Lupo Lupangco v CA WON: The RTC has jurisdiction to review administrative orders of the PRC Held: Yes.

Even the Presidents Orders could be reviewed. preserve the integrity and purity of the licensure examinations." However, its good aim cannot be a cloak to conceal its constitutional infirmities. unreasonable in that an examinee cannot even attend any review class, briefing, conference or the like, or receive any hand-out, review material, or any tip from any school, collge or university, or any review center or the like or any reviewer, lecturer, instructor, official or employee of any of the aforementioned or similar institutions . examinees' right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondent PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. it violates the academic freedom of the schools concerned. find out the source of such leakages and stop it the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. 86-37950 and enjoin the respondent PRC from enforcing its resolution. not because President is lower but because even he is not above the law. quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting in a decision or order which applies to a specific situation Biak na Bato Mining v. Hon. Tanco Petition to annul decision of the Honorable Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources finding the respondents to have a better right to the 170 mining claims of about 1,520 hectares located at the Cordillera Mountains Adverse mining area claims of Biak-na-Bato Mining vs that Balatoc-Lubuagan Mines, Inc. and Mountain Mines, Inc.'s Biak-na-Bato claim abandonment 2nd DENR ocular team: confirmed the findings of the first ocular inspection team, and also reported that Biak-NaBato Mining Company despite opportunity afforded was not able to show its location in the area (Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 693-701). Decision of Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources: declaring Balatoc-Lubuagan Mines, Inc. and Baguio Mines, Inc.'s mining area not open for relocation in 1967-1968 and therefore Biak-Na-Bato Mining Company's locations null and void. Biak-na-Bato : documents presented for reconstitution are HELD: Court affirmed decision of the Sec. presumption of abandonment was overturned by the showing that Balatoc-Lubuagan Mines, Inc. and Mountain Mines, Inc. have filed their affidavits original locators were not notified, which was settled by the Order of Reconstitution which was preceded by publications and hearings Findings of administrative officials and agencies who have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence

their acknowledged expertise in the fields of specialization to which they are assigned Even the courts of justice, including this Court, are bound by such findings in the absence of a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion Substantially supported by evidence Substantial evidence: not necessarily preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion

Euromed lab v. Province of Batangas Euromed filed complaint for sum of money P400k IVF supplies acquired by government hospitals Despite repeated demands, province failed to pay Province: complaint should be filed with COA and not RTC o Governed by LGC and COA rules and regulations supply and property management

Issue: Which has jurisdiction over the money claim COA or RTC? HELD: COA has primary jurisdiction doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts case within the COAs domain to pass upon money claims against the government or any subdivision thereof under Section 26 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines:[14] not within the usual area of knowledge, experience and expertise of most judges but within the special competence of COA auditors and accountants Court: raise issue sua ponte Invocation cannot waive failure of party Proper distribution of power bet judicial and administrative bodies Not for the convenient of parties Biraogo v. Truth Commission the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated July 30, 2010, entitled Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010. primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration Biraogo: violative of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution o Created an office o Allocated funds o Truth Commission with quasi-judicial powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office of the Ombudsman and DOJ o Violative of equal protection clause: previous admin only OSG: statutory basis under P.D. 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1772.[48] President the continuing authority to reorganize the national government, i power to group, consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish offices, to transfer functions, to create and classify functions, services and activities, transfer appropriations, and to standardize salaries and materials.

ISSUE: there a valid delegation of power from Congress, empowering the President to create a public office? HELD: none. Decree is already stale, anachronistic and inoperable. Purpose in whereas clause prepare to transition from presidential to parliamentary. Parliamentary: executive and legislative powers merged in one Power of president to re-organize is deemed repealed adoption of 1987 Consti. powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. whatever power inherent in the government o neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds The Presidents power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed is well recognized. It flows from the faithful-execution clause of the Constitution PTC not quasi-judicial, only recommendatory o Cannot adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. Purpose of PTC falls within ambit of Presidents investigative powers PTC voided due to equal protection clause Must also cover reports of graft and corruption in virtually all administrations previous to that of former President Arroyo.[67] any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government. MIAA v. CA airport lands and buildings MIAA administers belong to the Republic of the Philippines, which makes MIAA a mere trustee of such assets. No less than the Administrative Code of 1987 recognizes a scenario where a piece of land owned by the Republic is titled in the name of a department, agency, or instrumentality -properties of public dominion GSIS v. City Treasurer suit to nullify the assessment of real property taxes on certain properties belonging to petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Katigbak property leased to Manial Hotel Arroceros property- GSIS and MeTC Enactment of LGC in 1991 withdrew tax exemptions of GOCCs ISSUE: WON GSIS is tax-exempt from 1992-2002. whether GSIS is liable for real property taxes for its properties leased to a taxable entity HELD: Charter of GSIS grants it full exemption Full tax exemption re-enacted by RA 8291 the actuarial solvency of the funds of the GSIS shall be preserved and maintained at all times Liable only to pay tax from 1992 to 1996. From the effectivity of the LGC to the enactment of RA 8291 and any assessment against the GSIS as of the approval of this Act are hereby considered paid GSIS is an instrumentality of the government Sec. 133 of the LGC providing in context that unless otherwise provided, local governments cannot tax national government instrumentalities Similarly situated as MIAA o GSIS capital is not divided into unit shares

