Edu V. Ericta G.R. No. L-32096, October 24, 1970 FACTS
Edu V. Ericta G.R. No. L-32096, October 24, 1970 FACTS
ERICTA Whether Reflector Law and Administrative Order are constitutional and
valid.
G.R. No. L-32096, October 24, 1970 FACTS:
The Reflector Law reads in full: "(g) Lights and reflector when parked or
disabled. — Appropriate parking lights or flares visible one hundred HELD:
meters away shall be displayed at a corner of the vehicle whenever such
Yes, both are valid.
vehicle is parked on highways or in places that are not well-lighted or is
placed in such manner as to endanger passing traffic. Furthermore, every
motor vehicle shall be provided at all times with built-in reflectors or other
similar warning devices either pasted, painted or attached to its front and Reflector Law is enacted under the police power in order to promote
back which shall likewise be visible at light at least one hundred meters public safety and order. Police power with state authority to enact
away. No vehicle not provided with any of the requirements mentioned in legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to
this subsection shall be registered." It is thus obvious that the challenged promote the general welfare. Persons and property could thus "be
statute is a legislation enacted under the police power to promote public subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the
safety. general comfort, health and prosperity of the state."
Teddy C. Galo filed suit for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary As to the validity of Administrative Order No. 2 issued by petitioner in his
injunction assailing the validity of enactment of the Reflector as well as official capacity, duly approved by the Secretary of Public Works and
Admin Order No. 2 implementing it, as an invalid exercise of the police Communications, it is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of
power for being violative of the due process clause. Galo also manifested separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power
that in the event that Judge would uphold said statute constitutional, A.O. to the two other branches of the government, subject to the exception
No. 2 of the Land Transportation Commissioner, implementing such that local governments may over local affairs participate in its exercise.
legislation be nullified as an undue exercise of legislative power. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make
laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the
statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the
legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of
ISSUE:
legislative power the inquiry must be directed to the scope and In sum, the court ruled that the delegation in this case complied with both
definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its the completeness and sufficient standard tests.
functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and #02 Vera vs. Cuevas
what is the scope of his authority.
FACTS: The controversy arose from the order of defendant, Commissioner
For a complex economy, that may indeed be the only way in which the of Internal Revenue now petitioner herein, requiring plaintiffs- private
legislative process can go forward. A distinction has rightfully been made respondents to withdraw from the market all of
between delegation of power to make the laws which necessarily involves
their filled milk products which do not bear the inscription required by
a discretion as to what it shall be, which constitutionally may not be done,
Section 169 of the Tax
and delegation of authority or discretion as to its execution to exercised
under and in pursuance of the law, to which no valid objection call be Code within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order with the explicit
made. The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the warning that failure of
legislature the necessary resources of flexibility and practicability.
plaintiffs’ private respondents to comply with said order will result in the
institution of the
To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which necessary action against any violation of the aforesaid order. Section 169
implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of of the Tax Code reads
principle and lay down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of
complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines as follows: Section 169. Inscription to be placed on skimmed milk. — All
legislative policy, marks its limits, its maps out its boundaries and specifies condensed skimmed milk and all milk in whatever form, from which the
the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which fatty part has been removed totally or in part, sold or put on sale in the
the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which Philippines shall be clearly and legibly marked on its immediate containers,
legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or
and in all the language in which such containers are marked, with the
administrative office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines
words, “This milk is not
promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.
suitable for nourishment for infants less than one year of age,” or with
other equivalent words.
On 1971, the respondent court restrain the defendant, Commissioner of Section 169 of the Tax Code does not apply to filled milk, the general
Internal Revenue, his clause is restricted by the
agents, or employees from requiring plaintiffs to print on the labels of specific term “skimmed milk” under the familiar rule of ejusdem generis
their filled milk products that general and
the words: “This milk is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than unlimited term are restrained and limited by the particular terms they
one year of age” or follow in the statute.
words with equivalent import and declaring as nun and void and without Skimmed milk is different from filled milk. According to the “Definitions,
authority in law. Standards of Purity,
coconut oil or corn oil or both. It cannot then be readily or safely assumed ʹ. Whether or not a judge may perform non-judicial work, such as being
that Section 169 detailed in the Department of Justice and tasked to assist the Secretary of
Justice.
applies both to skimmed milk and filled milk.
04 NOBLEJAS v TEEHANKEE
and Government Operations (PARGO) and it also vested all the powers of
Decision: Writs denied, petition dismissed. an investigating committee including the power to summon witness by
subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or
evidence relevant to the investigation.
witness, administer oaths, and take testimony relevant to the
investigation” with the authority “to require the production of documents
Evangelista, as Undersecretary of PARGO, issued to Manalastas a
under a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise, subject in all respects to the
subpoena to testify in a certain investigation pending in PARGO.
same restrictions and qualification as apply in judicial proceedings of a
Manalastas filed with the CFI an Amended Petition for prohibition,
similar character.”
certiorari and/or injunction with preliminary injunction and/or restraining
order and assailed the legality of the subpoena. CFI, granted the petition
of Manalastas, restraining PARGO to issue subpoenas in connection with
When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an
the fact-finding investigation and from instituting contempt proceedings
administrative body, it, too may take steps to inform itself as to whether
against Manalastas.
there is probably violation of the law. In sum, it may be stated that a
subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry in (1)
within the authority of the agency; (2) the demand is not too indefinite;
Issues: Whether PARGO, acting thru its officials, enjoys the authority to
and (3) the information is reasonable relevant.
issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact-finding investigations.
PARGO draws it subpoena power from Exe. Order No. 4 which Order of Judge Jarencio is set aside and declared of no force and effect.
empowered it to “summon
operation emits a foul odor, causing air pollution dangerous to the pupils'
health; (4) it is possible that chemicals and other combustible materials are
stored inside the factory, which materials constitute fire lizards to the
school and other nearby residential houses; (5) drainage system of
petitioners' compound is faulty thus causing seepage of liquid into the
6 AUSTIN HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. vs. CA neighborhood, and
(6) that the warehouse causes so much noise even at nighttime, by reason
of the machineries therein installed, that restlessness is caused in the
G.R. No. L-41754 February 27, 1976 FACTS:
community.
In 1969, the Mayor of San Juan, Rizal issued a business license and/or
permit authorizing petitioner Austin Hardware Company, Inc. to engage in
the business of general hardware manufacture at No. Acting upon the complaints, the Mayor referred the matter to the
Municipal Engineer and to the Municipal Health Officer. The matter was
115 Lope K. Santos St., San Juan, Rizal. All Steel Products, Inc. was also
likewise referred by the Mayor to the Municipal Council for investigation.
issued license as manufacturer of steel products. In accordance with the
In turn, the Council referred the same to the National Pollution Control
licenses thus issued, petitioners Austin Hardware Company, and All Steel
Commission for verification. In their reports, it stated that although at the
Products, Inc. have been engaged in the business therein described, and in
time of the inspection, the noise level was normal — it is apparent that the
good faith invested considerable amounts s capital.
noise created during actual construction would be above normal. They
recommended that the "municipality should be very careful in issuing
building permits specially for structures that will be used for industrial or
In 1973, concerned residents of Lope K Santos expressed their grievances
manufacturing purposes, that will be located in residential areas."
to the Mayor through letters addressed to the latter alleging that the
operations of the two petitioners produce nuisance, by reason of the facts
that (1) Lope K. Santos being a very narrow street, the heavy trucks by
The Municipal Council rendered its decision on the matter recommending
petitioners cause a traffic jam thereon and the blowing of horns disturbs
to the Municipal Mayor should cancel and/or revoke the license and/or
the classes going on in the school; (2) the unloading of steel bars creates
permit to operate the manufacturing activities of the Austin Hardware Co.,
much noise detrimental to the pupils learning; (3) the shop already in
Inc. and the All Steel Products, Inc. Accordingly, the Mayor addressed a
letter to the petitioners, advising them that their licenses were revoked,
effective five days from notice.
permanent, ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 19233, setting aside as
Two motions for the reconsideration of the revocation having been denied
null and void all the proceedings thereon, and such other relief as may be
by the Mayor, petitioners filed an ordinary action for injunction in the
just and equitable under the premises.
Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 19233), alleging among
others, that the revocation of their licenses or permits violated the
requirements of procedural due process because the investigation which
led to the revocation of their licenses/permits was not to determine the The Court of Appeals issued the writ of preliminary injunction complained
presence of a ground for revocation, namely, violation of a zonification of in this petition.
ordinance of San Juan, but an alleged nuisance produced by their
operations.
Private respondents also filed a petition in the appellate, court citing
petitioners for contempt because they were allegedly still operating
CFI issued the restraining order. Private respondents intervened in the despite the order. During the hearing, petitioners raised the issue that the
above-named case and filed therein a motion to lift the restraining order restraining order should not have included the stopping of their hardware
but the same was denied by the court in an order dated Thereupon, business, since Austin Hardware's license to operate a hardware store with
private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the storage facilities is not involved in Civil Case No. 19233 because neither the
Court of Appeals praying for a writ of preliminary injunction restraining Municipal Council nor the Mayor of San Juan, Rizal, cancelled or revoked it.
respondent judge from continuing with the proceedings in Civil Case No.
19233, and, after due hearing, declaring the writ of injunction
The Appellate Court found petitioners' contention devoid of merit,
declared them guilty of contempt and imposed upon them a fine of
P500.00.
The power to license necessarily carries with it the authority to provide
reasonable terms and conditions under which the licensed business shall
ISSUE:
be conducted. The authority which grants the license always retains the
power to revoke it, "either for cause of forfeiture or upon a change of
policy and legislation touching the subject.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted in excess of its jurisdiction in
issuing the writ and in declaring the petitioners in contempt for
disregarding such order.
In the case at bar, the permit to the Austin Hardware Company, Inc. and
the All Steel Products, Inc. was granted subject to the provisions of
existing ordinances. Likewise, petitioners' permit to construct a
RULING: warehouse at 115 L.K. Santos St., San Juan, Rizal was subject to the
condition that its construction or use will not conflict with the provisions
of the zoning ordinance, otherwise the construction will be removed by
No. The petition is without merit. the government at the expense of the permitee or licensee.
The Appellate Court's action is based on careful examination of pleadings It is not disputed that the business establishments of petitioners were
and annexes. It is neither based on speculation nor on a misapprehension situated within the residential zone and, therefore, the issuance of a
of facts, but on substantial evidence. Among those considered is the license or permit in favor of the petitioners appears violative of Section 2
report of the Deputy Clerk of Court of the Division who was ordered to of Municipal Ordinance No. 90, Series of 1968, of San Juan, which provides
inspect to the premises to verify whether or not the steel production has that "No building permit, business license, or any other certificate of
been stopped. The representative of the court confirmed from the ocular approval shall be issued by the municipality for commercial or industrial
inspection that the operations of the petitioners never ceased in clear establishments which shall be erected, operated, and maintained within
defiance of the lawful order of the Appellate Court. any residential zone, unless the site has been or so declared as commercial
or industrial zone in the municipal council." It is precisely for this reason
that the Municipal Mayor of San Juan cancelled or revoked the business
license of the petitioners. Since the obvious purpose of zoning is the
protection of public safety, health, convenience and welfare, it would have ordered another investigation to be made but before said investigation
been has finished, the Secretary rendered a decision dismissing the appeal.
A complaint was filed before CFI of Tarlac where petitioner alleges denial
of due process and grave abuse of discretion, and that he was not formally
represented by counsel at any stage of the proceedings before the
Director of Forestry and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, plus there was no showing that notice was sent to him so as to
afford him an opportunity to obtain the services of a lawyer. However, this
case before the CFI was dismissed upon motion of Villena for lack of
7 TITLE: MAGNO MANUEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARIANO VILLENA,
jurisdiction.
THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, Defendants-Appellees. This instant case is now an appeal from the order of the Court of First
Instance of Tarlac dismissing the complaint wherein the plaintiff sought
annulment of the decision of Secretary of ANR dismissing his application
FACTS: Magno Manuel had been in continuous possession of a 20-hectare for a Tree Farm Permit over a 20-hectare parcel of public land, which was
parcel of public land since 1939. Being an ignorant farmer he did not file his included in a 66-hectare area covered by a similar application of private
Tree Farm application (No. 13312) until June 1954. When he filed, the defendant Mariano Villena.
