Azarcon v.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997
Panganiban, J.
FACTS:
Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated a hauling business. Occasionally, he engagedthe
services of sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the
former’spremises A Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by the Main
Office of the BIRaddressed to the Regional Director or his authorized representative of
Revenue Region 10,Butuan City commanding the latter to distraint the goods,
chattels or effects and otherpersonal property of Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused
Azarcon and, a delinquent taxpayer. The Warrant of Garnishment was issued to
Azarcon ordering him to transfer,
surrender,t r a n s m i t a n d / o r r e m i t t o B I R t h e p r o p e r t y i n h i s
p o s s e s s i o n o w n e d b y t a x p a y e r A n c l a . Azarcon, in signing the “Receipt for
Goods, Articles, and Things Seized Under Authority
of t h e N a t i o n a l I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e , ” a s s u m e d t h e u n d e r t a k i n g s s p e c i f i e
d i n t h e r e c e i p t . Subsequently, however, Ancla took out the distrained truck from
Azarcon’s custody. For thisreason, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan
with the crime of malversation of public funds or property under Article 217 in
relation to Article 222 of the Revised PenalCode. Can Azarcon be considered a
public officer by reason of his being designated by theBIR as a depositary of distrained
property?
HELD:
Article 223 of the RPC defines a public officer as “any person
w h o , b y directp r o v i s i o n o f t h e l a w , popular election, or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance
of public functions in the Government of the PhilippineIslands, or shall perform in
said Government or in any of its branches public duties as anemployee, agent,
or subordinate official, of any rank or classes”. Azarcon obviously may notbe deemed
authorized by popular election. Neither can his designation by the BIR as
acustodian of distrained property qualifies as appointment by direct provision of law, or
byc o m p e t e n t a u t h o r i t y . W h i l e i t i s t r u e t h a t S e c . 2 0 6 o f t h e N I R C , a s
p o i n t e d o u t b y t h e prosecution, authorizes the BIR to effect a constructive distraint
by requiring “any person” topreserve a distrained property there is no provision in the
NIRC constituting such person a
public officer by reason of such requirement. The BIR’s power author
i z i n g a p r i v a t e individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the
power to appoint him asa public officer. The charge against Azarcon should forthwith be
dismissed.
Villegas VS. Subido 30 SCRA 498
FACTS:
Respondent –appelant Subido directed the Mayor of Manila, Villegas, to replace the
other petitioner police ,Barbers, Paralejas and Lazaro as station commanders of 3
precints in Manila.Respondent Commissioner would dispute their designation as such
on the ground of lack for each of them of "anInspector First Class (Police Detective
Major)" eligibility.
Petitioners prevailed, the lower court beingunable to locate any legal
provision to warrant such an exercise of power on the part of
respondentCommissioner
.
ISSUE:
WON the Respondent Commissioner of Civil Service has the capacity to act and power
of control overlocal officials ?

HELD:
SC said no. If the President himself exercises only ‘general supervision” as may be
provided by law overlocal officials, the Commissioner cannot be deemed to possess a
greater prerogative, being himself an agent orofficial of a lower category in the executive
branch.Nothing is better settled in the law than that a public official exercises power,
not rights. The government itself ismerely an agency through which the will of the state
is expressed and enforced. Its officers therefore are likewiseagents entrusted with the
responsibility of discharging its functions. As such there is no presumption that they
areempowered to act. There must be a delegation of such authority, either express or
implied. In the absence of a validgrant, they are devoid of power.
Smart Communications vs NTC G.R. No. 151908 12 August 2003
Facts: Petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corporationfiled against the National
Telecommunications Commission, an action for declaration ofnullity of NTC Memorandum
Circular No. 13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular). Petitionersallege that the NTC has no jurisdiction
to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as theprepaid call cards since such jurisdiction
belongs to the Department of Trade andIndustry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing
Circular isoppressive, confiscatory and violative of the constitutional prohibition
againstdeprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result
in theimpairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging thevalidity
and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the requirements ofidentification
of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable.Hence, they prayed that
the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio.Issue :WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the
caseHeld: Petitions are granted. The issuance by the NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-
2000 and its Memorandum dated October 6, 2000 was pursuant to its quasi-legislativeor rule-
making power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial powerof the Regional
Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and validity of the saidissuances.
What is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or
regulationissued by the administrative agency in the performance of its
quasi-legislativefunction, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon
the same.

Thedetermination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an

administrativeagency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the
jurisdiction of the regularcourts.
Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power todeclare a law, treaty,
international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order,instruction, ordinance, or regulation in
the courts, including the regional trial courts.
This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts todetermine
in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversiesinvolving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determinewhether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of anadministrative agency is

its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power.This is the power to hear and determine
questions of fact to which the legislativepolicy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the
standards laid down bythe law itself in enforcing and administering the same law.
The administrativebody exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs
in a judicial manneran act which is essentially of an executive or
administrative nature, where thepower to act in such manner is incidental
to or reasonably necessary for the

performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In

carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or
bodies arerequired to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts,
hold hearings,weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for
their officialaction and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.