8/16/2019 9 to 16

1/10

DENR VS DENR EMPLOYEES

G.R. No. 149724

Doctrine:  Alter ego of the President, Qualified Political Agency Doctrine

FACTS:

DENR Reg 12 Employees filed a petition for nullity of the memorandum order issued by the

Regional Exec Director of DENR, directing the immediate transfer of the DENR 12 Regional

!ffices from "otabato to #oronadal "ity $he memorandum %as issued pursuant to DENR 

Executi&e !rder issued by the DENR 'ecretary

!!"e:

(hether or not DENR 'ecretary has the authority to reorgani)e the DENR Region 12 !ffice

R#LNG: $he *ualified political agency doctrine, all executi&e and administrati&e organi)ations

are ad+uncts of the Executi&e Department, and the acts of the 'ecretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disappro&ed or 

reprobated by the "hief Executi&e, are presumpti&ely the acts of the "hief Executi&e t is

corollary to the control po%er of the President as pro&ided for under Art - 'ec 1. of the 1/0.

"onstitution $he President shall ha&e control of all the executi&e departments, bureaus, and

offices 3e shall ensure that the la%s be faithfully executed

n the case at bar, the DENR 'ecretary can &alidly reorgani)e the DENR by ordering the transfer 

of the DENR 4 Regional !ffices from "otabato "ity to #oronadal, 'outh "otabato $he

exercise of this authority by the DENR 'ecretary, as an alter ego, is presumed to be the acts of 

the President for the latter had not expressly repudiated the same

C$ri%o &!. C'R 

2(4 SCRA 4)* +1991,

FACTS:  !n 'eptember 1., 1//5, a 6onday and a class day, some 055 public school teacher,

among them the 0 herein pri&ate respondents %ho %ere members of the 6anila Public 'chool

$eachers Association 76P'$A8 and Alliance of "oncerned $eachers 7A"$8 undertoo9 :mass

concerted actions; to :dramati)e and highlight; their plight resulting from the alleged failure of 

the public authorities to act upon grie&ances that had time and again been brought to the latter

8/16/2019 9 to 16

2/10

$he "ommission e&idently intends to itself ad+udicate, that is to say, determine %ith the character 

of finality and definiteness, the same issues %hich ha&e been passed upon and decided by the

'ecretary of Education and sub+ect to appeal to "'", this "ourt ha&ing in fact, as

aforementioned, declared that the teachers affected may ta9e appeals to the "'" on said matter,

if still timely

$he threshold *uestion is %hether or not the "3R has the po%er under the constitution to do so=

%hether or not, li9e a court of +ustice or e&en a *uasi>+udicial agency, it has +urisdiction or 

ad+udicatory po%ers o&er, or the po%er to try and decide, or dear and determine, certain specific

type of cases, li9e alleged human rights &iolations in&ol&ing ci&il or political rights

$he "ourt declares that the "3R to ha&e no such po%er, and it %as not meant by the

fundamental la% to be another court or *uasi>+udicial agency in this country, or duplicate much

less ta9e o&er the functions of the latter

$he most that may be conceded to the "ommission in the %ay of ad+udicati&e po%er is that itmay in&estigate, ie recei&e e&idence and ma9e findings of fact as regards claimed human rights

&iolations in&ol&ing ci&il and political rights ?ut fact>finding is not ad+udication, and cannot be

li9ened to +udicial function of a court of +ustice, or e&en a *uasi +udicial agency or official $he

function of recei&ing e&idence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a contro&ersy is not a

 +udicial function, properly spea9ing $o be considered such, the faculty of recei&ing e&idence and

ma9ing factual conclusions in a contro&ersy must be accompanied by the authority of applying

the la% to those factual conclusions to the end that the contro&ersy be decided or determined

authoritati&ely, finally and definitely, sub+ect to such appeals or modes of re&ie% as may be

 pro&ided by la% $his function, to repeat, the "ommission does not ha&e

3ence it is that the "3R ha&ing merely the po%er to :in&estigate,; cannot and not :try and

resol&e on the merits; 7ad+udicate8 the matters in&ol&ed in 'tri9ing $eachers 3R" "ase No /5>

..@, as it has announced it means to do= and cannot do so e&en if there be a claim that in the

administrati&e disciplinary proceedings against the teachers in *uestion, initiated and conducted

 by the DE"', their human rights, or ci&il or political rights had been transgressed

-OSE C. TECSON petitioner>appellant,

&s

'ON. RAFAEL SALAS E/ec"ti&e Secret$r0 respondent>appellees

F$ct!:

Petitioners sought for respondent Poe

8/16/2019 9 to 16

3/10

 petition, holding that Poe %as a ilipino "iti)en Petitioners assail the +urisdiction of the

"omelec, contending that only the 'upreme "ourt may resol&e the basic issue on the case

under Article -, 'ection B, paragraph ., of the 1/0. "onstitution

!!"e:

(hether or not it is the 'upreme "ourt %hich had +urisdiction

(hether or not "omelec committed gra&e abuse of discretion in holding that Poe %as a ilipino

citi)en

R"in:

18 $he 'upreme "ourt had no +urisdiction on *uestions regarding :*ualification of a candidate;

for the presidency or &ice>presidency before the elections are held

Rules of the Presidential Electoral $ribunal in connection %ith 'ection B, paragraph ., of the

1/0. "onstitution, refers to :contests; relating to the election, returns and *ualifications of the

President or -ice>President, of the Philippines %hich the 'upreme "ourt may ta9e

cogni)ance, and not of candidates for President or -ice>President before the elections

28 "omelec committed no gra&e abuse of discretion in holding Poe as a ilipino "iti)en

$he 1/C@ "onstitution on "iti)enship, the pre&ailing fundamental la% on respondent

8/16/2019 9 to 16

4/10

enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of ha&ing made a material misrepresentation in his

certificate of candidacy in &iolation of 'ection .0, in relation to 'ection .B of the !mnibus

Election "ode

CORONA VS #NTED 'AR3O#R PLOT GR NO 1279)( CASE DGEST

FACTS:  N ''FNG AD6N'$RA$-E !RDER N! 5B>/2 7PPA>A! N! 5B>/28,

6$NG $3E $ER6 ! APP!N$6EN$ ! 3AR?!R P!$' $! !NE HEAR 

'F?E"$ $! HEARH RENE(A !R "AN"EA$!N

!N AFGF'$ 12, 1//2, RE'P!NDEN$' FN$ED 3AR?!FR P!$' A''!"A$!N

AND $3E 6ANA P!$' A''!"A$!N, $3R!FG3 "AP$ A?ER$! " "!6PA',

QFE'$!NED PPA>A! N! 5B>/2

!N DE"E6?ER 2C, 1//2, $3E !P ''FED AN !RDER DRE"$NG $3E PPA $! 3!D

N A?EHAN"E $3E 6PE6EN$A$!N ! PPA>A! N! 5B>/2

!N6AR"3 1., 1//C, $3E !P, $3R!FG3 $3EN A'''$AN$ E4E"F$-E 'E"RE$ARH

!R EGA AAR' RENA$! " "!R!NA, D'6''ED $3E APPEAIPE$$!N AND

$ED $3E RE'$RANNG !RDER ''FED EARER

RE'P!NDEN$' ED A PE$$!N !R "ER$!RAR, PR!3?$!N AND

NFN"$!N ($3 PRAHER !R $3E ''FAN"E ! A $E6P!RARH RE'$RANNG

!RDER AND DA6AGE', ?E!RE ?RAN"3 J ! $3E REG!NA $RA "!FR$

SS#E: (!N PPA>A!>5B>/2 ' "!N'$$F$!NA

'ELD:  $3E "!FR$ ' "!N-N"ED $3A$ PPA>A! N! 5B>/2 (A' ''FED N '$AR# 

D'REGARD ! RE'P!NDEN$'K RG3$ AGAN'$ DEPR-A$!N ! PR!PER$H

($3!F$ DFE PR!"E'' ! A( $3E 'FPRE6E "!FR$ 'AD $3A$ N !RDER $!

A ($3N $3E AEG' ! $3' PR!-'!N, $(! "!ND$!N' 6F'$ "!N"FR,

 NA6EH, $3A$ $3ERE ' A DEPR-A$!N AND $3A$ 'F"3 DEPR-A$!N ' D!NE

($3!F$ PR!PER !?'ER-AN"E ! DFE PR!"E'' A' A GENERA RFE, N!$"E

AND 3EARNG, A' $3E FNDA6EN$A REQFRE6EN$' ! PR!"EDFRA DFE

PR!"E'', ARE E''EN$A !NH (3EN AN AD6N'$RA$-E ?!DH E4ER"'E'

$' QFA'>FD"A FN"$!N N $3E PER!R6AN"E ! $' E4E"F$-E !R 

EG'A$-E FN"$!N', 'F"3 A' ''FNG RFE' AND REGFA$!N', AN

AD6N'$RA$-E ?!DH NEED N!$ "!6PH ($3 $3E REQFRE6EN$' !

 N!$"E AND 3EARNG

$3ERE ' N! D'PF$E $3A$ P!$AGE A' A PR!E''!N 3A' $A#EN !N $3E

 NA$FRE ! A PR!PER$H RG3$ $ ' READH APPAREN$ $3A$ PPA>A! N! 5B>/2

8/16/2019 9 to 16

5/10

FNDFH RE'$R"$' $3E RG3$ ! 3AR?!R P!$' $! EN!H $3ER 

PR!E''!N ?E!RE $3ER "!6PF'!RH RE$RE6EN$

YNOT &!. AC14) SCRA 59

F$ct!:

Petitioner transported J caracbaos from 6asbate to loilo in 1/0B and these %er confiscated by

the station commander in ?arotac, loilo for &iolating E! J2J A %hich prohibits transportation

of a carabao or carabeef from one pro&ince to another "onfiscation %ill be a result of this

$he petitioner sued for reco&ery, and the Regional $rial "ourt of loilo "ity issued a %rit of 

reple&in upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P12,55555 After considering the merits of the

case, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be

 produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond $he court also declined to rule on the

constitutionality of the executi&e order, as raise by the petitioner, for lac9 of authority and also

for its presumed &alidity

$he same result %as decided in the trial court

n the 'upreme "ourt, he then petitioned against the constitutionality of the E! due to the

outright confiscation %ithout gi&ing the o%ner the right to heard before an impartial court as

guaranteed by 6"e roce!!. 'e also challenged the improper exercise of legislati&e po%er by the

former president under Amendment J of the 1/.C constitution %herein 6arcos %as gi&en

emergency po%ers to issue letters of instruction that had the force of la%

!!"e: s the E! constitutionalL

'e6 $he E! is unconstitutional Petition granted

$he lo%er courts are not pre&ented from examining the constitutionality of a la%

"onstitutional grant to the supreme court to re&ie%

ustice aurelKs said, :courts should not follo% the path of least resistance by simply presuming

the constitutionality of a la% %hen it is *uestioned !n the contrary, they should probe the issue

more deeply, to relie&e the abscess, and so heal the %ound or excise the affliction;

$he challenged measure is denominated an executi&e order but it is really presidential decree,

 promulgating a ne% rule instead of merely implementing an existing la% due to the grant of 

legislati&e authority o&er the president under Amendment number J

Pro&isions of the constitution should be cast in precise language to a&oid contro&ery n the due

 process clause, ho%e&er, the %ording %as ambiguous so it %ould remain resilient $his %as due

8/16/2019 9 to 16

6/10

to the a&oidance of an :iron rule :laying do%n a stiff command for all circumstances $here %as

flexibility to allo% it to adapt to e&ery situation %ith &arying degrees at protection for the

changing conditions

"ourts ha&e also refrained to adopt a standard definition for due processlest they be confined to

its interpretation li9e a strait+ac9et

$here must be re*uirements of notice and hearing as a safeguard against arbitrariness

$here are exceptions such as conclusi&e presumption %hich bars omission of contrary e&idence

as long as such presumption is based on human experience or rational connection bet%een facts

 pro&ed and fact presumed An examples is a passport of a person %ith a criminal

offense cancelled %ithout hearing

$he protection of the general %elfare is the particular function of police po%er %hich both

restrains and is restrained by due process $his po%er %as in&o9ed in J2J>A, in addition to J2J

%hich prohibits slaughter of carabos %ith an exception

(hile J2J>A has the same la%ful sub+ect as the original executi&e order, it can

8/16/2019 9 to 16

7/10

!n 1J anuary 1/0/, per ad&ice of the P'F Auditor>in>"harge %ith respect to the payment

of honoraria and per diems of P'F personnel engaged in the re&ie% and e&aluation pro+ect, P'F

-ice President for Research and Extension and Assistant Pro+ect Director -ictorino P Espero

re*uested the !ffice of the President, P'F, to ha&e the Fni&ersityKs ?oard of Regents 7?!R8

confirm the appointments or designations of in&ol&ed P'F personnel including the rates

of honoraria and per diems corresponding to their specific roles and functions

Examination of the definition in "PG No 05>B of a special pro+ect re&eals that definition has

t%o 728 components firstly, there should be an inter>agency or inter>committee acti&ity or

underta9ing by a group of officials or employees %ho are dra%n from &arious agencies= and

secondly, the acti&ity or underta9ing in&ol&ed is not part of the regular or primary functions of

the participating agencies Examination of the 6!A and its annexes re&eals that t%o 728 groups

%ere actually created $he first group consisted of the coordinating committee, the membership

of %hich %as dra%n from officials of the DENR and of the P'F= and the second, the evaluation

 project team itself %hich %as, in contrast, composed exclusively of PSU personnel  1) (e belie&e

that the first component of the "PF No 05>BKs definition of special pro+ect is applicable in

respect of the group %hich is charged %ith the actual carrying out of the pro+ect itself, rather than

to the body or group %hich coordinates the tas9 of the operating or implementing group $o

construe the administrati&e definition of special pro+ect other%ise %ould create a situation,

