Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The &resident acted on the complaint by $riting on its margin the follo$ing%
C!0 Sep "3
To% S*,. info E7ec/ Sec/ and Sec/ of Eustice%
!/ +oted/ There appears no justification for the use of force, intimidation or armed follo$ers in
the situation of ! Sep at the Session ;all/ / Ta6e appropriate preemptive and investigative
actions/ 8/ BRE15 +OT the &E1)E/
-*'E, ?/ R1AOS
(Signed)/C
8
&resident Ramos noted that the situation of C! Sep at the Session ;all,C i.e/, the refusal of the members of
the Sangguniang &anlala$igan to approve the proposed loan, did not appear to justify Cthe use of force,
intimidation or armed follo$ers/C ;e thus instructed the then Secretary of the *nterior and ,ocal .overnments
(S*,.) Robert Barbers to CItJa6e appropriate preemptive and investigative actions,C but to CIbJrea6 not the
peace/C
The letter9complaint together $ith the &resident<s marginal notes $ere sent to Secretary Robert M/ Barbers on
September #, !""3/ 1cting upon the instructions of the &resident, Secretary Barbers notified petitioner of the
case against him
4
and attached to the notice a copy of the complaint and its anne7es/ *n the same notice,
Secretary Barbers directed petitioner Cto submit IhisJ verified@s$orn ans$er thereto, not a motion to dismiss,
together $ith such documentary evidence that IheJ has in support thereof, $ithin fifteen (!D) days from
receipt/C
D
*mmediately thereafter, Secretary Barbers proceeded to +ueva Ecija and summoned petitioner and private
respondents to a conference to settle the controversy/ The parties entered into an agreement $hereby
petitioner promised to maintain peace and order in the province $hile private respondents promised to refrain
from filing cases that $ould adversely affect their peaceful co9e7istence/
3
The peace agreement $as not respected by the parties and the private respondents reiterated their letter9
complaint/ &etitioner $as again ordered to file his ans$er to the letter9complaint $ithin fifteen days from
receipt/ &etitioner received a copy of this order on +ovember !8, !""3/ On the same day, petitioner reFuested
for an e7tension of thirty (8#) days to submit his ans$er because he $as Ctrying to secure the services of
legal counsel e7perienced in administrative la$ practice/C
0
The 'epartment of the *nterior and ,ocal
.overnment ('*,.), acting through 'irector 1lmario de los Santos, Officer9*n9)harge of the ,egal Service,
granted the motion, $ith the thirty9day e7tension to be rec6oned, ho$ever, from +ovember !8, !""3, i.e.,
the day petitioner received the order to ans$er/
2
*n a letter dated 'ecember ", !""3, petitioner moved for another e7tension of thirty (8#) days to file his
ans$er/ ;e stated that he had already sent letters to various la$ firms in Aetro Aanila but that he had not yet
contracted their servicesB that the advent of the )hristmas season 6ept him busy $ith Cnumerous and
inevitable official engagements/C
"
The '*,. granted the reFuest for e7tension Cfor the last time up to Eanuary
!8 only/C
!#
On Eanuary 0, !""0, petitioner reFuested for another e7tension of thirty (8#) days to file his ans$er/
1ccording to him, the )hristmas season 6ept him very busy and preoccupied $ith his numerous official
engagementsB that the la$ firms he invited to handle his case have favorably replied but that he needed time
to confer $ith them personallyB and that during this period, he, $ith the help of his friends, $as e7ploring the
possibility of an amicable settlement of the case/
!!
The '*,. granted petitioner<s reFuest Cfor the last timeC
but gave him an e7tension of only ten (!#) days from Eanuary !8, !""0 to Eanuary 8, !""0/ The '*,. also
informed him that his Cfailure to submit ans$er $ill be considered a $aiver and that the plaintiff IshallJ be
allo$ed to present his evidence ex+parte.C
!
&etitioner moved for reconsideration of the order/ ;e reiterated his prayer for an e7tension of thirty (8#) days
on the follo$ing grounds% (a) that he $as still in the process of choosing competent and e7perienced counselB
(b) that some la$ firms refused to accept his case because it $as perceived to be politically motivatedB and
(c) the multifarious activities, appointments and official functions of his office hindered his efforts to secure
counsel of choice/
!8
Three months later, on 1pril , !""0, (ndersecretary Aanuel Sanche=, then 1cting Secretary of the '*,.,
issued an order declaring petitioner in default and to have $aived his right to present evidence/ &rivate
respondents $ere ordered to present their evidence e79parte/ The order reads as follo$s%
CRDER
*t appearing that respondent failed to submit his ans$er to the complaint despite the grant to him of three (8)
e7tensions, such unreasonable failure is deemed a $aiver of his right to present evidence in his behalf
pursuant to Section 4, Rule 4 of 1dministrative Order +o/ 8 dated 'ecember !0, !"", as amended/
Respondent is hereby declared in default, mean$hile, complainants are directed to present their evidence ex+
parte/ ;o$ever, considering the prohibition on the conduct of administrative investigation due to the
forthcoming barangay elections, complainants $ill be notified on the date after the barangay election for them
to present their evidence/
SO OR'ERE'/C
!4
T$o days later, on 1pril 4, !""0, the la$ firm of &adilla, Eimene=, 5intanar P 1suncion, representing
petitioner, filed $ith the '*,. an CEntry of 1ppearance $ith Aotion for Time to -ile 1ns$er $d Cautelam/C
&etitioner received a copy of the order of default on Aay , !""0/ Through counsel, he moved for
reconsideration/ On Aay !", !""0, (ndersecretary Sanche= reconsidered the order of default in the interest of
justice/ ;e noted the appearance of petitioner<s counsel and gave petitioner Cfor the last timeC fifteen (!D)
days from receipt to file his ans$er/
!D
On Eune 8, !""0, (ndersecretary Sanche= issued an order stating that petitioner<s counsel, $hose office is in
Aanila, should have received a copy of the Aay !", !""0 order ten days after mailing on Aay 0, !""0/ Since
petitioner still failed to file his ans$er, he $as deemed to have $aived his right to present evidence in his
behalf/ (ndersecretary Sanche= reinstated the order of default and directed private respondents to present
their evidenceex+parte on Euly !D, !""0/
!3
The follo$ing day, Eune 4, !""0, &etitioner, through counsel, filed a CAotion to 'ismiss/C &etitioner alleged
that the letter9complaint $as not verified on the day it $as filed $ith the Office of the &residentB and that the
'*,. had no jurisdiction over the case and no authority to reFuire him to ans$er the complaint/
On Euly 4, !""0, petitioner filed an C(rgent Ex+Parte Aotion for ReconsiderationC of the order of Eune 8, !""0
reinstating the order of default/ &etitioner also prayed that the hearing on the merits of the case be held in
abeyance until after the CAotion to 'ismissC shall have been resolved/
On Euly !!, !""0, on recommendation of Secretary Barbers, E7ecutive Secretary Ruben Torres issued an
order, by authority of the &resident, placing petitioner under preventive suspension for si7ty (3#) days
pending investigation of the charges against him/
!0
Secretary Barbers directed the &hilippine +ational &olice to assist in the implementation of the order of
preventive suspension/ *n petitioner<s stead, Secretary Barbers designated ?ice9.overnor Oscar Tinio as
1cting .overnor until such time as petitioner<s temporary legal incapacity shall have ceased to e7ist/
!2
-orth$ith, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition $ith the )ourt of 1ppeals challenging the
order of preventive suspension and the order of default/
!"
