Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
CENTRAL BANK VS CA AND ABLAZA Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation,
Vim Malicay Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for
Defendant, requested said stenographers for copies of the
FACTS: This is a petition made by the Central Bank which was sentenced transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Bacani
to pay respondent Ablaza Construction and Finance Corporation for and Matoto complied with the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the
damages for breach of contract. In this case, it appears that after going thru needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their
the process of usual bidding, CB awarded to Ablaza a construction contract bills for the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the
and allowed the latter to commence work. However, on a certain date the amount of P564 to Bacani and P150 to Matoto for said transcript at the rate
Bank then refused to proceed with the project unless the plans were revised of P1 per page.
and a lower price were agreed to by Ablaza.
Upon inspecting the books of NACOCO, the Auditor General
Now CB raises the issue that there was no perfected contract disallowed the payment of these fees and sought the recovery of the amounts
between the parties as there was no compliance with the requirement under paid. the Auditor General required the Plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts
Section 607 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides that: on the strength of a circular of the Department of Justice wherein the opinion
was expressed that the National Coconut Corporation, being a government
Section 607. Certificate showing appropriation to meet entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in question.
contract. — Except in the case of a contract for personal service or for
supplies to be carried in stock, no contract involving an expenditure by the NACOCO set up set up as a defense that it is a government entity
National Government of three thousand pesos or more shall be entered within the purview of section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917
into or authorized until the Auditor General shall have certified to the officer and, hence, it is exempt from paying the stenographers’ fees under Rule 130
entering into such obligation that funds have been duly appropriated for of the Rules of Court but Bacani and Matoto argued that NACOCO is not a
such purpose and that the amount necessary to cover the proposed gov’t entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
contract is available for expenditure on account thereof. xxx
ISSUE: Whether the National Coconut Corporation may be considered as
CB contends that in view of such omission and considering the included in the term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” for the
provisions of Section 608 of the same code to the effect that "a purported purposes of the exemption of the legal fees provided for in Rule 130 of the
contract entered into contrary to the requirements of the next preceding Rules of Court.
section hereof shall be wholly void", "no contract between the petitioner and
respondent Ablaza Construction and Finance Corporation was ever RULING: NO. GOCCs do not come under the classification of municipal or
perfected because only the first stage, that is the award of the contract to the public corporation like NACOCO.
lowest responsible bidder, was completed."
National Coconut Corporation was organized with the purpose of
ISSUE # 1: WON the aforementioned provisions apply to the “adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences
Central Bank so as to render void the contract entered into by CB and Ablaza. in the United States” and of providing “Facilities for the better curing of copra
products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products”, a function which
RULING: NO. It is of the court’s view that contracts entered into by petitioner our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry,
Central Bank are not within the contemplation of Sections 607 and 608. however, it was given a corporate power separate and distinct from our
Immediately to be noted, Section 607 specifically refers to "expenditure(s) of government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law
the National Government" and that the term "National Government" may not in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are
be deemed to include the Central Bank. Under the Administrative Code itself, concerned. It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private
the term "National Government" refers only to the central government, corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government.
consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the As this Court has aptly said, “The mere fact that the Government happens to
government, as distinguished from local governments and other be a majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation”
governmental entities and is not synonymous, therefore, with the terms "The
Government of the Republic of the Philippines" or "Philippine Government",
which are the expressions broad enough to include not only the central
government but also the provincial and municipal governments, chartered MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA) VS CA
cities and other government-controlled corporations or agencies, like the Pauline Rojo
Central Bank.
FACTS: MIAA operates NAIA Complex under E.O. No. 903 (MIAA
ISSUE # 2: Is Central Bank part of National government? Charter). As operator, it administers the land, improvements and equipment
within the NAIA Complex. The MIAA Charter transferred to MIAA
RULING: NO. Central Bank is a government instrumentality created as an approximately 600 hectares of land, including the runways and buildings.
autonomous body corporate to be governed by the provisions of its charter,
Republic Act 265, "to administer the monetary and banking system of the The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued
Republic."As such, it may acquire and hold such assets and incur such an Opinion, it opined that the LGC of 1991 withdrew the exemption from real
liabilities as result directly from operations authorized by the provisions of this estate tax granted to MIAA. Thus, MIAA negotiated with City Paranaque to
Act, or as are essential to the proper conduct of such operations." It has pay the real estate tax imposed by the City. The City of Paranaque issued
capital of its own and operates under a budget prepared by its own Monetary notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport lands and buildings and
Board and otherwise appropriates money for its operations and other threatened to sell at public auction.
expenditures independently of the national budget. It does not depend on the
National Government for the financing of its operations; it is the National MIAA argued that the Airport lands and buildings are devoted to
Government that occasionally resorts to it for needed budgetary public use and public service and the ownership remains with the State.
accommodations. Its prerogative to incur such liabilities and expenditures is Thus, the properties involved are inalienable and not subject to real estate
not subject to any prerequisite found in any statute or regulation not expressly tax by governments.
applicable to it. For these reasons, the provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code invoked by the Bank do not apply to it. On the other hand, respondents invoke Sec. 193 of the LGC,
which expressly withdrew the tax exemption privileges of “GOCCs” upon the
effectivity of the LGC.
BACANI VS NACOCO
Vim Malicay ISSUE: WON MIAA is a GOCC which makes it to be EXCLUDED from tax
exemption
FACTS: Bacani and Matoto are court stenographersassigned in Branch VI
of the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the pendency of the case
There is no dispute that a GOCC is not exempt from real estate FACTS: The National Power Corporation was created by CA 120. In 1949,
tax. Under Section 2(13) of the Administrative Code of 1987 it provides that, it was given tax exemption by RA 358. NPC was further strengthened by RA
a GOCC must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is 6395 in 1971. In 1984, PD 1931 was passed removing the tax exemption of
not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock NPC and other GOCCs. There was a reservation, however, that the president
corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no or the Minister of Finance upon recommendation by the Fiscal Incentives
stockholders or voting shares. Review Board may restore or modify the exemption. In 1985, the tax
exemption was revived. It was again removed in 1987 by virtue of EO 93 w/c
MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate again provided that upon FIRB recommendation it can again be restored. In
powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any the same year, FIRB resolved to restore the exemption. The same was
other government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested approved by Cory through exec sec Macaraig acting as her alter ego.
with corporate powers. Maceda opined the FIRB resolution averring that the power granted to the
FIRB is an undue delegation of legislative power. His claim was strengthened
When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate by Opinion 77 issued by DOJ Secretary Ordoñez.
powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the
government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, ISSUE: Whether or not Opinion 77 can be given credence.
it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but
also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of RULING: The SC ruled that there is no undue delegation of legislative
eminent domain, police authority and the levying of fees and charges. At the power. First of all, since the NPC is a GOCC and is non-profit it can be
same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the exempt from taxation. Also, Opinion 77 issued by DOJ Sec Ordoñez was
Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the overruled by Macaraig. This action by Macaraig is valid because the
provisions of the MIAA Charter. Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, has the power to modify,
alter or reverse the construction of a statute given by a department secretary
There is also no reason for local governments to tax national – pursuant to the president’s control power.
government instrumentalities for rendering essential public services to
inhabitants of local governments. The only exception is when the legislature
clearly intended to tax government instrumentalities for the delivery of
essential public services for sound and compelling policy considerations, IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY VS CA
which is absent in this case. Ogie Adlawan
Also, MIAA is merely holding title to the Airport Lands and FACTS: Petitioner Iron and Steel Authority ("ISA") was created by
Buildings in trust for the Republic. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 272 in order, generally, to develop and
Administrative Code allows instrumentalities like MIAA to hold title to real promote the iron and steel industry in the Philippines.
properties owned by the Republic. The properties are still of public domain
and outside the commerce of men, hence cannot be taxed. The ISA had the power “to initiate expropriation of land required
for basic iron and steel facilities for subsequent resale and/or lease to the
companies involved if it is shown that such use of the State's power is
necessary to implement the construction of capacity which is needed for the
REPUBLIC VS RAMBUYONG attainment of the objectives of the Authority.” (Emphasis supplied)
Pauline Rojo
P.D. No. 272 initially created petitioner ISA for a term of five (5)
FACTS: Alfredo Chu filed a case for collection of a sum of money and/or years counting from 9 August 1973. When ISA's original term expired on 10
damages against the National Power Corporation (NPC) Appearing as October 1978, its term was extended for another ten (10) years by Executive
counsel for Chu is Atty. Richard B. Rambuyong who was then the incumbent Order No. 555 dated 31 August 1979.
Vice-Mayor of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
The National Steel Corporation ("NSC") embarked on an
NPC filed a Motion for Inhibition of Atty. Rambuyong arguing that expansion program embracing, among other things, the construction of an
under Section 90 (b), (1) of R.A. No. 7160,otherwise knownas the LGC, integrated steel mill in Iligan City. xxxx Pursuant to said expansion program,
sanggunianmembers are prohibited "to appear as counsel before any court the President of the Philippines on 16 November 1982 withdrew from sale or
wherein x xx any office, agency or instrumentality of the government is the settlement a large tract of public land (about 30.25 hectares in area) located
adverse party." in Iligan City, and reserving that land for the use and immediate occupancy
of NSC.
NPC contended that being a GOCC, it is embraced within the term
"instrumentality." Since certain portions of the subject public land were occupied by
a non-operational chemical fertilizer plant and related facilities owned by
ISSUE: Whether NPC is an instrumentality of government such Atty. private respondent Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation ("MCFC"), the NSC
Rambuyong, as Sanggunian member, should not appear as counsel against was directed to "negotiate with the owners of MCFC, for and on behalf of the
it. Government, for the compensation of MCFC's present occupancy rights on
the subject land." Upon the failure of NSC and private respondent MCFC to
RULING: Yes, NPC is government instrumentality thus, Atty. Rambuyong reach an agreement within a period of sixty (60) days from 16 November
should not appear as counsel against it. 1982, petitioner ISA was directed to exercise its power of eminent domain
under P.D. No. 272 and to initiate expropriation proceedings in respect
Based on jurisprudence, Maceda vs Macaraig, Jr., 1997 197 ofoccupancy rights of private respondent MCFC relating to the subject public
SCRA 771 (1991), the Court stated that NPC is a government instrumentality land as well as the plant itself and related facilities and to cede the same to
with the enormous task of undertaking development of hydroelectric the NSC.
generation of power and production of electricity from other sources, as well
as transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis, to improve the Negotiations between NSC and private respondent MCFC did fail.
quality of life pursuant to the State policy embodied in Section 9, Article 2 of Accordingly, on 18 August 1983, petitioner ISA commenced eminent domain
1987Constitution. With this, the LGC prohibits a sanggunianmember (Atty. proceedings against private respondent MCFC in the RTC of Iligan City.
Rambuyong) to appear as counsel of a party adverse to the NPC.
1. PPI prayed for the award for damages against it, the case should be A certain Roger Edma prayed that a writ of replevin be issued
considered a suit against the State, for it qould require appropriation to ordering DENR, CENRO and Dagudag to deliver the products to him, to
satisfy PPI’s claim; which respondent Judge granted hence a writ was issued ordering the sheriff
2. The State did not give its consent to be sued; and to take possession of the products.
3. In issuing and implementing the questioned issuances, individual
petitioners acted officially and within their authority, for which reason they The defendants (petitioners in this case) prayed that the writ be
should not be held to account individually. set aside alleging among others that:
ISSUE: WON the mantle of non-suability extends to complaints filed 1. Edma failed to exhaust administrative remedies;
against public officials for acts done in performance of their official functions. 2. the real defendant is the Republic of the Philippines; and
3. the State cannot be sued without its consent.
RULING: YES. The suability of a government official depends on whether
the official concerned was acting within his official or jurisdictional capacity, Also, they alleged that the DENR was the agency responsible for
and whether the acts done in the performance of official functions will result theenforcement of forestry laws.
in a charge or financial liability against the government.
Later, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), found
Otherwise stated, "public officials can be held personally respondent Judge to have violated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with
official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where there is showing of ISSUE: WONrespondent judge violated doctrine of primary jurisdiction
bad faith."
RULING: YES
Moreover, "the rule is that if the judgment against such officials
will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded
against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state. In such a Under this doctrine, courts cannot take cognizance of cases
situation, the state may move to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that it pending before administrative agencies of special competence.
has been filed without its consent."
The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of
It is beyond doubt that the acts imputed against Secretaries forestry laws. The complaint for replevin itself stated that members of DENR’s
Romualdez and Dayrit, as well as Undersecretary Galon, were done while in TaskForce Sagip Kalikasan took over the forest products and brought them
the performance and discharge of their official functions or in their official to the DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources Office. This
capacities, and not in their personal or individual capacities. Secretaries should have alerted Judge Paderanga that the DENR had custody of the
FACTS: The dispute involves two adjoining parcels of land RULING: NO. In this case, the COSLAP did not have jurisdiction over the
locatedinBarangay San Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna, one belonging to the subject matter of the complaint filed by Gatdula, yet it proceeded to assume
Machados, and the other belonging to respondent Ricardo L. Gatdula jurisdiction over the case and even issued writs of execution and demolition
(Gatdula). against the Machados. The lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties’
participation in the proceedings before the COSLAP. Under the
On February 2, 1999, Gatdula wrote a letter to the COSLAP circumstances, the Machados can rightfully question its jurisdiction at
requesting assistance because the Machados allegedly blocked the right of anytime, even during appeal or after final judgment. A judgment issued by a
way to his private property by constructing a two-door apartment on their quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It cannot be the source of any
property. right or create any obligation. All acts pursuant to it and all claims emanating
from it have no legal effect. The void judgment can never become final and
Acting on Gatdula’s letter, the COSLAPconducteda any writ of execution based on it is likewise void.
mediationconference on February 25, 1999; the parties then agreed to
have a verification survey conducted on their properties and to share the
attendant expenses. Thereafter, the COSLAP issued an Order dated March
16, 1999 directing the Chief of the Survey Division of the Community UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS vs. DANES B. SANCHEZ
Environment and Natural Resources Office – Department of Environment Marion Lara
and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), to conduct a verification survey on
May 9, 1999. The order likewise stated that in the event that no surveyor is FACTS: Respondent Danes B. Sanchez filed a Complaint for Damages
available, the parties may use the services of a private surveyor, whom the against the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and its Board of Directors, the
CENRO-DENR Survey Division would deputize. Dean and the Assistant Dean of the UST College of Nursing, and the
University Registrar for their alleged unjustified refusal to release the
As scheduled, a private surveyor, Junior Geodetic Engineer Abet respondent’s Transcript of Records (ToR)
F. Arellano (Engr. Arellano), conducted a verification survey of the properties
in the presence of both parties. Engr. Arellano submitted a report to the Respondent alleged that he graduated from UST on April 2, 2002
COSLAP finding that the structure built by the Machados encroached upon with a Bachelor’s Degree of Science in Nursing; that he was included in the
an alley found within the Gatdula property. Engr. Arellano’s findings list of candidates for graduation and attended graduation ceremonies; that he
corroborated the separate report of Engineer Noel V. Soqueco of the sought to secure a copy of his ToR with the UST Registrar’s Office, paid the
CENRO, Los Baños, Laguna that had also been submitted to the COSLAP. required fees, but was only given a Certificate of Graduation by the Registrar;
that despite repeated attempts by the respondent to secure a copy of his
The Machados contested these reports in their position paper ToR, and submission of his class cards as proof of his enrolment, UST
dated August 26, 1999. They alleged that Gatdula had no right of action since refused to release his records, making it impossible for him to take the
they did not violate Gatdula’s rights.They further assailed the jurisdiction of nursing board examinations, and depriving him of the opportunity to make a
the COSLAP, stating that the proper forum for the present case was the RTC living; and that petitioners’ actions violated Arts. 19-21 of the Civil Code. The
of San Pedro, Laguna. respondent prayed that the RTC order UST to release his ToR and hold UST
liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and the
ISSUE: Whether the COSLAP has jurisdiction over Gatdula’s complaint costs of suit.
for right of way against the Machados; and
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss where they claimed that they
RULING: NO. The COSLAP does not have jurisdiction over the present refused to release respondent’s ToR because he was not a registered
case. student, since he had not been enrolled in the university for the last three
semesters prior to graduation. They also sought the dismissal of the case on
In resolving the issue of whether the COSLAP has jurisdiction over the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action as respondent
the present case, a review of the history of the COSLAP and an account of allegedly admitted in paragraph 10 of his complaint that he was not enrolled
the laws creating the COSLAP and its predecessor, the Presidential Action in UST in said semesters.
Committee on Land Problems (PACLAP), is in order.
Petitioners then filed a Supplement to their Motion to Dismiss,
The COSLAP’s forerunner, the PACLAP, was created on July 31, alleging that respondent sought administrative recourse before Commission
1970 pursuant to Executive Order No. 251. As originally conceived, the on Higher Education (CHED). Thus, CHED had primary jurisdiction to resolve
committee was tasked to expedite and coordinate the investigation and matters pertaining to school controversies, and the filing of instant case was
resolution of land disputes, streamline and shorten administrative premature.
procedures, adopt bold and decisive measures to solve land problems,
and/or recommend other solutions. The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
issues involved required an examination of the evidence, which should be
The PACLAP was abolished by EO 561 effective on September threshed out during trial. Petitioners’ MR was also denied. The CA affirmed
21, 1979 and was replaced by the COSLAP. Unlike the former laws, EO 561 the denial.
specifically enumerated the instances when the COSLAP can exercise its
adjudicatory functions ISSUE: WON Respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies as
the CHED exercises quasi-judicial power over controversies involving school
The Commission shall have the following power to refer and follow matters and has primary jurisdiction over respondent’s demand for the
up for immediate action by the agency having appropriate jurisdiction any release of his ToR.
land problem or dispute referred to the Commission:
RULING: NO. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
(a) Between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders or does not apply in this case because petitioners failed to demonstrate that
timber concessionaires; recourse to the CHED is mandatory—or even possible—in an action such as
(b) Between occupants/squatters and government reservation grantees; that brought by the respondent, which is essentially one for mandamus and
(c) Between occupants/squatters and public land claimants or applicants; damages. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies admits of
(d) Petitions for classification, release and/or subdivision of lands of the numerous exceptions, one of which is where the issues are purely legal and
public domain; and well within the jurisdiction of the trial court, as in the present case. Petitioners’
(e) Other similar land problems of grave urgency and magnitude. liability—if any—for damages will have to be decided by the courts, since any
judgment inevitably calls for the application and the interpretation of the Civil
A perusal of both pleadings and the complaint filed by plaintiff, the HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP VS EMILY HOMES
issue to be determined are basically governed by the provisions of the New SUBD. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (EHSHA)
Civil Code, particularly on contracts. The complaint is one for specific Marion Lara
performance with damages which is a justiciable issue under the Civil Code
and jurisdiction to hear the said issue is conferred on the regular Courts FACTS: Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association (EHSHA) and
pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. the 150 individual members thereof filed on October 21, 1998 a civil action
for breach of contract, damages and attorneys fees with the Regional Trial
It is, therefore, finding of this Court that jurisdiction as conferred Court of Davao del Sur, Branch 19, against petitioners HLC Construction and
by law is vested in regular courts & not inHousing & Land Use Regulatory Development Corporation and Henry Lopez Chua, the developers of low-cost
Board (HLURB). housing units like Emily Homes Subdivision.
ISSUE: WON HLURB should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over case and EHSHA alleged that HLC Construction used substandard
not RTC. materials in the construction of their houses, like coco lumber and termite-
infested door jambs.HLC Construction furthermore allegedly did not adhere
RULING: YES. HLURB should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. to the house plan specificationsbecause the ceiling lines were sagging and
In holding that the complaint for specific performance with damages there weredeviations from the plumb line of the mullions, door jams (sic) and
wasjusticiable under the Civil Code and so came under jurisdiction of regular concrete columns. EHSHA asked HLC Construction to repair their defective
courts under B.P. 129, the trial court failed to consider the express provisions housing units but latter failed to do so. EHSHA had to repair their defective
of P.D. No. 1344 and related decrees. It also erred in supposing that only the housing units using their own funds. Hence, they prayed for actual and moral
regular courts can interpret and apply the provisions of the Civil Code, to the damages arising from HLC Construction’s breach of the contract plus
exclusion of the quasi-judicial bodies. exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
P.D. No. 957, promulgated July 12, 1976 and otherwise known as On December 11, 1998, HLC Construction filed a motion to
"The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree," provides dismiss the complaint, claiming that it was the Housing and Land Use
that the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive authority to regulate Regulatory Board (HLURB) and not the trial court which had jurisdiction over
the real estate trade and business. the case.
P.D. No. 1344, which was promulgated April 2, 1978, and ISSUE: WON HLURB, not RTC, should exercise exclusive jurisdiction
empowered the National Housing Authority to issue writs of execution in the
enforcement of its decisions under P.D. No. 957, specified the quasi-judicial RULING: YES. HLURB should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
jurisdiction of the agency as follows:
SC finds that the trial court should have nonetheless dismissed
SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real the complaint for a more important reason it had no jurisdiction over it. It is
estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in the HLURB, not the trial court, which had jurisdiction over EHSHA’s
A. Unsound real estate business practices; Sec. 38. Administrative Fines. The Authority may prescribe and
B. Claims involving refunds and any other claims filed by subdivision impose fines not exceeding ten thousand pesos for violations of the
lot or condominium unit buyers against the project owner, provisions of this Decree or of any rule or regulation thereunder. Fines shall
developer, dealer, broker or salesman; (emphasis supplied); and be payable to the Authority and enforceable through writs of execution in
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court.
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. The Implementing Rules, for their part, clarify that The
implementation and payment of administrative fines shall not preclude
In this case, EHSHA’s complaint was for the reimbursement of criminal prosecution of the offender under Section 39 of the Decree. Thus,
expenses incurred in repairing their defective housing units constructed by the implementing rules themselves expressly acknowledge that two separate
petitioners. Clearly, the HLURB had jurisdiction to hear it. remedies with differing consequences may be sought under the Decree,
specifically, the administrative remedy and criminal prosecution.
The fact that the subject matter of the complaint involved defective
housing units did not remove the complaint from the HLURBs jurisdiction.
The delivery of habitable houses was HLC Construction’s responsibility
under their contract with EHSHA. The trial court should have granted the
motion to dismiss filed by petitioners so that the issues therein could be
expeditiously heard and resolved by the HLURB.
HOME BANKERS SAVINGS & TRUST CO vs. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, AREVALO,UY, SPOUSES SORIANO, JR.,
SPS. LEONARDO AND MILAGROS CHUA vs. HON. JACINTO G. ANG ALFREDO LIM andFELISA CHI LIM/ALFREDO LIM
Mariel Banosan Mariel Banosan
“HLURB has authority to impose administrative fines under Sec. “HLURB has jurisdiction to declare void a mortgage of lot done in
38 of PD 1344 but not the criminal penalties provided under Section 39 of PD violation of PD 957 and annul a foreclosure sale.”
957.”
FACTS: Each of private respondents entered into separate contracts to sell
FACTS: (Background) Petitioners and Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) with TransAmerican Sales and Exposition (TransAmerican) through the
executed a Contract to Sell a condominium unit. FEPI failed to construct and latters Owner/General Manager, Engr. Jesus Garcia, involving certain
deliver the contracted condo despite the lapse of 3 years. Petitioners then portions of land. Despite demands, TransAmerican/Garcia failed to comply
filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Pasig City accusing FEPI’s with their undertakings. Engr. Garcia and his wife obtained a loan from Home
directors and officers (private respondents) of violating Section 17 and 20 of Bankers and without the prior approval of the HLURB the spouses mortgaged
PD 957 in relation to Section 39 thereof. Section 39 provides for the criminal the subject lands as collateral (five out of these eight titles turned out to be
penalty. PR Bondoc filed a counter-affidavit contending that the City private respondents townhouses subject of the contracts to sell).
Prosecutor has no jurisdiction over the case since it falls under the jurisdiction
of Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The prosecutor Petitioner instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure since Garcia failed
dismissed the complaint ruling that HLURB has jurisdiction. to pay his obligation. Private respondents filed a complaint with the Office of
Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA), HLURB, against
Petitioner then filed this present petition alleging that it is the Garcia/TransAmerican for non-delivery of titles and non-completion of the
Prosecutor’s office which has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation subdivision project. They prayed among others for the annulment of the
and file corresponding information in court for criminal violation of PD 957, mortgage in favor of petitioner. The OAALA declared the mortgage executed
and not the HLURB because the latter’s jurisdiction is limited only to the by and between respondents Engr. Jesus Garcia and TransAmerican and
enforcement of contractual rights, and not the investigation of criminal cases. Home Bankers to be unenforceable as against all the complainants.
ISSUE: WON HLURB may investigate or impose criminal penalties. Petitioner claims that HLURB has no power to declare
themortgage contract over real property executed between a real estate
RULING: NO. developer and petitioner, a banking institution, void or unenforceable, as it is
properly within the jurisdiction of the RTC and that since there is no seller-
The provisions of P.D No. 957 were intended to encompass all buyer relationship existing between it and private respondents, HLURB has
questions regarding subdivisions and condominiums. The intention was to no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the mortgage and to annul foreclosure
provide for an appropriate government agency, the HLURB, to which all proceedings.
parties buyers and sellers of subdivision and condominium units - may seek
remedial recourse. The law recognized, too, that subdivision and ISSUE: WON the HLURB has jurisdiction to declare invalid the mortgage
condominium development involves public interest and welfare and should contract between TransAmerican and Home bankers.
be brought to a body, like the HLURB, that has technical expertise. In the
exercise of its powers, the HLURB, on the other hand, is empowered to RULING: YES
interpret and apply contracts, and determine the rights of private parties
under these contracts. This ancillary power, generally judicial, is now no In Union Bank of the Philippines vs. HLURB, the SC ruled on the
longer with the regular courts to the extent that the pertinent HLURB laws question of HLURBs jurisdiction to hear and decide a condominium buyer’s
provide. complaint for:
Viewed from this perspective, the HLURBs jurisdiction over (a) annulment of a real estate mortgage constituted by the project owner
contractual rights and obligations of parties under subdivision and without the consent of the buyer and without the prior written approval
condominium contracts comes out very clearly. But hand in hand with this of the NHA;
definition and grant of authority is the provision on criminal penalties for (b) annulment of the foreclosure sale; and
violations of the Decree, provided under the Decrees Section 39. (c) annulment of the condominium certificate of title that was issued to the
Significantly, nothing in P.D. No. 957 vests the HLURB with jurisdiction highest bidder at the foreclosure sale.
to impose the Section 39 criminal penalties. What the Decree provides
is the authority of the HLURB to impose administrative fines under P.D. No. 1344 expanded the jurisdiction of the National Housing
Authority to include the following:
CADIMAS VS CARRION & HUGO “Receivership does not divest HLURB of its exclusive jurisdiction.”
Pauline Rojo
FACTS: One of the subdivisions that respondent BFHI developed was the
“Mere allegation of relationship between the parties, that of being BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision. When the Central Bank ordered the
subd. Owner or developer and subd. Lot buyer does not automatically vests closure of Banco Filipino, which had substantial investments in BFHI,
jurisdiction in the HLURB.” respondent BFHI filed with SEC a petition for rehabilitation and a declaration
that it was in a state of suspension of payments.
FACTS: Petitioner Cadimas averred that she and respondent Carrion
entered into a Contract to Sell, wherein Cadimas sold to Carrion a town Orendain was Receiver, but later on was relieved by SEC of his
house in West Fairview Oark Subdivision, Quezon City for P300,000 to be duties and a new Board of Receivers of 11 members of BFHI’s Board of
paid in installments. According to Cadimas, Carrion violated par. 8 of their Directors was appointed. The new Board revoked the authority given by
contract when Carrion transferred ownership of the property to Hugo under Orendain to use the open spaces; to collect community assessment funds;
the guise of special power of attorney, which authorized Hugo to manage and deferred purchase of new pumps; recognized BFPHAI as the representative
administer the property and in behalf of Carrion. of all homeowners; took over the management of the Clubhouse; and
deployed its own security guards in the subdivision.
Cadimas filed a complaint for accionreividicatoriaand damages
before the RTC against the respondents. Hugo on behalf of Carrion, filed a Petitioners files with the HLURB a class suit, “to enforce the rights
Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to hear the case on of the purchasers of lots” in BF Homes Parañaque. Petitioners raised issues
the part of the RTC. Hugo argued that HLURB has jurisdiction over the on the following basic needs of the homeowners: rights-of-way; water; open
complaint because, the sole issue to be resolved was whether Cadimas, as spaces; road and perimeter wall repairs; security; and the interlocking
the owner and developer of the subdivision, on which the subject property corporations that allegedly made it convenient for respondent "to
stood, was guilty of committing unsound real estate business practices. compartmentalize its obligations as general developer, even if all of these are
hooked into the water, roads, drainage and sewer systems of the subdivision.
ISSUE: WON HLURB has the jurisdiction over the instant case
HLURB Arbiter Bunagan issued a 20-day TRO and subsequently,
an Order granting petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction was issued.
The Court of Appeals ruled that absent any implementing rules for P.D. No. 1112 explicitly provides that "the decisions of the TRB on
Sections 8, 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act, no civil, criminal or petitions for the increase of toll rate shall be appealable to the Office of the
administrative actions can possibly be had against the respondents without President within ten (10) days from the promulgation thereof."
violating their right to due process and equal protection. This is untenable.
Obviously, the laws and TRB Rules of Procedure have provided
In the absence of any constitutional or statutory infirmity, which the remedies of an interested Expressways user. The initial proper recourse
may concern Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act, this Court is to file a petition for review of the adjusted toll rates with the TRB. The need
upholds these provisions as legal and binding. It is well settled that every law for a prior resort to this body is with reason. The TRB, as the agency assigned
has in its favor the presumption of validity. Unless and until a specific to supervise the collection of toll fees and the operation of toll facilities, has
provision of the law is declared invalid and unconstitutional, the same is valid the necessary expertise, training & skills to judiciously decide matters of this
and binding for all intents and purposes. The mere absence of implementing kind.
rules cannot effectively invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable
construction that will support the law may be given. As may be gleaned from the petition, the main thrust of petitioner’s
argument is that the provisional toll rate adjustments are exorbitant,
The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional oppressive, onerous and unconscionable. This is obviously a question of fact
questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid requiring knowledge of the formula used and the factors considered in
in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt determining the assailed rates. Definitely, this task is within province of TRB.
is to sustain. This presumption is based on the doctrine of separation of
powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts
of the other departments. The theory is that as the joint act of Congress and FRANCISCO, JR. VS. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD
the President of the Philippines, a law has been carefully studied and Ogie Adlawan
determined to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally
enacted. FACTS: On March 31, 1977, then President Ferdinand E.
Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. ("P.D.") 1112, authorizing the
The necessity for vesting administrative authorities with power to establishment of toll facilities on public improvements.
make rules and regulations is based on the impracticability of lawmakers'
providing general regulations for various and varying details of management. In order to attract private sector involvement, P.D. 1112 allowed
To rule that the absence of implementing rules can render ineffective an act "the collection of toll fees for the use of certain public improvements that
of Congress, such as the Revised Securities Act, would empower the would allow a reasonable rate of return on investments." The same decree
administrative bodies to defeat the legislative will by delaying the created the Toll Regulatory Board ("TRB") and invested it under Section 3 (a)
implementing rules. To assert that a law is less than a law, because it is made (d) and (e) with the power to enter, for the Republic, into contracts for the
to depend on a future event or act, is to rob the Legislature of the power to construction, maintenance and operation of tollways, grant authority to
act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state operate a toll facility, issue therefor the necessary Toll Operation Certificate
of affairs not yet developed, or to things future and impossible to fully know. ("TOC") and fix initial toll rates, and, from time to time, adjust the same after
It is well established that administrative authorities have the power to due notice and hearing.
promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given statute and to
effectuate its policies, provided such rules and regulations conform to the The petitions consolidated by Resolution of March 20, 2007 assail
terms and standards prescribed by the statute as well as purport to carry into and seek to nullify certain statutory provisions, presidential actions and
effect its general policies. Nevertheless, it is undisputable that the rules and implementing orders, toll operation-related contracts and issuances on the
regulations cannot assert for themselves a more extensive prerogative or construction, maintenance and operation of the major tollway systems in
deviate from the mandate of the statute. Moreover, where the statute Luzon. The petitions likewise seek to restrain and permanently prohibit the
contains sufficient standards and an unmistakable intent, as in the case of implementation of the allegedly illegal toll fee rate hikes for the use of the
Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act, there should be no North Luzon Expressway ("NLEX"), South Luzon Expressway ("SLEX") and
impediment to its implementation. the South Metro Manila Skyway ("SMMS").
The petitioners in the special civil actions cases would have the
Court declare as invalid (a) Section 3 (a) and (d) of P.D. 1112 (which accord
PADUA VS. RANADA the TRB, on one hand, the power to enter into contracts for the construction,
Ogie Adlawan and operation of toll facilities, while, on the other hand, granting it the power
to issue and promulgate toll rates) and (b) Section 8 (b) of P.D. 1894
FACTS: On February 27, 2001, the Citra Metro Manila Tollways (granting TRB adjudicatory jurisdiction over matters involving toll rate
Corporation (CITRA) filed with the TRB an application for an interim movements).
adjustment of the toll rates at the Metro Manila Skyway Project – Stage 1.
As submitted, granting the TRB the power to award toll contracts
Claiming that the peso exchange rate to a U.S. dollar had is inconsistent with its quasi-judicial function of adjudicating petitions for initial
devaluated from P26.1671 in 1995 to P48.00 in 2000, CITRA alleged that toll and periodic toll rate adjustments. There cannot, so petitioners would
there was a compelling need for the increase of the toll rates to meet the loan postulate, be impartiality in such a situation.
obligations of the Project and the substantial increase in debt-service burden.
ISSUE: WON TRB’s Power to Enter into Contracts; Issue,
Modify and Promulgate Toll Rates; and to Rule on Petitions Relative to Toll
Rates Level and Increases are Valid.
The Court does not perceive an irreconcilable clash in the On February 20, 1987, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss
enumerated TRB’s statutory powers, such that the exercise of one negates on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the Commission or
another. The ascription of impartiality on the part of the TRB cannot, under over the subject of the case, among others.
the premises, be accorded cogency. Petitioners have not shown that the TRB
lacks the expertise, competence and capacity to implement its mandate of On March 5, 1987, respondent judge issued the other assailed
balancing the interests of the toll-paying motoring public and the imperative order denying the Commission's motion to dismiss, among others.
of allowing the concessionaires to recoup their investment with reasonable
profits. On March 20, 1987, the Commission filed the petition at bar
seeking to set aside the orders, dated February 16 and March 5, 1987,
The grant to and the exercise by an administrative agency of rendered by respondent trial judge on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and
regulating and allowing the operation of public utilities and, at the same time, grave abuse of discretion.
fixing the fees that they may charge their customers is now commonplace. It
must be presumed that the Congress, in creating said agencies and clothing ISSUE: WON RTC’s have jurisdiction over PCGG and properties
them with both adjudicative powers and contract-making prerogatives, must sequestered and placed in its custodia legisin the exercise of its
have carefully studied such dual authority and found the same not breaching powers; and
any constitutional principle or concept. So must it be for P.D. Nos. 1112 and WON said RTC’s may interfere with and restrain or set aside the
1894. orders and actions of PCGG.
For example, the LTFRB and NTC – both spin-off agencies of the HELD: RTC’s do not have such jurisdiction over PCGG.
now defunct Public Service Commission – exercise similar concurrent
powers. To eliminate all doubts, the Court upholds the primacy of
administrative jurisdiction as vested in the Commission and holds that
The LTFRB is empowered, among others, to regulate the jurisdiction over all sequestration cases of ill-gotten wealth, assets and
operation of public utilities or "for hire" vehicles and to grant franchises or properties under the past discredited regime fall within the exclusive and
certificates of public convenience ("CPC"); and to fix rates or fares, to original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject to review exclusively by
approve petitions for fare rate increases and to resolve oppositions to such this Court.
petitions.
Executive Order No. 1 created the PCGG, tasked with regard to
The NTC, on the other hand, has been granted similar powers of the "recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President
granting franchises, allocating areas of operations, rate-fixing and to rule on Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close
petitions for rate increases. associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, among others. In
the discharge of its vital task "to recover the tremendous wealth plundered
The Energy Regulatory Commission ("ERC") likewise enjoys on from the people by the past regime in the most execrable thievery perpetrated
the one hand, the power (a) to grant, modify or revoke an authority to operate in all history," the Commission was vested with the ample power and
facilities used in the generation of electricity, and on the other, (b) to authority.
determine, fix and approve rates and tariffs of transmission, and distribution
retail wheeling charges and tariffs of franchise electric utilities and all electric "So that it might ascertain the facts germane to its objectives, it
power rates including that which is charged to end-users. [PCGG] was granted power to conduct investigations; require submission of
evidence by subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum; administer oaths;
To summarize, the fact that an administrative agency is exercising punish for contempt. It was given power also to promulgate such rules and
its administrative or executive functions (such as the granting of franchises regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of (its creation)."
or awarding of contracts) and at the same time exercising its quasi-legislative
(e.g. rule-making) and/or quasi-judicial functions (e.g. rate-fixing), does not As seen from the foregoing, PCGG exercises quasi-judicial
support a finding of a violation of due process or the Constitution. m functions. In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, the PCGG is a co-equal
body with RTC’s and "co-equal bodies have no power to control the other."
PCGG vs. HON. PEÑA et. al. Executive Order No. 14 specifically provides in section 2 that "The
G.R. No. 77663 April 12, 1988 PCGG shall file all such cases, whether civil or criminal, with the
Ogie Adlawan Sandiganbayanwhich shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof."
Necessarily, those who wish to question or challenge the Commission's acts
In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, the Commission or orders in such cases must seek recourse in the same court, the
(PCGG) is a co- equal body with regional trial courts (RTC’s) and co-equal Sandiganbayan, which is vested with exclusive and original jurisdiction. The
bodies have no power to control the other. Sandiganbayan's decisions and final orders are in turn subject to review on
certiorari exclusively by this Court.
FACTS: On March 25, 1986, the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) issued an order freezing the assets, effects, documents SAÑADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and records of two export garment manufacturing firms. The PCGG G.R. No. 108338 April 17, 2001
appointed an Officer-in-Charge (OIC) for the said corporations with full Ogie Adlawan
authority to manage and operate the same.
The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or
On February 11, 1987, the OIC withdrew the amount of in suspending or revoking, a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public
P400,000.00, more or less, from the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company convenience and necessity is administrative or quasi-judicial.
against the accounts of the said corporations for payment of the salaries of
the staff, employees and laborers of the same.
ISSUE: What is the nature of the July 31, 1989 Malacañang decision and
what is its effect on the resolution of Civil Case No. 2085? EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS vs.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION CORPORATION
HELD: The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or G.R. No. 135992 July 23, 2004
in suspending or revoking, a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public Ogie Adlawan
convenience and necessity is administrative or quasi-judicial. The act is not
purely administrative but quasi-judicial or adjudicatory since it is dependent The power of the NTC in granting or denying a provisional
upon the ascertainment of facts by the administrative agency, upon which a authority to operate a local exchange carrier service is a quasi-judicial
decision is to be made and rights and liabilities determined. function, a sphere in which the DOTC cannot intrude upon.
As such, the July 31, 1989 decision of the Office of the President FACTS: Respondent International Communication Corporation (ICC), now
is explicitly an official act of and an exercise of quasi-judicial power by the known as Bayan Telecommunications Corporation or Bayantel, applied for
Executive Department headed by the highest officer of the land. It thus and was given by the NTC a Provisional Authority (PA) on March 3, 1995, to
squarely falls under matters relative to the executive department which courts install, operate and provide local exchange service in Quezon City, Malabon
are mandatorily tasked to take judicial notice of under Section 1, Rule 129 of and Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the entire Bicol region. Meanwhile,
the Rules of Court. Judicial notice must be taken of the organization of the petitioner Telecommunications Technologies Philippines, Inc. (TTPI), as an
Executive Department, its principal officers, elected or appointed, such as the affiliate of petitioner Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI),
President, his powers and duties. was granted by the NTC a PA on September 25, 1996, to install, operate and
maintain a local exchange service in the Provinces of Batanes, Cagayan
The rendition of the subject July 31, 1989 Malacañang decision is Valley, Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, Nueva Vizcaya, Ifugao, Quirino, the cities
premised on the essential function of the executive department — which is of Manila and Caloocan, and the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila.
to enforce the law. In this instance, what is being enforced is P.D. No. 704
which consolidated and revised all laws and decrees affecting fishing and It appears, however, that before TTPI was able to fully accomplish
fisheries. its rollout obligation, ICC applied for and was given a PA by the NTC on
November 10, 1997, to install, operate and maintain a local exchange
Further, the issue of whether or not petitioner is still entitled to servicein Manila and Navotas, two areas which were already covered by
possession of the subject fishpond area is underpinned by an ascertainment TTPI under its PA dated September 25, 1996.
of facts. And such task belongs to the administrative body which has
jurisdiction over the matter — the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The policy
ISSUE: WON the Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in Hence, this petition.
upholding the Order of the NTC granting a PA to Respondent to operate LEC
services in Manila and Navotas which are areas already assigned to The Court of Appeals found fault in the DOJ's failure to identify
petitioner TTPI under a prior and subsisting PA. and discuss the issues raised by the HSBC in its Petition for Review filed
therewith. And, in support thereof, HSBC maintains that it is incorrect to argue
HELD: No, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the that "it was not necessary for the Secretary of Justice to have his resolution
Court of Appeals in sustaining the NTC's grant of provisional authority to ICC. recite the facts and the law on which it was based," because courts and
quasi-judicial bodies should faithfully comply with Section 14, Article VIII of
The power of the NTC to grant a provisional authority has long the Constitution requiring that decisions rendered by them should state
been settled. As the regulatory agency of the national government with clearly and distinctly the facts of the case and the law on which the decision
jurisdiction over all telecommunications entities, it is clothed with authority is based.
and given ample discretion to grant a provisional permit or authority. In this
regard, the NTC is clothed with sufficient discretion to act on matters solely Katherene defends the DOJ and assert that the questioned
within its competence. resolution was complete in that it stated the legal basis for denying
respondent HSBC's petition for review - "that (after) an examination (of) the
In granting ICC the PA to operate a local exchange carrier service petition and its attachment [it] found no reversible error that would justify a
in the Manila and Navotas areas, the NTC took into consideration ICC's reversal of the assailed resolution which is in accord with the law and
financial and technical resources and found them to be adequate. The NTC evidence on the matter."
also noted ICC's performance in complying with its rollout obligations under
the previous PA granted to it. ISSUE: WON THE SOJ SHOULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH Section 14,
The Court will not interfere with these findings of the NTC, as Article VIII of the Constitution requiring that decisions rendered by
these are matters that are addressed to its sound discretion, being the them should state clearly and distinctly the facts of the case and the law on
government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under which the decision is based.
its special and technical forte. Moreover, the exercise of administrative
discretion is a policy decision and a matter that can best be discharged by RULING: NO. It must be remembered that a preliminary investigation is not
the government agency concerned, and not by the courts. a quasi-judicial proceeding, and that the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency
exercising a quasi- judicial function when it reviews the findings of a public
The power of the NTC in granting or denying a provisional prosecutor regarding the presence of probable cause. In Bautista v. Court of
authority to operate a local exchange carrier service is a quasi-judicial Appeals, this Court held that a preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial
function, a sphere in which the DOTC cannot intrude upon. If at all, the proceeding, thus:
service area scheme provided in the DOTC Department Circular is only one
of the factors, but should not in any way, tie down the NTC in its determination “[T]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine
of the propriety of a grant of a provisional authority to a qualified applicant for the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor
local exchange service. rule- making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is
often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably
More than anything else, public service should be the primordial charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or
objective of local exchange operators. The entry of another provider in areas information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose
covered by TTPI should pose as a challenge for it to improve its quality of except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether
service. Ultimately, it will be the public that will benefit. there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While
the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-
court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not
BALANGAUAN V. CA the fiscal.”
Mokee Codilla
Though some cases describe the public prosecutor's power to
FACTS: KathereneBalangauan was a Customer Service Representative of conduct a preliminary investigation as quasi-judicial in nature, this is true only
HSBC. As a PCSR, she managed the accounts of HSBC depositors with to the extent that, like quasi-judicial bodies, the prosecutor is an officer of the
Premier Status. One such client and/or depositor handled by her was Roger executive department exercising powers akin to those of a court, and the
Dwayne York. Sometime in April 2002, he went to HSBC's Cebu Branch similarity ends at this point. A quasi-judicial body is an organ of
totransact with Katherene respecting his Dollar and PesoAccounts. governmentother than a court and other than a legislature which affects the
Katherene being on vacation at the time, York was attended to by another rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making. A quasi-
PCSR. While at the bank, York inquired about the status of his time deposit judicial agency performs adjudicatory functions such that its awards,
in the amount of P2,500,000.00. The PCSR representative who attended to determine the rights of parties, and their decisions have the same effect as
him, however, could not find any record of said placement in the bank's data judgments of a court. Such is not the case when a public prosecutor conducts
base. a preliminary investigation to determine probable cause to file an Information
against a person charged with a criminal offense, or when the Secretary of
HSBC's bank personnel discovered unauthorized/suspicious Justice is reviewing the former's order or resolutions. In this case, since the
transactions, which York denied ever making. (taas ang facts pero immaterial DOJ is not a quasi-judicial body, Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution
man so, to shorten) - Based on the foregoing factual circumstances HSBC finds no application.
filed a criminal complaint for Estafa and/or Qualified Estafa before the Office
of the City Prosecutor, Cebu City.
BONDOC V. TAN TIONG BIO After completing the units of course work required in her doctoral
MokeeCodilla program, private respondent went on a two-year leave of absence to work as
Tamil Programme Producer of the Vatican Radio in the Vatican and as
FACTS: Tan Tiong Bio had fully paid the installment payments of a 683- General Office Assistant at the International Right to Life Federation in Rome.
square-meter lot in the Manila Southwoods Residential Estates, a project of She returned to the Philippines in July 1991 to work on her dissertation
Fil- Estate Golf & Development, Inc. (Fil-Estate) in Carmona, Cavite, but Fil- entitled, "Tamil Influences in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines."
Estate failed to deliver to him the title covering the lot, despite repeated
demands. Fil-Estate also failed to heed the demand for the refund of the There were allegations of massive unauthorized plagiarism made
purchase price. Respondent, later learning that the lot "sold" to him was by Celine regarding her dissertation.
inexistent, filed a complaint for Estafa against Fil-Estate officials including its
Corporate Secretary Atty. Bondoc. The CSSP College Assembly unanimously approved the
recommendation to withdraw private respondent's doctorate degree and
On the basis Bondoc’s allegations in her Counter-Affidavit, Tan forwarded its recommendation to the University Council. The University
Tiong filed a complaint for Perjury against Bondoc before the Pasig City Council, in turn, approved and endorsed the same recommendation to the
Prosecutor's Office, which dismissed it by Resolution of June 17, 2004 for Board of Regents on August 16, 1993.
insufficiency of evidence& denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.
On January 4, 1995, the secretary of the Board of Regents sent
On petition for review, the Department of Justice (DOJ), by private respondent the following letter:
Resolution of July 20, 2005 signed by the Chief State Prosecutor for the
Secretary of Justice, motu proprio dismissed petition on finding that there xxx by a majority decision, to withdraw your Ph.D. degree as
was no showing of any reversible error, following Sec. 12(c) of Department recommended by the U.P. Diliman University Council and as concurred with
Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000 (National Prosecution Service [NPS] Rule by the External Review Panel xx
on Appeal).
Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which
Tan Tiong's motion for reconsideration having been denied by ordered to restore to respondent her degree of Ph.D. in Anthropology.
Resolution of January 23, 2006, he filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals which, by Decision of September 5, 2008, set aside the ISSUE: WON THE UP Board of Regents have the power to withdraw
DOJ Secretary's Resolution, holding that it committed grave abuse of Private respondent’s degree (I just based the issue on the PPT)
discretion in issuing its Resolution dismissing respondent's petition for review
without therein expressing clearly and distinctly the facts on which the RULING: YES. UP Board is empowered to withdraw conferment of degree
dismissal was based, in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution. founded on fraud.
Tan Tiong Bio posits that Balangauan finds no application in the Art. XIV, §5 (2) of the Constitution provides that "[a]cademic
present case (refer to ruling in case number 4) for, as the Supreme Court freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." This is nothing
stated, the DOJ "rectified the shortness of its first resolution by issuing a new. The 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitution[36] likewise provided
lengthier one when it resolved HSBC’s . . . motion for reconsideration." for the academic freedom or, more precisely, for the institutional autonomy
of universities and institutions of higher learning. As pointed out by this Court
ISSUE: WON THE SOJ SHOULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH Section 14, in Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, it is a
freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning" which is thus given "a wide
Article VIII of the Constitution requiring that decisions rendered by sphere of authority certainly extending to the choice of students." If such
them should state clearly and distinctly the facts of the case and the law on institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it,
which the decision is based. it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction
of being its graduates.
RULING: Balangauan v. Court of Appeals in fact iterates that even the
action of the Secretary of Justice in reviewing a prosecutor's order or Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction
resolution via appeal or petition for review cannot be considered a quasi- was obtained through fraud, a university has the right to revoke or withdraw
judicial proceeding since the "DOJ is not a quasi-judicial body." Section 14, the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. This freedom of a university
Article VIII of the Constitution does not thus extend to resolutions issued by does not terminate upon the "graduation" of a student, as the Court of
the DOJ Secretary. Appeals held. For it is precisely the "graduation" of such a student that is in
question. It is noteworthy that the investigation of private respondent's case
Whether the DOJ in Balangauan issued an extended resolution in began before her graduation. If she was able to join the graduation
resolving the therein respondent's motion for reconsideration is immaterial. ceremonies on April 24, 1993, it was because of too many investigations
The extended resolution did not detract from settling that the DOJ is not a conducted before the Board of Regents finally decided she should not have
quasi- judicial body. been allowed to graduate.
A PI is not a quasi-judicial proceeding since the prosecutordoes Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted to institutions of
not determine guilt or innocence of accused. PI is merely inquisitorial. higher learning, for the constitutional grant of academic freedom, to quote
Prosecutor cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the court that again from Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of
ultimately passes judgment on the accused. A PI partakes of an investigative Theology, "is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging
or inquisitorial power for sole aim of obtaining information on what future fashion."
action of judicial nature may be taken.
Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the highest
governing body of the University of the Philippines. It has the power to confer
UP BOARD OF REGENTS V. CA degrees upon the recommendation of the University Council. It follows that if
MokeeCodilla the conferment of a degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents
is also empowered, subject to the observance of due process, to withdraw
what it has granted without violating a student's rights. An institution of higher
“Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely
policies/enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs.” implements the Administrative Code of 1987. It establishes for the first time
a National Computerized Identification Reference System. Such a System
FACTS: A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies-- the
December 12, 1996. Petitioner Ople prays for the invalidation of primacy of national security, the extent of privacy interest against dossier-
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized gathering by government, the choice of policies, etc. Indeed, the dissent of
Identification Reference System" on two important constitutional grounds, Mr. Justice Mendoza states that the A.O. No. 308 involves the all-important
viz: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it freedom of thought. As said administrative order redefines the parameters of
impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy. some basic rights of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State as well as the line that
separates the administrative power of the President to make rules and the
ISSUE: WON A.O. 308 involves a subject which is appropriate to be legislative power of Congress, it ought to be evident that it deals with a
covered by an administrative order. subject that should be covered by law.
RULING: NO. While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the Nor is it correct to argue as the dissenters do that A.O. No. 308 is
President executes the laws. The executive power is vested in the not a law because it confers no right, imposes no duty, affords no protection,
President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the and creates no office. Under A.O. No. 308, a citizen cannot transact business
laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing with government agencies delivering basic services to the people without the
their due observance. contemplated identification card. No citizen will refuse to get this identification
card for no one can avoid dealing with government. It is thus clear as daylight
As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief that without the ID, a citizen will have difficulty exercising his rights and
Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all enjoying his privileges. Given this reality, the contention that A.O. No. 308
laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has gives no right and imposes no duty cannot stand.
control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that
he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive
department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials.
CIPRIANO VS COMELEC Aside from the powers vested by the Constitution, the
G.R. No. 158830. August 10, 2004 Commission also exercises other powers expressly provided in the Omnibus
Marion Lara Election Code, one of which is the authority to deny due course to or to cancel
a certificate of candidacy. The exercise of such authority, however, must be
“Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying in accordance with the conditions set by law.
policies/enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs.”
The Commission may not, by itself, without the proper
FACTS: On June 7, 2002, petitioner filed with the COMELEC her certificate proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in
of candidacy as Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) for the SK due form. When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC
elections held on July 15, 2002. has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt.
On the date of the elections, July 15, 2002, the COMELEC issued The Court has ruled that the Commission has no discretion to give
Resolution No. 5363 adopting the recommendation of the Commissions Law or not to give due course to petitioners certificate of candidacy. The duty of
Department to deny due course to or cancel the certificates of candidacy of the COMELEC to give due course to certificates of candidacy filed in due
several candidates for the SK elections, including petitioners. The ruling was form is ministerial in character. While the Commission may look into patent
based on the findings of the Law Department that petitioner and all the other defects in the certificates, it may not go into matters not appearing on their
candidates affected by said resolution were not registered voters in the face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond
barangay where they intended to run. the usual and proper cognizance of said body.
On August 19, 2002, petitioner, after learning of Resolution No. Contrary to the submission of the COMELEC, the denial of due
5363, filed with the COMELEC a motion for reconsideration of said resolution. course or cancellation of ones certificate of candidacy is not within the
She argued that a certificate of candidacy may only be denied due course or administrative powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the exercise of
cancelled via an appropriate petition filed by any registered candidate for the its quasi-judicial functions. Administrative power is concerned with the
same position under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper
toSections 5 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6646. Accordingto petitioner, governmentalorgans. We have earlier enumerated the scope of the
the report of the Election Officer of Pasay City cannot be considered a petition Commissions administrative functions. On the other hand, where a power
under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, and the COMELEC cannot, rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but
by itself, deny due course to or cancel ones certificate of candidacy. does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an
Petitioner also claimed that she was denied due process when her certificate officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial.
of candidacy was cancelled by the Commission without notice and hearing.
Petitioner further argued that the COMELEC en banc did not have jurisdiction The determination whether a material representation in the
to act on the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy on the first instance certificate of candidacy is false or not, or the determination whether a
because it is the Division of the Commission that has authority to decide candidate is eligible for the position he is seeking involves a determination of
election-related cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. fact where both parties must be allowed to adduce evidence in support of
their contentions. Because the resolution of such fact may result to a
The COMELEC asserts that it is authorized to motu proprio deny deprivation of ones right to run for public office, or, as in this case, ones right
due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy based on its broad to hold public office, it is only proper and fair that the candidate concerned be
administrative power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations notified of the proceedings against him and that he be given the opportunity
relative to the conduct of elections. to refute the allegations against him. It should be stressed that it is not
sufficient, as the COMELEC claims, that the candidate be notified of the
ISSUE: WON COMELEC is authorized to motu proprio deny due course Commissions inquiry into the veracity of the contents of his certificate of
to or cancel a certificate of candidacy of Cipriano candidacy, but he must also be allowed to present his own evidence to prove
that he possesses the qualifications for the office he seeks.
RULING: NO. The COMELEC is an institution created by the Constitution to
govern the conduct of elections and to ensure that the electoral process is In view of the foregoing discussion, we rule that COMELEC’s
clean, honest, orderly, and peaceful. It is mandated to enforce and administer Resolutions canceling petitioner’s certificate of candidacy without proper
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, proceedings, are tainted with grave abuse of discretion and therefore void.
initiative, referendum and recall.
Five petitions were filed before the COMELEC first and second FACTS: On July 15, 1995, private respondent LUIS BUNDALIAN
divisions, intended for the purpose of cancelling Jalosjos COC. Pending addressed to the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco an
resolution, the COMELEC en BANC resolved for the denial of petitioner unverified letter- complaint, accusing petitioner Edillo Montemayor, then OIC-
Jalosjos COC due to the latter’s perpetual absolute disqualification as well Regional Director, Region III, of the DPWH, of accumulating unexplained
as his failure to comply with the voter registration requirement. Thus this wealth, in violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019.
petition.
Accordingly, the letter-complaint and its attached documents were
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC En Banc acted beyond its jurisdiction when indorsed by the Philippine Consulate General of San Francisco, California,
it issued motu proprio Resolution No. 9613 and in so doing, violated to the Philippine Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) for
petitioner’s right to due process. investigation. Petitioner pointed out that the charge against him was the
subject of similar cases filed before the Ombudsman which was dismissed
RULING: Section 3 Article IX-c of the Philippine Constitution requiring a for insufficiency of evidence.
motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc may take action is
confinedonly to cases where the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial The PCAGC after conducting its own investigation found that the
power. It finds no application, however, in matters concerning the complaint has basis and the Office of the President in turn concurred with the
COMELEC’s exercise of administrative functions. PCAGC finding and ordered petitioner’s dismissal from service with forfeiture
of all government benefits.
The COMELEC En Banc did not exercise its quasi-judicial
functions when it issued Resolution No. 9613 as it did not assume jurisdiction ISSUE: Whether or not the earlier dismissal of similar cases before the
over any pending petition or resolve any election case before it or any of its Ombudsman rendered the administrative case before the PCAGC moot and
divisions. Rather, it merely performed its duty to enforce and administer academic. NO.
election laws in cancelling petitioner’s CoC on the basis of his
perpetual absolutedisqualification, the fact of which had already been RULING: The decision of the Ombudsman does not operate as res judicata
established by his finalconviction. In this regard, the COMELEC En Banc in the PCAGC case subject of this review. The doctrine of res judicata applies
wasexercising its administrative functions, dispensing with the need for a only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the exercise of
motion for reconsideration of a division ruling under Section 3, Article IX-C of administrative powers. Petitioner was investigated by the Ombudsman for his
the Constitution, the same being required only in quasi-judicial proceedings. possible criminal liability for the acquisition of the Burbank property in
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal
Code. For the same alleged misconduct, petitioner, as a presidential
OMBUDSMAN VS VALERA appointee, was investigated by the PCAGC by virtue of the administrative
Vim Malicay power and control of the President over him. As the PCAGC’s investigation
of petitioner was administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no
“Appellate court finds merit or compelling reason for non- application in the case at bar.
compliance with the rule”
Hence, the petitioner’s dismissal was just proper after it was
FACTS: Respondent Valera was appointed Deputy Commissioner of the established that he acquired properties whose value is disproportionate to
Bureau of Customs in charge of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group. his income in the government service.
The office of Ombudsman received a Sworn complaint filed by the Director
of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) and Atty.
Adolfo Casareño against respondent Valera for entering into a compromise HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND
agreement with Steel Asia Manufacturing Corp. in Civil Case No. 01-102504 HENRY LOPEZ CHUA VS EMILY HOMES SUBDIVISION
to the prejudice of the government. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL
GR No. 139360; 23 Sep 2003
Petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio the Issued a Ogie Adlawan
Preventive suspension order against Atty. Valera, Villa-Ignacio likewise
denied Valera’s motion for reconsideration. FACTS: Respondents Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association
(EHSHA) and the 150 individual members thereof filed a civil action for
Even before his motion for reconsideration was acted upon, breach of contract, damages and attorneys fees with the RTC of Davao del
however, respondent Valera already filed with the Court of Appeals a special Sur against petitionersHLC Construction and Development Corporation and
civil action for certiorari and prohibition as he sought to nullify the Order of Henry Lopez Chua, the developers of low-cost housing units like Emily
preventive suspension issued by petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio. Homes Subdivision.
The appellate court then rendered the assailed Decision setting Respondents alleged that petitioners used substandard materials
aside the Order of preventive suspension and directing petitioner Special in the construction of their houses and that petitioners allegedly did not
Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio to desist from taking any further action. Hence this adhere to the house plan specifications. Respondents asked petitioners to
petition. repair their defective housing units but petitioners failed to do
so. Respondents had to repair their defective housing units using their own
ISSUE: WON there was Forum Shopping in this case. YES funds. Hence, they prayed for actual and moral damages arising from
petitioners breach of the contract plus exemplary damages and attorneys
RULING: Respondent Valera’s alleged non-compliance with the rule on fees.
non- forum shopping when he filed the petition for certiorari with the appellate
court, the appellate court correctly overlooked this procedural lapse. In this Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
case, it was ruled that petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio had no citing, among others, the defective certification on non-forum shopping which
authority to issue a preventive suspension order. Hence, the appellate court’s was signed only by the president of EHSHA and not by all its members; such
decision in relaxing the rule requiring the certification on non-forum shopping defect allegedly warranted the dismissal of the complaint.
is justified.
The trial court denied petitioners motion to dismiss on the ground
that respondents’ certificate of non-forum shopping substantially complied
BUNDALIAN VS MONTEMAYOR with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, among others. It
Vim Malicay also denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
G.R. No. 165569. July 29, 2010 Rodriguez insisted that the sangguniang bayan still continued to
exercise jurisdiction over the complaint filed against him. He claimed he had
“No forum shopping since CHED is without quasi-judicial power not received any resolution or decision dismissing the complaint filed in the
and cannot make any disposition of the case.” sangguniang bayan.
FACTS: A complaint for damages (raffled at Branch 5 of the RTC of In reply, complainants maintained there was no more complaint
Dinalupihan, Bataan) was filed by Sanchez against UST for their alleged pending in the sangguniang bayan since the latter had granted their motion
unjustified refusal to release his Transcript of Records. He alleged that he is to withdraw the complaint.
a student enrolled in UST and a graduate therefrom with a Bachelors Degree
of Science in Nursing. Instead of filing an answer, UST filed a Motion to The Ombudsman found Rodriguez guilty of dishonesty and
Dismiss alleging that Sanchez is not a registered student for he failed to enroll oppression
for the second semester of SY 2000-2001. Also UST filed a Supplement to
their Motion to Dismiss, alleging that Sanchez sought administrative recourse The Court of Appeals set aside for lack of jurisdiction the Decision
before the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) through a letter- of the Ombudsman and directed the sangguniang bayan to proceed with the
complaint. Thus, petitioners claimed that the CHED had primary jurisdiction hearing on the administrative case. The appellate court reasoned that the
to resolve matters pertaining to school controversies, and the filing of the sangguniang bayan had acquired primary jurisdiction over the person of
instant case was premature. UST raises that Sanchez violated the rule on Rodriguez to the exclusion of the Ombudsman.
forum shopping since the latter sought recourse with both the CHED and the
RTC.
(1) Whether complainants violated the rule against forum shopping when On May 20, 1993, the CTA rendered a decision which denied the
they filed in the Ombudsman and the sangguniang bayan identical request of PBCom for a tax refund or credit in the sum amount of
complaints against Rodriguez. NO. P5,299,749.95, on the ground that it was filed beyond the two-year
(2) Whether it was the sangguniang bayan or the Ombudsman that first reglementary period provided for by law.
acquired jurisdiction.OMBUDSMAN.
PBCom argues that its claims for refund and tax credits are not
RULING: yet barred by prescription relying on the applicability of Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 7-85 issued on April 1, 1985. The circular states
(1) The facts in the present case are analogous to those in Laxina, Sr. v. that overpaid income taxes are not covered by the two-year prescriptive
Ombudsman. The Court held therein that the rule against forum period under the tax Code and that taxpayers may claim refund or tax credits
shopping applied only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to for the excess quarterly income tax with the BIR within ten (10) years under
administrative cases. Thus, even if complainants filed in the Article 1144 of the Civil Code.
Ombudsman and the sangguniang bayan identical complaints against
private respondent, they did not violate the rule against forum shopping On June 22, 1993, PBCom filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
because their complaint was in the nature of an administrative case. the CTA’s decision but the same was denied due course for lack of merit.
(2) In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or Thereafter, PBCom filed a petition for review of said decision and
more disciplining authorities, the body in which the complaint is filed resolution of the CTA with the Court of Appeals. However on September 22,
first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction 1993, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the CTA’s resolution dated July
to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction. 20, 1993. Hence this petition now before us.
In this case, since the complaint was filed first in the Ombudsman, ISSUE: WON RMC No. 7-85, changing the prescriptive period of two
and the Ombudsman opted to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, the years to ten years, is valid.
Ombudsman's exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the sangguniang
bayan exercising concurrent jurisdiction. RULING: NO. Rev. Memo Circular 7-85 (change of prescriptive period on
claims of excess quarterly income tax payments) inconsistent with the NIRC;
When herein complainants first filed the complaint in the no vested rights arising from wrong construction of law.
Ombudsman, jurisdiction was already vested on the latter. Jurisdiction could
no longer be transferred to the sangguniang bayan by virtue of a subsequent After a careful study of the records and applicable jurisprudence
complaint filed by the same complainants. on the matter, we find that, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the
relaxation of revenue regulations by RMC 7-85 is not warranted as it
disregards the two-year prescriptive period set by law.
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS VS. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND COURT OF Basic is the principle that “taxes are the lifeblood of the nation.”
APPEALS The primary purpose is to generate funds for the State to finance the needs
G.R. No. 112024, January 28, 1999 of the citizenry and to advance the common weal. Due process of law under
the Constitution does not require judicial proceedings in tax cases. This must
FACTS: Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom), a commercial necessarily be so because it is upon taxation that the government chiefly
banking corporation duly organized under Philippine laws, filed its quarterly relies to obtain the means to carry on its operations and it is of utmost
income tax returns for the first and second quarters of 1985, reported profits, importance that the modes adopted to enforce the collection of taxes levied
and paid the total income tax of P5,016,954.00. should be summary and interfered with as little as possible.
The taxes due were settled by applying PBCom’s tax credit From the same perspective, claims for refund or tax credit should
memos and accordingly, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Tax be exercised within the time fixed by law because the BIR being an
Debit Memo Nos. 0746-85 and 0747-85 for P3,401,701.00 and P1, administrative body enforced to collect taxes, its functions should not be
615,253.00, respectively. unduly delayed or hampered by incidental matters.
It bears repeating that Revenue memorandum-circulars are “LBC of DBM setting a maximum limit to additional allowances to
considered administrative rulings (in the sense of more specific and less be given by LGU to national government officials is invalid bec. it goes
general interpretations of tax laws) which are issued from time to time by the beyond the law. Sec. 458 of LGC allows the grant “when the finances of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It is widely accepted that the LGU allow.” It doesn’t authorize setting a definite maximum limit to additional
interpretation placed upon a statute by the executive officers, whose duty is allowances.”
to enforce it, is entitled to great respect by the courts. Nevertheless, such
interpretation is not conclusive and will be ignored if judicially found to be FACTS: In 1986, the RTC and MTC judges of Mandaue City started
erroneous. Thus, courts will not countenance administrative issuances that receiving monthly allowances of P1,260 each through the yearly
override, instead of remaining consistent and in harmony with, the law they appropriation ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the said
seek to apply and implement. city. In 1991, Mandaue City increased the amount to P1,500 for each judge.
In the case of People vs. Lim, it was held that rules and regulations On March 15, 1994, the Department of Budget and Management
issued by administrative officials to implement a law cannot go beyond the (DBM) issued the disputed Local Budget Circular No. 55 (LBC 55) which
terms and provisions of the latter. provided that: xxx xxx xxx
Article 8 of the Civil Coderecognizes judicial decisions, applying 2.3.2. In the light of the authority granted to the local government
or interpreting statutes as part of the legal system of the country. But units under the Local Government Code to provide for additional allowances
administrative decisions do not enjoy that level of recognition. A and other benefits to national government officials and employees assigned
memorandum-circular of a bureau head could not operate to vest a taxpayer in their locality, such additional allowances in the form of honorarium at rates
with a shield against judicial action. For there are no vested rights to speak not exceeding P1,000.00 in provinces and cities and P700.00 in
of respecting a wrong construction of the law by the administrative officials municipalities may be granted subject to the following conditions:
and such wrong interpretation could not place the Government in estoppel to
correct or overrule the same. a) That the grant is not mandatory on the part of the LGUs;
b) That all contractual and statutory obligations of the LGU including the
implementation of R.A. 6758 shall have been fully provided in the
OPLE VS TORRES budget;
G.R. NO. 127685 JULY 23, 1998 c) That the budgetary requirements/limitations under Section 324 and 325
of R.A. 7160 should be satisfied and/or complied with; and
AO 308 providing for adoption of a national computerized d) That the LGU has fully implemented the devolution of
identification reference system is unconstitutional. Its establishment requires functions/personnel in accordance with R.A. 7160. (italics supplied)
a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies, the primacy of xxx xxx xxx
national security etc. It deals w/a subject that should be covered by law.
The said circular likewise provided for its immediate effectivity
FACTS: A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on without need of publication:
December 12, 1996. Petitioner Ople prays for the invalidation of
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Acting on the DBM directive, the Mandaue City Auditor issued
Identification Reference System" on two important constitutional grounds, notices of disallowance to herein petitioners, namely, Honorable RTC Judges
viz: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it Mercedes G. Dadole, Ulric R. Caete, Agustin R. Vestil, Honorable MTC
impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy. Judges Temistocles M. Boholst, Vicente C. Fanilag and Wilfredo A. Dagatan,
in excess of the amount authorized by LBC 55. Beginning October, 1994, the
ISSUE: WON A.O. 308 is involves a subject which is appropriate to be additional monthly allowances of the petitioner judges were reduced
covered by a law. to P1,000 each. They were also asked to reimburse the amount they
received in excess of P1,000 from April to September, 1994.
RULING: YES. It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely
implements the Administrative Code of 1987. It establishes for the first time The petitioner judges filed with the Office of the City Auditor a
a National Computerized Identification Reference System. Such a System protest against the notices of disallowance. But the City Auditor treated the
requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies-- the protest as a motion for reconsideration and indorsed the same to the COA
primacy of national security, the extent of privacy interest against dossier- Regional Office No. 7. In turn, the COA Regional Office referred the motion
gathering by government, the choice of policies, etc. Indeed, the dissent of to the head office with a recommendation that the same be denied.
Mr. Justice Mendoza states that the A.O. No. 308 involves the all-important
freedom of ISSUE: WON the City Ordinance of Mandaue which provides a higher rate
thought.Assaidadministrativeorderredefinestheparametersofsomebasic of allowances to the appellant judges may prevail over that fixed by the DBM
rightsofourcitizenry vis-à-vis under Local Budget Circular No. 55.
theStateaswellasthelinethatseparatestheadministrativepowerofthePresidentt
omakerulesandthelegislativepower of Congress, it ought to be evident that it RULING: YES. The City Ordinance of Mandaue shall prevail. The SC
deals with a subject that should be covered bylaw. declared LBC 55 to be null and void.Although our Constitution guarantees
Sec. 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general IN RE EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF COURT & SHERIFF’S FEES
supervision over local governments. OF DULY REGISTERED COOPERATIVES
In a more recent case, Drilon v. Lim, the difference between 668 SCRA 1
control and supervision was further delineated. Officers in control lay down
the rules in the performance or accomplishment of an act. If these rules are “The rules promulgated by the SC for payment of legal fees cannot
not followed, they may, in their discretion, order the act undone or redone by be modified by a law granting exemption from legal fees.”
their subordinates or even decide to do it themselves. On the other hand,
supervision does not cover such authority.Supervising officials merely see to FACTS: In a Petition, Perpetual Help Community Cooperative (PHCCI),
it that the rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, through counsel, requests for the issuance of a court order to clarify and
nor do they have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not implement the exemption of cooperatives from the payment of court and
observed, they may order the work done or redone, but only to conform to sheriffs fees pursuant to Republic Act No. 6938, as amended by Republic Act
such rules. They may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the No. 9520, otherwise known as the Philippine Cooperative Act of 2008.
act. They have no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules
are followed. PHCCI contends that as a cooperative it enjoys the exemption
provided for under Sec. 6, Article 61 of Republic Act No. 9520, which
Clearly then, the President can only interfere in the affairs and states:
activities of a local government unit if he or she finds that the latter has acted
contrary to law. This is the scope of the Presidents supervisory powers over (6) Cooperatives shall be exempt from the payment of all court and sheriffs
local government units. Hence, the President or any of his or her alter fees payable to the Philippine Government for and in connection with
egos cannot interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned local all actions brought under this Code, or where such actions is brought
government unit acts within the parameters of the law and the Constitution. by the Authority before the court, to enforce the payment of obligations
Any directive therefore by the President or any of his or her alter contracted in favor of the cooperative.
egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local
affairs of a local government unit is a patent nullity because it violates the It claims that this was a reiteration of Section 62, paragraph 6 of
principle of local autonomy and separation of powers of the executive and Republic Act No. 6938, An Act to Ordain a Cooperative Code of the
legislative departments in governing municipal corporations. Philippines, and was made basis for the Courts Resolution in A.M. No. 03-4-
01-0, as well as of Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 44-
Does LBC 55 go beyond the law it seeks to implement? Yes. 2007.
LBC 55 provides that the additional monthly allowances to be It avers that despite the exemptions granted by the aforesaid laws
given by a local government unit should not exceed P1,000 in provinces and and issuances, PHCCI had been continuously assessed and required to pay
cities and P700 in municipalities. Section 458, par. (a)(1)(xi), of RA 7160, the legal and other fees whenever it files cases in court.
law that supposedly serves as the legal basis of LBC 55, allows the grant of
additional allowances to judges when the finances of the city government Issue: Whether cooperatives are exempt from the payment of court and
allow. The said provision does not authorize setting a definite maximum limit sheriffs fees.
to the additional allowances granted to judges. Thus, we need not belabor
Ruling: No.The fees referred to are those provided for under Rule 141
the point that the finances of a city government may allow the grant of
(Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court.
additional allowances higher than P1,000 if the revenues of the said city
government exceed its annual expenditures. Thus, to illustrate, a city
The exemptions granted to cooperatives under Section 2,
government with locally generated annual revenues of P40 million and
paragraph 6 of Republic Act No. 6938; Section 6, Article 61 of Republic Act
expenditures of P35 million can afford to grant additional allowances of more
No. 9520; and OCA Circular No. 44-2007 clearly do not cover the amount
than P1,000 each to, say, ten judges inasmuch as the finances of the city can
required to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or
afford it.
other court-authorized person in the service of summons, subpoena and
Setting a uniform amount for the grant of additional allowances is other court processes issued relative to the trial of the case, which are neither
an inappropriate way of enforcing the criterion found in Section 458, par. considered as court and sheriffs fees nor are amounts payable to the
(a)(1)(xi), of RA 7160. Philippine Government.
Sec. 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (a) In fine, the 1 September 2009 Resolution exempted the
The sangguniangpanlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall cooperatives from court fees but not from sheriffs fees/expenses.
enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the
Since the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the
general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of
rules promulgated by this Court concerning pleading, practice and
this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the city
procedure, it cannot be validly annulled, changed or modified by
as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
Congress. As one of the safeguards of this Courts institutional
(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an independence, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
efficient and effective city government, and in this connection, procedure is now the Courts exclusive domain. That power is no longer
shall:xxx xxx xxx shared by this Court with Congress, much less with the Executive.
LUPANGCO VS. CA
(xi) When the finances of the city government allow, provide for
additional allowances and other benefits to judges,
160 SCRA 848
prosecutors, public elementary and high school teachers, and
other national government officials stationed in or assigned to “PRC resolution prohibiting attendance in accountancy review
the city; (italics supplied)
classes is not valid. It violates examinees’ right to liberty & the academic
freedom of schools.”
The DBM over-stepped its power of supervision over local
government units by imposing a prohibition that did not correspond with the
No examinee shall attend any review class, briefing, conference ANNIE SAND, LYDIA VALDES, LUZ SABAS, JOSEFINA A. MENDOZA
or the like conducted by, or shall receive any hand-out, review material, or and ROSARIO A. ORDIZ, vs.ABAD SANTOS EDUCATIONAL
any tip from any school, college or university, or any review center or the like INSTITUTION, SCHOOL OF NURSING and HON. WALFRIDO DE LOS
or any reviewer, lecturer, instructor official or employee of any of the ANGELES
aforementioned or similar institutions during the three days immediately G.R. No. L-30918 July 18, 1974
preceding every examination day including examination day.
“Board of Examiners for Nursing regulation for period inspection is valid”
Any examinee violating this instruction shall be subject to the
sanctions prescribed by Sec. 8, Art. III of the Rules and Regulations of the FACTS: An action for declaratory relief was filed by respondent Abad
Commission. Santos School of Nursing against petitioners chairman and members of the
Board of Examiners for Nurses seeking a declaration that "Article VIII, Rule
ISSUE: Can this Commission lawfully prohibit the examiness from 69, section 5 of the rules and regulations of petitioner board adopted on July
attending review classes, receiving handout materials, tips, or the like three 27, 1967 is void, illegal and ineffective and without force of law and that
(3) days before the date of the examination? respondent school is not required to comply with the terms and provisions
thereof. The respondent, alleged that, while petitioner board has the full
RULING: No. We rule in favor of the petitioner. authority under section 9, Republic Act No. 877, as amended to promulgate
said rules and regulations, particularly the cited regulation providing for
Resolution No. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also periodic inspection of nursing schools and bars graduates of such schools
infringes on the examinees' right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. that do not comply "with the minimum requirements and standards" from
Respondent PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they admission to the nurses' examination or registration as a registered nurse,
should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. They cannot be the board "may apply only the same to new schools or colleges established
restrained from taking all the lawful steps needed to assure the fulfillment of or opened after the promulgation of said rules and regulations" and
their ambition to become public accountants. They have every right to make "conversely" may not be given "retroactive effect" and "cannot be enforced
use of their faculties in attaining success in their endeavors. They should be on schools and colleges already duly accredited by the Bureau of Private
allowed to enjoy their freedom to acquire useful knowledge that will promote Schools" prior to the promulgation by the board of the 1967 rules and
their personal growth. As defined in a decision of the United States Supreme regulations.
Court:
ISSUE: WON the regulation for period inspection is valid
The term "liberty" means more than mere freedom from
physical restraint or the bounds of a prison. It means freedom to go where RULING: YES.
one may choose and to act in such a manner not inconsistent with the
equal rights of others, as his judgment may dictate for the promotion of his Respondent school's challenge against the authority of petitioner
happiness, to pursue such callings and vocations as may be most suitable board to promulgate the disputed regulation for periodic inspection by the
to develop his capacities, and give to them their highest enjoyment. board and for non-admission to the nurses' examination conducted by the
board of graduates of sub-standard nursing Schools is manifestly
Another evident objection to Resolution No. 105 is that it violates untenable.The Philippine Nursing Act, Republic Act No. 877 as amended by
the academic freedom of the schools concerned. Respondent PRC cannot Republic Act No. 4704 expressly empowers in section 9 thereof the petitioner
interfere with the conduct of review that review schools and centers board "subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines [to]
believe would best enable their enrollees to meet the standards required promulgate such rules and regularly as may be necessary to carry out the
before becoming a full fledged public accountant. Unless the means or provisions of this Act."Also, Section 3 of the cited Act specifically empowers
methods of instruction are clearly found to be inefficient, impractical, or petitioner board to inspect nursing colleges and schools and vests it with
riddled with corruption, review schools and centers may not be stopped from authority "to issue, suspend, revoke, or reissue certificates of registration for
helping out their students. At this juncture, We call attention to Our practice of nursing. The Board shall study the conditions affecting nursing
pronouncement in Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola education and the practice of the nursing profession in the Philippines, and
School of Theology,regarding academic freedom to wit: shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by this Act with a view to
the maintenance of an efficient ethical, technical, moral and professional
... It would follow then that the school or college itself is standard in the practice of nursing. Xx xxxx
possessed of such a right. It decides for itself its aims and objectives and
how best to attain them. It is free from outside coercion or interference Furthermore, there exists no justification in law and in fact,
save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. therefore, for respondent court's judgment declaring the cited regulation for
It has a wide sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of periodic inspection "void, illegal and of no effect" against respondent school
students. This constitutional provision is not to be construed in a niggardly and its graduates. Respondent court's view that petitioner board's power of
manner or in a grudging fashion. periodic inspection would apply only to new nursing schools opened after the
promulgation of the rule and not to existing schools already accredited by the
Needless to say, the enforcement of Resolution No. 105 is not a Bureau of Private Schools would lead to the absurd result whereby petitioner
guarantee that the alleged leakages in the licensure examinations will be board would be utterly helpless with reference to existing schools and
eradicated or at least minimized. Making the examinees suffer by depriving powerless to require them to maintain the minimum standards under pain of
them of legitimate means of review or preparation on those last three disqualifying their deficient graduates from the nurses' examination. The
precious days-when they should be refreshing themselves with all that they above mentioned or cited rule is the same provision found in Rule 70, section
have learned in the review classes and preparing their mental and 5, Article VIII of the original rules and regulations promulgated on June 1,
psychological make-up for the examination day itself-would be like uprooting 1954 (13 years earlier) by the same board and which was never challenged
the tree to get ride of a rotten branch. What is needed to be done by the by respondent school nor has it been the object of any complaint from any of
respondent is to find out the source of such leakages and stop it right there. the other nursing schools.
If corrupt officials or personnel should be terminated from their loss, then so
be it. Fixers or swindlers should be flushed out. Strict guidelines to be It is reasonable, that those students who have commenced
observed by examiners should be set up and if violations are committed, then schooling or their studies of nursing under the old curriculum which has been
licenses should be suspended or revoked. These are all within the powers of approved by the Bureau of Private Schools, and which petitioner has been
the respondent commission as provided for in Presidential Decree No. 223. following up to the present time be allowed to graduate and to take the
CHREA stood its ground in saying that the DBM is the only agency with
appropriate authority mandated by law to evaluate and approve matters of
reclassification and upgrading, as well as creation of positions. The CSC-
Central Office denied CHREA’s request. The CA affirmed the said decision.
Issue:
Ruling: No.
The disputation of the CA that the CHR is exempt from the long arm of the
Salary Standardization Law is, flawed considering that the coverage thereof
encompasses the entire gamut of government offices, sans qualification.
CA’s Decision was based on the mistaken premise that the CHR belongs to
the species of constitutional commission. But, Article IX of the Constitution
states in no uncertain terms that only the CSC, the Commission on Elections
and the Commission on Audit shall be tagged as Constitutional Commissions
with the appurtenant right to fiscal autonomy CHR is not among the class of
Constitutional Commission.
Nor is there any legal basis to support the contention that the CHR enjoys
fiscal autonomy. In essence, fiscal autonomy entails freedom from outside Issue: Whether or not DBM‘s policy, ―no report, no release‖ is
control and limitations, other than those provided by law. It is the freedom to constitutional
allocate and utilize funds granted by law, in accordance with law, and
pursuant to the wisdom and dispatch its needs may require from time to
time.22 In Blaquera v. Alcala and Bengzon v. Drilon,23 it is understood that it
is only the Judiciary, the CSC, the COA, the COMELEC, and the Office of the Ruling: DBM‘s act of withholding the subject funds from CSC due to revenue
Ombudsman, which enjoy fiscal autonomy. shortfall is hereby declared unconstitutional.
Neither does the fact that the CHR was admitted as a member by the
Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) ipso facto clothed it with fiscal
autonomy. Fiscal autonomy is a constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by The no report, no release policy may not be validly enforced against offices
membership. vested with fiscal autonomy is not disputed. Indeed, such policy cannot be
enforced against offices possessing fiscal autonomy without violating Article
We note with interest that the special provision under Rep. Act No. 8522, IX (A), Section 5 of the Constitution, which provides that the Commission
while cited under the heading of the CHR, did not specifically mention CHR shall enjoy fiscal autonomy and that their approved appropriations shall be
as among those offices to which the special provision to formulate and automatically and regularly released.
implement organizational structures apply, but merely states its coverage to
include Constitutional Commissions and Offices enjoying fiscal autonomy
All told, the CHR, although admittedly a constitutional creation is, The Court held in the case of, Batangas v. Romulo, ―automatic release‖ in
nonetheless, not included in the genus of offices accorded fiscal autonomy Section 6, Article X of the Constitution is defined as ―an automatic manner;
by constitutional or legislative fiat. without thought or conscious intention. Being ―automatic,‖ thus, connotes
something mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory. As such the LGUs are
Even assuming en arguendo that the CHR enjoys fiscal autonomy, we share not required to perform any act to receive the ―just share‖ accruing to them
the stance of the DBM that the grant of fiscal autonomy notwithstanding, all from the national coffers.
government offices must, all the same, kowtow to the Salary Standardization
Law. We are of the same mind with the DBM on its standpoint, thus-
Being a member of the fiscal autonomy group does not vest the agency with By parity of construction, ―automatic release‖ of approved annual
appropriations to petitioner, a constitutional commission which is vested with
the authority to reclassify, upgrade, and create positions without approval of
the DBM. While the members of the Group are authorized to formulate and fiscal autonomy, should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund
implement the organizational structures of their respective offices and releases to it may be imposed. This conclusion is consistent with the
determine the compensation of their personnel, such authority is not absolute Resolution of this Court which effectively prohibited the enforcement of a
and must be exercised within the parameters of the Unified Position ―no report, no release‖ policy against the Judiciary which has also been
Classification and Compensation System established under RA 6758 more granted fiscal autonomy by the Constitution.
popularly known as the Compensation Standardization Law.
ISSUE: FACTS:
WON the DBM may be allowed to downgrade the SGs of the officers under Fernando Caballero and his wife, secured a loan from GSIS in the amount
the Judiciary of P20,000.00, as evidenced by a promissory note. They executed a real
estate mortgage, mortgaging their lot with a commercial building therein,
RULING: located at Mlang, Cotabato. Fernando defaulted, hence, the mortgage was
foreclosed and was sold at a public auction where the petitioner was the only
bidder. For failure of Fernando to redeem, petitioner executed an Affidavit of
NO. DBM is authorized to evaluate and determine whether a proposed
Consolidation of Ownership. Negotiation as to the repurchase by Fernando
reclassification and upgrading scheme is consistent with applicable laws and
of the subject property went on for several years, but no agreement was
regulations. The task of the DBM is simply to review the compensation and
reached between the parties.
benefits plan of the government agency or entity concerned and determine if
it complies with the prescribed policies and guidelines issued in this regard.
Thus, the role of the DBM is "supervisorial in nature, its main duty being to Petitioner scheduled the subject property for public bidding. Fernando's
ascertain that the proposed compensation, benefits and other incentives to daughter, submitted a bid in the amount of P350,000.00, while Carmelita
be given to government officials and employees adhere to the policies and Mercantile Trading Corporation (CMTC) submitted a bid in the amount
guidelines issued in accordance with applicable laws." As such, the authority of P450,000.00. Since CMTC was the highest bidder, it was awarded the
of the DBM to review Supreme Court issuances relative to court personnel subject property. The Board of Trustees of the GSIS issued Resolution No.
on matters of compensation is even more limited, circumscribed as it is by 199 confirming the award, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and TCT
the provisions of the Constitution, specifically Article VIII, Section 3 on fiscal was issued in the name of CMTC.
autonomy and Article VIII, Section 6 on administrative supervision over court
personnel. Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control. Fernando filed a Complaint, alleging that the GSIS Board of Trustees
Resolution; Deed of Absolute Sale; and the said TCT be declared as null and
The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent void ab initio. He also alleged that there were irregularities, and prayed that
constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their he should be allowed to repurchase the property
operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the
express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme The GSIS in its counterclaim, alleged that Fernando owed petitioner the sum
Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire of P130, 365.81, representing back rentals, including additional interests,
ISSUE:
Fiscal autonomy recognizes the power and authority of the Court to levy,
assess and collect fees, including legal fees. Moreover, legal fees under Rule These Memoranda essentially ask the Court to determine the
141 have two basic components, the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and proper formula to be used in computing the appraisal value that a retired
the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). The laws which Chief Justice and several Associate Justices of the Supreme Court have to
established the JDF and the SAJF expressly declare the identical purpose of pay to acquire the government properties they used during their tenure.
these funds to "guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by
the Constitution and public policy." Legal fees therefore do not only constitute HELD:
a vital source of the Court's financial resources but also comprise an essential
element of the Court's fiscal independence. Any exemption from the payment Judiciary; Judges; By way of a long standing tradition, partly
of legal fees granted by Congress to GOCCs and LGUs will necessarily based on the intention to reward long and faithful service, the sale to the
reduce the JDF and the SAJF. Undoubtedly, such situation is constitutionally retired Justices of specifically designated properties that they used during
infirm for it impairs the Court's guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodes its their incumbency has been recognized both as a privilege and a benefit.—
independence. By way of a long standing tradition, partly based on the intention to reward
long and faithful service, the sale to the retired Justices of specifically
Since the GSIS cannot be exempted from the payment of legal fees, its designated properties that they used during their incumbency has been
petition regarding the rental fees is denied. This is because the RTC did not recognized both as a privilege and a benefit. This has become an established
acquire jurisdiction to try the said case in view of petitioner’s failure to pay for practice within the Judiciary that even the COA has previously recognized.
the docket fees. The En Banc Resolution also deems the grant of the privilege as a form of
additional retirement benefit that the Court can grant its officials and
employees in the exercise of its power of administrative supervision. Under
this administrative authority, the Court has the power to administer the
ISSUE: WON the Agency, acting thru its officials, enjoys the authority to
issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact-finding investigations.
FACTS: Pursuant to his special powers and duties under Section 64 of the There is no doubt that the fact-finding investigations being
Revised Administrative Code, the President of the Philippines created the conducted by the Agency upon sworn statements implicating certain public
Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) officials of the City Government of Manila in anomalous transactions fall
under Executive Order No. 4 of January 7, 1966. within the Agency's sphere of authority and that the information sought to be
MAIN RULING: The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Respondents contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua
Motion to Lift Order of Preventive Suspension is DENIED. non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide
for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential
The records show that despite repeated orders of the issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to
Ombudsman, petitioner refused to file an information for attempted rape take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their
against Mayor Ilustrisimo, insisting that after investigating the complaint in effectivity.Art. 2.Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
the case she found that he had committed only acts of lasciviousness. completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided, ...
ISSUE 1: Petitioner and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar cannot be held liable
for contempt because their refusal arose out of an administrative, rather than ISSUE: WON publication is necessary
judicial, proceeding before the Office of the Ombudsman
RULING: YES
RULING 1: There is no merit in the argument. in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is
easily reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of
§15(g) of the Ombudsman Act gives the Office of the Ombudsman publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date
the power to “punish for contempt, in accordance with the Rules of Court and of its effectivity.Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows:
under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein.”
Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all
As petitioner herself says in another context, the preliminary
importantlegisiative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress
investigation of a case, of which the filing of an information is a part, is quasi-
of the Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative orders and
judicial in character.
proclamations, except such as have no general applicability; [3] decisions or
Whether petitioner's refusal to follow the Ombudsman's orders abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may
constitutes a defiance, disobedienceor resistance of a lawful process, order be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be so published; [4]
or command of the Ombudsman thus making her liable for indirect contempt such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be
under Rule 71, §3 of the Rules of Court is for respondents to determine after published by law; and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the
appropriate hearing. At this point it is important only to note the existence of President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general
the contempt power of the Ombudsman as a means of enforcing his lawful applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published.
orders.
The word "shall" used therein imposes upon respondent officials an
ISSUE 2: Petitioner contends that her suspension is invalid because the imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the
order was issued without giving her and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar the people to be informed on matters of public concern is to be given substance
opportunity to refute the charges against them and because, at any rate, the and reality. The law itself makes a list of what should be published in the
evidence against them is not strong as required by §24. Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves respondents with no
discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such
RULING 2: The contention is without merit. publication.
Prior notice and hearing is not required, such suspension not The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
being a penalty but only a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that
provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise
As held in Buenaseda v. Flavier, however, whether the evidence impose a burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall
of guilt is strong is left to the determination of the Ombudsman by taking into within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to
account the evidence before him. A preliminary hearing as in bail petitions in particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive
cases involving capital offenses is not required. In rejecting a similar orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been
argument as that made by petitioner in this case, this Court said in that case: circularized to all concerned.
The import of the Nera decision is that the disciplining authority is It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public
given the discretion to decide when the evidence of guilt is strong. This fact nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a
PICOP asked for the reduction of the filing fee from P12 Million to P210.00.
The present SEC Revised Schedule of Fees (2001 Circular) does not provide On December 11, 1987, the board of trustees of the GSIS in resolution No.
varying filing fees for amended AOI depending on the purpose of the 566, approved the compulsory insurance coverage of reserve officers of the
amendment to be introduced. Neither did the previous Schedule of Fees Armed Forces of the Philippines (hereafter AFP) falling under the provisions
(1994 Circular) allow SEC to collect and receive the same fees for of Executive Order No. 79.
amendment of AOI as an original filing. Under the latter Circular, the
examining and filing fee for amended AOI of both stock and non-stock On September 4, 1990, Melanio D. Fabia, vice-president, Legal Services
corporations is only P200. Group, GSIS, gave an opinion that compulsory coverage of reserve officers
AFP took effect on December 23, 1986, the day following E. O. 79's
The amount was reduced to 6 Million, which is 1% of the authorized capital publication in the Official Gazette. GSIS then paid the claim.
stock. PICOP sought reconsideration of the En Banc ruling. It argued that RA
3531 has been repealed by the Corporation Code of 1980 and PD 902-A. The auditor disallowed in audit the payment of the claim, pointing out that at
Section 139 of the Corporation Code authorizes of the SEC to collect and the time of his death, General Asuncion was not a member of the GSIS
receive fees as authorized by law or by rules and regulation promulgated by despite E. O. 79.
the SEC.
ISSUE: WON EO 79 at the time of Gen. Asuncion’s death already took effect
The SEC En Banc denied once more PICOPs request to reconsider the
earlier ruling and reverted to the 12M assessment. The SEC, among other RULING: YES
things, explained that contentions that its 2001 Circular was not published
are erroneous. There was in fact, due publication in the Manila Standard on The President issued the executive order on December 2, 1986. It was
July 31, 2001. Accordingly, the 2001 Circular became effective on August 15, published in the Official Gazette on December 22, 1986.
2001. Thus, the public was properly apprised of the changes in fees.
Thus, E. O. No. 79 is effective fifteen (15) days following its publication in the
ISSUE: WON there was a valid publication Official Gazette, or on January 07, 1987. At that time, the late General
Asuncion was a reserve officer who had rendered a total of ten (10) years of
RULING: NO continuous active duty service commission in the AFP. Hence, he was
GR NO. 132593 COA relied on DBM-CCC No. 10 as basis for the disallowance of the subject
car plan benefits. DBM-CCC No. 10 which was issued by the DBM pursuant
DBM Circular disallowing payment to gov’t employees of allowances is of to Section 23 of RA 6758 mandating the said agency to issue the necessary
no force & effect due to absence of publication in OG or newspaper xxx. guidelines to implement RA 6758 has been declared by this Court in De
That it was reissued & submitted for publication in OG does not cure the Jesus, et al. vs. Commission on Audit, et al. as of no force and effect due to
defect and retroact to the time of disallowance in audit. Publication is a the absence of publication thereof in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
condition precedent to effectivity of a law (Phil. International Trading vs. of general circulation.
COA, 309 SCRA 177).
"On the need for publication of subject DBM-CCC No. 10, we rule in the
FACTS: affirmative. Following the doctrine enunciated in Tana ̃ da, publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines is
The PITC is a government-owned and controlled corporation. On October 19, required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in the nature of an administrative circular
1988, the PITC Board of Directors approved a Car Plan Program for qualified the purpose of which is to enforce or implement an existing law. Stated
PITC officers.Under such car plan program, an eligible officer is entitled to differently, to be effective and enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go
purchase a vehicle, fifty percent (50%) of the value of which shall be through the requisite publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
shouldered by PITC while the remaining fifty percent (50%) will be general circulation in the Philippines.” (De Jesus, et al. v. COA)
shouldered by the officer. The plan is envisioned to facilitate greater mobility
during official trips especially within Metro Manila or the employee's principal It has come to our knowledge that DBM-CCC No. 10 has been re-issued in
place of assignment, without having to rely on PITC vehicles, taxis or cars for its entirety and submitted for publication in the Official Gazette per letter to
hire. the National Printing Office dated March 9, 1999. Would the subsequent
publication thereof cure the defect and retroact to the time that the above-
On July 1, 1989, RA 6758, entitled "An Act Prescribing a Revised mentioned items were disallowed in audit?
Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and
For Other Purposes", took effect. Section 12 of said law provides for the 2. It has come to our knowledge that DBM-CCC No. 10 has been re-
consolidation of allowances and additional compensation into standardized issued in its entirety and submitted for publication in the Official Gazette per
salary rates save for certain additional compensation such as representation letter to the National Printing Office dated March 9, 1999. Would the
and transportation allowances which were exempted from consolidation into subsequent publication thereof cure the defect and retroact to the time that
the standardized rate. Said section likewise provides that other additional the above- mentioned items were disallowed in audit?
compensation being received by incumbents as of July 1, 1989 not integrated
into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized. The answer is in the negative, precisely, for the reason that publication is
required as a condition precedent to the effectivity of a law to inform the public
To implement RA 6758, DBM issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. of the contents of the law or rules and regulations before their rights and
10. Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 discontinued effective November 1, interests are affected by the same. From the time the COA disallowed the
1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary, not expenses in audit up to the filing of herein petition the subject circular
otherwise enumerated under paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 thereof. remained in legal limbo due to its non-publication. As was stated in Tañada
vs. Tuvera, "prior publication of laws before they become effective cannot be
Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 provides: dispensed with, for the reason that such omission would offend due process
insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed
"5.6 Payment of other allowances/fringe benefits and all other forms of to govern it."
compensation granted on top of basic salary, whether in cash or in kind, not
mentioned in Sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5[6] above shall be discontinued
effective November 1, 1989. Payment made for such allowance/fringe
benefits after said date shall be considered as illegal disbursement of public
funds."
ISSUES: POEA Circular not filed with the National Administrative Register cannot be
used as basis for imposition of administrative sanctions and is ineffective
1. WON the DBM Circular is valid. NO. and may not be enforced; a requisite under Secs. 3 & 4, Bk Vll, EO 292
(Philsa International Placement Corp. vs. Labor Secretary, 356 SCRA 174).
2. Would the subsequent publication thereof cure the defect and That it is addressed to specific group, i.e. private employment agencies,
retroact to the time that the above-mentioned items were does not exclude it from publication requirement.
disallowed in audit? NO.
FACTS:
RULING:
Philsa is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers.
1. PHILSA correctly pointed out that there was no intention on the Private respondents are OFWs which left for Saudi Arabia on January 29,
part of the legislature to revoke existing benefits being enjoyed by 1985.
incumbents of government positions at the time of the passage of RA 6758
"We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and An affidavit-complaint for coup d’etat was filed against Honasan.The Panel
private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice sent a subpoena to
begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed petitioner for preliminary investigation.
by the legislature.
On August 27, 2003, Honasan, appeared at the DOJ. He filed a Motion for
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders Clarification questioning DOJ’s jurisdiction over the case, asserting that since
promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office, it is the Office
the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly of the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to conduct the
conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also corresponding preliminary investigation; that should the charge be filed in
be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant court, it is the Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, that can legally take
to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in cognizance of the case.
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and
the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so- The arguments of Honasan are:
called letter of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning
1. Respondent DOJ Panel is neither authorized nor deputized under
the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance
OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 to conduct the preliminary
of their duties."
investigation involving Honasan.
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 must likewise be declared 2. Even if deputized, the respondent DOJ Panel is still without
ineffective as the same was never published or filed with the National authority since OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 is ultra vires
Administrative Register. for being violative of the Constitution, beyond the powers granted
to the Ombudsman by R.A. 6770 and inoperative due to lack of
publication, hence null and void.
POEA Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1983 provides for the applicable
schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment ISSUES:
agencies or authority holders.
1. WON DOJ Panel has Jurisdiction. YES, OMB authority is not
It is thus clear that the administrative circular under consideration is one of exclusive
those issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since its
purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid 2. WON DOJ Circular is Valid without publication. YES, internal
delegation. Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of agreements need not be published
1983 has not as yet been published or filed with the National Administrative
RULING:
Register, the same is ineffective and may not be enforced.
1. The Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and
2. The Office of the Solicitor General likewise argues that the
Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, do not give to the
questioned administrative circular is not among those requiring publication
Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by
contemplated by Tana ̃ da vs. Tuvera as it is addressed only to a specific public officers or employees. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate
group of persons and not to the general public.
On December 29, 1992, International Communications Corporation The absence of publication, coupled with the certification by the
(now Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. or Bayantel) filed an application with Commissioner of the NTC stating that the NTC was still governed by the 1978
the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for a Certificate of Rules, clearly indicate that the 1993 Revised Rules have not taken effect at
Public Convenience or Necessity (CPCN) to install, operate and maintain a the time of the grant of the provisional authority to Bayantel. The fact that the
digital Cellular Mobile Telephone System/Service (CMTS) with prayer for a 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law Center on February 3,
Provisional Authority (PA). 1993 is of no moment. There is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987
which implies that the filing of the rules with the UP Law Center is the
This Court, in Tanada vs. Tuvera (G.R. No. L-63915, December 29,
1986, 146 SCRA 446) stated, thus: SEC VS GMA NETWORK
G.R. No. 164026
We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local December 23, 2008
application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication RA 3531 authorizes SEC to collect filing fees for amendments extending
unless a different effectivity is fixed by the legislature. corporate existence. SEC MC # 1 imposing a filing fee of 1/10 of 1% of AC
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders plus 20% thereof [or P1.2M on GMA] for amendments extending corporate
promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative power existence is not a mere interpretation or an internal rule. The MC is invalid
or, at present, directly conferred by the as it was not published in OG or newspaper, nor filed w/Office of National
Constitution. Administrative Rules and Regulations must also be Administrative Register of UPLC. It needs to be published as it implements
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law mandate of RA 3531 and it affects public.
pursuant also to a valid delegation.
FACTS
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative On August 19, 1995, the petitioner, GMA NETWORK, INC.,
agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is (GMA, for brevity), a domestic corporation, filed an application for
publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued collective approval of various amendments to its Articles of
by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to Incorporation and By-Laws with the respondent Securities and
be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their Exchange Commission, (SEC, for brevity). The amendments
duties. applied for include, among others, the change in the corporate
name of petitioner from Republic Broadcasting System, Inc. to
xxx GMA Network, Inc. as well as the extension of the corporate term
for another fifty (50) years from and after June 16, 2000.
We agree that the publication must be in full or it is no
publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the Upon such filing, GMA had been assessed by the SECs
contents of the laws. Corporate and Legal Department a separate filing fee for the
application for extension of corporate term equivalent to 1/10 of
The Administrative Order under consideration is one of 1% of its authorized capital stock plus 20% thereof or an amount
those issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since of P1,212,200.00.
its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant
to a valid delegation, i.e., P.D. 1071, in relation to LOI 444 and EO On October 20, 1995, GMA formally protested the
133. assessment amounting to P1,212,200.00 for its application for
extension of corporate term.
Assuming that Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1994 is The questioned memorandum circular, furthermore, has not been filed
applicable, GMA avers that the latter did not take effect and cannot be the with the Office of the National Administrative Register of the University of the
basis for the imposition of the fees stated therein for the reasons that it was Philippines Law Center as required in the Administrative Code of 1987.
neither filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center nor published
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation as In Philsa International Placement and Services Corp. v. Secretary of
required under existing laws. Labor and Employment, Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, which provided for the
ISSUE schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment
agencies or authority holders, was struck down as it was not published or filed
Which of the following should be the basis for computing the filing fees of with the National Administrative Register.
Articles of Incorporation and/or its amendment:SEC Memorandum Circular
No. 1, Series of 1986 or SEC Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1994 The questioned memorandum circular, it should be emphasized,
cannot be construed as simply interpretative of R.A. No. 3531. This
administrative issuance is an implementation of the mandate of R.A.No. 3531
RULING and indubitably regulates and affects the public at large. It cannot, therefore,
be considered a mere internal rule or regulation, nor an interpretation of the
SEC Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 1986 must be applied in law, but a rule which must be declared ineffective as it was neither published
computing the filing fees. Republic Act No. 3531 (R.A. No. 3531) provides that nor filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register.
where the amendment consists in extending the term of corporate existence,
the SEC shall be entitled to collect and receive for the filing of the amended A related factor which precludes consideration of the questioned
articles of incorporation the same fees collectible under existing law as the issuance as interpretative in nature merely is the fact the SECs assessment
filing of articles of incorporation. As is clearly the import of this law, the SEC amounting to P1,212,200.00 is exceedingly unreasonable and amounts to an
shall be entitled to collect and receive the same fees it assesses and collects imposition. A filing fee, by legal definition, is that charged by a public official
both for the filing of articles of incorporation and the filing of an amended to accept a document for processing. The fee should be just, fair, and
articles of incorporation for purposes of extending the term of corporate proportionate to the service for which the fee is being collected, in this case,
existence. the examination and verification of the documents submitted by GMA to
warrant an extension of its corporate term.
The SEC, effectuating its mandate under the aforequoted law and
other pertinent laws, issued SEC Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of Rate-fixing is a legislative function which concededly has been
1986, imposing the filing fee of 1/10 of 1% of the authorized capital stock delegated to the SEC by R.A. No. 3531 and other pertinent laws. The due
but not less than P300.00 nor more than P100,000.00 for stock process clause, however, permits the courts to determine whether the
corporations, and 1/10 of 1% of the authorized capital stock but not less regulation issued by the SEC is reasonable and within the bounds of its rate-
than P200.00 nor more than P100,000.00 for stock corporations without fixing authority and to strike it down when it arbitrarily infringes on a person’s
par value, for the filing of amended articles of incorporation where the right to property.
amendment consists of extending the term of corporate existence.
Several years after, the SEC issued Memorandum Circular No. 2, FABELLA VS CA
Series of 1994, imposing new fees and charges and deleting the G.R. No. 110379
maximum filing fee set forth in SEC Circular No. 1, Series of 1986, such November 28, 1997
that the fee for the filing of articles of incorporation became 1/10 of 1%
of the authorized capital stock plus 20% thereof but not less The inclusion of teachers’ organization representative is indispensable to
than P500.00. ensure impartial tribunal.
FACTS
WON the constitutional right to due process of the teachers was violated.
MARTIN S. EMIN, PETITIONER, VS. CHAIRMAN CORAZON ALMA G.
DE LEON, COMMISSIONERS THELMA P. GAMINDE AND RAMON P.
ERENETA, JR., OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
RULING RESPONDENTS.
YES.Due process of law requires notice and hearing. Hearing, on the CSC has no original jurisdiction over an admin case vs. a public school
other hand, presupposes a competent and impartial tribunal. The right to be teacher as jurisdiction is lodged with the Investigating Committee under
heard and, ultimately, the right to due process of law lose meaning in the Sec. 9 of RA 4670. Still, the SC affirmed dismissal from service of petitioner
absence of an independent, competent and impartial tribunal. for dishonesty (for faking CS eligibilities of certain teachers for a fee) as he
was sufficiently afforded due process by CSC. He answered the charges &
In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to participated in hearings. He is barred under principle of estoppel by laches
include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the to impugn CSC jurisdiction
institution of proceedings which may affect a respondents legal rights; (2) a
real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to Facts: Appointment papers for a change of status from provisional to
present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones permanent under Republic Act No. 6850 of teachers were submitted to the
rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as Civil Service Field Office-Cotabato at Amas, Kidapawan, Cotabato with
to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of attached photocopies of certificates of eligibility of the teachers. Although the
honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which certificates seemed authentic, the signatures were forgeries. Upon
Ruling: Yes. Complainants further alleged that sometime in November 1997, Melecio
Alcala, DiosdadaBorinaga, Helen Lendio, and Rolando Torceno received
Petitioner is the Non-Formal Education Supervisor of the DECS, in from respondent P1,500.00 each representing Loyalty Benefits. They
Kidapawan, Cotabato, in-charge of the out-of-school programs, and this learned, however, from the DECS Division Office that they were entitled to
position is covered by the definition of teacher as provided by R.A. 4670. The receive P2,000.00 each.
petitioner’s contention that since he is under R.A. 4670, the Investigating
Committee should have investigated his case in conformity with the DECS Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that he was in fact authorized by the
Rules of Procedure, is correct. However, at this late hour, the proceedings complainants to claim and encash their checks at the E and E Lending
conducted by the public respondent CSC can no longer be nullified on Investors where most of them have existing loans. He contended that their
procedural grounds. Under the principle of estoppel by laches, petitioner is school is located in the rural area where no banks are operating, such that it
now barred from impugning the CSC’s jurisdiction over his case. The Civil has been the practice of teachers to authorize the principal to claim, receive
Service Commission has afforded the petitioner ample time to defend and and encash the checks in their behalf. He explained that complainants did
opportunity to be heard in view of the case filed against him and during this not receive the entire amount of P312.00 because they authorized the E and
time no objections were raised. Petitioner voluntarily and willfully participated E Lending Investors to deduct certain amounts from their checks as payment
in the proceedings. As held previously, participation by parties in the for their respective loans. As for the Loyalty Benefits, respondent alleged that
administrative proceedings without raising any objection thereto bars them complainants received the entire amount due them and that he deducted
from raising any jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision is rendered nothing therefrom.He asserted that the real reason behind the filing of the
against them. In the case at bar, petitioner raised the issue of lack of complaint was to force him to resign so that one of the complainants could
jurisdiction for the first time in his amended petition for review before the CA. apply for his post.
Petitioner’s contention that he was denied due process for he was not On June 22, 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution finding
allowed for cross examination was equally unmeritorious. It is well to respondent guilty of dishonesty and dismissing him from service.
remember that in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure
and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot A motion for reconsideration was filed by respondent; however, the same
be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. Neither is there was denied on October 13, 1999.
merit in petitioner’s assertion that he was denied the right to due process
when the CSC Regional Office, according to him, acted as investigator, On appeal, the Court of Appeals nullified and set aside the decision of the
prosecutor, judge and executioner. This kind of procedure is not unusual in Office of the Ombudsman on the ground that the latter was without
an administrative proceeding. It is has to be noted however, that ultimately jurisdiction over administrative complaints against public school teachers. It
the Civil Service Chairman was the one who promulgated the decision. ruled that the governing law is Republic Act No. 4670, otherwise known as
the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, and not Republic Act No. 6770,
Lastly, the petitioner contention of admitting the affidavit of Teodorico Cruz the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
as newly discovered evidence cannot be accepted by court. Newly
discovered evidence can only be accepted if the petitioner exercised Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.
reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial
but had nonetheless failed to secure it. It appears that the affidavit was Issue: Whether the petitioners were accorded opportunity to be heard.
merely an afterthought, a last ditch effort to clear petitioner’s name.
Ruling: Yes.
Hence instant petition is hereby denied and decision of CA is affirmed.
Here what is crucial, in our view, is that the Civil Service Commission had
afforded petitioner sufficient opportunity to be heard and defend himself
against charges of participation in faking civil service eligibilities of certain
MELECIO ALCALA, PERLA ALCALA, ROQUE BORINAGA, DIOSDADA teachers for a fee. Not only did he answer the charges before the CSC
BORINAGA, HELEN LENDIO, and MARY BABETH MAGNO, petitioners, Regional Office but he participated in the hearings of the charges against him
vs. JOVENCIO VILLAR, respondent. to the extent that we are left with no doubt that his participation in its
proceedings was willful and voluntary.
School Principal Villar is barred under principle of estoppel by laches from
assailing the jurisdiction of OMB since his right to procedural due process As held previously, participation by parties in the administrative proceedings
was properly observed. Not only did he file his CA and MR from decision without raising any objection thereto bars them from raising any jurisdictional
Peoples Graftwatch, through its Chairman, Dr. Patricio Y. Tan, referred to the Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall
Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), for immediate investigation, a act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials
complaint of the Faculty Club and Department Heads of the Ramon Torres or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
National High School (hereinafter the Faculty Club) against Heidi Estandarte, instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
the school principal. The complaint consisted of 33 allegations of corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the
improprieties ranging from illegal handling of school funds, irregular financial action taken and the result thereof.[54]
transactions, perjury, and abuse of authority. However, the complaint was not
subscribed and sworn to by the complainant, and not supported by the sworn In a case of recent vintage, the Court held that the Ombudsman has full
statements of witness. The Ombudsman (Visayas) treated the matter as a administrative disciplinary authority over public officials and employees of the
request for assistance. government, thus:
On August 31, 1998, the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports Regional Office VI (DECS- manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the
Region VI) and the Commission on Audit (COA) for appropriate action. The Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover
DECS-Region VI found that the complaint did not comply with the formalities the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority
under Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as The Administrative to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in
Code of 1987. Thus, it dismissed the complaint, without prejudice to the filing accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the
of an appropriate one. production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers
and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty
Undaunted, the Faculty Club filed a formal complaint sworn and subscribed imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the
to by the complainants with DECS-Region VI. However, in a letterdated, the evidence, and necessarily, impose the said penalty.[55]
said office dismissed the complaint outright for lack of verification and
certification against forum shopping. However, Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 4670, otherwise known as the Magna
Carta for Public School Teachers,provides that:
The Ombudsman (Visayas) decided to refer the administrative aspect of the
case (OMB-VIS-ADM-99-0941, entitled COA Region 6, Office of the Section 9. Administrative Charges. Administrative charges against a teacher
Provincial Auditor v. Heidi Estandarte) to the DECS-Region VI for shall be heard initially by a committee composed of the corresponding School
administrative adjudication pursuant to Section 23(2) of Rep. Act No. 6770. Superintendent of the Division or a duly authorized representative who would
The complete records of the case were forwarded to the DECS-Region VI in at least have the rank of a division supervisor, where the teacher belongs, as
a letter dated November 29, 1999.[15] chairman, a representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing
provincial or national teachers organization and a supervisor of the Division,
It appeared, however, that the DECS-Region VI did not receive this referral the last two to be designated by the Director of Public Schools. The
because on December 7, 1999, it inquired on the status of RAS-VIS-98-1030 committee shall submit its findings, and recommendations to the Director of
from the Ombudsman (Visayas).[16] On March 9, 2000, the Ombudsman Public Schools within thirty days from the termination of the hearings:
(Visayas) inquired about the progress of the case from the DECS-Region Provided, however, That, where the school superintendent is the complainant
VI,[17] and when it did not receive an answer, it sent another letter-inquiry or an interested party, all the members of the committee shall be appointed
on September 21, 2000.[18] Finally, on November 22, 2000, the Ombudsman by the Secretary of Education.
(Visayas) received a letter from the DECS-Region VI informing it that the
latter did not receive any referral concerning the case.[19] Hence, the
OMB adjudged respondent guilty of grave misconduct and imposed upon him the G.R. No. 172635 October 20, 2010
penalty of dismissal from the service.
“OMB may refer a complaint to the proper disciplinary authority. It is more
Respondent moved for reconsideration, he argued that under the Magna Carta for prudent that the OMB referred the case to DECS (DepEd) as it is in better
Public School Teachers, an administrative complaint against a public school position to serve the interest of justice, since respondent is a public teacher.”
teacher should be heard by an investigating committee of the DECS, DepEd,
composed of the school superintendent of the division where the teacher belongs, FACTS:
a representative from a teachers organization, and a supervisor of the division. He
In May 2003, complainant learned from her cousin that respondent was courting Florita A. Masing faced another administrative case before the Office of the
her daughter Myra. Complainant then immediately confronted Myra, who admitted Ombudsman-Mindanao filed by Erlinda P. Tan. The charges were oppression,
having received from respondent several handwritten love letters, a Valentine's serious misconduct, discourtesy in the conduct of official duties, and physical or
card and Two Hundred Pesos as allowance. Also in her affidavit, she alleged that mental incapacity or disability due to immoral or vicious habits.
last April 7, 2003, at about 10:00 a.m., more or less, Delijero, who was inside his
room, called her attention, and as she got inside the said room, he abruptly closed Masing filed a motion to dismiss on both complaints on the ground that the Office
the open door, thereby, immediately kissed her cheek, out of fear, she pushed him of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case. Respondents alleged that
away, and rushed to the door of said room and went outside. the DECS has jurisdiction over them which shall exercise the same through a
committee to be constituted under Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4670,
Respondent denied kissing Myra in the morning of April 7, 2003. Moreover, otherwise known as the The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.
respondent claimed that Myra fell in love with him and wrote him love
letters. Respondent claimed that he was merely forced to answer her letters as In both complaints, OMB found Masing guilt as charge. However, The CA reversed
she threatened him that she would kill herself if he would not answer her and and set aside the orders of the OMB in both cases, hence, this review. The SC
reciprocate her love. Lastly, respondent claimed that their relationship was merely then consolidated the cases. One of the contentions of Masing is that, OMB has
platonic. no jurisdiction over the cases.
OMB rendered a decision finding respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and ISSUE:
meted him the penalty of dismissal. Respondent then appealed to the CA. The CA
ruled that petitioner had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint filed before it WON the power and function of the OMB granted by the Constitution may be
as, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, specifically covers and governs restricted by the Magna Carta for Public Teachers
administrative proceedings involving public school teachers. The CA held that
petitioner should have immediately dismissed the case after respondent had RULING:
informed it, through a manifestation, of the pendency of an administrative
complaint before the DECS. NO. In the cases at bar, the rulings of the CA adversely affected the all-important
jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. The rulings aggrieved the Office of
ISSUE: the Ombudsman for they have serious consequences on its effectiveness as the
body charged by the Constitution with the prosecution of officials and employees
1. WON OMB has jurisdiction over the case and/or WON OMB should have of the government suspected of violating our laws on graft and corruption.
referred the case to a proper committee for an appropriate administrative
proceeding YES The authority of the Ombudsman to act on complaints filed against public officers
and employees is explicit in Article XI, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, viz:
2. WON there was a violation of due process NO
The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly
RULING: on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of
the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
1. (In resolving the 1st issue, the SC made references to the Medrano case. Please government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases,
check the ruling of the Medrano case above, as the SC held in toto with it.) notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.
2. In Office of the Ombudsman vs. Galicia, SC ruled that the right to due process Article XI, Section 13 of the same Constitution delineates the powers, functions
was not violated, notwithstanding that the DECS had original jurisdiction to hear and duties of the Ombudsman as follows:
the complaint, thus:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of
The records show that Galicia was given the right to due process in the any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears
investigation of the charges against him. He participated in the to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
proceedings by making known his defenses in the pleadings that he
submitted. It was only when a decision adverse to him was rendered (2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee
did he question the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Under the of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well
principles of estoppel and laches, We rule that it is now too late as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to
for Galicia to assail the administrative investigation conducted and the perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and
decision rendered against him. correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
In the case at bar, respondent actively participated in the proceedings before the (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official
Ombudsman. He submitted his counter-affidavit, an affidavit of his witness, and or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
attached annexes. Respondent even filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking for censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
affirmative relief from the Ombudsman. The case at bar is, however, somewhat
peculiar because when petitioner asked the parties to submit their position papers, (4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such
respondent did not submit one and instead filed a Manifestation informing limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents
petitioner of another proceeding before the DECS. relating to contracts and transactions entered into by his office involving the
disbursement or use of public funds or properties, to the Commission on Audit for
However, the case was remanded to to the CA for it to decide the case on the appropriate and report any irregularity action.
merits, as the CA granted respondent's petition on the sole ground of petitioner's
alleged lack of jurisdiction which it tackled motu proprio. (5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary
in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent
records and documents.
OMB vs. MASING (6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant
and with due prudence.
542 SCRA 253
The Fabella Case as invoked by MAsing, however, does not apply to the cases at
bar. The public schoolteachers in Fabella were charged with violations of civil
service laws, rules and regulations in administrative proceedings initiated by the
DECS Secretary. In contrast, herein respondents Masing and Tayactac were
administratively charged in letter-complaints duly filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao. The charges were for violation of RA 6713, otherwise
known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, collecting unauthorized fees, failure to remit authorized fees, failure to
account for public funds, oppression, serious misconduct, discourtesy in the
conduct of official duties, and physical or mental incapacity or disability due to
immoral or vicious habits. In short, the acts and omissions complained of relate to
respondents conduct as public official and employee, if not to outright graft and
corruption.
(3) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency’s functions, though in
accordance with law;
(5) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or
It is erroneous, therefore, for respondents to contend that R.A. No. 4670 confers
an exclusive disciplinary authority on the DECS over public school teachers and
prescribes an exclusive procedure in administrative investigations involving them.
It is basic that the 1987 Constitution should not be restricted in its meaning by a
law of earlier enactment. The 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 were quite
The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not mean that it
could not be an impartial judge. As an administrative body, its decision was
based on substantial findings. Factual findings of administrative bodies,
being considered experts in their field, are binding on the Supreme Court.The
records clearly disclose that the petitioners were duly investigated by the
CSC and found that:
The photograph pasted over the name Gilda Cruz in the Picture Seat Plan
(PSP) during the July 30, 1989 Career Service Examination is not that of
Cruz but of Paitim. Also, the signature over the name of Gilda Cruz in the
said document is totally different from the signature of Gilda Cruz.
It can not be denied that the petitioners were formally charged after a finding
GILDA CRUZ and ZENAIDA PAITIM v CSC that a prima facie case for dishonesty lies against them. They were properly
G.R. No. 144464 | November 27, 2001 informed of the charges. They submitted an Answer and were given the
“Petitioners were not denied due process by the fact that the CSC acted as opportunity to defend themselves. Petitioners cannot, therefore, claim that
investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge. CSC is mandated to hear there was a denial of due process much less the lack of jurisdiction on the
and decide admin cases instituted by it or instituted before it directly or on part of the CSC to take cognizance of the case.
appeal. CSC is still impartial judge so long as its decisions was based on
substantial findings.”
CSC-NLRC v RANULFO ALBAO
FACTS: The CSC received a letter from a private individual, Carmelita G.R. No. 155784 | October 13, 2005
Esteban, claiming that during the examinations for non-prof in the career “ Sec. 12 refers to the authority to institute directly and motupropio admin
service, Zenaida Paitim (an employee of the Municipality of Bulacan), on cases of dishonesty and falsification, intended to administer CS system and
1989, falsely pretending to be the examinee, Gilda Cruz (Paitim’s co-worker), protect its integrity by removing from list of eligible those who falsified their
took the exams. Esteban requested the CSC to investigate the matter. qualifications.
Sec. 47 refers to the ordinary disciplinary proceedings intended to discipline
The Director of the Commission was then furnished with the picture seat plan a bona fide member of the system.”
of the room where Gilda Cruz was during said examinations not only during
1989 exams but also on 1987 and 1988 and it was declared that there was a FACTS: The Office of the Vice President of the Philippines issued an original
prima facie case against Paitim and Cruz. A fact finding investigation was and permanent appointment for the position of Executive Assistant IV to
conducted and a “Formal Charge” for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Albao, who was then a contractual employee of said office. Instead of
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service was filed against the heeding to the request of the retrieval od the said appointment, he CSC-NCR
two. disapproved the appointment.
Petitioners declared that they were electing a formal investigation on the Petitioner, after a fact-finding investigation, found a prima facie case against
matter and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss averring that if the Albao for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents committed as
investigation will continue, they will be deprived of their right to due process follows.:
because the CSC was the complainant, the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at In his Personal Data Sheet, he stated that he took and passed the
the same time. Electrical Engineer Examination with a rating of 71.64%
The PRC has informed the Commission that the name
ISSUE: WON Paitim and Cruz were denied of due process
RanulfoAlbao does not appear I the Table of Results and
Masterlists of examinees
RULING: NO
That the examinee number appearing in the Report of Rating is
On the basis of a tip-off that the two public employees were involved in an
assigned to BienvinedoAnio
anomalous act, the CSC conducted an investigation and verified that the two
employees were indeed guilty of dishonesty. Thus, in accordance with the
Respondent contended that the Commission has no jurisdiction for the
CSC law, the petitioners merited the penalty of dismissal.
following grounds, among others:
CA held that based on Sections 12, 47 and 48 of EO 292, the CSC-NCR RULING: NO
does not have jurisdiction to investigate and decide the case against Albao. The SC, in one case, laid down the requisites of procedural due process in
administrative proceedings, to wit:
Petitioner invokes Sec 12 (11), (16) in relation to Section 16 (15 [c]) of EO (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's
292, as such when the Commission comes to know of any transgression case and submit evidence in support thereof;
committed by a government employee, it can initiate the necessary (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
proceedings. In this case, it is due to discovery of Albao’s spurious eligibility. (3) the decision must have something to support itself;
(4) the evidence must be substantial;
ISSUE: WON CSC has original jurisdiction over the admin case (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
RULING: YES parties affected;
Pursuant to Sections 47 and 48 of EO 292, it is the VP of the Philippines, as (6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own
head of office, who is vested with jurisdiction to commence disciplinary action independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy,
against Albao. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) the Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render
Nevertheless, this Court does not agree that petitioner is helpless to act its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can
directly and motu proprio, on the alleged acts of dishonesty and falsification know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision
of official document committed by respondent in connection with his rendered. In addition, administrative due process includes
appointment to a permanent position in the Office of the Vice President.It is (a) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the
true that Section 47 (2), Title 1 (A), Book V of EO No. 292 gives the heads of institution of the proceedings that may affect a person's legal right;
government offices original disciplinary jurisdiction over their own (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his
subordinates. rights and to introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his
favor;
The present case,partakes of an act by petitioner to protect the integrity of (c) a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable
the civil service system, and does not fall under the provision on disciplinary assurance of honesty and impartiality, and one of competent
actions under Sec. 47. It falls under the provisions of Sec. 12, par. 11, on jurisdiction; and
administrative cases instituted by it directly. This is an integral part of its duty, (d) a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by
authority and power to administer the civil service system and protect its substantial evidence presented at the hearing or at least
integrity, as provided in Article IX-B, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, by removing ascertained in the records or disclosed to the parties.
from its list of eligibles those who falsified their qualifications. This is to be
distinguished from ordinary proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide It is self-evident from the ruling case law that the officer who reviews a case
member of the system, for acts or omissions that constitute violations of the on appeal should not be the same person whose decision is the subject of
law or the rules of the service. review. Thus, it was ruled that "the reviewing officer must perforce be other
than the officer whose decision is under review."
MIGUEL SINGSON v. NLRC and PAL Petitioner was denied due process when Commissioner Aquino participated,
G.R. No. 122389 | June 19, 1997 as presiding commissioner of the Second Division of the NLRC, in reviewing
“Labor Arbiter Aquino whose decision is subject of appeal is the reviewing private respondent PAL's appeal. He was reviewing his own decision as a
officer as Commissioner of NLRC, not allowed” former labor arbiter. Under Rule VII, Section 2 (b) of the New Rules of
Procedure of the NLRC, each Division shall consist of one member from the
FACTS: Singson was employed by PAL as Traffic Representative public sector who shall act as the Presiding Commissioner and one member
Passenger, Handling Division whose duty consisted of checking in each from the workers and employers sectors, respectively.The composition
passengers and baggafe for a particular flight. He was assigned to serve the of the Division guarantees equal representation and impartiality among its
check-in counter of Japan Airlines. Among the passengers checked in by him members. Thus, litigants are entitled to a review of three (3) commissioners
was Ms. Lolita Kondo who was bound for Narita, Japan. After checking in, who are impartial right from the start of the process of review.
Ms. Kondo lodged a complaint against Singson alleging that the latter
required her to pay 200 US Dollars for alleged excess baggage without Aquino can hardly be considered impartial since he was the arbiter who
issuing any receipt. Petitioner was administratively charged and investigated decided the case under review. He should have inhibited himself from any
by a committee formed by PAL. Per recommendation of the committee, PAL participation in this case
dismissed petitioner from the service.
TEJANO V. DESIERTO
Petitioner lodged a complaint against PAL before the NLRC-NCR for illegal
dismissal and was raffled to then LA Raul Aquino. Aquino found the evidence 159190
adduced by PAL to be insufficient and declared that petitioner was illegally
dismissed.
FACTS: We agree with the Tejano. Steadfastly, we have ruled that the officer who
reviews a case on appeal should not be the same person whose decision is
The report of Resident Auditor Alexander A. Tan implicated Vice President under review. In Zambales Chromite Mining Company v. Court of Appeals,
Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr., Executive Officer Emilio Montesa, and Supervising the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources was set
Branch Teller Jane Rita Jecong, all of the PNB, Cebu City Branch, including aside by this Court after it had been established that the case concerned an
Juana dela Cruz and Vicente dela Cruz of V&G, as persons involved in the appeal of the Secretary’s own previous decision, which he handed down
irregular withdrawal of P2.2 million of PNB funds. while he was yet the incumbent Director of Mines. We have equally declared
void a decision rendered by the Second Division of the National Labor
Relations Commission, because one of its members, Commissioner Raul
Aquino, participated in the review of the case which he had earlier decided
Graft Investigation Officer Edgardo G. Canton recommended the filing of the on as a former labor arbiter. Likewise, this Court struck down a decision of
properinformation for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Presidential Executive Assistance Jacobo Clave over a resolution of the Civil
Service Commission, in which he, then concurrently its Chairman, had earlier
The resolution was thereafter referred for review to Special Prosecutor III concurred.
Orlando I. Ines of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
Having participated in the initial preliminary investigation of the instant case
In a Memorandum dated 25 October 1994, Ines affirmed the resolution of and having recommended the filing of an appropriate information, it
Graft Investigation Officer Edgardo G. Canton. behooved Ombudsman Desierto to recuse himself from participating in the
review of the same during the reinvestigation.
On 28 October 1994, Deputy Special Prosecutor Jose De G. Ferrer
recommended the approval of the memorandum of Special Prosecution
Officer Ines.
REP V. EXPRESS TELECOM
On 08 November 1994, Aniano A. Desierto, then the Special Prosecutor,
concurred in the approval of Ferrer. Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez 147096
concurred thereto on 11 November 1994.
NTC order reviving archived application of BayanTel w/o notice to oppositor
Subsequently, on 24 November 1994, an Information for violation of Section is not denial of procedural due process (Rep. vs. Express Telecom, 373
3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended, was filed before the Sandiganbayan, SCRA 319)
and docketed as Criminal Case No. 21654.
FACTS:
On 22 December 1994, Tejano filed his motion for reinvestigation in the
Office of the Special Prosecutor. On December 29, 1992, Bayantel filed an application with the National
Telecommunications Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenienceto
On 20 April 1995, the Sandiganbayan ordered the Office of the Special install, operate and maintain a digital Cellular Mobile Telephone
Prosecutor to conduct the reinvestigation. The reinvestigation was assigned System/Service (CMTS) .
to Special Prosecution Officer III Jesus Micael.
NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 4-1-93 directing all interested
Convinced that no probable cause existed to indict Tejano, Special applicants for nationwide or regional CMTS to file their respective
Prosecutor Micael, in a memorandum dated 03 November 1999, applications before the Commission on or before February 15, 1993, and
recommended the dismissal of the case. Therecommendation was approved deferring the acceptance of any application filed after said date until further
by Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. Kallos and concurred in by Special orders.
Prosecutor Leonardo P. Tamayo.
On May 6, 1993, Bayantel filed an urgent ex-parte motion to admit an
On 10 December 1999, Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, who earlier amended application. (lagpas sa feb 15 deadline).
participated in the initial preliminary investigation as Special Prosecutor,
disapproved the recommendation for the dismissal of the case with the Subsequently, hearings were conducted on the amended application. But
marginal note “assign the case to another prosecutor to prosecute the case before Bayantel could complete the presentation of its evidence, the NTC
aggressively. issued an Order dated December 19, 1993 stating:
Tejano filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On 14 July 2003, Ombudsman In view of the recent grant of two (2) separate Provisional Authorities in favor
Simeon V. Marcelo, who succeeded Ombudsman Desierto when he retired, of ISLACOM and GMCR, Inc., which resulted in the closing out of all available
approved Joselito Ferrer’s memorandum recommending the denial of the frequencies for the service being applied for by herein applicant, and in order
motion for reconsideration. that this case may not remain pending for an indefinite period of time, AS
PRAYED FOR, let this case be, as it is, hereby ordered ARCHIVED without
ISSUE: prejudice to its reinstatement if and when the requisite frequency becomes
available.
Whether or not Ombudsman Desierto committed grave abuse of discretion
in disapproving the memorandum of Special Prosecutor Jesus Micael On May 17, 1999, Bayantel filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Revive Case, citing
recommending the dismissal of Criminal Case against Tejano, where he had the availability of new frequency bands for CMTS operators.
earlier participated in the preliminary investigation of the said criminal case
recommending the filing of the information. YES On February 1, 2000, the NTC granted BayanTel’s motion to revive the
latter’s application.
RULING:
Express Telecommunication Co., Inc. an Opposition (With Motion to Dismiss)
Ombudsman Desierto, in this case, committed grave abuse of discretion. praying for the dismissal of Bayantel’s application. Extelcom argued that
Tejano attributes partiality on the part of Ombudsman Desierto for having Bayantel’s motion sought the revival of an archived application filed almost
participated in the reinvestigation of the instant case despite the fact that he eight (8) years ago. Thus, the documentary evidence and the allegations of
earlier participated in the initial preliminary investigation of the same when he respondent Bayantel in this application are all outdated and should no longer
be used as basis of the necessity for the proposed CMTS service. Moreover,
NTC granted BayanTel’s application. “While standing before a mirror, near the office door of Jose J. Lucas, Raquel
noticed a chair at her right side which Mr. Jose Lucas, at that very instant
The Court of Appeals ruled that the NTC committed grave abuse of discretion used to sit upon. Thereafter, Mr. Lucas bent to reach for his shoe. At that
when it revived Bayantel’s application based on an ex-parte motion. moment she felt Mr. Lucas’ hand touching her thigh and running down his
palm up to her ankle. She was shocked and suddenly faced Mr. Lucas and
The Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the fundamental right admonished him not to do it again or she will kick him. But Lucas touched her
of Extelcom to due process when it was not afforded the opportunity to again and so she hit Mr. Lucas. Suddenly Mr. Lucas shouted at her saying
question the motion for the revival of the application. ‘lumabas ka na at huwag na huwag ka nang papasok dito kahit kailan’ A
verbal exchange then ensued and respondent Lucas grabbed Raquel by the
ISSUE: arm and shoved her towards the door causing her to stumble, her both hands
protected her face from smashing upon the door. Mr. Lucas, bent on literally
WON there was a violation of Extelcom’s the right to due process. NO throwing the affiant out of the office, grabbed her the second time while she
attempted to regain her posture after being pushed the first time.”
RULING:
On June 17, 1992, Lucas submitted a letter to Jose P. Nitullano, assistant
It must be noted that said Order referred to a simple revival of the archived head, BOPI, denying the charges. According to Lucas, he did not touch the
application of Bayantel in NTC Case No. 92-426. At this stage, it cannot be thigh of complainant Linatok, that what transpired was that he accidentally
said that Extelcom’s right to procedural due process was prejudiced. It will brushed Linatok’s leg when he reached for his shoes and that the same was
still have the opportunity to be heard during the full-blown adversarial merely accidental and he did not intend nor was there malice when his hand
hearings that will follow. In fact, the records show that the NTC has scheduled got in contact with Linatok’s leg.
several hearing dates for this purpose, at which all interested parties shall be
allowed to register their opposition. We have ruled that there is no denial of On May 31, 1993, after a formal investigation by the BOPI, DA, the board
due process where full-blown adversarial proceedings are conducted before issued a resolution finding respondent guilty of simple misconduct and
an administrative body. recommending a penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day.
The Secretary of Agriculture approved the recommendation.
With Extelcom having fully participated in the proceedings, and indeed, given
the opportunity to file its opposition to the application, there was clearly no In due time, Lucas appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission
denial of its right to due process. (CSC). On July 7, 1994, the CSC issued a resolution finding respondent guilty
of grave misconduct and imposing on him the penalty of dismissal from the
In Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan (166 SCRA 316 [1988]), we held that the right service. Lucas moved for reconsideration but the CSC denied the motion.
to be heard does not only refer to the right to present verbal arguments in
court. A party may also be heard through his pleadings. where opportunity to The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision setting aside the resolution of
be heard is accorded either through oral arguments or pleadings, there is no the CSC and reinstating the resolution of the BOPI. The Court of Appeals
denial of procedural due process. As reiterated in National Semiconductor ruled that “a basic requirement of due process on the other hand is that a
(HK) Distribution, Ltd. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 123520, June 26, 1998), the person must be duly informed of the charges against him (Felicito Sajonas
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 183 SCRA 182).
to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side. Hence,
in Navarro III vs. Damaso (246 SCRA 260 [1995]), we held that a formal or CSC anchors its position on the view that “the formal charge against a
trial-type hearing is not at all times and not in all instances essential. Plainly, respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision
Extelcom was not denied due process. of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised
of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the
Extelcom had already entered its appearance as a party and filed its allegation of the acts complained of, and not the designation of the offense.”
opposition to the application. It was neither precluded nor barred from
participating in the hearings thereon. Indeed, nothing, not even the Order ISSUE:
reviving the application, bars or prevents Extelcom and the other oppositors
from participating in the hearings and adducing evidence in support of their Whether respondent Lucas was denied due process when the CSC found
respective oppositions. The motion to revive could not have possibly caused him guilty of grave misconduct on a charge of simple misconduct. YES
prejudice to Extelcom since the motion only sought the revival of the
application. It was merely a preliminary step towards the resumption of the RULING:
hearings on the application of Bayantel. The latter will still have to prove its
capability to undertake the proposed CMTS. Indeed, in its Order dated As well stated by the Court of Appeals, there is an existing guideline of the
February 1, 2000, the NTC set several hearing dates precisely intended for CSC distinguishing simple and grave misconduct. In the case of Landrito vs.
the presentation of evidence on Bayantel’s capability and qualification. Notice Civil Service Commission, we held that “in grave misconduct as distinguished
of these hearings were sent to all parties concerned, including Extelcom. from simple misconduct, theelementsofcorruption,clear intent to violate the
law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest,” which is
obviously lacking in Lucas’s case.
CSC V. LUCAS Lucas maintains that as he was charged with simple misconduct, the CSC
deprived him of his right to due process by convicting him of grave
127838 misconduct.
Administrative proceedings are not exempt from fundamental procedural We sustain the ruling of the Court of Appealsthat: (a) a basic requirement of
principles, such as right to due process. Respondent must be duly informed due process is that a person must be duly informed of the charges against
of charge vs. him & he cannot be convicted of a crime with w/c he was not himand that (b) a person cannot be convicted of a crime with which he was
charged (CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560) not charged.
FACTS:
Of course, we do not in any way condone Lucas’s act. Even in jest, he had NO. There was no violation. As conversely pointed out by PAGC, Lacson et
no right to touch complainant’s leg. However, under the circumstances, such al cannot claim that their dismissal was unattended by the requisite due
act is not constitutive of grave misconduct, in the absence of proof that Lucas process because they were given the opportunity to be heard in the course
was maliciously motivated. We note that Lucas has been in the service for of PAGCs investigation.
twenty (20) years and this is his first offense.
Indeed, as career service officers, they enjoy security of tenure as
guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. This is further reiterated in Section
36(a) of P.D. No. 807, otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of
LACSON VS PAGC the Philippines, which clearly provides that no officer or employee in the Civil
May 30, 2011 Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by
G.R. Nos. 165399 and 165475 law and after due process.
The tenurial protection accorded to a civil servant is a guaranty of both The tenurial protection accorded to a civil servant is a guaranty of both
procedural & substantive due process. Procedural due process requires procedural and substantive due process. Procedural due process requires
that the dismissal when warranted be effected only after due notice & that the dismissal, when warranted, be effected only after notice and
hearing. While substantive due process requires that dismissal be for legal hearing. On the other hand, substantive due process requires, among others,
cause. Petitioners actively participated in PAGC proceedings where they that the dismissal be for legal cause, which must relate to and effect the
explained their actions thru their memoranda. For failure to appeal to proper administration of the office of which the concerned employee is a member of
forum (to CSC & not to CA), PEA decision has become final & executory. and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting
the rights and interests of the public.
FACTS
Well-established is the rule that the essence of due process in administrative
Theron V. Lacson (Lacson), Jaime R. Millan (Millan) and Bernardo T. proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration
Viray (Viray) were non-presidential appointees and career service officials of of the action or ruling complained of, and to submit any evidence he may
respondent Philippine Estates Authority (PEA), holding the positions of have in support of his defense.The demands of due process are sufficiently
Deputy General Manager for Finance, Legal and Administration; Assistant met when the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment
General Manager; and Department General Manager, respectively. is rendered.
On October 3, 2002, Sulficio O. Tagud (Tagud) filed a complaint-affidavit with In this regard, Lacson et al. actively participated in the proceedings before
the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) accusing Lacson, Millan and PAGC where they were afforded the opportunity to explain their actions
Viray for overpricing, by P600,000,000.00, the contract for the construction through their memoranda.The essence of due process is the right to be heard
of the Central Boulevard Project (the Project), otherwise known as the and this evidently was afforded to them. Thus, petitioners assertion that their
President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard. dismissal was unattended by the requisite due process cannot be sustained.
Acting on the complaint, the Ombudsman proceeded with the investigation In sum, the removal from office of Lacson et al. was valid. PEA dismissed
of both the criminal and the administrative aspects of the case. The criminal them for cause and in accordance with the requisites of due process.
casecharged Lacson et al. for committing an act in violation of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7080.The administrative case, on the other hand, charged
them with Dishonesty, Serious Misconduct and Acts Inimical to the Interest RUIVIVAR VS OMBUDSMAN
of the Public Service in violation of Section 52A (1), (3) and (20) of the September 16, 2008
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. G.R. No. 165012
Meanwhile, on October 14, 2002, the Presidential Anti-Graft There is no denial of due process when on her filing a MR from the decision
Commission (PAGC) requested the Ombudsman for authority to conduct reprimanding her was given opportunity to be heard but she refused to file
administrative disciplinary proceedings against Lacson et al. and other pleading.
individuals involved in the Project.
FACTS
Subsequently, on November 12, 2002, a formal complaint was filed by the
Investigation Office of PAGC charging several employees of PEA, including On May 24, 2002, the Dr. Bernardo filed an Affidavit-Complaint
Lacson et al., with acts and/or omissions contrary to: (1) IRR of PD No. 1594, charging Ruivivarbefore the Ombudsman of serious misconduct, conduct
as amended; (2) R.A. No. 3019, as amended; (3) Article 217 of the Revised unbecoming of a public official, abuse of authority, and violations of the
Penal Code in relation to R.A. No. 3019, as amended; (4) the Construction Revised Penal Code and of the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Dr. Bernardo
Agreement signed on April 10, 2000 between PEA and J.D. Legaspi stated in her complaint that she is the President of the Association of Drug
Construction; and (5) EO No. 292, as amended, in relation to R.A. No. 3019, Testing Centers (Association) that conducts drug testing and medical
as amended. examination of applicants for driver’s license. In this capacity, she went to the
Land Transportation Office (LTO) on May 17, 2002 to meet with
On November 28, 2002, PAGC issued a resolution recommending the representatives from the Department of Transportation and Communication
dismissal of Lacson, et al. from PEA with the imposition of thecorresponding (DOTC) and to file a copy of the Associations request to lift the moratorium
accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification imposed by the LTO on the accreditation of drug testing clinics. Before
from employment in the government. On July 25, 2003, PEA dismissed the proceeding to the office of the LTO Commissioner for these purposes, she
Lacson, et al. passed by the office of Ruivivarto conduct a follow up on the status of her
company’s application for accreditation. While there, Ruivivar-- without
Lacson et al. argue that they were denied due process because their order provocation or any justifiable reason and in the presence of other LTO
of dismissal was not accompanied by any justification from the PEA Board of employees and visitors -- shouted at her in a very arrogant and insulting
Directors who merely relied on the findings of PAGC. manner, hurled invectives upon her person, and prevented her from entering
the office of the LTO Commissioner. Ruivivaralso accused the Dr. Bernardo
ISSUE
WON Ruivivar was denied of her right to due process when she was deprived Gaoiransought reconsideration of the formal charge and preventive
of her right to confront the evidence submitted against her before the suspension order, contending that the letter-complaint was not under oath
Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman was rendered. and that he was not informed nor apprised of the complaint against him
before, during and after the preliminary fact-finding investigation.
RULING
Since Castillejos letter-complaint failed to comply with the formal
requirements of the law, Gaoiranmaintains that Director Mayo rightfully
NO. She was not denied of her right to due process.Ruivivar has
dismissed the same and that Alcala abused his discretion when he dismissed
been granted the opportunity to be heard and has refused to avail of this
them from the service.
opportunity; hence, she cannot claim denial of due process. She was given
the opportunity by Dr. Bernardo to rebut the affidavits submitted by her. . .
and had a speedy and adequate administrative remedy but she failed to avail
thereof for reasons only known to her. ISSUE
The records show that Ruivivarduly filed a motion for WON the letter-complaint filed by Castillejo constitutes as a complaint which
reconsideration on due process grounds (i.e., for Dr. Bernardo’s failure to must be verified.
furnish her copies of the affidavits of witnesses) and on questions relating to
the appreciation of the evidence on record.The Ombudsman acted on this
motion by issuing its Order of January 17, 2003belatedly furnishing her with
copies of Dr. Bernardo’s witnesses, together with the directive to file, within RULING
ten (10) days from receipt of this Order, such pleading which she may deem
NO. The pertinent provisions governing the initiation of administrative
fit under the circumstances.
complaints against civil service officials or employees are provided in Book
V of E.O. No. 292. Sections 46(c) and 48(1) and (2), Chapter 6, Subtitle A
Given this opportunity to act on the belatedly-furnished affidavits,
thereof read:
Ruivivarsimply chose to file a Manifestation where she took the position that
the order of the Ombudsman dated 17 January 2003 supplying her with the
affidavits of the complainant does not cure the 04 November 2002 order, and Sec. 46. Discipline: General provisions.
on this basis prayed that the Ombudsman’s decision be reconsidered and
the complaint dismissed for lack of merit.
(c) Except when initiated by the disciplining authority, no complaint
NOTE: Although they are separate and distinct concepts, exhaustion of against a civil service official or employee shall be given due course
administrative remedies and due process embody linked and related unless the same is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the
principles. The exhaustion principle applies when the ruling court or complainant.
tribunal is not given the opportunity to re-examine its findings and
conclusions because of an available opportunity that a party seeking It must be pointed out that, while the letter-complaint of Castillejo was
recourse against the court or the tribunals ruling omitted to take.Under the not concededly verified, appended thereto were the verified criminal
concept of due process, on the other hand, a violation occurs when a court complaint that he filed against the Gaoiran, as well as the sworn statements
or tribunal rules against a party without giving him or her the opportunity to of his witnesses. These documents could very well be considered as
be heard. Thus, the exhaustion principle is based on the perspective of the constituting the complaint against Gaoiran. In fact, this Court, through the
ruling court or tribunal, while due process is considered from the point of view Court Administrator, investigates and takes cognizance of, not only
of the litigating party against whom a ruling was made. The commonality they unverified, but also even anonymous complaints filed against court
share is in the same opportunity that underlies both. employees or officials for violations of the Code of Ethical Conduct.Indeed, it
is not totally uncommon that a government agency is given a wide latitude in
the scope and exercise of its investigative powers.After all, in administrative
proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
GAOIRAN VS ALCALA applied.
November 26, 2004
G.R. No. 150178 In any case, contrary to the Gaoiran’s assertion, the letter-complaint
of Castillejo is not a complaint within the purview of the provisions mentioned
above. In the fairly recent case of Civil Service Commission v. Court of
CONCERNED MWSS OFFICIALS VS. VASQUEZ After completing the units of course work required in her doctoral program,
240 SCRA 502 she worked on her dissertation entitled, "Tamil Influences in Malaysia,
Indonesia and the Philippines."
One may be heard not solely by verbal presentation but also thru pleadings
in admin proceedings. Technical rules of procedure & evidence are not However, after going over her dissertation, the assistant Dean informed the
strictly applied CSSP Dean Paz that there were portions in Celine’s dissertation that was
lifted from various published works without proper acknowledgment.
FACTS: Nonetheless, Celine was allowed to defend her dissertation and was able to
have a passing mark.
Private respondent Philippine Large Diameter Pressure Pipes
Manufacturer’s Association (PLDPPMA) filed a complaint before the Office Dean Paz in a letter, then requested the Vice Chancellor for Academic
of the Ombudsman on the public bidding conducted by MWSS for projects Affairs, to exclude Celine from the list of candidates for graduation, pending
APM-01 and APM-02 of its Angat Water Supply Optimization Project clarification of the problems regarding the latter’s dissertation. Apparently,
(AWSOP), which aims to provide 1.3 million liters of water daily to about 3.8 the letter did not reach the Board of Regents on time and Celine was able to
million residents in the metropolitan area. The letter of complaint accused graduate.
the MWSS of an apparent plan even before the bidding to favour suppliers of
fiberglass pipes and urged the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation to Subsequently, the assistant dean formally charged Celine with plagiarism
hold in abeyance the award of contracts. and recommended that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn. Various
ad hoc committees were then formed to investigate the plagiarism charge
The Fact finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman against Celine. In a letter, Dean Paz informed Celine of the charges against
issued an injunction directed to the Board of Trustees of the MWSS (1) to her and in a subsequent letter; Celine was summoned to a meeting and was
set aside the recommendation of its Pre-qualification, Bids, and Awards asked to submit her written explanation to the charges against her. During
Committee for Construction Services and Technical Equipment (PBAC- the meeting, Celine was informed of the charges against her and was
CSTE) that contract no. APM-01 be given to a contractor offering fiberglass provided a copy of the findings of the investigating committee. Celine on the
pipes and (2) to instead award the contract to a complying and responsive other hand submitted her written explanation in a letter.
bidder.
Subsequently, the investigating committees submitted their report with the
Petitioner MWSS assailed the order of the Ombudsman for lack of jurisdiction same conclusion, - that there was indeed an overwhelming proof of massive
of the Ombudsman over PLDPPMA’s complaint and for issuing the lifting and even admission on the part of Ms. Celine that she plagiarized, and
challenged order contrary to PD 1818 prohibiting the issuance of restraining so the Committee recommended the withdrawal of the doctoral degree of Ms.
orders/injunctions in cases involving government infrastructure projects. Celine.
ISSUE: On the basis of such report, a letter was sent to Celine informing her of the
withdrawal of her Ph.D degree. Celine then raised the matter to the Trial
Whether or not there was a violation of due process. NO Court which dismissed the same. Upon appeal however, the CA reversed the
decision of the Trial Court on the basis that Celine was denied due process.
RULING: Hence this petition.
Relative to the first issue, we are more than convinced, after a scrutiny of the ISSUE:
records of this case, that petitioners have been amply accorded the
opportunity to be heard. WON Celine was denied of Due Process. No.
WON the UP Board of Regents has the authority to withdraw the
Petitioners were asked to comment on the letter-complaint of PLDPPMA. On Ph.D already conferred. Yes.
25 June 1992, petitioners moved for an extension of time within which to
comment. On July 16, 1992, petitioners filed their letter-comment. RULING:
Responding to the reply of PLDPPMA, petitioners later filed a rejoinder.
First, from the facts of the case it is clear that various committees had been
formed to investigate the charge that private respondent had committed NPC vs. NLRC
plagiarism and, in all the investigations held, she was heard in her defense 272 SCRA 707
and consequently all investigations resulted in a finding that Celine
committed dishonesty in submitting her doctoral dissertation on the basis of Service of summons or order on OSG is indispensable ingredient of due
which she was conferred the Ph.D. degree. process
RULING: