Você está na página 1de 32

Administrative Law A2010

Dean Carlota
-Majority opinion says: petitioners are not parties Sec. 1 of R.A.1169, as amended. Moreover, that limited few may qualify, under the real-party-in-
to the contract  not real parties in interest  no application or interpretation has been laid to rest interest rule, to bring actions to question acts or
cause of action  no right of action  they cannot under the doctrine of stare decisis and has also contracts tainted with such vice.
maintain the present petition. become part of our legal system pursuant to -Locus standi is not such an absolute rule that it
-Minority says: Standing because of its Article 8 of the Civil Code. cannot admit of exceptions under certain
constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is -The legal question of locus standi which was conditions or circumstances like those attending
very different from questions relating to whether a resolved in favor of the petitioners in the first lotto this transaction.
particular plaintiff is the real party in interest or case is the same in this case and in every
has the capacity to sue. Although all three subsequent case which would involve contracts
requirements are directed towards ensuring that relating or incidental to the conduct or holding of KMU V GARCIA, JR
only certain parties can maintain an action, lotteries by the PCSO in collaboration, association,
239 SCRA 386
standing restrictions require a partial or joint venture with any person, association,
consideration of the merits, as well as of broader company, or entity. For one thing, the question of KAPUNAN; December 23, 1994
policy concerns relating to the proper role of the the petitioners' legal standing in the first lotto case
judiciary in certain areas. and in this case is one and the same issue of law. FACTS
-The matter of the right of petitioners to file and For another, these cases involve the same and not - Then Secretary of DOTC, Oscar M. Orbos, issued
maintain this action – whether the objection substantially unrelated subject matter, viz., the Memorandum Circular No. 90-395 to then LTFRB
thereto is premised on lack of locus standi or right second contract between the PCSO and the PGMC Chairman, Remedios A.S. Fernando allowing
of action – has already been foreclosed by our on the operation of the on-line lottery system. provincial bus operators to charge passengers
judgment in the first lotto case. The principles of -It must be pointed out that the rule in ordinary rates within a range of 15% above and 15% below
"law of the case'' and res judicata are applicable. civil procedure on real party in interest was never the LTFRB official rate for a period of one (1) year.
put in issue in the previous case. It was the clear - Finding the implementation of the fare range
DAVIDE, JR., J., dissenting: understanding of the Members of the Court that in scheme "not legally feasible," Remedios A.S.
NOTE: he is ponente of first Kilosbayan case and the light of the issues raised and the arguments Fernando submitted memorandum to Oscar M.
author of the exception to paragraph B, Section 1 adduced therein, only locus standi deserved Orbos suggesting that the implementation of the
of R.A. No. 1169, as amended. consideration. proposed fare range scheme be further studied
-disturbed by the sudden reversal of SC rulings in -Friedenthal; et al., whose book is cited in the and evaluated.
Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Guingona and believes such majority opinion in its discussion of the rule on real - Respondent Provincial Bus Operators Association
reversal upsets the salutary doctrines of the law of party in interest and the doctrine of locus standi, of the Philippines, Inc. (PBOAP) filed an application
the case, res judicata, and stare decisis. admit that there is a difference between the two, for fare rate increase. An across-the-board
-In first Kilosbyan, SC sustained the locus standi of and that the former is not strictly applicable in increase of P0.085 per kilometer for all types of
the petitioners, citing transcendental importance / public law cases, thus: “It is important to note, provincial buses with a minimum-maximum fare
paramount public interest. The ramifications of however, that standing, because of its range of 15% over and below the proposed basic
such issues immeasurably affect the social, constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is per kilometer fare rate, with the said minimum-
economic, and moral well-being of the people even very different from questions relating to whether a maximum fare range applying only to ordinary,
in the remotest barangays of the country and the particular plaintiff is the real party in interest or first class and premium class buses and P0.50
counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the has capacity to sue. Although all three minimum per kilometer fare for aircon buses, was
envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering requirements are directed toward ensuring that sought.
as the billions of pesos its is expected to raise. only certain parties can maintain an action, - PBOAP reduced its applied proposed fare to an
-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to standing restrictions require a partial consideration across-the-board increase of 0.065 centavos per
allow taxpayers to question contracts entered into of the merits, as well as of broader policy concerns kilometer for ordinary buses. The decrease was
by the national government or GOCCs allegedly in relating to the proper role of the judiciary in due to the drop in the expected price of diesel.
contravention of the law and to disallow the same certain areas.” xxx In the realm of public law, the - The application was opposed by the Philippine
when only municipal contracts are involved. As real party in interest rule is not applicable. Consumers Foundation, Inc. and Perla C. Bautista
long as the ruling in Kilosbayan on locus standi is -The attempt to use the real-party-in-interest rule alleging that the proposed rates were exorbitant
not reversed, we have no choice but to follow it is to resurrect the abandoned restrictive and unreasonable and that the application
and uphold the legal standing of petitioners as application of locus standi. Such attempt directly contained no allegation on the rate of return of the
taxpayers to institute the present action. or indirectly restricts the exercise of the judicial proposed increase in rates.
-Under the principle of either the law of the case or authority of this Court in an original action to - LTFRB rendered a decision granting the fare rate
res judicata, the PCSO and the PGMC are bound by determine whether or not there has been grave increase
the ruling in the first lotto case on the locus standi abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of - Then Secretary of DOTC issued Department
of the petitioners and the application or jurisdiction on the part of any branch or Order No. 92-587 defining the policy framework on
interpretation of the exception clause in par. B, instrumentality of the Government. Only a very the regulation of transport services.

126
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
- Respondent Secretary of the DOTC Jesus B. passenger fares. They are part of the millions of as concerned taxpayers.
Garcia, Jr. issued a memorandum to the Acting commuters who comprise the riding public. - The other petitioners are incumbent officers or
Chairman of the LTFRB suggesting swift action on Certainly, their rights must be protected, not employees of COA. These petitioners claim that
the adoption of rules and procedures to implement neglected nor ignored. they were unceremoniously divested of their
above-quoted Department Order No. 92-587 that - Assuming arguendo that petitioner is not designations/ranks upon implementation of the
laid down deregulation and other liberalization possessed of the standing to sue, this court is COA Organizational Restructuring Plan without just
policies for the transport sector. ready to brush aside this barren procedural cause and without due process, in violation of Civil
- LTFRB issued Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 infirmity and recognize the legal standing of the Service Law. Moreover, they were deprived of
promulgating guidelines for implementation of petitioner in view of the transcendental their respective Representation and Transportation
DOTC Department Order No. 92-587. importance of the issues raised. And this act of Allowances (RATA), thus causing them undue
- PBOAP, availing itself of the deregulation policy liberality is not without judicial precedent. As early financial prejudice.
of the DOTC allowing provincial bus operators to as the Emergency - Petitioners now invoke this Court’s judicial power
collect plus 20% and minus 25% of the prescribed Powers Cases, this Court had exercised its to strike down the COA Organizational
fare without first having filed a petition for the discretion and waived the requirement of proper Restructuring Plan for being unconstitutional or
purpose and without the benefit of a public party. illegal.
hearing, announced a fare increase of twenty - Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr.: A party's standing - Petitioners invoke our ruling in Chavez v. Public
(20%) percent of the existing fares. before this Court is a procedural technicality which Estates Authority, Agan, Jr. v. Philippine
- KMU filed a petition with LTFRB opposing the it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in International Air Terminals Co., Inc., and
upward adjustment of bus fares. LTFRB issued one view of the importance of the issues raised. In the Information Technology Foundation of the
of the assailed orders dismissing the petition for landmark Emergency Powers Cases, this Court Philippines v. Commission on Elections that where
lack of merit. brushed aside this technicality because 'the the subject matter of a case is a matter of public
transcendental importance to the public of these concern and imbued with public interest, then this
ISSUE cases demands that they be settled promptly and fact alone gives them legal standing to institute
WON KMU has the standing to sue. definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities the instant petition. Petitioners contend that the
of procedure. Insofar as taxpayers' suits are COA Organizational Restructuring Plan is not just a
HELD concerned, this Court had declared that it is not mere reorganization but a revamp or overhaul of
YES. The requirement of locus standi inheres from devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should the COA, with a “spillover effect” upon its audit
the definition of judicial power. be entertained, or that it 'enjoys an open performance. This will have an impact upon the
- Lamb v. Phipps: judicial power is the power to discretion to entertain the same or not. rest of the government bodies subject to its audit
hear and decide causes pending between parties - In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus supervision, thus, should be treated as a matter of
who have the right to sue in the courts of law and standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, transcendental importance. Consequently,
equity. Corollary to this provision is the principle of and even association of planters, and non-profit petitioners’ legal standing should be recognized
locus standi of a party litigant. One who is directly civic organizations were allowed to initiate and and upheld.
affected by and whose interest is immediate and prosecute actions before this court to question the - Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor
substantial in the controversy has the standing to constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, General (OSG), counter that petitioners have no
sue. The rule therefore requires that a party must rulings, or orders of various government agencies legal standing to file the present petition since
show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or instrumentalities. following our ruling in Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor
or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a Disposition Petition was GRANTED. Center v. Garcia, Jr., they have not shown “a
favorable decision so as to warrant an invocation personal stake in the outcome of the case” or an
of the court's jurisdiction and to justify the actual or potential injury that can be redressed by
exercise of the court's remedial powers in his DOMINGO v CARAGUE our favorable decision. Petitioners themselves
behalf. admitted that “they do not seek any affirmative
456 SCRA 450
- Petitioner, whose members had suffered and relief nor impute any improper or improvident act
continue to suffer grave and irreparable injury and SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; July 18, against the said respondents” and “are not
damage from the implementation of the 1991 motivated by any desire to seek affirmative relief
questioned memoranda, circulars and/or orders, from COA or from respondents that would redound
has shown that it has a clear legal right that was FACTS to their personal benefit or gain.” It is clear then
violated and continues to be violated with the - Petitioners Eufemio C. Domingo, Celso C. Gangan, that petitioners failed to show any “present
enforcement of the challenged memoranda, Pascasio S. Banaria are retired Chairmen, while substantial interest” in the outcome of this case,
circulars and/or orders. Sofronio B. Ursal, and Alberto P. Cruz are retired citing Kilosbayan v. Morato. Nor may petitioners
- KMU members, who avail of the use of buses, Commissioners of COA. All claim “to maintain a claim that as taxpayers, they have legal standing
trains and jeepneys everyday, are directly affected deep-seated abiding interest in the affairs of COA,” since nowhere in their petition do they claim that
by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in especially in its Organizational Restructuring Plan, public funds are being spent in violation of law or

127
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
that there is a misapplication of the taxpayers’ interest to protect. By the implementation of the
money, as we ruled in Dumlao v. Comelec. PIATCO contracts, they stand to lose their source FACTS:
of livelihood, a property right zealously protected - The Mineral King Valley in the Sierra Nevada
ISSUE by the Constitution. Such financial prejudice on Mountains in Tulare County, California has been
WON petitioners have standing to sue their part is sufficient to confer upon them the part of the Sequoia National Forest since 1926,
requisite locus standi. and is designated as a national game refuge by
HELD - In Information Technology Foundation, there special Act of Congress. Though once the site of
Ratio Judicial power is the power to hear and were two reasons why petitioners’ standing was extensive mining activity, Mineral King is now used
decide cases pending between parties who have recognized. First, the nation’s political and almost exclusively for recreational purposes.
the right to sue in courts of law and equity. economic future virtually hangs in the balance, - The United States Forest Service began in the
Corollary to this dictum is the principle of locus pending the outcome of the 2004 elections. late 1940's to give consideration to Mineral King as
standi of a litigant. He who is directly affected and Accordingly, the award for the automation of the a potential site for recreational development. The
whose interest is immediate and substantial has electoral process was a matter of public concern, Forest Service published a prospectus in 1965,
the standing to sue. Thus, a party must show a imbued with public interest. Second, the individual inviting bids from private developers for the
personal stake in the outcome of the case or an petitioners, as taxpayers, asserted a material construction and operation of a ski resort that
injury to himself that can be redressed by a interest in seeing to it that public funds are would also serve as a summer recreation area. The
favorable decision in order to warrant an properly used. proposal of Walt Disney Enterprises, Inc. was
invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and justify the - There was also no demotion to speak of. Under chosen.
exercise of judicial power on his behalf. Section 11, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules - The final Disney plan, approved by the Forest
Reasoning Petitioners have not shown any direct Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of Service in January 1969, outlines a $35 million
and personal interest in the COA Organizational 1987, a demotion is the movement from one complex of motels, restaurants, swimming pools,
Restructuring Plan. There is no indication that position to another involving the issuance of an parking lots, and other structures designed to
they have sustained or are in imminent danger of appointment with diminution in duties, accommodate 14,000 visitors daily. This complex
sustaining some direct injury as a result of its responsibilities, status, or rank which may or may is to be constructed on 80 acres of the valley floor
implementation. In fact, they admitted that “they not involve reduction in salary. A demotion by under a 30-year use permit from the Forest
do not seek any affirmative relief nor impute any assigning an employee to a lower position in the Service. Other facilities, including ski lifts, ski
improper or improvident act against the same service which has a lower rate of trails, a cog-assisted railway, and utility
respondents” and “are not motivated by any compensation is tantamount to removal, if no installations, are to be constructed on the
desire to seek affirmative relief from COA or from cause is shown for it. Here, there have been no mountain slopes and in other parts of the valley
respondents that would redound to their personal new appointments issued to Matib, Pacpaco, under a revocable special-use permit. To provide
benefit or gain.” Clearly, they do not have any Sanchez, and Sipi-An under the COA access to the resort, the State of California
legal standing to file the instant suit. Organizational Restructuring Plan. Thus, their proposes to construct a highway 20 miles in
- In Chavez, we ruled that the petitioner has legal contention that they have been demoted is length. A section of this road would traverse
standing since he is a taxpayer and his purpose in baseless. Sequoia National Park, as would a proposed high-
filing the petition is to compel the Public Estate - Moreover, the change in their status from COA voltage power line needed to provide electricity for
Authority (PEA) to perform its constitutional duties auditors (receiving monthly RATA) to COA auditors the resort. Both the highway and the power line
with respect to: (a) the right of the citizens to (receiving only reimbursable RATA) cannot be require the approval of the Department of the
information on matters of public concern; and (b) attributed to the COA Organizational Restructuring Interior, which is entrusted with the preservation
the application of a constitutional provision Plan but to the implementation of the Audit Team and maintenance of the national parks.
intended to insure the equitable distribution of Approach (ATAP). - Representatives of the Sierra Club, who favor
alienable lands of the public domain among Disposition Petition dismissed. maintaining Mineral King largely in its present
Filipino citizens. The thrust of the first is to compel state, unsuccessfully sought a public hearing on
PEA to disclose publicly information on the sale of the proposed development in 1965, and in
Government lands worth billions of pesos, as ASSOCIATION OF DATA PROCESSING subsequent correspondence with officials of the
mandated by the Constitution and statutory law. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior,
SERVICE ORGANIZATION v CAMP
The thrust of the second is to prevent PEA from they expressed the Club's objections to Disney's
alienating hundreds of hectares of alienable lands (Boots) plan as a whole and to particular features included
of the public domain, thereby compelling it to in it.
comply with a constitutional duty to the nation. - In June 1969 the Club filed suit in the United
We held that these matters are of transcendental States District Court for the Northern District of
SIERRA CLUB v MORTON
public importance. California, seeking a declaratory judgment that
- In Agan, Jr., we held that petitioners have legal 405 U.S. 727 various aspects of the proposed development
standing as they have a direct and substantial STEWART; April 19, 1972 contravene federal laws and regulations governing

128
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
the preservation of national parks, forests, and - The impact of the proposed changes in the injury is the subject of public outrage.
game refuges, and also seeking preliminary and environment of Mineral King will not fall Contemporary public concern for protecting
permanent injunctions restraining the federal indiscriminately upon every citizen. The alleged nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the
officials involved from granting their approval or injury will be felt directly only by those who use conferral of standing upon environmental objects
issuing permits in connection with the Mineral King Mineral King and Sequoia National Park, and for to sue for their own preservation.
project. The petitioner Sierra Club sued as a whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the - Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in
membership corporation with "a special interest in area will be lessened by the highway and ski litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction
the conservation and the sound maintenance of resort. The Sierra Club failed to allege that it or its found useful for maritime purposes. The sole
the national parks, game refuges and forests of members would be affected in any of their corporation is an acceptable adversary and large
the country...." activities or pastimes by the Disney development. fortunes ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation
Nowhere in the pleadings or affidavits did the Club is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory
ISSUE state that its members use Mineral King for any processes, whether it represents proprietary,
WON the Club has alleged facts that entitle it to purpose, much less that they use it in any way that spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes.
obtain judicial review would be significantly affected by the proposed - So it should be as respects valleys, alpine
actions of the respondents. meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges,
HELD: - The Club apparently regarded any allegations of groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels
NO individualized injury as superfluous, on the theory the destructive pressures of modern technology
Ratio Whether a party has a sufficient stake in an that this was a "public" action involving questions and modern life. The river, for example, is the
otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial as to the use of natural resources, and that the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes
resolution of that controversy is what has Club's longstanding concern with and expertise in - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher,
traditionally been referred to as the question of such matters were sufficient to give it standing as deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including
standing to sue. Where the party does not rely on a "representative of the public". man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for
any specific statute authorizing invocation of the - It is clear that an organization whose members its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff
judicial process, the question of standing depends are injured may represent those members in a speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of
upon whether the party has alleged such a proceeding for judicial review. But a mere "interest it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to
"personal stake in the outcome of the in a problem," no matter how longstanding the that body of water - whether it be a fisherman, a
controversy" as to ensure that "the dispute sought interest and no matter how qualified the canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must be able to
to be adjudicated will be presented in an organization is in evaluating the problem, is not speak for the values which the river represents
adversary context and in a form historically viewed sufficient by itself to render the organization and which are threatened with destruction. The
as capable of judicial resolution...." "adversely affected" or "aggrieved”. voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should
Reasoning The injury alleged by the Sierra Club - The requirement that a party seeking review not be stilled. Those inarticulate members of the
will be incurred entirely by reason of the change in must allege facts showing that he is himself ecological group cannot speak. But those people
the uses to which Mineral King will be put, and the adversely affected does not insulate executive who have so frequented the place as to know its
attendant change in the aesthetics and ecology of action from judicial review, nor does it prevent any values and wonders will be able to speak for the
the area. Thus, in referring to the road to be built public interests from being protected through the entire ecological community.
through Sequoia National Park, the complaint judicial process. It does serve as at least a rough
alleged that the development "would destroy or attempt to put the decision as to whether review BLACKMUN, joined by BRENNAN, dissenting.
otherwise adversely affect the scenery, natural will be sought in the hands of those who have a - The case poses significant aspects of a wide,
and historic objects and wildlife of the park and direct stake in the outcome. That goal would be growing, and disturbing problem, that is, the
would impair the enjoyment of the park for future undermined were the Act construed to authorize Nation's and the world's deteriorating environment
generations." This type of harm may amount to an judicial review at the behest of organizations or with its resulting ecological disturbances. Must our
"injury in fact" sufficient to lay the basis for individuals who seek to do no more than vindicate law be so rigid and our procedural concepts so
standing. Aesthetic and environmental well-being, their own value preferences through the judicial inflexible that we render ourselves helpless when
like economic well-being, are important process. the existing methods and the traditional concepts
ingredients of the quality of life in our society, and do not quite fit and do not prove to be entirely
the fact that particular environmental interests are DOUGLAS, dissenting. adequate for new issues?
shared by the many rather than the few does not - The critical question of "standing" would be - The ultimate result of the Court's decision is that
make them less deserving of legal protection simplified and also put neatly in focus if we the 35.3-million-dollar complex, over 10 times
through the judicial process. But the "injury in fact" fashioned a federal rule that allowed greater than the Forest Service's suggested
test requires more than an injury to a cognizable environmental issues to be litigated before federal minimum, will now hastily proceed to completion;
interest. It requires that the party seeking review agencies or federal courts in the name of the that serious opposition to it will recede in
be himself among the injured. inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, discouragement; and that Mineral King, the "area
or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where of great natural beauty nestled in the Sierra

129
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
Nevada Mountains," will become defaced, at least respondents failed to establish their standing to irrigation, classification of lands, or other public
in part, and, like so many other areas, will cease to bring this suit. They failed to carry their burden of purposes. . . ."
be "uncluttered by the products of civilization....." showing that their injury is the consequence of - Acting under this and under the Taylor Grazing
petitioners’ action or that prospective relief will Act of 1934, which gave the Secretary of the
remove the harm. Interior authority to "classify" public lands as
Ratio When a plaintiff’s standing is challenged suitable for either disposal or federal retention and
SIMON v EASTERN KENTUCKY (assuming justiciability of the claim), the relevant management, President Roosevelt withdrew all
WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION inquiry is whether the plaintiff has shown an injury unreserved public land from disposal until such
426 US 26 to himself that is likely to be redressed by a time as they were classified. Congress amended §
favorable decision, and unless such a showing is 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act to authorize the
POWELL; June 1, 1976 made a federal court cannot exercise its power Secretary of the Interior "to examine and classify
consistent with the case or controversy limitation any lands" withdrawn by these orders and by other
FACTS of Art 3 of Constitution. authority as "more valuable or suitable" for other
- Respondents, several low income individuals and Reasoning The respondent organizations which uses "and to open such lands to entry, selection,
organizations representing such individuals, alleged no injury to themselves, cannot establish or location for disposal in accordance with such
brought a class action in the District Court of D.C. standing simply on the basis that they are classification under applicable public land laws."
on behalf of all persons unable to afford hospital dedicated to promoting access of the poor to The amendment also directed that "such lands
services, against the Secretary of the Treasury and health services. An organization’s abstract concern shall not be subject to disposition, settlement, or
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. They with a subject that could be affected by occupation until after the same have been
claimed that Revenue Ruling 69-545, which adjudication does not substitute for concrete injury classified and opened to entry."
announced an IRS policy of extending favorable required by Art. 3. - The 1964 classification and multiple use Act gave
tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code of - Allegations that the individual respondents and the Secretary further authority to classify lands for
1954 (Code) to hospitals that did not serve members of respondent organizations were denied the purpose of either disposal or retention by the
indigents to the extent of the hospitals’ financial hospital services because of indigency do not Federal Government.
ability, encouraged hospitals to deny services to establish a case or controversy in this suit, which - Management of the public lands under these
indigents, invalid because it was an erroneous is not brought against any hospital but against various laws became chaotic. The Public Land Law
interpretation of the Code and because it had been Treasury officials. The Art. 3 case or controversy Review Commission, established by Congress in
issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure limitation requires that a federal court act only to 1964 to study the matter, determined in 1970 that
(APA). redress injury that fairly can be traced to the "virtually all" of the country's public domain had
- The complaint described instances in which the challenged action of a defendant, and not solely to been withdrawn or classified for retention; that it
individual respondents had been refused some third party. was difficult to determine "the extent of existing
treatment, because of their indigency, at hospitals Disposition Judgment of the CA vacated. Case Executive withdrawals and the degree to which
enjoying favorable tax treatment under the policy REMANDED to the District Court with instructions withdrawals overlap each other," and that there
announced in the challenged Revenue Ruling and to dismiss the complaint. were inadequate records to show the purposes of
alleged to be receiving substantial contributions as withdrawals and the permissible public uses.
a result of the treatment. The DC overruled the Accordingly, it recommended that "Congress
motion to dismiss of petitioner Simon, (the LUJAN VS NATIONAL WILDLIFE should provide for a careful review of (1) all
Secretary of the Treasury), which included a Executive withdrawals and reservations, and (2)
challenge to respondents’ standing, and, on cross- FEDERATION
BLM retention and disposal classifications under
motions for summary judgment, held Revenue 497 US 871 the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964."
Ruling 69-545 void as contrary to the Code. SCALIA; June 27, 1990 - In 1976, Congress passed the FLPMA, which
Petitioner appealed to the CA, again raising the repealed many of the miscellaneous laws
issue of standing but the CA also found standing in FACTS governing disposal of public land and established a
the respondents but reversed the DC in upholding - In various enactments, Congress empowered policy in favor of retaining public lands for multiple
Revenue Ruling 69-545. United States citizens to acquire title to, and rights use management. It directed the Secretary to
in, vast portions of federally owned land. Congress "prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an
ISSUE also provided means, however, for the Executive inventory of all public lands and their resource and
WON Respondents had standing to challenge the to remove public lands from the operation of these other values." It provided that existing
said Revenue Ruling statutes. The Pickett Act authorized the President classifications of public lands were subject to
"at any time in his discretion, temporarily to review in the land use planning process, and that
HELD withdraw from settlement, location, sale, or entry the Secretary could "modify or terminate any such
NO. The District Court should have granted any of the public lands of the United States . . . classification consistent with such land use plans."
petitioner’s motion to dismiss because and reserve the same for water-power sites, It also authorized the Secretary to "make, modify,

130
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
extend or revoke" withdrawals. Finally it directed - The court granted petitioners' motion for to establish a right to relief, the burden is on the
the Secretary, within 15 years, to review summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil plaintiff to set forth specific facts (even though
withdrawals in existence in 1976 in 11 western Procedure 56, holding that respondent lacked they may be controverted by the defendant)
States and to "determine whether, and for how standing to seek judicial review of petitioners' showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
long, the continuation of the existing withdrawal of actions under the APA. The court ruled that Where no such showing is made, the defendant is
the lands would be, in his judgment, consistent affidavits by two of respondent's members, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
with the statutory objectives of the programs for Peterson and Erman, claiming use of public lands (c) The specific facts alleged in the two affidavits
which the lands were dedicated and of the other "in the vicinity" of lands covered by two of the do not raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether
relevant programs," listed decisions, were insufficient to confer respondent has a right to relief. It may be assumed
- The activities undertaken by the BLM to comply standing as to those particular decisions, and that, that the allegedly affected interests set forth in the
with these various provisions constitute what even if they had been adequate for that limited affidavits — "recreational use and aesthetic
respondent's amended complaint styles the BLM's purpose, they could not support respondent's enjoyment" — are sufficiently related to
"land withdrawal review program," which is the attempted APA challenge to each of the 1,250 or respondent's purposes that respondent meets
subject of the current litigation. so individual actions effected under the program. requirements if any of its members do. Moreover,
- Pursuant to the directives of the FLPMA, the The court rejected as untimely four more member each affidavit can be read to complain of a
petitioners engage in a number of different types affidavits pertaining to standing, which were particular "agency action"; and whatever "adverse
of administrative action with respect to the various submitted after argument on the summary effect" or "aggrievement" is established by the
tracts of public land within the United States. First, judgment motion and in purported response to the affidavits meets the "zone of interests" test, since
the BLM conducts the review and recommends the District Court's postargument request for "recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment" are
determinations required with respect to additional briefing. The Court of Appeals reversed, among the sorts of interests that the FLPMA and
withdrawals in 11 western States. Second, the holding that the Peterson and Erman affidavits NEPA are designed to protect. However, there has
Secretary revokes some withdrawals. Third, the were sufficient in themselves, that it was an abuse been no showing that those interests of Peterson
Secretary engages in the ongoing process of of discretion not to consider the four additional and Erman were actually "affected" by petitioners'
classifying public lands, either for multiple-use affidavits, and that standing to challenge the actions, since the affidavits alleged only that the
management, for disposal or for other uses. individual decisions conferred standing to affiants used unspecified lands "in the vicinity of"
- In its complaint, respondent averred generally challenge all such decisions. immense tracts of territory, only on some portions
that the reclassification of some withdrawn lands of which, the record shows, mining activity has
and the return of others to the public domain ISSUE occurred or probably will occur by virtue of the
would open the lands up to mining activities, WON the National Wildlife Federation is a proper complained-of actions. The Court of Appeals erred
thereby destroying their natural beauty. party to challenge actions of the Federal in ruling that the District Court had to presume
Respondent alleged that petitioners, in the course Government relating to certain public lands. specific facts sufficient to support the general
of administering the Nation's public lands, had allegations of injury to the affiants, since such
violated the FLPMA by failing to "develop, HELD facts are essential to sustaining the complaint and,
maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use NO. under Rule 56(e), had to be set forth by
plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use 1. The Peterson and Erman affidavits are respondent.
of the public lands,"; failing to submit insufficient to establish respondent's 702 2. Respondent's four additional member affidavits
recommendations as to withdrawals in the 11 entitlement to judicial review as "[a] person ... did not establish its right to review.
western States to the President; failing to consider adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action (a) The affidavits are insufficient to enable
multiple uses for the disputed lands; and failing to within the meaning of a relevant statute.” respondent to challenge the entirety of petitioners'
provide public notice of decisions. Respondent also (a) To establish a right to relief, respondent must "land withdrawal review program." That term does
claimed that petitioners had violated NEPA, which satisfy two requirements. First, it must show that it not refer to a single BLM order or regulation, or
requires federal agencies to "include in every has been affected by some "agency action". Since even to a completed universe of particular BLM
recommendation or report on . . . major Federal neither the FLPMA nor NEPA provides a private orders and regulations, but is simply the name by
actions significantly affecting the quality of the right of action, the "agency action" in question which petitioners have occasionally referred to
human environment, a detailed statement by the must also be "final agency action". Second, certain continuing (and thus constantly changing)
responsible official on . . . the environmental respondent must prove that it is "adversely BLM operations regarding public lands, which
impact of the proposed action." Finally, respondent affected or aggrieved" by that action "within the currently extend to about 1,250 individual
alleged that all of the above actions were meaning of a relevant statute," which requires a decisions and presumably will include more
"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or showing that the injury complained of falls within actions in the future. Thus, the program is not an
otherwise not in accordance with law," and should the "zone of interests" sought to be protected by identifiable "agency action", much less a "final
therefore be set aside pursuant to § 10(e) of the the FLPMA and NEPA. agency action." Absent an explicit congressional
APA. (b) When a defendant moves for summary authorization to correct the administrative process
judgment on the ground that the plaintiff has failed on a systemic level, agency action is not ordinarily

131
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
considered "ripe" for judicial review under the APA not an identifiable action or event. Thus, the District Court granted the Secretary's motion to
until the scope of the controversy has been affidavit does not set forth the specific facts dismiss for lack of standing. Defenders of Wildlife
reduced to manageable proportions, and its factual necessary to survive a Rule 56 motion. v. Hodel, 658 F. Supp. 43, 47-48 (Minn. 1987). The
components fleshed out, by concrete action that Disposition judgment of the Court of Appeals is Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed by
harms or threatens to harm the complainant. It reversed. a divided vote. Defenders of Wildlife v. Hodel, 851
may well be, due to the scope of the "program," F. 2d 1035 (1988). On remand, the Secretary
that the individual BLM actions indentified in the moved for summary judgment on the standing
affidavits will not be "ripe" for challenge until some LUJAN VS DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE issue, and respondents moved for summary
further agency action or inaction more judgment on the merits. The District Court denied
504 US 555
immediately harming respondent occurs. But it is the Secretary's motion, on the ground that the
entirely certain that the flaws in the entire SCALIA; June 12, 1992 Eighth Circuit had already determined the standing
"program" cannot be laid before the courts for question in this case; it granted respondents'
wholesale cor rection under the APA simply FACTS merits motion, and ordered the Secretary to
because one of them that is ripe for review The ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 seeks to publish a revised regulation. The Eighth Circuit
adversely affects one of respondent's members. protect species of animals against threats to their affirmed.
Respondent must seek such programmatic continuing existence caused by man. The ESA
improvements from the BLM or Congress. instructs the Secretary of the Interior to ISSUE
(b) The District Court did not abuse its discretion in promulgate by regulation a list of those species WON respondents have standing to seek judicial
declining to admit the supplemental affidavits. which are either endangered or threatened under review of the rule.
Since the affidavits were filed in response to the enumerated criteria, and to define the critical
court's briefing order following the summary habitat of these species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act HELD
judgment hearing, they were untimely under, inter provides, in pertinent part: NO
alia, Rule 6(d), which provides that "opposing "Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with Over the years, cases have established that the
affidavits may be served not later than 1 day and with the assistance of the Secretary [of the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing
before the hearing." Although Rule 6(b) allows a Interior], insure that any action authorized, funded, contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must
court, "in its discretion," to extend any filing or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to have suffered an "injury in fact" -an invasion of a
deadline "for cause shown," a post-deadline jeopardize the continued existence of any legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
extension must be "upon motion made," and is endangered species or threatened species or particularized, (b) "actual or imminent, not
permissible only where the failure to meet the result in the destruction or adverse modification of 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,'" Second, there must
deadline "was the result of excusable neglect." habitat of such species which is determined by the be a causal connection between the injury and the
Here, respondent made no motion for extension Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with conduct complained of-the injury has to be
nor any showing of "cause." Moreover, the failure affected States, to be critical." 16 U. S. C. § "fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the
to timely file did not result from "excusable 1536(a)(2). defendant, and not ... thee] result [of] the
neglect," since the court's order setting the In 1978, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and independent action of some third party not before
hearing on the summary judgment motion put the N ational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), on the court." By particularized, we mean that the
respondent on notice that its right to sue was at behalf of the Secretary of the Interior and the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and
issue, and that (absent proper motion) the time for Secretary of Commerce respectively, promulgated individual way. Third, it must be "likely," as
filing additional evidentiary materials was, at the a joint regulation stating that the obligations opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury
latest, the day before the hearing. Even if the imposed by § 7(a)(2) extend to actions taken in will be "redressed by a favorable decision."The
court could have overcome these obstacles to foreign nations. The next year, however, the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
admit the affidavits, it was not compelled, in Interior Department began to reexamine its burden of establishing these elements.
exercising its discretion, to do so. position. A revised joint regulation, reinterpreting § REASONING Respondents' claim to injury is that
3. Respondent is not entitled to seek review of 7(a)(2) to require consultation only for actions the lack of consultation with respect to certain
petitioners' actions in its own right. The brief taken in the United States or on the high seas, was funded activities abroad "increas[es] the rate of
affidavit submitted to the District Court to show proposed in 1983, extinction of endangered and threatened species."
that respondent's ability to fulfill its informational Shortly thereafter, respondents, organizations Complaint' 5, App. 13. Of course, the desire to use
and advocacy functions was "adversely affected" dedicated to wildlife conservation and other or observe an animal species, even for purely
by petitioners' alleged failure to provide adequate environmental causes, filed this action against the esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable
information and opportunities for public Secretary of the Interior, seeking a declaratory interest for purpose of standing. "But the 'injury in
participation with respect to the land withdrawal judgment that the new regulation is in error as to fact' test requires more than an injury to a
review program fails to identify any particular the geographic scope of § 7(a)(2) and an injunction cognizable interest. It requires that the party
"agency action" that was the source of requiring the Secretary to promulgate a new seeking review be himself among the injured." To
respondent's alleged injuries, since that program is regulation restoring the initial interpretation. The survive the Secretary's summary judgment

132
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
motion, respondents had to submit affidavits or DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed, and the abstract disagreements over administrative
other evidence showing, through specific facts, not case is remanded policies, and also to protect the agencies
only that listed species were in fact being from judicial interference until an
threatened by funded activities abroad, but also administrative decision has been formalized
that one or more of respondents' members would E. RIPENESS and its effects felt in a concrete way by the
thereby be "directly" affected apart from their" challenging parties. The problem is best seen in
'special interest' in thee subject. a twofold aspect: the fitness of the issues for
Respondents did not demonstrate that they ABBOTT LABORATORIES v GARDNER judicial decision and the hardship to the
suffered an injury in fact. Assuming that they 387 U.S. 136 parties of withholding court consideration.
established that funded activities abroad threaten HARLAN, J. (22 May 1967) - As to fitness for judicial decision. The issues are
certain species, they failed to show that one or appropriate for judicial resolution at this time.
more of their members would thereby be directly FACTS First, all parties agree that the issue tendered is
affected apart from the members' special interest - The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act a purely legal one: whether the statute was
in the subject. Affidavits of members claiming an required manufacturers of prescription drugs to properly construed by the Commissioner to require
intent to revisit project sites at some indefinite print the "established name" of the drug the established name of the drug to be used every
future time, at which time they will presumably be “prominently and… at least half as large as… [the] time the proprietary name is employed. Second,
denied the opportunity to observe endangered proprietary name… for such drug," on labels and the regulations are "final agency action" within
animals, do not suffice, for they do not other printed material. The "established name" is the meaning of the APA. An "agency action"
demonstrate an "imminent" injury. Respondents one designated by the Secretary of Health, includes any "rule," defined by the Act as "an
also mistakenly rely on a number of other novel Education, and Welfare (SECRETARY); the agency statement of general or particular
standing theories. Their theory that any person "proprietary name" is usually a trade name under applicability and future effect designed to
using any part of a contiguous ecosystem which a drug is marketed. implement… law or policy.”
adversely affected by a funded activity has - The Commissioner of Food and Drugs, exercising - As to effect of withholding court consideration.
standing even if the activity is located far away authority delegated to him by the SECRETARY, This is also a case in which the impact of the
from the area of their use is inconsistent with this issued regulations requiring that labels and regulations upon the petitioners is
Court's opinion in Lujan v. National Wildlife advertisements for prescription drugs bearing the sufficiently direct and immediate as to render
Federation And they state purely speculative, proprietary names for the drugs or the ingredients, the issue appropriate for judicial review at this
nonconcrete injuries when they argue that suit can shall also carry the corresponding established stage. These regulations purport to give an
be brought by anyone with an interest in studying names. Petitioners, composed of drug authoritative interpretation of a statutory provision
or seeing endangered animals anywhere on the manufacturers and a manufacturers' association, that has a direct effect on the daily business of
globe and anyone with a professional interest in challenged the regulations on the ground that the prescription drug companies. Immediate
such animals. Commissioner exceeded his authority under the compliance with their terms was expected. If
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that statute. The District Court granted the declaratory petitioners wish to comply, they must change all
respondents had standing on the ground that the and injunctive relief sought. CA reversed the their labels and promotional materials. The
statute's citizen-suit provision confers on all decision, holding, inter alia, that no "actual case or alternative to compliance – continued use of
persons the right to file suit to challenge the controversy" existed, and, accordingly, no relief material which they believe in good faith meets
Secretary's failure to follow the proper consultative under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is the statutory requirements, but which clearly does
procedure, notwithstanding their inability to allege available. Hence this petition. not meet the regulation of the Commissioner –
any separate concrete injury flowing from that may be even more costly. That course would risk
failure. This Court has consistently held that a ISSUE serious criminal and civil penalties for the unlawful
plaintiff claiming only a generally available WON the case presents a controversy "ripe" for distribution of "misbranded" drugs.
grievance about government, unconnected with a judicial resolution. - It is relevant to recognize that petitioners deal in
threatened concrete interest of his own, does not a sensitive industry, in which public confidence in
state an Article III case or controversy. Vindicating HELD their drug products is especially important. Where
the public interest is the function of the Congress YES. the legal issue is fit for judicial resolution,
and the Chief Executive. To allow that interest to - Injunctive and declaratory judgment remedies and where a regulation requires an
be converted into an individual right by a statute are discretionary, and courts have been reluctant immediate and significant change in the
denominating it as such and permitting all citizens to apply them to administrative determinations plaintiffs' conduct of their affairs with
to sue, regardless of whether they suffered any unless these arise in the context of a controversy serious penalties for noncompliance, access
concrete injury, would authorize Congress to "ripe" for judicial resolution. The ripeness to the courts under the APA must be
transfer from the President to the courts the Chief doctrine’s basic rationale is to prevent the permitted, absent a statutory bar or other
Executive's most important constitutional duty, to courts, through avoidance of premature unusual circumstance, neither of which appears
"take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed adjudication, from entangling themselves in here.

133
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
of case for relief in equity or declaratory judgment.
These elements are separable but intermeshed in
the overall determination of the appropriate
occasion for judicial review.
Ripeness
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC LAUNDRY a. The issue of ripeness not only involves an
AND CLEANING COUNCIL v SHULTZ inquiry into the finality but also to the
presumption of reviewability. The court
448 F 2d 689 interpretation of the provisions of the
CADC 1971 Admin Procedure Act state that judicial
review of a final agency action by an
FACTS aggrieved person will not be cut off
- NALCC is a national trade association for the coin unless there is persuasive reason to
operated laundry and dry cleaning industry. A believe that such was the purpose of
letter was sent by NALCC’s lawyers to the Wage- Congress.
hour Administrator regarding possible effect of the b. A person seeking judicial review of an
1966 amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act agency action which has adversely THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION
on the status of their employees affected or aggrieved him will not be
- The original Section 12(a)(3) of the Act states
ACT OF 1980 (B.P. Blg 129, as
frustrated unless there is persuasive
that establishments engaged in laundering, reason to believe that judicial review of
amended)
cleaning or repairing clothes or fabrics are the agency action was not the purpose or Sec 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals
qualified for retail exceptions for the Fair Labor intention of the legislature or that full shall
1997exercise:
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime discretion on the matter was granted to (1) Rule 43 to issue writs of
Original jurisdiction
requirements. Under the original provision, coin the admin agency. Section
mandamus,1. Scope. This Rule shall
prohibition, apply to habeas
certiorari, appeals
operated launderettes were “engaged in renting c. General Ripeness Considerations from judgments
corpus, and orquo final warranto,
orders of the andCourt of Tax
auxiliary
the service of laundry machine rather than in Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or
a. WON there is a congressional intent negative writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
laundering or cleaning, hence exempt under Sec resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial
to judicial review its appellate
agency jurisdiction;
in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
13(a)(3)”. They could however qualify for retail or b. The possibility f the courts entangling (2) Exclusive original
Among these agencies are jurisdiction
the Civil Service over
service establishment exception under Sec 13(a) themselves in abstract disagreement over actions for
Commission, annulment
Central of judgments
Board of Assessment of
Appeals,
(2). administrative policies due to premature Regional
Securities andTrial Courts;Commission,
Exchange and Office of the
- In 1966 the law was amended repealing such adjudication President, Exclusive
(3) Land Registration Authority, Social
appellate jurisdiction over
provisions, specifying that establishments engaged c. The fitness of issues for judicial determination Security Commission,
all final judgments, Civil Aeronautics
decision, Board, Bureau
resolutions,
in laundering, cleaning, etc., could no longer of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
and hardship to the parties of withholding court orders or awards of Administration,
Regional Trial Courts
qualify for the exceptions. National Electrification Energy
consideration and
Regulatory quasi-judicial
Board, agencies,
National Telecommunications
- The NALCC reasons that its members are d. Finality and Formality of Rulings. The instrumentalities, boards or commissions,
Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under
unaffected by the amendments because coin courts will not interfere with the executive Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service
operated laundries are not engaged in laundering function by entertaining a lawsuit that Insurance System, Employees Compensation
or cleaning. The administrator however said that challenges an action that is not final. An Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance
the amendments have extended the coverage of this Act, Philippine
Commission, and of sub-paragraph (1) of the
Atomic Energy Commission,
admin action is final if it is an
the Act to them. third of
Board paragraph and subparagraph
Investments, Construction 4Industry
of the
authoritative interpretative ruling by an
- The NALCC challenged the ruling in a regular fourth paragraph
Arbitration Commission, of andSection
voluntary17arbitrators
of the
agency head authorized byAct
law.of 1948.
court prior to the institution of agency action for Judiciary
 In this case, neither expressly nor by implication Sec.
The2.Court
Casesofnot covered.
Appeals shallThis
haveRuletheshall not
power
enforcement. does the Fair Labor Standards Act show a apply to judgments or conduct
final orders issued under the
to try cases and hearings, receive
congressional intent negative to judicial review of Labor Code of the Philippines.
evidence and perform any and all acts
ISSUE the kind involved Sec. 3. Where to appeal. An appeal under this
WON a direct judicial review of the agency’s necessary
Rule may be taken to resolve factual
to the Court issues within
of Appeals raisedthe in
1987 CONSTITUTION cases falling
interpretative action id permissible period and in thewithin
manner itsherein
original and appellate
provided, whether
Article IX thejurisdiction,
appeal involvesincluding the power
questions to of
of fact, grant
law,and
or
HELD VI. MODES
A. Common OF JUDICIAL
Provisions conduct
mixed questionsnewof trials
fact and orlaw.
further proceedings.
Sec. 4. Period
Trials of appeal.
or hearings in The
theappeal
Courtshall be taken
of Appeals
Yes. REVIEW
Sec. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award,
- There are a number of elements which must be majority vote of all its Members, any case or
proved in order to obtain judicial review: a case or
A.matter brought before it within sixty days from judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date
of its last publication, if publication is required by law
controversy, ripeness, standing, finality, suitability the date of is submission for decision or for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner’s
resolution. A case or matter is deemed motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in
134
submitted for decision or resolution upon the accordance with the governing law of the court or
agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for
filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion
and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee
Commission or by the Commission itself. before the expiration of the reglementary period, the
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
Branch No. III, in San Fernando, Pampanga. Private
respondent alleges that he started working as
Operations Manager of petitioner St. Martin
Funeral Home on February 6, 1995. However,
there was no contract of employment executed
between him and petitioner nor was his name
included in the semi-monthly payroll. On January
Appeals upon a verified motion setting forth valid 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his employment
grounds therefor. If the Court of Appeals denies the for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00 which
motion, the petitioner shall pay the docketing and was intended for payment by petitioner of its value
other lawful fees and deposit for costs within fifteen added tax (VAT) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(15) days from notice of the denial.
(BIR).
Sec. 6. Contents of the petition. The petition for
review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to - Petitioner on the other hand claims that private
the case, without impleading the court or agencies respondent was not its employee but only the
either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a uncle of Amelita Malabed, the owner of petitioner
concise statement of the facts and issues involved St. Martin's Funeral Home. Sometime in 1995,
and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be private respondent, who was formerly working as
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or an overseas contract worker, asked for financial
a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final
assistance from the mother of Amelita. Since then,
order or resolution appealed from, together with
certified true copies of such material portions of the as an indication of gratitude, private respondent
record referred to therein and other supporting voluntarily helped the mother of Amelita in
papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against overseeing the business.
forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of - In January 1996, the mother of Amelita passed
section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the away, so the latter then took over the
specific material dates showing that it was filed management of the business. She then discovered
within the period fixed herein.
that there were arrears in the payment of taxes
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with
requirements. The failure of the petitioner to and other government fees, although the records
comply with any of the foregoing requirements purported to show that the same were already
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful paid. Amelita then made some changes in the
fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the business operation and private respondent and his
petition, and the contents of and the documents wife were no longer allowed to participate in the
which should accompany the petition shall be management thereof. As a consequence, the latter
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
filed a complaint charging that petitioner had
Sec. 8. Action on the petition. The Court of
Appeals may require the respondent to file a illegally terminated his employment.
comment on the petition, not a motion to dismiss, - Based on the position papers of the parties, the
within ten (10) days from notice, or dismiss the labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of
petition if it finds the same to be patently without petitioner on October 25, 1996 declaring that no
merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the employer-employee relationship existed between
questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to the parties and, therefore, his office had no
require consideration.
jurisdiction over the case.
Sec. 9. Contents of comment. The comment shall
be filed within ten (10) days from notice in seven (7) B. CERTIORARI - Not satisfied with the said decision, private
legible copies and accompanied by clearly legible respondent appealed to the NLRC contending that
certified true copies of such material portions of the the labor arbiter erred (1) in not giving credence to
record referred to therein together with other ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME v NLRC the evidence submitted by him; (2) in holding that
supporting papers. The comment shall (a) point out 295 SCRA 494 he worked as a "volunteer" and not as an
insufficiencies or inaccuracies in petitioner’s employee of St. Martin Funeral Home from
statement of facts and issues; and (b) state the REGALADO, J.: September 12, 1998
February 6, 1995 to January 23, 1996, or a period
reasons why the petition should be denied or
dismissed. A copy thereof shall be served on the of about one year; and (3) in ruling that there was
FACTS: no employer-employee relationship between him
petitioner, and proof of such service shall be filed - The present petition for certiorari stemmed from
with the Court of Appeals. and petitioner.
Sec. 10. Due course. If upon the filing of the
a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by herein - On June 13, 1997, the NLRC rendered a resolution
comment or such other pleadings or documents as private respondent before the National Labor setting aside the questioned decision and
may be required or allowed by the Court of Appeals Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration remanding the case to the labor arbiter for
or upon the expiration of the period for the filing
thereof, and on the basis of the petition or the
records the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that
135
the court or agency concerned has committed errors
of fact or law that would warrant reversal or
modification of the award, judgment, final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed, it may give due
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
immediate appropriate proceedings. Petitioner expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill 37 SCRA 230
then filed a motion for reconsideration which was No. 1495.
VILLAMOR; January 30, 1971
denied by the NLRC in its resolution dated August - Incidentally, it was noted by the sponsor therein
18, 1997 for lack of merit, hence the present that some quarters were of the opinion that
FACTS
petition alleging that the NLRC committed grave recourse from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals as
- Ferrer and Bonifacio (chief of police and corporal
abuse of discretion. 7 an initial step in the process of judicial review
of police force of Binmaley, Pnagasinan) were
would be circuitous and would prolong the
charged administratively with dishonesty, grave
ISSUE: proceedings. On the contrary, as he commendably
misconduct, serious irregularities in the
WON the recourse to the SC is proper and realistically emphasized, that procedure would
performance of duty and/or serious neglect of duty
HELD: be advantageous to the aggrieved party on this
and incompetency. The complaint was filed with
Yes, through Rule 65 but it should be initially filed reasoning:
the Board of Investigators of Binmaley,
in the CA. On the other hand xxx to allow these cases to
Pangasinan. The report made by the Board
RATIO: There is no legal provision for appellate be appealed to the Court of Appeals would
recommended the dismissal of the complaint for
review thereof, the Court nevertheless rejected give litigants the advantage to have all the
the charges imputed were not committed
that thesis. It held that there is an underlying evidence on record be reexamined and
deliberately, but through mistake. The Police
power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such reweighed after which the findings of facts
Commission (PC), after reviewing the report and
agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even and conclusions of said bodies are
records, found Ferrer and Bonifacio guilty and
though no right of review is given by statute; that correspondingly affirmed, modified or
ordered their dismissal from service.
the purpose of judicial review is to keep the reversed.
- Ferrer and Bonifacio then filed with the CFI
administrative agency within its jurisdiction and Under such guarantee, the Supreme Court can
Pangasinan separate petitions for certiorari with
protect the substantial rights of the parties; and then apply strictly the axiom that factual
preliminary mandatory injunction. They contended
that it is that part of the checks and balances findings of the Court of Appeals are final and
two grounds: lack of jurisdiction of the PC to
which restricts the separation of powers and may not be reversed on appeal to the
render a decision on the administrative case
forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. Supreme Court. A perusal of the records will
against them because at that time it had not yet
- Pursuant to such ruling, and as sanctioned by reveal appeals which are factual in nature and
even published its Police Manual as required by
subsequent decisions of this Court, the remedy of may, therefore, be dismissed outright by
Sec. 26 of RA4864 (Police Act of 1966); and that
the aggrieved party is to timely file a motion for minute resolutions.
PC committed grave abuse of discretion in
reconsideration as a precondition for any further or - While we do not wish to intrude into the
dismissing them from the service.
subsequent remedy, and then seasonably avail of Congressional sphere on the matter of the wisdom
- Judge Bello of CFI Pangasinan issued the
the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of a law, on this score we add the further
contested order ex parte, directing the issuance of
which is a special original action limited to the observations that there is a growing number of
a preliminary mandatory injunction. PC’s motion to
resolution of jurisdictional issues, that is lack or labor cases being elevated to this Court which, not
dismiss was denied, and another order directing
excess of jurisdiction and GAD amounting to lack being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained
the reinstatement of Ferrer and Bonifacio was
of jurisdiction. to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of
issued by the same judge.
- The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion unclear or ambiguous factual findings; that the
- PC filed instant petition with SC, seeking to annul
that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals is procedurally equipped for that
the orders of Bello
Supreme Court were eliminated, the legislative purpose, aside from the increased number of its
intendment was that the special civil action of component divisions; and that there is undeniably
ISSUE
certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for an imperative need for expeditious action on labor
WON the assailed orders should be annulled
judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of cases as a major aspect of constitutional
the word "appeal" in relation thereto and in the protection to labor.
HELD
instances we have noted could have been a lapsus - All references in the amended Section 9 of B.P.
YES
plumae because appeals by certiorari and the No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the
Ratio The writs in question were improvidently
original action for certiorari are both modes of Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby
issued. Moreover, the CFI of Pangasinan had no
judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. declared to mean and refer to petitions for
power to issue such writs against the PC, which
The important distinction between them, however, certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such
holds office in Quezon City
and with which the Court is particularly concerned petitions should hence forth be initially filed in the
Reasoning It is improper to issue a writ of prelim
here is that the special civil action of certiorari is Court of Appeals in strict observance of the
injunction prior to a final hearing except “in cases
within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear;
Court and the Court of Appeals; whereas to indulge appropriate forum for the relief desired.
where considerations of relative inconvenience
in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the
bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there
Supreme Court are allowed would not subserve,
is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right
but would subvert, the intention of Congress as POLICE COMMISSION v BELLO against his protest and remonstrance, the injury
136
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
being a continuing one; and where the effect of excess of the lower court's jurisdiction, or with appeal, former Deputy Minister Leogardo issued an
the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish grave abuse of discretion. In passing it must be order setting aside the order of Director Pucan and
and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation mentioned that the doctrine in support of the indorsing the complaint to the NLRC-NCR-
between the parties, recently and arbitrarily theory of non-jurisdiction is not applicable to this Arbitration Branch for compulsory arbitration as
interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a aspect of the proceedings, the power of judicial the nature of the case was not suited for summary
new relation.” (Manila Electric Railroad and Light review not being confined to the CFI of the locality proceeding, the issues involved being evidentiary
Company vs. Del Rosario, etc) where the office of PC is maintained, to the in nature which could be threshed out in a formal
- the principal ground on which petitions in the CFI exclusion of the CFI in the locality where private hearing.
are predicated is lack of jurisdiction of PC to render respondents reside. - The case was assigned to Labor Arbiter
a decision in the administrative case, dismissed Valenzuela who conducted several hearings. The
officers contending that PC had no such labor arbiter rendered a decision finding that
jurisdiction because it had not yet published a PURE FOODS CORP V NLRC (CLAVIO, except for Clavio, the dismissal of the other
Police Manual when it rendered its decision. complainants to be justified, their complaint
CATUBAY, UMALI, REY, DEL
However, reading the provisions of the Police Act impugning the same should be, as it is hereby
of 1966 shows that there is a procedure provided ROSARIO) DISMISSED. However, for failure to furnish them
so as to allow the Board of Investigators and the 171 SCRA 415 with a clearance application for their termination
PC to function even without a police manual. REGALADO; March 21, 1989 as well as the belated filing of the same with
- In any event, considering that the dismissed MOLE, PFC, should, as it is hereby, ordered to pay
officers voluntarily submitted themselves to the FACTS Umali, del Rosario, Rey and Catubay their
jurisdiction of the Board of Investigators, whose - Remigio Clavio, Andres Catubay, Virgilio Umali, separation pay of one-half (In) month pay for every
decisions are subject to review by PC, they are Orlando Rey and Jorge del Rosario were employees year of service their respective services and to
now barred under the doctrine of estoppel by of Pure Foods Corp (PFC). PFC hired Clavio and reinstate Clavio to his former position with one and
laches from questioning the jurisdiction of PC. Catubay as drivers, starting 1979 and 1976, half (1-1/2) years of backwages. Both parties
- also, CFI Pangasinan has no jurisdiction to issue respectively; Umali as utility man, starting 1978; appealed to NLRC.
writs of preliminary mandatory injunction against Rey as delivery man, starting 1973; and Del - March 23, 1987 > NLRC rendered a decision
the PC, which holds office in Quezon City, outside Rosario as checker, starting 1978. Despite their unanimously holding for the private respondents
the territorial boundaries of said court. specific appointments, there were times when and directing PFC to show proof of immediate
- WRT to the issue of grave abuse of discretion, it Umali and Del Rosario were required by their compliance to the mandate of this Decision after
is contended that PC acted arbitrarily when it superiors to perform the duties of a dispatcher. ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
dismissed the two officers. However, the court has - Of all the employees involved from the packaging - April 15, 1987 > The decision was received by
held that while findings of fact of administrative to the delivery of the goods, only private the respective counsels of both parties. It became
bodies are entitled to great weight and should not respondents were indefinitely suspended for final without any motion for reconsideration or any
generally be disturbed, there is grave abuse of alleged pilferage (as discovered in an overweight other remedy having been filed or taken by
discretion justifying the issuance of the writ of assessment of one of the cargo trucks – see petitioner.
certiorari when there is such capricious and decision for full details of the alleged pilferage) as - April 28, 1987 > private respondents moved for
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to early as March 18, 1981, immediately after the the issuance of a writ of execution with a copy of
lack of jurisdiction (Abad Santos v Prov of Tarlac), incident and without prior investigation. the motion furnished counsel for petitioner on the
as where power is exercised in an arbitrary or Thereafter, their suspension was continued until same date.
despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, their dismissal without any notice to them or - April 30, 1987 > PFC opposed the above motion,
or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of clearance from the then Ministry of Labor and filing at the same time its motion for
positive duty, or to virtual refusal to perform the Employment. reconsideration
duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of - April 2, 1982 > private respondents filed a - May 18, 1987 > NLRC issued a resolution denying
law (Tavera-Luna, Inc. vs. Nable) complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages PFC’s motion for reconsideration for having been
- in this case, to grant the petition for permanent against PFC. filed out of time and for lack of merit.
prohibition will deprive the dismissed officers of - May 13, 1983 > an order was issued by Director - Petitioner contends: NLRC committed a grave
their day in court, for they can no longer be in a Pucan directing PFC to reinstate private abuse of discretion in totally reversing the findings
position to prove their allegation respondents to their former position with full of facts of the labor arbiter.
- While it has been shown that the court below backwages from the date of their dismissal until - Respondents contend: the questioned decision
exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the writs of actual reinstatement, and to pay said of NLRC has long become final and executory, for
preliminary mandatory injunction, it has not complainants their unpaid wages prior to their failure of PFC to file its motion for reconsideration
likewise been shown in the present petition nor dismissal. within the 10-day reglementary period, hence the
has it been alleged therein that the entire - PFC appealed the order to the Office of then same is no longer legally susceptible of any
proceedings in the court below are without or in Minister of Labor and Employment. Acting on said amendment, alteration and/or modification and

137
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
pray for the dismissal of this special civil action for aspects of the case. PFC’s inaction or negligence a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error
certiorari under the circumstances is tantamount to a committed while so engaged does not deprive it of
deprivation of the right and opportunity of NLRC to the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is
ISSUE cleanse itself of an error unwittingly committed or committed. If it did, every error committed by a
WON PFC’s special civil action for certiorari is valid to vindicate itself of an act unfairly imputed. An court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every
improvident resort to certiorari cannot be used as erroneous judgment would be a void judgment.
HELD a tool to circumvent the right of public respondent This cannot be allowed. The administration of
NO to review and purge its decision of an oversight, if justice would not survive such a rule.
Ratio PD 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines) any. Neither should this special civil action be Consequently, an error of judgment that the court
formerly granted, under A223 thereof, an resorted to as a shield from the adverse may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not
aggrieved party the remedy of appeal from a consequences of petitioner's own negligence or correctible through the original civil action of
decision of NLRC to the Secretary of Labor. PD error in the choice of remedies. Having allowed the certiorari.
1391, however, amended said Article 223 and decision to become final and executory, PFC
abolished appeals to the Secretary of Labor. But, cannot by an overdue strategy question the
the losing party is not without recourse. Under the correctness of the NLRC decision when a timely AZORES v SEC (PHIL COLUMBIAN
New Rules of NLRC, a party is allowed to file a motion for reconsideration was the legal remedy
ASSOC)
motion for reconsideration of any order, resolution indicated.
or decision of the commission based on palpable Ratio It is settled to the point of being 252 SCRA 387
or patent errors, provided that the motion is under elementary that the only question involved in Mendoza, J; 1996
oath and filed within ten (10) calendar days from certiorari is jurisdiction, either the want or excess
receipt of the order, resolution or decision. In thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the FACTS
addition, the party may also seasonably avail of issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari - Dr. Antonio Azores became a member of the
the special civil action for certiorari, where the only when the same is so grave, as when the Philippine Columbian Association in 1952. He was
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic thus issued Proprietary Membership No. 094 and
functions has acted without or in excess of its manner by reason of passion, prejudice or Membership Certificate no. 282. In 1956, he wrote
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and personal hostility, and it must be so patent and so the Club to request that his membership status be
praying that judgment be rendered annulling or gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, changed from resident to non-resident in view of
modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined, his move to San Pablo City. He was later billed as a
such tribunal, board or officer. or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be non resident member.
Reasoning The unquestioned rule in this equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction. - In 1966 petitioner immigrated to the United
jurisdiction is that certiorari will lie only if there is Reasoning Firstly, errors of judgment, as States to work as Attorney-Adviser in the U.S.
no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not Department of Commerce. Because the position
remedy in the ordinary course of law against the within the province of a special civil action for was reserved for American citizens, petitioner
acts of respondent. In the present case, the plain certiorari. Secondly, a careful perusal of the obtained American citizenship. Petitioner simply
and adequate remedy expressly provided by law records of this case readily reveals that if there is stopped paying membership dues without
was a motion for reconsideration of the assailed any error by public respondent in its analysis of informing the PCA of his change of residence and
decision and the resolution thereof, which was not the facts and its evaluation of the evidence, it is citizenship.
only expected to be but would actually have not of such a degree as may be stigmatized as a - Upon his retirement, he came back to the
provided adequate and more speedy remedy than grave abuse of discretion. By grave abuse of Philippines and tried to activate his membership in
the present petition for certiorari. This remedy was discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical the Club. He also inquired about the price he could
actually sought to be availed of by PFC when it exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of get if he were to sell one of his shares. He was told
filed MFR albeit beyond the 10-day reglementary jurisdiction, and it must be shown that the that he had to settle all his dues to the club. He
period. For all intents and purposes, PFC cannot discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. objected to this condition saying in effect that
now be heard to say that there was no plain, For certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious, since he did not avail of the facilities from the time
speedy and adequate remedy available to it and arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the he left for the US, he should not be made to pay.
that it must, therefore, be allowed to seek relief by very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in - As it turned out, in 1977, all the certificates of
certiorari. This contention is not only untenable but accordance with centuries of both civil law and membership were recalled for substitution and
would even place a premium on a party's common law traditions. those that were not surrendered were cancelled,
negligence or indifference in availing of procedural Ratio It must emphatically be reiterated, since so including those of Azores’. The club however
remedies afforded by law. The filing of such MFR is often is it overlooked, that the special civil action offered to reactivate Azores’ membership on the
intended to afford NLRC an opportunity to correct for certiorari is a remedy designed for the condition that only one of his shares would be
any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of validated and that he pays one month due for
of a re-examination of the legal and factual judgment. The reason for the rule is simple. When every year of absence from the Philippines. He

138
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
refused the offer and instead insisted that his two proprietary membership is open only to Filipino
memberships be activated. The club stood its citizens10 and that failure to pay dues for three ISSUES
ground. successive months result in the automatic WON an abuse of discretion follows just because
- Petitioner filed a complaint with the Securities termination of membership; that petitioner did not there is a reversal by the NLRC of the decision of
and Exchange Commission and after due hearing pay his monthly dues from 1966 to 1981 when he the labor arbiter
the SEC sustained the Club. His appeal was worked in the United States; and that he did not
dismissed for having been filed out of time. inform the PCA that he had obtained American HELD
citizenship. There was, therefore, reasonable basis - NO. Petitioners come to us via this petition for
ISSUE/S for the decision of the Hearing Officer in dismissing certiorari contending that the NLRC gravely
WON the Securities and Exchange Commission petitioner’s complaint. abused its discretion when:
committed abuse of discretion in dismissing his 1. it rendered its decision finding that private
appeal respondent was a regular employee of petitioner
VILLARUEL v. NLRC and not a partner.
HELD 2. it found that private respondent did not
284 SCRA 399
No. The failure of a party to perfect his appeal in abandon the partnership and transfer to another
the manner and within the period fixed by law MARTINEZ; January 20, 1998 bakery.
renders the decision sought to be appealed final, 3. it directed the petitioners to pay private
with the result that no court can exercise appellate FACTS respondent salary differentials, overtime pay,
jurisdiction to review the decision. For it is more - Guarino started working as matter baker at holiday premium, 13th month pay for 1988 to
important that a case be settled than that it petitioners' bakery known as "Ideal Bakery." His 1990 and night shift differential.
be settled right. It is only in exceptional cases work schedule was horn 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. and - The petition essentially raises a factual issue. We
when we have allowed a relaxation of the rules 11:00 P.M. to 6:00 o'clock the following morning. have time and again ruled that the jurisdiction of
governing the periods of appeals. Petitioner admits - Guarino was told by the petitioners not to report this Court to review a decision or resolution of the
that the 30th day for filing his notice of appeal and for work anymore after he asked for a ten-peso NLRC, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
memorandum on appeal, as required by the increase of his daily wage. the Rules of Court, does not include a correction of
aforesaid rule of the SEC, fell on October 17, 1992 - Guarino filed a complaint for recovery of wages, its evaluation of the evidence but is confined to
but that he did so only on October 20, 1992.6 He night shift differential, overtime pay, and 13th issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
alleges, however, that October 17 was a Saturday, month pay, which complaint was later amended 3 Grave abuse of discretion is committed when the
while October 18 was a Sunday and that these to include illegal dismissal with reinstatement or judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical,
days should not be counted in determining the separation pay, payment of backwages; service arbitrary or despotic manner. An abuse of
period of appeal. In any event he claims that the incentive leave, moral, exemplary and actual discretion does not necessarily follow just because
delay in filing his appeal was “unintended” damages plus attorney's fees. there is a reversal by the NLRC of the decision of
because he believed in good faith that October 17 - Petitioners denied Guarino's demands contending the labor arbiter, such as the case at bench.
and 18 were nonworking days. Be that as it may, that the latter is not an employee but a partner in Neither does the mere variance in the evidentiary
there was no reason why petitioner’s appeal was the bakery business with a 50-50 sharing from the assessment of the NLRC and that of the labor
not filed on Monday, October 19, 1992. profits derived therefrom; that private respondent arbiter warrant another full review of the facts.
- Nor is there any showing that the SEC en banc abandoned his work when he failed to return from - The NLRC's factual findings if supported by
committed the errors attributed to it in the vacation; and that they were surprised to know substantial evidence, is entitled to great respect
petition. In the first place, the alleged errors were later that private respondent worked in another and even finality, unless petitioner is able to show
not committed by the SEC en banc but, if at all, by bakery which was later known as "7-A". that it simply and arbitrarily disregarded evidence
the Hearing Officer. What petitioner claims to be - Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the before it or had misapprehended evidence to such
errors of the SEC en banc are only the complaint for lack of merit. The labor arbiter ruled an extent as to compel a conclusion if such
consequence of the dismissal of his appeal. For the that there exists no employer-employee evidence had been properly appreciated.
fact is that the SEC en banc did not decide his relationship between the parties and that private - The NLRC ruling that there is an employer-
appeal. What is more, as already stated, the respondent's claim for illegal dismissal and other employee relationship between the petitioners and
dismissal of petitioner’s appeal was in accordance money claims were without basis. the private respondent is supported by substantial
with law and not at all a grave abuse of the ship between complainant and respondent hence, evidence as can be gleaned from a reading of the
Hearing Officer’s discretion. In the second place, complainants claim for Illegal Dismissal and other assailed decision. On the other Land the Labor
this is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. As money claims is without basis." 6 Arbiter's finding that a partnership exists between
such, even assuming that errors were allegedly - Guarino appealed to the NLRC which reversed the petitioners and private respondent is
committed by the SEC en banc, the errors are not the labor arbiter's decision. Petitioners moved for a unsupported by any documentary evidence.
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It reconsideration of the decision but the same was - On the issue of abandonment, the Labor Arbiter's
is not disputed that, under the by-laws of the PCA, denied for lack of merit. conclusion that private respondent abandoned his

139
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
work to transfer to a better-paying job in another ISSUE - Advertising is generally of two kinds: (1)
bakery, as correctly observed by the NLRC, is WON the subject media advertising expense for advertising to stimulate the current sale of
likewise devoid of factual support. Private "Tang" incurred by General Foods was an ordinary merchandise or use of services and (2) advertising
respondent transferred to 7-A Bakery only after he and necessary expense fully deductible under the designed to stimulate the future sale of
was told by the petitioner not to report for work National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). merchandise or use of services. The second type
anymore. Understandably, he had to look for involves expenditures incurred, in whole or in part,
another job to support himself and more HELD to create or maintain some form of goodwill for the
importantly, his family. NO. taxpayer’s trade or business or for the industry or
- Finally the dismissal of private respondent being - To be deductible from gross income, the subject profession of which the taxpayer is a member.
illegal, he is entitled to the monetary claims advertising expense must comply with the - We agree with the Court of Tax Appeals that the
prayed for, that is, salary differentials, overtime following requisites: (a) the expense must be subject advertising expense was of the second
pay, holiday premium, 13th month pay for the ordinary and necessary; (b) it must have been paid kind. General Foods incurred the subject
years 1988, 1989 and 1990, and night shift or incurred during the taxable year; (c) it must advertising expense in order to protect its brand
differentials which we assume to be correct have been paid or incurred in carrying on the trade franchise. We consider this as a capital outlay
computations thereof. Since private respondent is or business of the taxpayer; and (d) it must be since it created goodwill for its business and/or
now employed with another employer and has no supported by receipts, records or other pertinent product. The P9,461,246 media advertising
desire to be reinstated, he is entitled to separation papers. expense for the promotion of a single product is
pay equivalent to 1 month's salary for every year - The parties are in agreement that the subject doubtlessly unreasonable.
of service. advertising expense was paid or incurred within - It has been a long standing policy and practice of
the corresponding taxable year and was incurred the Court to respect the conclusions of quasi-
in carrying on a trade or business. Hence, it was judicial agencies such as the Court of Tax Appeals,
CIR v GENERAL FOODS INC. necessary. However, their views conflict as to a highly specialized body specifically created for
whether or not it was ordinary. To be deductible, the purpose of reviewing tax cases. The CTA, by
G.R. No. 143672
an advertising expense should not only be the nature of its functions, is dedicated exclusively
CORONA; April 24, 2003 necessary but also ordinary. These two to the study and consideration of tax problems. It
requirements must be met. has necessarily developed an expertise on the
FACTS - The Commissioner maintains that the subject subject. We extend due consideration to its opinion
- General Foods, which is engaged in the advertising expense was not ordinary on the unless there is an abuse or improvident exercise of
manufacture of Tang, Calumet and Kool- ground that it failed the two conditions set by U.S. authority. Since there is none in the case at bar,
Aid, filed its income tax return for the jurisprudence: first, "reasonableness" of the the Court adheres to the findings of the CTA.
fiscal year ending February 28, 1985. In amount incurred and second, the amount incurred - Accordingly, we find that the Court of Appeals
said tax return it claimed as deduction, must not be a capital outlay to create "goodwill" committed reversible error when it declared the
among other business expenses, the for the product and/or company’s business. subject media advertising expense to be
amount of P9,461,246 for media Otherwise, the expense must be considered a deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense
advertising for "Tang." The Commissioner capital expenditure to be spread out over a on the ground that "it has not been established
disallowed 50% or P4,730,623 of the reasonable time. that the item being claimed as deduction is
deduction claimed. Consequently, - In the case at bar, the P9,461,246 claimed as excessive." It is not incumbent upon the taxing
respondent corporation was assessed media advertising expense for "Tang" alone was authority to prove that the amount of items being
deficiency income taxes in the amount of almost one-half of its total claim for "marketing claimed is unreasonable. The burden of proof to
P2,635, 141.42. General Foods filed a expenses." Aside from that, respondent- establish the validity of claimed deductions is on
motion for reconsideration but the same corporation also claimed P2,678,328 as "other the taxpayer. In the present case, that burden
was denied. It appealed to the Court of advertising and promotions expense" and another was not discharged satisfactorily.
Tax Appeals but it was dismissed. P1,548,614, for consumer promotion.
- Aggrieved, General Foods file a petition Furthermore, the subject P9,461,246 media
for review at the Court of Appeals which advertising expense for "Tang" was almost double
rendered a decision reversing and setting the amount of respondent corporation’s C. PROHIBITION
aside the decision of the Court of Tax P4,640,636 general and administrative expenses.
Appeals. It said that since it has not been We find the subject expense for the advertisement CHUA HIONG vs.THE DEPORTATION
sufficiently established that the item it of a single product to be inordinately large. BOARD
claimed as a deduction is excessive, the Therefore, even if it is necessary, it cannot be
same should be allowed.Thus, the instant
96 PHIL 665
considered an ordinary expense deductible under
petition. then Section 29 (a) (1) (A) of the NIRC. LABRADOR; March 19, 1955

140
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
FACTS is admitted in the return. It is well settled that -Co Pengco, father of petitioners Gregorio and
- Proceedings were instituted before the proceedings for deportation or repatriation can be Heculano Co, was a Chinese merchant residing in
Deportation Board against the petitioner, Federico instituted only against aliens. Cagayan; their mother, Maria Tan Comin’s
M. Chua Hiong, who is alleged to have secured the nationality was disputed. Upon petitioners parents’
cancellation of his alien certificate of registration ISSUES death in China, a Special Prosecutor of the
with the Bureau of Immigration through fraud and 1. WON mere plea of citizenship does not divest Deportation Board filed charges against them
misrepresentation (in claiming to be an illegitimate the Deportation Board of its power over the alleging that as Chinese subjects residing in the
child of a Filipino mother named Tita Umandap deportation proceedings Philippines, they violated the law in their failure to
when as a matter of fact he is the legitimate child 2. WON a respondent who claims to be a citizen register as Chinese nationals with Immigration. By
of a Chinese woman by the name of Sy Mua) and and not therefore subject to deportation has the representing themselves as Filipinos, they were
to have maliciously and illegally exercised right to have his citizenship reviewed by the able to enjoy rights and privileges only accorded to
privileges and rights belonging to citizens of the courts, after the deportation proceedings. citizens such as ownership of real property. Upon
Philippines, such as the right of suffrage, the the dismissal of both a motion to dismiss and MFR,
acquisition of real estate and lumber concessions, HELD petitioners filed an action for prohibition and
knowing that he is a Chinese national. 1. YES. habeas corpus against the Board during the
- Upon the institution of the proceedings, a Ratio If the alienage of the respondent is not pendency of an inquiry against them which could
warrant for his arrest was issued. He filed a bond denied, the Board's jurisdiction and its proceedings possibly lead to their expulsion from the country.
for his release and thereafter petition said are unassailable; if the respondent is admittedly a The then Judge de Veyra of the Manila CFI
Deportation Board for the dismissal of the citizen, or conclusively shown to be such, the sustained his jurisdiction, granted the relief
proceedings against him. Board lacks jurisdiction and its proceedings are sought, and restrained the Board from taking
null and void ab initio and may be summarily cognizance of the proceeding. Hence this appeal
PROCEDURE enjoined in the courts. by the Board.
- Motion to quash - denied by the Deportation 2. YES.
Board. Ratio When the evidence submitted by a ISSUE
- These proceedings were instituted in this Court respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the WON judicial intervention prior to the final
seeking the following reliefs: right to immediate review should also be decision of the Board was justified
a. that a Writ of habeas corpus be issued on the recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin
ground that his arrest was made without the deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to HELD
jurisdiction, as the claim submitted by him of his live in peace, without molestation from any official YES.
Filipino citizenship is supported by evidence; or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation As held in Chua Hiong vs Deportation Board,
b. that the Board be prohibited from continuing proceedings, he has the unquestionable right to “when the evidence submitted…is conclusive of
the deportation proceedings against him; resort to the courts for his protection, either by a his citizenship, the right to immediate review
c. that a writ of preliminary injunction issue to writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the legal should also be recognized and the courts should
restrain the Deportation Board from hearing the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction. The legal promptly ejoin the deportation proceedings.” Such
case until after his petition is heard by SC basis of the prohibition is the absence of the remedy should be allowed only in sound discretion
Petitioner’s claim: The legal foundation of the jurisdictional fact, alienage. of a competent court in a proper proceeding, as
petitioners claim is contained in three propositions, Reasoning If the citizen's right to his peace is to was in the instant case.
namely, (a) that only an alien is subject to be protected, it must be protected preferably -Calacday vs Vivo reiterated the exception to the
deportation or repatriation, and that when a through the medium of the courts, because these rule precluding judicial intervention until
resident denies that he is an alien and claims to be are independent of the other branches of the deportation proceedings are completed. There was
a citizen of the Philippines, he challenges or puts in government and only in their proceedings can we no substantial legal error in the test of evidence to
issue a jurisdictional fact, alienage; (b) that the find guarantees of impartiality and correctness, justify such remedy based on the evidence of their
evidence which he has submitted to the within human limitations, in the ascertainment of citizenship, such as having been born in the
Deportation Board as to his Filipino citizenship is the jurisdictional fact in issue, the respondent's Philippines to a Filipino Mother (as recognized by
substantial, for as a matter of fact various officials claim of citizenship. the lower court); the recognition of such status by
of the executive department have recognized such several government agencies; their exercise of the
citizenship and had made a finding that he is not right to suffrage; and birth certificates showing
subject to the provisions of the Alien Registration CO V THE DEPORTATION BOARD they are Filipinos.
Act; and (c) that as his liberty as a citizen is
320 SCRA 478
involved, the constitutional guarantee of due
process of law demands that his alleged FERNANDO; July 29, 1977 SIMON, JR. v COMMISSION ON
citizenship should first be determined in judicial
FACTS HUMAN RIGHTS
proceedings. The first proposition above set forth

141
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
229 SCRA 117 Constitution would have expressly said so. 1. WON there are administrative remedies
"Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution available to the petitioners
VITUG; January 5, 1994
or by law". It is never derived by implication. 2 WON there was valid publication of the AOs
Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid through EO 159 (as argued by the respondents)
FACTS
services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to 3. WON the rate increases and charges are just
- A Demolition Notice signed by Quimpo (one of
extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ and reasonably sufficient to cover administrative
the petitioners), Executive Officer of the Quezon
of preliminary injunction) which the CHR may seek costs, and/or practicable and uniform for similar or
City Integrated Hawkers Management Council
from proper courts on behalf of the victims of comparable services and functions, and/or that
under the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to,
human rights violations. Not being a court of those rates conform with the rules and regulations
and received by, the private respondents (officers
justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue of the Ministry of Finance
and members of the North EDSA Vendors
the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may
Association, Incorporated). In said notice, the
only be issued "by the judge of any court in which HELD
respondents were given a grace-period of three 3
the action is pending within his district, or by a 1. YES, and the petition is premature
days within which to vacate the questioned
Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Ratio. Where the enabling statute indicates a
premises of North EDSA. Prior to their receipt of
Court. A writ of preliminary injunction is an procedure for administrative review, and provides
the demolition notice, the private respondents
ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending a system of administrative appeal, or
were informed by petitioner Quimpo that their
principal action, for the preservation or protection reconsideration, the courts, for reasons of law,
stalls should be removed to give way to the
of the rights and interests of a party thereto, and comity and convenience, will not entertain a case
"People's Park". The group filed a letter-complaint
for no other purpose. unless the available administrative remedies have
with the CHR against the petitioners, asking the
The Commission does have legal standing to been resorted to and the appropriate authorities
late CHR Chairman Bautista for a letter to be
indorse, for appropriate action, its findings and have been given opportunity to act and correct the
addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr., of
recommendations to any appropriate agency of errors committed in the administrative forum.
Quezon City to stop the demolition of the private
government. (Chua Huat v. CA)
respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia
Reasoning. Prohibition is not the proper remedy.
along North EDSA. The CHR issued an Order,
The enabling law itself (BP 325) has specifically
directing the petitioners "to desist from
demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA PAREDES V CA tasked the Cabinet to review and approve any
proposed revisions of rates of fees and charges.
pending resolution of the vendors/squatters' 253 SCRA 126
Our legislature in delegating to administrative
complaint before the Commission" and ordering KAPUNAN, February 1, 1996 officers the authority to revise fees and charges
said petitioners to appear before the CHR.
expressly required cabinet approval for the proper
- A motion to dismiss questioned CHR's FACTS exercise of said power. The grant (or denial) of a
jurisdiction. Petitioners stated that the -Secretary of DTI and Director of Bureau of writ of prohibition is ordinarily within the sound
Commission's authority should be understood as Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer discretion of the court to be exercised with caution
being confined only to the investigation of (BPTTT) promulgated A.O. 1 and 2, Series of 1992 and forbearance, according to the circumstances
violations of civil and political rights, and that "the revising the rules of practice before the BPTTT in of the particular case, and only where the right to
rights allegedly violated in this case were not civil patent and trademark cases. Among the revisions seek relief is clear. Prohibition is granted only in
and political rights, but their privilege to engage in made were the increase in fees payable to the cases where no other remedy is available which is
business." BPTTT for registration of patents and trademarks sufficient to afford redress. That the petitioners
- The CHR denied the motion, holding that it had and the prohibition of filing multi-class applications have another and complete remedy at law either
jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the (one application covering several classes of by appeal or otherwise, is generally a sufficient
squatters-vendors who complained of the gross goods). Petitioners – registered patent agents – reason for dismissing the writ.
violations of their human and constitutional rights. after requesting the respondents to reconsider or -BP325 provides a three-step process involving a
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. defer the implementation of the AO, filed with CA a hierarchy of authority before the rate increases
Hence, this petition. Petition for Prohibition with prayer for the issuance and charges can be imposed and collected. First,
of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to stop public the BPTTT, which is the imposing and collecting
HELD respondents from enforcing the said AO and to agency, makes a recommendation of the fee
NO. declare them null and void for failure to comply increases and charges. Those recommended rates
The constitutional provision directing the CHR to with requirements of Cabinet approval and and charges are submitted to the Secretary of the
"provide for preventive measures and legal aid publication (Sec2 and 5, BP325). CA dismissed, DTI for his evaluation and approval. Second, if the
services to the underprivileged whose human MFR denied. Secretary of the DTI finds that the rate increases
rights have been violated or need protection" may
and charges conform with the rules and
not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the ISSUES regulations of the Ministry of Finance, then the
Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of
same are approved and in turn become the rates
injunction for, it that were the intention, the
142
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
of the department. The determination of the Reasoning Under the plain terms of the Medical
supposed rates and charges does not end here. As D. MANDAMUS law1, it is the discretionary duty of the Secretary of
mentioned in Section 2 above; the rates as the Interior to confirm or not to confirm or, as in
determined by the department head are “subject this instance, to annul the report of the medical
to the approval of the Cabinet.” BLANCO V BOARD OF MEDICAL examiners. To hold that the Secretary of the
2. NO, however, the AOs are not null and EXAMINERS Interior must in all cases confirm, shutting his eyes
void for failure of publication G.R. NO. 222911 to any irregularity, no matter how glaring, would
Reasoning. Laws shall have prospective effect. convert him into an automatic rubber stamp for
MALCOLM; September 23, 1924
EO 159 was promulgated 2 years after the subject imprinting the requisite approval.
AOs were issued, and therefore, has no application * What the petitioners should do is to submit anew
FACTS
in the case at bench. to examinations free from all hint of carelessness,
- The petitioners, fifteen participants in the last
-NOT NULL AND VOID: Cabinet has yet to review collusion, or fraud.
medical examinations, took the said exam
and approve the proposed revised rates of fees
prescribed by law for a physician's certificate, and
and charges so there can be no proper publication.
apparently passed the same. The Board of Medical
In accordance with Sec5 of BP325, only upon
Examiners thereupon submitted the final results of NG GIOC LIU V SECRETARY OF
review and approval by the Cabinet of the adjusted
rates of fees or charges would the heads of
the examinations to the Department Head for FOREIGN AFFAIRS
confirmation. But the Secretary of the Interior held
ministries, offices, agencies or commissions 85 PHIL 842
the matter in abeyance, pending the outcome of
concerned cause the revised schedule of fees and REYES; March 31, 1950
an investigation conducted by the Under-Secretary
charges to be published.
of the Interior. The finding of the special
3. Premature. No ruling. FACTS
investigator was that the questions on the subjects
Reasoning. Courts should be reluctant to -Ng Gioc Liu presented to the DFA a letter from the
of the medical exams held on May 13 to May 16,
interfere with administrative action prior to its Commissioner of Immigration, requesting that the
1924, had leaked out before said dates. Following
completion or finality, the reason being that Philippine Consulate at Amoy, China, be authorized
the recommendation of the Under-Secretary, the
absence of a final order or decision, the power of to issue a returning resident visa to Mariano Uy as
Secretary of the Interior annulled the results of the
the administrative agency concerned has not been an emancipated minor son of said Ng Gioc Liu, the
examinations.
fully exercised and there can be no irreparable Commissioner being satisfied that this minor was
harm. [Matienzo v Abellera] born in Manila in 1928, but that, having gone to
ISSUE
-ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CO V US, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V China in 1930 to study and having stayed there
WON the writ of mandamus should be granted
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO: rule of finality of since then, he has to have a visa to return to the
administrative action for purposes of judicial Philippines.
HELD
review -The Commissioner's request was not granted,
NO
-The principle of exhaustion of administrative Ratio It is elementary law that the writ of hence, this petition to compel the Secretary of
remedies which mandates that relief should first mandamus will not issue to control or review the Foreign Affairs to authorize the issuance of the
be sought from the highest or most superior exercise of discretion of a public officer. Where the visa in question.
admistrative agency, the likes of the Cabinet, may law imposes upon a public officer the right and
prove that a resort to the courts would be duty to exercise judgment, in reference to any ISSUE
unnecessary (Wee Poco vs. Posadas, 65 Phil. 648), matter to which he is called upon to act, it is his WON the giving of a visa is not a ministerial act
prevent the courts from being swamped by a judgment that is to be exercised and not that of that may be compelled by mandamus
resort to them in the first instance (U.S. vs. Sing the court." Such duty is discretionary and not
Tuck, 194 U.S. 161), strengthened by the rule on ministerial. (Lamb vs. Phipps [1912]; Gonzales vs. HELD
comity and convenience which requires Us to raise Board of Pharmacy [1911]) Yes.
our hands until the administrative process has - It is likewise elementary law that mandamus may -The Immigration Act of 1940, which is still in
been finally completed (Matienzo vs. Abellana, issue to correct abuse of discretion, if the case is force, permits resident aliens who leave the
supra; Railroad and Warehouse Commission vs. otherwise proper. But here, the record discloses 1
Duluth, St. R. Co., 273 US 625), and thus it is after that the Sec of the Interior did not exercise the - The last par of Sec 776 of the Medical Law, as found in
judicial review is no longer premature that the power granted to him with manifest injustice, or the Administrative Code, and as last amended by Sec 10
courts may ascertain, in process cases, whether with gross abuse. of Act No. 3111, provides that "The results of all
the administrative action or findings are not in examinations (medical), including the average and grades
obtained by each applicant, shall be submitted for
violation of law, whether they are free from fraud confirmation to the Department Head (the Secretary of
or imposition and whether they find substantial the Interior) and made known to the respective
support from the evidence. candidates within one month after the date of the
examination."
143
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
Philippines provided they have not relinquished - On the basis of such facts, and in view of the
their residence here. Upon returning they are refusal of the board officers to release the FACTS
considered non-immigrants, but they are required warrants, Policarpio applied to the Court of First -Maria Natividad vda. de Tan, filed with the Court
by section 10 of the Act to present for admission Instance for a writ of mandamus to compel their of First Instance of Manila a verified petition for
into the Philippines unexpired passports and valid release. In its answer the board specifically mandamus seeking an order to compel the
passport visas issued by a consular officer. Section pleaded that the preparation of the warrants was respondent-appellant Veterans Back Pay
12 direct that passport visa be not issued to an ordered by mistake, because Policarpio's petition Commission: (1) to declare deceased Lt. Tan Chiat
applicant who fails to establish satisfactorily his had not been as yet acted upon by the Board. Bee alias Tan Lian Lay, a Chinese national, entitled
non-immigrant status or whose entry into the - Submitted on the facts alleged, by agreement of to backpay rights, privileges, and prerogatives
Philippines would be contrary to the public safety. the parties the CFI decreed the issuance of the writ under Republic Act No. 304, as amended by
-The determination of whether or not an applicant complained of on the basis that the fact that the Republic Act No. 897, and (2) to give due course to
for a visa has a non-immigrant status and whether Secretary has signed the memorandum for the the claim of petitioner, as the widow of the said
or not his entry into this country would be contrary chairman of the board restoring petitioner's veterans, by issuing to her the corresponding
to public safety, is not a simple ministerial pension, and the further fact that said check has backpay certificate of indebtedness.
function. It involves the exercise of discretion and been drawn by Virtue of such memorandum are -Natividad filed with the CFI because the Veterans
cannot therefore be controlled by mandamus. sufficient reasons to justify the release of the same Backpay Commission moved to dismiss her
-The fact that the Commissioner of Immigration in payment of petitioner's accumulated pension petition
has made his own investigation and is himself -Commission instituted this appeal averring once
satisfied that the applicant is entitled to his claim ISSUES more, in its assignment of errors, the special and
is immaterial. For the consular officers are not WON mandamus is proper affirmative defenses that the petitioner failed to
bound by the findings and conclusions of the HELD exhaust available administrative remedies; that
immigration office NO. the suit is, in effect, an action to enforce a money
Disposition Petition is denied - It was improper to compel delivery of the claim against the government without its consent;
warrants, because the Board might, in the exercise that mandamus will not lie to compel the exercise
of its discretion, refuse to restore petitioner's of a discretionary function; and that Republic Act
POLICARPIO v PHILIPPINE pension; and even if its refusal should be wrongful Nos. 304 and 897 already referred to were never
or erroneous, the court could not properly intended to benefit aliens.
VETERANS BOARD
intervene until the appellee- petitioner should
99 PHIL 797 have exhausted her administrative remedies. ISSUES
JBL REYES; August 28, 1956 Therefore, the court below should have limited (1)WON mandamus is the proper remedy to
itself to ordering the Board to take action upon correct the exercise of discretion of the
FACTS Policarpio's petition that her pension payments be Commission
- Paula Policarpio was the widow of a member of resumed. (2)WON aliens are included within the purview of
the Armed Forces killed in action in 1942; upon her - Mandamus does not lie to review or control the the law
application duly approved, she was granted a action or decision of a pension board or other
monthly pension by the appellant Board. The board or officer having authority over pension HELD
pension was stopped in July 1948 because the matters, where the action or decision is one (1) YES.
widow received a similar pension from US Veterans resting in the discretion of such board or officer, or - It may well be remembered that its discretion is
Administration. However, the latter certified to the where it involves the construction of the law and limited to the facts of the case, i.e., in merely
Board that the widow had ceased receiving her the application of the facts thereto. Where a evaluating the evidence whether or not claimant is
pension from the US Veterans Administration since pension board or officer simply refuses to take any a member of a guerrilla force duly recognized by
1951, whereupon, in February 11, 1953, Policarpio action whatever, the court will issue a mandamus the United State Army. Nowhere in the law is the
applied to appellant for the resumption of her to compel it or him to take some action, but will respondent Commission given the power to
former pension. On February 28, 1953, the not attempt to prescribe the action to be taken adjudicate or determine rights after such facts are
Secretary of the Philippine Veterans Board issued a and thereby control the discretion or judgment of established. Having been satisfied that deceased
memorandum that petitioner's pension was the board or officer. Tan Chiat Bee was an officer of a duly recognized
resumed effective January 30, 1951; and in view guerrilla outfit, certified to by the Armed Forces of
thereof the auditor caused treasury warrants to be the Philippines, having served under the United
prepared in favor of the widow. Delivery of the TAN v VETERANS BACKPAY States-Chinese Volunteers in the Philippines, a
warrants was, however, subsequently stopped, for guerrilla unit recognized by the United States
COMMISSION
the reason that the appellant Board "had not yet Army and forming part of the Philippine Army, it
granted the restoration of the petitioner's 105 PHIL 377 becomes the ministerial duty of the respondent to
pension". JBL REYES; March 30, 1959 give due course to his widow's application. (See

144
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
sections 1 and 6, Republic Act 897.) Note that the - On April 6, 1965, the President approved the - The Court gave due course to the petition and
Chief of the Finance Service, Camp Murphy, has tentative ninth reparations year schedule as issued a temporary restraining order on April 20,
accepted the backpay due the petitioner's revised and recommended by the National 1967, ordering the respondents to cease and
husband and the same was passed in audit by the Economic Council, and, thereafter, returned the desist from continuing acts of interference, use,
representatives of the Auditor General. same to the Reparations Commission for control, and disposition of the roadbuilding
(2) YES. implementation. equipment machineries and vehicles obtained by
It is insisted by the respondent Commission that - The reparations goods and equipment arrived at the petitioner through the Reparations
aliens are not included within the purview of the the Port of Manila in October, 1966, and were Commission.
law. We disagree. The law as contained in Republic released to the petitioner, upon payment by the - The respondents seek the dismissal of the
Act Nos. 304 and 897 is explicit enough, and it latter, of the necessary inspection fee, bank petition upon the grounds that mandamus is not
extends its benefits to members of "guerrilla commission, costs of publications, etc. On the proper remedy to enforce contractual rights
forces duly recognized by the Army of the United November 16, 1966, Atty. Panfilo M. Manguera, and that the reparations goods in question are not
States." From the plain and clear language thereof, Reparations Adviser, Director and Head of the intended for "non-revenue producing projects" so
we fail to see any indication that its operation Legal Department of the Reparations Commission, that the petitioner has to pay its procurement
should be limited to citizens of the Philippines only, forwarded to the Chairman of the Reparations costs, and since the petitioner has failed to pay the
for all that is required is that the guerrilla unit be Commission, for his signature, copies of the same, the reparations goods remain the property
duly recognized by the Army of the United States. "Contract of Transfer of Reparations Goods" in of the Government, subject to the control of the
favor of the petitioner, covering the roadbuilding respondent Commission. The respondents also
equipment aforementioned. Tile contract, claim that the petitioner is not dispossessed, much
PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN v however, was not acted upon despite less deprived, of the use of the reparations
representations made in behalf of the petitioner. equipment since the reparations goods were
REPARATIONS COMMISSION
Instead, on November 26, 1966, the respondent merely placed in the custody of the respondent
80 SCRA 376 Reparations Commission required the petitioner to Highway District Engineer of Pangasinan, who is
CONCEPCION JR; NOV 29, 1977 place the reparations goods in the custody of the also an official of the province.
Highway District Engineer until the petitioner is
FACTS given clearance by the Secretary of Finance, ISSUE
- On November 25, 1963, the petitioner Province of Auditor General, Budget Commissioner, and the WON mandamus lies to require anyone to fulfill
Pangasinan filed with the respondent Reparations Office of the President. Concordantly, a telegram contractual obligations or to compel a course of
Commission an application for reparation goods of similar import was received by the petitioner conduct
worth US $1,500,000.00, to be used for "non- from the Office of the President, and the Highway
revenue projects", such as equipment and District Engineer of Pangasinan was likewise HELD
machinery for road building, improvement of directed by the Secretary of Public Works to take NO.
existing irrigation systems, and garbage collection custody of the said reparations goods. It should be emphasized that the present
for different municipalities. As a pre-requisite, the Representations made in behalf of the petitioner proceeding is a petition for mandamus under Rule
petitioner was requited to set aside sufficient with the respondent Reparations Commission 65, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, to compel "the
amounts in its budget for maintenance of said yielded no favorable results as the respondent defendant Reparations Commission to immediately
equipment and machinery. Commission required pre-payment of the execute the formal documents transferring the
- On October 13, 1964, the respondent procurement costs before return of the reparations reparations equipment and machinery to the
Reparations Commission forwarded to the goods is made, the reparations goods in question plaintiff Province of Pangasinan without costs."
President for approval, through the National not having been classified as intended for non- Under said section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
Economic Council, the tentative schedule for the revenue producing projects. mandamus will he: 1) in case any tribunal
ninth reparations year. Included therein, was the - Thereafter, the respondent Reparations unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
petitioner's application for road building Commission ordered the deletion and removal which the law specifically enjoins as a duty; 2) in
equipment. from the reparations goods of all inscriptions case any corporation, board, or person unlawfully
- On March 9, 1965, the National Economic indicating the proprietary right of petitioner over neglects the Performance of an act which the law
Council, by its Resolution No. 96 (165), submitted said goods. enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
to the President, for his final action the tentative The Provincial Governor of Pangasinan considered station; and 3) in case any tribunal, corporation,
ninth year reparations schedule as revised by it. In the action taken as politically motivated which board or person unlawfully excludes another from
said revised schedule, the road building equipment deprives the province of its lawfully acquired right the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which
applied for by the petitioner was not to own and enjoy the use of said reparations such other is legally entitled; and there is no other
recommended as a, "non-revenue producing goods, and, accordingly, caused the filing of the plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
project." instant petition. ordinary course of law.

145
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
- Mandamus is employed to compel the would be tantamount to a usurpation of executive
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, MERALCO SECURITIES powers, since the Office of the Commissioner of
this being its chief use. But, mandamus does not Internal Revenue is undeniably under the control
CORPORATION v SAVELLANO
lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual of the executive department.
obligations or to compel a course of conduct. 117 SCRA 804 - On the other hand, the Meralco Securities
- The case under consideration, under the TEEHANKEE; October 23, 1982 Corporation argued that the petition states no
allegations of the petition, constitute an attempt to cause of action, that the action is premature, that
settle contractual rights and obligations, express Facts: mandamus win not lie to compel the Commissioner
or implied, between the petitioner and the - The late Juan G. Maniago (substituted in these of Internal Revenue to make an assessment and/or
respondent Reparations Commission and to proceedings by his wife and children) submitted to effect the collection of taxes upon a taxpayer, that
regulate a course of conduct on the part of the CIR confidential denunciation against the Meralco since no taxes have actually been recovered
respondent Commission. Accordingly, a mandamus Securities Corporation for tax evasion for having and/or collected, Maniago has no right to recover
is not the proper remedy. paid income tax only on 25 % of the dividends it the reward prayed for, that the action of petitioner
- It has also been held that it is essential to the received from the MERALCO for the years 1962- had already prescribed and that respondent court
issuance of the writ of mandamus that the plaintiff 1966, thereby allegedly shortchanging the has no jurisdiction over the subject matter as set
should have a clear legal right to the thing government of income tax due from 75% of the forth in the petition, the same being cognizable
demanded and it must be the imperative duty of said dividends. only by the Court of Tax Appeals.
the defendant to Perform the act required. It never - After investigation, the CIR found and held that - CFI: granted the writ prayed for and ordering the
issues in doubtful cases. While it may not be no deficiency corporate income tax was due from CIR to assess and collect from the Meralco
necessary that the duty be absolutely express, it is the Meralco Securities Corporation on the Securities Corporation the sum of P51,840,612.00
necessary that it should be clear. The writ will not dividends it received from the MERALCO since as deficiency corporate income tax for the period
issue to compel an official to do anything which it under the law then prevailing (section 24[a] of the 1962 to 1969 plus interests and surcharges due
is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to National Internal Revenue Code) "in the case of thereon and to pay 25% thereof to Maniago as
do, or give to the applicant anything to which he is dividends received by a domestic or foreign informer's reward.
not entitled by law. The writ neither confers resident corporation liable to (corporate income) - All parties filed for MRs but were denied.
powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command tax under this Chapter . . . .only 25 % thereof shall - Hence, the Commissioner filed a separate
to exercise a power already possessed and to be returnable for the purposes of the tax imposed petition with SC praying that the decision of
perform a duty already imposed. under this section." respondent judge be reconsidered for respondent
- A reading of the application in this proceeding - The Commissioner accordingly rejected judge has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
discloses that there is an absence of adequate Maniago's contention that the Meralco from whom the case and that the issuance or non-issuance of
evidence that it is the duty of the respondent the dividends were received is "not a domestic a deficiency assessment is a prerogative of the
Reparations Commission to perform the act whose corporation liable to tax under this Chapter" and Commissioner of Internal Revenue not reviewable
performance is prayed for in the petition. Thus, the denied Maniago's claim for informer's reward on a by mandamus.
basis of petitioner's complaint is that the non-existent deficiency. This action of the - The Meralco Securities Corporation (now First
reparations goods in question were awarded to the Commissioner was sustained by the Secretary of Philippine Holdings Corporation) likewise appealed
province to be used, in non-revenue producing Finance. the same decision of respondent judge hence, the
projects and, hence, the petitioner is not liable to - Maniago filed a petition for mandamus to compel two cases were ordered consolidated.
pay the procurement costs pursuant to Sec. 12 of the Commissioner to impose the alleged deficiency
Republic Act No. 1789; wherefore, it is the duty of tax assessment on the Meralco Securities Issue/s:
the respondent Commission to execute in Corporation and to award to him the WON the judge has jurisdiction over the subject
petitioner's favor the formal documents of corresponding informer's reward under the matter of the case (and that the issuance or non-
transfer. provisions of R.A. 2338. issuance of a deficiency assessment by the CIR is
- The reparations equipment being intended for - The Commissioner filed a MD, arguing that since an action reviewable by mandamus)
revenue producing projects, it is not incumbent in matters of issuance and non-issuance of
upon the respondent Reparations Commission to assessments, he is clothed under the National HELD:
execute the formal transfer documents until after Internal Revenue Code and existing rules and NO. Respondent judge has no jurisdiction to take
the petitioner shall have paid the procurement regulations with discretionary power in evaluating cognizance of the case because the subject matter
costs of the said reparations goods, and since the the facts of a case and since mandamus win not lie clearly falls within the scope of cases now
petitioner has not yet complied with its obligation, to compel the performance of a discretionary exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of
the respondent Reparations Commission has no power, he cannot be compelled to impose the Tax Appeals.
ministerial duty to perform. Mandamus, therefore, alleged tax deficiency assessment against the Reasoning Sec 7 of RA No. 1125 granted to the
will not lie. Meralco Securities Corporation. He further argued Court of Tax Appeals exclusive appellate
that mandamus may not lie against him for that jurisdiction to review by appeal, among others,

146
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue - DIOKNO v. RFC: where a petitioner sought to circumstances, uncontrolled by the judgment or
in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds compel the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation to consciences of others. A purely ministerial act or
of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, accept payment of the balance of his indebtedness duty in contradiction to a discretional act is one
penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other with his backpay certificates, the Court ruled that which an officer or tribunal performs in a given
matters arising under the National Internal "mandamus does not compel the Rehabilitation state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
Revenue Code or other law or part of law Finance Corporation to accept backpay certificates obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. in payment of outstanding loans. Although there is without regard to or the exercise of his own
The law transferred to the Court of Tax Appeals no provision expressly authorizing such judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the
jurisdiction over all cases involving said acceptance, nor is there one prohibiting it, yet the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public
assessments previously cognizable by courts of duty imposed by the Backpay Law upon said officer and gives him the right to decide how or
first instance, and even those already pending in corporation as to the acceptance or discount of when the duty shall be performed, such duty is
said courts. backpay certificates is neither clear nor ministerial, discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is
- The question of WON to impose a deficiency tax but discretionary merely, and such special civil ministerial only when the discharge of the same
assessment on MSC undoubtedly comes within the action does not issue to control the exercise of requires neither the exercise of official discretion
purview of the words "disputed assessments" or of discretion of a public officer." or judgment."
"other matters arising under the National Internal - MARCELO STEEL CORP v. IMPORT CONTROL - What happened here is a valid exercise of
Revenue Code . . . .In the case of Blaquera vs. BOARD: Courts have no power to order the discretion in the performance of official duty of the
Rodriguez, et al, this Court ruled that "the Commissioner of Customs to confiscate goods Commissioner and cannot be controlled much less
determination of the correctness or incorrectness imported in violation of the Import Control Law, reversed by mandamus. A contrary view would
of a tax assessment to which the taxpayer is not R.A. 426, as said forfeiture is subject to the create disorder and confusion, if not chaos and
agreeable, falls within the jurisdiction of the Court discretion of the said official, total disruption of the operations of the
of Tax Appeals and not of the CFI, for under the - SY HA v. GALANG: Courts may not control the government.
provisions of Sec 7 of RA No. 1125, the Court of determination of whether or not an applicant for a - Since no taxes are to be collected, no informer's
Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to visa has a non-immigrant status or whether his reward is due because an informer's reward is
review, on appeal, any decision of the CIR in cases entry into this country would be contrary to public contingent upon the payment and collection of
involving disputed assessments and other matters safety for it is not a simple ministerial function but unpaid or deficiency taxes. An informer is entitled
arising under the National Internal Revenue Code an exercise of discretion. by way of reward only to a percentage of the taxes
or other law or part of law administered by the On the USURPATION OF EXEC FUNCTIONS: actually assessed and collected. Since no
Bureau of Internal Revenue." - Since the office of the Commissioner of Internal assessment, much less any collection, has been
- The most that Maniago could have done was to Revenue is charged with the administration of made in the instant case, respondent judge's writ
appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals the ruling of revenue laws, which is the primary responsibility of for the Commissioner to pay respondents 25%
the Commissioner within 30days from receipt the executive branch of the government, informer's reward is gross error and without
thereof pursuant to sec11 of RA No. 1125 which he mandamus may not he against the Commissioner factual nor legal basis.
failed to do. TF the ruling is clearly final and no to compel him to impose a tax assessment not
longer subject to review by the courts. found by him to be due or proper for that would be
- It is furthermore a well-recognized rule that tantamount to a usurpation of executive functions.
CRUZ v CA (ENRIQUEZ, FABELLA,
mandamus only lies to enforce the performance of - Commissioner of Immigration vs. Arca: "the
a ministerial act or duty and not to control the administration of immigration laws is the primary ABRACIA)
performance of a discretionary power. responsibility of the executive branch of the 252 SCRA 599
- Purely administrative and discretionary functions government. Extensions of stay of aliens are DAVIDE; Jan 30, 1996
may not be interfered with by the courts. discretionary on the part of immigration
Discretion, as thus intended, means the power or authorities, and neither a petition for mandamus FACTS
right conferred upon the office by law of acting nor one for certiorari can compel the - Cruz has been Guidance and Counselling
officially under certain circumstances according to Commissioner of Immigration to extend the stay of Coordinator III of Valenzuela Memorial HS.
the dictates of his own judgment and conscience an alien whose period to stay has expired. - EO 189 placed all secondary school teachers
and not controlled by the judgment or conscience - Such discretionary power vested in the under administrative supervision of DECS.
of others. proper executive official, in the absence of Petitioner’s position was classified as Guidance
- Mandamus may not be resorted to so as to arbitrariness or grave abuse so as to go beyond Coiunselor R-56. Her salary was reduced.
interfere with the manner in which the discretion the statutory authority, is not subject to the - She appealed to Civil Service Commission – Merit
shall be exercised or to influence or coerce a contrary judgment or control of others. Systems Protection Board (MSPB) praying for
particular determination. - "Discretion," when applied to public upgrading of her position to R-63.
Analogous cases (cited in this case): functionaries, means a power or right conferred - Appeal was referred to Dept of Budget. The Dept
upon them by law of acting officially, under certain informed MSPB that petitioner’s item was classified
147
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
as Guidance Counsellor R-59. The nationalized diminution in duties, responsibilities, status or injunction. It ordered the petitioners to administer
position reduced petitioner’s salary. rank, with or without reduction in salary. the physician’s oath to Arlene V. De Guzman et al.,
- 2 yrs after the nationalization program, RA No. - Here, the appointing authority had nothing to do and enter their names in the rolls of the PRC.
6758 or Salary Standardization Law took effect. with what the petitioner perceived to be a - Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari
- MSPB rendered decision granting Cruz’ appeal. demotion. What happened to her was done by with the CA to set aside the mandatory injunctive
- DECS requested from DBM a supplemental operation of law. writ. CA affirmed trial court.
Position Allocation List to reflect the reclassified - This grievance falls within the primary jurisdiction
position of Cruz. DBM denied the request because of the DBM. ISSUE
MSPB has no jurisdiction to reclassify petitioner’s WON the CA committed a reversible error of law in
position. sustaining the judgment of the TC that
- Cruz filed Motion for Execution of MSPB Decision. PRC V DE GUZMAN respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamus
MSPB issued an order of execution. Cruz found
G.R. No. 144681
that her payroll violated MSPB ruling. HELD
- She filed with CA petition for mandamus praying TINGA; June 21, 2004 YES
that respondents be directed to comply with MSPB Ratio Mandamus is a command issuing from a
Decision. FACTS court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the
- Petition was denied by CA, as well as MFR. - PRC released the names of respondents, all state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior
Hence this petition. graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine, as court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or
successful examinees in the Physician Licensure person requiring the performance of a particular
ISSUES Exams. duty therein specified, which duty results from the
1. WON mandamus was a proper remedy in this - Shortly thereafter, the Board observed that the official station of the party to whom the writ is
case grades of the 79 successful examinees from directed, or from operation of law. Sec 3 of Rule 65
2. WON MSPB has jurisdiction to reclassify Fatima College in the 2 most difficult subjects in of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure outlines two
petitioner’s position and order payment of the the medical licensure exam, Bio-Chem and OB- situations when a writ of mandamus may issue,
corresponding salary Gyne, were unusually and exceptionally high. when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
- Board issued Resolution No. 19, withholding the person unlawfully (1) neglects the performance of
HELD registration as physicians of all the examinees an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
1. NO. from the Fatima College of Medicine. PRC asked resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2)
- Petitioner has no clear legal right which may be the NBI to investigate. It also requested Fr. excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a
enforced by mandamus because her claim of such Bienvenido F. Nebres, S.J., an expert right or office to which the other is entitled.
right is based on a decision of an agency which mathematician and authority in statistics, to Reasoning
had no jurisdiction over the subject thereof. conduct a statistical analysis of the results. On The Existence of a Duty of the Board of
- If MSPB had jurisdiction, DBM was bound to - Fr. Nebres reported that that the scores of Fatima Medicine To Issue Certificates of Registration as
comply with MSPB’s order and mandamus would College examinees were not only incredibly high Physicians under Rep. Act No. 2382.
lie. However, pleadings fail to disclose that the but unusually clustered close to each other. He - For mandamus to prosper, there must be a
order of execution was actually served on the concluded that there must be some unusual showing that the officer, board, or official
respondents. reason creating the clustering of scores in the two concerned, has a clear legal duty, not involving
- Also, petitioner did not show that she had no subjects. It must be a cause “strong enough to discretion. Moreover, there must be statutory
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the eliminate the normal variations that one should authority for the performance of the act, and the
ordinary course of law, as shown by her expect from the examinees [of Fatima College] in performance of the duty has been refused.
unreasonable delay in filing of the mandamus suit. terms of talent, effort, energy, etc.” NBI concluded - To determine whether petitioners had the
2. NO. that “the Fatima examinees gained early access to ministerial obligation to administer the Hippocratic
- The Administrative Code grants the MSPB no the test questions.” Oath to respondents and register them as
jurisdiction. - Respondents filed a special civil action for physicians, recourse must be had to the entirety of
- The flaw in MSPB’s view is its misconception that mandamus, with prayer for preliminary mandatory Medical Act of 1959
the basic complaint of Cruz involved a demotion. injunction with the RTC. - A careful reading of Section 20 of the Medical Act
The complaint was not the “personnel action” nor - Meanwhile, the Board issued Resolution No. 26, of 1959 discloses that the law uses the word
the “violation of the merit system” contemplated dated July 21, 1993, charging respondents with “shall” with respect to the issuance of certificates
in law. The “personnel action” or “violation” refers “immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud, and deceit” of registration. In statutory construction the term
to that done by or results from an act or omission in connection with the Bio-Chem and Ob-Gyne “shall” is a word of command. It is given
of the appointing authority. Demotion involves examinations. It recommended that the test imperative meaning. Thus, when an examinee
movement from a position to another with results of the Fatima examinees be nullified. satisfies the requirements for the grant of his
- RTC granted the preliminary mandatory physician’s license, the Board is obliged to

148
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
administer to him his oath and register him as a - Privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right, citizen of the Philippines when in 1918 her
physician. which may be demanded if denied. Thus, without a husband elected to become Filipino citizen; that
- Section 8 of RA 2382 prescribes, among others, definite showing that the requirements and when she was born in lawful wedlock, Blas Azajar
that a person who aspires to practice medicine in conditions have been satisfactorily met, the courts and Tan Giok were Filipino citizens; and that she
the Philippines, must have “satisfactorily passed may not grant the writ of mandamus to secure and her parents being Filipino citizens and
the corresponding Board Examination.” Section 22, said privilege without thwarting the legislative will. exercising continuously and uninterruptedly their
in turn, provides that the oath may only be On the Ripeness of the Petition for Mandamus rights and privileges as Filipino citizens have not
administered “to physicians who qualified in the - Section 26 of the Medical Act of 1959 provides for lost their Filipino citizenship.
examinations.” The operative word here is the administrative and judicial remedies that - The RTC held that she is a Chinese citizen and as
“satisfactorily,” defined as “sufficient to meet a respondents herein can avail to question such is not entitled to acquire lands of the public
condition or obligation” or “capable of dispelling Resolution No. 26 of the Board of Medicine, domain. On appeal, the CA ruled that as the
doubt or ignorance.” Gleaned from Board namely: (a) appeal the unfavorable judgment to Solicitor General raises the question of jurisdiction
Resolution No. 26, the licensing authority the PRC; (b) should the PRC ruling still be of the trial court to decide the case on the merits
apparently did not find that the respondents unfavorable, to elevate the matter on appeal to and there being practically no controversy over
“satisfactorily passed” the licensure examinations. the Office of the President; and (c) should they still the facts on which Azajar’s claim is based, it
- Until the moral and mental fitness of the be unsatisfied, to ask for a review of the case or to certified the appeal to the SC.
respondents could be ascertained, the Board has bring the case to court via a special civil action of
discretion to hold in abeyance the administration certiorari. Thus, as a rule, mandamus will not lie ISSUES
of the Hippocratic Oath and the issuance of the when administrative remedies are still available. WON Azajar is entitled to declaratory relief
certificates to them. The writ of mandamus does However, the doctrine of exhaustion of
not lie to compel performance of an act which is administrative remedies does not apply where, as HELD
not duly authorized. in this case, a pure question of law is raised. NO.
On the Right Of The Respondents To Be Registered Ratio Section 1, Rule 66, provides: Any person
As Physicians interested under a deed, will, contract or other
- The function of mandamus is not to establish a E. DECLARATORY RELIEF written instrument, or whose rights are affected by
right but to enforce one that has been established a statute or ordinance may bring an action to
by law. If no legal right has been violated, there determine any question of construction or validity
can be no application of a legal remedy, and the AZAJAR V ARDALLES arising under the instrument or statute and for a
writ of mandamus is a legal remedy for a legal 97 Phil. 851 declaration of his rights or duties thereunder.
right. There must be a well-defined, clear and PADILLA; October 31, 1955 Reasoning Azajar is not interested under a deed,
certain legal right to the thing demanded. It is long will, contract or other written instrument; nor are
established rule that a license to practice medicine FACTS her rights affected by a statute or ordinance and
is a privilege or franchise granted by the - In December 1950, Azajar applied for the so her grievance against Francisco Ardales who
government. purchase of a parcel of land belonging to the objected to her sales application for a parcel of
- It is the constitutional right of every citizen to public domain located in Albay. An opposition to land of the public domain has not brought her
select a profession or course of study subject to a the application was filed by Francisco Ardalles on under the scope of Sec 1 of Rule 66.
fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and the ground that Azajar being a Chinese citizen is - A sales application filed with the Bureau of Lands
academic requirements. But like all rights and not entitled to acquire lands of the public domain. must go through the different stages as prescribed
freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their - Azajar filed a petition for declaratory relief in the by law until the Director of Lands, the officer
exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the Albay RTC saying that the opposition to her clothed with the authority to alienate lands
police power of the State. This regulation takes application raises uncertainty or insecurity as to belonging to the public domain, renders his
particular pertinence in the field of medicine, to her citizenship which is prejudicial to her interest decision. Whether Azajar is entitled or not to
protect the public from the potentially deadly and unless it be judicially determined, the Bureau purchase the parcel of land of the public domain
effects of incompetence and ignorance among of Lands would likely deny her sales application. applied for by her depends upon her citizenship
those who would practice medicine. - She prayed that she be declared a Filipino citizen aside from other requirements prescribed by law.
- It must be stressed, nevertheless, that the power alleging that she is the daughter of a Filipino From a decision of the Director of Lands an appeal
to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit citizen named Blas Azajar; that she was born in lies to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
of an occupation cannot be exercised by the State Amoy, China and later came to the Philippines; Resources. For that reason, until after all these
or its agents in an arbitrary, despotic, or that her father was born in Manila of a Filipino administrative remedies shall have been
oppressive manner. A political body that regulates mother named Francisca Azajar; that in 1918 her exhausted, no court may compel the Director of
the exercise of a particular privilege has the father Blas Azajar elected to become Filipino Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
authority to both forbid and grant such privilege in citizen; that at the time of such election Blas Resources on appeal to decide one way or another
accordance with certain conditions. Azajar was married to Tan Giok who became also a
149
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
any sales application as that is vested exclusively demanded by the defendant, on the ground that It is quite clear that if appellant is prosecuted and
in them. he is not so required by section 18 of Act No. 4003, found criminally liable, then the punishment
- Citizenship cannot, therefore, be determined in a as amended by section 1 of Commonwealth Act prescribed by section 78 of the law, will be
complaint for declaratory judgment or relief. It is No. 471, for the reason that he "is not operating imposed upon him; otherwise the charge will be
not the proper remedy or proceedings. If she is a his motor boats for the purpose of catching fish." dismissed. In either case, the action is, as stated
Filipino citizen as she claims, she should go ahead A motion to dismiss the complaint was granted by the Solicitor General, terminated with finality. It
with the administrative proceedings in the Bureau by the lower court and a motion for might be argued that no criminal action has as yet
of Lands and submit the evidence to prove her reconsideration having been denied, this case has been presented. But the law does not require that
citizenship. Azajar may resort to the courts, if the brought here on appeal. there shall be an actual pending case. It is
exercise of her rights as citizen be prevented or sufficient that there is a breach of the law, an
denied, to compel the officer who prevented or ISSUES actionable violation to bar a complaint for
denied her the exercise of her rights as a Filipino WON the complaint for declaratory relief filed by declaratory judgment.
citizen, to allow her to exercise such rights. plaintiff, and which the Court of First Instance of Evidently, appellant would have the courts to
- Such is not the action brought here. Manila dismissed for lack of merit, should be given prejudice the impending criminal action against
Consequently, the Court below should have due course in this Court. him, without necessarily terminating the same.
dismissed it. Properly and strictly speaking, the
question raised by the First Assistant Solicitor HELD
General is not of jurisdiction and does not involve NO. NATIONAL DENTAL SUPPLY CO. v
the jurisdiction of the Court below, because the The Solicitor General, as counsel for defendant,
MEER
latter has jurisdiction to hear and determine all relies on an opinion rendered by the Secretary of
actions and special proceedings because of its Justice on June 24, 1947, to the effect that vessels (Mini)
general jurisdiction, except those the cognizance engaged in the transportation of fish, although not
of which have been vested by law in other courts. actually employed in the catching thereof, are,
It is not the jurisdiction of the Court below that is pursuant to Act No. 4003, required to pay the MIRANDO V WELLINGTON TY &
involved but the availability of the remedy sought commercial fishing boat license. We deem it BROS, INC
on the basis of the averments in the complaint. unnecessary to delve now on the applicability of
81 SCRA 506
the ruling made by the Secretary of Justice to the
case at bar. GUERRERO; February 16, 1978
DE BORJA V. VILLADOLID It appears that the Director of the Bureau of
Fisheries demanded that plaintiff pay the license FACTS
GR NO. L-1897
provided in that Act and in view of the insistent - Shortly after the liberation of Manila from the
TORRES; NOV. 28, 1949 refusal of plaintiff to comply with such demand, he Japanese Army, petitioners occupied and lived in
finally turned over the case to the Office of the the premises of Arellano University at Legarda St.,
FACTS Fiscal of the City of Manila for appropriate action. Manila, from 1945 to 1950. To solve the problem
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he "is a However, plaintiff, upon learning of the step taken posed by the squatters to public health and
license fee fish peddler, . . . having paid the by the director of the Bureau of Fisheries, sanitation in general and to meet the needs of the
required license fee" to the office of Manila City countered by filing this complaint for declaratory University for its premises in particular, Mayor de
Treasurer; that " as such fish peddler" he "is the relief, but this attitude of the plaintiff will only la Fuente of Manila secured the approval of Mayor
owner of two motor boats, . . . with coastwise result in multiplicity of actions which should always Diaz of QC to relocate the squatters in certain lots
license issued by the Bureau of Customs . . . be invoked and the Rules of Court obviously seeks adjoining Broadway St., Q.C.
renewable every year; " that "said motor boats are to prevent when, in section 2 of Rule 66, it - These lots were formerly owned by a Japanese.
used by him solely and exclusively in connection provides that the action for declaratory relief must Because he was an enemy alien, the Phil. Alien
with his business of buying fish... for the purpose be brought "before there has been a breach" of a Property Custodian and later its successor, the
of selling said fish in Manila and that plaintiff has contract or statute the construction of which is Phil. Board of Liquidators, took possession of these
no intervention in the catching of fish, nor does he sought. lots. During their occupancy of the lots in question,
participate, as partner or in any other capacity, in The facts in this case are so clear and petitioners constructed their respective houses
the catch of the fishermen actually engaged in the unambiguous, that in the light of said section 2 or thereon and were charged nominal rentals by the
catching of fish." Rule 66, there is nothing left for the courts to respondent Phil. Board of Liquidators. They also
Defendant Deogracias V. Villadolid, as Director of adjudicate or construe regarding the legal rights, filed their respective applications with the Board
the Bureau of Fisheries required the plaintiff, as suites and status of appellant in the premises. The through the Office of the President for the sale of
such fish peddler, to procure a commercial fishing general purpose of declaratory judgment act is to the lots to them.
boat license as owner and operator of said motor provide for adjudication of the legal rights, duties, - Sometime in 1953 the Phil. Board of Liquidators
boats. Plaintiff refused to secure such license as or status of the respective parties. with the approval of the President of the

150
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
Philippines, bartered the two parcels of land in authority to enter into such a barter agreement consequence, in the absence of positive proof that
dispute with another piece of land owned by the with Carmen Planas. The fact that the present the fees were in consideration of any claim of
late Carmen Planas. On Dec. 8, 1964, the petitioners were relocated by the then City Mayor priority rights. In fact, unrebutted testimony was
administrator of the estate of the late Carmen of Manila, Mayor Manuel dela Fuente with the presented appellants were considered squatters, 3
Planas sold the lots in question to private consent of the City Mayor of Q.C., to the land in not as bona fide occupants by the Board of
respondents, Wellington Ty & Bros., Inc. The case question, which was never owned by either City, Liquidators to the effect that petitioners occupants
was registered and TCT No. 87901 was issued by did not confer on the petitioners any right over it. thereon. Their use and occupation of the land was
the Register of Deeds of Q.C. in the name of - MFR denied, petitioners-appellants appealed to merely tolerated by the national government, and
private respondents. Soon thereafter, the private the CA claiming that the decision was contrary to could not have vested in them any claim, right, or
respondents made demands upon the petitioners law, jurisprudence, and the government policy of adverse interest in such property.
to vacate and surrender the possession of the land for the landless. CA found that controversy 2. NO.
premises. Petitioners refused, claiming that they hangers on WON respondent Phil. Board of Ratio Declaratory relief is an action which any
had preferential rights to the property. Private Liquidators had a right to dispose alien-owned person interested under a deed will, contract, or
respondents reacted by filing an ejectment property under its administration and control by other written instrument, or whose rights are
proceeding in the City Court of Q.C. sale, barter or otherwise, and WON petitioners- affected by a statute, executive order or
- Hence, on September 4, 1968, petitioners- appellants' occupancy of the lots in question prior regulation, or ordinance, may, before breach or
appellants filed a petition entitled Declaratory to their sale to private respondent conferred upon violation thereof, bring to determine any question
Relief for Cancellation of Title and/or them a preferential right to purchase the same, of construction or validity arising under the
Reconveyance with Preliminary Injunction before and to that end WON they are entitled to the instrument or statute and for a declaration of his
the CFI Rizal, Branch XVII, claiming inter alia, (a) declaratory relief prayed for. Being purely rights or duties thereunder.
that they are the bona fide occupants of the lots in questions of law, elevated to SC. Reasoning Petitioners-appellants brought this
question, having, constructed thereon their action with a claim that they were deprived of their
respective resident substantial houses and (b) that ISSUE/S preferential right to buy the disputed lots by virtue
through the fraud and misrepresentation of the 1. WON petitioner-appellants have said of a contract of sale involving said lots executed
respondent-appellee Wellington Ty & Bros, Inc., in preferential right. between the administrator of the estate of the late
collusion with the Phil. Board of Liquidators, they 2. WON petitioner-appellants’ action for Carmen Planas and respondent Wellington Ty &
were deprived of their preferential right to declaratory relief is proper. Bros., Inc. But it is evident from the records that
purchase said lots from the latter. The petition from the date of their relocation to the disputed
below sought the cancellation of the title of HELD lots in 1950 to the date of the filing of this petition
Wellington Ty & Bros., Inc., the reconveyance of 1. NO. for declaratory relief, at no time did the
the disputed lots in their favor and the issuance of Reasoning In the absence of proof of defect in the petitioners-appellants acquire any interest
a writ of preliminary injunction against further acquisition by Carmen Planas of, or proof of whatsoever in the parcels of land subject of the
proceedings in the ejectment case filed by infirmity in her title to, the lots occupied by aforementioned contract of sale. They enjoyed no
respondent-appellee Wellington Ty & Bros.,. Inc. petitioners-appellants, We cannot question the rights which were violated, or at the least, affected
against the petitioners-appellants. validity of the contract of sale executed between by the exchange of properties between the
- After their motion to dismiss was denied, the administrator of her estate and the national government and the late Carmen Planas,
respondent appellee Wellington Ty & Bros., Inc. respondent-appellee Wellington Ty & Bros., Inc. and eventually, by the above contract of sale
filed its Answer to the petition, claiming as a If We pursue farther the contention of the between the administrator of the estate of Carmen
special and affirmative defense the indefensibility petitioners- appellants that they had the Planas and the respondent-appellee Wellington Ty
of their title under the Land Registration Act, being preferential right to buy the lots they occupied, We & Bros., Inc.
purchasers for value and in good faith. Further, must look into the provisions of the law then in The authorities are unanimous that in order that
they reiterated the grounds of their motion to effect, R. A. 477, sec. 1, effective June 9, 1950, an action for declaratory relief may be entertained,
dismiss, among them that the present action is not and not R. A. 3348. The fact that the applications it must be predicated on the following requisite
the proper remedy. of the petitioners-appellants to buy these parcels facts or conditions: (1) there must be a justifiable
- Without going to trial, the case was submitted for of land from the national government, thru the controversy; (2) the controversy must be between
decision, the pertinent portion of which reads: Board of Liquidators, had not been given due persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party
The petitioners do not cite the provision of the law course by the latter no doubt shows that, as seeking declaratory relief must have a legal
that prohibits the Alien Property Custodian from authorized under the above provision of law, the interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue
entering into a barter agreement with Carmen national government reserved these lots for its involved must be ripe for judicial determination. All
Planas. On the contrary the Alien Property own use with no intention to subdivide them into these requisite facts are not present; the
Custodian as the administrator of the alien convenient-sized lots to be awarded to bona fide complaint must, therefore, fail for lack of sufficient
property in question, with the consent of the Office occupants. That petitioners-appellants paid cause of action.
of the President as in the instant case, has the full nominal fees for the use of the lots is of little

151
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
her citizenship being admitted. Moreover, is substantial evidence supporting the
F. HABEAS CORPUS they called attention to the claim of citizenship, so substantial that
"overwhelming and uncontroverted there are reasonable grounds for the
evidence" as to their citizenship based on belief that the claim is correct, In other
MEJOFF v DIRECTOR OF PRISONS their having been born in the Philippines words, the remedy should be allowed only
(Javi) of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, in sound discretion of a competent court
the recognition of such status by several in a proper proceeding." 19 That sound
government agencies, and the exercise discretion was properly exercised by
CO v DEPORTATION BOARD by them of the right to suffrage, not to Judge de Veyra in this judgment on
mention the fact that their birth appeal.
G.R. No. L-22748 certificates showed that they are Filipinos.
Fernando : July 29, 1977 - The then Judge Jesus de Veyra of the
Manila Court of First Instance, granted the LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA V LIWAG
FACTS: relief sought on the ground that they
- Petitioners Gregorio Co and Herculano Co 175 SCRA 318
were Filipinos, and restrained appellant
were born in Cagayan. Their father was a Board from taking further cognizance of FERNAN; July 13, 1989
Chinese merchant residing in the said the proceeding.
province and their mother’s nationality FACTS
was disputed. Both parents died in China. ISSUE: - Petitioner Lucien Tran Van Nghia is a French
- On July 12, 1957, a Special Prosecution of WON the judiciary may entertain an action for national. Originally admitted to the Philippines as a
the Deportation Board filed charges prohibition and habeas corpus filed against the temporary visitor, his status was changed to that
against petitioners alleging that as Deportation Board during the pendency of an of an immigrant on November 16, 1984 based on
Chinese subjects residing in the inquiry against the petitioners that may possibly his representation that he is financially capable
Philippines who failed to register as lead to their expulsion from the country and will invest in the Philippines. To date, however,
Chinese nationals with the Bureau of petitioner has not made any investment and has
Immigration, they violated the law by HELD: engaged only in French tutoring and practice of
representing themselves as Filipinos. By YES acupressure.
such representation, they were enabled - Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board stands - Respondent CID Commissioner Ramon J. Liwag
to enjoy rights and privileges which are for this principle: "When the evidence received a sworn complaint from a certain Dionisio
accorded only to Filipinos such as submitted by a respondent is conclusive G. Cabrera, Jr., allegedly petitioner's landlord,
suffrage and ownership of real property. of his citizenship, the right to immediate accusing petitioner of being an undesirable alien
- First, petitioners sought and were granted review should also be recognized and the for "committing acts inimical to public safety and
liberty upon the filing of cash and surety courts should promptly enjoin the progress." Acting thereon, respondent
bonds, subject to other terms and deportation proceedings." Nor is it Commissioner Liwag issued a mission order to a
conditions. Then they filed with the required that such standard be rigidly team of CID agents for them "to locate and bring
Deportation Board a motion to dismiss adhered to, as pointed out in the opinion subject to Intelligence Division for proper
based on the plea that it lacked of Justice Labrador: "The difficulty," arises disposition" and "submit report."
jurisdiction for the reason that they are when the evidence is not conclusive on - The CID agents went to petitioner's residence in
citizens of the Philippines. Such motion either side, as in the case at bar. Should Sta. Ana to invite the latter to CID headquarters for
was denied as was a subsequent motion the deportation proceedings be allowed to verification of his status but petitioner and his then
seeking reconsideration. They did exhaust continue till the end, or should the lady companion reportedly locked themselves
their administrative remedy, an appeal to question of alienage or citizenship of inside their bedroom and refused to talk to the
the President being fruitless. Thereafter, respondent be allowed to be decided first agents. The immigration agents then sought the
they filed the special civil action of in a judicial proceeding, suspending the assistance of members of the Western Police
prohibition and habeas corpus, with the administrative proceedings in the District. Petitioner adamantly refused to be taken
decision as noted being in their favor on meantime that the alienage or citizenship in and in the ensuing struggle, both petitioner and
the ground of their being Filipinos. is being finally determined in the courts? lawmen were injured. Finally, petitioner was
- The exhaustive brief of petitioners as The highest judicial authority in the subdued and immediately taken to CID Intelligence
appellees denied the claim that there was United States has answered the second Office
a dispute concerning their mother’s question in the affirmative." - A warrant of arrest was issued by respondent
citizenship. They pointed out that both Commissioner but there is nothing in the records
- It was likewise stressed that judicial
the appellee Deportation Board and the to convince this Court that said warrant was
determination is allowable "in cases when
lower court maintained the contrary view, served on petitioner prior to his apprehension.
the courts themselves believe that there

152
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
- By reason of the injuries he allegedly sustained authorities. The Court subsequently nullified said that he should fail to pay the alleged deficiency
when he was "brutally seized" by CID agents, conditions and ruled: income taxes on or before October 31, 1954.
petitioner, upon request of the French consul, was "Such restrictions limit the freedom of - Reyes filed with Court of Tax Appeals or CTA (a) a
transferred from his detention cell at the movement of the petitioner. It is not physical petition for review of the Collector's assessment of
immigration office to the Philippine General restraint alone which is inquired into by the his alleged deficiency income tax liabilities, and (b)
Hospital for urgent medical treatment. writ of habeas corpus . . . an urgent petition to restrain the Collector from
"Where a person continues to be unlawfully executing the warrant of distraint and levy on his
ISSUE denied one or more of his constitutional properties, alleging among others, a distraint and
WON the the arrest and detention of petitioner by freedoms, where there is present a denial of levy on his properties would work injustice or
the Immigration Commissioner preparatory to due process, where the restraints are not irreparable injury to him and would tend to render
deportation proceedings was legal merely involuntary but appear to be any judgment of the Court in the main case
unnecessary, and where a deprivation of meaningless and ineffectual, and that even
HELD freedom originally valid has, in the light of assuming that under Section 11 of Republic Act
NO subsequent developments, become arbitrary, No. 1125 respondent Court is empowered to order
- The particular circumstances obtaining in the the person concerned or those applying in his him to desist from the collection of said taxes by
case at bar have seriously placed on doubt the behalf may still avail themselves of the extra-judicial methods, yet the Court erred in
legality and propriety of petitioner's apprehension privilege of the writ." issuing the injunction without requiring the
by respondent Commissioner. For unlike in the Petitioner Lucien Tran Van Nghia is not similarly taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or
Harvey case where the warrantless capture of two restrained. The only condition in his bailbond is file a surety bond for an amount not more than
suspected alien pedophiles was based on probable that ordinarily found in any other analogous double the tax sought to be collected
cause ascertained only after close surveillance for undertaking, which is "to appear and answer the - The Collector of Internal Revenue opposed said
a three-month period during which their activities complaint . . . ; will at all times hold himself . . . petition on November 19, 1954, on the ground that
were monitored, herein petitioner was "invited" by amenable to the orders and processes of the the Court of Tax Appeals has no authority to
a combined team of CID agents and police officers Court; and after conviction, he will surrender restrain him from executing the warrant of
at his apartment unit on the strength of a mission himself . . . in execution of such judgment . . ." distraint and levy on the properties Reyes in
order issued by the Commissioner on Immigration - Secondly, records show that formal deportation connection with the collection of the latter's
based on a sworn complaint of a single individual. proceedings have been initiated against petitioner deficiency income taxes; that said taxpayer has an
The essential requisite of probable cause was before the Board of Special Inquiry of the CID. The adequate remedy in law by paying first and then
conspicuously absent. restraint (if any) against petitioner's person has seek for the recovery thereof.
- But even assuming that the arrest of petitioner therefore become legal. The writ of habeas corpus - CTA upheld the stand of Reyes and ordered the
was not legal at the beginning, certain events has served its purpose. Collector to desist from collecting by
have supervened to render his petition moot and administrative method the taxes allegedly due
academic or to otherwise cure whatever defect from Reyes pending the outcome of his appeal,
there was at the inception of his arrest. Firstly, G. INJUNCTION AS PROVISIONAL without prejudice to other judicial remedy or
petitioner is no longer under confinement. The remedies which the Collector may desire to pursue
REMEDY
general rule in a number of cases is that the for the protection of the interest of the
release, whether permanent or temporary, of a Government, pending the final decision of the case
detained person renders the petition for habeas COLLECTOR V REYES on the merits. SolGen filed notice of appeal from
corpus moot and academic, unless there are 100 Phil 822 said Resolution and instituted the instant
restraints attached to his release which precludes FELIX; January 31, 1957 certiorari.
freedom of action, in which case the Court can still
inquire into the nature of his involuntary restraint NATURE ISSUE
under the Villavicencio vs. Lukban rule. Petition for Certiorari WON CTA had any power to grant in injunction w/o
- In Moncupa vs. Enrile, the Court granted the writ requiring the filing of a bond or making a deposit
of habeas corpus inspite of the fact that petitioner FACTS as prescribed by Sec11 of RA 1125.
Moncupa had been temporarily released from - The Collector of Internal Revenue (Collector)
detention on orders of the defense minister. In the demanded Aurelio Reyes to pay his alleged HELD
Moncupa case, it was shown that attached to his deficiency income taxes, interest and penalties for YES
discharge was the prohibition to travel, to change the tax years 1946 to 1950 which was
his abode and to grant interviews to members of P641,470.04, either to the BIR or the City
the mass media without official permission. He was Treasurer of Manila. Reyes also received a warrant
also ordered to report regularly to the military of distraint and levy on his properties in the event

153
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
- It can be inferred from Sec.11 of RA11252 that absurdity on the part of the CTA to declare that contended that with the approval of Republic Act
there may be instances like the one at bar, when the collection by the summary methods of distraint No. 1143 on June 17, 1954, "the power given by
the Collector of Internal Revenue could be and levy was violative of the law, and then, on the law to the Securities and Exchange Commission to
restrained from proceeding with the collection, same breath require the Collector to deposit or file conduct investigations has been qualified and
levy, distraint and/or sale of any property of the a bond as a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ made subject to the condition that such
taxpayer. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Avelino of injunction. investigations must be conducted in accordance
et al: Sec.11 of RA1125 must be deemed to have REYES, J. B. L., concurring: with the rules adopted by the Commission." (Sec. 1
modified Sec. 305 of NIRC3 in view of the repealing - I concur in the result, subject to my dissenting [d] Republic Act No. 1143). And, since the
clause contained in said Act to the effect 'any law opinion in the case of Collector of Internal Revenue Securities and Exchange Commission had not till
or part of law, or any executive order, rule or vs. Avelino and the CTA) regarding the necessity of then adopted such rules, it could not proceed with
regulation or part thereof, inconsistent with the the taxpayer's posting a bond or depositing the the investigation. Respondents reiterated their
provisions of this Act is hereby repealed' (Sec.21)". amount of the taxpayer's posting a bond or contention that the Securities and Exchange
- The requirement of the bond as a condition depositing the amount of the taxes claimed, before Commission could not proceed with the
precedent to the issuance of the writ of injunction the tax collection may be suspended. investigation until after it shall have promulgated
applies only in cases where the processes by the rules required by Republic Act No. 1143.
which the collection sought to be made by means Furthermore, the respondent-movants alleged that
thereof are carried out in consonance with the law PINEDA v LANTIN the complaint by the aforesaid minority
for such cases provide and not when said stockholders "was part of a plot and conspiracy to
6 SCRA 757
processes are obviously in violation of the law to harass and oppress the herein respondents at the
the extreme that they have to be suspended for Regala; 1962 Nov 30 inspiration or instigation of the Secretary of
jeopardizing the interests of taxpayer. Commerce and Industry, the Honorable Pedro C.
- Sec 11 of RA. 1125 is premised on the FACTS Hernaez, who has direct supervision and control
assumption that the collection by summary -In a letter dated July 9, 1958, addressed to the over the Securities and Exchange Commission."
proceedings is by itself in accordance with existing Securities and Exchange Commission, Teresa This motion was found to be without merit, and
law; and then what is suspended is the act of Cuaycong Lacson and Apeles H. Lopez, thru was, for that reason, forthwith denied by the
collecting, whereas, in the case at bar what the counsel, complained of certain actions of the Commissioner. CFI denied petition.
respondent Court suspended was the use of the respondent corporation, the Bacolod-Murcia Milling ISSUE
method employed to verify the collection which Co., Inc. and its President and General Manager, J. WON CFI may enjoin the SEC
was evidently illegal after the lapse of the 3-year Amado Araneta. They claimed that the
limitation period. The respondent Court issued the abovenamed respondents had committed various HELD
injunction in question on the basis of its findings acts in violation of the Articles of Incorporation of No. CFI has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief
that the means intended to be used by Collector in the respondent corporation, the pertinent against the SEC. That power is lodged exclusively
the collection of the alleged deficiency taxes were provisions of the corporation law, and the rules with this Court.
in violation of law. It certainly would be an and regulations promulgated by the Securities and Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides.
Exchange Commission. They represented that the "SEC. 1. Petition for review. — Within thirty days
2
SEC. 11. RA 1125. Who may appeal; effect of appeal. -
conduct of the said J. Amado Araneta was one from notice of an order or decision issued by the
Any person, association or corporation adversely affected
series of acts prejudicial to the interests of the Public Service Commission or the Securities and
by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal minority stockholders. The complainants were two Exchange Commission, any party aggrieved
Revenue, . . . may file an appeal in the CTA w/in 30 days such stockholders. Acting on the letter-complaint, thereby may file, in the Supreme Court, a written
after receipt of such decision or ruling. petitioner Mariano G. Pineda, in his official capacity petition for the review of such order or decision."
No appeal taken to the CTA from the decision of the as Securities and Exchange Commissioner, Furthermore, Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No
Collector of Internal Revenue . . . shall suspend the ordered the investigation of the charges, and, for
payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the
83, as amended by Republic Act No. 635, creating
that purpose, designated the other petitioners, and setting forth the powers and functions of the
taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided
by existing law: Provided, however, That when in the
Arcadio E. Yabyabin and Maximino Pizarro, as Securities and Exchange Commission, provides the
opinion of the Court the collection by the BIR . . . may investigators. Pursuant to the above order, following:
jeopardize the interest of the Gov’t and/or the taxpayer petitioners Yabyabin and Pizarro, on July 29, 1958, "SEC. 35. Court review or orders. — (a)
the Court at any stage of the proceeding may suspend the addressed a subpoena duces tecum to respondent Any person aggrieved by an order issued by the
aid collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit J. Amado Araneta as well as to the treasurer and Commission in any proceeding under this Act to
the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more secretary of the Bacolod- Murcia. On receiving the
than double the amount with the Court.
which such person is a party or who may be
subpoena duces tecum, however, herein affected thereby may obtain a review of such
3
SEC. 305 NIRC. Injunction not available to restrain the respondent corporation and J. Amado Araneta, thru order in the Supreme Court of the Philippines by
collection of tax – No court shall authority to grant an counsel, filed a "Petition to Reconsider Order and filing in such Court within thirty days after the
injunction to restrain the collection of any internal to Set Aside Subpoena Duces Tecum." They entry of such order a written petition praying that
revenue tax, fee, or charge imposed by this Code.
154
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
the order of the Commission be modified or set Finally, herein respondents contended that since - It appears that Lemi was a holder of a franchise
aside in whole or in part . . . " the questioned order of the Commission was (under RA 1553) to maintain a radio station. It was
Beyond doubt, therefore, whenever a party is merely interlocutory, they could have come to this issued on 1960. Every year he applied for
aggrieved by or disagrees with an order or ruling Court under Section 1 of Rule 43 because the said application to renew the same and paid the
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, his provision refers only to final orders and decisions. corresponding fees. On every occasion, the Radio
remedy is to come to this Court on a petition for This Court, however, finds neither force nor merit Control Office took no action, thus giving rise,
review. He is not permitted to seek relief from in this argument. naturally, to the presumption that it had no
courts of general jurisdiction. The two provisions The role of SEC in our national economy cannot be objection to the continued operation of said
quoted above clearly pronounce that only this minimized. The legislature has entrusted to it the station.
Court possesses the jurisdiction to review or pass serious responsibility of enforcing all laws affecting - Respondent admit petitioner’s franchise but
upon the legality or correctness of any order or corporations and other forms of associations not claim that in the operation thereof he had, in
decision of the Securities and Exchange otherwise vested in some other government violation of law, used a transmitter different from
Commission, and, as circumstances might warrant, offices. Being charged, therefore, with overseeing the one he was authorized to use. In his defense,
to modify, reverse, or, set aside the same. the operations of those various corporate petitioner claims that the transmitter he currently
It was urged by the herein respondents that the enterprises from which our government derives uses was the one authorized by the respondent.
principal purpose of their action in the lower court great revenues and income, it cannot afford to be
was not to have an order of the Securities and impeded or restrained in the performance of its ISSUE/S
Exchange Commission reviewed but to have the functions by writs of injunction emanating from WON the respondents could seize the transmitter
investigation stopped because of an alleged lack of tribunals subordinate to this Court. If every Court
jurisdiction to proceed with the same. Therefore, of First Instance can enjoin the Commission from HELD
the argument continued, Section 1 of Rule 43 of pursuing its objectives, and, in the premises, No.
the Rules of Court and Section 35 of substitute its judgment for that of the Commission Reasoning The fact that petitioner had been
Commonwealth Act No. 83, as amended by RA No. on what should or should not be done, then, no allowed to operate his radio station for so long
635, could not have properly applied. one will suffer thereby but the economy of our practically without any interference on the part of
The contention carries no weight. This Court has body politic and, eventually, this country's the Radio Control Office would seem to support the
thoroughly read through the petition for citizenry. Certainly, the legislature could never petitioner’s contention
prohibition filed with the lower court. But, even a have intended that. - The seizure of the transmitter amounted to a
cursory reading of it would have revealed so fully closure and/or disapproval of petitioner's last
that its main aim was to have an order of the application for the renewal of his license (since the
Securities and Exchange Commission reviewed — LEMI V VALENCIA radio station would not be able to operate).
the order denying their motion to quash and Section 3 of the Radio Control Act provides that no
G.R. No. L-20768
discontinue the entire proceeding in the application for the renewal of station or operator
Commission. More than anything else, Civil Case DIZON; FEBRUARY 28, 1963 license shall be disapproved without giving the
No. 38456 was meant to have that order of the licensee a hearing. Such provision applies not only
Commission ultimately set aside. FACTS if a radio license is to be revoked, but also before
But even assuming for the sake of argument that - Upon application of respondent Alfredo M. Cargo, the Radio Control Office may lawfully do any thing
the principal concern of Bacolod-Murcia in filing supported by a sworn statement subscribed by his that, for all practical purposes, would amount to
the action below was indeed to stop the co-respondent, Heraclio San Juan, the CFI of Manila such revocation because it makes it impossible for
investigation so that the jurisdiction of the issued a search warrant authorizing them to the radio station concerned to continue
investigating body to conduct the same might first search radio station DZQR and seize of the radio broadcasting
be determined, still this Court holds that the action transmitter thereat. Respondents, accompanied by - That the seizure was made under authority of a
should have been commenced in this tribunal. the agents of the Presidential Anti-Graft search warrant can not obliterate the fact that
When the Rules of Court and the law provided that Committee managed to seize the transimitter. such seizure was made in violation of the law
orders and decisions of the Securities and - Eliseo B. Lemi fileda special civil action of requiring a previous hearing
Exchange Commission are reviewable only by this mandamus, with a petition for the issuance of a While courts should exercise great care in granting
Court, they could not possibly have excluded preliminary mandatory injunction against Brigido preliminary mandatory injunctions because the
within their efficacy the review of incidental orders Valencia, Secretary of Public Works and writ operates not merely to preserve the status
as the one at bar. Otherwise, the entire philosophy Communications; Roberto M. San Andres, Chief, quo between the parties but to compel one of
for providing that only this Court may review on Radio Control Office; Alfredo M. Cargo, Agent of them to perform a positive act; nevertheless, we
appeal orders of the Commission would be the abovenamed secretary; Heraclio San Juan, held in Meralco vs. Del Rosario, 22 Phil. p. 433,
rendered mute, weak and purposeless. For then, Radio Regulations Inspector, Radio Control Office; that in cases of extreme urgency; where
we shall be sanctioning what can not be done and Conrado Cajator, Chairman, Presidential Anti- petitioner's right to the writ is clear; where
directly to be done indirectly. Graft Committee. considerations of relative inconvenience are

155
Administrative Law A2010
Dean Carlota
strongly in his favor; where there appears to be a a litigant who claims that his constitutional right to
willful invasion of petitioner's right, the injury a day in court has been denied.
inflicted upon him being a continuing one; and
where the effect of the mandatory injunction ISSUES
would not be to create a new relation between the WON CFI can entertain a case impugning the
parties but solely to re-establish a pre-existing validity of the award of WCU.
relation between them recently and arbitrarily
interrupted by the respondent, courts should not HELD
hesitate in granting the writ. Considering the facts NO
obtaining in the present case, particularly the Ratio The Court of First Instance is not
circumstance that petitioner's inability to continue empowered or clothed with jurisdiction to review
broadcasting through his radio station affects his or modify, much less, annul an award or order of
contractual relations with third parties, we find it execution issued by the WCC. For jurisdiction to be
justified to grant the preliminary writ of mandatory properly vested in a court or body, it must be
injunction prayed for. expressly provided by law, and, in the case of CFI,
by the Judiciary act, not by a phrase descriptive of
the extent and scope of the Court’s competence.
HONDA v SAN DIEGO Reasoning
Sec 46 Workmen’s Compensation Act
(Jonas)
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission shall
have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
claims for compensation under the WCA, subject
NOCNOC V VERA to appeal to the SC, in the same manner in the
SANTOS; February 27, 1979 same period provided by law and RoC for
appeals from the CIR to the SC.
FACTS - The matter could be elevated from the WCU to
- Sept. 29, 1972: Maximo Nocnoc filed a claim for the WCC, and then on appeal, to SC. The proper
compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act forum to thresh out the validity of the WCU’s
(WCA) with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit award which is allegedly null and void because it
(WCU) for the death of his son, Norberto Nocno, was rendered without giving the private
who died in an accident while employed as a bus respondent his constitutional right to due process.
conductor in the transportation business of Ernesto - As to Manarang’s claim that he was denied his
Manarang (respondent). day in court, the WCU correctly found that the
- After the period to controvert the claim expired, claim was not controverted by Manarang within
Manarang moved to dismiss the claim on the the period prescribed by the WCA, which require
ground that Nocnoc had previously entered into an controversion of the claim within 14 days from the
amicable settlement and that Nocnoc had received date of disability or within 10 days after the
P2,330. employer first acquires knowledge of the disability.
- WCU through its Chief Referee Sarto denied the Failure to controvert is fatal to the defense of the
motion, and awarded Nocnoc the sum of P6,240, claim.
but deducted the amount of P2330 as an advance/ - As to Vera’s claim that his was a “court of
partial payment of the claim. general jurisdiction”, the phrase is merely
- Aug. 4, 1973: Manarang filed a complaint for descriptive of CFI which have original jurisdiction
injunction with CFI at Camarines Norte, presided over civil, criminal, and other cases in contra-
by Judge Vera, to enjoin the enforcement of the distinction to courts of special, limited jurisdiction,
writ of execution. Judge Vera ordered the WCU, etc. The descriptive phrase does not and cannot
Sarto and the provincial sheriff to cease and desist confer CFI with power to entertain an incident
from further orders. involving a Workmen’s compensation case, which
Respondent’s Comment: The judge exercised is within exclusive jurisdiction of WCC and of this
not in the exercise of any appellate jurisdiction, Court, in case of appeal.
but in the exercise of his power as a court of
general jurisdiction in a case filed before him. He
cannot evade his solemn duty of giving redress to

156
6
1

Você também pode gostar