Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2. Whether or not the dismissal of AC-G.R. SP No. 06696 (North 3. In G.R. No 73569, the issue raised is the propriety of the grant of
Philippine Union Mission of the Seventh Day Adventists vs. Hon. the motion for reconsideration without a hearing thereon and the
Macandog, et al.) by the Second Special Cases Division of the IAC denial of the motion for execution, while in the case at bar, what is
which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 73569 assailed is the propriety of the order of respondent appellant court
constitutes a basis for the dismissal of the case at bar on the that petitioner Eternal Gardens should deposit whatever amounts
ground of res adjudicata. are due from it under the Land Development Agreement with a
reputable bank to be designated by the Court. In fact, there is a
Held: pending trial on the merits in the trial court which the petitioner
1. No. insists is a prejudicial question which should first be resolved.
2. Yes. Moreover, while there may be Identity of parties and of subject
matter, the Land Development Contract, there is no Identity of
Ratio: issues as clearly shown by the petitions filed.
Issue#1:
1. In the case at bar, a careful analysis of the records will show that
petitioner admitted among others in its complaint in Interpleader
that it is still obligated to pay certain amounts to private
respondent; that it claims no interest in such amounts due and is
willing to pay whoever is declared entitled to said amounts. Such
admissions in the complaint were reaffirmed in open court before
the Court of Appeals as stated in the latter court's resolution dated
September 5, 1985 in A.C. G.R. No. 04869
RATIO:
The essential requisites of an action for declaratory relief are as
follows: (1) there is a justiciable controversy; (2) the
controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse;
(3) the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the
controversy; and (4) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or
controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination,
not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory.
o SJSs petition fell short of this test.
o Failed to allege existing controversy or dispute between
them and the respondents they named.
o Did not state what specific right of SJS was violated and
what acts of those impleaded were in breach of its
rights, law, or Constitution.
o SJS merely speculated that as religious leaders, they had
threatened to endorse a candidate and that will enable
them to elect a person that will forever be beholden to
them, thus, they will be able to control the government.
1 ALMEDA v. BATHALA MARKETING INDUSTRIES of the former amounts, notwithstanding the rule that
in an action for declaratory relief, affirmative reliefs
FACTS: are not sought by or awarded to the parties.
1. Bathala, as lessee, represented by Garcia, renewed its 13. CA: Affirmed, but the return of the balance of the rental
Contract of Lease with Ponciano Almeda, as lessor. deposits and VAT and rental adjustment is deleted. RTC
2. Under the contract, Ponciano agreed to lease a portion of exceeded authority granting affirmative relief of restituting
the Almeda Compound for a monthly rental (P1M+) for four the excess payment.
years unless terminated sooner.
3. The contract of lease provided (conditions 6 and 7, ISSUE: Whether the declaratory relief was proper. YES.
respectively):
a. Rental rate is based on the rate of assessment on the RATIO:
property and in case it increases, or any new tax or Declaratory relief: an action by any person interested in a deed,
burden be imposed by authorities, the LESSEE shall will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or
pay the additional rental and charge corresponding resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity
to the portion leased. That in the event that the arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or
assessment be reduced, lessee shall be entitled to statute, and for a declaration of his rights and duties
the reduction. thereunder.
b. In case of extraordinary inflation or devaluation of Only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the question
the Phil. Currency, the value of the Peso at the time of construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or
of the establishment of the obligation shall be the statute.
basis of payment. Requisites
4. During the effectivity of the contract, Ponciano died. o Subject matter: Deed, will, contract, other written
5. The Almedas (wife and son of Pociano) informed Bathala instrument, statute, EOs or regulation, ordinance.
that they will collect VAT on its monthly rentals. o Terms of said documents and validity thereof are
6. Bathala: VAT may not be imposed because the rentals fixes doubtful and require judicial construction.
in the contract already included VAT. o There must have been no breach of the documents.
7. Another letter was sent to Bathala informing him that the o An actual justiciable controversy
monthly rental should be increased by 73% because of o Issue must be ripe for judicial determination
extraordinary inflation.
o Adequate relief is not available through other means or
8. Bathala refused to pay VAT and adjusted rentals as
other forms of action or proceeding.
demanded but continued to pay the amount in the contract.
9. Bathala instituted an action for declaratory relief for After Almedas demanded payment of adjusted rentals, Bathala
purposes of determining the correct interpretation of complied with the terms set forth in the contract of lease by
Conditions Nos. 6 and 7 of the contract to prevent damage paying the amounts stipulated therein, even during pendency of
and prejudice. case. There is no showing that Bathala breached the contract.
10. Almedas filed an action for ejectment for failure of Bathala A petition for declaratory relief may not be dismissed despite
to vacate the premises. the filing of an action for rescission, ejectment and damages
11. Almedas later moved for the dismissal of the declaratory where the trial court had not yet resolved the
relief case for being an improper remedy considering that rescission/ejectment case during the pendency of the
Bathala was already in breach of obligation and that the declaratory relief petition.
case would not end the litigation. DENIED.
12. RTC: In favor of Bathala. VAT is not a new tax contemplated
in the 6th clause of the contract. No right to increase rental,
no ordinary inflation.
a. Because of the payment made by Bathalata of the
rental adjustment, the Court ordered the restitution
19 Kawasaki Port Services Co. v. Amores proceeding is unavailable where judgment would have to be
made, only after a judicial investigation of disputed issues
FACTS: No action in court has as yet ensued, foreign corporations
1. C.F. Sharp (Philippines), filed a complaint for injunction merely demanded from private respondent payment of the
and/or declaratory relief in CFI against 79 Japanese monetary obligations
corporations. The complaint alleges that he is a domestic The fact that C.F. Sharp (Philippines) is a separate entity, is a
corporation and there is another corporation named C.F. matter of defense that can be raised by the respondent at
Sharp (Japan), incorporated in Japan, and that these two are the proper time
in all respects separate and distinct from each other With regard to injunction, being a personal action, personal
2. C.F. Sharp (Japan) appears to have incurred obligations to or substituted service of summons on the defendants, not
several creditors, also foreign corporations. C.F. Sharp extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction on
(Japan) failed and refused to pay its creditors due to the court
financial difficulties, with that, the foreign creditors are now
claiming against C.F. Sharp (Philippines)
3. This is the reason why the declaration of relief was filed by
C.F. Sharp (Philippines)
4. Respondent filed for Extraterritorial Service of Summons
upon Defendants
5. Petitioner Kawasaki Port Services Corporation, et. al. filed a
Special Appearance to Question Jurisdiction of the Court
Over Persons of Defendants; action is in personam, no
property has been attached, and the action does not fall
within any of the four cases mention in Sec. 17, Rule 14 of
RC
6. Respondent Court denied said special appearances, hence
this petition
RATIO:
In the instant case, what is sought is a declaration for C.F.
Sharp (Philippines) is separate and distinct from C.F. Sharp
(Japan), not liable for the latter's indebtedness
It is evident that monetary obligations does not, in any way,
refer to status, rights and obligations.
The prevailing rule is that "where a declaratory judgment as
to a disputed fact would be determinative of issues rather
than a construction of definite stated rights, status and
other relations, commonly expressed in written instrument,
the case is not one for declaratory judgment."
Thus, considering the nature of a proceeding for declaratory
judgment, wherein relief may be sought only to declare
rights and not to determine or try issues, there is more valid
reason to adhere to the principle that a declaratory relief
TAMBUNTING vs. Sps. SUMABAT extrajudicial sale of the property, as well as the consolidation of
title in CHFIs name in 1995. It then ordered the register of
1. This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land situated in deeds of Caloocan City to cancel TCT and to reconvey the
Caloocan City. It was previously registered in the names of property to respondents. It also held petitioners liable for moral
respondents, spouses Emilio Sumabat and Esperanza Baello. damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
2. Respondents mortgaged it to petitioner Antonio Tambunting, Jr.
to secure the payment of a P7,727.95 loan. Issue: Whether an action for declaratory relief is proper in this
3. Respondents were informed that their indebtedness had case? NO
ballooned to P15,000 for their failure to pay the monthly An action to enforce a right arising from a mortgage should
amortizations. be enforced within ten years from the time the right of action
4. Respondents defaulted in their obligation, petitioner accrues. Otherwise, it will be barred by prescription and the
Commercial House of Finance, Inc. (CHFI), as assignee of the mortgage creditor will lose his rights under the mortgage.
mortgage, initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged
property but the same did not push through.
Here, petitioners right of action accrued in May 1977 when
5. Respondents filed an action for declaratory relief with the CFI of
respondents defaulted in their obligation to pay their loan
Caloocan City, seeking a declaration of the extent of their actual
amortizations. It was from that time that the ten-year period to
indebtedness.
enforce the right under the mortgage started to run. The period
6. Petitioners were declared in default for failure to file an answer
was interrupted when respondents filed Civil Case sometime after
within the reglementary period. They moved for the dismissal of
May 1977 and the CFI restrained the intended foreclosure of the
the action on the ground that its subject, the mortgage deed,
property. However, the period commenced to run again on
had already been breached prior to the filing of the action.
November 9, 1977 when the case was dismissed.
7. CFI rendered its decision. It fixed respondents liability at
P15,743.83 and authorized them to consign the amount to the
court for proper disposition. The respondents institution of Civil Case in the CFI on March
8. In compliance with the decision, respondents consigned the 16, 1979 did not interrupt the running of the ten-year prescriptive
required amount on January 9, 1981. period because, as discussed above, the court lacked jurisdiction
9. Respondent received a notice of sheriffs sale indicating that the over the action for declaratory relief. All proceedings therein were
mortgage had been foreclosed by CHFI. without legal effect. Thus, petitioners could have enforced their
10. However, the public auction scheduled on that same day right under the mortgage, including its foreclosure, only until
proceeded and the property was sold to CHFI as the highest November 7, 1987, the tenth year from the dismissal of Civil Case
bidder. Respondents failed to redeem the property during the No. C-6329. Thereafter, their right to do so was already barred by
redemption period. Hence, title to the property was prescription.
consolidated in favor of CHFI and a new certificate of title was
issued in its name. The foreclosure held on February 8, 1995 was therefore
11. In view of these developments, respondents amended their some seven years too late. The same thing can be said about the
complaint to an action for nullification of foreclosure, sheriffs public auction held on March 27, 1995, the consolidation of title in
sale and consolidation of title, reconveyance and damages. CHFIs favor and the issuance of TCT in its name. They were all void
12. RTC issued the assailed decision. It ruled that the 1981 CFI and did not exist in the eyes of the law.
decision in Civil Case (fixing respondents liability at P15,743.83
and authorizing consignation) had long attained finality. The TOPIC:
mortgage was extinguished when respondents paid their An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person
indebtedness by consigning the amount in court. Moreover, the interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
ten-year period within which petitioners should have foreclosed and whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order,
the property was already barred by prescription. They abused regulation or ordinance before breach or violation thereof. The
their right to foreclose the property and exercised it in bad faith. purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative statement of the
As a consequence, the trial court nullified the foreclosure and rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract,
etc. for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and not to
settle issues arising from its alleged breach. It may be entertained
only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, contract,
etc. to which it refers. Where the law or contract has already been
contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the
court can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action.
In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an
action for declaratory relief if its subject, i.e., the statute, deed,
contract, etc., has already been infringed or transgressed before
the institution of the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch
as a cause of action has already accrued in favor of one or the
other party, there is nothing more for the court to explain or clarify
short of a judgment or final order.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY vs. SOUTHWING HEAVY filed with the same trial court, a similar action for declaratory
INDUSTRIES,INC. relief, with the same prayer and against the same parties as
those in the first case. The trial court likewise rendered a
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, through Executive Secretary summary judgment, holding that Article 2, Section 3.1 of EO
Alberto G. Romulo, issued EO 156, entitled PROVIDING FOR A 156, is repugnant to the constitution. Elevated to this Court via
COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND DIRECTIONS FOR a petition for review on certiorari.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND ITS G.R. No. 168741. Two days later, respondent Motor Vehicle
IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES. Importers Association of Subic Bay Freeport, Inc.
