Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
First Batch
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Was the petitioner denied of due
Petitioner was granted a building
process against which the defense of failure
permit issued by the City Engineer to
of AV to take timely appeal will not avail?
construct a funeral parlour. The court
rendered a judgment in favour of the
petitioner. Following the adverse decision of
HELD:
the court, respondent, instead of appealing
the judgment lodged a complaint with the All of the foregoing translate to a
Human Settlement Regulatory Commission denial of due process against which the
(HSRC) on substantially the same ground defense of failure to take timely appeal will
litigated in the action relative parlour’s not avail. Administrative proceedings are
distance from hospitals. Petitioner received not exempt from the operation of certain
a telegram from the HSRC through its basic and fundamental procedural
Commissioner requesting transmittal of principles, such as the due process
proof of location clearance granted by the requirements in investigations and trials.
office. The petitioner sent a telegram And this administrative process is
containing the required locational clearance. recognized to include: (a) the right to
Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice, be it actual or constructive, of the
Show Cause order requiring her to show institution of the proceedings that may
cause why a fine should not be imposed on affect a person’s legal right; (b) reasonable
her or a cease-and-desist order issued opportunity to appear and defend his rights,
against her for her failure to show proof of introduce witnesses and relevant evidence
locational clearance. In spite of her in his favor; (c) a tribunal so constituted as
communication that she had already mailed to give him reasonable assurance of
all the necessary documents, he was still honesty and impartiality, and one of
ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |3
competent jurisdiction; and (d) a finding or and Pabiloňa. Gozon decided in favor of
decision by that tribunal supported by Martinez et al. ZCM appealed the case
substantial evidence presented at the before the Secretary of Agriculture and
hearing, or at least contained in the records Natural Resources. During pendency, Gozon
or disclosed to the parties affected. And it was assigned as the Sec of Agri. And
being clear that some, at least, of those Natural Resources. He did not inhibit
essential elements did not obtain or were himself from deciding on the appeal but he
not present in the proceedings complained instead affirmed his earlier decision when
of, any judgment rendered, or order issued, he was still the director of mines.
therein was null and void, could never
ZCM then appealed before the CFI
become final and could be attacked in any
of Zambales. The CFI affirmed the decision
appropriate proceeding. Also, an earlier
of Gozon. It held that the disqualification of
judgment on the merits by a competent
a judge to review his own decision or ruling
court cannot be negated by a result of
(Sec. 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court) does not
administrative proceedings. What the record
apply to administrative bodies; that there is
shows is that the petitioner responded
no provision in the Mining Law, disqualifying
promptly to orders and communications
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
sent to her. At any rate, this court will not
Resources from deciding an appeal from a
permit the result of an administrative
case which he had decided as Director of
proceeding riddled with serious defects
Mines; that delicadeza is not a ground for
already pointed out to negate an earlier
disqualification; that the ZCM did not
judgment on the merits on the same matter
seasonably seek to disqualify Gozon from
regularly rendered by competent court.
deciding their appeal, and that there was no
2. evidence that Gozon acted arbitrarily and
with bias, prejudice, animosity or hostility to
G.R. No. L-49711 November 7, ZCM. ZCM appealed the case to the CA.
1979
The CA reversed Gozon’s finding
ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING and declared that ZCM had the rights earlier
VS. CA GR NO. 49711 11/07/1979 attributed to Martinez et al by Gozon.
Martinez et al appealed averring that the
factual basis found by Gozon as Director of
Due Process – Administrative Due Process Mines be given due weight. The CA
FACTS: reconsidered after realizing that Gozon
cannot affirm his own decision and the CA
remanded the case to the Minister of
ZCM filed an administrative case Natural Resources. Now both parties
before the Director of Mines Gozon to have appealed urging their own contentions; ZCM
them be declared the rightful and prior wants the CA’s earlier decision to be
locators and possessors of 69 mining claims reaffirmed while Martinez et al demanded
in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. They are asserting that Gozon’s finding be reinstated. The CA
their claim against the group of Martinez denied both petition.
ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |4
3.
ISSUE:
5.
ISSUES:
G.R. No. 109113 January 25,
(a) whether respondent Lucas was denied 1995
due process when the CSC found him guilty CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE
of grave misconduct on a charge of simple METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND
misconduct SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS),
petitioners, vs.
(b) whether the act complained of
HON. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO
constitutes grave misconduct.
M. VASQUEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE
PHILIPPINE LARGE DIAMETER
PRESSURE PIPE MANUFACTURERS
RULING:
ASSOCIATION (PLDPPMA),
(a) YES respondents.
ISSUE: 6.
CA via a petition for review under Rule Republic v. Extelcom G.R. 147096,
43 of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately, January 15, 2002
petitioners chose the wrong remedy.
Instead of appealing their dismissal by the FACTS:
PEA to the CSC, they chose to question it
before the CA. As the petitioners did not Bayantel filed an application with the
appeal the decision of the PEA to NTC for a Certificate of Public Convenience
dismiss them to the CSC, it has or Necessity (CPCN) to install, operate and
become final and executory and the maintain a digital Cellular Mobile Telephone
Court can no longer review it. System/Service (CMTS) with prayer for a
Provisional Authority (PA). Shortly thereafter
Other Issue: Whether or not there was a
the NTC issued directing all interested
violation of petitioners’ right to due process
applicants for nationwide or regional CMTS
and security of tenure.
to file their respective applications before
Held: NO. There was no violation of the Commission and prior to the issuance of
petitioners’ right to due process and any notice of hearing by the NTC with
security of tenure. Petitioners cannot claim respect to Bayantel’s original application,
that their dismissal was unattended by the Bayantel filed an urgent ex-parte motion to
requisite due process because they were admit an amended application.
given the opportunity to be heard in
the course of PAGC’s investigation.
The notice of hearing issued by the
The tenurial protection accorded to a civil NTC with respect to this amended
servant is a guaranty of both procedural application was published in the Manila
and substantive due process. Procedural Chronicle. Copies of the application as well
due process requires that the dismissal, as the notice of hearing were mailed to all
when warranted, be effected only after affected parties. Subsequently, hearings
notice and hearing. On the other hand, were conducted on the amended
substantive due process requires, among application. But before Bayantel could
others, that the dismissal be for legal cause, complete the presentation of its evidence,
which must relate to and effect the the NTC grant of two (2) separate
administration of the office of which the Provisional which resulted in the closing out
concerned employee is a member of and of all available frequencies for the service
must be restricted to something of a being applied for by herein applicant, and in
substantial nature directly affecting the order that this case may not remain
rights and interests of the public. pending for an indefinite period of time,
Nevertheless, the right to security of tenure ordered ARCHIVED without prejudice to its
is not tantamount to immunity from reinstatement if and when the requisite
dismissal. frequency becomes available.
radio frequency spectrum for the expansion before statutes, rules or regulations can
of CMTS networks. Bayantel filed an Ex- take effect.
Parte Motion to Revive Case, citing the
availability of new frequency bands for
The Rules of Practice and Procedure
CMTS operators, the NTC granted
of the NTC fall squarely within the scope of
BayanTel’s motion to revive the latter’s
these laws, as explicitly mentioned in the
application and set the case for hearings.
case Tañada v. Tuvera. which is clear and
Extelcom filed an Opposition praying for the
categorical. Administrative rules and
dismissal of Bayantel’s application which
regulations must be published if their
was denied for lack of merit. Extelcom filed
purpose is to enforce or implement existing
with the Court of Appeals a petition for
law pursuant to a valid delegation. The only
certiorari and prohibition,which was
exceptions are interpretative regulations,
granted.
those merely internal in nature, or those so-
called letters of instructions issued by
Petitioner filed MR but subsequently administrative superiors concerning the
denied by the CA. Hence, the NTC filed the rules and guidelines to be followed by their
instant subordinates in the performance of their
petition. adrianantazo.wordpress.com duties.
(petitioner), Head Teacher III in the High School Hon. Angel C. Alcala, then Chairman of CHED,
Department of the Angadanan Agro-Industrial unaware of the existence of Mayo’s resolution,
College (AAIC), a state-supervised school in issued another Resolution dated June 3, 1999,
Angadanan, Isabela. Edmond M. Castillejo, finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and
Administrative Officer II of the same school, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
charged petitioner of mauling him while he was service. Petitioner was dismissed form service.
performing his duties. Appended to the letter-
complaint were the verified criminal complaint Petitioner then filed with the RTC of
filed by Castillejo against petitioner and the Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, a petition for
sworn statements of his witnesses. The criminal certiorari, prohibition and injunction. He alleged
complaint for assault to a person in authority grave abuse of discretion on the part of Alcala in
was filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of issuing the Resolution despite that a previous
Angadanan-San Guillermo. Resolution already dismissed the administrative
complaint against him. The RTC sided with the
The letter-complaint was referred to the petitioner and declared the Resolution of Alcala
Legal Affairs Service of the CHED. Atty. Felina S. null and void.
Dasig, then OIC of the Office of the Director III,
Legal Affairs Service, conducted a fact-finding On appeal, the CA reversed and set
investigation on the mauling incident. After the aside the decision of RTC. It declared as valid
fact-finding investigation was terminated, and Alcala’s Resolution. Hence, this petition for
upon finding of a prima facie case against the review.
petitioner for grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, The petitioner continuously argued that
Atty. Dasig issued the Formal Charge and Order the letter-complaint is inexistent because it was
of Preventive Suspension dated July 27, 1998. not made under oath and does not contain a
certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioner
The petitioner did not submit his written cites Section 2, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules
counter-affidavit or answer to the charges Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 and Section
against him. Instead, he filed with the RTC of 4(d) of Civil Service Commission Resolution No.
Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, a petition for 94-0521 (Uniform Rules of Procedure in the
certiorari and prohibition to restrain enforcement Conduct of Administrative Legislation). Hence,
of the preventive suspension order. Having the formal charge and order of preventive
served the suspension, the case was dismissed suspension stemming from it is likewise null and
for being moot and academic. Petitioner then void.
sought reconsideration of the formal charge and
preventive suspension order, contending that ISSUE:
the letter-complaint was not under oath and that
he was not informed nor apprised of the Whether or not the letter-complaint
complaint against him. should be deemed inexistent as it was not made
under oath.
Joel Voltaire V. Mayo, who was later
appointed Director of the Legal Affairs Service of RULING:
CHED, issued a Resolution dated February 20,
1999, dismissing the administrative complaint The Court is not persuaded. The
against the petitioner on the ground that the pertinent provisions governing the initiation of
letter-complaint was not under oath. However, administrative complaints against civil service
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 14
officials or employees are provided in Book V of G.R. NO. 155784, OCTOBER 13, 2005
EO No. 292, Sections 46 (c) and 48 (1) and (2), CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, NATIONAL
Chapter 6, Subtitle A. It must be pointed out CAPITAL REGION, PETITIONER,
that, while the letter-complaint was not verified, VS.RANULFO P. ALBAO, RESPONDENT.
appended thereto were the verified criminal
complaint that Castillejo filed against the FACTS:
petitioner, as well as the sworn statements of
his witnesses. These documents could very well On September 1, 1998, the Office of the Vice
be considered as constituting the complaint President of the Republic of the Philippines
against the petitioner. In fact, this Court, issued an original and permanent appointment
through the Court Administrator, investigates for the position of Executive Assistant IV to
and takes cognizance of, not only unverified, but respondent Ranulfo P. Albao. Respondent was
also even anonymous complaints filed against then a contractual employee at said Office. In a
court employees or officials for violations of the letter dated September 28, 1998 addressed to
Code of Ethical Conduct. It is not totally the Director of the Civil Service Commission
uncommon that a government is given wide Field Office, Manila, the Office of the Vice
latitude in the scope and exercise of its President requested the retrieval of the said
investigative powers. Administrative appointment paper. Instead of heeding the
proceedings, technical rules of procedure and request, petitioner CSC-NCR disapproved the
evidence are not strictly applied. appointment.
The Court of Appeals decided in favor of the disciplinary action against officers and
respondent. employees under their jurisdiction.
Prosecutor’s failure to resolve his motion for recommendation for the filing of the information
reconsideration. Thus, in a resolution13 dated before the Sandiganbayan.
24 March 2003, the respondent court directed
the Office of the Ombudsman to resolve the
Having participated in the initial
said motion.In a memorandum14 dated 09 June
preliminary investigation of the instant case and
2003, Special Prosecutor Joselito R. Ferrer
having recommended the filing of appropriate
recommended the denial of the motion for
information, it behooved Ombudsman Desierto
reconsideration filed by petitioner.
to recuse himself from participating in the
review of the same during the reinvestigation.
Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. He should have delegated the review to his
Kallos changed his previous position and Deputies.
recommended that the memorandum for the
dismissal of the motion for reconsideration be
approved, with Special Prosecutor Dennis M.
Villa-Ignacio concurring in the denial.
Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, who succeeded 12.
Ombudsman Desierto when he retired, approved
Joselito Ferrer’s memorandum recommending
OMBUDSMAN vs. HEIDI M.
the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
ESTANDARTEG.R. No. 168670 April 13,
2007
Petitioner thus filed the instant petition
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
On August 17, 1998, People’s
restraining order to enjoin the Sandiganbayan
Graftwatch referred to the Office of the
from taking further action in Criminal Case. The
Ombudsman (Visayas), for immediate
First Division of this Court issued the temporary
investigation, a complaint of the Faculty
restraining order prayed for.The instant petition
Club and Department Heads of the Ramon
was transferred to the Second Division of this
Torres National HighSchool against Heidi
Court.
Estandarte, the school principal.
ISSUE:
The complaint consisted of 33
allegations of improprieties ranging from illegal
Where Ombudsman Desierto committed handling of school funds, irregular financial
grave abuse of discretion? transactions, perjury, and abuse of authority.
The Ombudsman decided to refer the
administrative aspect of the case to the DECS-
RULING:
Region VI for administrative adjudication . The
complete records of the case were forwarded to
Yes, attributes partiality on the part of the DECS-Region VI in a letter dated November
Ombudsman Desierto for having participated in 29, 1999.
the reinvestigation of the instant case despite
the fact that he earlier participated in the initial
In a letter dated April 29, 2002,
preliminary investigation of the same when he
the Faculty Club requested the Ombudsman
was a Special Prosecutor by concurring in the
to take over the case for speedier disposition.
Ms. Lucia Jane Grecia, a member of the Faculty
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 18
Club, requested the Ombudsman to take over and COA for appropriate action. After it had
the case. Consequently, on July 5, 2002, the resolved to upgrade the matter to an
Ombudsman informed the DECS-Region VI that administrative case, the Ombudsman
it would not object if the case is returned to it. decided not to take cognizance of the same and
refer it, instead, to the DECS-Region VI.
the respondent there inactively participated in process because she was not furnished copies of
the proceedings before the other tribunal the affidavits of Bernardo’s witnesses.
Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsmans public censure, reprimand, suspension of not
Act) and Section 7, Rule III of A.O. No. 7 (Rules more than one month, or a fine equivalent to
of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) one month salary, is imposed.
on the availability of appeal before the Supreme
Court to assail a decision or order of the We pointed out that decisions of
Ombudsman in administrative cases. In Fabian, administrative agencies that are declared by law
we invalidated Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 (and to be final and unappealable are still subject to
Section 7, Rule III of A.O. No. 7 and the other judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness
rules implementing the Act) insofar as it or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion; the
provided for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 complainants legal recourse is to file a petition
from the decisions or orders of the Ombudsman for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
in administrative cases. Court, applied as rules suppletory to the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.
We held that Section 27 of R.A. No.
6770 had the effect, not only of increasing the The use of this recourse should take
appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its into account the last paragraph of Section 4,
advice and concurrence in violation of Section Rule 65 of the Rules of Court i.e., the petition
30, Article VI of the Constitution; it was also shall be filed in and be cognizable only by the
inconsistent with Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules CA if it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-
of Court which provides that a petition for judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by
review on certiorari shall apply only to a review law or by the Rules.
of judgments or final orders of the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax In the present case, the Ombudsmans
Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other decision and order imposing the penalty of
courts authorized by law. We pointedly said: reprimand on the petitioner are final and
unappealable. Thus, the petitioner availed of the
As a consequence of our ratiocination correct remedy when she filed a petition for
that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 should certiorari before the CA to question the
be struck down as unconstitutional, and in line Ombudsmans decision to reprimand her.
with the regulatory philosophy adopted in
appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 The Due Process Issue
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in The CA Decision dismissed the petition
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken for certiorari on the ground that the petitioner
to the CA under the provisions of Rule 43. failed to exhaust all the administrative remedies
available to her before the Ombudsman.
We restated this doctrine in several
cases and further elaborated on the recourses This ruling is legally correct as
from Ombudsman actions in other cases we exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
have decided since then. In Lapid v. CA, we requisite for the filing of a petition for certiorari.
explained that an appeal under Rule 43 to the Other than this legal significance, however, the
CA only applies to administrative cases where ruling necessarily carries the direct and
the right to appeal is granted under Section 27 immediate implication that the petitioner has
of R.A. No. 6770. In Lopez v. CA and Herrera v. been granted the opportunity to be heard and
Bohol, we recognized that no appeal is allowed has refused to avail of this opportunity; hence,
in administrative cases where the penalty of she cannot claim denial of due process. In the
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 21
words of the CA ruling itself: Petitioner was The examination files (1993) were
given the opportunity by public respondent to compared with her personal data sheet
rebut the affidavits submitted by private (1994). I t was found:
respondent. . . and had a speedy and adequate
administrative remedy but she failed to avail o That the image included in the
thereof for reasons only known to her. personal data sheet of petitioner
bears no resemblance with the
The records show that the petitioner examinee petitioner. The
duly filed a motion for reconsideration on due signatures were also vastly
process grounds (i.e., for the private different.
respondents failure to furnish her copies of the o Based on these facts, it was
affidavits of witnesses) and on questions relating then alleged that petitioner
to the appreciation of the evidence on record. allowed a different person to
The Ombudsman acted on this motion by issuing take the exam for her.
its Order of January 17, 2003 belatedly
A full investigation followed. The
furnishing her with copies of the private
hearings were repeatedly postponed as
respondents witnesses, together with the
per Petitioner’s request, but eventually
directive to file, within ten (10) days from
the hearing materialized and both sides
receipt of this Order, such pleading which she
(the prosecutor and petitioner) were
may deem fit under the circumstances. Given
able to present their evidence.
this opportunity to act on the belatedly- o CSCRO: Found petitioner guilty
furnished affidavits, the petitioner simply chose
of the charges and was meted
to file a Manifestation where she took the
with dismissal from service.
position that The order of the Ombudsman o CSC: affirmed the findings and
dated 17 January 2003 supplying her with the the resolution of CSCRO.
affidavits of the complainant does not cure the
04 November 2002 order, and on this basis Petitioner coursed a petition for
prayed that the Ombudsman’s decision be certiorari under Rule 65 of the RoC
reconsidered and the complaint dismissed before the CA.
forlack of merit. o CA: dismissed the petition for
being the wrong mode of
appeal. Petitioner should have
14. filed a petition for review under
Rule 43, not a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
Hadji-Sirad vs. CSC
Petitioner also failed to indicate
G.R. no. 182267 Aug. 28, 2009
the material date of filing of her
FACTS:
MR to the CSC, and to include
Petitioner, who was an employee of COA the said MR to the petition, in
in the ARMM, was charged with violation of Rule 43.
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Hence, this petition.
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
ISSUE:
of Service, for the anomaly found in her
examination files for the Career Service Whether or not petitioner was wrong in the
Personal Examination held on Oct.1993, mode of appeal.
where she passed with a 88.31% score.
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 22
ISSUE:
FACTS :
Whether or not his contentions are
Petitioner Virginia Malinao is Human correct?
Resource Manager III of Sta. Cruz,
Marinduque. Respondent Mayor filed a case
against her in the Office of the Ombudsman RULING:
for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and
incompetence. On February 24, NO. Contrary to petitioners claim,
1994 petitioner filed an administrative case what the minutes only show is that on Aug.
against respondent Mayor in the 12, 1994 the Sangunian took a vote on the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque, administrative case of respondent Mayor
charging him with abuse of authority and and not that it then rendered a decision as
denial of due process. The case was taken required by 66(a) of the Local Government
up in executive session of the Sanggunian. Code (RA No. 7160) which provides as
By the vote of 5 to 3 of its members, found follows:
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 26
three (3) consecutive weeks. However, commissions with the special knowledge,
there was no hearing conducted for the experience and capability to hear and
matter. Deliberations were not even determine promptly disputes on technical
attended by Board Members except TRB matters or intricate questions of facts,
Executive Director Jaime Dumlao, Jr. subject to judicial review in case of grave
Petitioners assail the validity of the abuse of discretion, is
resolution. indispensable. Between the power lodged
in an administrative body and a court, the
ISSUE:
unmistakable trend is to refer it to the
Whether or not Resolution No. 2001-89 is former.”
invalid on the ground that:
“(c) No. It is not true that it was TRB
(a) it was in violation of due process; Executive Director Dumlao, Jr. alone who
issued Resolution No. 2001-89. The
(b) the provisional toll rate adjustments are Resolution itself contains the signature of
exorbitant, oppressive, onerous and the four TRB Directors. Petitioner Padua
unconscionable; and, would argue that while these Directors
(c) TRB Executive Director Jaime Dumlao, signed the Resolution, none of them
Jr. alone authorized the provisional personally attended the hearing. This
increase. argument is misplaced. Under our
jurisprudence, an administrative agency
RULING: may employ other persons, such as a
hearing officer, examiner or investigator, to
receive evidence, conduct hearing and
“(a) No. TRB clearly complied with the make reports, on the basis of which the
publication requirements. Also, the TRB may agency shall render its decision. Such a
grant and issue ex-parte to any procedure is a practical necessity.
petitioner, without need of notice, Corollarily, in a catena of cases, the
publication or hearing, provisional authority Supreme Court laid down the cardinal
to collect, pending hearing and decision on requirements of due process in
the merits of the petition, the increase in administrative proceedings, one of which is
rates prayed for or such lesser amount as that “the tribunal or body or any of its
the TRB may in its discretion provisionally judges must act on its or his own
grant. independent consideration of the law and
facts of the controversy, and not simply
“(b) No. This is obviously a question of fact
accept the views of a subordinate.” Thus, it
requiring knowledge of the formula used
is logical to say that this mandate was
and the factors considered in determining
rendered precisely to ensure that in cases
the assailed rates. Definitely, this task is
where the hearing or reception of evidence
within the province of the TRB. The SC
is assigned to a subordinate, the body or
takes cognizance of the wealth of
agency shall not merely rely on his
jurisprudence on the doctrine of primary
recommendation but instead shall
administrative jurisdiction and exhaustion of
personally weigh and assess the evidence
administrative remedies. In this era of
which the said subordinate has gathered.”
clogged court dockets, the need for
specialized administrative boards or
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 29
grounds. Under the principle of estoppel by during trial but had nonetheless failed to
laches, petitioner is now barred from secure it. It appears that the affidavit was
impugning the CSC’s jurisdiction over his merely an afterthought, a last ditch effort to
case. The Civil Service Commission has clear petitioner’s name.
afforded the petitioner ample time to
Hence instant petition is hereby denied and
defend and opportunity to be heard in view
decision of CA is affirmed.
of the case filed against him and during this
time no objections were raised. Petitioner
voluntarily and willfully participated in the
proceedings. As held previously, 5.
participation by parties in the administrative MELECIO ALCALA, PERLA ALCALA,
proceedings without raising any objection ROQUE BORINAGA, DIOSDADA
thereto bars them from raising any BORINAGA, HELEN LENDIO, andMARY
jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse BABETH MAGNO,
decision is rendered against them.[22] In petitioners,
the case at bar, petitioner raised the issue
of lack of jurisdiction for the first time in his vs
amended petition for review[23] before the
CA. JOVENCIO VILLAR,
respondent
Petitioner’s contention that he was denied
due process for he was not allowed for
FACTS:
cross examination was equally
unmeritorious. It is well to remember that in Respondent Jovencio D. Villar is the
administrative proceedings, technical rules School Principal of Lanao National High
of procedure and evidence are not strictly School, Pilar, Cebu City. InFebruary 1998,
applied and administrative due process Rolando Torceno and petitioners, Melecio
cannot be fully equated with due process in Alcala, Perla Alcala, Roque Borinaga, Helen
its strict judicial sense. Neither is there Lendio, Emma Labaniego and Mary Babeth
merit in petitioner’s assertion that he was Mano, all teachers of Lanao National High
School, as well as Asterio Villarante and
denied the right to due process when the
petitioner Diosdada Borinaga, teachers of
CSC Regional Office, according to him,
Dapdap National High School, Pilar, Dapdap,
acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge and
Cebu City (herein collectively referred to as
executioner. This kind of procedure is not complainants), filed with the Office of the
unusual in an administrative proceeding. It Ombudsman an administrative complaint
is has to be noted however, that ultimately against respondent for dishonesty.
the Civil Service Chairman was the one who Complainants alleged that on August 18-22,
promulgated the decision. 1997, they attended a mass
training/seminar at the Consolacion National
Lastly, the petitioner contention of
High School, Consolacion, Cebu.
admitting the affidavit of Teodorico Cruz as Respondent asked them to submit their
newly discovered evidence cannot be respective Certificates of Appearance for
accepted by court. Newly discovered the preparation of the vouchers for the
evidence can only be accepted if the refund of their expenses during the said
petitioner exercised reasonable diligence in training/seminar. Thereafter, they received
seeking to locate such evidence before or from respondent the amounts as refund.
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 31
Upon verification with the Department of school teachers. It ruled that the governing
Education Culture and Sports (DECS) law is Republic Act No. 4670, otherwise
Division Office, complainants discovered known as the Magna Carta for Public School
that each of them were issued checks in the Teachers, and not Republic Act No. 6770,
amount of P312.00 as reimbursement, and the Ombudsman Act of 1989.Petitioners
that respondent received the same by motion for reconsideration was denied.
forging their signature. Complainants
further alleged that sometime in November
1997, Melecio Alcala, Diosdada Borinaga, ISSUE:
Helen Lendio, and Rolando Torceno
received from respondent P1,500.00 each Whether the petitioners were accorded
representing Loyalty Benefits. They learned, opportunity to be heard.
however, from the DECS Division Office that
they were entitled to receiveP2,000.00 RULING:
each. Respondent, on the other hand,
claimed that he was in fact authorized by Yes. Here what is crucial, in our view, is
the complainants to claim and en cash their that the Civil Service Commission had
checks at the E and E Lending Investors afforded petitioner sufficient opportunity to
where most of them have existing loans. He be heard and defend himself against
contended that their school is located in the charges of participation in faking civil
rural area where no banks are operating, service eligibilities of certain teachers for a
such that it has been the practice of fee. Not only did he answer the charges
teachers to authorize the principal to claim, before the CSC Regional Office but he
receive and en cash the checks in their participated in the hearings of the charges
behalf. He explained that complainants did against him to the extent that we are left
not receive the entire amount of P312.00 with no doubt that his participation in its
because they authorized the E and E proceedings was willful and voluntary. As
Lending Investors to deduct certain held previously, participation by parties in
amounts from their checks as payment for the administrative proceedings without
their respective loans. As for the Loyalty raising any objection thereto bars them
Benefits, respondent alleged that from raising any jurisdictional infirmity after
complainants received the entire amount an adverse decision is rendered against
due them and that he deducted nothing them. In the case at bar, petitioner raised
there from. He asserted that the real reason the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the first
behind he filing of the complaint was to time in his amended petition for review
force him to resign so that one of the before the CA. He did not raise this matter
complainants could apply for his post. On in his Motion to Dismiss filed before the CSC
June 22, 1999, the Office of the Regional Office. Notably, in his Counter-
Ombudsman issued a resolution finding Affidavit, he himself invoked the
respondent guilty of dishonesty and jurisdiction of the Commission by stating
dismissing him from service. A motion for that he was open to further investigation by
reconsideration was filed by respondent; the CSC to bring light to the matter and by
however, the same was denied on October further praying for any remedy or judgment
13,1999.On appeal, the Court of Appeals which under the premises are just and
nullified and set aside the decision of the equitable. It is an undesirable practice of a
Office of the Ombudsman on the ground party participating in the proceedings,
that the latter was without jurisdiction over submitting his case for decision, and then
administrative complaints against public accepting the judgment only if favorable,
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 32
but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when and their co-respondents. PCAGC took over
adverse. In the case at bar, respondent was the investigation from the DOH and issued a
amply afforded due process in an penalty of dismissal from the government
administrative proceeding, the essence of
service be imposed thereon.
which is an opportunity to explain ones side
or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. Not only Respondents filed a motion for
did respondent file a counter-affidavit and reconsideration, which was denied by the
a motion for reconsideration, he also Secretary of Health. Respondents appealed
participated in the hearings conducted by to the CSC where the same was denied by
the Office of the Ombudsman and was the CSC, except for Cabrera who was
given the opportunity to cross-examine the exonerated of the administrative charges
witnesses against him. Verily, participation
against him.
in the administrative proceedings without
raising any objection thereto amounts to a
waiver of jurisdictional infirmities. Upon appeal to the CA, the CA nonetheless
used the same legal bases for annulling the
CSC’s Resolution against respondents. It
6. held that the PCAGC’s jurisdiction over
administrative complaints pertained only to
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH presidential appointees. Thus, the
vs. Commission had no power to investigate
PRISCILLA G. CAMPOSANO, ENRIQUE the charges against respondents. Moreover,
L. PEREZ, and IMELDA Q. AGUSTIN in simply and completely relying on the
G.R. No. 157684 PCAGC’s findings, the secretary of health
April 27, 2005 failed to comply with administrative due
process. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether or not the PCAGC has
Respondents are former employees jurisdiction to investigate anomalous
of the DOH-NCR, holding various positions. transactions involving the respondents. YES.
In 1996 some concerned DOH-NCR
employees filed a complaint before the DOH RULING:
Resident Ombudsman against Majarais,
Cabrera, and the respondents, arising out of EO No. 151 granted the PCAGC the
an alleged anomalous purchase by DOH- jurisdiction to investigate administrative
NCR of certain medicines worth ₱330k. complaints against presidential appointees
allegedly involved in graft and corruption.
Resident Ombudsman submitted an From a cursory reading of its provisions, it is
investigation report to the Secretary of evident that EO 151 authorizes the PCAGC
Health recommending the filing of a formal to investigate charges against presidential,
administrative charge of Dishonesty and not non-presidential, appointees. In its
Grave Misconduct against [respondents] Preamble, specifically in its "Whereas"
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 33
clauses, the EO "specifically tasked [the administrative charges filed against Director
PCAGC] to x x x investigate presidential Rosalinda U. Majarais, Priscilla G.
appointees charged with graft and Camposano, Horacio D. Cabrera, Imelda Q.
corruption x x x." More pointedly, Section 3 Agustin and Enrique L. Perez. The Chief
states that the "Commission shall have Executive’s power to create the Ad Hoc
jurisdiction over all administrative Investigating Committee cannot be
complaints involving graft and corruption doubted. Having been constitutionally
filed in any form or manner against granted full control of the Executive
presidential appointees x x x." Department, to which respondents belong,
the President has the obligation to ensure
"Section 3. Jurisdiction. – The Commission that all executive officials and employees
shall have jurisdiction over all administrative faithfully comply with the law. With AO 298
complaints involving graft and corruption as mandate, the legality of the investigation
filed in any form or manner is sustained.
against presidential appointees,
including those in government-owned or As to the validity of the Secretary’s
controlled corporations." (emphasis decision, it is patently void for want of due
supplied) process. The Administrative Code of 1987
vests department secretaries with the
"Section 4. Powers, Functions and Duties. – authority to investigate and decide matters
The Commission shall have the following involving disciplinary actions for officers and
powers, functions and duties: employees under the former’s jurisdiction.
Thus, the health secretary had disciplinary
"(a) Investigation – The Commission shall authority over respondents. As a matter of
have the power to investigate administrative administrative procedure, a department
complaints against presidential secretary may utilize other officials to
appointees in the executive department of investigate and report the facts from which
the government, including those in a decision may be based. In the present
government-owned or controlled case, the secretary effectively delegated the
corporations, charged with graft and power to investigate to the PCAGC.
corruption. x x x x”
Neither the PCAGC under EO 151 nor the Ad
On the basis of the foregoing verba Hoc Investigating Committee created under
legis approach, respondents claim that the AO 298 had the power to impose any
PCAGC did not have jurisdiction over them, administrative sanctions directly. Their
because they were not presidential authority was limited to conducting
appointees.The Court notes, however, that investigations and preparing their findings
respondents were not investigated pursuant and recommendations. The power to
to EO 151. The investigation was authorized impose sanctions belonged to the
under Administrative Order No. 298 dated disciplining authority, who had to observe
October 25, 1996, which had created an Ad due process prior to imposing penalties.
Hoc Committee to look into the
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 34
In this case, the CA correctly ruled that In 2000, Ursal filed with the Office of the
administrative due process had not been Ombudsman a similar complaint-affidavit
observed in the present factual milieu. The charging petitioner with grave misconduct.
secretary simply and blindly relied on the Petitioner filed his counter-affidavit and
dispositive portion of the Commission’s attached thereto the affidavits of two
Resolution. The actual exercise of the witnesses. The Administrative Adjudication
disciplining authority’s prerogative requires Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the
a prior independent consideration of the law Ombudsman exonerated petitioner from the
and the facts. Failure to comply with this charge, dismissing the complaint for lack of
requirement results in an invalid decision. substantial evidence. However, upon
The disciplining authority should not merely review, and with the approval of the
and solely rely on an investigator’s Ombudsman, petitioner was found guilty of
recommendation, but must personally weigh grave misconduct and meted the penalty of
and assess the evidence gathered. dismissal, with forfeiture of material
benefits.
