USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
ADMINIS STRATIVE LAW
GeneralPrin G nciples BUSTONERA,C B C. HON.EX
XECUTIVESECRETARY,HO ON.SECRETA ARYOFTHED DEPARTMENT TOFTRANSP
PORTATIONA AND COMMUNICA ATIONS(DOT TC),COMMISS SIONEROFCU
USTOMS,ASSI ISTANTSECR RETARY,LANDTRANSPOR RTATION OFFICE(LTO
O),COLLECTO OROFCUSTO OMS,SUBICBAYFREEPOR RTZONE,AND
DCHIEFOFLTO,SUBICBA AYFREE PORTZON NE,Petitioner rs,vs.SOUTH
HWINGHEAVY YINDUSTRIE ES,INC.,repre esentedbyits sPresidentJO OSET.
DIZON,UN NITEDAUCTI IONEERS,INC C.,represente edbyitsPresidentDOMIN
NICSYTIN,andMICROVAN N,INC., re epresentedby yitsPresiden ntMARIANO
C.SONON,Re espondents. G.R R.No.164171Februa ary20,2006 To T be
valid, an administrat n tive issuance, s such as an ex xecutive
order,, must comply with the foll y lowing requisi ites:(1) Its
promulgation must be auth p horized by the legislature;( It must be
promulgated in accordan with the p e (2) e d nce prescribed
procedure;(3)Itmustbewithinthescopeoftheauthori ygivenbythe p t it
elegislature;a and(4)Itmust tbereasonable e. Three separat actions
were filed by respondent business org T te w ganizations a against
petitioners questio oning the constitutionali c ityofArticle2
2,Section3.1o ofExecutiveO Order(EO)156whichimpo osesabanont
theimportatio onofused motorvehicles m sanywherein
nthecountry,includingthosemadeinsid detheFreepor rtZones.Thet
trialcourtrule edintheir favor and dec f clared EO 156 repugnant to
the Constitu 6 ution. The ap ppellate court sustained the findings
of the lower e court.Henceth c hispetition. ISSUE: WhetherArtic W
cle2,Section3 3.1ofEO156i isvalid? HELD: H PETITIONSAR P
REPARTIALLY YGRANTED. Thesubjectm T matterofthela awsauthorizin
ngthePresidenttoregulat teorforbidim mportationof usedmotorv
vehicles,is the t domestic i industry. EO 156, however exceeded th
scope of its application by extending the prohibiti on the r, he s
ion importationof fusedcarstotheFreeport,whichRA722 27,considerst
tosomeexten nt,aforeignterritory. The T proscripti in the imp ion
portation of u used motor ve ehicles should be operativ only outsid
the Freepor and the d ve de rt inclusion of sa zone with the ambit
of the prohib aid hin bition is an in nvalid modific cation of RA 7
7227. Indeed, when the applicationof anadministra a ativeissuance
emodifiesexis stinglawsor exceedsthein ntendedscope e,asintheins
stantcase, theissuancebecomesvoid,notonlyforbeingultravire t
es,butalsofor rbeingunreas sonable. Aslongasthe A eusedmotorv
vehiclesdono otenterthecu ustomsterrito ory,theinjury yorharmsou
ughttobepre eventedor remediedwill notarise.To applythepro r
oscriptiontot theFreeportw wouldnotser rvethepurposeoftheEO.
Insteadof improvingthe egeneralecon nomyoftheco ountry,theap
pplicationofth heimportationbanintheF Freeportwoul ldsubvert the t
avowed purpose of RA 7227 which is to create a market that would
draw investors an ultimately boost the A a t w nd nationalecono n
omy. oOo Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
1|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
LUPOL.LUPANGCO,RA AYMONDS.M MANGKAL,NO ORMANA.ME ESINA,ALEXA
ANDERR.REG GUYAL,JOCEL LYNP. G,ENRICOV.R REGALADO,JE EROMEO.AR
RCEGA,ERNES STOC.BLAS,J JR.,ELPEDIO M.ALMAZAN N,KARL CATAPANG
CAESARR.RIMANDO,peti C itioner,vs.CO OURTOFAPP PEALSand ONALREGULA
ATIONCOMM MISSION,respo ondent. PROFESSIO G. .R.No.77372 Apr
ril29,1988
It I is an axiom in administra ative law that administrativ
authorities should not a arbitrarily and capriciou in the t ve s
act usly is ssuanceofrul lesandregula ations.Tobev valid,suchrule
esandregulationsmustbe reasonablean ndfairlyadap ptedtothe
endinview.Ifs e showntobear rnoreasonabl lerelationtot
thepurposesfo forwhichtheyareauthorize edtobeissued, d,thenthey
mustbeheldto m obeinvalid. Professional R P Regulation Co ommission
(P PRC) issued R Resolution No 105 as par of its "Add o. rt
ditional Instru uctions to Examiness," to all those ap E o pplying
for ad dmission to ta the licens ake sure examinat tions in accou
untancy. The r resolution prohibits exam p minees from attending re
eview classes, lectures or conferences of similar na , ature,
includi ing taking reviewers, notes or any re r eview materia of
any kind three days prior to the examination day. Violators will be
al sanctionedacc s cordingtoSec c.8,Art.IIIoft
theRulesandRegulationso oftheCommission. Petitionerrevieweesfileda
P acomplaintfo orinjunction, beforetheRe egionalTrialC Court(RTC)o
ofManila,with haprayer withtheissuan w nceofawrito ofapreliminar
ryinjunctiona againstrespon ndentPRCtorestrainthela atterfromenf
forcingthe abovemention a nedresolution nandtodecla arethesameu
unconstitution nal. PRCmovedto P odismissthec caseonthegr
roundoflack ofjurisdictio on,butwasde enied.Howeve er,theCourto
ofappeals (CA)reversedtheRTCandg ( grantedthesa
ame.Hencethispetition. ISSUE(s): 1. Canth heRTCreview wtheresolutio
onsofthePRCdespitethest tatusofbeingcoequalbodies? 2. IsRes
solution105v validandreaso onable? HELD: H PetitionisGRA P ANTED.
RTCHasJuris R sdiction Contrarytoth C hepositionof theCA,thePR
RC,asdirected dunderPresi identialDecre eeNo.223isa
attachedtotheOfficeof thePresidentf t forgeneraldir rectionandco
oordination.W Wellsettledinourjurisprud
denceistheviewthatevenactsofthe OfficeofthePr O
residentmaybereviewedb bythetheReg gionalTrialCo ourt.Asexplai
inedinMedall lavsSayo,beingsubject tojudicialrevi t iewdoesnotm
maketheExec cutiveinferior rtothecourts s,butbecause ethelawisab
bovetheChief Executive f himself,andth h hecourtsseek konlytointerp
pret,applyorimplementit. . As A a general r rule, the CA exercises
exclusive appella jurisdiction over all fina judgments, decisions,
re e ate n al , esolutions, orders,orawa o ardsofquasijudicialagenc
cies,suchast thePRC.Howe ever,thereha astobeafina alorderorrul
lingwhich resultedfrom proceedingsw r whereinthea administrative
ebodyinvolve edexercisedi itsquasijudic cialfunctions. Thisdoes not
n cover rule and regulat es tions of gener applicabili issued by
the administrative body to implement its purely ral ity
administrative a epoliciesandfunctionslike eResolutionN
No.105whichwasadoptedbytherespon ndentPRCasa ameasure
topreservetheintegrityofl t licensureexam minations. Validityofthe
V eResolutionAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
2|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
Itisanaxiom inadministra ativelawthat tadministrativ veauthorities
sshouldnota actarbitrarily andcapriciou uslyinthe lesandregula
ations.Tobev valid,suchrulesandregulat tionsmustbe
ereasonableandfairlyadap ptedtothe issuanceofrul endinview.If e
fshowntobea arnoreasona ablerelationto othepurpose esforwhichth
heyareauthorizedtobeiss sued,then theymustbeh t heldtobeinva alid.
Resolution No 105 is not only unreasonable and a R o. arbitrary, it
a also infringes on the exam minees' right to liberty guaranteedby
g ytheConstitution.Respond dentPRChasn noauthorityt todictateont
thereviewees sastohowth heyshould preparethems p
selvesforthelicensureexaminations.Th heycannotberestrainedfro
omtakingallt thelawfulstepsneeded toassurethef t fulfillmentof
theirambitiontobecome publicaccoun ntants.Theyh haveeveryrig
ghttomakeus seoftheir faculties in att f taining success in their
en ndeavors. The should be a ey allowed to en njoy their free edom
to acqu uire useful knowledgetha k atwillpromot tetheirperson
nalgrowth. oOo BIAKNABAT B TOMININGCO OMPANY,pet
titioner,vs.HON.ARTURO OR.TANCO,JR.,inhiscap pacityastheS Secretary
ofAgriculture o eandNaturalResourcesa andBALATOC CLUBUAGAN
NMINES,INC., ,respondents s. G.R.Nos.L3426768 8 January25,19 J
991
Under the prin U nciples of adm ministrative law in force in
this jurisdictio decisions o administrat w on, of tive officers sh
not be hall disturbedbyth d hecourts,exce eptwhenthefo formerhaveac
ctedwithouto orinexcessof theirjurisdicti ion,orwithgr raveabuse
ofdiscretion.F o Findingsofad dministrativeo officialsandag
gencieswhoh haveacquired expertisebeca ausetheirjuri isdictionis
confined to sp c pecific matters are general accorded n only respe
but at tim even final s lly not ect mes lity if such fin ndings are
supported by substantial ev s vidence and a controlling on the revi
are g iewing author rities because of their ackn nowledged
expertiseinthe e efieldsofspec cializationtow whichtheyareassigned.
PetitionerBiak P kNaBatoMin ningCo.filedw withtheBure eauofMines(
(BM)theappli icationforlea aseandapetit tionforan orderoflease
surveyofits miningclaims o s.However,it treceivedano oticeofthelet
tteroftheDir rectorofMine esrefusing toissuetheor t
rderofleasesurveybecause etheareasco overedbytheminingclaims
swerealleged dlyinconflict withfour (4) ( other grou of mining
claims purp ups g portedly own by private respondent BalatocLub ned
e ts buagan Mines Inc. and s, MountainMines,Inc. M Inlieuofthis,
petitionercon ntestsanddis sputestherigh htofBalatocL LubuaganMin
nes,Inc.toele even(11)miningclaims and the right of Mountain Mines,
Inc. to another nine (9) minin claims. It also questio a n ng oned
the reco onstitution proceedingsin p nMACCases Nos.V79and
dV80byclai imingthatthe etwo(2)deedsofsaleove erthe88lode eclaimsin
favorofMountainMines,In f nc.andtheoth hertwo(2)de eedsofsaleov
ver52lodecla aimsofBalato ocLubuaganM Mines,Inc.
werefake,fictitiousormanu w ufactured.Fin nally,whileits
sprotestwasb beingheard,it tfiledwiththeBMamotion nclaiming
thatBalatocLubuaganMine t es,Inc.andM MountainMine es,Inc.'smen
hadenteredt theareainco ontroversyby forceand have been mo h
olesting, haras ssing and thr reatening peti itioner's supp posed
worker in the area The Bureau of Mines rs a. u issueda restra
ainingorderd directingbothpartiestodes sistfromperf forminganyfu
urthermining gactivitiesint theareain controversy. c TheBMordere T
edanocularin nspectionoft theplace.Ittu urnedoutthat tpetitionersc
claimofharass smentisfalseandlifted therestraining t gorder.
Bytheendof theyear,the DirectorofMinesruledaga B ainstthepetit
tioneranddec claredthatpr rivaterespond dentshave better rights t
the 170 mining claims. O appeal to the Secretary of Agricultur and
Natura Resources, petitioner b to On y re al questioned the
validity of the first ocula inspection. The secretar granted its
motion and o q t ar ry ordered anoth ocular her inspection.Ho
owever,these econdinspecti ionteamconf firmedtherep portofthefirs
stinspectiont teamandalso oreported thatBiakNaB t BatoMiningCo
ompanydespi iteopportunit tyaffordedwa asnotabletos showitsexact
tlocationinth hearea. Alcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
3|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
TheSecretary gaveitsdecis T sionadverset topetitioners
statingthat:B BiakNaBatoM MiningCompa anysminingc claimsare
tablelocated ,therefore,nu ullandvoid,a andthatithad
dnolegalpersonalitytofiletheprotestin ntheBureauo ofMines.
