Cases 1. Ople vs. Torres Issue: Whether or not the Administrative Order No.

308 disregards the constitutional right to privacy. Held: Yes, the implementation of the Administrative Order No. 308 will inflict danger to the peoples right to privacy because its content and power is too vague and extensive. The A.O. 308 also lacks security in the protection of the information that will be acquired through biometrics, from people and through other means. Thus, it may intervene with a citizens liberty of abode and travelling by empowering authorities to track his movement, it may also enable fraudulent people to acquire information and thwart the right against self-incrimination, it may pave the way for fishing expeditions by public officials and circumvent the right against unreasonable seizures and searches. 2. Lupangco vs. CA Issue: Whether or not the Resolution is unconstitutional. Held: The Resolution is null and void. Resolution No. 105 is not only irrational and inconsistent, it also contravenes on the examinees right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondent PRC prerogative does not include prescribing the reviewers on how they equip themselves in taking the licensure exam. They cannot be controlled from doing all the authorized steps necessary to guarantee the attainment of their goal and become a licensed public accountant or certified public accountant. They have all the right to utilize their faculties in fulfilling their ambitions.

Lastly, the implementation of the above-mentioned resolution will not certify that the alleged leakages and paid fixers will be extinguished or at least be diminished. 3. Joson vs. Executive Secretary Issue: Whether or not the DILG Secretary had jurisdiction over the case. Held: Yes. Under Administrative Order No. 23 Sections 2 and 3 the jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials are under the Disciplining Authority and the Investigating Authority. The Disciplining Authority is the President, whether acting by himself or through the Exec. Secretary. The Investigating Authority is the Secretary of the DILG who may act by himself or constitute an Investigating Committee. He is not, however, the one and only Investigating Authority for the DILG Secretary may designate a Special Investigating Committee. 4. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA Issue: Whether or not the POEA had jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseas worker. Held: Yes. Under Executive Order No. 797, promulgated on May 1, 1982, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration was created to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their rights. Under Section 4(a), the POEA is vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, involving employee-employer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino contract workers, including seamen. These cases, according to the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment issued by the POEA, include,

claims for death, disability and other benefits arising out of such employment. The award of P180,000.00 for death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial expenses was made by the POEA pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No. 2, which became effective on February 1,1984. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domestics hipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment. 5. Fortich vs. Corona Issue: Whether or not the OPs modification of the Decision void or a valid excuse of its powers and prerogative. Whether the respondents have shown a justifiable reason for the relaxation of rules. Held: No. Res judicata has set in and the resolved affair should forever be put to rest. The OPs decision character final and executory meant that it can no longer be thoroughly modified. Procedural rules re designed to facilitate the resolution of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the adjudication of rival claims and in the administration of justice that is why it should be treated with utmost respect and due regard. The Constitution states that all persons shall have a right to the speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. The flexibleness in the relaxation of rules was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. 6. Evangelista vs. Jarencio Issue: Whether the Agency, acting thru its officials, enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact-finding investigations. Held: Yes. There is no doubt that the fact-finding investigations being conducted by the Agency upon sworn statements implicating certain

public officials of the City Government of Manila in anomalous transactions fall within the Agency's sphere of authority and that the information sought to be. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence, not to pending charge, but upon which to make one if discovered evidence so justifies. Administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations. 7. Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Garcia Jr. Issue: Whether or not the Memoranda issued is constitutional. Held: The Memoranda was held invalid after the petition was granted. Supreme Court held that the authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators to set a fare range over and above the authorized existing fare is invalid and illegal. The Supreme Court said that it is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative authority. Potestas delegate non delegari what has been delegated further delegation of such power would indeed constitute a negation of the duty in violation of the trust reposed in the delegate inundated to discharge it directly. Given the complexity of the nature of the function of rate fixing and its far-reaching effects on millions of commuters, government must not relinquish this important function in favor of those who would benefit and profit from the industry. 8. Echegaray vs. Sec of Justice Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court, after the decision in the case becomes final and executory, still has jurisdiction over the case. Held:

The finality of judgment does not mean that the Supreme Court has lost all its powers or the case. Respondents cited Section 19, Article VII, contented that only the Executive can protect the life of an accused after his final conviction. The powers of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the life of a death convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason that there is no higher right than the right to life. Respondents contention is a violation of the principles of co-equal and coordinate powers of the three branches of our government. 9. Montes vs. Civil Service Board of Appeals Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in applying Sec 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 598 in the instant case. Held: There is no duty imposed on a party against whom a decision has been rendered by the Civil Service Board of Appeals to appeal to the President, and that the tendency of courts has been not to subject the decision of the President to judicial review. It is further argued that if decisions of the Auditor General may be appealed to the courts, those of the Civil Service Board of Appeals need not be acted upon by the President also, before recourse may be had to the courts. It is also argued that if a case is appealed to the President, his action should be final and not reviewable by the courts because such a course of action would be derogatory to the high office of the President. The judgment appealed from is thus affirmed. 10. Ledesma vs. CA

Issue:Whether or not the president of the school was liable for damages.

Held: Violeta Delmo went through a painful ordeal, which was brought about by the petitioner's neglect of duty and callousness. Thus, moral damages are but proper. The Solicitor- General tried to cover-up the Ledesma's deliberate omission to inform Miss Delmo by stating that it was not the duty of the petitioner to furnish her a copy of the Director's decision. Granting this to be true, it was nevertheless the petitioner's duty to enforce the said decision. He could have done so considering that he received the decision XXX and even though he sent it back with the records of the case, he undoubtedly read the whole of it, which consisted of only 3 pages. Moreover, the petitioner should have had the decency to meet Mr. Delmo, the girl's father, and inform the latter, at the very least of the decision. This, the petitioner failed to do, and not without the attendant bad faith which the appellate court correctly pointed out in its decision. 11. US vs. Ang Tang Ho

Issue: Whether or not the delegation of legislative power to the Governor General was valid. Held: Fist of, Ang Tang Hos conviction must be reversed because he committed the act prior to the publication of the EO. Hence, he cannot be ex post facto charged of the crime. Further, one cannot be convicted of a violation of a law or of an order issued pursuant to the law when both the law and the order fail to set up an ascertainable standard of guilt. The said Act, as to the judgment of the SC, wholly fails to provide definitely and clearly what the standard policy should contain, so that it could be put in use as a uniform policy required to take the place of all others without the determination of the insurance commissioner in respect to matters involving the exercise of a legislative discretion that could not be delegated, and without which the act could not possibly be put in use. The law must be complete in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the legislative branch of the

government and nothing must be left to the judgment of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so that, in form and substance, it is a law in all its details in presenti, but which may be left to take effect in future, if necessary, upon the ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event. 12. Taxicab Operators of Manila vs. BOT

Issue: Whether or not BOT and BLT promulgate the questioned memorandum circulars in accord with the manner required by Presidential Decree No. 101, thereby safeguarding the petitioners constitutional right to procedural due process. Held: As enunciated in the preambular clauses of the challenged BOT Circular, the overriding consideration is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated taxis. The State, in the exercise of its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society. It may also regulate property rights. In the language of Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando the necessities imposed by public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded. 13. SGMC Realty Corp vs. Office of the President

ISSUE: Whether or not the reglementary period within which to appeal the decision of HLURB to public respondent (OP) is fifteen days. HELD: The SC ruled that the 30-day period of appeal is subject to the qualification that there are no other statutory periods of appeal

applicable. Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 957 and Section 2 of P.D. No. 1344 provide that the decision of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board shall become final after the lapse of 15 days from the date of its receipt. The period of appeal of 30 days in the Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board is invalid for being in conflict with Presidential Decree Nos. 957 and 1344. 14. INC vs. CA

ISSUE: Whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should apply in this case? HELD: YES. It has been the jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies. It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. Clearly, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application in this case since the question of what coal areas should be exploited and developed and which entity should be granted coal operating contracts over said areas involves a technical determination by the BED as the administrative agency in possession of the specialized expertise to act on the matter. The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, however, does not call for the dismissal of the case below. It need only be suspended until after the matters within the competence of the BED are threshed out and determined.

15.

Romulo et al vs. HDMF

Issue: Whether or not the amendments are valid. Held: The amendments are null and void insofar as they require that an employer should have both a provident/ retirement plan and a housing plan superior to the benefits offered by the Fund in order to qualify for waiver or suspension of the Fund coverage. 16. Republic vs Express Telecom

Issue: Whether the 1978 or 1993 NTC Rules of Practice and Procedure should govern in the approval of Bayantels application. Held: Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies when it went directly to the CA on a petition for certiorari and prohibition without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the NTC. A party must exhaust all administrative remedies before resorting to the courts to give the administrative agency a chance to correct itself and to prevent the unnecessary and premature resort to courts. Purely administrative and discretionary powers may not be interfered with by the courts except if the administrative body acted with grave abuse of discretion. 17. Reformina vs Tomol

ISSUE: Whether or not the legal interest is 6%. HELD: YES. C.B. Circular 416 which took effect July 29, 1974 pursuant to PD 116 which amended Act 2655 (Usury Law) which raised the legal interest fro 6% to 12% applies only to forbearances of money, goods or credit and court judgments. Such court judgment refers only to

judgments in litigations involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credit. Any other kind of monetary judgment does not fall under the coverage of said law for it is not within the ambit of authority granted to the central Bank. Only the legislature can change the laws. In this case, the the decision of the judge is one rendered in an action for damages arising from injury to persons and loss of property and does not involve a loan much less forbearance of any money, goods or credit. The law applicable is thus ART 2209 CC which states that: If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages there being no stipulation to the contrary shall be the payment of interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest which is 6% per annum. Plana Concurring and Dissenting: Under Sec 1A of Act 2655 as amended by PD 116, the authority of CB is to fix a maximum rate of interest on loans and not to prescribe a fixed interest rate. Such authority given to CB is absolute and unqualified and therefore the delegation of power to it is void. 18. Co vs. CA

ISSUE: Whether or not Ministry Circular No. 12 dated August 8, 1984 declaring the guarantee check will no longer be considered as a valid defense be retroactively applied. HELD: NO. Decision of the Court of Appeals and RTC were set aside. Criminal prosecution against accused-petitioner was dismissed. It would seem that the weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the proposition that the Courts decision of September 21, 1987 in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160 (1987) that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22 should not be given retrospective effect to the

prejudice of the petitioner and other persons situated, who relied on the official opinion of the Minister of Justice that such a check did not fall within the scope of B.P. Blg. 22. This is after all a criminal action all doubts in which, pursuant to familiar, fundamental doctrine, must be resolved in favor of the accused. Everything considered, the Court sees no compelling reason why the doctrine of mala prohibita should override the principle of prospectivity, and its clear implications as herein above set out and discussed, negating criminal liability. 19. San Luis vs. CA

Held: Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commissions and the Office of the President had long become final, the same can no longer be reviewed by the courts unless the administrative bodies acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Final orders and decisions of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority have the force and binding effect of a final judgment. 20. Air Manila vs Balatbat

Issue: Whether or not procedural due process was violated by CAB, therefore resulting in grave abuse of discretion Held: NO. Administrative due process includes: (1) right to notice; (2) reasonable opportunity to be heard; (3) an unbiased tribunal; and (4) a decision supported by substantial evidence. No evidence revealing violation any of the aforementioned procedure was shown. The hearing for flights in DTS-35 not previously approved commenced and resulted in the temporary approval three or four of the proposed flights.

Of paramount consideration is public convenience and necessity. The Board exercised its power and approved the said flights in light of good service.