2D APEL

RECIT- READY DIGESTS

Based on Atty. Kr is Gar gantiel’s ‘21- ’22 Syllabus

DAÑO | FIGURACION | MARIANO | PRUDENCIO | RELLESIVA |

SACDALAN
1
 ANG TIBAY v. CIR o The CIR or any of its judges, must act on its or his own
Facts: independent consideration of the law and facts of the
- Ang Tibay is a leather company which supplies the Philippine controversy.
Army and the owner claimed that a number of his employees o The CIR should, in all controversial questions, render its
were laid off due to a shortage of leather soles. decision in such a manner that the parties to the
- The National Labor Union prayed for the vacation of judgment proceeding can know the various issues involved.
and remanded the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for a - It is sufficient to observe that the record does not satisfy the thirst
new trial. NLU claims that: for a factual basis upon which to predicate a conclusion of law.
o The owner’s claim of shortage of leather soles was entirely - The motion for a new trial is granted and the entire record of this
false and that he was guilty of unfair labor practice for case shall be remanded to the CIR with instruction that it reopen
discriminating against the NLU and unjustly favoring the case.
National Worker’s Brotherhood.
- Ang Tibay filed an opposition both to the motion for MIGUEL v. VDA. DE REYES
reconsideration of the CIR and to the motion for new trial of the Facts:
respondent NLU. - Eloy Miguel and his son brought an action to the CFI of Isabela
against Anacleta Vda. De Reyes, the Director of Lands, and the
Issue: Whether or not NLU was deprived of due process. Register of Deeds.
- Eloy Miguel alleged that he filed with the Bureau of Lands a
Ruling: homestead application for a parcel of public land in the
- Yes. The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically municipality of Angadanan of Isabela.
stated in the law of its creation. - He also alleged that his son declared another parcel of land for
- It exercises judicial/quasi-judicial functions in the determination taxation purposes and had since been in actual, open, peaceful,
of disputes between employers and employees. and continuous possession of the same under a claim of
- It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to consider, ownership.
investigate, decide, and settle any matter of controversy or - Lastly, he alleged that the defendant had included both subject
dispute arising between employers and employees. parcels of land in a sales application with the Bureau of Lands.
- Even if the CIR may be free from certain procedural requirements, - The plaintiffs filed their protest with the said bureau where the
there are still cardinal primary rights which must be respected in Director of Lands ordered an investigation and a hearing was set.
proceedings of this character: - Pending hearing, the plaintiffs were informed that the defendant
o Right to a hearing which includes the right of the party who had, thru “fraudulent machinations and false representations”
is affected to present his own case and submit evidence been issued a sales patent by the Director of Lands.
in support thereof. - Plaintiffs prayed for judgment voiding the sales patent and
o Tribunal must consider the evidence presented. ordered the defendant to pay damages.
o Having something to support the decision. - Defendant claimed that plaintiffs had no right to bring the action
o Evidence must be substantial. and that their complaint did not state a cause of action.
o Decision must be rendered based on the evidence
presented at the hearing. Issue: Whether or not said title has a cause of action

2
Ruling: 1. Yes. There is no question that the WAS acted as a quasi-judicial
- There is no clear averment that the lands claimed by the plaintiffs body.
were private property. o The parties also signed an agreement where they bound
- If plaintiffs were aggrieved by the action or decision of the themselves by whatever decision the WAS may render
Director of Lands, their remedy was to appeal to the Secretary of and that they recognize the decision to be final and
Agriculture and Commerce. conclusive.
- It does not appear that the plaintiffs have appealed to the o Even assuming that the decision did not automatically
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce hence they have failed to become final, plaintiff’s failure to appeal to the SC, as
exhaust their remedy in the administrative branch of the provided by the Minimum Wage Law, rendered it final
Government and they cannot seek relief in the courts of justice. and conclusive.
2. Yes. Res judicata applies to judicial and quasi-judicial acts of
BRILLANTES v. CASTRO public, executive, or administrative officers and boards acting
Facts: within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having
- The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant before the general judicial powers.
Wage Administration Service for the recovery of alleged unpaid o Whenever a final adjudication of persons invested with
salary and overtime pay. power to decide on the property and rights of the citizens
- The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an arbitration is examinable by the SC, upon a writ of error or a
agreement where they agreed that -- certiorari, such final adjudication may be pleaded as res
o They would submit their case to the Wage Administration judicata.
Service for investigation
o They bind themselves to abide by whatever decision this CARMELO v. RAMOS
Office may render and that they recognize such decision
to be final and conclusive. Facts:
- In accordance with the agreement, the parties adduced evidence - The Mayor of Manila issued an EO creating a committee which will
before the WAS. investigate the anomalies involving the license inspectors and
- The WAS dismissed the claim and ordered the respondent to pay other personnel of the License Inspection Division of the Office of
the claimant P50.88 corresponding to his salary for services the City Treasurer and of the License and Permits Division of this
rendered for the month of November. Office.
- No appeal was taken and the plaintiff filed a complaint against the - The mayor appointed Carmelo as the chairman of the committee.
defendant with this Court over the same subject matter and cause - The committee issued subpoenas to Ramos, a private citizen
of action. working as bookkeeper, and required him to appear before it in
connection to an administrative case against Crisanto.
Issue/s: - Ramos failed to appear and the petitioner filed in the CFI of Manila
1. W/N the case is barred by res judicata. a petition to declare the former in contempt.
2. W/N res judicata is applicable in the quasi-judicial acts of administrative - The trial court dismissed the petition after the hearing stating that
officers. there is now law empowering committees created by municipal
mayors to issue subpoenas and demand witnesses to testify
Ruling: under oath.

3
 - Eventually, Guiang, Liceralde and Pedro B. de Jesus formed a
Issue/s: W/N the committee has the power to subpoena witnesses to corporation known as the P.B. DE JESUS & CO., INC.
appear before it and to ask for their punishment in case of refusal. - Meanwhile, petitioner Agusmin appealed to the Office of the
President.
Ruling: - The OP, through the Assistant Executive Secretary, reverted and
No. Rule 64 of the ROC applies only to inferior and superior courts and declared of no force and effect the decision of the Secretary of
does not comprehend contempt committed against administrative Agriculture and Natural Resources.
officials or bodies, unless expressly defined as contempt of court. - Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which, however, had
- There is nothing in the EO granting the committee of such power. remained unacted.
- As ruled by the court in Francia v. Pecson – - Subsequently, petitioner requested and was granted by the Director
o “We do not think the mayor can delegate or confer the of Forestry a renewal of its timber license which included the forest
powers to administer oaths, to take testimony, and to areas covered by the timber licenses of respondents.
issue subpoenas.” - The same was later reduced at the instance of respondent corporation
- Whatever power may be claimed by the petitioner’s committee formed by respondents Guiang, Liceralde and De Jesus eliminating the
may only be traced to the power of the mayor to investigate as forest areas covered by the timber licenses of respondents.
implied from his power to suspend or remove certain city - Agusmin appealed the reduction order to the Secretary of Agriculture
employees. and Natural Resources but this was denied for lack of merit.
- Even if the mayor has the implied power to require the - On further appeal to the OP, the latter Office rendered a decision
appearance of witnesses before him, the rule is that the mayor declaring its decision in DANR 3093-A final and executory.
cannot delegate his power to a body like the committee of the - Respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
petitioner. with preliminary injunction with the Court of First Instance which
thereafter rendered judgment in favor of respondents.
AGUSMIN v. CA - The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in toto. pending
resolution of respondents’ petition with the lower court, however, the
Facts: President by Letter of Instruction No. 172 canceled the timber license
- Respondents Guiang, Liceralde, and 6 other holders of timber of petitioner. Hence, this present petition.
licenses formed Agusmin Promotional Enterprises, Inc.
- However, due to some differences, respondents Guiang and Liceralde Issue:
requested the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to allow Whether or not the CA erred in not holding the decisions of the Executive
withdrawal of their respective forest areas from Agusmin and to Secretary in DANR Case Nos. 3093-A and 3562 were validly issued.
consolidate the same with the timber license of Pedro B. de Jesus and
Sulpicio Lagnada. Ruling:
- The Director of Forestry to whom the case was referred declared that
the request is beyond his jurisdiction and that the issuance of a new
timber license in their favor will be in violation of forestry rules and
regulations.
- On appeal (DANR Case No. 3093-A) the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources reversed the decision of the Director of Forestry.

4
- No. "in deciding administrative questions, technical rules of - The Court holds that Clave committed a grave abuse of discretion
procedure are not strictly enforced and due process of law in the strict in deciding the appeal.
judicial sense is not indispensable," little, if any, useful purpose could
be gained in further discussing these issues because Letter of PCGG v. PEÑA
Instruction No. 172, which ordered the cancellation of the timber
license issued to AGUSMIN, in effect, reversed and set aside the said Facts:
decisions of the Executive Secretary before the same became final and - The Commission issued an order freezing the assets, effects,
enforceable. In the words of the CA, the said decisions “did not acquire documents and records of 2 export garment manufacturing firms.
any finality.” - Both had been organized by joint venture agreement. The
Commission appointed Saludo ad Officer-in-charge (OIC) of the
ANZALDO v. CLAVE said corporations with full authority to manage the same.
- Subsequently, the Commission then designated the OIC and
Facts: Yeung Chun Ho as authorized signatories to effect deposits and
- Petitioner started working with the National Institute of Science withdrawals of the funds of the corporations.
and Technology and was appointed by the vice chariman to the - Yim Kam Shing was also designated as co-signatory in the absence
position of Science Research Supervisor II. of Chun Ho, while de Guzman, in the absence of Saludo. However,
- The appointment was made upon the recommendation of the Saludo later on revoked the authorizations previously issued
NIST Staff Evaluation Committee which gave the petitioner higher upon finding that Yim Kam Shing was a Hong Kong Chinese
points than the private respondent. national on a mere tourist visa. The OIC withdrew around P400k
- Private respondent appealed the appointment to the Office of the from MBTC against the accounts of the said corporations for
President and the same was forwarded to the NIST Officer-in- payment of the salaries of the staff, employees, and laborers of the
Charge who reiterated the decision of the vice chairman. same.
- Private respondent appealed to the CSC and the latter reversed - Respondents then instituted an action for damages against the
the decision of the NIST and recommended that the private ban.
respondent shall be appointed. - The Commission filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
- On appeal to the OP, Presidential Exc. Assistant Clave and trial court has no jurisdiction over the Commission or over the
concurrent chairman of the CSC revoked the appointment of the subject of the case.
petitioner as recommended by the CSC.
Issue: W/N regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction
Issue: W/N the petitioner was denied due process. over the Presidential Commission on Good Government

Ruling: Ruling:
- Yes. It is not fair to the petitioner that Clave should decide on his
own recommendation as to who should be appointed.
- The Commissioner in the CSC should be a different person from
the person in the Office of the President who would decide the
appeal in a contested appointment.

5
 - No. Under Section 2 of EO 14, all cases of the Commission - HSRC Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer Mendiola
regarding the ill-gotten wealth of Former President Marcos are dismissed private respondent’s protest as it was filed 5 days
lodged within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the beyond the 15 day reglementary period and also stated that the
Sandiganbayan and all incidents related to such cases necessarily private respondent was not among the top six next-in-rank
fall likewise under the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive and original candidates recommended by the Selection and Promotion Board;
jurisdiction, subject to review on certiorari exclusively of the and that the petitioner can be extended a promotional
Supreme Court. appointment because of her 31 years of service in the
- In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, the Commission is a co- government.
equal body with regional trial courts and "co-equal bodies have - The Merit Systems Protection Board reversed the decision and
no power to control the other." Those who wish to question or stated that the position specifically requires a lawyer, architect,
challenge the Commission's acts or orders in such cases must seek engineer, or a holder of a masteral degree and petitioner’s length
recourse in the same court, the Sandiganbayan, which is vested of service cannot make up for her education deficiency.
with exclusive and original jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan's - On appeal, CSC declared the subject position as vacant.
decisions and final orders are in turn subject to review on - Petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for
certiorari exclusively by this Court. falsification of documents, dishonesty, and violation of Civil
- Public policy dictates that the Commission be not embroiled in Service Law. She prayed that an investigation be conducted and
and swamped by legal suits before inferior courts all over the the private respondent would be dismissed from the service.
land, since the loss of time and energy required to defend against - The legal officer found prima facie evidence against private
such suits would defeat the very purpose of its creation. Hence, respondent and recommended to resolve all doubts before the
section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 1 has expressly accorded the CSC. After hearing, the MSPB absolved private respondent of all
Commission and its members immunity from suit for damages in charges except for habitual tardiness.
that: "No civil action shall lie against the Commission or any - Petitioner appealed to the CSC which the latter dismissed on the
member thereof for anything done or omitted in the discharge of ground that she is not the party adversely affected by the decision.
the task contemplated by this order."
Issue/s:
PAREDES v. CSC 1. W/N the public respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion when
it sustained the revocation of petitioner Paredes’ appointment as HS
Facts: project Coordinator and in declaring the said position vacant.
- Petitioner entered the government service as a public school 2. W/N petitioner Paredes has the legal personality to appeal the decision
teacher in July 1950. 27 years after, she joined the Human of the MPSB.
Settlements Regulatory Commission as Project Officer II and she
was then promoted to Project Officer III. Ruling:
- Petitioner was then extended a promotional appointment as HS 1. No. For an act of a court or tribunal to be considered as committed
Project Supervisor and private respondent contested such in grave abuse of discretion the same must be performed in a
appointment on the ground that she is the qualified next-in-rank. capricious and whimsical manner as tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction.

6
 - A Qualification Standard is to be established or formulated by the - The letter was denied through an order of the Minister.
Department or agency concerned but must be approved by the - The petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied by the
CSC. MNR. Its supplemental motion for reconsideration was also
- CSC committed an error in applying the Qualification Standards denied. Furthermore, its appeal to the OP was denied due to lack
which it admitted it has not approved. of merit and being prematurely filed.
- The absence of a Qualification Standard does not justify the
appointment of petitioner or any body for that matter to the Issue: W/N the public respondents herein acted with grave abuse of
contested position. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to
2. No. Appeal in judicial proceedings is a statutory right that must be overturn administrative orders issued by their predecessors in the
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the past regime.
provisions of law.
- Appeal to the Civil Service Commission in an administrative case
is extended to the party adversely affected by the decision.
- As correctly ruled, petitioner is not the party adversely affected Ruling:
by the decision so she has no legal personality to interpose an - No. Decisions and orders of administrative agencies have upon
appeal to the CSC. their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment
within the purview of res judicata.
YSMAEL v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY - The rule of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter
once determined by competent authority acting within their
Facts: exclusive jurisdiction.
- Petitioner sent 2 letters on separate occasion to the Office of the - By the time the petitioner sent its letter to the newly appointer
President and to the Minister of the Ministry of natural Resources. Minister, requesting reconsideration of the Bureau’s actions,
- Petitioner seeks the reinstatement of its timber license these were already settled matters.
agreement which was cancelled during the Marcos - Secondly, the petitioner failed to seasonably take judicial
administration; the revocation of timber license agreement recourse to have the earlier administrative actions reviewed by
issued to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation the courts through a petition of certiorari is prejudicial to its
without public bidding; and the issuance of an order allowing the cause. In the case at bar, petitioner waited at least 3 years before
petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the concession it finally filed a petition for certiorari and throughout the period
area. of its inaction, the petitioner was not deprived of the opportunity
- Petitioner alleged that it entered a TLA with the Department of seek relief from the courts hence its delay constituted inexcusable
Agriculture and Natural Resources within a specified portion of negligence, tantamount to laches.
public forest land in the province on Nueva Vizcaya. However, this
was revoked by the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development
pursuant to presidential instructions and a memorandum order
of the Minister of Natural Resources.
- After the cancellation, it sent a letter to the President Marcos
which sought reconsideration of the Bureau’s directive and
alleged that it was not given the opportunity to be heard.

