Saado vs Court of Appeals

356 SCRA 546

FACTS:
1. Saado was issued by the now defunct Philippine Fisheries Commission an Ordinary
Fishpond Permit covering an area of 50 hectares. Saado executed a contract with
Nepomuceno wherein the latter agreed to develop 30 hectares of the 50 hectares covered by
Saado's fishpond permit.
2. the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources recommended to the then Ministry of Natural
Resources the conversion of Sanados fishpond permit into a 25-year fishpond loan
agreement which covered a reduced area of 26.745 hectares. Accordingly, a Fishpond Lease
Agreement was issued.
3. Saado filed a complaint against Nepomuceno with the RTC for recovery of possession and
damages, alleging that Nepomuceno failed to deliver Saados share of the net harvest
among other things. While this case was pending, the then Minister of Agriculture and Food
canceled the Fishpond Lease Agreement, forfeiting the improvements thereon in favor of
government. Later, said order was reconsidered to the extent that Nepomuceno was given
priority to apply for the area and that his improvements thereon were not considered forfeited
in favor of the government.
4. Saado elevated the matter to the Office of the President but appeal was dimissed.
Meanwhile, the trial court rendered a decision over Saado's complaint for recovery of
possession in his favor.

ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Office of the President in cancelling petitioner's lease
agreement should be given weight
RULING: Yes. The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or in suspending or
revoking, a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public convenience and necessity is
administrative or quasi-judicial. The act is not purely administrative but quasi-judicial or adjudicatory
since it is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts by the administrative agency, upon which a
decision is to be made and rights and liabilities determined. As such, the July 31, 1989 decision of the
Office of the President is explicitly an official act of and an exercise of quasi-judicial power by the
Executive Department headed by the highest officer of the land. It thus squarely falls under matters
relative to the executive department which courts are mandatorily tasked to take judicial notice of
under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. Judicial notice must be taken of the organization of
the Executive Department, its principal officers, elected or appointed, such as the President, his
powers and duties.

The policy of the courts as regards such factual findings is not to interfere with actions of the
executive branch on administrative matters addressed to the sound discretion of government
agencies. This policy is specially applicable in the grant of licenses, permits, and leases, or the
approval, rejection, or revocation of applications therefor. Such respect is based on the time-honored
doctrine of separation of powers and on the fact that these bodies are considered co-equal and
coordinate rank as courts. The only exception is when there is a clear showing of capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment or grave abuse of discretion, which we find absent in the case at bar.

JESUS CABARRUS, JR. vs. JOSE ANTONIO S. BERNAS A.C. No. 4634 September 24, 1997
FACTS:
1. Cabarrus filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas.
Cabarrus alleged that Bernas and his client caused the preparation and filing of a criminal
complaint for falsification of a public document (three days before the filing of a Civil Case) in
the National Bureau of Investigation, in violation of the non-forum shopping rule by the
Supreme Court.
2. The gravaman of the affidavit complaint of the respondent is forgery, the same legal issue in a
Civil Case. Cabarrus contended that Atty. Bernas should be disbarred for having instigated,
abetted and facilitated the perversion and subversion of truth in the said verification and
certification of non-forum shopping.
3. In his Comment, Bernas averred that he has not committed forum shopping because the
criminal action is not an action that involves the same issue as those in a civil action and both
suits can exist without constituting forum shopping so long as the civil aspect has not been
prosecuted in the criminal case.
4. He emphasized that forum shopping only exists when identical reliefs are issued by the same
parties in multiple fora.
ISSUE: Whether or not the filing a complaint before the National Bureau of Investigations when
another action has already been filed in another court constitutes forum shopping.
HELD: No. The courts, tribunals and agencies referred to under Circular No. 28-91, Revised Circular
No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 are those vested with judicial powers or quasi-judicial
powers and those who not only hear and determine controversies between adverse parties, but to
make binding orders or judgments. As succinctly put it by R.A. 157, the NBI is not performing judicial
or quasi-judicial functions. The NBI cannot therefore be among those forums contemplated by the
Circular that can entertain an action or proceeding, or even grant any relief, declaratory or otherwise.
The functions of the National Bureau of Investigations are merely investigatory and informational in
nature. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to a party. It
cannot even determine probable cause. It is an investigative agency whose findings are merely
recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of crimes upon its own initiative and as public welfare
may require. It renders assistance when requested in the investigation or detection of crimes which
precisely what Atty. Bernas sought in order to prosecute those persons responsible for defrauding his
client.

G.R. No. 131082

June 19, 2000

ROMULO, MABANTA, BUENAVENTURA, SAYOC & DE LOS ANGELES, petitioner,

vs.
HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND, respondent.
FACTS:
1. PETITIONER, a law firm, was exempted from the Pag-IBIG Fund coverage by respondent
Home Development Mutual Fund because of a superior retirement plan.
2. the HDMF Board of Trustees, pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7742, issued Board
Resolution No. 1011, Series of 1995, amending and modifying the Rules and Regulations
Implementing R.A. No. 7742. As amended, Section 1 of Rule VII provides that for a company
to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of Fund coverage, 3 it must have a plan providing for

both provident/retirement and housing benefits superior to those provided under the Pag-IBIG
Fund.
3. PETITIONER filed with the respondent an application for Waiver or Suspension of Fund
Coverage because of its superior retirement plan. 4 In support of said application,
PETITIONER submitted to the HDMF a letter explaining that the 1995 Amendments to the
Rules are invalid.
4. the President and Chief Executive Officer of HDMF disapproved PETITIONER's application
on the ground that the requirement that there should be both a provident retirement fund and
a housing plan is clear in the use of the phrase "and/or," and that the Rules Implementing
R.A. No. 7742 did not amend nor repeal Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752 but merely implement
the law.
Issue: W/N HDMF BOTs amendment and resolution of the RRI valid.
Ruling. NO.
Rationale:
It is without doubt that the HDMF Board has rule-making power as provided in Section 51 17 of R.A.
No. 7742 and Section 13 18 of P.D. No. 1752. However, it is well-settled that rules and regulations,
which are the product of a delegated power to create new and additional legal provisions that have
the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the
administrative agency. 19 It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of
the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law. 20
In the present case, when the Board of Trustees of the HDMF required in Section 1, Rule VII of the
1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742 that employers should
have both provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees in order to qualify for
exemption from the Fund, it effectively amended Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. And when the Board
subsequently abolished that exemption through the 1996 Amendments, it repealed Section 19 of P.D.
No. 1752. Such amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both invalid, as they are not
within the delegated power of the Board. The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule-making power,
issue a regulation not consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed, administrative issuances must
not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry
out. 21 Only Congress can repeal or amend the law.