The issuance of EO 156 spawned three separate actions for (ASSOCIATION), filed another action for declaratory relief
declaratory relief before the RTC Olongapo City, all seeking the with essentially the same prayer as those in the first two
declaration of the unconstitutionality of Article 2, Section 3.1 of against the same people. The court a quo granted the
said executive order. ASSOCIATIONs prayer and declared the assailed proviso as
The cases were filed by herein respondent entities, who or contrary to the Constitution
whose members, are classified as Subic Bay Freeport Aggrieved, the petitioners in the third Civil Case, filed a petition
Enterprises and engaged in the business of, among others, for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which denied the petition
importing and/or trading used motor vehicles. and sustained the finding of the trial court that Article 2, Section
G.R. No. 164171: On January 16, 2004, respondents 3.1 of EO 156, is void for being repugnant to the constitution.
Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., (SOUTHWING) United The decision of the Court of Appeals was elevated to the SC.
Auctioneers, Inc. (UNITED AUCTIONEERS), and Microvan, Inc. Said case was consolidated with the first two cases.
(MICROVAN), instituted a declaratory relief case against: Petitioners: Article 2, Section 3.1 of EO 156 is valid and
Executive Secretary, applicable to the entire country, including the Freeport.
Secretary of Transportation and Communication, They raised procedural and substantive issues bearing on the
Commissioner of Customs, constitutionality of the assailed proviso.
Assistant Secretary and Head of the Land The procedural issues are: the lack of respondents locus standi
Transportation Office, Subic Bay Metropolitan to question the validity of EO 156, the propriety of
Authority (SBMA), challenging EO 156 in a declaratory relief proceeding
Collector of Customs for the Port at Subic Bay and the applicability of a judgment on the pleadings in
Freeport Zone, and this case.
the Chief of the Land Transportation Office at Subic Petitioner contends that Respondents will not be
Bay Freeport Zone. affected by the importation ban considering that
SOUTHWING, UNITED AUCTIONEERS and MICROVAN prayed that their certificate of registration and tax exemption do
judgment be rendered: not authorize them to engage in the importation
(1) declaring Article 2, Section 3.1 of EO 156 and/or trading of used cars.
unconstitutional and illegal; They also aver that the actions filed by respondents
(2) directing the Secretary of Finance, Commissioner do not qualify as declaratory relief cases. Section 1,
of Customs, Collector of Customs and the Chairman Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition
of the SBMA to allow the importation of used motor for declaratory relief may be filed before there is a
vehicles; (2) ordering the Land Transportation Office breach or violation of rights
and its subordinates inside the Subic Special Petitioners claim that there was already a breach of
Economic Zone to process the registration of the respondents supposed right because the cases were
imported used motor vehicles; and filed more than a year after the issuance of EO 156.
(3) in general, to allow the unimpeded entry and In fact, in the third case, numerous warrants
importation of used motor vehicles subject only to of seizure and detention were issued against
the payment of the required customs duties. imported used motor vehicles belonging to
G.R. No. 164172: On January 20, 2004, respondent Subic respondent ASSOCIATIONs members.
Integrated Macro Ventures Corporation (MACRO VENTURES)
ISSUE(S) WON there was a breach or violation of right caused by Martelino v NHMF Corp.
the respondents. & Assuming that there is a breach, WON the
action filed by respondents do not qualify as Declaratory Relief 1 Petitioners alleged that they obtained housing loans from
cases because of such breach. respondents(NMFC- National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation) who directly released the proceeds thereof to
HELD: YES. There was a breach. But they are still valid the subdivision developer, Shelter Philippines, Inc. (Shelter).
declaratory relief cases. 2. Shelter failed to complete the subdivision according to its
representations and the subdivision plan. They were thus
compelled to spend their own resources to improve the
subdivision roads and alleys, and to install individual water
facilities
3. (Alleged lack of government oversight) Respondents, on
the other hand, failed to ensure Shelters completion of the
subdivision.
4. Instead, respondents ignored their right to suspend
WON it is a valid Declaratory Relief case: amortization payments for Shelters failure to complete the
subdivision, charged interests and penalties on their
1. As to the propriety of declaratory relief as a vehicle for assailing outstanding loans, threatened to foreclose their mortgages
the executive issuance, suffice it to state that any breach of the and initiated foreclosure proceedings against petitioner
rights of respondents will not affect the case. Rafael Martelino.
2. In Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v. Province of 5. Hence, petitioners specifically sought a declaration from the
Cebu, the Court entertained a suit for declaratory relief RTC (1) that their right as house and lot buyers to suspend
to finally settle the doubt as to the proper interpretation payment to Shelter for its failure to fully develop the
of the conflicting laws involved, notwithstanding a subdivision also applied to respondents who released their
violation of the right of the party affected. loans directly to Shelter; and (2) that during the suspension
3. SC find no reason to deviate from said ruling mindful of the of payment, respondents should not assess them accrued
significance of the present case to the national economy. interests and penalties. Petitioners further prayed that they
4. So also, summary judgments were properly rendered by the trial be allowed to pay their housing loans without interest and
court because the issues involved in the instant case were pure penalties.
questions of law. 6. RTC ruled that petitioners failed to state which section of the
5. A motion for summary judgment is premised on the assumption law affected their rights and needed judicial declaration. The
that the issues presented need not be tried either because RTC also noted that, as stated by petitioners, respondents
these are patently devoid of substance or that there is no still foreclosed their mortgages, a breach of said law which
genuine issue as to any pertinent fact. rendered the petition for declaratory relief improper. The
6. It is a method sanctioned by the Rules of Court for the prompt proper remedy was an ordinary civil action.
disposition of a civil action in which the pleadings raise only a
legal issue, not a genuine issue as to any material fact. Issue: W/N Petitioners filing for declaratory relief was proper - NO
7. At any rate, even assuming the procedural flaws raised by
petitioners truly exist, the Court is not precluded from brushing Ruling: Existence of a breach in contract-Petitioners already
aside these technicalities and taking cognizance of the action violated( through the act of actual suspension of payments)
filed by respondents considering its importance to the public Hence, they cannot avail the remedy of declaratory relief,
and in keeping with the duty to determine whether the other because the remedy contemplates before any breach or
branches of the government have kept themselves within the violation of a contract.
limits of the Constitution.
In this case, the petitioners had stated in their petition that
respondents assessed them interest and penalties on their
outstanding loans, initiated foreclosure proceedings against
petitioner Rafael Martelino as evidenced by the notice of
extrajudicial sale and threatened to foreclose the mortgages of the
other petitioners, all in disregard of their right to suspend payment
to Shelter for its failure to complete the subdivision. Said
statements clearly mean one thing: petitioners had already
suspended paying their amortization payments. Unfortunately, their
actual suspension of payments defeated the purpose of the action
to secure an authoritative declaration of their supposed right to
suspend payment, for their guidance. Thus, the RTC could no longer
assume jurisdiction over the action for declaratory relief because its
subject initially unspecified, now identified as P.D. No. 957 and
relied upon -- correctly or otherwise -- by petitioners, and assumed
by the RTC to be Rep. Act No. 8501, was breached before filing the
action.
Velasco vs. Villegas was then, so it has continued to be. There is no showing, therefore,
of the unconstitutionality of such ordinance.
1. This is an appeal from an order of the lower court dismissing a
suit for declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality based
on Ordinance No. 4964 of the City of Manila, the contention
being that it amounts to a deprivation of property of petitioners-
appellants of their means of livelihood without due process of
law.
2. The assailed ordinance is worded thus: "It shall be prohibited for
any operator of any barber shop to conduct the business of
massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room or
rooms of said barber shop, or in any room or rooms within the
same building where the barber shop is located as long as the
operator of the barber shop and the rooms where massaging is
conducted is the same person."
3. As noted in the appealed order, petitioners-appellants admitted
that criminal cases for the violation of this ordinance had been
previously filed and decided.
The lower court, therefore, held that a petition for declaratory relief
did not lie, its availability being dependent on there being as yet
no case involving such issue having been filed.
1. Even if such were not the case, the attack against the validity
cannot succeed. As pointed out in the brief of respondents-
appellees, it is a police power measure.
2. The objectives behind its enactment are:" (1) To be able to
impose payment of the license fee for engaging in the business
of massage clinic under Ordinance No. 3659 as amended by
Ordinance 4767, an entirely different measure than the
ordinance regulating the business of barbershops and, (2) in
order to forestall possible immorality which might grow out of
the construction of separate rooms for massage of customers."