7
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (NAFTU) v. MAINIT - NAFTU did not elevate this decision to the Court and even
LUMBER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (MALDECO) WORKERS UNION participated in the questioned election.
- Res judicata, which forbids the reopening of a matter once
Facts: judicially determined by competent authority, applies as
- United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP), a well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public,
legitimate labor organization, filed a petition for certification election executive, or administrative officers and boards acting
to determine the collective bargaining representative among the within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having
rank-and-file employees of MALDECO. general judicial powers.
- The Med-Arbiter granted the petition. However, NAFTU appealed the
decision on the ground that MALDECO was composed of two GERMAN ZAGADA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC)
bargaining units: Sawmill Division and Logging Division but they were
treated as one. Facts:
- The Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) affirmed the decision. A - The CSC received a complaint against Zagada and one Nestor Valdez
certification election was held on separate dates at the sawmill for falsification of entry in the district plantilla of personnel for 1981.
division and logging area. Cesario Guinoo, key witness, was the clerk who prepared the plantilla
- NAFTU filed an election protest alleging massive vote buying with under then OIC Eleanor Osea.
grave and serious force and intimidation against 25 applicants. - Before the plantilla could be submitted to the Office of the Ministry of
MALDECO corroborated this stand. DECS, Zagad took over as new district supervisor.
- ULGWP filed its position paper which NAFTU opposed. The Med- - Zagada and Valdez approached Guinoo and asked him to make
Arbiter dismissed the election protest. NAFTU appealed to the Bureau adjustments in said plantilla so that Valdez would be listed as
of Labor Relations but was denied. Elementary Grade Teacher (EGT)-5 instead of EGT-3 even though
there was no proof that Valdez was qualified for the position.
Issues: - Zagada was adjudged guilty of misconduct and was made to pay a fine
1. WON it was right for the Med-Arbiter to change MALDECO from two equal to 1 month and 1 day of his salary. Valdez was considered
to one bargaining unit. terminated as of the date of his retirement. Upon elevation to the
2. WON res judicata applies. Merit Systems Protection Board, the decision was affirmed but the
Board imposed a penalty of 6 months fine without pay. CSC modified
Ruling: the Board’s decision and imposed a penalty of 1 year suspension
1. YES. 175/201 employees consented and supported the petition, without pay.
confirming their desire for one bargaining representative.
- There is also mutuality of interest among the employees of Issues:
the Sawmill and Logging Divisions since their functions 1. WON the petition to the SC was valid.
compliment one another and the company needs them both. 2. WON the affidavit of the clerk Guinoo was sufficient to constitute
The distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of substantial evidence to sustain the finding of grave misconduct
separate bargaining units. against Zagada.

2. YES. The BLR already ruled on the matter when it affirmed the MA’s Ruling:
order.

8
 1. YES. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the writ of certiorari is - Private respondent filed the complaint detailing an “apparent plan” of
available where any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial MWSS to favor suppliers of fiberglass pipes, and urging the
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or Ombudsman to conduct an investigation thereon.
with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, or any plain, - The Fact finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Ombudsman issued an injunction directed to the Board of Trustees of
- In order for this Court to sustain the findings of an MWSS to set aside the recommendation of PBAC-CSTE that the
administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions, such contract be given to a contractor offering fiberglass pipes and instead
a body must abide by the elementary rules of due process. award the same to a complying and responsive bidder.
When there is denial of due process, there is grave abuse of - Petitioners assailed the order of the Ombudsman for lack of
discretion and the writ of certiorari is in order. jurisdiction over the complaint and for issuing the challenged order
contrary to PD 1818, which prohibits the issuance of restraining
2. NO. The affidavit of Guinoo was self-serving as he admitted orders/ injunctions in cases involving government infrastructure
responsibility for altering the plantilla himself. projects.
- Assuming Guinoo was regular in the performance of his
duties, under no circumstance will he allow any changes in Issue:
the plantilla after it had been signed and certified correct 1. WON the due process has been observed in the issuance of the
(allegedly by Osea). assailed orders of the Ombudsman.
- The CSC erred in finding Zadaga guilty of grave misconduct 2. WON the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to take cognizance of
on the sole basis of Guinoo’s affidavit, the same not being PLDPPMA’s complaint and to issue its challenged orders to set aside
substantial evidence. This constitutes a denial of the recommendations of the PBAC-CSTE.
administrative due process amounting to grave abuse of
discretion. Ruling:
1. YES. Petitioners have been amply accorded the opportunity to be
CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF MWSS v. VASQUEZ heard.
- Petitioners were asked to comment on the letter-complaint of
Facts: PLDPPMA and even moved for an extension of time within
- Private respondent Philippine Large Diameter Pressure which to comment. When an adverse order was rendered
Manufacturer’s Association (PLDPPMA) filed a complaint before the against them, petitioner even moved for its reconsideration.
Ombudsman protesting the public bidding conducted by the - The absence of due process is an opportunity to be heard. One
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) for its Angat may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and
Water Supply optimization project. perhaps even many times more creditably and practicable
- The Pre-qualification, Bids, and Awards Committee for Construction than oral argument, through pleadings.
Services and Technical Equipment (PBAC-CSTE) held that while Joint - In administrative proceedings, moreover, technical rules
Venture’s bid was the lowest, it is invalid due to its failure to of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied;
acknowledge a major consideration that could not be waived administrative due process cannot be fully equated to
- Accordingly, it recommended that the contract be awarded to the due process in its strict judicial sense.
second lowest but complying binder, F.F. Cruz & Co. and such was
approved by the Acting chairman and the members.

9
 2. No. The assailed Order appears to be an undue interference in the - The Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas placed Lastimosa and
adjudicative responsibility of the MWSS Board of Trustees rather than Kintanar under preventive suspension for 6 months.
a mere directive requiring the proper observance of and compliance - Lastimosa contends that the Office of the Ombudsman has no
with the law. jurisdiction over the case because the crime involved was not
- As a GOCC charged with the construction, maintenance and committed in relation to a public office.
operation of water works system to insure an uninterrupted
and adequate supply and distribution of potable water, Issue: WON in the exercise of its power, the Ombudsman is authorized to call
MWSS is in the best position to evaluate the feasibility of the on prosecutors for assistance.
projection of the bidders and to decide which bid is
compatible with its development plans. Ruling: YES.
- The discretion to accept or reject a bid and award contracts - The Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any
is vested in the Government agencies entrusted with that crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts
function. The discretion given to the authorities on this or omissions complained of are related to, or connected with, or arise
matter is of such wide latitude that the Courts will not from, the performance of his official duty. It is enough that the act or
interfere therewith, unless it is apparent that it is used as a omission was committed by a public official.
shield to a fraudulent award. - In the exercise of its power, the Ombudsman is authorized to call on
- The issues involved, dealing on basically technical matters, prosecutors for assistance. Even if the PI had been given over to the
deserve to be disentangled from undue interference from Provincial Prosecutor to conduct, his determination of the nature of
courts and so from the Ombudsman as well. the offense to be charged would still be subject to the approval of the
Ombudsman because under the Ombudsman's Act, when a prosecutor
LASTIMOSA v. VASQUEZ is deputized, he comes under the "supervision and control" of the
Ombudsman which means that he is subject to the power of the
Facts: Ombudsman to direct, review, approve, reverse or modify his
- Jessica Dayon, nurse, filed a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and decision.
an admin complaint for immoral acts, abuse of authority, and grave - The Ombudsman may exercise its contempt power as a means of
micsonduct against Mayor Illustrisimo of Santa Fe, Cebu. enforcing his lawful orders.
- The graft investigation officer recommended dismissal of the - The Ombudsman or his Deputy may suspend any officer or
complaint. However, the Ombudsman Marquez disapproved the employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his
recommendation and directed that the Mayor be charged with judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against
attempted rape in the RTC. such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave
- First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Lastomisa conducted a misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty. Thus, the
preliminary investigation and with the approval of Provincial Ombudsman has the power to discipline Lastimosa should it be found
Prosecutor Kintanar, filed an information for acts of lasciviousness that she is guilty of grave misconduct, insubordination and/or neglect
against the Mayor. of duty, as well as the power to place her in the meantime under
- Deputy Ombudsman Mojica ordered them to show cause why they preventive suspension.
should not be punished for contempt for refusing to follow the order
of the Ombudsman to charge the Mayor with attempted rape.

10
 PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS (PBCOM) v. COMMISSIONER - Revenue memorandum-circulars are considered administrative
OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CIR) rulings which are issued from time to time by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. It is widely accepted that the interpretation placed
Facts: upon a statute by the executive officers, whose duty is to enforce it, is
- PBCom filed its quarterly income tax returns (ITR) for the 1st and 2nd entitled to great respect by the courts. Nevertheless, such
quarters of 1985 and paid income tax of P5.016M. interpretation is not conclusive and will be ignored if judicially found
- PBCom suffered losses, so when it filed its annual ITR it declared a net to be erroneous.
loss of P25.3M thereby showing no income tax liability. In 1986, it - Administrative decisions do not enjoy the level of recognition
likewise reported a net loss of P14.1M and declared no tax payable. afforded to judicial decisions under Article 8 of the NCC. A
However, in those two years, PBCom earned rental income from memorandum-circular of a bureau head could not operate to vest a
leased properties. In 1988, it filed a claim for refund of creditable taxpayer with a shield against judicial action. There are no vested
taxes withheld by their lessees from property rentals in 1985 and rights to speak of respecting a wrong construction of the law by the
1986. administrative officials and such wrong interpretation could not place
- The CTA denied the claim for refund for 1985 on the ground that it the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same.
was filed beyond the 2-year reglementary period and for 1986 on the - The non-retroactivity of rulings by the Commissioner of Internal
assumption that petitioner had automatically credited against its tax Revenue is not applicable in this case because the nullity of RMC No.
payment in the succeeding year. The CA affirmed the decision. 7-85 was declared by respondent courts and not by the CIR.
- PBCom argues that its claims for refund and tax credits are not yet
barred by prescription relying on the applicability of Revenue BAUTISTA v. CA
Memorandum Circular No. 7-85 issued on April 1, 1985. The circular Facts:
states that overpaid income taxes are not covered by the two-year - Ruth Bautista issued a Metrobank check to Susan Aloñ a but when it
prescriptive period under the tax Code and that taxpayers may claim was presented for payment, it was dishonored because it was drawn
refund or tax credits for the excess quarterly income tax with the BIR against insufficient funds.
within ten (10) years under Article 1144 of the NCC. - This prompted Aloñ a to file a complaint wherein she additionally
alleged that despite repeated demands on Bautista to make
Issue: WON the CA erred in denying the plea for tax refund or tax credits on arrangements for payment of the check, the latter failed to do so.
the ground of prescription, despite petitioner's reliance on RMC No. 7-85, - Bautista asserted that presentment of the check within 90 days from
changing the prescriptive period of two years to ten years. the due date was an essential element of violation of BP 22. But since
the check was presented for payment 166 days after its due date, it
was no longer punishable under BP 22.
Ruling: NO. - The investigating prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the
- When the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued RMC No. filing of an information against Bautista for violation of BP 22.
7-85, changing the prescriptive period of 2 to 10 years on claims of - Bautista filed with the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP)
excess quarterly income tax payments, it created a clear inconsistency for Region IV a Petition for Review but it was denied by the ORSP. The
with the provision of Sec. 230 of 1977 NIRC. The BIR did not simply petitioner raised the issue to the Court of Appeals via a petition for
interpret the law; rather it legislated guidelines contrary to the review.
statute passed by Congress.

11
 - The appellate court issued a resolution denying due course outright
and dismissing the petition on the ground that it does not fall under
any of the agencies (Court of Tax Appeal and quasi-judicial agencies)
mentioned in Rule 43.
- Bautista contends that a prosecutor conducting a preliminary
investigation (PI) performs a quasi-judicial function.

Issue: WON the Office of the Prosecutor (OP) is a quasi-judicial body.

Ruling: NO.
- A quasi-judicial body is "an organ of government other than a court
and other than a legislature which affects the rights of private parties
through either adjudication or rule-making."
- The prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused. Preliminary investigation is merely
inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons
who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal
to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on
the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a
crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
- While the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be
acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass
judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.
- Decisions by the OP approving the filing of a criminal complaint are
not appealable to the CA under Rule 43.
- The courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal to
determine the specificity and adequacy of the offense charged. He may
dismiss the complaint if he finds it insufficient in form or substance or
groundless; or he may proceed with the investigation if he believes
the complaint is in due and proper form.
- Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within
the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty
of the crime. Since the prosecutor has ruled that there was probable
cause in this case, the Court found no reason to disturb its findings.

12
 DRA. HONORATA BAYLON v. FACT-FINDING INTELLIGENCE - The Court dismissed the petition for having been brought to the
BUREAU and the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN wrong forum since appeals from the decision of the Ombudsman
should be made to the CA via petition for review. Petitioner then
Facts: Dr. Baylon was designated as Program Manager of the government’s elevated the Ombudsman's Memorandum Reviews to the CA. The CA
National Voluntary Blood Donation Program with the National Kidney dismissed the petition for having been filed beyond the fifteen-day
Transplant Institute (NKTI) as the lead agency. reglementary period.
- DOH Sec. Flavier ordered the closure of provincial retail outlets of
commercial blood banks after a USAID study showed a 4% Issues:
contamination rate in the country’s blood banking system. This 1. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for technicalities.
resulted in the shortage of transfused blood due to the blood banks’ 2. WON Dr. Baylon was criminally liable.
refusal to sell blood in retaliation to the closure order. Flavier then 3. WON the Ombudsman’s finding that she was guilty of grave
directed the operation of the Blood Donation Program which served misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.
as the only viable system from which blood could be sourced.
- NKTI issued Requisition and Issue Vouchers for the purchase of Ruling:
“Terumo” blood bags for distribution to DOH hospitals or medical 1. YES. The case at bar is attended by transcendental considerations
centers where the blood donations would be held. which outweigh rules of procedure, thereby justifying the suspension
- NKTI obtained a first quotation from the exclusive distributor FVA. of their application.
Another quotation was later furnished reflecting reduced prices. Dr. 2. NO. The Court absolved petitioner of the charges filed against her in
Baylon signified her conformity with the second quotation. The NKTI view of the special circumstances relative to the case at bar and for
subsequently purchased “Terumo” bags from FVA. lack of probable cause to indict her for the acts constitutive of the
- The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed in post audit the sale administrative charge. The COA also found no irregularity in the
transactions entered into by the NKTI with FVA on the ground that the purchases by NKTI of blood bags from FVA and thus lifted its previous
blood bags were purchased without public bidding, contrary to the disallowance of payments for said purchases.
applicable laws or rules, thereby allegedly resulting in overpricing. 3. NO. The fact alone that FVA sold the same “Terumo” bags to PNRC and
The Auditor of NKTI suspended the purchases. other public hospitals at lower prices cannot be regarded as
- A criminal complaint for violation of RA No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and substantial evidence proving Dr. Baylon’s grave misconduct.
Corrupt Practices Act) was filed by the Office of the Ombudsman - While factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial
against the petitioner. An administrative complaint for gross agencies are generally accorded not only respect but at times
misconduct was also lodged against her. finality, this holds true only when they are supported by
- Petitioner contends that the acquisition of the blood bags via substantial evidence.
negotiated purchase came under the exemption given the urgent need - The acquisitions of blood bags for government use were
to address the scarcity of blood at the time. negotiated purchases which were justified by proven reasons
- The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to hold for their lawful execution under EO No. 301 even without the
petitioner criminally liable and also recommended petitioner to be required public bidding. The FVA was then also the sole
held guilty of Grave Misconduct with 6 months suspension. exclusive distributor of "Terumo" blood bags, which is
another reason for the purchases to be exempted from public
bidding.

13
 MANUEL LAXINA v. OMBUDSMAN 1. NO. The rule on forum-shopping applies only to judicial cases or
proceedings, and not to administrative cases. Petitioner has not cited
Facts: Manuel Laxina was Brgy. Chairman of Brgy. Batasan Hills. Evangeline any rule or circular on forum-shopping issued by the Office of the
Ursal filed with the NBI a complaint for attempted rape against Laxina. He Ombudsman or that of the City Council.
was later charged with sexual harassment before the RTC. 2. YES. The Ombudsman Act of 1989 was enacted, giving the
- Ursal brought a complaint-affidavit before the DILG charging Laxina Ombudsman or his Deputies jurisdiction over complaints on all kinds
with grave misconduct. The DILG referred the complaint to the City of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance against officers or
Council. Ursal also filed a similar complaint with the Ombudsman. employees of the government and the disciplinary authority over all
- The Administrative Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the elective and appointive officials. The Ombudsman has concurrent
Ombudsman exonerated Laxina from the charge, dismissing the jurisdiction with the City Council over Laxina’s case.
complaint for lack of substantial evidence. But upon review, Laxina - The Ombudsman was not aware of the pending case before
was found guilty and met the penalty of dismissal. the Quezon City Council when the administrative complaint
- The AAB issued an order directing Mayor Belmonte to implement its was filed before it. Thus, the Ombudsman, in compliance with
Memorandum Order. The Mayor notified Laxina of his dismissal. its duty to act on all complaints against officers and
- Laxina sought the review of the MO before the CA, arguing that (i) the employees of the government, took cognizance of the case,
Office of the Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction over the made its investigation, and rendered its decision.
administrative complaint; (ii) Ursal's filing of the same administrative - Laxina was also estopped from questioning the OBM’s
case before the Office of the Ombudsman and the City Council through jurisdiction. Participation in the administrative proceedings
the DILG warranted the dismissal of both cases; and (iii) petitioner without raising any objection thereto bars the parties from
was denied due process in the proceedings before the Ombudsman. raising any jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision
- The CA held that Laxina is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction is rendered against them.
of the Ombudsman after he participated in the proceedings. The CA 3. NO. A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be
also found the Ombudsman's assumption of jurisdiction justified since sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that
it became aware of the earlier case before the City Council only when respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal
Laxins filed his motion for reconsideration. In addition, the CA stated charge. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant
that the Ombudsman was justified in not dismissing the evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
administrative cases as a penalty for forum-shopping because conclusion. The Ombudsman passed upon Laxina's evidence which,
petitioner and Ursal are in pari delicto. however, was found bereft of credibility.

Issues:
1. WON the rule on forum shopping applies to administrative cases.
2. WON the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case.
3. WON Laxina was deprived of his right to administrative due process
when he was dismissed without substantial evidence.

Ruling:

14
DAVEY (63-68)

15
REEMY GANDA (69-71) - Due process in administrative proceedings has also been recognized
to include the following:
Montoya v. Varilla - The right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of
proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights;
Facts: PO2 Ruel Montoya, a member of the Philippine National Police - A real opportunity to be heard personally or with the
(PNP), was assigned to the Central Police District (CPD) in Quezon assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in
City. one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights;
- The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) issued a Special Order - A tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so
dropping him from the rolls for failure to attend the Law Enforcement constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
and Enhancement Course (LEEC). reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and
- Montoya had been absent without official leave (AWOL) for a period - A finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial
of 67 days. evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or
- Montoya filed a Motion for Reconsideration addressed to the PNP contained in the records or made known to the parties
Regional Director for the National Capital Region (NCR) averring that affected
his failure to attend the LEEC was due to his arthritis with on and off - In the instant case, the Montoya’s Summary Dismissal Proceedings
symptoms of severe body pain. against Montoya were flawed for lack of due notice to him.
- The NCR RD dismissed Montoya from service for Serious Neglect of - The NCR Regional Director never contested the fact that the Hearing
Duty. Officer proceeded with his investigation without giving notice to
- Montoya filed a Petition for Review and Motion for Reconsideration, Montoya.
but these were denied for lack of jurisdiction. - Without notice, Montoya was unable to attend the hearings, present
- Montoya filed to the Regional Appellate Board (RAB) alleging lack of written or oral arguments, and submit evidence in his favor; he was
due process considering that he was not even notified of any hearing completely deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the
by the Summary Hearing Officer and was thus deprived of the administrative charges against him and was irrefragably denied due
opportunity to present evidence in his defense. process.
- The RAB NCR granted Montoya’s appeal and ordered his - Consequently, the Decision of the NCR Regional Director dismissing
reinstatement. Montoya from service is void for having been rendered in violation of
- Eventually, the Commission on Civil Service set aside the Order of the latter's due process.
DILG Secretary and affirmed the decisions of the NCR RD dismissing
Montoya, et.a;. From police service/ 70. Equitable PCI Banking Corporation, et al. v. RCBC Capital
Corporation
Issue: Whether or not Montoya was denied due process.
Facts: Petitioners Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (EPCIB) and the individual
Ruling: YES. Montoya was denied due process. shareholders of Bankard, Inc., as sellers, and respondent RCBC Capital
- The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as Corporation (RCBC), as buyer, executed a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) for
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain the purchase of petitioners’ interests in Bankard.
one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or - Under the SPA, RCBC undertook to deposit a 20% down payment of
ruling complained of. the purchase price in an escrow account.
- RCBC paid the balance of the contract price.

16
 - RCBC informed petitioners of its having overpaid the purchase price - Later, petitioners even moved for the reconsideration of the denial of
of the subject shares. Thus, RBCB claimed that petitioners violated their appeal. Having been able to appeal and move for a
their warranty as sellers. reconsideration of the assailed rulings, petitioners cannot claim a
- RCBC filed a Request for Arbitration with the International Chamber denial of due process.
of Commerce – International Court of Arbitration (ICC-ICA) stating - As regards petitioners' claim that its right to due process was violated
that RCBC charged Bankard with deviating from, contravening and when they were allegedly denied the right to cross-examine RCBC's
not following generally accepted accounting principles and practices witnesses, the Court ruled that their claim was bereft of merit.
in maintaining their books. - Administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers
- Petitioners denied RCBC’s averments and claimed that the period for shall not be restrained by the rigid procedural technicalities,
filing of the asserted claim had already lapsed. but they must adhere to the basic concepts of fair play.
- The tribunal rendered a Partial Award stating that the RCBC’s claim - The Court ruled that in administrative cases, the conduct of
was not time-barred. full-blown trial is dispensable to dispense justice.
- RCBC filed with the RTC a Motion to Confirm Partial Award, which the - In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is
RTC confirmed. simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to
explain one's side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
Issue: Whether or not petitioners were denied due process. the action or ruling complained of. This constitutional
mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an
Ruling: NO. Petitioners were not denied due process. opportunity to seek reconsideration of an action or a ruling.
- The Court ruled that “the essence of due process is the opportunity - The Court ruled that in administrative proceedings, cross-
to be heard. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous examination is dispensable.
notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to - Clearly, the right to cross-examine a witness may be waived.
be heard." - Petitioners admitted that they had the opportunity to cross-
- The Court further ruled that "due process in an administrative examine RCBC's witnesses during the hearings, but declined
context does not require trial type proceedings similar to those in to do so.
courts of justice. Where an opportunity to be heard either through - Thus, petitioners were not denied their right to due process.
oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process."
- In this case, the Court ruled that the petitioners were afforded the
opportunity to refute the summaries and pieces of evidence submitted
by RCBC.
- The events demonstrated ample opportunity for petitioners to verify
and examine RCBC’s evidence.
- The pleadings reveal that RCBC granted petitioners’ petitioners'
requests for production of documents and accounting records.
- More so, they had more than three (3) years to prepare for their
defense after RCBC's submission of its brief of evidence.
- Finally, it must be emphasized that petitioners had the opportunity to
appeal the Partial Award to the RTC, which they in fact did.

17
 71. Solid Homes, Inc. v. Laserna and Cajipe know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions
rendered".
Facts: Evelina Laserna and Gloria Cajipe entered into a contract to sell with - There is no requirement that the decision must express clearly and
Solid Homes, Inc. for the sale of a parcel of land located at Loyola Grand Villas. distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
- When Laserna and Cajipe had allegedly paid 90% of the purchase - As long as the administrative decision is grounded on evidence, and
price, they demanded the execution and delivery of the Deed of Sale expressed in a manner that sufficiently informs the parties of the
and the Transfer Certificate of Title of the property upon final balance factual and legal bases of the decision, the due process requirement is
payment. But Solid Homes, Inc. did not comply with such demands. satisfied.
- Laserna and Cajipe filed against Solid Homes, Inc. a Complaint for - At bar, the Office of the President apparently considered the Decision
Delivery of Title and Execution of Deed of Sale with Damages before of HLURB as correct and sufficient.
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). - The brevity of the assailed Decision was not the product of willing
- HLURB Arbiter denied respondents' prayer for the issuance of the concealment of its factual and legal bases. Such bases were already
Deed of Sale and the delivery of the TCT. The said decision was contained in the HLURB decision, and the parties adversely affected
modified by the HLURB Board of Commissioner by directing need only refer to the HLURB Decision in order to be able to interpose
respondents to execute the necessary deed of sale and deliver the TCT an informed appeal or action for certiorari under Rule 65.
over the subject property immediately upon full payment. - Although the decisions of the Office of the President need not comply
- Solid Homes, Inc. appealed the decision before the Office of the with the constitutional requirement imposed on courts under Section
President (OP), which affirmed in toto the Decision of the HLURB 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Rules of Court may still find
Board of Commissioners. suppletory application whenever practicable and convenient.
- Solid Homes, Inc. now alleged that the OP Decision, as affirmed by the - There is no mandate that requires the application of the Rules of Court
Court of Appeal, which merely adopted by reference the Decision of in administrative proceedings.
the HLURB Board of Commissioners, without a recitation of the facts
and law on which it was based, runs afoul of the mandate of Section
14, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not the Solid Homes, Inc. was denied due process.

Ruling: NO. Solid Homes, Inc. was not denied due process.
- Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution does not apply to
decisions rendered in administrative proceedings.
- The rights of parties in administrative proceedings are not violated as
long as the constitutional requirement of due process has been
satisfied.
- Among these rights are "the decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record
and disclosed to the parties affected"; and that the decision be
rendered "in such a manner that the parties to the proceedings can

18
DAVE

72. SORIANO V. LAGUARDIA

Facts:
- Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) was
created by PD 1986
- Soriano, host of the program Ang Dating Daan aired on UNTV made
some defamatory remarks such as, “Gago ka talaga Michael”,
“Demonyo”, “Mas masahol sa Putang babae” etc. Sandoval, who felt
alluded to by the remarks, filed a complaint together with MTRCB and
INC members.
- MTRCB issued a preventive suspension to Soriano and the show Ang
Dating Daan for 20 days in accordance with Sec. 3 PD 1986
- Soriano claimed that Sec. 3 PD 1986 is unconstitutional. It infringes
the freedom of religion, speech and expression. It also infringes the
guarantee of due process and equal protection. The PD is not complete
and does not provide a sufficient standard. The preventive suspension
is applicable only to motion pictures and publicity materials.

Issue/s: WoN the preventive suspension imposed and the relevant

provision authorizing it were invalid since PD 1986 does not
authorize MTRCB to issue preventive suspension

Ruling: NO, it is valid.

Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be
quasi-judicial as may be conferred by the Constitution or by Statue.
They have powers and authority which are granted or delegated,
expressly or impliedly by law. The issuance of a preventive
suspension is within the scope of the MTRCB’s authority and functions
expressly stated in Sec. 3 PD 1986. It is one of the implied powers of
MTRCB and forms part of the MTRCB’s express regulatory and
supervisory statutory mandate and its investigatory and disciplinary
authority. Its scope extends beyond motion pictures. The MTRCB
would regretfully be rendered ineffective should it be subject to the
restrictions petitioner claimed.

19
73. LOPEZ V. OMBUDSMAN The delay disregarded the Ombudsman's duty, as mandated
by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770, to enforce the criminal
Facts: liability of government officers or employees in every case where the
- Lopez was an Administrative Officer of the Department of Education, evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service to the people.
Culture and Sports (DECS), R-XII, Cotabato. In 1993, DECS ordered The failure of said office to resolve the complaints that have been
several pieces of equipment requested by different divisions which pending for almost four years is clearly violative of its mandate and
were supported by documents. Members of the COA investigated and the rights of petitioner as a public official. In such an event, the
audited the transactions. It submitted a joint affidavit claiming alleged petitioner is entitled to the dismissal of the cases filed against him.
deficiencies in the transactions of DECS implicating thereto Lopez and
some officials and employees of DECS RXII.
- The COA Regional Directors indorsed it to the Office of the
Ombudsman for preliminary investigation. It was docketed for
Falsification of Documents by Public Officers.
- The office of the Ombudsman did not notify him of the progres of the
preliminary investigation. More than 4 years after he submitted his
counter-Affidavit, Lopez was surprised that, without preliminary
investigation and clarificatory question asked, the Office of the
Ombudsman terminated the preliminary investigation
recommending that he, together with the other respondents, be
prosecuted for Anti-Graft and Corrupt practices Act.
- Lopez sought the reconsideration to the Office of the Ombudsman
wherein he stressed that he was deprived of due process and that
there was inordinate delay in the resolution of the preliminary
investigation; there was no exit conference wherein he could have
explained to the Graft Investigation Officer hi exculpatory
participation in the transaction investigated. Unfortunately it was not
acted upon by the Office of the Ombudsman

Issue: WoN there was undue and unjustifiable delay on the part of the
Ombudsman in resolving the complaint filed against the petitioner

Ruling: Yes. In this case, the preliminary investigation was resolved close
to 4 years from the time all the counter and reply affidavits were
submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman. Without cause or
justifiable motive, a long period of time was allowed to elapse at the
preliminary investigation stage before the information was filed thus
violating the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.

20
74. ESTRADA V. OMBUDSMAN - Section 4 (b) refers to affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses,
not the affidavits of the co-respondents. Obviously, the counter-
Facts: affidavits of the co-respondents are not part of the supporting
- A Plunder complaint was filed by the NBI and Atty. Baligod with the affidavits of the complainant
Ombudsman against Sen. Jinngoy Estrada. A month later, the same - Thus, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the
complaint was filed by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman for the issuance Order which denied Sen. Estrada’s
Ombudsman. Sen. Estrada filed his counter-affidavits in the 2 Request.
complaints, same as to the other 18 respondents. - The conduct of a preliminary investigation is only for the
- Subsequently, Sen. Estrada filed his request to be Furnished with determination of probable cause, and “probable cause merely implies
Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner.
New Witnesses and other Filings. However, his request was denied by A preliminary investigation is not a part of the trial and it is only in a
the Ombudsman citing the Rules of Court and Rules of the trial where an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, such
Ombudsman, wherein he is not entitled to furnish all the filings of the as the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish
respondents. his innocence.” Thus, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary
- Thereafter, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution which found investigation are limited to those granted by procedural law
probable cause to indict Sen. Estrada and his co-respondents with
plunder and 11 counts of Corrupt practices of public officers.
- Sen. Estrada did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Ombudsman’s Order denying his request, but instead he filed a
Petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a TRO enjoining
the Ombudsman and the NBI from conducting further proceedings.
- The Ombudsman furnished him some copies of his co-respondents’
counter affidavits during the pendency of his Petition for Certiorari
before the SC.

Issue: WoN Sen. Estrada was denied due process

Ruling: No. There is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to

furnish a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his co-
respondents.
- Sen. Estrada, however, fails to specify a law or rule which states that
it is a compulsory requirement of due process in a preliminary
investigation that the Ombudsman furnish a respondent with the
counter-affidavits of his co-respondents.
- What the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman require
is for the Ombudsman to furnish the respondent with a copy of the
complaint and the supporting affidavits and documents at the time the
order to submit the counter-affidavit is issued to the respondent.

21
 62. Globe Telecom vs. NTC 3. Third, the imposition of a fine is void for violation of due
process. NTC cited Sec. 21 of Public Service Act as a basis for
Facts: its imposition of fine on Globe. Section 21 requires notice and
- Private respondent Smart filed with the NTC a Complaint to effect the hearing because a fine is a sanction, regulatory and even
interconnection of their SMS or texting services with petitioner Globe. punitive in character. Indeed, the requirement is the essence
- Smart alleged that Globe, with evident bad faith and malice, refused to of due process.
grant Smart’s request for the interconnection of SMS. On the other
hand, Globe pointed out procedural defects in Smarts complaints and - In summary: (i) there is no legal basis under the PTA or the
moved to dismiss the case. memorandum circulars promulgated by the NTC to denominate SMS
- The National Telecommunications Commission(NTC) issued the as VAS, and any subsequent determination by the NTC on whether
Order where it ruled that both Smart and Globe were “equally SMS is VAS should be made with proper regard for due process and in
blameworthy” and issued an Order for their lack of cooperation in the conformity with the PTA; (ii) the assailed Order violates due process
submission of the documentation required for interconnection and for failure to sufficiently explain the reason for the decision rendered,
for having unduly maneuvered the situation into the present impasse for being unsupported by substantial evidence,
and penalized both on the ground of providing SMS under Value
Added Services (VAS) without prior approval from the NTC. - Thus, the Order effectively discriminatory and arbitrary as it is,
- Consequently, Globe filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for was issued with grave abuse of discretion and it must be set
Certiorari and Prohibition to nullify and set aside the Order. aside.
- NTC may not legally require Globe to secure its approval for Globe to
Issue: continue providing SMS.
WON the NTC acted with due process in imposing a penalty to the petitioner.

Ruling: No.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the assailed NTC’s determination and
corresponding penalty were rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial
functions.
- Therefore, all the requirements of due process attendant to the
exercise of quasi-judicial power apply to the present case.
- However, NTC violated several of these cardinal rights due Globe in
the promulgation of the assailed Order.
1. First, the NTC Order is not supported by substantial
evidence. Neither does it sufficiently explain the reasons for
the decision rendered.
2. Second, Globe and Smart were denied opportunity to
present evidence on the issues relating to the nature of VAS
and the prior approval.

22
63. ALMANZOR V. FELIX

Facts:
- Petitioner-spouses are officials of TUP. Both their signatures are
needed as a prerequisite to the collection by TUP employees of their
proportionate vacation pay (PVP)
- Respondent Felix, a Professor of TUP, filed a complaint-affidavit
before the Ombudsman for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corruption
Practices Law against the petitioner-spouses. It was alleged that the
petitioners maliciously refused to sign his clearance to collect his PVP,
resulting in a delay in his pay for 1 month.
- Due to the intervention of Dr. So Pada, President of TUP, and a memo
issued by them directing to sign his clearance, the petitioners now
released his clearance.
- Petitioner-spouses denied refusing to sign his clearance. They claimed
that Felix was requested for a dialogue but he ignored it twice
regarding a security report. Hence, the delay was not their fault.
- The Office of Ombudsman found the petitioner-spouses guilty of slight
misconduct. Evidence showed that they refused to sign the clearance
thrice.
- Petitioners appealed to the CA, but the latter affirmed the decision of
the Ombudsman

Issue: W/N the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative

cases is immediately executory pending appeal

Ruling: Yes
- Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, we shall not
disturb such findings.
- The Supreme Court cannot weigh once more the evidence submitted
not only before the Ombudsman but also before the Court of Appeals.
- Under Sec. 27 of Republic Act 6770, findings of fact by the
Ombudsman are conclusive as long as it is supported by substantial
evidence. No error has been committed by the appellate court in
sustaining the penalty of suspension imposed on petitioners.

23
64. SAMALIO V. CA - Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type
proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity
Facts: to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is
- The City Prosecutor’s Office of Pasay recommended that Petitioner accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
Samalio be prosecuted for the crimes of Robbery and violation of Sec. - In this case, petitioner was heard through the various pleadings which
46 of the Immigration Law before the Sandiganbayan. he filed and two motions to dismiss, as well as other motions and
- This was after the arrival of a Chinese in NAIA who was brought to papers. He was also able to participate in all stages of the
petitioner as duty intelligence officer because the immigration officer administrative proceeding. He was able to elevate his case to the Sec.
suspected that Ms. Weng’s passport was fake. Sensing a demand for of Justice and, subsequently, to the CSC by way of appeal.
money in exchange for her passport, Ms. Weng flashed $500.000 in
front of the petitioner who grabbed it and later her passport was
released. However, she later discovered that her passport did not bear
an immigration arrival stamp.
- BID Comm. commenced an administrative case against Samalio for
such dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, disgraceful and immoral
conduct, inefficiency an incompetence in the performance of official
duties and
violation of reasonable office rules. Moreover , he was preventively
suspended for 90 days.
- The petitioner denied the charges. A formal hearing was thereafter set
before the Board of Discipline of the BID.
- BID Acting Commissioner found Samalio guilty of the charges and was
ordered dismissed from service, which was also confirmed by former
Justice Secretary Guingona, Jr. It was appealed to the CSC which
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decisions of BID Acting
Commissioner and Secretary Guingona. Petitioner likewise appealed
the decision before the CA but was likewise dismissed.
Issue: 1. WoN Petitioner was accorded due process
2. WoN petitioner was deprived the opportunity to be heard

Ruling:
1. Yes, the petitioner was accorded due process.
- Administrative tribunals exercise quasi-judicial powers. In
administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.
2. NO, petitioner was not deprived of the opportunity to be heard.

24
65. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NATIVIDAD

Facts:
- Private respondent Caguiat filed a petition before the trial court
against the DAR and Land Bank for the determination of just
compensation for their agricultural lands which were acquired by the
government pursuant to PD 27.
- After trial, the court favored the landowners and ordered the DAR and
Land Bank to pay the lands subject of acquisition by the State the
amount of PHP30.00 per sqm.
- DAR and Land Bank filed separate motions for reconsideration, but it
was denied by the trial court as the same did not contain a notice of
hearing.
- Land Bank cited excusable negligence as its ground. It claimed that the
failure to include in the motion for reconsideration of a notice of
hearing was due to accident and/or mistake due to a heavy workload.
- The RTC denied the petition for relief because Land Bank lost a
remedy in law due to its own negligence.
- Land Bank argued that its excuse constitutes excusable negligence
and does not make the motion for reconsideration pro forma
considering its allegedly meritorious defenses.
- Further, Land Bank maintains that private respondents should have
sought the reconsideration of the DAR’s valuation of their properties.
Private respondents thus failed to exhaust administrative remedies
when they filed a petition for the determination of just compensation
directly with the trial court.

Issue: WoN the amount of just compensation was validly determined by

the trial court.

Ruling: Yes
- In accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary
jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in a preliminary manner
the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform
program, but such determination is subject to challenge before the
courts. The resolution of just compensation cases for the taking of
lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicial function.

25
 66. SANTOS vs. GO - A quasi-judicial agency performs adjudicatory functions such that
its awards, determine the rights of parties, and their decisions have
Facts: the same effect as judgments of a court. Such is not the case when a
- Petitioners are corporate directors and officers of Fil-Estate public prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation to determine
Properties, Inc. (FEPI) probable cause to file an information against a person charged with a
- FEPI entered into a project agreement with Manila Southcast criminal offense, or when the Secretary of Justice is reviewing the
Development Corporation (MSDC) to develop several parcels of land former’s order or resolutions.
owned by the latter and said project agreement gave FEPI authority - Since the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial body and it is not one of those
to sell the subdivision lots to the public. agencies whose decisions, orders, or resolutions are appealable to the
- Respondent Wilson Go offered to buy a lot and a Contract to Sell was CA under Rule 43, the resolution of the SOJ finding probable cause to
signed by the parties. indict petitioners of estafa is, therefore, not appealable to the CA via a
- Go fully complied with his obligations, however, FEPI failed to develop petition for review under Rule 43.
the property and neither did it release the TCT to Go.
- Go then filed a complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) and likewise filed a separate complaint for estafa
against FEPI before the Office of City Prosecutor.
- Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor but after
preliminary investigation, the City prosecutor dismissed the
complaint for estafa. DOJ reversed the decision.
- Petitioners filed with the CA a petitioner for review but was denied.
- The CA ruled that a petition for review pursuant to Rule 43 cannot be
availed of as a mode of appeal from the ruling of the Secretary of
Justice before the Rule applies only to agencies or officers exercising
quasi-judicial functions. The decision to file an information or not is
an executive and not a quasi-judicial function.

Issue: WON a petitioner for review under Rule 43 is a proper mode of

appeal from a resolution of the Secretary of Justice directing the
prosecutor to file information in a criminal case.

Ruling:
NO. Rule 43 clearly shows that it governs appeals to the CA from decisions
and final orders or resolutions of the CTA or quasi-judicial agencies in
the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions.
- The DOJ is not among the agencies.
- A quasi-judicial body is an organ of government other than a court
and other than a legislature which affects the rights of private parties
through either adjudication or rule-making.

26
67. BAUTISTA V. CA 68. DESTILERIA LIMTUACO vs. ADVERTISING BOARD OF
THE PHILIPPINES
Facts:
- Petitioner Bautista issued to private respondent Susan a Metrobank
Facts:
Check for 1.5M and assured her that the check would be sufficiently
funded on the maturity date. - Advertising Board of the Ph (AdBoard) is a non-stock, non-
- Moreover, the private respondent presented the check for payment; profit org composed of several national org in the advertising
however, the drawee bank dishonored the check because it was agency.
drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF). - Destileria and Convoy Corp, through its ad agency, SLG,
- Susan then filed for a complaint against Bautista. She also made applied with the AdBoard for a clearance of the airing of a
repeated demands to arrange the payment but the petitioner failed to radio ad entitled, “Ginagabi (Nakatikim ka na ba ng Kinse
do so.
Anyos)”, which was granted.
- Petitioner contends that presentment of the check within ninety (90)
days from due date thereof was an essential element of the offense of - However, while the ad started airing, AdBoard received a lot
violation of BP 22. Since the check was presented for payment 166 of complaints from the public which prompted Adboard to
days after its due date, it was no longer punishable under BP 22 and ask SLG for a replacement but there was no response. Thus, it
therefore the complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit. was asked to withdraw the said ad.
- Petitioner filed with the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor - AdBoard recalled the clearance issued, effective immediately.
(ORSP) a Petition for Review. But it was denied by the ORSP. Hence, - Petitioners sought the revocation of Adboard’s decision
this petition.
raising that it was usurping the functions of the DTI and the
Issue: WoN a prosecutor when conducting a preliminary investigation, MTCRB. They also filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for
performs a quasi-judicial function the legality of their Code of Ethics and argued that their right
to advertise is a constitutionally protected right, as well as a
Ruling: NO property right. They believe that requiring a clearance
- Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only amounts to deprivation of property without due process.
means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged
- AdBoard counters that there is no law that prohibits it from
with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or
information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no assuming self-regulatory functions or from issuing
purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been clearances prior to advertising.
committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the
accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal makes that determination, Issue: WoN the acts of AdBoard sought to be prohibited in this case are not the
he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, acts of a tribunal, board, officer, or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or
ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal. ministerial functions
- Therefore, the Office of the Prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial body, its
decisions approving the filing of a criminal complaint are not
appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
Ruling: Yes

27
- A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function by which he has
the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of
the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.
- The acts sought to be prohibited in this case are not the acts of a
tribunal, board, officer, or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or
ministerial functions.
- What is at contest here is the power and authority of a private
organization, composed of several members-organizations, whose
power and authority were vested to it by its own members.
- Obviously, prohibition will not lie in this case. The definition and
purpose of a writ of prohibition excludes the use of the writ against
any person or group of persons acting in a purely private capacity, and
the writ will not be issued against private individuals or corporations
acting.
- Moreover, it appears that petitioners sought the revocation of
AdBoard's registration and the nullity of its Code of Ethics for
Advertising and ACRC Manual of Procedures for Screening and Filing
of Complaints and Appeals (ACRC Manual), the present petition is an
attempt on petitioners' part to have AdBoard's authority challenged
in yet another forum. This is a clear act of forum shopping on
petitioners' part.

28
REEMY - There should be no disagreement that jurisdiction over the subject
matter of an action, being conferred by law, could neither be altered
75. Robert Abad, et.al. v. Philippine Communications Satellite nor conveniently set aside by the courts and the parties.
Corporation - The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan has been held not to extend
even to a case involving a sequestered company notwithstanding that
Facts: Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (Philcomsat) and the majority of the members of the board of directors were PCGG
Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) were nominees.
sequestered by the Philippine Commission on Good Government - In the case at bar, the complaint concerns PHILCOMSAT's demand to
(PCGG). exercise its right of inspection as stockholder of PHC but which
- Africa, as PHC’s President and CEO, wrote the board and management petitioners refused on the ground of the ongoing power struggle
of PHC that PHILCOMSAT will exercise its right of inspection over the within POTC and PHILCOMSAT that supposedly prevents PHC from
books, records, papers, etc. pertinent to the business transactions of recognizing PHILCOMSAT's representative (Africa) as possessing
PHC, specifically the company’s financial documents. such right or authority from the legitimate directors and officers.
- PHILCOMSAT filed in the RTC a Complaint for Inspection of Books Clearly, the controversy is intra-corporate in nature as they arose out
against the incumbent PHC directors and/or officers, to enforce its of intra-corporate relations between and among stockholders, and
right under the Corporation Code of the Philippines. between stockholders and the corporation.
- The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, citing that it is the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction 76. PHILCOMSAT v. Sandiganbayan
considering that plaintiff is a sequestered corporation of the Republic
through the PCGG alleging a right of inspection over PHC but which Facts: Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC) was a domestic
right or authority was being raised as a defense by the defendants. corporation listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE).
- The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC Decision. - PHC filed its application with the PSE for listing the shares
representing the increase in its capital stock, including PHC shares
Issue: Whether or not RTC had jurisdiction of PCGG sequestered which are owned by PHILCOMSAT.
corporation. - Pending PSE’s approval for shares listing, the Philippine Commission
on Good Governance (PCGG) made a written request to suspend the
Ruling: YES. The RTC had jurisdiction over cases which do not involve a listing of the increase in PHC's capital stock, since it needed to settle
sequestration-related incident but an intra-corporate controversy. the conflicting claims of the two sets of board of directors of the
- Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8799 or the Securities Regulation code Philippine Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (POTC) and
provides that the jurisdiction of the SEC over intra corporate PHILCOMSAT.
controversies and the other cases enumerated in Section 5 of P.D. no. - POTC and PHILCOMSAT held special stockholders’ meetings to solve
902-A was transferred to the RTC. the conflicts in their board of directors. The PCGG issued a Resolution
- Conformably with R.A. 8799, and with the ensuing resolutions of the recognizing the validity of the respective stockholders' meetings and
Court on the implementation of the transfer of jurisdiction to the RTC, elections.
the RTC Makati had the authority to hear and decide the election - Letters were sent to the PCGG demanding that they rescind its
contest between the parties herein. objection to the listing of the increase In PHC’s capital stock.

29
- When they have not received any reply from PCGG, this prompted - The Department of Finance (DOF) filed a Complaint-Affidavit against
PHILCOMSAT to file a complaint before the Sandiganbayan against Iglesias before the Office of the Ombudsman for: (a) failing to file her
PCGG to compel the latter to withdraw its opposition to the listing of Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) prior to the
the increase in PHC's capital stock. PHILCOMSAT argued that PCGG year 2000, (b) making false entries in her 2000-2002 SALNs with
had already recognized the validity of the stockholders' meetings respect to two (2) real properties in Quezon City and Pangasinan; (c)
which solved the conflict. failing to disclose three (3) real properties in Pangasinan under
- The Sandiganbayan ruled in favor of PCGG stating that it did not have Iglesias’ name that were not declared in her SALNs; (4) acquiring
jurisdiction over the controversy since it was an intra-corporate properties which were disproportionate to her income; and (5)
dispute. making false representations in her Personal Data Sheet by declaring
- Petitioners argued that the PCGG was a co-equal body with the RTC that she was taking Masters in Customs Administration instead of
and since co-equal bodies had no power to control the other, the RTC Management.
could not compel the PCGG to follow its order. - Accordingly, the Ombudsman held that the acts of Iglesia constitute
- The PCGG contended that the controversy did not emanate from, nor dishonesty and grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from
did it relate to any functions of the PCGG of recovering ill-gotten service.
wealth, or any incident arising from, or incidental to such duty." - Iglesias argued that she was denied administrative due process due to
Rather, the PCGG posited that the acts complained of are in the nature failure to meet the substantial evidence requirement in the
of an intra-corporate controversy. proceedings.

Issue: Whether or not the PCGG had jurisdiction. Issue: Whether or not Iglesias was denied administrative due process.

Ruling: YES. PCGG had jurisdiction. Ruling: NO. Iglesias was not denied administrative due process.
- Sec. 2 of Executive Order 14 and Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 - Administrative due process demands that the party being charged
Constitution stipulated that the PCGG is a co-equal body with the is given an opportunity to be heard.
regional trial courts and co-equal bodies have no power to control the - Due process is complied with "if the party who is properly notified of
other. allegations against him or her is given an opportunity to defend
- The Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction himself or herself against those allegations, and such defense was
over the PCGG in the exercise of its powers. considered by the tribunal in arriving at its own independent
- Said courts may not interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders conclusions.
and actions of the PCGG. - An important component of due process is the right of the accused to
- The PCGG was exercising the duty of a stockholder to ensure the be informed of the nature of the charges against him or her.
proper and lawful exercise of corporate acts. - In this case, there was a violation of due process with respect to the
other charges which were not in the original complaint. However,
77. Iglesias v. Ombudsman Iglesias would still be liable for the discrepancies in her SALNs.
- These discrepancies were stated in the Complaint-Affidavit and were
Facts: Petitioner Alberta de Joya Iglesias (Iglesias) was employed as given clarification by Iglesias in her Counter-Affidavit and Position
Acting District Collector by the Bureau of Customs. Paper. Moreover, she was able to move for reconsideration of the
Office of the Ombudsman. These circumstances preclude petitioner
from claiming that she was denied her right to due process.

30
 - Therefore, Pontejos could have initially asked for reconsideration of
78. Carale v. Abarintos the detail order, failing which, he could have gone directly to the Civil
Service Commission.
Facts: Ferdinand Pontejos was issued an appointment as “Labor and
Employment Development Officer” in the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), which was reclassified as “Labor Arbitration
Associate.”
- Chairman Bartolomen Carale of the NLRC reassigned Pontejos to the
Cebu City NLRC.
- Pontejos filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for
illegal transfer tantamount to removal without cause in gross
violation of the security of tenure.
- Motion to dismiss were filed by Ceniza and Cerale arguing that it was
the Civil Service Commission which had exclusive jurisdiction over
any question concerning personnel movement.
- The RTC Judge denied said motion to dismiss.

Issue: Whether or not the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies

had been complied with.

Ruling: NO. The rule on rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies had

not been complied with.
- Pontejos did not attempt to seek administrative relief.
- Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional. It
only renders the action premature, i.e., the claimed cause of action is
not ripe for judicial determination and for that reason a party has no
reason to ventilate in court.
- Observance of the mandate regarding exhaustion of administrative
remedies is a sound practice and policy. The underlying principle of
the rule rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if
afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the
same correctly.
- The party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the
prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue
it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in
order to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide the
matter by itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature
resort to the court.

31
 79. Republic v. Lacap - Nonetheless, the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative
remedies are not inflexible rules.
Facts: - There are accepted exceptions, such as where there is [c]
- Respondent Lacap, doing business under the name of Carwin unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably
Construction and Construction supply was awarded the contract for prejudice the complainant, and [e] where the question involved
the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare. is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the
- A contract of agreement was executed between the District Engineer courts of justice.
of Pampanga and Carwin construction and accordingly, respondent - In this case, notwithstanding the legal opinions of the DPWH Legal
undertook the works and eventually, the project was completed. Department rendered that payment to a contractor with an expired
- Thereafter, the respondent sought to collect payment. contractor’s license is proper, the respondent remained unpaid for the
- However, the DPWH withheld payment to the petitioner after COA completed work despite repeated demands.
disapproved the final release of funds on the ground that the - Clearly, there was unreasonable delay and official inaction to the great
contract’s license of respondent had expired at the time of the prejudice of the respondent.
execution of the contract. - Thus, while it is undisputed that the COA disapproved respondent’s
- The respondent filed a complaint for Specific Performance and claim against the Government, and the administrative remedy
Damages against the petitioner. available to respondent is an appeal to the COA itself, the Court holds
- The OSG filed its Answer invoking the defenses of non-exhaustion of that in view of exceptions, the complaint for specific performance and
administrative remedies. damages was not prematurely filed and within the jurisdiction of the
- The RTC ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered the District RTC to resolve, despite the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Engineer to pay respondent.
- CA affirmed and held that since the case involves the application of the
principle of estoppel against the government which is purely a legal
question, then the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies
does not apply.

Issue: WON the respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Ruling:
NO. the respondent still has a cause of action despite failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
- The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of
the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by
administrative processes.
- The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide
should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court
without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to
dispose of the same after due deliberation.
-

32
 80. PHIC v. Chinese General Hospital - While it is doctrinal in administrative law that the rules and
regulations of administrative bodies interpreting the law
Facts: they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law, these
- RA No. 7875 or the “An Act Instituting a National Health Insurance issuances are by no means iron-clad norms. Administrative
Program…” was approved and signed into law in Feb. 1995. bodies themselves can and have in fact "bent the rules" for
- Prior to the enactment of said RA, Chinese General Hospital had been reasons of public interest.
an accredited health care provider under the Philippine Medical Care - The unreasonably strict implementation of the 60-day rule,
Commission (PMCC) or Medicare. without regard to the causes of delay beyond respondent's
- As such, the petitioner filed its Medicare claims with the SSS, which control, will be counter-productive to the long-term
together with GSIS administered the Health Insurance Fund of the effectiveness of the National Health Insurance Program.
PMCC.
- However, the petitioner’s application for payment of its claim with the 2. NO.
SSS was overtaken by the passage of the said act. - Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,
- Instead of giving due course to the petitioner’s claims amounting to an administrative decision must first be appealed to the
around 8.1M, only 1.3M was paid, representing its claims from 1989 administrative superiors at the highest level before it may be
to 1992. elevated to a court of justice for review. This doctrine,
- Petitioner again filed its claims representing services rendered to its however, is a relative one and its flexibility is conditioned on
patients from 1998 to 1999. the peculiar circumstances of a case. There are a number of
- However, it was denied with finality by Philhealth. instances when the doctrine has been held to be inapplicable.
- In a petition for review, the CA ordered Philhealth to pay the claims
on the grounds of liberal application of the 60-day rule under RA - The instant case falls as one of the exceptions, concerning as
7875’s Implementing Rules and Regulations. it does public interest. Although they were not made parties
to the instant case, the rights of millions of Filipinos who are
Issue: members of Philhealth and who obviously rely on it for their
1. WON Chinese General Hospital is entitled to receive payment from health care, are considered, nonetheless, parties to the
Philhealth. present case. The Court is mandated to take conscious and
2. WON respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies before detailed consideration of the interplay of the interests of the
resorting to judicial intervention. state, the health care giver and the members.

Ruling:
1. YES. The fact is that it was not RA 7875 itself but Section 52 of its
Implementing Rules and Regulations which established the 60-day
cut-off for the filing of claims.

33
OLSEN - The case falls squarely under this exception since the law per se
81. Maglalang vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation provides no administrative review for administrative cases whereby
an employee like petitioner is covered by the Civil Service law, rules
FACTS: and regulations and penalized with a suspension for not more than
- Petitioner Mark Jerome Maglalang was a teller at the Casino Filipino, 30-days.
Angeles City Branch. - In sum, there being no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
- Respondent Philippine Amusement Corporation (PAGCOR), which remedy in the ordinary course of law in view of petitioner’s allegation
operates Casino Filipino, is a government-owned and controlled that PAGCOR has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
corporation. grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
- While performing his functions as a teller, Maglalang erroneously the CA’s outright dismissal of the petition for review on certiorari on
counted the bills handed to him by a client of the casino – Maglalang the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is bereft of
declared the amount to be P40,000 when it was actually in the amount any legal standing and should therefore be set aside.
of P50,000. The client accused him of trying to shortchange her. As the
client continuously berated Maglalang, they were invited to the
Internal Security Office to air their sides after which Maglalang was
asked to file an Incident Report on the same day of the incident.
- Maglalang was charged with Discourtesy towards a casino customer.
Eventually, he was found guilty and PAGCOR imposed a 30-day
suspension upon him.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals,
averring that there was no evidence to support the finding of guilt
against him. The Court of Appeals outrightly dismissed the
petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Hence,
the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed the petition filed before
it on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

RULING: No. The CA should not have outrightly dismissed the petition.

- Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a

party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should
have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative
processes afforded him or her. However, the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies is not absolute as it admits of certain
exceptions – one exception is when there is no administrative
review provided by law.

34
82. Herbosa vs. CJH Development Corporation - Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts will
not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand
Facts: the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
- Respondent CHJ Development Corporation (CJHDC) entered into a knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to
Lease Agreement with the Bases Conversion and Development determine technical and intricate matters of fact, which under a
Authority (BCDA) for the development of a property in Baguio City. regulatory scheme have been placed within the special competence of
- The agreement among others, authorized CJHDC to sublease said such tribunal or agency. Thus, if the determination of a case requires
property. the expertise and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must
- CJHDC then constructed 2 condotels and the residential units of which first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resorting to
were offered for sale to the public by means of 2 schemes - first the court.
scheme was a straight purchase and the second scheme involved the
sale of the unit with an added option of a leaseback or moneyback - In this case, as to whether or not the respondents scheme of selling
arrangement. the subject condotel units is tantamount to an investment contract
- The buyers who opter for the latter will receive either a proportionate and/or sale of securities, as defined under the Securities Regulation
share in the annual income from the hotel operation or guaranteed Code, it requires the specialization and technical knowledge of the SEC
return on their investment OR will be entitled to return of the being the government agency which is tasked to enforce and
purchase price at the termination of the Lease Agreement. implement the provisions of the said Code as well as its implementing
- BCDA requested SEC to conduct an investigation into the operations rules and regulations.
of the respondents believing those arrangements are investment
contacts which are considered as securities under the Securities
Regulation Code.
- SEC’s Corporation Finance Department (CFD) issued a memorandum
saying that the arrangements offered to the public are investment
contracts.
- The Enforcement and Prosecution Department (EPD) filed a motion
with the Sec En Banc praying that the respondents to immediately
cease and desist from engaging in the business of selling securities
until they have complied with the requirements of the law.
- CA issued TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction ruling in favor of
respondents.

Issue: WON the SEC has the primary jurisdiction over the case

Ruling: YES.

35
83. Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. vs. National - The NTC numbers among those administrative agencies
Telecommunications Commission discharging specialized functions, in this case, the regulation of
the nation’s airwaves. In the matter of issuance of license to operate
FACTS: radio stations, it is in a better position than the courts to determine to
- The petitioner, Crusader’s Broadcasting System, Inc. (Crusaders) was whom such privilege should be granted in order that public interest
the grantee of a Temporary Permit to operate DWCD-FM at a will be served. As in the case of other administrative tribunals, its
frequency of 97.9 Mhz. findings of fact will be accorded respect, and on occasion, even finality
- The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) is an by reason of their acquired expertise on specific matters within their
administrative agency charged with the regulation of the nation’s primary jurisdiction. As long as its decisions are supported by
airwaves. substantial evidence, they are entitled to respect from the courts.
- In 1996, Crusaders applied for the renewal of its Temporary Permit. - The factual findings of the NTC as to the imperativeness of the subject
Acting on the subject application, the NTC caused the inspection of the radio station is supported by substantial evidence. The denial of
radio station of Crusader where it was found that the radio station was Crusader’s request for renewal of its temporary permit to operate and
inoperative. Crusaders posited that it was enjoined from resuming the recall of its assigned frequency is therefore affirmed.
its operation since an order of injunction was filed against it in a civil
case. However, the application for renewal was denied and its
frequency was recalled. 84. Energy Regulatory Board vs. CA
- Crusaders appealed the NTC Decision to the Court of Appeals. FACTS:
However, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit and upheld - Petitioner Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell) is engaged in the
the decision of the NTC under the “doctrine of primary jurisdiction.” business of importing crude oil, refining the same, and selling various
Hence, the present petition. petroleum products through a network of service stations throughout
the country.
ISSUE: Whether or not the NTC properly denied the application for - Private respondent Petroleum Distributors and Service Corporation
renewal of Crusader’s temporary permit to operate DWCD-FM, and (PDSC) owns and operates Caltex service station at the corner of MIA
validly ordered the withdrawal of the latter’s assigned frequency. and Domestic Roads in Pasay City.
- In 1983, Shell filed an application with the Bureau of Energy
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court upholds the primary jurisdiction Utilization (BEU) for authority to relocate its Shell Service Station to
exercised by NTC. Imelda Marcos Avenue. BUE initially rejected the application, but
- The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction prevents the Court from eventually gave it due course.
“aggregating unto itself” the authority to resolve a controversy which - PDSC opposed Shell’s application on the grounds that: (1) there are
falls under the jurisdiction of a tribunal possessed of a special adequate service stations attending to motorists’ requirements in the
competence. trading area covered by the application; (2) ruinous competition will
result from the establishment of the proposed new service station;
and (3) there is a decline and not an increase in the volume of sales in
the area.
- BEAU thereafter denied Shell’s application. Shell appealed to the
Office of Energy Affairs (OEA).

36
 - Meanwhile, the regulatory and adjudicatory functions of BEU was - Suffice it to state that in this regard that the factual landscape,
transferred to the Energy Regulation Board (ERB). measured within the context of such an evidentiary matrix, is strewn
- The OEA affirmed the BEAU’s denial of Shell’s application. The case with overwhelming proof of the necessity to build such a gasoline
was remanded to the ERB for further evaluation and consideration. station retail outlet in the vicinity of the subject application.
- The ERB rendered a Decision allowing Shell to establish the - The CA judgement is set aside. The ERB Order is reinstated.
Service Station in Imelda Marcos Avenue (now Benigno Aquino,
Jr. Avenue). 85. Paloma vs. Mora
- The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the FACTS:
ERB judgement. - Petitioner Paloma was appointed General Manager of Palompon
- Hence, this present petition. Leyte Water District by its Board of Directors.
- He was subsequently terminated by virtue of a resolution which was
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the ERB. passed by respondents as Chairman and members of the Board of
Palompon.
RULING: YES. Petitioner ERB is in a better position to resolve petitioner - The petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC to
Shell’s application, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary contest his dismissal with the prayer to be restored to the position of
expertise on the matter. The power to determine whether the building of a General Manager.
gasoline station outlet in a trading area would benefit public interest and the - Paloma argues that pursuant to Civil Service Rules and Regulations,
oil industry lies with the ERB and not the appellate courts. no officer or employee of the Civil Service shall be suspended,
separated, or dismissed except for cause and after due process.
- The interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is - The RTC dismissed the petition for being a premature cause of action.
tasked to implement a statute, is accorded great respect and His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. - Paloma then filed a complaint with the CSC against the same
- Stated differently, when an administrative agency renders an opinion respondents for illegal dismissal. His complaint was dismissed.
or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law - Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA affirmed the RTC and the
and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the CSC.
courts that finally determines what the law means. Thus, an action by
an administrative agency may be set aside by the judicial department ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in
if there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction, or grave its challenged decision.
abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the
law. However, there is no cogent reason to depart from the general RULING: No. Underlying the rulings of the trial and appellate courts in the case
rule since the findings of the ERB conform to, rather than conflict with, at bar is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction – courts cannot and will not
the governing statutes and controlling case law on the matter. resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of
- Time and time again the Supreme Court has ruled that in reviewing an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the
administrative decisions, the findings of fact made therein must be exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge,
respected so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical
and intricate matters of fact.

37
 - In a surfeit of cases, the Supreme Court has held that quasi-judicial - The respondents opposed the petitioner’s prayer for a writ of
bodies like the CSC are better-equipped in handling cases involving preliminary injunction on account of the petitioner’s failure to
the employment status of employees as those in the Civil Service since indicate the pendency of the LMB Case in the Certificate of Non-Forum
it is within their field of expertise. Shopping. The petitioner, however, avers that contrary to
- This is consistent with the powers and functions of the CSC, being the respondents’ position, it did disclose the pendency of the LMB case in
central personnel agency of the Government, to carry into effect the the petition.
provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws, including - In its Order, the trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds of
in this case, PD No. 198. forum shopping and litis pendentia. The petitioner’s motion for
- As a general rule, no officer or employee of the civil service shall be reconsideration was denied.
removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. As an - Hence, the present petition. Petitioner contends that no forum
exception to this general rule, PD No. 198, the special enabling charter shopping and litis pendetia exists. Further, petitioner contends that
of Local Water Districts provides that the General Manager shall serve the Land Management Bureau has no jurisdiction to try the LMB Case
“at the pleasure of the board” – petitioner Paloma is at the mercy of inasmuch as cases like this fall under the exclusive general jurisdiction
the appointing powers since his appointment can be terminated at of trial courts.
any time for any cause. The Board, therefore, has discretionary
power to remove Paloma by virtue of PD No. 198. ISSUE: Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the case.
- An appoint held at the pleasure of the appointing power is in essence
temporary in nature. When the Board opts to replace the incumbent, RULING: No. The RTC correctly dismissed the case on the grounds of forum
technically there is no removal but only an expiration of term and in shopping and litis pendentia. The RTC correctly dismissed the civil action to
an expiration of term, there is no need for prior notice, due hearing or avoid the possibility of two contradictory decisions, as the case was already
sufficient grounds before the incumbent can be separated from office. pending in the Land Management Bureau. As litis pendentia is present, it
follows that a final judgement in one case will amount to res judicata in another
– there is, therefore, an additional ground of forum shopping which the RTC
86. Sherwill Development Corporation vs. Sitio Sto. Nino Residents correctly relied on in dismissing the case.
Association, et al.
FACTS: - Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, in this instance, it is the courts
- Petitioner Sherwill Development Corporation (Sherwill) is the which should defer the exercise of jurisdiction on the matter.
registered owner of 2 parcels of land in Muntinliupa. - The OSG correctly invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in this
- The petitioner filed a Complaint for quieting of title against case. The court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
respondents Sitio Sto. Nino Residents Association, Inc. (SSNRAI) et al. controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
and the Land Management Bureau. administrative body of special competence, in this case, the LMB.
- As part of its prayer for relief, petitioner prayed that a writ of - Jurisdiction having been correctly assumed by the Director of Lands
preliminary injunction be issued, ordering the Land Management over the parties conflicting claims, the case should, in accordance with
Bureau to cease and desist from proceeding with the hearings in LMB law, remain there for final adjudication.
Case No. 7-98 (the LMB Case), a case pending before it where
petitioner’s titles to the subject lots were being questioned by the
respondents SSNRAI.

38
The Director of Lands is the officer charged with carrying out the provisions of - The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction applies “where a claim is
the Public Land Act and he has control over the survey, classification, lease, originally cognizable in courts, and comes into play whenever the
sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which,
public lands, and his finding and decision as to questions of fact, when under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now the competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources) is conclusive. process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its view. Consequently, while it is true that
87. GMA Network vs. ABS-CBN regular courts are possessed of general jurisdiction over actions for
FACTS: damages, it would nonetheless be proper for the courts to yield its
- Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. (GMA) filed a complaint before the RTC jurisdiction in favor of an administrative body when the
against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN), et. al. alleging determination of the underlying factual issues requires the special
that respondents engaged in unfair competition when the cable competence or knowledge of the latter.
companies arbitrarily re-channeled petitioner’s cable television - GMA’s complaint for damages is based on the operations and
broadcast on February 1, 2003 in order to arrest or destroy its ownership of the cable companies. These factual matters
upswing performance in the television industry. undoubtedly pertain to the NTC and not the regular courts.
- GMA argued that respondents were able to perpetrate such unfair - The NTC is vested with the sole power of regulation and supervision
business practices through a common ownership and interlocking over the cable television industry.
businesses. GMA avers that as a result of this business combination, - In the case at bar, before the trial court can resolve the issue of
respondents have cornered at least 71% of the total cable television whether GMA is entitled to an award of damages, it would have to
market in Mega Manila allowing the respondents to dictate the signal initially ascertain whether there was an arbitrary re-channeling
transmission, channel position, and the airing of shows, programs, which distorted and downgraded GMA’s signal – the resolution of such
and broadcast of non-cable companies like GMA. issues requires specialized knowledge in the fields of communication
- The trial court issued a resolution dismissing the complaint, holding technology and engineering.
that the resolution of the legal issues raised in the complaint required - GMA’s allegations of unlawful business combination and unjust
the determination of highly technical, factual issues over which the business practices also properly pertain to the NTC as it is presumed
NTC had primary jurisdiction. to have an unparalleled understanding of its market and commercial
- Hence, this present petition filed by GMA. conditions.
- These factual questions would necessarily entail specialized
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the NTC has knowledge which the courts do not possess.
primary jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint for damages and in - Pending determination by the NTC of the factual questions involved
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. in this case, petitioner’s complaint, which is founded upon such factual
issues, would be premature.
RULING: No. The RTC’s did not err in dismissing the case on the ground
of the “doctrine of primary jurisdiction.” 88. Sta. Rosa Mining vs. Leido
FACTS:

39
 - Petitioner Sta. Rosa Mining Company, Inc. is a mining corporation duly - PD No. 1214 is constitutional and a valid exercise of the sovereign
organized and existing under Philippine laws. It alleges that it is the power of the state over lands of public domain – the constitutional
holder of fifty (50) valid mining claims situated in Camarines Norte, mandate of PD No. 1214 is rooted in the Regalian Doctrine.
acquired under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902.
- In October 1977, PD No. 1214 was issued, requiring holders of 89. Social Security System Employees Association vs. Bathan-Velaso
subsisting and valid patentable mining claims located under the FACTS:
provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 to file a mining lease - In September 1989, Alert and Concerned Employees for Better Social
application within one (1) year from the approval of the Decree. This Security System (ACCESS) filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a
petitioner did, albeit under protest with a reservation that it was not petition for certification election to determine the sole and exclusive
waiving its rights over its mining claims until PD No. 1214’s bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of the
constitutionality has been passed upon. Social Security System.
- Petitioner thereafter filed the present civil action before the Supreme - The Bureau of Labor Relations thereafter ordered a certification
Court, seeking to declare PD No. 1214 as unconstitutional for election to be conducted among the rank-and-file employees of the
amounting to deprivation of property without due process of law. SSS in its main office and regional branches.
- In answer, respondents allege that petitioner failed to exhaust - Petitioner Social Security System Employees Association (SSSEA) was
administrative remedies. Respondents cite the pendency of one of the contending parties in the certification election, along with
petitioner’s appeal in the Office of the President from an ACCESS as the other party.
administrative case wherein the Secretary of Natural Resources - The certification election was held. ACCESS garnered the highest
upheld the Decision of the Director of Mines finding that all of number of votes.
petitioners mining claims had already been abandoned and - SSSEA then filed an election protest. Respondent Bathan-Velasco,
canceled for petitioner’s non-compliance with the legal Officer-In-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, dismissed the
requirements of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and EO No. 141. election protest, declared ACCESS the winner in the certification
- election, and certified ACCESS as the sole and exclusive bargaining
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner has fully exhausted administrative representative of all rank-and-file employees of the SSS for the
remedies. purpose of negotiating an agreement with the latter. Respondent
Bathan-Velasco likewise denied a motion for reconsideration.
RULING: No. It is premature for the court to make findings in the matter - Hence, this present petition. SSSEA seeks to annul and set aside the
whether the petitioner had abandoned its mining claim. dismissal of the election protests.
- Until petitioner’s appeal shall have been decided by the Office of
the President, where it is pending, petitioner’s attempt to seek ISSUE: Whether the present petition will prosper.
judicial recognition of the continuing validity of its mining claims
cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court. RULING: No. Petitioners failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before
- The right of a locator of a mining claim is not absolute – it is merely a resorting to the courts.
possessory right. A valid mining claim may still be lost through - The rule is well-entrenched that a party must exhaust all
abandonment or forfeiture. In the present case, a finding of administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. This rule
abandonment has been made in petitioner’s case although the same is would not only give the administrative agency an opportunity to
on appeal with the Office of the President. decide the matter by itself correctly, but would also prevent
unnecessary and premature resort to the courts.

40
- The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to
one’s cause of action.
- In this case, petitioner failed to take an appeal from the order of the
Bureau of Labor Relations to the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to
Article 259 of the Labor Code.
- Moreover, the issues raised by petitioner call for a review of factual
findings of public respondent - petitioner contends that no
certification election was conducted in the regional offices of SSS
resulting in an incomplete certification election.. Factual issues are not
proper subjects for an original petition before the Supreme Court, as
its power of review is limited to questions of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals.
- Absent a showing that petitioner had availed itself of and exhausted
the appropriate administrative remedies, a premature resort to
courts would result in the dismissal of the action.

41
II. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS Petitioner submits that some of these characteristics are not present in the
position of NCC Chair, namely: (1) the delegation of sovereign functions; (2)
salary, since he purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3)
PUBLIC OFFICE continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporary.

90. LAUREL v. DESIERTO The Court holds that the NCC performs executive functions hence it is a public
office and the petitioner is a public officer.
FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued an administrative order creating a
committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Celebration.
President Ramos then issued an EO renaming the Committee as the “National
Centennial Commission.” The petitioner was appointed as chair was tasked to
take charge of the nationwide preparations for the celebration.

The Philippine Centennial Expo ’98 Corporation (Expocorp) was created and
petitioner was among the nine (9) incorporators, and was elected Expocorp
Chief Executive Officer. However, there were alleged anomalies in the
construction and operation of the Centennial Exposition Project at the Clark
Special Economic Zone that were referred to the Blue Ribbon Committee for
investigation. President Estrada issued an administrative order creating an ad
hoc and independent Citizen’s Committee to investigate all the facts and
circumstances surrounding the projects.

Among the recommendations was the prosecution of the petitioner for

violating the rules on public bidding. Probable cause was found to indict the
petitioner and Peña before the Sandiganbayan. Respondent approved the
resolution with respect to the petitioner and the latter assailed the jurisdiction
of the Ombudsman on the ground that the petitioner is not a public officer as
defined by RA 3019.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner, as Chair of the NCC, was a public officer.

RULING: The Ombudsman has the power to investigate any malfeasance,

misfeasance, and nonfeasance by a public officer or employee of the
government. The characteristics of a public office include the delegation of
sovereign functions, its creation by law and not by contract, an oath, salary,
continuance of the position, scope of duties, and the designation of the position
as an office.
91. DARIO v. MISON

42
FACTS: President Cory Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3, which is the FACTS: President Cory Aquino enacted EO 127 which established the
mandate of the people to completely reorganize the government. Two years Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB). The EIIB was
later, President Aquino promulgated EO 127, which provides for the designated to perform particular functions on intelligence and investigation of
reorganization of the Ministry of Finance and along with it the reorganization matters affecting the national economy. Subsequently, President Estrada
of the Bureau of Customs and prescribes a new staffing pattern for the issued EO 191 which ordered the deactivation of the EIIB on the ground that
abovementioned office. the functions of the EIIB are also being performed by other existing agencies
of the government. Estrada issued EO 196 which created the Presidential Anti-
The incumbent Commissioner of Customs Salvador Mison issued a Smuggling Task Force Aduana and EO 223 whereby all EIIB personnel
memorandum of the guidelines of the reorganization and prescribed the occupying positions specified therein were separated from the service
procedure in personnel placement. It stated therein that all employees covered pursuant to a bona fide reorganization resulting in abolition, redundancy,
by EO 127 shall be informed of their re-appointment and also offered another merger, division, or consolidation.
position in the same department or agency and to be informed of their
termination. As a result, 394 employees were separated from service, Petitioner invoked the court’s power of judicial review of EOs 191 and 223.
including the petitioner. The OSG maintained that the President has an authority to issue such EOs and
that the EIIB was only deactivated and not abolished.
Petitioner questioned the legality of his dismissal claiming that the
Commissioner could not have legally invoked Section 59 of EO 127. ISSUE: Whether or not the President has the authority to carry out
reorganization in any branch or agency of the executive department.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners were validly terminated as a result of the
reorganization. RULING: Yes. The President is empowered by the Administrative Code to
validly reorganize his office even without congressional authority to achieve
RULING: No. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in “good faith” efficiency. General rule is that the power to abolish a public office is lodged
if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. No with the legislature. The exception is that, as far as bureaus, agencies, or
dismissal or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to offices in the executive department are concerned, the President’s power of
exist. There is an invalid abolition as where there is merely a change of control may justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office or
nomenclature of positions, or where claims of economy are belied by the certain laws may grant him the broad authority to carry out reorganization
existence of ample funds. measures. Hence, the EIIB is subject to the President’s continuing authority to
reorganize.
There is no showing that legitimate structural changes have been made which
would have validly promoted Comm. Mison to hire and fire employees. He
separated about 394 Customs personnel but replaced them with 522, in
defiance of the President’s directive to halt further lay-offs as a consequence
of the reorganization. Moreover, Sec. 59 of EO 127 has been rendered
inoperative according to the ruling in Palma-Fernandez because BOS
employees had been on a mere holdover status.

92. BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB v. ZAMORA

43
PUBLIC OFFICERS
FACTS: Caigoy, the then resident Ombudsman of the Philippine Ports
93. AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN Authority, received a letter that Geocadin, a security guard officially assigned
at NAPOCOR, submitted a Daily Time Record at the management office but did
FACTS: Petitioner owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling dirt not report to the office. Caigoy also received another letter stating that
and ore. His services were contracted by PICOP and he sometimes engages the Geocadin was receiving double salary from NAPOCOR and PPA-PMO. Said
services of sub-contractor like Jaime Ancla. letter also implicated Galero and Elizalde that both were receiving shares in
the security guards’ salary. The letters charged that Geocadin was a ghost
A warrant of distraint of personal property was issued by BIR commanding employee. Due to this, Caigoy recommended the filing of criminal and
one of its Regional Directors to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and other administrative charges against Galero and Elizalde.
personal property of Ancla. A warrant of garnishment was issued to Azarcon,
ordering him to surrender to BIR the property in his possession owned by The Office of the Ombudsman found Galero guilty of dishonesty for falsifying
Ancla. Azarcon volunteered himself as the custodian of Ancla’s truck. Azarcon official documents and causing undue injury to the Government. The Court of
wrote a letter to the Reg. Dir of BIR stating that while he had made Appeals declared that Galero is guilty as charged.
representations to retain possession of the property of Ancla, he relinquishes
whatever responsibility he had over the said property since Ancla withdrew ISSUE: Whether or not Galero should be held for simple neglect of duty, instead
his equipment from him. The BIR ruled that Azarcon cannot be relieved of the of dishonesty for falsification of official documents or causing undue injury to
responsibility because he failed to comply with the provisions of the warrant. the government.

Along with his co-accused, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan RULING: YES. Simply neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to
with the crime of malversation of public funds or property. a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or
indifference. In this case, Galero was lenient in the implementation of the rules
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner can be considered as a public officer by on attendance and Geocadin took advantage of this leniency. It must be
reason of his being designated by the BIR as a depositary of distrained remembered that public service requires integrity and discipline. For this
property. reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty
and dedication to duty. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities,
RULING: No. Petitioner is a private individual. The information did not charge government employees must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render
Azarcon of being a co-principal, accomplice, or accessory to a public officer inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that
committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Unless all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the
petitioner was a public officer, the Sandiganbayan would have no jurisdiction people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
over the case.
95. LUSPO v. PEOPLE

FACTS: The Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership (ODC) of the

Philippine National Police (PNP) issued two (2) Advices of Sub-Allotment
(ASA), amounting to five million pesos each, for the purchase of combat,
clothing, and individual equipment (CCIE items) for the PNP’s North Capital
94. GALERO v. CA Command (CAPCOM).

44
 With Duran’s failure to discharge the duties of his office and given the
Upon receipt of the ASAs, P/Supt. Montano directed Police Chief Inspector circumstances attending the making and issuance of the checks, his conviction
Duran to prepare and draw 100 checks of 100K, for a total of 10M. The checks must stand.
were payable to four (4) enterprises (25 checks each), all owned and operated
by Tugaoen. Tugaoen admitted that she did not deliver any CCEI items in
exchange for the 100M worth of checks since said amount was allegedly
intended as payment for the debts of PNP.

The investigating team recommended that appropriate complaints be filed 96. CAMARINES SUR v. GONZALES
against petitioners. Although the investigative report did not mention Luspo’s
criminal or administrative liability, he was included in the charge since his FACTS: Gonzales was appointed as the provincial administrator of the
signature appeared on the ASAs. The Anti-graft court found sufficient evidence Province of Camarines Norte by then Governor Padilla, Jr., such appointment
inculpating Luspo, Duran, Montano, and Tugaoen for conspiring and was in a permanent capacity. An Ad Hoc Investigation Committee found her
confederating with one another to deprive the government/PNP of 10M. guilty for gross insubordination and recommended to Governor Pimentel that
she be held administratively liable. Governor Pimentel adopted said
ISSUE: Whether or not the signing of the checks is only a ministerial duty. recommendation and dismissed Gonzales.

RULING: NO, the signing of the checks was only a ministerial duty. Gonzales appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which found her
guilty of insubordination and suspended her for six months. Governor
Contrary to Duran’s claim, affixing his signature on the checks is not a Pimentel reinstated Gonzales as provincial administrator but terminated her
ministerial duty on his part. As he himself stated in his petition and in his services the next day for lack of confidence. Governor Pimentel cited a
present motion, his position as Chief of the Regional Finance Service Unit of resolution where the CSC ruled that the provincial administrator position is
the North CAPCOM imposed on him the duty "to be responsible for the highly confidential and is coterminous in nature. However, CSC directed
management and disbursement and accounting of PNP funds." This duty
Gonzales’ reinstatement.
evidently gives him the discretion, within the bounds of law, to review,
scrutinize, or counter check the supporting documents before facilitating the Gonzales wrote the CSC alleging that Camarines Norte's incumbent governor
payment of public funds. refused to reinstate her. The CSC responded with a Resolution which ordered
Gonzales' reinstatement to the provincial administrator or equivalent
His responsibility for the disbursement and accounting of public funds makes
position. Petitioner then filed a petition to CA. The CA supported the CSC's
him an accountable officer. Section 106 of Presidential Decree No. 1445
ruling that reinstated Gonzales.
requires an accountable officer, who acts under the direction of a superior
officer, to notify the latter of the illegality of the payment in order to avoid ISSUES:
liability. This duty to notify presupposes, however, that the accountable officer 1. Whether or not Congress had re-classified the provincial
had duly exercised his duty in ensuring that funds are properly disbursed and administrator position from a career service to a primarily
accounted for by requiring the submission of the supporting documents for his
confidential, non-career service position;
review.
2. Whether or not Gonzales had security of tenure over her position as
provincial administrator of the Province of Camarines Norte.

45
 FACTS: Petitioner Leovigildo De Castro works as a Chief Customs Operations
RULING: Officer at the Bureau of Customs. He started his career with the same Bureau
1. YES. The CSC correctly noted in a Resolution that the administrator as a storekeeper at the Manila International Airport. His wife was also a
position demands a close intimate relationship with the office of the government employee, working as a clerk at the now defunct Philippine
governor (its appointing authority) to effectively develop, implement, Atomic Energy Commission.
and administer the different programs of the province. To emphasize
the close relations that the provincial administrators' functions have The Ombudsman through its Field Investigation Office (FIO) conducted a motu
proprio lifestyle checks on government officials. Petitioner was among those
with the office of the governor, RA 7160 even made the provincial
evaluated. The evaluation alleged that the petitioner had undisclosed assets
administrator position coterminous with its appointing authority,
from his SALN which were hidden under the names of his children.
This provision, along with the interrelations between the provincial Consequently, the FIO found that the couple’s assets and expenses amounted
administrator and governor under Section 480, renders clear the to around 31M and was massively disproportionate to their declared income
intent of Congress to make the provincial administrator position of around 11M. This prompted the FIO to file a complaint before the
primarily confidential under the non-career service category of the Ombudsman, charging the petitioner with grave misconduct and dishonesty.
civil service. The Ombudsman found the petitioner guilty of the administrative charges filed
against him.
2. Congress has the power and prerogative to introduce substantial
changes in the provincial administrator position and to reclassify it as ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was liable for grave misconduct and
a primarily confidential, non-career service position. Flowing from dishonesty
the legislative power to create public offices is the power to abolish
and modify them to meet the demands of society; Congress can change RULING: NO. The Court found that the petitioner was not liable for grave
the qualifications for and shorten the term of existing statutory offices misconduct, but was liable for dishonesty. When a public officer's accumulated
wealth is manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income and such public
Congress, through RA 7160, did not abolish the provincial officer fails to properly account for or explain where such wealth had been
administrator position but significantly modified many of its aspects. sourced, he becomes administratively liable for Dishonesty.
It is now a primarily confidential position under the non-career
service tranche of the civil service. This change could not have been An omission or misdeclaration qualifies as such offense when it is attended
aimed at prejudicing Gonzales, as she was not the only provincial with malicious intent to conceal the truth, as dishonesty implies a disposition
administrator incumbent at the time RA 7160 was enacted. Rather, to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud.
this change was part of the reform measures that RA 7160 introduced
to further empower local governments and decentralize the delivery Public service demands the highest level of honesty and transparency from its
officers and employees. The Constitution requires that all public officers and
of public service.
employees be, at all times, accountable to the people; serve with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice;
and lead modest lives. Public office is a public trust; it must be treated as a
97. DE CASTRO v. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE privilege rather than a right, and rest firmly upon one's sense of service rather
than entitlement.

