Republic of the Philippines (Petitioner) vs.

Transunion Corporation (Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Leticia Salamat filed an application to purchase Friar Land specifically Lot no. 5741 of the Imus Estate
with the CENRO of the DENR. However, she was informed that the land has already been owned by the
respondent corporation, Transunion Corporation. This prompted Salamat to file a protest on 27 June
2000 against Transunion with Land Management Bureau (LMB) docketed as case no. 114, alleging that
TCT no. T-616740 was obtained through fraud considering that no deed of conveyance was issued by the
LMB for lot no. 5741 in the name of any person.

LMB issued special order no. 2000-175 designating Atty. Rogelio C. Mandar to conduct a formal
investigation in order to determine the veracity of the allegations contained in Salamats protest.
Despite the protest of Transunion to stop the conduct of special investigation, Atty. Mandar issued the
result of the investigation report stating that the TCT no. 616740 should be reverted to the government
thru a case filed with the RTC.

DENR transmitted the records to Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for the complaint of reversion of
the land to the Republic docketed as LMB Case no. 114. Transunion filed a motion to dismiss stating that
the reversion was premature stating that the LMB failed to notify Transunion of its recommendation in
the investigation report- thereby depriving it the opportunity to seek reconsideration or an appeal of
the same, and ultimately resulting in a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. Unsatisfied, Transunion elevated to CA which reversed the RTCs
denial of the motion to dismiss. Hence, the petition by the petitioner to the Supreme Court.

Issue of the case

Whether or not the Transunions constitutional right to administrative due process has been violated by
way of the failure of LMB to notify Transunion of the result of the special investigation report

Decision

No, the SC finds that there was no violation of Transunion right to administrative due process. It is well
established that the touch stone of due process is the opportunity to be heard. This, Transunion was
unquestionably afforded in this case, despite having been denied the remedies of reconsideration and
appeal which, however, remain unavailable, either by statute or regulation, against the investigation
report and recommendation assailed herein. At any rate, lack of administrative due process, on the
assumption of its truth, is not a ground for a motion to dismiss, hence, the RTCs ruling was altogether
proper.
Elenita I. Balajonda (Petitioner) vs.

COMELEC and Maricel S. Francisco (Respondents)

Facts of the Case

On 16 July 2002, petitioner Balajonda was proclaimed as the duly elected Barangay Chairman having
won the office in the barangay election held the previous day. Her margin of victory over Francisco is
420 votes. Francisco timely filed an election protest within 10 days from teh date of proclamation,
lodged with the MeTC of Quezon City. Respondent appealed to the COMELEC which reversed the MeTC
decision on 2 February 2004 finding that respondent Francisco won by 111 votes over Balajonda.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision while Francisco filed a motion for
execution dated 5 February 2004. Feeling deprived, petitioner filed petition with the Supreme Court.

Issue of the case

Whether or not the COMELEC has power to order the immediate execution of its judgement despite a
pending motion for reconsideration involving a disputed barangay chairmanship

Decision

Yes, COMELEC rules of procedure as to the procedure of the issuance of a writ of execution pending
appeal, there is no reason to dispute the COMELECs authority to do so, considering that the suppletory
application of the Rules of Court is expressly authorized by Section 1, Rule 41 of COMELEC Rules of
Procedure. The public policy underlying the suppletory application of Sec 2 (a) rule 39 is to obviate a
hollow victory for a duly elected candidate as determined by either the courts or the COMELEC. The
court has consistently employed liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases to the end that
the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
Public interest demands that the winner on the basis of a full and incisive recount and new appreciation
of votes should be installed in office without delay.