Aean$hile, the proceedings before the '*,. continued/ On 1ugust #, !""0, (ndersecretary Sanche= issued
an order denying petitioner<s CAotion to 'ismissC and C(rgent Ex+Parte Aotion for Reconsideration/C *n the
same order, he reFuired the parties to submit their position papers $ithin an ine7tendible period of ten days
from receipt after $hich the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution, to $it%
C:;ERE-ORE, for lac6 of merit, both motions are denied/ ;o$ever, for this office to have a better
appreciation of the issues raised in the instant case, the parties, through their respective counsels are hereby
directed to submit their position papers $ithin a period of ten (!#) days from receipt hereof, $hich period is
ine7tendible, after $hich the case is deemed submitted for resolution/C
#
On 1ugust 0, !""0, petitioner filed $ith the '*,. a CAotion to ,ift Order of &reventive Suspension/C On
September !#, !""0, petitioner follo$ed this $ith a CAotion to ,ift 'efault Order and 1dmit 1ns$er $d
Cautelam/C
!
1ttached to the motion $as the C1ns$er $d CautelamC
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
*n vie$ of the rapid increase in population density in the portion e7cluded by &roclamation +o/ !80 from the
coverage of &roclamation +o/ !23, former &resident -idel Ramos issued &roclamation +o/ 42 on September
0, !""8, authori=ing the vertical development of the e7cluded portion to ma7imi=e the number of families $ho
can effectively become beneficiaries of the government<s sociali=ed housing program/
8
cra
On Aay !4, ##8, &resident .loria Aacapagal91rroyo signed into la$ R/1/ +o/ "#0/ 1mong the salient
provisions of the la$ are the follo$ing%cra%nad
Sec/ / 'eclaration of Policy/ 9 *t is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure the land tenure of the
urban poor/ To$ard this end, lands located in the +.), Nue=on )ity shall be utili=ed for housing,
socioeconomic, civic, educational, religious and other purposes/
Sec/ 8/ 'isposition of Certain Portions of the 5ational .overnment Center Site to Bona 0ide Residents/ 9
&roclamation +o/ !23, Series of !"0", is hereby amended by e7cluding from the coverage thereof, !24
hectares on the $est side and 82 hectares on the east side of )ommon$ealth 1venue, and declaring the
same open for disposition to bona fide residents therein% Provided, That the determination of the bona
fide residents on the $est side shall be based on the census survey conducted in !""4 and the determination
of the bona fide residents on the east side shall be based on the census survey conducted in !""4 and
occupancy verification survey conducted in ###% &rovided,further, That all e7isting legal agreements,
programs and plans signed, dra$n up or implemented and actions ta6en, consistent $ith the provisions of this
1ct are hereby adopted/
Sec/ 4/ 'isposition of Certain Portions of the 5ational .overnment Center Site for <ocal .overnment or
Community 0acilities, Socioeconomic, Charitable, Educational and Religious Purposes/ 9 )ertain portions of
land $ithin the aforesaid area for local government or community facilities, socioeconomic, charitable,
educational and religious institutions are hereby reserved for disposition for such purposes% Provided, That
only those 1/s212:21o/s already operating and $ith e7isting facilities or structures, or those occupying the
land may avail of the disposition program established under the provisions this 1ctB Provided, further, That in
ascertaining the specific areas that may be disposed of in favor of these 1/s212:21o/s, the e7isting site
allocation shall be used as basis therefore% Provided, finally. That in determining the reasonable lot allocation
of such 1/s212:21o/s $ithout specific lot allocations, the land area that may be allocated to them shall be
based on the area actually used by said institutions at the time of effectivity of this 1ct/ (Emphasis supplied/)
*n accordance $ith Section D of R/1/ +o/ "#0,
4
the )ommittee formulated the *mplementing Rules and
Regulations (*RR) of R/1/ +o/ "#0 on Eune ", ##4/ &etitioners subseFuently filed the instant petition,
raising the follo$ing issues%cra%nad
:;ET;ER OR +OT SE)T*O+ 8/! (1/4), 8/! (B/), 8/ (1/!) 1+' 8/ ()/!) O- T;E R(,ES 1+' RE.(,1T*O+S
O- RE&(B,*) 1)T +O/ "#0, OT;ER:*SE 5+O:+ 1S C+1T*O+1, .O?ER+AE+T )E+TER (+.)) ;O(S*+.
1+' ,1+' (T*,*M1T*O+ 1)T O- ##8C S;O(,' BE 'E),1RE' +(,, 1+' ?O*' -OR BE*+. *+)O+S*STE+T
:*T; T;E ,1: *T SEE5S TO *A&,EAE+T/
:;ET;ER OR +OT SE)T*O+ 8/! (1/4), 8/! (B/), 8/ (1/!) 1+' 8/ ()/!) O- T;E R(,ES 1+' RE.(,1T*O+S
O- RE&(B,*) 1)T +O/ "#0, OT;ER:*SE 5+O:+ 1S C+1T*O+1, .O?ER+AE+T )E+TER (+.)) ;O(S*+.
1+' ,1+' (T*,*M1T*O+ 1)T O- ##8C S;O(,' BE 'E),1RE' +(,, 1+' ?O*' -OR BE*+. 1RB*TR1R>,
)1&R*)*O(S 1+' :;*AS*)1,/
D
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
-irst, the procedural matters/
The Office of the Solicitor .eneral (OS.) argues that petitioner 1ssociation cannot Fuestion the
implementation of Section 8/! (b/) and Section 8/ (c/!) since it does not claim any right over the +.) East
Side/ Section 8/! (b/) provides for the ma7imum lot area that may be a$arded to a resident9beneficiary of
the +.) East Side, $hile Section 8/ (c/!) imposes a lot price escalation penalty to a Fualified beneficiary $ho
fails to e7ecute a contract to sell $ithin the prescribed period/
3
1lso, the OS. contends that since petitioner
association is not the duly recogni=ed people<s organi=ation in the +.) and since petitioners not Fualify as
beneficiaries, they cannot Fuestion the manner of disposition of lots in the +.)/
0
cra
C,egal standingC or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or $ill sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged// The gist of the Fuestion of standing is $hether a party alleges Csuch personal sta6e in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness $hich sharpens the presentation of issues
upon $hich the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional Fuestions/C
2
cra
&etitioner association has the legal standing to institute the instant petition, $hether or not it is the duly
recogni=ed association of homeo$ners in the +.)/ There is no dispute that the individual members of
petitioner association are residents of the +.)/ 1s such they are covered and stand to be either benefited or
injured by the enforcement of the *RR, particularly as regards the selection process of beneficiaries and lot
allocation to Fualified beneficiaries/ Thus, petitioner association may assail those provisions in the *RR $hich it
believes to be unfavorable to the rights of its members/ )ontrary to the OS.<s allegation that the failure of
petitioner association and its members to Fualify as beneficiaries effectively bars them from Fuestioning the
provisions of the *RR, such circumstance precisely operates to confer on them the legal personality to assail
the *RR/ )ertainly, petitioner and its members have sustained direct injury arising from the enforcement of
the *RR in that they have been disFualified and eliminated from the selection process/ :hile it is true that
petitioners claim rights over the +.) :est Side only and thus cannot be affected by the implementation of
Section 8/! (b/), $hich refers to the +.) East Side, the rest of the assailed provisions of the *RR, namely,
Sections 8/! (a/4), 8/ (a/!) and 8/ (c/!), govern the disposition of lots in the :est Side itself or all the lots
in the +.)/
:e cannot, therefore, agree $ith the OS. on the issue of locus standi/ The petition does not merit dismissal
on that ground/
There are, ho$ever, other procedural impediments to the granting of the instant petition/ The OS. claims that
the instant petition for prohibition is an improper remedy because the $rit of prohibition does not lie against
the e7ercise of a Fuasi9legislative function/
"
Since in issuing the Fuestioned *RR of R/1/ +o/ "#0, the
)ommittee $as not e7ercising judicial, Fuasi9judicial or ministerial function, $hich is the scope of a petition for
prohibition under Section , Rule 3D of the !""0 Rules of )ivil &rocedure, the instant prohibition should be
dismissed outright, the OS. contends/ -or their part, respondent Aayor of Nue=on )ity
!#
and respondent
+;1
!!
contend that petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in filing the instant petition $ith
this )ourt and not $ith the )ourt of 1ppeals, $hich has concurrent jurisdiction over a petition for prohibition/
The cited breaches are mortal/ The petition deserves to be spurned as a conseFuence/
1dministrative agencies possess Fuasi9legislative or rule9ma6ing po$ers and Fuasi9judicial or administrative
adjudicatory po$ers/ Nuasi9legislative or rule9ma6ing po$er is the po$er to ma6e rules and regulations $hich
results in delegated legislation that is $ithin the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non9
delegability and separability of po$ers/
!
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
*n Fuestioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a
party need not e7haust administrative remedies before going to court/ This principle, ho$ever, applies only
$here the act of the administrative agency concerned $as performed pursuant to its Fuasi9judicial function,
and not $hen the assailed act pertained to its rule9ma6ing or Fuasi9legislative po$er/
!8
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
The assailed *RR $as issued pursuant to the Fuasi9legislative po$er of the )ommittee e7pressly authori=ed by
R/1/ +o/ "#0/ The petition rests mainly on the theory that the assailed *RR issued by the )ommittee is
invalid on the ground that it is not germane to the object and purpose of the statute it see6s to implement/
:here $hat is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative
agency in the performance of its Fuasi9legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon
the same/
!4
cra
Since the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the assailed *RR issued by the
)ommittee in the e7ercise of its Fuasi9legislative po$er, the judicial course to assail its validity must follo$ the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts/ 1lthough the Supreme )ourt, )ourt of 1ppeals and the Regional Trial )ourts
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue $rits of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, *uo !arranto, habeas
corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
forum/
!D
chanroblesvirtualla$libary
True, this )ourt has the full discretionary po$er to ta6e cogni=ance of the petition filed directly $ith it if
compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, so $arrant/
!3
1 direct invocation of the
)ourt<s original jurisdiction to issue these $rits should be allo$ed only $hen there are special and important
reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition/
!0
cra
*n 6eirs of Bertuldo 6inog v. @elicor,
!2
the )ourt said that it $ill not entertain direct resort to it unless the
redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and e7ceptional and compelling circumstances,
such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the e7traordinary
remedy of $rit of certiorari, calling for the e7ercise of its primary jurisdiction/
!"
1 perusal, ho$ever, of the
petition for prohibition sho$s no compelling, special or important reasons to $arrant the )ourt<s ta6ing
cogni=ance of the petition in the first instance/ &etitioner also failed to state any reason that precludes the
lo$er courts from passing upon the validity of the Fuestioned *RR/ Aoreover, as provided in Section D, 1rticle
?*** of the
)onstitution,
#
the )ourt<s po$er to evaluate the validity of an implementing rule or regulation is generally
appellate in nature/ Thus, follo$ing the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the instant petition should have been
initially filed $ith the Regional Trial )ourt/
1 petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy to assail an *RR issued in the e7ercise of a Fuasi9
legislative function/ &rohibition is an e7traordinary $rit directed against any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, $hether e7ercising judicial, Fuasi9judicial or ministerial functions, ordering said entity or
person to desist from further proceedings $hen said proceedings are $ithout or in e7cess of said entity<s or
person<s jurisdiction, or are accompanied $ith grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy and adeFuate remedy in the ordinary course of la$/
!
&rohibition lies against judicial or
ministerial functions, but not against legislative or Fuasi9legislative functions/ .enerally, the purpose of a $rit
of prohibition is to 6eep a lo$er court $ithin the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration
of justice in orderly channels/