Director of Forestry rejected the same because a prior application (No.
3852) had been filed by Mariano Villena in November 1955; He filed for a
motion for consideration, which was rejected. Manual appealed to the ISSUE: WON the Order of the Secretary of ANR should be set aside.
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR). The Secretary to
found that the previous investigation conducted by the District Forester
was not in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bureau, and so
RULING: NO. Under Section 1838 of the RAC, The case (Tree Farm
Application) falls within the jurisdiction of the Director of Forestry with the
approval of the Secretary of ANR.
In July 1919, the Philippine Legislature (during special session) passed and
It should be noted that in the order of the Acting Secretary of ANR, a approved Act No. 2868 entitled An Act Penalizing the Monopoly and
formal investigation of the case was ordered. That the investigation was Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn. The said act, under extraordinary
actually conducted was not denied, and is borne out by the decision of the circumstances, authorizes the Governor General (GG) to issue the
Secretary dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal. necessary Rules and Regulations in regulating the distribution of such
products. Pursuant to this Act, in August 1919, the GG issued Executive
Order No. 53 which was published on August 20, 1919. The said EO fixed
We have examined the documents and pleadings reproduced in the the price at which rice should be sold. On the other hand, Ang Tang Ho, a
appellant’s record on appeal, particularly the decision of the Secretary of rice dealer, sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price of eighty
ANR which is sought to be set aside, and we find that the said decision is centavos. The said amount was way higher than that prescribed by the EO.
based on a thorough analysis of the facts as revealed by evidence. The sale was done on the 6th of August 1919. On August 8, 1919, he was
charged for violation of the said EO. He was found guilty as charged and
was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine. He
appealed the sentence countering that there is an undue delegation of
power to the Governor General.
The challenged provision of the said Act was Section 11 thereof which
reads: "This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the respective
provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer at
rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said
9 PEOPLE vs VERA (65 Phil 56) probation officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall
be subject to the direction of the Probation Office."
Doctrine of Undue Delegation of Powers to Administrative Agencies
ISSUE: WON the provision constitutes as an undue delegation of legislative
FACTS: Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He
power, thus unconstitutional and void.
filed for reconsideration and four motions for new trial but all were
denied. He then elevated to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court RULING: Yes. As a rule, an act of the legislature is incomplete and hence
remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the
new trial, he appealed for probation alleging that the he is innocent of the administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of the
crime he was convicted of. The Judge of the Manila CFI directed the appeal discretionary powers delegated to it.
to the Insular Probation Office.
The probation Act does not, by the force of any of its provisions, fix and certain contingencies, as by proclamation of the executive or the adoption
impose upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of by the people of a particular community. The legislature may delegate a
their discretionary power. By section 11 of the Act, the legislature does not power not legislative which it may itself rightfully exercise. The power to
seemingly, on its own authority, extend the benefits of the Probation Act ascertain facts is such a power which may be delegated. There is nothing
to the provinces but in reality leaves the entire matter for the various essentially legislative in ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as
provincial boards to determine. In other words, the provincial boards of the basis of the taking into effect of a law.
the various provinces are to determine for themselves, whether the
The legislature, then may provide that a law shall take effect upon the
Probation Law shall apply to their provinces or not at all.
happening of future specified contingencies leaving to some other person
The applicability and application of the Probation Act are entirely placed in or body the power to determine when the specified contingencies has
the hands of the provincial boards. If the provincial board does not wish to arisen. But, in the case at bar, the legislature has not made the operation
have the Act applied in its province, all that it has to do is to decline to of the Prohibition Act contingent upon specified facts or conditions to be
appropriate the needed amount for the salary of a probation officer. The ascertained by the provincial board. It leaves, as we have already said, the
plain language of the Act is not susceptible of any other interpretation. entire operation or non-operation of the law upon the provincial board.
This, to our minds, is a virtual surrender of legislative power to the The discretion vested is arbitrary because it is absolute and unlimited.
provincial boards.
A provincial board need not investigate conditions or find any fact, or
"The true distinction", says Judge Ranney, "is between the delegation of await the happening of any specified contingency. It is bound by no rule,
power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what — limited by no principle of expediency announced by the legislature. It
it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to may take into consideration certain facts or conditions; and, again, it may
be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; not. It may have any purpose or no purpose at all. It need not give any
to the latter no valid objection can be made." reason whatsoever for refusing or failing to appropriate any funds for the
salary of a probation officer. This is a matter which rest entirely at its
pleasure. The fact that at some future time — we cannot say when — the
It should be observed that in the case at bar we are not concerned with provincial boards may appropriate funds for the salaries of probation
the simple transference of details of execution or the promulgation by officers and thus put the law into operation in the various provinces will
executive or administrative officials of rules and regulations to carry into not save the statute. The time of its taking into effect, we reiterate, would
effect the provisions of a law. It is true that laws may be made effective on yet be based solely upon the will of the provincial boards and not upon the
happening of a certain specified contingency, or upon the ascertainment
of certain facts or conditions by a person or body other than legislature
SHORT VERSION: The Court concludes that section 11 of Act No. 4221
itself.
constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative
While it may be undoubted that the legislature may suspend a law, or the authority to the provincial boards and is, for this reason,
execution or operation of a law, a law may not be suspended as to certain unconstitutional and void. There is no set standard provided by Congress
individuals only, leaving the law to be enjoyed by others. The suspension on how provincial boards must act in carrying out a system of probation.
must be general and cannot be made for individual cases or for particular The provincial boards are given absolute discretion which is violative of the
localities. constitution and the doctrine of the non delegation of power. Further, it is
a violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The challenged
NOTE: Doctrine of Non-Delegation of Powers: Corollary of separation of
section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: This Act shall
powers doctrine. - This rule which follows as a necessary corollary of the
apply only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards
doctrine of separation of powers prohibits the delegation of legislative
have provided for the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than
power, the vesting of judicial officers with non-judicial functions, as well as
those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be
the investing on nonjudicial officers with judicial powers. Any attempt at
appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction
such delegation is unconstitutional and void. The distinction is between a
of the Probation Office. The provincial boards of the various provinces are
delegation of power to make the law, which involves a discretion as to
to determine for themselves, whether the Probation Law shall apply to
what the law shall be, which delegation is void; and the delegation of
their provinces or not at all. The applicability and application of the
authority or discretion as to the execution of a law to be exercised under,
Probation Act are entirely placed in the hands of the provincial boards. If
and in pursuance of the law, to which delegation no objection can be
the provincial board does not wish to have the Act applied in its province,
made. The legislature may delegate its authority to make findings of fact,
all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the
and the fact-finding power may be conferred for putting into effect,
salary of a probation officer.
suspending, or applying the law. But where delegation to a fact-finding
body empowers it to create the conditions which constitute the fact, the 10 CASE TITLE: Emmanuel Pelaez v Auditor General, G.R. No. L-23825
delegation is invalid. The test of completeness has been said to be (15 SCRA 569), 24 December 1965
whether the provision is sufficiently definite and certain to enable one to
know his rights and obligations thereunder.
FACTS:
In 1964, President Ferdinand Marcos issued executive orders creating 33
municipalities, purportedly pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised
ISSUE: Whether Congress has delegated the power to create
Administrative Code which provides in part: The President may by
municipalities to the President by virtue of Sec. 68 of the Revised
executive order define the boundary… of any… municipality… and may
Administrative Code
change the seat of government within any subdivision to such place
therein as the public welfare may require xxx
RULING:
Then Vice President, Emmanuel Pelaez, as taxpayer, filed a special civil No. There was no delegation here. Although Congress may delegate to
action – a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction – to restrain the another branch of the government the power to fill in the details in the
auditor general from disbursing funds to be appropriated for the said execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to
municipalities. Pelaez claims that the EOs were unconstitutional. He said forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers, that said law:
that Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code had been impliedly (a) be complete in itself — it must set forth therein the policy to be
repealed by Section 3 of RA 2370 which provides that barrios may “not be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate — and (b) fix a
created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed” except by standard — the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
Act of Congress. Pelaez argues that if the President cannot even create a determinable — to which the delegate must conform in the performance
barrio, how can he create a municipality which is composed of several of his functions. In this case, Sec. 68 lacked any such standard. Without the
barrios, since barrios are units of municipalities? aforementioned standard, there would be no means to determine, with
reasonable certainty, whether the delegate has acted within or beyond the
scope of his authority.
The Auditor General countered that there was no repeal and that only
barrios were barred from being created by the President. Municipalities
are exempt from the bar and that a municipality can be created without Further, although Sec. 68 provides the qualifying clause “as the public
creating barrios. The Auditor General further maintains that through Sec. welfare may require”, which would mean that the President may exercise
68 of the Revised Administrative Code, Congress has delegated such such power as the public welfare may require, still, such will not replace
power to create municipalities to the President. the standard needed for a proper delegation of power. Only the seat of
government may be changed by the President when public welfare so any disbursement by the municipalities referred to. The Supreme Court
requires and NOT the creation of municipality. declared that the power to create municipalities is essentially and
eminently legislative in character not administrative (not executive)
Section 10 (1) of Article VII of our fundamental law ordains that: The
President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, or 11 GR L-17821 | Nov 29 1963
offices, exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be
provided by law, and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The
power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to PRIMITIVO LOVINA, and NELLY MONTILLA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.
interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may be vested by law in the
officers of the executive departments, bureaus, or offices of the national HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works and
government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers. However, this power Communications, and BENJAMIN YONZON, defendants-appellants.
is denied by the Constitution to the Executive, insofar as local
governments are concerned. The fundamental law permits him to wield no
more authority than that of checking whether said local governments or FACTS: The cause started by a petition of numerous residents of the said
the officers thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory municipality to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications,
enactments. Hence, the President cannot interfere with local complaining that appellees had blocked the "Sapang Bulati", a navigable
governments, so long as the same or its officers act within the scope of river in Macabebe, Pampanga, and asking that the obstructions (dams and
their authority. The alleged power of the President to create municipal dikes) be ordered removed, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 2056.
corporations would necessarily connote the exercise by him of an After notice and hearing to the parties, the said Secretary found the
authority even greater than that of control which he has over the constructions to be a public nuisance in navigable waters, and, in his
executive departments, bureaus or offices. decision, ordered the land owners, spouses Lovina, to remove five (5)
closures of Sapang Bulati; otherwise, the Secretary would order their
removal at the expense of the respondent. Respondent filed a petition in
The Executive Orders are hereby declared null and void ab initio and the the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the Secretary from
Auditor General is permanently restrained from passing in audit any enforcing his decision, which was granted.
expenditure of public funds in implementation of said Executive Orders or
ISSUES: W/N there was unlawful delegation of judicial power to the ownership thereof is not acquirable by adverse possession (Palanca vs.
Secretary of Public Works and Communications by RA 2056 Commonwealth, 69 Phil. 449).
ARGUMENT: The position of the plaintiffs-appellees was that Republic Act It is true that the exercise of the Secretary's power under the Act
No. 2056 is unconstitutional because it invests the Secretary of Public necessarily involves the determination of some questions of fact, such as
Works and Communications with sweeping, unrestrained, final and the existence of the stream and its previous navigable character; but these
unappealable authority to pass upon the issues of whether a river or functions, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are merely incidental to the
stream is public and navigable, whether a dam encroaches upon such exercise of the power granted by law to clear navigable streams of
waters and is constitutive as a public nuisance, and whether the law unauthorized obstructions or encroachments, and authorities are clear
applies to the state of facts, thereby Constituting an alleged unlawful that they are, validly conferable upon executive officials provided the
delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works and party affected is given opportunity to be heard, as is expressly required by
Communications. Republic Act No. 2056, section 2.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the That the creek was navigable in fact before it was closed was also testified
writs of injunction issued therein are annulled and set aside. The to by the government witnesses, whose version is corroborated as we
objections of the appellees to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. have seen.
2056, not only as an undue delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of
Public Works but also for being unreasonable and arbitrary, are not
tenable Considering the well-established rule that findings of fact in executive
decisions in matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect from
the courts in the absence of fraud, collusion, or grave abuse of discretion
RATIO: It will be noted that the Act (R.A. 2056) merely empowers the (Com. of Customs vs. Valencia, 54 O.G. 3505), none of which has been
Secretary to remove unauthorized obstructions or encroachments upon shown to exist in this case, we agree with appellant that the court below
public streams, constructions that no private person was anyway entitled erred in rejecting the
to make, because the bed of navigable streams is public property, and
Nevertheless, we, agree with appellees that they can not be charged with
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, for the Secretary's decision is
that of the President, in the absence of disapproval.
Finally, there being a possibility that when they purchased the property in
question the appellees Lovina were not informed of the illegal closure of
the Bulati creek, their action, if any, against their vendor, should be, and is
findings of fact of the Secretary of Public Works. hereby, reserved.
The findings of the Secretary can not be enervated by new evidence not
laid down before him, for that would be tantamount to holding a new
investigation, and to substitute for the discretion and judgment of the 11 GR L-17821 | Nov 29 1963
Secretary the discretion and judgment of the court, to whom the statute
had entrusted the case. It is immaterial that the present action should be
one for prohibition or injunction and not one for certiorari, in either event PRIMITIVO LOVINA, and NELLY MONTILLA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.
the case must be resolved upon the evidence submitted to the Secretary,
HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works and
since a judicial review of executive decisions does not import a trial de
Communications, and BENJAMIN YONZON, defendants-appellants.
novo, but only an ascertainment of whether the executive findings are not
in violation of the constitution or of the laws, and are free from fraud or
imposition, and whether they find reasonable support in the evidence.
Here, the proof preponderates in favor of the Secretary's decision. FACTS: The cause started by a petition of numerous residents of the said
municipality to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications,
complaining that appellees had blocked the "Sapang Bulati", a navigable
river in Macabebe, Pampanga, and asking that the obstructions (dams and
dikes) be ordered removed, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 2056.
After notice and hearing to the parties, the said Secretary found the 2056, not only as an undue delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of
constructions to be a public nuisance in navigable waters, and, in his Public Works but also for being unreasonable and arbitrary, are not
decision, ordered the land owners, spouses Lovina, to remove five (5) tenable
closures of Sapang Bulati; otherwise, the Secretary would order their
removal at the expense of the respondent. Respondent filed a petition in
the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the Secretary from RATIO: It will be noted that the Act (R.A. 2056) merely empowers the
enforcing his decision, which was granted. Secretary to remove unauthorized obstructions or encroachments upon
public streams, constructions that no private person was anyway entitled
to make, because the bed of navigable streams is public property, and
ISSUES: W/N there was unlawful delegation of judicial power to the ownership thereof is not acquirable by adverse possession (Palanca vs.
Secretary of Public Works and Communications by RA 2056 Commonwealth, 69 Phil. 449).
ARGUMENT: The position of the plaintiffs-appellees was that Republic Act It is true that the exercise of the Secretary's power under the Act
No. 2056 is unconstitutional because it invests the Secretary of Public necessarily involves the determination of some questions of fact, such as
Works and Communications with sweeping, unrestrained, final and the existence of the stream and its previous navigable character; but these
unappealable authority to pass upon the issues of whether a river or functions, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are merely incidental to the
stream is public and navigable, whether a dam encroaches upon such exercise of the power granted by law to clear navigable streams of
waters and is constitutive as a public nuisance, and whether the law unauthorized obstructions or encroachments, and authorities are clear
applies to the state of facts, thereby Constituting an alleged unlawful that they are, validly conferable upon executive officials provided the
delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works and party affected is given opportunity to be heard, as is expressly required by
Communications. Republic Act No. 2056, section 2.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the That the creek was navigable in fact before it was closed was also testified
writs of injunction issued therein are annulled and set aside. The to by the government witnesses, whose version is corroborated as we
objections of the appellees to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. have seen.
Nevertheless, we, agree with appellees that they can not be charged with
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, for the Secretary's decision is
Considering the well-established rule that findings of fact in executive
that of the President, in the absence of disapproval.
decisions in matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect from
the courts in the absence of fraud, collusion, or grave abuse of discretion
(Com. of Customs vs. Valencia, 54 O.G. 3505), none of which has been
Finally, there being a possibility that when they purchased the property in
shown to exist in this case, we agree with appellant that the court below
question the appellees Lovina were not informed of the illegal closure of
erred in rejecting the
the Bulati creek, their action, if any, against their vendor, should be, and is
hereby, reserved.
The findings of the Secretary can not be enervated by new evidence not
laid down before him, for that would be tantamount to holding a new
investigation, and to substitute for the discretion and judgment of the
Secretary the discretion and judgment of the court, to whom the statute
had entrusted the case. It is immaterial that the present action should be
one for prohibition or injunction and not one for certiorari, in either event 12 ALEGRE v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
the case must be resolved upon the evidence submitted to the Secretary,
since a judicial review of executive decisions does not import a trial de
novo, but only an ascertainment of whether the executive findings are not Facts: Section 1772 of the Administrative Code, as amended, read as
in violation of the constitution or of the laws, and are free from fraud or follows:
imposition, and whether they find reasonable support in the evidence.
The Fiber Standardization Board shall determine the official standards for
Here, the proof preponderates in favor of the Secretary's decision.
the various
commercial grades of Philippine fibers that are or may hereafter be applied for a permit to export one hundred bales of abaca to England, but
produced on the Philippine was denied by the
Islands for shipment abroad. Each grade shall have its proper name and respondent. He was advised by the respondent that he would not be
designation which, permitted to export the
together with the basis upon which the several grades are determined, abaca in question without a certificate from the Fiber Standardization
shall be defined by the Board.
said Board in a general order. Such order shall have the approval of the Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the
Secretary of Agriculture provisions of the
and Natural Resources; and for the dissemination of information, copies of Administrative Code for the grading, inspection and certification of fibers
the same shall be are unconstitutional
supplied gratis to the foreign markets, provincial governors, municipal and void for being a delegation of legislative power.
presidents, and to such
No fiber within the purview of this law shall be exported from the legislative power.
Philippine Islands in quantity
greater than the amount sufficient to make one bale, without being
Ruling: No. The legislature has enacted a law which provides for the
graded, baled, inspected,
inspection, grading and
and certifies as in this law provided.
baling of hemp before they can be exported to other countries and the
Petitioner is engaged in the production of abaca and its exportation to creation of a board for
foreign markets. He
that purpose, vesting it with the power and authority to do the actual it may delegate to administrative agencies the authority to exercise such
work. legislative power as is
Such authority is not a delegation of legislative power and is nothing more necessary to carry into effect the general legislative purpose. The rule-
than a delegation of making power must be
administrative power in the Fiber Standardization Board to carry out the confined to details for regulating the mode of proceedings to carry into
purpose and intent of effect the law as it has
the law. In the very nature of things, the Legislature could not inspect, been enacted and it cannot be extended to amend or expand the
grade and bale the statutory requirements or to
hemp, and from necessity, the power to do that would have to be vested embrace matters not covered by the statute
in a board or
commission.
The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to G.R. No. L-6791
declare what acts should constitute an offense. It can authorize the
March 29, 1954
issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for in
the law itself. (People vs. Exconde 101 Phil. 11 25, citing 11 Am. Jur. 965 on p.
11 32).
Facts:
Originally, Administrative Order No. 84 punished electro fishing in all
waters. Later, the ban against electro fishing was confined to fresh water
Que Po Lay was adjuged guilty violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in
connection with section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, and sentencing him to
fisheries. The amendment created the impression that electro fishing is suffer six months imprisonment, to pay a fine of P1,000 with subsidiary
not condemnable per se. It could be tolerated in marine waters. That imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The charge was
circumstance strengthens the view that the old law does not eschew all that the appellant who was in possession of foreign exchange consisting
forms of electro fishing. of U.S. dollars, U.S. checks and U.S. money orders amounting to about
$7,000 failed to sell the same to the Central Bank through its agents within
However, at present, there is no more doubt that electro fishing is
punishable under the Fisheries Law and that it cannot be penalized merely
one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by It is true that Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank is not a statute or law
Circular No. 20. but being issued for the implementation of the law authorizing its
issuance, it has the force and effect of law according to settled
On appeal, Que Po Lay asserts that said circular No. 20 was not
jurisprudence.
published in the Official Gazette prior to the act or omission imputed to
the appellant, and that consequently, said circular had no force and effect. Moreover, as a rule, circulars and regulations especially like the
Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank in question which prescribes a penalty
The Solicitor General answering this contention says that
for its violation should be published before becoming effective, this, on
Commonwealth Act. No. 638 and 2930 do not require the publication in
the general principle and theory that before the public is bound by its
the Official Gazette of said circular issued for the implementation of a law
contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must
in order to have force and effect.
first be published and the people officially and specifically informed of said
contents and its penalties
Held: Yes, SC reverse the decision appealed from and acquit the appellant.
Doctrine:
ISSUE:
thereby was given the force of law. Said manual prescribed a form in
Whether or not Defendant Molina may be held liable for the crime of
blank, which form each applicant was required to fill, in order to be
perjury, applying Act No. 1697, in the case at bar.
permitted to take said examination. Said application required the applicant
to swear to the facts stated therein. We have, therefore, a law which
authorizes the administration of an oath in the present case.
HELD:
The Court affirmed the Decision of the lower court finding the defendant
guilty of the crime of perjury. By reference to Exhibit A (the application made and sworn to by the
defendant), this Court finds that the oath was taken before a notary
public, a person qualified to administer an oath, in accordance with the
provisions of law.
Under Act No. 1697, any person who, having taken an oath before a
competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the
As opposed to Defendant’s allegation that the lower court committed an 3. That he willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any
error in finding that he had committed the crime of perjury voluntarily and material matter, "which he does not believe to be true."
corruptly, this Court found that there is nothing in the record which shows
that he did not present to the proper authorities Exhibit A voluntarily.
As opposed to the contention of the Defendant, this Court finds it difficult
to understand how a person can state, under oath, that a fact is true or
Furthermore, the defendant admitted that he could read and understand subscribe a document, asserting that the same is true, which he does not
Spanish. It is to be noted that at the very beginning of said application believe to be true. If, under his oath, he declares that said facts are true,
there are three paragraphs devoted to instructions to the applicant, which we must conclude that he believed that they were true. If, as a matter of
he should have read and no doubt did. Said instructions were sufficient to fact, they were not true, and he had full knowledge of the fact that they
indicate to the defendant that if there were any questions which he did were not true, then his declaration that they were true would certainly be
not fully understand, he should have acquired a full understanding of the a sworn statement that a certain fact was true which he did not believe to
same before answering them. If there was any fault in understanding any be true and, therefore, he must have made a false statement knowingly.
question therein, it was wholly due to his own negligence.
5. WHILE OPERATED A PUBLIC UTILITY IS A “PRO TANTO” This increase was allowed and became effective by an order of the Public
APPROPRATION TO A PUBLIC USE – when property becomes a public Utility Commissioner dated April 24, 1920, and final on May 1, 1920.
utility, for operating purposes, it ipso facto amounts to a taking and
In a short time and on account of low wages, there was a general strike of
the seamen and officers operating the vessels owned by the members of
Steamers Owned by —
the association and it became necessary to increase the wages paid the
men and to make other concessions which materially increased operating
expenses, by reason of which the 10 per cent increased rate
Sorsogon ........................................................ Ynchausti Steamship Co.
WON the act of Commissioner in basing the rates on the original cost of
Present value true test. — While all accurate available evidence of the
the vessel was just and reasonable?
original cost as well as the cost of reproduction is desirable and helpful in
determining the extent of the actual investment necessary to render the valuation and is not important, except in so far as it may enable the
service in any particular case, neither these nor the amount of Commissioner to determine the present value of the vessel.
capitalization are conclusive. The present market value of the plant or its
worth as a going concern in the ultimate practical basis for determining
the value of the investment upon which to fix a rate which will produce a When a public utility once enters the public service, it is no longer a free
fair return. . . . agent and the control and operation of its property is subject to
reasonable rules and regulations by the public, and to that extent and for
that purpose it is a taking of the property by the public. As one of the
It is the theory of the law that a public utility should have a fair and conditions upon which you can operate a public utility, the public says you
reasonable return upon its property which is used by the public, and, must operate it under reasonable rules and regulations, otherwise you
under the modern authorities, the rate is based upon the physical cannot operate a public utility. Hence, when property becomes a public
valuation of the property, because in effect the property is both used and utility, it ipso facto, for operating purposes, amounts to an actual taking
consumed by the public. In an action to condemn land to a public use, it and appropriation of the property to the public use, so long as it is a public
would not be contended that the measure of damages to the owner utility. In legal effect such operation amounts to a pro tanto taking and
would be the original cost of the land, or that if at one time the land was of appropriation.
a much greater value and had depreciated, the owner would then be
entitled to recover the once greater value. In such a case the measure of
damages would be the actual value at the time of the appropriation. So, It is elementary constitutional law that private property cannot be taken
on principle, the vessel here is deemed taken and condemned by the for public use without just compensation is first assessed and tendered.
public at the time of the filing of the But where the taking is not full, final, or complete, but is in the nature only
of a continuous daily taking and appropriation, it must follow that there
will be a fluctuation in the market value of the property during the period
petition, and the rate should go up and down as the physical valuation of of public service, which, as to a vessel, would change with the cost of labor
the vessel goes up and down, and the purpose of the hearing is to place a and material necessary for its construction. But in fixing the rate, it would
physical valuation upon the vessel and then base a reasonable rate upon not be fair to the public to base it upon a peak cost, and, for the same
that valuation. Hence, the original cost of the vessel is not the basis for the reason, it would not be fair to the owner of the property to place it upon a
minimum cost. Neither would it be fair to either party to base the rate
upon any abnormal condition. A just rate must be founded upon was the duty of the owner of the vessel to have submitted evidence to the
conditions which are fair and reasonable both to the owner and the public. Commissioner of the present or market value
The purpose of the hearing was to determine what was a just and of the vessel under normal conditions, yet the failure to do this would not
reasonable rate. Under the authorities from previous rulings, such a rate justify the Commissioner in basing the rate on the original cost. As a fair
should not be based upon the original cost of the vessel. Neither, under and impartial tribunal, it should require competent proof of the necessary
existing conditions, should it be based upon the estimated cost. The one is facts upon which to base the rates, and where, as in this case, the only
not fair to the shipowner, and the other is not fair to the public. For proof offered was the original and estimated costs, neither of which is
example, the original cost of the Venus was P115,000, and the estimated competent except as it tends to show the present or market value of the
cost of reproduction was P409,446.03. The original cost of the Vizcaya was vessel, the Commissioner had no right to accept either rate as the true
P120,000, and the estimated cost was P533,318.73. The figures of these basis, or one to the exclusion of the other, and should have required that
two vessels fairly show the relative difference in the cost of reproduction proof should be furnished of the present or market value of the vessel
and the original cost of the different vessels, and are strong evidence of under reasonably normal conditions. The basing of the rate on the original
the existence of abnormal conditions. In addition, this court will take cost of the vessel was prejudicial, legal error. This same principle should
judicial knowledge of the recent World War and that Peace was declared in apply to the 5 per cent depreciation. The percentage for depreciation
November, 1918, and the amended declaration upon which the hearing should be based on the market value and not on the original cost of the
was had was filed June 21, 1920, a little more than eighteen months after vessel. Complaint is made that 10 per cent return on the investment is not
peace was declared, and that conditions were then more or less abnormal. sufficient. The question as to what is a reasonable rate is one which largely
If, as the Attorney-General says, the Commissioner based the annual rests in the discretion of the Commissioner, with which, without some
income rate on the original cost of the vessel, it was legal, prejudicial error, good reason, this court is not disposed to interfere. Complaint is also made
and was not fair to the owner. that "the average of repairs for the past five years is substituted in place of
actual expenditures for repairs during the period covered by the operating
statements thus bringing into the average a period when labor and
The original cost of a vessel should only be considered for the purpose of material costs were far below what they were today." Under normal
determining its present or market value. Although it may be true that it conditions this contention would be sound, but as shown here the
conditions were not normal.
sufficiently established and concluded that petitioner had made use of his
public office to serve and favor his friends and to prosecute the enemies of
It is the order of this court that this cause be reversed and remanded with
the latter, instead of observing absolute impartiality and fairness in the
directions to the Commissioner to require and take proof of the present or
performance of his official duties. In view of its findings,the Board
market value of the vessel, and that, in arriving at such value, he consider
recommended that petitioner-appellee be reprimanded with the warning
the actual cost of the vessel, its cost of reproduction, and any other
that any repetition of any misconduct on his part will be more severely
evidence which will tend to show its present or market value, and that
dealt with.
when the present or market value of the vessel is thus determined, he
shall then fix a reasonable return on the investment based on such value, The Integrity Board was created by Executive Order No. 318, dated May 25,
and that also the depreciation percentage be based on the same value. On 1950. A cursory reading of Executive Order No. 318 readily reveals that the
all other questions this court declines to interfere with the order of the duties and functions of the Integrity Board are to "proceed to a
Commissioner. thorough and complete investigation of any specific case of graft,
corruption, dereliction of duty or irregularity in office and to submit to the
President the record of such investigation together with its findings and
19 RUPERTO V. TORRES recommendation."
The Commission on Elections not only has the duty to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections but the power to
try, hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in
connection with the elections. And as an incident of this power, it may also
punish for contempt in those cases provided for in Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided 21
therein. In this sense, the Commission, although it cannot be classified as a
court of justice within the meaning of the Constitution (Section 13, Article
VIII), for it is merely an independent administrative body, it may however
exercise quasi-judicial functions in so far as controversies that by express
provision of the law come under its jurisdiction. In the case at bar, the
negotiation conducted by the Commission has resulted in controversy G.R. No. L-27392 January 30, 1971
between several dealers, that however merely refers to a ministerial duty
meeting so that petitioners could be confronted about the status of union
funds, but Pablo Catura cancelled such meeting. Succeeding resolution
PABLO CATURA and LUZ SALVADOR, petitioners, vs.
reiterating previous demands and the duly issued subpoenas by the
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and CELESTINO TABANIAG, et Department of Labor were not successful.
al., respondents.
Thereafter, respondent Celestino Tabaniag and the other members,
sought an injunction to prevent now petitioner Pablo Catura who was
again elected as President in an election from taking his oath of office in
view of the aforementioned demands.
FACTS:
In the complaint, it was further asserted that the executive board of such ISSUE:
labor organization passed a resolution calling for a general membership
Whether respondent Court, in the exercise of its power of investigation, order did was to require petitioners, as President and Treasurer of the
can require a labor organization's "books of accounts, bank accounts, labor organization, to "deliver and deposit" with respondent Court all of
pass books, union funds, its book of accounts, bank accounts, pass books, union funds, receipts,
vouchers and other documents related to its finances at the hearing of the
petition before it on January 3, 1967.
receipts, vouchers and other documents related to [its] finances" be
delivered and deposited with it at the hearing to conduct such
investigation in accordance with a complaint duly filed without the officials On its face, it cannot be said that such a requirement is beyond the
of such labor organization being heard prior to the issuance of such order. statutory power conferred. If it were otherwise, the specific provisions of
law allegedly violated may not be effectively complied with. The authority
to investigate might be rendered futile if respondent Court could be held
RULING: as having acted contrary to law. To paraphrase Justice Laurel, the power
to investigate, to be conscientious and rational at the very least, requires
an inquiry into existing facts and conditions. The documents required to be
produced constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to whether
The order as issued by Public Respondent Court must be sustained.
or not there was a failure to comply with the mandates of the law. It is not
for this Court to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative
agencies to assure the effective administration of a statute, in this case
The complaint before respondent Court against petitioners as President
intended to protect the rights of union members against its officers. The
and Treasurer of the union, specifically recited an unauthorized
matter was properly within its cognizance and the means necessary to
disbursement of union funds as well as the failure to make a full and
give it force and effectiveness should be deemed implied unless the power
detailed report of financial transactions of the union and to make the book
sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights of
of accounts and other records of its financial activities open to inspection
petitioners entitled to priority.
by the members. Clearly, the matter was deemed serious enough by the
prosecutor of respondent Court to call for the exercise of the statutory
power of investigation to substantiate the alleged violation so as to assure
Nor is the validity of the order in question to be impugned by the
that the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization as
allegation that there was a denial of procedural due process. The pertinent
specifically set forth in Section 17 be respected. All that the challenged
section of the Industrial Peace Act makes clear that such books of States Governments (Antonio Laforteza, Chief of the Intelligence Division
accounts and other records of the financial activities are open to of the Central Bank, and Capt. A. P. Charak of the OSI, U.S. Air Force) in
inspection by any member of a labor organization. order to evade prosecution for said unauthorized purchase of U.S. dollars
'What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the Following the filing of said deportation charges, a warrant for the arrest of
absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard.' As was said aliens was issued by the presiding member of the Deportation Board.
stated in a recent decision, what Upon their filing of a bond herein petitioners-appellants were provisionally
set at liberty.
The President has not been vested with such authority to order an arrest
pending investigation. What is only granted to the President is the
Art. 3, Sec. 1 of the Phil. Constitution provides, “The right of the People to arrest of the deportee. But, certainly, during the investigation, it is not
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against indispensable that the alien be arrested.
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants
shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 23 MARTINIANO P. VIVO, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration,
67 SCRA 287
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the power to decide resides
solely in the administrative agency vested by law, this does not preclude a
delegation of the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which the
decision of the administrative agency will be made. The rule that requires
FACTS: The American Tobacco Company (ACT) was a party to a trademark an administrative officer to exercise his own judgment and discretion does
case pending before the Philippine Patent Office. ATC challenged the not preclude him from utilizing, as a matter of practical administrative
validity of Rule 168 of the “Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine procedure, the aid of subordinates to investigate and report to him the
Patent Office in Trademark Cases” as amended, authorizing the Director of facts, on the basis of which the officer makes his decisions. It is sufficient
that the judgment and discretion finally exercised are those of the officer
authorized by law. Neither does due process of law nor the requirements COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-26799. August 31, 1970.]
of fair hearing require that the actual taking of testimony be before the
same officer who will make the decision in the case. As long as a party is
not deprived of his right to present his own case and submit evidence in FACTS OF THE CASE:
support thereof, and the decision is supported by the evidence in the
record, there is no question that the requirements of due process and fair On September, 1964, the Public Service Commission assessed several
trial are fully met. In short, there is no abnegation of responsibility on the public utilities for supposed supervision and regulation fees for that year,
part of the officer concerned as the actual decision remains with and is as follows: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company — P214,353.60;
made by said officer. It is, however, required that to “give the substance Manila Electric Company — P727,526.00; Bolinao Electronics Corporation
of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making determinations upon — P11,610.40 Philippine Steam Navigation Company — P23,921.60; and
evidence the officer who makes the determinations must consider and General Shipping Company — P33,146.80, based upon the value of their
appraise the evidence which justifies them.” respective properties or equipment. The assessments were allegedly made
pursuant to Section 40(e) of the Public Service Act, as amended by
Republic Act 3792.
#25 PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE After paying under protest the demanded amounts, the above mentioned
PUBLIC SERVICE corporations sent separate letters to the Commission, except the
Philippine Steam Navigation Company which filed a formal petition
COMMISSION, Respondent.
instead, 1 requesting for reconsideration of the assessments on the
ground that under Section 40 (e) of the Public Service Act, as amended,
such assessments should be based not on the value of the properties but
[G.R. No. L-26765. August 31, 1970.]
upon the subscribed and paid up capital stocks of the corporations.
definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws, there
exists a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to
HELD: I. No. By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court sustained the
the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a
constitutionality of this section of the Administrative Code. Under the
class.dz
doctrine of necessity, who else was in a better position to determine
whether or not to execute the law but the provincial governor. It is
optional for the provincial governor to execute the law as circumstances
28
may arise. It is necessary to give discretion to the provincial governor. The
Legislature may make decisions of executive departments of subordinate People v. Rosenthal & Osmena
official thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts,
final on questions of fact. II. No. Among other things, the term Dznon- People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Jacob Rosenthal & Nicasio
Christiandz should not be given a literal meaning or a religious Osmena, defendants-appellants
signification, but that it was intended to relate to degrees of civilization.
June 12, 1939
The term Dznon-Christiandz it was said, refers not to religious belief, but
in a way to geographical area, and more directly to natives of the
Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. In this case, the
Facts:
Manguianes were being reconcentrated in the reservation to promote
peace and to arrest their seminomadic lifestyle. This will ultimately settle Jacob Rosenthal and Nicasio Osmeña were founders and shareholders of
them down where they can adapt to the changing times. The Supreme the O.R.O. Oil Company. The main objects and purposes of the company
Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro was are to mine, refine, market, buy and sell petroleum, natural gas and other
neither discriminatory nor class legislation, and stated among other things: oil products.
