GUEVARA v.

COMELEC
104 Phil. 268, G.R. no. L-12596
July 31, 1958
Facts:
On May 4, 1957, after proper negotiations, COMELEC awarded to the National Shipyards and
Steel Corporation (NASSCO), the Acme Steel Mnfg. Co., Inc, and the Asiatic Steel Mfg. Co.,
Inc. (ASIATIC), the contracts to manufacture and supply ballot boxes. In the subsequent dates,
both NASCO and ASIATIC signed the COMELEC the corresponding contracts thereon but the
Commission cancelled the award it made to ACME for failure to sign the contract and awarded
its portion to NASCO and ASIATIC. It was followed by a series of petitions filed by ACME for
reconsideration. The consecutive petitions were all denied by the COMELEC but because of the
seriousness of the grounds alleged in the third petition for the annulment of its previous
resolutions, the Commission resolved to conduct a formal investigation and hearing before
denying the same on June 4, 1957.
On June 2, 1957, petitioner, Jose L. Guevara, published in the Sunday Times an article entitled
Ballot Boxes Contract Hit, which tended to interfere with and influence the COMELEC and its
members in the adjudication of a controversy then pending investigation and determination
before said body. The Commissioner ordered petitioner to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt for having published the said article.
Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Elections has the power and jurisdiction to conduct
contempt proceedings and imposed upon the necessary disciplinary penalty.
Held:
No. The Commission on Elections has no power nor authority to submit petitioner to contempt
proceedings if its purpose is to discipline him because of the publication of the article mentioned
in the charge under consideration.
The Commission is to set in motion all the multifarious preparatory processes ranging from the
purchase of election supplies, printing of election forms and ballots, appointments of members
of the board of inspectors, appointment of precincts and designation of polling preparation of
registry lists of voters, so as to put in readiness on election day the election machinery is an
imperative ministerial duty which the Commission is bound to perform. Requisitioning and
preparation of the necessary ballot boxes to be used in the elections is by the same part of the
preparatory process.
Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has resulted in controversy between
several dealers, that however merely refers to a ministerial duty which the Commission has
performed in its administrative capacity in relation to the conduct of elections ordained by our
Constitution. In proceeding on this matter, it only discharged a ministerial duty; it did not
exercise any judicial function. Such being the case, it could not exercise the power to punish for

contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is inherently judicial in nature. As this Court
has aptly said: "The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is
essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of
judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and, consequently, in the administration of justice"
The exercise of this power has always been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of
courts. Its exercise by administrative bodies has been invariably limited to making effective the
power to elicit testimony. And the exercise of that power by an administrative body in
furtherance of its administrative function has been held invalid.

Ang Tibay v. CIR

G.R. No. L-46496
February 27, 1940

Facts:
Teodoro Toribio, manager and proprietor of Ang Tibay, a leather company which supplies the
Philippine Army. Due to shortage of leather soles in the Ang Tibay factory, Toribio caused the
layoff of members of the National Labor Union (NLU).
However, the NLU questioned the validity of said lay off as it averred that the said employees
laid off were members of the NLU while no members of rival labor union, the National Workers
Brotherhood (NWB), were laid off. NLU claimed that NWB is a company dominated union and
Toribio was merely busting NLU.
The case reached the CIR where Toribio and NWB won. Hence, this case where the NLU
invoke its rights for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The NLU averred:
1. That Toribios claims that there was shortage of leather soles in Ang Tibay making it
necessary for him to temporarily lay off the members of NLU is entirely false and
unsupported.
2. That the lack of leather materials was but a scheme to systematically prevent the
forfeiture of this bond despite breach of his contract with the Philippine Army.
3. The letter made to Philippine Army was made to prevent forfeiture of the bond.
4. That the National Workers Brotherhood of Ang Tibay is a company or employer union
dominated by Toribo and is illegal.
5. The exercise by the laborers of their rights to collective bargaining, majority rule and
elective representation are essential and indispensible.
6. The Civil Code should not be made applicable in interpreting the salutary provisions of a
modern labor legislation of American origin.

7. The employer Toribio was guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against NLU
8. The exhibits attached hereto are so inaccessible to the respondents that even with
exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered
as evidence in th CIR.
9. That the documents are of such importance that its admission would necessarily mean
the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the NLU is entitled to a new trial.
2. What is the function of CIR as a special court?
3. What are the requirements of due process for compliance of an administrative body
such as CIR?
Held:
1. Yes. The records show that the newly discovered evidence or documents obtained by
NLU, which they attached to their petition with the SC, were evidence so inaccessible to
them at the time of the trial that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be
expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial
Relations. Further, the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching
importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and
reversal of the judgment rendered.
2. The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are specifically
stated in the law of its creation (Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an
administrative than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended
to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike a court of justice which is
essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases
that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court of Industrial
Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative and
dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of
disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more
comprehensive and expensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider,
investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or dispute arising
between, and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and regulate the
relations between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 103 (section 1). It shall take cognizance or purposes of
prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural dispute
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising from differences as regards wages,
shares or compensation, hours of labor or conditions of tenancy or employment,
between landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, provided that the number of employees,
laborers or tenants of farm-laborers involved exceeds thirty, and such industrial or
agricultural dispute is submitted to the Court by the Secretary of Labor or by any or both
of the parties to the controversy and certified by the Secretary of labor as existing and
proper to be by the Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to be dealth with by the

Court for the sake of public interest. It shall, before hearing the dispute and in the course
of such hearing, endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the dispute
by amicable agreement. When directed by the President of the Philippines, it shall
investigate and study all industries established in a designated locality, with a view to
determinating the necessity and fairness of fixing and adopting for such industry or
locality a minimum wage or share of laborers or tenants, or a maximum "canon" or rental
to be paid by the "inquilinos" or tenants or less to landowners. In fine, it may appeal to
voluntary arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes; may employ mediation or
conciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective system of official investigation
and compulsory arbitration in order to determine specific controversies between labor
and capital industry and in agriculture. There is in reality here a mingling of executive
and judicial functions, which is a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of
governmental powers.
3. In fine, it may appeal to voluntary arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes; may
employ mediation or conciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective system
of official investigation and compulsory arbitration in order to determine specific
controversies between labor and capital industry and in agriculture. There is in reality
here a mingling of executive and judicial functions, which is a departure from the rigid
doctrine of the separation of governmental powers.

Sec. of Justice v. Lantion

G.R. No. 139465
January 18, 2000
Facts:
On June 18, 1999 the Department of Justice, represented by Justice Franklin M. Drilon,
received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 which contains a

request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. Attached to
the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition.
Based on the papers submitted, private respondent appeared to be charged in the US with
violation of the following provisions of the United States Code (USC):
1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US;
2. Attempt tot evade or defeat tax;
3. Fraud by wire, radio or television;
4. False statement or entries; and
5. Election contributions in name of another.
Petitioner, on the same day, issued Department Order No. 249 designating and authorizing a
panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case pursuant to Sec. 5(1) pf P.D. No.
1069.
Pending technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition documents, private respondent,
through counsel wrote a letter dated July 1, 1999 addressed to petitioner requesting copies of
the official extradition request from the U.S., as well as all the documents and papers submitted
therewith; and that he begin ample of time to comment on the request after he shall have
receive the copies of the requested papers. Also, he requested that the proceeding on the
matter be held in abeyance in the meantime.
The DOJ denied the request for the following reasons:
1. It is premature to furnish said copies during the pendency of the evaluation pursuant to
the the provisions of the extradition treaty and our extradition law. And accordingly, the
evalauation is not a preliminary investigation and not the same to a preliminary
investigation of criminal cases for it merely determines whether the procedure and the
requirements have been complied with by the Requesting Government.
2. The formal request for extradition of the US contains grand jury information and
documents obtained thorugh grand jury process covered by the strict secrecy rules
under the US law and the US government had to secure orders from the concerned
District Courts to disclose certain information.
3. The Department is not in a position to hold in abeyance proceedings in connection with
an extradition request because we are bound with the Vienna Convention on the Law of
the Treaties which provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and
must be complied with in good faith.
Private respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region praying,
among others, to compel petitioner to furnish private respondent the extradition document and
to afford him to comment on or oppose the request; and to restrain petitioner from considering
and acting upon extradition request. The RTC granted private respondents request.
Whether:
Whether or not an evaluation process under the extradition law is akin to an investigative or
inquisitorial process of an administrative bodys quasi-judicial power.

The evaluation process, just like the extradition proceedings proper, belongs to a class by itself.
It is sui generis. It is not a criminal investigation, but it is also not a purely exercise of ministerial
functions. At such stage the executive authority has the power:
a) to make technical assessment of the completeness and sufficiency of the extradition
papers;
b) to outrightly deny the request the request if on its face and on the face of the supporting
documents the crimes indicated are not extraditable; and
c) to make a determination whether or not the request is politically motivated, or that the
offense is a military one which is not punishable under non-military penal legislation.
In administrative law, a quasi-judicial proceeding involves:
(a) Taking and evaluation of evidence;
(b) Determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and
(c) Rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved