Case List: Administrative Law
ARATUC vs COMELEC
ILLUSTRATIVE FACTS:
Several representatives from Kunsensiya ng Bayan filed a petition for certiorari with
restraining order and preliminary injunction for the suspension of the canvass being
undertaken by respondent Board in Cotobato City and in which canvass, the returns in
1966 out of a total of 4107 voting centers in the whole region had already been
canvassed with partial results.
A supervening panel by the COMELEC had conducted of the complaints of the
petitioners for irregularities on various voting centers in Mindanao. They sought for
these to be removed for the count. From the initial count, only one member from the KB
won but from the other representative. It was then brought to the COMELEC for appeal.
COMELEC noted that they will be reviewing the voting records and getting statements
from persons coming from the actual voting precinct. After the recount, the votes were
in favor of the KBL. The petition cites that Comelec committed grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether or not Comelec has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: Yes, Comelec has jurisdiction over the case. According to the framers of the
constitution, election-related matters are raised to the Comelec for appeal. However,
this is not subject for review under the Supreme Court as it is deemed unappealable.
MACEDA vs ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD
FACTS:
Upon the outbreak of the Persian Gulf conflict on August 1990, private respondents oil
companies filed with the ERB their respective applications on oil price increases. ERB
then issued an order granting a provisional increase of P1.42 per liter. Petitioner
Maceda filed a petition for Prohibition seeking to nullify said increase.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the decisions of the Energy Regulatory Board should be subject
to presidential review.
HELD:
Pursuant to Section 8 of E.O. No. 172, while hearing is indispensable, it does not
preclude the Board from ordering a provisional increase subject to final disposition of
whether or not to make it permanent or to reduce or increase it further or to deny the
application. The provisional increase is akin to a temporary restraining order, which are
given ex-parte.
The Court further noted the Solicitor General’s comments that “the ERB is not averse to
the idea of a presidential review of its decision,” except that there is no law at present
authorizing the same. The Court suggested that it will be under the scope of the
legislative to allow the presidential review of the decisions of the ERB since, despite its
being a quasi-judicial body, it is still “ an administrative body under the Office of the
President whose decisions should be appealed to the President under the established
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies,” especially on a matter as
transcendental as oil price increases which affect the lives of almost all Filipinos.
US vs DORR
Facts:
Fred L. Dorr and a number of other persons (Dorr, et al.) were convicted of violating
Section 8 of Act No. 292 which punishes the utterance of "seditious words or speeches"
and the writing, publication, or circulation of "scurrilous libels against the Government of
the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" or other libels
against the same entities which (1) "tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in
executing his office", (2) "tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful
purposes", (3) "suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots", or (4) "tend to stir up
the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the
safety, and order of the Government". The same provision also punishes the deliberate
concealment of the aforementioned acts.
The charge against Dorr et al. stemmed from an article published in the newspaper
Manila Freedom criticizing the appointment by the Civil Commission of certain
persons— including Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera— to key government positions. The
said article referred to the aforementioned appointees as "rascals" and "corrupt" and
called certain government offices organized by the Civil Commission as "rotten" and
"corrupt".
Issue:
Whether or not the publication of the subject article falls within the purview of
Section 8 of Act No. 292.
Held:
No. The article in question produces none of the effects enumerated in Section 8 of Act
No. 292. In addition, the same provision refers to libel of the government in general, and
not of specific individuals.
Ratio Decidendi
N.B.: The Court did not provide any basis for finding that the subject article did not have
the tendency to produce the effects enumerated under Section 8 of Act No. 292, other
than all the justices agreed on the same conclusion.
As used in Act No. 292, the term "government" is used in the abstract sense of the
existing political system, as distinguished from the concrete organisms of the
Government, such as the Houses of Congress and the Executive, which are also
specially mentioned. Had the framers of the said law intended to mean specific
government personnel, they would have expressly stated so.
In this case, the article in question, attacked the Civil Commission and some of its
individual members, not the governmental system. Hence, it falls outside the purview of
Act No. 292.
MALAGA vs PENACHOS
FACTS: The Iloilo State College of Fisheries (ISCOF) through its Pre-qualifications,
Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) caused the publication in the November 25, 26
and 28, 1988 issues of the Western Visayas Daily an Invitation to Bid for the
construction of a Micro Laboratory Building at ISCOF. The notice announced that the
last day for the submission of pre-qualification requirements was on December 2, 1988,
and that the bids would be received and opened on December 12, 1988 at 3 o'clock in
the afternoon.
Petitioners Malaga and Najarro, doing business under the name of BE Construction and
Best Built Construction, respectively, submitted their pre-qualification documents at two
o'clock in the afternoon of December 2, 1988. Petitioner Occeana submitted his own
PRE-C1 on December 5, 1988. All three of them were not allowed to participate in the
bidding as their documents were considered late.
On December 12, 1988, the petitioners filed a complaint with the Iloilo RTC against the
officers of PBAC for their refusal without just cause to accept them resulting to their
non-inclusion in the list of pre-qualified bidders. They sought to the resetting of the
December 12, 1988 bidding and the acceptance of their documents. They also asked
that if the bidding had already been conducted, the defendants be directed not to award
the project pending resolution of their complaint.
On the same date, Judge Lebaquin issued a restraining order prohibiting PBAC from
conducting the bidding and award the project. The defendants filed a motion to lift the
restraining order on the ground that the court is prohibited from issuing such order,
preliminary injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction in government infrastructure
project under Sec. 1 of P.D. 1818. They also contended that the preliminary injunction
had become moot and academic as it was served after the bidding had been awarded
and closed.
On January 2, 1989, the trial court lifted the restraining order and denied the petition for
preliminary injunction. It declared that the building sought to be constructed at the
ISCOF was an infrastructure project of the government falling within the coverage of the
subject law.
ISSUE: Whether or not ISCOF is a government instrumentality subject to the
provisions of PD 1818?
RULING: The 1987 Administrative Code defines a government instrumentality as
follows:
Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within
the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed
with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying
operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory
agencies, chartered institutions, and government-owned or controlled corporations.
(Sec. 2 (5) Introductory Provisions).
The same Code describes a chartered institution thus:
Chartered institution - refers to any agency organized or operating under a special
charter, and vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or
objectives. This term includes the state universities and colleges, and the monetary
authority of the state. (Sec. 2 (12) Introductory Provisions).
It is clear from the above definitions that ISCOF is a chartered institution and is
therefore covered by P.D. 1818.
There are also indications in its charter that ISCOF is a government instrumentality.
First, it was created in pursuance of the integrated fisheries development policy of the
State, a priority program of the government to effect the socio-economic life of the
nation. Second, the Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines shall also be the ex-
officio Treasurer of the state college with its accounts and expenses to be audited by
the Commission on Audit or its duly authorized representative. Third, heads of bureaus
and offices of the National Government are authorized to loan or transfer to it, upon
request of the president of the state college, such apparatus, equipment, or supplies
and even the services of such employees as can be spared without serious detriment to
public service. Lastly, an additional amount of P1.5M had been appropriated out of the
funds of the National Treasury and it was also decreed in its charter that the funds and
maintenance of the state college would henceforth be included in the General
Appropriations Law.
Nevertheless, it does not automatically follow that ISCOF is covered by the prohibition
in the said decree as there are irregularities present surrounding the transaction that
justified the injunction issued as regards to the bidding and the award of the project
(citing the case of Datiles vs. Sucaldito).
United Resident of Dominican Hills vs Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems
FACTS: Dominican Hills, formerly registered as Diplomat Hills in Baguio City, was
mortgaged to the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). It was eventually foreclosed
and acquired later on by the said bank as the highest bidder. On 11 April 1983, through
its President Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., the subject property was donated to the Republic
of the Philippines. The deed of donation stipulated that Dominican Hills would be
utilized for the "priority programs, projects, activities in human settlements and
economic development and governmental purposes" of the Ministry of Human
Settlements.
On December 12, 1986, then President Corazon Aquino issued EO 85 abolishing the
Ministry of Human Settlements. All agencies under the its supervision as well as all its
assets, programs and projects, were transferred to the Presidential Management Staff
(PMS).
On 18 October 1988, United (Dominican Hills) submitted its application before the PMS
to acquire a portion of the Dominican Hills property. In a MOA, PMS and United agreed
that the latter may purchase a portion of the said property from HOME INSURANCE
GUARANTY CORPORATIO, acting as originator, on a selling price of P75.00 per
square meter.
Thus, on June 12, 1991, HIGC sold 2.48 hectares of the property to UNITED. The deed
of conditional sale provided that ten (10) per cent of the purchase price would be paid
upon signing, with the balance to be amortized within one year from its date of
execution. After UNITED made its final payment on January 31, 1992, HIGC executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 1, 1992.
Petitioner alleges that sometime in 1993, private respondents entered the Dominican
Hills property allocated to UNITED and constructed houses thereon. Petitioner was able
to secure a demolition order from the city mayor. Unable to stop the razing of their
houses, private respondents, under the name DOMINICAN HILL BAGUIO RESIDENTS
HOMELESS ASSOCIATION (ASSOCIATION, for brevity) filed an action for injunction
before RTC Baguio City. Private respondents were able to obtain a temporary
restraining order but their prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction was later denied.
The ASSOCIATION filed a separate civil case for damages, injunction and annulment of
the said MOA. It was later on dismissed upon motion of United. The said Order of
dismissal is currently on appeal with the Court of Appeals.
The demolition order was subsequently implemented by the Office of the City Mayor
and the City Engineer's Office of Baguio City. However, petitioner avers that private
respondents returned and reconstructed the demolished structures.
To forestall the re-implementation of the demolition order, private respondents filed a
petition for annulment of contracts with prayer for a temporary restraining order before
the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against petitioner,
HIGC, PMS, the City Engineer's Office, the City Mayor, as well as the Register of Deeds
of Baguio City. On the very same day, public respondent COSLAP issued the contested
order requiring the parties to maintain the status quo. Without filing a motion for
reconsideration from the aforesaid status quo order, petitioner filed the instant petition
questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP.
ISSUE: W/O COSLAP is empowered to hear and try a petition for annulment of
contracts with prayer for a TRO and to issue a status quo order and conduct a
hearing thereof?
RULING: COSLAP is not justified in assuming jurisdiction over the controversy. It
discharges quasi-judicial functions:
"Quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc. of public
administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."
However, it does not depart from its basic nature as an administrative agency, albeit
one that exercises quasi-judicial functions. Still, administrative agencies are not
considered courts; they are neither part of the judicial system nor are they deemed
judicial tribunals. The doctrine of separation of powers observed in our system of
government reposes the three (3) great powers into its three (3) branches — the
legislative, the executive, and the judiciary — each department being co-equal and
coordinate, and supreme in its own sphere. Accordingly, the executive department may
not, by its own fiat, impose the judgment of one of its own agencies, upon the judiciary.
Indeed, under the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is empowered "to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
