PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA Administrative Law, Election Law and Law on Pu lic O!!

icers Att"# $enato G# Dela %ru&

ANSAN, 'UNELYN

Encarnacion E# Santia(o, )etitioner, vs# %ommission on Audit and T*e Director o!t*e %ommission on Audit, $e(ional O!!ice No# +, res)ondents# G# $# NO# ,-./0Novem er 0,, 0112

DO%T$INE 89he 5ualifications for public office are continuin+ re5uirements and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but durin+ the officer:s entire tenure; once any of thebre5uired 5ualification is lost, his title may be seasonably challen+ed) 8<here the candidate who obtained the hi+hest number of !otes is later declared to be dis5ualified to hold office to which he was elected, the candidate who +arnered the second hi+hest number of !otes is (O9 entitled to be declared the winner 1i)e) 9he !ice +o!ernor shall assume +o!ernorship4

'ud(e Adoracion An(eles vs# 6on# Manuel 3# Gaite DO%T$INE COA can direct the proper officer to withhold petitioners salary and other emoluments under Section 21, Chapter 4, Subtitle B, Book of the Administrati!e Code of 1"#$, which is substantially the same as Section %$ of &' (o) 144*, the le+al basis of COA) ) ) ) Before set,off can take place under Section -24 of the .e!ised Administrati!e Code of 1"1", as amended, now Section 21 of the Administrati!e Code of 1"#$, a persons indebtedness to the +o!ernment must be one that is admitted by him or pronounced by final /ud+ment of a competent court) DO%T$INE 8'octrine of 5ualified political a+ency = all e7ecuti!e and administrati!e or+ani>ations arem ad/uncts of the e7ecuti!e department; the heads of the !arious e7ecuti!e departments are assistants and a+ents of the Chief 07ecuti!e; and, e7cept in cases where the Chief 07ecuti!e is re5uired by the Constitution or law to act in person or the e7i+encies of te situation demands that he act personally, the multifarious e7ecuti!e and administrati!e functions of the Chief 07ecuti!e are performed by and throu+h the e7ecuti!e departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promul+ated in the re+ular course of business, are, unless disappro!ed or reprobated by the Chief 07ecuti!e, presumpti!ely the acts of the Chief 07ecuti!e)

David A(uila, )etitioner, vs Melecio Genato, res)ondent Novem er 0., 01,0 DO%T$INE &' 2-" which created (0A pro!ides that electric cooperati!es 1like 2O03C4 ha!e the ri+ht to prescribe 5ualifications of its directors and their manner of election and remo!al) &' 2-" which pro!ides that electi!e officials are ineli+ible to become officers and6or directors of any cooperati!es e7cept if such electi!e position is no hi+her than a baran+ay captain) 0li+ibility to an office should be construed as of a continuin+ nature and must e7ist at the commencement of the term and durin+ occupancy of the office)

6on# 6e*erson Alvare& vs# PI%OP $esources, IN%# DO%T$INE 83icense is not a contract within the pur!iew of the due process clause; it is only a pri!ile+e which can be !alidly withdrawn whene!er dictated by public interest or welfare) 8As an e7traordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the e7ercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to e7ercise his /ud+ment in reference to any manner in which he is re5uired to act, because it is his /ud+ment that is to be e7ercised and not that of the court)

David A(uila, )etitioner, vs Melecio Genato, res)ondent DO%T$INE 89he court has no /urisdiction o!er the said matter) &' 2-" which created (0A pro!ides that electric cooperati!es 1like 2O03C4 ha!e the ri+ht to prescribe 5ualifications of its directors and their manner of election and remo!al) 8?t is also +rounded on &' 2-" which pro!ides that electi!e officials are ineli+ible to become officers and6or directors of any cooperati!es e7cept if such electi!e position is no hi+her than a

3ALDO, 'ASMIN 4$I5A

$e)u lic o! t*e P*ili))ines vs# 6on# $osalio G# Dela $osa

17A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2

n d

Semester@midterm e7am

baran+ay captain) 89here is no merit to Bor/es contention that since he was ori+inally 5ualified he shall be allowed to continue his une7pired term in 2O03C) 0li+ibility to an office should be construed as of a continuin+ nature and must e7ist at the commencement of the term and durin+ occupancy of the office) Bor/e ceased to be 5ualified and so he must be resi+ned from 2O03C) ?ts administrati!e function refers to the enforcement and administration of election laws) ?n the e7ercise of such power, the law authori>es the CO2030C to issue rules and re+ulations to implement the pro!isions of the 1"#$ Constitution and the Omnibus 0lection Code; 124 Cuasi,/udicial or administrati!e ad/udicatory power on the other hand is the power of the administrati!e a+ency to ad/udicate the ri+hts of persons before it) ?t is the power to hear and determine 5uestions of fact to which the le+islati!e policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcin+ and administerin+ the same law) 9he administrati!e body e7ercises its 5uasi,/udicial power when it performs in a /udicial manner an act which is essentially of an e7ecuti!e or administrati!e nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the e7ecuti!e or administrati!e duty entrusted to it; 1%4 9he effecti!eness of the 5uasiD/udicial power !ested by law on a +o!ernment institution hin+es on its authority to compel attendance of the parties and6or their witnesses at the hearin+s or proceedin+s) 9o withhold from the CO2030C the power to punish indi!iduals who refuse to appear durin+ a fact,findin+ in!esti+ation, despite a pre!ious notice and order to attend, would render nu+atory the CO2030Cs in!esti+ati!e power, which is an essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of honest and credible elections; and 144 9he e7ercise of /udicial functions may in!ol!e the performance of le+islati!e or administrati!e duties, and the performance of and administrati!e or ministerial duties, may, in a measure, in!ol!e the e7ercise of /udicial functions)

3ALIO, 3$IAN MANUEL 3A$TE v# DEMET$IO DI%6OSO AND 'UAN +ILLEGAS DO%T$INE 114 &resident has the power to nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointment, to appoint certain constitutional officials when Con+ress is in session and durin+ its recess to e7tend ad interim appointment effecti!e until disappro!al of the Commission or until the ne7t ad/ournment of Con+ress; 124 An ad interim appointment permanent in character ceases not only upon the ad/ournment followin+ a re+ular session but also after a special session; 1%4 A public officer, ha!in+ the capacity to act on behalf of the Ao!ernment in whom the e7ercise of so!erei+nty is !ested, has to be chosen in the manner and form pro!ided by law; otherwise, he would be a plain usurper of official functions; 144 'octrine of 07haustion of Administrati!e .emedies , before one resorts to the courts of /ustice, such administrati!e remedies as may be a!ailable should first be e7hausted) LINTANG 3EDOL v# %OMMISSION ON ELE%TIONS DO%T$INE 114 9he powers and functions of the CO2030C, conferred upon it by the 1"#$ Constitution and the Omnibus 0lection Code, may be classified intoB 1a4 administrati!e, 1b4 5uasi,le+islati!e, and 1c4 5uasi,/udicial; 9he 5uasi,/udicial power of the CO2030C embraces the power to resol!e contro!ersies arisin+ from the enforcement of election laws, and to be the sole /ud+e of all pre,proclamation contro!ersies; and of all contests relatin+ to the elections, returns, and 5ualifications) ?ts 5uasi,le+islati!e power refers to the issuance of rules and re+ulations to implement the election laws and to e7ercise such le+islati!e functions as may e7pressly be dele+ated to it by Con+ress) 27A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2
n d

DOLO$ES PA$EDES v# %I+IL SE$+I%E %OMMISSION AND $EMEDIOS AMO$ DO%T$INE 9he court held that CSC was correct in sustainin+ the re!ocation of &aredes as ES &ro/ect Coordinator because althou+h there was no Cualification Standard Appro!ed by CSC, the error is not so +ra!e as to nullify its resolution declarin+ the position of ES &ro/ect Coordinator as !acant) &ublic interest re5uires that a Cualification Standard must e7ist to +uide the appointin+ authority not only in e7tendin+ an appointment but also in settin+ contested appointment) 9he court held that CSC was correct in dismissin+ the appeal of &aredes because, as pro!ided by law, appeal to the Ci!il Ser!ice Commission in an administrati!e case is e7tended only to the party ad!ersely affected by the decision) Settled is the rule that in an administrati!e case, the complainant is a mere witness) And e!en if she is the Eead of the Administrati!e Ser!ices 'epartment of the ES.C as a complainant, she is merely a witness for the +o!ernment in an

Semester@midterm e7am

administrati!e case) (o pri!ate interest is in!ol!ed in an administrati!e case as the offense is committed a+ainst the +o!ernment)

$ULINGB ?n fa!or of the respondent since all administrati!e remedies needs to be e7hausted first before /udicial inter!ention) Also, respondents act is clearly authori>ed under section $of the 3ocal Ao!ernment Code of 1""1) 9he petition for 2andamus is not place because the act bein+ sou+ht to be done is discretionary, it only applies to ministerial duties)

3AUTISTA, 'ONAT6AN $EY $o9as v# Dam a 3orromeo v# %ourt o! A))eals 3$IE8 8A%TS: 9his is a land distribution and partition case wherein CA.& 3aw was in!ol!ed to+ether with the 2emorandum Circular from 'A. that was not published) $ulin( DO%T$INE: 2emorandum Circulars are mere administrati!e interpretations to clarify or e7plain statutory re+ulations and it is issued by the administrati!e body as an incident of its power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify statutory pro!isions, thus NO NEED O8 PU3LI%ATION NO$ 6EA$ING) $ULING: Both motions of the parties are denied for lack of merit) &ublication and hearin+ are both (O9 needed for the 2emorandum Circular of 'A.) (otification is also (O9 in place since CA.& e7emption as implemented by 'A. AO H- is non ad!ersarial or non, liti+ious in nature)

(OF 9he Court treated Borromeos case in accordance with law and pre!ailin+ /urisprudence) 9here were at least fi!e deliberations on his cases and motions before it was disposed) ?n fact petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration one month after he recei!e the resolution) Also he merely reiterated the same ar+uments earlier raised) 2inute resolutions is for the Court to dispose bulk of its cases that are considered unmeritorious, like the case at bar, and it doesnt need the si+nature of the Gustices deliberated therein, as well as the certification of the Chief Gustice) ?t is also promul+ated by the Court 9hrou+h the Clerk of Court, hence it is the act of the Court itself) 3astly facts and law were properly cited in the resolution) 3ower courts are Ordered to .efrain from takin+ co+ni>ance of such cases, and summons are Ordered to be Cuash, and Ci!il Case H C0B,#-$" to be 'ismiss)

%A3ELLO, INNO DUMLAO et# Al vs# %OMMISSION ON ELE%TIONS DO%T$INE .etirement is not a reasonable dis5ualification for electi!e local officials because there can be retirees who are e!en youn+er and a -* year old retiree could be as +ood as a -* year old official who is not a retiree) But there is reason to dis5ualify a -* year old electi!e official who is tryin+ to run for office because there is the Ineed for new blood to assume rele!anceJ) <hen an official has retired he has already declared himself tired and una!ailable for the same +o!ernment work)

%a un(cal v# Loren&o

Plainti!!s 1municipal employees6San ?sidro (ue!a 0ci/a4 $es)ondent 1municipal mayor4 3$IE8 8A%TSB &laintiffs 5uestionin+ the !alidity of the resolution passed by the san++unian+ bayan, appro!ed by the san++unian+ panlalawi+an with re+ard to office reor+ani>ation appropriate for a 4 th class 2unicipality and it was filed directly to CA as a petition for prohibition and mandamus with application for issuance of <rit of &reliminary ?n/unction and .estrainin+ Order) DO%T$INEB 07haustion of all administrati!e remedies possible) 2andamus is appropriate in ministerial and not in discretionary act) %7A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2
n d

8LO$ES et# al, vs# D$ILON DO%T$INE (o electi!e official shall be eli+ible for appointment or desi+nation in any capacity to any public office or position durin+ his tenure) Knless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointi!e official shall hold any other office or employment in the Ao!ernment or any subdi!ision, a+ency or instrumentality thereof, includin+ +o!ernment,

Semester@midterm e7am

owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries) %A%6UELA, MA$IAN SA$A6 8O$MANTES v# DUN%AN P6A$MA%EUTI%ALS DO%T$INE YES) Similar to the Supreme Courts rulin+ in the case of .ubberworld 1&hils)4, ?nc) !) (3.C, /ustice compels us not to close our eyes to the fact that the +round of se7ual abuse committed a+ainst 2a+at actually e7ists and was established by substantial e!idence before the courts) 07ecuti!e 3abor Arbiter Ole+ario would be rendered inutile if she would /ust seal her lips after findin+ that a /ust cause for dismissal e7ists merely because the said +round was not stated in the notice of termination) As a mana+erial employee, 8ormantes is ound " more e9actin( wor; et*ic, w*ic* *e evidentl" !ailed to live u) to# <orst, it pro!ided a /ustifiable +round for his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence) 'espite Lormantess constructi!e dismissal, howe!er, the Court found it impractical and un/ust to reinstate petitioner, as there was indeed a /ust cause for his dismissal) 9herefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the petitioners termination from work but also ordered the award of nominal dama+es to !indicate his ri+ht for lack of procedural due process)

decisions declarin( t*e ac>uisition or denial o! citi&ens*i) cannot (overn a

)ersonCs !uture status wit* !inalit"# T*is is ecause a )erson ma" su se>uentl" reac>uire, or !or t*at matter lose, *is citi&ens*i) under an" o! t*e modes reco(ni&ed " law !or t*e )ur)ose# 0!erytime the citi>enship of a person is material or indispensable in a /udicial or administrati!e case, whate!er the correspondin+ court or administrati!e authority decides therein as to such citi>enship is +enerally not considered res judicata, hence it has to be threshed out a+ain and a+ain, as the occasion demands

citi&ens*i) re>uirement in t*e Local Government %ode is to e )ossessed " an

elective o!!icial at t*e latest as o! t*e time *e is )roclaimed and at t*e start o! t*e term o! o!!ice to w*ic* *e *as een elected# <e further hold &)') (o) $2* to be in full force and effect up to the present, not ha!in+ been suspended or repealed e7pressly nor impliedly at any time, and Lri!aldo:s repatriation by !irtue thereof to ha!e been properly +ranted and thus !alid and effecti!e) 2oreo!er, by reason of the remedial or curati!e nature of the law +rantin+ him a new ri+ht to resume his political status and the le+islati!e intent behind it, as well as his uni5ue situation of ha!in+ been forced to +i!e up his citi>enship and political aspiration as his means of escapin+ a re+ime he abhorred, his repatriation is to be +i!en retroacti!e effect as of the date of his application therefor, durin+ the pendency of which he was stateless, he ha!in+ +i!en : up his K) S) nationality)

8O$T 3ONI8A%IO DE+ELOPMENT %O$P# +# %I$ DO%T$INE (o) As a matter of fact, .. $,"* is inconsistent with Section 1M* of the (?.C insofar as the definition of the term I+oodsJ is concerned) Knder Article $ of the Ci!il Code, an administrative rule or re(ulation cannot contravene t*e law on w*ic* it is ased# <hile the B?. has the authority to issue re+ulations to enforce their mandate, they are without authority to limit the scope of the statute to less than what it pro!ides) Eence, because of the discrepancy, the re!enue re+ulation must +i!e way to the (?.C) ?n !iew of the fore+oin+, such pro!ision in .. $,"* relatin+ to the term I+oodsJ is null and !oid)

lac; o! t*e citi&ens*i) re>uirement is not a continuin( disa ilit" or

dis>uali!ication to run !or and *old )u lic o!!ice#

TA3IGUE, et al# v# INTE$%O DO%T$INE Nes) As stated in the case, an a(enc" is said to e e9ercisin( <udicial !unction w*ere =it *as t*e )ower to determine w*at t*e law is and w*at t*e le(al ri(*ts o! t*e )arties are, and t*en underta;es to determine t*ese >uestions and ad<udicate u)on t*e ri(*ts o! t*e )arties# Ai!en the (C2Bs enumeration of functions under Section 22 of 07ecuti!e Order (o) 12-, it cannot be considered as a 5uasi,/udicial a+ency)

Orlando A# 8ua, 'r# +s# %ommission on Audit .12 S%$A D-2 DO%T$INES: doctrine o! e9*austion o! administrative remedies T*e issues w*ic* administrative a(encies are aut*ori&ed to decide s*ould not e summaril" ta;en !rom t*em and su mitted to t*e court wit*out !irst (ivin( suc* administrative a(enc" t*e o))ortunit" to dis)ose o! t*e same a!ter due deli eration) 7 7 7 9he non,obser!ance of the doctrine results in the petition ha!in+ no cause of action, thus, /ustifyin+ its dismissal) In t*is case, t*e necessar" conse>uence o! t*e !ailure to e9*aust administrative remedies is o vious: t*e disallowance as ruled " t*e LAOE% *as now ecome !inal and e9ecutor")

ESPINO, MA$IA %Y$ELLE 'uan G# 8rivaldo vs# %omelec 0?2 S%$A 202 DO%T$INES: @iAm not sure ;ids, asta election and citi&ens*i) case itoB

47A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2

n d

Semester@midterm e7am

GA$AY3LAS, MA$IA E$I%6ELLE

P*ili))ine 6ealt* %are Providers vs# %I$ DO%T$INE , A health care a+reement is primarily a contract of indemnity) Knder the a+reement, the health care institutions are bound to indemnify any member who incurs hospital, medical or any other e7pense arisin+ from sickness, in/ury or other stipulated contin+ency to the e7tent a+reed upon the contract)

"1h4 Approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil service, e7cept those presidential appointees, members of the Armed Lorces of the &hilippines, police forces, firemen, and /ail +uards, and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications) ?t is clear that what the commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate ci!il ser!ice eli+ibility or the re5uired 5ualifications) ?f he does, his appointment is appro!ed; if not, it is disappro!ed) (o other criterion is permitted by law to be employed by the Commission when it acts on or as the 'ecree says, Oappro!esO or Odisappro!esO an appointment made by the proper authorities)

'oa>uin Ga et al# vs# S)ouses Antonio and $osalinda Tu un(an et# al T6E 6EI$S O8 AU$ELIO $EYES!s)6ON# E$NESTO D# GA$ILAO DO%T$INE , Administrati!e a+encies are tribunals of limited /urisdiction that can only wield powers which are specifically +ranted to it by its enbalin+ statute) , A /ud+ment issued by a wuasi,/udicial body without /urisdiction is !oid) P$IN%IPLE: =Administrative re(ulations and )olicies enacted " administrative odies to inter)ret t*e law, w*ic* t*e" are entrusted to en!orce, *ave t*e !orce o! law, and are entitled to (reat wei(*t and res)ect#H $ULING: (O) Sec# $icardo Gloria vs# 6on# Salvador De Gu&man DO%T$INE , .einstatement is technically issuance of a new appointment which is essentially discretionary, to be performed by the officer in which it is !ested accprdin+ to his best li+hts, the only condition bein+ that the appointee should possess the 5ualifications re5uired by law) , Ac5uisition of Ci!il Ser!ice 0li+ibility is not the sole factor for reappointment) ?t is a +eneral rule that the power of administrati!e officials to promul+ate rules and re+ulations in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited only to carryin+ into effect what is pro!ided in the le+islati!e enactment) Lurthermore, it is an elementary rule in administrati!e law that administrati!e re+ulations and policies enacted by administrati!e bodies to interpret the law, which they are entrusted to enforce, ha!e the force of law, and are entitled to +reat wei+ht and respect) Since the !alidity of 3O? (o) 4$4 and its suppletory application to .A (o) --$* has been settled, it is clear that Administrati!e Order (o) 4, series of 1""1, is !alid as it is merely a reiteration of 3O? (o) 4$4)

'USON, A+A P$IN%IPLE: =%ivil service commission does not *ave a))ointin( )owers# F*at t*e commission is actuall" allowed to do is c*ec; w*et*er or not t*e a))ointee )ossesses t*e a))ro)riate civil service eli(i ilit" or t*e re>uired >uali!ications# I! *e does, *is a))ointment is a))rovedG i! not, it is disa))roved#H $ULING: (O) ?n Luego vs) Civil Service Commission, this Court has spelled out the parameters of the power of the respondent Commission to appro!e or disappro!e appointments to positions in the ci!il ser!ice, vizB ?t is understandable if one is likely to be misled by the lan+ua+e of Section "1h4 of Article of the Ci!il Ser!ice 'ecree because it says the Commission has the power to Oappro!eO and Odisappro!eO appointments) 9hus, it is pro!ided therein that the Commission shall ha!e inter alia the power toB *7A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2
n d

MO$AL, $ELSON 6ector 6i)e, Petitioner, vs %ommission on Elections and Ma# %ristina +ivencio, $es)ondents DO%T$INE Eowe!er, +rantin+ that Eipe filed his erified Appeal on time, the same must still fail) CO2030C, after /udicious e7amination of the documents, upheld the findin+s of the 2BOC to e7clude the sub/ect election returns# T*e !actual !indin(s o! administrative odies will not e distur ed " Su)reme %ourt es)eciall" t*e %OMELE%, as t*e !ramers o! t*e %onstitution intended to )lace t*e %OMELE%E created e9)licitl" " t*e %onstitution

Semester@midterm e7am

itsel!E on a *i(*er level t*an statutor" administrative or(ans# 9he CO2030C found that there is sufficient /ustification for the e7clusion of the election returns) 9his is au+mented by the fact that one of the witnesses which Eipe presented later on recanted her statements and admitted that she made her pre!ious statements only out of fear due to threats on her person) 9he contention, therefore, of Eipe that the election returns were e7cluded merely on the basis of procedural technicalities is founded) 9he Court denied Eipe:s petition)

the sound discretion of the +o!ernment a+ency entrusted with the re+ulation of acti!ities comin+ under the special and technical trainin+ and knowled+e of such a+ency) Administrati!e a+encies are +i!en wide latitude in the e!aluation of e!idence and in the e7ercise of their ad/udicati!e functions, latitude which includes the authority to take /udicial notice of facts within their special competence 8elicitas La9amana vs# Dr# Gre(orio 3orla&a DO%T$INE

$amon La o, 'r#, Petitioner vs %ommission on Elections and Luis Lardi&a al, res)ondents DO%T$INE 9he Court ruled in fa!or of 3ardi>abal) 9he court said that the fee was paid durin+ the ten,day period as e7tended by the pendency of the petition when it was treated by the %OMELE% as a )reE)roclamation )roceedin( w*ic* did not re>uire t*e )a"ment o! a filin+ fee) ?n any e!ent, what is important is that the filin+ fee was paid, and whate!er delay there may ha!e been is not imputable to the pri!ate respondent:s fault or ne+lect) It is true t*at in t*e Manchester %ase, t*e timel" )a"ment o! t*e !ilin( !ee as a )recondition !or t*e timeliness o! t*e !ilin( o! t*e case itsel! is re>uired# 6owever, t*e court ma" allow t*e )a"ment o! t*e said !ee wit*in a reasona le time# ?n the e!ent of non,compliance therewith, the case shall be dismissed) 9he Court also ruled on the substantial issue of the case, that is, the citi>enship of 3abo) ?t said that based on the certification issued by the 0mbassy of Australia, 3abo is an Australian citi>en) 9his is clear and con!incin+ e!idence that shows his alle+iance to a forei+n country) 9he court also considered the rulin+s of Comelec and found out that 3abo failed to adduce e!idence contro!ertin+ the fact that Australia considers him as its citi>en) Eence, petition was found in fa!our of 3ardi>abal) O$TI5, PAMELA P*ili))ine Economic 5one Aut*orit" @PE5AB vs# Pearl %it" Manu!acturin( %or)oration DO%T$INE 1) ?n administrati!e proceedin+s, a fair and reasonable opportunity to e7plain ones side suffices to meet the re5uirements of due process) 9he essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic re5uirement of notice and real opportunity to be heard) I9o be heardJ does not mean only !erbal ar+uments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadin+s) <here opportunity to be heard, either thru oral ar+uments or pleadin+s, is accorded, there is no denial of due process) Settled is the rule that the Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to
n d

1)

0!idently the differences between the plaintiff, as 'irector of &ublications, and the administration of the &hilippine (ormal Colle+e, throu+h its &resident and Board of 9rustees, involved a >uestion o! )olic" in res)ect o! t*e student )u lications in said colle(e# On t*is score, it a))earin( t*at suc* di!!erences were ni(* irreconcila le, t*e )olic"Edeterminin( od" must )revail#

2)

But indeed it cannot correctly be said that the plaintiff was not allowed to e7plain her side) 07tant in the record are si+nificant references to pertinent communications from her addressed to the &resident) 9he issue on this point, as we !iew it, is one of authority) 9he Board had the power to withdraw 3a7amanas desi+nation, without affectin+ her salary, rank or status as Associate &rofessor ??) 9he court likewise ruled that 3a7amanas relief as 'irector of &ublications was !alid, on the premise that since 3a7amana was ne!er appointed, but merely desi+nated, as 'irector of &ublications, she could be replaced anytime)

%)

4)

Land 3an; o! t*e P*ili))ines vs# 4umassie Plantation %om)an" DO%T$INE 1) Su!!ice to sa" t*at w*ile t*e determination o! <ust com)ensation involves t*e e9ercise o! <udicial discretion, suc* discretion must nonet*eless e disc*ar(ed wit*in t*e ounds o! law) Since 'AO (o) - partakes the nature of a statute, as the 'A. formula embodied in the administrati!e order was de!ised to implement Section 1$ of .A --*$, t*e courts are ound " t*e !ormula unless t*e same is invalidated in a))ro)riate )roceedin(s#

2)

2)

T*e cocoa trees s*ould e included in determinin( t*e amount o! <ust com)ensation, re(ardless o! w*o )lanted t*e su <ect cro)s# ?t is an undisputed fact that the land sub/ect of the cases was planted to coconuts and cacao) 3B&s

-7A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2

Semester@midterm e7am

reason that there was Ino production data a!ailableJ is untenable)

As t*e a(enc" )rimaril" c*ar(ed wit* t*e determination o! land valuation and com)ensation in ac>uisition )roceedin(s relative to a(rarian re!orm, t*e L3P *as its dis)osal all )ossi le resources to come u) wit* t*e necessar" data in order to ensure t*e )ro)er valuation o! lands ac>uired !or t*e )ur)ose# 9he 3B& should be mindful that the compulsory ac5uisition of lands under a+rarian reform laws in!ol!ed the forcible takin+ by the Ao!ernment of pri!ate property for distribution to farmer,beneficiaries) ?t should thus e7ert all efforts to dili+ently ascertain the !alue of lands, if only to a!oid recriminations from landowners and farmer,beneficiaries alike)

At t*e outset, it must e stressed t*at !actual !indin(s o! administrative odies c*ar(ed wit* t*eir s)eci!ic !ield o! e9)ertise, are a!!orded (reat wei(*t " t*e courts, and in t*e a sence o! su stantial s*owin( t*at suc* !indin(s were made !rom an erroneous estimation o! t*e evidence )resented, t*e" are conclusive, and in t*e interest o! sta ilit" o! t*e (overnmental structure, s*ould not e distur ed# 9he Supreme Court held that COA was correct in affirmin+ the disallowance amount of &#"*,#"1)*M) As computed by 2s) ir+inia Larro, the &ro!incial Bud+et Officer of ?fu+ao, the annual bud+et of 2ayoyao for 2MM2 e7ceeded the limit for personal ser!ices as prescribed in Section %2*1a4 of the 3AC by &%,"44,*-#)M*) 2oreo!er, it was established that the +rant of the increase throu+h the adoption of hi+her salary class schedule is not amon+ the list of items and acti!ities whereby the limitation for personal ser!ices may be wai!ed pursuant to 3BC (o) $*) 3astly, the municipality adopted the salary rates under 3BC (o) -" and not the salary rates under 3BC (o) $4)

