E+TO, SE+1TOR 1N(*,*+O
&*AE+TE,, ER/ and )OAA*SS*O+ER B1RTO,OAE -ER+1+'EM, ER/, Board of )onsultants, and ,a$yer .E+1RO
,(1,;1T*, Petitioners, v. A1+*,1 E,E)TR*) )OA&1+> (AER1,)O), respondent/
R E S O , ( T * O +
&(+O, J/%
The business and operations of a public utility are imbued $ith public interest/ *n a very real sense, . 7:b41c
:214128 1s e/=.=e0 1/ 7:b41c ser51ce-- providing basic commodities and services indispensable to the
interest of the general public/ -or this reason, a public utility submits to the regulation of government
authorities and surrenders certain business prerogatives, including the amount of rates that may be charged
by it/ *t is the imperative duty of the State to interpose its protective po$er $henever too much profits
become the priority of public utilities/
-or resolution is the Aotion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Aanila Electric )ompany (AER1,)O) on
'ecember D, ## from the decision of this )ourt dated +ovember !D, ## reducing AER1,)Os rate
adjustment in the amount of &#/#!0 per 6ilo$atthour (6$h) for its billing cycles beginning !""4 and further
directing AER1,)O to credit the e7cess average amount of &#/!30 per 6$h to its customers starting $ith
AER1,)Os billing cycles beginning -ebruary !""4/I!
-irst, $e leapfrog through the facts/ On 'ecember 8, !""8, AER1,)O filed $ith the Energy Regulatory Board
(ERB) an application for revised rates, $ith an average increase of &#/! per 6$h in its distribution charge/ On
Eanuary 2, !""4 the ERB granted a 7ro51s1o/.4 1/cre.se of &#/!24 per 6$h s:bFec2 2o 23e co/0121o/ that
in the event the ERB determines that AER1,)O is entitled to a lesser increase in rates, all e7cess amounts
collected by AER1,)O shall be refunded to its customers or credited in their favor/ The )ommission on 1udit
()O1) conducted an e7amination of the boo6s of accounts and records of AER1,)O and thereafter
recommended, among others, that% (!) income ta7es paid by AER1,)O should not be included as part of
AER1,)Os operating e7penses and () the net average investment method or the number of months use
method should be applied in determining the proportionate value of the properties used by AER1,)O during
the test year/
*n its 0ec1s1o/ dated -ebruary !3, !""2, the ER% .0o72e0 23e recomme/0.21o/s o6 23e CA and
authori=ed AER1,)O to adopt a rate adjustment of <0.01D 7er G14o>.223o:r &G>3' for its billing cycles
beginning !""4/ The ERB further directed AER1,)O to cre012 23e e;cess .5er.=e .mo:/2 o6 <0.16D 7er
G>3 2o 12s c:s2omers starting $ith AER1,)Os billing cycles beginning -ebruary !""4/ The said ruling of the
ERB $as affirmed by this )ourt in its decision dated +ovember !D, ##/
*n its Aotion for Reconsideration, respondent AER1,)O contends that% (!) the deduction of income ta7 from
revenues allo$ed for rate determination of public utilities is part of its constitutional right to propertyB () it
correctly used the average investment method or the simple average in computing the value of its properties
entitled to a return instead of the net average investment method or the number of months use methodB and
(8) the decision of the ERB ordering the refund of &#/!30 per 6$h to its customers should not be given
retroactive effect/I
The Republic of the &hilippines through the ERB, no$ Energy Regulatory )ommission (ER)), represented by
the Office of the Solicitor .eneral, filed its )omment on Aarch 0, ##8/ Surprisingly, in its )omment, the ER)
proffered a divergent vie$ from the Office of the Solicitor .eneral/ The ER) submits that income ta7es are not
operating e7penses but are reasonable costs that may be recoverable from the consuming public/ :hile the
ER) admits that there is still no categorical determination on $hether income ta7 should indeed be deducted
from revenues of a public utility, it agrees $ith AER1,)O that to disallo$ public utilities from recovering its
income ta7 payments $ill effectively lo$er the return on rate base enjoyed by a public utility to 2K/ The ER),
ho$ever, agrees $ith this )ourts ruling that the use of the net average investment method or the number of
months use method is not unreasonable/
8
The Office of the Solicitor .eneral, under its solemn duty to protect the interests of the people, defended the
thesis that income ta7 payments by a public utility should not be recovered as costs from the consuming
public/ *t contended that% (!) the foreign jurisprudence cited by AER1,)O in support of its position is not
applicable in this jurisdictionB () AER1,)O $as given a fair rate of returnB (8) the )O1 and the ERB follo$ed
the +ational 1ccounting and 1uditing Aanual $hich e7pressly disallo$s the treatment of income ta7 as
operating e7penseB (4) E7ecutive Order +o/ 0 does not grant electric utilities the privilege of treating income
ta7 as operating e7penseB (D) the )O1 and the ERB have been consistent in not allo$ing income ta7 as part of
operating e7pensesB (3) ERB decisions allo$ing the application of a ta7 recovery clause are inaproposB (0)
allo$ing AER1,)O to treat income ta7 as an operating e7pense $ould set a dangerous precedentB (2)
assuming that the disallo$ance of income ta7 as operating e7pense $ould discourage foreign investors and
lenders, the government is not precluded from enacting la$s and instituting measures to lure them bac6B and
(") the findings and conclusions of the ERB carry great $eight and should be binding on the courts in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion/ The Solicitor .eneral agrees $ith the ER) that the net average
investment method is a reasonable method for property valuation/ -inally, the Solicitor .eneral argues that
the ERB decision may be applied retroactively and the use of a test period to determine the rate base and
allo$able rates to be collected by a public utility is an accepted practice/I4
:e shall discuss the main issues in seriatim/
*
AER1,)O argues that deduction of all 6inds of ta7es, including income ta7, from the gross revenues of a
public utility is firmly entrenched in 1merican jurisprudence/ *t contends that the &ublic Service 1ct
()ommon$ealth 1ct +o/ !43) $as patterned after 1ct 8#3 of the &hilippine )ommission, $hich, in turn, $as
borro$ed from 1merican state public utility la$s such as the +e$ Eersey &ublic (tility 1ct/ ;ence, it maintains
that 1merican jurisprudence on the inclusion of income ta7es as a la$ful charge to operating e7penses should
be controlling/ *t cites the rule on statutory construction that a statute adopted from a foreign country $ill be
presumed to be adopted $ith the construction placed upon it by the courts of that country before its
adoption/
D
:e are not persuaded/ Amer1c./ 0ec1s1o/s ./0 .:23or121es .re /o2 per se co/2ro441/= 1/ 231s
F:r1s01c21o/. A2 bes2, 23e8 .re 7ers:.s15e 6or /o co:r2 3o40s . 7.2e/2 o/ correc2 0ec1s1o/s. Our la$s
must be construed in accordance $ith the intention of our o$n la$ma6ers and such intent may be deduced
from the language of each la$ and the conte7t of other local legislation related thereto/ Aore
importantly, 23e8 m:s2 be co/s2r:e0 2o ser5e o:r o>/ 7:b41c 1/2eres2 >31c3 1s 23e be-.44 ./0 23e
e/0-.44 o6 .44 o:r 4.>s. A/0 12 /ee0 /o2 be s2resse0 23.2 o:r 7:b41c 1/2eres2 1s 01s21/c2 ./0 0166ere/2
6rom o23ers.
Rate regulation calls for a careful consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances material to each
application for an up$ard rate revision/ R.2e re=:4.2ors s3o:40 s2r.1/ 2o s2r1Ge . b.4./ce be2>ee/ 23e
c4.s31/= 1/2eres2s o6 23e 7:b41c :214128 ./0 23e co/s:m1/= 7:b41c ./0 23e b.4./ce m:s2 .ss:re .
re.so/.b4e r.2e o6 re2:r/ 2o 7:b41c :214121es >123o:2 be1/= :/re.so/.b4e 2o 23e co/s:m1/= 7:b41c.
E3.2 1s re.so/.b4e or :/re.so/.b4e 0e7e/0s o/ . c.4c:4:s o6 c3./=1/= c1rc:ms2./ces 23.2 ebb ./0
64o> >123 21me. >esterday cannot govern today, no more than today can determine tomorro$/
&rescinding from these premises, $e reject AER1,)Os insistence that the non9inclusion of income ta7
payments as a legitimate operating e7pense $ill deny public utilities a fair return of their investment/ This
stubborn stance is belied by the report submitted by the )O1 on the audit conducted on AER1,)Os boo6s of
accounts and the findings of the ERB/I3
(pon the instructions of the ERB, the )O1 conducted an audit of the operations of AER1,)O covering the
period from -ebruary !, !""4 to Eanuary 8!, !""D, or 23e 7er1o0 1mme01.2e48 .62er 23e 1m74eme/2.21o/
o6 23e 7ro51s1o/.4 r.2e 1/cre.se.[D] ;ence, amounts culled by the )O1 from its e7amination of the boo6s
of AER1,)O already included the provisional rate increase of &#/!24 granted by the ERB/
-rom the figures submitted by the )O1, the ERB $as able to determine that AER1,)O derived e;cess
re5e/:eduring the test year in the amount of <2,CC8,3D8,000.I2 This means that during the test year, and
after the rates $ere increased by &#/!24, AER1,)O earned <2,CC8,3D8,000 or 8.15H more 23./ 23e
.mo:/2 12 s3o:40 3.5e e.r/e0 .2 . 12H r.2e o6 re2:r/ o/ r.2e b.se. 1ccordingly, based on this amount
of e7cess revenue, the ERB determined that the provisional rate granted by it to AER1,)O $as <0.16D 7er
G>3 more 23./ 23e .mo:/2 !ERA$C o:=32 2o c3.r=e 12s c:s2omers 2o ob2.1/ 23e 7rescr1be0 12H
r.2e o6 re2:r/ o/ r.2e b.se. Thus, the ERB correspondingly lo$ered the provisional increase by <0.16D 7er
G>3 and ordered AER1,)O to increase its rates at a reduced amount of <0.01D per 6$h, computed as
follo$s%I"
1t appraised value
Total *nvested )apital Entitled & 8#,#D",3!4,###I!#
to Return
!K return thereon & 8,3#0,!D4,###
1dd% Total Operating e7penses & 82,3#,4#,###I!!
for Rate 'etermination
&urposes
)omputed Revenue & 4!,230,D08,###
1ctual Revenue & 44,8!D,"D!,###
E;cess Re5e/:e < 2,CC8,3D8,000
&ercent of E7cess Revenue to 2/!DK
*nvested )apital
1uthori=ed Rate of Return !/##K
Ac2:.4 R.2e o6 Re2:r/ 20.15H
Total 6$h sold !4,34#,#"4,###
R.21o o6 E;cess Re5e/:e 2o
To2.4 G>3 So40 < 0.16D
*n fact, e5e/ 16 !ERA$Cs 1/come 2.; 41.b14128 >o:40 be 1/c4:0e0 .s ./ o7er.21/= e;7e/se, !ERA$C
>o:40 s2144 e/Fo8 e;cess re5e/:e o6 <312,D38,000.00 or 1.0CH .bo5e 23e .:23or1Ie0 r.2e o6 re2:r/
o6 12H. Based on its audit, the )O1 determined that the provision for income ta7 liability of AER1,)O
amounted to &,!8D,38",###/##/
!
Thus, even if such amount of income ta7 liability $ould be included as
operating e7pense, 23e .mo:/2 o6 e;cess re5e/:e e.r/e0 b8 !ERA$C 0:r1/= 23e 2es2 8e.r >o:40 be
more 23./ s:661c1e/2 2o co5er 23e .00121o/.4 1/come 2.; e;7e/se. Thus%
1t appraised value
Total *nvested )apital Entitled & 8#,#D",3!4,###
to Return
!K return thereon & 8,3#0,!D4,###
1dd% Total Operating e7penses & 4#,8"3,#D",###
!8
for Rate 'etermination
&urposes
)omputed Revenue & 44,##8,!8,###
1ctual Revenue & 44,8!D,"D!,###
E;cess Re5e/:e < 312,D38,000
<erce/2 o6 E;cess Re5e/:e
2o -/5es2e0 C.712.4 1.0CH
1uthori=ed Rate of Return !/##K
Ac2:.4 R.2e o6 Re2:r/ 13.0CH
*t is crystal clear, therefore, that even if income ta7 is to be included as an operating e7pense and hence,
recoverable from the consuming public, AER1,)O $ould still enjoy a rate of return that is above the
authori=ed rate of !K/ <:b41c :214121es c.//o2 be .44o>e0 2o o5erc3.r=e .2 23e e;7e/se o6 23e 7:b41c
./0 >orse, 23e8 c.//o2 com74.1/ 23.2 23e8 .re /o2 o5erc3.r=1/= e/o:=3.
Be that as it may, AER1,)O contends that considering income ta7 payments of public utilities constitute one9
third of their net income, public utilities $ill effectively get, not the !K rate of return on rate base allo$ed
them, but only about 2K/I!4 1gain, $e are not persuaded/
The foregoing argument assumes that the !K return allo$ed to public utilities is eFuivalent to its 2.;.b4e
1/come$hich $ill be subject to income ta7/ The !K rate of return is computed o/48 6or 23e 7:r7ose o6
61;1/= 23e .44o>.b4e r.2es 2o be c3.r=e0 b8 . 7:b41c :214128 ./0 1s 1/ /o >.8 0e2erm1/.215e o6 23e
1/come s:bFec2 2o 1/come 2.; o6 23e 7:b41c :214128. The computation of a corporations income ta7 liability
is an altogether different matter, $ith the corporations ta7able income derived by ta6ing into account the
corporations gross revenues less allo$able deductions/
!D
1t any rate, even on the assumption that in the test year involved (-ebruary !, !""4 to Eanuary 8!, !""D),
AER1,)Os computed revenue of & 4!,230,D08,### or the amount that it is allo$ed to earn based on a !K
rate of return is its 2.;.b4e 1/come, after payment of its income ta7 liability of &,!8D,38",###/##, AER1,)O
$ould still obtain an 11.38H r.2e o6 re2:r/ or . re2:r/ 23.2 1s >e44 >1231/ 23e 12H r.2e .44o>e0 2o
7:b41c :214121es/I!3
AER1,)O also contends that even the successor of the ERB or the ER) created under the Electric &o$er
*ndustry Reform 1ct of ##! (E&*R1)
!0
adheres to the principle that income ta7 is part of operating
e7pense/
!2
To bolster its argument, AER1,)O cites 1rticle 83 of the E&*R1 $hich charges the ER) $ith the
responsibility of unbundling the rates of the +ational &o$er )orporation (+&)) and each distribution utility
coming $ithin the coverage of the la$/
!"
AER1,)O alleges that pursuant to said provision, the ER) issued a set
of (niform Rate -iling ReFuirements ((-R) containing guidelines to be follo$ed $ith respect to rate
unbundling applications to be filed/ AER1,)O asserts that under the (-R, the enumeration of the e7penses
$hich are to be recovered through the rates, and $hich are to be separated or allocated for the purpose of
unbundling of these rates include income ta7 e7penses/
(nder Section 83 of the E&*R1, the +&) and every distribution facility covered by the la$ is mandated to
unbundle, segregate or itemi=e its rates according to the various sectors of the electric po$er industry
identified in the la$, namely% generation, transmission, distribution and supply/
#
The la$ further directs the
ER) to regulate and facilitate the unbundling of rates prescribed by Section 83/ Thus, on October 8#, ##!,
the ER) issued guidelines prescribing the uniform rate filing reFuirements to be follo$ed by distribution
facilities for the purposes of unbundling rates/I!
1 proper appreciation of the (-R sho$s that it simply specifies a uniform accounting system to be complied
$ith by a distribution facility $hen filing an application for revised rates under the E&*R1/ 1s the E&*R1
reFuires the unbundling or segregation of rates according to the different sectors of the electric po$er
industry, the (-R see6s to facilitate this process by properly identifying the accounts or information reFuired
for proper evaluation by the ERB/ Thus, the introductory statements of the (-R provide%
These uniform rate filing reFuirements are intended to promote consistency and completeness in the rate
filings reFuired by Republic 1ct +o/ "!83 (R1 "!83), Section 83/ To that end, the filing reFuirements o/48
s7ec168 m1/1m:m 6orm ./0 co/2e/2. A r.2e .7741c.21o/ 1/ .44 12s .s7ec2s co/21/:es 2o be s:bFec2 2o
s:bse9:e/2 Comm1ss1o/ re51e> ./0 0e41ber.21o/.[22]
1t the onset, it is clear that 23e #)R 0oes /o2 seeG 2o 0e2erm1/e >31c3 .cco:/21/= me23o0 >144 be
:se0 b8 23e ERC 6or 0e2erm1/.21o/ o6 r.2e b.se or 23e 12ems o6 e;7e/ses 23.2 m.8 be reco5ere0 b8
. 7:b41c :214128 6rom 12s c:s2omers. The (-R only see6s to prescribe a :/16orm s8s2em or 6orm.2 to
standardi=e or facilitate the process of unbundling of rates mandated by the E&*R1/ 1t best, the (-R
prescribes the set of ra$ data or figures to be disclosed by a distribution facility that the ER) $ill need to
determine the authori=ed rates that a distribution facility may charge/ T3e #)R 0oes /o2, 1/ ./8 >.8,
0e2erm1/e 23e m.//er b8 >31c3 23e se2 o6 0.2. or 61=:res 1/01c.2e0 1/ 23e r.2e .7741c.21o/ >144 be
e5.4:.2e0 b8 23e ERC 6or r.2e 0e2erm1/.21o/ 7:r7oses/
**
AER1,)O also challenges the use of the net average investment method or the number of months use
method on the ground that AER1,)O and the &ublic Service )ommission (&S)) have been consistently
applying the average investment method or simple average, $hich it alleged $as also affirmed by this )ourt in
the case of !ERA$C 5. <SC
8
and Re7:b41c 5. !e01/./
4
*t is true that in !ERA$C 5. <SC,
D
the issue of the proper valuation method to be used in determining the
value of AER1,)Os utility plants for rate fi7ing purposes $as brought to fore/ *n the said case, AER1,)O
applied the average investment method or simple average by obtaining the average value of the utility plants,
using its values at the beginning and at the end of the test year/ *n contrast, the .eneral 1uditing Office used
the appraisal method $hich fi7es the value of the utility plants by ascertaining the cost of production per
6ilo$att and multiplying the same by the total capacity of said plants, less the corresponding depreciation/
3
*n
upholding the average investment method used by AER1,)O, this )ourt adopted the findings of the &S) for
being by and large, supported by the records of the case/
0
This )ourt did not ma6e an independent
assessment of the validity or applicability of the average investment method but simply did not disturb the
findings of the &S) for being supported by substantial evidence/ To conclude that the said decision affirmed
the use of the average investment method thereby implying that the said method is the only method to be
applied in all instances, is a strained reading of the decision/
*n fact, in the case of Re7:b41c 5. !e01/.,
2
also cited by AER1,)O to have affirmed the use of the average
investment method, this )ourt ruled%
The decided $eight of authority, ho$ever, is to the effect that 7ro7er28 5.4:.21o/ 1s /o2 2o be so45e0 b8
6orm:4. b:2 0e7e/0s :7o/ 23e 7.r21c:4.r c1rc:ms2./ces ./0 re4e5./2 6.c2s .66ec21/= e.c3 :214128 as
to $hat constitutes a just rate base and $hat $ould be a fair return, just to both the utility and the public/I"
-urther, Ar/ Eustice )astro in his concurring opinion in the same case elucidated%
1 regulatory commissions field of inFuiry, ho$ever, is not confined to the computation of the cost of service or
capital nor to a mere prognostication of the future behavior of the money and capital mar6ets/ *t must also
balance investor and consumer e7pectations in such a $ay that broad reFuirements of public interest may be
meaningfully reali=ed/ -2 >o:40 3e/ce .77e.r 1/ Gee71/= >123 12s 7:b41c 0:28 16 . re=:4.2or8 bo08 1s
.44o>e0 >10e 01scre21o/ 1/ 23e c3o1ce o6 me23o0s r.21o/.448 re4.2e0 2o 23e .c31e5eme/2 o6 231s e/0.
[30]
Thus, the rule then as it is no$, is that rate regulating authorities are not hidebound to use any single formula
or combination of formulas for property valuation purposes because the rate9ma6ing process involves the
balancing of investor and consumer interests $hich ta6es into account various factors that may be uniFue or
peculiar to a particular rate revision application/
:e again stress the long established doctrine that findings of administrative or regulatory agencies on matters
$hich are $ithin their technical area of e7pertise are generally accorded not only respect but at times even
finality if such findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence/I8! Rate fi7ing calls for a
technical e7amination and a speciali=ed revie$ of specific details $hich the courts are ill9eFuipped to enter,
hence, such matters are primarily entrusted to the administrative or regulating authority/
8
Thus, this )ourt finds no reversible error on the part of the )O1 and the ERB in adopting the net average
investment method or the number of months use method for property valuation purposes in the cases at bar/
***
AER1,)O also rants against the retroactive application of the rate adjustment ordered by the ERB and
affirmed by this )ourt/ *n its decision, the ERB, after authori=ing AER1,)O to adopt a rate adjustment in the
amount of &#/#!0 per 6$h, directed AER1,)O to refund or credit to its customers future consumption the
e7cess average amount of&#/!30 per 6$h from its billing cycles beginning -ebruary !""4I88 until its billing
cycles beginning -ebruary !""2/
84
*n the decision appealed from, this )ourt li6e$ise ordered that the refund in
the average amount of &#/!30 per 6$h be made to retroact from AER1,)Os billing cycles beginning -ebruary
!""4/
AER1,)O contends that the refund cannot be given retroactive effect as the figures determined by the ERB
only apply to the test year or the period subject of the )O1 1udit, i.e., -ebruary !, !""4 to Eanuary 8!, !""D/
*t reasoned that the amounts used to determine the proper rates to be charged by AER1,)O $ould vary from
year to year and thus the computation of the e7cess average charge of &#/!30 $ould hold true only for the
test year/ Thus, AER1,)O argues that if a refund of &#/!30 $ould be uniformly applied to its billing cycles
beginning !""4, $ith respect to periods after Eanuary 8!, !""D, there $ill be instances $herein its operating
revenues $ould fall belo$ the !K authori=ed rate of return/ AER1,)O therefore suggests that the dispositive
portion be modified and order that the refund applicable to the periods after Eanuary 8!, !""D is to be
computed on the basis of the e7cess collection in proportion to the e7cess over the !K return/I8D
The purpose of the audit procedures conducted in a rate application proceeding is to determine $hether the
rate applied for $ill generate a reasonable return for the public utility, $hich, in accordance $ith settled la$s
and jurisprudence, is !K on rate base or the present value of the assets used in the operations of a public
utility/ -or audit purposes, ho$ever, there is a need to obtain a sample set of data99 usually derived from
figures $ithin a designated period of time99 to determine the amount of returns obtained by a public utility
during such period/ *n the cases at bar, the )O1 conducted an audit for the test year beginning -ebruary !,
!""4 and ending Eanuary 8!, !""D or a !9month period immediately after the order of the ERB granting a
provisional increase in the amount of &#/!24 per 6$h $as issued/ Thus, the ultimate issue resolved by the
)O1 $hen it conducted its audit $as $hether the provisional increase granted by the ERB generated an
amount of return $ell $ithin the rates authori=ed by la$/ 1s stated earlier, based on the findings of the ERB,
$ith the increase of &#/!24 per 6$h, AER1,)O obtained a rate of return $hich $as 2/!DK more than the
authori=ed rate of return of !K/I83 Thus, a refund in the amount of &#/!30 $as determined and ordered by
ERB/
The essence of the use of a test year for auditing purposes is to obtain a sample or representative set of
figures to enable the e7amining authority to arrive at a conclusion or finding based on the gathered data/ The
use of a test year does not mean that the information and conclusions so derived $ould only be correct for
that year and $ould be incorrect on the succeeding years/ The use of a test year assumes that $ithin a
reasonable period after such test year, figures used to determine the amount of return $ould only vary
slightly from the figures culled during the test year such that the impact on the utilitys rate of return $ould
not be very significant/ Thus, in the event that there is a substantial change in circumstances significantly
affecting the variable amounts that $ould determine the reasonableness of a return, an event $hich $ould
normally occur after a certain period of time has elapsed, the public utility may subseFuently apply for a rate
revision/
:e agree $ith the Solicitor .eneral that follo$ing AER1,)Os reasoning that the figures culled from a test year
$ould only be relevant during such year, there $ould be a need for public utilities to apply for a rate
adjustmente5er8 8e.r and perform an audit e7amination on a public utilitys boo6s of accounts e5er8 8e.r as
the amount of a utilitys revenue may fall above or belo$ the authori=ed rates at any given year/ +eedless to
say, the trajectory of AER1,)Os arguments $ill lead to an absurdity/
-rom the time the order granting a provisional increase $as issued by the ERB, no$here in the records does it
appear that the subseFuent refund of &#/!30 per 6$h ordered by the ERB $as ever implemented or e7ecuted
by AER1,)O/I80 1ccordingly, from Eanuary 2, !""4 AER1,)O imposed on its customers a charge that
is &#/!30 in e7cess of the proper amount/ *n fact, any application for rate adjustment that may have been
applied for and@or granted to AER1,)O during the intervening period $ould have to be rec6oned from rates
increased by &#/!24 per 6$h as these $ere the rates prevailing at the time any application for rate
adjustment $as made by AER1,)O/
:hile $e agree that the amounts used to determine the utilitys rate of return $ould vary from year to year,
$e are unable to subscribe to the vie$ that the refund applicable to the periods after Eanuary 8!, !""D should
be computed on the basis of the e7cess collection in proportion to the e7cess over the !K return/ AER1,)Os
contention that the refund for periods after Eanuary 8!, !""D should be computed on the basis of revenue of
each year in e7cess of the !K authori=ed rate of return calls for a year9by9year computation of AER1,)Os
revenues and assets $hich $ould be contrary to the essence of an audit e7amination of a public utility based
on a test year/ To grant AER1,)Os prayer $ould, in effect, allo$ AER1,)O the benefit of a year9by9year
adjustment of rates not normally enjoyed by any other public utility reFuired to adopt a subseFuent rate
modification/ *ndeed, had the ERB ordered an 1/cre.sein the provisional rates it previously granted, said
increase in rates $ould apply retroactively and $ould not have varied from year to year, depending on the
variable amounts used to determine the authori=ed rates that may be charged by AER1,)O/ :e find no
significant circumstance prevailing in the cases at bar that $ould justify the application of a yearly adjustment
as reFuested by AER1,)O/
E?ERE)RE, in vie$ of the foregoing, the petitioners Aotion for Reconsideration is 'E+*E' :*T; -*+1,*T>/
S RDERED/
G.R. No. 95DD8 *:48 1D, 1992
SJ"ER$D CND!-N-#! ENERS ASSC-AT-N, -NC., Petitioners, vs/ SEC#R-T-ES AND
E+C?ANGE C!!-SS-N ./0 %AG#- SJ"ER$D CND!-N-#!, Respondents/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library

G#T-ERREB, *R., J.:chanrobles virtual la$ library
This is a petition to revie$ the decision of the Securities and E7change )ommission (SE)), en banc/ The
petition $as reinstated after a reconsideration of t$o previous resolutions of this )ourt denying the same for
non9compliance $ith the reFuired payment of costs and cler6<s commission, and after recalling the entry of
judgment issued on -ebruary 3, !""/ :e also decided to treat the petition as an e7ception to the rule that
SE) decisions must first pass the intermediate appeal process/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
&etitioner S6y$orld )ondominium O$ners 1ssociation, *nc/ (S)O1*) $as the appellant in SE)91) +o/ "0/ *ts
appeal $as treated by the )ommission, en banc as a motion for reconsideration/ The &etitioner primarily
assails the allegedly unauthori=ed action of Special &rosecutor +orberto Rui= of the &rosecution and
Enforcement 'epartment of the SE) to decide the consolidated petitions for revocation of certificate of
registration/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
&etitioner S)O1* claims to be a legitimate condominium corporation in relation to the S6y$orld )ondominium
located at Session Road corner )alderon St/, Baguio )ity and covered by Transfer )ertificate of Title (T)T) +o/
884D! of the Registry of 'eeds of Baguio )ity/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
S)O1* $as organi=ed and granted a certificate of registration on Aarch !, !"2D by the SE)/ *t claims to be
the condominium corporation recogni=ed by the *nter9Realty 'evelopment )orporation (hereinafter referred to
as *nter9Realty), the original o$ner of the land covered by T)T +o/ 884D! and the condominium project/ *t
also claims to have been recogni=ed by the )hina Ban6ing )orporation ()B)), the subseFuent o$ner of the
condominium project because the latter consented to the organi=ation of the S)O1*/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The antecedent facts of the case are as follo$s% chanrobles virtual la$ library
On September !, !"0D, *nter Realty obtained a loan from the )B) as security for $hich it mortgaged three
(8) parcels of land, $hich $ere later consolidated into one title, T)T +o/ 884D!, and the improvements
thereon/ On Euly !, !"20, the initial indebtedness $as increased to &0,###,###/##/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
-or *nter9Realty<s failure to pay the debt, the )B) foreclosed the condominium project/ The foreclosure sale
$as held on 1pril !!, !"28 after compliance $ith the notice reFuirements/ The project $as sold to )B) $hich
$ho the highest bidder/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On 1pril 3, !"24, *nter9Realty and )B) e7ecuted a Aemorandum of 1greement providing for an e7tended
period for redemption of the condominium project, until all the condominium units shall have been sold and
the proceeds turned over to the )B) and applied to the loan accounts of *nter9Realty (Rollo, pp/ 8294)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
Aean$hile, on the same date, 1pril 3, !"24, *nter9Realty made a $ritten authori=ation in favor of 1ngel
Bautista, a real estate dealer, to buy or sell the condominium units to buyers (Rollo, pp/ 48944)/ The authority
$as for a period of one year or until 1pril !"2D in order to facilitate the disposition of the units and the
payment of indebtedness $ith the )B)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
*n Aay, !"2D, )B) $as notified by petitioner S)O1* through 1ngel Bautista, $ho $as the latter<s president, of
the organi=ation and official incorporation of the S)O1*/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
:hen *nter9Realty failed to redeem the foreclosed properties by October !"2D, )B) consolidated its o$nership
over the land (no$ covered by T)T +o/ 82280) and 02K of the condominiums residential units and common
areas/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On 'ecember !3, !"2D, the )B) as ne$ o$ner of the foreclosed properties and $ith the aim of recovering the
unpaid debt of *nter9Realty, authori=ed 1ngel Bautista to sell the unsold condominium units/ This authority
$as, ho$ever, revo6ed by )B) on 1pril !0, !"23 after discovering that Bautista violated his fiduciary
obligations as agent/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
T$o petitions $ere filed against the petitioner S)O1*, one of them contesting the e7istence of the petitioner
as an entity, and the other, for a $rit of preliminary injunction praying that the petitioner be stopped from
e7ercising the prerogatives of a condominium corporation/ The first petition $as filed on 1ugust 2, !"23 by
)B) before the SE) doc6eted as SE) +o/ 8#8D/ The second $as filed on October ", !"23 before the Regional
Trial )ourt of Baguio, Branch ? ()ivil )ase +o/ "!D9R) by the respondent Baguio S6y$orld )ondominium
)orporation (BS))) $hich $as organi=ed at the instance of )B) and registered $ith the SE) on September
!", !"23/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On October 8, !"23, a petition $as filed by )B) against 1ngel Bautista before the Regional Trial )ourt of
Baguio )ity (Branch ***, )ivil )ase +o/ "#29R) for a $rit of preliminary injunction to enjoin Ar/ Bautista from
further representing himself as agent of the ne$ o$ner9developer, the )B), $hich already revo6ed his
authority to sell/ The trial court granted a $rit of preliminary injunction $hich $as later made permanent by
the )ourt of 1ppeals/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On +ovember !4, !"23, the case filed by the BS)) $as dismissed by the trial court/ On -ebruary 8, !"22, the
case filed by the )B) $as dismissed by the SE)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On Eune #, !"22, BS)) filed a complaint before the SE)<s &rosecution and Enforcement 'epartment (&E') to
revo6e the certificate of registration of petitioner on the ground of fraudulent procurement of the certificate/
The case $as doc6eted as &E' +o/ 229#4!2 (Rollo, p/ 08, et/ seF)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On Eanuary !8, !"2", petitioner S)O1* in turn sued to revo6e the certificate of registration of the BS)) before
the SE)<s Securities *nvestigation and )learing 'epartment (S*)')/ The case $as doc6eted as SE) +o/
84"8/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1cting upon the complaint of the BS)) in &E' +o/ 229#4!2, the &E', through Senior SE Specialist +orberto
Rui= filed a petition doc6eted as SE) +o/ 83#! dated Eune 8#, !"2" $ith the BS)) as a relator, for the
revocation of the registration of the herein petitioner/ (See Rollo, pp/ "D9!#0)/ The said petition $as approved
by &E' 'irector Elnora 1dviento as recommended by the )hief of the &rosecution 'ivision, ?illamin &/
,am/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On Euly D, !"2", the S*)' endorsed SE) +o/ 84"8 (the one filed by S)O1*) to the &E' so that a ne$ doc6et
number, &E' +o/ 2"9D091 $as assigned to that case/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The t$o cases for revocation of registration of the S)O1* (&E' +o/ 229#4!2) and the BS)) (&E' +o/ 2"9D09
1) $ere consolidated on Euly D, !"2"/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1 hearing $as conducted on September !!, !"2" by the &E' $ith Ar/ +orberto Rui= as the hearing officer/
The counsels of the t$o parties $ere present/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On 'ecember !, !"2", the &E' issued a resolution ordering the revocation of the certificate of registration of
the S)O1*/ The resolution $as prepared by Ar/ +orberto Rui= after studying the substantial evidence he
received and the arguments of the parties in the memoranda submitted by the parties to him/ On the same
date, the resolution $as presented by &E' 'irector Elnora 1dviento before the )ommission en banc $hich
approved the same/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1s reflected in the Ainutes of the E7ecutive Session of the )ommission Sitting En Banc, 'ecember !, !"2",
8%D# p/m/%
&E' A1TTERS
Baguio Sy!orld Condominium Corporation v. Sy!orld Condominium "!ner#s $ssociation, %nc/
/ / / Based on the foregoing documentary evidence submitted to them, she ('irector Elnora
1dviento) recommended that the )ertificate of Registration of S6y$orld )ondominium O$ners 1ssociation,
*nc/ be revo6ed and cancelled in vie$ of the findings that it procured its certificate of registration through
fraud@misrepresentation and there is no evidence to sho$ that S6y$orld )ondominium O$ners 1ssociation
have managed the S6y$orld )ondominium/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The )ommission en banc resolved to approve the resolution, as recommended/ (Rollo, pp/ !!#9!!!B emphasis
supplied)
1 motion for reconsideration $as filed before the &E' but $as denied/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On Aarch 3, !""#, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal before the )ommission, en banc/ The appeal $as
doc6eted as SE)91) +o/ "0/ The )ommission treated it as a motion for reconsideration because the
approved resolution $as deemed to be the decision of the )ommission, en banc on the issue of revocation/
The motion $as denied for lac6 of merit/ ;ence, this petition in $hich the follo$ing assigned errors are raised%
* chanrobles virtual la$ library
T;E RES&O+'E+T )OAA*SS*O+ ERRE' :;E+ *T 1,,O:E' S&E)*1, &ROSE)(TOR +ORBERTO R(*M *+
'E)*'*+. (sic) T;E )1SE 1-TER -*,*+. T;E &ET*T*O+ :*T; T;E S*)' :*T;O(T ;E1R*+./
** chanrobles virtual la$ library
T;E RES&O+'E+T )OAA*SS*O+ ERRE' :;E+ *T 1&&RO?E' T;E RESO,(T*O+ O- +ORBERTO B/ R(*M
'1TE' 'E)EABER !, !"2" *+ 1+ ELE)(T*?E SESS*O+ *+ T;E 1-TER+OO+ O- T;E S1AE '1> :*T;O(T
1&&E1,/
*** chanrobles virtual la$ library
T;E RES&O+'E+T )OAA*SS*O+ ERRE' :;E+ *T 'E),1RE' T;1T &ROSE)(TOR +ORBERTO B/ R(*M ;1S
1(T;OR*T> TO 'E)*'E T;E RE?O)1T*O+ )1SE 1-TER ;E ;1S -*,E' 1 &ET*T*O+ :*T; S*)' TO RE?O5E
T;E )ERT*-*)1TE O- RE.*STR1T*O+ O- &ET*T*O+ER/
*? chanrobles virtual la$ library
T;E RES&O+'E+T )OAA*SS*O+ ERRE' :;E+ *T TRE1TE' T;E 1&&E1, 1S AOT*O+ -OR
RE)O+S*'ER1T*O+/
?chanrobles virtual la$ library
T;E RES&O+'E+T )OAA*SS*O+ ERRE' :;E+ *T '*SA*SSE' T;E 1&&E1,/ (Rollo, p/ !4)
The assigned errors can more conveniently be restated into the follo$ing% !) $hether or not the respondent
)ommission validly approved the alleged unauthori=ed resolution or decision made by Ar/ +orberto B/ Rui= on
the revocation caseB and ) $hether or not the appeal, SE)91) +o/ "0 $as correctly treated as a motion for
reconsideration and, thereafter, dismissed/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The petitioner essentially Fuestions the authority of Ar/ Rui= to decide/ *t $as Ar/ Rui= $ho $as assigned the
case of &E' +o/ 229#4!2 for investigation and prosecution/ 1ccordingly, Ar/ Rui= filed a petition (SE) +o/
83#!) before the Securities *nvestigation and )learance 'epartment (S*)') of the SE)/ *t is argued that Ar/
Rui= acted as prosecutor and judge over the case, hence, he issued the resolution $ithout authority and $ith
grave abuse of discretion/ ;e allegedly $ent beyond the duties reFuired of a member of the &E' $hich are
limited to investigation and prosecution of civil and criminal cases as $ell as other actions involving violation
of la$s, rules and regulations enforced by the SE)/ The petitioner adds that the presentation for approval of
the resolution of Ar/ Rui= to the )ommission, en banc $as irregular, null and void for being done $ithout the
6no$ledge of the petitioner/ Thus, the petitioner $as allegedly deprived of the benefit of an appeal from the
resolution to the )ommission, en banc/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The contentions are $ithout merit/ &res/ 'ecree +o/ "#91 vests on the )ommission the original and e7clusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving, among others, disputes bet$een the corporation and the state
regarding its legal right to e7ist, and the po$er to hear and decide on the suspension or revocation of a
certificate of registration of a corporation/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
Section D, &res/ 'ecree +o/ "#91 provides%
Sec/ D/ *n addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and E7change )ommission
over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered $ith it as e7pressly granted under
e7isting la$s and decrees, it shall have original and e7clusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving%
777 777 777 chanrobles virtual la$ library
b/ )ontroversies arising out of intra9corporate or partnership relations, bet$een and among stoc6holders,
members or associatesB bet$een any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of $hich
they are stoc6holders, members or associates, respectivelyB and bet!een such corporation, partnership or
association and the State insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entityB / / / /
(Emphasis Supplied)
Aore specifically, &res/ 'ecree +o/ "#91 grants to the )ommission in paragraph !(!), Section 3 the po$er%
Sec/ 3/
777 777 777 chanrobles virtual la$ library
!) To suspend or revo6ed, after proper notice and hearing, the franchise or certificate of registration of
corporations, partnerships or associations, upon any of the grounds, provided by la$, including the follo$ing% chanrobles
virtual la$ library
!) -raud in procuring its certificate of registrationB
777 777 777
The )ommission can validly delegate the authority to e7ercise the specific po$ers assigned to it by la$/ The
final paragraph of Section 3, &res/ 'ecree +o/ "#91 states%
*n the e7ercise of the foregoing authority and jurisdiction of the )ommission, hearings shall be conducted by
the )ommission or by a )ommissioner or by such other bodies, boards, committees and@or officers as may be
created or designated by the )ommission for the purpose/ / / /
*n the consolidated cases, the )ommission empo$ered the &E' to conduct the hearing and to decide on the
revocation of a certificate of registration/ The tas6 $as assigned to Ar/ Rui= for and in behalf of the
)ommission/chanroblesvirtuala$librarychanrobles virtual la$ library
*t is true that Ar/ Rui= signed a petition $ith the BS)) as a relator prior to the consolidation of the t$o cases/
;o$ever, that petition $as apparently disregarded/ Ar/ Rui= $as validly authori=ed to handle the t$o cases
simultaneously filed by the private parties themselves against each other/ *t must be recalled that in &E' +o/
229#4!2, BS)) pursued its case by itself and not as a mere relator suing through the help of the &E'/ 1
private entity is not prohibited from prosecuting its action for revocation of registration by itself/ Other$ise,
the petition of S)O1* against the BS)) also see6ing the revocation of the latter<s registration $ould not have
been ta6en cogni=ance of by the SE) on the ground that the case should have been prosecuted by the
)ommission upon the relation of S)O1*/ (nder the old rules, the )ommission may, motu propio, commence
such an action (Section 8(c), Rule LL, SE) Rules of &rocedure I!"00JB See also Section (a) and (b), Rule LL,
SE) Revised Rules of &rocedure I!"2"J)/ )ommencement of a similar action by a private citi=en or corporation
is not precluded/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
*n judging the merits of the case at the instance of the )ommission, Ar/ Rui= acted only as a trier of the facts
presented to him and not as a prosecutor at the same time/ The resolution arrived at $as adopted by the
)ommission, en banc as its o$n decision, upon its approval/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The )ourt agrees $ith the analysis of the respondent )ommission that the petitioner $as barred by estoppel
by laches from repudiating the jurisdiction of the hearing officer to $hom it has submitted itself and before
$hom it presented evidence by $ay of memorandum/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The petitioner alleges further that Ar/ Rui= $ent beyond the limited po$ers to investigate and to prosecute
granted to the &E' by &res/ 'ecree +o/ "#91 as amended by &res/ 'ecree +o/ !0D2 (!"2!)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The pertinent provision, Section 3 of &res/ 'ecree +o/ !0D2 states%
Sec/ 3/ The &rosecution and Enforcement 'epartment shall have, subject to the )ommission<s control and
supervision, the e7clusive authority to investigate, on complaint or motu propio, any act or omission of the
Board of 'irectors@Trustees of corporations, or of partnerships, or of other associations, or of their
stoc6holders, officers or partners, including any fraudulent devices, schemes or representations, in violation of
any la$ or rules and regulations administered and enforced by the )ommissionB to file and prosecute in
accordance $ith la$ and rules and regulations issued by the )ommission and in appropriate cases, the
corresponding criminal or civil case before the )ommission or the proper court or body upon prima
facie finding of violation of any la$s or rules and regulations administered and enforced by the
)ommissionB and to perform such other po!ers and functions as may be provided by la! or duly delegated to
it by the Commission/chanroblesvirtuala$librarychanrobles virtual la$ library
777 777 777 chanrobles virtual la$ library
(Emphasis supplied)
The action of Ar/ Rui= $as still $ithin the ambit of the investigative authority given to him by the )ommission
under its delegated po$er to revo6e, after proper notice and hearing, a certificate of registration of any
corporation on the ground of fraud in procuring the certificate of registration (Section 3, !I!J, &res/ 'ecree
+o/ "#91 as amended)/chanroblesvirtuala$librarychanrobles virtual la$ library
1t the time the consolidated cases $ere filed and tried, the SE) Rules of &rocedure (effective Euly !, !"00)
did not contain any provision specifically designating the body or officer $ho should hear and decide suits for
suspension or revocation of franchise or certificates of registration/ +o amendments $ere yet infused into the
rules to 6eep up $ith the changes introduced by &res/ 'ecree +o/ !0D2/ The )ommission had to rely on a
particular office to hear the case on September !!, !"2"/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The Revised SE) Rules of &rocedure (!"2") that designates the body (S*)') before $hich, actions for
suspension or revocation of franchise or certificate of registration of a corporation should be filed too6 effect
only on October ", !"2" (See Section IcJ, Rule LL)/ To reFuire the specified body to ta6e over the
adjudication after the case $as ready for decision $as improper and impractical/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
:e ta6e this occasion to reiterate our ruling on the validity of the delegation of the po$er to hold a hearing/
*n$merican &obacco Company v. 'irector of Patents, 30 S)R1 20 (!"0D)B $here the authority of the 'irector
of &atents to assign hearing officers to receive evidence $as Fuestioned, $e ruled%
Thus it is $ell9settled that $hile the po$er resides solely in the administrative agency vested by la$, this does
not preclude a delegation of the po$er to hold a hearing on the basis of $hich the decision of the
administrative agency $ill be made/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The rule that reFuires an administrative officer to e7ercise his o$n judgment and discretion does not preclude
him from utili=ing, as a matter of practical administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates to investigate and
report to him the facts, on the basis of $hich the officer ma6es his decisions/ %t is sufficient that the (udgment
and discretion finally exercised are those of the officer authori)ed by la!/
777 777 777 chanrobles virtual la$ library
*n the case at bar, !hile the hearing officer may mae preliminary rulings on the myriad of Fuestions raised at
the hearings of these cases, the ultimate decision on the merits of all the issues and *uestions involved is left
to the 'irector of Patents/ (Emphasis supplied, at pp/ "D9"3)/
The provisions of &res/ 'ecree +o/ "#91 as amended do not prohibit the respondent )ommission from
designating an officer or a division to hear a case/ The )ourt reiterates that in the absence in the then rules of
the )ommission of a provision designating a particular officer or department that should try a particular
action, the )ommission can validly call upon any of its Fualified departments to try a particular action,
including the &E' to hear and ma6e a preliminary ruling on the case/ This $as $hat the )ommission did to
meet the demands of orderly and responsible administration of all the tas6s assigned to it as a government
agency/
The reduction of e7isting delays in regulating agencies reFuires the elimination of needless $or6 at top levels/
(nnecessary and unimportant details often occupy far too much of the time and energy of the heads of these
agencies and prevent full and e7peditious consideration of the more important issues/ The remedy is a far
$ider range of delegations to subordinate officers/ The subdelegation of po$er has been justified by Csound
principles of organi=ationC $hich demand that Cthose at the top be able to concentrate their attention upon the
larger and more important Fuestions of policy and practiceB and their time be freed, so far as possible, from
the consideration of the smaller and far less important matters of detail/C (1merican Tobacco )o/ v/ 'irector of
&atents, supra, at page "89"4)/
The )ommission can not also be faulted for approving the &E' resolution $ithout the 6no$ledge of the
petitioner/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The parties do not participate in the deliberation and decision ma6ing process/ They are not supposed to be
present $hen the SE) deliberates and votes on the action to be ta6en/ +otice is given after the decision is
promulgated but not before the Board sits do$n to act on cases already heard and a$aiting resolution/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
*n the present case, it $as the )ommission for $hom the &E' acted in gathering data in the consolidated
cases/ The delegation made to the &E' $as done in accordance $ith la$ and the resulting recommendation
$as arrived at after notice and hearing/ The subseFuent approval by the )ommission, en banc $as the
ultimate e7ercise of judgment of the )ommission/ )ontrary to the allegation of the petitioner, the approval by
the )ommission, en banc$as regular and valid for having been done in the e7ercise of its original jurisdiction
on a case involving the right of each of the party corporations to e7ist as an entity (Section D, &res/ 'ecree
+o/ "#91 as amended)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
*n vie$ of these, it $as also proper for the commission to have treated the appeal of the petitioner as a
motion for reconsideration/ *n doing so, no right of the petitioner to due process $as violated/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The )ourt finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the )ommission in deciding in that manner/ The
)ommission properly made a thorough study of the facts presented by the opposing parties, and e7haustively
e7plained its reasons for sustaining its decision to revo6e the certificate of registration of the S)O1*/ 1
reading of the order in SE)91) +o/ "0 dated September !4, !""# reveals that its findings are supported by
substantial evidence and justified by the relevant la$s and jurisprudence/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The )ourt, thus, upholds the finding of the )ommission that the indispensable reFuirement that all
incorporators of a condominium corporation must be shareholders thereof $as not satisfactorily complied $ith
by the petitioner at the time a certificate of registration $as applied for/ (Section D, )orporation )ode of the
&hilippines IBatas &ambansa Blg/ 32JB Section !#, )ondominium 1ct IRep/ 1ct/ 403J/ To be a shareholder,
one must necessarily be an o$ner of a condominium unit/ (Sunset ?ie$ )ondominium )orporation v/ )ampos,
Er/, !#4 S)R1 "D I!"2!J)/ *n the case at bar, it $as found by the SE) that only one, 1ngel Bautista, $as
considered to be an o$ner of a unit in the S6y$orld )ondominium at the time of incorporation/ (Rollo, p/ 8) chanrobles
virtual la$ library
The Aaster 'eed $ith 'eclaration of Restrictions in its section 2 provides that a condominium corporation
should be organi=ed by a developer Cpursuant to the provisions of the )ondominium 1ct and of the
)orporation )ode as amended for the purpose of holding files to all common areas and managing the project/C
(See Rollo, p/ !D2)/ The )ourt li6e$ise confirms the analysis of the respondent )ommission that petitioner
S)O1* $as barred by estoppel from repudiating the resulting adverse decision after it had voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the hearing officer in settling the issue of revocation/ (Tijam v/ Sibonghanoy,
8 S)R1 " I!"32JB BaOaga v/ )ommission on the Settlement of ,and &roblems, !2! S)R1 D"" I!""#JB
Sapugay v/ )ourt of 1ppeals, !28 S)R1 434 I!""#JB !33 S)R1 3D0 I!"22JB Aaers69Tabacalera Shipping
1gency (-ilipinas), *nc/ v/ )ourt of 1ppeals, !20 S)R1 343 I!""#JB AarFue= v/ Secretary of ,abor, !0! S)R1
880 (!"2"J)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The contentions that the private respondent BS)) and the )B) $ere engaged in forum9shopping and that the
prosecution of the SE) consolidated cases $as barred by res (udicata deserve scant consideration/ Suffice it to
state that the actions before the courts commonly involved prayers for restraint and@or injunction against
S)O1*/ The petitions did not see6 an administrative inFuiry on revocation of a certificate of registration/ The
pertinent issue in the case at bar is one that is more appropriately dealt $ith by an administrative agency
such as the SE)/ ;ence, even if the courts did touch on the right of a corporation (S)O1*) to e7ist and to
e7ercise prerogatives as such, the court decisions $ould not bind the parties as to prevent a recourse before
the SE)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The )ourt finds this petition to be part of a dilatory attempt to stall the e7ecution of the order revo6ing and
cancelling the certificate of registration of the S6y$orld )ondominium O$ners 1ssociation, *nc/ That petitioner
see6s a re9e7amination of the facts is evident from its arguments/ *t is unfortunate for it that courts do not
grant a judicial revie$ much less a factual inFuiry absent any sho$ing of arbitrary action or manifest and
grievous error on the part of administrative agencies regarding the determination of facts and interpretation of
la$s $hich they are entrusted to enforce (Blue Bar )oconut &hilippines ?/ Tantuico, Er/, !38 S)R1 0!3
I!"22JB Beautifont, *nc/ v/ )ourt of 1ppeals, !D0 S)R1 42! I!"22JB Aa7imo v/ )ourt of 1ppeals, !2 S)R1
4# I!""#J)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
:e have further held that%
The legal presumption is that official duty has been duly performed (Section D, m, Rule !8!, Rules of )ourt)B
and it is Cparticularly strong as regards administrative agencies / / / vested $ith po$ers said to be Fuasi9
judicial in nature, in connection $ith the enforcement of la$s affecting particular fields of activity, the proper
regulation and@or promotion of $hich reFuires a technical or special training, aside from a good 6no$ledge
and grasp of the overall conditions, relevant to said field obtaining in the nationC I&angasinan Transportation
v/ &ublic (tility )ommission, 0# &hil/ !J/ (Beautifont, *nc/ v )ourt of 1ppeals, at p/ 4"8)/
The )ourt sustains the decision of the respondent )ommission dated 'ecember !, !"2" and the Order dated
September !4, !""# denying the motion for reconsideration since no jurisdictional fla$ has been found to
justify a reversal/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
:;ERE-ORE, the petition is hereby '*SA*SSE' for lac6 of grave abuse of discretion committed by the public
respondent/ The Order revo6ing and cancelling the certificate of registration of petitioner corporation is
1--*RAE'/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
SO OR'ERE'/
[G.R. No. 157757. June 28, 2005]
ELSIE T. LAVADOR, petitioner, vs. J MARETING !OR"ORATION AND
ROGELIO #. SO$AO, respondents.
D E ! I S I O N
SANDOVAL%G#TIERRE&, J.'
For resolution is the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision
1!
dated "ovem#er $%,
$&&1 and the Resolution
$!
dated Fe#ruar' 19, $&&( rendered #' the Court of
)ppeals in C)*+,R, -P "o, %%$4., entitled /Elsie T. Lavador vs. National Labor
Relations Commission (Fifth Division), J Maretin! Cor"oration and#or Ro!elio $.
%o&ao,0
Records show that on 1anuar' 7, 1991, 2lsie 3, 4avador, petitioner, was
emplo'ed #' /10 5ar6eting Corporation, respondent, as a dail' paid wor6er,
2ventuall', she was promoted as assistant cashier in respondent7s #ranch office at
8utuan Cit', receiving a monthl' salar' ofP(,.(4,&&,
Claiming that respondent failed to remit the P1,&&&,&& pa'ment of Ro#ert 8ra9a:
to issue official receipt for the P1,$59,&& chec6 pa'ment of Chelito 5, Delliva: and to
appl' the same to his account, respondent issued inter*office memoranda dated
1une 9, 1999 and )ugust $(, 1999 charging petitioner with misappropriation and
directing her to su#mit a written e;planation, <n the meantime, respondent
reassigned her as receptionist,
=n -eptem#er 1, 1999, after evaluating the evidence against petitioner,
respondent issued a notice terminating her services for loss of trust and confidence,
<mmediatel', she filed with the =ffice of the 4a#or )r#iter a complaint for illegal
dismissal against respondent and Rogelio >, -o'ao, its 2;ecutive ?ice President
and +eneral 5anager,
)fter the su#mission of the parties7 pleadings and position papers, the 4a#or
)r#iter rendered a Decision dated Decem#er (1, 1999 finding that petitioner was not
illegall' dismissed from the service #ut ordering respondents to pa' her P1$,(9$,7(
as salar' differential andP1,$(9,$7 attorne'7s fees,
>pon appeal, the "ational 4a#or Relations Commission @"4RCA rendered a
Decision dated )pril 17, $&&1 affirming with modification the Decision of the 4a#or
)r#iter in the sense that the award of salar' differential and attorne'7s fee is deleted,
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration #ut was denied #' the "4RC in
a Resolution dated 5a' 1., $&&1, prompting her to file with the Court of )ppeals a
petition for certiorari, doc6eted as C)*+,R, -P "o, %%$4.,
=n "ovem#er $%, $&&1, the )ppellate Court rendered a Decision affirming with
modification the assailed "4RC Decision, Bhile the said court upheld the
termination of petitioner7s emplo'ment, however, it ordered respondents to pa'
her P1&,&&&,&& as damages for violating her right to due process, thusC
V*he records disclose that petitioner twice re3uested that a formal administrati#e
in#estigation be conducted in order for her to properl$ defend herself from the accusations
le#eled against her) @espite her pleas and that of her counsel, pri#ate respondents refused to
conduct a formal administrati#e in#estigation, proceeding instead to hastil$ dismiss
petitioner on the basis of its own probe, including the letter9e4planation of petitioner) Ahile
due process connotes merel$ the opportunit$ to be heard, Ae cannot agree that the said
principle was complied with in the present case as compliance therewith appears to be
merel$ superficial) *he fact that the supposed clients9complainants of pri#ate respondents
e4ecuted conflicting statements on the matter, the latter should ha#e granted the re3uest of
petitioner in order to ferret out the truth)
; ; ; ; ; ;
Perforce, pri#ate respondent corporation is hereb$ ordered to pa$ the latter indemnit$ for
damages in the amount of P&.,...).. in accordance with the ruling of the Cigh Court in the
cases of *enphil Corporation vs. 5'4C D.2L (C4A 9/E! 4eta vs. 5'4C D878 (C4A 9.7E
and Better Buildings! Inc. vs. 5'4C D817 (C4A 8<8E.
ACERE7(RE, premises considered, the present petition is hereb$ P2R*I2!!H
>R2N*E@) *he Resolutions dated 2pril &1, '..& and a$ &0, '..& issued b$ public
respondent National !abor Relations Commission in N!RC C2 No) 9..<-/<9'... 5R2B
&-9./9..&-09//6 are hereb$ 277IRE@ with (@I7IC2*I(N in that respondent
corporation is hereb$ ordered to pa$ petitioner indemnit$ for damages in the amount
of P&.,...).. for #iolating here right to due process of law)
No pronouncement as to costs)
;( (R@ERE@)W
=n Decem#er 1$, $&&1, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, #ut was
denied #' the )ppellate Court in a Resolution dated Fe#ruar' 19, $&&(,
Dence, this petition for review on certiorari,
3he #asic issue here is whether petitioner was deprived of her right to due
process,
-ection $, Rule EE<<<, 8oo6 ? of the <mplementing Rules of the 4a#or Code
providesC
VRE!E DDIII
*ERIN2*I(N (7 EP!(HEN*
; ; ;
;EC) ') (tandards of due process? re3uirements of notice. X In all cases of termination of
emplo$ment, the following standards of due process shall be substantiall$ obser#ed+
I) 7or termination of emplo$ment based on just causes as defined in 2rticle '0' of the
Code+
5a6 2 written notice ser#ed on the emplo$ee specif$ing the ground or grounds for
termination, and gi#ing to said emplo$ee reasonable opportunit$ within which to e4plain his
side:
5b6 A <1,75:= o7 /o:2171:/1 0u75:= @<5/< 4<1 1A>loy11 /o:/17:10, @54< 4<1
,88584,:/1 o2 /ou:81l 52 4<1 1A>loy11 8o 0185718, 58 =561: o>>o74u:54y 4o 718>o:0 4o 4<1
/<,7=1, >7181:4 <58 16501:/1 o7 71.u4 4<1 16501:/1 >7181:410 ,=,5:84 <5AJ and
5c6 2 written notice of termination ser#ed on the emplo$ee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds ha#e been established to justif$ his
termination)
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be ser#ed on the emplo$eeYs last known
address)
; ; ;,0
<n %antos vs. %an Mi!'el Cor"oration,
(!
we reiterated the well*entrenched rule
that /@pArocedural due process reFuires the emplo'er to give the emplo'ee two
notices, First is the notice apprising him of the particular acts or omissions for which
his dismissal is sought, -econd is the su#seFuent notice informing him of the
emplo'er7s decision to dismiss him,0
<n (omeo)ners %avin!s and Loan *ssociation, +nc. vs. NLRC,
4!
we ruledC
V2ctual ad#ersarial proceeding becomes necessar$ onl$ for clarification or when there is a
need to propound searching 3uestions to unclear witnesses) *his is a procedural right which
the emplo$ee must, howe#er, ask for) It is not an inherent right)W
<t #ears stressing that petitioner reFuested that an investigation #e conducted
#ut respondents vehementl' refused, Clearl', petitioner was deprived of her right to
due process,
=n this point, our ruling in *!abon vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
5!
is
relevant, thusC
VProcedurall$, 5&6 if the dismissal is based on a just cause under 2rticle '0', the emplo$er
must gi#e the emplo$ee two written notices and a hearing or opportunit$ to be heard if
re3uested b$ the emplo$ee before terminating the emplo$ment+ a notice specif$ing the
grounds for which dismissal is sought, a hearing or an opportunit$ to be heard and after
hearing or opportunit$ to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss: 4 4 4)
7rom the foregoing rules four possible situations ma$ be deri#ed+ 5&6 the dismissal is for a
just cause under 2rticle '0' of the !abor Code, for an authori"ed cause under 2rticle '0-, or
for health reasons under 2rticle '08, and due process was obser#ed: 5'6 the dismissal is
without just or authori"ed cause but due process was obser#ed: 5-6 the dismissal is without
just or authori"ed cause and there was no due process: and 586 the 058A588,l 58 2o7 Cu84 or
authori"ed /,u81 .u4 0u1 >7o/188 @,8 :o4 o.817610. 5emphasis supplied6)
; ; ; ; ; ;
In the fourth situation, 4<1 058A588,l 8<oul0 .1 u><1l0. W<5l1 4<1 >7o/10u7,l 5:257A54y
/,::o4 .1 /u710, 54 8<oul0 :o4 5:6,l50,41 4<1 058A588,l. "o@1617, 1A>loy17 8<oul0 .1
<1l0 lia!le for non'co#pliance wit te procedural re,uire#ents of due process.
; ; ; ; ; ;
%<1 65ol,45o: o2 4<1 >14545o:178R 75=<4 4o 84,4u4o7y 0u1 >7o/188 .y 4<1 >756,41
718>o:01:4 @,77,:48 4<1 >,yA1:4 o2 5:01A:54y 5: 4<1 2o7A o2 :oA5:,l 0,A,=18. %<1
,Aou:4 o2 8u/< 0,A,=18 58 ,00718810 4o 4<1 8ou:0 058/7145o: o2 4<1 /ou74, 4,B5:= 5:4o
,//ou:4 4<1 71l16,:4 /57/uA84,:/18. Considering the pre#ailing circumstances in the case
at bar, we deem it proper to fi4 it at P-.,...)..) Ae belie#e this form of damages would
ser#e to deter emplo$ers from future #iolations of the statutor$ due process rights of
emplo$ees) 2t the #er$ least, it pro#ides a #indication or recognition of this fundamental
right granted to the latter under the !abor Code and its Implementing Rules)W
<n this case, the dismissal of petitioner from the service is due to dishonest' or a
Gust cause, 8ut due process was not o#served as no hearing was conducted
despite her reFuest, 3hus, respondents should #e held lia#le for violation of her
right to due process and should pa' her indemnit' in the form of nominal damages,
pursuant to our ruling in *!abon, which we fi; at P$&,&&&,&&,
%!
()ERE*ORE, the petition is +R)"32D, 3he assailed Decision dated
"ovem#er $%, $&&1 and Resolution dated Fe#ruar' 19, $&&( of the Court of
)ppeals in C)*+,R, -P "o, %%$4. are here#' )FF<R52D with 5=D<F<C)3<=" in
the sense that respondents are here#' ordered to pa' petitioner P$&,&&&,&& as
nominal damages, "o costs,
SO ORDERED.
[G.R. No. 123825. A:=:s2 31, 1999]
!ARJ RC?E -NTERNAT-NA$ ANDAR ED#ARD DA"T ./0 S#SAN DA"T, petitioners, vs.
NAT-NA$ $A%R RE$AT-NS C!!-SS-N, !ARJ RC?E ERJERS #N-N ./0 E-$!A
<ATACA", E-$EEN R#)N, $-$-A %R-NES, %EATR-B !ANAGA"TA", DE$-A ARE$$AN, AN-TA
!ARCE$, R- !AR-AN, !AR-SSA SAD-$-, ESTRE$$A !A$$AR-, DE$-A $AR"A, ./0 D-,-NA
,-$$AR%A, Respondents.
D E C - S - N
%E$$S-$$, J.:
This is a special civil action under Rule 3D of the Rules of )ourt to nullify the !4 1ugust !""D 'ecision of the
+ational ,abor Relations )ommission $hich affirmed $ith modification the 'ecision of ,abor 1rbiter Eduardo E/
)arpio/ The ,abor 1rbiter held that private respondents $ere illegally constructively dismissed and ordered
petitioners to reinstate them and pay them bac6 $ages as $ell as their proportionate !8th month pay, service
incentive leave pay and salary differentials/ The +,R) set aside the a$ard of incentive leave pay/
&etitioners Eduardo 'ayot and Susan 'ayot $ere &resident and ?ice &resident, respectively, of their co9
petitioner Aar6 Roche *nternational (AR*), a corporation organi=ed and e7isting under the la$s of the
&hilippines, engaged in the garments business/ &rivate respondents Eileen Rufon, ,ilia Briones, Beatri=
Aanagaytay, 'elia 1rellano, 1nita Aarcelo, Rio Aariano, Aarissa Sadili, :ilma &atacay, Estella Aallari, 'elia
,aroya and 'ivina ?illarba $ere employed as se$ers of AR* $ith lengths of service varying from three (8) to
nine (") years/
On different dates private respondents filed separate complaints for underpayment of $ages and non9payment
of overtime pay against petitioners AR*, Eduardo 'ayot and Susan 'ayot/ &rivate respondents alleged that
they usually $or6ed eleven (!!) to t$elve (!) hours daily, e7cept on Aondays during $hich they $or6ed
eight (2) hours, and $ere paid $ages on a piece9rate basis amounting to &4D#/## to &3##/## per $ee6/ They
li6e$ise asserted that sometime in !"" they $ere unable to avail of their SSS benefits, e/g/, salary loan,
sic6ness benefits and maternity benefits because, as they found out, the company did not remit their
contributions to the SSS/
On !! October !"" private respondents sought the assistance of a labor organi=ation $hich helped them
organi=e the Aar6 Roche :or6ers (nion (AR:()/ On !4 October !"" they registered the union $ith the
'epartment of ,abor and Employment 9 +ational )apital Region ('O,E9+)R) and on the same date filed a
&etition for )ertification Election before the Aed91rbitration Board/
On 0 October !"" petitioners received a notice of hearing of the petition/ 1pparently ir6ed by the idea of a
union $ithin the company, petitioners ordered private respondents to $ithdra$ the petition and further
threatened them that should they insist in the organi=ation of a union they $ould be dismissed/ (nfa=ed,
private respondents refused/ 1s e7pected, on " October !"" they $ere discharged from $or6/
On 8# October !"" private respondents amended their earlier complaints to include as additional causes of
action their illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, non9payment of !8th month pay, underpayment for legal
holidays, and for damages/
&etitioners countered that private respondents $ere not dismissed from $or6 but voluntarily abandoned their
jobs thereby paraly=ing company operations/ &etitioners li6e$ise contended that private respondents incurred
numerous absences $ithout prior notice and clearance from their superiors as evidenced by several company
memos sent to them/ Only 'ivina ?illarba sho$ed up and told petitioners that she $as voluntary resigning
because she had found better employment else$here/ *t $as only later that petitioners learned that private
respondents absences $ere due to their preoccupation $ith the organi=ation of a labor union/ +ot$ithstanding
these absences, petitioners e7pressed their $illingness to reinstate private respondents $ithin a reasonable
time/ They ho$ever disclaimed 6no$ledge of any deficiency o$ing to private respondents since all the benefits
due them as reFuired by la$ $ere fully paid, e7cept overtime pay $hich they $ere not entitled to on account
of their being piece9rate $or6ers/
On 8 Aarch !""8 the ,abor 1rbiter rendered his decision declaring as illegal the constructive dismissal of
private respondents/ &etitioners $ere thus ordered to immediately reinstate private respondents as se$ers
and to pay each of them his (a) bac6 $ages computed from " October !"" to 8! Aarch !""8 in the amount
of &!D,D4/#2 subject to adjustments until reinstated but not to e7ceed three (8) yearsB (b) proportionate
share in the !8th month pay for the period Eanuary to October !"" in the amount of &,D82/00B unpaid five
(D) days service incentive leave pay for !"2", !""# and !""! in the amount of &!,D3D/##B and, (c) $age
differentials in the amount of &4,0#0/82/
On appeal the +,R) affirmed the reinstatement of private respondents and the payment of bac6 $ages, salary
differentials and proportionate !8th month pay but set aside the a$ard of service incentive leave pay on the
ground that private respondents $ere not entitled thereto as they $ere piece9rate $or6ers/ &etitioners moved
for reconsideration but $as denied for lac6 of merit/
&etitioners no$ contend that the +,R) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac6 or e7cess of
jurisdiction in sustaining the ,abor 1rbiter by declaring private respondents as having been constructively
dismissed from their jobs, hence, illegal/ On the contrary, they argue that private respondents voluntarily
abandoned their jobs $ithout justifiable reason nor prior notice/ The +,R) disregarded the company memos
addressed to each of the private respondents $hich $ere indicative of their intention to leave the company
and sho$ed their propensity to incur freFuent absences in violation of company rules and regulations/
1bandonment, as a just and valid ground for dismissal, means the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an
employee to resume his employment/ The burden of proof is on the employer to sho$ an uneFuivocal intent
on the part of the employee to discontinue employment/ The intent cannot be lightly inferred or legally
presumed from certain ambivalent acts/ There must be a concurrence of both the intention to abandon and
some overt act from $hich it can be deducted that the employee has no more intention to resume his $or6/I!
These are not obtaining in the instant case/ +o overt act $as established by petitioners from $hich to infer the
clear intention of private respondents to desist from their employment/ The company memos submitted by
petitioner could not be the basis of such intention since they referred to absences incurred by private
respondents long before their dismissal/ The lac6 of pro7imity of those absences to the actual dismissal
rendered them unreliable, even $orthless/ Aoreover, as correctly found by the +,R), it $as unli6ely that
private respondents had abandoned their jobs considering their lengths of service in the company and the
difficulty in finding similar employment/ *n addition, if they had truly forsa6en their jobs, they $ould not have
bothered to file a complaint for constructive dismissal against petitioners immediately after they $ere
dismissed and prayed for their reinstatement/ 1n employee $ho forth$ith ta6es steps to protest his layoff
cannot by any logic be said to have abandoned his $or6/I On the contrary, there is ample proof sho$ing that
private respondents $ere dismissed from their jobs for their refusal to $ithdra$ their petition for certification
election filed before the 'O,E/
;o$ever, it must be made clear here that the dismissal of private respondents $as not a constructive
dismissal but an illegal dismissal, and this is $here both the +,R) and the ,abor 1rbiter erred/ )onstructive
dismissal or a constructive discharge has been defined as a Fuitting because continued employment is
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unli6ely, as an offer involving a demotion in ran6 and a diminution in
pay/I8 *n the instant case, private respondents $ere not demoted in ran6 nor their pay diminished
considerably/ They $ere simply told $ithout prior $arning or notice that there $as no more $or6 for them/
1fter receiving the notice of hearing of the petition for certification election on 0 October !"", petitioners
immediately told private respondents that they $ere no longer employed/ Evidently it $as the filing of the
petition for certification election and organi=ation of a union $ithin the company $hich led petitioners to
dismiss private respondents and not petitioners< allegations of absence or abandonment by private
respondents/ The formation of a labor union has never been a ground for valid termination, and $here there is
an absence of clear, valid and legal cause, the la$ considers the termination illegal/I4
&etitioners li6e$ise contend that the +,R) acted $ith grave abuse of discretion in granting private
respondents reinstatement $ith payment of bac6 $ages/ They argue that reinstatement can no longer be
effected in vie$ of the lapse of a considerable period of time from the dismissal of private respondents in
October !"" to the time the order for reinstatement $as released/ 1s for the a$ard of bac6 $ages, they
assert that it is capricious and arbitrary since it only encourages indolence and promotes enrichment of private
respondents at the e7pense of petitioners/
The a$ard of reinstatement and bac6 $ages belongs to an illegally dismissed employee by direct provision of
la$ and cannot be defeated by mere allegations of inconvenience, inconceivability or implausibility/ 1rticle 0"
of the ,abor )ode provides that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement $ithout loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full bac6 $ages from the time his compensation $as $ithheld
from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement/ Bac6 $ages are granted on grounds of eFuity for earnings
$hich a $or6er or employee has lost due to his illegal dismissal/ID &etitioners are ho$ever given the
alternative of paying separation pay to illegally dismissed employees $here reinstatement is no longer
possible/
&etitioners further aver that the +,R) li6e$ise abused its discretion $hen it affirmed the ,abor 1rbiters ruling
that private respondents $ere not paid their money claims/ They insist that they have already paid private
respondents all the amounts and benefits due them and that had the ,abor 1rbiter conducted trial on the
merits, they could have presented documents proving their claim to be true/
The decision of the ,abor 1rbiter not to schedule the case for another hearing could not be considered
arbitrary/ The holding of a hearing is discretionary $ith the ,abor 1rbiter and is something $hich the parties
cannot demand as a matter of right/I3 *t is entirely $ithin the bounds of the ,abor 1rbiters authority to decide
a case based on mere position papers and supporting documents $ithout a formal trial or hearing/ The
reFuirements of due process are satisfied $hen the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers
$herein they are supposed to attach all the documents that $ould prove their claim in case it be decided that
no hearing should be conducted or $as necessary/
*n case of employees money claims, the employer bears the burden to prove that employees have received
their $ages and benefits and that the same $ere paid in accordance $ith la$/ *t is incumbent upon the
employer to present the necessary documents to prove such claims/ *n their position paper, petitioners failed
to present necessary documentary evidence to substantiate their allegation that private respondents money
claims $ere fully paid/ They cannot use the absence of trial as an e7cuse for their failure as they could have
presented documentary evidence at any time before the ,abor 1rbiter and, on appeal, before the +,R)/
;ence, they cannot at this late stage be$ail that they $ere not afforded due process/
-inally, as correctly held by the +,R), private respondents as piece9rate employees are not entitled to service
incentive leave pay as $ell as holiday pay even if they are entitled to other benefits li6e )O,1 and !8th month
pay/ Service incentive leave pay shall not apply to employees $hose performance is unsupervised by the
employer, including those $ho are paid in a fi7ed amount for performing $or6 irrespective of the time
consumed in the performance thereof/I0
E?ERE)RE, this )ourt finds that private respondents Eileen Rufon, ,ilia Briones, Beatri= Aanagaytay, 'elia
1rellano, 1nita Aarcelo, Rio Aariano, Aarissa Sadili, :ilma &atacay, Estrella Aallari, 'elia ,aroya and 'ivina
?illarba $ere illegally dismissed 9 not merely illegally constructively dismissed 9 by petitioners Aar6 Roche
*nternational and@or Eduardo 'ayot and Susan 'ayot, and to this e7tent, the assailed 'ecision of public
respondent +ational ,abor Relations )ommission affirming that of the ,abor 1rbiter, is AO'*-*E'/ ;o$ever, it
is 1--*RAE' insofar as it ordered the reinstatement of private respondents $ith bac6 $ages, salary
differentials and !8th month pay/ The service incentive leave pay a$arded by the ,abor 1rbier but deleted by
the +ational ,abor Relations )ommission is li6e$ise 'E,ETE'/
S RDERED.
[A. C. No. C980. December 15, 2000]
*ES#S-! . %A$D!AR, complainant, vs. ATT". *#ST <ARAS, Respondent.
R E S O , ( T * O +
,-T#G, J.: c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
*es:s1mo . %.40om.r 3.s c3.r=e0 A228. *:s2o De *es:s <.r.s >123 0ece12, m.47r.c21ce, =r.5e
m1sco/0:c2, =ross48 1mmor.4 co/0:c2, ./0 51o4.21o/ o6 31s 4.>8er@s o.23, s.10 2o be .44 1/
co/2r.5e/21o/ o6 23e Co0e o6 <ro6ess1o/.4 Res7o/s1b14128. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
Com74.1/./2 c4.1me0 .s 3.51/= bee/ . 7o4121c.4 s:77or2er o6 res7o/0e/2 4.>8er >3e/ 23e 4.22er
>.s s2144 23e m:/1c17.4 m.8or o6 %1/0o8, Ne=ros. ?e bec.me res7o/0e/2@s 2871s2, 1/2er7re2er ./0
K.44-.ro:/0K .ss1s2./2. A2 o/e 21me, 3e >.s .77o1/2e0 !:/1c17.4 <4.//1/= ./0 De5e4o7me/2 661cer
o6 23e m:/1c17.4128. -2 >.s res7o/0e/2 >3o, e5e/ 23e/, >o:40 =15e 31m .051se o/ 5.r1o:s 4e=.4
m.22ers. Com74.1/./2 .5erre0 23.2 3e >.s 2>1ce 01sm1sse0 6rom em74o8me/2 b8 !.8or *eceF:
!./..8, 23e first, >3e/ 23e 4.22er >.s .77o1/2e0 -C !.8or s3or248 .62er 23e 1986 EDSA
Re5o4:21o/, ./0 23e second, >3e/ !./..8 >.s e4ec2e0 2o o661ce 1/ 1995. T3e 61rs2 21me com74.1/./2
>.s 01sm1sse0, res7o/0e/2 .051se0 31m 2o 614e . c.se be6ore 23e C1514 Ser51ce Comm1ss1o/ ./0 2o
31re 23e ser51ces o6 23e 4.2e A228. R.mo/ %.rreme0.. Res7o/0e/2 re6:se0 2o 3./04e 23e c.se
31mse46 6or be1/= s:77ose048 10e/2161e0 >123 23e !.rcos .0m1/1s2r.21o/. T3e seco/0 21me
com74.1/./2 >.s 01sm1sse0 6rom em74o8me/2, res7o/0e/2 .44e=e048 =.5e 31m 4e=.4 .051ce 23.2
cr1m1/.4, .s >e44 .s .0m1/1s2r.215e, c.ses co:40 be 614e0 .=.1/s2 !.8or !./..8 b:2 res7o/0e/2
.=.1/ be==e0 o66 6rom 31mse46 3./041/= s:c3 c.ses, co/s2r.1/1/= com74.1/./2 2o 31re A228.
)r./c1sco D. ".7. To 31s s:r7r1se, res7o/0e/2 4.>8er, o/ 15 Se72ember 1998, e/2ere0 31s
.77e.r./ce .s co:/se4 6or !./..8, 23:s bre.c31/= >3.2 com74.1/./2 2erme0 2o be 23e1r 4.>8er-
c41e/2 re4.21o/s317. Res7o/0e/2, 3o>e5er, 4.2er >1230re> 31s .77e.r./ce o/ 23e =ro:/0 23.2 23e
7res101/= F:0=e >.s 31s 6ormer 4.> 7.r2/er. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
T3e .44e=.21o/s o6 com74.1/./2 >.s 0e/1e0 b8 res7o/0e/2 >3o co:/2ere0 23.2 23e c3.r=es >ere
mere48 orc3es2r.2e0 b8 A228. )r./c1sco D. ".7, 23e bro23er o6 31s es2r./=e0 >16e. ?e 0e/1e0 23.2
23e .77o1/2me/2 o6 com74.1/./2 2o o661ce >.s 1/ re2:r/ 6or 31s 7o4121c.4 s:77or2 2o 23e <.r.s 6.m148
./0 .sser2e0 23.2 com74.1/./2@s 9:.4161c.21o/s >ere 23e so4e co/s10er.21o/ 6or 23e .77o1/2me/2.
Res7o/0e/2 e;74.1/e0 23.2 com74.1/./2 3.0 come 2o see 31m /o2 2o seeG 4e=.4 .051ce b:2 o/48 2o
re9:es2 23.2 3e me01.2e 1/ se2241/= 31s 0166ere/ces >123 !.8or !./..8. Cer2.1/48, 3e c4.1me0, 23ere
/e5er >.s ./8 .22or/e8-c41e/2 re4.21o/s317 2o s7e.G o6. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
A62er com74.1/./2 614e0 31s br1e6 re748 2o 23e comme/2, 2.G1/= res7o/0e/2 2o 2.sG, 23e Co:r2, 1/ 12s
reso4:21o/ o6 01 !.rc3 2000, re6erre0 23e c.se 2o 23e -/2e=r.2e0 %.r o6 23e <3141771/es &@-%<K' 6or
1/5es21=.21o/, re7or2 ./0 recomme/0.21o/ >1231/ /1/e28 &90' 0.8s 6rom /o21ce. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
-/ . 2r./sm122.4 4e22er, 0.2e0 0C Se72ember 2000, A228. ,1c2or C. )er/./0eI, D1rec2or 6or %.r
D1sc1741/e, s:bm122e0 2o 23e Co:r2 &1' . No21ce o6 23e Reso4:21o/ ./0 &2' 23e Recor0s o6 23e C.se
co/s1s21/= o6 98 7.=es. T3e Reso4:21o/ o6 23e %o.r0 o6 Go5er/ors, .0o721/= 23e recomme/0.21o/ o6
Comm1ss1o/er !14.=ros ,. S./ *:./, re.0: c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
KRES$#T-N N. +-,-2000-C65 c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
A0m. C.se No. C980 c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
*es:s1mo . %.40om.r 5s. A228. *:s2o <.r.s c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
KRES$,ED 2o AD<T ./0 A<<R,E, .s 12 1s 3ereb8 AD<TED ./0 A<<R,ED, 23e Re7or2 ./0
Recomme/0.21o/ o6 23e -/5es21=.21/= Comm1ss1o/er o6 23e .bo5e-e/2124e0 c.se, 3ere1/ m.0e
7.r2 o6 231s Reso4:21o/ADec1s1o/ .s .//e; LA,@ ./0, 61/01/= 23e recomme/0.21o/ 6:448
s:77or2e0 b8 23e e510e/ce o/ recor0 ./0 23e .7741c.b4e 4.>s ./0 r:4es, 23e c.se .=.1/s2
Res7o/0e/2 1s D-S!-SSED .s 23ere 1s /o s:661c1e/2 re.so/ 2o 7rocee0 >123 23e c.se.K c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
-/ 12s reso4:21o/ o6 15 No5ember 2000, 23e Co:r2 /o2e0 23e reso4:21o/ o6 23e -%<, ./0 23e c.se >.s
23ere:7o/ co/s10ere0 c4ose0 ./0 2erm1/.2e0. A 7e2121o/ 6or re51e> >.s 21me48 614e0 b8 %.40om.r,
.44e=1/= 23.2 23e recomme/0.21o/ .6oreme/21o/e0 >.s 1ss:e0 >123o:2 ./8 3e.r1/= o/ 23e c.se,
./0 23.2 23e -/5es21=.21/= Comm1ss1o/er :/0:48 6.14e0 2o obser5e 23e 0:e 7rocess re9:1reme/2s o6
R:4e 139-% o6 23e R:4es o6 Co:r2. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
-/0ee0, 12 >o:40 .77e.r 23.2 /o 3e.r1/= >.s co/0:c2e0, ./0 23.2 23e KRecor0sK re6erre0 2o 1/ 23e
2r./sm122.4 4e22er >.s b.s1c.448 23e r1=1/.4 Ro44o o6 231s c.se >31c3 >.s se/2 b8 23e Co:r2, 7er 12s
reso4:21o/ o6 01 !.rc3 2000, 2o 23e -%<. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
-/ A.C. C83C, e/2124e0 KCo22.m 5s. A228. $.8s.,K 7rom:4=.2e0 o/ 29 )ebr:.r8 2000, 23e Co:r2 =.5e
231s obser5.21o/( viz: c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
KCom74.1/2s .=.1/s2 4.>8ers 6or m1sco/0:c2 .re /orm.448 .00resse0 2o 23e Co:r2. -6, .2 23e o:2se2,
23e Co:r2 61/0s . com74.1/2 2o be c4e.r48 >./21/= 1/ mer12, 12 o:2r1=3248 01sm1sses 23e c.se. -6,
3o>e5er, 23e Co:r2 0eems 12 /ecess.r8 23.2 6:r23er 1/9:1r8 s3o:40 be m.0e, s:c3 .s >3e/ 23e
m.22er co:40 /o2 be reso45e0 b8 mere48 e5.4:.21/= 23e 74e.01/=s s:bm122e0, . re6err.4 1s m.0e 2o
23e -%< 6or . 6orm.4 1/5es21=.21o/ o6 23e c.se 0:r1/= >31c3 23e 7.r21es .re .ccor0e0 ./ o77or2:/128
2o be 3e.r0. A/ ex parte 1/5es21=.21o/ m.8 o/48 be co/0:c2e0 >3e/ res7o/0e/2 6.14s 2o .77e.r
0es712e re.so/.b4e /o21ce. ?ere:/0er .re some o6 23e 7er21/e/2 7ro51s1o/s o6 R:4e 139-% o6 23e
R:4es o6 Co:r2 o/ 231s m.22er( viz: c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
K@SEC. 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investiator. - T3e N.21o/.4 Gr1e5./ce -/5es21=.2ors
s3.44 1/5es21=.2e .44 com74.1/2s .=.1/s2 members o6 23e -/2e=r.2e0 %.r re6erre0 2o 23em b8 23e -%<
%o.r0 o6 Go5er/ors.
@; ; ; c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
@SEC. 5. !ervice or dismissal. - -6 23e com74.1/2 .77e.rs 2o be mer12or1o:s, 23e -/5es21=.2or s3.44
01rec2 23.2 . co78 23ereo6 be ser5e0 :7o/ 23e res7o/0e/2, re9:1r1/= 31m 2o ./s>er 23e s.me >1231/
6162ee/ &15' 0.8s 6rom 23e 0.2e o6 ser51ce. -6 23e com74.1/2 0oes /o2 mer12 .c21o/, or 16 23e ./s>er
s3o>s 2o 23e s.21s6.c21o/ o6 23e -/5es21=.2or 23.2 23e com74.1/2 1s /o2 mer12or1o:s, 23e s.me m.8
be 01sm1sse0 b8 23e %o.r0 o6 Go5er/ors :7o/ 31s recomme/0.21o/. A co78 o6 23e reso4:21o/ o6
01sm1ss.4 s3.44 be 6:r/1s3e0 23e com74.1/./2 ./0 23e S:7reme Co:r2 >31c3 m.8 re51e> 23e
c.se motu proprio or :7o/ 21me48 .77e.4 o6 23e com74.1/./2 614e0 >1231/ 15 0.8s 6rom /o21ce o6 23e
01sm1ss.4 o6 23e com74.1/2. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
@No 1/5es21=.21o/ s3.44 be 1/2err:72e0 or 2erm1/.2e0 b8 re.so/ o6 23e 0es1s2./ce, se224eme/2,
com7rom1se, res212:21o/, >1230r.>.4 o6 23e c3.r=es, or 6.14:re o6 23e com74.1/./2 2o 7rosec:2e 23e
s.me.
@; ; ; . c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
@SEC. 8. Investiation. - #7o/1/0er o6 1ss:es or :7o/ 6.14:re o6 23e res7o/0e/2 2o ./s>er, 23e
-/5es21=.2or s3.44, >123 0e41ber.2e s7ee0, 7rocee0 >123 23e 1/5es21=.21o/ o6 23e c.se. ?e s3.44 3.5e
23e 7o>er 2o 1ss:e s:b7oe/.s ./0 .0m1/1s2er o.23s. T3e res7o/0e/2 s3.44 be =15e/ 6:44 o77or2:/128
2o 0e6e/0 31mse46, 2o 7rese/2 >12/esses o/ 31s be3.46 ./0 be 3e.r0 b8 31mse46 ./0 co:/se4.
?o>e5er, 16 :7o/ re.so/.b4e /o21ce, 23e res7o/0e/2 6.14s 2o .77e.r, 23e 1/5es21=.21o/ s3.44
7rocee0 ex parte. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
@T3e -/5es21=.2or s3.44 2erm1/.2e 23e 1/5es21=.21o/ >1231/ 23ree &3' mo/23s 6rom 23e 0.2e o6 12s
comme/ceme/2, :/4ess e;2e/0e0 6or =oo0 c.:se b8 23e %o.r0 o6 Go5er/ors :7o/ 7r1or
.7741c.21o/. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
LE1446:4 6.14:re 2o re6:s.4 2o obe8 . s:b7oe/. or ./8 o23er 4.>6:4 or0er 1ss:e0 b8 23e -/5es21=.2or
s3.44 be 0e.42 >123 .s 6or 1/01rec2 co/2em72 o6 Co:r2. T3e corres7o/01/= c3.r=e s3.44 be 614e0 b8 23e
-/5es21=.2or be6ore 23e -%< %o.r0 o6 Go5er/ors >31c3 s3.44 re9:1re 23e .44e=e0 co/2em/or 2o s3o>
c.:se >1231/ 2e/ &10' 0.8s 6rom /o21ce. T3e -%< %o.r0 o6 Go5er/ors m.8 23ere.62er co/0:c2
3e.r1/=s, 16 /ecess.r8, 1/ .ccor0./ce >123 23e 7roce0:re se2 6or23 1/ 231s R:4e 6or 3e.r1/=s be6ore
23e -/5es21=.2or. S:c3 3e.r1/= s3.44 .s 6.r .s 7r.c21c.b4e be 2erm1/.2e0 >1231/ 6162ee/ &15' 0.8s
6rom 12s comme/ceme/2. T3ere.62er, 23e -%< %o.r0 o6 Go5er/ors s3.44 >1231/ . 41Ge 7er1o0 o6
6162ee/ &15' 0.8s 1ss:e . reso4:21o/ se221/= 6or23 12s 61/01/=s ./0 recomme/0.21o/s, >31c3 s3.44
6or23>123 be 2r./sm122e0 2o 23e S:7reme Co:r2 6or 61/.4 .c21o/ ./0 16 >.rr./2e0, 23e 1m7os121o/ o6
7e/.428.@ c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
KT3e 7roce0:res o:241/e0 b8 23e R:4es .re me./2 2o e/s:re 23.2 23e 1//oce/2s .re s7.re0 6rom
>ro/=6:4 co/0em/.21o/ ./0 23.2 o/48 23e =:1428 .re me2e0 23e1r F:s2 0:e. b51o:s48, 23ese
re9:1reme/2s c.//o2 be 2.Ge/ 41=3248.K
1
c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
T3e Co:r2 re12er.2es 23e 6ore=o1/= 01s9:1s121o/. A 6orm.4 1/5es21=.21o/ 1s . m./0.2or8 re9:1reme/2
>31c3 m.8 /o2 be 0o/e .>.8 >123 e;ce72 6or 5.410 ./0 co=e/2 re.so/s. T3ese re.so/s 0o /o2
.77e.r 2o be 3ere e;2./2. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
E?ERE)RE, 23e 1/s2./2 .0m1/1s2r.215e c.se 1s RE!ANDED 2o 23e -/2e=r.2e0 %.r o6 23e <3141771/es
6or 6:r23er 7rocee01/=s. T3e -%< 1s 41Ge>1se 01rec2e0 2o .c2 o/ 231s re6err.4 >123 01s7.2c3. c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
S RDERED.
G.R. No. 131255. !.8 20, 1998
?N. ED#ARD NNAT *SN, 1/ 31s c.7.c128 .s 23e Go5er/or o6 23e <ro51/ce o6 N:e5.
Ec1F., Petitioner, vs.E+EC#T-,E SECRETAR" R#%EN D. TRRES, 23e DE<ART!ENT ) T?E
-NTER-R M $CA$ G,ERN!ENTS, re7rese/2e0 b8 SECRETAR" R%ERT B. %AR%ERS ./0
#NDERSECRETAR" !AN#E$ R. SANC?EB, !R. SCAR C. T-N-, 1/ 31s c.7.c128 .s <ro51/c1.4 ,1ce-
Go5er/or o6 N:e5. Ec1F., ./0 !R. $RET <. <ANG-$-NAN, !R. CR-S<#$ S. ESG#ERRA, !S.
S$-TA C. SANTS, !R.,-CENTE C. <A$-$-, ./0 !R. NA<$EN G. -NTER-R, 1/ 23e1r c.7.c128 .s
<ro51/c1.4 %o.r0 !embers o6 N:e5. Ec1F., Respondents.
D E C - S - N
<#N, J.:
The case at bar involves the validity of the suspension from office of petitioner Eduardo +onato Eoson as
.overnor of the province of +ueva Ecija/ &rivate respondent Oscar )/ Tinio is the ?ice9.overnor of said
province $hile private respondents ,oreto &/ &angilinan, )rispulo S/ Esguerra, Solita )/ Santos, ?icente )/
&alilio and +apoleon ./ *nterior are members of the Sangguniang &anlala$igan/
On September !0, !""3, private respondents filed $ith the Office of the &resident a letter9complaint dated
September !8, !""0 charging petitioner $ith grave misconduct and abuse of authority/ &rivate respondents
alleged that in the morning of September !, !""3, they $ere at the session hall of the provincial capitol for a
scheduled session of the Sangguniang &anlala$igan $hen petitioner belligerently barged into the ;allB
petitioner angrily 6ic6ed the door and chairs in the ;all and uttered threatening $ords at themB close behind
petitioner $ere several men $ith long and short firearms $ho encircled the area/ &rivate respondents claim
that this incident $as an offshoot of their resistance to a pending legislative measure supported by petitioner
that the province of +ueva Ecija obtain a loan of &!D# million from the &hilippine +ational Ban6B that
petitioner<s acts $ere intended to harass them into approving this loanB that fortunately, no session of the
Sangguniang &anlala$igan $as held that day for lac6 of Fuorum and the proposed legislative measure $as not
consideredB that private respondents opposed the loan because the province of +ueva Ecija had an
unliFuidated obligation of more than &0# million incurred $ithout prior authori=ation from the Sangguniang
&anlala$iganB that the provincial budget officer and treasurer had earlier disclosed that the province could not
afford to contract another obligationB that petitioner<s act of barging in and intimidating private respondents
$as a serious insult to the integrity and independence of the Sangguniang &anlala$iganB and that the
presence of his private army posed grave danger to private respondents< lives and safety/ &rivate respondents
prayed for the suspension or removal of petitionerB for an emergency audit of the provincial treasury of +ueva
EcijaB and for the revie$ of the proposed loan in light of the financial condition of the province, to $it%
C*n this regard, $e respectfully reFuest for the follo$ing assistance from your good office%
!/ To immediately suspend .overnor +/ IsicJ Eoson considering the actual dangers that $e are facing no$,
and provide adeFuate police security detail for the Sangguniang &anlala$igan of +ueva Ecija/ Should the
evidence $arrant after investigation, to order his removal from office/
/ To conduct an emergency audit of the provincial treasury of +ueva Ecija by the auditors from the
)ommission on 1udit )entral Office $ith adeFuate police security assistance/ Should the evidence so $arrant,
to file necessary charges against responsible and accountable officers/
8/ To advise the &hilippine +ational Ban6 to revie$ the capability of the province of +ueva Ecija to secure
more loans and the feasibility of the same in the light of the present financial condition of the province/ Or if
said loan $ill be contrary to sound ban6ing practice, recommend its disapproval/C
!
The letter9complaint $as submitted $ith the joint affidavit of Elnora Escombien and EacFueline Eane &ere=, t$o
() employees of the Sangguniang &anlala$igan $ho $itnessed the incident/ The letter $as endorsed by
)ongressmen Eleuterio ?iolago and &acifico -ajardo of the Second and Third 'istricts of +ueva Ecija, former
)ongressman ?ictorio ,oren=o of the -ourth 'istrict, and Aayor &lacido )alma, &resident of the Aayors<
,eague of said province/

