You are on page 1of 37

RECOLETOS NOTES

CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Introduction:
The study of Administrative Law pertains to the field of public law. In the
Philippines this continues to bear the influence of principles introduces by
the United States.
In its broadest sense it refers to the entire organization and operation of
government. It is in this sense that the Revised Administrative Code of 1917
was formulated. Its four books include provisions on the organization, powers
and general administration of the executive, legislative and judicial
departments of government, the organization and administration of
departments of government, the organization and administration of bureaus
and offices, of local governments as well as the laws governing public
officers. According to Cuthbert W. Pound, this branch of legal system
includes the entire system of laws under which the machinery of the state
works and by which the state performs all governmental acts, such as the
administration of justice, the collection of taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
the regulation of trade and commerce, the raising and supporting of armies
and navies, the government of territories and foreign possessions, and the
promotion of general welfare by regulative measures of all sorts. The entire
field of political law as understood in this jurisdiction would thus be
encompassed in this concept.
In a less comprehensive sense, Administrative Law refers to that part of
public law which fixes the organization and determines the competence of
the administrative authorities, and indicates to the individual remedies for
the violation of his rights.
But in a technical sense Administrative Law covers a more limited field.
Pound refers to it as that branch of modern law under which the executive
department of government acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial
capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of
promoting the well-being of the community, as under laws regulating public
corporations, business affected with a public interest, profession, trades and
callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of public health and safety
and the promotion of public convenience and advantage. It is the law
governing regulatory agencies but it is concerned not only with rule-making,
the settlement of contested matters and the distribution of benefits but also
indicates the remedies available to those aggrieved by administrative
action.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

SEPARATION OF POWERS
Basic to the Philippine constitutional system is the principle that
sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them. Explicit provisions separate the powers of government into
executive, legislative and judicial and distribute them among three different
branches.
The 1935 Constitutional formulation was: Executive power shall be
vested in the President of the Philippines. Legislative powers shall be vested
in the Congress of the Philippines composed of a senate and a House of
Representatives. Judicial powers shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
such inferior courts as may be established by law. Even before 1935
Constitution, the government established by American administrators
observed the principle with some modifications, particularly during the early
period when the Philippine Commission as a body performed legislative
functions and the individual members headed the executive departments of
government. The Governor-General was chairman. The 1935 Constitution
introduced a more rigid separation of powers. Under it, a legislator could not
hold any other office or employment in the government without forfeiting
seat. The 1973 Constitution, adopting a form of parliamentary government
introduced a fusion of legislative and executive powers by providing for the
election by the National Assembly for the program of government. The
provision that the National Assembly and the executive power shall be
exercised by the Prime Minister with the assistance of the cabinet
established no coordinate, separate and
Independent executive branch. The President was reduced to a
symbolic head of state, the real power in the government being the Prime
Minister. But he and the Cabinet were responsible to the National Assembly.
However, the scheme was never put into operation. Instead, by amendments
to the constitution in 1976, the powers of the incumbent president were
maintained and augmented. A modified form of presidential/parliamentary
system was introduced in 1981, under which, the classification of
governmental powers into executive, legislative and judicial is reiterated but
separation of powers and its corollary rule of non-delegation of power was
neither well defined nor strictly observed.
Under the 1976 and 1981 amendments, the legislative power is still vested
in the unicameral legislature, but the President is head of state and chief
executive. Some features of the parliamentary system are retained. There is
a Prime Minister who heads the Cabinet, a majority of whose are members of
legislature. The president has control of the ministries while supervision over
POLITICAL
LAWThe
COMMITTEE
them pertains to the
Prime Minister.
legislature may withdraw its
CHAIRMAN:
Lady
Jay
Gutierrez
VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Paulo
Abello,
Nicolas
Hinayon,
confidence from the Prime Minister and the latterMEMBERS:
may seek
toTristan
dissolve
the
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
legislature. These innovations can affect
administrative
law
significantly.
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

Under the 1973 Constitution as amended, the President may exercise


legislative functions by virtue of direct grant of authority to legislate by
decree or under provisions authorizing the legislature to delegate legislative
powers to him.
The Constitution still clearly indicates the source of all government
authority is the people and that through the Constitution as an expression of
sovereign will, they have delegated their exercise to various arms of
government indicating the conditions and limits of the powers to be
performed. The separation between legislative and executive
Powers is less marked because the President legislates and through the
ministers subject to his control participates in the regular legislative work.
These do not mean however, that the performance of legislative functions
can now be transferred to administrative bodies without limit.
Since the main branches of government are by constitutional fiat
assigned definite functions, it follows that unless the constitution permits it,
and they cannot abdicate these functions and escape responsibility for them
by delegating them. According to the Supreme Court in an earlier case, the
doctrine against non-delegation is based on the ethical principle that such
delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by
the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately
upon the matter of legislation and not through the intervening mind of
another. Hence, the test to determine permissible delegation continues to
apply under the amended Constitution.
Principle of Delegation of Powers:
Administrative Agencies are delegated Quasi-legislative power, which
pertains to the power to create, alter, modify, and promulgates rules and
regulations but such power can be questioned as to:
Whether the administrative agency is conferred with such power. To answer
it, We must look at the law which created the administrative agency, The
powers and functions of administrative agencies are defined in the
constitutional provisions or in the legislative enactments, whether national,
regional autonomous or local, creating them.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

The cases that follow inquire into the validity of the legislation of
powers. They illustrate the factors taken into account by the courts and the
tests applied in the determination of whether or not a particular delegation is
lawful. What powers may be delegated or conferred? Was the statute
complete when it left the legislature? Does the law provide sufficient
standard to guide the delegate in the performance of the functions
conferred? How is the existence of these standards determined? When are
standards determined? What standards are considered sufficient? These and
other questions come before the courts and the decisions, particularly of the
Supreme Court are instructive.
Completeness test:
o

The law must be complete as there is nothing left for the


administrative bodies to interpret it but to implement the law
based on its completeness.

Case:
CIA. GRAL DE TABACOS v Board of Public Utility
32 PHIL 136
1916
Facts: Section 16 of Act 2307 provides and gives the Board of Public
Utility the power to require every public utility to furnish annually a detailed
report of finances and operations, in such a form and containing such
matters as the Board may from time to time by orders prescribe. Pursuant
to this, the Board dictated an order to the company to present a detailed
report. From this order the company appealed to the Supreme Court
contending that said section of Act 2307 is invalid as an undue delegation of
legislative power.
Held: The provision conferring authority on the Board is very general.
This section authorizes the Board to require detailed reports from public
utilities, leaving the nature of the report, the contents thereof, and the
principle upon which it will proceed to the exclusive discretion of the Board.
There are no sufficient standards.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

The case of Interstate Commerce Com. V. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 US


194, is different because the case at bar, the provision does not lay down
the general rules of action under which the commission shall proceed. Nor
does it itself prescribe in detail what those reports shall contain. Practically,
everything is left to the judgment and discretion of the Board of Public Utility
Commissioners, which is unrestrained as to when it shall act, why it shall act,
how it shall act, to what extent it shall act, or what it shall act upon. There is
undue delegation of legislative power. Order set aside.
Self standard:
o

The law must provide a standard to guide the delegate in the


exercise of the power conferred to him. How these standards are
determined, and what standard are deemed to sufficient.