PANGAN, 4AT$INA 3IAN%A Lue(o vs %S% and Tuo&o 14% SC.A %2$ DO%T$INE 9he Supreme Court did not a+ree with the Solicitor Aeneral) ?t held that 3ue+os appointment was not temporary but permanent and thus protected by the Constitution) Because the appointin+ authority has a ri+ht to declare the status of the position of the petitioner as permanent, it was not for the respondent Ci!il Ser!ice Commission to re!erse him and call it temporary) I9he CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of the appointment e7tended by the appointin+ officer, its authority bein+ limited to appro!in+ or re!iewin+ the appointment in the li+ht of the re5uirements of the Ci!il Ser!ice 3aw) <hen the appointee is 5ualified and authori>in+ the other le+al re5uirements are satisfied, the Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Ci!il Ser!ice 3aws)J A))ointment, conversel", is an essentiall" discretionar" )ower and must e )er!ormed " t*e o!!icer in w*ic* it is vested accordin( to *is est li(*ts, t*e onl" condition ein( t*at t*e a))ointee s*ould )ossess t*e >uali!ications re>uired " law# ?f he 5ualifies, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the +round that there are others better 5ualified who should ha!e been preferred) 9his is a political 5uestion in!ol!in+ considerations of wisdom which only the appointin+ authority can decide) Luma"na vs %OA .1, S%$A ,.D DO%T$INE DO%T$INE An Oactin+O appointment is merely temporary, one which is +ood only until another appointment is made to take its place) 9hus, petitioner:s ri+ht to hold office as O Acting City 0n+ineer of Cabanatuan CityO was merely temporary) ?t lapsed upon the appointment of Santos as the permanent city en+ineer of Cabanatuan City) &etitioner was the incumbent city en+ineer of &alayan City when he was desi+nated as Actin+ City 0n+ineerin+ of Cabanatuan City) 9here is a difference between an appointment and a designation. Appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an indi!idual who is to e7ercise the functions of an office) 'esi+nation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition of additional duties, upon a person already in the public ser!ice by !irtue of an earlier appointment or election) A mere Odesi+nationO does not confer upon the desi+nee security of tenure in the position or office which he occupies in an Oactin+O capacity only) SC made such distinction by further e7plainin+ that where person is merely desi+nated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold office only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the appointin+ authority) 9his is because appointment is essentially discretionary) ?ts e7ercise may not be controlled by the courts) An action for quo warranto may be commenced by Oa person claimin+ to be entitled to a public office or position usurpred or unlawfully held or e7ercised by anotherO) SC denied the petition for re!iew but affirmed CAs decision of dismissin+ petitioners action for quo warranto.
n d

Sevilla vs %A and Santos 01? S%$A ?I,

$7A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2

Semester@midterm e7am

Evel"n On(suco et al# vs# Mariano Malones PULUM3A$IT, 8ELI5A$DO

DO%T$INE Mendo&a v# %omelec 9he rule on the e7haustion of administrati!e remedies is intended to preclude a court from arro+atin+ unto itself the authority to resol!e a contro!ersy, the /urisdiction o!er which is initially lod+ed with an administrati!e body of special competence) 9hus, a case where the issue raised is purely le+al 5uestion, well within the competence; and the /urisdiction of the court and not the administrati!e a+ency, would clearly constitute an e7ception)

DO%T$INE Gudicial power in our country is !ested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law) 9he CO2030Cs ad/udicati!e function is 5uasi,/udicial since it is a constitutional body, other than a court, !ested with authority to decide election contests) 'espite the e7ercise of discretion that is essentially /udicial in character, CO2030C is not a tribunal within the /udicial branch of +o!ernment and is not a court e7ercisin+ /udicial power in the constitutional sense; hence, its ad/udicati!e function is 5uasi,/udicial) MMDA vs Trac;wor;s

O!!ice o! t*e Solicitor General vs# A"ala Land Inc# @011/B DO%T$INE 9he power to re+ulate does not include the power to confiscate) &olice power does not in!ol!e the takin+ or confiscation of property with the e7ception of a new cases where there is a necessity to confiscate pri!ate property in order to destroy it or the purpose to protect in peace and order and of promotin+ the +eneral welfare) A re+ulation that depri!es any person to the profitable use of his property constitutes a takin+ and entitles him to compensation, unless the in!asion or ri+hts is so sli+ht as to permit the re+ulation to be /ustified under the police power) Similarly, a police re+ulation that unreasonably restricts the ri+ht to use business property for business purposes amounts to takin+ of pri!ate property, and the owner may reco!er thereof)

DO%T$INE 22'A had no power on its own to dismantle, remo!e or destroy the billboards and other ad!ertisin+ materials installed on the 2.9% structure by 9rackworks) 9he 22'As powers were limited to the formulation, coordination, re+ulation, implementation, mana+ement, monitorin+, settin+ of policies, installin+ a system and administration) (othin+ in .epublic Act $"24 +ranted 22'A police power let alone le+islati!e power)

P*ili))ine %oconut 8ederation vs# $e)u lic o! t*e P*ili))ines Preclaro v# Sandi(an a"an

DO%T$INE 9he SC ruled in fa!or of the .epublic of the &hilippines) 9o be+in with, the Coconut 3e!y was imposed in the e7ercise of the States inherent power of ta7ation) ?ndeed, the Coconut 3e!y Lunds partake the nature of ta7es) 9he Lunds were +enerated by !irtue of statutory enactments by the proper le+islati!e authorities and for public purpose) 9he Lunds were collected to ad!ance the Ao!ernment a!owed policy of protectin+ the coconut industry) 9he SC took /udicial notice of the fact that the coconut industry is one of the +reat economic pillars of our nation, and coconuts and their by,products occupy a leadin+ position

DO%T$INE A pri!ate indi!idual hired on a contractual basis as &ro/ect 2ana+er for a +o!ernment undertakin+ falls under the non,career ser!ice cate+ory of the Ci!il Ser!ice and thus is a public officer as defined by Sec 21b4 of .A %M1")

$EAL, 'AMIE

#7A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2

n d

Semester@midterm e7am

amon+ the countries e7port products) 9a7ation is done not merely to raise re!enues to support the +o!ernment, but also to pro!ide means for the rehabilitation and the stabili>ation of a threatened industry which is so affected with public interest)

where a special law, such as the 33'A Charter, pro!ides for another forum) Lurther, in 3a+una 3ake 'e!elopment Authority !) Court of Appeals, the Court upheld the power of 33'A to issue an e7,parte cease and desist order e ven i! suc* )ower is not e9)ressl" con!erred " law, *oldin( t*at an administrative a(enc" *as also suc* )owers as are necessaril" im)lied in t*e e9ercise o! its e9)ress )owers# ?n the same manner, we hold that the 33'A has the power to impose fines in the e7ercise of its function as a re+ulatory and 5uasi,/udicial body with respect to pollution cases in the 3a+una 3ake re+ion)

TIU SE$$A, GISELLA 'AIME T# PANIS, vs#%I+IL SE$+I%E %OMMISSION and 3ELLA +# +ELOSO,

DO%T$INE 9he position of Assistant Chief of Eospital for Administration is the !ery same position of Eospital Administrator created by Ordinance (o)121-) 9he Office of Eospital Administrator was not e7tin+uished, but the desi+nation thereof merely corrected to reflect the proper classification of the position under e7istin+ rules) 9he Office of Assistant Chief of Eospital for Administration therefore was created and e7isted in accordance with law) 9he determination who amon+ the 5ualified candidates should be preferred belon+s to the appointin+ authority) 9he 2ayor of Cebu City, in the instant case, chose to appoint pri!ate respondent) ?n other words, one who is One7t in rankO to a !acancy is +i!en preferential consideration for promotion to the !acant position, but it does not necessarily follow that he alone and no one else can be appointed) T*ere is no vested ri(*t (ranted t*e ne9t in ran; nor a ministerial dut" im)osed on t*e a))ointin( aut*orit" to )romote t*e *older to t*e vacant )osition# An a))ointment, w*et*er to a vacanc" or to a newl" created )osition, is essentiall" wit*in t*e discretionar" )ower o! w*omsoever it is vested# Once a candidate )ossesses t*e minimum >ualities re>uired " law, su!!icient discretion, i! not )lenar", is (ranted to t*e a))ointin( aut*orit"# ?t is mark worthy that pri!ate respondent was detailed at the CC2C primarily to help in up+radin+ the le!el of performance of the said hospital)

PA%I8I% STEAM LAUND$Y, IN%#, vs# LAGUNA LA4E DE+ELOPMENT AUT6O$ITY

DO%T$INE A comparison of the powers and functions of the &ollution Ad/udication Board and the 33'A re!eals substantial similarity) 9he difference is that while Section 1" of 0O 1"2 !ested the &ollution Ad/udication Board with the specific power to ad/udicate pollution cases in +eneral, the scope of authority of 33'A to ad/udicate pollution cases is limited to the 3a+una 3ake re+ion as defined by .A 4#*M, as amended) 9hus, in 3a+una 3ake 'e!elopment Authority !) Court of Appeals, the Court held that the ad/udication of pollution cases +enerally pertains to the &ollution Ad/udication Board, e7cept "7A ' 2 ?( 3 A < 2
n d

Semester@midterm e7am