EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DAVAO PILOTS ASSOCIATION, respondents. G.R. No.

116356 June 29, 1998 Facts: On September 25, 1989, private respondent elevated a complaint against petitioner for sum of money and attorney's fees alleging that private respondent had rendered pilotage services to petitioner between with total unpaid fees of P703,290.18. Despite repeated demands, petitioner failed to pay and prays that the latter be directed to pay P703,290.18 with legal rate of interest from the filing of the complaint. On November 18, 1989 petitioner disputed the claims of private respondent assailing the constitutionality of EO 1088 upon which it bases its claims; that the subject of the complaint falls within the scope and authority of the Philippine Ports Authority by virtue of PD No. 857 ; that Executive Order No. 1088 is an unwarranted repeal or modification of the Philippine Ports Authority Charter, among others. Petitioner argues that EO 1088 is not constitutional, because its interpretation and application are left to private respondent, a private person, and it constitutes an undue delegation of power. Petitioner insists that it should pay pilotage fees in accordance with and on the basis of the memorandum circulars issued by the PPA, the administrative body vested under PD 857 with the power to regulate and prescribe pilotage fees. It on paying pilotage fees prescribed under PPA circulars because EO 1088 sets a higher rate. Issues: Whether Executive Order 1088 is unconstitutional.

spirit of the law." It is axiomatic that an administrative agency, like the PPA, has no discretion whether to implement the law or not. Its duty is to enforce it. Therefore, if there is any conflict between the PPA circular and a law, such as EO 1088, the latter prevails. In conclusion, the Court made it clear that E.O. No. 1088 is a valid statute and that the PPA is duty bound to comply with its provisions. The PPA may increase the rates but it may not decrease them below those mandated by E.O. No. 1088.

An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. An AO is not a law. In here, AO 308 partakes the nature of a law hence it is beyond executive power. Only the legislative can enact such a law of general effect.

TAADA vs. TUVERA, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985 Ople vs. Torres Facts: On 12 Dec 1996, Ramos issued AO 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System". The late Senator Ople averred that the said AO is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the peoples privacy and that the said AO is an encroachment of the Legislatures power to legislate laws. Blas opined that the said AO is not merely an AO because it partakes of the nature of a law hence it is beyond the presidents power to issue such. He filed a petition to enjoin Ruben Torres et al from carrying out such AO. Torres et al countered that the AO is not a law for it creates no office; confers no right; affords no protection and imposes no duty. Facts: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners, Lorenzo M. Taada et. al., seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due course. Issue: Whether or not the said presidential issuances are in violation of the due process law for not being published in the official gazette. Held: The Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. The Court hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution, Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the president is an encroachment of the functions of the Legislature.

Whether there is undue delegation of legislative power on private respondent. Held: Petition DENIED.

Reiterating the pronouncement of the Court in Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that EO 1088 is valid. E.O. NO. 1088 provides for adjusted pilotage service rates without withdrawing the power of the PPA to impose, prescribe, increase or decrease rates, charges or fees. The reason is because E.O. No. 1088 is not meant simply to fix new pilotage rates. Its legislative purpose is the "rationalization of pilotage service charges, through the imposition of uniform and adjusted rates for foreign and coastwise vessels in all Philippine ports. Petitioner cannot insist on paying pilotage fees based on the PPA circulars because the PPA circulars are inconsistent with EO 1088, they are void and ineffective. "Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution." As stated by the Court in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, "the conclusive effect of administrative construction is not absolute. Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or

HELD: As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively. Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations. Upon these precepts, AO 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. An administrative order is: Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.

administrative superiors concerning the guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duty. It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. As Justice Claudio Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC : In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters of instructions which all form part of the law of the land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that the Official Gazette as the official government repository promulgate and publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions so that the people may know where to obtain their official and specific contents.

deduction over a period of five (5) years. Maximum value of the vehicle to be purchased ranges from Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) to Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P350,000.00), depending on the position of the officer in the corporation. In addition, PITC will reimburse the officer concerned fifty percent (50%) of the annual car registration, insurance premiums and costs of registration of the chattel mortgage over the car for a period of five (5) years from the date the vehicle was purchased. The terms and conditions of the car plan are embodied in a "Car Loan Agreement". 3 Per PITC's car plan guidelines, the purpose of the plan is to provide financial assistance to qualified employees in purchasing their own transportation facilities in the performanced of their work, for representation, and personal use. 4 The plan is envisioned to facilitate greater mobility during official trips especially within Metro Manila or the employee's principal place of assignment, without having to rely on PITC vehicles, taxis or cars for hire. 5 On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758 (RA 6758), entitled "An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes", took effect. Section 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and additional compensation into standardized salary rates save for certain additional compensation such as representation and transportation allowances which were exempted from consolidation into the standardized rate. Said section likewise provides that other additional compensation being received by incumbents as by of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized. Sec. 12, RA 6758, reads Sec. 12. Consolidation of All Allowances and Compensation. All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized. To implement RA 6758, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10). Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 discontinued effective November 1, 1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary, not otherwise enumerated under paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 thereof. Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 provides:

5.6 Payment of other allowances/fringe benefits and all other forms of compensation granted on top of basic salary, whether in cash or in kind, not mentioned in Subparagraphs 5.4 and 5.5 6 above shall be discontinued effective November 1, 1989. Payment made for such allowance/fringe benefits after said date shall be considered as illegal disbursement of public funds. On post audit, the payment/reimbursement of the above-mentioned expenses (50% of the yearly car registration and insurance premiums and 50% of the costs of registration of the chattel mortgage over the car) made after November 1, 1989 was disallowed by the resident COA auditor. The disallowance was made on the ground that the subject car plan benefits were not one of the fringe benefits or form of compensation allowed to be continued after said date under the aforequoted paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 7, in relation to Paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 thereof. PITC, on its behalf, and that of the affected PITC officials, appealed the decision of the resident COA auditor to the COA. On July 27, 1992, COA denied PITC's appeal and affirmed the disallowance of the said car plan expenses in the assailed Decision No. 2447 dated July 27, 1992. Relevant portions of the decision read thus: Upon circumspect evaluation thereof, this Commission finds the instant appeal to be devoid of merit. It should be noted that the reimbursement/payment of expenses in question is based on the Car Plan benefit granted under Board Resolution No. 10-88-03 adopted by the PITC Board of Directors on October 19, 1988. The Car Plan is undeniably a fringe benefit as appearing in PITC's "Compensation Policy under the heading "3. Other Fringe Benefits", particularly Item No. 3.13 thereof. Inasmuch as PITC is a government-owned and/or controlled corporation, the grant of the Car Plan (being a fringe benefit) should be governed by the provisions of Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, implementing RA 6758. Under sub-paragraph 5.6 of said Circular, it explicitly provides: xxx xxx xxx Since the Car Plan benefit is not one of those fringe benefits or other forms of compensation mentioned in Sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10, consequently the reimbursement of the 50% share of PITC in the yearly registration and insurance premium of the cars purchased under said Car Plan benefit should not be allowed. . . . 8

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 132593 June 25, 1999 PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

GONZAGA-REYES, J.: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to annul Decision No. 2447 dated July 27, 1992 of the Commission on Audit (COA) denying Philippine International Trading Corporation's (PITC) appeal from the disallowances made by the resident COA auditor on PITC's car plan benefits; and Decision No. 98-048 dated January 27, 1998 of the COA denying PITC's motion for reconsideration. The following facts are undisputed: The PITC is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 252 on July 21, 1973 1, primarily for the purpose of promoting and developing Philippine trade in pursuance of national economic development. On October 19, 1988, the PITC Board of Directors approved a Car Plan Program for qualified PITC officers. 2 Under such car plan program, an eligible officer is entitled to purchase a vehicle, fifty percent (50%) of the value of which shall be shouldered by PITC while the remaining fifty percent (50%) will be shouldered by the officer through salary

PITC's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COA in its Resolution dated January 27, 1998. 9 Hence, the instant petition on the following grounds: 1. That the legislature did not intend to revoke existing benefits being received by incumbent government employees as of July 1, 1989 (including subject car plan benefits) when RA 6758 was passed; 2. That the Car Loan Agreements signed between PITC and its officers pursuant to PITC's Car Plan Program, including the Car Loan Agreements, duly executed prior to the effectivity of RA 6758, constitute the law between the parties and as such, protected by Section 10, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which prohibits the impairment of contracts; and 3. Finally, that the provisions of PD 985 do not apply to PITC inasmuch as under its Revised Charter, PD 1071, as amended by E.O. 756 and E.O. 1067, PITC is not only expressly exempted from OCPC rules and regulations but its Board of Directors was expressly authorized to adopt compensation policies and other related benefits to its officers/employees without need for further approval thereof by The petition is meritorious.

any government office, agency or authority. 10

First of all, we must mention that this Court has confirmed in Philippine Post Authority vs. Commission on Audit 11 the legislative intent to protect incumbents who are receiving salaries and/or allowances over and above those authorized by RA 6758 to continue to receive the same even after RA 6758 took effect. In reserving the benefit to incumbents, the legislature has manifested its intent to gradually phase out this privilege without upsetting the policy of nondiminution of pay and consistent with the rule that laws should only be applied prospectively in the spirit of fairness and justice. 12 Addressing the issue as to whether the petitioners-officials may still receive their representation and transportation allowance (RATA) at the higher rates provided by Letter of Implementation (LOI) No. 97 in light of Section 12, RA 6758, this Court said: Now, under the second sentence of Section 12, first paragraph, the RATA enjoyed by these PPA officials shall continue to be authorized only if they are "being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989." RA 6758 has therefore, to this extent, amended LOI No. 97. By limiting the benefit of the RATA granted by LOI No. 97 to incumbents, Congress has manifested its intent to gradually phase out this privilege without upsetting its policy of non-diminution of pay. The legislature has similarly adhered to this policy of non-diminution of pay when it provided for the transition allowance under Section 17 of RA 6758 which reads: Sec. 17. Salaries of Incumbents. Incumbents of position presently receiving salaries and additional compensation/fringe benefits including those absorbed from local government units and other emoluments the aggregate of which exceeds the standardized salary rate as herein prescribed, shall continue to receive such excess compensation, which shall be referred to as transition allowance. The transition

allowance shall be reduced by the amount of salary adjustment that the incumbent shall receive in the future. While Section 12 refers to allowances that are not integrated into the standardized salaries whereas Section 17 refers to salaries and additional compensation or fringe benefits, both sections are intended to protect incumbents who are receiving said salaries and/or allowances at the time RA 6758 took effect. 13 (Emphasis supplied.) Based on the foregoing pronouncement, petitioner correctly pointed out that there was no intention on the part of the legislature to revoke existing benefits being enjoyed by incumbents of government positions at the time of the virtue of Sections 12 and 17 thereof. There is no dispute that the PITC officials who availed of the subject car plan benefits were incumbents of their positions as of July 1, 1989. Thus, it was legal and proper for them to continue enjoying said benefits within the five year period from date of purchase of the vehicle allowed by their Car Loan Agreements with PITC. Further, we see the rationale for the corporation's fifty percent (50%) participation and contribution to the subject expenses. As to the insurance premium, PITC, at least, up to the extent of 50% of the value of the vehicle, has an insurable interest in said vehicle in case of loss or damage thereto. As to the costs of registration of the vehicle in the employee's name and of the chattel mortgage in favor of PITC, this is to secure PITC of the repayment of the "Car Loan Agreement" and the fulfillment of the other obligations contained therein by the employee. Still further, the vehicle being utilized by the officer is actually being used for corporate purposes because the officer concerned is no longer entitled to utilize company-owned vehicles for official business once he/she has availed of a car plan. Neither is said officer allowed to reimburse the costs of other land transportation used within his principal place of assignment (i.e. Metro Manila) as the vehicle is presumed to be his official vehicle. 14 In the event that the employee resigns, retires or is separated from the company without cause prior to the completion of the 60-month car plan, the employee shall be given the privilege to buy the car provided he pays the remaining installments of the loan and the amount equivalent to that portion of the company's contribution corresponding to the unexpired period of the car plan. On the other hand, if the employee has been separated from the company for cause, the company has the other option aside from the foregoing to repossess the car from the employee, in which case, the company shall pay back to the employee all amortizations already made by the employee to the company, interest free. 15 Secondly, COA relied on DBM-CCC No. 10 16 as basis for the disallowance of the subject car plan benefits. DBM-CCC No. 10 which was issued by the DBM pursuant to Section 23 17 of RA 6758

mandating the said agency to issue the necessary guidelines to implement RA 6758 has been declared by this Court in De Jesus, et al. vs. Commission on Audit, et al. 18 as of no force and effect due to the absence of publication thereof in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Salient portions of said decision read: On the need publication of subject DBM-CCC No. 10, we rule in the affirmative. Following the doctrine enunciated in Tanada 19, publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines is required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in the nature of an administrative circular the purpose of which is to enforce or implement an existing law. Stated differently, to be effective and enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go through the requisite publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. In the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that DBM-CCC No. 10, which completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why not, when it tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together. At the very least, before the circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication of said circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper or general circulation in the Philippines to the end that they be given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic precepts and rudiments of fairness and transparency. In the case at bar, the disallowance of the subject car plan benefits would hamper the officials in the performance of their functions to promote and develop trade which requires mobility in the performance of official business. Indeed, the car plan benefits are supportive of the implementation of the objectives and mission of the agency relative to the nature of its operation and responsive to the exigencies of the service.

It has come to our knowledge that DBM-CCC No. 10 has been reissued in its entirety and submitted for publication in the Official Gazette per letter to the National Printing Office dated March 9, 1999. Would the subsequent publication thereof cure the defect and retroact to the time that the above-mentioned items were disallowed in audit? The answer is in the negative, precisely, for the reason that publication is required as a condition precedent to the effectivity of a law to inform the public of the contents of the law or rules and regulations before their rights and interests are affected by the same. From the time the COA disallowed the expenses in audit up to the filing of herein petition the subject circular remained in legal limbo due to its non-publication. As was stated in Tanada vs. Tuvera, 21, "prior publication of laws before they become effective cannot be dispensed with, for the reason that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. In view of the nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10 relied upon by the COA as basis for the disallowance of the subject car plan benefits, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the second issue raised in the instant petition. We deem it necessary though to resolve the third issue as to whether PITC is exempt from RA 985 22 as subsequently amended by RA 6758. According to petitioner, PITC's Revised Charter, PD 1071 dated January 25, 1977, as amended by EO 756 dated December 29, 1981, and further amended by EO 1067 dated November 25, 1985, expressly exempted PITC from the Office of the Compensation and Position Classification (OCPC) rules and regulations. Petitioner cites Section 28 of P.D. 1071 23; Section 6 of EO 756 24; and Section 3 of EO 1067. 25 According to the COA in its Decision No. 98-048 dated January 27, 1998, the exemption granted to the PITC has been repealed and revoked by the repealing provisions of RA 6758, particularly Section 16 thereof which provides: Sec. 16. Repeal of Special Salary Laws and Regulations. All laws, decrees, executive, orders, corporate charters, and other issuances or parts thereof, that exempt agencies from the coverage of the System, or that authorize and fix position classifications, salaries, pay rates or allowances of specified positions, or groups of officials, and employees or of agencies, which are inconsistent with the System, including the proviso under Section 2 and Section 16 of PD No. 985 are hereby repealed. To this, petitioner argues that RA 6758 which is a law of general application cannot repeal provisions of the Revised Charter of PITC and its amendatory laws expressly exempting PITC from OCPC coverage being special laws. Our rules on statutory construction provide that a special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication 26; that a statute, general in character as to its terms and

application, is not to be construed as repealing a special or specific enactment, unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifested 27; that if repeal of particular or specific law or laws is intended, the proper step is to so express it. 28 In the case at bar, the repeal by Section 16 of RA 6758 of "all corporate charters that exempt agencies from the coverage of the System" was clear and expressed necessarily to achieve the purposes for which the law was enacted, that is, the standardization of salaries of all employees in government owned and/or controlled corporations to achieve "equal pay for substantially equal work". Henceforth, PITC should now be considered as covered by laws prescribing a compensation and position classification system in the government including RA 6758. This is without prejudice, however, as discussed above, to the non-diminution of pay of incumbents as of July 1, 1989 as provided in Sections 12 and 17 of said law. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED, the assailed Decisions of the Commission on Audit are SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION G.R. No. 119761 August 29, 1996 VITUG, J.: FACTS : Fortune Tobacco Corporation, engaged in the manufacture of different cigarette brands was issued separate certificates of trademark registration on various dates for their products CHAMPION, HOPE and MORE. In a letter by then CIR Commissioner Bienvenido Tan Jr. To Deputy Minister Ramon Diaz of the PCGG, the commission classified these cigarettes as foreign brands having been listed in the World Tobacco Directory as belonging to foreign companies. Fortune Tobacco removed said brands from the foreign brands category by changing the names to HOPE Luxury and Premium MORE . Proof was submitted that CHAMPION was their original product and therefore a local brand. Ad valorem taxes were imposed on Hope Luxury More Premium and Champion International at 40% to 45% and Champion Kings and Lights at 15% to 20%. A bill which later became RA 7564 became effective on July 3, 1993 and it amended Sec 142(c)(1) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Two days before RA 7654 became effective RMC 37-93 was issued by the BIR stipulating that since HOPE, MORE and CHAMPION cant be traced to a single manufacturer of a single country, they are considered locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to 55% Ad Valorem tax on cigarettes.

On July 2, 1993, BIR Deputy Commissioner Victor Deoferio Jr. sent a copy of RMC 37-93 via telefax to Fortune Tobacco addressed to no particular person. A copy of the same was received by the company by ordinary mail on July 15, 1993 which prompted them to write a letter to the appellate division of BIR requesting for review, reconsideration and recall of said memo. The request was denied and an ad valorem tax deficiency was assessed at P 9,598,334. Fortune Tobacco filed a petition for review with the CTA which ruled that when RA 7654 took effect, the brands were not classified and taxed at 55%. As such , they shall be classified as locally manufactured cigarettes taxed at 45 or 20% as the case may be. The ad valorem tax assessment was cancelled for lack of legal basis. With the CTA dismissing a motion for reconsideration, the CIR filed a petition for review with CA which affirmed in all respect the assailed decision and resolution. There was no Notice and hearing and CIR argued that the memo was a mere interpretation of the ruling of BIR and as such, notice and hearing is not required. ISSUE: WON RMC 37-93 is a mere interpretative ruling which can stand as valid and enforceable without publication. RULING: No. Like any government agency, the CIR may not disregard legal requirements and applicable principles in the exercise of its quasi legislative powers. Lack of notice and hearing was a violation of the required due process and an infringement of the uniformity of taxation and equal protection considering further that it excluded other cigarette bearing foreign brands. Interpretative rules provide guidelines which the administrative agency in charge must enforce. When merely interpretative, it has no other consequences other than what the law itself has already prescribed. The memo was not a mere interpretative rule. Instead, it was a legislative rule in the nature of subordinate legislation designed to implement a primary legislation by providing details thereof. Being a promulgated legislative rule, it must be published. BIR in its move to reclassify the three cigarette brands and in raising their ad valorem taxes legislated under a quasi legislative authority, it did not simply interpret RA 7654. Without RMC 37-93, the enactment of RA 7654 would have no new tax rate consequence on the products of the private respondent.

took note of the report and issued an Order authorizing a 15% to 20% increase as recommended. Petitioner sought for reconsideration on the ground that the increases were too high. Thereafter, the Order was modified reducing the increases to a lower ceiling of 10% to 15%. Petitioner still protested the increases and filed a petition for prohibition, seeking to declare the questioned Department Order unconstitutional for it was issued without any legal basis and for violation of the due process clause for lack of due notice and hearing before issuance.

The protest rally staged at the DECS premises on September 14, 1990 without disrupting classes as a last call for the government to negotiate the granting of demands had elicited no response from the Secretary of Education. The "mass actions" consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peaceable assemblies, etc. Through their representatives, the teachers participating in the mass actions were served with an order of the Secretary of Education to return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing the DECS officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not comply and to hire their replacements. Those directives notwithstanding, the mass actions continued into the week, with more teachers joining in the days that followed. Among those who took part in the "concerted mass actions" were the eight (8) private respondents herein, teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School, Manila, who had agreed to support the nonpolitical demands of the MPSTA. For failure to heed the return-to-work order, private respondents were administratively charged on the basis of the principal's report and given five (5) days to answer the charges. They were also preventively suspended for ninety (90) days "pursuant to Section 41 of P.D. 807" and temporarily replaced. An investigation committee was consequently formed to hear the charges in accordance with P.D. 807. Respondents opted for a formal investigation and also moved "for suspension of the administrative proceedings pending resolution by . . (the Supreme) Court of their application for issuance of an injunctive writ/temporary restraining order." Their motion was denied. The case eventually resulted in a Decision of Secretary Cario rendered dismissal from the service of Apolinario Esber and the suspension for nine (9) months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo. In the meantime, the "MPSTA filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Manila against Cario, which was dismissed. Later, the MPSTA went to the Supreme Court (on certiorari, in an attempt to nullify said dismissal, grounded on the) alleged violation of the striking teachers" right to due process and peaceable assembly. In the meantime, ALSO, The respondent teachers submitted sworn statements to the Commission on Human Rights to complain that while they were participating in peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of their replacements as teachers, allegedly without notice and consequently for reasons completely unknown to them. CHR proceeded to hear the case. It heard the complainants' counsel (a) explain that his clients had been "denied due process and

ISSUE: Whether the Department Order is valid?

HELD: YES. The power of the DECS, as granted by law, to regulate school fees include the power to prescribe school fees. No other government agency has been vested with the authority to fix school fees and as such, the power should be considered lodged with the DECS if it is to properly and effectively discharge its functions and duties under the law. As to the issue of due process, there is no such violation. The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative or an adjudicative function. If it were a legislative function, the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. When the rules and/or rates laid down by an administrative agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislative character. Where the rules and the rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then its function is quasi-judicial in character. In this case, the Department Order prescribes the maximum school fees that may be charged by all private schools in the country for the school year 1987 to 1988. Hence, it applies to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country and the issuance of the department order is in the exercise of DECs quasi-legislative power. This being so, prior notice and hearing is not essential to the validity of its issuance.

CARIO VS. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS G.R. No. 96681 December 2, 1991 FACTS: Some 800 public school teachers, among them members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook what they described as "mass concerted actions" to "dramatize and highlight" their plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latter's attention.

PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC. VS. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

FACTS: The Task Force on Private Higher Education created by DECS submitted a report recommending an increase in school fees. DECS

suspended without formal notice, and unjustly, since they did not join the mass leave," and (b) expatiate on the grievances which were "the cause of the mass leave of MPSTA teachers, (c) and with which causes they (CHR complainants) sympathize." It held that the "striking teachers" "were denied due process of law; . . . they should not have been replaced without a chance to reply to the administrative charges;" there had been a violation of their civil and political rights which the Commission was empowered to investigate; and while expressing its "utmost respect to the Supreme Court . . . the facts before . . . (it) are different from those in the case decided by the Supreme Court." Solicitor General, in behalf of petitioner Cario, has commenced the present action of certiorari and prohibition to invalidate and set aside this Order. The Commission on Human Rights has made clear its position that it does not feel bound by this Court's joint Resolution in G.R. Nos. 95445 and 95590, supra. It has also made plain its intention "to hear and resolve the case on the merits." It intends, in other words, to try and decide or hear and determine, i.e., exercise jurisdiction over general issues. The Commission evidently intends to itself adjudicate, that is to say, determine with character of finality and definiteness, the same issues which have been passed upon and decided by the Secretary of Education, subject to appeal to the Civil Service Commission, this Court having in fact, as aforementioned, declared that the teachers affected may take appeals to the Civil Service Commission on said matters, if still timely. The threshold question is whether or not the Commission on Human Rights has the power under the Constitution to do so; whether or not, like a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency, it has jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers over, or the power to try and decide, or hear and determine, certain specific type of cases, like alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights. ISSUE: Where a particular subject-matter is placed by law within the jurisdiction of a court or other government agency or official for purposes of trial and adjudgment, may the Commission on Human Rights take cognizance of the same subject-matter for the same purposes of hearing and adjudication? RULING: The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such power; and that it was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights.

But FACT FINDING IS NOT ADJUDICATION, and CANNOT BE LIKENED TO THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF A COURT OF JSUTICE, or even a QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY OR OFFICIAL. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not have. The proposition is made clear by the constitutional provisions specifying the powers of the Commission on Human Rights. Its powers and functions are the following: (1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights; (2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court; (3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection; (4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities; (5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights; (6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families; (7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights; (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority; (9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions; (10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and

(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law. As should at once be observed, only the first of the enumerated powers and functions bears any resemblance to adjudication or adjudgment. The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It can exercise that power on its own initiative or on complaint of any person. It may exercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as it may adopt and, in cases of violations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. In the course of any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, it may grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth. It may also request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in extending such remedy as may be required by its findings. But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well understood and quite distinct meanings. "Investigate," commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. The dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely: inquire into systematically. "to search or inquire into: . . . to subject to an official probe . . .: to conduct an official inquiry." The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry. The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an investigation," "investigation" being in turn describe as "(a)n administrative function, the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing; an inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of facts concerning a certain matter or matters." "Adjudicate," commonly or popularly understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The dictionary defines the term as "to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a court case) on the merits of issues raised: . . . to pass judgment on: settle judicially: . . . act as judge." And "adjudge" means "to decide or rule upon as a judge or with judicial or quasi-judicial powers: . . . to award or grant judicially in a case of controversy . . . ."

In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally. Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means: "To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or condemn. . . . Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment." Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power "to investigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the merits" (adjudicate) the matters involved as it has announced it means to do; and it cannot do so even if there be a claim that in the administrative disciplinary proceedings against the teachers in question, initiated and conducted by the DECS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed. More particularly, the Commission has no power to "resolve on the merits" the question of (a) whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in by the teachers constitute and are prohibited or otherwise restricted by law; (b) whether or not the act of carrying on and taking part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue those actions, and return to their classes despite the order to this effect by the Secretary of Education, constitute infractions of relevant rules and regulations warranting administrative disciplinary sanctions, or are justified by the grievances complained of by them; and (c) what where the particular acts done by each individual teacher and what sanctions, if any, may properly be imposed for said acts or omissions. These are matters undoubtedly and clearly WITHIN the ORIGINAL JURISDICTION of the Secretary of Education, being within the scope of the disciplinary powers granted to him under the Civil Service Law, and also, within the appellate jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Indeed, the Secretary of Education has, as above narrated, already taken cognizance of the issues and resolved them, and it appears that appeals have been seasonably taken by the aggrieved parties to the Civil Service Commission; and even this Court itself has had occasion to pass upon said issues. Now, it is quite obvious that whether or not the conclusions reached by the Secretary of Education in disciplinary cases are correct and are adequately based on substantial evidence; whether or not the proceedings themselves are void or defective in not having accorded the respondents due process; and whether or not the Secretary of Education had in truth committed "human rights violations involving civil and political rights," are matters which may be passed upon and determined through a motion for reconsideration addressed to the Secretary Education himself, and in the event of an adverse verdict, may be reviewed by the Civil Service Commission and eventually the Supreme Court. The Commission on Human Rights simply has no place in this scheme of things. It has no business intruding into the jurisdiction and functions of the Education Secretary or the Civil Service Commission.

In any event, the investigation by the Commission on Human Rights would serve no useful purpose. If its investigation should result in conclusions contrary to those reached by Secretary Cario, it would have no power anyway to reverse the Secretary's conclusions. Reversal thereof can only by done by the Civil Service Commission and lastly by this Court. The only thing the Commission can do, if it concludes that Secretary Cario was in error, is to refer the matter to the appropriate Government agency or tribunal for assistance; that would be the Civil Service Commission. It cannot arrogate unto itself the appellate jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

1. 2. 3. 4.

The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented. Decision must have something to support it. Evidence must be substantial (more than a mere scintilla, relevant evidence a reasonable mind accepts to support a conclusion) Decision must be rendered on the evident presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record or disclosed to the parties affected. Tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.

5. ANG TIBAY vs. CIR 6. FACTS: 7.

The respondent National Labor Union, Inc. avers that: (1) Toribio Teodoro, who is the manager and proprietor of Ang Tibay, was falsely claiming that there is a shortage of leather soles for him to temporarily lay off the Members of the National Labor Union, Inc. as it was unsupported by records; (2) the alleged lack of materials was a scheme to discharge systematically the Members of the NLU, Inc. from work; (3) The National Workers Brotherhood of Ang Tibay is an illegal union which is dominated by Toribio Teodoro; and that (4) The employer, Toribio Teodoro, was guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against the NLU, Inc, and unjustly favoring the National Workers Brotherhood.

NAPLOCOM vs. Bernabe FACTS: The Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the National Police Commission on the ground that respondent was denied due process in the conduct of the investigation of the charges filed against him. HELD: The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Due process does not always require a trial-type proceeding. In this case, the record shows that respondent was given notice of the complaints and an opportunity to answer. He even submitted an affidavit answering point by point the charges against

The case enumerated the specific powers of the Court of Industrial Relations. The CIR, as the Court observed is not constrained by technical rules of procedure in hearing the matters before it, but it does not mean that it can ignore entirely the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character.

ISSUE:

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 130196 February 26, 2001

What are the cardinal rights or the requisites of procedural due process which must be respected in administrative proceedings?

HELD:

The Court provided the ff. as the requisites of procedural due process in administrative proceedings:

LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, LEODIVINA DELA CRUZ, WILMA DELA CRUZ, DARLITO DELA CRUZ, JUANITA DELA CRUZ, RICARDO DELA CRUZ, ARSENIO DELA CRUZ JUAN DELA CRUZ, and PACITA DELA CRUZ, petitioners, vs. ADJUTO ABILLE, respondent.

DE LEON, JR., J.: Before us is an appeal of the Decision1 dated December 5, 1996 of the Court of Appeals2 dismissing petitioners; appeal from the judgement of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) denying their petition for issuance of an emancipation patent.1wphi1.nt The facts are as follows: Herminio Abille, now deceased, had a total landholding of 13.0561 hectares, located in Infanta, Pangasinan, comprising of 9.2903 hectares of riceland; 2.0000 hectares of cogonland; 1.7658 hectares of coconut land and .4660 hectare of residential land.3 Since 1968, balbino dela Cruz was an agricultural tenant in the riceland tilling an area of 2.84 hectares.4 He died on June 14, 1981. After his death, Balbino dela Cruz was, nevertheless, issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. 0-0647115 dated October 25, 1981 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27.6 The certificate was entered in the Registration Book of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan. Tax Declaration No. 3 in the name of Herminio Abille was cancelled and Tax Declaration No. 1134 was issued in the name of Balbino dela Cruz.7 On April 3, 1987, Herminio Abille filed a petition for exemption under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) of his landholdings alleging, among others, that he was not notified of the coverage of his land under OLT; that he learned of its coverage only on March 25, 1987; that prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711, DAR did not notify him or his representative; that he has been deprived of his constitutional right to due process.8 On April 19, 1989, Regional Director Antonio M. Nuesa of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Region I, San Fernando, La Union, issued an Order, the dispositive portionof which reads: WHEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5087, order is hereby issued: 1. Denying the petition for exemption, instead the right of retention of not more than seven (7) hectares is hereby granted; 2. Directing the petitioner to immediately select the retention area; 3. Canceling the Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the tenants on the retained area; 4. Directing the MARO of Infanta, Pangasinan to prepare Agricultural Leasehold Contracts between the petitioner and the tenants; and 5. Directing the MARO to implement this Order. SO ORDERED.9

On July 24, 1989,10 Herminio Abille selected the seven-hectare retention area, which included the area covered by CLT No. 0-064711 issued to Balbino dela Cruz; hence, said CLT was automatically cancelled.11 After the finality and implementation of the said Order dated April 19, 1989, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Eugenio B. Bernardo wrote a letter to the Municipal Assessor of Infanta, Pangasinan requesting for the cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 1134 in the name of Balbino dela Cruz and the re-issuance of Tax Declaration No. 3 in favor of Herminio Abille.12 On March 4, 1991, the Provincial Assessor of Pangasinan issued a Notice of Cancellation of Assessment, cancelling Tax Declaration No. 1134 in the name of Balbino dela Cruz for the reason that 'subject property was decided by the DAR to be retained to herminio Abille as per supporting documents attached."13 On June 29, 1992, petitioner, who are the compulsory heirs of the late Balbino dela Cruz, filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform a petition for the issuance of emancipation patent. The petition was referred to the Regional Director, Region I, San Fernando, La Union, for appropriate action.14 In his Comment,15 respondent Adjuto M. Abille, representing Herminio Abille, prayed for the dismissal of the petition for the issuance of emancipation patent on the ground that DAR Order dated April 19, 1989, ordering the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer of the retained area, had become final and had been implemented by the Provincial Agraria Officer of Pangasinan; hence, the petition had become moot and academic. On October 21, 1992, Regional Director Eligion P. Pacis of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Region I, San Fernando, La Union, issued an Order denying the petition for the issuance of an emancipation patent as CLT No. 0-064711 issued in favor of Balbino dela Cruz had already been cancelled by virtue of the Order dated April 19, 1989, which was supported by substantial evidence, and that said Order had long become final. The dispositive portion of the Order dated October 21, 1992 reads; WHEREFORE, premises considered, by virtue if the authority vested in me by DAR Memo No. 5, series of 1987, and other implementing Rules and Regulations, an Order is hereby issued: 1. Denying the instant Petition for the issuance of an emancipation Patent (EP) filed by the Petitioner; 2. Affirming in toto the Order dated 19 April 1989, issued by then Director Nuesa; 3. Directing the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Pangasinan or his duly authorized representative to execute/implement this Order and Deputizing the Chief of PNP-Infanta to provide the necessary police assistance to the DAR Official concerned in the implementation of this Order.

SO ORDERED.16 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration praying that another Order be issued declaring as null and void the Order dated April 19, 1989, which was issued allegedly without giving them a day in court, hence, there was absence of due process of law, considering that Balbino dela Cruz was already deemed owner of the subject property as of October 21, 1972. They sought the reinstatement of CLT No. 0064711 and the issuance of an emancipation patent in their favor as compulsory heirs of the late Balbino dela Cruz. The said motion for reconsideration was treated as an appeal and elevated to the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform who rendered a Decision on June 20, 1994, thedispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued dismissing the instant motion for lack of merit and the Order dated October 21, 1992 is hereby affirmed. The Regional Director is hereby ordered to prepare Certificates of Agricultural leasehold (CALs) to the tenants in the retained area as lessees thereat. SO ORDERED.17 In affirming the Order dated October 1, 1992, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform declared that: After a carefull re-evealuation of the records of the instant case this Office finds merit in the questioned Orders dated April 19, 1989 and October 21, 1992. When a CLT is issued in favor of a farmer-beneficiary the said beneficiary became the owner of only an inchoate right over the subject landholding thus, can still be cancelled administratively for justifiable reason. As stated in the order dated April 19, 1989, the previous owner Hermino Abille owned an area of 13.0561 hectares, more or less of landholding and of which a portion of 9.2903 hectares is a riceland, an area of 2.0000 hectares is cogonal, 1.7658 hectare is a coconut land and .4660 hectare is a residential land. Of hid riceland as provided for by PD No. 27, the said owner is granted the rights to retain an area of not exceeding seven (7) hectares and the right to select and segregate the said area. The aforesaid CLT had already been cancelled since the area covered by it was among those retained area selected by the landowner as evidenced by a letter fated October 17, 1989 of PARO Eugenio B. Bernardo and the Notice of Cancellation of Assessment dated March 4, 1991 issued by the provincial Assessor. The landowner of the retained area has the right to choose the area which he wants to retain from his landholding. Section 6 of R.A. 6657 provides that "the right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landdowner."18 Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the said Decision of the Secretary of DAR having been denied, they filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed

the said petition for review in a Decision promulgated on December 5, 1996.19 Their motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated August 6, 1997.20 Hence, this petition seeking a review of the Decision dated December 5, 1996 of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners argued that it was incorrect for the Court of Appeals to hold that they were accorded due process when the validity of the cancellation of Certificate of land Transfer No. 0-064711 was resolved in the Order dated April 19, 1989; and that their petition for issuance of an emancipation patent is a different proceeding from the petition filed by Herminio Abille where in Regional Director Antonio Nuesa ordered the cancellation of their predecessor's (Balbino dela Cruz) Certificate of Land Transfer; that in the said petition filed by Herminio Abille, they were not notified and given the opportunity to be heard. Petitioners maintained that they were denied due process so that the Order dated April 19,1989 of Regional Director Nuesa cancelling the Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 in the name of Balbino dela Cruz is null and void, and cannot be used to deny their petition for the issuance of an emancipation patent. Citing P.D. No. 27, Locsin, et al. V. Valenzuela21 and Quiban v. Butalid,22 petitioners also assert that they became the owners of the lands they till as of the date of effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972; that they have religiously paid the annual rent of the property to the late Herminio Abille, that is, continuously after October 21, 1972 until 1991 or for nineteen (19) years; that by virtue of P.D. No. 27 in relation to the second paragraph,23 section 2 of Executive Order No. 228, the price of said property had been fully paid thereby entitling them to the issuance of an emancipation patent. The petition is devoid of merit. We agree with the Court of Appeals that although the petitioners were not given the opportuniy to be heard when Regional Director Antonio Nuesa in his Order dated April 19, 1989 ordered that cancellation of Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 on the retained area, nevertheless, in their petition for issuance of an emancipation patent, petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard as they raised in issue the validity of the cancellation of the said CLT, which was resolved by DAR Regional Director Eligio P. Pacis in his Order dated October 21, 1992,24 and also in their (petitioners') motion for reconsideration,25 which was treated as an appeal by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform and resolved in his Order dated June 20, 1994.26 The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of (emphais supplied).27 Futher, the petition filed by landowner Herminio Abille, which was for exemption of his property from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer, cognizable by Region I Director Antonio M. Nuesa of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance,28 did not require notice to petitioners. The subsequent Order dated April 19, 1989 of Regional Director nuesa denying the petition for exemption and instead granting to herminio Abille the right of retention of not more than seven (7) hectares, and to select the retention area, and cancelling the Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the tenants on

the retained area, including CLT No. 0-0647411, directing the MARO of Infanta, Pangasinan to prepare Agricultural Leasehold Contracts between the petitioner and the tenants, and directing the PARO to implement said Order, became final even before Herminio Abille selected on July 24, 198929 the 7 hectares retained area which includes the 2.84 hectares covered by Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 in the name of balbino dela Cruz. Nevertheless, petitioners were able to question the validity of said Order (cancelling CLT No. 0-064711) in their petition for issuance of emancipation patent, which was resolved by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform in his Decision dated June 20, 1994. Hence, petitioners were given an opportunity to be heard. We also agree with the Court of Appeals that Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 was validly cancelled. Said certificate was issued to petitioners' predecessor, Balbino dela Cruz, before landowner Herminio Abille was informed of such issuance and that his landholding was subject to Operation Land Transfer. Subsequently, Herminio Abille, who was found to own riceland with an area of 9.2903 hectares, was granted the right to retain an area not exceeding seven (7) hectares, and the right to select and segregate such area under P.D. No. 27.30 Thus the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that: The landowner Herminio Abille having selected as part of his seven-hectare retention the area tilled by Balbino de la Cruz, covered by a certificate of land transfer in his name, the CLT was correctly cancelled. To hold otherwise would be to deprive the owner Herminio Abille of his right of retention and to select the portion he wanted to retain. The portion tilled by Balbino de la Cruz having been chosen by the owner Herminio Abille as part of his seven-hectare retention, petitioners as heirs of Balbino de la Cruz are not entitled to an emancipation patent over the same. Balbino de la Cruz was entitled to an agricultural leasehold contract to the area tilled by him and this is what petitioners inherited.31 In the case of Daez v. Court of Appeals, where the Certificates of Land Transfer of farmer beneficiaries over some four (4) hectares of riceland were issued without the landowner having been accorded her right to choose what to retain among her landholdings, we held that the Transfer Certificate of Title issued on the basis of Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the farmer-beneficiaries cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of the deceased landowner to retain the said riceland.32 Even the issuance of an emancipation patent does not bar the landowner from retaining the area covered thereby.33 Administrative Order No. 2, series of 199434 provides: Emancipation patents or certificates of land ownership award issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. This includes cases of lands which are found to be exempted/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O.

No. 228 of CARP coverage, or part of the landowner's retained area. (Emphasis supplied). The earlier cases of Locsin, et al.v. Valenzuela, et al. and Quiban v. Butalid, which were cited by the petitioners, did not involve any issue of retention rights of the landowner, and hence, the said cases are not applicable to the case at bar.1wphi1.nt Where there is no showing, as in the case at bar, that there was fraud, collusion, arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of a department head, in rendering his questioned decisions or of a total lack of substantial evidence to support the same, such administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with.35 WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The assailed Decision dated December 5, 1996 of the Court of Appeals, in CA G.R. SP o. 37338, upholding the judgment of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform denying the issuance of an emancipation patent to petitioners, is hereby AFFIRMED. With costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

Felipe Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary G.R. No. 79538. October 18, 1990 F: Soon after the change in government in 1986, Petitioner a letter to the Office of the President, and to Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural Resources [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of its timber license agreement which was cancelled during the Marcos administration; (2) the revocation of TLA No. 356 which was issued to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation without public bidding and in violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations; and, (3) the issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the concession area. P alleged: it entered into a timber license agreement with the DENR, wherein it was issued an exclusive license to cut, collect and remove timber except prohibited species within a specified portion of public forest land located in the municipality of Maddela, province of Nueva Vizcaya from October 12, 1965 until June 30, 1990;

That on August 18, 1983, the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development [hereinafter

referred to as "Bureau"], issued a memorandum order stopping all logging operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and cancelling the logging concession of petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential instructions and a memorandum order of the Minister of Natural Resources

That the latter entities were controlled or owned by relatives or cronies of deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.

That on August 25, 1983, petitioner received a telegram from the Bureau, requesting him to stop all logging operations and to pull out logging machineries and equipment in order to conserve remaining forests.

The MNR issued an order denying petitioner's request. It ruled that a timber license was not a contract within the due process clause of the Constitution, but only a privilege which could be withdrawn whenever public interest or welfare so demands, and that petitioner was not discriminated against in view of the fact that it was among ten concessionaires whose licenses were revoked in 1983. Moreover, emphasis was made of the total ban of logging operations in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao reasoning that the Ministry imposed the ban because it realizes the great responsibility it bear [sic] in respect to forests. It considers itself the trustee thereof. This being the case, it has to ensure the availability of forest resources not only for the present, but also for the future generations of Filipinos. Ps MR denied. Meanwhile, MNR issued an administrative order lifting the logging ban in the province of Quirino. P then appealed to the Office of the President which however denied it on the ground of lack of merit. It ruled that the appeal of petitioner was prematurely filed, the matter not having been terminated in the MNR. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Public respondents herein, upon whose shoulders rests the task of implementing the policy to develop and conserve the country's natural resources, have indicated an ongoing department evaluation of all timber license agreements entered into, and permits or licenses issued, under the previous dispensation.

The ongoing administrative reassessment is apparently in response to the renewed and growing global concern over the despoliation of forest lands and the utter disregard of their crucial role in sustaining a balanced ecological system. The legitimacy of such concern can hardly be disputed, most especially in this country. The Court takes judicial notice of the profligate waste of the country's forest resources which has not only resulted in the irreversible loss of flora and fauna peculiar to the region, but has produced even more disastrous and lasting economic and social effects. The delicate balance of nature having been upset, a vicious cycle of floods and droughts has been triggered and the supply of food and energy resources required by the people seriously depleted.

That after the cancellation of its timber license agreement, it immediately sent a letter addressed to then President Ferdinand Marcos which sought reconsideration of the Bureau's directive, citing in support thereof its contributions to forest conservation and alleging that it was not given the opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging operation, but no favorable action was taken on this letter;

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

I: WON public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and WON TLA are contracts.

While there is a desire to harness natural resources to amass profit and to meet the country's immediate financial requirements, the more essential need to ensure future generations of Filipinos of their survival in a viable environment demands effective and circumspect action from the government to check further denudation of whatever remains of the forest lands. Nothing less is expected of the government, in view of the clear constitutional command to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology. Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies

That barely one year thereafter, approximately one-half or 26,000 hectares of the area formerly covered by TLA No. 87 was re-awarded to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation under TLA No. 356 which was set to expire on July 31, 2009, while the other half was allowed to be logged by Filipinas Loggers, Inc. without the benefit of a formal award or license; and,

H: NO. It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. These decisions and orders are as conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties as though the same had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction. The rule of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting within their exclusive jurisdiction.

