Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

m M

 powerless to penalize it. In other words, Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and
84-1, in penalizing electro fishing, are devoid of any legal basis.

Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing, a penal provision
to that effect could have been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law.
Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular
department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be
Facts: for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such
regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended to amend or expand
the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.
On March 7, 1969 Jose Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes, Benjamin Reyes,
Nazario Aquino and Carlito del Rosario were charged by a Constabulary
investigator in the municipal court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna with having violated
Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1. It was alleged in the complaint that
the five accused in the morning of March 1, 1969 resorted to electro fishing in x   ! " #
the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz using a device or equipment
to catch fish thru electric current which thereby destroy any aquatic animals
within its current reach, to the detriment and prejudice of the populace. The &  '(')*
municipal court quashed the complaint and the CFI affirmed such dismissal.
Hence this petition.


Issue: The petitioner, Joel Bito-Onon is the duly elected Barangay Chairman of
Barangay Tacras, Narra, Palawan and is the Municipal Liga Chapter
Whether or not the 1967 regulation, penalizing electro fishing in fresh water President for the Municipality of Narra, Palawan. The private respondent,
fisheries, promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Elegio Quejano, Jr. on the other hand, is the duly elected Barangay
and the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law Chairman of Barangay Rizal, Magsaysay, Palawan and is the Municipal Liga
creating the Fisheries Commission is valid. Chapter President for the Municipality of Magsaysay, Palawan. Both Onon
and Quejano were candidates for the position of Executive Vice-President in
Held: the August 23, 1997 election for the Liga ng Barangay Provincial Chapter of
the province of Palawan. Onon was proclaimed the winning candidate in the
said election prompting Quejano to file a post proclamation protest with the
No. The court held that the that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Board of Election Supervisors (BES), which was decided against him on
Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in
August 25, 1997. Not satisfied with the decision of the BES, Quejano filed a
issuing Fisheries Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1 and that those
Petition for Review of the decision of the BES with the Regional Trial Court of
orders are not warranted under the Fisheries Commission, Republic Act No.
Palawan and Puerto Princesa City (RTC). On April 26, 1999, Onon filed a
motion to dismiss the Petition for Review raising the issue of jurisdiction.
Onon claimed that the RTC had no jurisdiction to review the decisions
The reason is that the Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro rendered by the BES in any post proclamation electoral protest in connection
fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under that law, the Secretary of with the 1997 Liga ng mga Barangay election of officers and directors. In his
Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are motion to dismiss, Onon claimed that the Supplemental Guidelines for the
1997 Liga ng mga Barangay election issued by the DILG on August 11, 1997
m M

in its Memorandum Circular No. 97-193, providing for review of decisions or as "the power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers perform their
resolutions of the BES by the regular courts of law is an ultra vires act and is functions in accordance with law."15 This is distinguished from the power of
void for being issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, as its issuance is not control or "the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a
a mere act of supervision but rather an exercise of control over the Liga's subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
internal organization. On June 22, 1999, the RTC denied Onon's motion to substitute the judgment of the former for the latter."
dismiss. Motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition.

Issue:   + , -

    " .      + "

The court held that Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 of the DILG insofar as Facts:
it authorizes the filing a Petition for Review of the decision of the BES with
the regular courts in a post proclamation electoral protest is of doubtful Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the UHF television
constitutionality. We agree with both the petitioner and the Solicitor General station, EMC Channel 27. On January 7, 2000, respondent MTRCB issued
that in authorizing the filing of the petition for review of the decision of the an order of suspension against petitioner for airing "Muro Ami: The Making"
BES with the regular courts, the DILG Secretary in effect amended and without first securing a permit from it as provided in Section 7 of PD 1986.

modified the GUIDELINES promulgated by the National Liga Board and

adopted by the LIGA which provides that the decision of the BES shall be The penalty of suspension was based on Memorandum Circular 98-17 dated
subject to review by the National Liga Board. The amendment of the 4
December 15, 1998 which provided for the penalties for exhibiting a
GUIDELINES is more than an exercise of the power of supervision but is an
program without a valid permit from the MTRCB.
exercise of the power of control, which the President does not have over the
LIGA. Although the DILG is given the power to prescribe rules, regulations
and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits its authority to merely Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the suspension order and, at the
"monitoring compliance" by local government units of such issuances. To same time, informed MTRCB that Channel 27 had complied with the
monitor means "to watch, observe or check" and is compatible with the suspension order by going off the air since midnight of January 11, 2000. It
power of supervision of the DILG Secretary over local governments, which is also filed a letter-protest which was merely "noted" by the MTRCB thereby, in
limited to checking whether the local government unit concerned or the effect, denying both the motion for reconsideration and letter-protest.
officers thereof perform their duties as per statutory enactments. Besides,
any doubt as to the power of the DILG Secretary to interfere with local affairs Petitioner then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari which was dismissed
should be resolved in favor of the greater autonomy of the local government. in the now assailed June 18, 2001 decision. The January 7, 2000 suspension
order issued by MTRCB was affirmed in toto.
**take note of the meaning of power of supervision and power of control..
Hence, this recourse.
The President's power of general supervision over local government units is
conferred upon him by the Constitution. The power of supervision is defined Issue:
m M

Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was enforceable and Constabulary command attesting that the carabaos were not included in the
binding on petitioner list of lost, stolen and questionable animals; one from the LIvestock
inspector, Bureau of Animal Industry of Libmanan, Camarines Sur and one
Held: from the mayor of Sipocot.