Dz. one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with
when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are
Rosenthal and Osmeña were found guilty by the RTC in two cases of The shares are said to be speculative because their value materially
selling their shares to individuals without first obtaining the corresponding depended upon a promise of future promotion and development of the oil
written permit or license from the Insular Treasurer of the Commonwealth business, rather than on actual tangible assets.
of the Philippines.
On appeal, Rosenthal & Osmena argued that Act 2581 is unconstitutional
This is in violation of Sections 2 & 5 of Act No. 2581, commonly known as on three grounds:
the Blue Sky Law.
1) That it constitutes undue delegation of legislative authority to the
Section 2 of said law provides that every person, partnership, association, Insular treasurer
or corporation attempting to offer to sell in the Philippines speculative
2) that it does not afford equal protection before the law
securities of any kind or character whatsoever, is under obligation to file
previously with the Insular Treasurer the various documents and papers 3) that it is vague and ambiguous
enumerated therein and to pay the required tax of twenty-pesos.
Sec 5, on the other hand, provides that “whatever the said Treasurer of
the Philippine Islands is satisfied, either with or without the examination Issue: WON the law is unconstitutional in any of the three grounds
herein provided, that any person, partnership, association or corporation
is entitled to the right to offer its securities as above defined and provided
for sale in the Philippine Islands, he shall issue to such person, partnership, Held: The law is CONSTITUTIONAL on all grounds alleged by the
association or corporation a certificate or permit reciting that such person, appellants.
partnership, association or corporation has complied with the provisions
of this act, and that such person, partnership, association or corporation,
its brokers or agents are entitled to order the securities named in said
certificate or permit for sale”; that “said Treasurer shall furthermore have
authority, whenever in his judgment it is in the public interest, to cancel Ratio:
said certificate or permit”, and that “an appeal from the decision of the WON it constitutes undue delegation of legislative authority to the Insular
Insular Treasurer may be had within the period of thirty days to the treasurer
Secretary of Finance.”
The Act furnishes a sufficient standard for the Treasurer to follow in prohibiting delegation of legislative authority, and from the earliest time
reaching a decision regarding the issuance or cancellation of a certificate American legal authorities have proceeded on the theory that legislative
or permit. The certificate or permit to be issued under the Act must recite power must be exercised by the legislative alone. It is frankness, however,
that the person ,partnership, association or corporation applying therefor to confess that as one delves into the mass of judicial pronouncements, he
“has complied with the provisions of this Act”, and this requirement, finds a great deal of confusion.
construed in relation to the other provisions of the law, means that a
the maxim “delegatus non potest delegare or delegata potestas non
certificate or permit shall be issued by the Insular Treasurer when the
potest delegare” has beenmade to adapt itself to the complexities of
provisions of Act 2581 have been complied with. Upon the other hand, the
modern governments, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of
authority of the Insular Treasurer to cancel a certificate or permit is
the principle of “subordinate legislation”, in practically all modern
expressly conditioned upon a finding that such cancellation “is in the
governments. Difficulty lies in fixing the limit and extent of the authority.
public interest.” In view of the intention and purpose of Act 2581 to
While courts have undertaken to laydown general principles, the safest is
protect the public against “speculative schemes which have no more basis
to decide each case according to its peculiar environment, having in mind
than so many feet of blue sky” and against the “sale of stock infly-by-night
the wholesome legislative purpose intended to be achieved.
concerns, visionary oil wells, distant gold mines, and other like fraudulent
exploitations”, we hold that “public interest” in this case is a sufficient Hall v Geiger-Jones: it is well-settled principle of law in this state that by
standard to guide the Insular Treasurer in reaching a decision on a matter legislative act a commission or board may be empowered to ascertain the
pertaining to the issuance or cancellation of certificates or permits. existence of facts, upon the finding of which may depend the right to
continue in the practice of a profession or a regulated business.
Act 2581 allows appeal from the decision of the Treasurer to the Sec of
Finance. Hence, it cannot be contended that the Treasurer can act and
decide without any restraining influence.
WON it does not afford equal protection before the law
The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its originators to
secure action and at the same time to forestall over action which Another ground relied upon by appellants in contending that Act No. 2581
necessarily results from undue concentration of powers, and thereby is unconstitutional is that it denies equal protection of the laws because
obtain efficiency and prevent despotism. Thereby, the “rule of law” was the law discriminates between an owner who sells his securities in a single
established which narrows the range of governmental action and makes it transaction and one who disposes of them in repeated and successive
subject to control by certain legal devices. As a corollary, we find the rule transactions.
Judgement of lower court is affirmed, with modifications that the fines are
reduced.
The Department of Education shall from time to time prepare and publish
in pamphlet form the minimum standards required of primary, RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
intermediate, and high schools, and colleges granting the degrees of
Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, or any other academic degree. It
shall also from time to time prepare and publish in pamphlet form the Act No. 2706 is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
minimum standards required of law, medical, dental, pharmaceutical,
engineering, agricultural and other medical or vocational schools or
colleges giving instruction of a technical, vocational or professional
It is quite clear the two sections empower and require the Secretary of
character.
Education to prescribe rules fixing minimum standards of adequate and
efficient instruction to be observed by all such private schools and colleges
as may be permitted to operate. Despite such alleged vagueness, the
The petitioners contend that as the legislature has not fixed the standards, Secretary of Education has fixed standards to ensure adequate and
"the provision is extremely vague, indefinite and uncertain"—and for that efficient instruction, as shown by the memoranda fixing or revising
reason constitutionality objectionable. This is because such “section leaves curricula, the school calendars, entrance and final examinations, admission
everything to the uncontrolled discretion of the Secretary of Education or and accreditation of students etc.; and the system of private education
his department. The Secretary of Education is given the power to fix the has, in general, been satisfactorily in operation for 37 years. Which only
standard. In plain language, the statute turns over to the Secretary of shows that the Legislature did and could, validly rely upon the educational
experience and training of those in charge of the Department of Education
to ascertain and formulate minimum requirements of adequate instruction
as the basis of government recognition of any private school.
Indeed "adequate and efficient instruction" should be considered
sufficient, in the same way as "public welfare" "necessary in the interest of
law and order" "public interest" and "justice and equity and substantial
At any rate, petitioners do not show how these standards have injured any
merits of the case" have been held sufficient as legislative standards
of them or interfered with their operation. Wherefore, no reason exists for
justifying delegation of authority to regulate. (See Tañada and Fernando,
them to assail the validity of the power nor the exercise of the power by
Constitution of the Philippines, p. 793, citing Philippine cases.)
the Secretary of Education.
On this phase of the litigation we conclude that there has been no undue
True, the petitioners assert that, the Secretary has issued rules and
delegation of legislative power.
regulations "whimsical and capricious" and that such discretionary power
has produced arrogant inspectors who "bully heads and teachers of
private schools." Nevertheless, their remedy is to challenge those
30
regulations specifically, and/or to ring those inspectors to book, in proper
administrative or judicial proceedings—not to invalidate the law. For it Cenon S. Cervantes Vs. The Auditor General
needs no argument to show that abuse by the officials entrusted with the
execution of a statute does not per se demonstrate the unconstitutionality G.R. No. L-4043 May 26, 1952
of such statute.
RATIO:
ISSUE:
31 Ang Tibay vs. CIR Whether or not the National Labor Union, Inc. is entitled to a new trial.
FACTS
FACTS: On 1 April 1968, the Philippine Air Lines, petitioned the Civil
(3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to
Aeronautics Board for approval of a proposed schedule introducing seven
decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded,
nights and the adjustment of the flight schedule that may thus be affected
namely, that of having something to support its decision. A decision with
(CAB Case No. 1414). On 22 April 1968, the Board passed Resolution No. 109
absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached.
(68), referring PAL's petition to a hearing examiner for economic
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or justification. Accordingly, the designated hearing officer set the initial
conclusion but the evidence must be “substantial.” Substantial evidence is hearing thereof. It appears, however, that on 15 May 1968, PAL filed an
more than a mere scintilla It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable Urgent Petition for approval of a consolidated schedule of jet and jet prop
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. flights, with an interim DC-3 schedule to different secondary and feeder
points (DTS-35). On 28 May 1968, the Board issued its Resolution No. 139
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
(68), approving DTS-35 for a period of 30 days, effective 1 June 1968,
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
subject to the conditions. After the examiner's report, several of the
affected.
proposed flights were approved for 30 days from 31 July 1968. On 31 May
(6) The administrative body or any of its judges, therefore, must act on 1968, Air Manila, Inc., filed the instant petition claiming that the
its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the respondent Board acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving abuse of discretion in issuing its Resolution No. 139 (68). It is petitioner's
at a decision. allegation that the proposed new schedule, involving an increase of
frequencies, would not only saturate the routes served also by petitioner,
(7) The administrative body should, in all controversial questions, but would also affect its schedule; that the Board's approval of said
render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can Domestic Traffic Schedule without receiving the evidence of the parties
know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions constituted a deprivation of petitioner's right to be heard; and that such
rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority authorization to PAL to operate the proposed schedule without economic
conferred upon it.
justification amounted to a capricious and whimsical exercise by the Board on its economic justification." 3 It has not been denied that such hearings
of its power amounting to lack of jurisdiction. were actually conducted by the hearing examiner and a report on the
result thereof was submitted to the Board. And the Board, considering the
report of the hearing examiner, passed Resolution No. 190 (68) 4
ISSUE: Whether or not the Board's approval of said Domestic Traffic approving, for a period of 30 days starting 31 July 1968, only three or four
Schedule without receiving the evidence of the parties constituted a frequencies of the seven proposed new flights (F338, F591, F531/532,
deprivation of petitioner's right to be heard. F555/556, F527/528, F561/562, and F515/516). There is no proof, not even
allegation, that in all those bearings petitioner was not notified or given
opportunity to adduce evidence in support of its opposition.
RULING: No, there was no deprivation of petitioner’s right to be heard. In
the present case, it can not truthfully be said that the provisional approval
by the Board of PAL's proposed DTS35 violates the requisites of Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain
administrative due process. Admittedly, after PAL's proposal to introduce basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the due process
new Mercury night flights (in CAB Case No. EP-1414) had been referred to a requirements in investigations and trials. 1 And this administrative due
hearing examiner for economic justification, PAL submitted a so-called process is recognized to include (a) the right to notice, be it actual or
consolidated schedule of flights, DTS-35, that included the same Mercury constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may affect a
night flights involved in Case EP-1414, and this was allowed by Board person's legal rights; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his
Resolution No. 139 (68). rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor, (c) a tribunal
so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance
similar nature against petitioner. Petitioner, through counsel, asked for the
postponement of
the hearing set for 11/18 and 19, 1974, but the motion was denied. The
committee then
petitioner’s favor, but on appeal to the Sec. of Labor, the latter found
petitioner’s dismissal to be
#34 Montemayor vs. Araneta
justified. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
FACTS:
provision on academic freedom which, as noted, is found in the FACTS OF THE CASE:
Constitution. It was pointed out
Petitioner herein is the holder of various certificates of public convenience
in Garcia v. The Faculty Admission, Committee that academic freedom “is to operate auto-truck services between Balara and various points in the
more often Identified city of Manila and its suburbs.
with the right of a faculty member to pursue his studies in his particular On July 2, 1952, CAM Transit Co., Inc., filed a petition with the respondent
specialty and thereafter Commission, alleging that the route authorized in its City Hall (Manila)-
Balara line, and passing along the Marikina-Barangka road, Marikina-San
to make known or publish the result of his endeavors without fear that
Juan road, and Highway 54, is entirely different from that supported by
retribution would be
the evidence presented in the hearing, and praying that the certificate be
visited on him in the event that his conclusions are found distasteful or amended so that the route authorized should be along Highway 54,
objectionable to the
Silañgan Avenue, U.P. site, ending at Balara, instead of Highway 54, above sections of the law, and consequently the question at issue must be
Marikina San Juan road, Barangka road, ending at Balara. resolved in accordance with fundamental principles of law and justice.
Acting upon this petition, the respondent Commission on the following A cursory perusal of the existing routes readily discloses that the change
day, July 3, 1952, and without a previous notice to the petitioner or a or amendment ordered by the respondent Commission in the route of
previous hearing thereon, ordered the modification of the line in respondent operator is one of substance, not nominal or innocent change.
accordance with the petition.
It does not seem to us to be a correction a mere clerical, innocent mistake
or error. To us the grant of the route along the Barangka and the Marikina
roads to respondent operator was for the purpose of giving service to
people living along these roads and at Balara. On the other hand,
ISSUE: petitioner herein Halili, then oppositor to the application of respondent
operator's predecessor in
Whether the order for each amendment of the route, without notice to
the petitioner and other interested parties, or hearing in which the latter
may be given opportunity to be present, was lawfully and validly issued by
interest, was already given the University of the Philippines, Silañgan
the Commission.
Avenue, to Kamuning line, to serve students of the University and people
living along this route. Inasmuch as the terminal of respondent operator's
line is Balara, not the University, it could not have been the purpose and
intention of the original certificate issued to allow it to serve students of
the University of the Philippines. The supposed justification for the
RULING OF THE COURT:
issuance of the disputed order therefore, is not borne out by the original
It will be noted that the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 146) decision granting the certificate of respondent operator's predecessor.
expressly defines the powers of the respondent Commission which may be
But assuming, for the sake of argument, that the respondent Commission
exercised by it "upon proper notice and hearing," or without previous
committed an error, in the appreciation of the supposed evidence offered
hearing. (Section 16 and 17.) The act of the Commission in issuing the order
(which was not mentioned), it appears that the change in the route
of July 3, 1952, does not fall under any of the powers enumerated in the
authorized in the order clearly affects the right and privilege granted the
petitioner in his certificate of public convenience to pass from Kamuning Sometime in May, 1951, due to his failure to pay the rentals agreed upon,
road through Silañgan Avenue, to the University of the Philippines, who Lagman was dispossessed of the land by his landlord who then and there
without a change in the respondent operator's line, could not ride in the gave it to Alipio Sicat.
latter's buses because these operate only up to Balara, without reaching
Since then Sicat worked the land until he was ejected therefrom by the
the University of the Philippines,and pass only through Barangka and
sheriff on July 6, 1956. This came about when a petition was filed by
Marikina roads. The amendment, therefore of the respondent operator's
Lagman on September 1, 1952 with the Court of Industrial Relations against
lines affect the rights granted and guaranteed by the certificate of public
his landlord Liongson praying that he be reinstated as tenant of the land
convenience of the petitioner. To allow the respondent Commission to
he was working because his dispossession had been done without just
authorize the amendment, without giving the petitioner opportunity to be
cause.
heard and express his objections thereto, is clearly a deprivation of a
precious right and privilege without due process of law.
After issues were joined, this case was amicably settled by virtue of an
agreement, entered into between tenant and landlord wherein, among
36
other things, they stipulated that Lagman should be reinstated to his
CASE TITLE: ALIPIO SICAT, ET AL. vs. HON. PASTOR P. REYES, ETC., ET AL., landholding beginning the crop year 1956-1957 and that the present
tenant, Sicat, should vacate the land. And on the strength of this
G.R. NO. L-11023, DECEMBER 14, 1956
agreement, the court issued an order on January 23, 1956 approving the
same and ordering that it be given effect as a decision on the merits.
FACTS OF THE CASE: On July 6, 1956, said order having become final, the court ordered its
execution, which was carried out by the sheriff on the same date by
ejecting Sicat from the land in question. Sicat lost no time in filing a motion
for reconsideration contending that the orders of ejectment, as well as the
Arcadio Lagman was a tenant of Francisco Liongson since 1932 up to, 1951
writ of execution, were illegal in so far as he is concerned, because they
of three parcels of ricelands belonging to the latter situated in Bacolor,
Pampanga.
were issued without having been given his day in court. And when this
motion was denied, he interposed the present petition for certiorari.
The above agreement, which served as basis for the ejectment of Sicat,
cannot be binding and conclusive upon the latter, who is not a party to the
case. Indeed, that order, as well as the writ for execution, cannot legally
There is no question that in the tenancy case instituted by Lagman against
be enforced against Sicat for the simple reason that he was not given his
his landlord Liongson before the Court of Industrial Relations (now Court
day in court. It is well-settled that "No person shall be deprived of life,
of Agrarian Relations), Sicat was not a party even if he was the tenant
liberty, or property without due process of law . . .” (Section 1, Article III,
placed in the land by the latter to take the place of the former. However,
Constitution of the Philippines) and by "due process of law" we mean” 'a
when that case was called for trial on the merits, the parties submitted an
law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and
amicable agreement wherein, among other things, they stipulated as
renders" judgment only after trial. . .' (4 Wheaton, U. S., 518, 581)", or as
follows:
this Court has said: "Due process of law contemplates ' notice and
opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's
person or property" (Lopez vs. Director of Lands, 47 Phil., 23, 32). It is,
"4) That the parties respectfully pray this Hon. Court to order the therefore, evident that the order of the lower court dated January 23,
reinstatement of the petitioner Arcadio Lagman as tenant of the 1956, as well as the writ of execution of July 6, 1956, are null and void, the
respondent in the said remaining portion of his holding beginning the crop same having been issued by it in excess of its jurisdiction.
year 1956-1957 and to order the present tenant, Alipio Sicat, to vacate said
remaining landholding, and the dismissal of the respective claims of the
herein parties."
ISSUE:
Petition is DENIED.
Whether or not the cancellation of the petitioner’s passport without
hearing violates his constitutional right to due process.
39
RULING: De Bisshop vs. Galang 8 SCRA 244 (1963) G.R. No. L-18365
40
GRACIANO INDIAS, petitioner, vs. On May 20, 1955, the court approved the hearing examiner's
recommendation stating that, after a perusal of the record of the case, it
PHILIPPINE IRON MINES, INC., respondent.
"finds no sufficient justification for modifying said recommendation,
findings and conclusions, and consequently, this case is hereby dismissed."
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the
FACTS: This is a petition for review of a decision of the Court of Industrial court en banc.
Relations
In 1954, a complaint was filed by petitioner alleging that respondent has RULING:
engaged in unfair labor practice. Respondent answered denying the
material allegations of the complaint and, as a special defense, alleged
that petitioner was dismissed from the service for cause. The order now assailed by petitioner reads:
based on said evidence, which counsel claims does not meet the
requirements of the law and the Constitution.
Hearing Examiner Mr. Tabigne recommends the dismissal of this case on
the ground that the evidence by the complainant did not support the
charges of unfair labor practice. The facts are stated in the Hearing
We find no merit in this contention. The order, it is true, does not make its
Examiner's dated May 16, 1955.
own discussion of the evidence or its own findings of fact, but such is not
necessary if the court is satisfied with the report of its examiner or referee
which already contains a full discussion of the evidence and the findings of
After a perusal of the record of the case, the Court finds no sufficient
fact based thereon. The situation differs if the court disagrees with the
justification for modifying said recommendation, findings and conclusions,
report in which case it should state the reasons for its disagreement. If it is
and consequently, this case is hereby dismissed.
in full accord with the report, it is purposeless to repeat what the referee
or examiner has already found in it. Such is the present situation. The court
approved the report of the hearing examiner "after a perusal of the record
SO ORDERED. of the case." This presupposes that it has examined the evidence and
found no justification for modifying his findings and conclusions. This is a
substantial compliance with the law.
It is contended by petitioner that the aforequoted order runs counter to
the Constitution which provides that "No decision shall be rendered by any
court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts 41. Gracilla v CIR
and the law on which it is based" (Article VIII, section 12); and to Rule 35,
Section 1, of the Rules of Court, which provides that a court decision shall
state "clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." And
FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint with respondent court raying that he
the claim is made in view of the fact that the order does not contain either
be paid for his unpaid services for Sundays and legal holidays during the
a discussion of the evidence or any finding of fact
whole period of his employment, that he be given additional
compensation for night services, and that he be credited with his earned
vacation and sick leave pay as well as back wages from the date of his
illegal dismissal up to the time he is actually reinstated. He would thus hold
liable jointly and severally for the aforesaid money claim not only us of reviewing decisions and orders of the Public Service Commission. * *
respondent Fuller Paint Manufacturing Co. (Phil.) Inc., but likewise the * It is all the more essential then that each and every application should be
Republic Protection Agency, where he was connected long before his considered strictly on its merits and the relevant facts in support of an
services were availed of by the former. CIR dismissed the complaint for order, ruling or decision be carefully inquired into and clearly set forth.
lack of merit. It added further; "For humanitarian reason, however, Otherwise, the exercise of the power of review by this Court might be
complainant Gracilla should be afforded preferential opportunity by condemned to futility. The case was remanded to respondent court.
respondent Republic Protective Agency, for assignment [to] any place
other than the Puller Paint Manufacturing Co. (Phil.), Inc.; else, it is
suggested that he be extended separation fee. MR was filed but it was 42 Neria vs. Commissioner of Immigration
denied.
May ʹ, ͳͻͺ
On July ͳͶ, ͳͻͳ, the Board of Special Inquiry No. ͳ conducted a hearing
He then filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming that the respondent’s
and petitioner gave oral arguments and presented evidence to support his
agents picked him up at Rosario St., Manila on the supposed claim that he
claim for admission as Filipino citizen. After the conclusion of the
was not properly documented for admission as a Filipino citizen when he
investigation, the said board on August ʹ, ͳͻͳ, unanimously voted for
entered the Philippines. On June ͳͺ, ͳͻͷ, the lower court dismissed the
petitioner’s admission. The board on the same date rendered its decision
petition on the ground that the Board did not act without due process of
and the written decision was subsequently submitted to the members of
law, in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. On June ʹ͵,
the Board of Commissioners. On September ͳ, ͳͻͳ, the Immigration
petitioner moved for reconsideration of said decision while the
authorities issued Identification Certificate to the petitioner. On
respondent filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration, to which
September Ͷ a copy of the decision was received by petitioner’s counsel.
the petitioner filed a reply.
This Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, held that "the operative
If, as provided in section ͳʹ above, "the result of the deliberation [of the date of the Commissioners' action is that when the resolution of exclusion
Board of Special Inquiry] shows that at least two members vote for was voted and adopted by them as a Board, regardless of the date when
landing, a note thereof shall be made and the alien shall, without waiting the decision in extenso was prepared, written and signed.,
for the decision to be put in writing, be released from custody", then
promulgation can take place even before a decision is actually written and
a copy thereof served In this case, August ʹ, ͳͻͳ was the date when the Board of Special Inquiry
No. ͳ concluded its hearing of petitioner's case ȋI.C. ͳ-ʹ͵ͳʹ-CȌ, deliberated
on it, and voted for his admission as a citizen of the Philippines. August ʹ,
upon the alien. Again, if, as provided in section ͳͶ above, "[i]n every ͳͻͳ was also the date when the decision in extenso was rendered. That
case the alien shall be furnished with a copy of the decision upon date and not September Ͷ, ͳͻͳ, therefore, is the date of promulgation of
promulgation thereof," then notice of a decision of the board shall be the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry No. ͳ, which decision
made only after or upon promulgation, and not before. In both sections ͳʹ should "prevail and shall be final ... unless reversed by the Board of
and ͳͶ, therefore, promulgation always takes place before copy of the Commissioners after a review by it, motu proprio of the entire proceedings
written decision of the board is furnished to an alien. Of course, section ͳʹ within one year from the promulgation of said decision."ͳͲ Computing the
contemplates an alien who is under "custody", while section ͳͶ one- year period from August ʹ, ͳͻͳ, the Board of Immigration
contemplates a case of an alien "excluded by a board of special inquiry". Commissioners had until August ʹ, ͳͻʹ within which to review the
Nonetheless, there seems to be no reason why the same rule would not proceedings motu proprio.
apply to the case at bar, where the petitioner, who was "unanimously
voted" for admission by the Board of Special Inquiry No. ͳ, was at liberty
ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.
43 SCOTYS DEPARTMENT STORE V MICALLER ISSUE: Whether the industrial court erred in finding that petitioners can be
legally punished by a fine of P100/Whether the Court of Industrial Relations
has no jurisdiction to impose the penalty
FACTS:
HELD:
vs.
After promulgation on February , ͳͻͻ of the verdict of acquittal,
HON. FELIX R. DOMINGO and JUAN MAFE, respondents.
however, respondent-accused filed on February ͳͻ, ͳͻͻ a motion for
amendment of respondent court's decision, alleging for the first time that
respondent had already been dismissed from the service of the Railways
Facts: as of July Ͷ, ͳͻ "with prejudice to reinstatement" per the Railways'
board of directors' resolution of January ͳͻ, ͳͻͺ, because of the very
incident subject matter of the criminal charge of which respondent court
Private respondent Juan Mafe, a mechanic in the employ of the Philippine had acquitted him, and praying that respondent court amend its decision
National Railways was charged in an information for qualified theft the so as to include therein his reinstatement, with payment of back salaries
filed with respondent court, for having stolen one brass bearing valued at and restoration of all accrued rights and privileges.
PͶͷ.ͲͲ from his employer's shop.
Respondent court in its order dated March ͵, ͳͻͻ set hearing of the
Respondent, on his part, disowned any criminal intent claiming he was on motion on March ͳͷ, ͳͻͻ and ordered that the parties and the general
his way to return the brass bearing and repudiated his extrajudicial manager of the Philippine National Railways be notified thereof, and
confession, asserting that he was coerced into signing the same without thereafter issued its "amendatory decision" dated March ʹ, ͳͻͻ, noting
being allowed to read its contents, which were different from what he that there was no appearance nor opposition from the Railways at the
stated at the police investigation. hearing and granting respondent's motion, by adding the following
paragraph to the dispositive part of its original decision, as follows:
Respondent court, in its decision of January ͳͺ, ͳͻͻ, ruled that "the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond The General Manager of the Philippine National Railways, Manila, is hereby
ordered to reinstate the accused immediately to his position from which
he was dismissed on July Ͷ, ͳͻ and to pay his ȋaccusedȌ salary in full
during the period beginning July Ͷ, ͳͻ to the date of reinstatement, and
The general rule that the court has no such authority has long been
to restore the said accused to such benefits and rights and privileges
uniformly pronounced by the Court. In People v. Mañago, involving an
arising from the position that he held which should have accrued to him
accused employee acquitted of the charge of malversation of public funds,
during the period aforesaid.
the Court held that "In a criminal proceeding against an accused, the
judgment that. the law authorities to be rendered, is either one of
acquittal or of conviction with indemnity and the accessory penalties
Hence, the present action filed by petitioner Philippine National Railways,
provided for by law. The payment of salary of an employee during the
after respondent court had denied its motion to set aside the amendatory
period of his suspension cannot, as a general rule, be properly decreed by
decision on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over it and over the subject
the trial court in a judgment of acquittal."
matter of reinstatement and back salaries and of lack of due process.
Upon petitioner's motion and bond, the Court issued on August ʹ, ͳͻͻ a
writ of preliminary injunction.
In the analogous case of Manila Railroad Co. v. Baltazar, ͷ where the two
accused employees were acquitted of qualified theft, the Court further
elaborated that" ȋIȌn -criminal cases courts of first instance may dismiss
Issue:
an information, try and acquit or convict and impose upon the defendant
the penalty provided by law. The only civil responsibility that may be
imposed by the court is that which arises from the criminal act
Whether the trial court in a criminal case, in rendering a judgment of
acquittal, may properly decree the payment of salaries during the period
of the accused employee's suspension from the service, and where the
The owner of a stolen property in a case of qualified theft is a party in the
employee was dismissed, order his reinstatement in the service.
case if he does not reserve his right to bring a separate civil action. In that
event the court will order the defendant criminally liable to return the
property stolen, to repair the damage caused or done, if any, and to
Held: indemnify the offended party for consequential damages. But whether a
defendant acquitted of a criminal charge is entitled to his salary during
NO.
suspension is not within the power of the court to grant in the criminal accused is acquitted, is without power to order the payment of his salary
case where the defendant is acquitted. Neither the Revised Penal Code nor during the period of his suspension.
the Rules of Court on criminal procedure vests in the court authority to
grant such a relief.
The reason is that the only issue joined by the plea of not guilty is whether
or not the accused committed the crime charged in the information, and in
Respondent court, therefore, had no authority or power in the criminal such case, the only judgment that the court is legally authorized to render
case below to order the general manager of the Philippine National is either one of acquittal or of conviction with the indemnity to the injured
Railways to reinstate respondent to the position from which he had been party and the accessory penalties provided for by law.
duly dismissed, much less to order the payment of his wages in full from
the date of his suspension and effective date of dismissal on July Ͷ, ͳͻ
to date of reinstatement with restoration of all accrued benefits, rights The rule governing cases of this nature may be restated as follows:
and privileges, and the petition must be granted as prayed for. Besides,
respondent court had no authority nor jurisdiction to issue its
"amendatory decision" dated March ʹ, ͳͻͻ granting such reinstatement
— The Court’s jurisprudence uniformly holds that the trial court in the
with back wages, since its original decision of acquittal became
criminal case, has no authority, in the event of an acquittal of the accused
immediately final, upon promulgation on February , ͳͻͻ and could no
employee, to order payment of back salaries.
longer be recalled for amendment or modification.
Section 7 of the same decree, already cited, confers upon the Bureau the
following quasi-judicial powers:
46
“SEC. 7. In addition to its regulatory and adjudicative functions over
companies, partnerships or persons engaged in mining exploration, CASE TITLE: Glenia Uy, for and in behalf of her minor brother Reynaldo and
development and exploitation, the Bureau of Mines shall have original and minor sisters Maria Elena and Conchita, all surnamed UY; GR No. L-43389;
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving: (a) a mining April 28, 1980
property subject of different agreements entered into by the claim holder
thereof with several mining operators; (b) complaints from claimowners
that the mining property subject of an operating agreement has not been
FACTS: Kim Lam Uy was an overseer of Lucy Perez in here rice mill available despite the existence of the remedy of appeal where public
business. Kim Lam Uy was killed in a robbery in keeping the business of policy so dictates or the broader interests of justice so require. In the light
Lucy Perez. The heirs of Kim Lam Uy filed a claim on Workers of those rulings laid down by the SC, it is clear that dismissal of the instant
Compensation Commission being an employee of Lucy Perez. When the petition which seeks to enforce the provisions of the Workmen's
Workers Compensation Commission gave due notice to Lucy Perez Compensation Act, as amended, a benign legislation intended to
requiring the latter to submit the WCC forms, the latter failed to comply so implement the social justice guarantee mandated by the Constitution is a
the WCC imposed penalties to Lucy Perez to pay the heirs of the deceased foul blow to the humanitarian design of the law. Thus, the respondent
the compensation. Lucy Perez denied that the deceased were her WCC’s decision was set aside and reversed.
employee as there was no employee-employer relationship existed. This
issue has reached to the Workers Compensation Commission on appeal
and the WCC rendered a decision that there was no employer – employee 47
relationship so no compensation was needed to speak of. Aggrieved by
the decision, the heirs of Kim Lam Uy filed a petition for Certiorari before Uy v. Palomar
the Supreme Court.
G.R. No. L-23248 February 28, 1969
The Postmaster answered that the Postal Law served as basis for his
action, which authorizes him to issue fraud orders upon satisfactory
For the Grand Christmas Sweepstakes Draw of December 1963, the PCSO
evidence that any person or company is engaged in conducting any
directed its agents to undertake every means possible to help achieve its
lottery, gift enterprise scheme, etc. through the mails. (Sec. 1982), that as
P6 Million sales goal. The prizes were fixed at P700,000, P350,000, and
Postmaster General he has the authority to issue the fraud order in
P175,000 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd prize. Uy devised a “Grand Christmas Bonus
question and he did not abuse his discretion in doing so; and that Manuel
Award” plan, where both his sub-agents and purchasers of winning
Uy had not exhausted all the administrative remedies before invoking
sweepstakes tickets, in addition to the regular prize money, would each
judicial intervention.
win bonuses and awards. (1st prize is a Volkswagen sedan; 2nd prize is a
Television; 3rd prize is a refrigerator; 4th prize is a sewing machine; and The CFI Manila ruled that the fraud order is contrary to law; it issued a writ
charity prize is a radio). Sub-agents and purchasers of sweepstakes tickets of preliminary injunction against the Postmaster General.
did not have to pay any amount on top of the amount paid for the ticket,
ISSUE:
to benefit from the plan.
1. WON the Postmaster’s decision to issue a fraud order can be
Such plan is a modification of the original scheme presented by Uy to the
reviewed by the Court.
Assistant Postmaster General, which the latter considered as violative of
the Postal Law. Uy advertised his "Grand Christmas Bonus Award" plan in
metropolitan newspapers of nationwide circulation weekly, for almost a
month. Because of this, the Postmaster General Enrico Palomar issued a 2. WON the "Grand Christmas Bonus Award" plan constitutes a
Fraud Order No. 3. Uy learned of the order two weeks after its issuance, lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme proscribed by the Postal Law.
when his parcels containing sweepstakes tickets and other mail matters of
purely personal nature, were refused for acceptance for mailing.
Uy filed a complaint with the CFI Manila against the Postmaster General,
praying for an injunction to restrain said Postmaster General from HELD:
enforcing Fraud Order No. 3, alleging that in issuance of the fraud order,
1. Yes. The Postal Law contains no provision for judicial review of the
decision of the Postmaster General. However, even if the Postal Law
Also, the assertion of the Postmaster that the action of Uy was premature
contains no provision for judicial review of decisions of the Postmaster
for failure to comply with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
General, the Court, however, has ruled in several cases that the action of
remedies has no merit. The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies
the Postmaster General is subject to revision by the courts in case he
is not a hard and fast one. It admits of exceptions, amongst which are: (1)
exceeded his authority or his act is palpably wrong, and that the courts
where the question involved is purely a legal one, and (2) where there are
may interfere with the decision of the Postmaster General if it is clearly of
circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. The question
opinion that the Postmaster was wrong. The Court, by ruling thus,
involved in the present case is legal: whether or not the "Grand Christmas
recognizes the availability of judicial review over the action of the
Bonus Award" plan based upon the facts as stipulated, is a lottery or gift
Postmaster General, notwithstanding the absence of statutory provision
enterprise. We take note that the Grand Christmas Sweepstakes draw in
for judicial review of his action.
conjunction with which Uy’s plan was offered, was scheduled for
2. For lottery to exist, three elements must concur, namely: December 15, 1963, or barely five days from December 10, 1963, the date
consideration, prize, and chance. In the "Grand Christmas Bonus Award" when Uy learned of the issuance of the fraud order. Time was of the
plan, there is absence of the element of consideration, that is, payment of essence to Uy.
something of value, or agreement to pay, for the chance to win the bonus
or award offered. Here, the prizes offered by Uy were to be taken from his
share in the agent's prize, which was 10% of the amount of the prize won 48 [G.R. No. L-25641. December 17, 1966.]
by each ticket sold. Since none of the prizes (awards and bonuses) offered
in Uy’s plan were to come directly from the aggregate price of the RAFAEL M. ABAYA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.,
sweepstakes tickets sold by Uy, as a part thereof, no consideration exists Respondents. ABELARDO SUBIDO, Respondent-Appellant.
for the chance to win said prizes. Since in the instant case the element of
consideration is lacking, the plan or scheme in question is also not a "gift
enterprise" or a "similar scheme" proscribed by the Postal Law. FACTS
Rule II, Article 4, of the Civil Service Rules, provides "That when an
3. The prematurity of petitioner’s complaint is not relied upon by
applicant for examination intentionally make a false statement of any
appellant. Appellant’s thesis on this score is that petitioner has not
material fact in his application, or practices or attempts to practice any
exhausted administrative remedies — he did not appeal from the order of
deception or fraud in connection with his examination, the Commissioner
dismissal, but went straight to court.
shall invalidate his examination and such offense shall be ground for his
removal from the service."
50
ISSUE: G.R. No. L-10182 December 24, 1957
Whether or not the complaint fails to state a cause of action for failure of
the plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies.
JOSE GEUKEKO, petitioner-appellant, vs.
It was clear that the appeal to the Secretary of Agricultural and Commerce
was made more than 2 years from the date of their receipt of the decision
of the Director of Lands had elapsed.
ISSUED: WON THE SUBLEASES CAN INVOKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
OF APPEAL TO SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES However, The Secretary of Agriculture maintains that the period of 60
days provided for by section 2 of the Lands Administrative order No. 6
aforequoted has not yet prescribed saying that it has been the adopted
RULING: YES, the relief could still be availed by the aggrieved parties. policy of Secretary of Agriculture to consider the filing of civil actions in
court as suspending the running of the presctiptive period. It must be
remembered that Administrative Order No. 6 is in the nature of procedural
rules promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
pursuant to the power bestowed on said administrative agency to
promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the proper discharge and
management of the functions imposed by law upon said office.
The underlying idea seems to be that those officials are considered in a
better position to decide controversies regarding the disposition of said
Estate.
Recognizing the existence of such rule making authority.
Despite this knowledge on June 17, 1972, appellant did not appeal the
It was then alleged that such withdrawal or cancellation of the certificate resolution in question to the Executive Secretary. Instead he premature
of registration of plaintiffs race horse was arbitrary and oppressive, due instituted a suit in court for damages. The reason for this short circuiting of
process being denied him in the absence of a formal investigation or administrative processes is not explained by appellant. He gives no reason
inquiry prior thereto. However, the lower court dismissed the case for for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Indeed there is none.
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The order of dismissal therefore, cannot considered as being in derogation
of the due process guarantee.
ISSUE:
What further lends support to the decision now on appeal is that the
Whether or not the failure to exhaust administrative remedies in this case failure to apply such a basic concept as exhaustion of administrative
warrants its dismissal. remedies would be attended with consequences adverse to such equally
well-settled postulates in administrative law of primary jurisdiction and
ripeness of review. It is true that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or
HELD: prior resort goes no further than to determine whether it is the court or
the agency that should make the initial decision. When, therefore, as was which are accorded only to Filipino citizens, such as suffrage, ownership of
likewise adverted to by the Solicitor General, the judicial forum was sought real property.
by plaintiff, there was in effect an unwarranted disregard of the concept
of primary jurisdiction. In the traditional language of administrative law,
the stage of ripeness for judicial review had not been reached. They filed a motion to dismiss with the Deportation board stating that it
lacked jurisdiction for the reason that they are citizens of the Philippines,
which was was denied as was a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
53 They did exhaust their administrative remedy, an appeal to the President
being fruitless.
G.R. No. L-22748 | July 29, 1977
Thereafter, they filed the special civil action of prohibition and habeas
GREGORIO CO and HERCULANO CO (Petitioners-appellees)
corpus, with the CFI, which ruled that petitioners were Filipinos. Hence,
v the appeal by the deportation board.
It is thus clear that to impute error to the lower court for sustaining the
prohibition proceedings against the Deportation Board in view of the Held: No, the appellant did lack of personality before the Court of Tax
status of petitioners having been duly established, finds no support from Appeal hence the challenged order of the Board is hereby affirmed.
the authoritative doctrines of this Court.
Ratio:
#54 Ursal v. CTA
The rulings of the Board of Assessment Appeals did not "adversely
G.R. Nos. L-10123 and L-10355 affect" him. At most it was the City of Cebu that had been adversely
affected in the sense that it could not thereafter collect higher realty taxes
April 26, 1957
from the abovementioned property owners. His opinion, it is true had
been overruled; but the overruling inflicted no material damage upon him
or his office.
Facts:
And the Court of Tax Appeals was not created to decide mere conflicts
of opinion between administrative officers or agencies. Imagine an income
tax examiner resorting to the Court of Tax Appeals whenever the Collector board of canvassers”. In administrative law, a superior body or office
of Internal Revenue modifies, or lower his assessment on the return of a having supervision or control over another may do directly what the latter
tax payer. is supposed to do or ought to have done. The petition is hereby dismissed,
for lack of merit.
Facts:
The petitioners, along with other qualified persons, took the examination
Held: No. the function of the writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of
prescribed by law for
some acts which is about to be done. It is not intended to provide a
remedy for acts already accomplished. If the thing be already be done, it is a physician's certificate on May 13 to 16, 1924, and apparently passed the
manifest the writ of prohibition cannot undo it, for that would require an same. The Board of
affirmative act;
Medical Examiners thereupon submitted the final results of the
and the only effect of a writ of prohibition is to suspend all action, and to examinations to the Department
prevent any further proceeding in the prohibited direction. Even if the
Secretary of Labor had acted illegally or in excess of his authority when he Head for confirmation. But the Secretary of the Interior held the matter in
issued the provisional or temporary license in question, prohibition is not abeyance, pending
the proper remedy.
the outcome of an investigation conducted by the Under-Secretary of the
Interior. The finding
of the special investigator was that the questions on the subjects of the
medical examinations
RULING: Under the plain terms of the Medical law, it is the discretionary
held on May 13 to May 16, 1924, had leaked out before said dates. duty of the Secretary
Following the
of the Interior to confirm or not to confirm — to confirm or, as in this
recommendation of the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior instance, to annul — the
annulled the results of the
report of the medical examiners. It is elementary law that the writ of
examinations. mandamus will not issue to
The last paragraph of section 776 of the Medical Law, as found in the control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer. Where the
Administrative Code, and law imposes upon a
as last amended by section 10 of Act No. 3111, provides that "The results of public officer the right and duty to exercise judgment, in reference to any
all examinations matter to which he is
(medical), including the average and grades obtained by each applicant, called upon to act, it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of
shall be submitted for the court. ". . . If the
confirmation to the Department Head (the Secretary of the Interior) and law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide
made known to the how or when the
respective candidates within one month after the date of the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. . . ."
examination."
It is likewise elementary law that mandamus may issue to correct abuse of
discretion, if the
ISSUE: Whether or not the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to confirm case is otherwise proper. But here, the record discloses that the Secretary
or not to confirm the of the Interior did
estopped from claiming that they are entitled to stay permanently. The
lower court ordered that petitioners
have no right to stay any longer in the Philippines and they should be
deported, in accordance with our
58. Chang Yung Fa v Gianzon
laws, to their country where they have come from. "Accordingly, the court
FACTS: This is a petition for declaratory judgment praying that the dismissed the petition for lack
Commissioner of Immigration has a
of merit.
right to limit their period of stay in the Philippines as immigrants and if
Opinion No. 314, series of 1952, of
Appellants contend that having been classified as "non-quota immigrants"
the Secretary of Justice on the same subject matter is valid and
under section 13 of
constitutional. The Government’s
Commonwealth Act No. 613, they should have been admitted for
defense is that petitioners were admitted to the Philippines with express
permanent residence in this country
condition that their stay shall not
because the word "immigrant" is defined to be a person who comes into a
be more than two years; that this condition is not violate of the law merely
country for permanent
because under section 13(a) of
residence, and, therefore, the imposition of the condition limiting their
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, known as Commonwealth Act No. 613,
stay to not more than two years by
they could have come under
the Commissioner of Immigration is in violation of law
the category of non-quota immigrants who may be admitted for
permanent residence in the Philippines;
ISSUE: WON the limitation of 2 years is in violation of law. No. Decision of Immigrant includes aliens coming both for permanent or temporary
lower court affirmed. purposes, it cannot be correctly
HELD: Yes.
59 MEJOFF V DIRECTOR OF PRISONS The court temporarily detained Mejoff as a necessary step in the process
of exclusion or
expulsion undesirable aliens and that pending arrangements for his and the Constitution. And since the Philippine law on immigration was
deportation, the government has the right to hold the undesirable alien patterned after or copied from the American law and practice, the
under confinement for a reasonable length of time. However the court reasoning and conclusions in the Staniszewski decision were adopted with
warned that too long detention may justify the issuance of a writ of some modifications.
habeas corpus.
It was alleged that the petitioner was engaged in subversive activities, and
After 2 years have elapsed since the decision of the temporarily detaining fear was expressed that he might join or aid the disloyal elements if
Mejoff, there was still no way and means of removing Mejoff out of the allowed to be at large. Bearing in mind the Government's allegation in its
country. A petition of habeas corpus was then filed. answer that "the herein petitioner was brought to the Philippines by the
Japanese forces," and the fact that Japan is no longer at war with the
United States or the Philippines nor identified with the countries allied
In the case of Staniszewski v Watkins, a stateless person, formerly a Polish against these nations, the possibility of the petitioner's entertaining or
national, resident in the United States since 1911 and many times serving as committing hostile acts prejudicial to the interest and security of this
a seaman on American vessels both in peace and in war, was ordered country seems remote.
excluded from the United States and detained at Ellis Island at the
If granting, for the sake of argument, that such a possibility exists, still the
expense of the steamship company, when he returned from a voyage on
petitioner's unduly prolonged detention would be unwarranted by law and
which he had shipped from New York for one or more European ports and
the Constitution, if the only purpose of the detention be to eliminate a
return to the United States. The grounds for his exclusion were that he
danger that is by no means actual, present, or uncontrollable.
had no passport or immigration visa, and that in 1937 had been convicted
of perjury because in certain documents he presented himself to be an
American citizen. Upon his application for release on habeas corpus, the
The court the order that the writ will be issued commanding the
Court released him upon his own recognizance.
respondents to release the
SECTION 1. Petition for review. — Within thirty days from notice of an 61 Lambino v. Del Rosario
order or decision issued by the Public Service Commission or the Securities
G.R. No. L-18434 December 29, 1962
and Exchange Commission, any party aggrieved thereby may file, in the
Supreme Court, a written petition for the review of such order of decision. FACTS:
Furthermore, Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 83, as amended by Deceased Juan Mercado was employed as laborer of the City of Manila, as
Republic Act No. 635, creating and setting forth the powers and functions early as 1919, interrupted by the World War of 1941, and resumed working
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, provides the following: in 1946, until he was bedridden in April 1952 and died on May 7, 1953. It was
alleged that sometime in November 1952, Mercado contracted
SEC. 35. Court review or orders. — (a) Any person aggrieved by an order
rheumatism, which had worsened, due to his daily work as sweeper, for
issued by the commission in any proceeding under this Act to which such
having been exposed to heat and cold in the open air. At the same time, he
person is a party or who may be affected thereby may obtain a review of
was assigned to work in the construction of the International Fair Grounds,
such order in the Supreme Court of the Philippines by filing in such court
where he was often overtaken by rain, wetting him all over, and constantly
within thirty days after the entry of such order a written petition praying
exposed to the heat of the sun. In April 1952, he fell ill, and was found to and dirt on the city streets and to the elements. To conclude that because
be afflicted with pulmonary tuberculosis, far advanced. On 1953, he died of the deceased worked in the open air his employment was healthful and
tuberculosis. A claim for death compensation was filed by Martina had invigorating effect on his health, without taking into account the
Lambino, widow of deceased Juan Mercado. Del Rosario, being the particular job he was doing is, to say the least, unjustified. Considering the
Chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC), denied the undeniable fact that on occasions for days and sometimes weeks, rain
claim for failure to present evidence to support said claim. continuously fills in this city flooding the streets and accumulating thereon
garbage, mud and filth, this must be removed and disposed of by the
Claimant moved for the reopening of the case and presented evidence,
street cleaners as the deceased.
which was properly, entertained, but found to be wanting by the
Commission. The Commission ruled that there is no established connection It also does not appear that when the deceased entered the employ of the
between the alleged tuberculosis of deceased (Juan Mercado) and that of City of Manila in 1919 as laborer he was already suffering from tuberculosis.
the nature of his work.; and that neither can claimant contend that the The records, however, disclose that when he fell ill in April 1952 during his
deceased was exposed to sudden changes in temperature, inasmuch as employment and was medically examined, he was found to be suffering
the nature of his work required him to stay in the open, he worked at will, from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. Despite said illness, however, he
without any close supervision and, as such, he could avoid rain or was reinstated to his work in November 1952 and assigned to the
sunshine, by arranging his work hours. The claimant filed a motion for construction at the International Fair Grounds. This fact undoubtedly
reconsideration of said decision, which the WCC en banc denied, hence she aggravated his ailment to such all extent.
filed a petition for review.
ISSUE:
The deceased Mercado's illness (pulmonary tuberculosis) of which he died,
WON the said claim falls under Section 2, Act No. 3428 (Workmen’s was caused by the nature of his work as laborer-street cleaner or sweeper,
Compensation Law), as amended. or at least aggravated by it, and therefore, compensable under Section 2
of Act No. 3428.
HELD:
Yes.