Doctrine:

It is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it
by law and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof.

Facts:
Guerzon entered into a Service Station Lease with Basic Landold Energy Corporation which was later
acquired by Shell for the use and operation of the latter's properties, facilities and equipment. Guerzon
also entered into a Sales Contract with Shell for the sale of the latter's petroleum and other products.
Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) approved the Sales Contract and issued a certificate of authority in
Guerzon's favor whivch had a 5year period of validity.

Sometime later, Shell wrote to Guerzon informing him that the comapny was not renewing the Sales
Contract togerther with the service station lease. A copy of this letter was furnished respondent BEU,
through the latter's Mindanao Division Office. On the date of the contract's expiration, shell wrote
petitioner reiterating the decision not to extend the contract. In turn, BEU issued an order directing
Guerzon to vacate the station and turn it over to shell. SHELL then was able to secure possession of the
gasoline station together with the requisite equipments and accessories.

Guerzon then filed with the RTC complaint for certiorari, injunction and damages with preliminary
mandatory injunction against BEU but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to annul the order of a
quasi-judicial body. Guerzon then filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with a prayer for
preliminary mandatory injunction against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, F.C. Caasi, Jr. and the
Bureau of Energy Utilization. CA also dismissed the petition holding the order valid.

Issue:
whether or not it is within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Energy Utilization to issue the order against
Guerzon

Ruling:
No. The Bureau of Energy Utilization not being empowered to issue the order. In case of a violation or
non-compliance with any term or condition of any certificate, license or permit issued by the Bureau or
any of its orders, decisions, rules or regulations. The Bureau may only: (1) impose a fine not exceeding
P1,000.00; and (2) in case of failure to pay the fine imposed or to cease and discontinue the violation or
non-compliance, order the suspension, closure or stoppage of operations of the establishment of the
guilty party.

It is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it
by law and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. Viewed from any angle,
respondent F.C. Caasi, Jr., in issuing the assailed order, acted beyond his authority.

Assuming arguendo that it is withing the BEU's authority to issue the order, the same is still null and void
because of the failure to comply with the requirement of notice and hearing.

Notes:
Equipment included four (4) pieces of fuel dispensing Pumps and one (1) piece air compressor, for a
period of five (5) years from January 15,
1981 and ending on January 14, 1986

even if petitioner was indeed engaged in illegal trading in petroleum products, there was no basis under
B.P. Blg. 33 to order him to vacate the service station and to turn it over to respondent Shell. Illegal
trading in petroleum products is a criminal act wherein the injured party is the State. Respondent Shell is
not even alleged by the Solicitor General as a private party prejudiced and, therefore, it can claim no
relief if a criminal case is instituted.

While the order dated April 15, 1986 is null and void, the Court, however, finds itself unable to issue the
writ of mandatory injunction prayed for ordering respondent Shell to restore possession of the service
station and the equipment and facilities therein to petitioner. Petitioner himself had admitted in his
petition that his dealership and lease agreements with respondent Shell had already expired.
Recognized the validity of the termination of the agreements, he requested for their renewal. However,
this request was denied. [Rollo, p. 9] Undeniably, after April 12, 1986, any right petitioner had to possess
the service station and the equipment and facilities therein had been extinguished. No basis for an
affirmative relief therefore exist.