Case:
PANAMA REFINING CO. v. RYAN
293 U.S. 388
On July 11, 1933, the President, by the Executive Order, prohibited the
transportation of interstate and foreign commerce and petroleum and the
products produced thereof or withdrawn from storage in excess of the
amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State
Law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder, by any board,
commission, officer, or other duly authorized agency of a state. This action
was based on sec. 9 of Title 1, Sec. 709 (c) That section provides:
(c) The President is authorized to prohibit the transportation in interstate
and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or
withdrawn from storage by any state law or valid regulation or order
prescribed thereunder, by any board, commission, officer, or other duly
authorized agency of a state. Any violation of any order of the president
issued under the provisions of this subsection shall be punishable by fine of
not exceeding P100, or imprisonment, for not exceeding six months or both.
On July 4, 1933, the president by Executive Order authorized the
secretary of interior to exercise all powers vested in the President for
LAW
purpose of enforcing POLITICAL
Sec. 9 (c) of said
actCOMMITTEE
and said order. On July 15, 1933,
CHAIRMAN:
Lady
Jay
Gutierrez
VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Paulo
Abello,
Nicolas
Tristan
Hinayon,
the Secretary of the Interior issued regulations
toMEMBERS:
carry out
the
presidents
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
orders of July 11 and 14, 1933.
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

Section 9 (c) is brief and unambiguous. It does not attempt to control the
production of petroleum and petroleum products within a state. It does not
seek to lay down rules for guidance of state legislatures or state officers. It
leaves to the states and their constituted authorities the determination of
what production shall be permitted. It does not qualify the presidents
authority by reference to the basis, or extent of the states limitation of
production. Section 9 (c) does not state whether, or in what circumstances or
under what conditions, the president is to prohibit the transportation of the
amount of the petroleum or petroleum products produced in excess of the
states permission. It establishes no criterion to govern the Presidents
course. It does not require any finding by the president as a condition of his
action. The Congress in Section 9(c) thus declares no policy as to the
transportation of the excess production. So far as this section is concerned, it
gives to the President an unlimited authority to determine the policy and to
lay down the prohibition or not to lay it down, as he may see it. And
disobedience to his Orders is made a crime punishable by fine or
imprisonment.
The Court has had frequent occasion to refer to these limitations and to
review the course of congressional action. In every case in which the
question has been raised, the Court has recognized that there are limits of
delegation which there is no constitutional authority to transcend. We think
Section 9(c) goes beyond these limits. As to the transportation of oil
production in excess of state permission, the Congress has declared no
policy, has established no standard, and has laid down no rule. There is no
requirement, no definition of circumstances and conditions in which the
transportation
is
to
be
allowed
or
prohibited.

Potestas Delegata, non delegare potest:


What has been delegated cannot be further delegated.
The Legislative branch delegates its power to create, alter and modify
laws to the president eg. Executive Orders. The president cannot delegate
such power to its subsidiary
Exception to the rule:
When such power are necessarily implied for the exercise of the express
POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
power.
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

Publication:
When required:
1. Rules and regulations which are penal in nature
Penal regulations
US Vs. Panlilio
28 Phil 608
Facts: On February 22, 1013, the carabaos of Panlilio having been
exposed to rinderpest were, in accordance with an order of a duly authorized
agent of the Director of Agriculture, duly quarantined in a corral and
conducted from one place to another for the purpose of working them.
Issues: 1) Whether Panlilio is liable under Act No. 1760.
2) Whether Panlilio is liable under Art. 581, par 2 of the Penal
Code.
Held: 1) The only sections of Act No. 1760 which prohibit acts pronounce
them unlawful are 3,4 and 5. This case does not fall within any of them. Sec.
6 simply authorizes the Director Agriculture to do certain things, among
them, par (c) to require that animals which are suffering or exposed thereto
to be quarantined at such place and time as may be deemed by him
necessary to prevent the spread of the disease.
Nowhere in the law is the violation of the orders of the Bureau of
Agriculture neither prohibited or made unlawful, nor is there provided any
punishment for a violation of such orders. The orders of the Bureau of
Agriculture, while they may be possibly be said to have the force of law, are
not statutes and a violation of such of such orders is not penal offense unless
the statute itself somewhere makes a violation of the orders of the Bureau of
Agriculture made a penal offense, nor is such violation punished in any way
therein

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

2) The fact that the information in its preamble charged a violation of Act
No. 1760 does not prevent us from finding the accused guilty of a violation of
an article of the Penal Code. The facts as recited in the complaint constitute
a violation of Art. 581, par 2 of the Penal Code which penalizes any person
who shall violate regulations issued with reference to any epidemic disease
among animals.

Judgment modified. and affects the interest of the general public, must
be published, except those which are internal in nature
2. Those which affects the rights of an individual granted by law
Further illustration:
Hilado Vs. Collector of Internal Revenue
100 Phil 288
Facts: Petitioner claimed in his 1951 income tax return the deduction of
the portion of his war damage claim which has not been paid. He claims that
said amount represents a business asset with the meaning of said Act which
he is entitled to deduct as a loss in his return for 1951. Under sec. 338 of the
National Revenue Code, the Secretary of Finance in the exercise of his
administrative powers, caused the issuance of General Circular No. V-123 as
an implementation or interpretative regulation of Sec. 30 of the same code,
allowing such deduction. Such circular was later found to be wrong and was
revoked by Circular No. V-123 of the same Secretary of Finance.
Issue: Whether the secretary of Finance has the power to repeal or
revoke Circular V-123
Held: It is contended that the power to pass upon the validity of General
Circular No. V-123 is vested exclusively in our courts in view of the principle
of separation of powers and therefore, the secretary of Finance acted
without authority in revoking it and approving in lieu thereof General Circular
No. V-123. It cannot be denied, however, that the Secretary of Finance is
vested with authority to revoke, repeal or abrogate the act or previous
rulings of his predecessors if thereafter the latter become satisfied that a
different construction should be given.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
With regard to the contention that the General Circular V-123 cannot
be given retroactive effect because it would affect or obliterate the vested
right acquired by petitioner under the previous circular, suffice it to say that
the Circular General V-123, having been issued on a wrong construction of
law, cannot give rise to a vested right that can be invoked by a taxpayer.
The reason is obvious: a vested right cannot spring from a wrong
interpretation.
It seems too clear for serious argument that an administrative officer
cannot change a law enacted by congress. A regulation that is merely an
interpretation of the statute when once determined to have been erroneous
becomes a nullity. An erroneous construction of the law by the Treasury
Department of the Collector of Internal revenue does not preclude or estop
the government from collecting a tax which is legally due.
Art 2254, - no vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions
which are against the law or which infringe upon rights of others. (New Civil
Code)
However;
,
letters of instructions and those which are interpretative. Need
not be published and those which affects the internal business of
the administrative agency without affecting the rights of a private
individual
( see article 2
administrative code)

of

the

civil

code

and

section

of

the

Section 3 . filing
Every agency shall file with the UP law center three certified copies of
every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this code
which are not filed within 3 months from the date shall not there after be the
basis of any sanction against any party or persons
Records officer of the agency or his equivalent functionary shall carry
out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action.
A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency
and shall be open to public inspection.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Section 4 Effectivity:
In addition to other rule making requirements provided by law not
inconsistent with the administrative code, each rule shall BECOME EFFECTIVE
15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AS ABOVE PROVIDED UNLESS A
DIFFERENT DATE IS FIXEDBY LAW OR IN CERTAIN CASES OF IMMINENT
DANGER TO:
o
o
o