The &resident acted on the complaint by $riting on its margin the follo$ing%
C!0 Sep "3
To% S*,. info E7ec/ Sec/ and Sec/ of Eustice%
!/ +oted/ There appears no justification for the use of force, intimidation or armed follo$ers in
the situation of ! Sep at the Session ;all/ / Ta6e appropriate preemptive and investigative
actions/ 8/ BRE15 +OT the &E1)E/
-*'E, ?/ R1AOS
(Signed)/C
8
&resident Ramos noted that the situation of C! Sep at the Session ;all,C i.e/, the refusal of the members of
the Sangguniang &anlala$igan to approve the proposed loan, did not appear to justify Cthe use of force,
intimidation or armed follo$ers/C ;e thus instructed the then Secretary of the *nterior and ,ocal .overnments
(S*,.) Robert Barbers to CItJa6e appropriate preemptive and investigative actions,C but to CIbJrea6 not the
peace/C
The letter9complaint together $ith the &resident<s marginal notes $ere sent to Secretary Robert M/ Barbers on
September #, !""3/ 1cting upon the instructions of the &resident, Secretary Barbers notified petitioner of the
case against him
4
and attached to the notice a copy of the complaint and its anne7es/ *n the same notice,
Secretary Barbers directed petitioner Cto submit IhisJ verified@s$orn ans$er thereto, not a motion to dismiss,
together $ith such documentary evidence that IheJ has in support thereof, $ithin fifteen (!D) days from
receipt/C
D
*mmediately thereafter, Secretary Barbers proceeded to +ueva Ecija and summoned petitioner and private
respondents to a conference to settle the controversy/ The parties entered into an agreement $hereby
petitioner promised to maintain peace and order in the province $hile private respondents promised to refrain
from filing cases that $ould adversely affect their peaceful co9e7istence/
3
The peace agreement $as not respected by the parties and the private respondents reiterated their letter9
complaint/ &etitioner $as again ordered to file his ans$er to the letter9complaint $ithin fifteen days from
receipt/ &etitioner received a copy of this order on +ovember !8, !""3/ On the same day, petitioner reFuested
for an e7tension of thirty (8#) days to submit his ans$er because he $as Ctrying to secure the services of
legal counsel e7perienced in administrative la$ practice/C
0
The 'epartment of the *nterior and ,ocal
.overnment ('*,.), acting through 'irector 1lmario de los Santos, Officer9*n9)harge of the ,egal Service,
granted the motion, $ith the thirty9day e7tension to be rec6oned, ho$ever, from +ovember !8, !""3, i.e.,
the day petitioner received the order to ans$er/
2
*n a letter dated 'ecember ", !""3, petitioner moved for another e7tension of thirty (8#) days to file his
ans$er/ ;e stated that he had already sent letters to various la$ firms in Aetro Aanila but that he had not yet
contracted their servicesB that the advent of the )hristmas season 6ept him busy $ith Cnumerous and
inevitable official engagements/C
"
The '*,. granted the reFuest for e7tension Cfor the last time up to Eanuary
!8 only/C
!#
On Eanuary 0, !""0, petitioner reFuested for another e7tension of thirty (8#) days to file his ans$er/
1ccording to him, the )hristmas season 6ept him very busy and preoccupied $ith his numerous official
engagementsB that the la$ firms he invited to handle his case have favorably replied but that he needed time
to confer $ith them personallyB and that during this period, he, $ith the help of his friends, $as e7ploring the
possibility of an amicable settlement of the case/
!!
The '*,. granted petitioner<s reFuest Cfor the last timeC
but gave him an e7tension of only ten (!#) days from Eanuary !8, !""0 to Eanuary 8, !""0/ The '*,. also
informed him that his Cfailure to submit ans$er $ill be considered a $aiver and that the plaintiff IshallJ be
allo$ed to present his evidence ex+parte.C
!
&etitioner moved for reconsideration of the order/ ;e reiterated his prayer for an e7tension of thirty (8#) days
on the follo$ing grounds% (a) that he $as still in the process of choosing competent and e7perienced counselB
(b) that some la$ firms refused to accept his case because it $as perceived to be politically motivatedB and
(c) the multifarious activities, appointments and official functions of his office hindered his efforts to secure
counsel of choice/
!8
Three months later, on 1pril , !""0, (ndersecretary Aanuel Sanche=, then 1cting Secretary of the '*,.,
issued an order declaring petitioner in default and to have $aived his right to present evidence/ &rivate
respondents $ere ordered to present their evidence e79parte/ The order reads as follo$s%
CRDER
*t appearing that respondent failed to submit his ans$er to the complaint despite the grant to him of three (8)
e7tensions, such unreasonable failure is deemed a $aiver of his right to present evidence in his behalf
pursuant to Section 4, Rule 4 of 1dministrative Order +o/ 8 dated 'ecember !0, !"", as amended/
Respondent is hereby declared in default, mean$hile, complainants are directed to present their evidence ex+
parte/ ;o$ever, considering the prohibition on the conduct of administrative investigation due to the
forthcoming barangay elections, complainants $ill be notified on the date after the barangay election for them
to present their evidence/
SO OR'ERE'/C
!4
T$o days later, on 1pril 4, !""0, the la$ firm of &adilla, Eimene=, 5intanar P 1suncion, representing
petitioner, filed $ith the '*,. an CEntry of 1ppearance $ith Aotion for Time to -ile 1ns$er $d Cautelam/C
&etitioner received a copy of the order of default on Aay , !""0/ Through counsel, he moved for
reconsideration/ On Aay !", !""0, (ndersecretary Sanche= reconsidered the order of default in the interest of
justice/ ;e noted the appearance of petitioner<s counsel and gave petitioner Cfor the last timeC fifteen (!D)
days from receipt to file his ans$er/
!D
On Eune 8, !""0, (ndersecretary Sanche= issued an order stating that petitioner<s counsel, $hose office is in
Aanila, should have received a copy of the Aay !", !""0 order ten days after mailing on Aay 0, !""0/ Since
petitioner still failed to file his ans$er, he $as deemed to have $aived his right to present evidence in his
behalf/ (ndersecretary Sanche= reinstated the order of default and directed private respondents to present
their evidenceex+parte on Euly !D, !""0/
!3
The follo$ing day, Eune 4, !""0, &etitioner, through counsel, filed a CAotion to 'ismiss/C &etitioner alleged
that the letter9complaint $as not verified on the day it $as filed $ith the Office of the &residentB and that the
'*,. had no jurisdiction over the case and no authority to reFuire him to ans$er the complaint/
On Euly 4, !""0, petitioner filed an C(rgent Ex+Parte Aotion for ReconsiderationC of the order of Eune 8, !""0
reinstating the order of default/ &etitioner also prayed that the hearing on the merits of the case be held in
abeyance until after the CAotion to 'ismissC shall have been resolved/
On Euly !!, !""0, on recommendation of Secretary Barbers, E7ecutive Secretary Ruben Torres issued an
order, by authority of the &resident, placing petitioner under preventive suspension for si7ty (3#) days
pending investigation of the charges against him/
!0
Secretary Barbers directed the &hilippine +ational &olice to assist in the implementation of the order of
preventive suspension/ *n petitioner<s stead, Secretary Barbers designated ?ice9.overnor Oscar Tinio as
1cting .overnor until such time as petitioner<s temporary legal incapacity shall have ceased to e7ist/
!2
-orth$ith, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition $ith the )ourt of 1ppeals challenging the
order of preventive suspension and the order of default/
!"
Aean$hile, the proceedings before the '*,. continued/ On 1ugust #, !""0, (ndersecretary Sanche= issued
an order denying petitioner<s CAotion to 'ismissC and C(rgent Ex+Parte Aotion for Reconsideration/C *n the
same order, he reFuired the parties to submit their position papers $ithin an ine7tendible period of ten days
from receipt after $hich the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution, to $it%
C:;ERE-ORE, for lac6 of merit, both motions are denied/ ;o$ever, for this office to have a better
appreciation of the issues raised in the instant case, the parties, through their respective counsels are hereby
directed to submit their position papers $ithin a period of ten (!#) days from receipt hereof, $hich period is
ine7tendible, after $hich the case is deemed submitted for resolution/C
#
On 1ugust 0, !""0, petitioner filed $ith the '*,. a CAotion to ,ift Order of &reventive Suspension/C On
September !#, !""0, petitioner follo$ed this $ith a CAotion to ,ift 'efault Order and 1dmit 1ns$er $d
Cautelam/C
!
1ttached to the motion $as the C1ns$er $d CautelamC

and s$orn statements of his $itnesses/

On the other hand, complainants (private respondents herein) manifested that they $ere submitting the case
for decision based on the records, the complaint and affidavits of their $itnesses/
8
*n his 1ns$er $d Cautelam, petitioner alleged that in the morning of September !, !""3, $hile he $as at his
district office in the to$n of Auno=, he received a phone call from Sangguniang &anlala$igan member Eose del
Aundo/ 'el Aundo, $ho belonged to petitioner<s political party, informed him that ?ice9.overnor Tinio $as
enraged at the members of the Sangguniang &anlala$igan $ho $ere in petitioner<s party because they
refused to place on the agenda the ratification of the proposed &!D# million loan of the province/ &etitioner
repaired to the provincial capitol to advise his party9mates on their problem and at the same time attend to
his official functions/ (pon arrival, he $ent to the Session ;all and as6ed the members present $here ?ice9
.overnor Tinio $as/ ;o$ever, $ithout $aiting for their reply, he left the ;all and proceeded to his office/
&etitioner claimed that there $as nothing in his conduct that threatened the members of the Sangguniang
&anlala$igan or caused alarm to the employees/ ;e said that li6e ?ice9.overnor Tinio, he $as al$ays
accompanied by his official security escorts $henever he reported for $or6/ ;e also alleged that the joint
affidavit of Elnora Escombien and EacFueline Eane &ere= $as false/ Escombien $as purportedly not inside the
session hall during the incident but $as at her des6 at the office and could not in any $ay have seen petitioner
in the hall/ To attest to the truth of his allegations, petitioner submitted three (8) joint affidavits 99 t$o ()
affidavits e7ecuted by si7 (3) and ten (!#) employees, respectively, of the provincial government, and a third
by four members of the Sangguniang &anlala$igan/
4
On September !!, !""0, petitioner filed an C(rgent Aotion for ReconsiderationC of the order of 1ugust #,
!""0 denying his motion to dismiss/ The C(rgent Aotion for ReconsiderationC $as rejected by (ndersecretary
Sanche= on October 2, !""0/ (ndersecretary Sanche=, ho$ever, granted the CAotion to ,ift 'efault Order and
to 1dmit 1ns$er$d CautelamC and admitted the C1ns$er $d CautelamC as petitioner<s position paper pursuant
to the order of 1ugust #, !""0/
D
On October !D, !""0, petitioner filed a CAotion to )onduct -ormal *nvestigation/C &etitioner prayed that a
formal investigation of his case be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the ,ocal .overnment )ode of
!""! and Rule 0 of 1dministrative Order +o/ 8B and that this be held at the province of +ueva Ecija/
3
On
October ", !""0, petitioner submitted a CAanifestation and AotionC before the '*,. reiterating his right to a
formal investigation/
*n the meantime, on October 4, !""0, the )ourt of 1ppeals dismissed petitioner<s petition/
0
;ence this recourse/
The proceedings before the '*,. continued ho$ever/ *n an order dated +ovember !!, !""0, the '*,. denied
petitioner<s CAotion to )onduct -ormal *nvestigationC declaring that the submission of position papers
substantially complies $ith the reFuirements of procedural due process in administrative proceedings/
2
1 fe$ days after filing the petition before this )ourt, petitioner filed a CAotion for ,eave to -ile ;erein
*ncorporated (rgent Aotion for the *ssuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and@or a :rit of &reliminary
*njunction/C &etitioner alleged that subseFuent to the institution of this petition, the Secretary of the *nterior
and ,ocal .overnments rendered a resolution on the case finding him guilty of the offenses charged/
"
;is
finding $as based on the position papers and affidavits of $itnesses submitted by the parties/ The '*,.
Secretary found the affidavits of complainants< $itnesses to be Cmore natural, reasonable and probableC than
those of herein petitioner Eoson<s/
8#
On Eanuary 2, !""2, the E7ecutive Secretary, by authority of the &resident, adopted the findings and
recommendation of the '*,. Secretary/ ;e imposed on petitioner the penalty of suspension from office for si7
(3) months $ithout pay, to $it%
C:;ERE-ORE, as recommended by the Secretary of the *nterior and ,ocal .overnment, respondent +ueva
Ecija .overnor Eduardo +onato Eoson is hereby found guilty of the offenses charged and is meted the penalty
of suspension from office for a period of si7 (3) months $ithout pay/C
8!
On Eanuary !4, !""2, $e issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the order of
the E7ecutive Secretary/
On Eanuary !", !""2, private respondents submitted a Aanifestation informing this )ourt that the suspension
of petitioner $as implemented on Eanuary ", !""2B that on the same day, private respondent Oscar Tinio $as
installed as 1cting .overnor of the provinceB and that in vie$ of these events, the temporary restraining order
had lost its purpose and effectivity and $as fait accompli/
8
:e noted this Aanifestation/
*n his petition, petitioner alleges that%
C* T;E )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S .R1?E,> ERRE' *+ ;O,'*+. T;1T R(,ES O- &RO)E'(RE 1+' E?*'E+)E
S;O(,' +OT BE STR*)T,> 1&&,*E' *+ T;E 1'A*+*STR1T*?E '*S)*&,*+1R> 1+' ),E1R,> &(+*T*?E
&RO)EE'*+.S *+ T;E )1SE 1.1*+ST &ET*T*O+ER .O?ER+OR E'+O EOSO+B
** T;E )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S .R1?E,> ERRE' *+ 1&&,>*+. T;E 1,TER9E.O &R*+)*&,E BE)1(SE, )O+TR1R>
TO ,1:, *T :1S T;E SE)RET1R> O- T;E '*,. :;O :1S ELER)*S*+. T;E &O:ERS O- T;E &RES*'E+T
:;*); 1RE ),E1R,> ?ESTE' B> ,1: O+,> (&O+ ;*A OR T;E ELE)(T*?E SE)RET1R>/
*** T;E )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S ERRE' *+ R(,*+. T;1T T;E &ET*T*O+ER :1S &RO&ER,> 'E),1RE' *+ 'E-1(,T
:;E+ ;E -*,E' 1 AOT*O+ TO '*SA*SS *+STE1' O- 1+ 1+S:ER, 1S '*RE)TE' B> T;E '*,., BE)1(SE 1
AOT*O+ TO '*SA*SS B1SE' O+ E(R*S'*)T*O+1, .RO(+'S *S +OT 1 &RO;*B*T*?E IsicJ &,E1'*+. *+
1'A*+*STR1T*?E '*S)*&,*+1R> )1SES/
*? T;E )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S ERRE' *+ R(,*+. T;1T T;E *A&OS*T*O+ O- &RE?E+T*?E S(S&E+S*O+ 1.1*+ST
T;E &ET*T*O+ER :1S &RO&ER BE)1(SE T;ERE :1S +O EO*+'ER O- *SS(ES >ET (&O+ *TS *A&OS*T*O+
1+' T;ERE :1S +O E?*'E+)E O- .(*,T 1.1*+ST &ET*T*O+ER/C
88
*n his CAotion for ,eave to -ile ;erein *ncorporated (rgent Aotion for the *ssuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order and@or a :rit of &reliminary *njunction,C petitioner also claims that%
C* T;E RESO,(T*O+ O- E1+(1R> 2, !""2 1+' T;E AEAOR1+'1 *SS(E' &(RS(1+T T;ERETO (i/e/,
1++ELES C),C C',C CE,C C-,C 1+' C.C ;EREO-) :ERE *SS(E' :*T; (+'(E ;1STE, *+ ?*O,1T*O+ O- T;E
&ERT*+E+T &RO?*S*O+S O- T;E !""! ,O)1, .O?ER+AE+T )O'E 1+' 1'A*+*STR1T*?E OR'ER +O/ 8,
1+' *+ )OA&,ETE '*SRE.1R' O- &ET*T*O+ER<S )O+ST*T(T*O+1, R*.;T TO '(E &RO)ESS/
** T;E *A&,EAE+T1T*O+ O- T;E *+?1,*' RESO,(T*O+ O- E1+(1R> 2, !""2 (1++EL C)C ;EREO-) B> T;E
&(B,*) RES&O+'E+TS E+T*T,ES &ET*T*O+ER TO T;E *AAE'*1TE *SS(1+)E O- T;E TEA&OR1R>
RESTR1*+*+. OR'ER@:R*T O- &RE,*A*+1R> *+E(+)T*O+ ;ERE*+ &R1>E' -OR/C
84
:e find merit in the petition/
1dministrative disciplinary proceedings against elective local officials are governed by the ,ocal .overnment
)ode of !""!, the Rules and Regulations *mplementing the ,ocal .overnment )ode of !""!, and
1dministrative Order +o/ 8 entitled C&rescribing the Rules and &rocedures on the *nvestigation of
1dministrative 'isciplinary )ases 1gainst Elective ,ocal Officials of &rovinces, ;ighly (rbani=ed )ities,
*ndependent )omponent )ities, and )ities and Aunicipalities in Aetropolitan Aanila/C
8D
*n all matters not
provided in 1/O/ +o/ 8, the Rules of )ourt and the 1dministrative )ode of !"20 apply in a suppletory
character/
83
*
Section 3# of )hapter 4, Title **, Boo6 * of the ,ocal .overnment )ode enumerates the grounds for $hich an
elective local official may be disciplined, suspended or removed from office/ Section 3# reads%
CSec. ,-. .rounds for 'isciplinary $ctions/ 99 1n elective local official may be disciplined, suspended, or
removed from office on any of the follo$ing grounds%
(a) 'isloyalty to the Republic of the &hilippinesB
(b) )ulpable violation of the )onstitutionB
(c) 'ishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or dereliction of dutyB
(d) )ommission of any offense involving moral turpitude or an offense punishable by at least prision mayorB
(e) 1buse of authorityB
(f) (nauthori=ed absence for fifteen (!D) consecutive $or6ing days, e7cept in the case of members of the
sangguniang panlala$igan, sangguniang panlunsod, sangguniang bayan, and sangguniang barangayB
(g) 1pplication for, or acFuisition of, foreign citi=enship or residence or the status of an immigrant of another
countryB and
(h) Such other grounds as may be provided in this )ode and other la$s/
1n elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper
court/C
:hen an elective local official commits an act that falls under the grounds for disciplinary action, the
administrative complaint against him must be verified and filed $ith any of the follo$ing%
CSec. ,/. 0orm and 0iling of $dministrative Complaints/99 1 verified complaint against any erring local elective
official shall be prepared as follo$s%
(a) 1 complaint against any elective official of a province, a highly urbani=ed city, an independent component
city or component city shall be filed before the Office of the &resident/
(b) 1 complaint against any elective official of a municipality shall be filed before the sangguniang
panlala$igan $hose decision may be appealed to the Office of the &residentB and
(c) 1 complaint against any elective barangay official shall be filed before the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan concerned $hose decision shall be final and e7ecutory/C
80
1n administrative complaint against an erring elective official must be verified and filed $ith the proper
government office/ 1 complaint against an elective provincial or city official must be filed $ith the Office of the
&resident/ 1 complaint against an elective municipal official must be filed $ith the Sangguniang &anlala$igan
$hile that of a barangay official must be filed before the Sangguniang &anlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan/
*n the instant case, petitioner Eoson is an elective official of the province of +ueva Ecija/ The letter9complaint
against him $as therefore properly filed $ith the Office of the &resident/ 1ccording to petitioner, ho$ever, the
letter9complaint failed to conform $ith the formal reFuirements set by the )ode/ ;e alleges that the complaint
$as not verified by private respondents and $as not supported by the joint affidavit of the t$o $itnesses
named thereinB that private respondents later reali=ed these defects and surreptitiously inserted the
verification and s$orn statement $hile the complaint $as still pending $ith the Office of the &resident/
82
To
prove his allegations, petitioner submitted% (a) the s$orn statement of private respondent Solita )/ Santos
attesting to the alleged fact that after the letter9complaint $as filed, ?ice9.overnor Tinio made her and the
other members of the Sangguniang &anlala$igan sign an additional page $hich he had later notari=edB and
(b) the fact that the verification of the letter9complaint and the joint affidavit of the $itnesses do not indicate
the document, page or boo6 number of the notarial register of the notary public before $hom they $ere
made/
8"
:e find no merit in the contention of the petitioner/ The absence of the document, page or boo6 number of
the notarial register of the subscribing officer is insufficient to prove petitioner<s claim/ The lac6 of these
entries may constitute proof of neglect on the part of the subscribing officer in complying $ith the
reFuirements for notari=ation and proper verification/ They may give grounds for the revocation of his notarial
commission/
4#
But they do not indubitably prove that the verification $as inserted or intercalated after the
letter9complaint $as filed $ith the Office of the &resident/
+or is the fact of intercalation sufficiently established by the affidavit of Solita )/ Santos/ &rivate respondent
Santos $as one of the signatories to the letter9complaint/ *n her affidavit, she prayed that she be dropped as
one of the complainants since she had just joined the political party of petitioner Eoson/ She decided to reveal
the intercalation because she $as disillusioned $ith the Cdirty tacticsC of ?ice9.overnor Tinio to grab po$er
from petitioner Eoson/
4!
&rivate respondent Santos cannot in any $ay be considered an unbiased $itness/ ;er
motive and change of heart render her affidavit suspect/
1ssuming, nonetheless, that the letter9complaint $as unverified $hen submitted to the Office of the &resident,
the defect $as not fatal/ The reFuirement of verification $as deemed $aived by the &resident himself $hen he
acted on the complaint/
?erification is a formal, not jurisdictional reFuisite/
4
?erification is mainly intended to secure an assurance
that the allegations therein made are done in good faith or are true and correct and not mere
speculation/
48
The lac6 of verification is a mere formal defect/
44
The court may order the correction of the
pleading, if not verified, or act on the unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such that a strict
compliance $ith the rule may be dispensed $ith in order that the ends of justice may be served/
4D
**
*n his second assigned error, petitioner Fuestions the jurisdiction and authority of the '*,. Secretary over the
case/ ;e contends that under the la$, it is the Office of the &resident that has jurisdiction over the letter9
complaint and that the )ourt of 1ppeals erred in applying the alter9ego principle because the po$er to
discipline elective local officials lies $ith the &resident, not $ith the '*,. Secretary/
Eurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials is lodged in t$o authorities%
the 'isciplining 1uthority and the *nvestigating 1uthority/ This is e7plicit from 1/O/ +o/ 8, to $it%
CSec. 1. 'isciplining $uthority/ 1ll administrative complaints, duly verified, against elective local officials
mentioned in the preceding Section shall be acted upon by the &resident/ The &resident, $ho may act through
the E7ecutive Secretary, shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'isciplining 1uthority/C
Sec. 2. %nvestigating $uthority / The Secretary of the *nterior and ,ocal .overnment is hereby designated as
the *nvestigating 1uthority/ ;e may constitute an *nvestigating )ommittee in the 'epartment of the *nterior
and ,ocal .overnment for the purpose/
The 'isciplining 1uthority may, ho$ever, in the interest of the service, constitute a Special *nvestigating
)ommittee in lieu of the Secretary of the *nterior and ,ocal .overnment/C
43
&ursuant to these provisions, the 'isciplining 1uthority is the &resident of the &hilippines, $hether acting by
himself or through the E7ecutive Secretary/ The Secretary of the *nterior and ,ocal .overnment is the
*nvestigating 1uthority, $ho may act by himself or constitute an *nvestigating )ommittee/ The Secretary of
the '*,., ho$ever, is not the e7clusive *nvestigating 1uthority/ *n lieu of the '*,. Secretary, the 'isciplining
1uthority may designate a Special *nvestigating )ommittee/
The po$er of the &resident over administrative disciplinary cases against elective local officials is derived from
his po$er of general supervision over local governments/ Section 4, 1rticle L of the !"20 )onstitution
provides%
CSec. 3/ The &resident of the &hilippines shall e7ercise general supervision over local governments/ &rovinces
$ith respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities $ith respect to component
barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are $ithin the scope of their prescribed po$ers
and functions/C
40
The po$er of supervision means Coverseeing or the authority of an officer to see that the subordinate officers
perform their duties/C
42
*f the subordinate officers fail or neglect to fulfill their duties, the official may ta6e
such action or step as prescribed by la$ to ma6e them perform their duties/
4"
The &resident<s po$er of general
supervision means no more than the po$er of ensuring that la$s are faithfully e7ecuted, or that subordinate
officers act $ithin the la$/
D#
Supervision is not incompatible $ith discipline/
D!
1nd the po$er to discipline and
ensure that the la$s be faithfully e7ecuted must be construed to authori=e the &resident to order an
investigation of the act or conduct of local officials $hen in his opinion the good of the public service so
reFuires/
D
Thus%
C*ndependently of any statutory provision authori=ing the &resident to conduct an investigation of the nature
involved in this proceeding, and in vie$ of the nature and character of the e7ecutive authority $ith $hich the
&resident of the &hilippines is invested, the constitutional grant to him of po$er to e7ercise general
supervision over all local governments and to ta6e care that the la$s be faithfully e7ecuted must be construed
to authori=e him to order an investigation of the act or conduct of the petitioner herein/ Supervision is not a
meaningless thing/ *t is an active po$er/ *t is certainly not $ithout limitation, but it at least implies authority
to inFuire into facts and conditions in order to render the po$er real and effective/ *f supervision is to be
conscientious and rational, and not automatic and brutal, it must be founded upon a 6no$ledge of actual facts
and conditions disclosed after careful study and investigation/C
D8
The po$er to discipline evidently includes the po$er to investigate/ 1s the 'isciplining 1uthority, the &resident
has the po$er derived from the )onstitution itself to investigate complaints against local government officials/
1/ O/ +o/ 8, ho$ever, delegates the po$er to investigate to the '*,. or a Special *nvestigating )ommittee,
as may be constituted by the 'isciplining 1uthority/ This is not undue delegation, contrary to petitioner
Eoson<s claim/ The &resident remains the 'isciplining 1uthority/ :hat is delegated is the po$er to investigate,
not the po$er to discipline/
D4
Aoreover, the po$er of the '*,. to investigate administrative complaints is based on the alter9ego principle
or the doctrine of Fualified political agency/ Thus%
C(nder this doctrine, $hich recogni=es the establishment of a single e7ecutive, all e7ecutive and
administrative organi=ations are adjuncts of the E7ecutive 'epartment, the heads of the various e7ecutive
departments are assistants and agents of the )hief E7ecutive, and, e7cept in cases $here the )hief E7ecutive
is reFuired by the )onstitution or la$ to act in person or the e7igencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious e7ecutive and administrative functions of the )hief E7ecutive are performed by
and through the e7ecutive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the )hief E7ecutive
presumptively the acts of the )hief E7ecutive/C
DD
This doctrine is corollary to the control po$er of the &resident/
D3
The po$er of control is provided in the
)onstitution, thus%
CSec. /4/ The &resident shall have control of all the e7ecutive departments, bureaus, and offices/ ;e shall
ensure that the la$s be faithfully e7ecuted/C
D0
)ontrol is said to be the very heart of the po$er of the presidency/
D2
1s head of the E7ecutive 'epartment, the
&resident, ho$ever, may delegate some of his po$ers to the )abinet members e7cept $hen he is reFuired by
the )onstitution to act in person or the e7igencies of the situation demand that he acts personally/
D"
The
members of )abinet may act for and in behalf of the &resident in certain matters because the &resident cannot
be e7pected to e7ercise his control (and supervisory) po$ers personally all the time/ Each head of a
department is, and must be, the &resident<s alter ego in the matters of that department $here the &resident is
reFuired by la$ to e7ercise authority/
3#
The procedure ho$ the 'isciplining and *nvestigating 1uthorities should e7ercise their po$ers is distinctly set
forth in the ,ocal .overnment )ode and 1/O/ +o/ 8/ Section 3 of the )ode provides%
CSec. ,1. 5otice of 6earing/99 (a) :ithin seven (0) days after the administrative complaint is filed, the Office
of the &resident or the sanggunian concerned, as the case may be, shall reFuire the respondent to submit his
verified ans$er $ithin fifteen (!D) days from receipt thereof, and commence investigation of the case $ithin
ten (!#) days after receipt of such ans$er of the respondent/
777/C
Sections ! and 8, Rule D
3!
of 1/O/ +o/ 8 provide%
CSec. /. Commencement/ :ithin forty9eight (42) hours from receipt of the ans$er, the 'isciplining 1uthority
shall refer the complaint and ans$er, together $ith their attachments and other relevant papers, to the
*nvestigating 1uthority $ho shall commence the investigation of the case $ithin ten (!#) days from receipt of
the same/
C7 7 7
7Sec. 2. Evaluation / :ithin t$enty (#) days from receipt of the complaint and ans$er, the *nvestigating
1uthority shall determine $hether there is a prima facie case to $arrant the institution of formal
administrative proceedings/C
:hen an administrative complaint is therefore filed, the 'isciplining 1uthority shall issue an order reFuiring
the respondent to submit his verified ans$er $ithin fifteen (!D) days from notice/ (pon filing of the ans$er,
the 'isciplining 1uthority shall refer the case to the *nvestigating 1uthority for investigation/
*n the case at bar, petitioner claims that the '*,. Secretary usurped the po$er of the &resident $hen he
reFuired petitioner to ans$er the complaint/ (ndisputably, the letter9complaint $as filed $ith the Office of the
&resident but it $as the '*,. Secretary $ho ordered petitioner to ans$er/
Strictly applying the rules, the Office of the &resident did not comply $ith the provisions of 1/O/ +o/ 8/ The
Office should have first reFuired petitioner to file his ans$er/ Thereafter, the complaint and the ans$er should
have been referred to the *nvestigating 1uthority for further proceedings/ Be that as it may, this procedural
lapse is not fatal/ The filing of the ans$er is necessary merely to enable the &resident to ma6e a preliminary
assessment of the case/
3
The &resident found the complaint sufficient in form and substance to $arrant its
further investigation/ The judgment of the &resident on the matter is entitled to respect in the absence of
grave abuse of discretion/
***
*n his third assigned error, petitioner also claims that the '*,. erred in declaring him in default for filing a
motion to dismiss/ ;e alleges that a motion to dismiss is not a pleading prohibited by the la$ or the rules and
therefore the '*,. Secretary should have considered it and given him time to file his ans$er/
*t is true that a motion to dismiss is not a pleading prohibited under the ,ocal .overnment )ode of !""! nor
in 1/O/ +o/ 8/ &etitioner, ho$ever, $as instructed not to file a motion to dismiss in the order to file ans$er/
Thrice, he reFuested for e7tension of time to file his ans$er citing as reasons the search for competent
counsel and the demands of his official duties/ 1nd thrice, his reFuests $ere granted/ Even the order of default
$as reconsidered and petitioner $as given additional time to file ans$er/ 1fter all the reFuests and seven
months later, he filed a motion to dismissQ
&etitioner should 6no$ that the formal investigation of the case is reFuired by la$ to be finished $ithin one
hundred t$enty (!#) days from the time of formal notice to the respondent/ The e7tensions petitioner
reFuested consumed fifty9five (DD) days of this period/
38
&etitioner, in fact, filed his ans$er nine (") months
after the first notice/ *ndeed, this $as more than sufficient time for petitioner to comply $ith the order to file
ans$er/
The speedy disposition of administrative complaints is reFuired by public service/ The efficiency of officials
under investigation is impaired $hen a case hangs over their heads/ Officials deserve to be cleared
e7peditiously if they are innocent, also e7peditiously if guilty, so that the business of government $ill not be
prejudiced/
34
*?
*n vie$ of petitioner<s ine7cusable failure to file ans$er, the '*,. did not err in recommending to the
'isciplining 1uthority his preventive suspension during the investigation/ &reventive suspension is authori=ed
under Section 38 of the ,ocal .overnment )ode, vi=%
CSec. ,2. Preventive Suspension/99 (a) &reventive suspension may be imposed%
(!) By the &resident, if the respondent is an elective official of a province, a highly
urbani=ed or an independent component cityB
7 7 7/
(b) &reventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, $hen the evidence of guilt
is strong, and given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the continuance in office of the
respondent could influence the $itnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other
evidenceB &rovided, That, any single preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not e7tend beyond
si7ty (3#) days% &rovided, further, That in the event that several administrative cases are filed against an
elective official, he cannot be preventively suspended for more than ninety ("#) days $ithin a single year on
the same ground or grounds e7isting and 6no$n at the time of the first suspension/
7 7 7/C
*n sum, preventive suspension may be imposed by the 'isciplining 1uthority at any time (a) after the issues
are joinedB (b) $hen the evidence of guilt is strongB and (c) given the gravity of the offense, there is great
probability that the respondent, $ho continues to hold office, could influence the $itnesses or pose a threat to
the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence/
E7ecutive Secretary Torres, on behalf of the &resident, imposed preventive suspension on petitioner Eoson
after finding that%
C7 7 7
'*,. Secretary Robert M/ Barbers, in a memorandum for the &resident, dated 8 Eune !""0, recommends
that respondent be placed under preventive suspension considering that all the reFuisites to justify the same
are present/ ;e stated therein that%
<&reventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, that is,
after respondent has ans$ered the complaint, $hen the evidence of guilt is strong and,
given the gravity of the offense, there is a great possibility that the continuance in office of
the respondent could influence the $itnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of
the records and other evidence (Sec/ 8, Rule 3 of 1dministrative Order +o/ 8)/
The failure of respondent to file his ans$er despite several opportunities given him is
construed as a $aiver of his right to present evidence in his behalf (Sec/ 4, Rule 4 of
1dministrative Order +o/ 8)/ The reFuisite of joinder of issues is sFuarely met $ith
respondent<s $aiver of right to submit his ans$er/ The act of respondent in allegedly
barging violently into the session hall of the Sangguniang &anlala$igan in the company of
armed men constitutes grave misconduct/ The allegations of complainants are bolstered by
the joint9affidavit of t$o () employees of the Sangguniang &anlala$igan/ Respondent $ho
is the chief e7ecutive of the province is in a position to influence the $itnesses/ -urther,
the history of violent confrontational politics in the province dictates that e7treme
precautionary measures be ta6en/<
(pon scrutiny of the records and the facts and circumstances attendant to this case, $e concur $ith the
findings of the Secretary of the *nterior and ,ocal .overnment and find merit in the aforesaid
recommendation/
:;ERE-ORE, and as recommended by the 'epartment of the *nterior and ,ocal .overnment, respondent
E'(1R'O +/ EOSO+, .overnor of +ueva Ecija, is hereby placed under &RE?E+T*?E S(S&E+S*O+ -OR 1
&ER*O' O- S*LT> (3#) '1>S, effective !! Euly !""0, pending investigation of the charges filed against him/
SO OR'ERE'/C
3D
E7ecutive Secretary Torres found that all the reFuisites for the imposition of preventive suspension had been
complied $ith/ &etitioner<s failure to file his ans$er despite several opportunities given him $as construed as a
$aiver of his right to file ans$er and present evidenceB and as a result of this $aiver, the issues $ere deemed
to have been joined/ The E7ecutive Secretary also found that the evidence of petitioner Eoson<s guilt $as
strong and that his continuance in office during the pendency of the case could influence the $itnesses and
pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the evidence against him/
?
:e no$ come to the validity of the Eanuary 2, !""2 Resolution of the E7ecutive Secretary finding petitioner
guilty as charged and imposing on him the penalty of suspension from office for si7 (3) months from office
$ithout pay/
&etitioner claims that the suspension $as made $ithout formal investigation pursuant to the provisions of Rule
0 of 1/O/ +o/ 8/ &etitioner filed a CAotion To )onduct -ormal *nvestigationC three months before the issuance
of the order of suspension and this motion $as denied by the '*,. for the follo$ing reasons%
COn +ovember !", !""0, complainants, through counsel, filed a Aanifestation calling our attention to
the 'ecision dated October 4, !""0 of the )ourt of 1ppeals, -ifth 'ivision in )19./R/ S& +o/ 443"4,
entitled CEduardo +onato Eoson versus E7ecutive Secretary Ruben '/ Torres, et. al/C *n the
aforestated decision, the )ourt of 1ppeals resolved to sustain the authority of this 'epartment to
investigate this administrative case and has li6e$ise validated the order of default as $ell as the
order of preventive suspension of the respondent/
:e offer no objection and concur $ith the assertion of respondent that he has the right for the
conduct of formal investigation/ ;o$ever, before there shall be a formal investigation, joinder of
issues must already be present or respondent<s ans$er has already been filed/ *n the case at bar, the
admission of respondent<s ans$er after having been declared in default $as conditioned on the fact
of submission of position papers by the parties, after $hich, the case shall be deemed submitted for
resolution/ Respondent, instead of submitting his position paper filed his subject motion $hile
complainants manifested to forego the submission of position paper and submit the case for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings on hand/
Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are
not strictly applied ()oncerned Officials of the Aetropolitan :ater$or6s and Se$erage System v/
?asFue=, 4# S)R1 D#)/ The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to
be heard and to submit evidence one may have in support of one<s defense (Tajonera v/ ,amaro=a,
!!# S)R1 482)/ To be heard does not only mean verbal arguments in courtB one may be heard also
through pleadings/ :here opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is
accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process (Euanita >/ Say, et. alB/ v. *1), ./R/ +o/
084D!)/ Thus, $hen respondent failed to submit his position paper as directed and insisted for the
conduct of formal investigation, he $as not denied of his right of procedural process/
:;ERE-ORE, the Aotion for the )onduct of -ormal *nvestigation, for lac6 of merit, is 'E+*E'/
SO OR'ERE'/C
33
The denial of petitioner<s Aotion to )onduct -ormal *nvestigation is erroneous/ &etitioner<s right to a formal
investigation is spelled out in the follo$ing provisions of 1/O/ +o/ 8, vi=%
CSEC. 2 Evaluation. :ithin t$enty (#) days from receipt of the complaint and ans$er, the
*nvestigating 1uthority shall determine $hether there is a prima facie case to $arrant the institution
of formal administrative proceedings/
SEC. 3. 'ismissal motu proprio. *f the *nvestigating 1uthority determines that there is no prima
facie case to $arrant the institution of formal administrative proceedings, it shall, $ithin the same
period prescribed under the preceding Section, submit its recommendation to the 'isciplining
1uthority for the motu propriodismissal of the case, together $ith the recommended decision,
resolution, and order/
SEC. 8. Preliminary conference. *f the *nvestigating 1uthority determines that there is prima
facie case to $arrant the institution of formal administrative proceedings, it shall, $ithin the same
period prescribed under the preceding Section, summon the parties to a preliminary conference to
consider the follo$ing%
a) $hether the parties desire a formal investigation or are $illing to submit the case for
resolution on the basis of the evidence on recordB and
b) *f the parties desire a formal investigation, to consider the simplification of issues, the
possibility of obtaining stipulation or admission of facts and of documents, specifically
affidavits and depositions, to avoid unnecessary proof, the limitation of number of
$itnesses, and such other matters as may be aid the prompt disposition of the case/
The *nvestigating 1uthority shall encourage the parties and their counsels to enter, at any stage of
the proceedings, into amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration, the terms and conditions of
$hich shall be subject to the approval of the 'isciplining 1uthority/
1fter the preliminary conference, the *nvestigating 1uthority shall issue an order reciting the matters
ta6en up thereon, including the facts stipulated and the evidences mar6ed, if any/ Such order shall
limit the issues for hearing to those not disposed of by agreement or admission of the parties, and
shall schedule the formal investigation $ithin ten (!#) days from its issuance, unless a later date is
mutually agreed in $riting by the parties concerned/C
30
The records sho$ that on 1ugust 0, !""0, petitioner submitted his 1ns$er $d Cautelam $here he disputed
the truth of the allegations that he barged into the session hall of the capitol and committed physical violence
to harass the private respondents $ho $ere opposed to any move for the province to contract a &!D# million
loan from &+B/ *n his Order of October 2, !""0, (ndersecretary Sanche= admitted petitioner<s 1ns$er $d
Cautelam but treated it as a position paper/ On October !D, !""0, petitioner filed a Aotion to )onduct -ormal
*nvestigation/ &etitioner reiterated this motion on October ", !""0/ &etitioner<s motion $as denied on
+ovember !!, !""0/ Secretary Barbers found petitioner guilty as charged on the basis of the parties< position
papers/ On Eanuary 2, !""2, E7ecutive Secretary Torres adopted Secretary Barbers< findings and
recommendations and imposed on petitioner the penalty of si7 (3) months suspension $ithout pay/
The rejection of petitioner<s right to a formal investigation denied him procedural due process/ Section D of 1/
O/ +o/ 8 provides that at the preliminary conference, the *nvestigating 1uthority shall summon the parties to
consider $hether they desire a formal investigation/ This provision does not give the *nvestigating 1uthority
the discretion to determine $hether a formal investigation $ould be conducted/ The records sho$ that
petitioner filed a motion for formal investigation/ 1s respondent, he is accorded several rights under the la$,
to $it%
CSec/ 3D/ Rights of Respondent/ 99 The respondent shall be accorded full opportunity to appear and
defend himself in person or by counsel, to confront and cross9e7amine the $itnesses against him,
and to reFuire the attendance of $itnesses and the production of documentary evidence in his favor
through compulsory process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum/C
1n erring elective local official has rights a6in to the constitutional rights of an accused/
32
These rights are
essentially part of procedural due process/
3"
The local elective official has the (!) right to appear and defend
himself in person or by counselB () the right to confront and cross9e7amine the $itnesses against himB and
(8) the right to compulsory attendance of $itness and the production of documentary evidence/ These rights
are reiterated in the Rules *mplementing the ,ocal .overnment )ode
0#
and in 1/O/ +o/ 8/
0!
:ell to note,
petitioner formally claimed his right to a formal investigation after his 1ns$er $d Cautelam has been admitted
by (ndersecretary Sanche=/
&etitioner<s right to a formal investigation $as not satisfied $hen the complaint against him $as decided on
the basis of position papers/ There is nothing in the ,ocal .overnment )ode and its *mplementing Rules and
Regulations nor in 1/O/ +o/ 8 that provide that administrative cases against elective local officials can be
decided on the basis of position papers/ 1/O/ +o/ 8 states that the *nvestigating 1uthority may reFuire the
parties to submit their respective memoranda but this is only after formal investigation and hearing/
0
1/O/
+o/ 8 does not authori=e the *nvestigating 1uthority to dispense $ith a hearing especially in cases involving
allegations of fact $hich are not only in contrast but contradictory to each other/ These contradictions are best
settled by allo$ing the e7amination and cross9e7amination of $itnesses/ &osition papers are often9times
prepared $ith the assistance of la$yers and their artful preparation can ma6e the discovery of truth difficult/
The jurisprudence cited by the '*,. in its order denying petitioner<s motion for a formal investigation applies
to appointive officials and employees/ 1dministrative disciplinary proceedings against elective government
officials are not e7actly similar to those against .77o1/215e officials/ *n fact, the provisions that apply to
elective local officials are separate and distinct from appointive government officers and employees/ This can
be gleaned from the ,ocal .overnment )ode itself/
*n the ,ocal .overnment )ode, the entire Title ** of Boo6 * of the )ode is devoted to e4ec215e officials/ *t
provides for their Fualifications and election,
08
vacancies and succession,
04
local legislation,
0D
disciplinary
actions,
03
and recall/
00
A77o1/215e officers and employees are covered in Title *** of Boo6 * of the )ode entitled
C;uman Resources and 'evelopment/C 1ll matters pertinent to human resources and development in local
government units are regulated by Cthe civil service la$ and such rules and regulations and other issuances
promulgated thereto, unless other$ise provided in the )ode/C
02
The Cinvestigation and adjudication of
administrative complaints against appointive local officials and employees as $ell as their suspension and
removalC are Cin accordance $ith the civil service la$ and rules and other pertinent la$s,C the results of $hich
Cshall be reported to the )ivil Service )ommission/C
0"
*t is the 1dministrative )ode of !"20, specifically Boo6 ? on the )ivil Service, that primarily governs
appointive officials and employees/ Their Fualifications are set forth in the Omnibus Rules *mplementing Boo6
? of the said )ode/ The grounds for administrative disciplinary action in Boo6 ? are much more in number and
are specific than those enumerated in the ,ocal .overnment )ode against elective local officials/
2#
The
disciplining authority in such actions is the )ivil Service )ommission
2!
although the Secretaries and heads of
agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities are also given the po$er to investigate and
decide disciplinary actions against officers and employees under their jurisdiction/
2
:hen a complaint is filed
and the respondent ans$ers, he must Cindicate $hether or not he elects a formal investigation if his ans$er is
not considered satisfactory/C
28
*f the officer or employee elects a formal investigation, the direct evidence for
the complainant and the respondent CconsistIsJ of the s$orn statement and documents submitted in support
of the complaint and ans$er, as the case may be, $ithout prejudice to the presentation of additional evidence
deemed necessary 7 7 7, upon $hich the cross9e7amination by respondent and the complainant, respectively,
is based/C
24
The investigation is conducted $ithout adhering to the technical rules applicable in judicial
proceedings/C
2D
Aoreover, the appointive official or employee may be removed or dismissed summarily if (!)
the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strongB () $hen the respondent is a recidivistB and (8) $hen
the respondent is notoriously undesirable/
23
The provisions for administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials are mar6edly different from
appointive officials/
20
The rules on the removal and suspension of elective local officials are more stringent/
The procedure of reFuiring position papers in lieu of a hearing in administrative cases is e7pressly allo$ed $ith
respect to appointive officials but not to those elected/ 1n elective official, elected by popular vote, is directly
responsible to the community that elected him/ The official has a definite term of office fi7ed by la$ $hich is
relatively of short duration/ Suspension and removal from office definitely affects and shortens this term of
office/ :hen an elective official is suspended or removed, the people are deprived of the services of the man
they had elected/ *mplicit in the right of suffrage is that the people are entitled to the services of the elective
official of their choice/
22
Suspension and removal are thus imposed only after the elective official is accorded
his rights and the evidence against him strongly dictates their imposition/
-N ,-EE E?ERE), the Resolution of Eanuary 2, !""2 of the public respondent E7ecutive Secretary is
declared null and void and is set aside/ +o )ost/
S RDERED.
[G.R. No. 13DCD3. A:=:s2 2, 2001]
ESTE$-T ,. RE!$NA, Petitioner, vs. )*?*, SER?*)E )OAA*SS*O+, respondent/
' E ) * S * O +
&(+O, J/%
The present petition see6s to revie$ and set aside the 'ecision rendered by the )ourt of 1ppeals dated Euly
8!, !""2 I! upholding the decision of the )ivil Service )ommission $hich ordered the dismissal of petitioner
Estelito ?/ Remolona (Remolona) from the government service for dishonesty, and the Resolution dated
-ebruary D, !""" Idenying petitioner<s motion for reconsideration/
Records sho$ that petitioner Estelito ?/ Remolona is the &ostmaster at the &ostal Office Service in *nfanta,
Nue=on, $hile his $ife +ery Remolona is a teacher at the 5iborosa Elementary School/
*n a letter I8 dated Eanuary 8, !""!, -rancisco R/ 1merica, 'istrict Supervisor of the 'epartment of
Education, )ulture P Sports at *nfanta, Nue=on, inFuired from the )ivil Service )ommission ()S)) as to the
status of the civil service eligibility of Ars/ Remolona $ho purportedly got a rating of 2!/DK as per Report of
Rating issued by the +ational Board for Teachers/ I4 Ar/ 1merica li6e$ise disclosed that he received
information that Ars/ Remolona $as campaigning for a fee of &2,###/## per e7aminee for a passing mar6 in
the teacher<s board e7aminations/
On -ebruary !!, !""!, then )S) )hairman &atricia 1/ Sto/ Tomas issued an Order directing )S) Region *?
'irector Bella 1milhasan to conduct an investigation on Ars/ Remolona<s eligibility, after verification from the
Register of Eligibles in the Office for )entral &ersonnel Records revealed Cthat Remolona<s name is not in the
list of passing and failing e7aminees, and that the list of e7aminees for 'ecember !#, !"2" does not include
the name of Remolona/ -urthermore, E7amination +o/ #3!2D as indicated in her report of rating belongs to a
certain Aarlou )/ Aadelo, $ho too6 the e7amination in )agayan de Oro and got a rating of 3D/##K/C ID
'uring the preliminary investigation conducted by Eaime ./ &asion, 'irector **, )ivil Service -ield Office,
,ucena )ity, Nue=on, only petitioner Remolona appeared/ ;e signed a $ritten statement of facts I3 regarding
the issuance of the Fuestioned Report of Rating of Ars/ Remolona, $hich is summari=ed in the
Aemorandum I0 submitted by 'irector &asion as follo$s%
C8/! That sometime in the first $ee6 of September, !""#, $hile riding in a 5apalaran Transit Bus from Sta/
)ru=, ,aguna on his $ay to San &ablo )ity, he met one 1tty/ ;adji Salupadin (this is ho$ it sounded) $ho
happened to be sitting beside himB
8/ That a conversation bro6e out bet$een them until he $as able to confide his problem to 1tty/ Salupadin
about his $ife having difficulty in acFuiring an eligibilityB
8/8 That 1tty/ Salupadin $ho represented himself as $or6ing at the Batasan, offered his help for a fee
of &8,###/##B
8/4 That the follo$ing day they met at the Batasan $here he gave the amount of &,###/##, reFuirements,
application form and picture of his $ifeB
8/D That the follo$ing $ee6, Thursday, at around !%## &/A/, they met again at the Batasan $here he handed
to 1tty/ Salupadin the amount of &!,###/## plus &D##/## bonus $ho in turn handed to him the Report of
Rating of one +ery )/ Remolona $ith a passing grade, then they partedB
8/3 That sometime in the last $ee6 of September, he sho$ed the Report of Rating to the 'istrict Supervisor,
-rancisco 1merica $ho informed her (sic) that there $as no vacancyB
8/0 That he $ent to ,ucena )ity and complained to 'r/ Aagsino in $riting 7 7 7 that Ar/ 1merica is as6ing for
money in e7change for the appointment of his $ife but failed to ma6e good his promise/ ;e attached the
corroborating affidavits of Aesdames )armelinda &radillada and Rosemarie &/ Romantico and +ery )/
Remolona 7 7 7B
8/2 That from !"23 to !"22, Ar/ 1merica $as able to get si7 (3) chec6s at &,3##/## each plus bonus of +ery
)/ RemolonaB
8/" That Ar/ 1merica got mad at them/ 1nd $hen he felt that Ar/ 1merica $ould verify the authenticity of his
$ife<s Report of Rating, he burned the original/C
-urthermore, Remolona admitted that he $as responsible in acFuiring the alleged fa6e eligibility, that his $ife
has no 6no$ledge thereof, and that he did it because he $anted them to be together/ Based on the foregoing,
'irector &asion recommended the filing of the appropriate administrative action against Remolona but
absolved Ars/ +ery Remolona from any liability since it has not been sho$n that she $illfully participated in
the commission of the offense/
)onseFuently, a -ormal )harge dated 1pril 3, !""8 $as filed against petitioner Remolona, +ery )/ Remolona,
and 1tty/ ;adji Salupadin for possession of fa6e eligibility, falsification and dishonesty/ I2 1 formal hearing
ensued $herein the parties presented their respective evidence/ Thereafter, )S) Regional 'irector Bella 1/
1milhasan issued a Aemorandum dated -ebruary !4, !""D I" recommending that the spouses Estelito and
+ery Remolona be found guilty as charged and be meted the corresponding penalty/
Said recommendation $as adopted by the )S) $hich issued Resolution +o/ "D9"#2 on 1pril #, !""D, finding
the spouses Estelito and +ery Remolona guilty of dishonesty and imposing the penalty of dismissal and all its
accessory penalties/ The case against 1tty/ ;adji Salupadin $as held in abeyance pending proof of his
identity/ I!# *n its Resolution +o/ "3DD!# I!! dated 1ugust 0, !""3, the )S), acting on the motion for
reconsideration filed by the spouses Remolona, absolved +ery Remolona from liability and held that%
C-urther, a revie$ of the records and of the arguments presented fails to persuade this )ommission to
reconsider its earlier resolution insofar as Estelito Remolona<s culpability is concerned/ The evidence is
substantial enough to effect his conviction/ ;is act of securing a fa6e eligibility for his $ife is proved by
substantial evidence/ ;o$ever, in the case of +ery Remolona, the )ommission finds her innocent of the
offense charged, for there is no evidence to sho$ that she has used the fa6e eligibility to support an
appointment or promotion/ *n fact, +ery Remolona did not indicate in her &ersonal 'ata Sheet that she
possesses any eligibility/ *t must be pointed out that it $as her husband $ho unilaterally $or6ed to secure a
fa6e eligibility for her/
:;ERE-ORE, the instant Aotion for Reconsideration is hereby denied insofar as respondent Estelito Remolona
is concerned/ ;o$ever, Resolution +o/ "D9"#2 is modified in the sense that respondent +ery Remolona is
e7onerated of the charges/ 1ccordingly, +ery Remolona is automatically reinstated to her former position as
Teacher $ith bac6 salaries and other benefits/C
On appeal, the )ourt of 1ppeals rendered its Fuestioned decision dismissing the petition for revie$ filed by
herein petitioner Remolona/ ;is motion for reconsideration and@or ne$ trial $as li6e$ise denied/ ;ence, this
petition for revie$/
&etitioner submits that the )ourt of 1ppeals erred%
!/ in denying petitioner<s motion for ne$ trialB
/ in holding that petitioner is liable for dishonestyB and
8/ in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner for an offense not $or6 connected in relation to his official
position in the government service/
The main issue posed for resolution is $hether a civil service employee can be dismissed from the government
service for an offense $hich is not $or69related or $hich is not connected $ith the performance of his official
duty/ Remolona li6e$ise imputes a violation of his right to due process during the preliminary investigation
because he $as not assisted by counsel/ ;e claims that the e7tra9judicial admission allegedly signed by him is
inadmissible because he $as merely made to sign a blan6 form/ ;e also avers that his motion for ne$ trial
should be granted on the ground that the transcript of stenographic notes ta6en during the hearing of the
case before the Regional Office of the )S) $as not for$arded to the )ourt of 1ppeals/ -inally, he pleads that
the penalty of dismissal $ith forfeiture of all benefits is too harsh considering the nature of the offense for
$hich he $as convicted, the length of his service in government, that this is his first offense, and the fact that
no damage $as caused to the government/
The submission of Remolona that his alleged e7trajudicial confession is inadmissible because he $as not
assisted by counsel during the investigation as reFuired under Section ! paragraphs ! and 8, 1rticle *** of
the !"20 )onstitution deserves scant consideration
The right to counsel under Section ! of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case
under custodial investigation/ )ustodial investigation is the stage $here the police investigation is no longer a
general inFuiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect $ho had been ta6en into
custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements/
*t is $hen Fuestions are initiated by la$ enforcement officers after a person has been ta6en into custody or
other$ise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant $ay/ The right to counsel attaches only upon the
start of such investigation/ Therefore, the e7clusionary rule under paragraph (), Section ! of the Bill of
Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative
investigation/ I!
:hile investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be a6in to a criminal proceeding, the
fact remains that under e7isting la$s, a party in an administrative inFuiry may or may not be assisted by
counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent<s capacity to represent himself, and
no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated $ith counsel/ *n an administrative
proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not/ This is clear from the
provisions of Section 8, 1rticle ?** of Republic 1ct +o/ 3# (other$ise 6no$n as the )ivil Service 1ct) and
Section 8", paragraph , Rule L*? (on discipline) of the Omnibus Rules *mplementing Boo6 ? of E7ecutive
Order +o/ " (other$ise 6no$n as the 1dministrative )ode of !"20)/ Thus, the right to counsel is not al$ays
imperative in administrative investigations because such inFuiries are conducted merely to determine $hether
there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees, $ith the purpose
of maintaining the dignity of government service/ 1s such, the hearing conducted by the investigating
authority is not part of a criminal prosecution/ I!8
*n the case at bar, Remolona $as not accused of any crime in the investigation conducted by the )S) field
office/ The investigation $as conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and $hether there is a prima
facie evidence sufficient to form a belief that an offense cogni=able by the )S) has been committed and that
Remolona is probably guilty thereof and should be administratively charged/ &erforce, the admissions made by
Remolona during such investigation may be used as evidence to justify his dismissal/
The contention of Remolona that he never e7ecuted an e7tra9judicial admission and that he merely signed a
blan6 form cannot be given credence/ Remolona occupies a high position in government as &ostmaster at
*nfanta, Nue=on and, as such, he is e7pected to be circumspect in his actions specially $here he is being
administratively charged $ith a grave offense $hich carries the penalty of dismissal from service/
Remolona insists that his dismissal is a violation of his right to due process under Section (8), 1rticle L* (B)
of the )onstitution $hich provides that no officer or employee in the )ivil Service shall be removed or
suspended e7cept for cause/ 1lthough the offense of dishonesty is punishable under the )ivil Service la$,
Remolona opines that such act must have been committed in the performance of his function and duty as
&ostmaster/ )onsidering that the charge of dishonesty involves the falsification of the certificate of rating of
his $ife +ery Remolona, the same has no bearing on his office and hence, he is deemed not to have been
dismissed for cause/ This proposition is untenable/
*t cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense
under Section 8, Rule L*? of the Rules *mplementing Boo6 ? of E7ecutive Order +o/ "/ 1nd the rule is that
dishonesty, in order to $arrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by
the person charged/ The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is
guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected $ith his office,
they affect his right to continue in office/ The .overnment cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official,
even if he performs his duties correctly and $ell, because by reason of his government position, he is given
more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fello$ men, even against offices and
entities of the government other than the office $here he is employedB and by reason of his office, he enjoys
and possesses a certain influence and po$er $hich renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression
and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations/ The private
life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life/ 'ishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of
the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service/ I!4
The principle is that $hen an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of
such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the publics faith
and confidence in the government/ I!D
The general rule is that $here the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by substantial
evidence, such findings are accorded not only respect but also finality, and are binding on this )ourt/ I!3 *t is
not for the revie$ing court to $eigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of $itnesses, or
other$ise substitute its o$n judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of
evidence/ I!0 Thus, $hen confronted $ith conflicting versions of factual matters, it is for the administrative
agency concerned in the e7ercise of discretion to determine $hich party deserves credence on the basis of the
evidence received/ I!2 The rule, therefore, is that courts of justice $ill not generally interfere $ith purely
administrative matters $hich are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies unless there is a
clear sho$ing that the latter acted arbitrarily or $ith grave abuse of discretion or $hen they have acted in a
capricious and $himsical manner such that their action may amount to an e7cess of jurisdiction/ I!"
:e have carefully scrutini=ed the records of the case belo$ and $e find no compelling reason to deviate from
the findings of the )S) and the )ourt of 1ppeals/ The $ritten admission of Remolona is replete $ith details
that could have been 6no$n only to him/ +o ill9motive or bad faith $as ever imputed to 'irector &asion $ho
conducted the investigation/ The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed remains
unrebutted/
The transmittal of the transcript of stenographic notes ta6en during the formal hearing before the )S) is
entirely a matter of discretion on the part of the )ourt of 1ppeals/ Revised 1dministrative )ircular +o/ !9"D of
this )ourt clearly states that in resolving appeals from Fuasi9judicial agencies, it is $ithin the discretion of the
)ourt of 1ppeals to have the original records of the proceedings under revie$ transmitted to it/ I# ?erily, the
)ourt of 1ppeals decided the merits of the case on the bases of the uncontroverted facts and admissions
contained in the pleadings filed by the parties/
:e li6e$ise find no merit in the contention of Remolona that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh considering
that there $as no damage caused to the government since the certificate of rating $as never used to get an
appointment for his $ife, +ery Remolona/ 1lthough no pecuniary damage $as incurred by the government,
there $as still falsification of an official document that constitutes gross dishonesty $hich cannot be
countenanced, considering that he $as an accountable officer and occupied a sensitive position/ I! The )ode
of )onduct and Ethical Standards for &ublic Officials and Employees enunciates the State policy of promoting a
high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service/ I
E?ERE)RE, the decision appealed from is hereby 1--*RAE' in toto/
SO OR'ERE'/
G.R. No. 150CC3 : *./:.r8 20, 2006
S"$,-A <EREB, Petitioner, v/ <E<$E ) T?E <?-$-<<-NES, Respondent.
' E ) * S * O +
CAR<-, J.:
The )ase
Before the )ourt is a petition for revie$
!
assailing the 'ecision

promulgated on !3 October ##! in )19./R/

)R +o/ #24D/ The )ourt of 1ppeals dismissed the appeal from the 'ecision of the Regional Trial )ourt of
&asig )ity, Branch 30 (Ctrial courtC) in )riminal )ase +o/ !#0#0# finding Sylvia &ere= (C&ere=C) guilty of the
crime of estafa under paragraph !(b), 1rticle 8!D of the Revised &enal )ode/
The )harge
&ere= $as the 1ccounts Receivable and Recording )ler6 of Storc6 &roducts, *nc/ (CStorc6C) from !"24 to !""8/
On !0 October !""4, 1ssistant &rovincial &rosecutor )hristopher )/ .arvida filed an *nformation
8
against &ere=
for violation of paragraph !(b), 1rticle 8!D of the Revised &enal )ode/ On 3 October !""D, State &rosecutor
Raymunda 1/ )ru=91polo amended the *nformation, as follo$s%cra%nad
The undersigned State &rosecutor, accuses Sylvia &ere= of the crime of estafa, penali=ed under article 8!D,
par/ !(b) of the Revised &enal )ode, committed as follo$s%cra%nad
Sometime and during the period in October !""# to September !""8, &asig )ity, and $ithin the jurisdiction of
this ;onorable )ourt, the accused, being then employed as accounts receivable and recording cler6 of Storc6
&roducts, *nc/, and as such having received in cash the amount of &!42,!3#/8D aIsJ collection from the
company<s salesmen, $ith the e7press obligation on the part of the said accused to immediately turn over and
remit said &!42,!3#/8D, and the accused, once in possession of the said amount, $ith intent to defraud said
Storc6 &roducts, *nc/, $ith unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, did then and there $illfully, unla$fully and
feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert the same to her o$n personal use and benefit, and despite
demands to turn over and remit the said amount of &!42,!3#/8D, she failed and refused, to the damage and
prejudice of Storc6 &roducts, *nc/ in the total amount of &!42,!3#/8D, &hilippine currency/
)ontrary to ,a$/
4
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
(pon arraignment, &ere= entered a plea of not guilty and $aived the pre9trial proceedings/
The Evidence for the &rosecution
The prosecution<s evidence consists of the testimonies of Storc6<s +ational Sales Aanager Ricardo Barreto
(CBarretoC), Storc6<s ;ead of the 1uditing 'epartment Eulita ?entonilla (C?entonillaC), Storc6<s )ashier and
1ssistant Treasurer Estrella Santiago (CSantiagoC), and Storc6<s salesman Eessie Sincero
D
(CSinceroC)/
Sometime in September !""8, Barreto learned that &ere= failed to turn over to Storc6<s treasurer cash
collections amounting to &!42,!3#/8D/ ;e confronted &ere= $ho admitted that she used the money Cfor her
intention/C ,ater, Barreto received a promissory note from &ere=<s husband
3
reFuesting that Storc6 allo$ &ere=
to return the money on installment/ Barreto advised &ere= and her husband to e7ecute an affidavit of
underta6ing that she $ould return the money to Storc6/ &ere= and her husband e7ecuted an affidavit of
underta6ing in 'ecember !""8/ ;o$ever, the affidavit $as not notari=ed $hen &ere= gave the affidavit to
Barreto/ Barreto returned the affidavit to &ere= for notari=ation/ 1fter a month, &ere= submitted the notari=ed
affidavit of underta6ing to Barreto/
0
&ere= also paid&#,###/## as initial payment/ ;o$ever, &ere= did not
ma6e any further payment prompting Storc6 to file the criminal complaint for estafa against &ere=/
?entonilla $as responsible for auditing the employees< accountabilities/ (nder Storc6<s company procedure, a
salesman $ho collects a chec6 from a customer gives the chec6 to the treasurer for deposit/ *f the chec6
bounces, the treasurer returns it to the salesman for replacement $ith another chec6 or $ith cash/ 1
salesman turns over the cash replacement to the accounts receivable cler6 $ho notes on the customer<s
ledger the date of receipt of the cash replacement/ The accounts receivable cler6 then turns over the cash
replacement to the treasurer/
Santiago $as responsible for receiving remittances/ The salesmen $ould directly remit to Santiago initial cash
payments from customers/ Santiago did not record these remittances on the accounting ledger/ ;o$ever, the
salesmen did not remit to Santiago cash replacements of bounced chec6s/ The salesmen remitted cash
replacements to &ere= $ho $ould then turn over the cash replacements to Santiago/ Every time &ere=
remitted cash replacements to Santiago, Santiago $ould sign on the accounting ledger/
Sincero $as one of Storc6<s salesmen/ *f a customer<s chec6 bounces, the chec6 is returned for replacement
either $ith cash or $ith another chec6/ )ash replacements $ere remitted to &ere=/ :hen a salesman remitted
a cash replacement to &ere=, she $as supposed to record the cash replacement on the remittance slip and
turn over the cash to Santiago/
The Evidence for the 'efense
&ere= testified as her o$n lone $itness/
&ere= $as responsible for the account receivables of the accounting department/ *t $as her duty to record on
the accounting ledger the sales reports for$arded by the salesmen/ Every time &ere= received a sales report,
she $ould post the report on the accounting ledger of the customer/ &ere= $ould then submit the accounting
ledger to the sales manager/ &ere= $ould also return a bounced chec6 to the salesman $ho in turn $ould
return it to the customer for replacement $ith another chec6 or its cash value/
&ere= testified that once the customer issued a cash replacement, the salesman $ould get the accounting
ledger from her/ She $ould record the cash replacement and give the accounting ledger to the salesman/ The
salesman then $ould turn over the cash replacement to the cashier or the treasurer/ The cashier $ould sign
the accounting ledger as proof of receipt of the cash replacement/ The salesman $ould then return the
accounting ledger to &ere=/ ;o$ever, sometimes, it $ould ta6e days before the salesman $ould return the
accounting ledger to &ere=/ (pon receipt of the accounting ledger, &ere= $ould verify if the cashier had
initialed the accounting ledger/ Sometimes, the cashier<s signature does not appear on the accounting ledger/
&ere= testified that she sa$ for the first time during the trial the affidavit of underta6ing she and her husband
supposedly signed/ ;o$ever, &ere= claimed she signed another document handed to her by Barreto, not the
affidavit of underta6ing/ &ere= could not remember the contents of the original document she signed/ &ere=
denied appearing before the notary public $ho notari=ed the affidavit of underta6ing/ &ere= admitted that the
community ta7 certificates indicated in the affidavit belonged to her and her husband/
&ere= further stated that her husband $as forced to e7ecute the promissory note so Storc6 $ould not
terminate her employment/ -or the same reason, she paid the initial &#,###/ ;o$ever, Storc6 still
terminated her employment/
The Ruling of the Trial )ourt
*n its 'ecision
2
dated !4 1pril !""0, the trial court found &ere= guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
estafa/ ;o$ever, the trial court ruled that the amount misappropriated $as only &28,0DD/D#/ The trial court
ordered &ere= to pay Storc6 &38,0DD/D#, the balance of the amount misappropriated after deducting
the &#,### that &ere= had already paid to Storc6/ The dispositive portion of the decision reads%cra%nad
*+ ?*E: O- T;E -ORE.O*+. )O+S*'ER1T*O+S, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused S>,?*1 &EREM
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa penali=ed under 1rticle 8!D, par/ ! (b) of the Revised
&enal )ode, $ithout any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 4 years and months of prission (sic) correccional to !
years, 2 months and ! days of reclusion temporal and to indemnify complainant company Storc6 &roducts,
*nc/ in the amount of &hp38,0DD/D# as $ell as to pay the costs/
SO OR'ERE'/
"
cra
&ere= appealed to the )ourt of 1ppeals/
The 'ecision of the )ourt of 1ppeals
*n its !3 October ##! 'ecision, the )ourt of 1ppeals dismissed the appeal/ The )ourt of 1ppeals ruled that
the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that &ere= received the cash replacements from Storc6
salesmen and that she failed to turn over the money to Storc6<s treasurer/ &ere=<s failure to turn over the
money she received constituted misappropriation of the money for her o$n benefit to Storc6<s damage and
prejudice/
;ence, this petition/
The *ssues
&etitioner raises the follo$ing issues%
!/ :hether the )ourt of 1ppeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction despite the lac6 of evidence,
direct or circumstantial, that petitioner committed estafa under paragraph !(b), 1rticle 8!D of the Revised
&enal )odeB
/ :hether the )ourt of 1ppeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction despite the failure of the
prosecution to prove the first element of estafa under paragraph !(b), 1rticle 8!D of the Revised &enal )ode/
!#
*n her petition, &ere= asserts that the prosecution failed to prove that she received the money she supposedly
misappropriated/ &ere= further asserts that the trial court convicted her based on circumstantial evidence
consisting of the affidavit of underta6ing she allegedly e7ecuted/ &ere= disputes the genuineness of the
affidavit of underta6ing/ She insists that the affidavit of underta6ing presented by the prosecution $as not the
same document she signed/ She also insists that the promissory note e7ecuted by her husband should not be
interpreted as an admission of guilt/
The Ruling of this )ourt
The petition has no merit/
Elements of the Crime
&ere= is accused of committing the crime of estafa under paragraph !(b), 1rticle 8!D of the Revised &enal
)ode, $hich provides%cra%nad
1rt/ 8!D/ S!indling 9estafa:.+ 1ny person $ho shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelo$ shall be punished by%
/st. The penalty of prision correccional in its ma7imum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over !,### pesos but does not e7ceed ,### pesosB and if such amount e7ceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its ma7imum period, adding one year
for each additional !#,### pesosB but the total penalty $hich may be imposed shall not e7ceed t$enty years/
*n such cases, and in connection $ith the accessory penalties $hich may be imposed and for the purpose of
the other provisions of this )ode, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor to reclusion temporal, as the case
may beB
1nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over
3,### pesos but does not e7ceed !,### pesosB
2rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its ma7imum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such
amount is over ## pesos but does not e7ceed 3,### pesosB and
3th. By arresto mayor in its medium and ma7imum periods, if such amount does not e7ceed ## pesos,
provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the follo$ing means%
!/ :ith unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely%
(a) By altering the substance, Fuantity, or Fuality of anything of value $hich the offender shall deliver by
virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal considerationB
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal
property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to ma6e delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally
or partially guaranteed by a bondB or by denying having received such money, goods, or other propertyB
7 7 7
The elements of estafa under paragraph !(b), 1rticle 8!D of the Revised &enal )ode are%
(!) the offender receives the money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the sameB
() the offender misappropriates or converts such money or property or denies receiving such money or
propertyB
(8) the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of anotherB and
(4) the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property/
!!
*n this case, &ere= asserts that the prosecution failed to prove the first element of estafa under paragraph
!(b) of 1rticle 8!D/ &ere= insists that the prosecution has no proof that she received money from the
salesmen/
&ere=<s claim contradicts the testimonial evidence of ?entonilla, Santiago and Sincero/ ?entonilla, Santiago
and Sincero outlined the procedure for the remittance of cash replacements from customers/ They all
confirmed that the salesmen $ould turn over cash replacements of bounced chec6s to &ere=/ &ere=<s
responsibility $as to turn over the cash replacements to the treasurer/ ;o$ever, &ere= failed to turn over the
cash replacements to the treasurer/
0indings of the &rial and $ppellate Courts $re Supported by Evidence
The )ourt finds no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court and the )ourt of 1ppeals/ *t is
a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the $itnesses< credibility,
are entitled to great $eight and respect by this )ourt, particularly $hen the )ourt of 1ppeals affirm the
findings/
!
Trial courts are in the best position to assess the $itnesses< credibility and to appreciate their
truthfulness, honesty and candor/
!8
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
The )ourt finds the testimonial evidence of ?entonilla, Santiago and Sincero more credible than the
uncorroborated and self9serving testimony of &ere= that she did not receive any money from the salesmen/
-rom the testimonies of ?entonilla, Santiago and Sincero, it is clear that the salesmen deposit $ith the
treasurer the initial cash and chec6 payments they collect from Storc6<s customers/ ;o$ever, if a chec6
bounces, the customer may replace it either $ith another chec6 or $ith cash corresponding to the value of the
chec6/ The salesmen deposit chec6 replacements $ith the treasurer but give the cash replacements to the
accounts receivable cler6, $ho records the cash replacement on the customer<s ledger and turns over the
money to the treasurer/
The testimonial evidence of ?entonilla, Santiago and Sincero coupled $ith &ere= and her husband<s affidavit of
underta6ing and the promissory note of &ere=<s husband prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of
the crime of estafa/
&ere=<s testimony that she had no 6no$ledge of the affidavit of underta6ing deserves scant consideration/
&ere= confirmed that the signature on the affidavit of underta6ing $as her signature/
!4
1t the same time,
&ere= claims that the affidavit of underta6ing presented by the prosecution $as not the same document she
signed/ &ere=, ho$ever, could not produce a copy of the alleged original document/ &ere= could not even state
the contents of the document she allegedly signed/
!D
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
&ere= also alleges that her husband e7ecuted the promissory note so Storc6 $ould not terminate her
employment/
!3
;o$ever, the promissory note $as dated 0 'ecember !""8,
!0
three months after Storc6 had
terminated her employment in September !""8/
!2
&ere= belatedly filed an illegal dismissal case against Storc6
t$o years after she $as terminated/
!"
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
-inally, the )ourt finds incredible &ere=<s allegation that she paid the initial &#,### only because Barreto
insisted that she $as responsible for the amount and because she feared being terminated from
employment/
#
1gain, &ere= made the payment after her termination from employment/ -urther, it is unli6ely
that &ere= $ould pay &#,### and underta6e to pay the remaining balance if she did not really receive the
money from the salesmen/ &ere=<s flimsy e7cuse for not inFuiring ho$ Storc6 computed the
missing &!42,!3#/8D $as that she $anted to avoid any misunderstanding $ith Storc6/
!
*n short, &ere=
agreed to pay a large amount of money, although she claims she never received such money from the
salesmen, just to avoid a misunderstanding $ith her employer/ &ere=<s incredible claims only strengthen the
case against her/
&he Penalty for the Crime
(nder 1rticle 8!D of the Revised &enal )ode, if the amount e7ceeds &,###, the penalty shall be as follo$s%cra%nad
/st. The penalty of prision correccional in its ma7imum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over !,### pesos but does not e7ceed ,### pesosB and if such amount e7ceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its ma7imum period, adding one year
for each additional !#,### pesosB but the total penalty $hich may be imposed shall not e7ceed t$enty years/
7 7 7
*n this case, the amount misappropriated is &28,0DD/D#/
*n People v. .abres,

the )ourt e7plained the imposition of the minimum penalty, as follo$s%cra%nad

(nder the *ndeterminate Sentence ,a$, the ma7imum term of the penalty shall be Cthat $hich, in vie$ of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposedC under the Revised &enal )ode, and the minimum shall
be C$ithin the range of the penalty ne7t lo$er to that prescribedC for the offense/ The penalty ne7t lo$er
should be based on the penalty prescribed by the )ode for the offense, $ithout first considering any modifying
circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime/ The determination of the minimum penalty is left by
la$ to the sound discretion of the court and it can be any$here $ithin the range of the penalty ne7t lo$er
$ithout any reference to the periods into $hich it might be subdivided/ The modifying circumstances are
considered only in the imposition of the ma7imum term of the indeterminate sentence/
The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case e7ceed &,###/## should not be considered in the
initial determination of the indeterminate penaltyB instead, the matter should be so ta6en as analogous to
modifying circumstances in the imposition of the ma7imum term of the full indeterminate sentence/ This
interpretation of the la$ accords $ith the rule that penal la$s should be construed in favor of the accused/
Since the penalty prescribed by la$ for the estafa charge against accused9appellant is prision
correccional ma7imum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty ne7t lo$er $ould then be prision
correccional minimum to medium/ Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be
any$here $ithin si7 (3) months and one (!) day to four (4) years and t$o () months $hile the ma7imum
term of the indeterminate sentence should at least be si7 (3) years and one (!) day because the amounts
involved e7ceeded &,###/##, plus an additional one (!) year for each additional &!#,###/##
;ence, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be any$here $ithin 3 months and ! day to 4
years and months/
8
cra
The )ourt e7plained further the imposition of the ma7imum penalty in People v. Saley/
4
Thus%cra%nad
7 7 7 I*Jn fi7ing the ma7imum term, the prescribed penalty of prision correccional ma7imum period to prision
mayorminimum period should be divided into Cthree eFual portions of time,C each of $hich portion shall be
deemed to form one periodB hence 9
Ainimum &eriod Aedium &eriod Aa7imum &eriod
-rom 4 years, months
and ! day to D years, D
months and !# days
-rom D years, D
months and !! days to
3 years, 2 months and
# days
-rom 3 years, 2
months and ! days to
2 years
in consonance $ith 1rticle 3D, in relation to 1rticle 34, of the Revised &enal )ode/
:hen the amount involved in the offense e7ceeds &,###/##, the penalty prescribed in 1rticle 8!D of the
)ode Cshall be imposed in its ma7imum period,C adding one year for each additional &!#,###/## although the
total penalty $hich may be imposed shall not e7ceed # years/ The ma7imum penalty should then be termed
as prision mayor orreclusion temporal as the case may be/ *n fine, the one year period, $henever applicable,
shall be added to the ma7imum period of the principal penalty of any$here from 3 years, 2 months and !
days to 2 years/
1ccordingly, the ma7imum penalty should be $ithin 3 years, 2 months and ! days to 2 years, plus ! year for
each additional &!#,###/
D
cra
Thus, the trial court correctly imposed on &ere= the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 4 years and
months ofprision correccional to ! years, 2 months and ! days of reclusion temporal/
:;ERE-ORE, $e 'E+> the petition/ :e 1--*RA the 'ecision of the )ourt of 1ppeals in )19./R/ )R +o/
#24D/ :e impose on Sylvia &ere= an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and months of prision correccional to
! years, 2 months and ! days of reclusion temporal/ :e order &ere= to pay Storc6 &roducts,
*nc/ &38,0DD/D# as actual damages, and to pay the costs/
S RDERED/
[G.R. No. 131653. !.rc3 26, 2001]
R%ERT GNBA$ES, Petitioner, v. +1T*O+1, ,1BOR RE,1T*O+S )OAA*SS*O+, &E&S* )O,1 &RO'()TS,
&;*,*&&*+ES, *+)/, Respondents/
' E ) * S * O +
'E ,EO+, ER/, J/%
Before us is a petition for certiorari I! see6ing nullification of the 'ecision I and Resolution I8 of the +ational
,abor Relations )ommission (+,R)), dated Eune 3, !""0 and 1ugust !, !""0, respectively, reversing the
'ecision I4dated October !D, !""3 of the ,abor 1rbiter $ho found and declared that petitioner Roberto
.on=ales $as illegally dismissed by private respondent &epsi )ola &roducts, &hilippines, *nc/, (&)&&*, for
brevity) and ordered his reinstatement $ith payment of full bac6$ages/
The pertinent facts are as follo$s%
&etitioner Roberto .on=ales $as an employee of private respondent &)&&* since Euly D, !"2"/ ID *n !""# he
$as promoted to the position of Route Aanager $ith a post at &)&&* +orthbay Sales Office located in +orthbay
Boulevard, Aanila/ 1s Route Aanager, he $as tas6ed $ith the supervision and coordination of the activities of
salesmen servicing the area under his jurisdiction/ ;is service $ith the respondent company $as abruptly
interrupted on October 3, !""8 $hen he $as served a notice of termination of his employment/ 1t that time
he $as earning a monthly salary of &","0#/##/
;is dismissal stemmed from alleged irregularities attributed to him as Route Aanager and concurrently as
dealer of &epsi )ola products/ ;is dealership contract $ith &)&&* started in !""#/ (nder the said contract,
petitioner $as e7tended by &)&&* a credit line of &8##,###/## I3 payable in thirty (8#) days/ 1s
concessionaire or dealer, petitioner $as entitled to a concession $hich is the cash eFuivalent of the value of
empty bottles and its contents given to a dealer $ho met the monthly Fuota reFuirements in the sale of &epsi
)ola products/ &etitioner operated under the business name of RR Store/
On +ovember D, !"", petitioner as proprietor of RR Store purchased &epsi )ola products on credit
amounting to &!!3,!2/##/ The credit transaction $as covered by )harge *nvoice +o/ 83DD#2/ To cover this
transaction, petitioner .on=ales issued a post9dated chec6 in the amount of &!!3,!2/## payable on
'ecember D, !""/ &etitioner calculated that his receivables from respondent &)&&* by $ay of concession
amounted to &!#",033/##/
On 'ecember , !"" or three (8) days before his said post9dated chec6 for &!!3,!2/## became due and
payable, petitioner issued in favor of respondent &)&&* another post9dated chec6, to mature on Eanuary 4,
!""8, to cover the outstanding total debt of &!!3,!2/##/ I0 :ith the issuance of the ne$ post9dated chec6,
petitioner ordered Ar/ .erry 1lhambra, &)&&* salesman servicing RR Store, to issue an official receipt I2 in
the amount of &!!3,!2/## to cover his account/ ;o$ever, issuance of official receipt for post9dated chec6s is
contrary to respondent &)&&*s company policy $hich reFuires that its official receipt shall be issued only for
cash sales and@or currently dated chec6s/ +onetheless, .erry 1lhambra acceded to his superior, herein
petitioner, and issued the official receipt/
:hen salesman 1lhambra attempted to settle his account, the settlement cler6 noticed that there $as a
discrepancy bet$een the cash amount declared by 1lhambra and the sum actually remitted/ Based on the
official receipt, 1lhambra declared a cash collection of &!!3,!2/##, but the amount he actually remitted $as
only &8,!2/33/ 1s6ed to e7plain the said discrepancy, 1lhambra admitted that petitioner .on=ales pressured
him to issue the official receipt/ 1lhambra could not li6e$ise present the post9dated chec6 issued by
respondent .on=ales for the reason that under the company rules and regulations, any post9dated chec6 must
be covered by a post9dated chec6 receipt (&')R), duly signed by Ar/ 1ndy Ro7as, the Sales Office
Aanager/ I"
*n another vain effort to undo the damage he had done, petitioner on 'ecember 8!, !"" issued a third post9
dated chec6 dated Eanuary !D, !""8, no$ covered $ith the supposed post9dated chec6 receipt $hich,
ho$ever, $as signed by the petitioner himself and not by the Sales Office Aanager $ho has the sole authority
to issue the same/
*n Eanuary !""8, petitioners reFuest for payment of his concession $as approved, but only up to the e7tent of
&"!,###/##/ ;ence, petitioner paid &)&&* the follo$ing%
&articulars Official Receipt +o/ 'ate 1mount
!/ )hec6 0#"4D Ean/ !4, !""8 & D,###/##
/ )ash 0#"4D Ean/ !4, !""8 !"3/##
8/ )oncession 0#"4D Ean/ !4, !""8 "!,###/##
4/ Empties 2D48# Ean/ #3, !""8 !#,33#/##I!#
D/ Empties 2D480 Ean/ !#, !""8 !,4##/##I!!
Total payment 99999999999999999999 &!!",D3/##
(pon payment of his liability, having been settled the same $ith an e7cess of &8,#04/##, petitioner demanded
for the return of his post9dated chec6 from the )ashiers 'epartment on Eanuary !D, !""8/
*n vie$ of the alleged irregularities in the above transaction, petitioner $as subjected to an administrative
investigation, conducted on 1pril !3, !""8 and Eune D, !""8, $herein petitioner $as given the opportunity to
e7plain his side and to defend himself/ I!
&etitioner claimed that from the time he became a dealer in !""!, he consistently met his monthly sales
Fuota, and that not$ithstanding, he $as not able to receive his concession/ 1s of 'ecember !"", petitioners
concession, as per his o$n computation, already amounted to &!#",033/##/ &etitioner allegedly proposed to
Ar/ Efren AarFue=, 'istrict Aanager, that he be allo$ed to pay his liability of &!!3,!2/## using his
concession in the amount of &!#",033/## plus cash money for the balance/ Ar/ AarFue= allegedly approved
petitioners reFuest, subject to the final approval of his unpaid concession by a certain Ar/ 'ino of &)&&*, and
that he must issue a post9dated chec6 as security or collateral, in the event his concession is disapproved/
&etitioner then complied and accordingly, he issued a post9dated chec6 in the amount of &!!3,!2/##/
&rivate respondent &)&&* averred that petitioners allegation that he $as entitled to concessions $orth
&!#",033/## and that there $as an agreement that the same $ould supposedly be credited to his outstanding
account is baseless and self9serving/ &)&&* declares that trade concessions are given in goods (softdrin6 full
and empties), and not in the form of cash or credit arrangement/ Thus, the post9dated chec6 issued by
petitioner $as in payment of his previous purchases $hich had become due and demandable and not in any
$ay related to his alleged entitlement of any concession/ I!8
*n a letter dated September 8#, !""8, I!4 petitioner $as notified of his termination from employment on the
ground of loss of confidence and of having violated the company rules and regulations, to $it%
.roup *** -rauds and 1cts of 'ishonesty
4/ Engaging in fictitious transactions, fa6e invoicing, deals padding and other sale malpractices
2/ Breach of trust and confidence/
1ggrieved, petitioner instituted a case of illegal dismissal, bac6$ages, damages and attorney fees I!D before
the 'epartment of ,abor and Employment ('O,E), +ational )apital Region (+)R), Regional 1rbitration Branch
in Nue=on )ity, and the case $as assigned to ,abor 1rbiter Ramon ?alentin )/ Reyes/
On October !D, !""3, the ,abor 1rbiter found and declared that petitioner $as denied due process $hen no
$ritten notice of the charges against him $as received by petitioner prior to his receipt of the notice of
termination/ -urthermore, there $as no justifiable reason for the termination of the employment of petitioner,
the ,abor 1rbiter concluding that the imputation against petitioner $as committed by the latter not as an
employee but as a concessionaire of private respondent &)&&*, and that there is no sho$ing that private
respondent &)&&* suffered damage as a conseFuence thereof/ The dispositive portion of the decision of the
,abor 1rbiter reads%
:;ERE-ORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the dismissal illegal and ordering
respondent to%
!/ Reinstate complainant to his former position $ithout loss of seniority rights and other benefitsB
/ &ay complainant bac6$ages from date of termination up to his actual reinstatementB
8/ 'ismissing the complaint against -lorante Aanalo for lac6 of merit/
1ll other claims are dismissed for lac6 of merit/
The Research and *nformation (nit, this )ommission, is hereby directed to effect the necessary computation
shall form part of this decision/
SO OR'ERE'/
&rivate respondent &)&&* then appealed the decision of the ,abor 1rbiter to the public respondent +,R), and
it $as assigned to the Second 'ivision/ The +,R), in its 'ecision, reversed the decision of the ,abor 1rbiter
and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for lac6 of merit/ *n its Order dated 1ugust !, !""0, it
denied petitioners motion for reconsideration/ The petitioner no$ challenges the correctness of the said
'ecision and Order of the +,R) in the instant petition/
&etitioner contends that public respondent +,R) gravely abused its discretion in reversing the factual findings
and conclusions of the ,abor 1rbiter/
The factual findings and conclusions of the +,R) are generally accorded not only great $eight and respect but
even clothed $ith finality and deemed binding on this )ourt as long as they are supported by substantial
evidence/ Only $hen the factual findings and conclusion of the ,abor 1rbiter and +,R) are clearly in conflict
$ith each other is this )ourt behooved to give utmost attention to and thoroughly scrutini=e the records of the
case, more particularly the evidence presented, to arrive at a correct decision/ I!3 +o$here in the record
does it sho$ that public respondent +,R) grossly abused its discretion in arriving at its challenged 'ecision/
(nder the ,abor )ode, as amended, the reFuirements for the la$ful dismissal of an employee by his employer
are t$o9fold, namely% (!) the procedural, and () the substantive/ +ot only must the employee be afforded a
reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his
defense, I!0 but that the dismissal must be for a valid or authori=ed cause as provided by la$/ I!2
&rocedural due process reFuires, for validity of the employees dismissal, that an employer must furnish the
employee sought to be dismissed $ith t$o () $ritten notices before termination may be validly effected/
They are% (a) a notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omission for $hich his dismissal is
sought andB (b) a subseFuent notice informing the employee of the decision to dismiss him/ I!"
*n the instant case, the evidence on record sho$s that contrary to the finding of the ,abor 1rbiter, petitioner
$as given ample opportunity to present his side and to defend himself against the charges/ *n a letter dated
1pril !4, !""8, petitioner $as directed by private respondent &)&&* to report to the Security Office on 1pril
!3, !""8 for administrative investigation/ The letter reads%
TO% RA ROBERTO )/ .O+M1,ES
-ROA% 1/B/ ES&*+O
'1TE% 1pril !4, !""8
S(BE% +OT*)E O- 1'A*+*STR1T*?E *+?EST*.1T*O+
cc% 'R'@'R-'@-,A@T>M@->S@#! -*,E@-*,E
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
'uring the administrative investigation of Slm/ .erry 1lhambra on this date at the Security Office, he alleged
that sometime 'ecember !"", you handed a piece of paper and $ritten therein a brea6do$n of different
pac6ages for him to issue OR +o/ 2D4!2 amounting to &!!3,!2/## and )harge *nv/ +o/ 83DD4 amounting to
&!#",033/## to be included in his loadsheet/
;e further alleged that you issued on that day a ()&B chec6 +o/ 1(B 0224" post9dated 4 Eanuary !""8
amounting to &!!3,!2/## $hile the amount in $ords is One ;undred Si7teen Thousand One ;undred Eighty
T$o &esos for transmittal to the )ashier/
,i6e$ise, said above chec6 $as sho$n to us today $hen it supposedly should have been entered in our
)ashiers register last Eanuary 4, !""8 and he allegedly said you handed this to him last night (1pril !8, !""8)
to be presented during the investigation/
*n vie$ thereof, you are hereby directed to report to the Security Office at "%## a/m/, !3 1pril !""8 for an
administrative investigation so that you may avail of due process and present your side $ith reference to the
above allegation of Slm/ 1lhambra $hich is a violation of our e7isting )ompany Rules and Regulations to $it%
.roup ***94% Engaging in fictitious transactions, false invoicing, deals padding and other sales
malpractices
.roup ***92 Breach of Trust and )onfidence
-ailure on you part to attend the scheduled investigation on the said time, date and place shall be construed
as a $aiver of your right to be heard and your case $ill be decided based on available evidence at hand/
1/B/ ES&*+O
:hile the letter does not sho$ on its face that the petitioner ac6no$ledged receipt thereof, it is undisputed
that petitioner freely, voluntarily and actively participated in the administrative investigation on the charges
filed against him, as evidenced by his signature affi7ed on each page of the minutes of the hearings conducted
on 1pril !3, !""8 and Eune D, !""8/ 1fter the said investigation, petitioner received on October 3, !""8 a
notice of dismissal dated September #, !""8/ (nder these circumstances, $e find no basis for the ,abor
1rbiters ruling that private respondent &)&&* breached legal procedure prior to the termination of the
petitioners employment/
Substantive due process, for validity of the petitioners dismissal, has li6e$ise been met by private respondent
&)&&*/ 1s aptly found by the +,R), petitioner $as separated or terminated by private respondent &)&&* from
his employment due to loss of trust and confidence, $hich is a just and valid cause for dismissal under 1rticle
2(c) of the ,abor )ode/ :e find the evidence adduced in this case contrary to petitioners claim that the
Fuestionable credit sale transaction he $as charged $ith $as in connection $ith his being a dealer or
concessionaire of &)&&* and not as an employee thereof, and thus, there $as allegedly no just and valid cause
to dismiss him/
Records sho$ that maneuvers and machinations on the Fuestionable credit sale transaction could not have
been consummated by the petitioner if he $as not eFuipped $ith the 6no$ledge, as a route manager, of ho$
the respondent company processes these 6inds of transactions/ *t $as highly inconceivable for a mere dealer
to have done $hat petitioner did/
)1rs2, 7e2121o/er =.5e 31mse46 . cre012 e;2e/s1o/ >123o:2 7ro7er .:23or1I.21o/. Three (8) days before
the post9dated chec6 $hich he issued as payment for the purchases on credit on +ovember D, !"" $as
about to mature on 'ecember D, !"", petitioner issued another post9dated chec6 dated Eanuary 4, !""8/
The second post9dated chec6 $as defective inasmuch as the amount $ritten thereon (&!!3,!2/##) did not
match the sum $ritten in $ords, that is, O+E ;(+'RE' S*LTEE+ T;O(S1+' O+E ;(+'RE' E*.;T> &ESOS
O+,>/ This scheme $as a definite ploy to circumvent the policy against unauthori=ed credit e7tension
inasmuch as the +ovember D, !"" purchase on credit $as due 8# days after the delivery or on 'ecember
D, !""/
Seco/0, <e2121o/er, .s ro:2e m./.=er 7re5.14e0 :7o/ s.4esm./ A43.mbr., 31s s:bor01/.2e, o5er
>3om 3e e;erc1ses mor.4 ./0 7ro6ess1o/.4 .sce/0./c8 2o c.rr8 o:2 31s m.c31/.21o/. &etitioner
ordered and pressured salesman 1lhambra in issuing Official Receipt +o/ 2D4!2, for the 'ecember , !""
post9dated chec6 to cover his account/ 1s route manager, petitioner 6ne$ fully $ell that the same $as not
sanctioned by company policy inasmuch as official receipts are issued only for cash payment and@or currently
dated chec6s/ ;ad that official receipt $hich he caused to be prepared escaped the scrutiny of and $ere
accepted by the settlement cler6, petitioner $ould have evaded payment of his debt or account payable to
private respondent &)&&* amounting to &!!3,!2/##/
T31r0, :7o/ 23e 01sco5er8 b8 23e se224eme/2 c4erG o6 23e 6r.:0:4e/2 o661c1.4 rece172, 7e2121o/er
1ss:e0 o/ December 31, 1992 ./o23er 7os2-0.2e0 c3ecG 0.2e0 *./:.r8 15, 1993 2o=e23er >123 .
7os2-0.2e0 c3ecG rece172 &<DCR' s1=/e0 b8 7e2121o/er 31mse46 .423o:=3 3e >.s /o2 .:23or1Ie0 2o 0o
so. 1 post9dated chec6 receipt can only be issued by the Sales Office Aanager of &)&&* $henever payment is
made by post9dated chec6/ &etitioners scheme $as discovered because, as route manager, he $as not
authori=ed by respondent company to issue post9dated chec6 receipts/
These acts of petitioner are patently dishonest and militate against the rules and regulations of his employer,
herein private respondent company/ ;ence, the loss of trust and confidence in him by private respondent
&)&&*/
(nder 1rticle 2(c) of the ,abor )ode, an employer can terminate the employment of the employee
concerned for fraud or $illful breach by an employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authori=ed representative/ The loss of trust and confidence must be based on the $illful breach of the trust
reposed in the employee by his employer/ Ordinary breach $ill not suffice/ 1 breach of trust is $illful if it is
done intentionally, 6no$ingly and purposely, $ithout justifiable e7cuse, as distinguished from an act done
carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently/ I# ,oss of confidence, as a just cause for termination
of employment, is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust
and confidence/ ;e must be invested $ith confidence on delicate matters such as the custody, handling, care
and protection of the employers property and@or funds/ But in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal,
the act complained of must be $or69related such as $ould sho$ the employee concerned to be unfit to
continue $or6ing for the employer/ I!
*n the present case, petitioner is not an ordinary ran69and9file employee/ ;e is a Route Aanager, a managerial
level position as $e settled in the case of ;nited PepsiCola Supervising ;nion 9 ;PS; : v. <aguesma. I The
test of managerial status has been defined as an authority to act in the interest of the employer, $hich
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but reFuires independent judgment/ I8 1s managerial
employee, petitioner is tas6ed to perform 6ey and sensitive functions, and thus he is bound by more e7acting
$or6 ethics/ I4
1s a general rule, employers are allo$ed a $ide latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of
managerial personnel or those $ho, $hile not of similar ran6, perform functions $hich by their nature reFuire
the employers full trust and confidence/ &roof beyond reasonable doubt is not reFuired/ *t is sufficient that
there is some basis for loss of confidence, such as $hen the employer has reasonable ground to believe that
the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct, and the nature of his participation
therein renders him un$orthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position/ ID This must be
distinguished from the case of ordinary ran69and9file employees, $hose termination on the basis of these
same grounds reFuires a higher proof of involvement in the events in FuestionB mere uncorroborated
assertions and accusations by the employer $ill not suffice/ I3
&rivate respondent &)&&* has sufficiently sho$n that petitioner has become un$orthy of the trust and
confidence demanded of his position/ &etitioner betrayed his employers trust and confidence $hen he
instigated the issuance by his subordinate salesman of an official receipt for his post9dated chec6 on
'ecember , !"" $hereby he (petitioner) could have evaded payment to private respondent &)&&* of his
debt amounting to &!!3,!2/##/ These acts committed by petitioner adversely reflected on his integrity/ 1s
Route Aanager he disregarded the private respondent companys rules and regulation prohibiting the issuance
of official receipt for post9dated chec6 payment unless the same is done by the Sales Office Aanager/
The fact the private respondent &)&&* ultimately suffered no monetary damage as petitioner subseFuently
settled his account is of no moment/ This $as not the reason for the termination of his employment in the
respondent company but the anomalous scheme he engineered to cover up his past due account, $hich
constitutes a clear betrayal of trust and confidence/
&remises considered, $e find that the petitioner is indeed unfit to continue $or6ing for private respondent
&)&&*/ :e therefore hold that public respondent +,R) committed no grave abuse of discretion in reversing
the decision of the ,abor 1rbiter and in dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal/
E?ERE)RE , the petition is hereby '*SA*SSE' for lac6 of merit, and the assailed 'ecision and Resolution
of public respondent +ational ,abor Relation )ommission dated Eune 3, !""0 and 1ugust !, !""0,
respectively, are 1--*RAE'/ +o pronouncement as to costs/
SO OR'ERE'/
[G.R. No. 12D980. )E%R#AR" 22, 2006]
DE $A SA$$E #N-,ERS-T", -NC., E!!AN#E$ SA$ES, RNA$D ?!ES, *#D" $A TRRE, A!<AR R-,
CAR!E$-TA N#E%ENGC, et al. v. T?E C#RT ) A<<EA$S( ?N. E-$)RED D. RE"ES, -N ?-S CA<AC-T"
AS <RES-D-NG *#DGE ) %RANC? 36, RTC, !AN-$A( T?E C!!-SS-N N ?-G?ER ED#CAT-N( T?E
DE<ART!ENT ) ED#CAT-N C#$T#RE AND S<RTS( A$,-N AG#-$AR( et al.
T31r0 D151s1o/
Sirs@Aesdames%
Nuoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this )ourt dated )E%. 22, 2006
./R/ +o/ !0"2# ('e <a Salle ;niversity, %nc., Emmanuel Sales, Ronald 6omes, Judy <a &orre, $mparo Rio,
Carmelita =uebengco, et al. v. &he Court of $ppeals> 6on. ?ilfredo '. Reyes, %n his Capacity as Presiding Judge of
Branch 2,, R&C, @anila> &he Commission on 6igher Education> &he 'epartment of Education Culture and Sports>
$lvin $guilar> et al.)
This case stemmed from the e7pulsion in !""D by petitioner 'e ,a Salle (niversity *nc/ (',S()
[1]
crala$, of private
respondents 1lvin 1guilar, Eames &aul S/ Bungubung, Roberto ?aldes, Er/, and Richard ?/ Reverente, all students
under the 'e ,a Salle (niversity system/
[2]
crala$ The implementation of the e7pulsion order $as enjoined follo$ing the
issuance of the :rit of &reliminary *njunction dated D September !""D by the Regional Trial )ourt (RT)), $hich
prevented ',S( from barring the enrollment of private respondents and allo$ing them to complete their degree
courses until graduation/ Aoreover, the e7pulsion order itself $as set aside by the )ommittee on ;igher Education
();E'), and on the basis of such action, the )ourt of 1ppeals dismissed on the ground of mootness, the petition for
certiorari filed before it assailing the orders of the RT)/ The rulings of the RT), the )ourt of 1ppeals, and the );E'
are all presently challenged in the petition before the )ourt/
The petition $as given due course/ &etitioners and 1guilar have since filed their respective memoranda/
[3]
crala$ On 8 Eune
!""2, petitioner filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and@or $rit of preliminary
injunction/ *t $as alleged therein that 1guilar had apparently completed all the necessary units for graduation and
$as demanding that his academic records be evaluated by the office of the university registrar $ith a vie$ to
graduation/ Thus, petitioner prayed that the enforcement of the :rit of &reliminary *njunction dated D September
!""D be enjoined/ *n an Order dated !D Eune !""2, the )ourt granted the motion and issued the temporary
restraining order prayed for/
+o pleadings have been filed in this case since 3 Eune !""2, $hen 1guilar filed his opposition to petitioner<s
application for a temporary restraining order/ *t is possible that since then, there have been subseFuent
developments $hich the )ourt has not been informed of that $ould affect the disposition of this case, or render the
present petition moot or academic/ 1ccordingly, reFuiring the parties to submit the corresponding manifestations is
the prudent course of action/
:;ERE-ORE, the parties are reFuired to file their respective A1+*-EST1T*O+S under the foregoing premises $ithin
ten (!#) days from receipt hereof/ J. Carpio, +o part/
?ery truly yours,
(Sgd/) ,()*T1 1BEE,*+19SOR*1+O
Cler of Court
G.R. No. 1C613D. *:/e 08, 2005
?A"DEE C. CAS-!-R, 1/ 3er c.7.c128 .s !:/1c17.4 Assessor o6 S./ *ose, Romb4o/, <ro51/ce o6
Romb4o/,Petitioner, vs. )-$-<-N T. TANDG, 1/ 31s c.7.c128 .s 23e !:/1c17.4 !.8or o6 S./ *ose,
Romb4o/, Respondent/
D E C - S - N
C?-C-NABAR-, J.:
This is a petition for revie$ on certiorari of the 'ecision I!J dated 8! Aay ### of the )ourt of 1ppeals and its
Resolution dated ! +ovember ### in )19./R/ S& +o/ 43"D, $hich affirmed in toto )ivil Service
)ommission ()S)) Resolution +o/ "083# dated ! 1ugust !""0/ The said )S) Resolution affirmed the
'ecision of Aunicipal Aayor -ilipino Tandog of San Eose, Romblon, finding petitioner ;aydee )asimiro guilty of
dishonesty and ordering her dismissal 8from the service/
The relevant antecedents of the instant petition are as follo$s%
&etitioner ;aydee )asimiro began her service in the government as assessment cler6 in the Office of the
Treasurer of San Eose, Romblon/ *n 1ugust !"28, she $as appointed Aunicipal 1ssessor/
On #4 September !""3, 1dministrative Officer ** +elson A/ 1ndres, submitted a report IJ based on an
investigation he conducted into alleged irregularities in the office of petitioner )asimero/ The report spo6e of
an anomalous cancellation of Ta7 'eclarations +o/ #83 in the name of Teodulo Aatillano and the issuance of
a ne$ one in the name of petitioner<s brother (lysses )a$aling and Ta7 'eclarations +o/ #82# and +o/ #803
in the name of 1ntipas San Sebastian and the issuance of ne$ ones in favor of petitioner<s brother9in9la$
Aarcelo Aolina/
*mmediately thereafter, respondent Aayor Tandog issued Aemorandum Order +o/ !8 I8J dated #3 September
!""3, placing the petitioner under preventive suspension for thirty (8#) days/ Three (8) days later, Aayor
Tandog issued Aemorandum Order +o/ !D, directing petitioner to ans$er the charge of irregularities in her
office/ *n her ans$er, I4J petitioner denied the alleged irregularities claiming, in essence, that the cancellation
of the ta7 declaration in favor of her brother (lysses )a$aling $as done prior to her assumption to office as
municipal assessor, and that she issued ne$ ta7 declarations in favor of her brother9in9la$ Aarcelo Aolina by
virtue of a deed of sale e7ecuted by 1ntipas San Sebastian in Aolina<s favor/
On 8 October !""3, thru Aemorandum Order +o/ !0, IDJ respondent Aayor e7tended petitioner<s preventive
suspension for another thirty (8#) days effective 4 October !""3 to give him more time to verify and collate
evidence relative to the alleged irregularities/
On 2 October !""3, Aemorandum Order +o/ !2 I3J $as issued by respondent Aayor directing petitioner to
ans$er in $riting the affidavit9complaint of +oraida San Sebastian )esar and Teodulo Aatillano/ +oraida San
Sebastian )esar I0J alleged that Ta7 'eclarations +o/ #82# and +o/ #803 covering parcels of land o$ned by
her parents $ere transferred in the name of a certain Aarcelo Aolina, petitioner<s brother9in9la$, $ithout the
necessary documents/ +oraida )esar further claimed that Aarcelo Aolina had not yet paid the full purchase
price of the land covered by the said Ta7 'eclarations/ -or his part, Teodulo Aatillano claimed I2J that he
never e7ecuted a deed of absolute sale over the parcel of land covered by Ta7 'eclaration +o/ #83 in favor
of (lysses )a$aling, petitioner<s brother/
*n response to Aemorandum Order +o/ !2, petitioner submitted a letter I"J dated " October !""3, stating
that $ith respect to the complaint of +oraida San Sebastian )esar, she had already e7plained her side in the
letter dated 3 September !""3/ 1s to the complaint of Teodulo Aatillano, she alleged that it $as a certain
,ilia Barrientos $ho e7ecuted a deed of absolute sale over the parcel of land subject of the complaint in favor
of her brother, (lysses )a$aling/
+ot satisfied, respondent Aayor created a fact9finding committee to investigate the matter/ 1fter a series of
hearings, the committee, on +ovember !""3, submitted its report I!#J recommending petitioner<s
separation from service, the dispositive portion of $hich reads%
Evaluating the facts above portrayed, it is clearly sho$n that Aunicipal 1ssessor ;aydee )asimero is guilty of
malperformance of duty and gross dishonesty to the prejudice of the ta7payers of San Eose, Romblon $ho are
ma6ing possible the payments of her salary and other allo$ances/ )onseFuently, $e are unanimously
recommending her separation from service/
Based on the above recommendation, respondent Aayor issued 1dministrative Order +o/ ! I!!J dated D
+ovember !""3 dismissing petitioner, thus%
(pon unanimous recommendations of the fact finding committee )hairmained (sic) by Aunicipal 1dministrator
+elson A/ 1ndres, finding you (;aydee )/ )asimero) guilty of 'ishonesty and Aalperformance of duty as
Aunicipal 1ssessor of San Eose, Romblon, copy of $hich is hereto attached as 1nne7 <1 and made as integral
part hereof, you are hereby ordered separated from service as Aunicipal 1ssessor of San Eose, Romblon,
effective upon reFuest hereof/
(ndeterred by that setbac6, petitioner appealed to the )S), $hich affirmed I!J respondent Aayor<s order of
dismissal/ 1 motion for reconsideration I!8J $as filed, but the same $as denied/ I!4J
'issatisfied, petitioner elevated her case to the )ourt of 1ppeals, $hich subseFuently affirmed the )S)
decision/I!DJ ;er motion for reconsideration $as li6e$ise denied/
&etitioner no$ comes to us raising the lone issue I!3J of $hether or not petitioner $as afforded procedural
and substantive due process $hen she $as terminated from her employment as Aunicipal 1ssessor of San
Eose, Romblon/ 1n underpinning Fuery is% :as petitioner afforded an impartial and fair treatmentR She
specifically points to bias and partiality on the members of the fact9finding committee/ She avers that ,orna
Tandog ?ilasenor, a member of the fact9finding committee, is the sister of respondent Aayor/ She further
alludes that $hile the committee chairman, +elson A/ 1ndres, $as appointed by the respondent Aayor to the
position of 1dministrative Officer ** only on #! 1ugust !""3, no sooner $as he given the chairmanship of the
)ommittee/ -urther the affiants9complainants $ere not presented for cross e7amination/
:e find the present petition bereft of merit/
The first clause of Section ! of 1rticle *** of the Bill of Rights states that%
SEC&%"5 /. 5o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property !ithout due process of la!, . . . .
*n order to fall $ithin the aegis of this provision, t$o conditions must concur, namely, that there is deprivation
of life, liberty and property and such deprivation is done $ithout proper observance of due process/ :hen one
spea6s of due process, ho$ever, a distinction must be made bet$een matters of procedure and matters of
substance/
*n essence, procedural due process <refers to the method or manner by $hich the la$ is enforced/ I!0J
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic reFuirement of notice and a real opportunity
to be heard/ I!2J *n administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply
means the opportunity to e7plain one<s side or the opportunity to see6 a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of/I!"J To be heard does not mean only verbal arguments in courtB one may be heard also thru
pleadings/ :here opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no
denial of procedural due process/ I#J
*n administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recogni=ed to include the follo$ing% (!) the
right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings $hich may affect a respondent<s legal
rightsB () a real opportunity to be heard personally or $ith the assistance of counsel, to present $itnesses
and evidence in one<s favor, and to defend one<s rightsB (8) a tribunal vested $ith competent jurisdiction and
so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as $ell as
impartialityB and (4) a finding by said tribunal $hich is supported by substantial evidence submitted for
consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made 6no$n to the parties affected/ I!J
*n the case at bar, $hat appears in the record is that a hearing $as conducted on #! October !""3, $hich
petitioner attended and $here she ans$ered Fuestions propounded by the members of the fact9finding
committee/ Records further sho$ that the petitioner $as accorded every opportunity to present her side/ She
filed her ans$er to the formal charge against her/ 1fter a careful evaluation of evidence adduced, the
committee rendered a decision, $hich $as affirmed by the )S) and the )ourt of 1ppeals, upon a move to
revie$ the same by the petitioner/ *ndeed, she has even brought the matter to this )ourt for final
adjudication/
5inship alone does not establish bias and partiality/ IJ Bias and partiality cannot be presumed/ *n
administrative proceedings, no less than substantial proof is reFuired/ I8J Aere allegation is not eFuivalent to
proof/ I4J Aere suspicion of partiality is not enough/ There should be hard evidence to prove it, as $ell as
manifest sho$ing of bias and partiality stemming from an e7trajudicial source or some other basis/ IDJ Thus,
in the case at bar, there must be convincing proof to sho$ that the members of the fact9finding committee
unjustifiably leaned in favor of one party over the other/ *n addition to palpable error that may be inferred
from the decision itself, e7trinsic evidence is reFuired to establish bias/ I3J The petitioner miserably failed to
substantiate her allegations/ *n effect, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty prevails/ I0J
+either are $e persuaded by petitioner<s argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the complainants
$ere never presented for cross e7amination/ *n administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly appliedB administrative due process cannot be fully eFuated to due process in its
strict judicial sense/ I2J
+othing on record sho$s that she as6ed for cross e7amination/ *n our vie$, petitioner cannot argue that she
has been deprived of due process merely because no cross e7amination too6 place/ 1gain, it is $ell to note
that due process is satisfied $hen the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to e7plain their side
of the controversy or given opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of/ *n
the present case, the record clearly sho$s that petitioner not only filed her letter9ans$er, she also filed a
motion for reconsideration of the recommendation of the committee dated +ovember !""3/ The essence of
due process in the administrative proceedings is an opportunity to e7plain one side or an opportunity to see6
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of/ I"J
The )ourt finds far little basis to petitioner<s protestations that she $as deprived of due process of la$ and
that the investigation conducted $as far from impartial and fair/
1s to the substantive due process, it is obvious to us that $hat petitioner means is that the assailed decision
$as not supported by competent and credible evidence/ I8#J
The la$ reFuires that the Fuantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is
substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adeFuate to support a
conclusion/ I8!J
:ell9entrenched is the rule that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond
reasonable doubt, is sufficient basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon an employee/ The
standard of substantial evidence is satisfied $here the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the
employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him un$orthy of trust and
confidence demanded by his position/ I8J
*n the case at bar, there is substantial evidence to prove petitioner<s dismissal/
T$o alleged irregularities provided the dismissal from service of herein petitioner%
!/ The cancellation of complainant Teodulo Aatillano<s ta7 declaration and the issuance of a ne$ one in
favor of petitioner<s brother (lysses )a$alingB and
/ The cancellation of the ta7 declaration in the name of complainant +oraida San Sebastian )esar<s
parent in favor of petitioner<s brother9in9la$, Aarcelo Aolina/
On these points, $e Fuote, $ith approval, the findings of the )ourt of 1ppeals for being supported by evidence
on record/
.oing first to the alleged irregularity accompanying the issuance of ta7 declarations in favor of petitioner<s
brother (lysses )a$aling, the former<s asseverations that she had nothing to do $ith the processing of the
subject ta7 declarations is simply unacceptable/ 1s municipal assessor, one of petitioner<s duties $as to 6eep
a correct record of all transfers, leases and mortgages of real property (par/ I4J f, Sec/ !D", 1rticle ?*,
)hapter 8, Title **, Boo6 ** of the ,ocal .overnment )ode) $ithin her jurisdiction/ Thus, even if petitioner had
no hand in the processing of her brother<s ta7 declaration, she should have seen to it that the records
pertaining thereto are in order/ -urthermore, the annotation on her brother<s ta7 declaration that the same
property is also declared in the name of another person and that all of them are paying the realty ta7es
thereon should have cautioned petitioner to ta6e the necessary steps to set records right/ (nder par/ I4J h,
(ibid/) the municipal assessors, in such a situation, are suppose to cancel assessments, in case several
assessments have been made for the same property, e7cept the one properly made, but if any assessee or his
representative shall object to the cancellation of the assessment made in his name, such assessment shall not
be cancelled but the fact shall be noted on the ta7 declaration and assessment rolls and other property boo6s
of records/ &reference, ho$ever, shall be given to the assessment of the person $ho has the best title to the
property, or in default thereof, of the person $ho has possession of the property (id/)/ On this score alone,
petitioner is already liable for gross neglect of duty, $hich is also penali=ed by dismissal at the first offense
(Sec/ IbJ, Rule L*? of the Omnibus Rule IsupraJ)/
Secondly, petitioner<s vacillation on $hether it $as Teodulo Aatillano or ,eticia Barrientos Berbano $ho
e7ecuted a deed of absolute sale in favor of her brother (lysses )a$aling further $ea6ens her defense/
&etitioner, in her $ritten ans$er, claimed that both Teodulo Aatillano and (lysses )a$aling have deeds of
absolute sale over the same parcel of land (vide par/ I4J, 1nne7 <., supra)/ *n the course of investigation,
ho$ever, petitioner claimed before the investigating body that Teodulo Aatillano e7ecuted a deed of absolute
sale in favor of her brother (vide, p/ 2, 1nne7 <+, supra)/ Thereafter petitioner claimed that it $as a certain
,eticia Barrientos Berbano $ho e7ecuted the deed of absolute sale in favor of her brother (vide, 1nne7
<E, supra)/ / / /
:ith respect to the irregularity involving the ta7 declarations of petitioner<s brother9in9la$, Aarcelo Aolina, no
better evidence can be presented to support petitioner<s dismissal for dishonesty than the Fuestioned ta7
declarations themselves (vide, pp/ 20 P 22, ibid/)/ Both ta7 declarations indicated that the declarations therein
$here subscribed to under oath by the declarant before herein petitioner on 1ugust !D, !""3, in effect
canceling 1ntipa= San Sebastian<s ta7 declaration on even date/ <;o$ever, the same ta7 declarations indicate
that the ta7es due thereon9i.e/, land ta7, transfer ta7 P capital gain ta7) $ere paid only in October of the
same year or t$o months after the ta7 declarations have already been issued in favor of petitioner<s brother9
in9la$/ (nder 1rticle 4 IbJ of the Rules and Regulations *mplementing the ,ocal .overnment )ode, no ta7
declaration shall be cancelled and a ne$ one issued in lieu thereof unless the transfer ta7 has first been paid/
The issuance of ne$ ta7 declarations in favor of petitioner<s brother and brother9in9la$ effectively cancels the
ta7 declarations of the complainants/ 1rticle ""IcJ of the Rules of Regulations *mplementing the ,ocal
.overnment )ode, provides that%
*n addition to the notice of transfer, the previous property o$ner shall li6e$ise surrendered to the provincial,
city, or municipal assessor concerned, the ta7 declaration covering the subject property in order that the same
maybe cancelled from the assessment records of the ,.(/ 7 7 7/
Thus, the ta7 declaration of complainants +oraida San Sebastian and Teodulo Aatillano must first be
surrendered before herein petitioner could effectively cancel their respective ta7 declarations and issue ne$
ones in favor of her brother and brother9in9la$/ (nfortunately, herein petitioner failed to present the
complainants< cancelled ta7 declarations/ She did not even allege that the same had been surrendered to her
for cancellation/ I88J
*n addition, petitioner admitted using the deed of sale allegedly executed by <ilia Barrientos in favor of
)a$aling in transferring the Ta7 'eclaration in the name of her brother (lysses )a$aling/ ;o$ever, glaring in
the record is the admission by the petitioner in her petition I84J and memorandum I8DJ that the property $as
still under litigation, as both Aatillano and Barrientos continue to ta6e their claims over it/ )learly, therefore,
she had no right, or reason, to pre9empt judgment on $ho is the lot<s rightful o$ner $ho can legally dispose
the same/ &rudence dictates that, under the situation, she should have refrained from ta6ing any course of
action pending the court<s final determination of this matter/
*n Philippine $musement and .aming Corporation v. Rillo)a , I83J dishonesty $as understood to imply a
disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraudB un$orthinessB lac6 of integrity/ 'ishonesty is considered as a
grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 8, Rule L*? of the Omnibus Rules
*mplementing Boo6 ? of E7ecutive Order +o/ " and Other &ertinent )ivil Service ,a$s/ *t is beyond cavil
that petitioner<s acts displayed $ant of honesty/
*+ 1,,, $e affirm the finding of the )ourt of 1ppeals that petitioner is guilty of acts of dishonesty/ ;er acts of
cancelling the ta7 declarations of 1ntipas San Sebastian and Teodulo Aatillano in favor of her close relatives
$ithout complying $ith the reFuirements set under the la$ constitute grave acts of dishonesty/
E?ERE)RE, the instant petition is hereby 'E+*E'/ The )ourt of 1ppeals 'ecision dated 8! Aay ### and
its subseFuent Resolution dated ! +ovember ###, dismissing petitioner from service, are hereby 1--*RAE'/
:ith costs/
S RDERED/
CI&IL SER&ICE CO!!ISSION,
#etitioner!



9 #ersus 9




DEAR%!EN% O( BUDGE% AND
!ANAGE!EN%,
4espondent.

G.R. No. 1I8H91

Present+

@2?I@E, ,R), C.H.!
PEN(,
P2N>2NIB2N,
IEI;EBIN>,
HN2RE;9;2N*I2>(,
;2N@(?2!9>E*IERREG,
C2RPI(,
2E;*RI292R*INEG,
C(R(N2,
C2RPI( (R2!E;,
C2!!E,(, ;R),
2GCEN2,
*IN>2,
CCIC(9N2G2RI(, and
>2RCI2, HH)
7oAul=,410*

July 22, 200I
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7

D E C - S - N


CAR<- !RA$ES, J.:

The )ivil Service )ommission (petitioner) via the present petition for mandamus see6s to
compel the 'epartment of Budget and Aanagement (respondent) to release the balance
of its budget for fiscal year ##/ 1t the same time, it see6s a determination by this )ourt
of the e7tent of the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy/
By petitioner<s claim, the amount of &!D,0#,###/## $as appropriated for its )entral
Office by the .eneral 1ppropriations 1ct (.11) of ##, $hile the total allocations for the
same Office, if all sources of funds are considered, amount to &2D,33#,0"#/44/ I!J *t
complains, ho$ever, that the total fund releases by respondent to its )entral Office during
the fiscal year ## $as only&0",2D8,8"2/!4, thereby leaving an unreleased balance
of &D,2#0,8"/8#/

To petitioner, this balance $as intentionally $ithheld by respondent on the basis of its <no
report, no release policy $hereby allocations for agencies are $ithheld pending their
submission of the documents mentioned in Sections 8/2 to 8/!# and Section 0/# of
+ational Budget )ircular +o/ 402 on .uidelines on the Release of the -> ##
-unds, IJ $hich documents are%

!/ 1nnual )ash &rogram (1)&)
/ ReFuests for the Release of Special 1llotment Release Order (S1RO) and +otice of )ash 1llocation (+)1)
8/ Summary ,ist of )hec6s *ssued and )ancelled
4/ Statement of 1llotment, Obligations and Balances
D/ Aonthly Statement of )harges to 1ccounts &ayable
3/ Nuarterly Report of 1ctual *ncome
0/ Nuarterly -inancial Report of Operations
2/ Nuarterly &hysical Report of Operations
"/ -> ##! &reliminary and -inal Trial Balance
!#/ Statement of 1ccounts &ayable


&etitioner contends that the application of the <no report, no release policy upon
independent constitutional bodies of $hich it is one is a violation of the principle of fiscal
autonomy and, therefore, unconstitutional/
Respondent, at the outset, opposes the petition on procedural grounds/ *t contends that
first, petitioner did not e7haust administrative remedies as it could have sought
clarification from respondent<s Secretary regarding the e7tent of fiscal autonomy before
resorting to this )ourt/ Second, even assuming that administrative remedies $ere
e7hausted, there are no e7ceptional and compelling reasons to justify the direct filing of
the petition $ith this )ourt instead of the trial court, thus violating the hierarchy of courts/

On the merits, respondent, glossing over the issue raised by petitioner on the
constitutionality of enforcing the <no report, no release policy, denies having strictly
enforced the policy upon offices vested $ith fiscal autonomy, it claiming that it has applied
by e7tension to these offices theReso4:21o/ o6 231s Co:r2 1/ A.!. No. 92-9-029-
SC ()onstitutional Aandate on the Eudiciary<s -iscal 1utonomy) issued on Eune 8,
!""8, I8J particularly one of the guiding principles established therein governing the
budget of the Eudiciary, to $it%

D/ The Supreme )ourt m.8 submit to the 'epartment of Budget and Aanagement reports of
operation and income, current plantilla of personnel, $or6 and financial plans and similar
reports o/48 6or recor01/= 7:r7oses / The submission thereof concerning funds previously
released s3.44 /o2 be . co/0121o/ 7rece0e/2 6or s:bse9:e/2 6:/0 re4e.ses / (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)


Respondent proffers at any rate that the delay in releasing the balance of petitioner<s
budget $as not on account of any failure on petitioner<s part to submit the reFuired
reportsB rather, it $as due to a shortfall in revenues/ I4J
The rule on e7haustion of administrative remedies invo6ed by respondent applies only
$here there is an e7press legal provision reFuiring such administrative step as a condition
precedent to ta6ing action in court/ IDJ 1s petitioner is not mandated by any la$ to see6
clarification from the Secretary of Budget and Aanagement prior to filing the present
action, its failure to do so does not call for the application of the rule/

1s for the rule on hierarchy of courts, it is not absolute/ 1 direct invocation of this )ourt<s
original jurisdiction may be allo$ed $here there are special and important reasons
therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition/ I3J &etitioner justifies its direct
filing of the petition $ith this )ourt <as the matter involves the concept of fiscal autonomy
granted to IitJ as $ell as other constitutional bodies, a legal Fuestion not heretofore
determined and $hich only the ;onorable Supreme )ourt can decide $ith authority and
finality/ I0J To this )ourt, such justification suffices for allo$ing the petition/

+o$ on the substantive issues/

That the <no report, no release policy may not be validly enforced against offices vested
$ith fiscal autonomy is not disputed/ *ndeed, such policy cannot be enforced against
offices possessing fiscal autonomy $ithout violating 1rticle *L (1), Section D of the
)onstitution $hich provides%

Sec/ D/ The )ommission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy/ Their approved appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released/

*n Province of Batangas v. Romulo, I2J this )ourt, in construing the phrase <automatic
release in Section 3, 1rticle L of the )onstitution reading%

Section 3/ ,ocal government units shall have a just share, as determined by la$, in the
national ta7es $hich shall be automatically released to them,


held%

:ebster<s Third +e$ *nternational 'ictionary defines <automatic as <involuntary either $holly
or to a major e7tent so that any activity of the $ill is largely negligibleB of a refle7 natureB
$ithout volitionB mechanicalB li6e or suggestive of an automaton/ -urther, the $ord
<automatically is defined as in an automatic manner% $ithout thought or conscious
intention/ Being automatic, thus, connotes something mechanical, spontaneous and
perfunctory/ 1s such the ,.(s .re /o2 re9:1re0 2o 7er6orm ./8 .c2 to receive the just
share accruing to them from the national coffers/ 7 7 7 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied) I"J


By parity of construction, automatic release of approved annual appropriations to
petitioner, a constitutional commission $hich is vested $ith fiscal autonomy, should thus
be construed to mean that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed/ This
conclusion is consistent $ith the above9cited Eune 8, !""8 Resolution of this )ourt $hich
effectively prohibited the enforcement of a <no report, no release policy against the
Eudiciary $hich has also been granted fiscal autonomy by the )onstitution/ I!#J
Respecting respondent<s justification for the $ithholding of funds from petitioner as due to
a shortfall in revenues, the same does not lie/ *n the first place, the alleged shortfall is
totally unsubstantiated/ *n the second place, even assuming that there $as indeed such a
shortfall, that does not justify non9compliance $ith the mandate of above9Fuoted 1rticle
*L (1), Section D of the )onstitution/

$sturias Sugar Central, %nc. v. Commissioner of Customs teaches that <IaJn interpretation
should, if possible, be avoided under $hich a statute or provision being construed is
defeated, or as other$ise e7pressed, nullified, destroyed, emasculated, repealed,
e7plained a$ay, or rendered insignificant, meaningless, inoperative, or nugatory/ I!!J

*f respondent<s theory $ere adopted, then the constitutional mandate to automatically
and regularly release approved appropriations $ould be suspended every year, or even
every monthI!J that there is a shortfall in revenues, thereby emasculating to a significant
degree, if not rendering insignificant altogether, such mandate/

-urthermore, the )onstitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal autonomy only to the
Eudiciary, the )onstitutional )ommissions of $hich petitioner is one, and the Ombudsman/
To hold that petitioner may be subjected to $ithholding or reduction of funds in the event
of a revenue shortfall $ould, to that e7tent, place petitioner and the other entities vested
$ith fiscal autonomy on eFual footing $ith all others $hich are not granted the same
autonomy, thereby reducing to naught the distinction established by the )onstitution/

The agencies $hich the )onstitution has vested $ith fiscal autonomy should thus be given
priority in the release of their approved appropriations over all other agencies not similarly
vested $hen there is a revenue shortfall/

Significantly, the >ear ## .11 itself distinguished bet$een t$o types of public
institutions in the matter of fund releases/ :ith respect to government agencies in
general, the pertinent .eneral&rovisions of the .11 read as follo$s%

Sec. 62. <ro31b121o/ A=.1/s2 -m7o:/0me/2 o6 A77ro7r1.21o/s. +o appropriations
authori=ed in this 1ct shall be impounded through deduction or retention, :/4ess 1/
.ccor0./ce >123 23e =:10e41/es 6or 23e 1m7os121o/ ./0 re4e.se o6 reser5es ./0 23e
r:4es ./0 re=:4.21o/s 6or 0e0:c21o/, re2e/21o/ or 0e6err.4 o6 re4e.ses s3.44 3.5e bee/
1ss:e0 b8 23e D%! in coordination $ith the ;ouse )ommittee on 1ppropriations and the
Senate )ommittee on -inance/ 1ccordingly, all the funds appropriated for the purposes,
programs, projects and activities authori=ed in this 1ct, e7cept those covered by Special
&rovision +o/ ! of the (nprogrammed
-und s3.44 be re=:4.r48 ./0 .:2om.21c.448 re4e.se0 in accordance $ith the established
allotment period and system by the 'BA $ithout any deduction, retention or imposition of
reserves/ (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Sec. 63. #/m./.=e.b4e N.21o/.4 Go5er/me/2 %:0=e2 De61c12. Retention or reduction of
appropriations authori=ed in this 1ct s3.44 be e66ec2e0 o/48 1/ c.ses >3ere 23ere
1s :/m./.=e.b4e/.21o/.4 =o5er/me/2 b:0=e2 0e61c12.


(nmanageable national government budget deficit as used in this Section shall be construed
to mean that the actual national government budget deficit has e;cee0e0 the Fuarterly
budget deficit targetsconsistent $ith the full9year target deficit of &!8#/# billion as indicated in
the -> ## Budget of E7penditures and Sources of -inancing submitted by the &resident to
)ongress pursuant to Section , 1rticle ?** of the )onstitution or there are clear economic
indications of an impending occurrence of such condition, as determined by the 'evelopment
Budget )oordinating )ommittee and approved by the &resident/ (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)


*n contrast, the immediately succeeding provision of the >ear ## .11, $hich specifically
applied to offices vested $ith fiscal autonomy, stated%

Sec. 6C. A77ro7r1.21o/s o6 A=e/c1es ,es2e0 >123 )1sc.4 A:2o/om8. A/8 7ro51s1o/ o6
4.> 2o 23e co/2r.r8 /o2>123s2./01/= , the appropriations authori=ed in this 1ct for the
Eudiciary, )ongress of the &hilippines, the )ommission on ;uman Rights, the Office of the
Ombudsman, 23e C1514 Ser51ce Comm1ss1o/ , the )ommission on 1udit and the )ommission
on Elections s3.44 be .:2om.21c.448 ./0 re=:4.r48 re4e.se0 / (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)


)learly, $hile the retention or reduction of appropriations for an office is generally allo$ed
$hen there is an unmanageable budget deficit, the >ear ## .11, in conformity $ith the
)onstitution,e;ce72e0 from such rule the appropriations for entities vested $ith fiscal
autonomy/ Thus, even assuming that there $as a revenue shortfall as respondent
claimed, it could not $ithhold full release of petitioner<s funds $ithout violating not only
the )onstitution but also Section 34 of the .eneral &rovisions of the >ear ## .11/

This )ourt is not una$are that its above9cited Eune 8, !""8 Resolution also states as a
guiding principle on the )onstitutional Aandate on the Eudiciary<s -iscal 1utonomy that%

4/ 1fter approval by )ongress, the appropriations for the Eudiciary shall be automatically and
regularly released subject to availability of funds/ ((nderscoring supplied)


This phrase <subject to availability of funds< does not, ho$ever, contradict the present
ruling that the funds of entities vested $ith fiscal autonomy should be automatically and
regularly released, a shortfall in revenues not$ithstanding/ :hat is contemplated in the
said Fuoted phrase is a situation$here total revenue collections are so lo$ that they are
not sufficient to cover the total appropriations for .44 e/2121es 5es2e0 >123 61sc.4
.:2o/om8 / *n such event, it $ould be practically impossible to fully release the
Eudiciary<s appropriations or any of the entities also vested $ith fiscal autonomy for that
matter, $ithout violating the right of such other entities to an automatic release of their
o$n appropriations/ *t is under that situation that a rela7ation of the constitutional
mandate to automatically and regularly release appropriations is allo$ed/

)onsidering that the budget for agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy is only a small portion
of the total national budget, only in the most e7treme circumstances $ill the total revenue
collections fall short of the reFuirements of such agencies/ To illustrate, in the >ear ##
.11 the budget for agencies vested $ith fiscal autonomy amounted only
to &!4,D42,3#,###/##, $hich is /D8K of the total appropriations in the amount
of &D0D,!8,02,###/##/ I!8J *n >ear ##8 .11, $hich $as re9enacted in ##4, the
budget for the same agencies $as &!8,2#0,"8,###/##, $hich is /0K of the total
appropriations amounting to &3#",3!4,08#,###/##/ I!4J 1nd in the >ear ##D, the budget
for the same agencies $as only &!8,3#!,!4,###/##, $hich is /2K of the total
appropriations amounting to &D"0,338,4##,###/##/ I!DJ

-inally, petitioner<s claim that its budget may not be reduced by )ongress lo$er than that
of the previous fiscal year, as is the case of the Eudiciary, must be rejected/

-or $ith respect to the Eudiciary, 1rt/ ?***, Section 8 of the )onstitution e7plicitly
provides%

Section 8/ The Eudiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy/ 1ppropriations for the Eudiciary
may /o2 be reduced by the legislature be4o> 23e .mo:/2 .77ro7r1.2e0 6or 23e 7re51o:s
8e.r and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released/ I!3J (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)


On the other hand, in the parallel provision granting fiscal autonomy to )onstitutional
)ommissions, a similar proscription against the reduction of appropriations belo$ the
amount for the previous year is clearly absent/ 1rticle *L (1), Section D merely states%

Section D/ The )ommission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy/ Their approved annual appropriations
shall be automatically and regularly released/


The plain implication of the omission of the provision proscribing such reduction of
appropriations belo$ that for the previous year is that )ongress is /o2 prohibited from
reducing the appropriations of )onstitutional )ommissions belo$ the amount appropriated
for them for the previous year/

E?ERE)RE , the petition is, in light of all the foregoing
discussions, GRANTED. Respondent<s act of $ithholding the subject funds from petitioner
due to revenue shortfall is hereby declared#NCNST-T#T-NA$/

1ccordingly, respondent is directed to release to petitioner the amount of -ive Aillion
Eight ;undred Seven Thousand, Three hundred +inety T$o &esos and Thirty )entavos
(&D,2#0,8"/8#) representing the unreleased balance of petitioner<s appropriation for its
)entral Office by the .eneral 1ppropriations 1ct for -> ##/

S RDERED.
G.R. No. D26D0 Se72ember 12, 1986
SAT#RN-NA GA$!AN, RE"NA$D GA$!AN ./0 *SE <. %ENGBN, !AR" CNCE<C-N %A#T-STA,
*AN#-N G. %ERNAS( S.*., !. %E$$AR!-NE %ERNAS, .S.%., )RANC-SC -. C?A,EB, S$-TA
C$$AS-!NSD, SANT-AG D#!$A, *R., !AR-A )ER-A, !ARCE$ %. )ERNAN, )RANC-SC
GARC?-TRENA, O ANDREE GNBA$EB, *SE C. $A#RETA, SA$,ADR <. $<EB, )E$-+ J.
!ARA!%A, *R., CEC-$-A !#PB <A$!A. *A-!E ,. NG<-N, )E$-+ <EREB, *SE %.$. RE"ES, *SE E.
R!ER, *R., RA!N DE$ RSAR-, *R., R-CARD *. R!#$, A#G#ST SANC?EB, E!!AN#E$ ,.
SR-AN, DA,-D S"C-<, ENR-N#E S"N#-A, CR-ST-NA TAN, *ES#S ,ARGAS, %ERNARD !.
,-$$EGAS, ,-CENTE *A"!E, OO, Petitioners, vs/ SAND-GAN%A"AN, )-RST D-,-S-N &re7rese/2e0 b8
*:s21ce !./:e4 <.m.r./, C3.1rm./, ./0 *:s21ces A:=:s2o Amores ./0 %1e/5e/10o ,er. Cr:I,
!embers', *#ST-CE %ERNARD )ERNANDEB &mb:0sm./' ./0 GEN. )A%-AN C. ,ER, !A*. GEN.
<RS<ER A. $-,AS, %R-G. GEN. $#)?ER A. C#STD-, C$. ART#R G. C#STD-, C$.
,-CENTE %. T-GAS, *R., CA<T. )E$-<E ,A$ER-, CA<T. $$EEE$"N JA,-NTA, CA<T. R!E !.
%A#T-STA, 2/0 $T. *ES#S CASTR, SGT. <A%$ !ART-NEB, SGT. ARN#$) DE !ESA, SGT. T!AS
)ERNANDEB, SGT. C$AR $AT, SGT. )-$!EN !-RANDA, SGT. R$AND C. DE G#B!AN, SGT.
ERNEST !. !ATE, SGT. RD$) !. DES$NG, SGT. $ENARD !*-CA, SGT. <E<-T TR-,
SGT. AR!AND DE$A CR#B, SGT. <RS<ER A. %NA, C-C RGE$- !REN, C-C !AR- $ABAGA,
A-C CRD,A G. ESTE$, A-C AN-CET AC#<-D ./0 ?ER!-$ GS#-C, OOO , Respondents/
R E S O , ( T * O +

TEE?ANJEE, C.J.:chanrobles virtual la$ library
,ast 1ugust !st, our nation mar6ed $ith solemnity and for the first time in freedom the third anniversary of
the treacherous assassination of foremost opposition leader former Senator Benigno C+inoyC 1Fuino, Er/
imprisoned for almost eight years since the imposition of martial la$ in September, !"0 by then &resident
-erdinand E/ Aarcos, he $as sentenced to death by firing sFuad by a military tribunal for common offenses
alleged to have been committed long before the declaration of martial la$ and $hose jurisdiction over him as
a civilian entitled to trial by judicial process by civil courts he repudiated/ +inoy pleaded in vain that the
military tribunals are admittedly not courts but mere instruments and subject to the control of the &resident
as created by him under the .eneral Orders issued by him as )ommander9in9)hief of the 1rmed -orces of the
&hilippines, and that he had already been publicly indicted and adjudged guilty by the &resident of the charges
in a nation$ide press conference held on 1ugust 4, !"0! $hen he declared the evidence against +inoy Cnot
only strong but over$helming /C
1
This follo$ed the &la=a Airanda bombing of 1ugust !, !"0! of the
proclamation rally of the opposition ,iberal &arty candidates for the +ovember, !"0! elections ($hen eight
persons $ere 6illed and practically all of the opposition candidates headed by Senator Eovito Salonga and
many more $ere seriously injured), and the suspension of the privilege of the $rit of habeas corpus under
&roclamation +o/ 22" on 1ugust 8, !"0!/ The massacre $as instantly attributed to the communists but the
truth has never been 6no$n/ But the then &resident never filed the said charges against +inoy in the civil
courts/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
+inoy 1Fuino $as nevertheless thereafter allo$ed in Aay, !"2# to leave the country to undergo successful
heart surgery/ 1fter three years of e7ile and despite the regime<s refusal to give him a passport, he sought to
return home Cto strive for a genuine national reconciliation founded on justice/C ;e $as to be cold9bloodedly
6illed $hile under escort a$ay by soldiers from his plane that had just landed at the Aanila *nternational
1irport on that fateful day at past ! p/m/ ;is brain $as smashed by a bullet fired point blan6 into the bac6 of
his head by a murderous assassin, not$ithstanding that the airport $as ringed by airtight security of close to
,### soldiers and Cfrom a military vie$point, it ($as) technically impossible to get inside (such) a
cordon/C
2
The military investigators reported $ithin a span of three hours that the man $ho shot 1Fuino
($hose identity $as then supposed to be un6no$n and $as revealed only days later as Rolando .alman,
although he $as the personal friend of accused )ol/ 1rturo )ustodio $ho pic6ed him up from his house on
1ugust !0, !"28) $as a communist9hired gunman, and that the military escorts gunned him do$n in turn/
The military later filmed a re9enactment of the 6illing scripted according to this version and continuously
replayed it on all T? channels as if it $ere ta6en live on the spot/ The then &resident instantly accepted the
military version and repeated it in a nationally televised press conference that he gave late in the evening of
1ugust , !"28, $herein he said, in order to induce disbelief that the military had a hand in the 6illing, that
Cif the purpose $as to eliminate 1Fuino, this $as not the $ay to do it/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
The national tragedy shoc6ed the conscience of the entire nation and outraged the free $orld/ The large
masses of people $ho joined in the ten9day period of national mourning and came out in millions in the
largest and most orderly public turnout for +inoy<s funeral reflected their grief for his martyrdom and their
yearning for the truth, justice and freedom/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The then &resident $as constrained to create a -act -inding Board
3
to investigate Cthe treacherous and
vicious assassination of former Senator Benigno S/ 1Fuino, Er/ on 1ugust !, !"28 I$hichJ has to all -ilipinos
become a national tragedy and national shame specially because of the early distortions and e7aggerations in
both foreign and local media
C
so that all right thin6ing and honest men desire to ventilate the truth through
fare, independent and dispassionate investigation by prestigious and free investigators/C 1fter t$o false
starts,
5
he finally constituted the Board
6
on October , !"28 $hich held !D hearing days commencing
+ovember 8, !"28 (including 8 hearings in To6yo and 2 hearings in ,os 1ngeles, )alifornia) and heard the
testimonies of !"4 $itnesses recorded in #,800 pages of transcripts, until the submission of their minority
and majority reports to the &resident on October 8 and 4, !"24/ This $as to mar6 another first any$here in
the $orld $herein the minority report $as submitted one day ahead by the ponente thereof, the chairman,
$ho $as received congenially and cordially by the then &resident $ho treated the report as if it $ere the
majority report instead of a minority report of one and forth$ith referred it to respondent Tanodbayan Cfor
final resolution through the legal systemC and for trial in the Sandiganbayan $hich $as better 6no$n as a
graft courtB and the majority report of the four other members $as submitted on the follo$ing day to the then
&resident $ho coldly received them and could scarcely conceal his instant rejection of their report $ith the
grim statement that C* hope you can live $ith your conscience $ith $hat you have done/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
The fact is that both majority and minority reports $ere one in rejecting the military version as propounded by
the chief investigator, respondent .en/ Olivas, that Rolando .alman $as the +&19hired assassin, stating that
Cthe evidence sho$s Ito the contraryJ that Rolando .alman had no subversive affiliations/C They $ere in
agreement that Conly the soldiers in the staircase $ith Sen/ 1Fuino could have shot himBC that .alman, the
military<s Cfall guyC $as Cnot the assassin of Sen/ 1Fuino and that Cthe S:1T troopers $ho gunned do$n
.alman and the soldiers $ho escorted Sen/ 1Fuino do$n the service stairs, deliberately and in conspiracy $ith
one another, gave a perjured story to us regarding the alleged shooting by .alman of Sen/ 1Fuino and the
mo$ing do$n, in turn, of .alman himselfBC in short, that +inoy<s assassination $as the product of a military
conspiracy, not a communist plot The only difference bet$een the t$o reports is that the majority report
found all the t$enty9si7 private respondents abovenamed in the title of the case headed by then 1-& )hief
.eneral -abian )/ ?er involved in the military conspiracy and therefore Cindictable for the premeditated 6illing
of Senator Benigno S/ 1Fuino, Er/ and Rolando .alman at the A*1 on 1ugust !, !"28BC $hile the chairman<s
minority report $ould e7clude nineteen of them and limit as plotters Cthe si7 persons $ho $ere on the service
stairs $hile Senator 1Fuino $as descendingC and C.eneral ,uther )ustodio / / / because the criminal plot could
not have been planned and implemented $ithout his intervention/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
The chairman $rote in her minority report (some$hat prophetically) that CThe epilogue to our $or6 lies in
$hat $ill transpire in accordance $ith the action that the Office of the &resident may thereafter direct to be
ta6en/ CThe four9member majority report (also prophetically) $rote in the epilogue (after $arning the forces
$ho adhere to an alien and intolerable political ideology against unscrupulously using the report Cto discredit
our traditionally revered institutionsC), that Cthe tragedy opened our eyes and for the first time confirmed our
$orst fears of $hat unchec6ed evil $ould be capable of doing/C They $rote%
The tas6 of the Board $as clear and uneFuivocal/ This tas6 $as not only to determine the facts and
circumstances surrounding the death of the late former Senator/ Of greater significance is the a$esome
responsibility of the Board to uphold righteousness over evil, justice over injustice, rationality over
irrationality, humaneness over inhumanity/ The tas6 $as indeed a painful test, the inevitable result of $hich
$ill restore our country<s honored place among the sovereign nations of the free $orld $here peace, la$ and
order, freedom, and justice are a $ay of life/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
Aore than any other event in contemporary &hilippine history, the 6illing of the late former Senator 1Fuino
has brought into sharper focus, the ills pervading &hilippine society/ *t $as the concreti=ation of the horror
that has been haunting this country for decades, routinely manifested by the brea6do$n of peace and order,
economic instability, subversion, graft and corruption, and an increasing number of abusive elements in $hat
are other$ise noble institutions in our country9the military and la$ enforcement agencies/ :e are, ho$ever,
convinced that, by and large, the great majority of the officers and men of these institutions have remained
decent and honorable, dedicated to their noble mission in the service of our country and people/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The tragedy opened our eyes and for the first time confirmed our $orst fears of $hat unchec6ed evil $ould be
capable of doing/ 1s former *sraeli -oreign Ainister 1bba Eban observes/ C+obody $ho has great authority can
be trusted not to go beyond its proper limits/C Social apathy, passivity and indifference and neglect have
spa$ned in secret a dar6 force that is bent on destroying the values held sacred by freedom9loving
people/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
To assert our proper place in the civili=ed $orld, it is imperative that public officials should regard public
service as a reflection of human *deals in $hich the highest sense of moral values and integrity are strictly
reFuired/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1 tragedy li6e that $hich happened on 1ugust !, !"28, and the crisis that follo$ed, $ould have normally
caused the resignation of the )hief of the 1rmed -orces in a country $here public office is vie$ed $ith highest
esteem and respect and $here the moral responsibilities of public officials transcend all other considerations/
*t is eFually the fact that the then &resident through all his recorded public acts and statements from the
beginning disdained and rejected his o$n Board<s above findings and insisted on the military version of
.alman being +inoy<s assassin/ *n upholding this vie$ that Cthere is no involvement of anyone in his
government in the assassination,C he told 'avid Briscoe (then 1& Aanila Bureau )hief in a Radio9T? intervie$
on September ", !"28 that C* am convinced that if any member of my government $ere involved, * $ould
have 6no$n someho$ /// Even at a fairly lo$ level, * $ould have 6no$n/ * 6no$ ho$ they thin6/ * 6no$ $hat
they are thin6ing of/C
D
;e told )BS in another intervie$ in Aay, !"24 (as his -act -inding Board $as holding
its hearings) the follo$ing%
)BS% But indeed there has been recent evidence that seems to contradict earlier reports, namely, the recent
evidence seems to indicate that some of the guards may have been responsible (for shooting +inoy)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
A1R)OS% :ell, you are of course $rong/ :hat you have been reading are the ne$spapers and the ne$spaper
reports have been biased/ The evidence still proves that .alman $as the 6iller/ The evidence also sho$s that
there $ere intelligence reports connecting the communist party to the 6illing/ 8
*n his reply of October D, !"24 to .eneral ?er<s letter of the same date going on leave of absence upon
release of the Board<s majority report implicating him, he $rote that C(:)e are even more a$are, general,
that the circumstances under $hich the board has chosen to implicate you in its findings are fraught $ith
doubt and great contradictions of opinion and testimony/ 1nd $e are deeply disturbed that on the basis of so9
called evidence, you have been so accused by some members of the Board,C and e7tended CAy very best
$ishes to you and your family for a speedy resolution of your case,C
9
even as he announced that he $ould
return the general to his position as 1-& )hief Cif he is acFuitted by the Sandiganbayan/C *n an intervie$ on
Eune 4, !"2D $ith the .amma &hoto 1gency, as respondent court $as hearing the cases, he $as Fuoted as
saying that Cas $ill probably be sho$n, those $itnesses (against the accused) are perjured $itnesses/C
10
chanrobles virtual la$ library
*t $as against this setting that on +ovember !!, !"2D petitioners Saturnina .alman and Reynaldo .alman,
mother and son, respectively, of the late Rolando .alman, and t$enty9nine (") other petitioners, composed
of three former Eustices of this )ourt, five incumbent and former university presidents, a former 1-& )hief of
Staff, outstanding members of the &hilippine Bar and solid citi=ens of the community, filed the present action
alleging that respondents Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities constituting
mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners
and the sovereign people of the &hilippines to due process of la$/ They asserted that the Tanodbayan did not
represent the interest of the people $hen he failed to e7ert genuine and earnest efforts to present vital and
important testimonial and documentary evidence for the prosecution and that the Sandiganbayan Eustices
$ere biased, prejudiced and partial in favor of the accused, and that their acts Cclouded $ith the gravest
doubts the sincerity of government to find out the truth about the 1Fuino assassination/C &etitioners prayed
for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order restraining the respondent Sandiganbayan from
rendering a decision on the merits in the pending criminal cases $hich it had scheduled on +ovember #,
!"2D and that judgment be rendered declaring a mistrial and nullifying the proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan and ordering a re9trial before an impartial tribunal by an unbiased prosecutor/
10
9a
1t the hearing on +ovember !2, !"2D of petitioners< prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order
enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision in the t$o criminal cases before it, the )ourt resolved by
nine9to9t$o votes
11
to issue the restraining order prayed for/ The )ourt also granted petitioners a five9day
period to file a reply to respondents< separate comments and respondent Tanodbayan a three9day period to
submit a copy of his 249page memorandum for the prosecution as filed in the Sandiganbayan, the signature
page of $hich alonehad been submitted to the )ourt as 1nne7 D of his comment/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
But ten days later on +ovember 2, !"2D, the )ourt by the same nine9to9 t$o9vote ratio in
reverse,
12
resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the temporary restraining order issued ten days earlier
enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision/
13
The same )ourt majority denied petitioners< motion
for a ne$ D9day period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan<s memorandum for the prosecution
($hich apparently $as not served on them and $hich they alleged $as Cvery material to the Fuestion of his
partiality, bias and prejudiceC $ithin $hich to file a consolidated reply thereto and to respondents< separate
comments, by an eight9to9three vote, $ith Eustice .utierre= joining the dissenters/
1C
chanrobles virtual la$ library
On +ovember ", !"2D, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the dismissal did not
indicate the legal ground for such action and urging that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits
because if the charge of partiality and bias against the respondents and suppression of vital evidence by the
prosecution are proven, the petitioners $ould be entitled to the reliefs demanded% The &eople are entitled to
due process $hich reFuires an impartial tribunal and an unbiased prosecutor/ *f the State is deprived of a fair
opportunity to prosecute and convict because certain material evidence is suppressed by the prosecution and
the tribunal is not impartial, then the entire proceedings $ould be null and void/ &etitioners prayed that the
Sandiganbayan be restrained from promulgating their decision as scheduled ane$ on 'ecember , !"2D/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual
la$ library
On 'ecember D, !"2D, the )ourt reFuired the respondents to comment on the motion for reconsideration but
issued no restraining order/ Thus, on 'ecember , !"2D, as scheduled, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its
decision acFuitting all the accused of the crime charged, declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of
any civil liability/ This mar6ed another unusual first in that respondent Sandiganbayan in effect convicted the
very victim Rolando .alman ($ho $as not on trial) as the assassin of +inoy contrary to the very information
and evidence submitted by the prosecution/ *n opposition, respondents submitted that $ith the
Sandiganbayan<s verdict of acFuittal, the instant case had become moot and academic/ On -ebruary 4, !"23,
the same )ourt majority denied petitioners< motion for reconsideration for lac6 of merit, $ith the $riter and
Eustice 1bad Santos maintaining our dissent/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On Aarch #, !"23, petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration attached
there$ith/ The thrust of the second motion for reconsideration $as the startling and theretofore un6no$n
revelations of 'eputy Tanodbayan Aanuel ;errera as reported in the Aarch 3, !"23 issue of the Aanila Times
entitled C1Fuino Trial a Sham,C that the then &resident had ordered the respondents Sandiganbayan and
Tanodbayan Bernardo -ernande= and the prosecution panel headed by ;errera to $hite$ash the criminal
cases against the 3 respondents accused and produce a verdict of acFuittal/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
On 1pril 8, !"23, the )ourt granted the motion to admit the second motion for reconsideration and ordered
the respondents to comment thereon/
15
chanrobles virtual la$ library
Respondent Tanodbayan Bernardo -ernande= stated in his Aanifestation filed on 1pril !!, !"23 that he had
ceased to hold office as Tanodbayan as of 1pril 2, !"23 $hen he $as replaced by the ne$ Tanodbayan, Raul
A/ .on=ales, but reiterating his position in his comment on the petition, he added Crelative to the reported
alleged revelations of 'eputy Tanodbayan Aanuel ;errera, herein respondent never succumbed to any alleged
attempts to influence his actuations in the premises, having instead successfully resisted perceived attempts
to exert pressure to drop the case after preliminary investigation, and actually ordered the filing and
prosecution of the t$o () murder cases belo$ against herein private party respondents/C ;e candidly
admitted also in his memorandum% CThere is not much that need be said about the e7istence of pressure/ That
there $ere pressures can hardly be deniedB in fact, it has never been denied/C
15
9a ;e submitted that Ceven as
he vehemently denies insinuations of any direct or indirect complicity or participation in any alleged attempt to
supposedly $hite$ash the cases belo$, / / / should this ;onorable )ourt find sufficient cause to justify the
reopening and retrial of the cases belo$, he $ould $elcome such development so that any $rong that had
been caused may be righted and so that, at the very least the actuations of herein respondent in the premises
may be revie$ed and ree7amined, confident as he is that the end $ill sho$ that he had done nothing in the
premises that violated his trust as Tanodbayan (Ombudsman)/C +e$ Tanodbayan Raul A/ .on=ales in his
comment of 1pril !4, !"23 Cinterposed no objection to the reopening of the trial of the cases / / / as, in fact,
he urged that the said cases be reopened in order that justice could ta6e its course/Cchanrobles virtual la$ library
Respondents Eustices of the Sandiganbayan -irst 'ivision in their collective comment of 1pril ", !"23 stated
that the trial of the criminal cases by them $as valid and regular and decided on the basis of evidence
presented and the la$ applicable, but manifested that Cif it is true that the former Tanodbayan and the 'eputy
Tanodbayan, )hief of the &rosecution &anel, $ere pressured into suppressing vital evidence $hich $ould
probably alter the result of the trial, 1ns$ering Respondents $ould not interpose any objection to the
reopening of those cases, if only to allo$ justice to ta6e its course/C Respondent Sandiganbayan Eustice
Bienvenido )/ ?era )ru=, in a separate comment, asserted that he passed no note to anyoneB the note being
bandied about is not in his hand$ritingB he had nothing to do $ith the $riting of the note or of any note of
any 6ind intended for any la$yer of the defense or even of the prosecutionB and reFuested for an investigation
by this )ourt to settle the note passing issue once and for all/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
'eputy Tanodbayan Aanuel ;errera, in his comment of 1pril !4, !"23 affirmed the allegations in the second
motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan Eustices and Tanodbayan prosecutors
$ere ordered by Aarcos to $hite$ash the 1Fuino9.alman murder case/ ;e amplified his revelations, as
follo$s%
!/ $B %5%&%", 1/ ?ER'*)T O- 1)N(*TT1,Q chanrobles virtual la$ library
*ncidents during the preliminary investigation sho$ed ominous signs that the fate of the criminal case on the
death of E79Senator Benigno 1Fuino and Rolando .alman on 1ugust !, !"28 $as doomed to an ignominous
end/ Aalacanang $anted dismissal9to the e7tent that a prepared resolution $as sent to the *nvestigating
&anel (composed of the undersigned, -iscals Ernesto Bernabe and ,eonardo Tamayo) for signature/ This, of
course, $as resisted by the panel, and a resolution charging all the respondents as principals $as for$arded
to the Tanodbayan on Eanuary !#, !"2D/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
/ A1,1)1S1+. )O+-ERE+)E &,1++E' S)E+1R*O O- TR*1, chanrobles virtual la$ library
1t 3%## p/m/ of said date (Eanuary !#) Ar/ -erdinand E/ Aarcos (the former &resident) summoned to
AalacaOang Eustice Bernardo -ernande= (the Tanodbayan), Sandiganbayan Eustice Aanuel &amaran (the
&residing Eustice) and an the members of the &anel chanrobles virtual la$ library
1lso present at the meeting $ere Eustice Aanuel ,a=aro (the )oordinator) and Ars/ *melda R/ Aarcos, $ho left
earlier, came bac6 and left again/ The former &resident had a copy of the panel<s signed resolution (charging
all accused as principals), evidently furnished him in advance, and $ith prepared notes on the contents
thereof/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The former &resident started by vehemently maintaining that .alman shot 1Fuino at the tarmac/ 1lbeit
initially the undersigned argued against the theory, to remain silent $as the more discreet posture $hen the
former &resident became emotional (he $as Fuite sic6 then)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
'uring a good part of the conference, the former &resident tal6ed about 1Fuino and the communists,
lambasting the 1grava Board, specially the ,egal &anel/ Shifting to the military he rumbled on such
statements as% C*t $ill be bloody / / / .en/ Ramos, though close to me, is getting ambitious and poor Eohnny
does not 6no$ $hat to doC/ / / <our understanding $ith .en/ Ramos is that his stint is only temporary, but he
is becoming ambitious Cthe boys $ere frantic $hen they heard that they $ill be charged in court, and $ig be
detained at city jail/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
-rom outright dismissal, the sentiment veered to$ards a more pragmatic approach/ The former &resident
more or less conceded that for political and legal reasons all the respondents should be charged in court,
&olitically, as it $ill become evident that the government $as serious in pursuing the case to$ards its logical
conclusion, and thereby ease public demonstrationsB on the other hand, legally, it $as perceived that after
(not *-) they are acFuitted, double jeopardy $ould inure/ The former &resident ordered then that the
resolution be revised by categori=ing the participation of each respondent/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
*n the matter of custody of the accused pendente lite the )oordinator $as ordered to get in touch $ith .en/
+arciso )abrera, .en/ ?icente Eduardo and 'irector Eolly Bugarin to put on record that they had no place in
their respective institutions/ The e7istence of &' +o/ !"D# (giving custody to commanding officers of members
of 1-& charged in court) $as never mentioned/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
*t $as decided that the presiding justice (-irst 'ivision) $ould personally handle the trial, and assurance $as
made by him that it $ould be finished in four to si7 months, pointing out that, $ith the recent effectivity of the
+e$ Rules on )riminal &rocedure, the trial could be e7pedited/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
To$ards the end of the t$o9hour meeting and after the script had been tacitly mapped out, the former
&resident uttered% CAag moro9moro na lang 6ayo/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
The parting $ords of the former &resident $ere% CThan6 you for your cooperation/ * 6no$ ho$ to
reciprocate/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
:hile still in the palace grounds on the $ay out, the undersigned manifested his desire to the Tanodbayan to
resign from the panel, or even the office/ This, as $ell as other moves to this effect, had al$ays been refused/
;oping that $ith sufficient evidence sincerely and efficiently presented by the prosecution, all involves in the
trial $ould be conscience9pric6ed and reali=e the futility and injustice of proceeding in accordance $ith the
script, the undersigned opted to say on/
;errera further added details on the Cimplementation of the script,C such as the holding of a Cma6e9believe
raffleC $ithin !2 minutes of the filing of the *nformations $ith the Sandiganbayan at noon of Eanuary 8,
!"2D, $hile there $ere no members of the mediaB the installation of T? monitors directly beamed to
AalacanangB the installation of a C$ar roomC occupied by the militaryB attempts to direct and stifle $itnesses
for the prosecutionB the suppression of the evidence that could be given by (/S/ 1irforce men about the
CscramblingC of +inoy<s planeB the suppression of rebuttal $itnesses and the bias and partiality of the
SandiganbayanB its cavalier disregard of his plea that it Cshould not decide these cases on the merits $ithout
first ma6ing a final ruling on the Aotion for *nhibitionBC and the &residing Eustice<s over96ill $ith the
declaration that Cthe )ourt finds all accused innocent of the crimes charged in the t$o informations, and
accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability,C adding that Cin the almost t$enty years that the
undersigned has been the prosecutor in the sala of the &residing Eustice this is the only occasion $here civil
liability is pronounced in a decision of acFuittal/ C ;e Cassociated himself $ith the motion for reconsideration
and li6e$ise prayed that the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan and its decision be declared null and void/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
+e$ Solicitor .eneral Sedfrey OrdoOe=< comment of 1pril D, !"23 submitted that a declaration of mistrial $ill
depend on the veracity of the evidence supportive of petitioners< claim of suppression of evidence and
collusion/ ;e submitted that this $ould reFuire reception of evidence by a )ourt9appointed or designated
commissioner or body of commissioners (as $as done in ./R/ +o/ 0!8!3, 0r. Romano caseB and ./R/ +o/
3!#!3, @orales caseB and ./R/ +o/ 0##D4, Banco 0ilipino case)B and that if petitioners< claim $ere
substantiated, a reopening of the double murder case is proper to avoid a miscarriage of justice since the
verdict of acFuittal $ould no longer be a valid basis for a double jeopardy claim/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
Respondents9accused opposed the second motion for reconsideration and prayed for its denial/ Respondent
Olivas contended that the proper step for the government $as to file a direct action to annul the judgment of
acFuittal and at a regular trial present its evidence of collusion and pressures/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1s a $hole, all the other respondents raised the issue of double jeopardy, and invo6ed that the issues had
become moot and academic because of the rendition of the Sandiganbayan<s judgment of acFuittal of all
respondents9 accused on 'ecember , !"2D, $ith counsels for respondents ?er and Tigas, as $ell as Olivas,
further arguing that assuming that the judgment of acFuittal is void for any reason, the remedy is a direct
action to annul the judgment $here the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff to establish by clear,
competent and convincing evidence the cause of the nullity/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1fter &etitioners had filed their consolidated reply, the )ourt resolved per its resolution of Eune D, !"23 to
appoint a three9member commission composed of retired Supreme )ourt Eustice )onrado ?asFue=, chairman,
and retired *ntermediate 1ppellate )ourt Eustices Ailagros .erman and Eduardo )aguioa as members, to hear
and receive evidence, testimonial and documentary, of the charges of collusion and pressures and relevant
matters, upon prior notice to all parties, and to submit their findings to this )ourt for proper disposition/ The
)ommission conducted hearings on !" days, starting on Eune !3, !"23 and ending on Euly !3, !"23, On the
said last day, respondents announced in open hearing that they decided to forego the ta6ing of the projected
deposition of former &resident Aarcos, as his testimony $ould be merely corroborative of the testimonies of
respondents Eustice &amaran and Tanodbayan -ernande=/ On Euly 8!, !"23, it submitted its e7tensive 349
page Report
16
$herein it discussed fully the evidence received by it and made a recapitulation of its findings
in capsuli=ed form, as follo$s%
!/ The Office of the Tanodbayan, particularly Eustice -ernande= and the Special *nvestigating &anel composed
of Eustice ;errera, -iscal Bernabe and Special &rosecutor Tamayo, $as originally of the vie$ that all of the
t$enty9si7 (3) respondents named in the 1grava Board majority report should all be charged as principals of
the crime of double murder for the death of Senator Benigno 1Fuino and Rolando .alman/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
/ :hen Aalacanang learned of the impending filing of the said charge before the Sandiganbayan, the Special
*nvestigating &anel having already prepared a draft Resolution recommending such course of action, &resident
Aarcos summoned Eustice -ernande=, the tree members of the Special *nvestigating &anel, and justice
&amaran to a conference in Aalacanang in the early evening of Eanuary !#, !"2D/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
8/ *n said conference, &resident Aarcos initially e7pressed his disagreement $ith the recommendation of the
Special *nvestigating &anel and disputed the findings of the 1grava Board that it $as not .alman $ho shot
Benigno 1Fuino/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
4/ ,ater in the conference, ho$ever, &resident Aarcos $as convinced of the advisability of filing the murder
charge in court so that, after being acFuitted as planned, the accused may no longer be prosecuted in vie$ of
the doctrine of double jeopardy/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
D/ &resumably in order to be assured that not all of the accused $ould be denied bail during the trial,
considering that they $ould be charged $ith capital offenses, &resident Aarcos directed that the several
accused be Ccategori=edC so that some of them $ould merely be charged as accomplices and accessories/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles
virtual la$ library
3/ *n addition to said directive, &resident Aarcos ordered that the case be handled personally by Eustice
&amaran $ho should dispose of it in the earliest possible time/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
0/ The instructions given in the Aalacanang conference $ere follo$ed to the letterB and compliance there$ith
manifested itself in several specific instances in the course of the proceedings, such as, the changing of the
resolution of the special investigating panel, the filing of the case $ith the Sandiganbayan and its assignment
to Eustice &amaran, suppression of some vital evidence, harassment of $itnesses, recantation of $itneses $ho
gave adverse testimony before the 1grava Board, coaching of defense counsels, the hasty trial, monitoring of
proceedings, and even in the very decision rendered in the case/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
2/ That that e7pression of &resident Aarcos< desire as to ho$ he $anted the 1Fuino9.alman case to be
handled and disposed of constituted sufficient pressure on those involved in said tas6 to comply $ith the same
in the subseFuent course of the proceedings/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
"/ That $hile Eustice &amaran and Eustice -ernande= manifested no revulsion against complying $ith the
AalacaOang directive, justice ;errera played his role $ith manifestly ambivalent feelings/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
!#/ Sufficient evidence has been ventilated to sho$ a scripted and pre9determined manner of handling and
disposing of the 1Fuino9.alman murder case, as stage9managed from AalacaOang and performed by
$illing dramatis personnaeas $ell as by recalcitrant ones $hipped into line by the omnipresent influence of an
authoritarian ruler/
The )ommission submitted the follo$ing recommendation/
)onsidering the e7istence of adeFuate credible evidence sho$ing that the prosecution in the 1Fuino9.alman
case and the Eustices $ho tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure $hich
proved to be beyond their capacity to resist, and $hich not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its
position and to offer all the evidences $hich it could have other$ise presented, but also predetermined the
final outcome of the case, the )ommission is of the considered thin6ing and belief, subject to the better
opinion and judgment of this ;onorable )ourt that the proceedings in the said case have been vitiated by lac6
of due process, and hereby respectfully recommends that the prayer in the petition for a declaration of a
mistrial in Sandiganbayan )ases +os/ !##!# and !##!! entitled 7People vs. <uther Custodia et al.,7 be
granted/
The )ourt per its Resolution of Euly 8!, !"23 furnished all the parties $ith copies of the Report and reFuired
them to submit their objections thereto/ *t thereafter heard the parties and their objections at the hearing of
1ugust 3, !"23 and the matter $as submitted for the )ourt<s resolution/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The )ourt adopts and approves the Report and its findings and holds on the basis thereof and of the evidence
received and appreciated by the )ommission and duly supported by the facts of public record and 6no$ledge
set forth above and hereinafter, that the then &resident (code named Olympus) had stage9managed in and
from Aalacanang &alace Ca scripted and pre9determined manner of handling and disposing of the 1Fuino9
.alman murder caseBC and that Cthe prosecution in the 1Fuino .alman case and the Eustices $ho tried and
decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure $hich proved to be beyond their capacity to
resist<, and $hich not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its position and to offer all the
evidences $hich it could have other$ise presented, but also pre9determined the final outcome of the caseC of
total absolution of the t$enty9si7 respondents accused of all criminal and civil liability/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The )ourt finds that the )ommission<s Report 9incorporated herein by reference: and findings and conclusions
are duly substantiated by the evidence and facts of public record/ )omposed of distinguished members of
proven integrity $ith a combined total of !4! years of e7perience in the practice of la$ (DD years) and in the
prosecutoral and judicial services (23 years in the trial and appellate courts), e7perts at sifting the chaff from
the grain,
1D
the )ommission properly appraised the evidences presented and denials made by public
respondents, thus%
The desire of &resident Aarcos to have the 1Fuino9.alman case disposed of in a manner suitable to his
purposes $as Fuite understandable and $as but to be e7pected/ The case had stirred unprecedented public
outcry and $ide international attention/ +ot invariably, the finger of suspicion pointed to those then in po$er
$ho supposedly had the means and the most compelling motive to eliminate Senator 1Fuino/ 1 day or so
after the assassination, &resident Aarcos came up $ith a public statement aired over television that Senator
1Fuino $as 6illed not by his military escorts, but by a communist hired gun/ *t $as, therefore, not a source of
$onder that &resident Aarcos $ould $ant the case disposed of in a manner consistent $ith his announced
theory thereof $hich, at the same time, $ould clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty
participation in the assassination/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The calling of the conference $as undoubtedly to accomplish this purpose/ / / /chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
&resident Aarcos made no bones to conceal his purpose for calling them/ -rom the start, he e7pressed
irritation and displeasure at the recommendation of the investigating panel to charge all of the t$enty9si7 (3)
respondents as principals of the crime of double murder/ ;e insisted that it $as .alman $ho shot Senator
1Fuino, and that the findings of the 1grava Board $ere not supported by evidence that could stand in court/
;e discussed and argued $ith Eustice ;errera on this point/ Aid$ay in the course of the discussion, mention
$as made that the filing of the charge in court $ould at least mollify public demands and possibly prevent
further street demonstrations/ *t $as further pointed out that such a procedure $ould be a better
arrangement because, if the accused are charged in court and subseFuently acFuitted, they may claim the
benefit of the doctrine of double jeopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution if some other $itnesses shall
appear $hen &resident Aarcos is no longer in office/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
777 777 777 chanrobles virtual la$ library
1fter an agreement $as reached as to filing the case, instead of dismissing it, but $ith some of the accused to
be charged merely as accomplices or accessories, and the Fuestion of preventive custody of the accused
having thereby received satisfactory solution, &resident Aarcos too6 up the matter of $ho $ould try the case
and ho$ long it $ould ta6e to be finished/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1ccording to Eustice ;errera, &resident Aarcos told Eustice &amaran <point blan6< to personally handle the
case/ This $as denied by Eustice &amaran/ 5o similar denial !as voiced by Justice 0ernande) in the entire
course of his t!o+day testimony. Eustice &amaran e7plained that such order could not have been given
inasmuch as it $as not yet certain then that the Sandiganbayan $ould try the case and, besides, cases
therein are assigned by raffle to a division and not to a particular Eustice thereof/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
*t $as preposterous to e7pect Eustice &amaran to admit having received such presidential directive/ ;is denial,
ho$ever, falls to pieces in the light of the fact that the case $as indeed handled by him after being assigned
to the division headed by him/ 1 supposition of mere coincidence is at once dispelled by the circumstance that
he $as the only one from the Sandiganbayan called to the Aalacanang conference $herein the said directive
$as given/ / / /chanroblesvirtuala$librarychanrobles virtual la$ library
The giving of such directive to Eustice &amaran may also be inferred from his admission that he gave
&resident Aarcos the possible time frame $hen as6ed as to ho$ long it $ould ta6e him to finish the case/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$
library
The testimony of Eustice ;errera that, during the conference, and after an agreement $as reached on filing
the case and subseFuently acFuitting the accused, President @arcos told them 7"ay, mag moro+moro na
lamang ayo>7 and that on their $ay out of the room &resident Aarcos e7pressed his than6s to the group and
uttered 7% no! ho! to reciprocate,7 did not receive any denial or contradiction either on the part of (ustice
0ernande) or (ustice Pamaran. 95o other person present in the conference !as presented by the respondents.
'espite an earlier manifestation by the respondents of their intention to present 0iscal Bernabe and
Prosecutor &amayo, such move !as abandoned !ithout any reason having been given therefor.:
The facts set forth above are all supported by the evidence on record/ *n the mind of the )ommission, the
only conclusion that may be dra$n therefrom is that pressure from Aalacanang had indeed been made to bear
on both the court and the prosecution in the handling and disposition of the 1Fuino9.alman case/ &he
intensity of this pressure is readily deductible from the personality of the one !ho exerted it, his moral and
official ascendancy over those to !hom his instructions !ere directed, the motivation behind such
instructions, and the nature of the government prevailing at that time !hich enabled, the then head of state
to exercise authoritarian po!ers/ That the conference calledto script or stage+manage the prosecution and
trial of the 1Fuino9.alman case $as considered as something anomalous that should be ept a!ay from the
public eye is sho!n by the effort to assure its secrecy. +one but those directly involved $ere caned to attend/
The meeting $as held in an inner room of the &alace/ Only the -irst ,ady and &residential ,egal 1ssistant
Eustice ,a=aro $ere $ith the &resident/ The conferees $ere told to tae the bac door in going to the room
$here the meeting $as held, presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall $aiting to see
the &resident/ 1ctually, no public mention alas ever made of this conference until Justice 6errera made his
expose some fifteen 9/8: months later !hen the former president !as no longer around.
&resident Aarcos undoubtedly reali=ed the importance of the matter he $anted to ta6e up $ith the officials he
as6ed to be summoned/ 6e had to do it personally, and not merely through trusted assistants/ The lac6 of $ill
or determination on the part of Eustice -ernande= and Eustice &amaran to resist the presidential summons
despite their reali=ation of its un$holesome implications on their handling of the celebrated murder case may
be easily inferred from their unFuestioned obedience thereto/ +o effort to resist $as made, despite the
e7istence of a most valid reason to beg off, on the lame e7cuses that they $ent there out of Ccuriosity,C or
Cout of respect to the Office of the &resident,C or that it $ould be <unbecoming to refuse a summons from the
&resident/< Such frame of mind only reveals their susceptibility to presidential pressure and lac6 of capacity to
resist the same/ &he very acts of being summoned to @alacanang and their ready ac*uiescence thereto under
the circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure dramati)ed and exemplified Their abject
deference to &resident Aarcos may li6e$ise be inferred from the admitted fact that, not having been given
seats during the t$o9hour conference (Eustice -ernande= said it $as not that long, but did not say ho$ long)
in $hich &resident Aarcos did the tal6ing most of the time, they listened to him on their feet/ ?erily, it can be
said that any avo!al of independent action or resistance to presidential pressure became illusory from the
very moment they stepped inside @alacanang Palace on January /-, /AB8. 18 c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
The )ommission pinpointed the crucial factual issue thus% Cthe more significant inFuiry is on $hether the
Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Tanodbayan actually succumbed to such pressure, as may be gauged by
their subseFuent actuations in their respective handling of the case/C *t duly concluded that Cthe pressure
e7erted by &resident Aarcos in the conference held on Eanuary !#, !"2D pervaded the entire proceedingsof
the 1Fuino .alman ImurderJ casesC as manifested in several specific incidents and instances it enumerated in
the Report under the heading of CAanifestations of &ressure and Aanipulation/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
Suffice it to give hereinbelo$ brief e7cerpts%9 chanrobles virtual la$ library
!/ The changing of the original ;errera panel draft Resolution charging all the t$enty9si7 accused as principals
by conspiracy by categori=ing and charging !0 as principals, .enerals ?er and Olivas and 3 others as
accessories and the civilian as accomplice, and recommending bail for the latter t$o categories% CThe
categori=ation may not be completely justified by saying that, in the mind of Eustice -ernande=, there $as no
sufficient evidence to justify that all of the accused be charged as principals/ The majority of the 1grava Board
found the e7istence of conspiracy and recommended that all of the accused be charged accordingly/ :ithout
going into the merit of such finding, it may hardly be disputed that, in case of doubt, and in accordance $ith
the standard practice of the prosecution to charge accused $ith the most serious possible offense or in the
highest category so as to prevent an incurable injustice in the event that the evidence presented in the trial
$ill sho$ his guilt of the graver charge, the most logical and practical course of action should have been, as
originally recommended by the ;errera panel, to charge all the accused as principals/ 1s it turned out, Eustice
-ernande= readily opted for categori=ation $hich, not surprisingly, $as in consonance $ith the AalacaOang
instruction/C *t is too much to attribute to coincidence that such unusual categori=ation came only after the
then &resident<s instruction at Aalacanang $hen .en/ ?er<s counsel, 1tty/ )oronel, had been as6ing the same
of Tanodbayan -ernande= since +ovember, !"24B and CEustice -ernande= himself, admit(ted) that, as of that
time, Ithe Aalacanang conference on Eanuary !#, !"2DJ, his o$n vie$ $as in conformity $ith that of the
Special *nvestigating &anel to charge all of the t$enty9si7 (3) respondents as principals of the crime of
double murder/C
19
1s the )ommission further noted, CEustice -ernande= never denied the claim of Eustice
;errera that the draft resolution of Eanuary !#, !"2D (E7hibit <B9!<) Icharging all 3 accused as principalsJ
$as to have been the subject of a press conference on the afternoon of said date $hich did not go through
due to the summons for them to go to Aalacanang in the early evening of said date/C
20
chanrobles virtual la$ library
/ Suppression of vital evidence and harassment of !itnessesC7 Reali=ing, no doubt, that a party<s case is as
strong as the evidence it can present, unmista6able and persistent efforts $ere e7erted in behalf of the
accused to $ea6en the case of the prosecution and thereby assure and justify Ithe accused<sJ eventual
scripted acFuittal/ (nfavorable evidences $ere sought to be suppressed, and some $ere indeed prevented
from being ventilated/ 1dverse $itnesses $ere harassed, cajoled, perjured or threatened either to refrain from
testifying or to testify in a manner favorable to the defense/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
The Report specified the ordeals of the prosecution $itnesses%
21
Cesar <oterina, &1, employee, Roberta
@asibay, .alman<s step9daughter $ho recanted their testimonies before the -act -inding Board and had to be
discarded as prosecution $itnesses before at the trial/ :itnessesDiesca and RaEas $ho also testified before
the Board Cdisappeared all of a sudden and could not be located by the police/ The )ommission narrated the
efforts to stifle Fiyoshi ?aamiya eye$itness $ho accompanied +inoy on his fateful flight on 1ugust !, !"28
and described them as Cpalpable, if crude and display(ing) sheer abuse of po$er/C :a6amiya $as not even
allo$ed to return to Aanila on 1ugust #, !"24 to participate in the first death anniversary of +inoy but $as
deported as an undesirable alien and had to leave on the ne7t plane for To6yo/ The Board had to go to To6yo
to hear :a6amiya give his testimony before the Eapanese police in accordance $ith their la$ and :a6amiya
claimed before the )ommission that the English transcription of his testimony, as prepared by an official of the
&hilippine Embassy in To6yo, $as inaccurate and did not correctly reflect the testimony he gave Calthough
there $as no clear sho$ing of the discrepancy from the original transcription $hich $as in +ippongo/ (pon his
arrival at the A*1 on 1ugust !, !"2D on invitation of Eustice ;errera to testify at the ongoing trial, Ca shot
$as fired and a soldier $as seen running a$ay by media men $ho sought to protect :a6amiya from harm by
surrounding him/C :a6amiya $as forced by immigration officials to leave the country by Saturday (1ugust
4th) not$ithstanding ;errera<s reFuest to let him stay until he could testify the follo$ing Aonday (1ugust
3th)/ *n the case of principal eye$itness Rebecca Nuijano, the )ommission reported that
/// (ndoubtedly in vie$ of the considerable significance of her proposed testimony and its unfavorable effect
on the cause of the defense, the efforts e7erted to suppress the same $as as much as, if not more than those
in the case of :a6amiya/ /// She recounted that she $as in constant fear of her life, having been hunted by
armed menB that their house in Tabaco, 1lbay $as ransac6ed, her family harassed by the foreclosure of the
mortgage on their house by the local Rural Ban6, and ejected therefrom $hen she ignored the reFuest of its
manager to tal6 $ith her about her proposed testimonyB that a certain :illiam -ariOas offered her plane
tic6ets for a trip abroadB that Aayor Rudy -ariOas of ,aoag )ity 6ept on calling her sister in the (nited States
to $arn her not to testifyB that, later, Rudy and :illiam -ariOas offered her t$o million pesos supposedly
coming from Bongbong Aarcos, a house and lot in Baguio, the dropping of her estafa case in ;ong6ong, and
the punishment of the persons responsible for the death of her father, if she $ould refrain from testifying/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles
virtual la$ library
*t is a matter of record, ho$ever, that despite such cajolery and harassments, or perhaps because of them,
As/ Nuijano eventually testified before the Sandiganbayan/ Eustice ;errera $as told by justice -ernande= of
the displeasure e7pressed by Olympus at justice ;errera<s going out of his $ay to ma6e As/ Nuijano to testify,
and for his refusal to honor the invitation to attend the birthday party of the -irst ,ady on Aay !, !"2D, as on
the eve of As/ Nuijano<s testimony on Aay , !"2D/ The insiduous attempts to tamper $ith her testimony,
ho$ever, did not end $ith her ta6ing the $itness stand/ *n the course of her testimony several notes $ere
passed to 1tty/ Rodolfo Eimene=, the defense counsel $ho cross9e7amined her, one of $hich suggested that
she be as6ed more Fuestions about 'ean +arvasa $ho $as suspected of having coached her as to $hat to
declare (E7hibit C'C)B and on another occasion, at a crucial point in her testimony, a po$er bro$nout
occurredB $hich lasted for about t$enty minutes, thro$ing the courtroom into dar6ness, and ma6ing most of
those present to scamper for safety, and As/ Nuijano to pass over the railing of the rostrum so as to be able
to leave the courtroom/ *t $as verified that the bro$nout $as limited to the building housing the
Sandiganbayan, it not having affected the nearby Aanila )ity ;all and the -inance Building/ Eustice ;errera
declared that the main s$itchboard of the Sandiganbayan electrical system $as located beside the room
occupied by AalacaOang people $ho $ere 6eeping trac6 of the proceedings/
1tty/ ,upino ,a=aro for petitioners further made of record at that 1ugust 3th hearing that the t$o Olivas
sisters, 1na and )atherine (hospitality girls) disappeared on September 4, !"24, t$o $ee6s after +inoy<s
assassination/ 1nd the informant, by the name of Evelyn (also a hospitality girl) $ho jotted do$n the number
of the car that too6 them a$ay, also disappeared/ On Eanuary ", !"24, during the proceedings of the Board,
,ina .alman, the common9la$ $ife of Rolando .alman, $as 6idnapped together $ith a neighbor named
Rogelio Taruc, They have been missing since then, despite his attempts to find any of them/ 1ccording to him,
Cnobody $as loo6ing for these five persons because they said Aarcos $as in &o$er Idespite his appeal to the
Ainister of +ational 'efense to locate themJ/ Today, still no one is loo6ing for these people/C 1nd he appealed
to the ne$ leadership for its assistance in learning their fate/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
8/ &he discarding of the affidavits executed by ;.S. airmen C:hile it is true that the (/S/ airmen<s proposed
testimonies $ould sho$ an attempt of the &hilippine 1ir -orce to divert the plane to Basa 1irfield or some
other place, such sho$ing $ould not necessarily contravene the theory of the prosecution, nor the actual fact
that Senator 1Fuino $as 6illed at the Aanila *nternational 1irport/ Eustice ;errera had accurately pointed out
that such attempt of scrambling 1Fuino<s plane merely sho!ed a #!ider range of conspiracy,< it being possibly
just one of t$o or three other plans designed to accomplish the same purpose of liFuidating Senator 1Fuino/
*n any event, even assuming that the said piece of evidence could go either $ay, it may not be successfully
contended that it $as prudent or $ise on the part of the prosecution to totally discard the said piece of
evidence/ 'espite minor inconsistencies contained therein, its introduction could have helped the cause of the
prosecution/ *f it $ere not so, or that it $ould even favor the defense, as averred by Eustice -ernande=, the
determined effort to suppress the same $ould have been totally uncalled for/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
4/ +ine proposed rebuttal $itnesses not presented/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
D/ The failure to e7haust available remedies against adverse developments% C:hen the Supreme )ourt denied
the petition of Eustice -ernande= Iagainst the e7clusion of the testimonies given by the military respondents
headed by .en/ ?er before the -act -inding BoardJ, the latter almost immediately announced to media that he
$as not filing a motion for the reconsideration of said denial for the reason that it $ould be futile to do so and
foolhardy to e7pect a favorable action on the same/ /// ;is posture /// is, in the least, indicative that he $as
living up to the instruction of finishing the trial of the case as soon as possible, if not of something else/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
3/ The assignment of the case to &residing Eustice &amaran% CEustice ;errera testified that &resident Aarcos
ordered Eustice &amaran point9blan6 to handle the case/ The pro9forma denial by Eustice &amaran of such
instruction crumbles under the actuality of such directive having been complied $ith to the letter/ ///chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
CEustice &amaran sought to discredit the claim that he $as ordered by &resident Aarcos to handle the case
personally by e7plaining that cases in the Sandiganbayan are assigned by raffle and not to a particular Eustice,
but to a division thereof/ The evidence before the )omission on ho$ the case happened to be assigned to
Eustice &amaran evinces a strong indication that such assignment $as not done fairly or regularly/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
CThere $as no evidence at all that the assignment $as indeed by virtue of a regular raffle, e7cept the
uncorroborated testimony of Eustice &amaran/ /// 'espite an announcement that Justice Escareal !ould be
presented by the respondents to testify on the contents of his aforesaid Aemorandum, such !as not done. 5o
reason !as given !hy Justice Escarel could not, or !ould not lie to testify. 5either !as any one of the
officials or employees of the Sandiganbayan $ho, according to Eustice &amaran, $ere present during the
supposed raffle, presented to corroborate the claim of Eustice
777 777 777
C*t is also an admitted fact that the t$o *nformations in the double murder case $ere filed by Eustice ;errera
on Eanuary 8, !"2D, at !%# p/m/, and the members of the Raffle )ommittee $ere summoned at !%#
p/m/ or only /B minutes after the filing of the t!o %nformations/ Such speed in the actual assignment of the
case can truly be categori=ed as unusual, if not e7traordinary, considering that before a case filed may be
included in the raffle, there is need for a certain amount of paper $or6 to be underta6en/ *f such preliminary
reFuirements $ere done in this case $ithin the limited time available therefor, the charge that the raffle $as
rushed to avoid the presence of media people $ould ring $ith truth/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
:hat is more intriguing is the fact that although a raffle might have been actually conducted $hich resulted in
the assignment of the case to the -irst 'ivision of the Sandiganbayan, the )ommission did not receive any
evidence on ho$ or $hy it $as handled personally by Eustice &amaran $ho $rote the decision thereof, and not
by any one of the t$o other members of his division/ / / /chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
0/ &he custody of the accused their confinement in a military camp, instead of in a civilian (ailC C:hen the
Fuestion of custody came up after the case $as filed in the Sandiganbayan, the latter issued an order
directing the confinement of the accused in the )ity Eail of Aanila/ This order $as not carried out in vie$ of the
information given by the :arden of the )ity Eail that there $as no space for the t$enty9si7 accused in said
jail/ The same information $as given $hen the custody $as proposed to be given to the +ational &enitentiary
in Auntinglupa and to the +ational Bureau of *nvestigation/ 1t that point, the defense came up $ith
&residential 'ecree +o/ !"D#1 $hich authori=es the custody of the accused military personnel $ith their
respective )ommanding Officers/ Eustice ;errera claimed that the said &residential 'ecree $as not 6no$n
even to the Tanodbayan Eustice -ernande= $ho had to call up the then Ainister of Eustice Estelito Aendo=a to
reFuest a copy of the same, and $as given such copy only after sometime/ ///C chanrobles virtual la$ library
2/ &he monitoring of proceedings and developments from @alacaEang and by @alacaEang personnelC CThere is
an uncontradicted evidence that the progress of the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan as $ell as the
developments of the case outside the )ourt had been monitored by AalacaOang presumably for it to 6no$
$hat $as happening and to ta6e remedial measures as may be necessary/ Eustice &amaran had candidly
admitted that television cameras Cboldly carrying the label of <Office of the &resident of the &hilippines< C $ere
installed in the courtroom for that purpose/ There $as a room in the Sandiganbayan, mischievously caned
<$ar room<, $herein military and AalacaOang personnel stayed to 6eep trac6 of the proceedings/C the close
monitoring by AalacaOang sho$ed its results on several occasions specified in the Report/ @alacaEang !as
immediately a!are of the Japanese !itness ?aamiya#s presence in(ustice 6errera#s office on 1ugust !,
!"2D and forestalled the giving of his testimony by having the Eapanese Embassy advise :a6amiya to leave
the country at once/ ,i6e$ise, Col. Balbino 'iego, @alacaEang intelligence chief, suddenly appeared at the
+ational Bureau of *nvestigation office $hen the Ccrying ladyC Rebecca =ui(ano $as brought there by +B*
agents for interrogation and therein sought to obtain custody of her/ C*t is li6e$ise an undisputed fact,C the
)ommission noted Cthat several military personnel pretended to be deputy sheriffs of the Sandiganbayan and
attended the trials thereof in the prescribed deputy sheriffs# uniforms.7 The )ommission<s inescapable finding/
C *t is abundantly clear that President @arcos did not only give instructions as to ho! the case should be
handled 6e sa! to it that he !ould no! if his instructions !ill be complied !ith.7
"/ &artiality of Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision% CThat &resident Aarcos had $anted all of the t$enty9
si7 accused to be acFuitted may not be denied/ The disposal of the case in said manner is an integral part of
the scenario $hich $as cleverly designed to accomplish t$o principal objectives, seemingly conflicting in
themselves, but favorable both to then administration and to the accusedB to $it, I!J the satisfaction of the
public clamor for the suspected 6illers of Senator 1Fuino to be charged in court, and IJ the foreclosure of any
possibility that they may again be prosecuted for the same offense in the event that &resident Aarcos shall no
longer be in po$er/
7%n rendering its decision the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. *ts bias and
partiality in favor of the accused !as glaringly obvious. &he evidence presented by the prosecution !as totally
ignored and disregarded. /// *t $as deemed not sufficient to simply acFuit all of the t$enty9si7 accused on
the standard ground that their guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, as $as the most logical
and appropriate $ay of justifying the acFuittal in the case, there not being a total absence of evidence that
could sho$ guilt on the part of the accused/ &he decision had to pronounce them #innocent of the
crime charged on the t$o informations, and accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability.# %t is a
rare phenomenon to see a person accused of a crime to be favored !ith such total absolution. ...
'oubt on the soundness of the decision entertained by one of the t$o justices $ho concurred $ith the
majority decision penned by Eustice &amaran $as revealed by Justice 6errera $ho testified that in "ctober,
/AB8, $hen the decision $as being prepared, Justice $gusto $mores told him that he !as of the vie! that
some of the accused should be convicted he having found difficulty in acFuitting all of themB ho$ever, he
confided to Justice 6errera that Justice Pamaran made it clear to him and Justice Dera Cru) that @alacaEang
had instructions to ac*uit all of the t!enty+six accused (TS+, Euly !0, !"23, p/ 4")/ Justice $mores also told
Justice 6errera that he !ould confirm this statement ($hich $as mentioned in Eustice ;errera<s comment to
the Second Aotion for Reconsideration) if ased about it (TS+, Eune !", !"23, pp/ "9"8)/ &his testimony
Justice 6errera remained unrebutted C (Emphasis supplied) chanrobles virtual la$ library
The record sho$s suffocatingly that from beginning to end, the then &resident used, or more precisely,
misused the over$helming resources of the government and his authoritarian po$ers to corrupt and ma6e a
moc6ery of the judicial process in the 1Fuino9.alman murder cases/ 1s graphically depicted in the
Report, supra, and borne out by the happenings (res ipsa lo*uitur
22
) since the resolution prepared by his
C)oordinator,C Aanuel ,a=aro, his &residential 1ssistant on ,egal 1ffairs, for the Tanodbayan<s dismissal of the
cases against all accused $as unpalatable (it $ould summon the demonstrators bac6 to the streets
23
) and at
any rate $as not acceptable to the ;errera prosecution panel, the unholy scenario for acFuittal of all 3
accused after the rigged trial as ordered at the Aalacanang conference, $ould accomplish the t$o principal
objectives of satisfaction of the public clamor for the suspected 6illers to be charged in court and of giving
them through their acFuittal the legal shield of double jeopardy/
2C
chanrobles virtual la$ library
*ndeed, the secret @alacanang conference at $hich the authoritarian &resident called together the &residing
Eustice of the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan -ernande= and the entire prosecution panel headed by 'eputy
Tanodbayan ;errera and told them ho$ to handle and rig 9moro+moro: the trial and the close monitoring of
the entire proceedings to assure the pre9determined ignominious final outcome are !ithout parallel and
precedent in our annals and jurisprudence/ To borro$ a phrase from +inoy<s 1pril !4, !"0D letter $ithdra$ing
his petition for habeas corpus,
25
CThis is the evil of one9man rule at its very $orst/C Our &enal )ode penali=es
Cany executive officer $ho shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority $ith respect to any
case or business coming $ithin the e7clusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice/C
26
;is obsession for Cthe
boys< C acFuittal led to several first $hich $ould other$ise be ine7plicable%9 chanrobles virtual la$ library
!/ ;e turned his bac6 on and repudiated the findings of the very -act -inding Board that he himself appointed
to investigate the Cnational tragedy and national shameC of the Ctreacherous and vicious assassination of
+inoy 1Fuino and Cto ventilate the truth through free, independent and dispassionate investigation by
prestigious and free investigators/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
/ ;e cordially received the chairman $ith her minority report one day ahead of the four majority members
and instantly referred it to respondents Cfor final resolution through the legal systemC as if it $ere the
majority and controlling reportB and rebu6ed the four majority members $hen they presented to him the ne7t
day their report calling for the indictment of all 3 respondents headed by .ens/ ?er and Olivas (instead of
the lesser seven under the chairman<s minority report)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
8/ -rom the day after the 1Fuino assassination to the dictated verdict of acFuittal, he totally disregarded the
Board<s majority and minority findings of fact and publicly insisted that the military<s Cfall guyC Rolando
.alman $as the 6iller of +inoy 1Fuino and sought futilely to justify the soldiers< incompetence and gross
negligence to provide any security for +inoy in contrast to their alacrity in gunning do$n the alleged assassin
.alman and searing his lips/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
4/ The Sandiganbayan<s decision (&amaran, E/ ponente) in effect convicted Rolando .alman as +inoy<s
assassin not$ithstanding that he $as not on trial but the victim according to the very information filed, and
evidence to the contrary submitted, by the ;errera prosecution panelB and chanrobles virtual la$ library
D/ Eustice &amaran<s ponencia (despite reservations e7pressed by Eustice 1mores $ho $anted to convict some
of the accused) granted all 3 accused total absolution and pronounced them Cinnocent of the crimes charged
in the t$o informations, and accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability,C not$ithstanding the
evidence on the basis of $hich the -act -inding Board had unanimously declared the soldiers< version of
.alman being 1Fuino<s 6iller a Cper(ured story, given deliberately and in conspiracy $ith one another/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
The fact of the secret AalacaOang conference of Eanuary !#, !"2D at $hich the authoritarian &resident
discussed $ith the &residing Eustice of the Sandiganbayan and the entire prosecution panel the matter of the
imminent filing of the criminal charges against all the t$enty9si7 accused (as admitted by respondent Eustice
-ernande= to have been confirmed by him to the then &resident<s C)oordinatorC Aanuel ,a=aro on the
preceding day) is not denied/ *t is $ithout precedent/ This $as illegal under our penal la$s, supra. This
illegality vitiated from the very beginning all proceedings in the Sandiganbayan court headed by the very
&residing Eustice $ho attended/ 1s the )ommission noted% CThe very acts of being summoned to AalacaOang
and their ready acFuiescence thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure
dramati=ed and e7emplified/ /// ?erily, it can be said that any avo$al of independent action or resistance to
presidential pressure became illusory from the very moment they stepped inside Aalacanang &alace on
Eanuary !#, !"2D/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
+o court $hose &residing Eustice has received Corders or suggestionsC from the very &resident $ho by an
amendatory decree (disclosed only at the hearing of oral arguments on +ovember 2, !"24 on a petition
challenging the referral of the 1Fuino9.alman murder cases to the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan instead of
to a court martial, as mandatory reFuired by the 6no$n &/'/ !2D# at the time providing for e7clusive
jurisdiction of courts martial over criminal offenses committed by military men
26
9a) made it possible to refer
the cases to the Sandiganbayan, can be an impartial court, $hich is the very essence of due process of la$/
1s the $riter then $rote, Cjurisdiction over cases should be determined by la$, and not by preselection of the
E7ecutive, $hich could be much too easily transformed into a means ofpredetermining the outcome of
individual cases/
26
9b CThis criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public
respondents at the secret Aalacanang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by Eustice Aanuel
;errera) completely disFualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict/ This renders moot
and irrelevant for no$ the e7tensive arguments of respondents accused, particularly .enerals ?er and Olivas
and those categori=ed as accessories, that there has been no evidence or $itness suppressed against them,
that the erroneous conclusions of Olivas as police investigator do not ma6e him an accessory of the crimes he
investigated and the appraisal and evaluation of the testimonies of the $itnesses presented and suppressed/
There $ill be time and opportunity to present all these arguments and considerations at the remand and
retrial of the cases herein ordered before a neutral and impartial court/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The Supreme )ourt cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty of justice to stand unrectified/
The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of la$ and justice and eFuity/ They $ould have no reason to
e7ist if they $ere allo$ed to be used as mere tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and
suppress the truth, instead of repositories of judicial po$er $hose judges are s$orn and committed to render
impartial justice to all ali6e $ho see6 the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a
$rong, $ithout fear or favor and removed from the pressures of politics and prejudice/ Aore so, in the case at
bar $here the people and the $orld are entitled to 6no$ the truth, and the integrity of our judicial system is
at sta6e/ *n life, as an accused before the military tribunal, +inoy had pleaded in vain that as a civilian he $as
entitled to due process of la$ and trial in the regular civil courts before an impartial court $ith an unbiased
prosecutor/ *n death, +inoy, as the victim of the Ctreacherous and vicious assassinationC and the relatives and
sovereign people as the aggrieved parties plead once more for due process of la$ and a retrial before an
impartial court $ith an unbiased prosecutor/ The )ourt is constrained to declare the sham trial a moc6 trial the
non9trial of the century9and that the pre9determined judgment of acFuittal $as unla$ful and void ab initio.
!/ 5o double (eopardy/9*t is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invo6ed against this )ourt<s
setting aside of the trial courts< judgment of dismissal or acFuittal $here the prosecution $hich represents the
sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process/ 1s the )ourt stressed in the !"2D case of People vs.
Bocar,
2D
:here the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case its right to due process
is thereby violated/ 2D-.
The cardinal precept is that !here there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their
(urisdiction.Thus, the violation of the State<s right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue
(.umabon vs/ 'irector of the Bureau of &risons, ,98##3, 80 S)R1 4# IEan/ 8#, !"0!J$hich cannot be
glossed over or disregarded at $ill/ :here the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a
decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lac6 of jurisdiction (1ducayen vs/ -lores, ,98#80# IAay
D, !"08J, D! S)R1 02B Shell )o/ vs/ Enage, ,98#!!!9!, 4" S)R1 4!3 I-eb/ 0, !"08J)/ 1ny judgment or
decision rendered not$ithstanding such violation may be regarded as a Cla$less thing, $hich can be treated
as an outla$ and slain at sight, or ignored $herever it e7hibits its headC (1ducayen vs/ -lores, supra)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
Respondent Eudge<s dismissal order dated Euly 0, !"30 being null and void for lac6 of jurisdiction, the same
does not constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy (Serino vs/ Mosa, supra)/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
777 777 777 chanrobles virtual la$ library
,egal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment,
(d) a valid plea having been enteredB and (e) the case $as dismissed or other$ise terminated $ithout the
e7press consent of the accused (&eople vs/ >lagan, D2 &hil/ 2D!)/ &he lo!er court !as not competent as it
!as ousted of its (urisdiction !hen it violated the right of the prosecution to due process.chanroblesvirtuala!library chanrobles virtual la! library
%n effect the first (eopardy !as never terminated, and the remand of the criminal case for further hearing
and@or trial before the lo$er courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not
e7pose the accused to a second jeopardy/
Aore so does the rule against the invo6ing of double jeopardy hold in the cases at bar $here as $e have held,
the sham trial $as but a moc6 trial $here the authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and
Tanodbayan to rig the trial and closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure the pre9determined final
outcome of acFuittal and total absolution as innocent of an the respondents9accused/ +ot$ithstanding the
laudable efforts of Eustice ;errera $hich sa$ him near the end CdeactivatingC himself from the case, as it $as
his belief that its eventual resolution $as already a foregone conclusion, they could not cope $ith the misuse
and abuse of the over$helming po$ers of the authoritarian &resident to $ea6en the case of the prosecution,
to suppress its evidence, harass, intimidate and threaten its $itnesses, secure their recantation or prevent
them from testifying/ -ully a$are of the prosecution<s difficulties in locating $itnesses and overcoming their
natural fear and reluctance to appear and testify, respondent Sandiganbayan maintained a Cdi==ying tempoC
of the proceedings and announced its intention to terminate the proceedings in about 3 months time or less
than a year, pursuant to the scripted scenario/ The prosecution complained of Cthe &residing Eustice<s
seemingly hostile attitude to$ards (it)C and their being the subject of $arnings, reprimand and contempt
proceedings as compared to the nil situation for the defense/ ;errera li6e$ise complained of being Ccajoled
into producing $itnesses and pressed on ma6ing assurances that if given a certain period, they $ill be able to
produce their $itnesses ;errera pleaded for Ca reasonable period of preparation of its evidenceC and cited
other pending cases before respondent court that $ere pending trial for a much longer time $here the
Cdi==ying tempoC and Cfast paceC $ere not maintained by the court/
28
Aanifestly, the prosecution and the
sovereign people $ere denied due process of la$ $ith a partial court and biased Tanodbayan under the
constant and pervasive monitoring and pressure e7erted by the authoritarian &resident to assure the carrying
out of his instructions/ 1 dictated, coerced and scripted verdict of acFuittal such as that in the case at bar is a
void judgment/ *n legal contemplation, it is no judgment at all/ *t neither binds nor bars anyone/ Such a
judgment is Ca la$less thing $hich can be treated as an outla$C/ *t is a terrible and unspea6able affront to the
society and the people/ To paraphrase Brandeis%
29
*f the authoritarian head of the government becomes the
la$9brea6er, he breeds contempt for the la$, he invites every man to become a la$ unto himself, he invites
anarchy/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
Respondents9accused<s contention that the Sandiganbayan judgment of acFuittal ends the case $hich cannot
be appealed or re9opened, $ithout being put in double jeopardy $as forcefully disposed of by the )ourt
in People vs. Court of $ppeals, $hich is fully applicable here, as follo$s% CThat is the general rule and
presupposes a valid judgment/ 1s earlier pointed out, ho$ever, respondent )ourts< Resolution of acFuittal $as
a void judgment for having been issued $ithout jurisdiction/ +o double jeopardy attaches, therefore/ 1 void
judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all By it no rights are divested/ Through it, no rights can be
attained/ Being $orthless, all proceedings founded upon it are eFually $orthless/ *t neither binds nor bars
anyone/ 1ll acts performed under it and all claims flo$ing out of it are void/
Tlang!#88 777 777 777
C&rivate respondent invo6e <justice for the innocent</ -or justice to prevail the scales must balance/ *t is not to
be dispensed for the accused alone/ The interests of the society, $hich they have $ronged must also be
eFually considered/ 1 judgment of conviction is not necessarily a denial of justice/ 1 verdict of acFuittal neither
necessarily spells a triumph of justice/ To the party $ronged, to the society offended, it could also mean
injustice/ This is $here the )ourts play a vital role/ They render justice $here justice is due/
30
chanrobles virtual la$ library
/ @otion to 'is*ualifyG%nhibit should have been resolved $head.+The private prosecutors had filed a motion to
disFualify and for inhibition of respondents Eustices of the Sandiganbayan on grounds of manifest bias and
partiality to the defense and arising from then 1tty/ (no$ Tanodbayan) Raul A/ .on=ales< charge that Eustice
?era9)ru= had been passing coaching notes to defense counsel/ Eustice ;errera had joined the motion and
pleaded at the hearing of Eune D, !"2D and in the prosecution memorandum that respondent Sandiganbayan
Cshould not decide the case on the merits $ithout first ma6ing a final ruling on the Aotion for *nhibition/C
;errera Fuoted the e7change bet$een him and the &residing Eustice to sho$ the latter<s Cfollo$ing the script
of Aalacanang/
&E &1A1R1+ chanrobles virtual la$ library
:ell the court believes that $e should proceed $ith the trial and then deal later on $ith that/ $fter all, the
most important thing here is, shall !e say, the decision of the case.
E/ ;ERRER1 chanrobles virtual la$ library
* thin6 more important than the decision of the case, >our ;onor, is the capacity of the (ustices to sit in
(udgment. That is more important than anything else/(p/ !8 TS+, Eune D, !"2D) (Emphasis supplied by
;errera)/ 31
But the Sandiganbayan brushed aside ;errera<s pleas and then $rongly blamed him, in the decision, for
supposedly not having joined the petition for inhibition, contrary to the facts above9stated, as follo$s%
/// the motion for inhibition above referred to related e7clusively for the contempt proceeding/ Too, it must be
remembered that the prosecution neither joined that petition, nor did it at any time manifest a desire to file a
similar motion prior to the submission of these cases for decision/ To do it no$ is not alone out of season but
is also a confession of official insouciance (&age , 'ecision)/ 32 c3./rob4es 51r2:.4 4.> 41br.r8
The action for prohibition $as filed in the )ourt to see6 the disFualification of respondents Eustices pursuant to
the procedure recogni=ed by the )ourt in the !"3" case of Paredes vs. .opengco
33
since an adverse ruling by
respondent court might result in a verdict of acFuittal, leaving the offended party $ithout any remedy nor
appeal in vie$ of the double jeopardy rule, not to mention the overiding and transcendental public interest
that $ould ma6e out a case of denial of due process to the &eople if the alleged failure on the part of the
Tanodbayan to present the complete evidence for the prosecution is substantiated/
3C
chanrobles virtual la$ library
*n this case, petitioners< motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the
temporary restraining order enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had been ta6en
cogni=ance of by the )ourt $hich had reFuired the respondents<, including the Sandiganbayan<s, comments/
1lthough no restraining order $as issued ane$, respondent Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately
issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused pending the final action of this )ourt/ This is the
teaching of Dalde) vs. $*uili)an
35
, :herein the court in setting aside the hasty convictions, ruled that
Cprudence dictated that (respondent judge) refrain from deciding the cases or at the very least to hold in
abeyance the promulgation of his decision pending action by this )ourt/ But prudence gave $ay to
imprudenceB the respondent judge acted precipitately by deciding the cases Ihastily $ithout a$aiting this
)ourt<s actionJ/ 1ll of the acts of the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part
amounting to lac6 of jurisdiction $hich substantively prejudiced the petitioner/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
8/ ReC "b(ections of respondents.+The other related objections of respondents< counsels must be rejected in
the face of the )ourt<s declaration that the trial $as a moc6 trial and that the pre9determined judgment of
acFuittal $as unla$ful and void ab initio. chanrobles virtual la$ library
(a) *t follo$s that there is no need to resort to a direct action to annul the judgment, instead of the present
action $hich $as timely filed initially to declare a mistrial and to enjoin the rendition of the void judgment/
1nd after the hasty rendition of such judgment for the declaration of its nullity, follo$ing the presentation of
competent proof heard by the )ommission and the )ourt<s findings therefrom that the proceedings $ere from
the beginning vitiated not only by lac6 of due process but also by the collusion bet$een the public
respondents (court and Tanodbayan) for the rendition of a pre9determined verdict of acFuitting all the t$enty9
si7 respondents9accused/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
(b) *t is manifest that this does not involve a case of mere irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings or
errors of judgment $hich do not affect the integrity or validity of the judgment or verdict/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
(c) The contention of one of defense counsel that the State and the sovereign people are not entitled to due
process is clearly erroneous and contrary to the basic principles and jurisprudence cited hereinabove/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
(d) The submittal of respondents9accused that they had not e7erted the pressure applied by the authoritarian
president on public respondents and that no evidence $as suppressed against them must be held to be
untenable in the $a6e of the evil plot no$ e7posed for their preordained $holesale e7oneration/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
(e) Respondents< invocation of the $riter<s opinion in <u)on Broerage Co., %nc. vs. @aritime Bldg. Co.,
%nc.
36
is inappropriate/ The $riter therein held that a party should be entitled to only one Supreme )ourt and
may not speculate on vital changes in the )ourt<s membership for revie$ of his lost case once more, since
public policy and sound practice demand that litigation be put to an end and no second pro forma motion for
reconsideration reiterating the same arguments should be 6ept pending so long (for over si7 (3) years and
one (!) month since the denial of the first motion for reconsideration), This opinion cannot be properly
invo6ed, because here, petitioners< second motion for reconsideration $as filed promptly on Aarch #, !"23
follo$ing the denial under date of -ebruary 4th of the first motion for reconsideration and the same $as
admitted per the )ourt<s Resolution of 1pril 8, !"23 and is no$ being resolved $ithin five months of its filing
after the )ommission had received the evidence of the parties $ho $ere heard by the )ourt only last 1ugust
3th/ The second motion for reconsideration is based on an entirely ne$ material ground $hich $as not
6no$n at the time of the denial of the petition and filing of the first motion for reconsideration, i/e, the secret
AalacaOang conference on Eanuary !#, !"2D $hich came to light only fifteen months later in Aarch, !"23 and
sho$ed beyond per adventure (as proved in the )ommission hearings) the merits of the petition and that the
authoritarian president had dictated and pre9determined the final outcome of acFuittal/ ;ence, the ten
members of the )ourt ($ithout any ne$ appointees) unanimously voted to admit the second motion for
reconsideration/
3D
chanrobles virtual la$ library
4/ :ith the declaration of nullity of the proceedings, the cases must no$ be tried before an impartial court
$ith an unbiased prosecutor/9There has been the long dar6 night of authoritarian regime, since the fa6e
ambush in September, !"0 of then 'efense Secretary Euan &once Enrile (as no$ admitted by Enrile himself
$as staged to trigger the imposition of martial la$ and authoritarian one9man rule, $ith the padloc6ing of
)ongress and the abolition of the office of the ?ice9&resident/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1s recently retired Senior Eustice ?icente 1bad Santos recalled in his valedictory to the ne$ members of the
Bar last Aay, C*n the past fe$ years, the judiciary $as under heavy attac6 by an e7tremely po$erful
e7ecutive/ 'uring this state of judicial siege, la$yers both in and outside the judiciary perceptively
surrendered to the animus of technicality/ *n the end, morality $as over$helmed by technicality, so that the
latter emerged ugly and na6ed in its true manifestation/C chanrobles virtual la$ library
+o$ that the light is emerging, the Supreme )ourt faces the tas6 of restoring public faith and confidence in
the courts/ The Supreme )ourt enjoys neither the po$er of the s$ord nor of the purse/ *ts strength lies mainly
in public confidence, based on the truth and moral force of its judgments/ This has been built on its cherished
traditions of objectivity and impartiallity integrity and fairness and uns$erving loyalty to the )onstitution and
the rule of la$ $hich compels acceptance as $ell by the leadership as by the people/ The lo$er courts dra$
their bearings from the Supreme )ourt/ :ith this )ourt<s judgment today declaring the nullity of the
Fuestioned judgment or acFuittal and directing a ne$ trial, there must be a rejection of the temptation of
becoming instruments of injustice as vigorously as $e rejected becoming its victims/ The end of one form of
injustice should not become simply the beginning of another/ This simply means that the respondents accused
must no$ face trial for the crimes charged against them before an impartial court $ith an unbiased prosecutor
$ith all due process/ :hat the past regime had denied the people and the aggrieved parties in the sham trial
must no$ be assured as much to the accused as to the aggrieved parties/ The people $ill assuredly have a
$ay of 6no$ing $hen justice has prevailed as $ell as $hen it has failed/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
The notion nurtured under the past regime that those appointed to public office o$e their primary allegiance
to the appointing authority and are accountable to him alone and not to the people or the )onstitution must
be discarded/ The function of the appointing authority $ith the mandate of the people, under our system of
government, is to fill the public posts/ :hile the appointee may ac6no$ledge $ith gratitude the opportunity
thus given of rendering public service, the appointing authority becomes functus officio and the primary
loyalty of the appointed must be rendered to the )onstitution and the sovereign people in accordance $ith his
sacred oath of office/ To paraphrase the late )hief Eustice Earl :arren of the (nited States Supreme )ourt,
the Eustices and judges must ever reali=e that they have no constituency, serve no majority nor minority but
serve only the public interest as they see it in accordance $ith their oath of office, guided only, the
)onstitution and their o$n conscience and honor/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
D/ 5ote of Commendation/9 The )ourt e7presses its appreciation $ith than6s for the invaluable services
rendered by the )ommission composed of retired Supreme )ourt Eustice )onrado A/ ?asFue=, chairman, and
retired )ourt of 1ppeals Eustices Ailagros .erman and Eduardo )aguioa as members/ *n the pure spirit of
public service, they rendered selflessly and $ithout remuneration thorough competent and dedicated service
in discharging their tas6s of hearing and receiving the evidence, evaluating the same and submitting their
Report and findings to the )ourt $ithin the scheduled period and greatly easing the )ourt<s burden/chanroblesvirtuala$library chanrobles virtual la$ library
1))OR'*+.,>, petitioners< second motion for reconsideration is granted/ The resolutions of +ovember 2,
!"2D dismissing the petition and of -ebruary 4, !"23 denying petitioners< motion for reconsideration are
hereby set aside and in lieu thereof, judgment is hereby rendered nullifying the proceedings in respondent
Sandiganbayan and its judgment of acFuittal in )riminal )ases +os/ !##!# and !##!! entitled 7People of the
Philippines vs. .en. <uther Custodia et al.7 and ordering a re9trial of the said cases $hich should be conducted
$ith deliberate dispatch and $ith careful regard for the reFuirements of due process, so that the truth may be
finally 6no$n and justice done to an chanrobles virtual la$ library
This resolution is immediately e7ecutory/ SO OR'ERE'/
G.R. No. 166C58 : )ebr:.r8 1C, 2008
!R. SERG- ,-$$ADAR, *R. M !RS. CAR$TA A. ,-$$ADAR, petitioners, v/ E$DN BA%A$A ./0
SA!#E$ BA%A$A, SR.,
U
Respondents/
DEC-S-N
N#-S#!%-NG, J.:
&etitioners Ar/ and Ars/ Sergio ?illadar, Er/ appeal the 'ecision
!
dated +ovember 2, ##8 of the )ourt of
1ppeals in )19./R/ S& +o/ 0!48" and the Resolution

dated 'ecember !, ##4, denying the motion for

reconsideration/ The )ourt of 1ppeals had reversed the 'ecision
8
dated 1pril !D, ## of the Regional Trial
)ourt (RT)), Branch D2, )ebu )ity in )ivil )ase +o/ )EB90#D#, and ordered petitioners to surrender
possession of portions of ,ot +os/ D#"D91 and D#"D9B to respondents Eldon Mabala and Samuel Mabala, Sr/
The antecedent facts are as follo$s%cra%nad
Respondent Samuel Mabala, Sr/ $as the o$ner of ,ot +o/ D#"D covered by Transfer )ertificate of Title (T)T)
+o/ 023",
4
located at San +icolas, )ebu )ity, and comprising 482 sFuare meters/ On Eanuary !8, !""D,
Samuel, Sr/, together $ith his $ife Aaria ,u= Mabala, sold one9half of ,ot +o/ D#"D to his mother9in9la$
Estelita ?illadar for&0D,### on installment basis/ E7cept for a note of partial payment of &3,D##,
D
no contract
$as e7ecuted nor $as there an agreement on $hen Estelita shall pay all installments/
On -ebruary 2, !""0, Samuel, Sr/ sold the other half of ,ot +o/ D#"D to respondent Eldon Mabala/ ,ot +o/
D#"D $as subdivided and upon cancellation of T)T +o/ 023", ,ot +o/ D#"D91 under T)T +o/ !4D!2
3
$as
registered in Eldon<s name/ ,ot +o/ D#"D9B under T)T +o/ !4D!28
0
$as registered in Samuel, Sr/<s name/
On 1pril #, !""0, Estelita made an additional payment of &,D##,
2
leaving a balance of only &83,D## after
deducting all previous payments/ ,ater, ho$ever, the spouses Samuel, Sr/ and Aaria ,u= decided to cancel
the sale after a confrontation $ith Estelita at the Office of the Barangay )aptain of Barangay Basa6, San
+icolas, )ebu )ity/
Samuel, Sr/ together $ith his son Samuel Mabala, Er/ also filed a complaint for ejectment $ith the Office of
the <upong &agapamayapa of Barangay Basa6 against Estelita<s son, petitioner Sergio ?illadar, Er/, $ho
occupied one of the houses that stood on the property/ On Eune !4, !""2, said office issued to Samuel, Sr/ a
certificate to file action after petitioner Sergio ?illadar, Er/ failed to appear for conciliation/
On October 0, !""2, Eldon and Samuel, Sr/ filed a )omplaint
"
for unla$ful detainer against petitioners Sergio
?illadar, Er/ and his $ife )arlota 1limurung before the Aunicipal Trial )ourt in )ities (AT))), Branch 2, )ebu
)ity/ *n their complaint, they alleged that they o$n ,ot +os/ D#"D91 and D#"D9B, and that in the latter part of
!"23, they allo$ed petitioners to stay in a vacant store on the lot out of pity, subject to the condition that
petitioners $ould leave once respondents need the premises for the use of their o$n families/ *n Eanuary
!""2, they demanded that petitioners vacate the store because they needed the store for the use of their
children but petitioners refused to leave/
*n their 1ns$er,
!#
petitioners claimed that one9half of ,ot +o/ D#"D $as sold on installment to Sergio ?illadar,
Er/<s mother, Estelita ?illadar, on Eanuary !8, !""D for &0D,###B that on Eanuary !8, !""D, Estelita made a
do$npayment of &3,D## and had an unpaid balance of only &83,D## as of 1pril #, !""0B that by virtue of the
sale, Estelita became the o$ner of the premises $here their house stoodB that they derive their title from
Estelita $ho promised and agreed to give them one9half of one9half of ,ot +o/ D#"D after she has fully paid
the price and obtained a separate title in her nameB that they constructed a residential house, $hich no$
straddles ,ot +os/ D#"D91 and D#"D9B because of respondents< $rongful subdivision of ,ot +o/ D#"DB that
Estelita tried to tender the balance of the purchase price, but Samuel, Sr/ unjustifiably refused to receive the
paymentB that because of such refusal, Estelita and Sergio ?illadar, Er/ sought the intervention of
the <upon 1uthority of Barangay Basa6, San +icolas, )ebu )ity but no settlement $as reachedB that assuming
that they and Estelita are adjudged to have an inferior right over one9half of the lot, they are builders in good
faith and they should be allo$ed to retain the lot until they are paid or reimbursed the amount of &2#,###,
$hich is the value of the house they built on the premises/
On 1ugust 0, ##!, the AT)) dismissed the complaint/
!!
The AT)) ruled that petitioners could not be
deprived of their possession of the disputed portion because one9half of ,ot +o/ D#"D had already been sold in
!""D to Estelita ?illadar, $ho $as the source of petitioners< right to possess it/ The dispositive portion of the
decision states%
:;ERE-ORE, upon the premises, judgment is hereby rendered against IpJlaintiffs and this case is
'*SA*SSE'B IdeJfendants are hereby granted to recover the costs of this litigation in the sum of &!#,###/##
from IpJlaintiffs $ho are hereby directed to pay the same/
SO OR'ERE'/
!
Respondents Eldon and Samuel, Sr/ appealed to the RT) $hich affirmed the AT))<s ruling/
(pon appeal, the )ourt of 1ppeals in a 'ecision dated +ovember 2, ##8 reversed the rulings of the AT))
and RT)/ The )ourt of 1ppeals ruled that although there $as an oral agreement bet$een Samuel Mabala, Sr/
and Estelita ?illadar for the sale of one9half of ,ot +o/ D#"D, Samuel Mabala, Sr/ had reserved title to the
property in his name until full payment of the purchase price had been made by Estelita/ The pertinent
portions of the )ourt of 1ppeals< decision state%
7 7 7
*t is undisputed that / there $as a verbal agreement bet$een petitioner Samuel Mabala, Sr/ and the
respondents for the sale of ,ot +o/ D#I"DJ9B for &0D,###/## on Eanuary !8, !""D/ The sale of ,ot +o/ D#"D9B,
although not in $riting, had been perfected as the parties had agreed upon the object of the contract, $hich
$as ,ot D#"D9B, and the price, $hich $as &0D,###/## (Ar21c4e 1CD5, C1514 Co0e o6 23e <3141771/es)/
Similarly, :e sustain the validity of the oral sale as no $ritten form is really reFuired for the validity of a
contract of sale (Ar21c4e 1C83, C1514 Co0e o6 23e <3141771/es)/ But, as correctly observed by the trial court,
the term or manner of payment of the purchase price had not been agreed upon by the parties in $hich case
petitioner Samuel Mabala, Er/ should see6 the intervention of the court to fi7 the period $hen Estelita vda/ 'e
?illadar should pay in full the consideration of the sale/ :here the period has been fi7ed by the court and
Estelita refused to pay the remaining balance of &83,D##/##, that $ould be the opportune time for petitioner
Samuel Mabala, Sr/ to cause the rescission of the oral contract/ 1s it is, ho$ever, petitioner Samuel Mabala,
Sr/ could not rescind or cancel the contract on the ground that Estelita failed to pay the remaining balance of
the purchase price because he had no cause for cancellation or rescission yet in vie$ of fact that no period
had been agreed upon by him and Estelita $hen the &83,D##/## should be paid/ Thus, unless the contract of
sale is rescinded, it remains to be valid/
On a different light, ho$ever, :e note and :e are inclined to believe, based on the evidence submitted to (s
and in determining the intentions of petitioner Samuel Mabala, Sr/ and the respondents spouses, that the sale,
being one on installment basis, petitioner Samuel Mabala, ISr/J had reserved title to the property in his name
until full payment of the purchase price had been made by Estelita/ This e7plains $hy title of ,ot +o/ D#"D9B,
specifically T)T +o/ !4D!28, $as registered in his name $hen ,ot +o/ D#"D $as divided into t$o lots and
Estelita had not sought the registration of the lot in her name/ 1lthough respondents occupied the store or
house on the common boundary of I,ot +os/J D#I"DJ91 and D#I"DJ9B, their occupation or possession did not
constitute delivery of the land subject of the oral contract of sale so as to have effectively transferred
o$nership thereof to Estelita/ Therefore, even assuming that respondents $ere the ones $ho constructed the
house or store on ,ot +o/ D#I"DJ9B, they had no right to construct any structure thereon because their
mother, Estelita, did not o$n the land until she had fully paid the consideration of the sale/
1s no right $as acFuired by the respondents better than the right pertaining to Estelita, the occupancy and
possession by the respondents of the subject land $as merely tolerated by the o$ner, herein plaintiff9
petitioner Samuel Mabala, Sr/ Similarly, respondents did not have the right to possess or occupy that portion
of the land belonging to petitioner Eldon Mabala/ Their occupation $ith respect to that portion $as, li6e$ise,
merely tolerated by the o$ner and, thus, it $as the duty of the respondents to surrender possession thereof
upon demand by petitioner Eldon/ -rom Euly 8, !""2 then, $hen a formal demand (Rollo, p/ 38) $as made
upon the respondents to vacate the premises, the possession of the respondents had become unla$ful and
they $ere subject to ejectment/
Respondents could not claim that they $ere builders in good faith of the house/ -rom their allegations in their
1ns$er $ith )ounterclaim (par/ /8), respondent Sergio ?illadar, Er/ 6ne$ and admitted that ,ot +o/ D#"D9B
$as not yet fully paid and a separate title thereto had not yet been issued in the name of Estelita (Rollo, p/
DD) from $hom he and his $ife allegedly derived their title/ Being builders in bad faith, they cannot, as a
matter of right, recover the value of the house or the improvements thereon, if any, from the petitioners,
much less retain possession of the premises (Ar21c4e CC9, C1514 Co0e o6 23e <3141771/es)/ Respondents have
no right, $hatsoever, e7cept the right to be reimbursed for necessary e7penses $hich they had incurred for
the preservation of both portions of I,otJ +os/ D#I"DJ91 and D#I"DJ9B (Ar21c4e C52, C1514 Co0e o6 23e
<3141771/es) occupied by them/
"#$R$%&R$, in vie$ of the foregoing, the petition is G-,EN D#E C#RSE/ The 'ecision dated 1pril !D,
## of the Regional Trial )ourt, Branch D2, )ebu )ity affirming the 'ecision dated 1ugust 0, ##! of the
Aunicipal Trial )ourt in )ities, Branch 2, )ebu )ity, is hereby RE,ERSED and SET AS-DE, and another one
entered ordering defendants9respondents to surrender the physical and material possession of that portion of
,ot +o/ D#I"DJ91 and ,ot +o/ D#I"DJ9B upon $hich their house $as constructed to petitioners Samuel Mabala,
Sr/ and Eldon Mabala/
S RDERED/
!8
On 'ecember !, ##4, the )ourt of 1ppeals li6e$ise denied petitioners< motion for reconsideration/ ;ence,
this petition/
&etitioners raise the follo$ing issues in their Aemorandum%
*/
:;ET;ER OR +OT T;E ;O+/ )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S ERRE' *+ .*?*+. '(E )O(RSE TO RES&O+'E+TS<
&ET*T*O+ -OR RE?*E: 1+' RE+'ER*+. 1 'E)*S*O+ T;EREIOJ+, *+STE1' O- '*SA*SS*+. T;E S1AE -OR
?*O,1T*O+ O- SE)/ (d) O- R(,E 4 O- T;E !""0 R(,ES O- )*?*, &RO)E'(RE/
**/
:;ET;ER OR +OT T;E ;O+OR1B,E )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S )OAA*TTE' 1 .R1?E 1B(SE O- '*S)RET*O+
1AO(+T*+. TO ,1)5 O- E(R*S'*)T*O+, 1+' A*S1&&RE;E+S*O+ O- -1)TS, *+ R(,*+. T;1T T;ERE :1S
+O 'E,*?ER> O- &OSSESS*O+ TO ESTE,*T1 ?*,,1'1R O- T;E V &ORT*O+ O- ,OT I+O/J D#"D SO,' TO ;ER
*+ &ET*T*O+ERS< EL;/ C!C B> RES&O+'E+T S1A(E, M1B1,1I,J SR/ 1+' :*-E, :;*); *S T;E RE)E*&T
'1TE' E1+(1R> !8, !""D O- T;E &1RT*1, &1>AE+T O- ESTE,*T1 ?*,,1'1R O- *TS )O+S*'ER1T*O+
1'A*TTE' B> RES&O+'E+T S1A(E, M1B1,1 SR/ IS*)J
***/
:;ET;ER OR +OT T;E ;O+/ )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S ERRE' *+ ;O,'*+. T;1T ESTE,*T1 ?*,,1'1R '*' +OT
O:+ T;E ,1+' :;ERE ;ER 1+' &ET*T*O+ERS< ;O(SES ST1+' BE)1(SE S;E ;1' +OT -(,,> &1*' T;E
)O+S*'ER1T*O+ O- T;E S1,E/
*?/
:;ET;ER OR +OT T;E ;O+/ )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S< ;O,'*+./ / / T;1T &ET*T*O+ERS< O))(&1+)> O- T;E V
&REA*SES O- ,OT I+O/J D#"D :1S B> AERE TO,ER1+)E O- T;E RES&O+'E+TS I:1S R*.;TJ/
?/
:;ET;ER OR +OT &ET*T*O+ERS 1RE EEE)T*B,E IS*)J -ROA T;E &REA*SES O- ,OT I+O/J D#"D/
?*/
1SS(A*+. T;1T T;E> 1RE, :;ET;ER OR +OT T;E ;O+/ )O(RT O- 1&&E1,S< ;O,'*+. I:1SJ R*.;T T;1T
&ET*T*O+ERS :ERE +OT B(*,'ERS *+ .OO' -1*T; O- T;E*R RES*'E+T*1, ;O(SE *+ T;E &REA*SES 1T 1
)OST O- &2#,###/## (&/8/ )1<S 'E)*S*O+ 9 1++EL C1C, &ET*T*O+)B ;E+)E +OT RE*AB(RS1B,E -OR S1*'
EL&E+SES T;EREO-, 1+' ;1?E +O R*.;T O- RETE+T*O+/
?**/
:;ET;ER T;E )O(RT $ =;" :1S R*.;T OR +OT *+ +OT '*SA*SS*+. O(TR*.;T,> T;E IRES&O+'E+TS<J
)OA&,1*+T, -OR +O+9)OA&,*1+)E :*T; T;E F$&$R;5.$5. P$@B$R$5.$H ,1: 1+' T;*S ;O+/ )O(RT<S
1'A/ )*R/ +O/ !49"8, 1+' R(,E !3, SE)/ ! (j) O- T;E !""0 R(,ES O- )*?*, &RO)E'(RE/
?***/
:;ET;ER OR +OT T;E RES&O+'E+TS< )OA&,1*+T 1T T;E )O(RT $ =;" *S '*SA*SS1B,E (+'ER T;E
R(,*+. O- T;E S(&REAE )O(RT *+ T;E )1SE O- S$R@I%JE5&" D. C";R& "0 $PPE$<S, ./R/ +O/ !!3!",
+O?/ !3, !""D, O+ T;E .RO(+' T;1T *T *S +OT )O.+*M1B,E B> T;E S1*' )O(RT/
!4
Essentially, the main issue for our resolution is $hether the appellate court erred in reversing the RT)<s ruling
that the respondents can not validly eject petitioners/
&etitioners argue that Estelita o$ns one9half of ,ot +o/ D#"D and that their possession of the disputed portion
$as based on their agreement $ith Estelita, not upon respondents< tolerance/ &etitioners also add that they
cannot be summarily ejected from the disputed portion $ithout first resolving the o$nership of the land sold
to Estelita in anaccion publiciana/
!D
cra
Respondents counter that since Estelita failed to pay the full price $ithin t$o years, Samuel, Sr/, $ho reserved
his title until full payment, retained o$nership/ Respondents insist that petitioners must vacate upon demand
since their possession is merely tolerated and they have no better right than Estelita/
!3
cra
&refatorily, $e restate a no$ settled doctrine/
!0
:here the issue of possession in an unla$ful detainer suit is
closely intert$ined $ith the issue of o$nership, as in this case, the AT)) can provisionally resolve the issue of
o$nership for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession/
!2
The judgment, ho$ever, is not
conclusive in any action involving title or o$nership and $ill not bar an action bet$een the same parties
respecting title to the land or building/
!"
cra
1fter carefully e7amining the records of this case, $e are constrained to reverse the appellate court<s
decision/ 0irst, $e find erroneous and $ithout factual basis the appellate court<s conclusion that Samuel, Sr/
reserved his title to the land he sold to Estelita/ Rather, the RT) aptly ruled that no evidence proved that
Samuel, Sr/ reserved his title/ *n respondents< complaint,
#
position paper
!
and joint affidavit

$ith the AT)),

and even in their petition for revie$
8
before the )ourt of 1ppeals, respondents never alleged that Samuel, Sr/
reserved his title/ :hile the price $as payable on installment, there $as no agreement bet$een Estelita and
Samuel, Sr/ that the latter reserved his title, conditioning the transfer of o$nership upon full payment of the
price/
4
cra
&atently therefore, the oral contract $as a contract of sale, not a contract to sell/ *t is in a contract to sell that
o$nership is, by agreement, reserved in the seller and is not to pass to the buyer until full payment of the
purchase price/
D
+otably, the )ourt of 1ppeals stated that unless rescinded, the perfected contract of
sale remains valid/
3
*ncidentally, this statement reveals the inconsistency of the )ourt of 1ppeals in finding
that Samuel, Sr/ reserved his title and also saying that the transaction $as a contract of sale. :orse, despite
the parties< common submission that the sale $as bet$een Estelita and Samuel, Sr/, the )ourt of 1ppeals
misappreciated that it $as bet$een petitionersand Samuel, Sr/
0
cra
:e also note respondents< inconsistent positions as this case $as tried and appealed/ Their complaint $as
silent on the sale to Estelita/ 1s they appealed to the RT), respondents advanced a ne$ but erroneous theory
that the sale to Estelita $as actually an Coral agreement to sell,C
2
such that by agreement o$nership $as
reserved by seller Samuel, Sr/
"
Respondents soon abandoned that theory in their petition before the )ourt of
1ppeals and argued that the Csale agreementC in !""D $ith Estelita $as immaterial in this case/
8#
+o$ before
us, respondents resurrect their contention in the RT) and echo the appellate court<s error that Samuel, Sr/
reserved his title/
Second, the records belie respondents< allegation that Estelita<s installments $ere payable in t$o years/ :e
note that on 1pril #, !""0, or more than t$o years after Estelita<s initial payment of &3,D## on Eanuary !8,
!""D,
8!
Aaria ,u= accepted Estelita<s additional payment of &,D##/
8
cra
1nent Samuel, Sr/<s decision to cancel the sale and refusal to receive Estelita<s payment of the balance of the
price,
88
$e find that Samuel, Sr/ neither notified Estelita by notarial act that he $as rescinding the sale nor did
he sue in court to rescind the sale/
84
*n addition, the records do not sho$ Samuel, Sr/<s compliance $ith the
reFuirements of the Realty *nstallment Buyer &rotection 1ct 9 that actual cancellation ta6es place after 8#
days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the contract by
notarial act and upon full payment of the cash surrender value to the buyer, $hich in this case is D#K of
Estelita<s total payments for more than t$o years/
8D
cra
Thus, under the circumstances, Estelita<s claim of o$nership is valid, absent a valid rescission or cancellation
of the contract of sale/ ;ence, she $as properly $ithin her rights $hen she allo$ed petitioners to occupy part
of the land she bought upon her promise to sell it to them/ Relatedly, respondents no$ concede that the land
sold to Estelita is ,ot +o/ D#"D9B,
83
but the disputed portion straddles ,ot +os/ D#"D9B and D#"D91/
:hile Samuel, Sr/ is the registered o$ner of ,ot +o/ D#"D9B, he has no cause to eject petitioners for alleged
unla$ful detainer since a finding of unla$fulness of petitioners< possession of the disputed portion depends
upon the rescission of the contract of sale bet$een Samuel, Sr/ and Estelita/
80
:e hasten to add that
rescission is not even absolute for the court may fi7 a period $ithin $hich Estelita, if she is found in default,
may be permitted to comply $ith her obligation/
82
cra
1s regards ,ot +o/ D#"D91, $e find respondent Eldon<s detainer suit premature for failure to e7haust all
administrative remedies/
8"
1s aptly pointed out by petitioners,
4#
Eldon did not comply
4!
$ith Section 4! of the
,ocal .overnment )ode (,.)), $hich sets forth a pre9condition to the filing of complaints in court, to $it%
SE)T*O+ 4!/ Conciliation. + 9a: Pre+condition to filing of complaint in court. 9 +o complaint, petition, action,
or proceeding involving any matter $ithin the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court
or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation bet$een the parties
before the lupon chairman or the pang6at, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified
by the lupon secretary or pang6at secretary as attested to by the lupon or pang6at chairman or unless the
settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto/
7 7 7
)onformably $ith said Section 4!, the AT)) should have dismissed Eldon<s complaint/ -or our part, this
)ourt is $ithout authority to refuse to give effect to, and $ipe off the statute boo6s, Section 4! of the ,.)
insofar as this case and other cases governed by the Rules on Summary &rocedure are concerned/
4
cra
Aoreover, $e are unconvinced of Eldon<s claim that Cout of pityC he also allo$ed petitioners to stay on the
disputed portion in !"23 because he only bought $hat is no$ ,ot +o/ D#"D91 in !""0/
E?ERE)RE, $e GRANT the petition and SET AS-DE the assailed 'ecision dated +ovember 2, ##8 and
Resolution dated 'ecember !, ##4 of the )ourt of 1ppeals in )19./R/ S& +o/ 0!48"/ The appellate court
erred in reversing the RT)<s Order to respect petitioners< possession of the disputed property/ Respondents<
unla$ful detainer complaint is hereby D-S!-SSED, $ithout prejudice to any appropriate suit bet$een the
parties respecting title to the disputed portion/
)osts against Respondents/
S RDERED.
G.R. No. 163980 A:=:s2 3, 2006
?$" S<-R-T ?!EENERS ASSC-AT-N, -NC. ./0 NESTR- ). A<$-NAR-, 1/ 31s 7erso/.4
c.7.c128 ./0 .s <res10e/2 o6 ?o48 S71r12 ?omeo>/ers Assoc1.21o/, -/c., Petitioners, v. SECRETAR"
!-C?AE$ DE)ENSR, 1/ 31s c.7.c128 .s C3.1rm./ o6 23e ?o:s1/= ./0 #rb./ De5e4o7me/2
Coor01/.21/= Co:/c14 &?#DCC', ATT". EDGARD <A!-NT#AN, 1/ 31s c.7.c128 .s Ge/er.4 !./.=er o6
23e N.21o/.4 ?o:s1/= A:23or128 &N?A', !R. <ERC-,A$ C?A,EB, 1/ 31s c.7.c128 .s C3.1rm./ o6 23e
<res10e/21.4 Comm1ss1o/ 6or 23e #rb./ <oor &<C#<', !A"R )E$-C-AN %E$!NTE, 1/ 31s c.7.c128
.s !.8or o6 N:eIo/ C128, SECRETAR" E$-SEA GB#N, 1/ 3er c.7.c128 .s Secre2.r8 o6 23e
De7.r2me/2 o6 E/51ro/me/2 ./0 N.2:r.4 Reso:rces &DENR' ./0 SECRETAR" )$RENTE SR-N#EB,
1/ 31s c.7.c128 .s Secre2.r8 o6 23e De7.r2me/2 o6 <:b41c EorGs ./0 ?1=3>.8s &D<E?' .s e;-o661c1o
members o6 23e NAT-NA$ G,ERN!ENT CENTER AD!-N-STRAT-N C!!-TTEE, Respondents.
' E ) * S * O +
T-NGA, J.:
The instant petition for prohibition under Rule 3D of the !""0 Rules of )ivil &rocedure, $ith prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and@or $rit of preliminary injunction, see6s to prevent respondents
from enforcing the implementing rules and regulations (*RR) of Republic 1ct +o/ "#0, other$ise 6no$n as
the C+ational .overnment )enter (+.)) ;ousing and ,and (tili=ation 1ct of ##8/C
&etitioner ;oly Spirit ;omeo$ners 1ssociation, *nc/ (1ssociation) is a homeo$ners association from the :est
Side of the +.)/ *t is represented by its president, +estorio -/ 1polinario, Er/, $ho is a co9petitioner in his o$n
personal capacity and on behalf of the association/
+amed respondents are the ex+officio members of the +ational .overnment )enter 1dministration )ommittee
()ommittee)/ 1t the filing of the instant petition, the )ommittee $as composed of Secretary Aichael 'efensor,
)hairman of the ;ousing and (rban 'evelopment )oordinating )ouncil (;('))), 1tty/ Edgardo &amintuan,
.eneral Aanager of the +ational ;ousing 1uthority (+;1), Ar/ &ercival )have=, )hairman of the &residential
)ommission for (rban &oor (&)(&), Aayor -eliciano Belmonte of Nue=on )ity, Secretary Elisea .o=un of the
'epartment of Environment and +atural Resources ('E+R), and Secretary -lorante SoriFue= of the
'epartment of &ublic :or6s and ;igh$ays ('&:;)/
&rior to the passage of R/1/ +o/ "#0, a number of presidential issuances authori=ed the creation and
development of $hat is no$ 6no$n as the +ational .overnment )enter (+.))/
On Aarch D, !"0, former &resident -erdinand Aarcos issued &roclamation +o/ !23, reserving a parcel of
land in )onstitution ;ills, Nue=on )ity, covering a little over 44# hectares as a national government site to be
6no$n as the +.)/
!
cra
On 1ugust !!, !"20, then &resident )ora=on 1Fuino issued &roclamation +o/ !80, e7cluding !D# of the 44#
hectares of the reserved site from the coverage of &roclamation +o/ !23 and authori=ing instead the
disposition of the e7cluded portion by direct sale to the bona fide residents therein/

chanroblesvirtualla$libary
*n vie$ of the rapid increase in population density in the portion e7cluded by &roclamation +o/ !80 from the
coverage of &roclamation +o/ !23, former &resident -idel Ramos issued &roclamation +o/ 42 on September
0, !""8, authori=ing the vertical development of the e7cluded portion to ma7imi=e the number of families $ho
can effectively become beneficiaries of the government<s sociali=ed housing program/
8
cra
On Aay !4, ##8, &resident .loria Aacapagal91rroyo signed into la$ R/1/ +o/ "#0/ 1mong the salient
provisions of the la$ are the follo$ing%cra%nad
Sec/ / 'eclaration of Policy/ 9 *t is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure the land tenure of the
urban poor/ To$ard this end, lands located in the +.), Nue=on )ity shall be utili=ed for housing,
socioeconomic, civic, educational, religious and other purposes/
Sec/ 8/ 'isposition of Certain Portions of the 5ational .overnment Center Site to Bona 0ide Residents/ 9
&roclamation +o/ !23, Series of !"0", is hereby amended by e7cluding from the coverage thereof, !24
hectares on the $est side and 82 hectares on the east side of )ommon$ealth 1venue, and declaring the
same open for disposition to bona fide residents therein% Provided, That the determination of the bona
fide residents on the $est side shall be based on the census survey conducted in !""4 and the determination
of the bona fide residents on the east side shall be based on the census survey conducted in !""4 and
occupancy verification survey conducted in ###% &rovided,further, That all e7isting legal agreements,
programs and plans signed, dra$n up or implemented and actions ta6en, consistent $ith the provisions of this
1ct are hereby adopted/
Sec/ 4/ 'isposition of Certain Portions of the 5ational .overnment Center Site for <ocal .overnment or
Community 0acilities, Socioeconomic, Charitable, Educational and Religious Purposes/ 9 )ertain portions of
land $ithin the aforesaid area for local government or community facilities, socioeconomic, charitable,
educational and religious institutions are hereby reserved for disposition for such purposes% Provided, That
only those 1/s212:21o/s already operating and $ith e7isting facilities or structures, or those occupying the
land may avail of the disposition program established under the provisions this 1ctB Provided, further, That in
ascertaining the specific areas that may be disposed of in favor of these 1/s212:21o/s, the e7isting site
allocation shall be used as basis therefore% Provided, finally. That in determining the reasonable lot allocation
of such 1/s212:21o/s $ithout specific lot allocations, the land area that may be allocated to them shall be
based on the area actually used by said institutions at the time of effectivity of this 1ct/ (Emphasis supplied/)
*n accordance $ith Section D of R/1/ +o/ "#0,
4
the )ommittee formulated the *mplementing Rules and
Regulations (*RR) of R/1/ +o/ "#0 on Eune ", ##4/ &etitioners subseFuently filed the instant petition,
raising the follo$ing issues%cra%nad
:;ET;ER OR +OT SE)T*O+ 8/! (1/4), 8/! (B/), 8/ (1/!) 1+' 8/ ()/!) O- T;E R(,ES 1+' RE.(,1T*O+S
O- RE&(B,*) 1)T +O/ "#0, OT;ER:*SE 5+O:+ 1S C+1T*O+1, .O?ER+AE+T )E+TER (+.)) ;O(S*+.
1+' ,1+' (T*,*M1T*O+ 1)T O- ##8C S;O(,' BE 'E),1RE' +(,, 1+' ?O*' -OR BE*+. *+)O+S*STE+T
:*T; T;E ,1: *T SEE5S TO *A&,EAE+T/
:;ET;ER OR +OT SE)T*O+ 8/! (1/4), 8/! (B/), 8/ (1/!) 1+' 8/ ()/!) O- T;E R(,ES 1+' RE.(,1T*O+S
O- RE&(B,*) 1)T +O/ "#0, OT;ER:*SE 5+O:+ 1S C+1T*O+1, .O?ER+AE+T )E+TER (+.)) ;O(S*+.
1+' ,1+' (T*,*M1T*O+ 1)T O- ##8C S;O(,' BE 'E),1RE' +(,, 1+' ?O*' -OR BE*+. 1RB*TR1R>,
)1&R*)*O(S 1+' :;*AS*)1,/
D
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
-irst, the procedural matters/
The Office of the Solicitor .eneral (OS.) argues that petitioner 1ssociation cannot Fuestion the
implementation of Section 8/! (b/) and Section 8/ (c/!) since it does not claim any right over the +.) East
Side/ Section 8/! (b/) provides for the ma7imum lot area that may be a$arded to a resident9beneficiary of
the +.) East Side, $hile Section 8/ (c/!) imposes a lot price escalation penalty to a Fualified beneficiary $ho
fails to e7ecute a contract to sell $ithin the prescribed period/
3
1lso, the OS. contends that since petitioner
association is not the duly recogni=ed people<s organi=ation in the +.) and since petitioners not Fualify as
beneficiaries, they cannot Fuestion the manner of disposition of lots in the +.)/
0
cra
C,egal standingC or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or $ill sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged// The gist of the Fuestion of standing is $hether a party alleges Csuch personal sta6e in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness $hich sharpens the presentation of issues
upon $hich the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional Fuestions/C
2
cra
&etitioner association has the legal standing to institute the instant petition, $hether or not it is the duly
recogni=ed association of homeo$ners in the +.)/ There is no dispute that the individual members of
petitioner association are residents of the +.)/ 1s such they are covered and stand to be either benefited or
injured by the enforcement of the *RR, particularly as regards the selection process of beneficiaries and lot
allocation to Fualified beneficiaries/ Thus, petitioner association may assail those provisions in the *RR $hich it
believes to be unfavorable to the rights of its members/ )ontrary to the OS.<s allegation that the failure of
petitioner association and its members to Fualify as beneficiaries effectively bars them from Fuestioning the
provisions of the *RR, such circumstance precisely operates to confer on them the legal personality to assail
the *RR/ )ertainly, petitioner and its members have sustained direct injury arising from the enforcement of
the *RR in that they have been disFualified and eliminated from the selection process/ :hile it is true that
petitioners claim rights over the +.) :est Side only and thus cannot be affected by the implementation of
Section 8/! (b/), $hich refers to the +.) East Side, the rest of the assailed provisions of the *RR, namely,
Sections 8/! (a/4), 8/ (a/!) and 8/ (c/!), govern the disposition of lots in the :est Side itself or all the lots
in the +.)/
:e cannot, therefore, agree $ith the OS. on the issue of locus standi/ The petition does not merit dismissal
on that ground/
There are, ho$ever, other procedural impediments to the granting of the instant petition/ The OS. claims that
the instant petition for prohibition is an improper remedy because the $rit of prohibition does not lie against
the e7ercise of a Fuasi9legislative function/
"
Since in issuing the Fuestioned *RR of R/1/ +o/ "#0, the
)ommittee $as not e7ercising judicial, Fuasi9judicial or ministerial function, $hich is the scope of a petition for
prohibition under Section , Rule 3D of the !""0 Rules of )ivil &rocedure, the instant prohibition should be
dismissed outright, the OS. contends/ -or their part, respondent Aayor of Nue=on )ity
!#
and respondent
+;1
!!
contend that petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in filing the instant petition $ith
this )ourt and not $ith the )ourt of 1ppeals, $hich has concurrent jurisdiction over a petition for prohibition/
The cited breaches are mortal/ The petition deserves to be spurned as a conseFuence/
1dministrative agencies possess Fuasi9legislative or rule9ma6ing po$ers and Fuasi9judicial or administrative
adjudicatory po$ers/ Nuasi9legislative or rule9ma6ing po$er is the po$er to ma6e rules and regulations $hich
results in delegated legislation that is $ithin the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non9
delegability and separability of po$ers/
!
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
*n Fuestioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a
party need not e7haust administrative remedies before going to court/ This principle, ho$ever, applies only
$here the act of the administrative agency concerned $as performed pursuant to its Fuasi9judicial function,
and not $hen the assailed act pertained to its rule9ma6ing or Fuasi9legislative po$er/
!8
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
The assailed *RR $as issued pursuant to the Fuasi9legislative po$er of the )ommittee e7pressly authori=ed by
R/1/ +o/ "#0/ The petition rests mainly on the theory that the assailed *RR issued by the )ommittee is
invalid on the ground that it is not germane to the object and purpose of the statute it see6s to implement/
:here $hat is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative
agency in the performance of its Fuasi9legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon
the same/
!4
cra
Since the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the assailed *RR issued by the
)ommittee in the e7ercise of its Fuasi9legislative po$er, the judicial course to assail its validity must follo$ the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts/ 1lthough the Supreme )ourt, )ourt of 1ppeals and the Regional Trial )ourts
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue $rits of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, *uo !arranto, habeas
corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
forum/
!D
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
True, this )ourt has the full discretionary po$er to ta6e cogni=ance of the petition filed directly $ith it if
compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, so $arrant/
!3
1 direct invocation of the
)ourt<s original jurisdiction to issue these $rits should be allo$ed only $hen there are special and important
reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition/
!0
cra
*n 6eirs of Bertuldo 6inog v. @elicor,
!2
the )ourt said that it $ill not entertain direct resort to it unless the
redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and e7ceptional and compelling circumstances,
such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the e7traordinary
remedy of $rit of certiorari, calling for the e7ercise of its primary jurisdiction/
!"
1 perusal, ho$ever, of the
petition for prohibition sho$s no compelling, special or important reasons to $arrant the )ourt<s ta6ing
cogni=ance of the petition in the first instance/ &etitioner also failed to state any reason that precludes the
lo$er courts from passing upon the validity of the Fuestioned *RR/ Aoreover, as provided in Section D, 1rticle
?*** of the
)onstitution,
#
the )ourt<s po$er to evaluate the validity of an implementing rule or regulation is generally
appellate in nature/ Thus, follo$ing the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the instant petition should have been
initially filed $ith the Regional Trial )ourt/
1 petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy to assail an *RR issued in the e7ercise of a Fuasi9
legislative function/ &rohibition is an e7traordinary $rit directed against any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, $hether e7ercising judicial, Fuasi9judicial or ministerial functions, ordering said entity or
person to desist from further proceedings $hen said proceedings are $ithout or in e7cess of said entity<s or
person<s jurisdiction, or are accompanied $ith grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy and adeFuate remedy in the ordinary course of la$/
!
&rohibition lies against judicial or
ministerial functions, but not against legislative or Fuasi9legislative functions/ .enerally, the purpose of a $rit
of prohibition is to 6eep a lo$er court $ithin the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration
of justice in orderly channels/

&rohibition is the proper remedy to afford relief against usurpation of

jurisdiction or po$er by an inferior court, or $hen, in the e7ercise of jurisdiction in handling matters clearly
$ithin its cogni=ance the inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the la$, or $here there is
no adeFuate remedy available in the ordinary course of la$ by $hich such relief can be obtained/
8
:here the
principal relief sought is to invalidate an *RR, petitioners< remedy is an ordinary action for its nullification, an
action $hich properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial )ourt/ *n any case, petitioners< allegation
that Crespondents are performing or threatening to perform functions $ithout or in e7cess of their jurisdictionC
may appropriately be enjoined by the trial court through a $rit of injunction or a temporary restraining order/
*n a number of petitions,
4
the )ourt adeFuately resolved them on other grounds $ithout adjudicating on the
constitutionality issue $hen there $ere no compelling reasons to pass upon the same/ *n li6e manner, the
instant petition may be dismissed based on the foregoing procedural grounds/ >et, the )ourt $ill not shir6
from its duty to rule on the merits of this petition to facilitate the speedy resolution of this case/ *n proper
cases, procedural rules may be rela7ed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice/ 1nd the po$er of
the )ourt to e7cept a particular case from its rules $henever the purposes of justice reFuire it cannot be
Fuestioned/
D
cra
+o$, $e turn to the substantive aspects of the petition/ The outcome, ho$ever, is just as dismal for
petitioners/
&etitioners assail the follo$ing provisions of the *RR%cra%nad
Section 2. 'isposition of Certain portions of the 5.C Site to the bonafide residents
8/!/ &eriod for Nualification of Beneficiaries
7 7 7
(a/4) &rocessing and evaluation of Fualifications shall be based on the )ode of &olicies and subject to the
condition that a beneficiary is Fualified to acFuire only one (!) lot $ith a minimum of 83 sF/ m/ and ma7imum
of D4 sF/ m/ and subject further to the availability of lots/
7 7 7
(b/) 1pplications for Fualification as beneficiary shall be processed and evaluated based on the )ode of
&olicies including the minimum and ma7imum lot allocation of 8D sF/ m/ and 3# sF/ m/
7 7 7
8// E7ecution of the )ontract to Sell
(a) :estside
(a/!) 1ll Fualified beneficiaries shall e7ecute )ontract to Sell ()TS) $ithin si7ty (3#) days from the effectivity
of the *RR in order to avail of the lot at &0##/## per sF/ m/
7 7 7
(c) for both eastside and $estside
(c/!) Nualified beneficiaries $ho failed to e7ecute )TS on the deadline set in item a/! above in case of
$estside and in case of eastside si7 (3) months after approval of the subdivision plan shall be subjected to lot
price escalation/
The rate shall be based on the formula to be set by the +ational ;ousing 1uthority factoring therein the
affordability criteria/ The ne$ rate shall be approved by the +.)91dministration )ommittee (+.)91))/
&etitioners contend that the aforeFuoted provisions of the *RR are constitutionally infirm as they are not
germane to and@or are in conflict $ith the object and purpose of the la$ sought to be implemented/
0irst/ 1ccording to petitioners, the limitation on the areas to be a$arded to Fualified beneficiaries under Sec/
8/! (a/4) and (b/) of the *RR is not in harmony $ith the provisions of R/1/ +o/ "#0, $hich mandates that
the lot allocation to Fualified beneficiaries shall be based on the area actually used or occupied by bona
fide residents $ithout limitation to area/ The argument is utterly baseless/
The beneficiaries of lot allocations in the +.) may be classified into t$o groups, namely, the urban poor or
the bona fide residents $ithin the +.) site and certain government institutions including the local
government/ Section 8, R/1/ +o/ "#0 mandates the allocation of additional property $ithin the +.) for
disposition to its bona fide residents and the manner by $hich this area may be distributed to Fualified
beneficiaries/ Section 4, R/1/ +o/ "#0, on the other hand, governs the lot disposition to government
institutions/ :hile it is true that Section 4 of R/1/ +o/ "#0 has a proviso mandating that the lot allocation
shall be based on the land area actually used or occupied at the time of the la$<s effectivity, this proviso
applies only to institutional beneficiaries consisting of the local government, socioeconomic, charitable,
educational and religious institutions $hich do not have specific lot allocations, and not to the bona
fide residents of +.)/ There is no proviso $hich even hints that a bona fide resident of the +.) is li6e$ise
entitled to the lot area actually occupied by him/
&etitioners< interpretation is also not supported by the policy of R/1/ +o/ "#0 and the prior proclamations
establishing the +.)/ The government<s policy to set aside public property aims to benefit not only the urban
poor but also the local government and various government institutions devoted to socioeconomic, charitable,
educational and
religious purposes/
3
Thus, although &roclamation +o/ !80 authori=ed the sale of lots to bona fide residents in
the +.), only a third of the entire area of the +.) $as declared open for disposition subject to the condition
that those portions being used or earmar6ed for public or Fuasi9public purposes $ould be e7cluded from the
housing program for +.) residents/ The same policy of r.21o/.4 and o721m.4 land use can be read in
&roclamation +o/ 42 issued by then &resident Ramos/ 1lthough the proclamation recogni=ed the rapid
increase in the population density in the +.), it did not allocate additional property $ithin the +.) for urban
poor housing but instead authori=ed the vertical development of the same !D# hectares identified previously
by &roclamation +o/ !80 since the distribution of individual lots $ould not adeFuately provide for the housing
needs of all the bona fide residents in the +.)/
*n addition, as provided in Section 4 of R/1/ +o/ "#0, the institutional beneficiaries shall be allocated the
areas actually occupied by themB hence, the portions intended for the institutional beneficiaries is fi7ed and
cannot be allocated for other non9institutional beneficiaries/ Thus, the areas not intended for institutional
beneficiaries $ould have to be eFuitably distributed among the bona fide residents of the +.)/ *n order to
accommodate all Fualified residents, a limitation on the area to be a$arded to each beneficiary must be fi7ed
as a necessary conseFuence/
Second/ &etitioners note that $hile Sec/ 8/ (a/!) of the *RR fi7es the selling rate of a lot at &0##/## per sF/
m/, R/1/ +o/ "#0 does not provide for the price/ They add Sec/ 8/ (c/!) penali=es a beneficiary $ho fails to
e7ecute a contract to sell $ithin si7 (3) months from the approval of the subdivision plan by imposing a price
escalation, $hile there is no such penalty imposed by R/1/ +o/ "#0/ Thus, they conclude that the assailed
provisions conflict $ith R/1/ +o/ "#0 and should be nullified/ The argument deserves scant consideration/
:here a rule or regulation has a provision not e7pressly stated or contained in the statute being implemented,
that provision does not necessarily contradict the statute/ 1 legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate
legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof/
0
1ll that is reFuired
is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the la$B that the regulation be not in
contradiction to but in conformity $ith the standards prescribed by the la$/
2
cra
*n Section D of R/1/ +o/ "#0, the )ommittee is granted the po$er to administer, formulate guidelines and
policies, and implement the disposition of the areas covered by the la$/ *mplicit in this authority and the
statute<s objective of urban poor housing is the po$er of the )ommittee to formulate the manner by $hich the
reserved property may be allocated to the beneficiaries/ (nder this broad po$er, the )ommittee is mandated
to fill in the details such as the Fualifications of beneficiaries, the selling price of the lots, the terms and
conditions governing the sale and other 6ey particulars necessary to implement the objective of the la$/
These details are purposely omitted from the statute and their determination is left to the discretion of the
)ommittee because the latter possesses special 6no$ledge and technical e7pertise over these matters/
The )ommittee<s authority to fi7 the selling price of the lots may be li6ened to the rate9fi7ing po$er of
administrative agencies/ *n case of a delegation of rate9fi7ing po$er, the only standard $hich the legislature is
reFuired to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just/
;o$ever, it has been held that even in the absence of an e7press reFuirement as to reasonableness, this
standard may be implied/
"
*n this regard, petitioners do not even claim that the selling price of the lots is
unreasonable/
The provision on the price escalation clause as a penalty imposed to a beneficiary $ho fails to e7ecute a
contract to sell $ithin the prescribed period is also $ithin the )ommittee<s authority to formulate guidelines
and policies to implement R/1/ +o/ "#0/ The )ommittee has the po$er to lay do$n the terms and conditions
governing the disposition of said lots, provided that these are reasonable and just/ There is nothing
objectionable about prescribing a period $ithin $hich the parties must e7ecute the contract to sell/ This
condition can ordinarily be found in a contract to sell and is not contrary to la$, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy/
&hird/ &etitioners also suggest that the adoption of the assailed *RR suffers from a procedural fla$/ 1ccording
to them the *RR $as adopted and concurred in by several representatives of people<s organi=ations contrary
to the e7press mandate of R/1/ +o/ "#0 that only t$o representatives from duly recogni=ed peoples<
organi=ations must compose the +.)1) $hich promulgated the assailed *RR/ *t is $orth noting that petitioner
association is not a duly recogni=ed people<s organi=ation/
*n subordinate legislation, as long as the passage of the rule or regulation had the benefit of a hearing, the
procedural due process reFuirement is deemed complied $ith/ That there is observance of more than the
minimum reFuirements of due process in the adoption of the Fuestioned *RR is not a ground to invalidate the
same/
*n sum, the petition lac6s merit and suffers from procedural deficiencies/
:;ERE-ORE, the instant petition for prohibition is '*SA*SSE'/ )osts against petitioners/
S RDERED/