Hencethispet H tition. ISSUE: Arethefinding A
goffactsmadebytheSecre etaryandtheD DirectorofMi inessubjectto
ojudicialrevie ew? HELD: H Petitionishere P ebyDISMISSE ED.
Undertheprin U nciplesofadm ministrativelaw winforceint
thisjurisdictio on,decisionso ofadministrat tiveofficerssh
hallnotbe disturbedbyt d thecourts,exc ceptwhenthe eformerhave
eactedwithoutorinexces ssoftheirjurisdiction,orw withgrave abuse of
discr a retion. Findin of admini ngs istrative offici ials and agen
ncies who hav acquired e ve expertise beca ause their ju
urisdictionis confinedtos specificmattersaregenera allyaccorded
notonlyresp pectbutattim mesevenfinalityifsuch findings are s f
supported by substantial e evidence and are controllin on the rev
ng viewing autho orities becaus of their se acknowledged a
dexpertisein thefieldsofspecializationt towhichthey
yareassigned.Eventhecou urtsofjustice, ,including thisCourt,are t
eboundbysu uchfindingsin ntheabsence ofaclearsho owingofagra
aveabuseofd discretion,wh hichisnot presentinthis p scaseatbar. oOo
EUR ROMEDLABORATORIES, PHIL.,INC.,r representedb byLEONARDO
OH.TORIBIO O,petitioner, vs.THEPROV v VINCEOFBAT TANGAS,repr
resentedbyi itsGovernor,HON.HERMI ILANDOI.MA ANDANAS,res spondent.
G.R.No.1481 106July17,2006 Thedoctrineof T ofprimaryjuri
isdictionholds sthatifacase eissuchthati itsdeterminat
tionrequirest theexpertise,s specialized trainingandk t
knowledgeofa anadministrativebody,reli iefmustfirstb beobtainedin
nanadministr rativeproceed dingbefore resort to the c r courts is
had even if the ma e atter may wel be within th proper
jurisdiction. It a ll heir applies where a claim is originally cogn
o nizable in the courts and co omes into play whenever e ay
enforcement of the claim re f equires the res solution of is
ssueswhich,u underaregulatoryscheme,h havebeenplac
cedwithinthespecialcompe etenceofanadministrativeagency.In
suchacase,th s hecourtinwh hichtheclaim issoughttob
beenforcedmaysuspendth hejudicialpro ocesspending referralof
suchissuestot s theadministra ativebodyforitsviewor,if thepartieswo
ouldnotbeunf nfairlydisadva antaged,dismis ssthecase withoutprejud
w dice Petitioner Eur P roMed Labs filed a compla f aint for sum o
money aga of ainst responde Province of Batangas. The latter ent
purchasedvar p riousIntraven nousFluids(IV VF)productsf
fromtheforme er,withanun npaidbalanceo ofP487,662.8 80.
Duringthetria D alandafterthepetitionerspresentationofevidence,r
respondentfile edamotionto odismissontheground
oflackofjurisdictionofthecourt.Itappe o earedthatpeti itionersmone
eyclaimmust tbelodgedbef foretheComm missionon Audit (COA). In
addition, the series of procurement transactions with the pr A t t
s rovince, was governed by the Local Government C G Code provisio
ons and COA rules and regulations on supply and property management
in local A t governments. The RTC fou the petitio meritoriou and
grante the dismiss of the cas Petitioners MR was g und on us ed sal
se. subsequentlyd s denied,hence ethepetition. ISSUE:
Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
4 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
DoestheCOAh D havejurisdict tionoverthem moneyclaim? HELD: H
Petitionishere P ebyDENIED. Althoughthea A amountofmo oneyclaimfal
llswithinthe jurisdictiono oftheRTCitis sclearwithin nSec26ofthe
eAuditing CodeofthePh C hilippinesthat t:Theauthori ityandpower
rsoftheComm mission[onAu udit]shallexte endtoandcom mprehend
allmattersrel a latingtoxxx xxtheexamin nation,audit, andsettlemen
ntofalldebts sandclaimso ofanysortdu uefromor owingtotheG o
Governmentor ranyofitssub bdivisions,age encies,andinstrumentalitie
es. Thescopeofth T heCOAsauth horitytotake cognizanceof
fclaimsiscirc cumscribed,ho owever,byan nunbrokenlin neofcases
holdingstatutesofsimilari h importtomea anonlyliquid datedclaims,o
orthosedeter rminedorrea adilydetermin nablefrom vouchers, invo v
oices, and such other papers within re each of accou unting
officers Petitioners claim was fo a fixed s. or amount andalthough
respo a ondenttook is ssue withthe eaccuracyof p petitioners su
ummation of itsaccountab bilities, the amountthereo a ofwasreadily
ydeterminablefromthereceipts,invoice esandotherd
documents.Thus,theclaim mwaswell withintheCOA w Asjurisdiction
nundertheGovernmentAu uditingCodeo ofthePhilippines. Futhermore,p F
petitionersmo oneyclaimwa asfoundedon naseriesofp purchasesfort
themedicalsuppliesofres spondents publichospitals.Bothpartie p
esagreedthat tthesetransac ctionswerego overnedbyth heLocalGover
rnmentCodep provisions onsupplyandpropertyman o nagementand
dtheirimplem mentingrulesa andregulation nspromulgate edbytheCOA
Apursuant toSection383 t 3ofsaidCode.Petitioners claimtherefor
reinvolvedco ompliancewit thapplicable auditinglawsandrules
onprocurement. o Thecourtmay T yraisetheissu ueofprimary
yjurisdictions suasponteand ditsinvocatio oncannotbew waivedbythe
efailureof thepartiesto argueitasthedoctrineexi t
istsfortheproperdistribut tionofpower rbetweenjudi icialandadmi
inistrative bodiesandnot b tfortheconve enienceofthe eparties. oOo
LOUIS"BA AROK"C.BIRA AOGO,Petitio oner,vs.THE EPHILIPPINE ETRUTHCOM
MMISSIONOF 2010,Respon ndent. G.R R.No.192935Decem mber7,2010
Itshouldbestr I ressedthatthe epurposeofa allowingadho
ocinvestigatin ngbodiestoex xististoallow waninquiryintomatters
whichthePres w sidentisentitl ledtoknowso othathecan
beproperlyadvisedandgu uidedinthepe erformanceof fhisduties
relativetothe executionand r denforcement tofthelawso oftheland.Th
herebeingno changesinthe egovernment tstructure, theCourtisno t
otinclinedtod declaresuchex xecutivepowe erasnonexist tentjustbecau
usethedirectio onofthepolit ticalwinds havechanged. h This is a pro
T oduct of two consolidated cases quest d tioning the co
onstitutionality of the defunct Philippine Truth Commission ( C
(PTC). In his first official a as Preside Mr.Aquino signed
Executive Order No. 1 which created a act ent, special body to
investigat reported c s te cases of graf and corrup ft ption
alleged committed during the previous dly d administration a n.
ISSUE(S): denthavethe epowertocre eatethePhilip ppineTruthCo
ommissionby yvirtueofSec c31ofthe 1. DoesthePresid nistrative Cod
which gran him the p de, nts power to reo organize his office? Is
the a valid ere Revised Admin elegationofpowerfromCo
ongress,empoweringthePr residenttocre eateapublico office?
deAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
5|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 2. Did
the Execut tive Branch tr ransgressed t budgeting powers of th
Legislative by the creat the he e tion of the TC? PT 3.
DoesthePresid denthavethepowertocrea ateAdHocInv
vestigatingCommittees? sthecreationofthePTCvio olativeofthee
equalprotectio onclause? 4. Is HELD: H PetitionsareG P GRANTED.
Creationofth C hePTC Section31con S ntemplates"re
eorganization"aslimitedby ythefollowin ngfunctionala
andstructurallines:(1)rest tructuring theinternalor t
rganizationoftheOfficeoft f thePresidentProperbyabolishing,cons
solidatingorm mergingunitsthereofor transferringfu t
unctionsfromoneunittoanother;(2)transferringany yfunctionund
dertheOfficeofthePresidenttoany otherDepartm o ment/Agencyo
orviceversa;or(3)transfe erringanyage encyundertheOfficeofthe
ePresidentto anyother Department/A D Agencyorvice eversa.Clearl
ly,theprovisi ionreferstor reductionofp personnel,con nsolidationof
offices,or abolition there by reason of economy or redundan of
function These poin to situation where a body or an a eof n ncy ns.
nt ns office is already existent but a modifica o b ation or alter
ration thereof has to be effected. The c f creation of an office is
n nowherement n tioned,muchl lessenvisione edinsaidprov vision. T
TheOSGsreli iancetoP.D.1 1416,asamen ndedbyP.D.N No.1772ismi
isplaced.The saidlawgave ethenPreside entMarcos thepowertor t
reorganizethe eadministrativestructureo ofthenational
lgovernmentincludingthe epowertocreateoffices and a transfer a
appropriations pursuant to an impendin transition o governmen to a
parliam s o ng of nt mentary form. Such law . wasrepealedb w
bythe1987Constitution. NoTransgres N ssionofBudge
etingPowersoftheLegisla ative
OnthechargethatExecutiveOrderNo.1transgressesthepowerofCongresstoappropriatefundsfortheop
O perationof apublicoffice, a ,sufficeittosaythattherew willbenoapp
propriationbu utonlyanallot tmentoralloc cationsofexistingfunds
already appro a opriated. Accordingly, there is no usurpa e ation
on the p part of the Ex xecutive of the power of Co e ongress to
appropriate fu a unds. Further there is no need to specify the
amount to be e r, o earmarked for the operati r ion of the
commissionbe c ecause,inthewordsoftheSolicitorGene eral,"whateve
erfundstheCo ongresshaspr rovidedforth heOfficeof the t President
will be the very source of the funds for the commis f ssion."
Moreov since the amount that would be ver, allocatedtoth a
hePTCshallbe esubjecttoex xistingauditingrulesandre egulations,the
ereisnoimpro oprietyinthefunding. PoweroftheP P Presidenttoc
createAdHoc cinvestigating gCommittee Indeed, the Ex xecutive is
giv much leeway in ensur ven ring that our l laws are faith hfully
execute As stated a ed. above, the powers of the President ar not
limited to those spe p e re d ecific powers under the Co
onstitution.53 One of the r recognized powers of the President
granted pursu p e uant to this co onstitutionally ymandated d duty
is the power to crea ad hoc ate committees.T c Thisflowsfrom
mtheobvious sneedtoascertainfactsanddeterminei iflawshaveb
beenfaithfully yexecuted. Thus, in Department of Hea v. Campos T
alth sano, the auth hority of the President to issue Adminis
strative Order No. 298, r creating an in c nvestigative committee
to look into th administrative charges filed against the employe of
the c he ees Departmentof D fHealthforth heanomalouspurchaseofm
medicineswasupheld.Insai idcase,itwasruled: The Chief Executives
pow to create the Ad hoc Investigatin Committee cannot be doubted.
Hav T wer e c ng e ving been constitutionall c lygrantedfull
lcontrolofth heExecutiveD Department,to owhichrespo
ondentsbelong,thePreside enthasthe obligationtoe o
ensurethatallexecutiveoffi icialsandemp ployeesfaithfu ullycomplyw
withthelaw.W WithAO298as smandate, thelegalityoftheinvestigat t
tionissustained.Suchvalid dityisnotaffec ctedbythefac ctthattheinv
vestigatingtea amandtheAlcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
6 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PCAGC
had th same comp P he position, or th the former used the of hat r
ffices and facilities of the la atter in condu ucting the inquiry
stressed that the purpose o allowing ad hoc investig of gating
bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into s o It should be s
matterswhich m hthePresiden ntisentitledto oknowsotha athecanbep
properlyadvisedandguided dintheperformanceof hisdutiesrelat h
tivetotheexe ecutionanden nforcementof fthelawsofth heland.There
ebeingnochangesinthego overnment structure,the Courtisnoti s
inclinedtodeclaresuchexe ecutivepower rasnonexist tentjustbecau
usethedirect tionofthe politicalwinds p shavechanged. Violationofth
V heEqualProt tectionClause e A Althoughthe purposeofth heTruthComm
missionfallsw withintheinv vestigativepow werofthePresident,theC
Courtfinds difficultyinup d pholdingthec constitutionali
ityofExecutiv veOrderNo.1 1inviewofits sapparenttra ansgressionof
ftheequal protectionclau p useenshrined dinSection1,ArticleIII(Bil
llofRights)of fthe1987Con nstitution. The T clear man ndate of the
envisioned tr ruth commiss sion is to inv vestigate and find out
the truth "conce erning the reportedcases r sofgraftandcorruptiondu
uringtheprev viousadminist trationonly. Theintentto singleoutthe
eprevious administration a nisplain,pate entandmanif fest.Mention
ofithasbeen nmadeinatle eastthreepor rtionsoftheq questioned
executiveorde e er. Inthisregard,itmustbeborneinmindth hattheArroyo
oadministrati ionisbutjustamemberofa aclass,thatis s,aclassof past
administr p rations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include
past administr n f t rations similar situated c rly constitutes
arbitrariness which the equal protect a e tion clause c cannot
sancti ion. Such discriminating differentiatio clearly on
reverberatest r tolabelthecom mmissionasa avehicleforvi
indictivenessandselectiveretribution. oOo BRILLANTES,C. B MANILA
INTERNATIO ONALAIRPOR RTAUTHORIT MIAA),pe TY( etitioner,vs.CO
OURTOFAPP PEALS,respon ndent. G.R.No.155650 G July20,2006 MIAA is a
gove M ernment instr rumentality ve ested with corp porate powers
to perform e s efficiently its g governmental functions.
MIAAislikean M nyothergovern nmentinstrum mentality,theo
onlydifference eisthatMIAAisvestedwithcorporatepow wers. Petitioner
Man International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy A P
nila s Aquino Intern national Airpo (NAIA) ort Complex in Pa C
araaque City under Execu y utive Order No 903, otherw o. wise known
a the Revised Charter of t Manila as d the International Airport
Autho ority (MIAA Charter). E Executive Order No. 903 w issued on
21 July 1983 by then was n PresidentFerd P dinandE.Marcos.Subseque
ently,Executiv veOrderNos.909and298a amendedtheM MIAACharter r.
Asoperatorof A ftheinternat tionalairport, MIAAadministerstheland
d,improveme entsandequip pmentwithin ntheNAIA Complex. The MIAA
Chart transferred to MIAA ap C e ter d pproximately 600 hectares of
land, inclu uding the run nways and buildings (Air b rport Lands
and Buildings) then under the Bureau of Air Transp a r portation.
The MIAA Chart further e ter providesthat noportionof thelandtran p
f nsferredtoMI IAAshallbed disposedofthr roughsaleor anyothermo
odeunless specificallyapprovedbythe s ePresidentofthePhilippine es.
On21March1 O 1997,theOffic ceoftheGovernmentCorpo
orateCounsel(OGCC)issuedOpinionNo. .061.TheOGCCopined
thattheLocalGovernmentC t Codeof1991withdrewthe eexemptionfr
romrealestat tetaxgranted dtoMIAAund derSection
Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
7|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
21oftheMIAA 2 ACharter.Th hus,MIAAnego otiatedwithr respondentCit
tyofParaaquetopaythe realestatetax ximposed bytheCity.MIAAthenpaid
b dsomeofther realestatetaxalreadydue. On O 28 June 20 001, MIAA
received Final N Notices of Re Estate Tax Delinquency from the Cit
of Paraaqu for the eal x y ty ue taxableyears1 t 1992to2001. .
TheCityofPar T raaque,throu ughitsCityTr reasurer,issue
ednoticesofl levyandwarrantsoflevyon ntheAirportLandsand
Buildings.TheMayorofth B heCityofPara aaquethreat tenedtosella
atpublicauct tiontheAirpo ortLandsandBuildings shouldMIAAf s
failtopaytherealestatetax xdelinquency.MIAAthusso
oughtaclarificationofOGCCOpinionNo. .061. OGCCissuedO O
OpinionNo.14 47clarifying OGCCOpinion nNo.061.Th heOGCCpoint
tedoutthatS Section206of ftheLocal GovernmentC G Coderequires
personsexem mptfromreal estatetaxto showproofo ofexemption.
TheOGCCop pinedthat Section21oft S theMIAAChar
rteristheproofthatMIAAi isexemptfrom mrealestatet tax. MIAAfiledwit
M ththeCourto ofAppealsan originalpetit tionforprohib
bitionandinjunction,with prayerforpr reliminary injunctionort
temporaryres strainingorde er.Thepetitio onsoughttor restraintheC
CityofParaaq quefromimp posingreal estatetaxon,l e levyingagains
st,andauction ningforpublicsaletheAirp portLandsan ndBuildings.B
Butthecourt dismissed thepetitionbe t ecauseMIAA
fileditbeyondthe60day reglementary yperiod.Mean
nwhile,theCityofParaaq queposted andpublishednoticesofauc a
ctionsale. A A day before t public auc the ction, or on 6 February
20 6 003, at 5:10 p.m., MIAA file before SC a Urgent Ex ed an Parte
and ReiteratoryMo R otionfortheI IssuanceofaT TemporaryRe
estrainingOrd der.Courtorderedrespondentstoceaseanddesist
fromsellingat f tpublicauctio ontheAirportLandsandB Buildings.Res
spondentsrec ceivedtheTROonthesamedaythat theCourtissuedit.Howev t
ver,responden ntsreceivedth heTROonlya at1:25p.m.orthreehours
safterthecon nclusionof thepublicauct t tion. ISSUE: WhethertheA W
AirportLandsandBuildings sofMIAAaree exemptfromr realestatetax
xunderexistin nglaws. HELD: H Petition is GR P RANTED. MIA AAs
Airport Lands and B Buildings are exempt from real estate tax
imposed by local m d governments. g MIAAisnota governmentownedorcon
M ntrolledcorpo orationbutan ninstrumenta alityoftheNa
ationalGovern nmentand thus exempt f t from local tax xation. A
gove ernmentowne or controll corporatio must be o ed led on
organized as a stock or a nonstockcorp n poration.MIA AAisnotorga
anizedasastockornonst tockcorporati ion.MIAAisn notastockco
orporation because it ha no capital stock divided into shares MIAA
has no stockhold b as d s. ders or voting shares. Sec 3 of the g c
CorporationCodedefinesastockcorporationasonew C whosecapita
alstockisdivi idedintoshar resandxxxa authorized todistributeto t
otheholders ofsuchshare esdividendsx xxx.MIAAha ascapitalbut
itisnotdivid dedintoshare esofstock. MIAA has no stockholders or
voting sha M ares. Hence, M MIAA is not a stock corpor a ration.
MIAA is also not a nonstock corporationbe c ecauseithas nomembers.
Anonstockc corporationis sonewhere nopartofits incomeisdis
stributable asdividendst a toitsmember rs,trusteesor rofficers.An
nonstockcorporationmus sthavememb bers.Evenifw weassume that the
Gover t rnment is con nsidered as th sole memb of MIAA, t he ber
this will not m make MIAA a nonstock corporation. Nonstock cor N
rporations can nnot distribut any part of their income to their me
te embers. Sec 1 of the MIA Charter 11 AA mandatesMIA m AAtoremit20
0%ofitsannualgrossopera atingincomet totheNationa alTreasury.Th
hispreventsM MIAAfrom qualifyingasa q anonstockcorporation. MIAA is
a go M overnment in nstrumentality vested with corporate p y h
powers to pe erform efficie ently its gove ernmental functions. MI
f IAA is like an other government inst ny trumentality, the only
diffe erence is tha MIAA is ve at ested with corporatepow c
wers.Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
8 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts When
the law vests in a government i W w g instrumentalit corporate
powers, the instrumentali does not become a ty ity corporation. U c
Unless the gov vernment inst trumentality i organized a a stock or
nonstock co is as orporation, it remains a governmentin g
nstrumentality yexercisingn notonlygover rnmentalbuta alsocorporate
epowers.Th hus,MIAAexe ercisesthe governmentalpowersofem g
minentdomain n,policeautho orityandthele
evyingoffeesandcharges.Atthesameti ime,MIAA exercises allt powers
of acorporatio under the CorporationL e the on Law, insofara
asthese powe ersare not inc consistent with the provisions of th
Executive Order. Like w his ewise, when the law ma akes a gover
rnment instru umentality operationally autonomous, the instrume o
entality remains part of th National G he Government m machinery
alth hough not integrated wit the depart th tment framew work. The
M MIAA Charter expressly sta ates that tran nsforming MIAA into a
separateandautonomousb bodywillma akeitsoperatio
onmorefinanciallyviable. . There is also n reason for local govern
T no r nments to tax national gove ernment instr rumentalities for
rendering essential g publicservices p stoinhabitan ntsoflocalgov
vernments.Th heonlyexceptioniswhent thelegislature eclearlyinten
ndedtotax government i g instrumentalit ties for the delivery of
essential pub blic services for sound a and compelli ing policy
considerations There mu be expre language in the law e c s. ust ess
empowering local governments to tax national x governmentin g
nstrumentaliti ies.Anydoub btwhethersuc chpowerexis
stsisresolvedagainstlocalgovernments. . The T AirportLa andsandBuil
ldings of MIA arepropert of publicd AA ty dominion unde the Civil
Co er ode, like roads, canals, rivers,torrent r ts,portsandri
idgesconstruc ctedbytheSta ate,areowne edbytheState e.Thetermp
poetsincludesseaports andairports.A a Aspropertieso ofpublicdom
minion,theAirp portLandsan ndBuildingsar reoutsidethecommerceof
fman. MIAA is gover M rnment instru umentality ves sted with corp
porate power the fact tha it collects t rs, at terminal fees and
other chargesisofn c nomoment,it doesnotrem movethechara
acteroftheai irportlandsa andbuildingst toproperties forpublic
use.Therefore u e,theyarepub blicdominionoutsidetheco ommerceofm
man.MIAAisnotsubjecttor realpropertyt taxes. oOo GOVER RNMENTSERV
VICEINSURA ANCESYSTEM M(GSIS)vs.CITYTREASUR REROFTHEC CITYOFMANI
ILA Decem G.R.No.186242 mber23,2009 9 GSISisaninstr G rumentalityof
ftheNationalGovernmentn notaGOCC.AG GOCCshouldb beacorporatio
on.Itshouldh havestocks dividedintoshares.GSIScap d pitalisnotdivi
idedintounits shared.Also,it thasnomemb berstospeako of.
PetitionerGSISownsoruse P edtoowntwo oparcelsofla and,oneisthe
eKatibakprop perty,andthe eothertheCo oncepsion Arroceros pro A
operty. Title to the ConcepsionArrocero property w transferre to
the Sup os was ed preme Court in in 2005 pursuanttoPr p
roclamationN No.835datedA April27,2005 5.BoththeGSISandtheMe
eTCofManilao occupytheCo oncepsion Arrocerosproperty,whileth A
heKatibakpro opertywasun nderlease. Thecontrover T rsystartedwh
hentheCityTr reasurerofManilaaddressedaletterto GSISPresiden
ntandGenera alManager WinstonGarci W iainformingh himoftheunp
paidrealprope ertytaxesdue eontheaforem mentionedpr ropertiesfory
years1992 to t 2002, brok down as follows: (a) P54, 826,599 ken
9.37 for the K Katibak prope erty; and (b) P48,498,91.0 for the 01
ConcepsionAr C rrocerosprop perty.Thelette erwarnedoft
theinclusionsofthesubject tpropertiesin ntheschedule edOctober
30,2002publ 3 licauctionof alldelinquent tpropertiesin nManilashou
uldtheunpaid dtaxesremai inunsettledb beforethat date. d
TheCityTreas T surerofMani ilaissuedsepa arateNotices ofRealtyTax
xDelinquency yforthesubje ectproperties s,withthe usualwarning u
gofseizurean nd/orsale.OnOctober8,20 002,GSIS,thro
oughitslegalcounsel,wrot tebackempha asizingthe GSISexemptio G
onfromallkin ndsoftaxes,in ncludingrealty ytaxes,under rRA8291.
