Anda di halaman 1dari 3

QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

4. G.R. No. 77663 April 12, 1988

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, petitioner,


vs.
HON. EMMANUEL G. PEA, as Presiding Judge, RTC, NCJR, Br. CLII, Pasig, Metropolitan Manila, and
YEUNG CHUN KAM, YEUNG CHUM HO and ARCHIE CHAN represented by YIM KAM SHING, respondents.

Facts: On March 25, 1986, the commission issued an order freezing the assets, effects, documents and records of two
export garment manufacturing firms: American Inter-fashion Corporation and De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing
Corporation.

The Commission appointed Saludo as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the said corporations, along with Mr.Yeung Chun
Ho private respondent herein, as authorized signatories to effect deposits and withdrawals of the funds of the two
corporations. On September 4, 1986, the Commission designated Mr. Yim Kam Shing as co-signatory, in the absence of
Mr. Yeung Chun, however said authorization was revoked by Saludo; on the ground that Shing was a Hongkong Chinese
national staying in the country on a mere tourist visa.

The respondents filed and action for damages against the Commission, then Commissioner Bautista and the OIC,
Saludo.

The Commission filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the
Commission or over the subject of the case. Said motion was, however, dismissed by respondent judge.

Issue: WON the RTC have jurisdiction over the Commission and properties sequestered and placed in custodia legis in the
exercise of its powers under Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14, as amended.

Ruling: The Court holds that regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals for that matter have no jurisdiction over the
Presidential Commission on Good Government in the exercise of its powers under the applicable Executive Orders
therefore may not interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders and actions of the Commission.

The Commission exercises quasi-judicial functions. In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, the
Commission is a co-equal body with regional trial courts and "co-equal bodies have no power to control the other."

Executive Order No. 14, which defines the jurisdiction over cases involving the ill-gotten wealth of former
President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates, close and/or business associates, dummies, agents and
nominees, specifically provides in section 2 that "The Presidential Commission on Good Government shall file all such
cases, whether civil or criminal, with the Sandiganbayan which shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof."

Thus, those who wish to question or challenge the Commission's acts or orders in such cases must seek recourse
in the Sandiganbayan, which is vested with exclusive and original jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan's decisions and final
orders are in turn subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court.
FORUM SHOPPING

13. G.R. No. 149335 July 1, 2003

EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR, petitioner,


vs.
LUIS BUNDALIAN, RONALDO B. ZAMORA, Executive Secretary, Office of the President, AND GREGORIO R.
VIGILAR, Secretary, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), respondents.

Facts: Private Respondent, Bundalian, through a letter-complaint accused petitioner, then OIC-Regional Director, Region
III, of the DPWH, of accumulating unexplained wealth, in violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019. According to
Bundalian, Montemayor and his wife purchased a house and lot in California.

Petitioner Montemayor, on the other hand, alleged that the real owner of the subject property was his sister-in-
law, Fajardo. According to petitioner, Fajardo offered to buy the Burbank property and put the title in their names to
support their emigration plans.

Petitioner likewise pointed out that the charge against him was the subject of similar cases filed before the
Ombudsman, which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Philippine Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) conducted its own investigation concluded that as
petitioners acquisition of the subject property was manifestly out of proportion to his salary, it has been unlawfully
acquired. Thus, it recommended petitioners dismissal from service pursuant to Section 8 of R.A. No. 3019. The Office of
the President concurred with the findings and recommendation of PCAGC and ordered petitioners dismissal.

Issue: WON the earlier dismissal of similar cases before the Ombudsman render the administrative case before the
PCAGC moot and academic

Ruling: No. The dismissal of similar charges against Petitioner before the Ombudsman does not render the
administrative case against him before the PCAGC moot and academic. The decision of the Ombudsman does not
operate as res judicata in the PCAGC case subject of this review. The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial
or quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative powers.

Petitioner was investigated by the Ombudsman for his possible criminal liability for the acquisition of the
Burbank property in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. For the same
alleged misconduct, petitioner, as a presidential appointee, was investigated by the PCAGC by virtue of the
administrative power and control of the President over him. As the PCAGCs investigation of petitioner was
administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no application in the case at bar.
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER

13. G.R. No. 163583 August 20, 2008

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO, petitioner, vs. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department
of Finance and GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, respondents.
Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., fortune tobacco, corp., MIGHTY CORPORATION, and JT InTERNATIONAL,
S.A., respondents-in-intervention.

Facts: R.A. 8240 was passed recodifying the NIRC where Sec 142 was renumbered Sec 145. British American Tobacco
assailed the validity of Sec. 145 of the NIRC (amended by RA 8240), arguing that the said provisions are violative of the
equal protection and uniformity clauses of the Constitution.

Section 145 provides for a four-tier tax rate based on net retail price per pack of cigarettes: (1) low-priced, (2)
medium-priced, (3) high-priced, and (4) premium-priced. Said section further provides that new brands (registered after
January 1, 1997) of cigarettes shall be taxed at their current retail price. On the other hand, old or existing brands
(registered before January 1, 1997) shall be taxed at their net retail price as of October 1, 1996. Those brands classified
as of October 1, 1996 were embodied in Annex D of RA 8240 and shall remain in force until revised by Congress.
Hence, there exist a legislative classification freeze.

To implement RA 8240, BIR issued a Revenue Regulation (RR No. 1-97) classifying existing brands of cigarettes as
those existing or active (old) brands prior to January 1, 1997, while new brands of cigarettes are those registered after
January 1, 1997. Another Revenue Regulation was issued amending the first (RR No. 9-2003) by providing BIR with the
power to periodically review every two years / earlier the current net retail price of new brands to establish and update
their tax classification.
(Not entirely related to the issue. Pero basig mangutana si sir about ani) British American Tobacco is the distributor of Lucky
Strike Cigarette in the Philippines. In June 2001, it introduced the Lucky Strike Filter, Lucky Strike Lights and Lucky Strike Menthol
Lights. Lucky Strike was taxed based on its suggested gross retail price from the time of its introduction in the market in 2001 until
the BIR market survey in 2003. According to BAT, there arises a discrimination between brands under Annex D and BATs newly
introduced brands because the former were classified based on their "current" net retail price as of October 1, 1996 and petitioners
newly introduced brands were classified based on their "current" net retail price as of 2003. BATs brand was classified under the
premium-priced tax, while old brands such as Marlboro and Philip Morris, though their net retail price have increased, are still
classified under high-priced tax bracket.

Petitioner asserts that aforementioned revenue regulations are invalid insofar as they empower the BIR to
reclassify or update the classification of new brands of cigarettes based on their current net retail prices every two years
or earlier. It claims that RA 8240, even prior to its amendment by RA 9334, did not authorize the BIR to conduct said
periodic resurvey and reclassification.

Issue: W/N the Revenue Regulations are invalid in so far as they empower BIR to reclassify and update the classification
of new brands every two years or earlier.

Ruling: Yes. Nowhere in Section 145 grants the Bureau such authority. Unless expressly granted to the BIR, the power to
reclassify cigarette brands remains a prerogative of the legislature which cannot be usurped by the former.

The clear legislative intent was for new brands to benefit from the same freezing mechanism accorded to Annex
"D" brands. To reiterate, in enacting RA 8240, Congress categorically rejected the proposal which would have
empowered the DOF and BIR to periodically adjust the excise tax rate and tax brackets, and to periodically resurvey and
reclassify cigarette brands. It would thus, be absurd for the Court to conclude that Congress intended to allow the
periodic reclassification of new brands by the BIR after their classification is determined based on their current net retail
price while limiting the freezing of the classification to Annex "D" brands.

These revenue regulations are, however, deemed modified upon the effectivity of RA 9344.