Rulings of Cases

8/22/2019 Rulings of Cases

1/5

Rulings of Cases

Ople vs. Torres(National Computerized System)

An administrative Order must not be contrary to law and shall havethe sole purpose of implementing the law. In the case at bar, it is evident that the

Order deals with a subject that should be covered by a law and not by mere

administrative order because it confers rights and imposes duties.

Lupangco vs. CA

Quasi-judicial adjudication would mean a determination of rights,

privileges and duties resulting in a decision or order which applies to a specific

situation. This does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability issued

by the administrative body to implement its purely administrative policies and

functions like Resolution No. 105 which was adopted by the respondent PRC as a

measure to preserve the integrity of licensure examinations.

Joson vs. Executive Secretary Torres (jurisdiction of DILG)

Following the provisions of AO 23, the President is the Disciplining

Authority while the DILG Secretary or the Special Investigating Committee is theInvestigating Authority over actions against elective local officials. Following the

alter-ego principle or the qualified political agency, the acts of Secretaries of the

departments, in the course of their official duty, are acts of the President unless

disapproved by the latter.

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA (valid delegation of legislative power)

The power of subordinate legislation authorizes the POEA to issue

rules to be able to carry out the general provisions of the statute. With this

power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a

statute by filling in the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity

or competence to provide.


2/5

Fortich vs. Corona (Win-win Resolution)

Administrative Order No. 18 provides that the decisions of the Office

of the President shall become final and executory after the lapse of 15 days unless

a motion for reconsideration is filed. The Office of the President, by re-opening

the case and substantially altering and modifying its decision which had already

become final and executory, committed grave abuse of discretion and acted

beyond jurisdiction.

Evangelista vs. Jarencio (Subpoena)

EO No. 4 specifically provides that the Presidential Agency on

Reforms and Government has power to summon witness, take testimony relevantto the investigation and require production of evidence under subpoena.

Administrative agencies have the power to issue subpoena in the course of

investigation for the purpose of discovering evidence. The purpose of the

subpoena is to discover evidence, not to prove a pending charge.

Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Garcia Jr (undue delegation of legislative power)

The LTFRB is vested with the power to fix fare rates of public services.

But it is not authorized to delegate such power to others such as common

carriers, transport operators or other public service. It is contrary to the Latin

maxim Potestas delegala non delegari potest. What has been delegated cannot

be delegated.

Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice

What has been delegated cannot be delegated. However, there are

certain exceptions. One is delegation of legislative power to administrativebodies. There is no undue delegation of legislative power from Sec of Justice to

Director of Bureau of Corrections because the latter is a constituent of the

former. The DOJ is tasked to be in charge of the administration of correctional

system and has the authority to supervise Director of BOC.


3/5

Montes vs. Civil Service Board of Appeals (Exhaustion of Remedies)

The Doctrine of Exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that

where an administrative remedy is provided by a statute, relief must be sought by

exhausting such remedy first before resorting to the courts so that administrative

agencies will have the opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly and

prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts.

Ledesma vs. CA(SOJs power of supervision and control)

Decisions and resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the

Secretary of Justice who exercises power of direct control and supervision over

said prosecutors. He may modify, alter, nullify, or set aside their rulings andsubstitute it with his own.

US vs. Ang Tang Ho(incomplete law = delegation of legislative power)

A law must be complete in all its terms and provisions and must not

be left in the judgment and sole discretion of the delegate of the legislature. The

legislature can only enact a law but cannot delegate legislative authority. Act No.

2868 is incomplete and leaves to the Governor General some legislative act.

Taxicab Operators of Manila vs. Board of Transportation

The PD No. 101 grants the Board of Transportation the authority to

fix just and reasonable standards, regulations or measures to be imposed and to

be followed by the operators of PUV. In the exercise of the powers granted to the

Board of Transportation, it shall proceed along the method of legislative inquiry.

SGMC Realty Corp vs. Office of the President(shorter period)

The 30-day period is subject to the qualification that there are no

other statutory period of appeal applicable. An administrative rule or regulation,

in order to be valid, must no contradict but conform to the provisions of the

enabling law. Since there are special laws that mandate a shorter period of 15-

days, AO No. 18 must give way.


4/5

Iglesia ni Cristo vs CA (MTRCBs power to review)

Attack against another religion is a ground for censorship under EO

876 until it was repealed by PD 1986. Its deletion is a decree to disuse it. The

ground attack against another religion was merely added by MTRCB in its rules.

This rule is void because administrative rules and regulations cannot expand the

letter and spirit of the law they seek to enforce.

Romulo vs Home Development Mutual Fund (and/or rule making

power)

The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule-making power, issue a

regulation not consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Administrative issuancesmust be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to

the administrative agency and must not override, supplant or modify the law.

Only the Congress can repeal or amend the law.

Republic vs Express Telecom (Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies)

Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies

when it went directly to the CA on a petition for certiorari and prohibition without

first filing a motion for reconsideration with the NTC. A party must exhaust all

administrative remedies before resorting to the courts to give the administrative

agency a chance to correct itself and to prevent the unnecessary and premature

resort to courts. Purely administrative and discretionary powers may not be

interfered with by the courts except if the administrative body acted with grave

abuse of discretion.

Reformina vs Tomol (authority of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank)

Through Central Bank Circular No. 416, the Monetary Board

increased the legal interest rate from 6% to 12% per annum for judgments

involving loans or forbearance of money. Any other kind of monetary judgment is

not covered by the said law for it is not within the authority granted to the MB.

The MB cannot rewrite laws that doesnt fall within its jurisdiction (Art 2209 NCC).


5/5

Co vs CA (prospectivity principle)

The prospectivity principle has been made to apply to administrative

rulings and circulars. The Circular issued by Minister of Justice that a check issued

merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation does not fall within the

scope of BP 22, must be prospectively applied to those people who relied on the

opinion of the Minister as the proper interpretation of the law, even if such

Circular was already repealed.

San Luis vs CA (finality of the decisions of an administrative body)

Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commissions and the

Office of the President had long become final, the same can no longer bereviewed by the courts unless the administrative bodies acted in excess of

jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Final orders and decisions of

administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority have

the force and binding effect of a final judgment.

Air Manila vs Balatbat (administrative proceedings)

The rule is that administrative proceedings are not exempt from the

due process requirements in investigations and trials. The Civil Aeronautics Board

did not violate the requisites of administrative due process. The grant of

temporary operating permit was issued to prevent stoppage or cessation of

services in the affected areas and is a valid exercise of the Boards power.

Documents

Rulings of Cases