Petitioner is precluded from availing of the benefits of a writ of certiorari in the present case because he failed to file his petition within a reasonable period.

As gleaned from the record, petitioner did not avail of its remedies under the law, i.e. Section 8 of Pres. Dec. No. 705 as amended, for attacking the validity of these administrative actions until after 1986. By the time petitioner sent its letter dated April 2, 1986 to the newly appointed Minister of the MNR, requesting reconsideration of the above Bureau actions, these were already settled matters as far as petitioner was concerned.

In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at least three years before it finally filed a petition for certiorari with the Court attacking the validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and 1984. Considering that petitioner, throughout the period of its inaction, was not deprived of the opportunity to seek relief from the courts which were normally operating at the time, its delay constitutes unreasonable and inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari requiring the reversal of these orders will not lie.

A cursory reading of the assailed orders issued by public respondent Minister Maceda of the MNR, which were affirmed by the Office of the President, will disclose public policy considerations which effectively forestall judicial interference in the case at bar.

GATCHALIAN, REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, and WESLIE T. GATCHALIAN, respondents. G.R. Nos. 95612-13 May 31, 1991 WILLIAM T. GATCHALIAN, petitioner, vs. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION), et al., respondents. The Solicitor General for petitioners. edesma, Saludo & Associates for respondent William Gatchalian. Cervo and Tanay Law Office for respondent T.D. Capulong, D.H.T. Gatchalian, et al.

Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause

Johnson, all surnamed Gatchalian. They had with them Certificates of Registration and Identity issued by the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram bearing the signature of the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Felixberto Serrano, and sought admission as Filipino citizens. Gloria and Francisco are the daughter and son, respectively, of Santiago Gatchalian; while William and Johnson are the sons of Francisco. After investigation, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 rendered a decision dated July 6, 1961, admitting William Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino citizens (Annex "C", petition). As a consequence thereof, William Gatchalian was issued Identification Certificate No. 16135 by the immigration authorities on August 16, 1961 (Annex "D", petition). On January 24, 1962, the then Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9 setting aside all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners on appeal or on review motu proprio of decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry. The same memorandum directed the Board of Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was a Philippine citizen. Among those cases was that of William and others. On July 6, 1962, the new Board of Commissioners, after a review motu proprio of the proceedings had in the Board of Special Inquiry, reversed the decision of the latter and ordered the exclusion of, among others, respondent Gatchalian (Annex "E", petition). A warrant of exclusion also dated July 6, 1962 was issued alleging that "the decision of the Board of Commissioners dated July 6, 1962 . . . has now become final and executory (Annex "F", petition). The actual date of rendition of said decision by the Board of Commissioners (whether on July 6, 1962 or July 20, 1962) became the subject of controversy in the 1967 case of Arocha vs. Vivo (21 SCRA 532) wherein this Court sustained the validity of the decision of the new Board of Commissioners having been promulgated on July 6, 1962, or within the reglementary period for review. Sometime in 1973, respondent Gatchalian, as well as the others covered by the July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion, filed a motion for rehearing with the Board of Special Inquiry where the deportion case against them was assigned. On March 14, 1973, the Board of Special Inquiry recommended to the then Acting Commissioner Victor Nituda the reversal of the July 6, 1962 decision of the then Board of Commissioners and the recall of the warrants of arrest issued therein (Annex "5", counter-petition). On March 15, 1973, Acting Commissioner Nituda issued an order reaffirming the July 6, 1961 decision of the Board of Special Inquiry thereby admitting respondent Gatchalian as a Filipino citizen and recalled the warrant of arrest issued against him (Annex "6", counterpetition). On June 7, 1990, the acting director of the National Bureau of Investigation wrote the Secretary of Justice recommending that respondent Gatchalian along with the other applicants covered by the

BIDIN, J.:p Dismissed. This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by the Solicitor General seeking 1) to set aside the Resolution/Temporary Restraining Order dated September 7, 1990, issued by respondent Judge de la Rosa in Civil Case No. 90-54214 which denied petitioners' motion to dismiss and restrained petitioners from commencing or continuing with any of the proceedings which would lead to the deportation of respondent William Gatchalian, docketed as D.C. No. 90-523, as well as the Order of respondent Judge Capulong dated September 6, 1990 in Civil Case No. 3431-V-90 which likewise enjoined petitioners from proceeding with the deportation charges against respondent Gatchalian, and 2) to prohibit respondent judges from further acting in the aforesaid civil cases. On October 23, 1990, respondent Gatchalian filed his Comment with Counter-Petition, docketed as G.R. Nos. 96512-13, alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent Board of Commissioners, et al., over his person with prayer that he be declared a Filipino citizen, or in the alternative, to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On December 13, 1990, petitioners filed their comment to respondent Gatchalian's counter-petition. The Court considers the comment filed by respondent Gatchalian as answer to the petition and petitioners' comment as answer to the counter-petition and gives due course to the petitions. There is no dispute as to the following facts: On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his natural mother, Marciana Gatchalian (Annex "1", counter-petition). Before the Citizenship Evaluation Board, Santiago Gatchalian testified that he has five (5) children with his wife Chu Gim Tee, namely: Jose Gatchalian, Gloria Gatchalian, Francisco Gatchalian, Elena Gatchalian and Benjamin Gatchalian (Annex "2", counter-petition). On June 27, 1961, William Gatchalian, then a twelve-year old minor, arrived in Manila from Hongkong together with Gloria, Francisco, and

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 95122-23 May 31, 1991 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION), BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, COMMISSIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JORGE V. SARMIENTO, ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER REGINO R. SANTIAGO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, ESTANISLAO CANTA, LEO MAGAHOM and BENJAMIN KALAW, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, Presiding Judge, RTC Manila, Branch 29, WILLIAM T. GATCHALIAN, respondents. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION), BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, COMMISSIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JORGE V. SARMIENTO, ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER REGINO R. SANTIAGO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, ESTANISLAO CANTA, LEO MAGAHOM and BENJAMIN KALAW, petitioners, vs. HON. TERESITA DIZON CAPULONG, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 172, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, DEE HUA T. GATCHALIAN, SHERWING T. GATCHALIAN, KENNETH T.

warrant of exclusion dated July 6, 1962 be charged with violation of Sec. 37 (a), pars. 1 and 2, in relation to Secs. 45 (c), and (d) and (e) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, also known as the Immigration Act of 1940 (Annex "G", petition). On August 1, 1990, the Secretary of Justice indorsed the recommendation of the NBI to the Commissioner of Immigration for investigation and immediate action (Annex "20", counter-petition). On August 15, 1990, petitioner Commissioner Domingo of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation * issued a mission order commanding the arrest of respondent William Gatchalian (Annex "18", counter-petition). The latter appeared before Commissioner Domingo on August 20, 1990 and was released on the same day upon posting P200,000.00 cash bond. On August 29, 1990, William Gatchalian filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 29, presided by respondent Judge dela Rosa, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-54214. On September 4, 1990, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 90-54214 alleging that respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the Board of Commissioners and/or the Board of Special Inquiry. Nonetheless, respondent judge dela Rosa issued the assailed order dated September 7, 1990, denying the motion to dismiss. Meanwhile, on September 6, 1990, respondent Gatchalian's wife and minor children filed before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Br. 172, presided by respondent judge Capulong Civil Case No. 3431-V-90 for injunction with writ of preliminary injunction. The complaint alleged, among others, that petitioners acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in the institution of deportation proceedings against William. On the same day, respondent Capulong issued the questioned temporary restraining order restraining petitioners from continuing with the deportation proceedings against William Gatchalian. The petition is anchored on the following propositions: 1) respondent judges have no jurisdiction over petitioners (Board of Commissioners, et al.,) and the subject matter of the case, appellate jurisdiction being vested by BP 129 with the Court of Appeals; 2) assuming respondent judges have jurisdiction, they acted with grave abuse of discretion in preempting petitioners in the exercise of the authority and jurisdiction to hear and determine the deportation case against respondent Gatchalian, and in the process determine also his citizenship; 3) respondent judge dela Rosa gravely abused his discretion in ruling that the issues raised in the deportation proceedings are beyond the competence and jurisdiction of petitioners, thereby disregarding the cases of Arocha vs. Vivo and Vivo vs. Arca (supra), which put finality to the July 6, 1962 decision of the Board of Commissioners that respondent Gatchalian is a Chinese citizen; and 4) respondent judge Capulong should have dismissed Civil Case No. 3431-V-90 for forumshopping. In his counter-petition, William Gatchalian alleges among others that: 1) assuming that the evidence on record is not sufficient to declare him a Filipino citizen, petitioners have no jurisdiction to proceed with

the deportation case until the courts shall have finally resolved the question of his citizenship; 2) petitioners can no longer judiciously and fairly resolve the question of respondent's citizenship in the deportation case because of their bias, pre-judgment and prejudice against him; and 3) the ground for which he is sought to be deported has already prescribed. For purposes of uniformity, the parties herein will be referred to in the order the petitions were filed. Petitioners argue that under Sec. 9 (3) of BP 129, it is the Court of Appeals which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial agencies, boards or commissions, such as the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Special Inquiry. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that petitioners are not quasi-judicial agencies and are not in equal rank with Regional Trial Courts. Under Sec. 21 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with this Court and the Court of Appeals to issue "writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions, . . ." Thus, the RTCs are vested with the power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. It is true that under Sec. 9 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals is vested with (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, order, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasijudicial agencies, instrumentalities, board or commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of this Act, and of sub-paragraph (1) of the third paragraph of and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. It does not provide, however, that said exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals extends to all quasi-judicial agencies. The quasi-judicial bodies whose decisions are exclusively appealable to the Court of Appeals are those which under the law, Republic Act No. 5434, or their enabling acts, are specifically appealable to the Court of Appeals (Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 348 [1989]; Lupangco vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 848 [1988]). Thus, under Republic Act No. 5434, it is specifically provided that the decisions of the Land Registration Commission (LRC), the Social Security Commission (SSC), Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), the Patent Office and the Agricultural Invention Board are appealable to the Court of Appeals.

In the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force (supra), this Court clarified the matter when We ruled: Under our Resolution dated January 11, 1983: . . . The appeals to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) from quasijudicial bodies shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Republic Act No. 5434 insofar as the same is not inconsistent with the provisions of B.P. Blg. 129. The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 5434 are as follows: Sec. 1. Appeals from specified agencies. Any provision of existing law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, parties aggrieved by a final ruling, award, order, or decision, or judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations; the Secretary of Labor under Section 7 of Republic Act Numbered Six hundred and two, also known as the "Minimum Wage Law"; the Department of Labor under Section 23 of Republic Act Numbered Eight hundred seventy-five, also known as the "Industrial Peace Act"; the Land Registration Commission; the Social Security Commission; the Civil Aeronautics Board; the Patent Office and the Agricultural Inventions Board, may appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeals, within the

period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, or questions of law, or all three kinds of questions. From final judgments or decisions of the Court of Appeals, the aggrieved party may appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court as provided under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Because of subsequent amendments, including the abolition of various special courts, jurisdiction over quasi-judicial bodies has to be, consequently, determined by the corresponding amendatory statutes. Under the Labor Code, decisions and awards of the National Labor Relations Commission are final and executory, but, nevertheless, reviewable by this Court through a petition for certiorari and not by way of appeal. Under the Property Registration Decree, decision of the Commission of Land Registration, en consulta, are appealable to the Court of Appeals. The decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission are likewise appealable to the Appellate Court, and so are decisions of the Social Security Commission. As a rule, where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of certain administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter. (Emphasis supplied) There are quasi-judicial agencies, as the National Labor Relations Commissions, whose decisions are directly appealable to this Court. It is only when a specific law, as Republic Act No. 5434, provides appeal from certain bodies or commissions to the Court of Appeals as the Land Registration Commission (LRC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and others, that the said commissions or boards may be considered co-equal with the RTCs in terms of rank, stature and are logically beyond the control of the latter.

However, the Bureau of Immigration (or CID) is not among those quasi-judicial agencies specified by law whose decisions, orders, and resolutions are directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. In fact, its decisions are subject to judicial review in accordance with Sec. 25, Chapter 4, Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code, which provides as follows: Sec. 25. Judicial Review.(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws. xxx xxx xxx (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified in the statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. Said provision of the Administrative Code, which is subsequent to B.P. Blg. 129 and which thus modifies the latter, provides that the decision of an agency like the Bureau of Immigration should be subject to review by the court specified by the statute or in the absence thereof, it is subject to review by any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. B.P. Blg. 129 did not intend to raise all quasi-judicial bodies to the same level or rank of the RTC except those specifically provided for under the law as aforestated. As the Bureau of Immigration is not of equal rank as the RTC, its decisions may be appealable to, and may be reviewed through a special civil action for certiorari by, the RTC (Sec. 21, (1) BP 129). True, it is beyond cavil that the Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in the process, determine also their citizenship (Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 756 [1989]). And a mere claim of citizenship cannot operate to divest the Board of Commissioners of its jurisdiction in deportation proceedings (Miranda vs. Deportation Board, 94 Phil. 531 [1954]). However, the rule enunciated in the above-cases admits of an exception, at least insofar as deportation proceedings are concerned. Thus, what if the claim to citizenship of the alleged deportee is satisfactory? Should the deportation proceedings be allowed to continue or should the question of citizenship be ventilated in a judicial proceeding? In Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board (96 Phil. 665 [1955]), this Court answered the question in the affirmative, and We quote: When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to live in peace, without molestation from any

official or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation proceeding, he has the unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the legal ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction. If he is a citizen and evidence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor justice in allowing the deportation proceedings to continue, granting him the remedy only after the Board has finished its investigation of his undesirability. . . . And if the right (to peace) is precious and valuable at all, it must also be protected on time, to prevent undue harassment at the hands of ill-meaning or misinformed administrative officials. Of what use is this much boasted right to peace and liberty if it can be availed of only after the Deportation Board has unjustly trampled upon it, besmirching the citizen's name before the bar of public opinion? (Emphasis supplied) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction of petitioners Board of Commissioners over deportation proceedings is, therefore, not without exception (Calacday vs. Vivo, 33 SCRA 413 [1970]; Vivo vs. Montesa, 24 SCRA 155 [1967]). Judicial intervention, however, should be granted only in cases where the "claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. In other words, the remedy should be allowed only on sound discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding (Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board, supra; Co. vs. Deportation Board, 78 SCRA 107 [1977]). It appearing from the records that respondent's claim of citizenship is substantial, as We shall show later, judicial intervention should be allowed. In the case at bar, the competent court which could properly take cognizance of the proceedings instituted by respondent Gatchalian would nonetheless be the Regional Trial Court and not the Court of Appeals in view of Sec. 21 (1), BP 129, which confers upon the former jurisdiction over actions for prohibition concurrently with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and in line with the pronouncements of this Court in Chua Hiong and Co cases. Ordinarily, the case would then be remanded to the Regional Trial Court. But not in the case at bar. Considering the voluminous pleadings submitted by the parties and the evidence presented, We deem it proper to decide the controversy right at this instance. And this course of action is not without precedent for "it is a cherished rule of procedure for this Court to always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation. No useful purpose will be served if this case is remanded to the trial court only to have its decision raised again to the Court of Appeals and from there to this Court" (Marquez vs. Marquez, 73 Phil. 74; Keramic Industries, Inc. vs. Guerrero, 61

SCRA 265 [1974]) Alger Electric, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (135 SCRA 37 [1985]), citing Gayos vs. Gayos (67 SCRA 146 [1975]). In Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (157 SCRA 357 [1988]), We also stated: Remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not necessary where the court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and the expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them to the trial court for further proceedings, such as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case or when public interest demands an early disposition of the case or where the trial court had already received all the evidence of the parties (Quisumbing vs. CA, 112 SCRA 703; Francisco, et al., vs. The City of Davao, et al., supra; Republic vs. Security Credit & Acceptance Corp., et al., 19 SCRA 58; Samal vs. CA, supra; Republic vs. Central Surety & Insurance Co., 25 SCRA 641). Likewise in Tejones vs. Gironella (159 SCRA 100 [1988]), We said: Sound practice seeks to accommodate the theory which avoids waste of time, effort and expense, both to the parties and the government, not to speak of delay in the disposal of the case (cf. Fernandez vs. Garcia, 92 Phil. 592, 297). A marked characterstic of our judicial set-up is that where the dictates of justice so demand . . . the Supreme Court should act, and act with finality (Li Siu Liat vs. Republic, 21 SCRA 1039, 1046, citing Samal vs. CA, 99 Phil. 230 and US vs. Gimenez, 34 Phil. 74.) (Beautifont, Inc. vs. Court of appeals, et al., Jan. 29, 1988; See also Labo vs. Commission on Elections, 176 SCRA 1 [1989]). Respondent Gatchalian has adduced evidence not only before the Regional Trial Court but also before Us in the form of public documents attached to his pleadings. On the other hand, Special Prosecutor Renato Mabolo in his Manifestation (dated September 6, 1990; Rollo, p. 298, counter-petition) before the Bureau of Immigration already stated that there is no longer a need to adduce evidence in support of the deportation charges against respondent. In addition, petitioners invoke that this Court's decision in Arocha vs. Vivo and Vivo vs. Arca (supra), has already settled respondent's alienage. Hence, the need for a judicial determination of respondent's citizenship specially so where the latter is not seeking admission, but

is already in the Philippines (for the past thirty [30] years) and is being expelled (Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board, supra). According to petitioners, respondent's alienage has been conclusively settled by this Court in the Arocha and Vivo cases, We disagree. It must be noted that in said cases, the sole issue resolved therein was the actual date of rendition of the July 6, 1962 decision of the then board of Commissioners, i.e., whether the decision was rendered on July 6, 1962 or on July 20, 1962 it appearing that the figure (date) "20" was erased and over it was superimposed the figure "6" thereby making the decision fall within the one-year reglementary period from July 6, 1961 within which the decision may be reviewed. This Court did not squarely pass upon any question of citizenship, much less that of respondent's who was not a party in the aforesaid cases. The said cases originated from a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on July 21, 1965 by Macario Arocha in behalf of Pedro Gatchalian. Well settled is the rule that a person not party to a case cannot be bound by a decision rendered therein. Neither can it be argued that the Board of Commissioners' decision (dated July 6, 1962) finding respondent's claim to Philippine citizenship not satisfactorily proved, constitute res judicata. For one thing, said decision did not make any categorical statement that respondent Gatchalian is a Chinese. Secondly, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship (Labo vs. Commission on Elections (supra); citing Soria vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 37 SCRA 213; Lee vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 42 SCRA 561 [1971]; Sia Reyes vs. Deportation Board, 122 SCRA 478 [1983]). In Moy Ya Lim vs. Commissioner of Immigration (41 SCRA 292 [1971]) and in Lee vs. Commissioner of Immigration (supra), this Court declared that: (e)verytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. An exception to the above rule was laid by this Court in Burca vs. Republic (51 SCRA 248 [1973]), viz: We declare it to be a sound rule that where the citizenship of a party in a case is definitely resolved by a court or by an administrative agency, as a material issue in the controversy, after a full-blown hearing with the active participation of the Solicitor General or his authorized representative, and this finding or the citizenship of the party is affirmed by this Court, the decision on the matter shall constitute conclusive proof of such party's citizenship in any other case or proceeding.

But it is made clear that in no instance will a decision on the question of citizenship in such cases be considered conclusive or binding in any other case or proceeding, unless obtained in accordance with the procedure herein stated. Thus, in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present: 1) a person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof, and 3) the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court. Gauged by the foregoing, We find the pre-conditions set forth in Burca inexistent in the Arocha and Vivo cases relied upon by petitioners. Indeed, respondent William Gatchalian was not even a party in said cases. Coming now to the contention of petitioners that the arrest of respondent follows as a matter of consequence based on the warrant of exclusion issued on July 6, 1962, coupled with the Arocha and Vivo cases (Rollo, pp. 33), the Court finds the same devoid of merit. Sec. 37 (a) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, otherwise known as the Immigration Act of 1940, reads: Sec. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioner of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien. (Emphasis supplied) From a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that in matters of implementing the Immigration Act insofar as deportation of aliens are concerned, the Commissioner of Immigration may issue warrants of arrest only after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien. In other words, a warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, to be valid, must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration for purposes of investigation only, as in the case at bar, is null and void for being unconstitutional (Ang Ngo Chiong vs. Galang, 67 SCRA 338 [1975] citing Po Siok Pin vs. Vivo, 62 SCRA 363 [1975]; Vivo vs. Montesa, 24 SCRA 155; Morano vs. Vivo, 20 SCRA 562; Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 [1963]; Ng Hua To vs. Galang, 10 SCRA 411; see also Santos vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 74 SCRA 96 [1976]). As We held in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board (supra), "(t)he constitution does not distinguish warrants between a criminal case and administrative proceedings. And if one suspected of having committed a crime is entitled to a determination of the probable cause

against him, by a judge, why should one suspected of a violation of an administrative nature deserve less guarantee?" It is not indispensable that the alleged alien be arrested for purposes of investigation. If the purpose of the issuance of the warrant of arrest is to determine the existence of probable cause, surely, it cannot pass the test of constitutionality for only judges can issue the same (Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution). A reading of the mission order/warrant of arrest (dated August 15, 1990; Rollo, p. 183, counter-petition) issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, clearly indicates that the same was issued only for purposes of investigation of the suspects, William Gatchalian included. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the mission order directs the Intelligence Agents/Officers to: xxx xxx xxx 1. Make a warrantless arrest under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5, for violation of the Immigration Act, Sec. 37, para. a; Secs. 45 and 46 Administrative Code; xxx xxx xxx 3. Deliver the suspect to the Intelligence Division and immediately conduct custodial interrogation, after warning the suspect that he has a right to remain silent and a right to counsel; . . . Hence, petitioners' argument that the arrest of respondent was based, ostensibly, on the July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion has obviously no leg to stand on. The mission order/warrant of arrest made no mention that the same was issued pursuant to a final order of deportation or warrant of exclusion. But there is one more thing that militates against petitioners' cause. As records indicate, which petitioners conveniently omitted to state either in their petition or comment to the counter-petition of respondent, respondent Gatchalian, along with others previously covered by the 1962 warrant of exclusion, filed a motion for rehearing before the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) sometime in 1973. On March 14, 1973, the Board of Special Inquiry, after giving due course to the motion for re-hearing, submitted a memorandum to the then Acting Commissioner Victor Nituda (Annex "5", counter-petition) recommending 1 the reconsideration of the July 6, 1962 decision of the then Board of Commissioners which reversed the July 6, 1961 decision of the then Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 and 2 the lifting of the warrants of arrest issued against applicants. The memorandum inferred that the "very basis of the Board of Commissioners in reversing the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry was due to a forged cablegram by the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, . . ., which was dispatched to the Philippine Consulate in Hong Kong authorizing the registration of applicants as P.I. citizens." The Board of Special Inquiry concluded that "(i)f at all, the cablegram only led to the issuance of their Certificate(s) of Identity which took the place of a passport for their authorized travel to the Philippines. It being so, even

if the applicants could have entered illegally, the mere fact that they are citizens of the Philippines entitles them to remain in the country." On March 15, 1973, then Acting Commissioner Nituda issued an Order (Annex "6", counter-petition) which affirmed the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 decision dated July 6, 1961 admitting respondent Gatchalian and others as Filipino citizens; recalled the July 6, 1962 warrant of arrest and revalidated their Identification Certificates. The above order admitting respondent as a Filipino citizen is the last official act of the government on the basis of which respondent William Gatchalian continually exercised the rights of a Filipino citizen to the present. Consequently, the presumption of citizenship lies in favor of respondent William Gatchalian. There should be no question that Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, is a Filipino citizen. As a matter of fact, in the very order of the BOC of July 6, 1962, which reversed the July 6, 1961 BSI order, it is an accepted fact that Santiago Gatchalian is a Filipino. The opening paragraph of said order states: The claim to Filipino citizenship of abovenamed applicants is based on the citizenship of one Santiago Gatchalian whose Philippine citizenship was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration in an Order dated July 12, 1960. (Annex "37", Comment with Counter-Petition). Nonetheless, in said order it was found that the applicants therein have not satisfactorily proven that they are the children and/or grandchildren of Santiago Gatchalian. The status of Santiago Gatchalian as a Filipino was reiterated in Arocha and Arca (supra) where advertence is made to the "applicants being the descendants of one Santiago Gatchalian, a Filipino." (at p. 539). In the sworn statement of Santiago Gatchalian before the Philippine Consul in Hongkong in 1961 (Annex "1" to the Comment of petitioners to Counter-Petition), he reiterated his status as a Philippine citizen being the illegitimate child of Pablo Pacheco and Marciana Gatchalian, the latter being a Filipino; that he was born in Manila on July 25, 1905; and that he was issued Philippine Passport No. 28160 (PA-No. A91196) on November 18, 1960 by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila. In his affidavit of January 23, 1961 (Annex "5", counter-petition), Santiago reiterated his claim of Philippine citizenship as a consequence of his petition for cancellation of his alien registry which was granted on February 18, 1960 in C.E.B. No. 3660-L; and that on July 20, 1960, he was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a Filipino and was issued Certificate No. 1-2123. The dissenting opinions of my esteemed brethrens, Messrs. Justices F.P. Feliciano and H.G. Davide, Jr., proposing to re-open the question of citizenship of Santiago Gatchalian at this stage of the case, where it is not even put in issue, is quite much to late. As stated above, the records of the Bureau of Immigration show that as of July 20, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian had been declared to be a Filipino citizen. It is a final decision that forecloses a re-opening of the same 30 years later.

Petitioners do not even question Santiago Gatchalian's Philippine citizenship. It is the citizenship of respondent William Gatchalian that is in issue and addressed for determination of the Court in this case. Furthermore, petitioners' position is not enhanced by the fact that respondent's arrest came twenty-eight (28) years after the alleged cause of deportation arose. Section 37 (b) of the Immigration Act states that deportation "shall not be effected . . . unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five (5) years after the cause of deportation arises." In Lam Shee vs. Bengzon (93 Phil. 1065 [1953]), We laid down the consequences of such inaction, thus: There is however an important circumstance which places this case beyond the reach of the resultant consequence of the fraudulent act committed by the mother of the minor when she admitted that she gained entrance into the Philippines by making use of the name of a Chinese resident merchant other than that of her lawful husband, and that is, that the mother can no longer be the subject of deportation proceedings for the simple reason that more than 5 years had elapsed from the date of her admission. Note that the above irregularity was divulged by the mother herself, who in a gesture of sincerity, made an spontaneous admission before the immigration officials in the investigation conducted in connection with the landing of the minor on September 24, 1947, and not through any effort on the part of the immigration authorities. And considering this frank admission, plus the fact that the mother was found to be married to another Chinese resident merchant, now deceased, who owned a restaurant in the Philippines valued at P15,000 and which gives a net profit of P500 a month, the immigration officials then must have considered the irregularity not serious enough when, inspire of that finding, they decided to land said minor "as a properly documented preference quota immigrant" (Exhibit D). We cannot therefore but wonder why two years later the immigration officials would reverse their attitude and would take steps to institute deportation proceedings against the minor. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, we believe that much as the attitude of the mother would be condemned for having made use of an improper means to gain entrance into the Philippines and acquire permanent residence there, it is now too late, not to say unchristian, to deport the minor after having allowed the mother to remain

even illegally to the extent of validating her residence by inaction, thus allowing the period of prescription to set in and to elapse in her favor. To permit his deportation at this late hour would be to condemn him to live separately from his mother through no fault of his thereby leaving him to a life of insecurity resulting from lack of support and protection of his family. This inaction or oversight on the part of immigration officials has created an anomalous situation which, for reasons of equity, should be resolved in favor of the minor herein involved. (Emphasis supplied) In the case at bar, petitioners' alleged cause of action and deportation against herein respondent arose in 1962. However, the warrant of arrest of respondent was issued by Commissioner Domingo only on August 15, 1990 28 long years after. It is clear that petitioners' cause of action has already prescribed and by their inaction could not now be validly enforced by petitioners against respondent William Gatchalian. Furthermore, the warrant of exclusion dated July 6, 1962 was already recalled and the Identification certificate of respondent, among others, was revalidated on March 15, 1973 by the then Acting Commissioner Nituda. It is also proposed in the dissenting opinions of Messrs. Justices Feliciano and Davide, Jr., that the BOC decision dated July 6, 1962 and the warrant of exclusion which was found to be valid in Arocha should be applicable to respondent William Gatchalian even if the latter was not a party to said case. They also opined that under Sec. 37 (b) of the Immigration Act, the five (5) years limitation is applicable only where the deportation is sought to be effected under clauses of Sec. 37 (b) other than clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 and that no period of limitation is applicable in deportations under clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12. The Court disagrees. Under Sec. 39 of the Immigration Act, it is reiterated that such deportation proceedings should be instituted within five (5) years. Section 45 of the same Act provides penal sanctions for violations of the offenses therein enumerated with a fine of "not more than P1,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than two (2) years and deportation if he is an alien." Thus: Penal Provisions Sec. 45. Any individual who (a) When applying for an immigration document personates another individual, or falsely appears in the name of deceased individual, or evades the immigration laws by appearing under an assumed name; fictitious name; or (b) Issues or otherwise disposes of an immigration document, to any person not authorized by law to receive such document; or

(c) Obtains, accepts or uses any immigration document, knowing it to be false; or (d) Being an alien, enters the Philippines without inspection and admission by the immigration officials, or obtains entry into the Philippines by wilful, false, or misleading representation or wilful concealment of a material fact; or (e) Being an alien shall for any fraudulent purpose represent himself to be a Philippine citizen in order to evade any requirement of the immigration laws; or (f) In any immigration matter shall knowingly make under oath any false statement or representations; or (g) Being an alien, shall depart from the Philippines without first securing an immigration clearance certificates required by section twenty-two of this Act; or (h) Attempts or conspires with another to commit any of the foregoing acts, shall be guilty of an offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand pesos, and imprisoned for not more than two years, and deported if he is an alien. (Emphasis supplied) Such offenses punishable by correctional penalty prescribe in 10 years (Art. 90, Revised Penal Code); correctional penalties also prescribe in 10 years (Art. 92, Revised Penal Code). It must be noted, however, that under Sec. 1, Act No. 3326 [1926], as amended, (Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances) "violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: . . .c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; . . ." Consequently, no prosecution and consequent deportation for violation of the offenses enumerated in the Immigration Act can be initiated beyond the eight-year prescriptive period, the Immigration Act being a special legislation. The Court, therefore, holds that the period of effecting deportation of an alien after entry or a warrant of exclusion based on a final order of the BSI or BOC are not imprescriptible. The law itself provides for a period of prescription. Prescription of the crime is forfeiture or loss of the rights of the State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time, while prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture by the government of the right to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a certain time (Padilla, Criminal Law, Vol. 1, 1974, at p. 855). "Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, however, considering that it is a harsh and

extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings." (Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals, supra). Under Sec. 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a final judgment may not be executed after the lapse of five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. Thereafter, it may be enforced only by a separate action subject to the statute of limitations. Under Art. 1144 (3) of the Civil Code, an action based on judgment must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues. In relation to Sec. 37 (b) of the Immigration Act, the rule, therefore, is: 1. Deportation or exclusion proceedings should be initiated within five (5) years after the cause of deportation or exclusion arises when effected under any other clauses other than clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 and of paragraph (a) of Sec. 37 of the Immigration Act; and 2. When deportation or exclusion is effected under clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of paragraph (a) of Sec. 37, the prescriptive period of the deportation or exclusion proceedings is eight (8) years. In the case at bar, it took petitioners 28 years since the BOC decision was rendered on July 6, 1962 before they commenced deportation or exclusion proceedings against respondent William Gatchalian in 1990. Undoubtedly, petitioners' cause of action has already prescribed. Neither may an action to revive and/or enforce the decision dated July 6, 1962 be instituted after ten (10) years (Art. 1144 [3], Civil Code). Since his admission as a Filipino citizen in 1961, respondent William Gatchalian has continuously resided in the Philippines. He married Ting Dee Hua on July 1, 1973 (Annex "8", counter-petition) with whom he has four (4) minor children. The marriage contract shows that said respondent is a Filipino (Annex "8"). He holds passports and earlier passports as a Filipino (Annexes "9", "10" & "11", counterpetition). He is a registered voter of Valenzuela, Metro Manila where he has long resided and exercised his right of suffrage (Annex 12, counter-petition). He engaged in business in the Philippines since 1973 and is the director/officer of the International Polymer Corp. and Ropeman International Corp. as a Filipino (Annexes, "13" & "14", counter-petition). He is a taxpayer. Respondent claims that the companies he runs and in which he has a controlling investment provides livelihood to 4,000 employees and approximately 25,000 dependents. He continuously enjoyed the status of Filipino citizenship and discharged his responsibility as such until petitioners initiated the deportation proceedings against him. "The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility of the people" (Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals, supra). How could one who has helped the economy of the country by providing employment to some 4,000 people be considered undesirable and be summarily deported when

the government, in its concerted drive to attract foreign investors, grants Special Resident Visa to any alien who invest at least US$50,000.00 in the country? Even assuming arguendo that respondent is an alien, his deportation under the circumstances is unjust and unfair, if not downright illegal. The action taken by petitioners in the case at bar is diametrically opposed to settled government policy. Petitioners, on the other hand, claim that respondent is an alien. In support of their position, petitioners point out that Santiago Gatchalian's marriage with Chu Gim Tee in China as well as the marriage of Francisco (father of William) Gatchalian to Ong Chiu Kiok, likewise in China, were not supported by any evidence other than their own self-serving testimony nor was there any showing what the laws of China were. It is the postulate advanced by petitioners that for the said marriages to be valid in this country, it should have been shown that they were valid by the laws of China wherein the same were contracted. There being none, petitioners conclude that the aforesaid marriages cannot be considered valid. Hence, Santiago's children, including Francisco, followed the citizenship of their mother, having been born outside of a valid marriage. Similarly, the validity of the Francisco's marriage not having been demonstrated, William and Johnson followed the citizenship of their mother, a Chinese national. After a careful consideration of petitioner's argument, We find that it cannot be sustained. In Miciano vs. Brimo (50 Phil. 867 [1924]; Lim and Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472; Yam Ka Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. 46 [1915]), this Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. In the case at bar, there being no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there arises the presumption that it is the same as that of Philippine law. The lack of proof of Chinese law on the matter cannot be blamed on Santiago Gatchalian much more on respondent William Gatchalian who was then a twelve-year old minor. The fact is, as records indicate, Santiago was not pressed by the Citizenship Investigation Board to prove the laws of China relating to marriage, having been content with the testimony of Santiago that the Marriage Certificate was lost or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of China. Neither was Francisco Gatchalian's testimony subjected to the same scrutiny by the Board of Special Inquiry. Nevertheless, the testimonies of Santiago Gatchalian and Francisco Gatchalian before the Philippine consular and immigration authorities regarding their marriages, birth and relationship to each other are not self-serving but are admissible in evidence as statements or declarations regarding family reputation or tradition in matters of pedigree (Sec. 34, Rule 130). Furtheremore, this salutary rule of evidence finds support in substantive law. Thus, Art. 267 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 267. In the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final judgment or possession of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the

Rules of Court and special laws. (See also Art. 172 of the Family Code) Consequently, the testimonies/affidavits of Santiago Gatchalian and Francisco Gatchalian aforementioned are not self-serving but are competent proof of filiation (Art. 172 [2], Family Code). Philippine law, following the lex loci celebrationis, adheres to the rule that a marriage formally valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. Referring to marriages contracted abroad, Art. 71 of the Civil Code (now Art. 26 of the Family Code) provides that "(a)ll marriages performed outside of the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country . . ." And any doubt as to the validity of the matrimonial unity and the extent as to how far the validity of such marriage may be extended to the consequences of the coverture is answered by Art. 220 of the Civil Code in this manner: "In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of property during marriage, the authority of parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression." (Emphasis supplied). Bearing in mind the "processual presumption" enunciated in Miciano and other cases, he who asserts that the marriage is not valid under our law bears the burden of proof to present the foreign law. Having declared the assailed marriages as valid, respondent William Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father Francisco, a Filipino, as a legitimate child of the latter. Francisco, in turn is likewise a Filipino being the legitimate child of Santiago Gatchalian who (the latter) is admittedly a Filipino citizen whose Philippine citizenship was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration in an order dated July 12, 1960. Finally, respondent William Gatchalian belongs to the class of Filipino citizens contemplated under Sec. 1, Article IV of the Constitution, which provides: Sec. 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. ... This forecloses any further question about the Philippine citizenship of respondent William Gatchalian. The Court is not unaware of Woong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo (13 SCRA 552 [1965]) relied upon by petitioners. The ruling arrived thereat, however, cannot apply in the case at bar for the simple reason that the parties therein testified to have been married in China by a village leader, which undoubtedly is not among those authorized to solemnize marriage as provided in Art. 56 of the Civil Code (now Art. 7, Family Code).

Premises considered, the Court deems it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised by the parties. WHEREFORE, G.R. Nos. 95122-23 is DISMISSED for lack of merit; G.R. Nos. 95612-13 is hereby GRANTED and respondent William Gatchalian is declared a Filipino citizen. Petitioners are hereby permanently enjoined from continuing with the deportation proceedings docketed as DC No. 90-523 for lack of jurisdiction over respondent Gatchalian, he being a Filipino citizen; Civil Cases No. 9054214 and 3431-V-90 pending before respondent judges are likewise DISMISSED. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 131442 July 10, 2003

BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK, DIWATA MAGBUHOS, ANGELITA BINAY, ELMA GARCIA, VIRGILIO PANGUIO, ARSENIO CASTILLO, ARIEL PANGUIO, ANTONIO PANGUIO, ANTONIO BUNQUIN, GENEROSO BUNQUIN, CHARLIE DIMAYACYAC, RENATO PANGUIO, ATILANO BUNQUIN, CARLOS CHAVEZ, JUAN DIMAYACYAC, FILEMON BUNQUIN, MARIO MAGBUHOS, MAURO MAGBUHOS, NORA MAGBUHOS, JEOVILYN, GENALYN and JORVAN QUIMUEL, minors, represented by their parents FELICIANA and SABINO QUIMUEL, MARICAR MAGBUHOS, minor, represented by her parents CARMELITA and ANTONIO MAGBUHOS, MARLO BINAY, minor, represented by his parents EFRENITA and CHARLITO BINAY, and the BANGUS, BANGUS FRY and other MARINE LIFE OF MINOLO COVE, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE ENRICO LANZANAS as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch VII, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Region IV, represented by its Regional Executive Director and its Regional Director for Environment, THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ORIENTAL MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, herein represented by GOVERNOR RODOLFO VALENCIA, PUERTO GALERA MAYOR GREGORIO DELGADO, VICE MAYOR ARISTEO ATIENZA, and MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF PUERTO GALERA, JUAN ASCAN, JR., RAFAEL ROMEY, CENON SALCEDO, JERRY DALISAY, SIMON BALITAAN, RENATO CATAQUIS, MARCELINO BANAAG, DANIEL ENRIQUEZ, AMELYN MARCO, GABRIEL ILAGAN, MUNICIPAL ENGINEER RODEL RUBIO, and MUNICIPAL PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR WILHELMINA LINESES, respondents. CARPIO, J.:

The Case This is a petition for review1 of the Order2 dated 7 November 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7 ("Manila RTC"), dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. The Facts On 30 June 1997, Regional Executive Director Antonio G. Principe ("RED Principe") of Region IV, Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR"), issued an Environmental Clearance Certificate ("ECC") in favor of respondent National Power Corporation ("NAPOCOR"). The ECC authorized NAPOCOR to construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo, Barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera has declared Minolo Cove, a mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone.3 The mooring facility would serve as the temporary docking site of NAPOCOR's power barge, which, due to turbulent waters at its former mooring site in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, required relocation to a safer site like Minolo Cove. The 14.4 megawatts power barge would provide the main source of power for the entire province of Oriental Mindoro pending the construction of a land-based power plant in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The ECC for the mooring facility was valid for two years counted from its date of issuance or until 30 June 1999.4 Petitioners, claiming to be fisherfolks from Minolo, San Isidro, Puerto Galera,5 sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance. RED Principe, however, denied petitioners' plea on 15 July 1997. On 21 July 1997, petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, for the cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the construction of the mooring facility. Impleaded as defendants were the following: (1) NAPOCOR, (2) RED Principe, (3) DENR Region IV Technical Director for Environment Oscar Dominguez, (4) Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative ("ORMECO"), which is engaged in the distribution of electricity in Oriental Mindoro, and (5) certain officials of Puerto Galera.6 Petitioners subsequently amended their complaint to include as additional defendants the elective officials of Oriental Mindoro represented by then Governor Rodolfo G. Valencia. Petitioners further prayed for the demolition of mooring structures that respondents had already built. On 28 July 1997, prior to the filing of the amended complaint, the trial court issued a 20-day temporary restraining order enjoining the construction of the mooring facility. However, the trial court lifted the same on 6 August 1997 on NAPOCOR's manifestation that the provincial government of Oriental Mindoro was the one undertaking the construction of the mooring facility.7 On 28 August 1997, before filing their answers, respondents ORMECO and the provincial officials of Oriental Mindoro moved to dismiss the complaint. These respondents claimed that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, rendering the complaint without cause of action. They also asserted that the Manila RTC has no jurisdiction to enjoin the construction of the mooring facility in

Oriental Mindoro, which lies outside the Manila RTC's territorial jurisdiction. Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies. They argued that the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of Presidential Decree No. 1605, 8 Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160,9 and the provisions of DENR Department Administrative Order No. 96-37 ("DAO 96-37") on the documentation of ECC applications. Petitioners also claimed that the implementation of the ECC was in patent violation of its terms. In its order of 7 November 1997, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed petitioners' complaint. Hence, this petition. The Ruling of the Trial Court The trial court's order dismissing the complaint reads in part: After careful evaluation and analysis, this Court finds the Motion to Dismiss tenable and meritorious. Petitioners have clearly failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before taking this legal action in Court x x x. It is x x x worth mentioning that the decision of the Regional Director may still be x x x elevated to the Office of the Secretary of the DENR to fully comply with the process of exhaustion of administrative remedies. And well settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that before bringing an action in or resorting to the Courts of Justice, all remedies of administrative character affecting or determinative of the controversy at that level should first be exhausted by the aggrieved party (Pestanas vs. Dyogi, L-25786, February 27, 1978). And petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies renders his [sic] petition dismissible (Chia vs. Acting Collector of Customs, 177 SCRA 755). And a dismissal on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies is tantamount to a dismissal based on lack of cause of action (Baguiro vs. Basa, Jr., 214 SCRA 437; Pineda vs. CFI of Davao, 111 Phil. 643; Sarabia vs. Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, L-16002, May 23, 1961; Gone, et al. vs. District Engineer, et. al., L-22782, August 29, 1975; AbeAbe, et al. vs. Manta, et. al., L-4827, May 31, 1979) although it does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter (Mun. of La Trinidad, et al. vs. CFI of Baguio-Benguet, et al., L-33889, June 28, 1983). Moreover, this Court finds the Opposition of the Petitioners highly untenable and bereft of merits that the controverted act in question is patently illegal and there was an immediate need for judicial intervention. The ECC in question was issued by the Regional Office of the DENR which has jurisdiction and authority over the same . . .. And corollary to this, the issue as to whether or not the Minolo Cove is within the enclosed coves and

waters embraced by Puerto Galera bay and protected by Medio island is a clear question of fact which the DENR may appropriately resolve before resorting to [the] Court[s]. This Court is likewise aware and cognizant of its territorial jurisdiction in the enforcement of Writ of Injunction. That truly, [a] writ of injunction can only be enforced within [the] territorial jurisdiction of this Court but not for acts which are being or about to be committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. Thus, in Philippine National Bank vs. Pineda, 197 SCRA 1, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled: "Regional Trial Courts can only enforce their writs of injunction within their respective designated territories. Furthermore, we find the issuance of the preliminary injunction directed against the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental a jurisdictional paux [sic] pas (from Black Dictionary means jurisdictional falsity) as the Courts of First Instance now Regional Trial Court[s], can only enforce their writs of injunction within their respective designated territories. And finally, this Court is not unmindful of the relevant and square application in the case at bar of Presidential Decree No. 1818, Executive Order No. 380 dated November 27, 1989, and Circular No. 2-91 of the Supreme Court that the National Power Corporation (NPC) is a public utility, created under special legislation, engaged in the generation and distribution of electric power and energy. The mooring site of NPC in Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro is one of its infrastructure projects falling within the mantle of Executive Order No. 380, November 27, 1989 x x x. And as held by the Supreme Court in the case of National Power Corporation vs. Honorable Abraham P. Vera, et al., 170 SCRA 721, courts are without jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs against [the] National Power Corporation. The latter enjoys the protective mantle of P.D. 1818, (Circular No. 2-91). xxx xxx xxx

Injunction in this case is not a mere ancillary [sic] writ but the main action itself together with the Annulment of the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC). Even assuming arguendo that the court [can] annul the ECC how can the latter enforce the same against the Provincial Government of Oriental Mindoro which was impleaded by the petitioners as a necessary party together with the Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative and the government officials of Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, whose acts and functions are being performed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court? x x x Indisputably, the injunction and annulment of ECC as prayed for in the petition are inseparable x x x.

The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that petitioners have failed to exhaust all the available administrative remedies and this Court has no jurisdiction to issue the injunctive writ prayed for in the Amended [Complaint].10 The Issue The issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of cause action and lack of jurisdiction. The Ruling of the Court The petition has no merit. Jurisdiction of the Manila RTC over the Case Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law. Such jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought.11 A perusal of the allegations in the complaint shows that petitioners' principal cause of action is the alleged illegality of the issuance of the ECC. The violation of laws on environmental protection and on local government participation in the implementation of environmentally critical projects is an issue that involves the validity of NAPOCOR's ECC. If the ECC is void, then as a necessary consequence, NAPOCOR or the provincial government of Oriental Mindoro could not construct the mooring facility. The subsidiary issue of noncompliance with pertinent local ordinances in the construction of the mooring facility becomes immaterial for purposes of granting petitioners' main prayer, which is the annulment of the ECC. Thus, if the court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, then it has jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioners' complaint. Petitioners' complaint is one that is not capable of pecuniary estimation. It falls within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts under Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. The question of whether petitioners should file their complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Manila or Oriental Mindoro then becomes a matter of venue, to be determined by the residence of the parties.12 Petitioners' main prayer is the annulment of the ECC. The principal respondent, DENR Region IV, has its main office at the L & S Building, Roxas Boulevard, Manila. Regional Executive Director Principe of the DENR Region IV, who issued the ECC, holds office there. Plainly, the principal respondent resides in Manila, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Manila RTC. Thus, petitioners filed their complaint in the proper venue. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts to issue injunctive writs is limited to acts committed or about to be committed within their judicial region.13 Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 1818 ("PD No. 1818") prohibited14 courts from issuing injunctive writs against government infrastructure projects like the mooring facility in the present case. Republic Act No. 8975 ("RA No. 8975"), which took effect on 26 November 2000, superseded PD No. 1818 and

delineates more clearly the coverage of the prohibition, reserves the power to issue such writs exclusively with this Court, and provides penalties for its violation.15 Obviously, neither the Manila RTC nor the Oriental Mindoro RTC can issue an injunctive writ to stop the construction of the mooring facility. Only this Court can do so under PD No. 1818 and later under RA No. 8975. Thus, the question of whether the Manila RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint considering that its injunctive writ is not enforceable in Oriental Mindoro is academic. Clearly, the Manila RTC has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, although it could not issue an injunctive writ against the DENR or NAPOCOR. However, since the construction of the mooring facility could not proceed without a valid ECC, the validity of the ECC remains the determinative issue in resolving petitioners' complaint. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The settled rule is before a party may seek the intervention of the courts, he should first avail of all the means afforded by administrative processes. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery is still available, with a procedure prescribed pursuant to law for an administrative officer to decide the controversy, a party should first exhaust such remedy before resorting to the courts. The premature invocation of a court's intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible on such ground.16 RED Principe of the DENR Region IV Office issued the ECC based on (1) Presidential Decree No. 1586 ("PD No. 1586") and its implementing rules establishing the Environmental Impact Statement System, (2) DAO 96-3717 and (3) the Procedural Manual of DAO 9637. Section 418 of PD No. 1586 requires a proponent of an environmentally critical project, or a project located within an environmentally critical area as declared by the President, to secure an ECC prior to the project's operation.19 NAPOCOR thus secured the ECC because the mooring facility in Minolo Cove, while not an environmentally critical project, is located within an environmentally critical area under Presidential Proclamation No. 2146, issued on 14 December 1981.20 The rules on administrative appeals from rulings of the DENR Regional Directors on the implementation of PD No. 1586 are found in Article VI of DAO 96-37, which provides: SECTION 1.0. Appeal to the Office of the Secretary. Any party aggrieved by the final decision of the RED may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal with the Office of the Secretary. The decision of the Secretary shall be immediately executory. SECTION 2.0. Grounds for Appeal. The grounds for appeal shall be limited to grave abuse of discretion and serious errors in the findings of fact which would cause grave or irreparable injury to the aggrieved party. Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.

SECTION 3.0. Who May Appeal. The proponent or any stakeholder, including but not limited to, the LGUs concerned and affected communities, may file an appeal. The DENR Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37 explains these provisions thus: Final decisions of the RED may be appealed. These decisions include those relating to the issuance or nonissuance of an ECC, and the imposition of fines and penalties. By inference, the decision of the Secretary on the issuance or non-issuance of the ECC may also be appealed based on this provision. Resort to courts prior to availing of this remedy would make the appellant's action dismissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The right to appeal must be exercised within 15 days from receipt by the aggrieved party of such decision. Failure to file such appeal within the requisite period will result in the finality of the RED's or Secretary's decision(s), which can no longer be disturbed. An appeal shall not stay the effectivity of the RED's decision, unless the Secretary directs otherwise. The right to appeal does not prevent the aggrieved party from first resorting to the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the RED, to give the RED an opportunity to re-evaluate his decision. (Emphasis added) Instead of following the foregoing procedure, petitioners bypassed the DENR Secretary and immediately filed their complaint with the Manila RTC, depriving the DENR Secretary the opportunity to review the decision of his subordinate, RED Principe. Under the Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37 and applicable jurisprudence, petitioners' omission renders their complaint dismissible for lack of cause of action.21 Consequently, the Manila RTC did not err in dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of cause of action. On the Alleged Patent Illegality of the ECC Petitioners nevertheless contend that they are exempt from filing an appeal with the DENR Secretary because the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of existing laws and regulations. These are (1) Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1605, as amended, (2) Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), and (3) the provisions of DAO 96-37 on the documentary requirements for the zoning permit and social acceptability of the mooring facility. Petitioners' contention is without merit. While the patent illegality of an act exempts a party from complying with the rule on exhaustion Of administrative remedies,22 this does not apply in the present case. Presidential Decree No. 1605 Presidential Decree No. 1605 ("PD No. 1605"),23 as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1605-A and 1805, declares as ecologically

threatened zone "the coves and waters embraced by Puerto Galera Bay as protected by Medio Island." This decree provides in part: Section 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the construction of marinas, hotels, restaurants, other commercial structures; commercial or semi-commercial wharfs [sic]; commercial docking within the enclosed coves of Puerto Galera; the destruction of its mangrove stands; the devastation of its corals and coastline by large barges, motorboats, tugboat propellers, and any form of destruction by other human activities are hereby prohibited. Section 2. x x x No permit for the construction of any wharf, marina, hotel, restaurants and other commercial structures in Puerto Galera shall be issued without prior approval of the Office of the President upon the recommendation of the Philippine Tourism Authority. (Emphasis supplied) NAPOCOR claims that since Minolo Cove lies outside of "Puerto Galera Bay as protected by Medio Island",24 PD No. 1605 does not apply to this case. However, petitioners assert that Minolo Cove is one of the "enclosed coves of Puerto Galera"25 and thus protected under PD No. 1605. This is a question of fact that the DENR Secretary should have first resolved. In any event, there is no dispute that NAPOCOR will use the mooring facility for its power barge that will supply 14.4 megawatts of electricity to the entire province of Oriental Mindoro, including Puerto Galera. The mooring facility is obviously a government-owned public infrastructure intended to serve a basic need of the people of Oriental Mindoro. The mooring facility is not a "commercial structure; commercial or semi-commercial wharf or commercial docking" as contemplated in Section 1 of PD No. 1605. Therefore, the issuance of the ECC does not violate PD No. 1605 which applies only to commercial structures like wharves, marinas, hotels and restaurants. Sections 26 and 27 of RA No. 7160 Congress introduced Sections 26 and 27 in the Local Government Code to emphasize the legislative concern "for the maintenance of a sound ecology and clean environment."26 These provisions require every national government agency or government-owned and controlled corporation to hold prior consultations with the local government unit concerned and to secure the prior approval of its sanggunian before implementing "any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of cropland, rangeland, or forest cover and extinction of animal or plant species." Sections 26 and 27 respectively provide: Section 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled corporation authorized or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, rangeland, or

forest cover and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local government units, non-governmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof. Section 27. Prior Consultations Required. No project or program shall be implemented by government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Section . . . 26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In Lina, Jr. v. Pao,27 the Court interpreted these provisions in this manner: Section 27 of the Code should be read in conjunction with Section 26 thereof x x x. Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects and programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Sections 26 and 27, to wit, those that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of non-renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover; (5) may eradicate certain animal or plant species; and (6) other projects or programs that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in the locality where these will be implemented. Again, Sections 26 and 27 do not apply to this case because as petitioners admit,28 the mooring facility itself is not environmentally critical and hence does not belong to any of the six types of projects mentioned in the law. There is no statutory requirement for the concerned sanggunian to approve the construction of the mooring facility. It is another matter if the operation of the power barge is at issue. As an environmentally critical project that causes pollution, the operation of the power barge needs the prior approval of the concerned sanggunian. However, what is before this Court is only the construction of the mooring facility, not the operation of the power barge. Thus, the issuance of the ECC does not violate Sections 26 and 27 of RA No. 7160. Documentary Requirements for ECC Applications Under DAO 96-37, an ECC applicant for a project located within an environmentally critical area is required to submit an Initial Environment Examination, which must contain a brief description of the environmental setting and a documentation of the consultative process undertaken, when appropriate.29 As part of the description of

the environmental setting, the ECC applicant must submit a certificate of locational clearance or zoning certificate. Petitioners further contend that NAPOCOR, in applying for the ECC, did not submit to the DENR Region IV Office the documents proving the holding of consultations and the issuance of a locational clearance or zoning certificate. Petitioners assert that this omission renders the issuance of the ECC patently illegal. The contention is also without merit. While such documents are part of the submissions required from a project proponent, their mere absence does not render the issuance of the ECC patently illegal. To justify non-exhaustion of administrative remedies due to the patent illegality of the ECC, the public officer must have issued the ECC "[without any] semblance of compliance, or even an attempt to comply, with the pertinent laws; when manifestly, the officer has acted without jurisdiction or has exceeded his jurisdiction, or has committed a grave abuse of discretion; or when his act is clearly and obviously devoid of any color of authority."30 RED Principe, as chief of DENR Region IV, is the officer duly authorized under DAO 96-3731 to issue ECCs for projects located within environmentally critical areas. RED Principe issued the ECC on the recommendation of Amelia Supetran, the Director of the Environmental Management Bureau. Thus, RED Principe acted with full authority pursuant to DENR regulations. Moreover, the legal presumption is that he acted with the requisite authority.32 This clothes RED Principe's acts with presumptive validity and negates any claim that his actions are patently illegal or that he gravely abused his discretion. While petitioners may present proof to the contrary, they must do so before the proper administrative forum before resorting to judicial remedies. On the Alleged Non-Compliance with the Terms of the ECC Lastly, petitioners claim that they are justified in immediately seeking judicial recourse because NAPOCOR is guilty of violating the conditions of the ECC, which requires it to secure a separate ECC for the operation of the power barge. The ECC also mandates NAPOCOR to secure the usual local government permits, like zoning and building permits, from the municipal government of Puerto Galera. The contention is similarly without merit. The fact that NAPOCOR's ECC is subject to cancellation for non-compliance with its conditions does not justify petitioners' conduct in ignoring the procedure prescribed in DAO 96-37 on appeals from the decision of the DENR Executive Director. Petitioners vigorously insist that NAPOCOR should comply with the requirements of consultation and locational clearance prescribed in DAO 96-37. Ironically, petitioners themselves refuse to abide with the procedure for filing complaints and appealing decisions laid down in DAO 96-37. DAO 96-37 provides for a separate administrative proceeding to address complaints for the cancellation of an ECC. Under Article IX of DAO 96-37, complaints to nullify an ECC must undergo an administrative investigation, after which the hearing officer will submit his report to the EMB Director or the Regional Executive Director,

who will then render his decision. The aggrieved party may file an appeal to the DENR Secretary, who has authority to issue cease and desist orders. Article IX also classifies the types of violations covered under DAO 96-37, including projects operating without an ECC or violating the conditions of the ECC. This is the applicable procedure to address petitioners' complaint on NAPOCOR's alleged violations and not the filing of the instant case in court. A Final Word The Court commends petitioners for their courageous efforts to safeguard and maintain the ecological balance of Minolo Cove. This Court recognizes the utmost importance of protecting the environment.33 Indeed, we have called for the vigorous prosecution of violators of environmental laws.34 Legal actions to achieve this end, however, must be done in accordance with established rules of procedure that were intended, in the first place, to achieve orderly and efficient administration of justice. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

for City Mayor of the same city in the May 11, 1998 elections, conspiring with respondents Dr. Eden C. Diaz, Schools Division Superintendent, Romeo F. Zapanta, Assistant Schools Division Superintendent, and Arcadio de Vera, President, Mandaluyong Federation of Public School Teachers, sponsored, arranged and conducted an all-expense-free transportation, food and drinks affair for the Mandaluyong City public school teachers, registered voters of said city, at the Tayabas Bay Beach Resort, Sariaya, Quezon Province. 2. Among the identified public school teachers present, brought in around twelve (12) buses, were Corazon Mayoya, principal of Highway Hills Elementary School, her Assistant Principal of Highway Hills Elementary School, her Assistant Principal and Mr. Dante del Remigio; Mrs. Diaz Principal of Mandaluyong City High School and Mr. Alvia; Mrs. Parillo, Andres Bonifacio Elementary School; Mrs. Gregoria Ignacio, Principal of Doa Pilar Gonzaga Elementary School; Ms. Magsalin, Principal of Mandaluyong Science High School and Mrs. Rita Bondayril; Mrs. De Vera, Fabella Elementary School; Ms. Anselmo, Principal of Isaac Lopez Elementary School and Mrs. Fayton; Mrs. Sylvia Liwanag, District Supervisor, District II, Mrs. Nalaonan, Principal of Amado T. Reyes Elementary School; Mrs. Teresita Vicencio, Mandaluyong City Elemtary School; Officers of the Mandaluyong Federation of Public School Teachers namely; Mrs. Erlinda Ilagan, Treasurer; Ms. Nancy de Leon, Auditor; Ms. Fortunata Gondran, PRO; Mr. Nenito Pumariga, Business Manager; Mr. Jose Guerrero, Sgt.-at-arms; and Board Members Ms. Virginia Carillo, Ms. Wilma Fernandez, Mr Arturo Morales and Mr. Teddy Angeles. 3. During the whole-day affair, the background music loudly and repeatedly played over the sound system was the political jingle advertisement of Mandaluyong City candidate for Mayor, Benjamin "Benhur" Abalos, Jr., sang to the tune of the song 'SHALALA LALA'. 4. Some of the participants wore T-shirts with the name of candidate "Benhur" Abalos, Jr., printed in oversized colored letters. 5. Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr. delivered a speech wherein he offered and promised the Mandaluyong City public school teachers and employees a "hazard" pay of P1,000.00, and increasing their allowances from P1,500.00 to P2,000.00 for food, or with a total of P3,000.00 which they will get by the end of the month. 6. The offers and promises to said public school teachers, who are members of the Board of Election Inspectors of Mandaluyong City and registered voters thereat, were made a few weeks before the election to induce or unduly influence the said teachers and the public in general (the

other guests) to vote for the candidacy of Benjamin "Benhur" Abalos, Jr., 7. The offers and promises of Mayor Abalos, Sr., and the enthusiastic acceptance of said monetary increase of allowances by the public school teachers and employees of Mandaluyong City, is a violation of Section 261 pars. (a), (b) and (j) of the Omnibus Election Code against votebuying and vote-selling.3 The Director4 of the Law Department of the COMELEC conducted a preliminary investigation. All the private respondents filed separate counter-affidavits5 with prayer to dismiss the complaint. On November 26, 1998, the Director of the Law Department submitted his findings to the COMELEC En Banc recommending that the complaint be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. On December 1, 1998, the COMELEC En Banc issued the assailed Resolution No. 98-32086 dismissing the complaint "for insufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case," "Considering that this complaint, being criminal in nature, must have all its allegations supported by direct, strong, convincing and indubitable evidence; and that the submitted evidence of the complainant are mere selfserving statements and uncorroborated audio and visual recordings and a photograph; and considering further that the evidence of the respondents have more probative value and believable than the evidence of said complainants; and that the burden of proof lies with the complainants and not with respondents."7 On February 09, 1999, petitioners, without first submitting a motion for reconsideration, filed the instant petition with this Court. They alleged thereon that the COMELEC En Banc, in issuing Resolution No. 98-3208 dated December 1, 1998, acted "with apparent grave abuse of dicretion."8 The petition must fail. Petitioners did not exhaust all the remedies available to them at the COMELEC level. Specifically, they did not seek a reconsideration of the assailed COMELEC En Banc Resolution as required by Section 1, Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, thus: "Section 1. What Pleadings are not Allowed. - The following pleadings are not allowed: xxx d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 137266 December 5, 2001

ANTONIO M. BERNARDO, ERNESTO A. DOMINGO, JR. and JESUS C. CRUZ, petitioners, vs. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., BENJAMIN "BENHUR" D. ABALOS, JR., DR. EDEN C. DIAZ, ROMEO F. ZAPANTA, ARCADIO S. DE VERA and THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: This is a petition for certiorari1 seeking the nullification of Resolution No. 98-3208 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc promulgated on December 1, 1998 dismissing the complaint for vote buying filed by petitioners against respondents.1wphi1.nt On April 21, 1998, petitioners Antonio M. Bernardo M. Bernardo, Ernesto A. Domingo, Jr. and Jesus C. Cruz filed with the COMELEC a criminal complaint against respondents Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., Benjamin C. Abalos, Jr., Dr. Eden C. Diaz, Romeo Zapanta and Arcadio de Vera for vote buying in violation of Section 261, paragraphs (a), (b) and (j) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act 6646 and Section 68 of the OEC. The complaint, docketed as E.O. Case No. 98-110,2 alleged that: 1. On April 14, 1998 (Tuesday), respondent Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., and his son respondent Benjamin "Benhur" C. Abalos, Jr., candidate

decision except in election offense cases; x x x." (Emphasis ours) It is not disputed that petitioners' complaint before the COMELEC involves an election offense. But in this petition, they conveniently kept silent why they directly elevated to this Court the questioned Resolution without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc. It was only after the respondents had filed their comment on the petition and called this Court's attention to petitioners' failure to comply with Section 1 of Rule 13 that they, in their Consolidated Reply, advanced the excuse that they "deemed it best not seek any further dilatory motion for reconsideration' , even if allowed by Sec. 1 (d) of COMELEC Rule 13."9 Petitioners' failure to file the required motion for reconsideration utterly disregarded the COMELEC Rules intended "to achieve an orderly, just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission."10 Contrary to petitioners' statement that a resort to a motion for reconsideration is "dilatory, " it bears stressing that the purpose of the said motion is to give the COMELEC an opportunity to correct the error imputed to it.11 If the error is immediately corrected by way of a motion for reconsideration, then it is the most expeditious and inexpensive recourse. But if the COMELEC refuses to correct a patently erroneous act, then it commits a grave abuse of discretion justifying a recourse by the aggrieved party to a petition for certiorari. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, can only be resorted to if "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."12 Having failed to file the required motion for reconsideration of the challenged Resolution, petitioners' instant petition is certainly premature.13 Significantly, they have not raised any plausible reason for their direct recourse to this Court. In its assailed Resolution, the COMELEC cited a valid reason for dismissing petitioners' complaint against private respondents for vote buying. The COMELEC found that the evidence of the respondents have "more probative value and believable than the evidence of the complainants;" and that the evidence submitted by petitioners are "mere self-serving statements and uncorroborated audio and visual recording and a photograph." Moreover, Section 28 of Republic Act 6646 provides: "SEC. 28. Prosecution of Vote-buying and Voteselling. - The representation of a complaint for violations of paragraph (a) or (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 supported by affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer or promise by or of the voter's acceptance of money or other consideration from the relatives, leaders or sympathizers of candidate, shall be sufficient basis for

an investigation to be immediately conducted by the Commission, directly or through its duly authorized legal officers, under Section 68 or Section 265 of said Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.1wphi1.nt x x x." (Emphasis ours) Petitioners' complaint expressly states that no supporting affidavits were submitted by the complaining witness14 to sustain their charge of vote buying. Suffice it to state that the absence of such supporting affidavits shows the frailty of petitioners' complaint. Indeed, it is vulnerable to dismissal. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

municipality. The application, which was docketed as BEU Case No. 83-09-1319, was initially rejected by the BEU because Shell's old site had been closed for five (5) years such that the relocation of the same to a new site would amount to a new construction of a gasoline outlet, which construction was then the subject of a moratorium. Subsequently, however, BEU relaxed its position and gave due course to the application. PDSC filed an opposition to the application on the grounds that: 1.] there are adequate service stations attending to the motorists' requirements in the 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 not an increase in the volume of sales in the area. Two other companies, namely Petrophil and Caltex, also opposed the application on the ground that Shell failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements. On June 3, 1986, the BEU rendered a decision denying Shell's application. Meanwhile, on May 8, 1987, Executive Order No. 172 was issued creating the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) and transferring to it the regulatory and adjudicatory functions of the BEU. On May 9, 1988, the OEA rendered a decision denying the appeal of Shell and affirming the BEU decision. Shell moved for reconsideration and prayed for a new hearing or the remand of the case for further proceedings. In a supplement to said motion, Shell submitted a new feasibility study to justify its application. The OEA issued an order on July 11, 1988, remanding the case to the ERB for further evaluation and consideration, noting therein that the "updated survey conducted by Shell" cited new developments such as the accessibility of Imelda Marcos Avenue, now Benigno Aquino, Jr. Avenue, to Paraaque residents along Sucat Road and the population growth in the trading area. After the records of BEU Case No. 83-09-1319 was remanded to the ERB, Shell filed on March 3, 1989 an amended application, intended for the same purpose as its original application. This amended application was likewise opposed by PDSC. On September 17, 1991, the ERB rendered a Decision allowing Shell to establish the service station in Benigno Aquino, Jr. Avenue. PDSC filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing Decision. The motion was, however, denied. PDSC elevated its cause on to the Court of Appeals.