%hich %e deem to be impractical and possibly e&en absurd, under %hich any underta9ing entered

into bet%een the senior officials of go&ernment agencies %ould ha&e to be considered an inter>

agency or inter>committee acti&ity, e&en though the actual underta9ing or operation %ould be

carried out not by the coordinating body but rather by an separate group %hich might not 7as in

the present case8 be dra%n from the agencies represented in the coordinating group n other

%ords, an inter>agency or inter>committee acti&ity or underta9ing must be one %hich isactually carried out by a composite group of officials and employees from the t%o 728 or more

 participating agencies

SS#E (!N Eslao is guilty of gross neglect of duty

'ELD: the petition is hereby GRAN$ED, $he "A decision affirming the !mbudsmans

dismissal of petitioner Rufino Eslao from office is RE-ER'ED and 'E$ A'DE, and petitioners

REN'$A$E6EN$ to her position %ith bac9 pay and %ithout loss of seniority rights is herebyordered

 N! n order to ascertain if there had been gross neglect of duty, %e ha&e to loo9 at the la%fully

 prescribed duties of petitioner Fnfortunately, DENR regulations are silent on the specific duties

8/16/2019 9 to 16

8/10

of a senior en&ironmental management specialist nternal regulations merely spea9 of the

functions of the Pro&incial En&ironment and Natural Resources !ffice 7PENR!8 to %hich

 petitioner directly reports

$he monitoring duties of the PENR! mainly deal %ith broad en&ironmental concerns,

 particularly o"tion $8$teent. $his general monitoring duty is applicable to all types of

 physical de&elopments that may ad&ersely impact on the en&ironment, %hether housing pro+ects,

industrial sites, recreational facilities, or scientific underta9ings

3o%e&er, a more specific monitoring duty is imposed on the 3FR? as the sole regulatory body

for housing and land de&elopment

PD No 1@0J prescribes the follo%ing duties on the 3FR? 7then 6inistry of 3uman

'ettlements8 in connection %ith en&ironmentally critical pro+ects re*uiring an E""

'E"$!N B Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects $he

President of the Philippines may, on his o%n initiati&e or upon recommendation of the National

En&ironment Protection "ouncil, by proclamation declare certain pro+ects, underta9ings or areas

in the country as en&ironmentally critical No person, partnership or corporation shall underta9e

or operate any such declared en&ironmentally critical pro+ect or area %ithout first securing an

En&ironmental "ompliance "ertificate issued by the President or his duly authori)ed

representati&e or the proper management of said critical pro+ect or area, the President may by

his proclamation reorgani)e such go&ernment offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or

instrumentalities including the re>alignment of go&ernment personnel, and their specific

functions and responsibilities

or the same purpose as abo&e, the 6inistry of 3uman 'ettlements Mno% 3FR? shall

7a8 prepare the proper land or %ater use pattern for said critical pro+ect7s8 or area7s8=

7b8 establish ambient en&ironmental *uality standards=

+c, 6e&eo $ ror$ o en&ironent$ en;$nceent or rotecti&e e$!"re! $$in!t

c$$ito"! $ctor! !"c; $! e$rt;

8/16/2019 9 to 16

9/10

TOLEDO &!. CSC

2(2 SCRA 5(7

F$ct!:

Atty Augusto $oledo %as appointed by then "omelec "hairman Ramon elipe as 6anager of 

the Education and nformation Department of the "omelec on 6ay 1/0J, at %hich time $oledo

%as already more than @. years old $oledo

8/16/2019 9 to 16

10/10

"'RPAP No pro&ision re prohibition of appointment of @. year old made in PD 05.=

 prohibition %as purely created by "'"

$he pro&ision cannot be &alid, being entirely a "'" creation, it has no basis in the la% %hich it

%as meant to implement t cannot be +ustified as a &alid exercise of its function of promulgating

rules and regulations for that function, to repeat, may legitimately be exercised only for the

 purpose of carrying the pro&isions of the la% into effect= and since there is no prohibition or 

restriction on the employment of @.>year old persons in the statuteOor any pro&ision respecting

age as a factor in employmentOthere %as nothing to carry into effect through an implementing

rule on the matter $he po%er &ested in the "'" %as to implement the la% or put it into effect,

not to add to it= to carry the la% into effect or execution, not to supply percei&ed omissions in it

Additionally, the "'RPAP cannot be considered effecti&e as of the time of the application to

$oledo of a pro&ision thereof, for the reason that said rules %ere ne&er published as re*uired by

 both RA 22J5 and PD 05. $he argument that it %as a :mere reiteration of existing la%; and

:circulari)ed; cannot stand as formerly discussed

Also, $oledo