Cabada v.

Alunan

Complaint against the petitioners for Grave Misconduct, Arbitrary Detention, and Dishonesty was led
with the Office of the Commission on Human Rights in Tacloban City by private respondent Mario
Valdez. The complaint was referred to the Philippine National Police Eight Regional Command (PNP-
RECOM 8) which, after the conducting its own investigation, led an administrative charge of Grave
Misconduct against the petitioners and instituted summary dismissal proceedings.

petitioner Cabada stated under oath in his Appeal 10 10 led with the Department of the Interior and
Local Government (DILG) that he in fact seasonably led a motion for reconsideration of the decision of
the Regional Director of PNP-RECOM 8, who, however, failed or refused to act on the said motion, and
that he asked that the said motion be treated as an appeal to the RAB.

Petitioners Cabada and De Guzman then filed with the Honorable Secretary of the DILG and Chairman of
the NAPOLCOM their "Appeal" 13 13 dated 5 February 1995 and "Petition for Review

the NAPOLCOM, through Commissioner Alexis Canonizado, denied due course to the petitioners' appeal
and petition for review for lack of jurisdiction "it appearing . . . that both the Decision and the Resolution
of the Regional Appellate Board had long become nal and executory and there being no showing that
the RAB failed to decide respondents' appeal within the reglementary period of sixty (60) days

The Office of the Solicitor General seeks to dismiss this petition on the ground of prematurity because
the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies; they should have instead appealed to the Civil
Service Commission (CSC)

HELD:

Only the Secretary of the DILG can act thereon, one way or the other. The NAPOLCOM did not have
authority over the appeal and the petition for review, and just because both mentioned the Secretary of
the DILG as Chairman or Presiding Ocer of the NAPOLCOM did not bring them within the jurisdiction of
the NAPOLCOM

Commissioner Canonizado cannot, singly, act for the NAPOLCOM because it is a c olleg ial b o d y
composed of a Chairman and four Commissioners, pursuant to Section 13 of the DILG Act of 1990

In light of the foregoing, the petitioners could properly invoke our original jurisdiction to issue the
extraordinary writ of c e r tio r a ri under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul and set aside the
NAPOLCOM's d e cisio n of 24 March 1995. It being a patent nullity, the ling of a motion for its
reconsideration before the institution of this special civil action may be dispensed with.

DATILES and Co. v. Sucaldito

Petitioner Datiles and Company has in its favor a fishpond lease agreement 1 whereby the Republic of
the Philippines, thru the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, agreed to lease to the company
one hundred seventy five hectares, ninety nine areas and fifty-nine hectares (175.9959 has.) of public
land located in Batu, Siay, Zamboanga del Sur, for fishpond purposes.
petitioner-lessee filed a complaint for "Injunction with Writ of Possession with Preliminary and
Prohibitory Injunction, with Damages" before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of
Zamboanga del Sur, against herein private respondents Jesus Deypalubos and Daniel Cabelieza.

Said court action was alleged to have been resorted to after the vehement refusal of the respondents to
obey the orders of the then Philippine Fisheries Commission and Bureau of Fisheries 4 4 (now Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) to vacate that portion of the area covered by FLA No. 1902 which they
(private respondents) were occupying without a fishpond permit and the knowledge and consent of
petitioner.

To the accusation of their unlawful entry, private respondents set up the defense of good faith at the
time of their entry and occupation of the land which they described as forested and uncultivated. They
added that prior to the filing of their own respective fishpond lease applications over the disputed area
(i.e., Deypalubos on the southern portion of about forty-nine (49) hectares and Cabelieza on the eastern
part of about two (2) hectares) on 3 January 1973, they were assured by an officer from the Bureau that
the areas were unoccupied and not subject of any pending leasehold agreement or application.

public respondent Guieb notified the parties of the scheduled hearing of the said protest and resolution

The presiding judge of the court a q u o, Hon. Melquiades S. Sucaldito (now respondent), seeing that a
possible irreparable injury could be caused the petitioner if the investigation in question were to
proceed

Petitioner's recourse to this Court is actually based on Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking
to prevent public respondent Guieb from investigating the subject fishpond conflict, on the ground that
this threatened act constitutes excess in the exercise of his jurisdiction.

HELD:

public respondent Guieb is hereby ordered to REFRAIN and DESIST from investigating the respondent
Deypalubos' protest of 18 September 1973 and the Barrio Council Resolution of 2 June 1974 of Batu-
Siay, Zamboanga del Sur questioning Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 1902 in favor of petitioner.

NFA V. CA

NFA, through then Administrator Pelayo J. Gabaldon, conducted a public bidding to award security
contracts for the protection of its properties and facilities all over the country. Twelve security agencies
were awarded one-year contracts, among whom were private respondents Col. Felix M. Manubay (doing
business under the name Greenview Investigation and Security Agency), Continental Watchman and
Security Agency, Alberto T. Lasala (doing business under the name PSF Watchman and Investigation
Agency) and Norman D. Mapagay (doing business under the name People's Protective and Security
Agency).

petitioner Romeo G. David became NFA Administrator. He caused a review of all security service
contracts, procedures on the accreditation of private security agencies and the bidding for security
services. Pending this review, Administrator David extended the services of private respondents and the
other incumbent security agencies on a periodic basis.
The bidding areas were also reclassified and reduced from fourteen NFA regions to only five NFA areas
nationwide