that the board cannot in any manner modify, or alter the decision or
determinations of the Civil Service Commission.
 YELLOW DOCTRINES.
GSIS VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
FACTS
Private respondent SALAZAR filed with the CSC and revealed that she
was an employee by the GSIS as a casual laborer on September 23,
1968. She later became a Technical Assistant III the position she held
when on May 16, 1968, he services were terminated by the newly
appointed President and General Manager of the GSIS for that reason
that her position was co terminus with the appointing authority
ROMAN CRUZ JR.
Salazar later file a petition for reconsideration with the GSIS Board of
Trustees, but the reconsideration was denied. Thereafter, she filed a
petition for reconsideration of the denial with the review committee
created under Executive Order NO 17.
The review committee later referred the petition both to the Merit
System Promotion Board and the CIVIL service commssiino stating that
Salazar’s removal or separation from office was not by virtue of the
general reorganization program of the government which the review
committee was created.
Civil Service Commission’s decision
 Directs the immediate reinstatement of MS SALAZAR with
backsalaries and other benefits due her without prejudice to
the final determination of the position.
Merit System Board decision
Agrees with the GSIS that the petitioner’s termination is valid because
of co terminus nature.
Salazar later filed a motion for reconsideration of the Merit System’s
board order and manifested that the commission has already resolved
her petition on July 22, 1987. The board later set aside its ruling
because of the prior resolution of the commission. It argued that the
civil service commission is a higher administrative body on matters
concerning the removal of officers and employees from service and
ISSUE:
1. Which body has jurisdiction over the appeals from decisions
of the government officers on personnel matters
2. Whether the position held by the private respondent was
confidential in nature.
RULING
1. Which body has jurisdiction over the appeals from decisions
of the government officers on personnel matters
While it may be true that the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION is the single
arbitrer of all contest relating to civil service. The Merit Systems board
has the power to :
a. Hear and decide cases brought by officers and employees who
feel aggrieved by the determination of appointing authorities
… as well as complaints against any officers in the government
arising from abuses arising from personnel action of these
officers or from violation of the merit system.
When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to
hear and decide cases involving specific matters it is to be presmed
that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it proved that another body
is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction in which case both
bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.
Presidential Decree No 1409 provides that the Merit System board
shall take cognizance of the appeals from the parties aggrieved by
decisions of appointing officers involving personnel action. The
commission therefore cannot take personal cognizance of the cases
specified in Section 5 of PD 1409 except in cases under Section 9j of
the civil service decree that gives it such power. If the commission
were given the vested power to take cognizance of all matters
involving personnel , the board will cease to exist and that is not the
intent of the law.
The decision of the CSC is null and void. The commission cannot legally
assume jurisdiction over the appeal. JURISDICITON IS VESTED BY LAW
and is not lost or legally transferred by voluntary surrender in favor of
a body not vested by such jurisdiction.
 The decision of the board is upheld , the decision of the
COMMISSION is annulled, and that he can appeal from the civil
service commission.
PAAT VS CA:
FACTS
Victoria De Guzman’s truck while on its way to Bulacan from
San Jose BULACAN was seized by the DENR because the driver
could not produce the required documents for the forest
products found concealed in the truck.
Petitioner(CENRO) issued an order for confiscation of the truck and
gave the owner 15 days thereof within which to submit an explanation
why the truck should not be forfeited.
Victoria De Guzman failed to file the required explanation. The
regional executive director sustained the petitioner of Layugans action
of confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the truck involving
Section 68 A of the Presidential decree 705. A letter of reconsideration
was filed and that it was denied. The case was brought by the
petitioner to the secretary of the DENR pursuant to the letter of the
private respondent statement in their letter dated June 28, 198 that in
case their letter is to be denied it should be considered as an appeal to
the secretary.
Prior to the resolution of the appeal, a suit for replevein was filed by
private respondent against private respondent DE GUZMAN. A writ of
order requiring the return was granted.
Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss with the trial court
contending inter alia that private respondent failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.
The present case is the prayer for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction seeking to reverse the decision of ther epsodnet
court of appeals was diled by the petitioner.
ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER:
1. The trial court could not legally entertain the suot for replevein
because the truck was under administrative seizure
proceedings pursuant to Section 68-a of PD 705 as amended
by EO 277.
ISSUE: Whether or not the suit of replevin can prosper despite the
pendency of the case.
RULING:
General Rule : before the party is allowed to seek the intervention of
the court he should have availed of all the means of administrative
process afforded to him. Hence if a remedy within the administrative
machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer
concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within
his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before the
courts juridical power can be sought.
Exception of doctrine:
1. When there is a violation of due process
2. When he issue involved is purely a legal question
3. When the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction
4. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency concerned
5. When there is irreparable injury
6. When the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as
an alter ego of the president bears the implied and assumed
approval of the latter
7. When to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would
be unreasonable
8. When it would amount to a nullification of a claim
9. When the subject matter is a private land in land case
proceedings
10. When the rule does not provide a plain speedy and adequate
remedy
11. When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention.
In the present case, the private respondent looked up to the secretary Not receiving reply, VALMONTE then said that “WE ARE NOW
for review, but appealing to him they acknowledged the existence of considering ourselves free to do whatever action necessary within the
an adequate and plain remedy still available and open to them in the premises to pursue or desired objective n pursuance of pblic interest.
ordinary course of law. They cannot without violating the principle of
Valmonte then filed an instant suot, the dail express carried a news
exhaustion of administrative remedies seek the courts intervention by
item reporting that 137 former members of the defect interim and
filing an action for replevin for the grant of their relief during the
regular Batasan Pambansa including ten opposition members were
pendent y of an administrative proceeding. .
granted hosing loans by the GSIS
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant the court to
Respondent Belmonte and the solicitor general , after petitioner filed a
arrogate itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction
consolidated reply the petition was given due course and the parties
over which s initially lodged with an administrative body with special
were required to file their memoranda. The parities having complied
competence.
the case was then substituted for decision.
Though the DENR has the primary and special responsibility, the
RESPODNENT’S ARGUMENTS : the decision of the GSIS general
assumption of the trial court thereof of the replevin suit filed by
manager are reviewable by the board of trustees of the GSIS and that
private respondent constitute an unjustified encroachment into the
the petitioner should seek relief from the board of trustees and that
domain of the administrative agency’s prerogative. The secretary is
there is a failure of the exhaustion of admin remedies.
given the power to forfeit any conveyance utilized in violating this
code or forest rules and regulation Argument: A confidential relationship exist between the GSIS and
those who wanted to borrow from it . GSIS has the duty ro preserve
VALOMENTE VS BELMONTE JR.
this confidentiality not proper for the GSIS to branch unless ordered.
Valmonte in this special civil action for mandamus with preliminary
ISSUE : Whether or not exhaustion of administrative remedies is
injunction invoke their right to information and pray that the
necessary
respondent be directed to :
Ruling : No, before a party can be allowed to resort to the courts he is
a. Furnish the petitioner the list of the names of UNIDO and PDP
expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress
laban who were able to secure clean loans
available under the law. The courts for reasons of law comity and
b. To furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the
convenience will not entertain a case unless the available
documents evidencing their respective loans
admisntrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
c. To allow petitioners access to thpe ublic records and the
authorities are given the opportunity to act and correct the errors
subject information.
committed in the administrative forum.
Petitioner’s letter : Ask the media that he furnished with the list of
EXCEPTION : only when questions of law is allowed.
names of opposition member who were able to secure the loan of 2M
and that the reply within 5 day from the receipt is requested.

Deputy general counsel: wrote that the confidential relationship exist

between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it whoever they may
be that the GSIS has a duty to its customer to preserve its
confidentiality and that it would not be proper for the GSIS to breach
its constitutionality unless ordered.
In the present case the issue raised by the petitioners which requires
the interpretation of the scope of the constitutional rights to
information is one which can be passed upon by regular courts more
competently that the GSIS or its board f trustees involving as it does a
purely legal question. Thus the exception of this case from the
application of the general rule on exhaustion of adminstratibe
remedies is warranted.
TABAO VS LILAGAN
FACTS
On February 24, 1998, a water craft registered under the name ML
Hadijia from Bongao Tawi Tawi was docked at the port area of
TACLOBAN City with a load of around 10o tons of tanbark. The agents
of the national bureau of investigation in Region 8 decided to verify
the shipment’s accompanying documents as M/L Hadija was unloading
its cargo to its consignee a certain Robert Hernandez. The agents
found that the documents were irregular, incomplete and ordered the
unloading of the cargo stopped. The tanbark, the boar and ML Hadija
and three cargo trucks were seized and impounded.
NBI-ENVRO regional director carlos s. caabay filed a criminal complaint
for the violation of the forestry reform code and the anti graft and
corrupt practice act against the crew members. A seizure was directed
by the DENR of the ML Hadija its cargo and three trucks pending
preliminary investigation of the case. DENR took possession of the
aforesaid items on March 10, 1998 with notice to the consignee
HERNANDEZ AND NBI DIRECTOR.
CIVIL CASE NO 98-03-42: Hernandez filed a writ of replevin to recover
the items that were seized by the DENR. The case as raffled of to
Branch 34. Supoenas were later issued to the respondent confiscation
proceedings were conducted by the provincial environmental natural
resources.
On March 19, 1998- RESPODNENT judge issued a writ of replevin and
directed the respondent sheriff to take possession of the items seized
by the DENR and to deliver them to Hernandez after the expiration of
five days.
COMPLAINANT’S (nbi) arguments- FILING OF THE ADMINSITRATIVE
CASE
1. The judge is grossly ignorant of the law because a writ of
replevin is not allowed if the property seized is for illegal
logging
2. The sheriff must be penalized because he released the seized
tanbark to Hernandez within the 5 day period where he is
supposed to keep the same.
Judge’s defense : There is a pending motion to dismiss filed by the
defendants in the present case, and that the defendants should have
waited first for the resolution of the same before the filing of this
admin case.
ISSUE : Whether or not the judge should have taken cognizance of
the replevin case:
RULING
Judge- liable
Sheriff : No
No. The judge should not have taken cognizance of the case. As stated
in the complaint of replevin, the shipment of tanbark as well as the
vessel on which it was loaded were seized by the NBI for verification of
supporting documents. It is also noted that the NBI turned over the
seized items to the DENR for official disposition and appropriate
action. This was event attached as an ( ANNEX D).
This allegation should have been sufficient to alert the respondent
judge that the DENR has custody of the seized items and that
administrative proceedings may have already been commencenced
concerning the shipment.
UNDER the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot take
cognizance of cases pending before the administrative agencies of
special competence. Note, that the plaintiff did not exhaust all his
administrative remedies before going to court. He should have gone
first to the DENR. Hence, the prudent thing that the respondent judge
to have done was to dismiss the replevin suit outright.
ARROW TRANSPORT VS BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION
Parties : 1. Arrow transportation
2.SULTAN RENT A CAR
Facts : Both parties are domestic corporation. Arrow transporatation
has for its favor a certificate of public convenience to operate a public
utility bus ( CEBU to MACTAN and vice versa).
Sultan Rent a car filed a petition with the respondent board for the
issuance of a certificate of public convenience to operate a similar
service of the same name. 8 days later, this was granted without the
required publication. There was a motion for reconsideration and for
the cancellation of such provisional permit , but without waiting for
the final action of the resolution of the motion for reconsideration of
the board, the petitioner went to the SC.
Argument of the petitioner :
1. The question therein is a purely legal one
2. The issuance of the order without the board having acquired
jurisdicition is illegal.
This was all sought for in the petition filed on November 16 1974. As a
preliminary injunction was likewise sought a hearing was scheduled for
November 29 , 1974. T was cancelled the court issued a resolution
instead requiring the respodents to file an answer instead.
Argument of the respondent in the answer:
1. There is not need for publication – because PD 101 authorized
the respondent board to issue provisional permit when
warranted by compelling circumstances and proceed promptly
along the method of legislative inquiry.
 A petition for certiorari was filed by the counsel of the
petitioner arguing that there is a failure to observe procedural
due process because the respodnet board was outstead with
whatever jurisdiction it may have in the premises.
Issue : Whether or not the case is already ripe for adjudication because
at the time this case was filed , there was a pending case within the
respodnet board for a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling : No. There is no violation of due process. The court is impelled
to go into the merits of the controversy at this stage not only because
of the importance of the issues raised by also because of the strong
pubic interest in having the matter settled. It was set forth in executive
order no 101 – prescribing the procedure to be followed by the
respondent board it is the policy of the state swiftly as possible to
improve the deplorable conditions of vehicular traffic, obtain a
maximum utilization of existing public motor vehicle and eradicate
the unlawful and clandestine operators as well as update the
standards of those carrying such business.
The ripeness for adjudication is apparent- it is imperative to provide
among other urgently needed measures, in prescribing, redefining or
modifying the lines and modes of operation of public utlitly motor
vehicle that now or thereafter operate in court.
EXEMPTION : as to ripe for adjudication : A great public interest in a
definite outcome of the crucial issue involved. A resolution of what
could be a debilitating uncertainty with the conceded ability of the
judiciary to work out a solution to a problem poses as a potent
argument for minimizing the emphasis laid on a technical aspect.
KILUSANG BAYAN SA PAGLILINGKOD NG MGA MAGTITINDA NG
BAGOING PAMILIHANG BAYAN NG MUNTINLUPA VS DOMINGUEZ
GR NO 85439:
THE DOCTRINE OF EXHUSTION OF ADMINSTRATIVE REMEDIES
CANNOT APPLY IF THE RESPODNET IS AN ADMINSITARTIVE
SECREATARY., A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE, OR PATENTLY ILLEGAL.
FACTS :
1. In the early morning of 29 Ocotber 1988, respondent Madriaga
and Contrado allegedly accompanied by Mayor Bunye and the
latter’s heavily armed men both in uniform and civilian clothes
allegedly through force, violence and intimidation, forcibly
broke open the doors of the offices of the petitioner located at
the second floor of the KBS building to serve upon the
petitioners the order of the respondent SECRETARY OF
ARGRIULTURE and implement the same by taking over and
assuming the management of KBMBPM disbanding the
 incumbent board of directors and prohibiting the general
manager and other officers from exercising their lawful
functions as such.
What is stated in the order : The general membership of the KBMBPM
has petitioned to the DEPARTMENT OF agriculture for assistance in the
removal of the members of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Who were not
electe by the general membership of the said cooperative.
KBPM’S Management was taken over by DAR.
According to the petitioner: the order served on them was not written
on the stationary of the department and that it is merely a photocopy .
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER: FILING THIS CASE IN COURT.
1. Respondent secretary acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
when it issued the order for he arrogated into himself a judicial
function by determining the alleged guilt of the petitioners on
the strength of the unverified petition.
2. Respodent secretary acted in a capricious and whimsical
arbitrary and despotic manner so patent and gross that it
amounted to GADALEJ
3. That the order is a clear violation of the by laws of KBMBPM
4. That the order is a clear violation of the right of the individual
petitions to be heard.
In filing of the petition, respodnet their agents and etc be ordered to
refrain, cease and desist from enforcing and implementing the
questioned order or from excluding the individual petitoners from the
exercise of their rights as such officers :
Respondent’s comments :
1. The petitioner failed to exhaust all the administrative
remedies.
ISSUE : Whether or not the petition for mandamus can prosper
Whether or not the case can proceed even when the administrative
remdies are not exhausted.
RULING :
1. The petitioners have the personality to file this instant petition
and ask for their reinstatement as section 3 Rule 65 of the
Rules of court defines a mandamus permits a person who has
been excluded from the use and enjoyment of a right or office
to which he is entitled to file a suit.
The petitioners as ousted directors of the KBMBPM are
questioning the act of the respodnet secretary in disbanding the
board of directors they then pray that this court restore them to
their former position.
WHETHER OR NOT THE EXHAUTION OF REMEDIES can be applied.
No. The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is warranted. It
is a well settled rule that this requirement does not apply where
the respondent is an alter ego of the president , bear the implied
approval of the latter unless disapproved by him.
This doctrine of qualified political agency ensures speedy access to
the courts when most needed. There wa no need then to appeal
the decision to the office of the president; recourse to the courts
could be had immediately.
The doctrine of exhaustion also pertains to other exception: when
the question involved is purely legal or where the questioned act is
patently illegal, arbitrary and oppressive.
In the present case, these exemption applies. The procedure was
not followed in this case. Respondent secretary of agriculture
arrogated unto himself the power of the members of the KBMBPM
who are authorized to vote to remove the petitioning directors
and officers. PD 175 does not give him the right to do this.