Public health
Safety,
Welfare

The existence of which must be expressed in a statement


accompanying the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to
make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected.
Illustrations:
People vs. Que Po Lay
94 Phil 640
Facts: defendant was found guilty of violating C.B. Circular No. 20 which
requires the sale of foreign exchange to the C.B. within one day following
receipt of such foreign exchange. Appeal from the CFI claiming that said
Circular 20 was not published in the Official Gazette prior to the act or
omission imputed to the defendant.
Held: It is true that Circular 20 of the C.B. is not a statute or law but
being issued for the implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, it
has the force and effect of law according to the settled jurisprudence.
Moreover, as a rule, circulars like No. 20 of C.B. which prescribes a penalty
for its violation should be published before becoming effective for the people
to be officially informed. Before the public may be bound by its contents,
especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must be published
and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its
penalties.
If as a matter of fact Circular No. 20 has not been published as required
by law before its violation, then in the eyes of the law there was no such
circular to be violated and consequently the accused committed no violation
of the circular, and the trial court may be said to have no jurisdiction. This
question may be raised at any stage of the proceeding whether or not raised
in the court below. POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
this case, although Circular No. 20
was
issued in 1949 it was not published
Jaynee
Dialola

In
in the Official RECOLETOS
Gazette until DE
No.MANILA
1951, SCHOOL
that is, about
3 months after
OF LAW

10

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
appellants conviction of its violation. It has no effect before publication. Trial
court has no jurisdiction.
Quasi judicial powers:
The administrative agency has the power to adjudicate cases falling in
within their jurisdiction. Likewise, administrative bodies have the power to
investigate a case. Such investigation must be given greater weights by all
courts of the law by reason of its expertise and wisdom to handle the case.
Decision Imposing Criminal Sanction
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
Scotys Department Store Vs. Micaller
52 O.G. No. 11, 5119
99 Phil 762
1956
Facts: This is a petition for review of an order issued by Ho. Jose S.
Bautista, Associate Judge, CIR, finding respondents, now petitioners, guilty of
unfair labor practice imposing upon them a fine of P100, at the same time
ordering them to reinstate petitioner, Nena Micaller, with pack pay from
December 1, 1953 until her actual reinstatement, which was affirmed by the
court en banc.
Issue: Whether or not the Court is justified in imposing a fine and has the
jurisdiction to impose penalties under Sec 25 of RA 875.
Held: Said section provides;
Sec. 25. Penalties any person who violates the provision of section
three of this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred
pesos, or by imprisonment of not less than one month nor more than one
year, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
Any other violation of this Act is declared unlawful shall be punished by
affine of not less than fifty pesos nor more than five hundred pesos in each
offense.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

11

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

The above provision does not specify the court that may act when the
violation charges call for the imposition of the penalties therein provided. It
merely states that they may be imposed in the discretion of the court. Does
the word court employed therein refer to the CIR under sec.2(a) of the
same Act which provides that Court means the Court of Industrial Relations
unless another court shall be specified.
After mature deliberation, this court has reached the conclusion that,
said provision notwithstanding, that word cannot refer to the CIR for to give
that meaning would be violative of the safeguards guaranteed to every
accused by our Constitution. We refer to those which postulate that No
person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law and that In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses in his behalf.
The procedure laid down by law to be observed by the CIR in dealing with
unfair labor practices cases negates these constitutional guarantees to the
accused. And this is so because among other thins, the law provides that the
rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall be controlling and
its spirit and intention of this act that the CIR and its members and Hearing
Examiners shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in
each case speedily an objective and without regard to technicalities of law or
procedure. It is likewise enjoined that the court shall not be bound solely by
the evidence presented during the hearing but may avail itself of all other
means such as but not limited to ocular inspection and questioning of well
informed persons which results must be made part of the record. All these
mean that an accused may be tried without the right to meet the witnesses
face to face and may be convicted merely on preponderance of evidence and
not beyond reasonable doubt. This is against the due process guaranteed by
our Constitution. It may be contented that this gap may be subserved by
requiring the CIR to observe strictly the rule applicable to criminal cases to
meet the requirements of the Constitution but this would be tantamount to
amending the law which is not within the province of the judicial branch of
our government.
A comparative study of the jurisdiction of the CIR and of the CAR created
by RA 1267 is enlightening. Note that both Acts (nos. 857 and 1267) contain
general provision prescribing, in one a penalty of fine of not less than one
hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment of
not less than one month or more than one year, or both by such fine or
POLITICAL
LAW
COMMITTEE
imprisonment, in the discretion
of the
Court.
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

12

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
And in another, a penalty of not exceeding two thousand pesos
imprisonment not exceeding one year or both in the discretion of the Court
upon whose person who violates any of the provisions therein specified. But
while RA 1267, as effect the CAR provides that criminal proceedings should
be prosecuted as an ordinary jurisdiction upon an administrative court. It
expressly says so in an unmistakable language. Again Congress has made its
intention clear when it amended that law by eliminating entirely this criminal
jurisdiction originally conferred upon CAR. This was made manifest when the
Congress enacted RA 1409 repealing those provisions affecting this criminal
jurisdiction aforementioned.
In conclusion, our considered opinion is that the power to impose the
penalties provided for in section 25 of AR 875 lodged in ordinary courts, and
not in CIR, notwithstanding the definition of the word Court contained in
sec 2(a) of said Act. Hence, the decision of the CIR in so far as it imposed a
fine of P100 upon petitioners is illegal and should be nullified.
JURISDICTION
Administrative agencies may only exercise such powers as are explicitly
or necessary implication conferred on them by law. Such agencies can only
adjudicate matters coming within their jurisdiction; otherwise their decision
would be void. In a number of cases the Supreme Court has held that the
Public Service Commission and its successor, the Board of Communications
had no jurisdiction over cases and involving complaints for injury caused by
the Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc., to transmit telegrams and
to impose fines such failure. The grant for the supervisory power to the
agency did not include jurisdiction over claims based on breach of contract.
They were for the courts of justice to decide.
In the leading case of Scotys Department store Vs. Micaller the Supreme
Court held that the CIR had no jurisdiction to impose penalty for violation of
certain penal provisions of law for this violated the due process guarantee
given to defendants in criminal cases.
However, certain statutes authorize agencies other than the courts to
impose administrative fines to ensure efficient enforcement of law. Thus, the
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue is authorized to impose surcharges as
an administrative penalty for late filing of payment of taxes; the
Commissioner of Immigration may collect a fine administratively for an alien
certificate registration.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

13

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
A tribunal may have jurisdiction over a case before it, but where it acts
in a spirit of hostility and unfairness, its decision will be set aside. In Bayani
Vs. Collector of Customs, the Attorney-General recommended a new trial
because he found that the appellant had not been given a fair and full
hearing. The Board of Inquiry conducted its entire examination of witnesses
in a spirit of hostility, intimidating ignorant witnesses. For that reason
according to the court, the Board was rendered incapacitated to weigh and
consider the evidence impartially
Administrative agencies authorized to decide disputes coming from
within their jurisdiction are not by law precluded from delegating the power
to hold a hearing on the basis of which the decision of the agency will be
made. In American Tobacco Co. Vs. Director of Patents the Supreme Court
held that the rule requiring an officer to exercise his own judgment and
discretion does not prevent him from utilizing, as a matter of a practical
administrative procedure, that of the subordinate to investigate and report to
him, the facts on the basis of which he makes his decision. It is sufficient that
the judgment and discretion finally exercised are those of the officer
authorized by law. Due process of law requirements of fair hearing do not
require that testimony should be actually taken by the same officer who will
make the decision. As long as a party is not deprived of his right to present
his case and submit, there is no question that the requirements of due
process and fair trial are fully met. In short, there is no abnegation of
responsibility on the part of the officer concerned as the actual decisions
remains with and is made by said officer. It is however, required that to give
the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making
determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies
them. The hearing officer made preliminary rulings on the myriad question
raised at the hearings, but the ultimate decision on the merits of all the
issues and questions involved was left to the Director of Patents.
Administrative due process:
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
Ang Tibay Vs. CIR
69 Phil 635
1940
Facts: The Solicitor General on behalf of the CIR filed a motion for
reconsideration while respondent National Labor Union, Inc. prayed for new
trial, and vacting of the judgment of the majority of this Court. This concerns
the laying of employees of Ang Tibay belonging to the NLU Inc.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

14

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Issue: Whether there was due process observed in the CIR Proceedings.
Held: The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in
the law of its creation. It is more an administrative board than a part of the
integrated judicial system of the nation. It is narrowly constrained by
technical rules of procedure. However, this does not mean that it can entirely
ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due trials
and investigations of an administrative character.
There are primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of
this character:

Right to hearing;
Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
Decision must be supported bys some evidence;
Supporting evidence must be substantial;
Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
The body of CIR or any of its judges must act on his own independent
consideration of the law and facts, and not simply accepts the views of
the subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
Decide in such manner that parties can know the various issues
involved and the reason for decision.

In light of the foregoing principles, we observe here that the record is


barren and cannot support a conclusion of law. Motion for new trial is
granted to receive all evidence to determine the main issue which is on the
lay
off
the
employees.
Southech Development Corporation Vs. NLRC G.R NO. 149590;
January 12, 2005
Facts:
This is an appeal from the decision of the labor arbiter directing the NLRC to
give due course on the respondents appeal. The facts are as follows:
Respondents Rodrigo Lopez and Reynaldo Gamutan were employed as
machine operators of petitioners SDC in 1990s. On September 1999,

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

15

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
respondents were directed to submit their explanation why they had not be
disciplinarily dealt with for insubordination unsatisfied with the reason
petitioner suspended the Respondents for one month, but Respondents
Refused to acknowledge the notice of suspension. Respondents were advised
to consult SDC presidents, Ricardo Lu, but Respondents paid him no heed
but continue to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. The labor Arbiter
decided the case on the Negative for the Respondents were given the
opportunity to explain their side yet, they denied by NLRC on September 29,
2000 because Respondents filed it beyond 10 calendar-day period. Thus, he
filed petition for certiorari alleging that they were deprived of due process.
Issue:
Whether or Not Respondents were denied due process
Whether or Not NLRC grave abused its administrative direction by denying
administrative due process.
Held:
No. Court of appeal must yield to the technicality which aims to serve
the broader interest of substantial justice. In administrative cases there are
requisites that must be complied with citing the case of Surigao Del Norte
Electric Cooperative Vs. NLRC that first, Right to a hearing, which
Respondents here for was given but did not comply with the Reglementary
Period of appeal second, tribunal must consider the evidence presented
which NLRC did, Third, decision must have something to support itself,
Fourth, Evidence must be substantial, Fifth, decision must be based on the
evidence adduced at the hearing, or at least contained in the record. And
disclosed to the parties, which The labor Arbiter and NLRC did, Sixth, The
board must act on its own consideration of facts or independently arriving on
its own decision, which NLRC did and Lastly, Decisions must be rendered in
such a manner that the parties to the Controversy can know the various
issues involved and reasons for the decision rendered. That the NLRC did but
respondents did not comply within the 60 day period and 10 day period for
appeal.
As to the second issue, NLRC being an administrative agency charged
with quasi judicial power complied with the requirements of administrative
due process. Administrative agencys findings of facts are given finality, if
supported with substantial evidence which the technical rules and the
reglementary period provided by law

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

16

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Negligence of the counsel Binds His client.
Wherefore, the decision of NLRC is reinstated and court of appeals
decision be set aside.
Right to a Hearing does not mean a formal court hearing neither the
necessity for a cross examination but it is enough that both parties
concerned may air their side through position papers ( Ppl. Vs.
Mutuc, supra) or through an answer with supporting papers.
Augusto R. samalio Vs. Court of Appeals, CSC and Bureau of
Immigration GR no. 140079 ; March 31, 2005
Facts:
Samalio , Petitioner here in this case , is an intelligence officer charged
for violation of CSMC 46 Rule 2 election 1, for dishonesty , oppression and
misconduct . The fact are as follows on February 2, 1993 at NAIA , Ms. Weng
Sai Qin was holding an Uruguayan passport and was waiting for her friend.
Pajarillaga, an immigration officer noticed the said passport of Ms. Sai Qin
was fake.Sai Qin, a Chinese National. Who do not even know how to speak
other language. Was holding an Uruguay passport and enclosed there in that
she is an Uruguay national. That gave Pajarillaga a queue that it was faked.
Pajarillaga brought Sai Qin to samalio to have her investigated. Pajarillaga
left the investigation room a minute after. On the investigation pad, Sai Qin
gave Samalio 500 dollar bill in exchange for certification of authenticity of
passport, Samalio returned her passport, but did not issue such certification
Sai Qin left the area , on her way out , Sai Qin discovered that it did not hear
an immigration arrival stamp, thus, Sai Qin filed a complaint against Samalio.
On February 9, 1993, The bureau of immigration and deportation charging
Samalio for violation of CSMC NO.46 , Rule 2 Section 1, for dishonesty ,
oppression , Misconduct disgraceful and immoral conduct Likewise , requiring
Samalio to submit his answer to the charges with supporting statement and
documents. As a consequence , Samalio was preventively suspended while
the case was pending. Later on , Petitioner submitted an answer but
unsatisfactory so the case was set for formal hearing he fore the board of
discipline of BID. The case has always been suspended thus , he was given a
petition to dismiss but did not dismiss instead he was given 5 days to
prevent additional witnesses on February 6, 1995, Samalio filed a motion for
dismiss but denied on February 16, 1995 motion to dismiss was granted and
the case be set a new on February 22 1995 on July 25, 1995,

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

he was found guilty by BID commissioner liwag and was denied on June 2,
1997 the said decision was appealed to civil service commission on
17

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
November 26, 1997 but dismissed for lack of merit and affirmed the decision
of Liwag. Thus, filed a petition for Review to CA but was denied as well.
Hence, Certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not Samalio was denied due process
Held:
No. Time and Again, that there had been several instances when people
conceived that right to a hearing means, a formal hearing and that there be
a cross examination of witnesses. Right to be heard connotes, opportunity to
be heard not only in courts but also on position papers, answers, statements
and documents presented and shall be determined by the court if it suffice to
convict an individual or not based on their papers sent to the court. On the
present case, Samalio need not interpose before the court that he was
denied due process, the mere fact that at the time when there has been
postponement, he may file a motion to dismiss but did not instead sought for
additional days to present witnesses but did not avail of such. He likewise
submitted his answer from the complaint and supporting statements to
interject his innocence yet not sufficient. He was likewise given the chance to
appeal to CSC and CA and submitted his position paper where through such
paper, He was heard but not sufficient to strengthen his innocence. In all
these circumstances, It shows that Samalio had all the chance to be heard
but the decision is up to the body who will determine the evidence
presented. BID being an investigative body and conferred Adjudicatory
power will weigh the strength of the evidence not withstanding the
Constitutional right of an accused on the presumption of innocence. BID
considered Samalios side through his answer but not strong enough to
overcome all the allegations against him.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

When requiredRECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW


Sicat Vs. reyes
18

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
100 Phil 505; 1956
There is no question that in the tenancy case instituted by Arcadio
Lagmen against his landlord Froncisco Liongsion before the court of
Industrial Relations, Alipio Sicat was not a part even if he was the tenant
placed in the land by the latter to take the place of the former. However,
when that case was called by trial on the merits, the parties submitted an
amicable agreement wherein, among other things, stipulated as follows:
That the parties respectfully pray his Hon. Court to order the
reinstatement of the petitioner Arcadio Lagman a tenant of the respondent in
the said remaining portion of his holding beginning the crop year 1956-1957
and to order the present tenant, Alipio Sicat, to vacate said remaining land
holding, and the dismissal of the respective claims of herein parties.
The above agreement, which serves as basis of the ejectment of Alipio
Sicat, cannot be binding and conclusive upon the latter, who is not a party to
the case. Indeed, the order, as well as the writ of execution, cannot legally
enforce against Alipio Sicat for the simple reason that he was not given his
day in court. It is well-settled that No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
and property without due process of law. And by due process of law, we
men a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry,
and render judgment only after trial, or as this court has said due process of
law contemplates notice opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered, affecting one person or property. It is, therefore evident that the
order of the lower court dated ob January 23, 1956, as well as the writ of
execution of July 6, 1956, are null and void, the same having been issued by
it in excess of jurisdiction.
When Not Required
Cancellation of Passport
: Hearing would have been proper and necessary if the reason of withdrawal
or cancellation of the passport were not clear or doubtful. But where the
holder of the passport is facing criminal charge in our courts and left the
country to evade criminal prosecution, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in the
exercise of discretion to revoke a passport already issued, cannot be held to
have acted whimsically or capriciously in withdrawing or canceling such
passport.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Due process does not necessarily
mean or require a hearing. When
Jaynee Dialola

discretion is exercised
by an DE
officer
vestedSCHOOL
with upon
undisputed fact,
RECOLETOS
MANILA
OFan
LAW
such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder,
hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the
19

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
cancellation of his passport, lack of such hearing does not violate the due
process of law clause of the Constitution. And the exercise of the discretion
vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical and capricious because of the
absence of such hearing. If hearing should always be held in order to comply
with the due process of law clause, then a writ of preliminary injunction
issued ex parte would be violative of the said clause.( Suntay Vs. People,101
Phil 833,1957)
When the administrative body acts as an alter ego of the president.
Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
It can happen that the same act or occurrence gives rise to action
cognizable both by the courts and by an administrative agency. Can the two
cases prosper, simultaneously or successively, or will the filing of one bar the
other? What effect will decision in one have on the other? can evidence in
one proceeding be utilized as basis of decision by the other?
In the American jurisdiction, the principal of primary jurisdiction or prior
resort is well established. This is invoked when a statute confers concurrent
original jurisdiction in both court and agency over specified matters. Despite
explicit statutory grant of jurisdiction the courts defer to the agency and
refuse to entertain a case where the issue requires agency expertise and
uniformity of rulings. The principal has been adverted to by our Supreme
Court, but has yet to be applied in this jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the Insurance Code provides: the authority to
adjudicate granted to the Commissioner under this Section shall be
concurrent with the civil courts, but the filing of the complaint with the
Commission shall preclude the civil courts from taking the cognizance of a
suit involving the same subject matter. Under this legislation, the rule of
primary jurisdiction or primary resort would be developed if, notwithstanding
the grant of concurrent jurisdiction to civil courts, even when a case is
brought before them first, they refuse to exercise jurisdiction so that the
Insurance Commission may deal uniformly with contested cases.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Due Delegation and findings
of Dialola
fact of administrative body who
Jaynee

is conferred by
law is conclusive
when supported
byLAW
evidence
RECOLETOS
DE MANILA
SCHOOL OF

20

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Antonio et al. Vs. Honorable Francisco Villa and OMB Task Force on
Public Works and Highways
G.R NO. 144694; March 28, 2005
Facts:
Antonio , Ramirez and Tel Equen were charged of falsification of
documents as to purchases and bidding held on May 10, 1990 which it did
not really occur. The facts are as follows. Aguano, supply officer of (MPED)
Mountain province engineering district issued a requisition voucher for the
construction of Mainit bridge in Barangay Mainit , Mt. province . Ramirez ,
assistant district engineer, favorably but the said bidding did not really occur
, they issued a letter requesting or borrowing the baileys and construction
materials of bailey bridge construction project from Ifugao Engineering
district handled by Mabunga . As a result, they were able to get these
materials from the DPWH potia Depot. Thus, Mainit Bridge was constructed
the materials used were from the IED on the strength of the request letter
issued by Tel Equen Mabunga. All the components borrowed were returned
to IED in January 1, 1991. On September 11, 1990 the concerned citizens of
ifugao wrote a letter to the ombudsman to conduct investigation on the
delayed completion of a bridge in Mitapia , Lamut, Ifugao. The OMB task
force, an investigative body of DPWA found Antonio, Tel equen and Ramirez
guilty of falsification of documents that there was no bidding that occurred
on May 10, 1990 but instead look it from the IED. The said facts are negated
by the NBI, according to the NBI, There was a conspiracy between IED, MPED
and Aguana and Dangayo OMB filed an administration complain for
dishonesty and was found guilty thus petitioner here in filed an appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not OMBs investigation be given credence
Whether or not there was a denial of due process

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Held:
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

Yes. OMB is an administrative body created and given the power to


investigate on cases coming within its jurisdiction .Investigation gathered by
21

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
an administrative agency charged with investigative powers be given with
finality in all courts. Questions of facts, as to whether there was a bidding
conducted, or none is determined by OMB and their findings are conclusive
in all courts. Thus, No question as to OMBs finding be given credence
because it is conferred by law creating it. Findings of fact can only be
contested if judgment is base a on misapprehension of facts.
No. Citing the case of Ang Tibay Vs. CIR, The following requisites
must be complied in all administrative proceedings : (1) The right to a
hearing, which includes the right of the party interested to present his own
case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) The tribunal must consider
the evidence presented; (3) The decision must be supported by evidence; (4)
The evidence must be substantial; (5) The decision must be rendered on the
evidence present at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected; (6) The administrative 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;
and (7) The administrative 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 reasons for the decisions rendered.
The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity
to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard
before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently
metTel-Equen, Ramirez, and Antonio participated in all levels of the present
proceedings, from the Ombudsman to this Court. In fact, during the
preliminary conference held on 27 November 1992 before Graft Investigation
Officer Lamberto T. Tagayuna, the parties agreed to submit the case for
resolution on the basis of the evidence on record. Due process in an
administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to
those in the courts of justice. Thus, Tel-Equen, Ramirez, and Antonio can no
longer request for the cross-examination of the witnesses against them.
The Constitution provides that "[p]ublic office is a public trust. Public officers
and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."Tel-Equen, Ramirez, and
Antonio's acts fail to show that they have lived up to this public trust.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
WHEREFORE, the instant petition
is DENIED. The decision of the Court
Jaynee Dialola

of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No.
is AFFIRMED.
Jimmie
RECOLETOS
DE50324
MANILA
SCHOOL OF
LAW F. Tel-Equen,
Rolando D. Ramirez, and Rudy P. Antonio committed acts of dishonesty,
falsification of public documents, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the
22

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
best interest of the service. They are DISMISSED from the service, and shall
suffer
the
accessory
penalties
of
dismissal
But instances of both administrative and judicial proceedings
involving
the
same
facts
and
usually
the
same
party
respondent/dependent had come up.
In Galang Vs. CA the Supreme Court pointed out that there was no
compatibility between the administrative case for exclusion of an alien or a
criminal case for violation of certain provision of the immigration law,
although both proceedings arose from same facts. The alleged conflicts
between the said proceedings according to the then Justice Concepcion, was
at best purely physical not legal, in the sense that one does nullify or set
aside the other.
Courts usually leave to the administrative forum questions of
reinstatement, payment of back salaries, etc. in case acquittal in criminal
case. An exception is People Vs. Consigna where the Supreme Court found
absolute lack of evidence to prove charges of malversation and ordered
reinstatement.
Evidence, Rules and Quantum of
Generally, administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules
regarding the admission of evidence in the ordinary courts of justice. They
are not necessarily requires to take into account in the determination of
cases only such evidence as may have been presented by the parties. Thus,
an administrative agency may at times make its own inquiry into the facts at
issue and take judicial notice of certain other matters. But its decision must
be supported by substantial evidence.
Judicial Review
Except when the Constitution requires or allows it, judicial review may be
granted or withheld as Congress chooses. Thus, the law may provide that a
determination made by an administrative agency shall be final and
irreviewable. In such case, there is no violation of due process.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

GENERALLY

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

23

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
One of the obstacles to the development of administrative law was
reluctance to accept the exercise of adjudicative functions by officers or
bodies not pertaining to the judiciary. In the separation and distribution of
powers, judicial power has been vested in one Supreme Court and such
inferior courts as may be created by law. The Constitution gives the
legislature the power to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court and to
define and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. Legislature has
created administrative agencies with powers more dynamic and broader
than
the
ordinary
courts
of
justice.
Thus, in Lopez Vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139, Feb. 19,1999,
it was held that the rule must be served in order to prevent unnecessary and
premature resort to courts. Besides, sec 187 of RA 7160 expressly provides
that administrative remedies must be exhausted before constitutionality or
legality of a tax ordinance may be challenged in court. Note however, that
only those decisions of administrative agencies made in the exercise of
quasi-judicial powers are subject to the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
Modes of Appeal:
Petition of review to the administrative body then to the office of the
president, but not when the department head is an alter ego, thus, file an
appeal to the RTC, then to the CA under rule 43 of the Rules of Court, then
by Petition for review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court if denied by the
Court
of
Appeals
Appeal
Section 19 of the administrative code provides:
Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order, an appeal from a
final decision of the agency may be taken to the department head.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW


Perfection of appeal:
24

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Within 15 days after receipt of a copy of the decision complained of by
the party adversely affected, by filing with the agency which adjudicated the
case a notice of appeal:
Served to parties concerned copies to parties concerned and paying the
required fees
If denied:
Perfection of appeal during the remainder of the remaining period for
appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial.
If decision if reversed:
Perfection 15 days from receipt of the resolution of reversal within
which
to
perfect
his
appeal.

Certiorari
The Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. Petition for Certiorari When any tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal, board or
officer.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the
judgment or order subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

Prohibition

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

The Revised Rules of Court provides:


25

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition When the proceedings of any
tribunal, corporation, board or person, whether exercising functions judicial
or ministerial, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant
to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein.
The petition shall be accompanied by certified true copy of the
judgment or order subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto.
Mandamus
The Revised Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 3. Petition for Mandamus When any tribunal, corporation,
board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office
to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the
damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
defendant.
Declaratory Relief
The Revised Rules of Court provides:
Sect. 1. Who may file petition for declaratory relief Any person
interested under a deed will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance,
may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action to determine any
question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute
and for a declaration of his rights or duties there under.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

Habeas Corpus
RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW
The Revised Rules of Court provides:
26

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends Except as otherwise
expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus, the writ shall extend to
all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived
of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from
the person entitled thereto.
Injunction
The Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. Preliminary Injunction defined; classes A preliminary
injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the final
judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular act. It may also
require the performance of a particular act, in which case it shall be known
as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Quo Warranto
The Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section 6. When an individual may commence such an action (Quo
Warranto) A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position
usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action
therefore
in
his
own
name.
Extent of Judicial Review
GENERALLY
Laws creating administrative agencies and providing fro judicial review
may indicate the scope of that review. Questions of law or of both law and
fact will depend on the enabling act. The mode of judicial review indicated
will determine the scope of judicial inquiry.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
CONSTITUTING PROVISIONS
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

In cases brought from the COMELEC on certiorari, inquiry is limited to


questions involving absence or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
27

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
discretion. It is within the constitutional authority of the legislature to
prescribe the extent of review which may be exercised.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
The act providing for uniform procedure for appeal in specified agencies,
makes reference to the scope of judicial review by setting the manner and
period for appeal, whether it involves questions of fact, mixed questions of
fact and law, or questions of law, or all three kinds of questions.

The Law Fact Distinction


There is no clear-cut line can be drawn to separate questions of law from
questions of fact. The distinction between question of law and question of
fact gives little help in determining how far the courts will review. They are
not two mutually exclusive kinds of questions. Matters of law grow downward
into roots of fact, and matters of fact reach upward, without break into
matters of law.
Then facts are the so called jurisdictional and constitutional facts.
Jurisdictional facts are those facts upon which an administrative agencys
power to act depends. While constitutional facts are those involving
constitutional issues.
Questions of Law
A party challenging administrative action may direct his attack against
the constitutionality of the very statute creating the agency and granting
powers; or against the validity of agency action if these transcend the limits
established by law; or against the correctness of its interpretation and
application of the law. These involve questions which must ultimately be
decided by the courts of justice. However, administrative bodies may be
called upon initially to consider legal issues falling within jurisdiction.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN:of
Lady
Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Questions
Facts
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

Reference has
been made
the distinction
in the statutes
RECOLETOS
DEto
MANILA
SCHOOLdrawn
OF LAW
between question of law and question of fact and the power of courts to
review them. But when the issue involved is whether a certain thing exists or
28

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
whether an event has taken place or which of two versions of a happening is
the correct one, a question of fact is raised.
Finality is attached to the findings of fact of some agencies when these
findings are supported by substantial evidence. But there is reserved to the
courts the power to review the findings of fact when the evidence supporting
them is not substantial, and whether evidence is substantial or not is for the
court to say.
Questions of Facts and Law :
Questions of Fact and Law are to be determined by the Administrative body,
conferred by law, to exercise it is given more weight and conclusiveness by
all courts.

Me Shurn Corporation and Samy Chou Vs. Me Shrun Workers and


Rosalina Cruz
GR No. 156292; January 11, 2005
Facts:
On June 7,1998 employees of Me shurn Corporation organized a union
who had pending application in bureau of labor relation . On June 17, 1998
petitioner corporation . placed the respondents on forced leave.
On June 23,1998 respondents corporation applied for a petition of
certification and in May 7,1999 it was granted Aug 4, 1998 respondent
staged a strike vs. petitioner Corporation. On Aug 31, CBA that officers of the
union will sign an agreement containing a guarantee that upon their return
work, no labor org. will be organized. Instead be mediators.
On Nov 5, 1998 there came an election of officers. As a consequence,
laid off its employees. Petitioner Corporation. Contends that they do not have
an option if they will not lessen their employees they might loose their profit
and may not pay these employees because of insufficiency of profit.

These filed a force for illegal dismissal in NLRC L.A pay their back
COMMITTEE
wages and rein statePOLITICAL
them hence LAW
appear,
but dismissed by CA for lack of
CHAIRMAN:
Lady
Jay
Gutierrez
VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Paulo
Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
merit for lack of Jurisdiction
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

Issue:

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW


Whether or not CA has no jurisdiction of this Case
29

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Held:
Yes. The NLRC has jurisdiction on the determination of existence of
ER & EE relationship question of fact are determined by the administration
and questions of law are the court. On this case it is right that the
determination and issuance of permit and certification it left to the sound
direction of administration body and may not be denied by any agreement. It
is the DOLE who handles jurisdiction on legitimate labor organization and
tasked to determine the labor organization as provided by the law creating
it. The question of legitimate labor organization is a question of fact left to
administration body charged of investigating and determining it and not the
court. Courts are not tiers of facts but of law.
Question of Discretion
When a matter has been committed to agency discretion, courts are
reluctant to disturb agency action on it. But a party may get a court to
intervene against arbitrary action or grave abuse of discretion.
METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT
Some agency actions may be taken directly and without a hearing. Thus,
for non-payment of taxes a summary distrait of personal property or a levy
on real property may be made by administrative authorities. Or nuisance
may be abated summarily. The enforcement of agency decisions may be
done with or without recourse to the course, depending on the governing
statutes. Under licensing statutes, agencies may grant or refuse a license
depending on whether the applicant has complied with requirements of the
law; and violations of the conditions or regulations under which the grant, or
its revocation. Again the intervention of the courts may or may not be
necessary depending on the applicable laws. A previous chapter discussed
how violation of agency orders or decisions may be punished as contempt
either directly by the agency or through court action.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT


Patent Law

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN:
Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Abello,
MEMBERS:
Nicolas
Tristan
Hinayon,
Sec.
32.Lady
Cancellation
of patent Paulo
If the
Director
finds
that
a case
for
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
cancellation has been made out, he
shall
order
the
patent
or
any
specified
Jaynee Dialola

claim or claims RECOLETOS


thereof cancelled.
The orderSCHOOL
shall not OF
become
DE MANILA
LAWeffective until
the time for appeal has elapsed or, if appeal is taken, until judgment on
appeal becomes final. When the order or judgment becomes final, any rights
30

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
conferred upon the patentee by the patent or any specified claim or claims
cancelled thereby, shall terminate. Notice of cancellation shall be published
in the Official Gazette.
Labor Code
Art. 128 Visitorial and enforcement powers

The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized representatives shall have


the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing,
compliance with the labor standards and provisions of this code based
on the findings of labor regulations officers or industrial safety
engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs of
execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement for their
order, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the
labor regulations officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved
without considering the evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in
the normal course of inspection.
The secretary of Labor may likewise order stoppage of work or
suspension of operations of any unit or department of an
establishment when non-compliance with the law or implementing
rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health
and safety of workers in the workplace. Within twenty-four hours, a
hearing shall be conducted to determine whether an order for the
stoppage of work or suspension of operations shall be lifter or not. In
case the violation is attributable to the fault of the employer, he shall
pay the employees concerned their salaries or wages during the period
of such stoppage of work or suspension of operation.

It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to obstruct, impede, delay


or otherwise render ineffective the orders of the secretary of Labor or
his duly authorized representatives issued pursuant to the authority
granted under this article, and no inferior court or entity shall issue
POLITICAL
LAW COMMITTEE
temporary or permanent
injunction
or restraining order or otherwise
CHAIRMAN:
Lady
Jay
Gutierrez
VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Paulo
Abello, MEMBERS:
Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
assume jurisdiction over any case involving
the enforcement
orders
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
issued in accordance with this
article.
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

31

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Art. 224 Execution of decisions, orders or wards
The Secretary of Labor, the Commission or any Labor Arbiter or medarbiter may, upon his own initiative or on motion of any interested party,
issue a writ of execution requiring a sheriff or a proper officer to execute
final decisions, orders or awards of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter, or
compulsory
arbiters
or
voluntary
arbitrators
Stare Decisis and Res Judicata in Administrative Matters
A prior judgment by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction may constitute a
bar to subsequent action where there are: (a) identity of parties, (b) identity
of subject matter, and (c) identity of issues. This is the doctrine of res
judicata. On the other hand, a judgment may operate to preclude
consideration of question previously decided in a prior suit where the litigant
is not a party under the doctrine of stare decisis whereby the decision of the
Supreme Court on a particular issue will be followed by the court and courts
of inferior thereto until overruled by it. It will be seen that these doctrine
apply to judicial decisions.
Executive and administrative Functions:
Issuance of licenses, grants rights and privileges and promulgates rules
and regulation but such rules must not contradictory to the general law
neither can it amend the general law or change the scope of the general law.
It must be in compliance of the general and cannot extend its scope.

Illustrative case:
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
(FORMER SECOND DIVISION) and NEOLITO DUMLAO, respondents.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez


VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Paulo Abello,
G.R. No.
147009. March
11,MEMBERS:
2004 Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
Jaynee Dialola

Ponente:

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

AZCUNA, J.
32

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Facts:
The Civil Service Commission (CSC), through the Office of the Solicitor
General, brings before the Court the issue of regularity of the CSCs
institution of disciplinary administrative proceedings against an erring civil
servant on the basis of an anonymous letter-complaint.
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court which seeks a reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated October
30, 2000 and Resolution dated February 6, 2001 in CA G.R. SP No. 56098.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On February 4, 1997, the CSC received an anonymous letter-complaint
against Neolito Dumlao (Dumlao), a Department of Education Culture and
Sports Supervisor of Binalonan, Pangasinan. The letter-complaint contained
allegations that Dumlao: 1) never received a college degree; 2) never
received a Master of Arts degree in English; and 3) has many pending
criminal cases.
On March 13, 1997, the CSC requested Director Antonio R. Madarang to
look into these allegations and, if necessary, conduct an investigation. On
August 4, 1997, Madarang submitted his Report of Investigation stating that
Dumlao failed to finish his four-year Liberal Arts Course.
On August 7, 1997, the CSC wrote to the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED) to verify the educational attainment of Dumlao. On September 15,
1997, the CHED confirmed that Dumlao did not finish his four-year Liberal
Arts Course from the University of Pangasinan.
On September 18, 1997, the CSC formally charged Dumlao with Dishonesty
and Falsification of Official Document.

After receiving Dumlaos Answer, the CSC conducted formal hearings


wherein both parties presented testimonial and documentary evidence. On
May 21, 1999, the CSC issued Resolution No. 99-1056 finding Dumlao guilty
under the administrative charge and ordered his dismissal from the service.
Dumlao filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied on October 27,
1999.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN:
Lady
Jay Gutierrez
VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Abello,
Tristan
Dumlao
elevated
the
matter to thePaulo
Court
of MEMBERS:
AppealsNicolas
through
a Hinayon,
petition
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
review on certiorari. The Court
of
Appeals
rendered
a
Decision
that
Jaynee Dialola

for
granted the petition
and set aside
the resolution
dismissing
Dumlao from the
RECOLETOS
DE MANILA
SCHOOL
OF LAW
service. It ruled that the CSC was without jurisdiction to conduct an

33

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
investigation and file a formal charge on the basis of a mere anonymous
letter-complaint.
Issues:
1. May the Civil Service Commission arrogate upon itself to provide
something which the Administrative Code of 1987 did not provide for?
2. Does this affect jurisdiction?
Held:
In the first issue, we rule in the negative. Administrative rules and
regulations are intended to carry out, not supplant or modify the law. With
this, we cannot but hold with disapprobation the pertinent provision, viz., the
second paragraph of Section 8 of Resolution No. 99-1936. Where the law
makes no distinction, one does not distinguish.
What is contemplated under Sections 46 and 48 is the initiation of a
complaint against a civil service official or employee, much like the
institution of a criminal complaint, by filing a complaint for preliminary
investigation by the fiscal, which vests the fiscal with the quasi-judicial
discretion to determine whether to file a criminal case in court. In the case
at bar, the CSCRO was without jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary
investigation on the anonymous complaint. May the CSCRO then file a
formal charge against petition? We rule in the negative.
The complaint is dismissible at the outset. Section 48 (2), Chapter 6,
Subtitle A, Book V of E.O. No. 292 provides:
(2) In the case of a complaint filed by any other person, the complainant
shall submit sworn statements covering his testimony and those of his
witnesses together with his documentary evidence. If on the basis of such
papers a prima facie case is found not to exist, the disciplining authority shall
dismiss the case

Section 8, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the


Civil Service, provides:
SEC. 8. Complaint. POLITICAL

LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
The complaint shall contain the following:
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

d. certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of


his witnesses, if any; and
34

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
e. certification or statement of non-forum shopping.
In the absence of any one of the aforementioned requirements, the
complaint shall be dismissed.
In short, the Court of Appeals deemed the anonymous letter as a complaint
which failed to comply with the formal requirements of the law.
The CSC filed a motion for reconsideration but it was subsequently denied
in the assailed Resolution. Hence, this petition.
The CSC assigns two errors:
1. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the CSC Regional Office was
without jurisdiction to conduct an investigation on the anonymous complaint.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the CSC Regional Office cannot
file a formal complaint against Dumlao on the basis of an anonymous
complaint.
The petition is meritorious.
The Court of Appeals gravely erred in considering the letter-complaint as
the complaint referred to in Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 and the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. A plain reading therein
readily shows that the complaint under said statute and rules both refer to
the actual charge to which the person complained of is required to answer
and indicate whether or not he elects a formal investigation should his
answer be deemed not satisfactory.

In contrast, the letter-complaint in issue simply contained the


following averments:
1. A department of Education Culture and Sports, Supervisor based in
Binalonan is an undergraduate. He never had a college degree. His name is
POLITICAL
LAW
Neolito Dumlao, presently
assigned
as COMMITTEE
supervisor based in Binalonan,
CHAIRMAN:
Lady
Jay
Gutierrez
VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Paulo
Abello, MEMBERS:
Hinayon,
Pangasinan. He claims to have finished his college
degreeNicolas
in UTristan
Pang.,
short
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
for University of Pangasinan in Dagupan
City.
xxx.
A
check
with
the
registrar
Jaynee Dialola
office will shockRECOLETOS
you.
DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

35

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
2. Dumlao also claims to have taken his M.A. in English at the Zaragoza
College of Tayug, Pangasinan. Check that one too and you will be surprised.
3. He also has many pending cases in court; all criminal cases that includes
forgery, falsification of public documents, and estafa
As can be seen from the bare contents of the anonymous letter, it was not
a complaint within Section 8, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service which requires the full name and address of the
complainant and of the person complained of, a narration of the relevant and
material facts, and certification of non-forum shopping. Neither did it, by
itself, commence administrative proceedings, requiring an answer from
Dumlao described under Section 48 (2) of E.O. No. 292, but merely triggered
an investigation by the CSC.
Indeed, the letter-complaint is just a plain and simple letter. It was merely
a communication sent to the CSC Regional Office to call its attention to the
educational background of Dumlao that is not different from an information
or tip given by telephone to the Regional Office. To say that the CSC cannot
act upon the information because it was from an anonymous caller, or in this
case an anonymous writer, would result in an absurd and restrictive
interpretation of E.O. 292 and effectively deprive the Government of its
disciplining power over people who hold a public trust.
Under Sections 46 and 48 (1), Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Book V of E.O. No. 292
and Section 8, Rule II of Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service, a complaint may be initiated against a civil service officer or
employee by the appropriate disciplining authority, even without being
subscribed and sworn to. Considering that the CSC, as the disciplining
authority for Dumlao, filed the complaint, jurisdiction over Dumlao was
validly acquired.

As regards the actual guilt of Dumlao, the Court notes that while the
petition filed before the Court of Appeals raised both questions of law and
fact, the appellate court limited itself to ruling only on the question of law
and refrained from making a ruling on the facts. The Court, not being a trier
of facts, is not in a position to determine whether the facts presented
LAW
COMMITTEE
warrant a finding ofPOLITICAL
guilt against
Dumlao.
Consequently, this case is
CHAIRMAN:
Lady
Jay
Gutierrez
VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Paulo
Abello,
MEMBERS:
Nicolas Tristan
Hinayon,to
remanded to the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings
solely
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
determine the sufficiency of the evidence
against Dumlao.
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED and the


assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
36

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
56098 are REVERSED. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for
further proceedings in consonance with this decision.
SO ORDERED.
Doctrines:
The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests
relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members
of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning
candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELECs
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election,
returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRETs own jurisdiction
begin.( GEORGIDI B. AGGABAO Vs. THE COMMISSIO ON
ELECTIONS,G.R. No. 163756)
In National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma,1[3] we ruled that the
remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of
the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for
any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. And
without a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed within the ten-day
reglementary period, the questioned Decision or Resolution of the Secretary
becomes final and executory.2[4] Consequently, the merits of the case can no
longer be reviewed to determine if the Secretary could be faulted for grave
abuse of discretion.

Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate


labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to have any
participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining
representative. While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of
petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered parties
thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it. (SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS
POLITICAL
UNION FEBRUARY SIX
MOVEMENT LAW
(FSM) COMMITTEE
LOCAL CHAPTER NO. 1564 (for and
CHAIRMAN:
Lady
Jay
Gutierrez
VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan
Paulo
Nicolas Tristan
Hinayon,
in behalf of its members), petitioner, vs. Abello,
TITANMEMBERS:
MEGABAGS
INDUSTRIAL
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran,
CORPORATION,respondent.)
Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

37