10/10/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
Close Reader
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 633
reiterate, Section 3 of P.D. 1113 provides that [t]his [PNCC]
Information | Reference
franchise is granted subject to such conditions as may be
imposed by the [TRB] in an appropriate contract to be Copy Selection
Case Title: Select some text within a
ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.
executed for this purpose, and with the understanding and paragraph and click here to
and jose ma. o. hizon, upon the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, copy the selected text. Citation
petitioners, vs. TOLL
alteration or repeal when public interest so requires.” included.
REGULATORY BOARD,
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL Same; An administrative agency vested by law with the power
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
MANILA NORTH TOLLWAYS to grant franchises or authority to operate can validly grant the
CORPORATION, BENPRES same in the interim when it is necessary, temporary and beneficial
HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
FIRST PHILIPPINE to the public.—The PNCC was likewise granted temporary or
INFRASTRUCTURE interim authority by the TRB to operate the SLEX, to ensure the
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
TOLLWAY MANAGEMENT
continued development, operations and progress of the projects.
CORPORATION, PNCC SKYWAY We have ruled in Oroport Cargohandling Services, Inc. v. Phividec
CORPORATION, CITRA METRO Industrial Authority, 560 SCRA 197 (2008), that an
MANILA TOLLWAYS
CORPORATION and HOPEWELL administrative agency vested
CROWN INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.,
respondents.
475
Citation: 633 SCRA 470
More...
VOL. 633, OCTOBER 19, 2010 475
Search Result Francisco, Jr. vs. Toll Regulary Board
by law with the power to grant franchises or authority to operate
can validly grant the same in the interim when it is necessary,
temporary and beneficial to the public. The grant by the TRB to
PNCC as interim operator of the SLEX was certainly intended to
guarantee the continued operation of the said tollway facility, and
to ensure the want of any delay and inconvenience to the
motoring public.
Same; The fact that an administrative agency is exercising its
administrative or executive functions (such as the granting of
franchises or awarding of contracts) and at the same time
exercising its quasi-legislative (e.g. rule-making) and/or quasi-
judicial functions (e.g. rate-fixing), does not support a finding of a
violation of due process or the Constitution.—To summarize, the
fact that an administrative agency is exercising its administrative
or executive functions (such as the granting of franchises or
awarding of contracts) and at the same time exercising its quasi-
legislative (e.g. rule-making) and/or quasi-judicial functions (e.g.
rate-fixing), does not support a finding of a violation of due
process or the Constitution. In C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. v.
Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268 (1990), We explained the rationale,
thus: It is by now commonplace learning that many
administrative agencies exercise and perform
adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited
extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial
authority to administrative agencies (e.g. the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations
Commission) is well recognized in our jurisdiction, basically
because the need for special competence and experience
has been recognized as essential in the resolution of
questions of complex or specialized character and because
of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular
courts have remained crowded and clogged. x x x x As a
result of the growing complexity of the modern society, it has
become necessary to create more and more administrative bodies
to help in the regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in
the particular fields assigned to them, they can deal with
the problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch
than can be expected from the legislature or the courts of
justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of
quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in what is now
not unquestionably called the fourth department of the
government.
476
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Francisco, Jr. vs. Toll Regulary Board
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db61535fb4023ce75003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/1
