PADUA v.

RANADA
G.R. No. 141949. October 14, 2002

FACTS

Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) issued Resolution No. 2001-89 authorizing provisional toll rate
adjustments on Metro Manila Skyway. It was thereafter published in newspapers of general
circulation for three (3) consecutive weeks. However, there was no hearing conducted for the
matter. Deliberations were not even attended by Board Members except TRB Executive Director
Jaime Dumlao, Jr. Petitioners assail the validity of the resolution.

ISSUES

Whether or not Resolution No. 2001-89 is invalid on the ground that:

(a) it was in violation of due process;
(b) the provisional toll rate adjustments are exorbitant, oppressive, onerous and unconscionable;
and,
(c) TRB Executive Director Jaime Dumlao, Jr. alone authorized the provisional increase.

RULING

(a) No. TRB clearly complied with the publication requirements. Also, the TRB may grant and
issue ex-parte to any petitioner, without need of notice, publication or hearing, provisional
authority to collect, pending hearing and decision on the merits of the petition, the increase in
rates prayed for or such lesser amount as the TRB may in its discretion provisionally grant.

(b) No. This is obviously a question of fact requiring knowledge of the formula used and the
factors considered in determining the assailed rates.  Definitely, this task is within the province
of the TRB. The SC takes cognizance of the wealth of jurisprudence on the doctrine of primary
administrative jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies.  In this era of clogged
court dockets, the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special
knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical
matters or intricate questions of facts, subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of
discretion, is indispensable.  Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court,
the unmistakable trend is to refer it to the former.”

(c) No. It is not true that it was TRB Executive Director Dumlao, Jr. alone who issued Resolution
No. 2001-89.  The Resolution itself contains the signature of the four TRB Directors. Petitioner
Padua would argue that while these Directors signed the Resolution, none of them personally
attended the hearing.  This argument is misplaced. Under our jurisprudence, an administrative
agency may employ other persons, such as a hearing officer, examiner or investigator, to receive
evidence, conduct hearing and make reports, on the basis of which the agency shall render its
decision.  Such a procedure is a practical necessity. Corollarily, in a catena of cases, the Supreme
Court laid down the cardinal requirements of due process in administrative proceedings, one of
which is that “the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate.”  Thus, it is logical to say that this mandate was rendered precisely to ensure that in
cases where the hearing or reception of evidence is assigned to a subordinate, the body or agency
shall not merely rely on his recommendation but instead shall personally weigh and assess the
evidence which the said subordinate has gathered.”

DOMINGO v. ZAMORA
GR No. 142283. February 6, 2003

FACTS
President Estrada issued EO entitled Transferring the Sports Programs and Activities of the
DECS to the Philippine Sports Commission in School-Based Sports. Pursuant to EO 81, former
DECS Secretary Gonzales issued a Memorandum which temporarily reassigned, in the exigency
of the service, all remaining BPESS Staff to other divisions or bureaus of the DECS.

ISSUE

Is the reassignment valid?

RULING

Yes. Since EO 81 is based on the Presidents continuing authority under Section 31 (2) and (3) of
EO 292, it is a valid exercise of the Presidents delegated power to reorganize the Office of the
President. The law grants the President this power in recognition of the recurring need of every
President to reorganize his office to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency. The Office of
the President is the nerve center of the Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the
Office of the President must be capable of being shaped and reshaped by the President in the
manner he deems fit to carry out his directives and policies. After all, the Office of the President
is the command post of the President. This is the rationale behind the Presidents continuing
authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President.

TERESITA G. FABIAN vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as

ombudsman; HON. JESUS F. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon; and NESTOR V. AGUSTIN
GR No143902

FACTS

Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction Development
Corporation (PROMAT) which was engaged in the construction business w/ Agustin. Agustin
was the incumbent District Engineering District (FMED) when he allegedly committed the
offenses for which he was administratively charged in the Office in the office of the
Ombudsman. Misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents developed between the parties and
when Fabian tried to terminate their relationship, Agustin refused and resisted her attempts to do
so to the extent of employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats. She eventually filed
the aforementioned administrative case against him. A case ensued which eventually led an
appeal to the Ombudsman – who inhibited himself – later the case led to the deputy
Ombudsman. The deputy ruled in favor of Agustin and he said the decision is final and
executory. Fabian appealed the case to the SC. She averred that Section 27 of Republic Act No.
6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) pertinently provides that -In all administrative diciplinary cases,
orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme
Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of
the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not Sec 27 of the Ombudsman Act is valid.

RULING

Taking all the foregoing circumstances in their true legal roles and effects, therefore, Section 27
of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the
proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the
Appellate jurisdiction of this Court. No countervailing argument has been cogently presented to
justify such disregard of the constitutional prohibition. That constitutional provision was
intended to give this Court a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate
Jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate
jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court.