46
 Since the respondent is the absolute and registered owner of the subject
98. BARING v. ELENA LOAN AND CREDIT COMPANY property, and entitled to the possession thereof, the CA correctly ruled that it
was the RTC’s ministerial duty to issue the writ of possession prayed for by the
FACTS: Petitioner Norma Baring and her codebtors obtained a series of loans respondent. The issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial
from respondent Elena Loan and Credit Company, a duly organized lending function upon the proper application and proof of title.
investor. As security for the said loan, Baring executed a Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage over a parcel of land with improvements. Subsequently, the debtors
failed to pay their obligations despite repeated demands. Respondent Elena
Loan then foreclosed the subject property and public auction was held where 99. MALIGALIG v. SANDIGANBAYAN
respondent Elena Loan emerged as the highest bidder.
FACTS: Two (2) informations were filed against the petitioner before the
As petitioner did not exercise her right of redemption over the foreclosed Sandiganbayan showed that he was charged with Violation of Anti-Graft Law
property, the title to the property was consolidated in the name of respondent. and Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Document.
Accordingly, as the new owner of the subject property, Elena Loan sent a Both information alleged that petitioner was a public officer "being then the
demand letter to Baring requesting the latter to vacate the subject property. President and a member of the Board of Directors of the Bataan Shipyard and
However, the demand remained unheeded. Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO), a GOCC.” Petitioner contended that BASECO is
not a GOCC and added that since it is private corporation under the tutelage of
Elena Loan thereafter filed an Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of PCGG as conservator and that he was elected to the BOD by reason of his being
Possession. The RTC granted the writ of possession. Petitioner Baring a stockholder of the company, he cannot be considered as public official or
appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto. employee under the definition in Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Hence,
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA, in upholding the decision of the trial court, erred
in granting the writ of possession. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is a public official that would vest the
jurisdiction of the case to the Sandiganbayan.
RULING: NO. The issuance of a writ of possession, upon proper application
and proof of title, to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes RULING: YES. Petitioner’s admission in his Counter- Affidavit filed before the
merely a ministerial function. Office of the Ombudsman that he was appointed as member of the Board of
Directors, and eventually as President of BASECO by former President Gloria
The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. Macapagal-Arroyo, militates against his claim that he was not a public officer.
A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs
in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate A public officer is defined in the Revised Penal Code as "any person who, by
of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon direct provision of the law, popular election, or appointment by competent
the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government, or
performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is in any of its branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise official, of any rank or class." The concept of a public officer was expounded
of official discretion or judgment. further in the Serana case, where it was held that, "An investment in an

47
individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer."

As President of a sequestered company like BASECO, petitioner is expected to

perform functions that would benefit the public in general.

48
QUALIFICATIONS Here, De Castro's malicious intent to conceal the Disputed Assets is evident.
Leovigildo deliberately placed the Disputed Assets in the names of his children
100. DE CASTRO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN for the purpose of concealing the same.

FACTS: Subjects of this case are De Castro, who works as a Chief Customs
Operations Officer at the Bureau of Customs, and his wife, who worked as a
clerk at the now defunct Philippine Atomic Energy Commission. The couple’s 101. FLORES v. DRILON (as Exec. Sec.) and GORDON
declared income from 1974 to 2004 is P10,841,412.28. When the
Ombudsman, through its Field Investigation Office (FIO) conducted lifestyle FACTS: Petitioners maintain that the provision in Sect. 13 (d) of RA 7227 or
checks on government officials, it discovered that the petitioner had the Bases Conversion and Development Act which states that, “For the first
undisclosed assets from his SALN which were hidden under the names of his year of its operations…the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as
children. Consequently, the FIO found that the couple’s assets and expenses the chairman and chief executive officer of the Subic Authority” infringes on the
from 1974-2004 amounted to P30,829,603.48 and was massively following constitutional and statutory provisions:
disproportionate to their declared income. This prompted the FIO to file a 1. Sec. 7 (1), Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution because the Mayor of
complaint before the Ombudsman, charging the petitioner with grave Olongapo is an elective official and the subject posts are public offices;
misconduct and dishonesty. 2. Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution since it was Congress through
the questioned provision and not the President who appointed the
ISSUE: Whether or not De Castro is liable for Grave Misconduct and Mayor to the subject posts; and
Dishonesty. 3. Sec. 261 (g) of the Omnibus Election Code since the appointment of
respondent Gordon to the subject post by the Exec. Sec. was within the
RULING: NO. The Court found that the petitioner was not liable for grave prohibited 45-day period prior to the May 1992 Elections.
misconduct, but was liable for dishonesty. De Castro’s administrative liability
primarily rests on his failure to faithfully comply with the SALN requirement ISSUES:
and the acquisition of assets manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income. 1. Whether or not Sec. 13 (d) of RA 7227 violates the constitutional
These acts, while harmful to public service, do not constitute Grave proscription against appointment or designation of elective officials
Misconduct. To hold him liable for Grave Misconduct, the acts and omissions to other governmental posts.
for which he was charged must be of such character as to have had an effect on 2. Whether or not there is legislative encroachment on the appointing
his duties as Chief Customs Operations Officer. authority of the President.
3. Whether or not Gordon has forfeited his elective office.
However, the Court still found that substantial evidence exists on record to
hold De Castro guilty of Dishonesty for having acquired assets manifestly RULING:
disproportionate to his lawful income, and concealing the same by deliberately 1. YES. As long as he is an incumbent, an elective official remains
placing them in the names of his children. While mere omission from or ineligible for appointment to another public office. The first paragraph
misdeclaration in one's SALN per se do not constitute Dishonesty, an omission of Sec. 7, Art. IX-B does not provide any exception to the rule
or misdeclaration qualifies as such offense when it is attended with malicious against appointment or designation of an elective official to other
intent to conceal the truth, as dishonesty implies a disposition to lie, cheat, government posts. Further, Congress did not contemplate making
deceive, or defraud. the subject SBMA posts as ex officio or automatically attached to the
Office of the Mayor of Olongapo City without need of appointment. The

49
 phrase “shall be appointed” unquestionably shows the intent to make Lenlie arising from the refusal of the two to let him assume the position of KB
SBMA posts appointive and not merely adjunct. representative.

2. YES. When Congress clothes the President with the power to appoint The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan 13 informations for estafa
an officer, it cannot at the same time limit the choice of the President through falsification of public documents against petitioners and an
to only one candidate. In this case, while Congress willed that the information for violation of RA 3019 against the Mayor. The Sandiganbayan
subject posts be filled with a presidential appointee for the first year found them guilty on all counts of estafa but the Mayor was acquitted from the
of its operations, the provision nevertheless limits the appointing RA 3019 violation charge.
authority to only one eligible, that is the incumbent Mayor of
Olongapo. Since only one can qualify for the post in question, the ISSUE: Whether or not the Petitioner is guilty of violation of R.A. No. 3019.
President is precluded from exercising his discretion to choose
whom to appoint. Such power of appointment, sans the essential RULING: NO. The concept of holdover when applied to a public officer implies
element of choice, is no power at all and goes against the very nature that the office has a fixed term and the incumbent is holding onto the
itself of appointment. succeeding term. It is usually provided by law that officers elected or
appointed for a fixed term shall remain in office not only for that term but until
3. NO. As an incumbent official, Gordon is ineligible for appointment to their successors have been elected and qualified. Where this provision is
the position of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of found, the office does not become vacant upon the expiration of the term if
SBMA. Hence, his appointment thereto pursuant to a legislative there is no successor elected and qualified to assume it, but the present
act that contravenes the Constitution cannot be sustained. He incumbent will carry over until his successor is elected and qualified, even
however, remains Mayor of Olongapo City and his acts as SBMA though it be beyond the term fixed by law. In the instant case, although BP Blg.
official are not necessarily null and void; he may be considered a de 51 does not say that a Sanggunian member can continue to occupy his post
facto officer. after the expiration of his term in case his successor fails to qualify, it does not
also say that he is proscribed from holding over. Absent an express or
implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, an officer
is entitled to stay in office until his successor is appointed or chosen and
102. LECAROZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN has qualified.

FACTS: Francisco Lecaroz was the Municipal Mayor of Santa Cruz while his
son Lenlie Lecaroz was the outgoing chairman of the Kabataang Barangay of
Bagong Silang. In the 1985 election of the Kabataang Barangay, Jowil Red won
as the KB Chairman and was appointed as member of the Sangguniang Bayan
of Santa Cruz representing the KBs of the municipality. However, Mayor
Lecaroz informed Red that he could not yet sit as a member of the municipal
council until the Governor of Marinduque had cleared his appointment.
Meanwhile, Lenlie continued to receive his salary for more than a year. Finally,
after three years, Red was able to secure appointment papers. Red then filed
with the Ombudsman several criminal complaints against the Mayor and

50
103. PARREÑO v. COA 104. JARDELEZA v. SERENO

FACTS: Salvador Parreño served in the AFP for 32 years. After retirement, he FACTS: Following Associate Justice Abad’s retirement, the Judicial Bar Council
availed and received payment of a lump sum pension equivalent to three years (JBC) announced the opening for the application or recommendations for the
pay. Later, Parreño migrated to Hawaii and became a naturalized American vacant position. Jardeleza, incumbent Solicitor General, was nominated.
citizen. The AFP consequently stopped his monthly pension in accordance with Jardeleza was then directed to “make himself available” before the JBC during
Sec. 27 of PD 1638 which provides that a retiree who loses his Filipino which he would be informed of the objections to his integrity (re extramarital
citizenship shall be removed from the retired list and his retirement benefits affair and acts of insider trading).
terminated upon loss of Filipino citizenship.
Jardeleza alleged that he was asked by CJ Sereno if he wanted to defend himself
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 27 of PD 1628 is unconstitutional for violating the against the integrity issues against him to which he agreed provided that due
due process clause. process would be observed. Jardeleza specifically demanded that CJ Sereno
execute a sworn statement specifying her objections and that he be afforded
RULING: NO. There is a substantial difference between retirees who are the right to cross-examine her in a public hearing. Jardeleza then put into
citizens of the Philippines and retirees who lost their Filipino citizenship by record a written statement expressing his views on the situation and
naturalization in another country. For one, a retiree who had lost his Filipino requested the JBC to defer its meeting considering that the Court en banc
citizenship already renounced his allegiance to the state and thus may no would meet the next day to act on his pending letter-petition.
longer be compelled by the state to render compulsory military service when
the need arises. Later in the afternoon of the same day, and apparently denying Jardeleza’s
request for deferment of the proceedings, the JBC continued its deliberations
However, Parreño will be entitled to receive his monthly pension again should and proceeded to vote for the nominees to be included in the shortlist.
he reacquire his Filipino citizenship since he will again be entitled to the Thereafter, the JBC released the subject shortlist of four (4) nominees.
benefits and privileges of Filipino citizenship reckoned from the time of his Jardeleza was not included in the said list.
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. There is no legal obstacle to the ISSUE: Whether or not the right to due process was available in the course of
resumption of his retirement benefits from the time he complies again with JBC proceedings in cases where an objection or opposition to an application is
the condition of the law, that is, he can receive his retirement benefits provided raised.
he is a Filipino citizen.
RULING: YES. JBC proceedings are unique and special in nature. However,
notwithstanding being "a class of its own," the right to be heard and to explain
one’s self is availing. Thus the court ruled that, “… where an objection to an
applicant’s qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither
negates nor renders illusory the fulfillment of the duty of JBC to recommend. “
In this case, Jardeleza’s right to due process was violated when he was neither
formally informed of the questions on his integrity nor was provided a
reasonable chance to muster a defense. He was asked to appear in a meeting
where he would be, right then and there, subjected to an inquiry. Jardeleza was
not given the idea that he should prepare to affirm or deny his past behavior.

51
DISQUALIFICATIONS AND INHIBITIONS
COMMENCEMENT OF OFFICIAL RELATIONSHIP FACTS: Oscar Bermudez was recommended for the position of Provincial
Prosecutor. Conrado Quiaoit was appointed by President Fidel Ramos. Ramos.
105. GARCES v. CA Quiaoit assumed office after receiving a certified xerox copy of his
appointment and taking his oath. However, Bermudez refused to vacate the
FACTS: Lucita Garces was appointed Election Registrar (ER), replacing Claudio Office of the Provincial Prosecutor claiming that the original copy of Quiaoit’s
Concepcion who was transferred to Liloy. Said actions were approved by the appointment was not yet released by the Secretary of Justice. Quiaoit
Civil Service Commission. However, Concepcion refused to transfer as he did continued to perform his functions and duties. He also regularly receives his
not request it. Garces was directed to assume the Gutalac post. She was not salary and other emoluments from the office.
able to do so because a Memorandum prohibited her from assuming said post
as the same was not vacant. Garces was directed to defer her assumption of ISSUE: Whether or not Quiaoit’s appointment was valid and legal.
the Gutalac post. She received a letter, which she interpreted as superseding
the deferment order. Since Concepcion continued occupying the Gutalac office, RULING: YES. Quiaoit’s appointment was valid and legal. The issue would
the COMELEC en banc canceled his appointment to Liloy. pivot on Book IV, Title III, Chapter II, Section 9 of the Revised Administrative
Code of 1987, which states that “All provincial and city prosecutors and their
ISSUE: Whether or not Garces had a legal right to the Gutalac post. assistants shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the
Secretary.”
RULING: NO. Garces had no legal right to the Gutalac post.
An "appointment" to a public office is the act of designating by a person in
A transfer requires a prior appointment. If the transfer was made without the authority an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of
consent of the official concerned, it is tantamount to removal without valid an office or trust. The appointment is deemed complete once the last act
cause contrary to the fundamental guarantee on non-removal except for cause. required of the appointing authority has been complied with and its
Concepcion's transfer became legally infirm and without effect for he was not acceptance by the appointee in order to render it effective.
validly terminated. His appointment to the Liloy post was incomplete because
of his non-acceptance. Acceptance is indispensable to complete an When the law clothes the President with the power to appoint a subordinate
appointment. officer, such conferment must be understood as necessarily carrying with it a
discretion of whom to appoint. The Court opined that the phrase “upon
Concepcion's post in Gutalac never became vacant. It is a basic precept in the recommendation of the Secretary” should be interpreted to be an indorsement.
law of public officers that no person, no matter how qualified and eligible he is The recommendation was merely advisory in nature. The President could
for a certain position may be appointed to an office which is not vacant. The disregard the executive departments, bureaus, and offices without acting
incumbent must first be legally removed, or his appointment validly beyond the scope of his authority.
terminated before one could be validly installed to succeed him. Garces'
appointment was ordered to be deferred by the COMELEC. The deferment In this case, the Secretary of Justice’s recommendation and President’s
order was not ifted. Her appointment to Gutalac was even cancelled by the appointment were acts of the Executive Department itself. There was no
COMELEC en banc. sharing of power to speak of, the latter being deemed for all intents and
purposes as being merely an extension of the personality of the President.

106. BERMUDEZ v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

52
APPOINTMENT 108. JOCOM vs. REGALADO

107. BINAMIRA v. GARRUCHO FACTS: Vice-President Salvador Laurel became the Chairman of the National
Council on Integrated Area Development (NACIAD), with the power to appoint
FACTS: Ramon Binamira seeks reinstatement to the Office of General Manager the Project Directors of the various integrated area development projects
of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) claiming that he had been removed including the Bicol River Basin Development Program (BRBDP). He appointed
without just cause in violation of his security of tenure. Minister Jose Gonzales Jesse Robredo to “Program Director” of BRBDP. However, President Aquino
sought approval from President Corazon Aquino of the composition of the PTA issued the Freedom Constitution, Article 1 of which declared that Art. XI of
Board of Directors, which the latter approved. Binamira complains that his the 1973 Constitution and the amendments thereto dealing with the Prime
resignation was demanded by Peter Garrucho as the new Secretary of Tourism. Minister and the Cabinet were deemed superseded.
Garrucho took over as General Manager of the PTA, thus, Binamira filed this
action against him to question his title. However, Vice-President Laurel appointed Edmundo Jocom as BRBDP Project
Director. Simultaneous with Jocom's appointment, Robredo was informed of
ISSUE: Whether or not Binamira was entitled to reinstatement. his termination from office without stating the ground for his dismissal.

RULING: NO. Binamira was not entitled to reinstatement. Binamira was not ISSUE: Whether or not Jocom was the proper appointee for BRBDP Project
appointed by the President but only designated by the Minister of Tourism. Director.

Appointment is the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an RULING: NO, Jocom was not the proper appointee for BRBDP Project Director.
individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. Designation
connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent Based from the laws affecting BRBDP, “Program Director" and "Project
official. It is said that appointment is essentially executive while designation is Director" are one and the same position, with the main function of heading the
legislative in nature. BRBDP. During Vice-President Laurel's short tenure as Prime Minister, he
became the Chairman of NACIAD, with the power to appoint the
In this case, Binamira’s designation could not support his claim that he had Program/Project Directors of the various integrated area development
been illegally removed. The decree clearly provides that the appointment of projects, including the BRBDP. However, after the promulgation of the
the General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority shall be made by the Freedom Constitution, all provisions regarding the Office of the Prime Minister
President, not by any other officer. Appointment involves the exercise of were deleted, which indicated the abolition of said office.
discretion, which because of its nature cannot be delegated.
At the time of Jocom’s appointment, Vice-President Laurel had already ceased
to be Chairman of NACIAD. His appointment of herein Jocom to the position of
Program/Project Director and the removal of Robredo from said position,
were in the exercise of power that already belonged to the President. Hence,
such appointment and removal were null and void, and petitioner cannot claim
to have had a valid right to the position of Program/Project Director of BRBDP.
109. Chua vs. CSC

53
FACTS: In December 1988, Republic Act No. 6683 was approved to provide said law are to be denied a class of government employees who are similarly
benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation from the government situated as those covered by said law.
service as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization. Deemed
qualified to avail of its benefits are regular, temporary, casual and emergency
employees, who have rendered a total of two (2) consecutive years of
government service. 110. IGNACIO v. CSC

Petitioner Lydia Chua, believing she was qualified to avail of the benefits of the FACTS: Dr. Ignacio was the Division Superintendent of Public Schools in Cavite
program, filed an application with the National Irrigation Administration City. While on leave, the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and
(NIA) which, however, denied the same. Her recourse to the Civil Service Sports (DECS), through former Undersecretary Bacani, issued an Order
Commission (CSC) also yielded a negative result. In denying her application, reassigning her to the Division of Schools in Puerto Princesa City effective
the CSC contended that the law extends only to regular, temporary, casual and immediately. However, her appointment was on hold until the final order of
emergency employees and that petitioner, who was a co-terminous employee, UndersecretaryBacani. Dr. Bautista would take her position whenever she
was not covered by the law. would transfer. Instead of complying with the directive, Dr. Ignacio filed a
petition for its nullification with the Office of the CSC. Considering that the
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Chua is entitled to retirement benefits under petitioner was a presidential appointee, the petition was transmitted to the
RA No. 6683. CSC for resolution. She alleged that her reassignment to Puerto Princesa City
was arbitrary, oppressive and contrary to law and was a demotion which is
RULING: YES. RA No. 6683 seeks to cover and benefit regular, temporary, prejudicial to her. Being a presidential appointee with Career Executive
casual and emergency employees who have rendered at least a total of two (2) Service (CES) Rank V eligibility, only the President, through the DECS
consecutive years of government service. Secretary, could reappoint her, and such authority could not be delegated to
an Undersecretary.
Petitioner Lydia Chua was a co-terminous employee who was hired and re-
hired in four (4) successive projects during a span of fifteen (15) years. ISSUE: Whether or not the her reassignment violated the rules and laws
regarding appointment or was her security of tenure violated
Coterminous status shall be issued to a person whose entrance in the service
is characterized by confidentiality by the appointing authority or that which is RULING: NO. Dr. Garcia was a member of the CES with a rank of CESO V; as
subject to his pleasure or co-existent with his tenure. It can be classified as such, her security of tenure pertains only to her rank and not to her office or
coterminous with the project when the appointment is co-existent with the her position. The security of tenure of employees in the career executive
duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made or service (except first and second-level employees in the civil service), pertains
subject to the availability of funds for the same. A coterminous employee is a only to rank and not to the office or to the position to which they may be
non-career civil servant, like casual and emergency employees. The Court sees appointed. Thus, a CESO may be transferred or reassigned from one position
no solid reason why the latter are extended benefits under the Early to another without losing his rank which follows him wherever he is
Retirement Law but the former are not. transferred or reassigned. In fact, a CESO suffers no diminution of salary even
if assigned to a CES position with lower salary grade, as the compensation is
Applying the criteria set forth above, the Early Retirement Law would violate according to CES rank and not on the basis of the position or office occupied.
the equal protection clause if the respondent’s submission that the benefits of

54
111. SALES v. CARREON
112. OMBUDSMAN v. CSC
FACTS: During the May elections, then Mayor Ruiz of Dapitan City, running for
re-election, was defeated by respondent Carreon Jr. In his last month of office, FACTS: Ombudsman Marcelo sent a letter to the CSC requesting the approval
Mayor Ruiz issued 83 appointments, including those of petitioners. A month of the amendment of qualification standards for Director II positions in their
later, Mayor Carreon Jr assumed office and subsequently issued memorandum office. The CSC issued an Opinion disapproving the request. The Commission
orders revoking the appointments made by Ruiz on the ground that it violated strictly subscribes to the policy that Director II position being 3rd level
the Civil Service Resolution which imposed a ban on issuing appointments in eligibility is covered by the Career Executive Service (CES). The Ombudsman,
the civil service during the election period. Ayor Ruiz prohibited the release of claiming that its constitutional and statutory powers were unduly curtailed,
the salaries and benefits of the appointees. Sales, one of the petitioners, wrote now seeks to set aside and nullify CSC Opinion. It asserts that its specific,
CSC requesting to rule on the matter. CSC held that the appointments were not exclusive and discretionary constitutional and statutory power as an
mass appointments and are thus valid and effective. CSC En banc reversed the independent constitutional body to administer and supervise its own officials
assailed Omnibus Order and held that such appointments were indeed and personnel, including the authority to administer competitive
violative of RA 7041 and all promoted employees were reverted to their examinations and prescribe reasonable qualification standards for its own
previous position officials, cannot be curtailed by the general power of the CSC to administer the
civil service system. Any unwarranted and unreasonable restriction on its
ISSUE: Whether or not the appointments made were valid. discretionary authority, such as what the CSC did when it issued its Opinion ,
is constitutionally and legally infirm.
RULING: NO. the appointments were declared void. This case is a typical
example of midnight appointments. However, not all midnight appointments ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman has the authority to establish
are invalid for each appointment must be judged on the basis, nature, reasonable qualification standards for the personnel of the Office of the
character, and circumstances of the individual appointment. Ombudsman

Section 2 of R.A. No. 7041 provides that vacant positions shall not be filled RULING: YES. Under the Constitution, the Ombudsman is the appointing
until after publication. Section 3 also states that the Civil Service Commission authority for all officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman,
shall not act on any appointment to fill up a vacant position unless the same except the Deputy Ombudsman. Thus, a person occupying the position of
has been reported to and published by the Commission. The vacant positions Director II in the Central Administrative Service or Finance and Management
may only be filled by the appointing authority after they have been reported Service of the Office of the Ombudsman is appointed by the Ombudsman, not
to the CSC as vacant and only after publication. Here, the publication of by the President. As such, he is neither embraced in the CES nor does he need
vacancies was made even before the positions were actually vacant. Moreover, to possess CES eligibility.
the CSC found that there was no first-level representative appointed to the
Personnel Selection Board, which deliberated on the appointments to first- Qualification standards are used as guides in appointment and other personnel
level positions. In deliberating and recommending to former Mayor Ruiz the actions, in determining training needs and as aid in the inspection and audit of
appointments of herein petitioners to the vacant positions sans the required the personnel work programs. They are intimately connected to the power to
representation, the Board violated the above CSC Rules. Hence, the appoint as well as to the power of administrative supervision. Thus, as a
appointments he issued are not valid. corollary to the Ombudsman’s appointing and supervisory powers, he

55
possesses the authority to establish reasonable qualification standards for the trust or confidential matters of state. The secretary reports directly to the
personnel of the Office of the Ombudsman. board of directors, without an intervening officer in between them. In such an
arrangement, the board expects from the secretary nothing less than the
highest degree of honesty, integrity, and loyalty.

113. CSC v. JAVIER

FACTS: Nita Javier spent her entire career in GSIS, until she was appointed 114. Ong vs. Office of the President
Corporate Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the corporation. Javier opted
for early retirement a month before her 64th birthday. However, barely a year FACTS: In September 2001, petitioner Samuel Ong was appointed as National
later, GSIS President Winston Garcia, with the approval of the Board of Bureau of Investigation Director III by the President.
Trustees, reappointed Javier as Corporate Secretary. In its Resolution, the
Board of Trustees classified her appointment as confidential in nature and the In June 2004, Ong was informed that his appointment, being co-terminous
tenure of office is at the pleasure of the Board. with the appointing authority’s tenure, would effectively end at midnight on
June 30, 2004. The President thereafter appointed Victor Bessat as NBI
The CSC alleges that Javier’s reappointment on confidential status was meant Director III as replacement of petitioner.
to illegally extend her service and circumvent the laws on compulsory
retirement. This is because under the GSIS Act of 1997, the compulsory Petitioner then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for quo warranto
retirement age for government employees is 65 years.” The CSC issued a seeking to declare null and void (a) his removal from the position of NBI
Resolution invalidating the reappointment of respondent as Corporate Director III and; (b) his replacement by Bessat.
Secretary, on the ground that the position is a permanent, career position and
not primarily confidential. In denying the petition, the CA ruled that Ong, a non-CESO eligible, had no
security of tenure and his appointment was temporary – such being the case,
The CA decided to set aside the resolution of CSC invalidating the respondent's his appointment can be withdrawn at will by the appointing authority at any
appointment. The CA ruled that in determining whether a position is primarily time and without need of prior notice or hearing.
confidential or otherwise, the nature of its functions, duties and
responsibilities must be looked into, and not just its formal classification. ISSUE: Whether or not Ong attained security of tenure.

ISSUE: W/N the position of Corporate Secretary in a GOCC is primarily RULING: NO. It is established that no officer or employee in the Civil Service
confidential in nature. shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. However,
this admits exceptions for it is likewise settled that the right to security of
RULING: YES. The position of Corporate Secretary of GSIS, or any GOCC is a tenure is not available to those employees whose appointments are
primarily confidential position which more than ordinary confidence is contractual and co-terminous in nature.
required. The nature of the duties and functions attached to the position points
to its highly confidential character. A position is primarily confidential when Since Ong did not meet the required Civil Executive Service (CES) eligibility,
by the nature of the functions of the office there exists close intimacy between Ong’s appointment as Director III is both temporary and co-terminous – a co-
the appointee and appointing power which ensures freedom of intercourse terminous appointment is one which co-existent with the tenure of the
without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals of personal appointing authority or at his pleasure.

56
 RULING: YES. All of petitioners’ appointments are midnight appointments and
The acceptance of a temporary appointment divests the appointee of the right are void for violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. EO 2 is
to security of tenure against removal without case – “one who holds a constitutional.
temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office; his employment can be
terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority, there being no need to The following elements should always concur in the making of a valid
show that the termination is for cause.” appointment: (1) authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise of such
authority; (2) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of the
The Court cannot grant Ong the reliefs he sought as law and jurisprudence transmittal; (3) a vacant position at the time of appointment; and (4) receipt
clearly dictate that being a temporary and co-terminous appointee, he had no of the appointment paper and acceptance of the appointment by the appointee
vested rights over the position of Director III. who possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

In the present case, the transmittal of the petitioners’ appointment papers is

questionable. Representatives from the Malacañang Records Office testified
115. Villarica-Garafil vs. Office of the President that the date and time of the transmittal letters as to when it was actually
received by petitioners were unusually left blank which made it impossible to
FACTS: Prior to the conduct of the May 2010 elections, then President Gloria determine whether or not the appointments were transmitted prior to the
Macapagal-Arroyo issued more than 800 appointments to various positions in appointment ban.
several government offices. Petitioners were among those who were
appointed. In the case at bar, petitioners have failed to show compliance with all four
elements of a valid appointment. They cannot prove with certainty that
For the purposes of the 2010 elections, March 10, 2010 was the cut-off date for their appointment papers were transmitted before the appointment ban
valid appointments and the next day, March 11, 2010, was the start of the ban took effect. On the other hand, petitioners admit that they took their oath
on midnight appointments. Petitioners all took their oath of office – signifying of office during the appointment ban.
their acceptance of the appointment – after March 11, 2010.

In June 2010, President Benigno Aquino III issued EO 2 recalling, withdrawing,

and revoking appointments issued by then President Arroyo which violated
the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. Included therein were
appointments made on after March 10, 2011 and appointment bearing dates
prior to March 11, 2010 where the appointee accepted, or took his oath, or
assumed public office on or after March 11, 2010.

Petitioners’ appointments were thereafter revoked. Petitioners assail the

constitutionality of EO 2. 116. Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners’ appointments violated the Constitutional FACTS: In April 2015, R.A. No. 10660 created two more divisions of the
ban against “midnight appointments.” Sandiganbayan with three Justices each. This resulted in six vacant positions.

57
After screening and selection of applicants, the Judicial and Bar Council
submitted six shortlists for each of the six vacancies contained in six separate
letters. President Aquino then issued the appointment papers for the six new 117. Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III (February 2017)
Sandiganbayan Justices: (1) Musngi, (2) Cruz, (3) Econg, (4) Mendoza-Arcega, FACTS: The Judicial and Bar Council filed a Motion for Reconsideration-in-
(5) Miranda; and (6) Trespeses. Intervention from the Supreme Court’s November 2016 Decision.

Musngi and Econg belonged to the same shortlist. Put differently, two of the The JBC asserts that in submitting six short lists for six vacancies, it was only
appointed Justices came from only one shortlist. acting in accordance with the clear and unambiguous mandate of Article VIII,
Section 9 of the Constitution for the JBC to submit a list for every vacancy.
In bringing the case before the Court, petitioners insist that President Aquino Considering its independence as a constitutional body, the JBC has the
could choose only one nominee from each of the six separate shortlists discretion and wisdom to perform its mandate in any manner so long as it is
submitted by the JBC for each specific vacancy. consistent with the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not President Aquino, under the circumstances, was The JBC further contends that it did not encroach on the President’s power to
limited to appoint only from the nominees in the shortlist submitted by the JBC appoint members of the Judiciary.
for each specific vacancy.
ISSUE: Whether or not the clustering of nominees for the six vacancies in the
RULING: NO. President Aquino did not violate the Constitution or commit Sandiganbayan by the JBC impaired the President’s power to appoint members
grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the clustering of nominees in six of the Judiciary and to determine the seniority of the newly-appointed
separate shortlists for the six vacancies for Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. Sandiganbayan Associate Justices.
President Aquino merely maintained the well-established practice, consistent
with the paramount Presidential constitutional prerogative, to appoint the six RULING: YES. In its November 2016 Decision, the Supreme Court unanimously
new Sandiganbayan Associate Justices from the 37 qualified nominees, as if voted that in this case of six simultaneous vacancies in the Sandiganbayan
embodied in one JBC list. Associate Justice, the JBC acted beyond its constitutional mandate in clustering
the nominees into six separate shortlists.
The power to recommend of the JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the
President’s power to appoint as the latter’s prerogative to choose someone The JBC invokes its independence as a constitutional body – however, the
whom he/she considers worth appointing to the vacancy in the Judiciary is still independence and discretion of the JBC is not without limits. It cannot impair
paramount. As long as in the end, the President appoints someone the President’s power to appoint members of the Judiciary and his statutory
nominated by the JBC, the appointment is valid. On this score, the Court finds power to determine the seniority of the newly-appointed Sandiganbayan
herein that President Aquino was not obliged to appoint one new Associate Justices.
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice from each of the six shortlists submitted by
the JPC, especially when the clustering of the nominees in the six shortlists The JBC’s clustering would have impinged upon the President’s power in the
encroached on President Aquino’s power to appoint members of the Judiciary. following way: once the President has appointed a nominee from one cluster,
he would have been proscribed from considering other nominees in the same
The Court therefore declares that the clustering of the nominees by the Judicial cluster for other vacancies.
and Bar Council is unconstitutional. The appointments are valid.

58
By impinging upon the President’s appointment power, the JBC exceeded its
constitutional mandate. The Motion for Reconsideration is dismissed.

59