Arroceros property transferred to the SC thru PP 835 GSIS, however, lost in a sense that status with respect to the Katigbak property when it contracted its beneficial use to MHC, doubtless a taxable person chargeable against the taxable person who had actual or beneficial use and possession of it regardless of whether or not he is the owner Manila Hotel not impleaded. Send real property tax assessment. Pursue other available remedies nonpayment o Property cannot be levied on o Sec. 39, RA 8291: subject GSIS properties are exempt from any attachment, garnishment, execution, levy, or other legal processes o isolate GSIS funds and properties from legal processes that will either impair the solvency of its fund or hamper its operation proscription against the levy extends to the leased Katigbak property, the beneficial use doctrine, notwithstanding.

Chiongbian v. Orbos Tanada v Tuvera Tanada vs Tuvera (136 SCRA 27) FACTS: Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus in compelling respondent public officials to publish and/ or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letter of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. The general rule in seeking writ of mandamus is that it would be granted to a private individual only in those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large," and "it is for the public officers exclusively to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved.

The legal capacity of a private citizen was recognized by court to make the said petition for the reason that the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land. ISSUE: Whether publication in the Official Gazette is still required considering the clause in Article 2 unless otherwise provided. HELD:Unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity and not with the publication requirement which cannot be omitted as public needs to be notified for the law to become effective. The necessity for the publication in the Official Gazette of all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, was affirmed by the court on April 24, 1985. This is necessary to provide the general public adequate notice of the various laws which regulate actions and conduct as citizens. Without this, there would be no basis for Art 3 of the Civil Code Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. PASEI v TORRES

FACTS: DOLE Secretary Ruben D. Torres issued Department Order No. 16 Series of 1991 temporarily suspending the recruitment by private employment agencies of Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. As a result of the department order DOLE, through the POEA took over the business of deploying Hong Kong bound workers. The petitioner, PASEI, the largest organization of private employment and recruitment agencies duly licensed and authorized by the POEA to engage in the business of obtaining overseas employment for Filipino land-based workers filed a petition for prohibition to annul the aforementioned order and to prohibit implementation. ISSUES: 1. whether or not respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of their rule-making authority in issuing said circulars; 2. whether or not the assailed DOLE and POEA circulars are contrary to the Constitution, are unreasonable, unfair and oppressive; and 3. whether or not the requirements of publication and filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register were not complied with. HELD: FIRST, the respondents acted well within in their authority and did not commit grave abuse of discretion. This is because Article 36 (LC) clearly grants the Labor Secretary to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities, to wit: Art. 36. Regulatory Power. The Secretary of Labor shall have the power to restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement activities of all agencies within the coverage of this title [Regulation of Recruitment and Placement Activities] and is hereby authorized to issue orders and promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions of this title. SECOND, the vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in administrative bodies is constitutional. It is necessitated by the growing complexities of the modern society. THIRD, the orders and circulars issued are however, invalid and unenforceable. The reason is the lack of proper publication and filing in the Office of the National Administrative Registrar as required in Article 2 of the Civil Code to wit: Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazatte, unless it is otherwise provided; Article 5 of the Labor Code to wit: Art. 5. Rules and Regulations. The Department of Labor and other government agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen (15) days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of general circulation; and Sections 3(1) and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987 which provide: Sec. 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center, three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or

persons. (Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987.) Sec. 4. Effectivity. In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and 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 by them. (Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987). Prohibition granted.