Cases for Admin (Report)

7/27/2019 Cases for Admin (Report)

1/4

DOMINGO SARCOS

, as Mayor of Barobo, Surigao del

Sur petitioners

Vs

HON.RECARELO CASTILLO,

Respondents

FACTS:

Sarcos, an independent candidate, won in the 14 November 1967 elections, asmayor of

Barobo, Surigao del Sur. Castillo charged Sarcos with misconduct anddishonesty inoffice. Such act alleged constituted connivance with certain privateindividuals, to cut

and fell timber and selling of the timber cut, for own use andbenefit, within the

communcal forest reserve of the municipality of Barobo, Surigaodel Sur, to the damage

and prejudice of the public and the government.As early as 18 April 196 there was

already a charge under oath for abuse of officialpower in consenting to and authorizing

the violations of forestry laws was filedagainst petitioner by Municipal Council of Barobo.

It was on the basis of thisadministrative complaint that the Castillo filed petition ordering

the immediatesuspension of Sarcos from position as Mayor saying that the acts

committed bymayor Sarcos affects his official integrity, the petition was in accordance

with thesec.5 of RA 5185- Decentralization Act of 1967.

ISSUES:

WON Provincial Governor is vested power to order preventive suspension of

mayorsarcos under RA 5185

HELD / RATIONALE:

No. Castillo as governor lacks authority to order the preventive suspension of

thepetitioner, Sarcos. According to the Decentralization Act of 1967, particularly

theparagraph dealing with preventive suspension: "The President, ProvincialBoardand City or Municipality Council, as the case may be, shall hear and investigate

thetruth or falsity if the charges within 1- days after receipt of such notice." It was

theformer law Sec. 2188 of Rev. Adm. Code which gives power to the Governor toorder

preventive suspension, however, it was already repealed by thedecentralization Act of

1967. The court was also lead to the suspicion that politics was a cause for the order

bygovernor of the preventive suspension of the Mayor, being an independentcandidate


2/4

thus of a different political persuasion. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are then

granted. The preventive suspensionorder by Castillo is annulled and set aside. Mayor

Sarcos to be reinstated to hisposition.*The Decentralization Act, to which the decision in

this case is based, amended /repealed Sec. 2188, Rev. Adm. Code. The former law

provides that the provicniclagorvernor, if the charge against a munucupola officaial was

municipal official wasone affecting his official integrity, could order his preventive

suspension. It was repealed by the RA NO. 5185 Sec. 5 which provides that now it is

the provincialboard which has been granted the power to order preventive suspension.

City of manila vs. Gomez

Facts: Section 4 of the special education fund ( RA 5447) provides that an annual

additional tax of 1% on theassessed value of the real property in addition to the real

property tax levied under existing laws may be imposed, but such tax shall not exceed amaximum of 3%. That maximum limit gave the municipal board of manila the ideaof

fixing the realty tax at 3% thru ordinance # 7125 that imposed an additional % realty

tax.Esso Phil., inc. Paid under protest the additional % tax for the third quarter of

1003 on its land andmachineries then filed a complaint contending that such tax is void

because it is not authorized by the city charter nor by law

issue: WON the imposition of additional % realty tax is void

held: No. The doctrine of implications in statcon sustains the city of manilas contention

that the additional tax issanctioned by sec. 4 of RA 5447 that the total realty tax shall

not exceed a maximum of 3%. While the 1949revised charter of manila fixed the realty

tax at 1 %, on the other hand, the RA 5447 definitely fixed 3% as themaximum realty

tax of which 1% would accrue to the SEF. The obvious implication is that an additional

% to taxcould be imposed by municipal corporations. Inferentially, that law fixed at

2% the realty tax that would accrue to acity or municipality

NASIPIT lumber

D E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN, J.:

The Labor Code, as amended by RA 6727 (the Wage Rationalization Act), grantsthe National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) the power to prescribe rulesand guidelines for the determination of appropriate wages in the country. Hence,guidelines issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards (RTWPB)


3/4

without the approval of or, worse, contrary to those promulgated by the NWPC areineffectual, void and cannot be the source of rights and privileges.Facts:

The fact that applicant companies relied in good faith upon Guidelines No. 3issued by the Board a quo, the same is not sufficient reason that they shouldbe assessed based on the criteria of said Guidelines considering that it doesnot conform to the policies and guidelines relative to wage exemption issuedby this Commission pursuant to Republic Act 6727. Consequently, it has noforce and effect. As such, said Guidelines No. 3 cannot therefore be a sourceof a right no matter if one has relied on it in good faith. In like manner that theworkers, who are similarly affected, cannot be bound thereof.Moreover, even assuming that Guidelines No. 3 conforms to the procedural

requirement, still, the same cannot be given effect insofar as it grantsexemption by industry considering that the subject Wage Order mentionedonly distressed establishments as one of those to be exempted thereof. It didnot mention exemption by industries. Well-settled is the rule that animplementing guidelines [sic] cannot expand nor limit the provision of [the] lawit seeks to implement. Otherwise, it shall be considered ultra vires. And,contrary to applicant companies claim, this Commission does not approverules implementing the Wage Orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wagesand Productivity Boards. Perforce, it cannot be said that this Commissionhas approved the Rules Implementing Wage Order No[s]. RX-01 and

RX-01-A.[8]The Issue

Petitioners raise this solitary issue:With all due respect, Public Respondent National Wages and ProductivityCommission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or inexcess of jurisdiction in ruling that RTWPB-X-Guideline No. 3 has no

operative force and effect, among others, and consequently, denying for lackof merit the application for exemption of petitioners Nasipit Lumber Company,Inc. and Philippine Wallboard Corporation from the coverage of Wage OrdersNos. RX-01 and RX-01-A.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn8


4/4

In the main, the issue boils down to a question of power. Is a guideline issued byan RTWPB without the approval of or, worse, contrary to the guidelines promulgated bythe NWPC valid?

The Courts RulingThe petition is unmeritorious. The answer to the above question is in the negative.

Sole Issue: App roval of NWPC Required

Petitioners contend that the NWPC gravely abused its discretion in overturning theRTWPBs approval of their application for exemption from Wage Orders RX-01 and RX-01-A. They argue that under Art. 122 (e) of the Labor Code, the RTWPB has the power

[t]o receive, process and act on applications for exemption from prescribed wage ratesas may be provided by law or any wage order.[10]They also maintain that no lawexpressly requires the approval of the NWPC for the effectivity of the RTWPBsGuideline No. 3. Assumingarguendo that the approval of the NWPC was legallynecessary, petitioners should not be prejudiced by their observance of the guideline,pointing out that the NWCPs own guidelines[11]took effect only on March 18, 1991 longafter Guideline No. 3 was issued on November 26, 1990.[12]Lastly, they posit that theNWPC guidelines cannot be given retroactive effect as [they] will affect or change thepetitioners vested rights.[13]

The Court is not persuaded.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/113097.htm#_edn10

Documents

Cases for Admin (Report)