G.R. No. 113079

April 20, 2001

ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS AND SERVICES CORPORATION, respondents. ---------------------------------------G.R. No. 114923 April 20, 2001

PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS AND SERVICES CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS: The propriety of building a state-of-the-art gasoline service station along Benigno Aquino, Jr. Avenue in Paraaque, Metro Manila is the bone of contention in these consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners assert that the construction of such a modern edifice is a necessity dictated by the "emerging economic landscapes." Respondents say otherwise. Petitioner Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell) is engaged in the business of importing crude oil, refining the same and selling various petroleum products through a network of service stations throughout the country. Private respondent Petroleum Distributors and Service Corporation (PDSC) owns and operates a Caltex service station at the corner of the MIA and Domestic Roads in Pasay City. On June 30,1983, Shell filed with the quondam Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) an application for authority to relocate its Shell Service Station at Tambo, Paraaque, Metro Manila, to Imelda Marcos Avenue of the same

CA reversed the ERB judgment. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 6 April 1994.2 Dissatisfied,

both Shell and ERB elevated the matter to this Court by way of these petitions, which were ordered consolidated by the Court in a Resolution dated July 25,1994.

However, there is no cogent reason to depart from the general rule because the findings of the ERB conform to, rather than conflict with, the governing statutes and controlling case law on the matter. Prior to Republic Act No. 8479, the downstream oil industry was regulated by the ERB and from 1993 onwards, the Energy Industry Regulation Board. These regulatory bodies were empowered, among others, to entertain and act on applications for the establishment of gasoline stations in the Philippines. The ERB, which used to be the Board of Energy (BOE), is tasked with the following powers and functions by Executive Order No. 172, which took effect immediately after its issuance on May 8, 1987 A distinct worldwide trend towards economic deregulation has been evident in the past decade. Both developed and developing countries have seriously considered and extensively adopted various measures for this purpose. The country has been no exception. Indeed, the buzzwords of the third millenium are "deregulation", "globalization" and "liberalization." It need not be overemphasized that this trend is reflected in our policy considerations, statutes and jurisprudence. Tested against the foregoing legal yardsticks, it becomes readily apparent that the reasons relied upon by the appellate court in rejecting petitioner's application to set up a gasoline service station becomes tenuous. This is especially clear in the face of such recent developments in the oil industry, in relation to controlling case law on the matter recently promulgated to address the legal issues spawned by these events. In other words, recent developments in the oil industry as well as legislative enactments and jurisprudential pronouncements have overtaken and rendered stale the view espoused by the appellate court in denying Shell's application to put up the gasoline station. On the contrary, the record discloses that the ERB Decision approving Shell's application in ERB Case No. 89-57 was based on hard economic data on developmental projects, residential subdivision listings, population count, public conveyances, commercial establishments, traffic count, fuel demand, growth of private cars, public utility vehicles and commercial vehicles, etc., rather than empirical evidence to support its conclusions.

FACTS:

GENERAL RULE: Non-delegation of Legislative Power EXCEPTION: Subordinate Legislation Tests for Valid Delegation of Legislative Power

ISSUE(S)/HELD: Whether CA gravely erred in making findings of facts contrary to those of the ERB whose findings were based on substantial evidence? YES. Whether the CA gravely erred in passing judgment and making pronouncements on purely economic and policy issues on petroleum business, which are within the realm of the ERB which has a recognized expertise in oil economics? YES. Whether assuming CA has the power to consider new evidence presented for the first time before the said court, it should have referred such matter to the ERB under the doctrine of prior resort or primary jurisdiction? YES

Vitaliano Saco, the Chief Officer of a ship, was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan. The widow filed a complaint for damages against the Eastern Shipping Lines with the POEA, based on Memorandum Circular No. 2 issued by the latter which stipulated death benefits and burial expenses for the family of an overseas worker. Eastern Shipping Lines questioned the validity of the memorandum circular. Nevertheless, the POEA assumed jurisdiction and decided the case. ISSUE:

W/N the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2 is a violation of non-delegation of powers

RATIO: The policy of the government in this regard has been to allow a free interplay of market forces with minimal government supervision. The purpose of governing legislation is to liberalize the downstream oil industry in order to ensure a truly competitive market under a regime of fair prices, adequate and continuous supply, environmentally clean and high-quality petroleum products. Indeed, exclusivity of any franchise has not been favored by the Court, which is keen on promoting free competition and the development of a free market consistent with the legislative policy of deregulation as an answer to the problems of the oil industry. The interpretation of an administrative government agency like the ERB, which is tasked to implement a statute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. When an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a preexisting law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. Thus, an action by an administrative agency may be set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.

HELD: SC held that there was valid delegation of powers. In questioning the validity of the memorandum circular, Eastern Shipping Lines contended that POEA was given no authority to promulgate the regulation, and even with such authorization, the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which, under the principle, is not subject to delegation. GENERAL RULE: Non-delegation of powers; exception It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate. Two Tests of Valid Delegation of Legislative Power There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power, viz, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative

Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA 166 SCRA 533 (1988)

authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. Xxx The delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception. Rationale for Delegation of Legislative Power The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected to reasonably comprehend. Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. Too many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say, specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields. Power of Subordinate Legislation The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the power of subordinate legislation. With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in statute by filling in the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative regulation.

Sought to be set aside in this petition for review on certiorari are the: (a) Decision1 dated November 20, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu dismissing Gualberto Castro's petition for mandamus; and b) Order2 dated January 5, 1998 denying his motion for reconsideration. The factual and legal antecedents are as follows: Porfirio Gutang, Jr. filed with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) a complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct against petitioner Gualberto Castro, a teacher in Guibuangan Central School, Barili, Cebu. It was alleged that he has an illicit affair with Gutang's wife, petitioner's co-teacher at the same school. After hearing or on August 28, 1984, the DECS Regional Office VII, through Assistant Superintendent Francisco B. Concillo, rendered a decision declaring petitioner guilty of the offense charged. He was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service.3 The DECS Central Office affirmed Concillo's decision in an Indorsement dated March 25, 1986.4 On July 21, 1986, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Instead of resolving the motion, the DECS Central Office directed the School Division of Cebu to comment on the motion.5 The School Division Superintendent recommended that the motion be resolved favorably. However, the recommendation was opposed by the DECS Region VII.6 Thereafter, in his letters dated November 5, 1988 and July 19, 1990, petitioner asked the incumbent DECS Secretary to resolve his motion for reconsideration. But his letters remained unheeded, thus, on October 4, 1995, petitioner filed with the DECS Central Office a "Motion for Review Setting Aside/Modifying the Decision of Regional Director of DECS Region VII."7 DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria (respondent) referred the motion to the Regional Director of Region VII for comment. On January 3, 1996, Regional Director Eladio C. Dioko issued a 2nd Indorsement sustaining the decision of Assistant Superintendent Concillo, thus: "This Office sustains former Director Concillo's decision that respondent Castro is guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct but posits the belief that the proper penalty as provided by law be meted out for him. In the Honorable Secretary is vested by law the power to review, reaffirm, modify or reverse decisions of a lower office.8 In his 3rd Indorsement dated March 6, 1996, respondent Secretary denied petitioner' s motion for review.9 Thrice thwarted, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu, imploring that judgment be rendered ordering respondent Secretary or anyone who may have assumed the duties and functions of his office (1) to reduce his penalty from dismissal to one (1) year suspension; 2) to consider the one (1) year suspension as already served considering that he has been out of the service for more than ten (10) years; 3) to reinstate him to his former position; and 4) to pay his back salaries.10 On November 20, 1997, the trial court rendered the herein assailed

decision dismissing the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. It ruled that petitioner should have appealed to the Civil Service Commission before coming to court, thus: "Considering that the Civil Service Commission has the power to review on appeal the orders or acts of respondent, petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies implies absence of cause of action. Where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before recourse can be made to the courts. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Vidad v. RTC of Negros Oriental, Branch 42, 227 SCRA 271). Mandamus If appeal or some other equally adequate remedy is still available in the ordinary course of law, the action for MANDAMUS would be improper. Sherman Vs. Horilleno, 57 Phil. 13; Fajardo Vs. Llorente, 6 Phil, 426; Paquio Vs. Del Rosario, 46 Phil. 59; Manalo v. Paredes, 47,938; Castro Revilla Vs. Garduno, 53 Phil. 934; Rural Transit Co. vs. Teodoro, 57 Phil. 11. Special Civil Actions against administrative officers should not be entertained if superior administrative officers could grant relief. Cecilio vs. Belmonte, 48 Phil. 243, 255. From the facts it is clear that the penalty of dismissal from the service was erroneously imposed upon petitioner. However, certiorari is the remedy to correct errors of judgment which are grave and arbitrary and not mandamus. Mandamus will not lie to order the reinstatement of the petitioner in his former position as Elementary Grades Teacher as it was not yet established that he is entitled to or has legal right to the office. In the case of Manalo vs. Gloria, 236 SCRA 130, the petitioner's claim for "backwages" could be the appropriate subject of an ordinary civil action as mandamus applies when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the case at bench, the Court after a judicious study and analysis on the case, has no other alternative than to DENY the present petition for lack of merit. SO ORDERED."11 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner insists that, "when the question to be settled is purely a question of law, he may go directly to the proper court so that he can have proper redress." For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001

GUALBERTO CASTRO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY RICARDO GLORIA IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondent. SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, J.: The principle of non-exhaustion of administrative remedy is not an iron-clad rule. There are instances when it may be pierced and judicial action may be resorted to immediately. The present case is one illustration.

(OSG) contends that petitioner's adequate remedy was to appeal the decision of respondent Secretary to the Civil Service Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order No. 292. Since petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, his petition must be dismissed for lack of cause of action. Also, the OSG argues that the remedy of mandamus to compel payment of back salary does not lie unless petitioner's right thereto is well defined. This is based on the general proposition that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service. The petition is impressed with merit. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. It is settled that nonobservance of the doctrine results in lack of a cause of action,12 which is one of the grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for the dismissal of the complaint.13 The doctrine is not absolute. There are instances when it may be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately. Among these exceptions are: 1) When the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; 4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim involved is small; 6) when irreparable damage will be suffered; 7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public interest is involved; and 9) in quo warranto proceedings.14 Truly, a petition for mandamus is premature if there are administrative remedies available to petitioner.15 But where the case involves only legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust all administrative remedies before such judicial relief can be sought.16 In Cortes v. Bartolome,17 a case involving a petition for mandamus, we ruled that "while it may be that non-judicial remedies could have been available to respondent in that he could have appealed to the then Secretary of Local Government and Community Development and thereafter to the Civil Service Commission, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies need not be adhered to when the question is purely legal." This is because issues of law cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer. Appeal to the administrative officer would only be an exercise in futility.18 Thus, in the ultimate, the resolution of this case hinges on whether or not the following is a question of law or a question of fact Is dismissal from the service the proper penalty for the 1st offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct? It is settled that for a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. And the distinction is well known. There is a question of law when the doubt or differences arise as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or differences arise as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.19

In the case at bench, petitioner no longer disputes the administrative finding of his guilt for the offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct. It is settled and final insofar as he is concerned. What petitioner only impugns is the correctness of the penalty of "dismissal from the service." He is convinced that the proper penalty for the first offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is only suspension from the service. Undoubtedly, the issue here is a pure question of law. We need only to look at the applicable law or rule and we will be able to determine whether the penalty of dismissal is in order. We find for petitioner. Petitioner has all the reasons to seek the aid of this Court since it has been clearly established by evidence that he is a first time offender. Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws)20 provides: "SECTION 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service. The following are grave offenses with its corresponding penalties: xxx xxx xxx

dismissal is imposed for the second offense. (Emphasis supplied) Inasmuch as the present charge of immorality against respondent constitutes the first charge of this nature, the Court shall at this instance suspend respondent for six (6) months and one (1) day. Again, in the 1997 case of Ecube-Badel v. Badel,24 we imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) year without pay against respondent David Badel for his first offense of immorality. It is worthy to note that even DECS Regional Director Eladio C. Dioko stated in his 2nd Indorsement dated January 3, 1996, that while he sustains Director Concillo's decision, "the proper penalty as provided by law (should) be meted out for him." The Regional Trial Court also echoed the same sentiment, thus: "From the facts, it is clear that the penalty of dismissal from the service was erroneously imposed upon petitioner. However, certiorari is the remedy to correct errors of judgment which are grave and arbitrary and not mandamus." Anent petitioner's prayer for the payment of back salaries, we find it to be without legal basis. The issue regarding payment of back salaries during the period that a member of the civil service is out of work but subsequently ordered reinstated is settled in our jurisdiction. Such payment of salaries corresponding to the period when an employee is not allowed to work may be decreed if he is found innocent of the charges. However, if the employee is not completely exenorated of the charges25 such as when the penalty of dismissal is reduced to mere suspension, he would not be entitled to the payment of his back salaries. In Yacia v. City of Baguio,26 the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service ordering the dismissal of a government employee on the ground of dishonesty was immediately executed pending appeal. But, on appeal, the Civil Service Board of Appeals modified that penalty of dismissal to a fine equivalent to six months pay. This Court ruled that the employee's claim for back wages, for the period during which he was not allowed to work because of the execution of the decision of the Commissioner, should be denied. The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service. As he works, he shall earn. Since petitioner did not work during the period for which he is now claiming salaries, there can be no legal or equitable basis to order the payment of such salaries.27 Thus, we reduce the penalty of dismissal imposed upon petitioner to suspension for a period of one year without pay. Considering that he has been out of the service for quite a long time, we feel he has been sufficiently punished for his offense. We, therefore, order his reinstatement. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Regional Trial Court's Decision dated November 20, 1997 and Order dated January

(o) Disgraceful and immoral conduct <1st Offense, Suspension for six (6) months and one day (1) day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense, Dismissal.>" As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the proper penalty for the 1st offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is only suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. In fact, this has been the consistent ruling of this Court. In Aquino v. Navarro,21 a secondary guidance counselor in a public high school, was merely suspended for disgraceful and immoral conduct. In Burgos v. Aquino,22 the Court suspended a court stenographer for six months for maintaining illicit relations with the complainant's husband and for perjury in not disclosing in her personal information sheet she has a daughter as a result of that relationship. Similarly, in Nalupta Jr. v. Tapec,23 a deputy sheriff was suspended for six months and one day for having a relationship with a woman other than his wife by whom he has two children. Thus: The act of respondent of having illicit relations with Consolacion Inocencio is considered disgraceful and immoral conduct within the purview of Section 36 (b) (5) of Presidential Decree No. 807, otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines, for which respondent may be subjected to disciplinary action. Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1989 of the Civil Service Commission has categorized disgraceful and immoral conduct as a grave offense for which a penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day shall be imposed for the first offense, while the penalty of

5, 1998 are SET ASIDE. The penalty of dismissal imposed upon petitioner is reduced to one (1) year suspension from office without pay. In view of the length of time petitioner has been out of the service, we consider the penalty of suspension to have been fully served. He must, therefore, be REINSTATED to office immediately. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

"thru their own effort and initiative" only on 13 June 1994. 8 However, they received a copy of Special Order No. 174 on 26 April 1994. Although they insist that the basis of the appeal before RAB 8 was Special Order No. 174, 9 petitioner Cabada stated under oath in his Appeal 10 filed with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) that he in fact seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Regional Director of PNP-RECOM 8, who, however, failed or refused to act on the said motion, and that he asked that the said motion be treated as an appeal to the RAB. In its decision of 15 August 1994, 11 the RAB 8 affirmed the decision of the Regional Director. In its resolution of 25 October 1994, 12 it denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of its decision. The petitioners received a copy of this resolution on 26 January 1995. Petitioners Cabada and De Guzman then filed with the Honorable Secretary of the DILG and Chairman of the NAPOLCOM their "Appeal" 13 dated 5 February 1995 and "Petition for Review" 14 dated 4 February 1995, respectively. In its decision of 24 March 1995, the NAPOLCOM, through Commissioner Alexis Canonizado, denied due course to the petitioners' appeal and petition for review for lack of jurisdiction "it appearing . . . that both the Decision and the Resolution of the Regional Appellate Board had long become final and executory and there being no showing that the RAB failed to decide respondents' appeal within the reglementary period of sixty (60) days." 15 In support thereof, the NAPOLCOM cited Section 23, Rule IV of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 91-002 and Section 5, Rule III of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 91-006, which provide as follows: Sec. 23. Effect of Failure to Decide Appeal. Failure of the Regional Appellate Board to decide the appeal within the reglementary period shall render the decision final and executory without prejudice, however, to the filing of an appeal by either party with the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 5. Finality of Decision/Resolution. The decision of the Regional Appellate Board on an appealed case shall become final and executory after ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the appellant, if no Motion for Reconsideration is filed within said period. A motion for Reconsideration may be filed by either party from a Decision rendered by the Regional Appellate Board on an appealed case, provided that the same is filed within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of the decision in question. However, only one (1) Motion for Reconsideration may be allowed.

Tan vs. Veterans Backpay Commission 105 Phil. 377 FACTS: On March 5, 1957, petitioner-appellee, Maria Natividad vda. de Tan filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a verified petition for mandamus seeking an order to compel the respondent-appellant Veterans Back Pay Commission: (1) to declare deceased Lt. Tan Chiat Bee alias Tan Lian Lay, a Chinese national, entitled to backpay rights, privileges, and prerogatives under Republic Act No. 304, as amended by Republic Act No. 897; and (2) to give due course to the claim of petitioner, as the widow of the said veterans, by issuing to her the corresponding backpay certificate of indebtedness. The lower court rendered decision in favor of the Petitioner. Against the decision, the respondent instituted this appeal averring once more, in its assignment of errors, the special and affirmative defenses that the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies; that the suit is, in effect, an action to enforce a money claim against the government without its consent; that mandamus will not lie to compel the exercise of a discretionary function; and that the Republic Act Nos. 304 and 897 already referred to were never intended to benefit aliens.

G.R. No. 119645 August 22, 1996 SPO3 NOEL CABADA and SPO3 RODOLFO G. DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. HON. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government & Chairman, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM); HON. ALEXIS CANONIZADO, Commissioner, NAPOLCOM, Manila; Chairman LEODEGARIO ALFARO, Regional Appellate Board VIII; Regional Director EDMUNDO LAVILLA LARROZA, Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Command VIII; and MARIO VALDEZ, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:p This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court 1 to set aside the decision (in the form of a letter) of 24 March 1995 2 of public respondent National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), which denied due course for lack of jurisdiction the appeal and the petition for review filed by petitioners SP03 Noel Cabada and SP03 Rodolfo G. de Guzman, respectively. Challenged in the said appeal and petition for review were the decision of 15 August 1994 3 and resolution of 25 October 1994 4 of the Regional Appellate Board of the Eighth Regional Command (RAB 8), which affirmed their dismissal from the service. The pleadings and annexes filed by the parties disclose the following factual and procedural backdrop of this case: On 29 October 1993, a complaint against the petitioners for Grave Misconduct, Arbitrary Detention, and Dishonesty was filed with the Office of the Commission on Human Rights in Tacloban City by private respondent Mario Valdez. 5 The complaint was referred to the Philippine National Police Eighth Regional Command (PNP-RECOM 8) which, after conducting its own investigation, filed an administrative charge of Grave Misconduct against the petitioners and instituted summary dismissal proceedings. On 7 April 1994, the Regional Director of PNP-RECOM 8 handed down a decision 6 finding the petitioners guilty of grave misconduct and ordering their dismissal from the police service. Pursuant to this decision, Special Order No. 174, dated 23 April 1994, 7 was issued ordering, among other things, the dismissal of the petitioners from the service. The petitioners claimed that they were not formally furnished with a copy of the decision and that they were able to secure a copy thereof

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner needs to exhaust Administrative Remedies before resorting to court proceeding.

HELD: It is further contended by the Commission that the petitioner should have first exhausted her administrative remedies by appealing to the President of the Philippines, and that her failure to do so is a bar to her action in court. The respondent Commission is in estoppel to invoke this rule, considering that in its resolution reiterating its obstinate refusal to abide by the opinion of the Secretary of Justice, who is the legal adviser of the Executive Department, the Commission declared that the opinions promulgated by the Secretary of Justice are advisory in nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office seeking the opinion, and any aggrieved party has the court for recourse, thereby leading the petitioner to conclude that only a final judicial ruling in her favor would be accepted by the Commission.

Hence, the instant petition. The Office of the Solicitor General seeks to dismiss this petition on the ground of prematurity because the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies; they should have instead appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pursuant to Section 47, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292), which vests upon the CSC appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary cases of government personnel where the penalty imposed is, inter alia, dismissal from office. The said provision reads: Sec. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. (1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, or removal or dismissal from office. . . . (2) The Secretaries . . . shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. . . . In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the Department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case, the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned. The Office of the Solicitor General opines that this provision covers PNP personnel, like the petitioners; consequently, they should have appealed to the CSC. It also advances the view that the instant petition should have been filed with the proper forum, the Regional Trial Court. The core issues that present themselves for our determination are whether. (1) the NAPOLCOM committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course, for lack of jurisdiction, the petitioners' appeal from and petition for review of the decision and resolution of the RAB 8; and (2) this special civil action was prematurely filed for failure of the petitioners to exhaust administrative remedies. I Section 45 of the DILG Act of 1990 provides for the finality of disciplinary actions against members of the PNP as follows:
16

the PNP shall be final and executory: Provided, That a disciplinary action imposed by the regional director or by the PLEB involving demotion or dismissal from the service may be appealed to the regional appellate board within ten (10) days from receipt of the copy of the notice of decision: Provided, further, That the disciplinary action imposed by the Chief of the PNP involving demotion or dismissal may be appealed to the National Appellate Board within ten (10) days from receipt thereof: Provided, furthermore, That, the regional or National Appellate Board, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal within sixty (60) days from receipt of the notice of appeal: Provided, finally, That failure of the regional appellate board to act on the appeal within said period shall render the decision final and executory without prejudice, however, to the filing of an appeal by either party with the Secretary. (emphasis supplied) The last proviso of this section is restated in Section 23, Rule IV of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 91-002. And Section 3, Rule III of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 92-006 provides: Sec. 3. Period Within Which to Decide Appealed Cases; Finality of RAB/NAB Decisions. The NAPOLCOM appellate board concerned shall decide the appealed cases within sixty (60) days from receipt of the entire records of the case from the PNP summary dismissal authority. However, failure of the NAPOLCOM Regional Appellate Board (RAB) to act on the appeal within said period renders the decision final and executory without prejudice to the filing of an appeal by the respondent-appellant with the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. The decision rendered by the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board (NAB) disposing an appealed case shall be final and executory unless a timely Motion for Reconsideration is filed within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, in which case, it shall become final and executory upon receipt by the respondent-appellant of the resolution of the aforesaid board denying, modifying or affirming the decision. Section 45 of the DILG Act of 1990 specifically provides that if a RAB fails to decide an appeal within the reglementary period of sixty days, the appealed decision becomes final and executory without, however, prejudice to the right of the aggrieved party to appeal to the Secretary of the DILG. The said provision is, however, silent as regards the

availability of an appeal from a decision rendered by a RAB within the reglementary period. This gap in Section 45 cannot be construed to prohibit appeals from decisions of the RAB rendered within the reglementary period, for while the epigraph of the section is worded Finality of Disciplinary Action, there is nothing therein that explicitly bars any further appeal. Complementary laws on discipline of government officials and employees must then be inquired into considering that in conformity with the mandate of the Constitution that the PNP must be national in scope and civilian in character, 17 it is now a part, as a bureau, of the reorganized DILG. 18 As such, it falls within the definition of the civil service in Section 2 (1), Article IX-B of the Constitution. 19 For this reason, Section 91 of the DILG Act of 1990 provides: Sec. 91. Application of Civil Service Laws. The Civil Service Law and its implementing rules and regulations shall apply to all personnel of the Department. The Civil Service Law referred to in Section 91 of the DILG Act of 1990 is Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292). Section 47 of Chapter 6 thereof provides, inter alia, that in cases where the decision rendered by a bureau or office is appealable to the Commission, the same may initially be appealed to the department and finally to the Commission. The rules and regulations implementing the Civil Service Law referred to in Section 91 of the DILG Act of 1990 is the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 known as the Administrative Code of 1987 promulgated by the CSC. Sections 31 and 32, Rule XIV of the said Rules provide as follows: Sec. 31. Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the Commission shall have the final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of such officers and employees. Sec. 32. The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days' salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department, then to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and finally to the Commission and pending appeal,

Sec. 45. Finality of Disciplinary Action. The disciplinary action imposed upon a member of

the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned. Under Section 7 of E.O. No. 262, 20 the Secretary of the DILG has the power of supervision and control of his Department. His powers and functions thereunder are recognized and affirmed in Section 10 of the DILG Act of 1990. 21 In view then of the aforementioned gap in Section 45 of the DILG Act of 1990, the provisions of the Civil Service Law and the rules and regulations implementing it must be taken into account in light of the maxim interpretare concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi or every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. 22 As thus construed and harmonized, it follows that if a RAB fails to decide an appealed case within sixty days from receipt of the notice of appeal, the appealed decision is deemed final and executory, and the aggrieved party may forthwith appeal therefrom to the Secretary of the DILG. Likewise, if the RAB has decided the appeal within the sixty-day period, its decision may still be appealed to the Secretary of the DILG. In the instant case, Cabada's appeal was addressed to "the Honorable Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government . . . as Chairman and Presiding Officer of the National Police Commission," 23 while De Guzman's petition for review was addressed to "the Honorable Secretary, Department of the Interior and Local Government and Chairman, National Police Commission, Makati City, Metro Manila." 24 We consider the appeal and the petition for review as appeals to the Secretary of the DILG under Section 45 of the DILG Act of 1990. Only the Secretary of the DILG can act thereon, one way or the other. The NAPOLCOM did not have authority over the appeal and the petition for review, and just because both mentioned the Secretary of the DILG as Chairman or Presiding Officer of the NAPOLCOM did not bring them within the jurisdiction of the NAPOLCOM. The latter does not have such jurisdiction because Section 14 of the DILG Act of 1990 pertinently provides as follows: Sec. 14. Powers and Functions of the Commission. . . . xxx xxx xxx (i) Affirm, reverse or modify, through the National Appellate Board, personnel disciplinary action involving demotion or dismissal from the service imposed upon members of the Philippine National Police by the Chief of the Philippine National Police; (k) Exercise appellate jurisdiction through the regional appellate boards over administrative

cases against policemen and over decisions on claims for police benefits. . . . This section clearly shows that the NAPOLCOM exercise appellate jurisdiction only on the following cases and THROUGH (a) the NAB in personnel disciplinary actions involving demotion or dismissal from the service imposed by the Chief of the PNP, and (b) the RAB in administrative cases against policemen and over decisions on claims for police benefits. It has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions rendered by the NAB and the RAB. Consequently, the NAPOLCOM did not have the power or authority to issue, through Commissioner Alexis Canonizado, the 24 March 1995 decision denying due course to the appeal and petition for review filed by petitioners Cabada and De Guzman, respectively, for lack of jurisdiction because of Section 5, Rule III of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 91-006 and Section 23, Rule IV of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 91-002. The reference to these rules suggest that the NAPOLCOM believes it has jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the RAB if the latter has not decided the appeal within the reglementary period of sixty days. Such a suggestion is flawed because it would allow a ridiculous situation where the NAPOLCOM vests upon itself an appellate jurisdiction from a decision rendered by it in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction through the RAB, per Section 14(k) of the DILG Act of 1990. Moreover, Commissioner Canonizado cannot, singly, act for the NAPOLCOM because it is a collegial body composed of a Chairman and four Commissioners, pursuant to Section 13 of the DILG Act of 1990. In light of the foregoing, the petitioners could properly invoke our original jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul and set aside the NAPOLCOM's decision of 24 March 1995. It being a patent nullity, the filing of a motion for its reconsideration before the institution of this special civil action may be dispensed with. 25 II The plea of the Office of the Solicitor General that the instant action is premature for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is thus untenable. We would have sustained it if the Secretary of the DILG was the one who denied due course to or dismissed the appeal of petitioner Cabada and the petition for review of petitioner De Guzman. By then, pursuant to Section 91 of the DILG Act of 1990; Section 47, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987; and Sections 31 and 32 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, the appeal would have to be filed with the CSC. And futile would be the petitioners claim in their Reply to the Comment of the OSG that their case falls within the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. In view of all the foregoing, a discussion on the other issues raised by the petitioners relating to the merits of the case and on the issue of due process is unnecessary.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision (in the form of a fetter) of the National Police Commission of 24 March 1995 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government is DIRECTED to RESOLVE with reasonable dispatch the appeal and petition for review of petitioners SP03 NOEL CABADA and SP03 RODOLFO G. DE Guzman, respectively, from the decision of 15 August 1994 and resolution of 25 October 1994 of the Regional Appellate Boar, Eight Regional Command, if the same were filed on time. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (PCGG) v SANDIGANBAYAN 255 SCRA 438 FRANCISCO; March 29, 1996

FACTS - Petitioner PCGG issued separate sequestration orders against Sipalay Trading Corporation and Allied Banking Corporation, allegedly part of Lucio Tans ill-gotten wealth. 2 separate petitions were filed by Sipalay and Allied before the SC assailing the sequestration orders. The SC referred the cases to the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition. - The petitions were jointly heard. The Sandiganbayan ordered the submission by PCGG of its formal evidence in writing, but the latter instead filed a Motion to Dismiss. This motion to dismiss came nearly 7 years after Sipalay and Allied originally filed their petitions before the SC. The ground was Sialays and Allieds alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The PCGG argued that Sipalay and Allied should have first appealed the sequestration orders to the Office of the President before challenging them in court, invoking the PCGG Rules and Regulations. - The Sandiganbayan denied the motion and voided the orders issued against Sipalay and Allied.

ISSUES WON Sandiganbayans denial of PCGGs motion to dismiss is proper

HELD YES - Hardly can it be disputed that a direct action in court without prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, when required, is premature, warranting its dismissal on a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of

cause of action. The Court approves of the filing of a motion to dismiss based upon failure to state a cause of action at any stage of the proceedings. - As a general rule, a motion to dismiss is interposed before the defendant pleads (Sec 1 Rule 16 Rules of Court). However, there is no rule or law prohibiting the defendant from filing a motion to dismiss after an answer had been filed. On the contrary, Section 2 of Rule 9, expressly authorizes the filing of such motion at any stage of the proceedings when it is based upon failure to state a cause of action. - These principles, at first impression, appear to favor the PCGG. Sections 5 and 6 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations indeed provide an administrative mechanism for persons or entities contesting the sequestration orders issued against them. Section 5. - Who may contest - The person against whom a writ of sequestration or freeze or hold order is directed may request the lifting thereof in writing, either personally or through counsel within 5 days from the receipt of the writ of order. Section 6. - Procedure for Review of writ or order - After due hearing or motu propio for good cause shown, the Commission may lift the writ or order unconditionally or subject to such condition as it may deem necessary, taking into consideration the evidence and circumstances of the case. The resolution of the Commission may be appealed by the party concerned to the Office of the President of the Philippines within15 days from receipt thereof. - Neither an initial request before the PCGG for the lifting of the sequestration orders nor an appeal to the Office of the President was made by Sipalay and Allied before they filed their respective petitions in court. The PCGGs motion to dismiss was anchored on lack of cause of action, albeit filed beyond the period to answer. - However, the peculiarities of this case preclude the rightful application of the principles aforestated. The Sipalay and Allied petitions were both filed on the third quarter of 1986, while the PCGG decided to file its motion to dismiss only in the middle of 1993. Nearly 7 years came to pass in between that so much has already transpired in the proceedings during the interregnum. Sipalay and Allied had rested their cases, and the PCGG had finished presenting all its witnesses, not to mention other various motions and incidents already disposed of by the Sandiganbayan, with special attention to the numerous postponements granted the PCGG for presentation of its evidence which prevented an earlier termination of the proceedings. The motion to dismiss came only at the penultimate stage of the proceedings where the remaining task left for the PCGG was to file its written formal offer of evidence as required by the Sandiganbayan. - Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it.

- The length of time the PCGG allowed to drift away and its decision to file its motion to dismiss only at the homestretch of the trial hardly qualify as proper time. Such tarried maneuver made the PCGG guilty of estoppel by laches - Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could nor should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. - With its undenied belated action, 7 years in the making at that, it is only proper to presume with conclusiveness that the PCGG has abandoned or declined to assert what it bewailed as the Sipalay and Allied petitions lack of cause of action. Proper time cannot mean nor sanction an unexplained and unreasonable length of time such as 7 years. The leniency extended by the Rules (Rule 9, Section 2, Rules of Court) and by jurisprudence in allowing a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action filed after the answer or at any stage of the proceedings cannot be invoked to cover-up and validate the onset of laches - or the failure to do something which should be done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper time which, in this case, was one of the PCGGs follies. Indeed, in matters of timeliness, indecent waste is just as reprehensible as indecent haste. - Another equally forceful reason warranting the denial of the PCGGs motion to dismiss is that this case falls under two recognized exceptions to the general rule of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the Sandiganbayans brief but lucid disquisition on one exception merits this Courts approval. The rule on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to petitioners case. This rule, which is based on sound public policy and practical considerations, is not inflexible. It is subject to many exceptions, to wit: (i) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (ii) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (iii) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; and (iv) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice. x x x there was no absolute necessity of appealing respondent PCGGs resolution to the Office of the President, as purportedly required by Section 6 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations, inasmuch as respondent PCGG seemed to have exhibited indifference towards petitioners pleas for the lifting of the sequestration and search and seizure orders. Official inaction or unreasonable delay, as heretofore intimated, is one of the exceptions to the rule on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Hence, under the circumstance, petitioners may not be faulted for seeking relief directly from the courts. - The other exception is the first in the enumeration, i.e., where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine, consisting in the PCGGs being guilty of estoppel by laches which has just been discussed in great length. In answer therefore to the first key issue, this Court rules in the affirmative. The denial of the PCGGs motion to dismiss was in order.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. Nos. 115121-25 February 9, 1996

NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY and ROMEO G. DAVID, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon City, HON. RODOLFO ORTIZ, Presiding Judge, Regional trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City, HON. TIRSO D. C. VELASCO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Quezon City, HON. BENEDICTO B. ULEP, Presiding Judge, Branch 105, Quezon City, HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN, Presiding Judge, Branch 98, Quezon City, COL. FELIX M. MANUBAY, MASADA SECURITY AGENCY, CONTINENTAL WATCHMAN AND SECURITY AGENCY, ALBERTO T. LASALA, and NORMAN D. MAPAGAY, respondents. DECISION PUNO, J.: The case at bar involves the legality of negotiated security contracts awarded by the National Food Authority (NFA), a government-owned and controlled corporation and its Administrator, Romeo G. David, to several private security agencies, in default of a public bidding. Petitioners NFA and David seek a modification of the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it nullifies and enjoins the implementation of the said negotiated security contracts. The facts are not disputed. In 1990, the NFA, through then Administrator Pelayo J. Gabaldon, conducted a public bidding to award security contracts for the protection of its properties and facilities all over the country . Twelve security agencies were awarded one-year contracts, among whom were private respondents Col. Felix M. Manubay (doing business under the name Greenview Investigation and Security Agency), Continental Watchman and Security Agency, Alberto T. Lasala (doing business under the name PSF Watchman and Investigation Agency) and Norman D. Mapagay (doing business under the name People's Protective and Security Agency). In August 1992, petitioner Romeo G. David became NFA Administrator. He caused a review of all security service contracts, procedures on the accreditation of private security agencies and the bidding for security services. Pending this review, Administrator David extended the services of private respondents and the other incumbent security agencies on a periodic basis. The review was completed in March 1993 and new terms for accreditation, bidding and hiring of security agencies were made. The bidding areas were also reclassified and reduced from fourteen NFA regions to only five NFA areas nationwide. A special order was

thereafter issued for the implementation of the new rules and procedure. On April 6, 1993, Special Order No. 04-07 was issued under which Administrator David created a Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) to undertake the prequalification of prospective bidders, conduct the bidding, evaluate the bids tendered and recommend to the Administrator the bids accepted. Notices for prequalification and bidding for security services were published in a newspaper of national circulation. All incumbent security contractors were required to prequalify and only those prequalified were to be allowed to participate in the prebidding and bidding scheduled on June 4 and 18, 1993, respectively. The prebidding and bidding dates were later reset to June 18 and 30, 1993 to give more time for the participants to comply with documentary requirements. Forty-one security agencies, composed of the incumbents and new applicants, including private respondent Masada Security Agency, submitted the necessary documents for prequalification. Upon a review of the documents submitted, the PBAC disqualified respondent Mapagay for failure to submit proof of his financial capability to support his bid. It also disqualified respondent Lasala for alleged failure to meet the five-year service requirement. Only respondents Manubay, Continental and Masada participated in the prebidding and were declared on June 17, 1993 prequalified to bid. Meanwhile, however, two of the applicants who failed to prequalify, namely Lanting Security and Watchman Agency and respondent Lasala, filed separate complaints with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City to restrain Administrator David and the PBAC from proceeding with the public bidding. As prayed for, restraining orders were issued by the two courts on June 29, 1993 which the NFA received on June 30, 1993, the day of the scheduled bidding. No bidding thus took place on said date. On respondent Lasala's application, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, Quezon City issued on July 20, 1993 a preliminary injunction ordering the PBAC to refrain from proceeding with the bidding until the merits of the case shall have been heard and resolved. During the effectivity of the writ of preliminary injunction, Administrator David sent to all incumbent security agencies, including four of herein private respondents, notices of termination dated July 30, 1993. Private respondents .were informed that their services were to end on August 16, 1993 inasmuch as their respective contracts had expired and they no longer enjoyed the trust and confidence of the NFA. They were thus instructed to withdraw their security guards from all NFA installations. On August 4, 1993, Administrator David contracted the services of seven new security agencies starting August 16, 1993 on a month-tomonth basis pending resolution of the injunction against the bidding. Private respondents forthwith filed separate complaints with the Regional Trial Court, Branches 85, 89, 88, 105 and 98, Quezon City for prohibition, mandamus and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction and restraining order.1

The trial courts issued five separate restraining orders and injunctions ordering the NFA to desist from terminating the services of respondents, and from awarding and installing the new security agencies replacing them. These orders were challenged by NFA and David in separate petitions before the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion by respondent judges. The Court of Appeals consolidated the petitions and on March 11, 1994 rendered a decision partially granting the same by annulling that part of the orders restraining NFA from terminating the contracts with the incumbent security agencies but affirming the orders insofar as they enjoined NFA from awarding the contracts to the seven new security agencies. The Court of Appeals ordered: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is found meritorious in part and partially given DUE COURSE . The assailed orders and writs of preliminary injunction are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE insofar as they order petitioners to cease and desist from terminating or implementing the termination of private respondents' expired security contracts with NFA. The said assailed orders and writs of preliminary injunction issued are, however, declared LEGAL, VALID and NOT issued in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion insofar as they enjoin petitioners from awarding the security service contracts to the seven (7) security agencies named by petitioners and/or implementing said awards. To this extent the petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit.2 Reconsideration was denied on April 15, 1994. Petitioners now assail that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals nullifying and enjoining the implementation of the contracts with the new security agencies. They plead that we restrain the lower courts from enforcing the injunction as against the new security agencies. They argue that the new security agencies were hired as an "emergency measure" after the contracts with the incumbent security agencies expired. They claim that without the new security agencies, the properties of the NFA worth billions of pesos would be exposed to danger of loss and dissipation.3 On May 18, 1994, we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from enforcing the decision of the Court of Appeals and the writs of preliminary injunction issued by the trial courts "insofar as the same nullify or otherwise stop the implementation of the subject interim negotiated NFA security contracts." We however ordered petitioners to "proceed with the public bidding of the security contracts without delay and submit to us a report on the result of such bidding within 30 days from the holding thereof.4 On July 21, 1994, petitioners submitted a report dated July 19, 1994 informing the Court that a public bidding was held on June 21, 1994 but no contract had been awarded because the PBAC had to study and evaluate each and every bid proposal.5

A second report dated March 3, 1995 was filed by petitioners informing us that deliberation on the bids was prolonged by the necessity of passing upon the technical merits of each bid and by the discovery of collusion between two bidders "which spawned threats against the life of the members of the PBAC." The PBAC decided to conduct a rebidding in Areas 1, 2 and 3 and apprise the court of the results thereof.6 A third report dated July 13, 1995 was submitted where petitioners manifested that still no contract had been awarded because the minimum number of bidders per area was not met. Two bidders7 for Areas 3, 4 and 5 submitted identical bids which were held collusive by the PBAC per advice of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel. The rejection of the two agencies reduced the number of bidders in each area below the required minimum compelling the PBAC to recommend a failure of bidding in all five NFA areas. Petitioners, however, could not act on the PBAC's recommendation because a temporary restraining order was issued on April 10, 1995 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Davao. One of the bidders found in collusion8 filed a complaint with the said Regional Trial Court questioning the legality of the PBAC's rejection of its bids and enjoining NFA and the PBAC from awarding security contracts to any lowest or next lowest qualified bidder.9 We shall now resolve the contentions of petitioners that the Court of Appeals gravely erred: I IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAVE NO RIGHT AND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONERS, AND THEREFORE, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE QUESTIONED RELIEF GRANTED THEM BY RESPONDENTS RTC JUDGES AND COURT OF APPEALS; II IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DID NOT AVAIL OF, MUCH LESS EXHAUST, AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, THEREBY RENDERING THEIR COMPLAINT PREMATURE AND LEGALLY DEFICIENT TO MERIT THE GRANT OF JUDICIAL RELIEF; III IN ITS FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE NEW INTERIM MONTHLY NEGOTIATED SECURITY CONTRACTS OF NFA, INTENDED TO PROVIDE NFA WITH AMPLE SECURITY DURING THE TEMPORARY EMERGENCY PERIOD THAT A PUBLIC BIDDING CANNOT BE CONDUCTED BY REASON OF THE INJUNCTIVE ORDERS OF THE COURTS A QUO, ARE SANCTIONED BY LAW, BEING LEGITIMATE EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT OF A PUBLIC BIDDING;

IV IN ITS GENERAL FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE INTERIM MONTHLY NEGOTIATED NFA SECURITY CONTRACTS ARE A VALID EXERCISE OF BUSINESS JUDGMENT WITHIN THE PERIMETERS OF NFA MANAGEMENT'S AREA OF COMPETENCE. THE CA, MOREOVER, SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE LAW AND THE SITUATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE SANCTION AND EVEN CALL FOR THE IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID INTERIM CONTRACTS.10 We reject these contentions. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is subject to some limitations and exceptions. In this case, private respondents' contracts were terminated in the midst of bidding preparations and their replacements hired barely five days after their termination. In fact, respondent Masada, a prequalified bidder, submitted all requirements and was preparing for the public bidding only to find out that contracts had already been awarded by negotiation. Indeed, an appeal to the NFA Board or Council of Trustees and the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 11 was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. 12 The urgency of the situation compelled private respondents to go to court to stop the implementation of these negotiated security contracts. We are neither impressed by petitioners' claim that the subject contracts were negotiated as a necessity to stave off a crisis that gripped the NFA, i.e., the loss, destruction and dissipation of their properties, warehouses, rice and corn stocks and facilities with an estimated value of P19 billion. Petitioners allege they were merely exercising their sound business judgment in an emergency situation brought about by respondent security agencies themselves who, in the first place, obtained the injunctions from the Quezon City trial courts. First of all, the restraining orders and writ of preliminary injunction issued by the two Quezon City trial courts on complaint by Lanting and respondent Lasala suspending the public bidding scheduled on June 30, 1993 did not result in the emergency situation petitioners alleged. The security vacuum was created when petitioners terminated the services of the incumbent security agencies after the issuance of the said orders and before the injunctions issued by respondent trial courts on application by private respondents. When the bidding did not take place on June 30, 1993, the incumbent security agencies continued rendering services to petitioners, albeit on a temporary and provisional basis. However, one month later, they were all terminated on grounds of expiration of contract and loss of trust and confidence. We agree with the Court of Appeals that it was well within the power of petitioners to discontinue the services of the incumbent security agencies. Their contracts with the NFA expired in 1992, hence, their services were deemed terminated on said date. 13 The fact that these

agencies continued rendering services to NFA did not amount to an implied. renewal of their respective contracts. Respondents do not have any vested right to continue their contracts with NFA. They remained and continued performing their tasks at the tolerance of NFA who, by sending the notices of termination, simply reminded them of the expiration of their contracts. 14 These contracts can be renewed, revived or extended only by mutual consent of the parties. No court can compel a party to agree to a contract thru the instrumentality of a writ of preliminary injunction. Nevertheless, what causes eyebrows to arch is the act of petitioners in discontinuing the incumbents' services. Respondents Manubay and Lasala allege that their agencies had been rendering security services to the NFA since 1985 15 and 1988, 16 respectively. Moreover, Manubay and Continental passed the prequalification stage and were declared by the PBAC eligible to join the public bidding. Scarcely a month later, however, their services were terminated at the same time and for the same reasons as the rest of the incumbent security agencies. It is certainly strange why petitioners chose to do away with the incumbents' services at a time when a "security void" would directly and most necessarily result from their withdrawal. The least petitioners could have done under the circumstances was to maintain the status quo until the writ of preliminary injunction obtained by respondent Lasala shall have been lifted. Assuming arguendo that an emergency actually existed and the negotiated contracts were justified, petitioners' continued failure to conduct a public bidding and select the bidder within a reasonable time casts doubts on the good faith behind the negotiated contracts. This Court, on May 18, 1994, specifically ordered petitioners to conduct a public bidding and report the results within thirty days from holding thereof. In compliance, a public bidding was conducted on June 21, 1994 but until now no bidder has been chosen and no contract has been awarded. Petitioners cited various reasons for the delay. They alleged that the minimum number of bidders in three of the five areas had not been met and that two bidders in the other two areas were in collusion. This suspicion of collusion generated so much controversy that the PBAC could not decide whether to include the bids of the two agencies. Finally, the PBAC excluded them and recommended that the Administrator declare a failure of bidding in all five areas of responsibility. The Administrator should have immediately acted upon the PBAC's recommendation and accordingly scheduled another public bidding but somehow petitioners chose to abide by a restraining order of the Davao trial court. It must be noted that what the Davao trial court issued was a temporary restraining order enjoining petitioners from awarding the contracts to the lowest or next lowest bidder at the June 21, 1994 public bidding. It was not a writ of preliminary injunction nor was an order restraining the holding of another bidding. Petitioners and the PBAC are obviously taking their sweet time to select and award security contracts to winning bidders. They took one year evaluating and deliberating on thirteen bid proposals only to declare a failure of bidding in all five areas of responsibility. Then they

relied on a restraining order of a trial court after no less that this Highest Court specifically ordered them to conduct and conclude a public bidding. Litigants should be conscious of the position lower courts occupy in the operation of the integrated judicial system of the nation. 17 There is only one Supreme Court and all courts and litigants should take their bearings from this Court. 18 Petitioners' manifest reluctance to hold a public bidding and award a contract to the winning bidder smacks of favoritism and partiality toward the security agencies to whom it awarded the negotiated contracts and cannot be countenanced. A competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition. It is a mechanism that enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies in the execution of public contracts. 19 The General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 1993 20 cannot be used by petitioners to justify their actuations. An appropriations act is primarily a special type of legislation whose content is limited to specified sums of money dedicated to a specific purpose or a separate fiscal unit. 21 Section 31 on the General Provisions of the GAA of 1993 merely authorizes the heads of departments, bureaus, offices or agencies of the national government to hire, through public bidding or negotiated contracts, contractual personnel to perform specific activities or services related or incidental to their functions. This law specifically authorizes expenditures for the hiring of these personnel. 22 It is not the governing law on the award of service contracts by government agencies nor does it do away with the general requirement of public bidding. 23 IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed and the decision dated March 11, 1994 and resolution dated April 15, 1994 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 32213, 32230 and 32274-76 are affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on May 18, 1994 is hereby lifted. Treble costs against petitioners.

DAR V. APEX INVESTMENT AND FINANCING CORPORATION G.R. No. 149422, April 10, 2003

FACTS: Apex Investment and Financing Corporation (Apex) owns several lots located at Barangay Paliparan, Dasmarias, Cavite which includes the land subject of this case covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) T-90476. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) initiated compulsory acquisition proceedings over these lots but Apex denied having received any such notice; that it only learned of the compulsory acquisition proceedings in the December 11, 1997 issue of BALITA. Consequently, Apex filed a Protest with the PARO rejecting DAR's offered compensation asserting that the subject landholding had already been classified as residential even prior to the effectivity of the law. It was only after more than one year before the PARO forwarded to DAR the said protest together with the

records of the compulsory acquisition proceedings. However, despite the pendency of the protest, the Register of Deeds still cancelled one of its titles and issued a new one in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under TCT No. CLOA-2473. This prompted Apex to filed a Petition for Certiorari and prohibition praying that the compulsory acquisition proceedings be declared null and void and for TCT No. CLOA-2473 to be cancelled. DAR opposed on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Apex. DAR moved for reconsideration but the same was denied, hence, this Appeal.

G.R. No. 96882 March 12, 1996 EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ALEJANDRO BUTOHAN, JUANITO ARJA, REMIGIO SARONA, BALDOMERO MONTALBO, RAYMUNDO MUOZ, BERNARDO LIMBAGA, ANDRES PROCORATO, CRISPOLO AMAGA, EUTIQUIO AMATANIS, SEVERO BUTOHAN, FRANCISCO BUTOHAN, BONIFACIO TORRES, GENEROSO MAPA and the SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JORGE C. PADERANGA, OSCAR REMULLA, ROMMEL GEORGE PADERANGA, HILDA GENER PADERANGA and GOERING GEORGE C. PADERANGA, respondents.

ISSUE: 1. 2. Whether or not Apex violated the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the subject parcels of land are residential and not covered by R.A. No. 6657

On 03 September 1986, private respondents finally decided to file a complaint against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City to regain possession of the parcels of land, as well as for the annulment and/or cancellation of the OLT certificates, and for recovery of damages. Private respondents averred that private petitioners were mere "opportunists and/or squatters" who took advantage of the government's operation land transfer program; that private petitioners were not qualified under the program with each of them already owning over four (4) hectares of agricultural land; that, not being tenanted, the land was not covered by the land reform program and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform; and that, even assuming that private petitioners were tenants, the property should still be deemed excluded from the program since the parcels of land averaged less than five (5) hectares each. Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint due allegedly to the failure of private respondents "to (first) refer the matter to the Department of Agrarian Reform." The motion was denied by the trial court. Petitioners thereupon filed their answer reiterating, by way of affirmative defenses, the grounds that they relied on in their motion to dismiss. The court found for private respondents and, on 26 March 1990, it rendered a decision disposing of the case; thus: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants: 1. Ordering the defendants to vacate and relinquish their respective possessions over the lands subject of this case to the plaintiffs and to pay yearly rentals of 18 cavans of palay or its equivalent based on the government support price for every hectare from the filing of this complaint on August 25, 1986, and until the said possession is returned to the plaintiffs; 2. Ordering the Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform to cancel the OLT Certificates as issued to the defendants; 3. Ordering the Registry of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur to cancel the annotations of the OLT liens in the titles of the plaintiffs over the lands subject of this case; 4. Ordering the defendants Eutiquiano Pagara, Juanito Aroja and Alejandro Butohan to pay the plaintiffs the value of the coconut trees, approximately 150 coconut trees, cut or uprooted at P150.00 per tree; 5. Ordering the defendants to jointly and severally pay attorney's fees of P10,000.00,

VITUG, J.:p The Court of Appeals, in its resolution of 18 October 1990, denied due course to the special civil action of certiorari interposed to it by petitioners assailing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 18, 1 that ordered petitioners to vacate the parcels of land here in dispute and the cancellation of the Operation Land Transfer ("OLT") Certificates of Title issued to them by the Department of Agrarian Reform ("DAR"). The instant petition for review on certiorari questions the above resolution 2 of the appellate court. In 1967, private respondents acquired from Santiago Ceniza parcels of land, each with an average area of five (5) hectares, in Taguitic, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, evidenced by transfer certificates of title. Originally, the parcels were part of a large tract of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-9515. The property was later subdivided into twenty-four (24) sub-lots under Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-187203 which, on 10 September 1973, was approved by the Land Registration Commission. On 22 December 1973, the Department of Agrarian Reform, through a certain Honorio Tequero, sent a telegram to private respondent Jorge C. Paderanga informing him that the several parcels had been placed under the Operation Land Transfer of the Land Reform Program of the government. In February 1974, a parcellary map was prepared by the Department of Agrarian Reform in collaboration with the Bureau of Lands. Forthwith, the parcels were adjudicated to private petitioners and corresponding OLT certificates were issued to them. Private respondents thereupon filed their complaint with the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform office in Pagadian City and Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, vehemently contesting the issuance of the OLT certificates. On 23 October 1978, after the local agency had failed to act on the protest, private respondents elevated their case to the Minister of Agrarian Reform. The matter remained pending with the agency.

HELD: On the first assigned error, the Court has consistently held that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a relative one and is flexible depending on the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case. Jurisprudentially, it has been held that the aggrieved landowners were not supposed to wait until the DAR acted in their letter-protests before resorting to judicial process. Given the official indifference which, under the circumstances could have continued forever, the landowners had to act to assert and protect their interests. In this case, Apex could not be expected to wait for petitioner DAR to resolve its protest before seeking judicial intervention. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that on the basis of the circumstances of this case, Apex need not exhaust all administrative remedies before filing its petition for certiorari and prohibition. Anent the second assigned error, Apex maintained that its lots have been classified as residential prior to the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 6657, that the Municipal Engineer and Deputized Zoning Administrator of Dasmarias, Cavite, certified that Apex's lands are within the residential zone of Dasmarias, based on the Land Use Plan of that municipality duly approved by the HLURB in its Resolution. However, this factual issue was never determined by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that it cannot conclude that Apex's parcels of land are residential; thus remanding the case to the lower court.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

plus expenses of litigation in the amount of P10,000.00, and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED. 3 Grappling initially with the issues raised in the affirmative defenses, the lower court ruled (a) that private respondents had substantially complied with the requirement of having the case first referred to the Department of Agrarian Reform, and (b) that the latter's recommendatory resolution that found the existence of a tenantlandlord relationship was not binding on the court, citing Graza vs. Court of Appeals, 4 as well as the last paragraph of Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1038 providing that The preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending parties by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, or his authorized representative, is not binding upon the court, judge or hearing officer to whom the case is certified as a proper case for trial. Said court, judge or hearing officer may, after due hearing, confirm, reverse or modify said preliminary determination as the evidence and substantial merits of the case may warrant. The lower court went on to hold that private petitioners, having failed to prove the existence of a tenancy relationship with private respondents, as well as their membership in the Samahang Nayon, were disqualified from the land reform program. In the case of petitioners Pagara, Mapa and Torres, furthermore, the court said that they were also disqualified as beneficiaries for being themselves owners of other agricultural lands. A copy of the court's decision was received on 03 April 1990 by private petitioners. A motion for its reconsideration 5 was denied in the court's order of 15 May 1990 which private petitioners received on 28 May 1990. A notice of appeal was filed by public petitioner on 14 May 1990 and that of private petitioners on 15 May 1990. The notices of appeal were both denied in two separate orders, dated 30 May 1990 and 31 May 1990, of the court for having been filed out of time. Upon motion of private respondents to have the structures found on the property removed or demolished, the lower court, on 29 August 1990, issued a writ of demolition. The Sheriff's Report, dated 27 September 1990, would show that the writs of execution and of demolition were satisfied except for the payment of rentals and other money judgments awarded to private respondents. On 26 September 1990, the OLT liens annotated on the titles of private respondents were voided. Likewise cancelled were the OLT certificates issued to private petitioners by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform through the Zamboanga del Sur Agrarian Reform Office. Petitioners sought the extraordinary remedy of certiorari before the respondent Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 23111). On 18 October 1990, however, the appellate court dismissed the petition for its failure to comply with the requirement set forth in Section 2, Rule 6, of the Revised Internal Rules 6 of the Court of Appeals and for its

lack of sufficient legal basis. The appellate court held that the court a quo had lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the case for recovery of possession and annulment of titles. There is no merit in the instant petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners, proceeding from the premise that a tenancy relationship existed between the private parties, would posit that the court of origin was devoid of jurisdiction and thus all its acts, including the issuance of the writs of execution and demolition, were null and void on the basis of Section 12 7 of P.D. No. 946 which withdrew from regular courts jurisdiction over issues relating to the administrative implementation of land-transfer under P.D. 27, along with its amendatory and related laws, and conferred the matter on the Department of Agrarian Reform whose authority, petitioners added, remained unaffected by the passage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981. Moreover, petitioners averred, the lower court was in error when it applied the Rules of Court in holding that the notices of appeal were filed out of time. It should be said at the outset that the present petition can outrightly be discarded (a) for its failure to have a verified statement of material dates and an affidavit of service in violation of Circular No. 1-88, 8 and (b) because of the pendency of another petition with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 23993), filed by petitioners, for annulment of the same decision of the lower court in disregard of No. 17 of the Interim Rules which prohibits forum-shopping. 9 Even on merits, the instant petition must still be denied. The primordial issue is whether or not the Regional Trial Court has acquired jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action taken by private respondents against petitioners. Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, 10 promulgated on 17 June 1976, expressed the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. 11 On 14 August 1981, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, also known as Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, took effect and vested on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions and special proceedings theretofore falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. 12 When, accordingly, the complaint was filed by private respondents on 03 September 1986, jurisdiction thereover was already and appropriately with the Regional Trial Court. 13 Petitioners assail, nevertheless, the exercise of jurisdiction by the court a quo on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and for failure to secure a referral from the Secretary of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Section 12 of P.D. 946. The court, however, has correctly pointed out that The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, or (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the respondent is a

department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, Gonzales vs. Hechanova, L-21897, October 22, 1963, 9 SCRA 230; Abaya vs. Villegas, L-25641, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA; Mitra vs. Subido, L-21691, September 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 127. Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, (Cipriano vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291), when there is no due process observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45 SCRA 299), or where the protestant has no other recourse (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637). The foregoing jurisprudence when applied to the case at bar will point out that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable. First, the issue of tenancy involves legal questions as "tenancy is not purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenants does upon the land, but it is also a legal relationship" (Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 484). Second, one of the principal respondents herein is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who acts as the alter ego of the President, and whose act of issuing land transfer certificate is the subject matter of this case. Third, plaintiffs' claims of denial of due process in the issuance of the land transfer certificates finds merit in this case for it was only after the certificates were issued that they were able to protest. Finally, there is an exhaustive presentation of evidence that plaintiffs availed of the administrative processes, (testimonies of Attys. Jorge and Goering Paderanga and exhibits "J," "K," "L," "L-1" to "L-3" and "L-4" to "L-11" that fourteen (14) years had already elapsed and the Department Secretary had not yet resolved plaintiffs' protest leaving plaintiffs with no other recourse but to seek the relief of this Court as there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law. 14 Relative to the question of prior referral to the Department of Agrarian Reform, it would appear that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of P.D. 946. In fact, Exhibit 6 is a resolution of the DAR Regional Director, finding, although recommendatory in nature, a tenancy relationship between the parties.

Having arrived at the foregoing conclusions, the Court need not further delve on the other issues raised by the parties. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

advised to explain in writing by the Chief of the Hospital, but private respondent instead of explaining only her side of the incident also complained against the petitioners. The Discipline and Grievance Committee, Corazon Locsin-Montelibano Memorial Hospital, conducted a fact-finding investigation and later, the Chief of the Hospital, Dr. Teodoro P. Motus, issued a resolution dated November 8, 1978, transmitting the records of the case to the Regional Health Office, No. 6, Jaro, Iloilo City for appropriate action; . . . . (pp. 91-92, Rollo) Esuerte and Jayme filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue and for being premature for failure of Tan to exhaust administrative remedies. On January 2, 1979, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The motion for reconsideration of the denial was likewise denied by the court on February 16, 1979. Esuerte and Jayme filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals. On September 18, 1979, the petition was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs. The motion for reconsideration of the decision was likewise denied for lack of merit on February 18, 1980. The following reasons were advanced by petitioners for the allowance of this petition: 1) The Court of Appeals committed gross error and grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition despite petitioners' overwhelming evidence showing that the venue of private respondent's action (Civil Case No. R-17584) was improperly laid. 2) The Court of Appeals committed gross error and grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition despite petitioners' overwhelming evidence showing that the filing of Civil Case No. R-17584 is premature due to non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. It is the contention of petitioners that the proper venue of the action filed by Tan should be Bacolod City and not Cebu City. At the time of the filing of her action in court, Tan was actually residing and may be found in Bacolod City. In fact, in her "Statement of Assets and Liabilities," submitted by Tan to her employer, the Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Hospital, she declared that she is a resident of FRAYU INTERIOR, 6th Street, Bacolod City. Section 2(b), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides: Sec. 2. Venue in Courts of First Instance. xxx xxx xxx

(b) Personal Actions. All other actions may be commenced and tried where the defendants or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff. The choice of venue for personal actions cognizable by the Regional Trial Court is given to the plaintiff but not to the plaintiff's caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court (see Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon, 19 SCRA 379). The rule on venue, like other procedural rules, are designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice or the impartial and evenhanded determination of every action and proceeding (Sy v. Tyson Enterprises Inc., 19 SCRA 367). The option of the plaintiff in personal actions cognizable by the Regional Trial Court is either the place where the defendant resides or may be found or the place where the plaintiff resides. If plaintiff opts for the latter, he is limited to that place. "Resides" in the rules on venue on personal actions means the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff or defendants as distinguished from "domicile" which denotes a fixed permanent residence (Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-22795, January 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 124). And, in Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., G.R. No. L-29791, January 10, 1978, 81 SCRA 75), venue of personal actions should be at the place of abode or place where plaintiffs actually reside, not in domicile or legal residence. In Koh v. CA, L-40428, December 17, 1975, 70 SCRA 298; 305, We ruled: Applying the foregoing observation to the present case, We are fully convinced that private respondent Coloma's protestations of domicile in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, based on his manifested intention to return there after the retirement of his wife from government service to justify his bringing of an action for damages against petitioner in the C.F.I. of Ilocos Norte, is entirely of no moment since what is of paramount importance is where he actually resided or where he may be found at the time he brought the action, to comply substantially with the requirements of Sec. 2(b) of Rule 4, Rules of Court, on venue of personal actions. . .. As perspicaciously observed by Justice Moreland, the purpose of procedure is not to restrict the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter but to give it effective facility "in righteous action," "to facilitate and promote the administration of justice" or to insure "just judgments" by means of a fair hearing. If the objective is not achieved, then "the administration of justice becomes incomplete and unsatisfactory and lays itself open to criticism." (Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523, 530).

G.R. No. L-53485 February 6, 1991 PATRIA ESUERTE and HERMINIA JAYME, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Eleventh Division), HON. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, Judge, Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Cebu and MA. BEVERLY TAN, respondents. Romeo B. Esuerte for petitioners. Eleno V. Andales & Sisinio M. Andales for private respondent.

MEDIALDEA, J.:p This petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. SP-08999-R, involving the same parties. An action for damages was filed by private respondent Beverly Tan against herein petitioners Patria Esuerte and Herminia Jayme with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cebu and docketed as Civil Case No. R-17584. The claim for damages arose from an incident involving the parties and summarized by the Court of Appeals, as follows: . . . that on September 22, 23 and 27, 1978, private respondent Ma. Beverly Tan, a Junior Resident Physician of Corazon LocsinMontelibano Memorial Hospital, Bacolod City, without any justifiable reason shouted at, humiliated and insulted the petitioner, Patria Esuerte, Head Nurse, Medicare Department of the said hospital and as a result of the said incident, said petitioner complained to the Chief of the Hospital, Dr. Teodoro P. Motus, in writing. The other petitioner, Herminia Jayme, who was one of those who were present at the time of the incident also sent a letter to the Chief of the Hospital, Dr. Teodoro Motus, informing the latter of what she had witnessed. As a result thereof, private respondent was

There is no question that private respondent as plaintiff in the Civil Case is a legal resident of Cebu City. Her parents live there. However, it cannot also be denied that at the time of her filing of the complaint against petitioners, she was a temporary resident of Bacolod City. She was then employed with the Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Hospital, Bacolod City, as resident physician. Moreover, the acts complained of were committed in Bacolod City. The private respondents were all residents of Bacolod City at the time of the bringing of the action. Though Tan's employment was only temporary there was no showing when this employment will end. Justice would be better served if the complaint were heard and tried in Bacolod City where all the parties resided. The second ground raised by petitioners is devoid of merit. The alleged need by private respondent Tan to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the complaint for damages does not apply to the instant case. Private respondent as plaintiff in the civil Case for damages has no administrative remedy available to her. It is true that the same incident complained of in the administrative case filed by petitioners against Tan is the subject of the action for damages filed by Tan against the petitioners in the trial court. However, the cause of action in the administrative case is different from that of the civil case for damages. While the complainant in the administrative case may be a private person, it is the government who is the aggrieved party and no award for damages may be granted in favor of private persons. In the civil action for damages, the trial court's concern is whether or not damages, personal to the plaintiff, were caused by the acts of the defendants. The civil action for damages can proceed notwithstanding the pendency of the administrative action. WHEREFORE, the position is GRANTED. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. R-17584 is DISMISSED for improper venue. SO ORDERED.

charge of dishonesty involves falsification of the certificate of rating of his wife, the same has no bearing on his office.

HELD: The right to counsel guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial investigation. It is only at this stage that the right to counsel attaches. The exclusionary rule under paragraph 2, Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in administrative investigation. Under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondents capacity to represent himself. Administrative inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees and with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. Admissions by Remolona during such investigation may be used as evidence to justify his dismissal.

Estelito Remolona v. CSC G. R. No. 137473 (August 2, 2001)

FACTS: Estelito Remolona is the Postmaster at Post Office Service in Quezon. He was dismissed from service upon his admission in a preliminary investigation of the CSC that he had paid a certain Atty. Salupadin to acquire a fake eligibility for his wife in the Civil Service Commission. The CSC found him guilty of possession of fake eligibility, falsification and dishonesty. Estelito now contends that he was deprived of his right to due process because (1) he was not assisted by counsel during preliminary investigation, and (2) he was removed from his position without cause which is contrary to Section 2(3), Article XI B of the Constitution which provides that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause. It is his contention that although the offense of dishonesty is punishable under CS laws, such act must have been committed in the performance of his function and duty as a Postmaster. Since the