TheGSISlater T ramendeditspetitiontoincludethefact tthat:(a)the
Katibakprope ertyhas,since eNovember2 2001,been leasedtoando
occupiedbyth heManilaHot telCorporatio on(MHC),whi ichhascontra
actuallybound ditselftopayanyrealtyAlcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
9|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
taxesthatmay t ybeimposed onthesubjec ctproperty;an nd(b)theCon
ncepsionArro ocerospropert tyispartlyoc ccupiedby
GSISandpartlyoccupiedby G ytheMeTCofManila. TheRTCdismi T
issedthepetit tionofGSIS.T Thus,theinstantpetitionfor rreviewonpu
urequestiono oflaw. ISSUE: WhetherGSISisexemptfrom W mrealproper
rtytax? HELD: H PetitionisGRA P ANTED. GSISwasestab G
blishedundertheCommonw wealthAct18 86,asanonst tockcorporati
ionmanagedb byaboardoft trustees,a statusthathas s sremainedun
nchangedevenwhenitope eratedunderP PD1146,whi ichprovidedf
foranewtax treatment forGSIS,andR f RA8291,alaw wwhichreen
nactedtheful lltaxexempti ionprivilegeo ofGSISinPD1 1146.GSISis
notinthe context of Sec 139 of LGC which provid for a gene c c w
des eral provision on withdraw of tax exem wal mption privile ege,
and a specialprovisi s iononwithdra awalofexemp ptionfrompay
ymentofrealpropertytaxe esinallGOCCinSec234. GSISisaninst G
trumentalityo oftheNationa alGovernmen ntnotaGOCC C.AGOCCsho
ouldbeacorp poration.Itsh houldhave stocksdivided s dintoshares.
GSIScapital isnotdivided dintounitsha ared.Also,ith
hasnomemberstospeako of.Andby members,the referenceist m
tothosewhom makeupthen nonstockcorporation,and dnotthecomp
pulsorymemb bersofthe system who a governmen employees Its managem
s are nt s. ment is entrusted to a Boa of Trustee whose mem ard es
mbers are appointedbyt a thePresident. Thesubjectpr T ropertiesunde
ertheGSISnamearelikew wiseownedby ytheRepublic c.TheGSISis
butmeretrus steeofthe subject proper s rties which have either be
ceded to i by the Government or a h een it acquired for th
enhancement of the he system. This p s particular pro operty
arrangement is clea arly shown by the fact that the disposal or
conveyan of said y t l nce subjectproper s rtiesareeithe
erdonebyort thrutheautho orityofthePresident.Speci
ifically,inthecaseoftheCo oncepsion Arrocerosproperty,itwast A
transferred,co onveyed,andc cededtotheS SCthroughaP PresidentialPr
roclamation. GSIS manages the funds fo the life insurance, retire G
s or ement, surviv vorship, and d disability bene efits of all go
overnment employeesand e dtheirbeneficiaries.Thisu undertaking,t
tobesure,con nstitutesane essentialandv vitalfunction whichthe
government,th g hruoneofitsagenciesorin nstrumentaliti ies,oughttop
perform. UndertheDoc U ctrineofBene eficialUse,the eRepublicis
allowedtogr rantbeneficialuseofitspr ropertytoan agencyor
instrumentalit tyofthenatio onalgovernment.Suchgran ntdoesnotn
necessarilyres sultinthelos ssofthetax e exemption. Thetaxexemp T
ptiontheprop pertyoftheRe epublicoritsinstrumentalit tycarriesceas
sesonlyif,be eneficialuseth hereofhas been granted, for considera b
ation or other rwise, to a tax xable person. GSIS, as a g .
government in nstrumentality is not a y, taxable juridic person ho
t cal owever, it was lost in a sen that statu with respec to the
Kati s nse us ct igbak propert when it ty contracted its beneficial
use to MHC, a taxable person. The real estate taxt of that property
is valid. But such c s a l corresponding liability for the payment
thereof devo c g olves on the t taxable benefi icial user. The City
of Man has to e nila satisfyitstaxc s claimbyservi ingtheaccrue
edrealtytaxa assessmenton nMHC,asata axablebenefic cialuserofthe
eKatigbak property. p oOo INTHE EMATTEROF FTHEBREWR RINGCONTRO
OVERSIESIN THEELECTIO ON INTHE EINTEGRATE EDBAROFTH HEPHILIPPIN NES
A.M.No.0952SC 2010 December14,2 Alcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
10 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T
Court in a en banc Resolution dated June 2, 20 created a Special
Inves an 009 stigation Com mmittee to look into the brewing cont
troversies in the IBP elect tions, specifically in the elections of
Vic President for the Great Manila ce ter RegionandEx R
xecutiveVice Presidentoft theIBPitself andanyother relectioncon
ntroversyinvo olvingotherch haptersof theIBP,ifany t
,thatincludesasweltheel lectionoftheGovernorsfor rWesternMin
ndanaoandW WesternVisaya as. Consequently, theSpecial Committeecal
C C lled the IBPo officers involv toa prelim ved minaryconfer rence
on June 10,2009. With respect thereto, Atty. Vinluan then submitted
a Preliminary Conference brief on the same day. D W y During the
conferenceitw c wasdetermine edthattheinv vestigationwo
ouldfocusonthefollowingissuesorcont troversies: Thecommittee T
ethendisclos sedthattheco ontroversiesin nvolvedherei inandshould
beresolveda arethefollowi ing:1)the disputeconcer d rningaddition
naldelegates oftheQCCha aptertotheH HouseofDeleg gates;2)thee
electionofGov vernorfor theGreaterMa t anilaRegion(
(GMR);3)theelectionofGo overnorforW WesternVisaya asRegion;4)t
theelectionof fGovernor for f Western M Mindanao Reg gion; 5) the
re esolution of th election pr he rotests; 6) the election of the
IBP Execu utive Vide Presidentfort P the20092011 1term;and,7
7)theadminist trativecompla aintagainstEV VPVinluan. ntroversies,th
hecommitteea arrivedatthefollowingfind dingsandconclusions:
Inaddressingtheabovecon 1. Thesi ilenceofsec3 31,ArtVofIB
BPbylawson nwhomaybe eelectedasad dditionaldelegatesandalte
ernatesby there emainingmem mbersoftheBo oardofOfficersoftheChap
pterwhentheChapterisen ntitledtomore ethantwo delega
atestotheHouseofDelegates,istherootcauseoftheconflictingre
esolutionsofth heBautistaan ndVinluan faction onthe pro ns oper
interpret tationofthe s saidprovision of the bylaw xxx It found the
Vinlua Groups n ws. an interp pretation of sec31,ArtVof e
fIBPbylaws inRes.No.XV VIII2009tobeinerrorand ddevoidofrationaland
histor ricalbases. 2. Attys. Victoria Loan nzon and Mar Laqui we
properly r rite ere recognized as delegates of the QC Chapt by the
ter dingOfficer,G GMRGovMarc cialMagsino,d duringtheelec
ctionon2009oftheGovoftheGMR,inaccordance Presid witht
theguidelinesinRes.No.XV VIII2009. 3. Atty. M Manuel Maram was
valid elected as GMR Gov for 20092011 term. Howev the electio of
Atty. mba dly s ver, on Sorian nointhespeci
ialelectionthatwaspreside edoverbyEV VPVinluanonMay2009wasanullity.
4. Atty. E Erwin Fortun nato of the Ro omblon Chapter was duly e
elected as Gov of the West v tern Visayas R Region for 2009 2011.
5. Neithe Atty. Nass Marohoms er ser salic nor Atty Benjamin L y.
Lanto is qualified to be el lected Vov of Western f Minda
anaoRegion. 6. Theel lectionsforth heIBPExecutiveVicePresid
dentseparatel lyheldonMay y9.2009byth heBautistaan ndVinluan Group
pswerenullan ndoidforlack kofquorum. 7. Thead
dministrativecomplaintagainstEVPVinluanandhisG
GroupofGovsismeritorious. ISSUE: Whetherthefi W indingsandco
onclusionsoft theCommitteearecorrect. HELD: H PetitionisPAR P
RTIALLYGRA ANTED. Th T eCourtcom mpletelyagreeswiththerec
commendation nsoftheSpeci ialCommittee ewithrespecttothefollowi ing
1. 1 DeclaringA Atty.Marimbaasthedulyel lectedGovernoroftheGMR
Rfor2009201 11. 2. 2 DeclaringA Atty.Fortunate easthedulye
electedGovof ftheWesternV VisayasRegio onfor200920 011term.
Duringtheele D ection,itwasA Atty.Marimba awhogarnere
edthehighestnumberofvo otesamongth hedelegatecom mparedto
Atty.Soriano. However,inst A teadofaccept tingthesaidd
defeat,Atty.Sorianothenfi iledanelectio onprotestclai
imingthatAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
11|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts the t
said electi was void because ther were nond ion re delegates who
were allowe to vote. Th then resulted in the o ed his anomalousele
a ectionofAtty.SorianoasGo ovofGMRlastMay4,2009.
TheelectionofAtty.Soriano T ointhespecia alelectionwas sanullitybec
cause:1)Atty.Sorianohadl lostalreadyon nApril25, 2009; 2) the
election cond 2 ducted by the Vinluan Group was illega because it
was not calle nor presid by the e al ed ded regionalGoc;3 r
3)Atty.Sorian noisdisqualifi fiedbecausehiselectionwo ouldviolateth
herotationrulewhichtheSCrequires to t be strictly i implemented.
Hence, Atty. Soriano cann be voted a well as IBP Executive Vi
President for 2009 . not as P ice 2011. 2 Withrespectt W
toAtty.Fortun nate,hiselect tionasGovfor rtheWestern
nVisayasRegionwasupheldsinceheobtainedthe highestnumbe h
erofvotesam mongthethree ecandidates,a andbecauseu undertherotai
ionrule,itisn nowRomblon nChapters turntoreprese t ent. On O the
nullific cation of the election of A Atty. Marohom mslic as Gov f
Western M for Mindanao Reg gion, the Cour rules to rt upholdtheele
u ection.Atty.M Marohomslicw wonoverhis rivalAtty.Lan ntoandwasd
dulyproclaim med.Atty.Lant tofiledan electionprotes e
standimmediately,thegro oupofVinluan nissuedaReso
olutionproclaimingAtty.La antoasdulyel lectedGov withoutafford w
dingAtty.Maro ohomslicdueprocess. Accordingly, a special elect A a
tion shall be held by the present ninem IBP Board of Govs to elect
the EV for the man o VP remainder of the term of 20092011, w r 2
which shall be presided oer and conduc e r cted by IBP O
OfficerinChar Justice rge SantiagoKapu S unan. oOo
QuasiLegisl Q lativePower rs
CONGRESSMA C ANJAMESL.C CHIONGBIAN,petitioner,vs.HON.OSCAR
RM.ORBOS,r respondent. Jun G.R.No.96754 ne22,1995
Thedivisionof T fthecountryin ntoregionsisintendedtofa
acilitatenoton nlytheadminis strationofloc calgovernmentsbutalso
thedirectionof t fexecutivedep partmentswhi thelawreq ich
quiresshouldh haveregionaloffices. Pursuant to A X, Sec. 18 of the
198 Constitutio Congress passed R.A. No. 6734, th Organic Ac for
the P Art. 87 on, he ct Autonomous R A Region in Mu uslim Mindana
calling for a plebiscite to be held in the province of Basilan,
Cotabato, ao, r n es Davao del Sur Lanao del Su Maguindan D r, ur,
nao, Palawan, South Cotab bato, Sultan Ku udarat, Sulu, T TawiTawi,
Za amboanga del d Norte, Zam mboanga del Sur and the c cities
Cotabat Dapitan, D to, Dipolog, Gener Santos, Ilig ral gan, Marawi,
Pagadian, PuertoPrinces P saandZambo oanga.Inthee ensuingplebis
sciteheldonN November16,1989,fourp provincesvote edinfavor of o
creating an autonomous region. These are the prov e vinces of Lanao
del Sur, M Maguindanao, S Sulu and Taw wiTawi. In accordancewi a
iththeconstitutionalprovis sion,thesepro ovincesbecam
metheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMin ndanao. Ontheotherh O
hand,withrespecttoprovin ncesandcities snotvotingin nfavoroftheA
AutonomousR Region,Art.X XIX,Sec.13 ofR.A.No.673 o 34provides,
Thatonlythe eprovincesan ndcitiesvoting gfavorablyin nsuchplebisci
itesshallbein ncludedin the Autonomo Region in Muslim Min t ous n
ndanao. The provinces and cities whic in the pleb ch biscite do not
vote for t inclusioninth heAutonomou usRegionshallremaininth
heexistingad dministrative regions:Prov vided,howeve er,thatthe
Presidentmay P y,byadministr
rativedetermination,mergetheexistingregions. Pres.Aquinois P
ssuedEO429Providingfo ortheReorgan nizationoftheAdministrativ
veRegionsinMindanao. The T petitioner contended that there is no
law which authorizes t President to pick certa provinces and cities
rs h the ain withintheexis w stingregions,someofwhich hdidnoteven
ntakepartint theplebecite.Theysubmitt thatwhilethe eauthority
ofthePresiden o ntnecessarily yincludesthe authoritytom
merge,theauthoritytomergedoesnoti includetheau
uthoritytoAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
12|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
reorganize.Th r herefore,theP President'sau uthorityunder
rRANo.6734 4to"mergeex xistingregion ns"cannotbe construed
toincludetheauthoritytor t reorganizethe em.Todosow willviolatethe
erulesofstatu utoryconstruc ction. Also,theycont A tendthatArtX
XIX,Sec13ofRA6734isbe ecause(1)itu undulydelegat
teslegislativepowertothePresident by b authorizing him to "me g
erge [by admi inistrative det termination] the existing r regions"
or at any rate pr rovides no standardforth s heexerciseofthepowerde
elegatedand(2 2)thepowerg grantedisnot
texpressedinthetitleofthelaw. Issues: 1. Wheth herthepower
rto"merge"a administrative eregionsisleg gislativeinch
haracter,orwhetheritisex xecutivein character,and,ina event,whe any
etherArt.XIX X,Sec13isinv validbecause itcontainsno
ostandardtoguidethe dent'sdiscreti ion; Presid 2. Wheth Congress
has provided a sufficient standard in conferring on the Presiden
the power to merge her d n nt admin nistrativeregions. HELD: H
Petit P ionisDIS SMISSED. 1. Powerto"merge"a administrativ
veregions The creation and subsequent reorganiz T zation of adm
ministrative regions have been by the President pu ursuant to
authority granted to him by law. In conferring o the President the
pow a on wer "to mer rge (by admi inistrative determination d
n)theexisting gregions"follo owingtheesta ablishmentof ftheARMM,C
Congressmere elyfollowedth hepattern setinpreviouslegislationd s
datingbackto otheinitialor rganizationof administrativ veregionsin
1972.Thecho oiceofthe Presidentasd P delegateislog gicalbecauset
thedivisiono ofthecountry yintoregions isintendedto ofacilitateno
otonlythe administration a noflocalgove ernmentsbut talsothedire
ectionofexecu utivedepartm mentswhicht thelawrequir resshould have
regional offices. It ha been held that, "while the power to merge
adm h as o ministrative re egions is not expressly providedforin p
ntheConstitu ution,itisapo owerwhichh hastraditional llybeenlodge
edwiththePr residenttofac cilitatethe exerciseofthe e epowerofgen
neralsupervis sionoverloca algovernment ts."Theregion nsthemselves
sarenotterri itorialand politicaldivisionslikeprovi p
inces,cities,m municipalitiesa andbarangay ysbutare"mer
regroupingso ofcontiguousprovinces foradministra f ativepurposes
s." 2. Suffic cientstandard d d,alegislative standardnee
ednotbeexpr ressed,itmay ysimplybega atheredorim mplied.Nor
Inthequestionofstandard needitbefoun n ndinthelawc challengedbe
ecauseitmayb beembodiedi inotherstatutesonthesam mesubjectast
thatofthe challengedleg c gislation. While Art. XIX Sec 13 prov W
X, vides that "Th provinces and cities wh he hich do not vo for
inclusi in the Autonomous ote ion Region shall r R remain in the
existing adm e ministrative re egions," this p provision is s
subject to the qualification that "the e n President may by
administ P y trative determ mination merg the existin regions." T
ge ng This means th while non hat assenting provincesand p
citiesaretor remaininther regionsasdes signatedupon
nthecreationoftheAutono omousRegion, ,theymay nevertheless b
regrouped with contiguous provinces forming oth regions as the
exigency of administration may n be s her y require. The r r
regrouping is done only o paper. It i s on involves no m more than
a redefinition o the lines s of separating administrative a
eregionsfort thepurposeoffacilitatingt theadministra ativesupervis
sionoflocalgo overnmentun nitsbythe Presidentandinsuringthee P
efficientdelive eryofessentia alservices. Thereorganizationofthere
T egionsinE.O. No.429isba asedonreleva antcriteria,to
owit:(1)contiguityandgeo ographical features; (a) t f
transportation and commu n unication facil lities; (3) cult tural
and language groupings; (4) land area and d population;(5 p
5)existingreg gionalcentersadoptedbys severalagenci ies;(6)socio
economicdev velopmentpr rogramsin
theregionsand(7)numberofprovincesandcities. tAlcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
13|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts With
respect t the change of regional c W to e center from Z Zamboanga
Ci to Pagadia City, petitioner contend that the ity an ds
determination d nofprovincialcapitalshasa alwaysbeenb byactofCongr
ress.Administ trativeregionsaremeregro oupingsof contiguous
provinces for ad c dministrative purposes. Th are notte hey
erritorial and political subd divisions like p provinces, cities,
municip c palities and barangays. The is, therefo no basis for
contendin that only C ere ore, ng Congress can change or
determinereg d gionalcenters.Thepowert toreorganize administrativ
veregionscar rrieswithitthepowertod determine theregionalce t
enter. oOo ENZOM.TANA ADA,petitione vs.HON.JU er, UANC.TUVER
RA,respondent. LORE G. .R.No.L6391 15 Apr ril24,1985
Allstatutes,includingthose oflocalappli A icationandpr
rivatelaws,sh hallbepublishedasaconditionfortheir effectivity,
whichshallbeg w ginfifteenday ysafterpublica ationunlessad
differenteffectivitydateisfi fixedbytheleg gislature. people'sright
tobeinforme edonmatters sofpubliccon ncern,aright recognizedin
nSection6,Ar rticleIVof Invokingthep the1973PhilippineConstit t
tution,1aswe ellastheprinc ciplethatlawstobevalida andenforceab
blemustbepu ublishedin theOfficialGazetteorother t rwiseeffective
elypromulgat ted,petitioner rsseekawrit ofmandamus stocompelre
espondent publicofficials p stopublish,an ndorcauseth hepublication
nintheOfficia alGazetteofva ariouspreside entialdecrees s,lettersof
instructions,g generalorders proclamation s, ns,executiveo
orders,letterofimplementationandadm ministrativeor rders. The
responde T ents, through the Solicitor General, wo r ould have th
case dism his missed outrigh on the gro ht ound that petitioners ha
no legal personality or standing to bring the ins p ave p r stant
petition The view is submitted th in the n. s hat absence of an
showing th petitioner are person a ny hat rs nally and dire ectly
affected or prejudice by the alle ed eged non publicationof
thepresidentialissuancesinquestion2 p f 2saidpetition nersarewitho
outtherequis sitelegalpers sonalityto institutethism mandamuspro
oceeding,they yarenotbeing g"aggrievedp parties"within nthemeaning
gofSection3,Rule65of theRulesofCo t ourt. Upontheotherhand,petitio
U onersmaintainthatsinceth hesubjectoft thepetitionco oncernsapubl
licrightandit tsobjectis tocompeltheperformanceofapublicdu t
uty,theyneed notshowany yspecificinter restfortheirp
petitiontobegivendue course. c Issues: 1. W Whetherthepe
etitionershavelegalstandin ng. 2. W Whetherpublic cationintheO
OfficialGazette eisrequired. HELD: H 1. Petiti ionershaveLe
egalStanding g Clearly, the ri C ight sought to be enforce by
petition t ed ners herein is a public rig recognize by no less than
the s ght ed s fundamentalla f awoftheland d.Ifpetitioner
rswerenotall lowedtoinstit tutethisproce eeding,itwou uldindeedbed
difficultto conceive of an other pers to initiate the same, c c ny
son e considering th the Solicit General, t governme officer hat
tor the ent generallyempoweredtorep g presentthepe eople,hasente
eredhisappea aranceforrespondentsinth hiscase. 2. Public
cationintheOfficialGazet tteisrequired d Article2ofthe A
eCivilCode: Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
14 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
"ART.2.Laws " sshalltakeef ffectafterfifte eendaysfollow wingthecom
mpletionofthe eirpublication nintheOfficia alGazette, unlessit
tisotherwiseprovided.Thi isCodeshallt takeeffectone eyearaftersu
uchpublication n." The T interpreta ation given by respondent is in
accord with this Cou y urt's construc ction of said a article. In a
lo line of ong decisions,thisCourthasrul d ledthatpublic
cationintheO OfficialGazett teisnecessary yinthosecase eswherethel
legislation it tselfdoesnot tprovidefori itseffectivity
dateforthenthedateof publicationis smaterialfor determining
itsdateof effectivity,whichisthefifte e eenthdayfollo owingitspubl
licationbutn notwhenthelawitselfprov videsforthed datewhen it
tgoesintoeff fect.Responde ents'argumen nt,however,islogicallycorr
rectonlyinsof farasitequate estheeffectivityoflaws withthefacto w
ofpublication. .Consideredi inthelightof otherstatutesapplicableto
otheissueat hand,thecon nclusionis easilyreached e dthatsaidArt
ticle2doesno otprecludeth herequiremen ntofpublicati ionintheOffi
icialGazette,e evenifthe la awitselfprov videsfortheda
ateofitseffec ctivity. Theclearobjectofthelawi T istogivetheg
generalpublic cadequatenot ticeofthevar riouslawswhi icharetoregu
ulatetheir actionsandco a onductascitizens.Withouts suchnoticean
ndpublication n,therewould dbenobasisfo ortheapplicat tionofthe
maxim"ignora m antialegisnon nexcusat."Itw wouldbetheh
heightofinjust ticetopunishorotherwiseburdenacitiz zenforthe
transgressionofalawofwh t hichhehadno onoticewhats soever,noteve
enaconstruct tiveone. TheCourther T rebyordersre espondentsto
opublishinth heOfficialGaz zetteallunpub blishedpresid
dentialissuan nceswhich areofgeneralapplication,a a andunlesssop
published,the eyshallhaven nobindingforc ceandeffect. G.R.No.L63915
Decem mber29,1986 6 Whenalawta W akeseffect
ThesubjectofcontentionisArticle2ofth T f heCivilCodep providingasfo
ollows: "ART.2.Laws " sshalltakeef ffectafterfifte eendaysfollow
wingthecom mpletionofthe eirpublication nintheOfficia alGazette,
unless sitisotherwis seprovided.T ThisCodeshal lltakeeffecto
oneyearaftersuchpublicati ion." Theclause"un T nlessitisothe
erwiseprovide ed"referstoth hedateofeffe ectivityandn nottotherequ
uirementofp publication it tself,whichca annotinanye eventbeomitt
ted.Thisclaus sedoesnotme eanthatthele egislaturemay ymakethelaw
weffective immediatelyu uponapproval l,oronanyoth herdate,with
houtitspreviouspublication n. Publicationis indispensable P
eineverycas se,butthelegislaturemayi initsdiscretio onprovideth
hattheusualf fifteenday periodshallbe p eshortenedo orextended.A
Anexampleis theCivilCode ewhichdidno otbecomeeff fectiveafterfif
fteendays fromitspublic f cationintheO OfficialGazette ebut"oneyea
araftersuchpu ublication."Th hegeneralruledidnotappl lybecause it
twas"otherw wiseprovided." Lawswhichm L mustbesubjec ctedtopublic
cation The T Court holds that all statutes, inclu s uding those of
local applic cation and pr rivate laws, shall be published as a
conditionfort c theireffectivit ty,whichshall lbeginfifteen
ndaysafterpu ublicationunle essadifferent teffectivityda ateisfixed
bythelegislatu b ure. Covered by th rule are pr C his residential
decrees and exe ecutive orders spromulgated dby the President in
the e exercise of legislativepow werswheneve erthesamear
revalidlydelegatedbythel legislatureor, ,atpresent,di
irectlyconferr redbythe Constitution.A C Administrative erulesandre
egulationsmustalsobepub blishediftheir rpurposeisto
oenforceorimplement existinglawpu e ursuantalsotoavaliddeleg
gation. merely intern in nature, that is, reg nal , gulating only
the personn of the nel Interpretative regulations and those m
administrative agency and not the publ need not be published.
Neither is p a e lic, publication required of the socalled
eAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
15|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
lettersofinstr ructionsissue edbyadminis strativesuperiorsconcernin
ngtheruleso guidelines tobefollowedbytheir or subordinatesi s
intheperform manceoftheirduties. Accordingly, e A even the charter
of a city m must be publ lished notwith hstanding tha it applies to
only a port at o tion of the nationalterrit n tory anddirec affects
on the inhabit ctly nly tantsof that p place. All pres
sidentialdecr rees must be p published, includingeven n,say,thosena
amingapublicplaceaftera afavoredindiv vidualorexem mptinghimfro
omcertainpr rohibitions or o requiremen The circu nts. ulars issued
b the Moneta Board mu be publish if they ar meant not merely to by
ary ust hed re interpretbutt to"fillinthede etails"oftheC
CentralBankA Actwhichthat tbodyissupposedtoenforc ce. However, no p
H publication is required of the instructio issued by say, the Min
s ons y, nister of Soci Welfare on the case ial n studies to be
made in peti s itions for ado option or the rules laid do own by
the he of a gove ead ernment agen on the ncy assignmentso a
orworkloadof fhispersonne elortheweari ingofofficeun
niforms.Parenthetically,m municipalordin nancesare notcoveredby n
ythisrulebut tbytheLocalG GovernmentC Code. Thepublicatio T
onmustbein fulloritisno opublicationa atallsinceitspurposeisto
oinformthep publicofthecontentsof thelaws.Asco t orrectlypoint
tedoutbythe epetitioners,t themeremen ntionofthenu umberofthep
presidentiald decree,the title of such d t decree, its whe
ereabouts (e.g "with Secre g., etary Tuvera" the suppos date of eff
"), sed fectivity, and in a mere supplementof s ftheOfficialG
Gazettecannot tsatisfythepu ublicationrequ uirement. oOo PAGUIO,A.
P SMA ARTCOMMUNICATIONS,I Inc.(SMART) ),petitioner,vs s.NATIONAL
MUNICATIONS SCOMMISSIO (NTC),resp ON pondent. TELECOMM G.
.R.No.151908 8&152063/4 408SCRA679 12Au ugust2003
Inquestioningthevalidityo I orconstitution nalityofarule
eorregulation nissuedbyan nadministrati iveagency,ap partyneed
notexhaustad n dministrativer remediesbefor regoingtocou
urt.Thisprinci ipleapplieson nlywherethea actoftheadm ministrative
agencyconcer a rnedwasperfo ormedpursuan nttoitsquasi
ijudicialfunct tion,andnotw whentheassa ailedactperta ainedtoits
rulemakingor r rquasilegislativepower. Pursuant to it rulemakin and
regula P ts ng atory powers, the National Telecommun l nications
Com mmission (NT issued TC) Memorandum Circular No. 1362000 ( M m
(the Billing Ci ircular), prom mulgating rule and regula es ations
on the billing of telecommunicationsservice t es.Thesaidci
ircularprovid dedfor,amon ngothers,the verificationo oftheidentific
cationand addressofeac a chpurchasero ofprepaidSIM Mcardsandth
heforthelengthofvalidity yofprepaidcallcardsand SIMcards
whichshallbe w eforatleasttw wo(2)yearsfr romthedateo offirstuse.
Later,theNTC L CissuedanotherMemorand dumdatedOct tober6,2000w
whichreads: Thisistorem mindyouthat thevalidityo ofallprepaidc
cardssoldon 07October2 2000andbeyo ondshallbev validforat
leasttwo(2)y yearsfromdat teoffirstusep pursuanttoM MC1362000. ll
ators are rem minded that al SIM packs used by subscribers of pre
ll epaid cards sold on 07 In addition, al CMTS opera October2000
andbeyonds O shallbevalid foratleasttw wo(2)yearsfr romdateoffi
irstuse.Also, thebillingun nitshallbe onasix(6)sec o condspulseef
ffective07Oct tober2000. Forstrictcomp F pliance. Petitionersfile P
edbeforetheR RegionalTrial lCourt(RTC)anactionfordeclarationof
fnullityofthe eMemorandum mCircular No.1362000 N
0CircularandtheNTCMem morandumdat tedOctober6,2000,allegin
ngthattheNT TChasnojuris sdictiontoAlcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
16 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
regulatethesa r aleofconsum mergoodssuch hastheprepa aidcallcards
sincesuchjur risdictionbelo ongstotheDe epartment ofTradeandIn o
ndustryunder rtheConsume erActoftheP Philippines. Respondent N R
NTC and its co odefendants filed a motio to dismiss the case on t
ground of petitioners' failure to on the exhaustadmin e
nistrativerem medies.TheRT TCgrantedthe eplaintiffs'ap
pplicationfor theissuanceo ofawritofpr reliminary injunction.Def
fendantsfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichwas sdenied. Respondent
N R NTCthusfiled a special civi action forcertiorari and
prohibition w theCourt Appeals w il with tof which was granted and
a g annulled and set aside th previous r he ruling of RTC
Petitioners' motions for reconsideration were C. ' r subsequentlyd
s denied.HTP. ISSUE: Whether the R W RTC has jurisdiction in cas of
nullifica ses ation of a pur rely administr rative regulat tion
promulga ated by an agencyinthee a exerciseofitsrulemakingp powers.
HELD: H Thepetitionsa T areGRANTED D. Administrative agencies
possess quasilegislative o rulemakin powers an quasijudi A e p or
ng nd icial or admi inistrative adjudicatoryp a powers.Quasi
legislativeor rrulemakingpoweristhep powertomak kerulesandre
egulationswhi ichresults in delegated le egislation tha is within
th confines of the granting statute and t doctrine o nondelega at
he f g the of ability and separabilityof s fpowers. Nottobeconf N
fusedwiththe equasilegislativeorrulem makingpower ofanadminis
strativeagenc cyisitsquasijudicialor administrative a eadjudicatory
ypower.This isthepower tohearandd determineque estionsoffact
towhichthe legislative policy is to ap p pply and to decide in acc
d cordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enfo h
n orcing and administering thesamelaw a w.Theadminis strativebody
exercisesitsq quasijudicial powerwhen itperformsin najudicial
manneranact m twhichisesse entiallyofane executiveora
administrative enature,wher rethepowert toactinsuchmanneris
incidentaltoo orreasonably necessaryfor rtheperform manceoftheex
xecutiveorad dministrative dutyentruste edtoit.In carrying out t c
their quasijud dicial function the administrative offic ns, cers or
bodies are required to investigat facts or s d te ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, an draw concl a
f h nd lusions from them as basis for their s officialactiona o
andexerciseo ofdiscretionin najudicialna ature. gthevalidityo
orconstitution nalityofarule eorregulation nissuedbyan
nadministrati iveagency,ap partyneed Inquestioning not n exhaust a
administrative remedies b e before going to court. Th principle
applies only where the a of the his act administrative a
eagencyconce ernedwasper rformedpursu uanttoitsqua asijudicialfun
nction,andno otwhentheas ssailedact pertainedtoit p tsrulemaking
gorquasilegi islativepower r. r,thedoctrine
eofprimaryjurisdictionap ppliesonlywh heretheadministrativeage
encyexercises sitsquasi Inlikemanner udicialoradju udicatoryfunc
ction.Thus,in ncasesinvolvi ingspecialized ddisputes,thepracticehas
sbeentorefer rthesame ju toanadminist t trativeagency yofspecialco
ompetencepu ursuanttothe edoctrineofp primaryjurisd diction.Theob
bjectiveof the t doctrine o primary jur of risdiction isto guidea
cour in determin o rt ning whether it should refr rain from exe
ercising its ju urisdiction un after an administrative agency has
determined s ntil a e some question or some as spect of some
question e arisinginthep a proceedingbe eforethecour rt.Itappliesw
wheretheclaim misoriginally ycognizableinthecourtsa andcomes
intoplaywhen neverenforce ementofthec claimrequires stheresolutio
onofissueswh hich,undera regulatorysc cheme,has beenplacedw b
withinthespec cialcompeten nceofanadmi inistrativebody;insuchca
ase,thejudicia alprocessiss suspended pendingreferr p ralofsuchissu
uestotheadm ministrativebo odyforitsview w. However,whe H
erewhatisass sailedistheva alidityorcons stitutionalityo
ofaruleorreg gulationissue edbytheadmi inistrative agencyinthep a
performanceo ofitsquasileg gislativefunct tion,theregul
larcourtshav vejurisdiction ntopassuponthesame.Alcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
17|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
Thedetermina T ationofwheth heraspecificr ruleorsetofr
rulesissuedby yanadminist trativeagency ycontravenesthelawor
theconstitutio t oniswithinth hejurisdictionoftheregular rcourts. t
uance by the NTC of Memorandum Circ cular No. 1362000 and its
Memorand dum dated In the case at bar, the issu October 6, 2000 was
pursu O uant to its qu uasilegislative or rulemak e king power. A
such, petitioners were ju As ustified in invokingtheju
udicialpoweroftheRegionalTrialCourttoassailthec constitutionali
ityandvalidit tyofthesaidissuances. oOo EASTERNS SHIPPINGLIN
NES,petitioner r,vs.COURTO OFAPPEALSa andDAVAOP PILOTSASSOC
CIATION,resp pondent. 29June1998 G.R.No.116356 G Whatdetermin W
neswhethera anactisalaw woranadministrativeissua anceisnotits
formbutitsn nature.Herea aswehave alreadysaid,t a thepowertof
fixtheratesof fchargesfors services,includ dingpilotage
service,hasa alwaysbeenre egardedas le egislativeinch haracter.
Private respon P ndent Davao Pilots Associa ation (DPA) e elevated
a com mplaint again petitioner Eastern Ship nst pping Line
(petitioner)fo ( orsumofmoneyandattorney'sfeesalleg gingthatthefo
ormerhadren nderedpilotag geservicestopetitioner between Janu b
uary 14, 1987 to July 22, 1989 with to 7 otal unpaid f fees of
P703,290.18. Desp pite repeated demands, petitioner faile to pay.
Pet p ed titioner assail the consti led itutionality of the
Executive Order (EO) 1088 upon w f e which DPA basesitsclaim b ms.
TheRegionalT T TrialCourt(R RTC)grantedt thepetitionof
ftheprivatere espondentwh hichrulingwa asaffirmedby ytheCourt
ofAppeals(CA o A).HTP. ISSUE: WhetherEO1088isuncons W stitutional.
HELD: H Thepetitionis T sDENIED. Petitionerinsi P iststhatitsho
ouldpaypilot tagefeesinac ccordancewit thandonthebasisofthem
memorandum mcirculars issuedbythe PPA,theadm ministrativebo
odyvestedun nderPD857w withthepowe ertoregulate eandprescrib
bepilotage fees. In assaili the constitutionality of EO 1088, the
petitioner re f ing f e epeatedly ask "Is the priv ks: vate
responde vested ent wit w hpowertointerpretExe
ecutiveOrderNo.1088?" nterisland Shi ipping Associa ation of the Ph
hilippines vs. C Court of Appeals,the Supre eme Court, th hrough
Mr. InPhilippine In eV.Mendoza, ,upheldthev validityandco
onstitutionalit tyofExecutiv veOrder1088 8innouncert tainterms.
JusticeVicente Weaptlyiterateourpronou W uncementinsa aidcase,viz.:
y o. ld nsidered a sta atute because that would imply the e It is
not an answer to say that E.O. No 1088 shoul not be con
withdrawalof w fpowerfromt thePPA.Wha atdetermines whetherana
actisalawor anadministrativeissuance eisnotits formbutitsna f
ature.Hereas swehavealre eadysaid,thepowertofixt theratesofch
hargesforserv vices,includin ngpilotage service,hasalw s
waysbeenreg gardedaslegis slativeinchar racter. xxxxxxxxx x
onotethatE.O O.NO.1088pr rovidesforad djustedpilotag geservicerate
eswithoutwit thdrawingthe epowerof Itisworthyto
thePPAtoimpose,prescrib t be,increaseordecreaserat tes,chargeso
orfees.There easonisbecau useE.O.No.1088isnotAlcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
18 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts meant
simply to fix new pilotage rates. Its legislativ purpose is the
"rationa m p ve s alization of pi ilotage service charges, e
throughtheim t mpositionofun niformandad djustedratesf
forforeignand dcoastwiseve esselsinallPh hilippineports s.
xxxxxxxxx x Weconcludet W thatE.O.No.1 1088isavalid dstatuteand
thatthePPA Aisdutyboun ndtocomplyw withitsprovisions.The
PPAmayincre P easetheratesbutitmaynot tdecreasethe embelowthos
semandatedb byE.O.No.108 88..... Weseenorea W asontodepart
tfromthisrul ling.TheCour rt'sholdingcle earlydebunks spetitioner's
insistenceon payingits pilotagefeesb p basedonmem morandumcirc
cularsissuedb bythePPA.B BecausethePP PAcircularsareinconsisten
ntwithEO 1088,theyare 1 evoidandineffective."Adm ministrativeor
rexecutiveact ts,ordersand dregulationss shallbevalido onlywhen
theyarenotco t ontrarytothe elawsortheC Constitution." Asstatedby
thisCourtinL LandBankof thePhilippine esvs.Court ofAppeals,[t] o
]heconclusive eeffectofadm ministrativeconstructionis snotabsolute
e.Actionofan nadministrati iveagency maybedisturb m
bedorsetasidebythejudi icialdepartme entifthereis anerrorofla
aw,agraveab buseofpower rorlackof ju urisdiction,or rgraveabuse
eofdiscretion nclearlyconflictingwitheit thertheletter rorspiritoft
thelaw."Itis axiomatic that an admin t nistrative agen like the P
ncy, PPA, has no d discretion whether to impl lement the law or
not. Its duty is to w enforce it. Una e arguably, ther refore, if
ther is any confl between t PPA circu re lict the ular and a law
such as EO 1088, the w, la atterprevails. oOo ICEEXPORTE
ERS,INC.,petit tioner,vs.HON N.RUBEND.T TORRES,resp pondent.
PHILIPPINEASSOCIATIONOFSERVI G.R.No.101279/212SCRA2996 August1992
Administrative rules and re A e egulations mus also be pub st
blished if their purpose is t enforce or implement ex to xisting
law pursuanttoav p validdelegatio on.Interpretat tiveregulation
nsandthosem merelyinternal linnature,tha atis,regulatin ngonlythe
personnelofth p headministrat tiveagencyan ndnotthepub blic,neednot
bepublished. Neitherispub blicationrequiredofthe socalled letter of
instructio issued by administrativ superiors co s rs ons ve
oncerning the rules of guidelines to be fo ollowed by their
subordinates in the pe t erformance of their duties. For lack of p
f proper publica ation, the adm ministrative ci irculars in
questionmayn q notbeenforced dandimpleme ented. Philippine
Association of Service Impo P orters (PASEI for short) is the
larges national o I, st organization o private of employment a e
and recruitm ment agencies duly license and autho ed orized by the
Philippine Overseas Em e mployment Administration A n(POEA)toe
engageinthe businessofobtainingover rseasemploym mentforFilipi
inolandbased dworkers, includingdom mestichelpers. OnJune1,199 O
91,Departmen ntofLaboran ndEmployment(DOLE)Sec cretaryissued
dDepartment tOrderNo.16 6,Seriesof 1991,tempora 1 arilysuspendi
ingtherecruit tmentbypriv vateemployme entagencieso ofFilipinodo
omestichelper rsgoingto HongKong.T H TheDOLEitsel lf,throughthe
ePOEAtookov verthebusine essofdeployin ngsuchHongKongboundw
workers. Pursuant to th above DOLE circular, t POEA issu Memoran P
he the ued ndum Circular No. 30, Ser ries of 1991, providing
GUIDELINES o the Govern G on nment proces ssing and dep ployment of
F Filipino dome estic helpers to Hong Kon and the ng accreditationo
a ofHongKongrecruitmenta agenciesinten ndingtohireF Filipinodomes
stichelpers.Thiswasfollow wedbythe issuance of Memorandum Circular
No. 3 Series of 1 C 37, 1991, on the processing of employment
contracts of domestic f t f workersinHongKong.HTP w Pforprohibitio
ontoannulth heaforementio onedDOLEan ndPOEAcircul lars. ISSUE:
Whether the D W Department Order and Mem O morandum Ci irculars are
v void for noncompliance wi the requir ith rements of publicationan
p ndfilingwitht theOfficeofth heNationalAd dministrativeRegister
HELD: HAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
19|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
Thepetitionis T sGRANTED. thy a ulars do not p prohibit the p
petitioner from engaging i the recruit in tment and It is notewort
that the assailed circu deployment o Filipino la d of andbased wo
orkers for overseas depl loyment. A c careful readi ing of the c
challenged administrative a eissuancesdisclosesthatthesamefallw
withinthead dministrative andpolicingp powersexpre esslyorby
necessaryimp n plicationconfe erreduponth herespondent ts.
Asaptlyobser A rvedbytheSolicitorGenera al, xxxThealleg
gedtakeover[ [ofthebusines ssofrecruitin ngandplacing gFilipinodom
mestichelpersinHongkong] ]ismerely a a remedial me easure, and
expires after i purpose sh have been attained. Th is evident from
the ten of the e its hall his t nor Administrative A eOrderNo.16
6thatrecruitm mentofFilipin nodomestich helpersgoing toHongkong
byprivateem mployment agenciesareherebytempor a rarilysuspend
dedeffectiveJu uly1,1991. xxxThejustificationforthetakeovero
oftheprocess singanddeplo oyingofdome estichelpers forHongkong
gresulting from the restr f riction of the scope of peti itioners
busin ness is confin solely to t unscrupul ned the lous practice of
private employment a e agencies victim mizing applicants for empl
loyment as do omestic helpe for Hongk ers kong and not the whole
recruitmentbu r usinessinthePhilippines. However,desp H
pitetheadmin nistrativecircularsbeinga validexercise eofthepolice
epowerasdel legatedtotheexecutive branchofGov b vernment,they
yareneverthelessinvalid, defectiveand dunenforceab bleforlackof
properpublic cationand filingintheOf f fficeoftheNa ationalAdmin
nistrativeRegister.Thisreq quirementisp providedforb byArticle2o
oftheCivil Code,Article5 C 5oftheLaborCodeandSect tions3(1)and
d4,Chapter2, ,BookVIIofth heAdministra ativeCodeof1 1987.
Further,asenu F unciatedinTa anadavs.Tuve era,146SCRA A446,
xxxAdminist trativerulesa andregulation nsmustalsob bepublishedif
ftheirpurpos seistoenforce eorimplemen ntexisting la awpursuant
toavaliddele egation.Interpretativeregu ulationsandt thosemerely
internalinna ature,thatis, regulating only the perso o onnel of the
administrative agency and not the publ need not be published.
Neither is p a e lic, . publication requiredofthesocalledlet r
ttersofinstru uctionsissuedbyadministr rativesuperiorsconcerning
gtherulesofg guidelines tobefollowed t dbytheirsubo ordinatesinth
heperformanc ceoftheirduti ies. Weagreethat W tpublicationm
mustbeinful llofitisnopublicationat
allsinceitspurposeistoinformthepublicofthe contentofthelaws. c
Forlackofpro F operpublicatio on,theadministrativecircu
ularsinquestionmaynotbe eenforcedand dimplemented. oOo CORO
ONA,petitioner r,vs.UNITED HARBORPIL LOTSASSOCIA ATIONOFTH
HEPHILIPPIN NES,responden nt. G.R.No.1119 953/283SCRA A31 12Decemb
ber1997 As A a general r rule, notice an hearing, as the fundame nd
s ental requirem ments of proce edural due pro ocess, are esse
ential only when an adm w ministrative bo exercises itsquasijudic
ody cialfunction. I the perform In mance of its executive or
legislative functions,such f hasissuingrul lesandregula
ations,anadm ministrativebod dyneednotco omplywiththe erequirement
tsofnotice andhearing. a Pursuanttoits P spowerofcon
ntrol,regulation,andsuper rvisionofpilot tsandthepilo otageprofessi
thePhilipp ion, pinePorts Authority(PPA A A)promulgate edPPAAO03
whichem 385 mbodiedthe"R RulesandRegulationsGove erningPilotage
eServices, theConductofPilotsandPilotageFeesin t nPhilippineP
Ports."Theser rulesmandate e,interalia,th hataspiringp pilotsmust
be b holders of pilot licensesand must tra as probat s ain tionary
pilots in outports f three mon for nths and in th Port of
heAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
20 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
Manilaforfourmonths.Itis M sonlyafterthe eyhaveachiev vedsatisfacto
oryperforman thattheyaregivenperm nce manentand regularappoin r
ntmentsbythe ePPAitselftoexerciseharbo
orpilotageuntiltheyreachtheageof70,unlesssooner rremoved
byreasonofm b mentalorphys sicalunfitnessbythePPAGeneralManag ger.
Subsequently, PPA issued PPAAO No. 0492provid S ding that "all
existing regu ular appointm ments which h have been previouslyissu
p uedeitherbytheBureauofC CustomsorthePPAshallre emainvalidup
pto31December1992only y"andthat "allappointme " entstoharbor
rpilotposition nsinallpilota agedistrictssh hall,hencefort
th,beonlyfor ratermofon ne(1)year fromdateofef f ffectivitysubje
ecttoyearlyr renewalorcan ncellationbyt theAuthority afterconduct
tofarigideva aluationof performance." p Respondents q R questioned
th implement he tation of PPA AAO No. 049 before the Department of
Transport 92 tation and Communicatio C on(DOTC)for rPPAsnonco
ompliancewiththerequire ementofpublichearingbu utthenDOTC Secretary
Garciainsisted G dthatthemat tterwaswithin nthejurisdict
tionoftheBoa ardofDirecto orsofthePPA. .Respondents sappealed
thisrulingtot t theOfficeofth hePresident(O OP). TheOPissued T
danorderdire ectingthePPA Atoholdinab beyancetheim mplementation
nofPPAAON No.0492.Init tsanswer, the PPA coun t ntered that sa
administr aid rative order w issued in the exercise of its
administrative co was n ontrol and supervisionov s verharborpil
lotsunderSection6a(viii i),ArticleIVo
ofP.D.No.857,asamended,andit,alon ngwithits
implementingguidelines,w wasintendedto orestoreorde
erintheportsandtoimprovethequality yofportservic ces. TheOP,throug
T ghthenAssist tantExecutive eSecretaryfo orLegalAffairsRenatoC.Co
orona,dismissedtheappea al/petition and opined th PPAAO No. 0492doe
not forbid,, but merely regulates, the exercise by harbor pilot of
their a hat es e y ts professioninP p PPA'sjurisdictionalarea. As A
regards the alleged "absence of amp prior cons ple sultation" befo
the issuan of the ad ore nce dministrative order, the Secretary
cited Section 26 of P.D. No. 8 S 857, which merely requires the PPA
to consult with "relevant Go overnment agencies." He concluded that
the law has been sufficiently com a mplied with b the PPA i issuing
the assailed by in e administrative a eordersincet thePPABoard
dofDirectors siscomposed oftheSecreta ariesoftheDO OTC,theDepa
artmentof PublicWorks andHighways P s,theDepartm mentofFinanc
ce,andtheDe epartmentofE Environment andNaturalR Resources, as a
well as the DirectorGen e neral of the N National Econo omic
Develop pment Agency the Adminis y, strator of the Maritime e
IndustryAutho ority(MARINA A),andthepr rivatesectorre epresentative
e. Respondents f R filed a petitio forcertiora prohibition and
injunct on ari, tion with pray for the is yer ssuance of a t
temporary restrainingord r deranddamagesbeforethe
eRegionalTrialCourt(RTC C)whichgrant tedthesame.H HTP. ISSUE:
WhetherPPAAONo.0492isvoidforvio W olatingdueprocessoflaw. HELD: H
Thepetitionis T sDENIED. Respondents a R argue that du process wa
not observed in the ado ue as option of PPA AAO No. 0492 allegedly
because no hearing was c h conducted wh hereby "relev vant governme
agencies" and the pilo themselve could ventilate their ent " ots es
views.Theyar v reobviouslyr referringtoth heprocedural aspectofthe
enactment.Fo ortunately,th heCourthasm maintained
aclearpositioninthisregar a
rd,astanceithasstressedintherecentcaseofLumiq quedv.Hon.Ex
xevea,wherei itdeclared that"(a)slong t gasapartyw wasgiventheo
opportunityt todefendhisi interestsindu uecourse,he
cannotbesaidtohave beendeniedd b dueprocessof
flaw,forthisopportunity tobeheardistheveryess senceofduep
process.More eover,this constitutional mandateisde c eemedsatisfie
edifapersonisgrantedan nopportunitytoseekrecon
nsiderationoftheaction orrulingcomp o plainedof." Alcaraz,Atienza,
A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
21|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
Whilerespond W dentsemphasi izethatthePh hilippineCoas stGuard,"whi
ichissuesthelicensesofpilotsafteradm ministering
thepilots'examinations,"w t wasnotconsul
lted,thefactsshowthattheMARINA,whichtookove erthelicensingfunction
ofthePhilippi o ineCoastGuard,wasdulyr representedin ntheBoardo
ofDirectorsof fthePPA.Thu us,petitioners scorrectly argued that, t
a there being no matters of naval defen involved i the issuan of
the adm n f nse in nce ministrative o order, the PhilippineCoa P
astGuardneed dnotbeconsu ulted. Neitherdoest N thefactthatth
hepilotsthem mselvesweren notconsulted inanywayta aintthevalidit
tyoftheadmi inistrative order.Asagen o neralrule,not ticeandhearin
ng,asthefund damentalrequ uirementsofp proceduraldu ueprocess,are
eessential only when an administrat o n tive body exercises itsqu
uasijudicialfu unction. In th performance of its exe he ecutive or
legislative fun nctions, such as issuing ru ules and reg gulations,
an administrativ body need not comply with the ve d
requirementsofnoticeandhearing. r However, the license of a harbor
pilot i granted in the form of a appointme which allo H h is an ent
ows them to engage in pilotageuntilt p theyretireatt theage70yea
ars.Thisisav vestedright. Therefore, it i readily app T is parent
that PP PAAO No. 04 492 unduly r restricts the r right of harbo
pilots to enjoy their or profession bef p fore their com mpulsory
retir rement. In the past, they e enjoyed a mea asure of security
knowing that after passing five ex p xaminations and undergoin
years of on a ng nthejob train ning, they wo ould have a lic cense
which t they could useuntiltheirretirement,u u unlesssoonerr
revokedbyth hePPAformen ntalorphysicalunfitness.U Underthenew
wissuance, theyhavetoco t ontendwitha anannualcanc
cellationoftheirlicensewh hichcanbetem mporaryorpe ermanentdep
pendingon theoutcomeo t oftheirperfor rmanceevalua ation.Veteran
npilotsandne eophytesalike earesuddenl lyconfronted withone year
terms wh y hichipso facto oexpire at the end of that period. Renew
of their li e wal icense is now dependent o a "rigid w on
evaluationofp e performance"whichiscond ductedonlyaf
fterthelicensehasalreadybeencancelle ed.Hence,theuseofthe term
"renewal." It is this preevaluation cancellation which prima t p n
n arily makes P PPAAO No. 04 492 unreasonable and constitutionall c
lyinfirm.Inarealsense,iti isadeprivatio onofproperty
ywithoutdueprocessoflaw w. oOo COMMISSIONEROFINTER C RNALREVENU
UE,petitioner,vs.COURTOF FAPPEALS,re espondent. G.R.No.119761/261SC
CRA237 29Augus st1996 When an adm W ministrative rule is merely in
nterpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothin further tha
its bare s ng an is ssuance for it gives no real consequence more
than w t l what the law it tself has alrea prescribed When, upon
the other ady d. n hand,theadmi h inistrativerule egoesbeyond
dmerelyprovid dingforthemeansthatcanf facilitateorre
enderleastcumbersome theimplement t tationofthela awbutsubstan
ntiallyaddstoorincreasesth heburdenoft thosegoverned d,itbehoovest
theagency to t accord at le east to those directly affecte a chance
to be heard, an thereafter to be duly inf d ed nd formed, before
that new e is ssuanceisgive entheforcean ndeffectoflaw w.
FortuneTobac F ccoCorporatio on("FortuneT Tobacco")ise engagedinthe
emanufactureofdifferentb brandsofcigar rettes The Philippin Patent
Off T ne fice issued t the corporation separa certificate of tradem
to ate es mark registra ation over "Champion," " " "Hope," and
"More" cigar rettes. The in nitial position of the Com n mmission
of I Internal Reve enue (CIR, hereafter)was h
stoclassify'Champion,''Ho ope,'and'More'asforeignb brandssinceth
heywereliste edintheWorldTobacco Directory as belonging to foreign
com D o mpanies. How wever, Fortu une Tobacco changed the names of
'Hope' to e 'H HopeLuxury'and 'More' to 'PremiumMo o ore,' thereby
removing the said brands from the fore e eign brand ca ategory.Ad
valoremtaxeswereimposed v donthesebra andsatthefoll lowingrate:
ADVA BRAND ALOREM TAX RATE E.O.22a and RA695 56 E.O.273 HopeL
LuxuryM.100 0's 40% 45%Alcaraz,Atienza, A
Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
22|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec.14
42,(c),(2) HopeL LuxuryM.Kin ng 40% 45% Sec.14 42,(c),(2) MoreP
PremiumM. 45% 100's 40% 42,(c),(2) Sec.14 MoreP Premium 40% 45%
Intern national Sec.14 42,(c),(2) Champ pionInt'l.M. 40% 45% 100's
42,(c),(2) Sec.14 Champ pionM.100's 40% 45% Sec.14 42,(c),(2) 15%
Champ pionM.King 20% Sec.14 42,(c),lastpa ar. 15% Champ pionLights
20% Sec.14 42,(c),lastpa ar. Later on, Rep L public Act ("R RA")
No. 7654 4was enacted and became effective on 03 July 199 It amende
Section d e n 93. ed 142(c)(1)ofth 1 heNationalIn nternalRevenu
ueCode("NIR RC")toread;as sfollows: Sec.142.Cigars S sandCigarett
tes. xxxxxxxxx x (c)Cigarettes packedbyma ( achine.The ereshallbele
evied,assessed dandcollecte edoncigarette espackedbym machinea tax
at the ra t ates prescribed below ba ased on the constructive
manufacture er's wholesale price or t the actual manufacturer' m
'swholesalep price,whicheverishigher: (1) ( On locally manufacture
cigarettes which arecu y ed urrently classi ified and taxe at
fiftyfive percent (55 ed e 5%)or the exportationof e
fwhichisnotauthorizedby ycontractoro otherwise,fift tyfive(55%)
providedthat ttheminimum mtaxshall notbelesstha n anFivePesos(
(P5.00)perpa ack. (2)Onotherlo ( ocallymanufacturedcigaret
ttes,fortyfive percent(45% %)providedth hattheminimu umtaxshalln
notbeless thanThreePes t sos(P3.00)pe erpack. xxxxxxxxx x Two
daysbefo T orethe effecti ivity of RA 76 654, CIR issued Revenue M
Memorandum Circular No. 3793 ("RMC 3793") m declaringthatxxxSinceth
d hereisnoshow wingwhoamo ongtheabove elistedmanuf facturersofth
hecigarettesbearingthe saidbrandsar s retherealown ner/sthereof,
f,thenitfollow wsthatthesam meshallbeco onsideredfore eignbrandfor
rpurposes of o determining thead valoremtax pursu uant to Sectio
142 of the National Int on e ternal Revenu Code. In effect, the ue
aforesaid bran of cigare a nds ettes,viz: "HO OPE," "MORE" and
"CHAMPION" being manufactured by Fortune Tobacco e Corporationw C
weresubjected dtothe55%a advaloremtax xoncigarettes sbeingconsid
deredlocallym manufacturedcigarettes bearingaforei b ignbrand.
On30July199 O 93,theCIRassessedFortun neTobaccoforadvaloremt
taxdeficiency yamountingto oP9,598,334.00forcing FortuneTobac F
ccotofileap petitionforrev viewwiththe eCourtofTax xAppeals(CT
TA)whichdec claredRMC37 793tobe defective, inva and unen d alid
nforceable for the noncom mpliance with publication a prior hear
and ring requirem ments. The CourtofAppea C als(CA)affirm
medthedecisio onofCTAina allrespects.HT TP. ISSUE: Alcaraz,Atienza,
A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas 23|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
Whether the publication of RMC 3793 filing of co W o 3, opies
thereof with the UP Law Center and prior he earing are
necessaryfori n itsvalidity,eff fectivityande enforceability. .
HELD: H Petition DENIED. RMC 3793 is invalid, defective and
unenforceab due to no P d ble onpublication and for lack of public
n k hearing. h Itshouldbeun nderstandable ethatwhenan nadministrati
iveruleismer relyinterpreta ativeinnature e,itsapplicabi ilityneeds
nothing furthe than its ba issuance f it gives no real consequ n er
are for o uence more t than what the law itself ha already e as
prescribed.Wh p hen,uponthe eotherhand,t theadministra ativerulegoe
esbeyondmer relyproviding gforthemean nsthatcan
facilitateorrenderleastcum f mbersomethe eimplementat tionofthelaw
wbutsubstant tiallyaddstoo orincreasesth heburden of o those gover
rned, it behooves the agen to accord at least to t ncy d those
directly affected a ch hance to be h heard, and thereaftertob t
bedulyinform med,beforetha atnewissuanc ceisgiventhe eforceandeff
fectoflaw. AreadingofR A RMC3793,particularlycon nsideringthec
circumstances sunderwhichithasbeenis ssued,convinc cesusthat
thecircularca t annotb