The court held that while MTRCB had jurisdiction over the subject program, In spite of the permit to transport and the said four certificates, the carabaos,
Memorandum Circular 98-17, which was the basis of the suspension order, while passing at Basud, Camarines Norte, were confiscated by Lieutenant
was not binding on petitioner. The Administrative Code of 1987, particularly Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, the town's police station commander, and by Doctor
Section 3 thereof, expressly requires each agency to file with the Office of Bella S. Miranda, provincial veterinarian. The confiscation was basis on the
the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the University of the aforementioned Executive Order No. 626-A which provides "that henceforth,
Philippines Law Center three certified copies of every rule adopted by it. no carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no
Administrative issuances which are not published or filed with the ONAR are carabeef shall be transported from one province to another. The carabaos or
ineffective and may not be enforced. carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be
subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government to be distributed ... to
Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, which provides for the penalties for the deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may
first, second and third offenses for exhibiting programs without valid permit to see fit, in the case of carabaos"
exhibit, has not been registered with the ONAR as of January 27, 2000.10
Hence, the same is yet to be effective.11 It is thus unenforceable since it has Issue:
not been filed in the ONAR. Consequently, petitioner was not bound by said
circular and should not have been meted the sanction provided thereunder. Whether or not Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A dated October 25,
1980, providing for the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of
 carabaos transported from one province to another is enforceable before
publication in the Official Gazette of June 14, 1982
ô 3  3  
4 0 %0
The court held that the said executive order should not be enforced against
56- the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because, as already noted, it is a penal
regulation published more than two months later in the Official Gazette dated
June 14, 1982. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in
article 2 of the Civil Code and section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.
The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes circulars
Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in
and regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to
an Isuzu ten-wheeler truck in the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six
apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make the said
carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia,
penalties binding on the persons affected thereby.
Batangas, as the destination.
In the instant case, the livestock inspector and the provincial veterinarian of
They were provided with (1) a health certificate from the provincial
Camarines Norte and the head of the Public Affairs Office of the Ministry of
veterinarian of Camarines Sur, issued under the Revised Administrative
Agriculture were unaware of Executive Order No. 626-A. The Pesigans could
Code and Presidential Decree No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974;
not have been expected to be cognizant of such an executive order.
(2) a permit to transport large cattle issued under the authority of the
provincial commander; and (3) three certificates of inspection, one from the
m M

It results that they have a cause of action for the recovery of the carabaos. the same null and void. The Court held that until the trawler is outlawed by
The summary confiscation was not in order. The recipients of the carabaos legislative enactment, it cannot be banned from San Miguel Bay by executive
should return them to the Pesigans. However, they cannot transport the proclamation and held that the EOs 22 and 66 are invalid.
carabaos to Batangas because they are now bound by the said executive
order. Neither can they recover damages. Doctor Miranda and Zenarosa ISSUES:
acted in good faith in ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of the carabaos.
1. W/N the President has authority to issue EOs 22, 66 and 80
2. W/N the said EOs were valid as it was not in the exercise of
legislative powers unduly delegated to the President


1. YES. Under sections 75 and 83 of the Fisheries law, the restriction

and banning of trawl fishing from all Philippine waters come within
the powers of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
However, as the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
exercises its functions subject to the general supervision and control
   7   of the President of the Philippines, the President can exercise the
same power and authority through executive orders, regulations,
4 14  %1 decrees and proclamations upon recommendation of the Secretary
concerned. Hence, EOs 22,66 and 80 restricting and banning of
! 8
trawl fishing from San Miguel Bay are valid and issued by authority of
2. YES. For the protection of fry or fish eggs and small immature fishes,
The League of Municipal Mayors of municipalities near the San Miguel Bay, Congress intended with the promulgation of the Fisheries Act, to
between the provinces of Camarines Sur and Camarines Norte, manifested prohibit the use of any fish net or fishing devise like trawl nets that
in a resolution that they condemn the operation of trawls in the said area and could endanger and deplete our supply of seafood, and to that end
resolving to petition the President of the Philippines to regulate fishing in San authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to
Miguel Bay. In another resolution, the same League of Mayors prayed that provide by regulations and such restrictions as he deemed
the President ban the operation of trawls in the San Miguel Bay area. In necessary in order to preserve the aquatic resources of the land.
response to the pleas, the President issued EO 22 prohibiting the use of When the President, in response to the clamor of the people and
trawls in San Miguel Bay but the EO was amended by EO 66 apparently in authorities of Camarines Sur issued EO 80 absolutely prohibiting
answer to a resolution of the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur fishing by means of trawls in all waters comprised within the San
recommending the allowance of trawl-fishing during the typhoon season only. Miguel Bay, he did nothing but show an anxious regard for the
Subsequently, EO 80 was issued reviving EO 22. welfare of the inhabitants of said coastal province and dispose of
issues of general concern which were in consonance and strict
Thereafter, a group of Otter trawl operators filed a complaint for injunction conformity with the law.
praying that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Director
of Fisheries be enjoined from enforcing said executive order and to declare
m M

1% %1:
7 %

   . //
277 "9 . //
   3 ) 7 


2 # The petitioners pray for injunctive relief to stop the ERB from implementing
its Order mandating a provisional increase in the prices of petroleum and
petroleum products. The Order, which was in pursuance to EO 172, was a
response to the separate applications of Caltex, Pilipinas Shell and Petron
Atty. Dante David claims that the rear license plate of his car was removed
Corporation for the Board to increase the wholesale posted prices of
by petitioner while his vehicle was parked in Escolta. He filed a complaint in
petroleum products. Petitioners submit that the Order was issued with grave
the RTC of Manila. He questioned the petitioner¶s act on the ground that not
abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction and without proper
only was the car not illegally parked but that there was no law or ordinance
notice and hearing.
authorizing such removal. The lower court ruled that LOI 43, which the
defendant (petitioner) invoked, did not empower it to detach, remove and ISSUE: W/N the ERB committed grave abuse of discretion
confiscate vehicle plates or motor vehicles illegally parked and unattended. It
merely authorizes the removal of said vehicles when they are obstacles to HELD: NO. While under EO 172, a hearing is indispensable, it does not
free passage or continued flow of traffic on streets and highways. Moreover, preclude the Board from ordering, ex parte, a provisional increase, as it did,
the said LOI had been PD 1605. subject to its final disposition of whether or not: 1) to make it permanent;2) to
reduce or increase it further; or 3) to deny the application. The Board has
jurisdiction to decree a price adjustment, subject to the requirements of
notice and hearing. Pending that, however, it may order, under Section 8 of
ISSUE: W/N petitioner is authorized to penalize traffic violations as such
EO 172, an authority to increase provisionally, without need of a hearing,
HELD: No. What the LOI punishes is not a traffic violation but a traffic subject to the final outcome of the proceeding.
obstruction, which is an altogether different offense. LOI 43 deals with motor
. 8
  /    -
x "/.    
vehicles that stall on streets and highways and not those that are
intentionally parked in a public place in violation of a traffic law or regulation. 4 10)  7 %
In the case at bar, it is not alleged or shown that private respondents¶ vehicle
stalled on a public thoroughfare and obstructed the flow of traffic. The charge  
against him is that he purposely parked his vehicle in a no-parking area. The
act, if true is a violation that may not be punished under LOI 43. The
applicable law is PD 1605, which does not include removal and confiscation
Petitioner is a domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators. They
of the license plate of the vehicle among the imposable penalties.
filed the petition seeking to declare the nullity of Memorandum Circular No.
77-42 of the Bureau of Land Transportation. The assailed memorandum
order provides for the phasing out and discontinuance in the operation of

" ' 3$ 3  $x " dilapidated taxis or taxis of Model 1971 and earlier. Pursuant to the said
memorandum, the Bureau of Land Transportation issued Implementing
m M

Circular No. 52 instructing Regional Directors, the MV Registrars and other HELD:
personnel of the BLT, all within the National Capital Region, to implement
said Circular, and formulating a schedule of phase-out of vehicles to be 1. NO. The contention that assailed Department Order has no binding
allowed and accepted for registration as public conveyances. effect, not having been published in the Official Gazette is without
merit. The assailed order being addressed only to the Directors of
ISSUES: W/N the assailed memorandum orders were invalid exercise Public and Private Schools and educational institutions under their
of police power supervision, cannot be said to be of general application, requiring
previous publication in the Official Gazette before it could have
HELD: NO. Section 2 of Presidential Decree 101 grants the Board of binding force and effect.
Transportation the power to fix just and reasonable standards, classification, 2. No. The requirements of the law constitute an adequate standard.
regulations, practices, measurements, or service to be furnished, imposed,
observed, and followed by operators of public utility motor vehicles. As
enunciated in the BOT circular, the overriding consideration is the safety and
comfort of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated )<:2

taxis. The State, in the exercise of its police power, can prescribe regulations
The Philippine Fisheries Commission issued petitioner a fishpond permit.
to promote the health«,safety and general welfare of the people. Thereafter, petitioner and private respondent Nepomuceno executed a
contract which stipulated that Nepomuceno would undertake to develop an
area or 30 hectares out of the 50 hectares covered by the permit issued to
x    ; )
In 1979, the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources recommended
4 0% 7 % to the Ministry of Natural Resources to convert the fishpond permit issued to
petitioner into a 25-year agreement which covered a reduced area. The
 $ x4 lease agreement was then issued to petitioner.

In 1980, private respondent waived his rights, interests and participation over
The action was brought to enjoin the enforcement of Department Order No. the fishpond area in favor of Edgar Chu. Private respondent then informed
8, s. 1955, issued by the Secretary of Education, promulgating rules and BFAR of his development contract with petitioner and that the fishpond was
regulations for the conduct of compulsory flag ceremony in all schools, as almost fully developed at his expense.
provided in Republic Act No. 1265. Petitioners, who are members of the
Jehova¶s Witnesses, contend that the said Department Order denied them In 1981, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent and Chu with
the RTC for recovery of possession and damages. During the pendency of
freedom of worship and of speech, among others. They also contend that the
the case, the Minister of Agriculture and Food cancelled petitioner¶s fishpond
Order is not valid for it was not published in the Official Gazette as required lease agreement. The matter was elevated to the Office of the President but
by law. was dismissed.

ISSUE: Meanwhile, the court rendered a decision in the civil case ordering the
defendants to restore possession and control of the fishpond area, among
1. W/N the Department Order is invalid others.
2. W/N RA 1265 constitutes undue delegation of legislative power
m M

ISSUE: W/N the decision of the Office of the President in cancelling has the power to issue certificates of public convenience. But this power to
petitioner¶s lease agreement should be given weight issue certificates of public convenience does not carry with it the power or
supervision and control over matters not related to the issuance of the
HELD: YES. The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying,
certificate of public convenience or in the performance therewith in a manner
or in suspending or revoking a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of
public convenience and necessity is administrative or quasi-judicial. A suitable to promote public interest. The Board of Communications has power
decision of the Office of the President is explicitly an official act of and an to impose fine only where public service violates or fails to comply with terms
exercise of quasi-judicial power by the Executive Department headed by the and conditions of the certificate of public convenience or the orders,
highest officer of the land, and it thus squarely falls under matters relative to decisions or regulations of the board. Moreover, the proper forum for
the executive department which courts are mandatorily tasked to take judicial complaints of injury caused by breach of obligation should be in the courts.
 9  4"ô
2ô-x "/277 
Private respondent Antonio Arnaiz sent a message to Maria Diaz in Spain
In GR No. L-43653, Diego Morales¶ daughter sent him a telegram while he
through the telegraph office of the Bureau of Telecommunications in
was in Manila, informing him that his wife has died. The telegram was sent
Dumagete and was transmitted to Manila. The message, however, was not
through petitioner RCPI. The telegram, however, never reached Morales.
delivered to the addressee. After being informed of said fact, Arnaiz sent a
Because of the failure of the RCPI to transmit said telegram to him,
complaint to the Public Service Commissioner a letter-complaint. In its
respondent allegedly suffered inconvenience and additional expenses and
answer, petitioner denied liability but questioned PSC¶s jurisdiction over the
prays for damages.
subject matter. After hearing, the PSC found petitioner responsible for the
unsatisfactory service complained of and ordered it to pay a fine.
Meanwhile, in GR No. L-45378, complainant Pacifico Inncocencio claims that
his sister, Lourdes, sent him a telegram on July 13 through petitioner for the
ISSUE: W/N PSC has jurisdiction to discipline and impose fine upon
purpose of informing him of the death of their father. However, the telegram
was never received by Pacifico but the sneder, Lourdes, was never notified
of such failure. Because of this failure, Pacifico claims to have suffered
HELD: NO. The Public Service Act vested in the PSC jurisdiction,
mental anguish and personal inconveniences and thus prays for damages.
supervision and control over all public services and their franchises,
equipment and other properties. However, Section 5 of RA 4630, the
After hearing, respondent board in both cases imposed upon petitioner in
legislative franchise under which petitioner was operating, limited respondent
each case a disciplinary fine.
Commission¶s jurisdiction over petitioner only to the rate which petitioner may
charge the public. The negligence imputed to public respondent had nothing
ISSUE: W/N the Board of Communications has jurisdiction to take
whatsoever to do with the subject matter of very limited jurisdiction of the
cognizance of complaints for injury caused by breach of obligation arising
Commission over petitioner.
from negligence

HELD: NO. As provided under Section 129 of the Public Service Act 
governing the organization of the Specialized Regulatory Board, the BOC 

m M

x-)'2 On the other hand, respondent Director maintains that the prosecution of
 patent cases does not involve entirely the practice of law but includes the
Petitioner has been operating a telephone system in Tagbiliran City and application of scientific and technical knowledge and training.
other municipalities in the province of Bohol under the name of Premiere
Automatic Telephone Network. Petitioner and private respondent PLDT
entered into a contract whereby PLDT bound itself to provide Premiere with ISSUE: W/N the appearance before the Philippine Patent Office is included
long distance and overseas facilities. in the practice of law

