CASE DIGEST_Admin Law *Balicas vs FFIB Facts:

1. CHS was developed by Philjas Corporation upon the issuance of permit for land devt of
the 12.10 ha of land by then HLURB Commissioner Tungpalan.

2. Philjas was informed (by MAGNO) that CHS is within the EIS System and as such must
secure ECC from the DENR and Philjas applied for it. It also apploed for a Small Scale Mining Permit (SSMP) with the province of Rizal to extract and remove 50,000 metric tons of filling materials per annum on CHS 2.8 hectares.

3. Balicas conducted inspection (12 Mar 94) in lieu of the ECC applied for. 4. Principe, then Regl Exec Dir of DENR approved Philjas application for ECC.
5. Balicas conducted 2 more inspections (10 & 23 Aug, 93) and her final note was that CHS is still in construction stage and thus, compliance with ECC cannot be fully assessed and a follow-up inspection is proper.

6. The SSMP for was approved by Gov. Ynares of Rizal. 7. A tragic incident happened at the CHS which led the Office of the OMB to conduct an
investigation through its FFIB. The latter filed administrative complaints to several officials including Balicas, the DENR senior environmental management specialist assigned in Rizal for failure to monitor and inspect the devt of the CHS which was assumed to be her duty. 8. Balicas claimed she exercised due diligence in performing her duties and that the reason for the tragedy is the collapse of the adjacent mountainside of the the CHS. 9. CA affirmed OMBs findings and dismissed Balicas petition for lack of merit. Issue:

1. W/N Balicas was grossly negligent.

Ruling: 1. Sr. environmental mngt specialists functions as defined by DENR Regn IV chief personnel: a. conduct pollution source/complaint investigation b. look into pollution abatement structures and treatment plants to determine efficiency to the kond of pollutants to be removed; recommend issuance/denial of permits c. inspect pollution abatement works to see compliance with plans

d. propose remedial measures for pollution control e. prepare reports on pollution investigation f. other related works PD 1586, Sec. 4: a. The President may declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as environmentally critical. b. No person, partnership or corp shall operate w/o securing Envital Compliance Cert (ECC) issued by the Pres or his duly authorized rep. c. Pres. may, by proclamation, reorganize such govt offices, etc. including realignment of govt personnel and their functions HLURB (Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board) shall:

a. prepare the proper land/water use pattern for said critical project or
area

b. establish ambient environmental quality standards c. develop a program of environmental enhancement or protective
measures against calamitous factors such as earthquake, floods, water erosion and others. The legal duty to monitor housing projects, like the CHS, against calamities such as landslides due to continuous rain, is clearly placed on the HLURB, not on the petitioner as PENRO senior environmental management specialist. *Malaga vs Penachos Facts:

1. Iloilo State College of Fisheries (henceforth ISCOF), through its Pre-qualification, Bids
and Awards Committee (henceforth PBAC) published in Western Visayas Daily an Invitation to bid for the Micro Laboratory Building at ISCOF containing the following: a. last day of submission of pre-qualification requirements is Dec. 2, 1988 b. bids to be received and opened on Dec. 12, 3PM 2. Pets. Malaga and Najarro submitted their pre-qual req at 2PM of Dec. 2 but they were not allowed to participate since their documents were considered late. PBAC said cutoff time is 10AM. 3. Pets. filed a complaint with Iloilo RTC against PBAC chairman and members for refusing to accept their pre-qual doc w/o just cause resulting to their non-participation on the bidding. They prayed that the bidding be rescheduled and their docs accepted and if

the bidding is over, that the project be not awarded pending the resolution of complaint. A TRO was issued.

4. On Dec. 16, respondents filed a motion to lift TRO alleging that under PD 1818, the
court cannot issue restraining orders of injunctions. They added that the injunction is moot and academic since bidding ended at 11:30AM and the restraining order was received at 2PM. PD 1818, Sec 1: No Court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy involving an infrastructure project, or amining, fishery, forest or other natural resource development project of the government, or any public utility operated by the government, including among others public utilities for the transport of the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or government official from proceeding with, or continuing the execution or implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public utility, or pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation. 5. Pets. argued that PD 1818 is not applicable since ISCOF is not part of the natl govt or any local political subdivision thereof having its own charter. And even if it was covered, it is not a legal govt project within the scope of PD 1818. 6. The RTC ruled in favor of resp. saying ISCOF is part of the govt and is therefore w/in the ambit of PD 1818. And even if not, the injunction will still fail as it was received when the bidding was closed. Non-awarding of project cannot be sought as it is in the power of the ISCOf President to do so and he is not a party to the case.

7. Irregularities on the details of invitation to bid:

a. No time for deadline of submission of pre-qual req on Dec. 12. b. Time and date of bidding published was 3PM but it was held at 10AM 8. Pets. aver that injunction is not moot because the projects was not yet awarded and ISCOF pres. is not an indespensable party since his function to award is only ministerial upon the recommendation of the PBAC. At any rate, the complaint was amended to include him.

9. Resp. contend that since the members of the board of trustees of the ISCOF are all
government officials under Section 7 of P.D. 1523 and since the operations and maintenance of the ISCOF are provided for in the General Appropriations Law, it should be considered a government institution whose infrastructure project is covered by P.D. 1818.

10. Pets added that the rule is that when the amount of the project is P1M-5M, the
proposal book forms should be submitted 30 days prior to bidding but PBAC issued them only on Dec. 2. 11. Resp., in their reply, contended that pets licenses were expired.

Issues: 1. W/N ISCOF is part of the govt 2. W/N ISCOFs project is covered by PD 1818 Ruling: 1. ISCOF is a chartered institution and is therefore covered by P.D. 1818 The 1987 Administrative Code defines a government instrumentality as follows: Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions, and government-owned or controlled corporations.

2. Nevertheless, it does not automatically follow that ISCOF is covered by the prohibition
in the said decree. There are at least two irregularities committed by PBAC that justified injunction of the bidding and the award of the project.

a. PBAC set deadlines for the filing of the PRE-C1 and the opening of bids and then
changed these deadlines without prior notice to prospective participants. It is an irregular notice. As a general rule, non-compliance with the requirement will render the same void and of no effect.

b. PBAC was required to issue to pre-qualified applicants the plans, specifications

and proposal book forms for the project to be bid 30 days before the date of bidding if the estimated project cost was between P1M and P5M. These forms were issued only on December 2, 1988, or only ten days before the bidding scheduled for December 12, 1988. P.D. 1818 was not intended to shield from judicial scrutiny irregularites committed by administrative agencies such as the anomalies above described. 3. Restraining order upheld, nominal damages of 10K to be paid by each member of PBAC board of trustees to each pet separately, PBAC chairman and members removed from board for malfeasance in office.

*Viola vs Alunan III Facts:

1. Petitioner questions Art. III, 1-2 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines for
the General Elections of the Liga ng mga Barangay Officers insofar as they are inconsistent with the Local Govt Code because the latter does not include 1st, 2nd and 3rd VP positions. It is therefore in violation of the principle that implementing rules and regulations cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law they are designed to implement. Issue:

1. W/N the questioned rules are violative of the laws.

Ruling:

1. The addl positions were created under the Constitution and By-laws of the Liga ng Mga
Barangay in its 4th Article.

Section 1. Organization of Board of Directors of Local Chapters. - The chapters shall directly elect their respective officers, namely, a president; executive vice president; first, second, and third vice presidents; auditor; and five (5) members to constitute the Board of Directors of their respective chapter...

2. It is also authorized by the LGC under Sec. 493 which reads:

493. Organization. The liga at the municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political subdivision, and national levels directly elect a president, a vicepresident, and five (5) members of the board of directors. The board shall appoint its secretary and treasurer and create such other positions as it may deem necessary for the management of the chapter...

3. That Congress can delegate the power to create positions such as these has been settled by our decisions upholding the validity of reorganization statutes authorizing the President of the Philippines to create, abolish or merge offices in the executive department.

Notes: Dissent of Justice Davide on the capacity to create other necessary positions which he believes is vested only in the Boards of Directors was

answered by Art. 210 of the Implementing Rules of LGC which gives the same power to the incumbent members of Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Barangay (PKB) which is actually the Barangay National Assembly.

*CHREA vs CHR

Facts:

1. CHR promulgated Resolution No. A98-047 which is a staffing modification upgrading

some old positions and creating new ones. As a result, some positions were collapsed.

2. It was submitted to the DBM for approval but Sec. Diokno denied its implementation
saying that there is no specific provision providing a legal basis for the elevation of divisions to bureau or regl office and services to offices. It added that under RA 6758 (Compensation Standardization Law), DBM is directed to establish a unified compensation and position classification system in the govt and that CHR has no power to upgrade, reclassify or create positions without DBMs approval.

3. CSC-NCR and CHREA recommended the appointments to be rejected in lieu of DBMs

disapproval. Both were dismissed by the CSC Central Office.

4. CHREA lobbied this to CA but the latter upheld the memorandum saying that it is within the ambit of CHRs fiscal autonomy to establish the sub ject staffing modification.

5. CHR contends that petitioner do not have the locus standi because there exists no
official written record in the Commission recognizing petitioner as a bona fide organization of its employees

Issue:

1. Can CHR validly implement an upgrading, reclassification, creation, and collapsing of

plantilla positions in without prior approval of the DBM? 2. Does pet have locus standi? Ruling:

1. Petitoner has locus standi because rank and file employees will be affected because CHRs savings from which their budget is derived is also the source of the schemes budget.

2. Rep. Act No. 6758: (DBM) is hereby directed to establish and administer a unified
Compensation and Position Classification System, hereinafter referred to as the System as provided for in Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended, that shall be applied for all government entities, as mandated by the Constitution.