ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS, ELECTION LAW: CASE DOCTRINES

FINALS, PART II DANIEL G. GUINIGUNDO, II-A, ATTY. ERENETA

mere routine. Petitioner was absolutely denied due process! There is failure on the part of the Admin agency to afford petitioner the ff: a) right to notice (actual or constructive); b) reasonable opportunity to defend rights and present witness/evidence; c) Tribunal=honest and impartial; and d) Decision of tribunal supported substantial evidence presented at the hearing or ascertained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected. Administrative proceeding against petitioner inexcusable or indefensible since the petitioner was not informed of the complaint which initiated the case. She was a victim of gross ignorance or negligence and abuse of power.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CHAPTER V: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 1. La Union Labor Union v. Philippine Tobacco : Wage Administration Service (WAS) will only acquire jurisdiction if the parties submit the case before it via a written agreement and if controversies involves only simple wage claims. Parties agreed to have non-wage claims of laborers presented to a labor office (CIR) for adjudication but it is not very clear as to the intent of the parties to submit the wage claims to WAS. The court ruled that the function of the WAS was limited to conciliation of dispute involving claims for wages, and if the parties are willing to submit their case for arbitration, they have to execute a written agreement to that effect. The kind of agreement entered into by the parties is insufficient to confer jurisdiction to WAS. Its decision is nullified. 2. Roxas v. Sayoc: Governing law expired after Commissioner of Customs acquired jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction duly acquired is not affected by expiration of the governing law. It is a settled rule that a court, judicial/administrative, that has acquired jurisdiction over a case, retains it even after the expiration of the law governing the case. The case at bar is concerned with the expiration of a law, and not with the abrogation of law. 3. Feliciano v. Director of Patents: Director of patents is asked by intervenor to rule on the terms and stipulations of an executory contract whereby intervenor is to act as selling agent for the investors of the patent. Motion of intervenor is denied on the ground that Director of Patents lacks the jurisdiction to decide on the case. The case involves contractual obligations, therefore jurisdiction pertains with the regular courts (determination if theres meeting of the minds, etc.) 4. Villa v. Lazaro: Commission conducted an inquiry in the most informal manner by means only of communications requiring submission of certain documents. Imagine! commissioner sent a mere letter requesting petitioner to give location clearance to the HSR Commission for the construction of a funeral parlor. Then HSRC imposed fine against petitioner for allegedly not complying with said request (when in fact she did). It was only in this juncture that petitioner learnt of a complaint was lodged against her when all she thought was that the request letter was

5. National Union of Printing Workers v. Asia Printing: Result of investigation conducted by Court of Industrial Relations prosecutor showed employer guilty of unfair labor practice. However, CIR still rendered a decision not favorable to the union member after it adduced evidence from both parties. Union member contend that the findings of the prosecutor must bind the CIR and therefore, they should win. Court ruled that the investigation conducted by the prosecutor is ex parte, thus, respondent employer was not given the opportunity to be present and take part in said investigation. The investigation by the prosecutor is necessary in order to avoid frivolous and unfounded charges against employers. Lastly, the law requires unfair Labor practice cases to be heard by CIR only after investigation. 6. Bautista v. WCC: Workmens Compensation Commission (WCC) dismissed claim for compensation without passing upon the issue of denial of due process squarely presented before it. Claimant always fails to attend the hearing because of lack of notice or receipt of notice after scheduled date. Dismissal of claim was grave abuse of discretion on the part of WCC according to the Court. Claimant deprived of its day in court because WCC did not afford a reasonable notice of hearing to each party interested. 7. Danan v. Aspillera: Certificate of public convenience was cancelled solely on the basis of the report of an engineer of the Public Service Commission. Petitioner formerly has permit to operate ice plant. Another company wants to put up same business. A hearing was conducted who among the two companies will operate plant. Petitioner failed to appear due to accident. Then cancellation of petitioners certificate of public convenience was

right away granted. This is a violation of petitioners right to due process because they were not able to have their day in court and opportunity to explain their side. SC also threatens public officials to observe fundamental procedural requirements, or else they can be liable for their negligence. 8. Manila Elec. Co v. Medina: Meralco applied for an increase in energy rates and got a favorable decision. But Public Service Commission (PSC) suspended without a hearing, the effectivity of its decision increasing rates to be charged. There was a violation of right to notice and hearing. The PSC did not give Meralco the opportunity to oppose the suspension of the decision under which, Meralco acquired valuable rights. Plus, the law confers no discretion on the PSC to suspend its decision. 9. Manila Elec. Co v. PSC: PSC denied request for a hearing on rates set by the Commission based on report of the General Auditing Office. The practice of PSC breaches guarantees of due process when it did not (1) first reset the cases for hearing. (2) by not giving meralco the right to cross-examine GAOs employees. (3) give meralco opportunity to adduce evidence. Notice and opportunity to be heard guaranteed by due process. 10. Commissioner of Immigration v. Fernandez: New Board of Commissioners reversed, without notice and hearing, decision of old Board affirming the ruling of the Board of Special Inquiry that respondents were Filipino Citizens. There was a violation on respondents right to due process. The right of respondent had already been passed by a board of equally and duly constituted Commissioners. The review, in affecting the rights of the respondent, must be made under compliance with the due process requirement. 11. Maceda v. ERB: Energy Regulatory Board relaxed procedure by having all the evidence-in-chief of all the applicants for oil price increase on record just before their witnesses are crossed-examined. Does the relaxed procedure deny petitioner due process? No. ERB is not bound by strict rules of procedure. But some dissenters in the decision addressed the need of a Bona Fide and full-dress hearings necessary for any increase. The oppositor to any price increase must be given the right to cross-examine the witness of the adverse parties. 12. Suntay v. People: Petitioner was charged with seduction and left the country. However, his passport was cancelled by the secretary of foreign affairs without notice and hearing. The cancellation is not whimsical and capricious since there is a clear reason for doing so. Hearing is not always necessary or required. When discretion is exercised by an officer

vested with it upon an undisputed fact, 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 cancellation of his passport; there is no violation of due process. But if hearing is mandatory or always required, then a writ of preliminary injunction issued ex parte would be violative of the said clause. 13. Bisschop v. Galang: Petitoner, an American citizen, staying in the Philippines for an allotted 3 years, and subsequently applying for an extension, was suspected of having evaded payment of his income tax and for running what appeard to be a gambling house. His extension of stay was denied by the Board with no grant of reinvestigation. Court ruled that Cmmissoners are not required by law to conduct formal hearings on all applications for extension of stay of aliens as such is purely discretionary on the part of immigration authorities and that right to notice and hearing are not always essential to due process of law. 14. American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents: Director of Patents delegated the hearing of petitioners cases to hearing officers. Law confers upon the director to obtain assistance of technical, scientific or other qualified officers or employees of other department The Dir of Patents validly delegated its hearing function. Administrative flexibility is necessary for the prompt and expeditious discharge of his duties. Furthermore, subdelegation of power is justified by sound principles of organization. This principle refers to allow top officers to concentrate on matters bearing more significance in the accomplishment of its function and delegating matters which would otherwise consume his time. 15. Santos v. Noble: In a reinvestigation to dismiss the decision of the CTA upholding the assessment and demand made by the CIR on petitioner, the BIR could not produce the formers books, thus rendering it impossible for petitioner to prove the errors allegedly committed by the BIR agent. The hearing was proceeded without the books. Due to such loss of primary evidence and inferentially admitting that taxpayers petitions were not groundless by granting his requests for reinvestigation, petitioner was allowed to be given the last opportunity to prove even with secondary evidence his contention that the assessment against him was incorrect. 16. Estate of Florencio P. Buan v. Pampanga Bus and Co. and La Mallorca: Observation and inspection of Admin agency officers is justified to be the basis for a decision. Thus, it is

possible that even if parties present their evidence, admin agency may disregard it and use only its own findings. 17. Philippine Movie Pictures Workers Assoc v. PPI: ocular inspection made was held to be insufficient; allegations cannot be established by a mere inspection of a place. In this case, as well as in the Estate case, In these two cases, the determining factor in the applicability of an agencys finding is if the findings of the agency is supported by substantial evidence and provided it has the power to do so 18. Halili v. Flores: Halili filed opposition on application of respondent to operate an auto-truck service, claiming that that he had already been rendering transportation service along the same route, presenting testimonial evidence that proved that passenger buses were overcrowded and overflowing and not sufficient in number to the discomfort of passengers. The Court ruled that the PSC decision in granting such application to Flores was not contrary to law or rendered without jurisdiction; acknowledged that it could not substitute own findings for those of the Commission as it was reasonably supported by evidence. 19. Uy v. WCC: WCC reversed decision of the hearing officer awarding a claim for death compensation on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship. The Court ruled on the records and substantial evidence, showing that Uy was indeed an employee, working as early as 1968. 20. Indias v. Phil Iron Mines, Inc. : The CIRs decision did not contain any facts but merely affirmed the decision of its examining officers. This kind of decision is allowed because it is purposeless to repeat the examiners findings to which it agrees. But, in case the decision did not affirm the findings of its examiners, then, CIR must cite the facts and law which will support their decision. 21. Gracilla v. CIR: Court of Industrial Relation dismissed the complaint of employee but failed to render a decision regarding monetary claims. This is a violation of due process of law. The issues raised by a party should not be ignored or left undecided. 22. Serrano v. PSC: Serrano filed an application requesting authority to operate a taxicab automobile service in Manila. His application was dismissed for lack of interest or failure to prosecute or denied for failure to qualify. The Court ruled that the PSC committed an error in summarily denying Serranos application without setting forth the facts on which the decision was based; Although the PSC is administrative in nature, it does

not mean that such fact would justify the summary disposition of petitioners application. 23. Heirs v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications: A number of residents filed complaints with the Secretary of PWC denouncing the heirs for alleged encroachments into the Tulao river. The Secretary then proceeded to order the removal of such encroachments complained of within 3 days. The heirs sought annulment due to lack of jurisdiction and issuance of a writ of prohibition claiming to have title. The court ruled that the secretary did not rule on the removal of the encroachments and at the same time rule on the validity of petitioners title. This is because the fact-finding power of the Secretary is incidental to his duty and authority to clear all navigable streams of unauthorized constructions and that uch authority prevails over petitioners title. 24. Weigall v. Shuster: Collector of Customs imposed a fine in the belief that he had such authority because the law failed to provide the machinery for the enforcement of its penal provisions. The Collector cannot impose any fine since the power is not expressly given by the statute. The imposition made is penal in nature. 25. Civil Aeronautics Board v. PAL: CAB imposed a fine against PAL for making an unauthorized flagstop to pick up passengers. The fine was held administrative in nature as provided in CABs charter. Hence, the imposition is allowed although the determination of the exact amount to be imposed was not contained in the charter. 26. Yao Git v. Geraldez: Yao Git, an alien, was prosecuted without the intervention of the Commissioner of Immigration, as he was acting suspiciously and was found in his possession a Chinese jueteng list, by Fiscal for non-exhibition of his alien certificate of registration. The Court ruled that such Fiscal has no authority to initiate the prosecution and take cognizance of the case, as the Commissioner was given the option by law to subject erring alien to administrative fine or to endorse his prosecution. Thus, the Fiscal may not initiate the prosecution until and unless the Commissioner has election and decided upon his choice. 27. Apelaga v. Dizon: H filed a claim for compensation with the DOL for injury sustained under the employ of Apelaga. The award was declared final and executory by the WCC under Section 41 of the WCC Act as amended by Sec. 17 of RA 4119. The Court ruled that the power of WCC to enforce its awards is transferred to it from the courts of justice, thus having such authority to do so. 28. Potente v. Saulog Transit, Inc. : Potente , a former bus inspector of a public utility operator, seeks, without an ordinary

action, issuance by a court of a writ of execution of a decision rendered by the Wage Administration Service against his employer. The Court ruled that such may not be executed by a court of justice without an ordinary action for recovery of a sum of money as it is required by law. CHAPTER VI: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF, OR RELIEF AGAINST, ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 1. SMC v. Secretary of Labor: The Secretary of Labor affirmed NLRC decision on reinstatement of a dismissed employee with Y raising a jurisidictional question on WON the SC has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the NLRC. Court ruled that that the SC does not have jurisdiction; it may only declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority illegal if it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provisions of the law or because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious. 2. Board of Medical Education v. Alfonso: The Secretary of Education ordered the closure of a medical college on the ground of failing to meet minimum standards. Lower court issued an injunction based on its own findings. Such issuance is not proper. No court has competence to substitute its own opinion for that of the DECS Secretary on matters falling under the latters prerogative. 3. Gordon b. Veridiano II: Food and Drug Admin lifted the closure order to a drugstore after the penalties imposed have been discharged. City mayor wants the FDA to review its decision in allowing the drugstore to operate again. The Court ruled that the Mayor cannot, in the exercise of his own power, prevent the operation of drugstores previously permitted by SEC. FDA is vested by law w/ all drug inspection functions. Though establishments still has to comply with local regulations to be granted a permit, the previous issuance of the permit (by the mayor himself) shows compliance with local regulations. Only a violation of such will authorize the mayor to revoke the permit. 4. Macailing v. Andrada: A Department Secretary is an alter-ego of the President. The decision made by the former is, for all intents and purposes, a decision of the latter. Moreover, the parties already acquired vested rights from a decision that has become final. 5. Nation Multi-Service Labor Union v. Agcaoili: The Secretary of Labor rendered a decision on a labor dispute. The Judge however entertained such suit where the decision had

already attained status of finality. The SC ruled that such is NOT proper and that the Judge has committed GADproper appeal is to the President. 6. PAL v. Civil Aeronautics Board: Civil Aeronautics Board Order granting provisional authority to an air line operator. SC reviewed on a special civil action for certiorari. Such is valid as Certiorari is an available remedy against administrative agencies 7. Quintos v. National Stud Farm: National Stud Farm cancelled a certificate of registration on a horse without due process. Relief was sought in the lower courts. Such action is not proper; petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Proper remedy was to ask the Board of Trustees of National Stud Farm regarding the cancellation. From there appeal may be taken to the Games and Amusement Board or to the Office of the President. 8. Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA: There was a rescission of a memorandum of agreement between coal mine operators where relief was sought in the TC. Such is not proper as Primary jurisdiction lies with the Bureau of Energy Development as provided by statutesince matter involves coal-operations or coaldevelopment. 9. Secretary of Agriculture and National resources v. CFI judge: Time during which the motion for reconsideration was pending MUST BE DEDUCTED from the 30 day period for taking the decision to court. 10. Aratuc v. Comelec: Petitioners invoke the SC certiorari jurisdiction over the COMELEC, not its appellate jurisdiction. Such action must not prosper as the COMELECs actuations are final, executory and inappealable. While such construction does not exclude the general certiorari jurisdiction of the SC, it narrows down the scope and extent of the inquiry the Court is to undertake. 11. Elks Club v. Rovira: In a special civil action of certiorari, the only question that may be raied is WON the respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with GAD and the SC cannot correct errors of fact or law which the TC may have committed. 12. CIR v. Eznar: The SC passed upon not only the legal issues but also the findings of fact upon which the decision of the CTA is based. Such is not proper and the SC may NOT consider such questions of fact. When a case is taken up to Court by petition to review, it could go over the evidence on record and pass upon the questions of fact; but that in cases of review upon petition for a writ of certiorari, this Court could only pass upon issues involving questions of LAW. 13. Blanco v. BME: Petitioners took examinations for a physicians certificate and passed the same. The findings of an

investigator revealed that some answers on said examination were leaked before such exam dates. Following the recommendation of the Undersecretary, the Secretary of Interior annulled the results of the exam. In an issue to determine whether such is ministerial, it is NOTit is a discretionary duty under the law. 14. Policarpio v. PVB: Courts cannot properly intervene until the petitioner should have exhausted her remedies. 15. Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board: Petition asks the SC to prohibit the Deportation Board from continuing deportation proceedings against petitioner who claims to be a Filipino Citizen. The SC ruled that such question of alienage and citizenship shall FIRST be decided before engaging in a judicial proceeding suspending the deportation proceedings in the meantime. Thus, judicial determination should be allowed in all cases. 16. Cabanero v. Torres: The function of the writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done. It is NOT intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished. 17. Lemi v. Valencia: While courts should exercise great care in granting preliminary mandatory injunctions as the writ operates not merely to preserve status quo between parties but to compel one of them to perform a positive act, in cases of extreme urgency, where petitioners right to the writ is clear, the courts should not hesitate to grant such writ. 18. CIR v. Reyes and CA: Petitions for certiorari seeks to nullify resolutions of the CTA restraining the CIR from collecting taxes allegedly due from a taxpayer. The SC ruled that the CIR may be restrained from proceeding with the collection, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer. The CTA is empowered by law to grant injunction to restrain collection of IR tax. 19. Azajar v. Ardales and Bureau of Lands: Complaint filed by petitioner prays that the plaintiff be declared as a Filipino citizen and entitle to acquire lands of the public domain. The SC ruled that the appellants citizenship CANNOT be determined in the the complaint for declaratory judgment/relief as such is not a proper remedy for determination of citizenship. 20. Mejoff v. Director of Prisons: Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have NO right of asylum therein even if they are stateless. However, the SC ruled that foreign nationals, not enemy, whom no charge has been made may not indefinitely be kept in detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process is not limited to Philippine citizens but also to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality. 21. Bureau of Immigration Commissioners v. Domingo: The proper remedy to test the legality of detention is habeas corpus

and NOT an action for declaratory judgment with incidental mandamus to release him. 22. Ignacio v. CA: Decision of administrative officers may NOT be disturbed except when acted with GAD. 23. Orlina v. Singson Encarnacion: Director of Lands rejected the sale application for a tract of public land on his conclusion from the facts found that such applicant is a Chinese citizen. SC ruled that the decisions of such Director when approved by Secretary generally conclusive. As a quasi-judicial officer, entitled to great respect of the Courts. 24. Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union: Charge of unfair labor practice is based on the bare testimony of complainants. The SC ruled that it shall that is should go over the record, and in order to determine substantiability of the evidence, consider it not only for quantitative e but also its qualitative aspects. 25. Edwards v. McCoy: A verdict or decision with absolutely nothing to support is a nullity at least when directly attacked, and a body which affirms such a decision does not exercise either a deliberative discretion or ability. 26. Lambino v. Baens: WCC contends that in the circumstances, the death of a street cleaner or sweeper was NOT caused by the nature of his work. The SC ruled that such conclusion by the COMELEC is NOT tenable as such conclusion is unreasonably harsh for the deceased. 27. H.E. Heacock Co. v. NLU: If there is not evidence in support of the findings of the CIR, then such action CANNOT be denied. 28.ERB v. CA: The interpretation of an administrative government agency which is tasked to implement a statute, is accorded GREAT weight and respect. 29. Caspera v. Salisi: The Public Service Commission en bank has the authority to review on evidence and record the factual findings and conclusion of the decision rendered by a division. 30. Borja v. Moreno: Where substantial evidence rule applicable, courts are bound to look no further.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

LAW ON ELECTIONS

1. Valles v. COMELEC: a. FACTS: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. At the age of 15, she left Australia to settle in RP. Since she got married in 1952, she has been active in the electoral process. She ran fwas elected governor of Davao Oriental where her citizenship was questioned by her then opponent Taojo, Jr. but it was dismissed due to lack of proof. In May 1998, she ran again for re-election where her citizenship is once again being assailed, this time by the present petitioner. Because no new evidence was presented, the COMELEC dismissed the petition, as well as the MR, thus finding its way to the SC. The COMELEC ruled that respondent Lopez is a Filipino citizen for several reasons: 1.) Her father is a Filipino citizen, and so she is a Filipino by virtue of jus sanguinis; 2.) She is married to a Filipino citizen, making her a Filipino citizen ipso jure, according to Commonwealth Act 673; 3.) She renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia and her Australian passport was cancelled; 4.) The aforementioned COMELEC resolutions resolved the issue of citizenship. Petitioner states on the other hand that private respondent still considers herself an Australian national, owing to several documents issued in 1988, including an Australian passport, an Immigration Certificate of Residence and an Alien Certificate of Registration. He also contends that the act of renouncing done by the petitioner in 1992 does not automatically restore Filipino citizenship. b. ISSUE: WON COMELEC erred in declaring Lopez eligible to run for public office. c. HELD/ RATIO: NO! Philippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis, whereby a persons citizenship follows that of his parents regardless of the place of birth, as opposed to the principle of jus soli, which does just that. Respondent Lopez was born in 1934, a year before the 1935 Constitution took effect, so the law in effect at the time was the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, which among other laws defined what a citizen was. Philippine Bill of 1902: inhabitants of the Philippine islands who were Spanish citizens on April 11, 1899 and continued to reside in the Philippines, and any of their children born subsequent thereto.

Jones Law: all inhabitants of the Philippine islands who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided on the islands and their children born subsequent thereto are deemed to be citizens of the Philippines Under both laws, Telesforo Ybasco (father of respondent) was a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the laws covering her at the time of her birth, so is respondent. Proving her citizenship as FILIPINO, she is thus ELIGIBLE to run for public office. -