Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Ruling:
4 9 . S m a r t C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , I n c . v. N a t i o n a l
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or
rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative
G.R. No. 151908; August 12, 2003 adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power
is the power to make rules and regulations which results in
delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting
Facts: statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of
powers.
Pursuant to its rule-making and regulatory powers,
the NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000, The rules and regulations that administrative agencies
promulgating rules and regulations on the billing of promulgate, which are the product of a delegated legislative
telecommunications services. power to create new and additional legal provisions that have
the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory
The NTC issued a Memorandum to all cellular authority granted by the legislature to the administrative
mobile telephone service (CMTS) operators which contained agency. It is required that the regulation be germane to the
measures to minimize if not totally eliminate the incidence of objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to,
stealing of cellular phone units, by requiring presentation and but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law. They
verification of identity and addresses of prepaid SIM card must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the
customers, deny acceptance of customers using stolen units enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid.
registered to somebody other than the applicant, share all Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to
information of stolen cellphone units, and require registration what rules and regulations may be promulgated by an
and identification cards from the customers. This was followed administrative body, as well as with respect to what fields are
by another memorandum stating that all prepaid cards sol on subject to regulation by it. It may not make rules and
October 2000 and beyond shall be valid for at least 2 years regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the
from the date of first use. Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is
administering or which created it, or which are in derogation
Petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute. In case of conflict
Pilipino Telephone Corp filed against the NTC and its between a statute and an administrative order, the former must
commissioners an action for the declaration of nullity of the prevail.
NTC memorandums, with prayer for issuance of writ of
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order before Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-
the RTC. making power of an administrative agency is its quasi-judicial
or administrative adjudicatory power. This is the power to hear
They alleged that the NTC has no jurisdiction to and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy
regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid
cards since such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of
down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a
law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the premises
when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is of the regulatory statute administered. The objective of the
essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in
power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably determining whether it should refrain from exercising its
necessary for the performance of the executive or jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has
administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi- determined some question or some aspect of some question
judicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are arising in the proceeding before the court. It applies where the
required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into
hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the
them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has
in a judicial nature. been placed within the special competence of an
administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is
In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative
rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a party body for its view.
need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to
court. This principle applies only where the act of the However, where what is assailed is the validity or
administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the
its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-
pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. In legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass
Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. Philippine upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or
Coconut Authority, it was held: set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the
law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular
The rule of requiring exhaustion of courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial
administrative remedies before a party may review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or
seek judicial review, so strenuously urged by executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction,
the Solicitor General on behalf of ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional
respondent, has obviously no application trial courts. This is within the scope of judicial power, which
here. The resolution in question was issued includes the authority of the courts to determine in an
by the PCA in the exercise of its rule- appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political
making or legislative power. However, only departments. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
judicial review of decisions of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
administrative agencies made in the exercise legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
of their quasi-judicial function is subject to or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
the exhaustion doctrine. lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Even assuming arguendo that the principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies apply in this case, the In the case at bar, the issuance by the NTC of the
records reveal that petitioners sufficiently complied with this memorandums was pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-
requirement. Even during the drafting and deliberation stages making power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking
leading to the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the
13-6-2000, petitioners were able to register their protests to the constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. In Drilon v.
proposed billing guidelines. They submitted their respective Lim, it was held:
position papers setting forth their objections and submitting
proposed schemes for the billing circular. After the same was We stress at the outset that the lower court had
issued, petitioners wrote successive letters asking for the jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of
suspension and reconsideration of the so-called Billing Section 187, this authority being embraced in the
Circular. These letters were not acted upon until October 6, general definition of the judicial power to determine
2000, when respondent NTC issued the second assailed what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion
Memorandum implementing certain provisions of the Billing of their conformity to the fundamental law.
Circular. This was taken by petitioners as a clear denial of the Specifically, B.P. 129 vests in the regional trial courts
requests contained in their previous letters, thus prompting jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of
them to seek judicial relief. the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
even as the accused in a criminal action has the right
In like manner, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to question in his defense the constitutionality of a
applies only where the administrative agency exercises its law he is charged with violating and of the
quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Thus, in cases proceedings taken against him, particularly as they
involving specialized disputes, the practice has been to refer contravene the Bill of Rights. Moreover, Article X,
the same to an administrative agency of special competence Section 5(2), of the Constitution vests in the Supreme
pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The courts Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and
will not determine a controversy involving a question which is orders of lower courts in all cases in which the
within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, international or executive agreement, law,
where the question demands the exercise of sound presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
experience and services of the administrative tribunal to
operator-lessee to vacate the service station and to turn over its
50. PEDRO GUERZON, petitioner, vs. CA, BUREAU OF possession to the oil company-lessor upon the expiration of
ENERGY UTILIZATION, F. C. CAASI JR., and the dealership and lease agreements
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
respondents HELD:
G.R. No. 77707 August 8, 1988
From a cursory reading of the assailed order, it is readily
Facts: apparent that the order is premised on petitioner's refusal to
vacate the service station in spite of the expiration and non-
Petitioner executed with Shell, a "Service Station Lease" renewal of his dealership and lease agreements with Shell.
contract for the use and operation of respondent SHELL's Nowhere in the order is it stated that petitioner had engaged in
properties, facilities and equipment for a period of 5 years. illegal trading in petroleum products or had committed any
Petitioner likewise executed with the same Corporation a other violation of B.P. Blg. 33. The order merely makes a
"Dealer's Sales Contract" for the sale by petitioner of vague reference to a "violation of BEU laws, rules and
respondent SHELL's petroleum and other products in the regulations," without stating the specific provision violated.
leased service station. Respondent Bureau of Energy That petitioner had engaged in illegal trading in petroleum
Utilization approved the Dealer's Sales Contract pursuant to products cannot even be implied from the wording of the
which petitioner was appointed dealer of SHELL's gasoline assailed order.
and other petroleum products which he was to sell at a
gasoline station. Respondent BEU issued a certificate of But then, even if petitioner was indeed engaged in illegal
authority in petitioner's favor, which had a 5-year period of trading in petroleum products, there was no basis under B.P.
validity, in line with the terms of the contract. Blg. 33 to order him to vacate the service station and to turn it
over to Shell. Illegal trading in petroleum products is a
The Service Station Lease Contract provides that the criminal act wherein the injured party is the State. Shell is not
cancellation or termination of the Dealer's Sales Contract shall even alleged by the Solicitor General as a private party
automatically cancel this Lease. prejudiced and, therefore, it can claim no relief if a criminal
case is instituted.
Respondent SHELL informed petitioner that the Company was
not renewing the Dealer's Sales Contract together with the Even on the assumption that petitioner's continued occupancy
service station lease and reminding him to take appropriate and operation of the service station constituted a violation of a
steps to wind up his business activities at the station and, on law or regulation, still the Court has no recourse but to rule
the appropriate date to hand over the station with all its against the legality of the order, the BEU not being
facilities and equipment. A copy of this letter was furnished empowered to issue it. Section 7 of PD 1206 is very clear as to
BEU. the courses of action that the Bureau may take in case of a
violation or non- compliance with any term or condition of
BEU, through Caasi, Jr., officer- in-charge of its Mindanao any certificate, license or permit issued by the Bureau or any
Division Office, issued an order directing the petitioner to of its orders, decisions, rules or regulations. The Bureau may:
1)immediately vacate the service station and turn it over to (1) impose a fine not exceeding P1,000.00; and (2) in case of
Shell; and 2) show cause, within ten (10) days from failure to pay the fine imposed or to cease and discontinue the
receipt, why no administrative and/or criminal proceedings violation or non-compliance, order the suspension, closure or
shall be instituted against him. stoppage of operations of the establishment of the guilty party.
Its authority is limited to these 2 options.
Pursuant to the order, SHELL, accompanied by law
enforcement officers, was able to secure possession of the Jurisdiction to order a lessee to vacate the leased premises is
gasoline station in question together with the equipments and vested in the civil courts in an appropriate case for unlawful
accessories, and turned them over to the control of the detainer or accion publiciana. There is nothing in PD 1206 that
personnel of SHELL who accompanied them. would suggest that the same or similar jurisdiction has been
granted to the Bureau. It is a fundamental rule that an
Petitioner filed with the RTC a complaint to annul the order of administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly
respondent Caasi, Jr., but this complaint was dismissed for granted to it by law and those that are necessarily implied in
lack of jurisdiction to annul the order of a quasi-judicial body the exercise thereof. That issuing the order to vacate was the
of equivalent category as the RTC. most effective way of stopping any illegal trading in petroleum
products is no excuse for a deviation from this rule. Otherwise,
Thus, petitioner filed in the CA a petition for certiorari with a adherence to the rule of law would be rendered meaningless.
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction against Shell ,
Caasi, Jr. and the BEU seeking the annulment of the order and Contrary to the Solicitor General's theory, the text of the
the restoration to petitioner of possession of the service station assailed order leaves no room for doubt that it was issued in
and the equipment removed therefrom. The CA dismissed the connection with an adjudication of the contractual dispute
petition after holding the disputed order valid and the between Shell and petitioner. But then the Bureau, like its
proceedings undertaken to implement the same sanctioned by predecessor, the defunct Oil Industry Commission, has no
PD 1206. power to decide contractual disputes between gasoline dealers
and oil companies, in the absence of an express provision of
ISSUE: WON the Bureau of Energy Utilization, the agency law granting to it such power. As explicitly stated in the law, in
charged with regulating the operations and trade practices of connection with the exercise of quasi-judicial powers, the
the petroleum industry, has the power to order a service station Bureau's jurisdiction is limited to cases involving violation or
non-compliance with any term or condition of any certificate, Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 957, known as "The
license or permit issued by it or of any of its orders, decisions, Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Decree", states that
rules or regulations. National Housing Authority. The National Housing
Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real
Viewed from any angle, Caasi, Jr., in issuing the assailed estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of
order, acted beyond his authority and overstepped the powers this decree. Presidential Decree No. 1344, clarified and spelled
granted by PD 1206, as amended. The order was, therefore, out the quasi-judicial dimensions of the grant of regulatory
null and void. authority to the NHA in the following manner:
Even if the issuance of the order to vacate was within the SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the
authority of Caasi, Jr., still its nullity is apparent because of the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers
failure to comply with the requirement of notice and hearing. provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National
P.D. 1206 requires notice and hearing before any Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear
administrative penalty provided may be imposed. and decide cases of the following nature:
A. Unsound real estate business practices;
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by sub-
51. Antipolo Realty Corp. v. National Housing Authority division lot or condominium unit buyer against the project
G.R. No. L-50444, [August 31, 1987], 237 PHIL 389-403 owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and
FACTS: statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or
Jose Hernando acquired ownership over Lot. No. 15, Block condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer,
IV of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision from the petitioner broker or salesman.
Antipolo Realty Corporation. On 28 August 1974, Mr.
Hernando transferred his rights over Lot No. 15 to private The need for and therefore the scope of the regulatory
respondent Virgilio Yuson. However, for failure of Antipolo authority thus lodged in the NHA are indicated in the second
Realty to develop the subdivision project, Mr. Yuson paid only and third preambular paragraphs of the statute. There is no
the arrearages pertaining to the period up to, and including, the question that under Presidential Decree No. 957, the NHA was
month of August 1972 and stopped all monthly installment legally empowered to determine and protect the rights of
payments falling due thereafter. On October 14 1976, the contracting parties under the law administered by it and under
president of Antipolo Realty sent a notice to private the respective agreements, as well as to ensure that their
respondent Yuson advising that the required improvements in obligations thereunder are faithfully performed.
the subdivision had already been completed, and requesting
resumption of payment of the monthly installments on Lot No.
15. Mr. Yuson refused to pay the September 1972-October
1976 monthly installments but agreed to pay the post October
1976 installments. Antipolo Realty responded by rescinding
the Contract to Sell, and claiming the forfeiture of all
installment payments previously made by Mr. Yuson. Mr.
Yuson brought his dispute with Antipolo Realty before public
respondent NHA. After hearing, the NHA rendered a decision
on 9 March 1978 ordering the reinstatement of the Contract to
Sell. Antipolo Realty filed a Motion for Reconsideration
asserting that the jurisdiction to hear and decide Mr. Yuson's
complaint was lodged in the regular courts, not in the NHA.
The motion for reconsideration was denied by respondent
NHA, which sustained its jurisdiction to hear and decide the
Yuson complaint. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON NHA has jurisdiction over the present controversy.
HELD:
NHA was upheld by the SC. It is by now common place
learning that many administrative agencies exercise and
perform adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a
limited extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-
judicial authority to administrative agencies (e.g., the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor
Relations Commission) is well recognized in our jurisdiction,
basically because the need for special competence and
experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution
of questions of complex or specialized character and because
of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular
courts have remained crowded and clogged. |||
terms twenty (20) days after its issuance, without respondent
court issuing any preliminary injunction.
Chapter 7: Administrative Proceedings
Petitioner filed a "Motion to Dismiss Petition and to
52. Bantolino vs Coca Cola Bottlers Phils Inc. Lift Restraining Order" on the ground that respondent court
has no appellate jurisdiction over BOI Case No. 92-005, the
GR 153660 June 10, 2003
same being exclusively vested with the Supreme Court
pursuant to Article 82 of the Omnibus Investments Code of
Facts: 62 employees of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Inc.
1987. However, the same was denied, hence, this instant
filed a complaint against the latter for unfair labor practice
petition for certiorari and prohibition.
through illegal dismissal,violation of security of tenure and
the perpetuation of the Cabo System. They alleged that ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction
they perform duties such as helpers, bottle segregators, over the case.
and others and that they were employees of the respondent
company to which they were replaced and prevented from HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court, pursuant to its
entering. The respondent company on its part, alleged that Constitutional power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the
they were not their employees and were merely employees 1987 Constitution to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
of independent contractors, thus no employer-employee practice and procedure in all courts, and by way of
relationship existed. The respondent company further implementation of B.P. 129, issued Circular 1-91 prescribing
alleged that some affidavits of the respondents should not the rules governing appeals to the Court of Appeals from final
have been given probative value for their failure to affirm orders or decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-
the contents thereof and to undergo cross-examination. judicial agencies to eliminate unnecessary contradictions and
Labor Arbiter to which the NLRC affirmed, ruled in favor confusing rules of procedure.
of the employees. But upon appeal to the CA, modify such
order wherein it dropped some respondent due to the fact
that some of their affidavits did not undergo any cross- The argument that Article 82 of E.O. 226 cannot be
examination. Now, the respondent filed a petition for the validly repealed by Circular 1-91 because the former grants a
reversal of the judgment of the CA. substantive right which, under the Constitution cannot be
modified, diminished or increased by this Court in the exercise
Issue: Are the LA or NLRC bound to the technicalities of of its rule-making powers is not entirely defensible as it
law? seems. Respondent correctly argued that Article 82 of E.O.
226 grants the right of appeal from decisions or final orders of
Held: the BOI and in granting such right, it also provided where and
in what manner such appeal can be brought. These latter
No. The Supreme Court ruled that administrative bodies portions simply deal with procedural aspects which this Court
like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of has the power to regulate by virtue of its constitutional rule-
law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. making powers.
Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing
jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., Indeed, the question of where and in what manner
by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. Under appeals from decisions of the BOI should be brought pertains
the Rules of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter is given only to procedure or the method of enforcing the substantive
the discretion to determine the necessity of a formal trial right to appeal granted by E.O. 226. In other words, the right
or hearing. Hence, trial-type hearings are not even to appeal from decisions or final orders of the BOI under E.O.
required as the cases may be decided based on verified 226 remains and continues to be respected. Circular 1- 91
position papers, with supporting documents and their simply transferred the venue of appeals from decisions of this
affidavits. agency to respondent Court of Appeals and provided a
different period of appeal, i.e., fifteen (15) days from notice. It
did not make an incursion into the substantive right to appeal.
53. FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC. vs. THE
COURT OF APPEALS The fact that BOI is not expressly included in the list
G.R. No. 110571. March 10, 1994 of quasi-judicial agencies found in the third sentence of
FACTS: The Board of Investments (BOI), in its decision in Section 1 of Circular 1-91 does not mean that said circular
BOI Case No. 92-005 granted petitioner First Lepanto does not apply to appeals from final orders or decision of the
Ceramics, Inc.'s application to amend its BOI certificate of BOI. The second sentence of Section 1 thereof expressly states
registration by changing the scope of its registered product that "(T)hey shall also apply to appeal from final orders or
from "glazed floor tiles" to "ceramic tiles." Eventually, decisions of any quasi-judicial agency from which an appeal is
oppositor Mariwasa filed a motion for reconsideration of the now allowed by statute to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme
said BOI decision. Soon rebuffed in its bid for reconsideration, Court." E.O. 266 is one such statute. Besides, the enumeration
Mariwasa filed a petition for review with respondent Court of is preceded by the words "(A)mong these agencies are . . .,"
Appeals pursuant to Circular 1-91. strongly implying that there are other quasi-judicial agencies
which are covered by the Circular but which have not been
Acting on the petition, respondent court required the expressly listed therein. More importantly, BOI does not fall
BOI and petitioner to comment on Mariwasa's petition and to within the purview of the exclusions listed in Section 2 of the
show cause why no injunction should issue. The respondent circular. Only the following final decisions and interlocutory
court temporarily restrained the BOI from implementing its orders are expressly excluded from the circular, namely, those
decision. This temporary restraining order lapsed by its own of: (1) the National Labor Relations Commission; (2) the
Secretary of Labor and Employment; (3) the Central Board of desist order issued against her for her failure to show
Assessment Appeals and (4) other quasi-judicial agencies from proof of locational clearance
which no appeal to the courts is prescribed or allowed by If she thought the affair had thus been satisfactorily
statute. Since in DBP v. CA we upheld the appellate ended, she was sadly in error, of which she was very
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the Court of Tax shortly made aware. On July 27, 1982, she received
Appeals despite the fact that the same is not among the an Order of Commissioner Dizon dated June 29,
agencies reorganized by B.P. 129, on the ground that B.P. 129 1982 imposing on her a fine of P10,000.00 and
is broad and comprehensive, there is no reason why BOI requiring her to cease operations until further orders
should be excluded from Circular 1-91, which is but from his office
implementary of said law. The petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration
but it was denied. Her appeals to the Commission,
Clearly, Circular 1-91 effectively repealed or and subsequently to the Office of the President, were
superseded Article 82 of E.O. 226 insofar as the manner and likewise denied. It must be stressed that neither the
method of enforcing the right to appeal from decisions of the respondent nor the Commission ever made known the
BOI are concerned. Appeals from decisions of the BOI, which complaint ledged by the respondent to the petitioner
by statute was previously allowed to be filed directly with the until much later, after the Commissioner has rendered
Supreme Court, should now be brought to the Court of several adverse rulings against her.
Appeals. ISSUE:
Was the petitioner denied of due process against which
54. Villa vs Lazaro
the defense of failure of AV to take timely appeal will not
G.R. No. 69871 August 24, 1990 avail?
Facts: HELD:
Anita Villa was granted a building permit to construct All of the foregoing translate to a denial of due
a funeral parlor at Santiago Boulevard in Gen. Santos process against which the defense of failure to take
City. timely appeal will not avail. Administrative
In October of that same year, as the funeral parlor
proceedings are not exempt from the operation of
was nearing completion, a suit for injunction was certain basic and fundamental procedural principles,
brought against Villa by Dr. Jesus Veneracion, the such as the due process requirements in
owner of St. Elizabeth Hospital, standing about investigations and trials. And this administrative
132.36 meters from the funeral parlor. process is recognized to include: (a0 the right to
After appropriate proceedings and trial, judgment on
notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution
the merits was rendered on November 17, 1981, of the proceedings that may affect a persons legal
dismissing Veneracion's complaint as well as the right; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and
counterclaim pleaded by Villa. The Trial Court found defend his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant
that there was a falsified Zoning Ordinance, evidence in his favor; (c) a tribunal so constituted as
containing a provision governing funeral parlors, to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and
which had been submitted to and ratified by the impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction; and
Ministry of Human Settlements, but that ordinance (d) a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by
had never been passed by the Sangguniang substantial evidence presented at the hearing, or at
Panlungsod and that the genuine Zoning Ordinance least contained in the records or disclosed to the
of General Santos City contained no prohibition parties affected. And it being clear that some, at least,
whatever relative to such parlors' "distance from of those essential elements did not obtain or were not
hospitals, whether public or private". Villa then present in the proceedings complained of, any
resumed construction of her building and completed judgment rendered, or order issued, therein was null
it. and void, could never become final and could be
Veneracion did not appeal from this adverse
attacked in any appropriate proceeding.
judgment which therefore became final. Instead, he Also, an earlier judgment on the merits by a
brought the matter up with the Human Settlements competent court cannot be negated by a result of
Regulatory Commission. He lodged a complaint with administrative proceedings. What the record shows is
that commission praying "that the funeral parlor be that the petitioner responded promptly to orders and
relocated because it was near the St. Elizabeth communications sent to her. At any rate, this court
Hospital and Villa failed to secure the necessary will not permit the result of an administrative
locational clearance" proceeding riddled with serious defects already
Two months after the rendition of the judgment
pointed out to negate an earlier judgment on the
against Veneracion, or more precisely on January 22, merits on the same matter regularly rendered by
1982, Villa received a telegram dated January 21 competent court.
from Commissioner Raymundo R. Dizon of the
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission 55. Ute Paterok v Bureau of Customs
No doubt with no little discomfiture Villa received on
193 SCRA 132 (1991)
June 2, 1982 a "Show Cause" Order dated April
28,1982, signed by one Ernesto L. Mendiola in behalf
of the Commission, requiring her to show cause why FACTS:
a fine should not be imposed on her or a cease-and-
In March 1986, petitioner shipped from Germany to the with oppression and harassment, for removing Jeanette as
Philippines two containers, one with used household goods Regional Cashier without just cause.
and the other two used automobiles (one Bourgetti and one
Mercedes Benz). The first container and the Bourgetti car Upon referral to the DOJ of the affidavit-complaints,
were released by the BOC, but not the Mercedes Benz, which a committee was created to investigate petitioner, appointing
remained in custody of the Bureau. Regional State Prosecutor Exevea as committee chairman.
Committee hearings on the complaints were
Petitioner then received a notice of hearing, informing him conducted, but Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel. On the
that seizure proceedings were being initiated against the said second hearing date, he moved for its resetting, to enable him
Mercedes Benz. While this case was pending, petitioner to employ the services of counsel. The committee granted the
received a letter from the District Collector of Customs, motion, but neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the
informing her that a decision ordering the forfeiture of her date he himself had chosen, so the committee deemed the case
Mercedes Benz had been rendered. submitted for resolution.
Petitioner did not know that the same Mercedes Benz was Lumiqued filed an urgent motion for additional
subject to two different forfeiture proceedings. He only found hearing, alleging that he suffered a stroke. The motion was
out later that the Notice of Hearing for the forfeiture forwarded to the Office of the State Prosecutor apparently
proceedings before the District Collector was posted on the because the investigation had already been terminated. In an
bulletin board of the BOC, at Port Area, Manila. order, the State Prosecutor denied the motion, since he did not
notify the committee of his confinement and inability to
ISSUE: attend. The Committee rendered a report finding Lumiqued
liable for all the charges against him, and ordered his removal
Whether or not the posting on the bulletin board of from office. President Ramos issued the Administrative Order
the public respondent was sufficient compliance with finding Lumiqued administratively liable for dishonesty in the
proper service of notice and procedural due process alteration of fifteen gasoline receipts, and dismissing him from
Whether or not seizure and forfeiture was proper in the service, with forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits.
the instant case
A petition for appeal was addressed to President
HELD: Ramos praying for reconsideration of the order, premised on
the fact that Dwight Lumiqued, a former driver of the DAR-
The Court held that there was no sufficient compliance with CAR, confessed to having authored the falsification of
requirement of notice and hearing under the due process gasoline receipts and attested to petitioner being an honest
clause. But notwithstanding the procedural infirmity, the Court man. This was denied. Petitioner filed another motion for
ruled that the petition cannot be granted. reconsideration, but during such pendency, he died. Hence, a
petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed praying for the
The seizure and forfeiture proceedings was based on a reversal of the order praying for retirement benefits and
violation of B.P. 73, specifically a law that promotes energy backwages to the heirs, by reason of the investigating
conservation and prohibits the importation, manufacture or committees failure to inform Lumiqued of his right to counsel
assembling of gasoline-powered passenger motor cars with during the hearing. They maintain that his right to counsel
engine displacement of over 2,800 cubic centimeters. could not be waived unless the waiver was in writing and in
the presence of counsel. They assert that the committee should
The Mercedes Benz subject of this case has an engine have suspended the hearing and granted Lumiqued a
displacement of over 2,800 cubic centimeters, which clearly reasonable time within which to secure a counsel of his own.
falls within the prohibited importation and as such, is liable for If suspension was not possible, the committee should have
seizure and forfeiture by the public respondents. appointed a counsel de oficio to assist him.
HELD:
62. Centeno v Centeno
The Commission of Customs. 343 SCRA 153
Held:
70. National Food Authority v. Court of Appeals
It is a well-settled rule that, for prohibition to lie against an G.R. Nos. 115121-25. February 9, 1996.
executive officer, the petitioner must first exhaust Facts:
administrative remedies. This doctrine rests upon the The NFA conducted a pubic bidding to award
assumption that the administrative body, board or officer, if security contracts for the protection of its properties and
given the chance to correct its/his mistake or error, may amend facilities all over the country. 12 security agencies were
its/his decision on a given matter. 20 It follows therefore that awarded 1-year contracts, among whom were private
there has to be some sort of a decision, order or act, more or respondents Col. Manubay (under the name Greenview
less final in character, that is ripe for review and properly the Investigation and Security Agency), Continental Watchman
subject of an appeal to a higher administrative body or officer, and Security Agency, Lasala under the name PSF Watchman
for the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies to and Investigation Agency, and Mapagay (under Peoples
operate. In the present case, however, there is no Protective and Security Agency).
administrative order or act as above described, that can be
appealed from. The respondent Regional Director has not When petitioner David became NFA Administrator,
rendered any decision, or made any final finding of any sort, he caused a review of all security service contracts, procedures
and is in fact just about to conduct an investigation which on the accreditation of private security agencies and the
happens to be the very act sought to be prevented. bidding for security services. Pending this review,
Consequently, administrative remedies that must be exhausted, Administrator David extended the services of private
although available, cannot be resorted to. There being urgency respondents and the other incumbent security agencies on a
in stopping public respondent Guieb's investigation but no periodic basis.
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, petitioner's recourse to the respondent court for relief by The review was completed after almost a year, and
way of a petition for prohibition was proper. We now look into new terms for accreditation, bidding and hiring of security
PD No. 605. Its evident purpose is to prevent the substitution agencies were made. A special order was thereafter issued for
of judicial judgments for those of public administrative the implementation of the new rules and procedure.
The administrator created, through a Special Order, a The principle of exhaustion of administrative
Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) to remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is subject to some
undertake the prequalification of prospective bidders, conduct limitations and exceptions. In this case, private respondents
the bidding, evaluate the bids tendered and recommend to the contracts were terminated in the midst of bidding preparations
Administrator the bids accepted. Notices for prequalification and their replacements hired barely five days after their
and bidding for security services were published in a termination. In fact, respondent Masada, a prequalified bidder,
newspaper of national circulation. All incumbent security submitted all requirements and was preparing for the public
contractors were required to pre-qualify and only those bidding only to find out that contracts had already been
prequalified bidding. A total of 41 security agencies submitted awarded by negotiation. Indeed, an appeal to the NFA Board
documents. or Council of Trustees and the Secretary of Agriculture
pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987
Upon a review of the documents submitted, the was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
PBAC disqualified respondent Mapagay for failure to submit course of the law. The urgency of the situation compelled
proof of his financial capability to support his bid. It also private respondents to go to court to stop the implementation
disqualified respondent Lasala for alleged failure to meet the of these negotiated security contracts.
five-year service requirement. Only respondents Manubay,
Continental and Masada participated in the prebidding and We are neither impressed by petitioners claim that
were declared prequalified to bid. the subject contracts were negotiated as a necessity to stave off
a crisis that gripped the NFA, i.e., the loss, destruction and
Meanwhile, however, 2 of the applicants who failed dissipation of their properties, warehouses, rice and corn
to prequalify, namely Lanting Security and Watchman Agency stocks and facilities with an estimated value of P19 billion.
and respondent Lasala, filed separate complaints with the RTC Petitioners allege they were merely exercising their sound
to restrain Administrator David and the PBAC from business judgment in an emergency situation brought about by
proceeding with the public bidding. As prayed for, restraining respondent security agencies themselves who, in the first
orders were issued by the courts, and no bidding took place. place, obtained the injunctions from the Quezon City trial
courts.
During the effectivity of the injunction, Administrator
David sent to all incumbent security agencies, including 4 of
herein private respondents, notices of termination. Private
respondents were informed that their services were to end Reason for the Ruling:
inasmuch as their respective contracts had expired and First of all, the restraining orders and writ of
they no longer enjoyed the trust and confidence of the preliminary injunction issued by the two Quezon City trial
NFA. They were thus instructed to withdraw their security courts on complaint by Lanting and respondent Lasala
guards from all NFA installations. It also contracted the suspending the public bidding did not result in the emergency
services of 7 new security agencies on a month-to-month situation petitioners alleged. The security vacuum was created
basis pending resolution of the injunction against the when petitioners terminated the services of the incumbent
bidding. Private respondents forthwith filed separate security agencies after the issuance of the said orders and
complaints with the RTC for prohibition, mandamus and before the injunctions issued by respondent trial courts on
damages with a prayer for the issuance of a preliminary application by private respondents.
injunction and restraining order, which were issued.
When the bidding did not take place, the incumbent
These orders were challenged by NFA and David in security agencies continued rendering services to petitioners,
separate petitions before the CA alleging grave abuse of albeit on a temporary and provisional basis. However, one
discretion by respondent judges. The CA consolidated the month later, they were all terminated on grounds of expiration
rendered a decision partially granting the same by annulling of contract and loss of trust and confidence.
that part of the orders restraining NFA from terminating
the contracts with the incumbent security agencies but We agree with the CA that it was well within the
affirming the orders insofar as they enjoined NFA from power of petitioners to discontinue the services of the
awarding the contracts to the 7 new security agencies. incumbent security agencies. Their contracts with the NFA
expired in 1992, hence, their services were deemed terminated
Petitioners argue that the new security agencies were on said date. The fact that these agencies continued rendering
hired as an emergency measure after the contracts with the services to NFA did not amount to an implied renewal of their
incumbent security agencies expired. They claim that without respective contracts. Respondents do not have any vested right
the new security agencies, the properties of the NFA worth to continue their contracts with NFA. They remained and
billions of pesos would be exposed to danger of loss and continued performing their tasks at the tolerance of NFA who,
dissipation. They also argue that respondents did not avail by sending the notices of termination, simply reminded them
or exhaust available administrative remedies rendering of the expiration of their contracts. These contracts can be
their complaint premature. renewed, revived or extended only by mutual consent of the
parties. No court can compel a party to agree to a contract thru
the instrumentality of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents did not avail or Nevertheless, what causes eyebrows to arch is the act
exhaust available administrative remedies rendering their of petitioners in discontinuing the incumbents services.
complaint premature. Respondents Manubay and Lasala allege that their agencies
had been rendering security services to the NFA since 1985
and 1988, respectively. Moreover, Manubay and Continental
Ruling:
passed the prequalification stage and were declared by the The General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 1993
PBAC eligible to join the public bidding. Scarcely a month cannot be used by petitioners to justify their actuations. An
later, however, their services were terminated at the same time appropriations act is primarily a special type of legislation
and for the same reasons as the rest of the incumbent security whose content is limited to specified sums of money dedicated
agencies. It is certainly strange why petitioners chose to do to a specific purpose or a separate fiscal unit. Section 31 on
away with the incumbents services at a time when a security the General Provisions of the GAA of 1993 merely authorizes
void would directly and most necessarily result from their the heads of departments, bureaus, offices or agencies of the
withdrawal. The least petitioners could have done under the national government to hire, through public bidding or
circumstances was to maintain the status quo until the writ of negotiated contracts, contractual personnel to perform specific
preliminary injunction obtained by respondent Lasala shall activities or services related or incidental to their functions.
have been lifted. This law specifically authorizes expenditures for the hiring of
these personnel. It is not the governing law on the award of
Assuming arguendo that an emergency actually service contracts by government agencies nor does it do away
existed and the negotiated contracts were justified, petitioners with the general requirement of public bidding.
continued failure to conduct a public bidding and select the
bidder within a reasonable time casts doubts on the good faith
behind the negotiated contracts. This Court specifically
ordered petitioners to conduct a public bidding and report the
results within thirty days from holding thereof. In compliance, 71. PEDRO GRAVADOR vs. MAMIGO
a public bidding was conducted but until now no bidder has G.R. No. L-24989 July 21, 1967
been chosen and no contract has been awarded.
FACTS:
Petitioners cited various reasons for the delay. They
alleged that the minimum number of bidders in three of the Petitioner was the principal of the Sta. Catalina Elementary
five areas had not been met and that two bidders in the other School in Negros Oriental when he was advised by the then,
two areas were in collusion. This suspicion of collusion Superintendent of Schools Angel Salazar, Jr., through the
generated so much controversy that the PBAC could not respondent Supervisor Dayao, of his separation from the
decide whether to include the bids of the two agencies. Finally, service on the ground that he had reached the compulsory
the PBAC excluded them and recommended that the retirement age of 65.
Administrator declare a failure of bidding in all five areas of
responsibility. A few days later respondent Eutiquio Mamigo was designated
teacher-in-charge of the said elementary school.
The Administrator should have immediately acted
upon the PBACs recommendation and accordingly scheduled Petitioner wrote the Director of Public Schools, protesting his
another public bidding but somehow petitioners chose to abide forced retirement on the ground that the date of his birth is not
by a restraining order of the Davao trial court. It must be noted November 26, 1897 but December 11, 1901. Attached to his
that what the Davao trial court issued was a temporary letter was the affidavit of Bandoquillo and Sienes in which
restraining order enjoining petitioners from awarding the these two affiants declared that they knew that petitioner was
contracts to the lowest or next lowest bidder public bidding. It born on December 11, 190.
was not a writ of preliminary injunction nor was it an order
restraining the holding of another bidding. Petitioner wrote to the Division Superintendents of Schools,
reiterating his claim that he had not reached the age of 65 and
Petitioners and the PBAC are obviously taking their
enclosing some papers in support thereof.
sweet time to select and award security contracts to winning
bidders. They took one year evaluating and deliberating on
He filed this suit for quo warranto, mandamus and damages in
thirteen bid proposals only to declare a failure of bidding in all
the CFI. He asked the court to adjudge him entitled to the
five areas of responsibility. Then they relied on a restraining
office of principal of the Sta. Catalina Elementary School and
order of a trial court after no less that this Highest Court
to order payment to him of not only his back salaries but also
specifically ordered them to conduct and conclude a public
damages.
bidding.
Litigants should be conscious of the position lower courts The trial court concluded that the petitioner was born on
occupy in the operation of the integrated judicial system of the December 11, 1901 accordingly granted his petition.
nation. There is only one Supreme Court and all courts and Immediate execution was ordered, as a result of which the
litigants should take their bearings from this Court. petitioner was reinstated. The respondents appealed directly to
this Court.
Petitioners manifest reluctance to hold a public
bidding and award a contract to the winning bidder smacks of ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to the office of principal of
favoritism and partiality toward the security agencies to whom the Sta. Catalina Elementary School
it awarded the negotiated contracts and cannot be
countenanced. A competitive public bidding aims to protect HELD:
the public interest by giving the public the best possible
advantages thru open competition. It is a mechanism that The controversy on the petitioner's date of birth arose as a
enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies result of the conflicting records of the Division of Schools of
in the execution of public contracts. Negros Oriental. On the one hand the pre-war records show
his date of birth to be November 26, 1897. These records
consist of two Insular Teachers Cards and one Employee's alleged that her tenant, Sulpicio Bombales, deliberately failed
Record Card. It is on the basis of these records that the and refused to deliver her landowners share and that the latter
Superintendent of Schools determined the petitioner's age to had distributed his landholding to his children. After
be 66 years, 8 months and 22 days. investigation, it was concurred that the properties of the
petitioner, evidenced by Transfer Certificates of Title, are not
On the other hand, the post-war records, consisting of an covered by the Operation Land Transfer Program. However,
Elementary Teacher's Report Card, an Employee's Record then Minister Conrado Estrella denied petitioner's application
Card, and an Employee's Record of Qualifications, state that for retention.
the petitioner was born on Dec. 11, 1901. These are the
records on which the petitioner bases his claim. Petitioner appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court;
however, it was denied. A motion for reconsideration thereof
The problem is aggravated by two uncontroverted facts, was likewise denied. The Court of Appeals rendered a
namely, that the records of the church where the petitioner was decision dismissing the appeal on the ground of lack of
baptized were destroyed by fire, and that the municipal civil jurisdiction holding that questions as to whether a landowner
register contains no record of the petitioner's birth. should or should not be allowed to retain his land-holdings are
appealable and could be reviewed only by the Court of
According to the trial court, the post-war records were Agrarian Relations and now by the Regional Trial Courts
intended to replace the pre-war records and therefore the pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the
correct date of birth of the petitioner is December 11, 1901. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
The respondents now contend that the trial court erred in
placing full reliance on the post-war records to establish the ISSUE:
date of birth of the petitioner. They argue that as some pre-war Whether or not the Court of Appeals has the power of review
records had since been located, the date contained in the pre- over the administrative decision on the transfer of the land to
war records should be regarded as controlling and that the the tenant-farmer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and the
finding of the Superintendent of Schools that the petitioner amendatory and related decrees.
was born on November 26, 1897 is an administrative finding
that should not be disturbed by the court. HELD:
YES Petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of
That the findings of fact of administrative officials are binding Appeals is set aside and the records of the case are remanded
on the courts if supported by substantial evidence, is a settled to said appellate court for further proceedings.
rule of administrative law. But whether there is substantial
evidence supporting the finding of the Superintendent of The respondent appellate court erred in holding that it has no
Schools is precisely the issue in this case. The school official jurisdiction over the petition for review by way
based his determination of the petitioner's age on the pre-war of certiorari brought before it of a decision of the Minister of
records in the preparation of which the petitioner does not Agrarian Reform allegedly made in grave abuse of his
appear to have taken a part. On the other hand, the petitioner discretion and in holding that this is a matter within the
post-war records which he personally accomplished to prove competence of the Court of Agrarian Reform.
the date of his birth.
A perusal of Section 12 (original and exclusive jurisdiction of
It is our considered view that the lower court correctly relied The Courts of Agrarian Relations) of PD No. 946
upon the post-war records. (Reorganizing The Courts Of Agrarian Relations, Streamlining
Their Procedures, And For Other Purposes) reveals that
Still it is argued that the petitioner's action was prematurely questions as to whether a landowner should or should not be
brought because he had not availed of all administrative allowed to retain his landholdings are exclusively cognizable
remedies. This argument is without merit. Suit for quo by the Minister (now Secretary) of Agrarian Reform whose
warranto to recover a public office must be brought within one decision may be appealed to the Office of the President and
year. Before filing this case the petitioner waited for 8 months not to the Court of Agrarian Relations. These cases are thus
for the school officials to act on his protest. To require him to excluded from those cognizable by the then CAR, now the
tarry a little more would obviously be unfair to him, when this Regional Trial Courts. There is no appeal from a decision of
case was filed, he had only 4 months left within which to bring the President. However, the said decision may be reviewed by
the case to court. There was neither manner nor form of the courts through a special civil action
assurance that the decision of the Director of Public Schools for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, as the case may be
would be forthcoming. The rule on exhaustion of under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
administrative remedies does not apply where insistence on its Thus, the Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction with the
observance would result in the nullification of the claim being Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court over petitions
asserted. seeking the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus.
72. Almine vs CA Note that the failure to appeal to the Office of the President
GR No. 80719 September 26, 1989 from the decision of the Minister of Agrarian Reform in this
case is not a violation of the rule on exhaustion of
FACTS: administrative remedies as the latter is the alter ego of the
Hilda Almine filed a sworn application for retention of her President .
riceland or for exemption thereof from the Operation Land
Transfer Program with the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. She 73. Smart vs NTC
GR. 151908 August 12, 2003 Domingo approved the so-called reorganization plan for the
PGH.
Facts: NTC pursuant to its rule- making and regulatory Domingo acting on instruction of Abueva issued a
powers, issued a Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000, memorandum creating the Nomination Committee for the UP-
promulgating rules and regulations on the billing of PGH Medical Center Director; the petitioner-members of the
telecommunications services and other matters relating to Nomination Committee thus created, are scheduled to
prepaid call cards and sims cards. The said Memorandum nominate respondents replacement as Director; consequently,
Circular was published in the Philippine Star Newspapers respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court, his complaint
on June 22, 2000. On Oct. 20, 2000 petitioners Isla for Injunction with Preliminary Injunction or temporary
communications and Pilipino Telephone which later, Globe restraining Order, seeking to enjoin petitioners Abueva,
and Smart intervened filed an action for the declaration of Domingo, the Nomination Committee and the U.P. B.O.R.
nullity of the NTC Memorandum Circular against the from proceeding with the nomination of UP-PGH Medical
NTC and its Commissioners. It was contended by the Center Director, in order to forestall the consequent removal/
petitioner that the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the dismissal of the Dr. Estrella, Jr., incumbent PGH Director even
sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since before the expiration of his term of office on April 30, 1992
such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade and without any cause provided by law.
Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines. The The Court then issued the Restraining Order and after
Trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners but when due hearing the trial court, thru its then Presiding Judge Hon.
reversed when appealed to the CA. Julio Logarta issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction,
enjoining petitioners from implementing the reorganization
plan for the UP-PGH Medical Center. The Respondent Judge,
Issue: WON the petitioner violated the doctrine of based on the evidence presented, concluded that the
exhaustion of administrative remedy reorganization of PGH was done in bad faith. Accordingly, the
lower court ruled that Dr. Estrella, Jr. cannot be removed from
Held: No. The Supreme Court held that In questioning the office as a result of such defective abolition of the position to
validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued which he was appointed.
by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust ISSUE:
administrative remedies before going to court. This Whether or not respondent Dr. Felipe A. Estrella who
principle applies only where the act of the administrative holds the position of Director of the Philippine General
agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi- Hospital (PGH) can invoke security of tenure during his term
judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained of office notwithstanding the abolition of the said position by
to its rule-making or quasi- legislative power. In like the University of the Philippines Board of Regents.
manner, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only HELD:
where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial Yes. It is clear from the record that the PGH itself
or adjudicatory function. was not abolished in the reorganization plan approved by the
UP Board of Regents. The PGH was merely renamed "UP-
74. UP BOARD of REGENTS vs. RASUL PGH Medical Center" and some of its functions and objectives
G.R. No. 91551. August 16, 1991 were expanded or consolidated. There is no substantial
FACTS: distinction, in terms of functions, between PGH and the
Respondent Dr. Felipe Estrella, Jr., was appointed by proposed UP-PGH Medical Center.
the petitioner Board of Regents (B.O.R.) as Director of the While PGH itself was not abolished, the position of
Philippine General Hospital, to take effect from September PGH Director was abolished and in its place, the position of
1986 until 30 April 1992; that the petitioner B.O.R. speaking UP-PGH Medical Center Director was created. After
thru its then University Secretary Professor Martin Gregorio abolishing said position, it was proposed to be reclassified as
intended to have the Dr. Estrella, Jr. serve his full term, as Director, Charity Hospital, one of the five (5) hospital director
Director, since any other arrangement would impede the positions proposed to be created in the reorganized PGH.
hospital's development, not to mention the continuity of its The UP Board of Regents acted within the scope and
service operations.; that the duties and responsibilities, under limitations of its charter, Act No. 1870, as amended when it
Chapter 29, of the Revised Administrative Code, as PGH approved the reorganization plan renaming the PGH and
Director, inter alia, to direct and manage various activities expanding and consolidating some of its functions and
within the hospital; formulate and implement regulations; objectives. The UP Board of Regents did not and could not
develop institutional plans and policies; approve/recommend have abolished PGH. And rightly so. The PGH and one of its
budget proposals of the hospital; execute contracts; represent component units, the Cancer Institute, are creations of special
the hospital in proper functions; approve and sign warrants, laws, the old Administrative Code (Chapter 29, Secs. 706-707)
checks, vouchers and recommend or endorse appointments of and Commonwealth Act No. 398, respectively. The authority
personnel to higher authorities. of the UP under Act No. 1870 as amended, to combine two or
Barely two (2) weeks after assuming the presidency more colleges in the interest of economy and efficiency does
of the University of the Philippines petitioner Jose Abueva not empower UP to abolish offices created by special laws.
submitted a memorandum to the B.O.R. to reorganize the U.P. It is therefore clear that the authority of the UP is
Manila including the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) with limited to what is expressly provided in Act No. 1870 as
a draft resolution for approval of the B.O.R., recommending amended, that is, to combine or merge colleges. That is all the
that certain key positions of U.P. Manila including that of law speaks of in such instance.
respondent be declared vacant; the B.O.R., upon On the other hand, the power to create and abolish
recommendation of petitioners Abueva and Dr. Ernesto offices carries with it the power to fix the number of positions,
salaries, emoluments, and to provide funds for the operation of
the office created. This power is inherently legislative in permits when warranted by compelling circumstances
character. The UP Board of Regents does not have such power. and to proceed promptly along the method of
Hence, the abolition of the position of respondent Dr. Estrella legislative inquiry.
is not valid. ISSUE:
It is true that a valid and bona fide abolition of an WON publication is necessary before provisional permits can
office denies to the incumbent the right to security of tenure. be granted
However, in this case, the renaming and restructuring of the HELD:
PGH and its component units cannot give rise to a valid and No. The question of whether the controversy is ripe
bona fide abolition of the position of PGH Director. This is for judicial determination was likewise argued by the
because where the abolished office and the offices created in parties. For it is undeniable that at the time the
its place have similar functions, the abolition lacks good faith. petition was filed, there was pending with the
The Court hereby apply the principle enunciated in Dario vs. respondent Board a motion for reconsideration.
Mison that abolition which merely changes the nomenclature
of positions is invalid and does not result in the removal of the Ordinarily, its resolution should be awaited. Prior
incumbent. thereto, an objection grounded on prematurity can be
The above notwithstanding, and assuming that the raised. Nonetheless, counsel for petitioner would
abolition of the position of the PGH Director and the creation stress that certiorari lies as the failure to observe
of a UP-PGH Medical Center Director are valid, the removal procedural due process ousted respondent Board of
of the incumbent is still not justified for the reason that the whatever jurisdiction it could have had in the
duties and functions of the two positions are basically the premises.
same. The UP-PGH Medical Center is essentially the same This Court was impelled to go into the merits of the
PGH hence, the Medical Center Director will be performing controversy at this stage, not only because of the
duties very similar to the present PGH Director. It cannot be importance of the issue raised but also because of the
invoked to sustain the argument that respondent is not entitled strong public interest in having the matter settled. As
to security of tenure. In Palma-Fernandez v. de la Paz, the was set forth in Executive Order No. 101 which
abolition of the position of "Chief of Clinic" and the creation prescribes the procedure to be followed by
of the position of "Assistant Director, Professional Services" respondent Board, it is the policy of the State, as
were set aside for the reason that the two positions are swiftly as possible, to improve the deplorable
basically one and the same except for the change of condition of vehicular traffic, obtain maximum
nomenclature. utilization of existing public motor vehicles and
The Court held that the creation of additional eradicate the harmful and unlawful trade of
management positions in a proposed reorganization is clandestine operators, as well as update the standards
evidence of bad faith and is in violation of Republic Act No. of those carrying such business, making it
6656. We hold that the same applies to the PGH "imperative to provide, among other urgently needed
reorganization. measures, more expeditious methods in prescribing,
redefining, or modifying the lines and mode of
75.ARROW TRANSPORT VS BOARD OF operation of public utility motor vehicles that now or
TRANSPORTATION thereafter, may operate in this country."
G.R. No. L-39655 March 21, 1975 It is essential then both from the standpoint of the
firms engaged as well as of the riding public to
FACTS:
ascertain whether or not the procedure followed in
Both petitioner and private respondent Sultan Rent-a- this case and very likely in others of a similar nature
Car are domestic corporations. Arrow has in his favor satisfies the procedural due process requirement.
a certificate of public convenience (CPN) to operate a Thus its ripeness for adjudication becomes apparent.
public utility bus air-conditioned-auto-truck service
from Cebu City to Mactan International Airport and
vice-versa with the use of twenty (20) units.
Sultan filed a petition with the respondent Board for 76. Tan v Veterans Backpay
[G.R. No. L-12944. March 30, 1959.]
the issuance of a CPN to operate a similar service on
FACTS:
the same line. Eight days later, without the required
publication, the Board issued an Order granting it
That the petitioner is of legal age, a widow and a resident of
provisional permit to operate.
After filing an MR and for the cancellation of such the Philippines and that the respondent is a government
instrumentality or agency, duly vested with authority to
provisional permit filed but without awaiting final
implement the provisions of Backpay Law, otherwise known
action thereon, Arrow filed the present petition for
as Republic Act No. 897, further amending Republic Act No.
certiorari with preliminary injunction, alleging that
304; That the petitioner is the widow of the late Lt. Tan Chiat
the question involved herein is purely legal and that
Bee alias Tan Lian Lay, a Chinese national, and bonafide
the issuance of the Order without the Board having
member the 1st Regiment, United State-Chinese Volunteers in
acquired jurisdiction of the case yet, is patently
the Philippines; died in a battle at Rizal Province; and certified
illegal or was performed without jurisdiction.
In their answer, the respondents denied the need for by the Armed Forces of the Philippines as having rendered
aritorious military services during the Japanese occupation;
publication before a provisional permit can be issued,
That petitioner as widow of the said recognized deceased
in light of Presidential Decree No. 101, which
veteran, filed an application for back pay. The Secretary and
authorized respondent Board to grant provisional
Chief of Office Staff the Veterans Back Pay Commission sent
a letter to General Vicente Lopez of the United States-Chinese
Volunteers in the Philippines apprising the latter that the
Commission has reaffirmed its solution granting the back pay
to alien members; the AFP certified certified that deceased
veteran has rendered service as a recognized guerrilla. That
after due deliberation respondent revoked its previous stands
and ruled that aliens are not entitled to back pay; That on
February 13, 1957, the respondent Veterans Back Pay
Commission, through its Secretary & Chief of Office Staff,
made a formal reply to the aforesaid claim of the herein
petitioner denying her request on the ground that aliens are not
entitled to backpay; That upon refusal of the Veterans Back
Pay Commission the petitioner brought the case direct to this
Honorable Court by way of mandamus;
Issue: Issues:
(1) Whether or not a petition for mandamus is proper to
correct the acts of the commission.
Held:
(1) Yes. The discretion of the Veterans Backpay Commission
is limited to the facts of the case; that is, in evaluating the
evidence whether or not claimant is a member of a guerrilla
force duly recognized by the United States Army. It has no
power to adjudicate or determine rights after such facts are
established. Having been satisfied that the deceased was an
officer or a guerrilla outfit duly recognized by the United
States Army and forming part of the Philippine Army, it
becomes the ministerial duty of the Commission to give due
course to his widow's application. For this reason, mandamus
lies against the Commission.