3. This Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based
on the general welfare clause. As far back as U.S. v. Salaveria, a
1918 decision, this Court through Justice Malcolm made clear the
significance and scope of such a clause, which "delegates in
statutory form the police power to a municipality. As above stated,
this clause has been given wide application by municipal
authorities and has in its relation to the particular circumstances of
the case been liberally construed by the courts. Such, it is well to
recall, is the progressive view of Philippine jurisprudence." As it
The Honorable Monetary Board vs. Philippine Veterans Bank Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person
interested in a deed, will, contract or other written
1. Phil. Veterans Bank (PVB) established a pension loan for instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any
veterans or their surviving spouse, and salary loans for teachers question of construction or validity arising from the
and low-salaried employees, pursuant of RA Nos. 3518 and instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute; and
7169 to provide financial assistance. PVB devised the Credit for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder . The
Redemption Fund (CRF) as its clientele dont have real property only issue to be raised in declaratory relief is the construction and
for security. Special Trust Funds were established for the validity of the provisions in an instrument or statute.
pension loans.
2. This was managed by PVBs Trust Investment Department, In the case of CJH Development Corp. vs. BIR, the Court held
while the former is the beneficiary. The fees charged were that court decisions as well as decisions of quasi-judicial
credited to the trust funds, which would pay the obligation in agencies cannot be the proper subjects of declaratory
case the burrowers die. The Supervision and Examination relief. The reason is that, if a party does not agree with the
Department (SED) II of Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) decision, either of question of law or fact, it may avail of various
conducted an examination, which found that PVBs collection of remedies provided in the Rules of Court. The decision of the BSP
proceeds of salary and pension loans violate Sec. 54 of RA Monetary Board cannot be the subject of declaratory relief,
8791, which states that banks shall not directly engage in since it issued the decision, in exercise of its quasi-judicial
insurance business as insurer. functions. The nature of the BSP Monetary Board as a quasi-
3. Respondent sent a letter, justifying the CRF. BSP replied with judicial agency and the character of its determination to sanction
the opinion of the Insurance Commission that the CRF is a form erring banks was recognized by the Court in the case of United
of insurance. Thus, it was requested to be discontinued. Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, Inc.
Respondent complied. Petitioners then issued Monetary Board
Resolution No. 1139, directing the respondents Trust and Under BP Blg. 129, Sec. 9(3), as amended, and Sec. 1, Rule
Investment Department to return all the balance of the 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reveals that BSP Monetary board
burrowers of the CRF in the amount of P144, 713,224.54, and to is not one of those enumerated among those in the list, whose final
preserve the records of burrowers. judgment, orders, resolution, or awards are not appealable to the
4. Respondent requested reconsideration, however it was denied. CA. Such omission is not necessary for the CA to exercise its
Thus, the latter filed for declaratory relief before the RTC. appellate jurisdiction. The word including in the said provision
Petitioners then filed a motion to dismiss, alleging there is provides that the list is not exclusive. Similarly, Sec. 1, of Rule 43
already a breach of Sec. 54 of RA No. 8791. The RTC dismissed merely mentions quasi-judicial agencies, however, the phrase,
the case. A year later, respondent filed a Motion to Admit its among these agencies highlights the intention of non-exclusivity.
Motion for Reconsideration on the order of the RTC, alleging that A quasi-judicial agency is an organ of the government other
they only received the copy on September 3, 2008. Petitioners than the court or legislature, which affects rights by its adjudication
opposed the said motion, stating that the Order was received on or rule-making. Administrative agencies is vested with quasi-judicial
Oct. 17, 2007 (via Certification of the Philippine Postal Office). functions. A quasi-judicial function is a term that applies to the
5. The RTC allowed to admit the MR, which required petitioners to action or discretion of administrative officers or bodies as exercise
file their answers. Subsequently, the RTC granted respondents of its discretion of a judicial nature.
petition for declaratory relief. Petitioner filed for reconsideration,
however it was denied. Hence this petition for review.
Ruling: No, it is not proper, the decision is reversed and set aside.
Ratio: