Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
National Government cannot dispense funds
without the requisite certification of availability. In
this case, there was none. Hence, Central Bank
contends that there was no perfected contract of
sale due to the absence of such requisite.
Hence, there was a perfected contract of sale in
which Central Bank is liable.
Cases:
Take note:
If the issue is about the competence of two
disciplining authorities, example between the CSC
or Dept of Education, this doctrine of primary
jurisdiction is not applicable.
enumerated in Sec. 1 of PD 1344. Here, petitioner
claims that she entered into a contract to sell a
townhouse but Carrion breached the contract when
she transferred it to a 3rd party w/o petitioners
consent. The complaint for cancellation of contract &
recovery of possession & ownership of townhouse is
w/in jurisdiction of the court.
Quasi-Judicial Power
Cases:
Sanado vs. CA, 356 SCRA 546
RULING:
Action of POEA is one of discretion,
whether to grant, deny, suspend, or revoke a license
of any private placement agency is an exercise of a
quasi-judicial. In fact, the law empowers the POEA,
to on its own initiative, may conduct the necessary
proceeding or investigation to determine whether
there has been a violation of the terms and
conditions of their license or permit set to the
placement agency.
RULING: The Constitution grants to CHR the power
to investigate all forms of human rights violations
involving civil & political rights, but that is the sole
authority given to them. It does not include power to
adjudicate or rule on the issues submitted or
gathered by them with finality. The Fact-finding being
undertaken by the CHR is not adjudication.
Test of violation:
a) where the elements of litis pendenti are present;
or
b) where final judgment in one case will amount to
res judicata in the other.
Take Note: The requirement to file certificate of nonforum shopping, although not jurisdictional, is
mandatory; if not complied, summary dismissal is
warranted not by reason of lack of jurisdiction but
because of failure to comply with a mandatory
requirement.
by the Ombudsman. And it was argued by
Montemayor that the dismissal of this case against
him by the Ombudsman operates as res judicata
and thus the administrative filed against him before
the PAGC ought to be dismissed.
2. Must conform to the standards that the law
provides;
Take Note:
a. If issued in excess of rule making authority, no
binding effect upon the courts. The most is that,
it can only be treated as mere administrative
interpretations of the law which carries only a
persuasive effect.
c.
Quasi-Legislative Power
Cases:
RULING: The Board does not have the authority to
amend the law itself. Not a valid exercise of quasi
legislative authority.
Facts: In the matter of the Creation of new AFP AntiGraft Board through PCGG issuance to hear and
decide cases involving members of the AFP that are
investigated for alleged unexplained wealth.
HELD: The law of PCGG only provides that they can
investigate on any alleged ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses and their cronies. The authority of PCGG
is limited only to the associates of the marcoses. So
here, under the issuanceof Commissioner Salonga
of PCGG, the jurisdiction of the PCGG law was
extended in including the AFP members even if they
have no connection with the Marcoses. Hence it was
an invalid issuance because it went beyond the
coverage of the law.
Fiscal Autonomy
E n t i t i e s g i v e n F i s c a l A u t o n o m y : C FA G Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group
1. Judiciary
CHREA vs. CHR, 496 SCRA 227 (on MR)
2. CSC
RULING: CHR has a certain degree of fiscal
autonomy thru the privilege of having its approved
annual appropriations released automatically and
regularly, but not fiscal autonomy in its extensive
sense like that exercise by the rest members of
CFAG such as using their appropriations to effect
changes in their organizational structure in terms of
position, classification, grant of allowances &
utilizing their savings for certain official purposes.
3. COA
4. Comelec
5. Ombudsman.
Cases:
Lara :-)
4-manresa
Facts: This is in the matter
of |the
creation by the1SC
thru a resolution creating positions of Chief Judicial
Staff Officer (SG 25) & Supervising Judicial Staff
Officer (SG 23). Upon submission of this resolution
by SC to DBM, DBM disapproved their resolutions in
the sense that it downgraded these positions.
3. must be reasonable;
4. must be published.
Cases
a. W h e n t h e i s s u a n c e s a r e o f g e n e r a l
applicability, publication is necessary as a
requirement of due process.
b. When the purpose of the rule promulgated is to
carry out the objectives of the law.
Register of the UP law Center. This is an added
requirement.
Facts: SEC of DOH copied the dispositive portion of
its subordinated. There was no factual finding and
legal assessment made in the resolution issued by
the DOH secretary.
2)
3)
4)
Zambales Mining vs. CA, 94 SCRA 261
Principle: The Reviewing Officer of the case on
appeal should not be the same person whose
decision is the subject of review.
Facts: Director Mines issued a decision adverse to
Zambales Mining and disapproved the proposed
location of their mining. Zambales appealed the
decision. In the meantime, the Director of Mines got
promoted and became the Secretary of Natural
Resources. So he is the same officer reviewing his
own decision.
which Aquino became subsequently one of the
Commissioners reviewing his own decision.
Ruvivar complained that there was violation of her
right to due process because she was not given the
opportunity to controvert the charge, in fact she was
not given copies of the affidavits of the witnesses of
the complainant. So the affidavit of the complainants
witnesses were not furnished to Ruvivar.
Notice to any one of the several counsels on record
is notice to all and such notice starts the time
running for appeal despite that the other counsel on
record has not received a copy of the decision.
2. Cancellation of passport by DFA
Reason: Exclusion of juridical persons from no selfincriminatory rule is the need for admin bodies
tasked by legislature to see to the compliance with
law and public policy to ensure enforcement of laws.
-
HELD: In this case, an MR must first be filed under
NLRC Rules of Procedure before special civil action
for certiorari under 65 of Rules of Court may be
availed of .
Ta s k F o r c e S a g i p K a l i k a s a n v s . J u d g e
Paderanga,
19 June 2008
Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 717
RULING: Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely
a component unit of the Office of the Ombudsman
and may only act under the supervision & control of
OMB. In this case, the court sustained the position
of Valera considering the circumstances.
SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 451
Where the issue is purely legal.
Executive Secretary
Nonetheless, the department secretary as an exofficio member may delegate tasks ministerial in
nature. The aid of subordinates may in fact be
procured so long as it is still the legal authorized
officer. Meaning it is the dept secretary who makes
the personal decision.
over all departments and Bureau in the Executive
branch. Since the president is the chief executive,
he has the continuing authority even under the
Revised Admin Code (EO 292) to reorganize any
department or branch of the executive dept so long
as it is an office within the office of the president.
And this power may in fact be delegated by
President to the Secreatary such as in the case at
bar.
2. Courts.
Findings of Facts
General rule: Finding of Facts of Administrative
Bodies are not subject to judicial review and factual
findings of admin agencies are accorded not only
respect but even finality so long as the decisions
rendered by the admin tribunals are confined to
matters within their competence and the decision is
based on substantial evidence.
b. Rule 65- Certiorari.
Rule 45
Principle that only questions of law shall be raised in
an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 admits of exceptions, namely:
1. Findings are grounded entirely on speculations or
conjectures;
2.
Lacson vs. PEA & PAGC, 30 May 2011
The Philippine Estate Authority rendered a decision
to dismiss petitioners from the service, upon
recommendation of PAGC as approved by the
President after due proceedings. The remedy of the
aggrieved party should have been to appeal the
decision to the CSC under EO 292. From CSC, it
can be elevated to the CA via a petition for review
under Rule 43. From there, it can be appealed to the
SC thru a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45.
Rule 65:
Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper
grounds in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Such petition will prosper only if there is showing of
grave abuse of discretion or an act w/o or in excess
of jurisdiction of admin tribunal.
The Alexandra Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA
453
Example:
1. The PCGG under EO 14A. The PCGG is
authorized to grant immunity from criminal
prosecution to any person who provides
testimony or information in connection with the
conduct of investigation by the PCGG on the
unlawful acquisition of wealth by public officers.
2.
Three-fold Responsibility
A public official may be held civilly, criminally and
administratively liable for violation of duty or for a
wrongful act or omission.
RULE: These remedies may be invoked separately,
alternately, simultaneously or successively. Defeat of
any of the three remedies will not necessarily
preclude resort to other remedies or affect decisions
reached thereat, as different degrees of evidence
are required in these several actions.
3.
Lara
:-) | 4-manresa
preponderance of
evidence;
and
4. substantial evidence.
Exec. Judge Loyao vs. Caube, 402 SCRA 33
Rules on Appeal:
b.
d.
issue of citizenship.
2. In decisions issued by the Chief of PNP, the
remedy is before the NATIONAL APPELLATE
BOARD;
From JAZZIE notes:
DICIPLINING AUTHORITIES:
2. Regional Directors;
Chief
-----------> RAB
-------> CSC
of PNP
10 days
3. PNP Chief.
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG)
(PD 478/BklV, Admin Code)
Cases:
Dir. Pascual vs. Judge Beltran, 505 SCRA 559
Facts: There was this civil action for damages filed
by this woman employee of the telecom office
against her boss Director Pascual. So the damage
suit was filed before the RTC. And the complaint
mentioned petitioner as the head of the Telecom
Regional Office.
Exceptions:
1. When the government office is adversely
affected by a contrary stand take by the OSG.
Facts: Chinese businessman Co sued Chavez in a
civil suit for damages in connection with an interview
and the businessworld publish this interview
imputing malice against the petitioner.
HELD:
The Sol Gen cannot represent Chavez
because it is a damage suit arising from the
commission of a felony.
Facts:
Agraft case was filed against councilor
Orcullo for allegedly non payment of her salaries
and according to her it caused undue injury to her
that is why she filed a graft case.
1. Impeachable Officials
Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary
Authority?
In the matter of the criminal case, the OMB
proceeded with the conduct PI for murder. In fact,
after due proceedings, an Information was filed by
the OMB for Homicide. So this judge went to the SC.
Amy a preventive suspension be issued even before
the order requiring the respondent to file his
answer? YES. There is no need for the joinder of
issues.
General Rule:
The filing of an appeal in
administrative law will stay the decision
b. If the hearing officer finds no sufficient cause to
warrant further proceedings on the basis of the
affidavits and other evidence submitted by the
parties, the complaint may be dismissed.
Otherwise, he shall issue an Order (or Orders)
for any of the following purposes:
2. If the Hearing Officer decides not to consider
the case submitted for resolution after the
filing of the position papers, affidavits and
pleadings, to conduct a clarificatory hearing
regarding facts material to the case as
appearing in the respective position papers,
affidavits and pleadings filed by the parties.
At this stage, he may, at his discretion and
for the purpose of determining whether there
is a need for a formal trial or hearing, ask
clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or
information; In the conduct of clarificatory
hearings, the parties shall be afforded the
opportunity to be present but without the
right to examine or crossexamine the party/
witness being questioned. The parties may
be allowed to raise clarificatory questions
and elicit answers form the opposing party/
witness, which shall be coursed through the
Hearing Officer who shall determine whether
or not the proposed questions are necessary
and relevant. In such cases, the Hearing
Officer shall ask the question in such
manner and phrasing as he may deem
appropriate.
c)
d) In the conduct of formal administrative
investigation, the Hearing Officer shall set the
case for continuous trial. The parties shall be
notified at least ten (10) days before the date
of the initial hearing. Failure of any or both of
the parties to appear at the scheduled
hearing(s) is not necessarily a cause for the
dismissal of the complaint.
A party who
appears may be allowed to present his
evidence in the absence of the adverse party
who was duly notified of the hearing;
however, if the absent party is able to show
that there is a valid cause for his absence, he
shall be afforded the opportunity to crossexamine the witness (es) presented during his
absence.
In case of two (2) successive
unjustified non-appearances of any party in
the proceedings, it shall be the option of the
party who is present to submit the case for
resolution on the basis of the records of the
case and the evidence so far presented;
TAKE NOTE: In all other cases, the appeal from the
OMB decision is to the Court of Appeals on verified
petition for review under Rule 43 of the rules of court
within 15 days from receipt of notice.
Penalty
The penalty of dismissal from the service carries
with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits, and the perpetual
disqualification for reemployment in the government
service.
Dimayuga vs. OMB, 20 July 2006
power under Sec. 15(1) of RA 6770. Again, we have
to make this classification on this provision that the
authority of the OMB is only insofar as the amassed
wealth has nothing to do with the public officers
connection with the Marcoses.
PCGG
to information (Sec. 7, Art. lll) (Sabio vs. Chair
Gordon, 504 SCRA 704).
2. A report made by this examination department to
the CB;
Central Bank
The Central Bank thru the Monetary Board may
close a bank thru the policy of Close now and hear
later even without yet notice. No prior notice and
formal hearing are required.