Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cases
First Batch
Admin. Law | 1
(adopted March 27, 1952), the same had a sixmonth period of validity counted from the said date
June 18, 1953. This license states, among other
conditions, that
Commodities covered by this license must be
shipped from the country of origin before the
expiry date of the license, and are subject to sec. 13
of Republic Act. No. 650.
Admin. Law | 4
90. Status of Present NAPOLCOM, PC-INP. Upon the effectivity of this Act, the present
National Police Commission, and the Philippine
Constabulary-Integrated National Police shall
cease to exist. The Philippine Constabulary, which
is the nucleus of the integrated Philippine
Constabulary-Integrated National Police, shall
cease to be a major service of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines. The Integrated National Police,
which is the civilian component of the Philippine
Constabulary-Integrated National Police, shall
cease to be the national police force and in lieu
thereof, a new police force shall be established and
constituted pursuant to this Act.
In contrast, P.D. No. 1341, provides:
1. The present Philippine College of Commerce is
hereby converted into a university to be known as
Admin. Law | 6
Consequently,
the
Committee
directed
the petitioner to respond to the administrative
charge leveled against him through a letter dated
September 17, 1993, thus:
6. Victorino C. Mamalateo
7. Jaime M. Masa
8. Antonio N. Pangilinan
9. Melchor S. Ramos
10. Joel L. Tan-Torres
Consequently, the president, in the assailed
Administrative Order No. 101 dated December 2,
1993, found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct
in the administrative charge and imposed upon him
the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of his leave
credits and retirement benefits including
disqualification for reappointment in the
government service.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed directly with this Court
the instant petition on December 13, 1993 to
question basically his alleged unlawful removal
from office.
On April 17, 1996 and while the instant petition is
pending, this Court set aside the conviction of the
petitioner in Criminal Case Nos. 14208 and 14209.
In his petition, petitioner challenged the authority
of the President to dismiss him from office. He
argued that in so far as presidential appointees who
are Career Executive Service Officers are
concerned, the President exercises only the power
of control not the power to remove. He also
averred that the administrative investigation
conducted under Memorandum Order No. 164 is
void as it violated his right to due process.
According to him, the letter of the Committee
dated September 17, 1993 and his position paper
dated September 30, 1993 are not sufficient for
purposes of complying with the requirements of
due process. He alleged that he was not informed
of the administrative charges leveled against him
nor was he given official notice of his dismissal.
Petitioner likewise claimed that he was removed as
a result of the reorganization made by the
Executive Department in the BIR pursuant to
Executive Order No. 132. Thus, he assailed said
Admin. Law | 11
"xxx
August 8, 1989
CESAR
Z.
DARIO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. SALVADOR M. MISON, HON.
VICENTE JAYME and HON. CATALINO
MACARAIG, JR., in their respective capacities
as Commissioner of Customs, Secretary of
Finance, and Executive Secretary,respondents.
G.R. No. 81967
August 8, 1989
VICENTE
A.
FERIA
JR., petitioner,
vs.
HON. SALVADOR M. MISON, HON.
August 8, 1989
ADOLFO
CASARENO,
PACIFICO
LAGLEVA, JULIAN C. ESPIRITU, DENNIS
A. AZARRAGA, RENATO DE JESUS,
NICASIO C. GAMBOA, CORAZON RALLOS
NIEVES, FELICITACION R. GELUZ,
LEODEGARIO H. FLORESCA, SUBAER
PACASUM, ZENAIDA LANARIA, JOSE B.
ORTIZ, GLICERIO R. DOLAR, CORNELIO
NAPA, PABLO B. SANTOS, FERMIN
RODRIGUEZ,
DALISAY
BAUTISTA,
LEONARDO JOSE, ALBERTO LONTOK,
PORFIRIO TABINO, JOSE BARREDO,
ROBERTO ARNALDO, ESTER TAN, PEDRO
BAKAL, ROSARIO DAVID, RODOLFO
AFUANG, LORENZO CATRE, LEONCIA
CATRE, ROBERTO ABADA, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONER SALVADOR M. MISON,
COMMISSIONER,
BUREAU
OF
CUSTOMS, respondent.
G.R. No. 83737
August 8, 1989
August 8, 1989
ERLINDA
C.,
MAGAT,
ELPIDIO,
MAGLAYA, FERNANDO P., MALABANAN,
ALFREDO C., MALIBIRAN, ROSITA D.,
MALIJAN, LAZARO V., MALLI, JAVIER M.,
MANAHAN, RAMON S., MANUEL, ELPIDIO
R., MARAVILLA, GIL B., MARCELO, GIL
C., MARI;AS, RODOLFO V., MAROKET,
JESUS C., MARTIN, NEMENCIO A.,
MARTINEZ, ROMEO M., MARTINEZ,
ROSELINA M., MATIBAG, ANGELINA G.,
MATUGAS, ERNESTO T., MATUGAS,
FRANCISCO T., MAYUGA, PORTIA E.,
MEDINA, NESTOR M., MEDINA, ROLANDO
S., MENDAVIA, AVELINO I., MENDOZA,
POTENCIANO
G.,
MIL,
RAY
M.,
MIRAVALLES,
ANASTACIA
L.,
MONFORTE,
EUGENIO,
JR.,
G.,
MONTANO, ERNESTO F., MONTERO,
JUAN M. III., MORALDE, ESMERALDO B.,
JR.,
MORALES,
CONCHITA
D.L.,
MORALES,
NESTOR
P.,
MORALES,
SHIRLEY S., MUNAR, JUANITA L.,
MU;OZ,
VICENTE
R.,
MURILLO,
MANUEL M., NACION, PEDRO R., NAGAL,
HENRY
N.,
NAPA,
CORNELIO
B.,
NAVARRO, HENRY L., NEJAL, FREDRICK
E., NICOLAS, REYNALDO S., NIEVES,
RUFINO A., OLAIVAR, SEBASTIAN T.,
OLEGARIO, LEO Q., ORTEGA, ARLENE R.,
ORTEGA, JESUS R., OSORIO, ABNER S.,
PAPIO, FLORENTINO T. II, PASCUA,
ARNULFO
A.,
PASTOR,
ROSARIO,
PELAYO, ROSARIO L., PE;A, AIDA C.,
PEREZ, ESPERIDION B., PEREZ, JESUS
BAYANI
M.,
PRE,
ISIDRO
A.,
PRUDENCIADO, EULOGIA S., PUNZALAN,
LAMBERTO N., PURA, ARNOLD T.,
QUINONES, EDGARDO I., QUINTOS,
AMADEO C., JR., QUIRAY, NICOLAS C.,
RAMIREZ,
ROBERTO
P.,
RA;ADA,
RODRIGO C., RARAS, ANTONIO A.,
RAVAL, VIOLETA V., RAZAL, BETTY R.,
REGALA, PONCE F., REYES, LIBERATO R.,
REYES, MANUEL E., REYES, NORMA Z.,
REYES, TELESFORO F., RIVERA, ROSITA
L., ROCES, ROBERTO V., ROQUE,
TERESITA S., ROSANES, MARILOU M.,
August 8, 1989
August 8, 1989
SARMIENTO, J.:
Admin. Law | 20
and
responsibilities
Admin. Law | 21
M.
yours,
MISON
Admin. Law | 22
99. CRUZADO,NORMA M.
Admin. Law | 23
Admin. Law | 24
Admin. Law | 25
18
"ENLARGING
THE
POWERS
AND
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS,"52 the Commissioner of Customs has
the power "[t]o appoint all Bureau personnel,
except those appointed by the President," 53 and
that his position, which is that of a Presidential
appointee, is beyond the control of Commissioner
Mison for purposes of reorganization.
Admin. Law | 37
of
Customs,
Admin. Law | 38
Resume.
In resume, we restate as follows:
1. The President could have validly removed
government employees, elected or appointed,
without cause but only before the effectivity of the
1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987 (De Leon v.
Esguerra, supra; Palma-Fernandez vs. De la
Paz, supra); in this connection, Section 59 (on nonreappointment of incumbents) of Executive Order
No. 127 cannot be a basis for termination;
2. In such a case, dismissed employees shall be
paid separation and retirement benefits or upon
their option be given reemployment opportunities
(CONST. [1987], art. XVIII, sec. 16; Rep. Act No.
6656, sec. 9);
3. From February 2, 1987, the State does not lose
the right to reorganize the Government resulting in
the separation of career civil service employees
[CONST. (1987), supra] provided, that such a
reorganization is made in good faith. (Rep. Act No.
6656, supra.)
G.R. No. 83737
This disposition also resolves G.R. No. 83737. As
we have indicated, G.R. No. 83737 is a challenge
to the validity of Republic Act No. 6656. In brief,
it is argued that the Act, insofar as it strengthens
security of tenure 91 and as far as it provides for a
retroactive effect, 92 runs counter to the transitory
provisions of the new Constitution on removals not
for cause.
It can be seen that the Act, insofar as it provides for
reinstatament of employees separated without "a
valid cause and after due notice and hearing" 93 is
not contrary to the transitory provisions of the new
Constitution. The Court reiterates that although the
Charter's transitory provisions mention separations
"not for cause," separations thereunder must
nevertheless be on account of a valid
reorganization and which do not come about
automatically. Otherwise, security of tenure may
be invoked. Moreover, it can be seen that the
TONDO
MEDICAL
CENTER
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
FOR
Admin. Law | 39
TROPICAL
MEDICINE
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
NATIONAL
ORTHOPEDIC
WORKERS UNION,
DR. JOSE R. REYES
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
EMPLOYEES UNION,
SAN
LAZARO
HOSPITAL
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
ALLIANCE
OF
HEALTH WORKERS,
INC.,
HEALTH
ALLIANCE
FOR
DEMOCRACY,
COUNCIL
FOR
HEALTH
DEVELOPMENT,
NETWORK
OPPOSED
TO
PRIVATIZATION,
COMMUNITY
MEDICINE
DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION INC.,
PHILIPPINE
SOCIETY
OF SANITARY
ENGINEERS
INC.,
KILUSANG
MAYO
UNO,
GABRIELA,
KILUSANG
MAGBUBUKID
NG
PILIPINAS,
KALIPUNAN
NG
DAMAYAN NG MGA
MARALITA, ELSA O.
GUEVARRA,
ARCADIO
B.
GONZALES, JOSE G.
GALANG, DOMINGO
P. MANAY, TITO P.
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
ESTEVES, EDUARDO
P.
GALOPE,
REMEDIOS
M.
YSMAEL, ALFREDO
BACUATA,
EDGARDO
J.
DAMICOG,
REMEDIOS
M.
MALTU
AND
REMEGIO
S.
MERCADO,
Petitioners,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
- versus -
CORONA,
CARPIO
MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
and
NACHURA, JJ.
JR.,
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS,
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
ALBERTO
G.
ROMULO,
SECRETARY
OF
HEALTH
MANUEL
M.
DAYRIT,
SECRETARY
OF
BUDGET
AND
MANAGEMENT
EMILIA
T.
BONCODIN,
Promulgated:
Respondents.
Admin. Law | 40
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
HEALTH
(HSRA)
SECTOR
REFORM
AGENDA
xxxx
ART II, SEC. 9. The State shall promote a just and
dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity
and independence of the nation and free the people
from poverty through policies that provide
adequate social services, promote full employment,
a rising standard of living and an improved quality
of life for all.
xxxx
a)
the specific shift in policy directions,
functions, programs and activities/strategies;
b)
the structural and organizational shift,
stating the specific functions and activities by
organizational unit and the relationship of each
units;
c)
the staffing shift, highlighting and
itemizing the existing filled and unfilled positions;
and
d)
the resource
allocation
shift,
specifying the effects of the streamline set-up on
the agency budgetary allocation and indicating
where possible, savings have been generated.
On 24
May
1999,
then
President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued Executive Order
No. 102, entitled Redirecting the Functions and
Operations of the Department of Health, which
provided for the changes in the roles, functions,
and organizational processes of the DOH. Under
the assailed executive order, the DOH refocused its
mandate from being the sole provider of health
services to being a provider of specific health
services and technical assistance, as a result of the
devolution of basic services to local government
units. The provisions for the streamlining of the
DOH and the deployment of DOH personnel to
regional offices and hospitals read:
Sec.
5. Redeployment
of
Personnel. The
redeployment of officials and other personnel on
the basis of the approved RSP shall not result in
diminution in rank and compensation of existing
personnel. It shall take into account all pertinent
Civil Service laws and rules.
Furthermore,
petitioners
Elsa
O. Guevarra, Arcadio B. Gonzales, Jose G. Galang,
Domingo
P. Manay,
Eduardo
P. Galope, Remedios M. Ysmael,
Alfredo
U. Bacuata and Edgardo J. Damicog, all DOH
employees, assailed the validity of Executive Order
No. 102 on the ground that they were likely to lose
their jobs, and that some of them were suffering
from the inconvenience of having to travel a longer
distance to get to their new place of work, while
other DOH employees had to relocate to far-flung
areas.[10]
I.
II.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED
MANIFEST
ERROR
IN
UPHOLDING TECHNICALITIES OVER AND
Admin. Law | 45
(1)
Restructure the internal organization of
the Office of the President Proper, including the
immediate offices, the Presidential Special
Assistants/Advisers System and the Common Staff
Support System, by abolishing consolidating or
merging units thereof or transferring functions
from one unit to another;
(2)
Transfer any function under the Office
of the President to any other Department or
Agency as well as transfer functions to the Office
of the President from other Departments or
Agencies; and
(3)
Transfer any agency under the Office
of the President to any other department or agency
as well as transfer agencies to the Office of the
President from other Departments or agencies.
Sec.
62. Unauthorized
Organizational
Changes. Unless otherwise created by law or
directed by the President of the Philippines, no
organizational unit or changes in key positions in
any department or agency shall be authorized in
their respective organizational structures and be
funded form appropriations by this Act.
Admin. Law | 49
Petitioners
Elsa Odonzo Guevarra, Arcadio B.
Gonzales, Jose G. Galang, Domingo P. Manay,
Eduardo P. Galope, Remedios M. Ysmael, Alfredo
U. Bacuata, and Edgardo Damicog, all DOH
employees, assailed the validity of Executive Order
No. 102 on the ground that they were likely to lose
their jobs, and that some of them were suffering
from the inconvenience of having to travel a longer
distance to get to their new place of work, while
other DOH employees had to relocate to far-flung
areas.
Admin. Law | 50
G.
NARNE,
LETICIA
SORIANO,
FEDERICO RAMOS, JR., PETERSON
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
the instant RODELIO L. GOMEZ,
CAAMPUED,
Petition is DENIED. This Court
AFFIRMSD.
theGARCIA, JR., ANTONIO
ANTONIO
assailed Decision of the Court
of
Appeals,
GALO, A. SANCHEZ, SOL E. TAMAYO,
promulgated on 26 November 2004,
declaring bothA.M. COCJIN, DAMIAN
JOSEPHINE
the HSRA and Executive Order
No. 102
QUINTO,
JR.,asEDLYN MARIANO, M.A.
valid. No costs.
MALANUM, ALFREDO S. ESTRELLA,
and JESUS MEL SAYO,
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
BRION,
Admin. Law | 52
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,*
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated:
DECISION
b.
c.
Printing of public documents such as
the Official Gazette, General Appropriations Act,
Philippine Reports, and development information
materials of the Philippine Information Agency.
SECTION
2. Government
agencies/instrumentalities may source printing
services outside NPO provided that:
Admin. Law | 54
Admin. Law | 56
Admin. Law | 57
Admin. Law | 58
Section 78.
Institutional Strengthening and
Productivity Improvement in Agency Organization
and
Operations
and
Implementation
of
Organization/Reorganization
Mandated
by
Law. The Government shall adopt institutional
strengthening
and
productivity
improvement measures to improve service
delivery and enhance productivity in the
government, as directed by the President of
the Philippines. The heads of departments, bureaus,
offices, agencies, and other entities of the
Executive Branch shall accordingly conduct a
comprehensive review of their respective
mandates,
missions,
objectives,
functions,
programs, projects, activities and systems and
procedures; identify areas where improvements are
necessary;
and implement
corresponding
structural,
functional
and
operational
adjustments that will result in streamlined
organization and operations and improved
performance and productivity: PROVIDED,
That actual streamlining and productivity
improvements in agency organization and
operations, as authorized by the President of the
Philippines for the purpose, including the
utilization of savings generated from such
activities, shall be in accordance with the rules and
regulations to be issued by the DBM, upon
consultation with the Presidential Committee on
Effective Governance: PROVIDED, FURTHER,
That in
the
implementation
of
organizations/reorganizations,
or
specific
changes in agency structure, functions and
operations as a result of institutional
strengthening or as mandated by law, the
appropriation, including the functions, projects,
purposes and activities of agencies concerned
may be realigned as may be necessary:
PROVIDED, FINALLY, That any unexpended
balances or savings in appropriations may be made
available for payment of retirement gratuities and
separation benefits to affected personnel, as
authorized under existing laws. (Emphases and
underscoring ours.)
Admin. Law | 61
Admin. Law | 62
Admin. Law | 63
WHEREFORE,
the
petition
is
hereby DISMISSED and the prayer for a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
January 8, 2013
Admin. Law | 64
1987 and other pertinent laws did not call for the
impositions laid down by the assailed issuances.
That was not true here, for DO No 182 did not
deprive petitioners in any degree of their right to
seek redress for the alleged wrong done against
them by the Legacy Group. Instead, the issuances
were designed to assist petitioners and others like
them expedite the prosecution, if warranted under
the law, of all those responsible for the wrong
through the creation of the special panel of state
prosecutors and prosecution attorneys in order to
conduct a nationwide and comprehensive
preliminary investigation and prosecution of the
cases. Thereby, the Secretary of Justice did not act
arbitrarily or oppressively against petitioners.
Fourthly, petitioners attack the exemption from the
consolidation decreed in DO No. 182 of the cases
filed or pending in the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City, claiming that
the exemption traversed the constitutional guaranty
in their favor of the equal protection of law.17
The exemption is covered by the assailed DOJ
Memorandum dated March 2, 2009, to wit:
It has come to the attention of the undersigned that
cases for syndicated estafa were filed with your
office against officers of the Legacy Group of
Companies. Considering the distance of the place
of complainants therein to Manila, your Office is
hereby exempted from the directive previously
issued by the undersigned requiring prosecution
offices to forward the records of all cases involving
Legacy Group of Companies to the Task Force.
Anent the foregoing, you are hereby directed to
conduct preliminary investigation of all cases
involving the Legacy Group of Companies filed in
your office with dispatch and to file the
corresponding informations if evidence warrants
and to prosecute the same in court.
Petitioners attack deserves no consideration. The
equal protection clause of the Constitution does not
require the universal application of the laws to all
persons or things without distinction; what it
requires is simply equality among equals as
Admin. Law | 69
determined
according
to
a
valid
18
classification. Hence, the Court has affirmed that
if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor
targets a suspect class, the classification stands as
long as it bears a rational relationship to some
legitimate government end.19
That is the situation here. In issuing the assailed
DOJ Memorandum dated March 2, 2009, the
Secretary of Justice took into account the relative
distance between Cagayan de Oro, where many
complainants against the Legacy Group resided,
and Manila, where the preliminary investigations
would be conducted by the special panel. He also
took into account that the cases had already been
filed in the City Prosecutors Office of Cagayan de
Oro at the time he issued DO No. 182. Given the
considerable number of complainants residing in
Cagayan de Oro City, the Secretary of Justice was
fully justified in excluding the cases commenced in
Cagayan de Oro from the ambit of DO No. 182.
The classification taken into consideration by the
Secretary of Justice was really valid. Resultantly,
petitioners could not inquire into the wisdom
behind the exemption upon the ground that the
non-application of the exemption to them would
cause them some inconvenience.
Fifthly, petitioners contend that DO No. 182
violated their right to the speedy disposition of
cases guaranteed by the Constitution. They posit
that there would be considerable delay in the
resolution of their cases that would definitely be "a
flagrant transgression of petitioners constitutional
rights to speedy disposition of their cases."20
We cannot favor their contention.
In The Ombudsman v. Jurado,21 the Court has
clarified that although the Constitution guarantees
the right to the speedy disposition of cases, such
speedy disposition is a flexible concept. To
properly define that concept, the facts and
circumstances surrounding each case must be
evaluated and taken into account. There occurs a
violation of the right to a speedy disposition of a
case only when the proceedings are attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or
SPOUSES
BERNYL
BALANGAUAN
&
KATHERENE
BALANGAUAN,
G.
R.
174350
No.
Petitioners,
Present:
- versus -
YNARESSANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
THE
HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS,
SPECIAL NINETEENTH
(19TH)
DIVISION,CEBU CITY &
THE HONGKONG AND
SHANGHAI BANKING
CORPORATION, LTD.,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
TINGA,*
CHICONAZARIO, and
REYES, JJ.
Respondents.
Promulgated:
August 13, 2008
x-------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
the 6
April
2004[3] and 30
August
[4]
2004 Resolutions of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) in I.S. No. 02-9230-I, entitled The
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v.
Katherine Balangauan, et al. The twin resolutions
of the DOJ affirmed, in essence, the Resolution of
the Office of the City Prosecutor,[5] Cebu City,
which dismissed for lack of probable cause the
criminal complaint for Estafa and/or Qualified
Estafa, filed against petitioner-Spouses Bernyl
Balangauan (Bernyl) and Katherene Balangauan
(Katherene) by respondent Hong Kong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. (HSBC).
It was likewise discovered that the abovementioned deposits were transacted using
petitioner Katherenes computer and work station
using the code or personal password CEO8. The
significance of code CEO8, according to the bank
personnel of respondent HSBC, is that, [i]t is only
Ms. Balangauan who can transact from [the]
computer in the work station CEO-8, as she is
provided with a swipe card which she keeps sole
custody of and only she can use, and which she
utilizes for purposes of performing bank
transactions from that computer.[7]
xxxx
Admin. Law | 73
Respondent
HSBCs Motion
for
Reconsideration was likewise denied with finality
by the DOJ in a lengthier Resolution dated 30
August 2004.
Admin. Law | 75
It explained that:
Admin. Law | 78
GANCAYCO, J.:
The parameters of the jurisdiction of the ordinary
courts in relation to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Sandiganbayan are put
into issue in this petition.
On December 17, 1987, private respondents filed a
complaint for injunction and damages, with a
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order, in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against
petitioners and Winston Marbella, Gaston Ortigas,
Robeto Federis, Manuel C. Villa-Real, Emanuel
Soriano, Jack Arroyo and Benjamin Tulio.
The complaint alleges, among others, that private
respondents are the only stockholders with the
right to vote of the Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI)
Publisher of several daily periodicals such
as Manila
Journal,
People's
Journal, etc.
Sometime in 1977, PJI obtained from the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
certain financing accommodations and as security
thereof executed a first mortgage in favor of DBP
on its acts enumerated in a list attached to the
mortgage. The PJI stockholders assigned to DBP
the voting rights over 67% of the total subscribed
and outstanding voting shares of stock of the
company held by them. The DBP appointed said
PJI stockholders as proxies to exercise its right to
vote. Due to some financial difficulty on its part,
PJI requested for a restructuring of its loan
obligation with certain conditions. The request was
Admin. Law | 86
as
it
is
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
CLA CLA CLA
SS 1 SS 2 SS 3
Elevat
ed
Portio
n
75.00
75.0
0
150.
00
225.
00
AtGrade
Portio
Admin. Law | 88
to JUNE
30, 2002
DECEMB
ER
31,
2002
65.00
75.00
Magallan 19.35
es
to
Bicutan
15.00
20.00
Bicutan
to Sucat
11.21
9.00
11.00
Sucat to 10.99
Alabang
9.00
11.00
n
Magall 19.35
anes to
Bicuta
n
19.5
0
38.5
0
58.0
0
Elevated 75.00
Portion
Bicuta 11.21
n
to
Sucat
11.0
0
Sucat
to
Alaban
g
11.0
0
10.99
22.5
0
34.0
0
AtGrade
Portion
21.0
0
32.5
0
Section
Toll
Rates
for
Implementation
For
Unround Class 1 as Reference
ed Toll
Rates as
Maximu
m
for
One (1)
Year
JANUAR JULY
Y 1, 2002 2002
1,
to
xxxxxx
(ii) a significant currency devaluation
xxxxxx
(i) A currency devaluation shall be deemed
significant if it results in a depreciation of the value
of the Philippine peso relative to the US dollar by
at least 10%. For purposes hereof the exchange rate
between the Philippine peso and the US dollar
which shall be applicable shall be the exchange
rate between the above mentioned currencies in
effect as of the date of approval of the prevailing
preceding Toll Rate.
(ii) The Investors right to apply for an interim Toll
Rate adjustment under section 7.04 (3) (a) (ii) shall
be effective only while any Financing is
outstanding and have not yet been paid in full.
xxxxxx
(iv) An interim adjustment in Toll Rate shall be
considered such amount as may be required to
provide interim relief to the Investor from a
substantial increase in debt-service burden
resulting from the devaluation.[5]
Claiming that the peso exchange rate to a U.S.
dollar had devaluated from P26.1671 in 1995 to
P48.00 in 2000, CITRA alleged that there was a
compelling need for the increase of the toll rates to
meet the loan obligations of the Project and the
substantial increase in debt-service burden.
Due to heavy opposition, CITRAs petition
remained unresolved. This prompted CITRA to file
on October 9, 2001 an Urgent Motion for
Admin. Law | 94
Admin. Law | 95
Admin. Law | 96
SO ORDERED.
PUNO, J.:
The power of the Civil Service Commission to
abolish the Career Executive Service Board is
challenged in this petition for certiorari and
prohibition.
First the facts. Petitioner is the Deputy Director of
the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute. She
applied for a Career Executive Service (CES)
Eligibility and a CESO rank on August 2, 1993,
she was given a CES eligibility. On September 15,
1993, she was recommended to the President for a
CESO rank by the Career Executive Service
Board. 1
All was not to turn well for petitioner. On October
1,
1993,
respondent
Civil
Service
2
Commission passed Resolution No. 93-4359, viz:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-4359
WHEREAS, Section 1(1) of Article IX-B provides
that Civil Service shall be administered by the
Civil Service Commission, . . .;
WHEREAS, Section 3, Article IX-B of the 1987
Philippine Constitution provides that "The Civil
Service Commission, as the central personnel
agency of the government, is mandated to establish
a career service and adopt measures to promote
morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
ALSO
IN
VIOLATION
OF
THE
CONSTITUTION,
RESPONDENT
CSC
USURPED THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS
OF CONGRESS WHEN IT ILLEGALLY
AUTHORIZED THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC
MONEY, THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF CSC
RESOLUTION NO. 93-4359.
Required to file its Comment, the Solicitor General
agreed with the contentions of petitioner.
Respondent Commission, however, chose to
defend its ground. It posited the following position:
ARGUMENTS FOR PUBLIC RESPONDENT-CSC
I. THE INSTANT PETITION STATES NO
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE PUBLIC
RESPONDENT-CSC.
II. THE RECOMMENDATION SUBMITTED TO
THE PRESIDENT FOR APPOINTMENT TO A
CESO RANK OF PETITIONER EUGENIO WAS
A VALID ACT OF THE CAREER EXECUTIVE
SERVICE BOARD OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION AND IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY
DEFECT.
III. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS
ESTOPPED FROM QUESTIONING THE
VALIDITY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CESB IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER
EUGENIO SINCE THE PRESIDENT HAS
PREVIOUSLY APPOINTED TO CESO RANK
FOUR (4) OFFICIALS SIMILARLY SITUATED
AS SAID PETITIONER. FURTHERMORE,
LACK OF MEMBERS TO CONSTITUTE A
QUORUM. ASSUMING THERE WAS NO
QUORUM, IS NOT THE FAULT OF PUBLIC
RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BUT OF THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS THE
POWER TO APPOINT THE OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE CESB.
Admin. Law | 98
CENTRAL
BANK
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
OF
THE
following products
following schedule:
in accordance
with
the
vs.
CONSTANCIO JAUGAN
MEDINA, Commissioner,
Commission, respondents.
and ENRIQUE
Public Service
FERNANDO, J.:p
It is a legal question of significance that was raised
in these two petitions for review, to be decided
jointly. It is whether the Public Service
Commission, no longer in existence by virtue of
the Presidential Decree reorganizing the executive
branch of the national government 1 had the
jurisdiction to act on complaints by dissatisfied
customers of petitioner Radio Communications of
the Phil., Inc. and thereafter to penalize it with a
fine. In Radio Communications of the Phil., Inc. v.
Francisco Santiago & Enrique Medina,
as Commissioner, Public Service Commission 2 the
dispositive portion of the challenged order insofar
as pertinent reads thus: "[Wherefore], under
Section 21 of the Public Service Act as amended,
the respondent operator of Radio Communications
of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) is hereby ordered to
pay a fine of [two hundred pesos](P200.00) within
fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof, with the
warning that failure to pay the said fine within the
aforecited period of time, will leave the
Commission no other alternative but to suspend the
rates authorized for the operation of respondent
herein." 3 In Radio Communications of the Phil.,
Inc. v. Constancio Jaugan & Enrique Medina,
Commissioner, Public Service Commission, 4 the
dispositive portion insofar as pertinent is worded as
follows: "[For all the foregoing considerations],
under Section 21 of the Public Service Act as
amended, the respondent, operator of Radio
Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) is
hereby ordered to pay a fine of Two Hundred
Pesos (P200.00) within fifteen (15) days from
receipt hereof, with a warning that failure to pay
the said fine within the aforecited period of time,
WHEREFORE,
in
L-29236, Radio
Communications of the Phil., Inc. v. Francisco
Santiago and Enrique Medina, the order of former
Commissioner Enrique Medina of October 13,
1967 as affirmed by the order of the Public Service
Commission en banc of May 3, 1968, is reversed
and set aside, and in L-29247, Radio
Communications of the Phil., Inc. v. Constancio
Jaugan and Enrique Medina, the order of former
Commissioner Enrique Medina of October 10,
1967 as affirmed by the order of the Public Service
Commission en banc of April 4, 1968, is reversed
and set aside. No costs.
PARAS, J.:p
Submitted on May 20, 1977 for decision by this
Court is this appeal from the decision dated
January 6, 1971 rendered by the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Branch III in Civil Case No.
Credit, issued Memorandum Circular No. DLC8, informing all rural banks that an additional
penalty interest rate of ten per cent (10%) per
annum would be assessed on all past due loans
beginning January 4, 1965. Said Memorandum
Circular was actually enforced on all rural
banks effective July 4, 1965.
On June 27, 1969, Appellee Rural Bank sued
Appellant in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch III, to recover the 10% penalty
imposed by Appellant amounting to P16,874.97,
as of September 27, 1968 and to restrain
Appellant from continuing the imposition of the
penalty. Appellant filed a counterclaim for the
outstanding balance and overdue accounts of
Appellee in the total amount of P444,809.45 plus
accrued interest and penalty at 10% per annum
on the outstanding balance until full payment.
(Record on Appeal, p. 13). Appellant justified
the imposition of the penalty by way of
affirmative and special defenses, stating that it
was legally imposed under the provisions of
Section 147 and 148 of the Rules and
Regulations
Governing
Rural
Banks
promulgated by the Monetary Board on
September 5, 1958, under authority of Section 3
of Republic Act No. 720, as amended (Record
on Appeal, p. 8, Affirmative and Special
Defenses Nos. 2 and 3).
In its answer to the counterclaim, Appellee
prayed for the dismissal of the counterclaim,
denying Appellant's allegations stating that if
Appellee has any unpaid obligations with
Appellant, it was due to the latter's fault on
account of its flexible and double standard
policy in the granting of rediscounting
privileges to Appellee and its subsequent
arbitrary and illegal imposition of the 10%
penalty (Record on Appeal, p. 57). In its
Memorandum filed on November 11, 1970,
Appellee also asserts that Appellant had no
basis to impose the penalty interest inasmuch as
the promissory notes covering the loans
executed by Appellee in favor of Appellants do
not provide for penalty interest rate of 10% per
Present:
PUNO, CJ,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus - CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
NATIONAL HOUSING VELASCO,
AUTHORITY, R-II BUILDERS, NACHURA,
and
INC., R-II HOLDINGS, INC., REYES, JJ.
HARBOUR CENTRE PORT
TERMINAL, INC., and Promulgated:
SO ORDERED.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Petitioner,
The Facts
xxxx
xxxx
Admin. Law | 121
Section
4. The
land area
covered
by
the Smokey Mountain dumpsite
is
hereby
conveyed to the National Housing Authority as
well as the area to be reclaimed across R10.(Emphasis supplied.)
xxxx
(p) Environmental and solid waste managementrelated facilities such as collection equipment,
composting plants, incinerators, landfill and tidal
barriers, among others; and
(q) Development
of
new
townsites
communities and related facilities.
and
squatter
relocation,
waste
management,
reclamation, environmental protection, land and
house construction meet governing regulation of
the region and to facilitate the completion of the
project.[13]
xxxx
These parcels of land of public domain are
hereby placed under the administration and
disposition of the National Housing Authority to
develop, subdivide and dispose to qualified
beneficiaries, as well as its development for mix
land use (commercial/industrial) to provide
employment opportunities to on-site families
and additional areas for port-related activities.
2. To
own
the
commercial
area
the Smokey Mountain area composed of
hectares, and
at
1.3
For RBI:
a.
the construction of 2,992 units of
temporary housing for the affected residents while
clearing and development of Smokey Mountain
[are] being undertaken
b.
the clearing of Smokey Mountain and
the subsequent construction of 3,520 units of
medium rise housing and the development of the
industrial/commercial
site
within
the Smokey Mountain area
c.
the reclamation and development of a
79 hectare area directly across Radial Road 10 to
serve as the enabling component of Phase I
a.
the construction and operation of an
incinerator plant that will conform to the emission
standards of the DENR
ORIGINAL CHANGES/REVISIONS
1. TEMPORARY HOUSING
HOUSING
a.
the construction and operation of an
incinerator plant that will conform to the
emission standards of the DENR
xxxx
On November
19,
2001,
the
Amended
Supplemental Agreement (ASA) was signed by the
parties, and on February 28, 2002, the Housing and
Urban Development Coordinating Council
(HUDCC) submitted the agreement to the OP for
approval.
In the July 20, 2002 Cabinet Meeting, HUDCC
was directed to submit the works covered by the
PhP 480 million [advance to the Project] and the
ASA to public bidding.[45] On August 28, 2002, the
HUDCC informed RBI of the decision of the
Cabinet.
1. TERMINATION
Venture
Agreement
(ASA)
xxxx
5. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
two (2)
appraisers.
mutually
acceptable
independent
The Issues
NEITHER
RESPONDENT
NHA
RESPONDENT
R-II
BUILDERS
VALIDLY RECLAIM FORESHORE
SUBMERGED LAND BECAUSE:
NOR
MAY
AND
II
BEING
PRIVATE
CORPORATION
IS
NONETHELESS EXPRESSLYPROHIBITED BY
THE
PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION
TO
ACQUIRE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
III
1. THE RECLAIMED FORESHORE AND
SUBMERGED PARCELS OF LAND ARE
INALIENABLE PUBLIC LANDS WHICH ARE
BEYOND THE COMMERCE OF MAN.
5. ASSUMING
THAT
ALL
THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID TRANSFER
OF ALIENABLE PUBLIC HAD BEEN
PERFORMED, RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS,
IV
EO 525 reads:
a. by PEA
xxxx
b)
To undertake housing, development,
resettlement or other activities as would enhance
the provision of housing to every Filipino;
c)
To harness and promote private
participation in housing ventures in terms of capital
expenditures, land, expertise, financing and other
facilities for the sustained growth of the housing
industry. (Emphasis supplied.)
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
4. The issuance of ECCs by the DENR for SMDRP
is but an exercise of its power of supervision and
control over the lands of public domain covered by
the Project.
are
proclamation officially
classifying
these
reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and
open to disposition or concession (emphasis
supplied).[74]
Apropos the requisite law categorizing reclaimed
land as alienable or disposable, we find that RA
6957 as amended by RA 7718 provides ample
authority for the classification of reclaimed land in
the SMDRP for the repayment scheme of the BOT
project as alienable and disposable lands of public
domain. Sec. 6 of RA 6957 as amended by RA
7718 provides:
xxxx
xxxx
Determining Factors
Unserviceable Property
in
the
Disposal
of
or
Reclaimed
lands
cannot
be
considered
unserviceable properties. The reclaimed lands in
question are very much needed by the NHA for the
Smokey Mountain Project because without it, then
the
projects
will
not
be
successfully
implemented. Since the reclaimed lands are not
unserviceable properties and are very much needed
by NHA, then Sec. 79 of PD 1445 does not apply.
ARTICLE II
xxxx
ARTICLE III
the
operative
fact
instant petition
The argument
meritorious.
is
MAKATI
STOCK
EXCHANGE,
INC., petitioner,
vs.
SECURITIES
AND
EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
and
MANILA
STOCK
EXCHANGE, respondents.
Hermenegildo
B.
Reyes
for
petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission.
Norberto J. Quisumbing and Emma QuisumbingFernando for respondent Manila Stock Exchange.
BENGZON, C.J.:
This is a review of the resolution of the Securities
and Exchange Commission which would deny the
Makati Stock Exchange, Inc., permission to
operate a stock exchange unless it agreed not to list
for trading on its board, securities already listed in
the Manila Stock Exchange.
Objecting to the requirement, Makati Stock
Exchange, Inc. contends that the Commission has
no power to impose it and that, anyway, it is
illegal, discriminatory and unjust.
Under the law, no stock exchange may do business
in the Philippines unless it is previously registered
with the Commission by filing a statement
containing the information described in Sec. 17 of
the Securities Act (Commonwealth Act 83, as
amended).
It is assumed that the Commission may permit
registration if the section is complied with; if not, it
may refuse. And there is now no question that the
section has been complied with, or would be
complied with, except that the Makati Stock
Exchange, upon challenging this particular
Exchange
pleads
the
doctrine
of res
14
judicata. (The order now reviewed is dated May
7, 1964.)
It appears that when Makati Stock Exchange, Inc.
presented its articles of incorporation to the
Commission, the latter, after making some
inquiries, issued on May 27, 1963, an order reading
as follows.
Let the certificate of incorporation of the MAKATI
STOCK EXCHANGE be issued, and if the
organizers thereof are willing to abide by the
foregoing conditions, they may file the proper
application for the registration and licensing of the
said Exchange.
In that order, the Commission advanced the
opinion that "it would permit the establishment and
operation of the proposed Makati Stock Exchange,
provided ... it shall not list for trading on its board,
securities already listed in the Manila Stock
Exchange ... ."
Admittedly, Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. has not
appealed from that order of May 27, 1963. Now,
Manila Stock insists on res judicata.
Why should Makati have appealed? It got the
certificate of incorporation which it wanted. The
condition or proviso mentioned would only apply
if and when it subsequently filed the application for
registration as stock exchange. It had not yet
applied. It was not the time to question the
condition; 15 Makati was still exploring the
convenience of soliciting the permit to operate
subject to that condition. And it could have
logically thought that, since the condition did not
affect its articles of incorporation, it should not
appeal the order (of May 27, 1963) which after all,
granted the certificate of incorporation (corporate
existence) it wanted at that time.
And when the Makati Stock Exchange finally
found that it could not successfully operate with
the condition attached, it took the issue by the
horns, and expressing its desire for registration and
license, it requested that the condition (against
Admin. Law | 172
GANCAYCO, J.:p
The extent of authority of the Secretary of Local
Government over the katipunan ng mga
barangay or the barangay councils is brought to
the fore in this case.
On June 18,1989, the Federation of Associations of
Barangay Councils (FABC) of Catanduanes,
composed of eleven (11) members, in their
capacities as Presidents of the Association of
Barangay
Councils
in
their
respective
municipalities, convened in Virac, Catanduanes
with six members in attendance for the purpose of
holding the election of its officers.
RUPERTO
TAULE,
vs.
SECRETARY LUIS T.
GOVERNOR
VERCELES, respondents.
petitioner,
SANTOS and
LEANDRO
composition
of
the sangguniang
46
panlungsod, declared as null and void the
appointment of private respondent Leoncio Banate
Jr. as member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
the City of Roxas representing the katipunang
panlungsod ng mga barangay for he lacked the
elegibility and qualification required by law, not
being a barangay captain and for not having been
elected president of the association of barangay
councils. The Court held that an unqualified person
cannot be appointed a member of the sanggunian,
even in an acting capacity. In Reyes vs.
Ferrer, 47 the appointment of Nemesio L. Rasgo Jr.
as representative of the youth sector to
the sangguniang panlungsod of Davao City was
declared invalid since he was never the president of
the kabataang barangay city federation as required
by Sec. 173, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337.
In
the
present
controversy
involving
the sangguniang panlalawigan, the law is likewise
explicit. To be appointed by the President of the
Philippines
to
sit
in
the sangguniang
panlalawigan is the president of the katipunang
panlalawigan. The appointee must meet the
qualifications set by law. 48 The appointing power
is bound by law to comply with the requirements
as to the basic qualifications of the appointee to
the sangguniang panlalawigan. The President of
the Philippines or his alter ego, the Secretary of
Local Government, has no authority to appoint
anyone who does not meet the minimum
qualification to be the president of the federation of
barangay councils.
Augusto Antonio is not the president of the
federation. He is a member of the federation but he
was not even present during the elections despite
notice. The argument that Antonio was appointed
as a remedial measure in the exigency of the
service cannot be sustained. Since Antonio does
not meet the basic qualification of being president
of the federation, his appointment to
the sangguniang panlalawigan is not justified
notwithstanding that such appointment is merely in
a temporary capacity. If the intention of the
respondent Secretary was to protect the interest of
Admin. Law | 179
SOLID
HOMES,
INC., petitioner,
vs.
TERESITA PAYAWAL and COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
CRUZ, J.:
We are asked to reverse a decision of the Court of
Appeals sustaining the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City over a complaint filed
by a buyer, the herein private respondent, against
the petitioner, for delivery of title to a subdivision
lot. The position of the petitioner, the defendant in
that action, is that the decision of the trial court is
null and void ab initio because the case should
have been heard and decided by what is now called
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
The complaint was filed on August 31, 1982, by
Teresita Payawal against Solid Homes, Inc. before
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-36119. The plaintiff
alleged that the defendant contracted to sell to her a
subdivision lot in Marikina on June 9, 1975, for the
agreed price of P 28,080.00, and that by September
10, 1981, she had already paid the defendant the
total amount of P 38,949.87 in monthly
installments and interests. Solid Homes
subsequently executed a deed of sale over the land
but failed to deliver the corresponding certificate of
title despite her repeated demands because, as it
appeared later, the defendant had mortgaged the
property in bad faith to a financing company. The
plaintiff asked for delivery of the title to the lot or,
alternatively, the return of all the amounts paid by
her plus interest. She also claimed moral and
exemplary damages, attorney's fees and the costs
of the suit.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
FELICIANO, J.:
By virtue of a Contract to Sell dated 18 August
1970, Jose Hernando acquired prospective and
beneficial ownership over Lot. No. 15, Block IV of
the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision in Antipolo,
Rizal, from the petitioner Antipolo Realty
Corporation.
On 28 August 1974, Mr. Hernando transferred his
rights over Lot No. 15 to private respondent
Virgilio Yuson. The transfer was embodied in a
Deed of Assignment and Substitution of Obligor
Admin. Law | 183
SUBDIVISION
BEAUTIFICATION. To insure the beauty of the
subdivision in line with the modern trend of urban
development, the SELLER hereby obligates itself
to provide the subdivision with:
a) Concrete curbs and gutters
b) Underground drainage system
c) Asphalt paved roads
d) Independent water system
e) Electrical installation with concrete posts.
ROMERO, J.:
such
contingencies,
then
the
writs
of mandamus and injunction which are beyond the
power of the LLDA to issue, may be sought from
the proper courts.
Insofar as the implementation of relevant antipollution laws in the Laguna Lake region and its
surrounding provinces, cities and towns are
concerned, the Court will not dwell further on the
related issues raised which are more appropriately
addressed to an administrative agency with the
special knowledge and expertise of the LLDA.
QUIASON, J.:
Motor number
---
E120-229598
Chassis No.
---
SPZU50-1772440
The Facts
Admin. Law | 202
Color
---
Blue
Owned By
---
Public
Officer
or
Private
BENJAMIN
MASANGCAY, petitioner,
vs.
THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS, respondent.
Godofredo A. Ramos and Ruby Salazar-Alberto for
petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General and Dominador D.
Dayot for respondent.
FREEMAN,
INC.,
FREEMAN
MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
CHIAO LIAN, LECHU S. LIM, PERLITA S.
DYOGI, OLIVIA S. SANTOS, CARMEN S.
SAW
and
RUBEN
CHUA, petitioners,
vs.
THE
SECURITIES
AND
EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, SAW MUI, RUBEN SAW,
DIONISIO SAW, LINA S. CHUA, LUCILA S.
RUSTE and EVELYN SAW, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the
order of respondent Securities and Exchange
Commission dated 7 January 1993 in SEC-EB No.
308 denying the action of petitioners to nullify the
7 January 1992 order of the Securities and
Exchange Commission in SEC Case No. 3577.
Sometime in 1986 and 1987, Freeman, Inc.
(FREEMAN), was granted a loan by Equitable
Banking Corporation (EQUITABLE) as evidenced
by two (2) promissory notes, P.N. No. 125957
dated 8 December 1986 for P1,700,000.00 payable
8 December 1987, and P.N. No. TL-369 dated 24
April 1987 for P6,000,000.00 payable 24 April
1988. Saw Chiao Lian, President of Freeman, Inc.,
signed as co-maker in both promissory notes.
SO ORDERED.
xxxx
Admin. Law | 215
FELICIANO, J.:
In this Petition for Certiorari, Rufino O. Eslao in
his capacity as President of the Pangasinan State
University ("PSU") asks us to set aside
Commission on Audit ("COA") Decisions Nos.
1547 (1990) and 2571 (1992) which
denied honoraria and per diems claimed under
National Compensation Circular No. 53 by certain
PSU personnel including petitioner.
On 9 December 1988, PSU entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") 1 with the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
("DENR") for the evaluation of eleven (11)
government reforestation operations in
Pangasinan. 2 The evaluation project was part of
the commitment of the Asian Development Bank
("ADB") under the ADB/OECF Forestry Sector
Program Loan to the Republic of the Philippines
and was one among identical project agreements
entered into by the DENR with sixteen (16) other
state universities.
On 9 December 1988, a notice to proceed 3 with
the review and evaluation of the eleven (11)
reforestation operations was issued by the DENR
to PSU. The latter complied with this notice and
did proceed.
On 16 January 1989, per advice of the PSU
Auditor-in-Charge with respect to the payment
of honoraria and per diems of PSU personnel
engaged in the review and evaluation project, PSU
Vice President for Research and Extension and
Assistant Project Director Victorino P. Espero
requested the Office of the President, PSU, to have
the University's Board of Regents ("BOR")
confirm the appointments or designations of
Admin. Law | 217
d. FOURTH RELEASE
T O T A L P92,500
(mo.) mo.
1. Ecologist 4 P5,000 P20,000
2. Silviculturist 3 -do- 15,000
3. Forestry Economist 4 -do20,000
4. Soils Expert 2 -do- 10,000
Support Services
Research Associates (2) P8,000
Honorarium P1,000/mo. for 4
months
Special Disbursing Officer (1)
4,000
Honorarium P1,000/mo. for 4
months
Responsibility . .
.
Parttime
P2,000.00
B. Position Level Assistant
Project
Director
Responsibility . . .
Parttime P1,500.00
Parttime P500.00
B. Position Level
Administrative Support
Staff
Responsibility . . .
Parttime P400.00
From the clear and detailed provisions of the MOA
and Project Proposal in relation to NCC No. 53,
consent to any extension of the evaluation project,
in this instance, must be more concrete than the
alleged silence or lack of protest on the part of the
DENR. Although tacit acceptance is recognized in
our jurisdiction, 24 as a rule, silence is not
equivalent to consent since its ambiguity lends
itself to error. And although under the Civil Code
there are instances when silence amounts to
consent, 25 these circumstances are wanting in the
case at bar. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out
by the respondent COA, the date when the DENR
accepted the final project report is by no means
conclusive as to the terminal date of the evaluation
project. Examination of the MOA (quoted earlier
on pages 19-20) reveals that the submission of
reports merely served to trigger the phased releases
of funds. There being no explicit agreement
between PSU and the DENR to extend the duration
of the evaluation project, the MOA's "Budget
Estimate" which, among others, provides in detail
the duration of service for each member of the
evaluation project as amended by the rates
provided by NCC No. 53 must be the basis of
the honoraria due to the evaluation team.
The other arguments of respondent COA
appear to us to be insubstantial and as,
essentially, afterthoughts. The COA
apparently does not agree with the policy
basis of NCC No. 53 in relation to CPG
No. 80-4 since COA argues that loan
proceeds regardless of source eventually
become public funds for which the
government is accountable. The result
would be that any provisions under any
[foreign] loan agreement should be
considered locally-funded. We do not
consider that the COA is, under its
constitutional mandate, authorized to
substitute its own judgment for any
applicable law or administrative regulation
with the wisdom or propriety of which,
turist***
4. Prof. Artemio M. Rebugio Forestry 4
1,000 4,000
Economist
5. Ms. Naomenida Olermo Soils Expert 2
1,000 2,000
6. Dr. Elvira R. Castillo Social 4 1,000
4,000
Forestry
Expert
7. Dr. Alfredo F. Aquino Management 2
1,000 2,000
Expert
8. Dr. Lydio Calonge Horticul 2 1,000
2,000
turist
9. Engr. Manolito Bernabe Agricultural 2
1,000 2,000
Engineer
10. Prof. Rolando J. Andico Systems 2
1,000 2,000
Analysts/
Programmer
11. Dr. Eusebio Miclat, Jr. Statistician 2
1,000 2,000
12. Dr. Porferio Basilio Shoreline 2 1,000
2,000
Resources
Expert
13. Dr. Elmer C. Vingua Animal 2 1,000
2,000
Science
Specialist
12,098
* Per Attachment to
DBM Clarification
dated 10
November
1989, Rollo, p. 59.
** Staff Member
*** Administrative
Assistants.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
41,000
* Project Manager/
Project Director
** Assistant Project
Director
*** Project
Consultants
B. For Support Staff
Duration Rate/
Expert of month Total
Service (NCC
(mo.) No. 53)
1 Henedina M. Tantoco Research 4 700
2,800
Associate**
Admin. Law | 227