Without any prior notice to the petitioner, respondent PLDT issued a ³circuit HELD: YES. The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent
authorization order´ to its co-respondents to terminate the connection of Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and
PLDT¶s relay station with the facilities of the petitioner¶s telephone system. the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto or
the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. The practice before the
Petitioner then instituted with the CFI a petition for injunction and damages.
The court issued a temporary restraining order. Five months after the Patent Office involves the interpretation and application of other laws and
issuance of the TRO, the private respondents filed a motion to dissolve or lift legal principles.
the restraining order. Three years after the filing of their motion to dissolve
the TRO, the private respondents elevated the case to the CA on the ground Furthermore, the Director of Patents, exercising as he does judicial or quasi-
that the CFI judge had no authority to issue the restraining order. judicial functions, it is reasonable to hold that a member of the bar, because
of his legal knowledge and training, should be allowed to practice before the
ISSUE: W/N the CFI has jurisdiction to hear and decide controversies arising
said office, without further examination or other qualification.
from the operation of telephone systems or the interconnection of
communications facilities

HELD: NO. PLDT has cited in full the authority and powers given by PD No. 
1 to the Board of Communications, now NTC. There is nothing in the 2'4)
Commission¶s powers which authorizes it to adjudicate breach of contract
cases, much less to award moral and exemplary damages.
The Mayor of Manila created a committee to investigate the anomalies

 involving the license inspectors and other personnel of the License
 Inspection Division of the Office of the City Treasurer and of the License and
ô= 4 +$ >
  3   Permits Division of the said office. He named Jesus Carmelo as chairman.

Respondent Director of the Philippine Patent Office issued a circular The committee issued subpoenas to Armando Ramos requiring him to
announcing an examination schedule for the purpose of determining who are appear before it in connection with an administrative case but Ramos refused
qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippine Patent Office, to appear. Claiming that Ramos¶ refusal tended to impede or obstruct the
the said examination to cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of administrative proceedings, petitioner filed with the CFI a petition to declare
practice before said office. According to said circular, members of the Ramos in contempt. The trial court dismissed the petition. It held that there is
Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and no law empowering committees created by municipal mayors to issue
technical training are qualified. Petitioners contend that one who has passed subpoenas and demand witnesses testify under oath and that to compel
the bar exams and licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Ramos to testify would be to violate his right against self-incrimination.
Philippines is duly qualified to practice before the said office.
m M

ISSUE: W/N the said committee is empowered to subpoena witnesses and 
ask for their punishment in case of refusal 
HELD: NO. The rule is that Rule 64 (Contempt) of the Rules of Court applies
only to inferior and superior courts and does not comprehend contempt Former DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria filed a complaint which charged
committed against administrative officials or bodies like the one in this case, respondent Maria Luisa Moral with the pilferage of some historical
documents from the vault of the Filipiniana and Asian Division of the National
unless said contempt is clearly considered and expressly defined as
Library which were under her control and supervision as Division Chief. The
contempt of court, as is done in paragraph 2 of section 580 of the Revised DECS Secretary found respondent guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct
Administrative Code. and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. She was ordered
 dismissed from the government service.

 Respondent did not appeal the judgment but she filed a petition for
6'?2'4'2 production of the DECS investigation committee report, which was, however,
denied. She reiterated her request but likewise denied. She then filed an
Petitioner was ordered by the COMELEC to show cause why he should not action for mandamus and injunction before the regular courts against Sec.
be punished for contempt for having published in the Sunday Times an Gloria praying that she be furnished a copy of the DECS investigation
article which tended to interfere with and influence the COMELEC and its committee. Secretary Gloria moved to dismiss the mandamus case for lack
of cause of action, but the trial court denied his motion. Thus, he elevated the
members in the adjudication of a controversy then pending. The article
case to the CA imputing grave abuse of discretion, which was dismissed as
pertained to the contracts entered into by COMELEC regarding the well for lack of merit. Motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
requisitioning and preparation of ballot boxes to be used in the elections.
Petitioner appeared and filed a motion to quash upon the ground, among ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari
others, that the Commission has no jurisdiction to punish as contempt the
publication of the alleged contemptuous article. The COMELEC denied the HELD: YES. The challenged order of the trial court falls short of the
motion to quash but granted petitioner a period of 15 days within which to requirements prescribed in Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure. The
Order merely discussed the general concept of mandamus and the trial
elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. court¶s jurisdiction over the rulings and actions of administrative agencies
without stating the basis by petitioner¶s motion to dismiss was being denied.
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC has the power to jurisdiction to conduct
contempt proceedings NOTE: There is no law which imposes a legal duty on petitioner to furnish
respondent with a copy of the investigation report. A respondent in an
HELD: NO. Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and
recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into
resulted in controversy between several dealers, that however merely refers
charges filed against him.
to a ministerial duty which the Commission has performed in its
administrative capacity in relation to the conduct of elections ordained by our 
Constitution. In proceeding on this matter, it only discharged a ministerial 
duty; it did not exercise any judicial function. Such being the case, it could x  3

  "x ,
not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in the law, for 
such power is inherently judicial in nature. Petitioner Bienvenido Batongbacal started his banking career as a manager
of the Second Rizal Development Bank. He then transferred to Citizens Bank
m M

and Trust Company and was appointed as assistant vice-president and hearing not knowing that more often than not both of them suffer adverse
concurrently, as acting manager of the personnel department. Subsequently, consequences. ³
Citizens Bank merged with Association Banking Corporation and later 
became known as Associated Bank. In the new bank, petitioner resumed his 
position as assistant vice president. 
x "ô4
Years later, he found out that his salary was very much below the standard PAL is granted a legislative franchise to provide domestic and international
remuneration of the bank¶s other assistant vice presidents. He asked for the flights. In 1970, it required Flight 213 (Tug-Mla) to pass Baguio to pick up 20
board to give him the accrued salary withheld from him but to no avail. passengers. No airline was affected by the flagstop.
Thereafter, as part of its streamlining measures, the management required
all bank officers to submit their courtesy resignations. Petitioner did not Thereafter, the CAB Chairman filed a complaint against PAL contending that
submit his courtesy resignation. As a result, he received a letter from the the latter should have first obtained permission from CAB. The Board then
resolved to impose a fine against PAL. PAL filed a motion for reconsideration
Bank informing him that his resignation was accepted. Petitioner made
claiming that the power and authority to impose fines is a judicial function
repeated demands for the reconsideration of the bank¶s decision to and does not belong to the CAB. Subsequently, the Board resolved to reduce
terminated his employment. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and the fine imposed upon PAL.
damages in the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission. The NLRC ordered petitioner¶s reinstatement with full ISSUE: W/N CAB possesses the necessary legal authority to impose a fine
backwages. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the bank
HELD: YES. RA 776 provides that the CAB has the power to review, revise,
appealed to the NLRC which ruled in favor of the legality of petitioner¶s
reverse, modify or affirm on appeal any administrative decision or order of
dismissal. the Civil Aeronautics Administrator on matters pertaining to imposition of civil
penalty or fine in connection with the violation of any provision of the said Act
ISSUE: W/N respondent bank legally dismissed petitioner for refusing to or rules and regulations issued thereunder. In the case at bar, the fine
tender his courtesy resignation imposed on PAL is that fine or civil penalty contemplated in the relevant
provision of RA 776 and not a fine in the nature of criminal penalty as
HELD: NO. Petitioner¶s dismissal was effected through a letter ³accepting´ contemplated in the RPC. It is an administrative penalty which administrative
officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution.
his resignation, even if petitioner did not actually submit such letter. It is
clear from private respondent¶s pleadings that it terminated petitioner for

insubordination in view of his failure to comply with the order to submit his 
letter of courtesy resignation. However, the Court held that insubordination x  x "/' 3$
may not be imputed to one who refused to allow an unlawful order. 
Moreover, the Court held that the record fails to show any valid reasons for MERALCO filed with the BOE an application for an upward revision of its
terminating the employment of petitioner. rates. In the same petition, MERALCO prayed for an ex parte provisional
approval of the proposed rates. Subsequently, petitioners filed an opposition
to the application and prayed that no provisional approval be granted by the
NOTE: The SC remanded the case to the NLRC for determination of factual
BOE. They claim that the increases in rates is exorbitant and unreasonable.
issues. It noted the ³impracticality of the position paper method of disposing
labor cases. As exemplified by this case, there are instanced wherein claims In an order, the BOE provisionally approved MERALCO¶s revised rate
of parties are not properly ventilated because they agree to dispense with the schedules without hearing. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration stating
m M

that they were no afforded the opportunity to be heard. Without setting for res judicata. Petitioners appealed to the Minister of Labor through
hearing, the BOE denied the motion for reconsideration. respondent Deputy Minister Inciong who affirmed the NLRC decision.

ISSUE: W/N the BOE committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the ISSUE: W/N the cause of action was barred by the principle res judicata
provisional increase of MERALCO rates
HELD: YES. While it is true that the complainant in the first charge was the
HELD: No. When BOE provisionally authorized private respondent¶s union, in reality it had no material interest in the outcome of the case. The
application without hearing, it merely exercised a prerogative granted to it by real party who stands to be benefited or defeated by the case brought in the
law. Under similar circumstances, the Court has upheld the authority of name of the union are the union members themselves. Since the judgment
regulatory boards like the Energy Regulatory Board , to grant provisional therein had become final and executor, the subsequent filing of another
relief upon the filing of an application, petition or complaint or at any stage charge against Atlantic for the same violations committed during its
thereafter, and without need of prior hearing, but it shall call a hearing existence, is barred by res judicata. The bringing of the same action in the
thereon within thirty days thereafter for the determination of its final decision. name of the individual members of the union will not take out the case from
The order granting such provisional relief, however, must be based upon the ambit of the principle of res judicata.
substantial evidence ± supporting papers duly verified or authenticated, and 
is without prejudice to rendition of a final decision after hearing. 

  47 2-
Private respondent Juanito Collado was employed by petitioner as security
The 136 petitioners herein are former employees of private respondent guard. In the course of his employment, 4 crates of lawanit boards were
Atlantic Container Corporation, organized themselves into Atlantic Container stolen. He was implicated in the theft and thereafter placed under preventive
Employees Organization (ACCO) and affiliated with the Federation of suspension. NALCO then filed an application with the Regional Office of the
Democratic Labor Unions (FEDLU). Department of Labor for clearance to dismiss Collado. The application was
approved was approved by Officer-in-Charge Rey Seneres. The said officer
Claiming that Atlantic and its General Manager, private respondent Roberto certified the case to the labor arbiter who, after a perusal of records (position
Jacinto, refused to implement the Collective Bargaining Agreement, papers submitted by the parties), returned the case to the Regional Director,
petitioners and FEDLU held a strike. Thereafter, ACCO and FEDLU filed a who recommended that the case be elevated to the Secretary of Labor. The
case in the Court of Industrial Relations. The CIR found Atlantic Container acting Secretary of Labor affirmed the decision of Seneres granting
Corporation and Jacinto guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering them to petitioner¶s application for clearance to dismiss Collado.
cease and desist from further committing the same and to reinstate
complainants striking members. They filed motions to reconsider the said Collado then filed a complaint before the District Labor Office for unjust
decision, presumably for the reinstatement of all the petitioners, but the CIR dismissal and reinstatement with backwages and benefits.NALCO filed a
denied the motions. motion to dismiss upon the ground that the order of the Acting Secretary had
become final and executory, making the issue of illegal dismissal res
The petitioners again filed a charge with the CIR alleging that the named judicata. The Labor Arbiter ordered NALCO to reinstate Collado without
respondents established a corporation which was an alter ego of Atlantic and backwages. Both Parties appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC modified the
which was allegedly organized to engage in the identical business as Atlantic Labor Arbiter¶s decision adding backwages.
Container, absorbing all the assets including the facilities and machineries.
ISSUE: W/N the principle of res judicata applies
When the CIR was abolished, the case was transferred to NLRC which
ordered the reinstatement of complainants. Only 86 out of the 136 petitioners HELD: NO. The principle of res judicata may not be invoked in labor relations
were ordered reinstated. The appeal was dismissed, based on the ground of proceedings considering that Section 5, Rule XIII, Book V of the Rules and
m M

Regulations Implementing the Labor Code provides that such proceedings The facts recited in paragraph 8 of the amended petition shows that at the
are non-litigious and summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities time the Act No. 3155 was promulgated there was reasonable necessity
obtaining in courts of law. The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial therefor and it cannot be said that the Legislature exceeded its power in
or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to exercise of administrative powers. passing the Act. That being so, it is not for this court to avoid or vacate the
Act upon constitutional grounds nor will it assume to determine whether the
measures are wise or the best that might have been adopted.

4 00
6-2-26&)..(6 x'  
 " 7  ". 8 '8 x "2

*2  3  3  @ 3 1%A Glorious Sun was a recipient of a substantial number of EQ allocations from
the GTEB. Glorious Sun was charged before the GTEB and was found guilty
!2.)* of, misdeclaration of values of its imported raw materials resulting in dollar
This is a petition brought originally before the Court of First Instance of salting, and other related frauds, in connection with its importations in 1983.
Manila for the issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction against the Its export quotas were thereafter given to two newly-formed corporations ²
respondent, Stanton Youngberg, as Director of the Bureau of Animal the De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing Corporation (De Soleil) and the herein
Industry, requiring him to issue a permit for the landing of ten large cattle petitioner American Inter-Fashion Corporation (AIFC). The cancelled EQs of
imported by the petitioner and for the slaughter thereof. The petitioner Glorious Sun which were given to AIFC are the subject of dispute between
attacked the constitutionality of Act No. 3155, which at present prohibits the GTEB and petitioner. Glorious Sun continues to claim its right over the
importation of cattle from foreign countries into the Philippine Islands. aforementioned EQ. AIFC was able to maintain its EQ from 1984 up to the
time of the filing of this petition.
The respondent demurred to the petition on the ground that it did not state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was based on With the establishment of a new government in 1986, Glorious Sun filed an
two reasons, namely, (1) that if Act No. 3155 were declared unconstitutional appeal with the Office of the President, which, in turn, set aside the GTEB
and void, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief demanded because decision adverse to Glorious Sun and remanded the case for genuine
Act No. 3052 would automatically become effective and would prohibit the hearings where due process would be accorded both parties. This decision
respondent from giving the permit prayed for; and (2) that Act No. 3155 was was upheld by the Supreme Court.
constitutional and, therefore, valid.
After further proceedings were conducted concerning Glorious Sun's alleged
The court sustained the demurrer and the complaint was dismissed by violations and frauds, the GTEB adopted a resolution providing that the
reason of the failure of the petitioner to file another complaint. From that disqualification of Glorious Sun and its principal stockholders and officers
order of dismissal, the petitioner appealed to this court. from engaging in the garments export business is lifted.

-))6'* AIFC, on the other hand, prior to the Supreme Court denial of its petition for
Whether or not respondent as cause of action review of the cancellation of its registration, requested the GTEB to release
its EQ allocation for 1993. This request was, however, refused by the GTEB.
;'4:* The RTC denied AIFC¶s petition for injunction. AIFC's subsequent motion for
Yes. It is now generally recognized that the promotion of industries affecting reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.
the public welfare and the development of the resources of the country are
objects within the scope of the police power. ISSUES: Whether or not GTEB have the power and authority to grant or
cancel export quotas or authorizations
m M

Civil Service Commission. The GSIS appealed but the CSC denied the
HELD: YES. The Court held that that the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
on the question of AIFC's entitlement to the export allocations subject of the
above-entitled petitions (be they export quotas or export authorizations), ISSUE: Whether or not the CSC has jurisdiction over the case
which includes the discretion to grant and disapprove said export allocations,
belongs solely to the GTEB, and not to the regular courts. On the basis of EO
537 and EO 952, which amended the former, the power to adjudicate on the HELD: No. Presidential Decree No. 1409, creating the Merit Systems Board
question of an entity's entitlement to export allocations was expressly provides that the Merit Systems Board has the function to ³Hear and decide
granted to the GTEB, or at the very least, was necessarily implied from the cases brought before it by officers and employees who feel aggrieved by the
power to cancel or suspend quota allocations, is beyond cavil. determination of appointing authorities involving appointment, promotion,
transfer, detail, reassignment and other personnel actions, as well as
complaints against any officers in the government arising from abuses arising
 from personnel actions of the these officers or from violations of the merit
)-)2)2 system.´

According to Asuncion Salazar¶s service record filed with the CSCS, she was
When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and
employed by the GSIS as a casual laborer. She became permanent with a
decide cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such
designation of stenographer. Thereafter, she was promoted to Confidential
jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is likewise
Technical Assistant Aide.
vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent
jurisdiction over the matter. Presidential Decree No. 1409 clearly provides
Salazar's GSIS Service Record however, revealed that she was appointed to
that the Merit Systems Board shall take cognizance of appeals from parties
the position of Confidential Executive Assistant in the office of then GSIS
aggrieved by decisions of appointing officers involving personnel action. The
President and General Manager Roman A. Cruz, Jr. on a permanent status.
Commission therefore cannot take original cognizance of the cases specified
She was then promoted to Technical Assistant III, the position she held when
under Section 5 of P.D. 1409, except in the case specified under Section 9 (j)
her services were terminated by the newly appointed President and General
of the Civil Service Decree which directly gives it such power, to wit:
Manager of the GSIS for the reason that her position was co-terminous with
the term of the appointing authority.
SECTION 9. Powers and Functions of the Commission. The Commission
Salazar filed a petition for reconsideration with the GSIS Board of Trustees, shall administer the Civil Service Commission and shall have the following
but reconsideration was denied. Thereafter, she filed a petition for powers and functions:
reconsideration of the denial with the Review Committee, which referred the
same to the Merit Systems Promotion Board and the CSC. j) Hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it
in accordance with Section 37 or brought to it on appeal;
In a resolution, the CSC directed the immediate reinstatement of Salazar with
back salaries. The Board however affirmed her termination. Salazar filed a In the case at bar, the appeal of Salazar was endorsed by the Review
motion for reconsideration of the Board's order and manifested that the Committee to both the Merit Systems Board and the Civil Service
Commission already resolved her petition on July 22, 1987. On June 30, Commission. In the absence of a decision from the Merit Systems Board, the
1988. the Board set aside its previous Order affirming Salazar's dismissal in Commission cannot legally assume jurisdiction over the appeal. Hence, its
view of the Commission's prior resolution of the case. The GSIS filed a decision in favor of Salazar and all subsequent resolutions of the
motion for reconsideration but was denied by the board and stated that the Commission in this case are void. Likewise, the Order of the Board setting
CSC is a higher administrative appellate body on matters concerning the aside its previous order upholding the termination of Salazar in deference to
removal of officers and employees from the service. Hence, the Board the Commission's final appellate jurisdiction over the matter, is null and void.
cannot in any manner modify or alter the determinations and actions of the Jurisdiction is vested by law and is not lost nor be legally transferred by
m M

voluntary surrender in favor of a body not vested by law with such Article 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict
jurisdiction. and regulate recruitment and placement activities.
Art. 36. egulatory Power. ² The Secretary of Labor shall have the
power to restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement
activities of all agencies within the coverage of this title [Regulation
of Recruitment and Placement Activities] and is hereby authorized to
issue orders and promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the
objectives and implement the provisions of this title. (Emphasis

;6x':.') )
 $/= :  7 /4  C ours.)
'7$7  ")')-'. "7   /= 
ô;-4-ôô-'?')')'ô4('.:--)..- The vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in administrative
 "  bodies is not unconstitutional, unreasonable and oppressive. It is noteworthy
-< 56-* that the assailed circulars do not prohibit the petitioner from engaging in the
 recruitment and deployment of Filipino landbased workers for overseas
!2.)* employment.
as a result of published stories regarding the abuses suffered by Filipino
The questioned circulars are therefore a valid exercise of the police power as
housemaids employed in Hong Kong, DOLE Secretary Ruben D. Torres
delegated to the executive branch of Government.
issued Department Order No. 16, Series of 1991, temporarily suspending the
recruitment by private employment agencies of "Filipino domestic helpers
Nevertheless, they are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of
going to Hong Kong". The DOLE itself, through the POEA took over the
power publication and filing in the Office of the National Administrative
business of deploying such Hong Kong-bound workers. Pursuant to the
Register as required in Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code
DOLE circular, POEA issued a Memorandum providing guidelines in the
and Sections 3(1) and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of
Government processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong
Kong and accreditation of Hong Kong recruitment agencies intending to hire
Filipino domestic helpers. POEA administrator also issued a Memorandum
circular on processing employment contracts of domestic workers for Hong 
Petitioner, PASEI, filed this petition for prohibition to annul the
aforementioned DOLE and POEA circulars and to prohibit their


implementation for the following reasons:
1. That the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in
Petitioner: Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit
excess of their rule-making authority in issuing said circulars;
corporate entity duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines
2. That the assailed DOLE and POEA circulars are contrary to the
Constitution, are unreasonable, unfair and oppressive; and
Respondent: Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports is a ranking cabinet
3. That the requirements of publication and filing with the Office of the
member who heads the Department of Education, Culture and Sports of the
National Administrative Register were not complied with.
Office of the President of the Philippines.


Whether or not petitions are with merit

On February 21, 1987, the Task Force on Private Higher Education created
by DECS submitted a report entitled "Report and Recommendations on a
There is no merit in the first and second grounds of the petition.
m M

Policy for Tuition and Other School Fees." The report favorably kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislative character.
recommended to the DECS the following courses of action with respect to Where the rules and the rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party,
the Government's policy on increases in school fees for the SY 1987 to 1988. based upon a finding of fact, then its function is ×uasi-judicial in character.
DECS took note of the report and issued an Order authorizing the 15% to
20% increase in school fees as recommended by the Task Force. Petitioner Is Department Order No. 37 issued by the DECS in the exercise of its
sought for reconsideration on the ground that increases were too high. legislative function? We believe so. The assailed Department Order
Thereafter, the Order was modified reducing the increases to a lower ceiling prescribes the maximum school fees that may be charged by all private
of 10% to 15%. Petitioner still opposed the increases. schools in the country for schoolyear 1987 to 1988. This being so, prior
notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of its issuance.
Petitioner, allegedly on the basis of the public interest, went to this Court and 
filed the instant Petition for prohibition, seeking that judgment be rendered
declaring the questioned Department Order unconstitutional. The thrust of
the Petition is that the said Department Order was issued without any legal 
basis. The petitioner also maintains that the questioned Department Order
was issued in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution in  +.    2 x "/.    
asmuch as the petitioner was not given due notice and hearing before the
said Department Order was issued. GR No. L-39655, March 21, 1975

In support of the /  37 , the petitioner argues that while the DECS is Fernando, J.
authorized by law to regulate school fees in educational institutions, the
power to regulate does not always include the power to increase school fees.
Regarding the 
 " 37 , the petitioner maintains that students and
parents are interested parties that should be afforded an opportunity for a FACTS:
hearing before school fees are increased. In sum, the petitioner stresses that
the questioned Order constitutes a denial of substantive and procedural due Both petitioner and private respondent Sultan Rent-a-Car are domestic
process of law. corporations. The former has in his favor a certificate of public convenience
 to operate a public utility auto-truck service from Cebu city to Mactan
-))6'* Interantional Airport and vice versa. Private respondent filed a petition with
Whether or not DECS has the power to prescribe school fees the respondent Board for the issuance of a certificate of private respondent
 filed a petition with the respondent Board for the issuance of a certificate of
;'4:* public convenience to operate a similar service on the same line. Without the
Yes. In the absence of a statute stating otherwise, this power includes the required publication, the Board issued on order granting it provisional permit
power to prescribe school fees. No other government agency has been to operte on the line applied for. A motion for reconsideration was filed and
vested with the authority to fix school fees and as such, the power should be for the cancellation of such provisional permit but without awaiting final
considered lodged with the DECS if it is to properly and effectively discharge action, this petition was filed on the ground that the issuance of provisional
its functions and duties under the law. permit was patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction.
The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a
legislative or an adjudicative function. If it were a legislative function, the ISSUE: Whether or not the controversy is ripe for judicial determination
grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement
of due process. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in HELD: YES. It is undeniable that at the time the petition was filed, there was
the exercise of its ×uasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing are pending with respondent Board a motion for reconsideration. Ordinarily, its
essential to the validity of such rates. When the rules and/or rates laid down resolution should be awaited. The Court was impelled to go into the merits of
by an administrative agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given the controversy at this stage, not only because of the importance of the issue
m M

raised but also because of the strong public interest in having the matter

. 3
= 3
2 2 " ) 
GR No. L-17598, September 30, 1963

Padilla, J. GR No. L-17860, March 30, 1962

De Leon, J.


These are petitions for a writ of certiorari to review an amended judgment FACTS:
rendered by the Court Appeals holding Faustina Lauchang is entitled to
acquire by purchase whole of Lot No. 10, Block 2, of the Tambobong Estate. Petitioner was holding the position of Special Assistant to the Governor of the
Central Bank. He was charged in an administrative case resulting in his
It appears that Lot No. 10, Block No. 2 of the Tambobong Estate in the suspension by the Monetary Board and the creation of a three-man
municipality of Malabon, Province of Rizal, Philippine Islands, was formerly committee to investigate him. After conducting hearings, the committee
leased by the Archbishop of Manila to one Matea Suarez. Matea Suarez sold recommended petitioner¶s reinstatement. The Monetary Board, however,
her leasehold interest in the land to Anacleto Lauchang, father of the plaintiff- adopted a resolution stating that petitioner is deemed resigned as of the date
appellee and appellant Faustina Lauchang. When Anacleto died in 1923, his of his suspension. Subsequently, respondent Mariano Marcos was appointed
daughter, the plaintiff, took over and since then has been occupying said to replace petitioner. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus
property paying rents therefor to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila and quo warranto. After several hearings, the court dismissed the petition on
up to August 31, 1927 when further payments of rents was suspended the ground that petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies.
because the Archbishop of Manila sold the Tambobong Estate to the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Government of the Commonwealth of Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner should have exhausted all administrative
ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Rizal should have dismissed the case for remedies
lack of cause of action, in view of respondent¶s failure to exhaust all
administrative remedies HELD: NO. The doctrine of administrative remedies does not apply where, by
the terms or implications of the statute authorizing an administrative remedy,
HELD: NO. The contention of the petitioners that the action brought in the such remedy is permissive only, warranting the conclusion that the legislative
Court of First Instance of Rizal should have been dismissed for lack of cause intended to allow the judicial remedy even though the administrative remedy
of action, in view of respondent's failure to exhaust all administrative has not been exhausted.
remedies is untenable. It is well to recall that the lot, subject of the litigation,
is not a part of the public domain, but of private ownership acquired by the . :
 /!  $
Government for resale to private persons, and for that reason any aggrieved
party may bring an action in court without the need of exhausting all
GR No. L-24548, October 27, 1983
administrative remedies.
m M

Makasiar, J. Davide, Jr., J.

FACTS: FACTS: The Municipal Government of Muntinlupa, thru its Mayor Santiago
Carlos, entered into a contract with petitioner for the latter¶s management
and operation of its New Muntinlupa public Market. The contract provides for
The Bureau of Forestry issued an advertisement for public bidding for a a 25 year term renewable for a like period unless sooner terminated and/or
certain tract of forest land in Olongapo, Zambales. The public forest land
rescinded by mutual agreement of the parties. Subsequently, Mayor Ignacio
consists of 6,240 hectares and located within the former US Naval
Bunye, Mayor Carlos¶ successor, claiming to be particularly scandalized by
Reservation comprising 7,252 hectares of timberland. Petitioner submitted the 50-year term of the agreement, contrary to the provision of Section 143,
his application in due form along with nine other applicants. Thereafter, paragraph 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, and the patently inequitable rental,
President Carlos P. Garcia issued a directive to the Director of the Bureau of directed the review of the contract. Consequently, the Municipal Council
Forestry to draft a proclamation establishing the said area as a watershed
approved a Resolution abrogating the contract.
forest reserve for Olongapo and that the bids received for the issuance of
timber license be rejected. The Secretary of Agriculture and National
Petitioner filed with the RTC of Makati a complaint for breach of contract,
Resources sustained the recommendations of the Director of Forestry who
specific performance with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against
concluded that it would be beneficial to the public interest if the area is made
the Municipality and its officers. The writ applied for was denied, the
available for exploitation under certain conditions. Finally, the area was
KBMBPM officers resisted the attempts of Bunye and company to complete
awarded to petitioner. Ravago Commercial Company and Jorge Lao Happick
the take-over. The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court but it was
filed motions for reconsideration which were denied by the Director of
remanded to the Court of Appeals.
Forestry. Ravago appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, which later on, declared the license issued to petitioner by
Thereafter, Amado Perez, Gerneral Manager of KBMBPM, filed with the
Director of Forestry as null and void. Petitioner¶s motion for reconsideration
Ombudsman a complaint charging Bunye and his co-petitioners of
was denied.
harassment, oppression, abuse of authority and violation of the Anti Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act for taking over the management of the public
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has not exhausted all administrative
On October 1998, respondent Madriaga and Coronado, accompanied by the
HELD: YES. Considering that the President has the power to review on
Bunye and the latters¶ heavily armed men forcibly broke open the doors of
appeal the orders or acts of the respondents-appellees, the failure of the
the offices of petitioners purportedly to serve upon petitioners the Order of
petitioner to take that appeal is failure on his part to exhaust his
respondent Secretary of Agriculture and to implement the same by taking
administrative remedies. From the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture
over and disbanding the incumbent Board of Directors of KBMBPM.
and Natural Resources complained of, petitioner had a plain, speedy and
Petitioners claim that the Order served on them was not written on the
adequate remedy by appealing to the Chief Executive. Certiorari is not a
stationary of the Department, does not bear its seal and is a mere Xerox
substitute for appeal as held time and again, it being a time honored and well
copy. Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition praying that respondents refrain,
known principle that before seeking judicial redress, a party must exhaust the
cease and desist from enforcing the questioned Order and that the order be
administrative remedies available.
declared null and void.
mxxô:7 3 #
GR No. 91927, January 13,1992
1. Whether or not the issued Order was valid
m M

2. Whether or not the petitioners needed to exhaust administrative
remedies available


1. NO. There is an established procedure for the removal of directors

and officers of cooperatives. It is likewise manifest that the right to
due process is respected by the express provision on the opportunity
to be heard. But even without said provision , petitioners cannot be
deprived of that right. The procedure was not followed in this case.
Respondent Secretary of Agriculture arrogated himself the power of
the members of the KBMBPM who are authorized to vote to remove
the petitioning directors and officers. He cannot take refuge under
PD 175 which grants him the authority to supervise and regulate all
cooperatives. An administrative officer has only such powers as are
expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the
exercise thereof. These powers should not be extended by
implication beyond what may be necessary for their just and
reasonable execution.
2. NO. The rule is well-settled that this requirement does not apply
where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an
alter ego of the President, bear the implied approval of the latter,
unless actually disapproved by him. This doctrine of qualified political
agency ensures speedy access to the courts when most needed.
There was no need to appeal the decision to the Office of the
President; recourse to the courts could be had immediately.
Moreover, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies also
yields to other exceptions, such as when the question involved is
purely legal, as in the instant case, or where the questioned act is
patently illegal, arbitrary or oppressive. Such is the claim of
petitioners which, as hereinafter shown, is correct.