While Section 15(3) of RA 6770 The Ombudsman rendered its decision with
states that the Ombudsman has the the administrative case and found Medrano
power to "recommend x x x guilty of grave misconduct. Medrano moved
removal, suspension, demotion x x for reconsideration of the decision and
x" of government officials and assailed not only the factual findings
employees, the same Section 15(3) and conclusions of the Ombudsman, but for
also states that the Ombudsman in the first time, challenged its jurisdiction over
the alternative may "enforce its the case. With regard to the criminal case,
disciplinary authority as Ombudsman found probable cause to indict
provided in Section 21" of RA Medrano and a criminal case was filed
6770. before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
of Biñan, Laguna against him. By joint
order, the Ombudsman affirmed its
Resolution in the criminal case but modified
9.
its decision in the administrative case.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
vs. Medrano filed a Petition for Review with
VICTORIO N. MEDRANO the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing
G.R. No.177580 Ombudsman‘s jurisdiction over the
October 17, 2008 administrative case. The CA annulled
Ombudsman‘s decision in the administrative
FACTS: case and dismissed the complaint on the
sole ground that Ombudsman has no
Ma. Ruby A. Dumalaog, a teacher jurisdiction over it. The Ombudsman filed a
filed before the petitioner Office of the motion for reconsideration of the CA‘s
Ombudsman a sworn letter-complaint decision but was denied.
against her superior herein-respondent
Victorio N. Medrano for violation of Republic
Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
of 1995) (criminal case), and grave ISSUE:
misconduct (administrative case). While the
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 38
Whether or not Office of the for the dismissal of an action once it has
Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the been instituted in court.
administrative complaint against Medrano
even if an affidavit of desistance has With regard to whether Ombudsman has
already been filed by Dumalaog. jurisdiction over the administrative
complaint, Section 5, Article XI of the
Constitution “created the independent Office
of the Ombudsman.” Hailed as the
RULING: “protectors of the people,” the Ombudsman
and his Deputies are bestowed with
The flaw in Medrano‘s argument that overreaching authority, powers, functions,
the execution of Dumalaog‘s Affidavit of and duties to act on complaints against
Desistance and the dismissal of the criminal public officials and employees, as provided
case must result in the dismissal of the in Sections 12 and 13.
administrative case is that it ignores the
whale of a difference between those two When an administrative charge is initiated
remedies. In Gerardo R. Villaseñor and against a public school teacher, however,
Rodel A. Mesa v. Sandiganbayan and Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public
Louella Mae Oco-Pesquerra (Office of the School Teachers specifically provides that
Special Prosecutor, Ombudsman), the Court the same shall be heard initially by an
stressed the distinct and independent investigating committee composed of the
character of the remedies available to an school superintendent of the division, as
offended party against any impropriety or chairman, a representative of the local or, in
wrongdoing committed by a public officer. It its absence, any existing provincial
provides the three remedies available: 1.) or national teachers‘organization, and a
civil, 2.) criminal, and 3.) administrative. supervisor of the division. Thus, Section 23
These remedies may be invoked separately, of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 directsthat
alternately, simultaneously or successively. the petitioner “may refer certain complaints
Sometimes, the same offense may be the to the proper disciplinary authority for the
subject of all three kinds of remedies. institution of appropriate administrative
proceedings against erring public officers or
At any rate, an affidavit of desistance (or employees.”
recantation) is, as a rule, viewed with
suspicion and reservation because it can In light of this, the Court holds that the
easily be secured from a poor and ignorant administrative disciplinary authority of the
witness, usually through intimidation or for Ombudsman over a public school teacher is
monetary consideration. And there is always not an exclusive power but
the probability that it would later be is concurrent with the proper committee of
repudiated, and criminal prosecution would the DepEd.
thus be interminable. Hence, such
desistance, by itself, is not usually a ground While Ombudsman should have desisted
from hearing the administrative complaint
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 39
against Medrano and referred it to the Sometime in May 2003, complainant learned
proper DepEd committee, given that it had from her cousin that respondent was
already concluded the proceedings and had courting her daughter Myra. Complainant
rendered a decision thereon, Medrano is then immediately confronted Myra, who
now barred from assailing Ombudsman‘s admitted having received from respondent
acts under the principle of estoppel. He had several handwritten love letters, a
actively participated in the administrative Valentine's card and Two Hundred Pesos as
proceedings before the Ombudsman. In his allowance.
Counter-Affidavit, he asked Ombudsman
Off-tangentially, this case involved a public
for affirmative relief by seeking the
school teacher charged with serious
dismissal of the administrative complaint
misconduct for allegedly kissing his 12-year
allegedly for being baseless. Verily, Medrano
old student.
cannot be permitted to challenge
Ombudsman‘s acts belatedly. The CA ruled that petitioner had no
jurisdiction to investigate the complaint filed
before it as Republic Act No. 4670 (RA
4670), the Magna Carta for Public School
10.
Teachers, specifically covers and governs
administrative proceedings involving public
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
school teachers.
Petitioner,
vs. ISSUE:
PEDRO DELIJERO, JR., Respondent
G.R. No. 172635 October 20, WON Office of Ombudsman has the
2010 authority to determine the administrative
liability of an erring public school teacher.
FACTS: RULING:
Respondent Pedro Delijero, Jr., was a public The Office of Ombudsman has the authority
school teacher at the Burauen to determine the administrative liability of
Comprehensive National High School, an erring public official or employee, and to
Burauen, Leyte and was administratively direct and compel the head of the
charged for Grave Misconduct. concerned officer or agency to implement
the penalty imposed.
The complainant, Cleofas P. dela Cruz, was
the mother of the alleged victim Myra dela In Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano,
Cruz (Myra). At the time of the incident, this Court ruled that the administrative
Myra was only 12 years old and a first year disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman
high school student at the Burauen over a public school teacher is not an
Comprehensive National High School. exclusive power but is concurrent with the
Respondent, on the other hand, was Myra's proper committee of the DECS, to wit:
52-year-old Mathematics teacher. "In resolving the second issue
whether petitioner has jurisdiction over the
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 40
RULING:
However, it was denied in an order dated those falling within the appellate jurisdiction
May 28, 1986. A motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court.
thereof was likewise denied. After the
Petitioner argues that since the appeal
parties filed their respective pleadings, the
involves both calibration of the evidence
Court of Appeals rendered a decision dated
and the determination of the laws applicable
June 29, 1987 dismissing the appeal on the
thereto, then an appeal to the Court of
ground of lack of jurisdictio.
Appeals is the appropriate remedy and
ISSUE: hence her appeal should not have been
dismissed. Petitioner argues further that on
Whether a landowner should or should not
the assumption that the Court of Appeals
be allowed to retain his landholdings, if
has no jurisdiction on the matter, still the
administratively decided by the Minister of
appeal should not have been dismissed but
Agrarian Reform, are appealable and could
should have been certified to the proper
be reviewed only by the Court of Agrarian
court citing Section 3 of Rule 50 of the
Relations
Revised Rules of Court.
RULING:
The Court of Agrarian Relations has original
A perusal of the provision above cited and exclusive jurisdiction as follows:
reveals that retaining landholdings are
"Jurisdiction over Subject Matter. - The
exclusively cognizable by the Minister (now
Courts of Agrarian Relations shall have
Secretary) of Agrarian Reform whose
original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
decision may be appealed to the Office of
the President and not to the Court of a) Cases involving the rights and
Agrarian Relations. These cases are thus obligations of persons in the cultivation and
excluded from those cognizable by the then use of agricultural land except those
CAR, now the Regional Trial Courts. There cognizable by the National Labor Relations
is no appeal from a decision of the Commission; Provided, That no case
President. However, the said decision may involving the determination of rentals over
be reviewed by the courts through a special any kind of tenanted agricultural land shall
civil action for certiorari, prohibition or be taken cognizance of by the Courts of
mandamus, as the case may be under Rule Agrarian Relations unless there has been a
65 of the Rules of Court. prior fixing of provisional rental by the
Department of Agrarian Reform, except that
Petitioner's posture is that it is an error for
the tenant-farmer may directly bring the
the respondent appellate court to dismiss
case for immediate determination by the
the appeal on the ground of lack of
Courts of Agrarian Relations;
jurisdiction since under Section 9 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, said appellate court is b) Questions involving rights granted and
vested with the exclusive appellate obligations imposed by laws, Presidential
jurisdiction over all decisions, resolutions, or Decrees, Orders, Instructions, Rules and
orders of quasi-judicial agencies except Regulations issued and promulgated in
relation to the agrarian reform program;
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 43
Provided, however, That matters involving In April 10, 1986, Minister Gonzales sought
the administrative implementation of the approval from President Aquino of the
transfer of the land to the tenant-farmer composition of the Board of Directors of the
under Presidential Decree No. 27 and PTA, which included Binamira as Vice-
amendatory and related decrees, orders, Chairman in his capacity as General
instructions, rules and regulations, shall be Manager. This approval was given by the
exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of President on the same date.
Agrarian Reform
Binamira claims that since assuming office,
Thus, the respondent appellate court erred he had discharged the duties of PTA
in holding that it has no jurisdiction over the General Manager and Vice-Chairman of its
petition for review by way of certiorari Board of Directors and had been
brought before it of a decision of the acknowledged as such by various
Minister of Agrarian Reform allegedly made government offices, including the Office of
in grave abuse of his discretion and in the President.
holding that this is a matter within the
Garrucho having taken over as General
competence of the Court of Agrarian
Manager of the PTA in accordance with a
Reform. The Court of Appeals has
new memorandum, the petitioner filed this
concurrent jurisdiction with this Court and
action against him to question his title.
the Regional Trial Court over petitions
Subsequently, while his original petition was
seeking the extraordinary remedy of
pending.
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
ISSUE:
RULING:
13.
The reason is that the decree clearly
RAMON P. BINAMIRA, petitioner,
provides that the appointment of the
vs. General Manager of the Philippine Tourism
Authority shall be made by the President of
PETER D. GARRUCHO, JR., respondent.
the Philippines, not by any other officer.
G.R. No. 92008 July 30, 1990 Appointment involves the exercise of
discretion, which because of its nature
cannot be delegated. Legally speaking, it
FACTS: was not possible for Minister Gonzales to
assume the exercise of that discretion as an
In this petition for quo warranto, Ramon P.
alter ego of the President. The appointment
Binamira seeks reinstatement to the office
(or designation) of the petitioner was not a
of General Manager of the Philippine
merely mechanical or ministerial act that
Tourism Authority from which he claims to
could be validly performed by a subordinate
have been removed without just cause in
even if he happened as in this case to be a
violation of his security of tenure.
member of the Cabinet.
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 44
An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted designation was made. This belief seemed
cannot delegate it to another, the strengthened when President Aquino later
presumption being that he was chosen approved the composition of the PTA Board
because he was deemed fit and competent of Directors where the petitioner was
to exercise that judgment and discretion, designated Vice-Chairman because of his
and unless the power to substitute another position as General Manager of the PTA.
in his place has been given to him, he However, such circumstances fall short of
cannot delegate his duties to another. the categorical appointment required to be
made by the President herself, and not the
In those cases in which the proper
Minister of Tourism.
execution of the office requires, on the part
of the officer, the exercise of judgment or
discretion, the presumption is that he was
14.
chosen because he was deemed fit and
competent to exercise that judgment and JOHNNY DEMAISIP, Petitioner,Vs
discretion, and, unless power to substitute COURT OF APPEALS;G.R. No. 89393;
another in his place has been given to him, 25 Jan 1991; 193 SCRA 373
he cannot delegate his duties to another.
al. who filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, remedies is not a hard and fact rule. It has
which was denied by respondent Judge been repeatedly held that the requiring
Manuel Luis Gumban in his order. On previous exhaustion of administrative
August 25, 1987, said Judge issued another remedies is not applicable where the
order granting the Writ of Preliminary question in dispute is purely a legal one:
injunction and denied Quisumbing et al.'s where the controverted act is patently
motion for reconsideration. Quisumbing, et illegal or was performed without jurisdiction
al. assailed the aforesaid orders on the or in excess of jurisdiction; where the
ground that Esther B. Yap failed to respondent is a department secretary,
exhaust all available administrative whose acts as an alter ego of the President,
remedies. On the other hand, Yap argued bear the implied or assumed approval of the
that the doctrine of non-exhaustion of latter; where there are circumstances
administrative remedies is not applicable to indicating the urgency of judicial
the case at bar as the Memorandum Order intervention; or where the respondent has
issued by the petitioners, Lourdes acted in utter disregard of due process. The
Quisumbing and Teofilo Gomez dated rule does not apply where insistence on its
February 11, 1987 and February 12, 1987, observance would result in nullification of
respectively, would readily show that the the claim being asserted; and when the rule
basis for the issuance of the orders are the does not provide a plain, speedy and
unverified demands of alleged concerned adequate remedy.
citizens without the benefit of investigation.
In the instant case We deem it more
ISSUE: felicitous and expedient to resolve the same
on the merits to avoid multiplicity of suits
Whether or not the doctrine of since after all the circumstances warrant a
exhaustion of administrative remedies is final disposition of this petition, namely the
applicable in the case at bar. granting thereof because private
respondent had previously been appointed
as district supervisor, without indicating any
RULING: specific place as her permanent station. Her
status was therefore akin to that of a
Negative. After a careful scrutiny of district supervisor at large. Her transfer was
the records, it is to be underscored that the neither whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious.
appointment of private respondent Yap is
simply that of a District Supervisor of the
Bureau of Public Schools which does not
indicate a specific station. As such, she 16
could be assigned to any station and she is
not entitled to stay permanently at any G.R. No. 131255 May 20, 1998
specific station. Finally, the lower court did HON. EDUARDO NONATO JOSON, in
not err in taking cognizance of the case. his capacity as the Governor of the
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative Province of Nueva Ecija, petitioner,
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 47
vs. ISSUES:
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RUBEN D.
TORRES, the DEPARTMENT OF THE Whether or not:
INTERIOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, (a) Preventive suspension is
represented by SECRETARY ROBERT Z. proper;
BARBERS and UNDERSECRETARY (b) Procedural due process is
MANUEL R. SANCHEZ, MR. OSCAR C. violated;
TINIO, in his capacity as Provincial (c) The resolution of DILG
Vice-Governor of Nueva Ecija, and MR. Secretary is invalid on the ground of
LORETO P. PANGILINAN, MR. undue delegation; that it is the
CRISPULO S. ESGUERRA, MS. SOLITA President who is the Disciplining
C. SANTOS, MR. VICENTE C. PALILIO, Authority, not the Secretary of DILG;
and MR. NAPOLEON G. INTERIOR, in
their capacity as Provincial Board
Members of Nueva Ecija, respondents. RULING:
“(b) Yes. The rejection of petitioner’s right Under the doctrine of qualified political
to a formal investigation denied him agency “…which recognizes the
procedural due process. Section 5 of A. O. establishment of a single executive, all
No. 23 provides that at the preliminary executive and administrative organizations
conference, the Investigating Authority are adjuncts of the Executive Department,
shall summon the parties to consider the heads of the various executive
whether they desire a formal departments are assistants and agents of
investigation. This provision does not give the Chief Executive, and, except in cases
the Investigating Authority the discretion to where the Chief Executive is required by the
determine whether a formal investigation Constitution or law to act in person or the
would be conducted. The records show exigencies of the situation demand that he
that petitioner filed a motion for formal act personally, the multifarious executive
investigation. There is nothing in the Local and administrative functions of the Chief
Government Code and its Implementing Executive are performed by and through the
Rules and Regulations nor in A.O. No. 23 executive departments, and the acts of the
that provide that administrative cases Secretaries of such departments, performed
against elective local officials can be and promulgated in the regular course of
decided on the basis of position business, are, unless disapproved or
papers. A.O. No. 23 states that the reprobated by the Chief Executive
Investigating Authority may require the presumptively the acts of the Chief
parties to submit their respective Executive.”
memoranda but this is only after formal
investigation and hearing. This doctrine is corollary to the control
power of the President provided in the
“(c) No. The DILG resolution is valid. The Constitution. Control is said to be the very
President remains the Disciplining heart of the power of the presidency. As
Authority. What is delegated is the power head of the Executive Department, the
to investigate, not the power to discipline. President, however, may delegate some of
The power to discipline evidently includes his powers to the Cabinet members except
the power to investigate. As the when he is required by the Constitution to
Disciplining Authority, the President has the act in person or the exigencies of the
power derived from the Constitution itself to situation demand that he acts
investigate complaints against local personally. The members of Cabinet may
government officials. A. O. No. 23, act for and in behalf of the President in
however, delegates the power to investigate certain matters because the President
to the DILG or a Special Investigating cannot be expected to exercise his control
Committee, as may be constituted by the (and supervisory) powers personally all the
Disciplining Authority. This is not undue time. Each head of a department is, and
delegation, contrary to petitioner Joson’s must be, the President’s alter ego in the
claim. matters of that department where the
President is required by law to exercise
authority.
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 49
FACTS:
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 51
The DENR team proceeded with the survey decision cannotbe implemented in the light
anyway, using the 1922 decision as basis. of RAC 42 and RA 5480 (which created the
Municipality of Sta. Elena inCamNor). The
May 28, 1991 – The DENR team went to demurrer was denied.
Brgy. Tabugon, Calauag, Quezon and
installed a monumentmarker along the Upon retirement of Justice Sempio-Diy, the
boundary line determined in the survey. case was assigned to CA Justice Teodoro
Regino.
The marker indicated that the area of 8,032
hectares actually falls within the jurisdiction Pending the contempt proceedings in the
of CamNor. CA, the DBM transferred the Internal
Revenue Allotment of the 9barangays from
The area comprises 9 barangays: Calauag to Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte
Kagtalaba, Plaridel, Kabuluan, Don Tomas, starting in Fiscal Year 1994.
Guitol, Tabugon,
Maualawin, Patag Ibaba, and Patag Iraya. During the May 6, 1996 SK elections,
Oct. 14, 1991 – Rodriguez and Calauag COMELEC sent the election paraphernalia of
Mayor Julio LIM had the boundary marker the 9 barangays to Sta.Elena. COMELEC
bulldozed and removed. also issued a resolution directing the
Calauag Election Officer to refrain from
The event was covered by the Manila exercisingsupervision over political exercises
Bulletin. in the 9 barangays.
In response, Padilla filed a petition for The Civil Registrar General likewise issued a
contempt in the SC against Rodriguez and Memorandum informing the Calauag Civil
Lim for disobedience Registrar thatregistration of vital events
to a SC decision, which is punishable as occurring in the 9 barangays should now be
indirect contempt under ROC 71§3. registered with the Sta. Elena CivilRegistrar.
Nov. 27, 1997 – COMELEC resolved to note RL have a long record of resisting CamNor’s
the Calauag SB resolution and deny it with claim to the disputed area.
finality.
RL’s contumacious refusal was made with
Quezon filed a petition for certiorari with the full understanding that their acts would fall
SC, which was consolidated with the undercontempt, as evinced by the following
contempt petition. statement made in their demurrer: “The
whole case wouldhave been different if
May 3, 2000 - Justice Regino submitted his factually the territory defined in the (1922)
report and recommendation in the contempt Decision of the Executive Bureauconformed
case. with the prescription of Section 42 (of
Article II, Revised Administrative Code of
Rodriguez and Lim are guilty of contempt of 1917)”
court and should be sentenced to maximum
penalty of6 months imprisonment and SC agrees with Justice Regino’s findings.
P1000 fine; and be ordered to shoulder the
cost of installing a newboundary marker to In effect, Rodriguez was saying in the
replace the one they had removed. demurrer that they would not have removed
the boundary marker hadthe SC decided the
ISSUES: case on the basis on RAC Art. II, Sec. 42.
This is an act of defiance of the 1989
decision, where it was ruled with finality
1) W/N Rodriguez and Lim are guilty of that RAC Art. II, Sec. 42 didnot define the
contempt of court (YES) entirety of the CamNor-Quezon boundary
line in such a manner as to permit the
2) W/N COMELEC committed GAD in issuing wholeboundary line to be located on the
the resolutions assailed by Quezon (NO) ground by a surveyor.
Special Order No. 1179 issued by the DENR COMELEC: The assailed Resolutions were
Secretary was the basis for the DENR issued in deference to the 1989 decision,
team’s authority toconduct the survey and and only after the landboundary dispute
place boundary markers. The DENR between the two provinces had been
Secretary is the President’s alter ego; thus settled. The resolutions were mere
theSENR’s acts are presumed to be acts of compliance withthe SC resolution dated
the President, unless expressly repudiated Aug. 4, 1994 in the same case.
by the latter. Theargument that the survey
was conducted without Presidential SC fully agrees COMELEC.
authority is therefore baseless.RL liable for
indirect contempt For showing high regard to the SC's
Decision and Orders, we commend not only
RL thus openly disobeyed the 1989 Decision the COMELEC but also theDepartment of
when they caused the removal of the Budget and Management, the Department
monument markerinstalled by the DENR. of Finance, the Department of Environment
The significance of the monument marker andNatural Resources, the Department of
cannot simply be disregarded. As Interior and Local Government and the
aptlyexplained by Engr. Mamerto Infante, it National Statistics Office.
has a technical purpose of preserving the
survey conducted by histeam. In fact the These government offices and agencies
1989 Decision mandates "...to monument have collectively recognized the subject 9
the Basiad Bay-Mt. Cadig line described in barangays as part ofCamarines Norte's
the 16June 1922 decision of the Chief of the jurisdiction (bigyan ng jacket).
Executive Bureau."
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 55
It is only Quezon Province and its officials the adequate expertise and experience in
who ignore the finality of the Decision and the health sector. It provided for five
Resolutions of the SC.Their present petition general areas of reform: (1) to provide
attempts to re-litigate the same issues fiscal autonomy to government hospitals;
judiciously passed upon by the SC with (2) secure funding for priority public
finality.It is but imperative for the SC to health programs; (3) promote the
write finis to these cases. Indeed, every development of local health systems and
litigation must come to an end;otherwise, it ensure its effective performance; (4)
would become even more intolerable than strengthen the capacities of health
the wrong and injustice it is designed to regulatory agencies; and (5) expand the
correct. coverage of the National Health
Insurance Program (NHIP). However, some
DISPOSTION: Petition for contempt provisions of the Health Sector Reform
granted. Rodriguez and Lim fined P1,000. Agenda are challenged on the ground that
Petition for certiorari denied. they violate 15, 18 of Article II; Section 1 of
Article III; Sections 11 and 14 of Article
XIII; and Sections 1 and 3(2) of Article XV,
18. all of the 1987 Constitution, which directly
or indirectly pertain to the duty of the State
to protect and promote the people’s right to
health and well-being. However, these
provisions are not self-executory.
Petitioners challenged:
First reform agenda involving the
19. fiscal autonomy of government
hospitals, particularly the collection
of socialized user fees and the
corporate restructuring of
government hospitals.
20. Petitioners also assailed the
issuance of a draft administrative
order issued by
21. the DOH, dated 5 January 2001,
entitled "Guidelines and Procedure
in the
Implementation of the Corporate
22. Restructuring of Selected DOH
Hospitals to Achieve Fiscal
Tondo Medical vs CA #167324 Autonomy, and Managerial
17July2007 Flexibility to Start by January
2001;"and Administrative Order
FACTS: No. 172 of the DOH, entitled
HEALTH SECTOR REFORM AGENDA (HSRA) "Policies and Guidelines on the
In 1999, the DOH launched the HSRA, Private Practice of Medical and
a reform agenda developed by the Paramedical Professionals in
HSRA Technical Working Group after a Government Health
series of workshops and analyses with Facilities," dated 9 January 2001,
inputs from several consultants, program for imposing an added burden to
managers and technical staff possessing
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 56
not acting as a tribunal, board or officer enforcement. If they are not treated as self-
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. executing, the mandate of the fundamental
law can be easily nullified by the inaction of
Court of Appeals also ruled that the Congress. However, some provisions have
HSRA cannot be declared void for already been categorically declared by this
violating Court as non-self-executing. In Basco v.
Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18 of Article Philippine Amusement and Gaming
II; Section 1 of Article III; Sections 11 and Corporation, this Court declared that
14 Sections 11, 12, and 13 of Article II; Section
of Article XIII; and Sections 1 and 3(2) of 13 of Article XIII; and Section 2 of Article
Article XV, all of the 1987 Constitution, XIV of the 1987 Constitution are not self-
which executing provisions. In Tolentino v.
directly or indirectly pertain to the duty of Secretary of Finance, the Court referred to
the State to protect and promote the Section 1 of Article XIII and Section 2 of
people’s Article XIV of the Constitution as moral
right to health and well-being. It incentives to legislation, not as judicially
reasoned that the aforementioned enforceable rights. These provisions, which
provisions of the Constitution are not merely lay down a general principle, are
self-executing; they are not judicially distinguished from other constitutional
enforceable constitutional rights and can provisions as non-self-executing and,
only provide guidelines for legislation. therefore, cannot give rise to a cause of
Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a action in the courts; they do not embody
Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision judicially enforceable constitutional rights.
rendered on 26 November 2004, but Some of the constitutional provisions
the same was denied in a Resolution invoked in the present case were taken
dated 7 March 2005. from Article II of the Constitution--
specifically, Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15
ISSUE: and 18—the provisions of which the Court
Whether or not EO102 is constitutional? categorically ruled to be non-self-executing
in the afore-cited case of Tañada v. Angara.
RULING: Moreover, the records are devoid of any
YES. Petitioners allege that the HSRA should explanation of how the HSRA supposedly
be declared void, since It runs counter to violated the equal protection and due
the aspiration and ideals of the Filipino process clauses that are embodied in
people as embodied in the Constitution. Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution.
They claim that the HSRA’s policies of fiscal There were no allegations of discrimination
autonomy, incomegeneration, and revenue or of the lack of due process in connection
enhancement violate Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, with the HSRA. Since they failed to
13, 15 and 18 of Article II, Section 1 of substantiate how these constitutional
Article III; Sections 11 and 14 of Article guarantees were breached, petitioners are
XIII; and Sections 1 and 3 of Article XV of unsuccessful in establishing the relevance of
the 1987 Constitution. Such policies this provision to the petition, and
allegedly resulted in making inaccessible consequently, in annulling the HSRA. In the
free medicine and free medical services. remaining provisions, Sections 11 and 14 of
This contention is unfounded. As a general Article XIII and Sections 1 and 3 of Article
rule, the provisions of the Constitution are XV, the State accords recognition to the
considered self-executing, and do not protection of working women and the
require future legislation for their provision for safe and healthful working
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 58
the commercial area to be built on Smokey On August 27, 2003, the NHA and RBI
Mountain will be owned by RBI as enabling executed a Memorandum of Agreement
components. If the project is revoked or whereby both parties agreed to terminate
terminated by the Government through no the JVA and subsequent agreements.
fault of RBI or by mutual agreement, the During this time, NHA reported that 34
Government shall compensate RBI for its temporary housing structures and 21
actual expenses incurred in the Project plus permanent housing structures had been
a reasonable rate of return not exceeding turned over by RBI.
that stated in the feasibility study and in the
contract as of the date of such revocation, ISSUES:
cancellation, or termination on a schedule to
be agreed upon by both parties. 1. Whether respondents NHA and RBI
have been granted the power and
To summarize, the SMDRP shall consist of authority to reclaim lands of the
Phase I and Phase II. Phase I of the public domain as this power is
project involves clearing, levelling-off the vested exclusively in PEA as claimed
dumpsite, and construction of temporary by petitioner
housing units for the current residents on 2. Whether respondents NHA and RBI
the cleared and levelled site. Phase II were given the power and authority
involves the construction of a fenced by DENR to reclaim foreshore and
incineration area for the on-site disposal of submerged lands
the garbage at the dumpsite. 3. Whether respondent RBI can acquire
reclaimed foreshore and submerged
Due to the recommendations done by the lands considered as alienable and
DENR after evaluations done, the JVA was outside the commerce of man
amended and restated (now ARJVA) to 4. Whether respondent RBI can acquire
accommodate the design changes and reclaimed lands when there was no
additional work to be done to successfully declaration that said lands are no
implement the project. The original 3,500 longer needed for public use
units of temporary housing were decreased 5. Whether there is a law authorizing
to 2,992. The reclaimed land as enabling sale of reclaimed lands
component was increased from 40 hectares 6. Whether the transfer of reclaimed
to 79 hectares, which was supported by the lands to RBI was done by public
issuance of Proclamation No. 465 by bidding
President Ramos. The revision also 7. Whether RBI, being a private
provided for the 119-hectare land as an corporation, is barred by the
enabling component for Phase II of the Constitution to acquire lands of
project. public domain
8. Whether respondents can be
Subsequently, the Clean Air Act was passed compelled to disclose all information
by the legislature which made the related to the SMDRP
establishment of an incinerator illegal, 9. Whether the operative fact doctrine
making the off-site dumpsite at Smokey applies to the instant position
Mountain necessary. On August 1, 1998,
the project was suspended, to be later HELD:
reconstituted by President Estrada in MO
No. 33. 1. Executive Order 525 reads that the
PEA shall be primarily responsible for
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 60
4. Despite not having an explicit 9. When the petitioner filed the case,
declaration, the lands have been the JVA had already been
deemed to be no longer needed for terminated by virtue of MOA
public use as stated in Proclamation between RBI and NHA. The
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 61
investigation and prosecution officials and 2. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the principle of
personnel of the previous administration as separation of powers by usurping the
if corruption is their peculiar species even as powers of Congress to create and to
it excludes those of the other appropriate funds for public offices,
administrations, past and present, who may agencies and commissions;
be indictable. 3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of
the Ombudsman and the DOJ;
4. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the equal
Respondents, through OSG, questioned the protection clause.
legal standing of petitioners and argued
that:
RULING:
The power of judicial review is subject to
1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an
of Congress because the President’s actual case or controversy calling for the
executive power and power of control exercise of judicial power; (2) the person
necessarily include the inherent power to challenging the act must have the standing
conduct investigations to ensure that laws to question the validity of the subject act or
are faithfully executed and that, in any issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a
event, the Constitution, Revised personal and substantial interest in the case
Administrative Code of 1987, PD No. such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
141616 (as amended), R.A. No. 9970 and direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
settled jurisprudence, authorize the (3) the question of constitutionality must be
President to create or form such bodies. raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4)
the issue of constitutionality must be the
2] E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of very lis mota of the case.
Congress to appropriate funds because 1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation
there is no appropriation but a mere of the power of the Congress as a body to
allocation of funds already appropriated by which they belong as members. To the
Congress. extent the powers of Congress are
impaired, so is the power of each member
thereof, since his office confers a right to
3] The Truth Commission does not duplicate participate in the exercise of the powers of
or supersede the functions of the that institution.
Ombudsman and the DOJ, because it is a
fact-finding body and not a quasi-judicial
body and its functions do not duplicate, Legislators have a legal standing to see to it
supplant or erode the latter’s jurisdiction. that the prerogative, powers and privileges
vested by the Constitution in their office
remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to
4] The Truth Commission does not violate question the validity of any official action
the equal protection clause because it was which, to their mind, infringes on their
validly created for laudable purposes. prerogatives as legislators.
equal protection clause enshrined in Section Arroyo administration is but just a member
1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 of a class, that is, a class of past
Constitution. administrations. It is not a class of its own.
Not to include past administrations similarly
situated constitutes arbitrariness which the
Equal protection requires that all persons or equal protection clause cannot sanction.
things similarly situated should be treated Such discriminating differentiation clearly
alike, both as to rights conferred and reverberates to label the commission as a
responsibilities imposed. It requires public vehicle for vindictiveness and selective
bodies and institutions to treat similarly retribution. Superficial differences do not
situated individuals in a similar manner. The make for a valid classification.
purpose of the equal protection clause is to
secure every person within a state’s
jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary The PTC must not exclude the other past
discrimination, whether occasioned by the administrations. The PTC must, at least,
express terms of a statue or by its improper have the authority to investigate all past
execution through the state’s duly administrations.
constituted authorities.
The Constitution is the fundamental and
There must be equality among equals as paramount law of the nation to which all
determined according to a valid other laws must conform and in accordance
classification. Equal protection clause with which all private rights determined and
permits classification. Such classification, all public authority administered. Laws that
however, to be valid must pass the test of do not conform to the Constitution should
reasonableness. The test has four be stricken down for being unconstitutional.
requisites: (1) The classification rests on
substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to
the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED.
to existing conditions only; and (4) It Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
applies equally to all members of the same UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is
class. violative of the equal protection clause of
the Constitution.
motion to dismiss and opposed the close associate in E.O. No. 1 and the close
application for the issuance of a writ of relative, business associate, dummy, agent,
preliminary injunction on the principal or nominee in E.O. No. 2. Clearly, this
ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction alleged unlawful accumulation of wealth is
over the Board, citing the case of PCGG v. not that contemplated in E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14
Pena. Private respondent opposed the and 14-A.
motion to dismiss. Petitioner replied to the
opposition. The court judge denied
petitioner’s motion to dismiss. The 29.)
respondent judge granted the application
Guilles vs CA G.R. No. 77098
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
November 27, 1990
injunction, enjoining petitioners from
investigating or prosecuting private FACTS:
respondent under Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and
On September 2, 1980, the Director of
1379 upon the filing of a bond in the
Mines and Geo-Sciences rendered a decision
amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos.
declaring and recognizing the preferential
Petitioner strongly argues that the private
right of therein petitioner June Prill Brett to
respondent’s case falls within the
explore, develop, exploit and lease the area
jurisdiction of the PCGG. Hence, this
covered by her "MAMAKAR" mining claims
petition.
situated at Sitio Palasaan, Barrio Suyoc,
Issues: Municipality of Mankayan, Benguet. This
decision was appealed by private
WON PCGG has jurisdiction over the case of
respondents to the then Ministry of Natural
private respondent
Resources. On October 6, 1982, respondent
Ruling: Minister of Natural Resources dismissed the
appeal. From this dismissal, private
No. It will not do to cite the order of the
respondent’s heirs of John and Maria Guilles
PCGG Chairman, creating the Board and
interposed an appeal on November 4, 1982
authorizing it to investigate the unexplained
to the Office of the President, docketed
wealth and corrupt practices of AFP
therein as MNR Case No. 5096, but failed to
personnel, both retired and in active
prosecute the same. Private respondents
service, to support the contention that
later filed their respective motions for
PCGG has jurisdiction over the case of
reconsideration which, however, proved to
private respondent
be belated as the decision of respondent
Applying the rule in statutory construction Minister had already become final and
known as ejusdem generis, the term executory. The finality of the decision
“subordinate” as used in E.O. Nos. 1 and 2 notwithstanding, respondent Minister of
would refer to one who enjoys a close Natural Resources rendered another
association or relation with former Pres. decision in the same MNR Case No. 5096 on
Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the June 25, 1984, reversing and setting aside
immediate family member, relative, and the decision of October 6, 1982 and
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 71
Going back to the subject of non-exhaustion Agriculture and Natural Resources, Et Al.,
of administrative remedies, June Prill Brett’s 173 SCRA 222 [1989]). In the case at bar, it
failure to appeal to the Office of the is our considered opinion that the decision
in question, dated June 25, 1984, is of such
President from the decision of Minister Peña
a defective nature. The decision it
cannot also be considered a violation of the superseded, dated October 6, 1982, was
rule as the latter is the alter ego of the already final and executory, the belated
President and, under the doctrine of motions for reconsideration by all the
qualified political agency, his action is private respondents in G.R. No. 74223 being
deemed to be that of the President. patently time-barred. Of course, the
aforesaid heirs of John and Maria Guilles did
All told, we hold that respondent court erred file a timely appeal but they likewise failed
in dismissing June Prill Brett’s action to prosecute the same. It is obvious and
for certiorari for failure to exhaust indisputable, therefore, that respondent
administrative remedies. Minister Peña gravely abused his discretion
in reversing his original decision which
precisely prompted June Prill Brett to
forthwith invoke the jurisdiction of the
30. courts.
Brett vs IAC
FACTS:
On September 2, 1980, the Director of
1. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; Mines and Geo-Sciences rendered a decision
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF declaring and recognizing the preferential
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; RULE AND right of therein petitioner June Prill Brett to
EXCEPTION; CASE AT BAR. — It is true that explore, develop, exploit and lease the area
in our jurisdiction, unless otherwise covered by her "MAMAKAR" mining claims
provided by law or required by public situated at Sitio Palasaan, Barrio Suyoc,
interest, before bringing an action in or Municipality of Mankayan, Benguet. This
resorting to the courts of justice, all decision was appealed by private
remedies of administrative character respondents to the then Ministry of Natural
affecting or determinative of the Resources.
controversy at that level should first be
exhausted by the aggrieved party. (Miguel, The finality of the decision notwithstanding,
Et. Al. v. Vda. de Reyes, Et Al., 93Phil. 542 respondent Minister of Natural Resources
[1953]; Pestañas, Et. Al. v. Dyogi, Et. Al.,81 rendered another decision in the same MNR
SCRA 574 [1978]). It is likewise true, Case No. 5096 on June 25, 1984, reversing
however, that the doctrine of exhaustion of and setting aside the decision of October 6,
administrative remedies is not a hard and 1982 and declaring petitioner’s "MAMAKAR"
fast rule. (Fernandez, Et Al., v. Cuneta, etc., claims as null and void ab initio.which lead
Et Al., 108 Phil. 427 [1960]; National petitioner to seek reconsideration. A change
Development Company, Et Al., v. Collector in the minister of the natural resources lead
of Customs of Manila, 118 Phil. 1265 to an appeal by Petitioner until it ultimately
[1963]). Foremost among the exceptions is leads to this petition for review on certiorari
when the assailed act, order or decision is Issues:
patently illegal or was performed or issued
without jurisdiction or in excess of (1)WON respondent court erred in dismissing
jurisdiction. (Visca v. Secretary of petitioner’s original action for certiorari on the
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 74
integrated national program for coal- exploited and developed and which entity
development and with the objective of should be granted coal operating contracts
rationalizing the country's over-all coal- over said areas involves a technical
supply-demand balance, IEI's cause of determination by the BED as the
action was not merely the rescission of a administrative agency in possession of the
contract but the reversion or return to it of specialized expertise to act on the matter.
the operation of the coal blocks. Thus it was The Trial Court does not have the
that in its Decision ordering the rescission of competence to decide matters concerning
the Agreement, the Trial Court, inter activities relative to the exploration,
alia, declared the continued efficacy of the exploitation, development and extraction of
coal-operating contract in IEI's favor and mineral resources like coal. These issues
directed the BED to give due course to IEI's preclude an initial judicial determination. It
application for three (3) IEI more coal behooves the courts to stand aside even
blocks. These are matters properly falling when apparently they have statutory power
within the domain of the BED. to proceed in recognition of the primary
jurisdiction of an administrative agency.
In recent years, it has been the
jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction in many cases involving 32.
matters that demand the special DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs CA & B.A
competence of administrative agencies. It Gonzales
may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to
take cognizance of a particular case, which FACTS:
means that the matter involved is also The petitioners Director of Lands
judicial in character. However, if the case is and the Secretary of Environment and
such that its determination requires the Natural Resources entered into a contract
expertise, specialized skills and knowledge on June 30,1973 with the private
of the proper administrative bodies because respondent B.A. Gonzalez Surveying
technical matters or intricate questions of Company for which the latter was bound to
facts are involved, then relief must first be execute a public land subdivision mapping
obtained in an administrative proceeding (Plsm) of the alienable and disposable lands
before a remedy will be supplied by the in the Municipality of Valderama, Antique,
courts even though the matter is within the Blk. I-IIII, L.C. No. 819, for and in
proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the consideration of the amount of
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. It applies P183,818.00.
"where a claim is originally cognizable in However, despite written demands from the
the courts, and comes into play whenever Bureau of Lands to the private respondent
enforcement of the claim requires the to commence the Numancia, Aklan Pcadm
resolution of issues which, under a project, the latter failed to do so;
regulatory scheme, have been placed within consequently, in an order dated February 7,
the special competence of an administrative 1977, the former cancelled the contract with
body, in such case the judicial process is regard to the said project and declared the
suspended pending referral of such issues performance bond No. BCICI-3323 as
to the administrative body for its view" forfeited
BA GONZALES failed filed a motion and the
Clearly, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction Director of Lands reinstated the said
finds application in this case since the contract on June 20, 1977 without however
question of what coal areas should be granting the company’s request for a price
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 76
adjustment which denial the private HELD:Yes, the respondent court committed
respondent seasonably appealed to the a reversible error in stopping the
Secretary of Environment and Natural implementation of the results of the bidding
Resources' This appeal is pending for the cadastral survey projects conducted
On April 14, 1983, the Director of Lands by the Director of Lands. The said injunction
likewise scrapped the Valderama Plsm issued by the respondent court constitutes a
contract because of the non-completion of violation of the doctrine of primary
the project despite the grant of repeated administrative jurisdiction and defeats the
extensions totalling 1,200 days. Private very purpose thereof, which is, "not only to
respondent also appealed and both appeals give the administrative agency the
were pending. opportunity to decide the controversy by
itself correctly, but also to prevent
Meanwhile, without both appeals being unnecessary and premature resort to the
resolved, the Director of Lands conducted a courts
public bidding for the cadastral survey of
several municipalities including the
Municipality of Numancia, Aklan and the 33.
Municipality of Valderama, Antique. In the
said bidding, Armando Villamayor and Paat
Cristina Matuod were declared as the vs
successful bidders for the Numancia and Court of Appeals, et. Al.
Valderama projects, respectively. GR No. 111107, 10 January 1997
Thereupon, the private respondent filed a 266 SCRA 167
petition for prohibition and mandamus with
a prayer for a temporary restraining order FACTS
with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA- The truck of private respondent
G.R. No. 10421, alleging that the Director of Victoria de Guzman was seized by the DENR
Lands acted without or in excess of personnel while on its way to Bulacan
jurisdiction in awarding the said cadastral because the driver could not produce the
survey projects to other persons while the required documents for the forest product
appeals of the private respondent remain found concealed in the truck. Petitioner
pending.and the respondent court of Jovito Layugan, CENRO ordered the
appeals granted the said petition! confiscation of the truck and required the
petitioners file motion for reconsideration, owner to explain. Private respondents failed
Hence this petition to submit required explanation. The DENR
Regional Executive Director Rogelio
ISSUE: WON the CA violates the doctrine of Baggayan sustained Layugan’s action for
primary jurisdiction when it issued writ of confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of
injunction against the Director of Lands in the truck. Private respondents brought the
granting award of cadastral survey project case to the DENR Secretary. Pending
to new contractors involving lands subject appeal, private respondents filed a replevin
to prior mapping projects with another case before the RTC against petitioner
contractor ( the private respondent) whose Layugan and Baggayan. RTC granted the
contracts are involved in a pending appeal same. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case
to the Secretary of environment and Natural contending, inter alia, that private
Resources. respondents had no cause of action for their
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The trial court denied their motion. Hence,
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 77
this petition for review on certiorari. provide a plain, speedy and adequate
Petitioners aver that the trial court could not remedy, and (11) when there are
legally entertain the suit for replevin circumstances indicating the urgency of
because the truck was under administrative judicial intervention.
seizure proceedings.
A suit for replevin cannot be
ISSUE sustained against the petitioners for the
Whether or not the instant case subject truck taken and retained by them
falls within the exception of the doctrine. for administrative forfeiture proceedings in
pursuant to Sections 68-A of OD 705, as
HELD: No amended. Dismissal of the replevin suit for
The Court held in the negative. The lack of cause of action in view of the private
Court has consistently held that before a respondents’ failure to exhaust
party is allowed to seek the intervention of administrative remedies should have been
the court, it is a pre-condition that he the proper course of action by the lower
should have availed of all the means of court instead of assuming jurisdiction over
administrative processed afforded him. the case and consequently issuing the writ
Hence, if a remedy within the administrative ordering the return of the truck.
machinery can still be resorted to by giving
the administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that 34.
comes within his jurisdiction then such
35.
remedy should be exhausted first before
court’s judicial power can be sought. The 36.
premature invocation of court’ intervention
is fatal to one’s cause of action. 37.
to such position; and payment of his back year from the date the petitioner is ousted
salaries plus damages. The trial court issued from his position.
an order dismissing the petition on the
The Court noted that in actions of
ground that Madrigal's cause of action was
quo warranto involving right to an office,
barred by laches. Hence, this petition.
the action must be instituted within the
Madrigal alleges that the one (1) period of one year. This has been the law in
year period prescribed in an action for quo the island since 1901, the period having
warranto is not applicable in an action for been originally fixed in Section 216 of the
mandamus because Rule 65 of the Rules of Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190).The
Court does not provide for such prescriptive Court finds this provision to be an
period. The declaration by the trial court expression of policy on the part of the State
that the pendency of administrative that persons claiming a right to an office of
remedies does not operate to suspend the which they are illegally dispossessed should
period of one (1) year within which to file immediately take steps to recover said
the petition for mandamus, should be office and that if they do not do so within a
confined to actions for quo warranto only. period of one year, they shall be considered
On the contrary, he contends that as having lost their right thereto by
exhaustion of administrative remedies is a abandonment. There are weighty reasons of
condition sine qua non before one can public policy and convenience that demand
petition for mandamus. On the part of the adoption of a similar period for persons
public respondents, they aver that it has claiming rights to positions in the civil
become an established part of our service. There must be stability in the
jurisprudence, being a public policy service so that public business may (sic) be
repeatedly cited by the courts in myriad of unduly retarded; delays in the statement of
mandamus cases, that actions for the right to positions in the service must be
reinstatement should be brought within one discouraged.
year from the date of dismissal, otherwise,
The fatal drawback of
they will be barred by laches. The pendency
Madrigal's cause is that he came to
of an administrative remedy before the
court out of time. As aforestated, it
Commission does not stop the running of
was only after four (4) years and
the one (1) year period within which a
twenty (20) days from the abolition
mandamus case for reinstatement should be
of his position that he file the
filed.
petition for mandamus and
ISSUE: damages. This single circumstance
has closed the door for any judicial
Whether or not the petitioner may
remedy in his favor.
still be entitled to reinstatement.
And this one (1) year period is not
RULING:
interrupted by the prosecution of any
NO, he is already barred by laches. administrative remedy (Torres v. Quintos,
The unbending jurisprudence in this 88 Phil. 436). Actually, the recourse by
jurisdiction is to the effect that a petition for Madrigal to the Commission was
quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles unwarranted. It is fundamental that in a
to public office must be filed within one (1) case where pure questions of law are
raised, the doctrine of exhaustion of
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 81
FACTS:
Regional Trial Court, Branch No. 134, and character unbecoming a government
Makati, Metro Manila, Respondents. official, (c) improper, inappropriate and
devoid of moral justification, and (d) a
G.R. No. 87437, May 29, 1991
violation of Civil Service rules and regulation
considering that it violates the rule on
nepotism since Epitacio Lanuza and
FACTS: Administrator Lanuza are cousins.
On 2 January 1984, Honorable Cesar On 4 April 1988 Teotico placed Agda
Lanuza, then Administrator of the Fiber under preventive suspension pursuant to his
Development Authority (FIDA for short), an Special Order No. 74. It likewise appears
agency attached to the Department of that on 13 April 1988 Agda sent a letter to
Agriculture, appointed Agda as CHIEF FIBER the Commission on Elections inquiring if
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. This appointment Special Order No. 219, series of 1987, of
does not indicate any specific station or Administrator Lanuza was referred and
place of assignment. submitted to it for approval three days
Under Special Order No. 29, series before its implementation. In a letter dated
of 1984, dated 2 January 1984, which was 14 April 1988, Atty. Horacio SJ Apostol,
to take effect immediately and to "remain in Manager of the Law Department of the
force until revoked," Administrator Commission, informed private respondent
Lanuza designated Agda as "Acting Regional that "as of this date, records of the
Administrator for FIDA Regions I and II." In Department do not show that aforesaid
Special Order No. 219 dated 13 November Special Order was submitted or referred to
1987, series of 1987, Administrator Lanuza this Commission for approval."
"temporarily re-assigned" Agda, "in the On 18 April 1988 Agda filed with the
interest of the service," at the main office of court below in Civil Case No. 88-577 his
the Administrator to perform special Amended Petition 25 for Certiorari,
functions which may be assigned to him, Prohibition and Injunction with preliminary
and one Mr. Epitacio Lanuza, Jr., Assistant injunction and restraining order against
Fiber Regional Administrator, was Teotico and the three (3) members of the
designated Officer in Charge of FIDA Region FIDA-AC alleging, in substance, that Special
I. Order No. 219 of 13 November 1987 issued
On 9 December 1987, Agda prepared for by then Fida Administrator Lanuza is null
filing with the Civil Service Commission, the and void for having been issued in violation
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, of Section 48 of P.D. No. 807 (Civil Service
and the Commission on Audit an Urgent Decree) which prohibits the detail or re-
Petition To Stop Implementation and Nullify assignment of civil service personnel within
Special Order No. 219, s. '87, alleging three months before an election and Section
therein that the Special Order is (a) devoid 261(h) of Batas Pambansa Blg 881 (The
of legal basis as it does not preserve and Omnibus Election Code).
maintain a status quo before the ISSUE:
controversy, (b) against the interest of
public service considering that Epitacio Whether or not respondent Judge
Lanuza has been cited for two cases both clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion
involving dishonesty, abuse of privileges in taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 88-
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 83
577, in deliberately failing to act on the merely designated Agda as Acting Regional
motion to dismiss, in issuing a writ of Administrator for Regions I and II. Such
preliminary injunction, and in ordering the being the case, the rule enunciated
“reinstatement” of Agda, “as Fiber Regional in Cuadra vs.Cordova etc., 103 Phil. 391, on
Administrator, FIDA Region I, with full back temporary appointments or appointments in
wages and allowances mandated by law.” an acting capacity that they are terminable
at the pleasure of the appointing authority,
RULING:
is applicable to Agda. He can neither claim a
Agda was not appointed as Fiber vested right to the station to which he was
Regional Administrator, FIDA Region I, but assigned nor to security of tenure thereat.
as CHIEF FIBER DEVELOPMENT OFFICER;
The Civil Service Decree, P.D. No.
he was not appointed to any specific
807, allows transfer, detail and re-
station. He was merely designated as Acting
assignment. If the employee concerned
Regional Administrator For FIDA Regions I
believes that there is no justification
and II. Not having been appointed to any
therefore, he "may appeal his case to" the
specific station, he could be transferred or
Civil Service Commission. Unless otherwise
assigned to any other place by the head of
ordered by the Commission, the decision to
office where in the opinion of the latter his
detail an employee shall be executory. Agda
services may be utilized more effectively.
invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the
In the latest case of Department of Commission when he filed his Urgent
Education, Culture and Sports, et al. vs. The Petition To Stay Implementation and Nullify
Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., 183 the Special Order in question with the Civil
SCRA 555, 562, We held: Service Commission. It does not, however,
appear to Us that he exerted genuine and
The appointment of Navarro sincere efforts to obtain an expeditious
as principal does not refer to any resolution thereof What appears to be clear
particular station or school. As such, is that he used its pendency as an excuse
she could be assigned to any station for his refusal to comply with the
and she is not entitled to stay memorandum of Teotico of 7 January 1988
permanently at any specific school. and the routing slip request of 11 March
(Bongbong vs. Parado, 57 SCRA 1988 for the key to the safety vault.
623). When she was assigned to the
Carlos Albert High School, it would Furthermore, even in the cases of
not have been with the intention to transfer or detail within the prohibited
let her stay in said school period prior to an election, an aggrieved
permanently. Otherwise, her party is provided an appropriate
appointment would have so stated. administrative remedy. Section 6 of Rule VI
Consequently, she may be assigned of the Civil Service Rules on Personnel
to any station or school in Quezon Actions and Policies provides:
City as the exigencies of public
Sec. 6. Except when the
service require even without her
exigencies of the service require, an
consent.
official or employee of the
Moreover, it should be borne in mind government may not be ordered
that Special Order No. 29 of 2 January 1984 detailed or reassigned during the
three-month period before any local
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 84
or national election, and if he have the authority to file the formal charge
believes that the order for his detail and to preventively suspend him, but solely
or reassignment is due to on the basis of his self-serving claim that
harassment, coercion, intimidation, both were issued without or in excess of
or other personal reasons, he may jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
appeal the order to the Commission. because they were meant to implement
Until this is proven, however, the Special Order No. 219.
order is presumed to be in the
Lastly, we hold that both the
interest of the service and
preliminary injunction and the reinstatement
notwithstanding the appeal, the
order issued by respondent Judge
decision to detail or reassign him
practically granted the main relief prayed
shall be executory, but the
for by Agda even before the hearing on the
Commission may order deferment of
case on the merits. In Obias, et
suspension of the detail or
al., vs. Hon. Borja, et al., 136 SCRA 687,
reassignment ex parte."
We ruled that respondent judge acted with
Agda made no attempt to avail of grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of
this remedy. In his Urgent Petition to Stay preliminary injunction which in effect
Implementation and Nullify Special Order practically granted the principal relief
No. 219, nothing is mentioned about a sought in the Mandamus case. The reason
violation of the ban on transfer or detail. for this is that such issuance "would, in
The reason seems too obvious. Until he filed effect, be a prejudgment of the main case
the Amended Petition before the court and a reversal of the rule on the burden of
below he did not consider his re-assignment proof since it would assume the proposition
per Special Order No. 219 as a violation of which the petitioner is inceptively bound to
the ban on transfer or detail during the prove.
three-month period before the election.
Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio dismissed through this action. It has not, as well,
the complaint upon a finding that Santos suggested any plausible reason for direct
was dismissed for cause with due process recourse to this Court against the decision
and that he was not entitled to his money in question.
claims. Santos appealed to the NLRC and
the NLRC
44
upheld the Labor Arbiters finding. Unsatisfie
d with the NLRC decision, G.R. No. 121587. March 9, 1999]
the petitioner filed the instant special civil SOLEDAD DY, doing business under
Held: No. Section 14, Rule VII of of Butuan City issued Executive Order No.
the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, 93-01 creating Task Force Kalikasan to
which allows an aggrieved party to file a combat "illegal logging, log smuggling or
resolution, or decision of the NLRC, cut or produced logs, lumber, flitches and
constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate other forest products" in that... city.
remedy which the said party may avail of. On July 1, 1993, the members of the task
Accordingly, and in the light of the doctrine force received confidential information that
of exhaustion of administrative remedies, a two truckloads of illegally cut lumber would
motion for reconsideration must first be be brought to Butuan City from the
filed before the special action for certiorari Ampayon-Taguibe-Tiniwisan area.
may be availed of. In the case at bench,
Forester Resurreccion Maxilom of the DENR
the records do not show and neither does
issued a temporary seizure order and a
the petitioner make a claim that it filed a
seizure receipt for the two vehicles and their
motion for the reconsideration of the
cargo consisting of several pieces of lumber
challenged decision before it came to us
of different sizes and dimensions, but
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 88
Lucero, the caretaker of the compound Held:The rule is that a party must exhaust
where they were seized,... refused to accept all administrative remedies before he can
them. The seized lumber and vehicles were resort to the courts.
then taken to the City motorpool and placed
Hence, if a remedy within the administrative
in the custody of respondent Lausa.
machinery can still be resorted to by giving
For lack of claimants, DENR Regional the administrative officer concerned every
Technical Director Raoul Geollegue opportunity to decide on a matter that
recommended to the Secretary on July 29, comes within his jurisdiction then such
1993 the forfeiture of the lumber and the remedy should be exhausted first before a
two vehicles. court's judicial power can be sought.
On October 20, 1993, more than two As petitioner clearly failed to exhaust
months after the lumber had been forfeited, available administrative remedies, the Court
petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the of Appeals correctly set aside the assailed
lumber, filed a suit for replevin in the orders of the trial court granting petitioner's
Regional Trial Court of Butuan City (Branch application for a replevin writ and denying
5) for its recovery. private respondent's motion to dismiss.
Before the court could act on his motion, he Having been forfeited pursuant to P.D. No.
moved to dismiss and/or quash the writ of 705, as amended, the lumber properly came
replevin on the ground that the lumber in under the custody of the DENR and all
question, having been seized and forfeited actions seeking to recover possession
by the DENR... pursuant to P.D. No. 705, as thereof should be directed to that agency.
amended (Revised Forestry Code), was
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
under its custody and, therefore, resort
Appeals, dated January 19, 1995, and its
should first be made to the DENR.
Resolution, dated July 26, 1995, in CA-G.R.
Issues: W/N RESPONDENT COURT OF SP 33099 are AFFIRMED with the
APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE modification that the complaint for recovery
VERIFICATION MADE BY LORENCIO DY of personal property is DISMISSED.
AND NOT BY PETITIONER SOLEDAD Y. DY
Principles:
WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
ISSUANCE OF THE REPLEVIN WRIT. Section 8 of P.D. No. 705, as amended,
provides:
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 89
SEC. 8. Review. ¾ All actions and decisions and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila,
of the Director are subject to review, motu including the City of Manila, to conduct the
propio or upon appeal of any person general revision of real property and after
aggrieved thereby, by the Department Head obtaining the necessary funds from the City
whose decision shall be final and executory Council, the City Assessor began the
after the lapse of thirty (30) days from... process of general revision based on the
receipt by the aggrieved party of said updated fair market values of the real
decision, unless appealed to the President in properties.
accordance with Executive Order No. 19,
series of 1966. The Decision of the The City Assessor’s Office submitted the
Department Head may not be reviewed by proposed schedule of fair market values to
the courts except through a special civil the City Council for its appropriate
action for certiorari or prohibition. action. The council then enacted Manila
Ordinance No. 7894 which was approved.
With the implementation of the ordinance,
45 the tax on the land owned by the petitioner
G.R. No. 127139. February 19, 1999 was increase hence he filed a special
JAIME C. LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. CITY proceeding for the declaration of nullity of
OF MANILA and HON. BENJAMIN A.G. the City of Manila Ordinance No. 7894 for
VEGA, Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila, being “unjust, excessive, oppressive or
Branch 39, respondents confiscatory.”
Facts: Section 219 of Republic Act Manila Ordinance No. 7905 took effect
7160 (R.A. 7160) or the Local Government thereafter, reducing by fifty percent (50%)
Code of 1991 requires the conduct of the the assessment levels (depending on the
The revision of real property assessments commercial) for the computation of tax
prescribed therein was not yet enforced in due. The new ordinance amended the
Memorandum Circular No. 04-95 from the 74, paragraph (A) of Manila Ordinance No.
Despite the amendment brought about by matters coming primarily within the
Manila Ordinance No. 7905, the controversy competence of other department. x x x
proceeded.
There are however a number of
The trial court dismissed the case for failure instances when the doctrine may be
of the petitioner to exhaust administrative dispensed with and judicial action validly
remedies. resorted to immediately. Among these
exceptional cases are: (1) when the
ISSUE: W/N the doctrine of question raised is purely legal, (2) when the
exhaustion of administrative remedies may administrative body is in estoppel; (3) when
be dispensed with in the instant case the act complained of is patently illegal; (4)
HELD: NO. As a general rule, when there is urgent need for judicial
where the law provides for the remedies intervention; (5) when the claim involved is
against the action of an administrative small; (6) when irreparable damage will be
board, body, or officer, relief to courts can suffered; (7) when there is no other plain,
be sought only after exhausting all remedies speedy and adequate remedy; (8) when
provided. The reason rests upon the strong public interest is involved; (9) when
presumption that the administrative body, if the subject of controversy is private land;
given the chance to correct its mistake or and (10) in quo-warranto proceeding
error, may amend its decision on a given (citation omitted).
matter and decide it properly. Therefore,
where a remedy is available within the In the court’s opinion, however, the instant
administrative machinery, this should be petition does not fall within any of the
resorted to before resort can be made to exceptions above-mentioned.
the courts, not only to give the
administrative agency the opportunity to
decide the matter by itself correctly, but 46)
Salinas vs NLRC #114671
also to prevent unnecessary and premature 24November 1999
resort to courts.
FACTS:Petitioners were employed with
“One of the reasons for the doctrine of Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. (AG & P).
exhaustion is the separation of powers Salinas was a carpenter from 1983 - 1988,
Alejandro a bulk cement operator and
which enjoins upon the judiciary a crane driver from1982-1989 as bulk
becoming policy of non-interference with cement operator, Cortez a carpenter and
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 91
forklift operator from 1979-1988, and the usual business or trade of the employer
Samulde a lubeman and stationary operator and that ‘any employee who has rendered
from 1982-1989. atleast 1 year of service, whether
continuous or broken shall be considered
They, the petitioners filed separate complai regular employee with respect to the
nts for illegal dismissal and consolidated by activity which he is employed and
labor arbiter.They claimed that th employment shall continue while exists’,
ey had been covered by a number should apply in the case of petitioners.
o f c o n t r a c t s renewed continuously,
with periods ranging from 5 to 9 It is basic rule that in carrying out and
years, and they performed the same interpreting the provisions of the Labor
kind of work throughout their Code and implementing regulation, the
employment, and such was usually workingman’s welfare should primordial and
necessary and desirable in the trade paramount consideration. The
and business of the respondent interpretation herein made gives
corporation and their work did not end meaning and substance to the liberal
on a project to project basis although and compassionate spirit of the law
the contract was made to appear by enunciated in Art. 4 of the Labor Code-
the employer through the signing of all doubts in the implementation and
separate employment contract. interpretation of the provision of Labor
Code including its implementing rules
The labor arbiter dismissed petitions and regulation shall be resolved in
on the ground that the petitioners are favor of the labor.
project employees whose work
contract with AG & P indicates that
they were employed in such category; Petitioners had been providing the
that they have been assigned to respondent corporation with continuous and
different work projects not just to one uninterrupted service, except for a day or so
and that their work relation with AG & gap in their successive employment
P, relative to termination is ground by contract. Their contract has been renewed
Policy Instruction No. 200 (rule several times, with the total length of their
governing project employees). On services ranging from 5 to 9.
appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor’s
findings.
47)
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are Jalandoni vs Drilon G.R. No. 115239-
merely project employees 40. March 2, 2000
HELD: Facts: Private respondent Ledesma filed
No. the petitioners are regular employees. an administrative complaint for violation
The mandate in Art. 281 of the Labor Code, of the RPC and the Anti-Graft and
which prescribes that the ‘provisions of Corrupt Practices Act against the
written agreements to the contract petitioner with the PCGG. Exactly a year
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral thereafter, petitioner Jalandoni filed a
agreements of the parties, an employment complaint for the crime of libel against
shall be deemed to be regular where the officials/directors of OPMC. Herein is a
employee has been engaged to perform petition for certiorari seeking to nullify
activities which necessary and desirable on and set aside the orders of the Honorable
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 92
Secretary of Justice withdrawing the February 20, 1998, she took her oath and
information in I.S. Nos. 93-6228 and 93- assumed office. On July 1, 1998, Carina
6422 and denying the motion for J. Demaisip was appointed “chief
reconsideration filed by herein petitioner public defender” by President
Jalandoni. Estrada. Apparently because the position
was held by Bacal, another appointment
Issue: Can malice be presumed from paper was issued by the President on July
defamatory words? Who has the burden of 6, 1998 designating Demaisip as “chief
proving malice? public
defender(formerlyc h i e f p u b l i c a t t o r n e
Held: No. Under Article 361 of the y), PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE,
Revised Penal Code, in libel cases against DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE vice AT
public officials, for liability to arise, the T Y . JOSEFINA G. BACAL, effective
alleged defamatory statement must relate July 1, 1998. On the other hand, Bacal
to official conduct, even if the defamatory was appointed “Regional Director, Public
statement is false, unless the public Defender’s Office” by the President.O n
official concerned proves that the July 7, 1998, Demaisip took her
statement was made with actual malice, oath of office. President
that is, with knowledge that it was false or Estrada then issued
not. The subject of the defamatory am e m o r a n d u m , d a t e d J u l y 1 0 ,
statement has the burden of proving 1998, to the personnel of the
malice on the part of the author of such “Public Defender’s Office”
statement. The same was not written announcing the appointment of Demaisip as
to cast aspersion on the good name “CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER.” Secretary of
of the petitioner. The paid Justice was notified of the appointments of
advertisement merely served as a vehicle Demaisip and Bacal on July 15, 1998.On
to inform the stockholders of the going-ons July 17, 1998, Bacal filed a petition for quo
in the business world and only exposed the warranto questioning her replacement as
irregularities surrounding the PCGG and Chief Public Attorney. The petition,
RCBC deal and the parties involved. which was filed directly with this
Court, was dismissed without prejudice
to its refiling in the Court of
48) Appeals. Accordingly, Bacal brought her
Demaisip vs Bacal #139382 case in the CA which ruled in her favor
06December 2000 finding her to be lawfully entitled to
the Office of Chief Public Attorney.
Facts: Josefina G. Bacal passed the Career Hence, this petition.
Executive Service Examinations in 1989. On
July 28,1994, she was conferred CES Issue: Whether Bacal is entitled to
eligibility and appointed Regional Director of the contested position
the Public Attorney’s Office. On January 5,
1995, she was appointed by then President Held: No. What should be emphasized
Ramos to the rank of CESO III. On in this case is that respondent Josefina G.
November 5, 1997, she was Bacal is a
designated by the Secretary of Justice CESOI I I a n d t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n o
as Acting Chief Public Attorney. On f Regional Director of the PAO
February 5, 1998, her appointment was , to which she was transferred
confirmed by President Ramos so that, on , corresponds to her CES Rank Level
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 93
III and Salary Grade 28. This was her Board. Within the Career Executive Service,
position before her “appointment” on personnel can be shifted from one office or
February 5, 1998 to the position of position to another without violation of their
Chief Public Attorney of the PAO, right to security of tenure because their
which requires a CES Rank Level I for status and salaries are based on their
appointment thereto. Respondent Bacal ranks and not on their jobs. Mobility
therefore has no ground to complain. She and flexibility in the assignment
may have been considered for promotion to of personnel, the better to cope with
Rank I to make her appointment a s C h i e f the exigencies of public service, is
Public Attorney thus the
permanent. The fact, however, is distinguishingf e a t u r e o f t h e C a r e e r
that this did not materialize as Executive Service. Petitioners are,
petitioner Carina t h e r e f o r e , r i g h t i n a r g u i n g t h a t res
J. Demaisip was appointed in her pondent, “as a CESO, can be
place. If respondent was paid a s reassigned from one CES position to
a l a r y equivalent to Salary Grade 30 while another and from one
she was holding that office, it was only
because, under the law, if a CESO is department, bureau or office to
assigned to a position with a higher another. Further, respondent, as a CESO,
salary grade than that corresponding can even be assigned or made to occupy
to his/her rank, he/she will be allowed a CES position with a lower salary
the salary of the CES position. As grade. In the instant case,
Bacal does not have the rank respondent, who holds a CES Rank
appropriate for the position III, was correctly and properly appointed by
of Chief Public Attorney, the appointing authority to the position of
her appointment to that position Regional Director, a position which has a
cannot be considered permanent, and corresponding CES Rank Level III.” Indeed,
she can claim no security of tenure in even in the other branches of the civil
respect of that position. Appointments, service, the rule is that, unless an employee
assignments, reassignments, and transfers is appointed to a particular office or
in the Career Executive Service are based station, he can claim no security of
on rank. Thus, security of tenure in the tenure in respect of any office. This rule
career executive service is thus acquired has been applied to such appointments as
with respect to rank and not to Director III or Director IV or Attorney IV or
position. The guarantee of security of V in the Civil Service Commission since the
tenure to members of the CES does not appointments are not to specified offices
extend to the particular positions to which but to particular ranks; Election Registrars;
they may be appointed a concept which is Election Officers, also in the Commission on
applicable only to first and second-level Elections; and Revenue District Officers in
employees in the civil service but to the the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Moreover,
rank to which they are appointed by the as Bacal herself does not have the requisite
President. Accordingly, respondent did not qualification for the position of Chief Public
acquire security of tenure by the mere fact Attorney, she cannot raise the lack of
that she was appointed to the higher qualification of petitioner. As held in
position of Chief Public Attorney since she Carillo v. Court of Appeals,“in a quo
was not subsequently appointed to the rank warranto proceeding the person suing must
of CESO I based on her performance in that show that he has a clear right to the office
position as required by the rules of the CES allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 94
that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility the trial court rendered a decision
of the supposed usurper is immaterial dismissing the petition on the ground of
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
It ruled that petitioner should have
49) appealed to the CSC before coming to
Castro vs Gloria G.R. No. 132174. court.
August 20, 2001
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not petitioner failed to exhaust
Porfirio Gutang, Jr. filed with the DECS a administrative remedies.
complaint fordisgraceful and immoral
conduct RULING:
against petitioner Gualberto Castro, No, this falls to the exception of the
a teacher in Guibuangan Central School, Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Barili,Cebu. It was alleged that he has an Remedies.The doctrine of exhaustion of
illicit affair with Gutang's wife, petitioner's administrative remedies calls for resort first
co-teacher at the same school. After to the appropriate administrative authorities
hearing the DECS Regional Office through in the resolution of a controversy falling
Assistant Superintendent Concillo rendered under their jurisdiction before the same
a decision declaring petitioner guilty of the may be elevated to the courts of justice for
offense charged. He was meted the penalty review. It is settled that non-observance of
of dismissal from the service. The DECS the doctrine results in lack of a cause of
Central Office affirmed Concillo's decision in action, which is one of the grounds allowed
an Indorsement. Thereafter, petitioner filed by the Rulesof Court for the dismissal of the
a motion for reconsideration. Instead of complaint. The doctrine is not absolute.
resolving the motion, the DECS Central There are instances when it may be
Office directed the School Division of Cebu dispensed with and judicial action may be
to comment on the motion where the latter validly resorted to immediately. Among
recommended that the motion be resolved these exceptions are:
favorably. However, there commendation 1) When the question raised is purely legal ;
was opposed by the DECS Region VII. 2) when the administrative body is
Thereafter, in his letters petitioner asked inestoppel;
the incumbent DECS Secretary to resolve 3) when the act complained of is patently
his motion for reconsideration. But his illegal;
letters remained unheeded, thus petitioner 4) when there is urgent need for judicial
filed with the DECS Central Office a " Motion intervention;
for Review Setting Aside/Modifying the 5) when the claim involved is small;
Decision of Regional Director of DECS 6) when irreparable damage will be
Region VII ." where DECS Secretary Ricardo suffered;
Gloria (respondent) referred the motion to 7) when there is noother plain, speedy and
the Regional Director of Region VII for adequate remedy;
comment. Later, Regional Director Eladio C. 8) when strong public interest is involved;
Dioko issued a2nd Indorsement sustaining And
the decision of Assistant Superintendent 9) inquo warrantoproceedings.
Concillo. In his 3rdIndorsement, respondent Truly, a petition for mandamus is premature
Secretary denied petitioner' s motion for if there are administrative remedies
review. Thrice thwarted, petitioner filed a available to petitioner.But where the case
petition for mandamus with the RTC where involves only legal questions, the litigant
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 95
G.R. NO. 154243 March 6, 2007 · WON the chief of the philippine
national police has the authority or
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL jurisdiction under republic act no. 6975 to
ROBERTO LASTIMOSO, ACTING CHIEF hear and try the citizen's complaint against
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP), respondent.
DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL AND
RECORDS MANAGEMENT (DPRM), HELD:
INSPECTOR GENERAL, P/CHIEF SUPT. · With regard to the first issue, the
RAMSEY OCAMPO and P/SUPT. ELMER respondent rightfully invoked the
REJANO, Petitioners, jurisdiction of the courts without first going
vs. through all the administrative remedies
because the principle of exhaustion of
P/SENIOR INSPECTOR JOSE J. ASAYO, administrative remedies admits of
Respondent. exceptions, such as when the issue involved
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 96
is a purely legal question. The only issue The Court further declared that R.A. No.
presented by respondent in his petition for 6975 defines the summary dismissal powers
certiorari and prohibition before the RTC of the PNP Chief and regional directors,
was whether or not the PNP Chief had among others in cases, "where the
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming
complaint filed by a private citizen against of a police officer."
him. Said issue being a purely legal one, the
Webster defines "unbecoming" conduct as
principle of exhaustion of administrative
"improper" performance. Such term "applies
remedies did not apply to the case.
to a broader range of transgressions of
rules not only of social behavior but of
ethical practice or logical procedure or
prescribed method." Obviously, the charges
· Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6975 or the of neglect of duty, inefficiency and
Department of the Interior and Local incompetence in the performance of official
Government Act of 1990, which took effect duties fall within the scope of conduct
on 1 January 1991, x x x delineates the unbecoming a police officer. Clearly, the
procedural framework in pursuing charges against respondent in this case are
administrative complaints against erring also covered by paragraph (c), Section 42 of
members of the police organization. Section R.A. No. 6975, vesting the PNP Chief with
41 of the law enumerates the authorities to jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
which a complaint against an erring complaint against respondent.
member of the PNP may be filed. It is
Verily, the assistance of counsel was not
readily apparent that a complaint against a
required for respondent to validly waive his
PNP member which would warrant dismissal
right to cross-examine the witnesses in the
from service is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative case against him.
PLEB. However, Section 41 should be read
in conjunction with Section 42 of the same In sum, the charges against respondent fall
statute. Evidently, the PNP Chief and well within the scope of paragraph (c),
regional directors are vested with the power Section 42 of R.A. No. 6975, thus, the PNP
to summarily dismiss erring PNP members if Chief had jurisdiction to take cognizance of
any of the causes for summary dismissal the complaint against respondent; and the
enumerated in Section 42 is attendant. summary hearing officer accorded
Thus, the power to dismiss PNP members is respondent due process and never deprived
not only the prerogative of PLEB but respondent any of his rights.
concurrently exercised by the PNP Chief and
55
regional directors.
ALEJA SIBAYAN VDA. DE PINEDA v.
Once a complaint is filed with any of the
TEODORO PENA, GR No. 57665,
disciplining authorities under R.A. No. 6975,
the latter shall acquire exclusive original July 2, 1990
jurisdiction over the case although other
disciplining authority has concurrent Facts:
jurisdiction over the case. Paragraph (c) of The "Ped" mining claim was located by
Section 41 explicitly declares this point. Pedro Sibayan in January, 1932. After
Sibayan's death, his heirs Miguela and Aleja
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 97
"abandoned and lost their rights" over the 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 543; Beautifont, Inc. v.
"Ped" claim, respondent Minister committed Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 50141, January
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 481.]
of jurisdiction.
56
Principles:
Univerity of Sto. Tomas vs NLRC, 182
It is established in jurisprudence that SCRA 371
Congress may validly delegate to G.R NO 89920 18 OCTOBER 1990
administrative agencies the authority to
promulgate rules and regulations to FACTS:
implement a given legislation and effectuate University of Sto. Tomas (UST) terminated
its policies [People v. Exconde, 101 Phil the employment of 16 union officers and
1125 (1957); Director of Forestry v. Munoz directors of UST Faculty Union for grave
G.R. No. L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA misconduct, serious disrespect to a
1183.] In order to be valid, the
superior and conduct unbecoming a
administrative regulation must be germane
faculty member on the ground that "in
to the objects and purposes of the law,
publishing or causing to be published in
conform to the standards that the law...
prescribes [People v. Exconde, supra, citing Strike Bulletin No. 5 the libelous and
Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil 727 (1940); defamatory attacks against the Father
Pangasinan Transportation v. Public Service Rector.
Commission, 70 Phil 221 (1940),] and must Some faculty members staged mass
relate solely to carrying into effect the
leaves of absence disrupting classes in all
general provisions... of the law [U.S. v.
levels at the University.
Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil 119 (1914).]... it is
axiomatic in administrative law that what The faculty union filed a complaint for
the law prohibits is not the absence of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice
previous notice, but the absolute absence with the DOLE.
thereof and lack of opportunity to... be
heard [Catura v. Court of Industrial The labor arbiter, on a prima facie
Relations, G.R. No. L-27392, January 30, showing that the termination was causing
1971, 37 SCRA 303, citing De Borja v. Tan, a serious labor dispute, certified the
93 Phil. 167 (1953).] matter to the Secretary of DOLE for a
possible suspension of the effects of
As a rule, the courts will not interfere with
termination.
purely administrative matters involving the
exercise of judgment and discretion, and Secretary Franklin Drilon issued an order
findings of fact, of the administrative to accept the 16 terminated employess
agency. The exception is when there is a back to work under the same terms and
clear showing that the agency... acted conditions prevailing prior to their
arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion dismissal in the interest of industrial
or when it acted in a capricious manner peace.
such that its action may amount to an
excess or lack of jurisdiction [Pajo v. Ago, Secretary Drilon issued another order
108 Phil. 905 (1960); Ganitano v. Secretary which certifies the labor dispute to the
of Agriculture, G.R. No. L-21167,... March NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 100
NLRC issued a resolution directing UST to UST claims that to change the faculty
comply and faithfully abide with the member when the semester is about to
Orders of the Secretary Drilon by end would seriously impair and prejudice
immediately reinstating or readmitting the the welfare and interest of the students
16 faculty members under the same terms because dislocation, confusion and loss in
and conditions prevailing prior to the momentum, if not demoralization will
present dispute or merely reinstate them surely ensue.
in the payroll.
UST contended that it has the sole and
UST states that it has already actually exclusive right and prerogative to
reinstated 6 of the dismissed faculty determine the nature and kind of work of
members; As to 2 professors whose its employees and to control and manage
teaching assignments were partially taken its own operations.
over by new faculty members, they were
ISSUE: May UST comply with the NLRC
given back their remaining teaching loads
readmission order by granting substantially
(not taken by new faculty members) but
equivalent academic assignments, in lieu of
were given substantially equivalent
actual reinstatement, to dismissed faculty
academic assignments corresponding to
members?
their teachings loads already taken over
by new faculty members; The remaining 7 RULING:
faculty members were given substantially No.Pursuant to Article 263 (g), 1 st
equivalent academic assignments in lieu paragraph, of the Labor Code, as
of actual teaching loads because all of amended by Section 27 of RA 6715, the
their teaching loads originally assigned to NLRC was charged with the task of
them at the start of the first semester implementing a valid return-to-work order
were already taken over by new faculty of the Secretary of Labor. As the
members; 1 dismissed faculty had been implementing body, its authority did not
"absent without official leave" or AWOL. include the power to amend the
SC issued a TRO enjoining NLRC from Secretary's order.
Since the Secretary's order specifically
enforcing or executing the NLRC
provided that the dismissed faculty
resolution.
members shall be readmitted under the
UST argues that actual reinstatement of same terms and conditions prevailing prior
the dismissed faculty members whose to the present dispute, the NLRC should
teaching assignments were previously have directed the actual reinstatement of
taken over by new faculty members is not the concerned faculty members. It
feasible nor practicable since this would therefore erred in granting the alternative
compel UST to violate and terminate its remedy of payroll reinstatement.
contracts with the faculty members who
The grant of substantially equivalent
were assigned to and had actually taken
academic assignments cannot be
over the courses.
sustained. The giving of substantially
equivalent academic assignments, without
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 101
submitted a complaint regarding the to MIWPI. The transfer has never become
encroachment of MLE in the concession effective. More importantly, even if it is
area of DAVENCOR. , The Minister of deemed that there was a valid change of
Natural Resources, Hon. Ernesto M. Maceda name and transfer of interest in the PTL No.
rendered his decision against MLE for illegal 30, this only signifies a transfer of authority,
logging operations on the portion of the from MLE to MIWPI, to conduct logging
land under the concession of DAVENCOR. operations in the area covered by PTL No.
DAVENCOR then requested the issuance of 30. It does not show indubitable proof that
writ of execution for MLE and/or MIWP. MIWPI was a mere conduit or successor of
MIWP, as a defense, filed for prohibition, Milagros Matuguina/MLE, as far the latter's
damages and injunction, with prayer for liability for the encroachment upon
restraining order on the grounds that they DAVENCOR's concession is concerned.
are a separate entity from MLE and,
The issue of whether or not petitioner is an
therefore, not a party to the complaint by
alter ego of Milagros Matuguina/MLE, is one
DAVENCOR. Trial Court granted the TRO.
of fact, and which should have been
RTC ruled in favor of MIWP which was
threshed out in the administrative
reversed by the Court of Appeals; hence,
proceedings, and not in the prohibition
this petition on certiorari.
proceedings in the trial court, where it is
ISSUE precisely the failure of the respondent
Minister of Natural Resources to proceed as
WON the corporate veil of MIWP shall be
mandated by law in the execution of its
pierced to be held liable for the acts of MLE
order which is under scrutiny.
NOTE
RULING
The liberal atmosphere which pervades the
NO, MIWP cannot be held liable. A procedure in administrative proceedings
corporation has a separate personality. . It does not empower the presiding officer to
may not generally be held liable for that of make conclusions of fact before hearing all
the persons composing it unless when the the parties concerned.[32] In Police
juridical personality of the corporation is Commission vs. Hon Judge Lood, we held
used to defeat public convenience, justify that the formalities usually attendant in
wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the court hearings need not be present in an
corporation shall be considered as a mere administrative investigation, provided that
association of persons. But for the separate the parties are heard and given the
juridical personality of a corporation to be opportunity to adduce their evidence. The
disregarded, the wrongdoing must be right to notice and hearing is essential to
clearly and convincingly established. It due process and its non-observance will, as
cannot be presumed. a rule, invalidate the administrative
proceedings.
It is likewise improper to state that the
MIWPI is the privy or the successor-in-
interest of MLE, as the liability for the
encroachment over DAVENCOR's timber 58
concession is concerned, by reason of the
transfer of interest in PTL No. 30 from MLE 59
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 103
to her companys projects with FMED, of his brother Honorato Agustin who was
otherwise, her papers would get stuck in his with him at the restaurant and those of
office. Respondent relentlessly pursued her Rolando Martinez and Arthur Diaz, Agents of
and one time invited her to a snack at the the Criminal Investigation Command, who
Philippine Plaza Hotel. After finishing her were supposedly present in the restaurant
drink, she felt dizzy. Taking advantage of at that time.
her semi-conscious state, he brought her to
After carefully reviewing all the
a motel and raped her. That was the
evidence obtaining in this case, we find the
beginning of a hateful relationship. Her
positive declarations of petitioner and her
attempts to extricate herself proved futile
witnesses in their sworn statements more
since he constantly warned her that
credible than those of respondent. In
PROMAT would no longer do business with
administrative proceedings, only
FMED unless the relationship
substantial evidence is required to
continues. Whenever she tried to avoid him,
hold respondent liable for the charges
he would go to her house in the middle of
against him.
the night and create a scene by blowing the
horn of his car, pounding at the gate,
shouting on top of his voice and pelting her
windows with stones. As a result of these 64
disturbances, she suffered nervous
breakdown and was eventually operated for TERESITA G. FABIAN, petitioner,
breast cancer on October 1994.
vs
On January 31, 1996, Graft Investigation
Officer Eduardo Benitez issued a NESTOR V. AGUSTIN, respondent.
Resolution[2] finding respondent guilty of
grave misconduct and irregular or immoral
acts and ordering his dismissal from the G.R. No. 143092
service with forfeiture of all benefits under
the law. FEBRUARY 14, 2003
Petitioner alleged therein that she was the for reconsideration. In his Order dated June
major stockholder and president of PROMAT 19, 1996, Graft Investigation Officer Benitez
Construction and Development Corporation denied respondents motion and reiterated
(PROMAT) engaged in construction his assailed Order. Graft Investigation
business. In 1986, PROMAT participated in Officer Rafaelito H. Imperial and Legal
the various biddings for the construction of Officer Andrew F. Ammuyutan likewise
government projects within the First Metro recommended that respondent be found
Manila Engineering District (FMED) of the guilty of grave misconduct and imposed
Department of Public Works and Highways upon him the penalty of dismissal from the
(DPWH). Respondent is the incumbent service.
District Engineer of the FMED.
Before the parties motions for
reconsideration were resolved, Atty. Amador
Petitioner further averred that respondent Casino, a classmate and close associate of
became a persistent suitor and refused to Ombudsman Desierto, entered his
deal with PROMATs liaison officer, insisting appearance as counsel for the respondent.
that she personally attend to her company’s Forthwith, Ombudsman Desierto inhibited
projects with FMED, otherwise, her papers himself and designated then Deputy
would get stuck in his office. Respondent Ombudsman Jesus Guerrero to resolve the
relentlessly pursued her and one time motions.
invited her to a snack at the Philippine Plaza
Hotel. After finishing her drink, she felt On June 18, 1997, Deputy Ombudsman
dizzy. Taking advantage of her semi- Guerrero issued a Joint Order, dismissing
conscious state, he brought her to a motel the administrative complaint.
and raped her. That was the beginning of a
hateful relationship. Her attempts to Simply stated, the Court of Appeals, in its
extricate herself proved futile since he assailed Amended Decision, held that since
constantly warned her that PROMAT would petitioner failed to prove her charges by
no longer do business with FMED unless the substantial evidence, her complaint must be
relationship continues. dismissed. Pursuant to Section 27 of
RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989)
On January 31, 1996, Graft Investigation and Section 7 of Administrative Order No.
Officer Eduardo Benitez issued a Resolution 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
finding respondent guilty of grave Ombudsman), the Joint Order of Deputy
misconduct and irregular or immoral acts Ombudsman Guerrero dismissing the
and ordering his dismissal from the service complaint for insufficiency of evidence is,
with forfeiture of all benefits under the law. therefore, final and unappealable.
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Such conflict in the factual findings compels
Court of Appeals is final and unappealable. this Court to deviate from the general rule
and review the evidence obtaining in this
RULING: While we agree with respondent case.
that only questions of law may be raised in
a petition for review on certiorari, however, In administrative proceedings, only
there are recognized exceptions to this rule, substantial evidence is required to hold
among which, is when there is a conflict respondent liable for the charges against
between the factual findings of the trial him. Here, we are convinced that petitioners
court and that of the appellate court. In charges are supported by substantial
such case, this Court is bound to analyze evidence jurisprudentially defined as such
and weigh all over again the evidence relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
already considered in the proceedings might accept as adequate to support a
below. conclusion.We quote with approval the
following findings and observations of Graft
Here, it is undisputed that the discord in the Investigation Officer Benitez, sustained by
factual findings existed not only at the the Court of Appeals in its original Decision,
Ombudsman level, but even at the thus:
Appellate Court. First, it must be recalled
that: (1) In his Resolution of January
31, 1996, Graft Investigation Officer The complainants evidence and respondents
Eduardo Benitez found respondent guilty of admissions stand for the requisite
grave misconduct as well as irregular or substantial evidence which in an
immoral acts and recommended his unprejudiced mind reasonably supports a
dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of conclusion that indeed the administrative
all benefits under the law; (2) Graft offenses, subject of the complaint had been
Investigator and Legal Officer Andrew committed. The uncontroverted facts show
Ammuyutan made similar finding and that respondent courted complainant and
recommendation; (3) Then Ombudsman established intimate relationship with her.
Desierto, approved the said finding and On account of that affair, or at least in the
recommendation with modification in the course thereof, her firm was awarded a
sense that the offense is only misconduct number of contracts by the office of which
and that the penalty is suspension from respondent was the head. From these
office for one (1) year without pay; (4) contracts even the respondent averted that
Eventually, Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero she derived windfall profits. Times were,
dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of through complainants persuasion,
evidence. Second, the Court of Appeals, in respondent interceded for complainants firm
its original Decision, reinstated Ombudsman whenever it was involved in contract
Desiertos Order dated February violations. This alone constitutes grave
26, 1996 finding respondent guilty of misconduct in office.
misconduct and imposing upon him the
penalty of suspension from the service for We thus find respondent guilty of grave
one (1) year without pay. Later, the Court misconduct, disgraceful and immoral acts
of Appeals rendered an Amended Decision, and oppression. Indeed, by his conduct,
this time, affirming the Guerrero Joint Order respondent violated the policy of the State
dismissing the administrative complaint for to promote a high standard of ethics in the
insufficiency of evidence. public service. Public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 107
FACTS: This petition for certiorari and Mr. Raul R. Arnau and Assistant
mandamus seeks the reversal of public Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr.
respondent Office of the Ombudsman reviewed and later on endorsed the
Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation aforesaid joint resolution to Overall Deputy
Bureaus: [1] joint resolution dated May 27, Ombudsman Francisco A. Villa, who
1994 (joint resolution)[1] which dismissed approved it on June 22, 1994.
petitioner Moises S. Samsons complaint
(docketed as OMB-0-93-0920) against
private respondents Dr. Leonito L. Catarroja
The public respondent, in its August 26,
and Norma Sanchez for allegedly printing
1994 order, approved by Overall Deputy
and issuing health certificates sans serial
Ombudsman Villa on September 9, 1994,
numbers and official receipts to applicants
denied petitioners motion for partial
without prior medical examination, in
reconsideration of the joint resolution with
violation of RA 3019 (the Anti-Graft and
respect to the dismissal of OMB-0-93-0920.
Corrupt Practices Act), as well as private
respondents counter-charges against
petitioner for libel, falsification and perjury
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 108
Hence, this petition imputing grave abuse of exists against private respondents is a
discretion on the part of public respondent question of fact. The Supreme Court is not
for dismissing OMB-0-93-0920, a a trier of facts, more so in the consideration
supposedly prima facie graft case against of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where
private respondents. neither questions of fact nor law are
entertained, but only questions of lack or
excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
ISSUE: Whether or not the Office of the discretion.
Ombudsman committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the case against
private respondents. Finally, mandamus will not lie in the
absence of any of the following grounds:
[a] that the court, officer, board, or person
RULING: For private respondents to be against whom the action is taken, unlawfully
held criminally liable under paragraph (b) of neglected the performance of an act which
Section 3 of RA 3019, they must have the law specifically enjoins as a duty
requested or received, directly or indirectly, resulting from office, trust, or station, or [b]
any gift or benefit for themselves or for that such court, officer, board or person has
another public officer who has to intervene unlawfully excluded the petitioner from the
in any contract or transaction with the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
government. Under paragraph (e), they which he is entitled. Mandamus will lie to
must have given unwarranted benefits with compel an officer to perform a ministerial
evident bad faith, gross inexcusable duty but not to compel the performance of
negligence or manifest partiality. Under a discretionary duty requiring the exercise
paragraph (h), they must have had a of judgment, as in this case.
financial interest, directly or indirectly, in
any transaction in which they took part in
their official function or in any transaction in
which they were prohibited by the
Constitution or any law from having any
interest therein. 66
MARITA C. BERNALDO vs OMB
briefs arenot disputed by the respondent;an Whether or not the legality of disciplining an
d (10) when the findings of fact are premise elective municipal official for a wrongful act
d on thesupposed absence of evidence and committed by him during his immediately
contradicted by the evidence on record. preceding term of office is moot and
academic.
67.
RULING:
PASCUAL VS PROVINCIAL BOARD OF
NUEVA ECIJA In the absence of any precedent in this
reelected in 1955. On October 6, 1956, the incline to the rule denying the right
Acting Provincial Governor of that province to remove one from office because of
filed with the Provincial Board three misconduct during a prior term, to which we
"The Court should never remove a public admitted that he was sympathetic to the
officer for acts done prior to his present cause of the rebel soldiers.
term of office. To do otherwise would be to
deprive the people of their right to The Secretary suspended petitioner from
elect their officers. When the people have office for 60 days from notice, pending the
elected a man to office, it must be assumed outcome of the formal investigation. Later,
that they did this with knowledge of his life the Secretary rendered a decision finding
and character, and that they disregarded or petition guilty as charged and ordering his
forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had removal from office. Vice-Governor Vargas
been guilty of any. It is not for the court, was installed as Governor. Aguinaldo
by reason of such faults or misconduct to appealed.
practically overrule the will of the people."
Aguinaldo filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary mandatory
68.
injunction and/or restraining order with the
AGUINALDO VS. SANTOS
SC, assailing the decision of respondent
FACTS:
Secretary of Local Government. Petitioner
argued that: (1) that the power of
Aguinaldo was the duly elected Governor of
respondent Secretary to suspend or remove
the province of Cagayan. After the
local government official under Section 60,
December 1989 coup d’état was crushed,
Chapter IV of B.P. Blg. 337 was repealed by
DILG Secretary Santos sent a telegram &
the 1987 Constitution; (2) that since
letter to Governor Aguinaldo requiring him
respondent Secretary no longer has power
to show cause why he should not be
to suspend or remove petitioner, the former
suspended or removed from office for
could not appoint respondent Melvin Vargas
disloyalty to the Republic. A sworn
as Governor; and (3) the alleged act of
complaint was also filed by Mayors of
disloyalty committed by petitioner should be
several municipalities in Cagayan against
proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt,
Aguinaldo for acts committed during the
and not be a mere preponderance of
coup. Aguinaldo denied being privy to the
evidence, because it is an act punishable as
planning of the coup or actively
rebellion under the Revised Penal Code.
participating in its execution, though he
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 112
While the case was pending before the SC, position of Governor of Cagayan has
Aguinaldo filed his certificate of candidacy rendered the administrative case pending
for the position of Governor of Cagayan. moot and academic. It appears that after
Three petitions for disqualification were filed the canvassing of votes, petitioner garnered
against him on the ground that he had been most number of votes among the
removed from office. candidates for governor of Cagayan
province. The rule is that a public official
The Comelec granted the petition. Later, cannot be removed for administrative
this was reversed on the ground that the misconduct committed during a prior term,
decision of the Secretary has not yet since his re-election to office operates as a
attained finality and is still pending review condonation of the officer's previous
with the Court. As Aguinaldo won by a misconduct to the extent of cutting off the
landslide margin in the elections, the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing
resolution paved the way for his eventual rule, however, finds no application
proclamation as Governor of Cagayan. to criminal cases pending against petitioner
for acts he may have committed during the
ISSUES: failed coup.
1. WON petitioner's re-election to the
position of Governor of Cagayan has 2. Yes. The power of the Secretary to
rendered the administration case moot and remove local government officials is
academic anchored on both the Constitution and a
statutory grant from the legislative branch.
2. WON the Secretary has the power to The constitutional basis is provided by
suspend or remove local government Articles VII (17) and X (4) of the 1987
officials as alter ego of the President Constitution which vest in the President
the power of control over all executive
3. WON proof beyond reasonable doubt is departments, bureaus and offices and the
required before petitioner could be removed power of general supervision over local
from office. governments. It is a constitutional doctrine
that the acts of the department head are
HELD: presumptively the acts of the President
1. Yes. Aguinaldo’s re-election to the unless expressly rejected by him.
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 113
Furthermore, it cannot be said that BP337 2001, which period was to commence on
was repealed by the effectivity of the September 1998 when the first delivery
present Constitution as both the 1973 and should have been made by F.E. Zuellig.
1987 Constitution grants to the legislature Sometime in March 1999, news reports
the power and authority to enact a local came out regarding the alleged anomalous
government code, which provides for the purchase of asphalt by Cebu City, through
manner of removal of local government the contract signed by petitioner. This
officials. Moreover, in Bagabuyo et al. vs. prompted the Office of the Ombudsman
Davide, Jr., et al., this court had the (Visayas) to conduct an inquiry into the
occasion to state that B.P. Blg. 337 matter.[1] Respondent Jesus Rodrigo T.
remained in force despite the effectivity of Tagaan, special prosecution officer of the
the present Constitution, until such time as Office of the Ombudsman, was assigned to
the proposed Local Government Code of conduct the inquiry, docketed as INQ-VIS-
1991 is approved. The power of the DILG 99-0132. After his investigation, he
secretary to remove local elective recommended that the said inquiry be
government officials is found in Secs. 60 upgraded to criminal and administrative
and 61 of BP 337. cases against petitioner and the other city
officials involved. Respondent Arturo C.
3. No. Petitioner is not being prosecuted Mojica, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas,
criminally, but administratively where the approved this recommendation.
quantum of proof required is
only substantial evidence. (Aguinaldo vs. ISSUES:
Santos, G.R. No. 94115, August 21, 1992) 1. WON Garcia may be held
administratively liable.
2. 2. WON the Ombudsman was
69.
stripped of its powers by virtue of
GARCIA VS MOJICA
the LGC.
FACTS:
RULING:
On May 7, 1998, petitioner, in his capacity
as Cebu City mayor, signed a contract with
1. NO. In a number of cases, we have
F.E. Zuellig for the supply of asphalt to the
repeatedly held that a reelected local
city. The contract covers the period 1998-
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 114
Trades, and imposed on him the penalty of The following are exempted from
dismissal from the service. the operations of the rules on nepotism: (a)
persons employed in a confidential
capacity, (b) teachers, (c) physicians, and
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the (d) members of the Armed Forces of the
CSC’s resolution was reversed ruling that Philippines: Provided, however, That in each
the respondent did not appoint his two particular instance full report of
sons; hence, respondent was not guilty of such appointment shall be made to the
nepotism. The Court further held that it is Commission.”
“the person who recommends or appoints
who should be sanctioned, as it is he who
performs the prohibited act. Under the definition of nepotism, one is
guilty of nepotism if an appointment is
issued in favor of a relative within the third
civil degree of consanguinity or affinityof
Issues: any of the following:
a) appointing authority;
1. Whether or not Dacoycoy is guilty of b) recommending authority;
nepotism. c) chief of the bureau or office, and
d) person exercising immediate supervision
over the appointee.
2. Who may take an appeal from an
adverse decision of the appellate court in an
administrative civil service disciplinary case Clearly, there are four situations
covered. In the last two mentioned
situations, it is immaterial who the
appointing or recommending authority
Held: is. To constitute a violation of the law, it
suffices that an appointment is extended or
issued in favor of a relative within the third
Yes. The law defines nepotism civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of
as all appointments to the national, the chief of the bureau or office, or the
provincial, city and municipal governments person exercising immediate supervision
or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, over the appointee.
including government owned or controlled
corporations, made in favor of a relative of
the appointing or recommending authority, It is true that Dacoycoy did not appoint or
or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of recommend his two sons to the positions of
the persons exercising immediate driver and utility worker in the Balicuatro
supervision over him, are hereby prohibited. College of Arts and Trades. In fact, it was
The word “relative” and members of the Mr. Jaime Daclag, Head of the
family referred to are those related within Vocational Department of the BCAT, who
the third degree either of consanguinity or recommended to DECS Region VIII
of affinity. the appointment of Rito Dacoycoy as driver
and appointed Ped Dacoycoy as casual
utility worker. However, it was the
respondent who recommended Mr. Daclag’s
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 117
authority to appoint first level positions. It appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court
was also the respondent who certified that required the petitioner therein, here
“funds are available for respondent Dacoycoy, to implead the Civil
theproposed appointment of Rito and even Service Commission as public respondent as
rated his performance as “very the government agency tasked with the
satisfactory”. Further, Ped, listed him in his duty to enforce the constitutional and
job description as his “next higher statutory provisions on the civil
supervisor.” Unquestionably, Mr. Daclag service. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals
was a subordinate of respondent Pedro O. reversed the decision of the Civil Service
Dacoycoy, who was the school Commission and held respondent not guilty
administrator. Mr. Daclag recommended of nepotism. Who now may appeal the
theappointment of respondent's two sons decision of the Court of Appeals to the
and placed them under respondent's Supreme Court? Certainly not the
immediate supervision serving as driver and respondent, who was declared not guilty of
utility worker of the school. Both positions the charge. Nor the complainant George P.
are career positions. Clearly he is guilty of Suan, who was merely a witness for the
nepotism. government. Consequently, the Civil
Service Commission has become the party
adversely affected by such ruling, which
Nepotism is one pernicious evil impeding seriously prejudices thecivil
the civil service and the efficiency of its service system. Hence, as an aggrieved
personnel. In Debulgado, we stressed that party, it may appeal the decision of the
“The basic purpose or objective of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
prohibition against nepotism also strongly
indicates that the prohibition was intended
to be a comprehensive one.” “The Court
was unwilling to restrict and limit the scope
of the prohibition which is textually very 71.
broad and comprehensive.” If not within the OMB vs Torres
exceptions, it is a form of corruption that
must be nipped in the bud or bated FACTS:
whenever or wherever it raises its ugly
head. As we said in an earlier case “what Maricar was appointed as Legislative
we need now is not only to punish the Staff Assistant on February 16, 1995, while
wrongdoers or reward the ‘outstanding’ civil Marian was appointed as Messenger on May
servants, but also to plug the hidden gaps 24, 1996. At the time of their public
and potholes of corruption as well as to employment, they were both enrolled as
insist on strict compliance with existing legal full-time regular college students – Maricar,
procedures in order to abate any occasion as a full-time student at the University of
for graft or circumvention of the law. Santo Tomas (UST) and Marian as a
dentistry-proper student at the College of
Dentistry of Centro Escolar University.
2. There is no question that respondent During the period subject of this case, they
Dacoycoy may appeal to the Court of were able to collect their respective salaries
Appeals from the decision of the Civil by submitting Daily Time Records (DTR)
Service Commission adverse to him. He was indicating that they reported for work every
the respondent official meted out the working day, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
penalty of dismissal from the service. On
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 118
After due proceedings held in the While this Court recognizes the relative
Office of the Ombudsman, Graft laxity given to confidential employees in
Investigation Officer (GIO) Moreno F. terms of adjusted or flexible working hours,
Generoso, in the Decision4 dated November substantial non-attendance at work as
9, 2001, found Maricar and Marian blatant and glaring as in the case of
administratively guilty of Dishonesty and respondents cannot be countenanced.
Falsification of Official Document and Collecting full salaries for work practically
recommended the imposition of the penalty not rendered is simply, downright
of dismissal from the service. reprehensible. Inevitably, this leads to the
erosion of the public’s faith in and respect
Aggrieved, Maricar and Marian went for the government.
to the CA via a petition6 for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:
Respondent has allegedly incurred
WON CA gravely erred in reversing the shortages in his accountabilities. He was
decision of the lower court meted the penalty of one year suspension
from office by the Ombudsman. However
RULING: CA granted the respondent’s prayer for the
issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.
YES. Falsification of a DTR (an official
document) amounts to dishonesty. Thus, Ombudsman, filed a motion for
respondents should be held administratively intervention and a motion to recall the writ
liable. While dismissal was originally of preliminary injunction but were both
recommended for imposition on denied. The Ombudsman, claims that CA
respondents, the penalty was eventually erred in denying its right to intervene.
tempered to suspension of one (1) year
without pay.
ISSUE:
We agree with the imposition of the lower
penalty considering that respondents’ public Whether the Ombudsman has the authority
employment with the then Sangguniang to intervene.
Bayan of Malabon, even while they were
regular college students, was of a
confidential character, and the arrangement RULING:
was with the full knowledge and consent of
their father who appointed them to their Yes. To aid the Ombudsman in carrying out
positions. its tasks, it was vested with disciplinary
authority over governmentofficials.
TheOffice of the Ombudsman is vested with
A D M I N A N D E L E C T I O N C A S E S C O M P I L E D P a g e | 119
6. If condonation of an elective
official's administrative liability
would perhaps, be allowed in
this jurisdiction, then the same
should have been provided by
law under our governing legal
mechanisms.