BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

in what is now not unreasonably called the fourth

department of the government.
1. Solid Homes vs. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, 29
August 1989 Statutes conferring powers on their administrative
agencies must be liberally construed to enable them
TOPIC: Jurisdiction of Administrative agencies to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with
the legislative purpose.
FACTS:
As amended by PD No 1344 entitled “Empowering
On August 31, 1982 Teresita Payawal filed a the National Housing Authority to issue writs of
complaint against Solid Homes Inc., before the execution in the enforcement of its decisions under
Regional Trial Court alleging that they contracted to Presidential Decree No 957” Section 1 provides, in
sell her subdivision lot in Marikina on June 9, 1975. the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate
Subsequently Solid Homes Inc. executed a deed of trade and business and in addition to its powers
sale but failed to deliver the corresponding certificate provided for in PD No 957 that the National Housing
title despite repeated demands by Payawal because Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear
the defendant had mortgaged the property in bad faith and decide cases of the following nature:
to a financing company.
a) unsound real estate business practices,
Thereafter, Solid Homes Inc. moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the court had no b) claims involving refund and any other
jurisdiction this being rested in the National Housing claims filed by subdivision lot owners or
Authority under PD no. 597. condo unit buyers against project owner,
developer, dealer, broker, or salesman and,
The motion was denied, hence, this petition.
c) Cases involving specific performance of
ISSUE: contractual statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lot or condominium
WON the trial court had jurisdiction over cases unit against the owner, developer, dealer,
involving claims, refund and any other claims filed broker or salesman.
by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers
against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker Thus, NHA has jurisdiction to decide on the case.
or salesman. (NO)

RULING: 2. Christian Gen. Assembly vs. Ignacio, G.R.

No. 164789, 27 August 2009
The National Housing Authority has the jurisdiction.
TOPIC: Jurisdiction of Administrative agency
As a result of the growing complexity of modern
society, it has become necessary to create more and FACTS:
more administrative bodies to help in the regulation
of its ramified activities. Specialized in the particular CGA entered into a Contract to Sell a subdivision lot
fields assigned to them, they can deal with the 4 with the respondents – the registered owners and
problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch developers of a housing subdivision known as Villa
than can be expected from the legislature or the Priscilla Subdivision located in Bulacan.
courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing
vestige of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers

1 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Under the Contract to Sell, CGA would pay that the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of
P2,373,000.00 for the subject property on installment the HLURB since it involved the sale of a
basis; they were to pay a down payment of subdivision lot. CGA opposed the motion to dismiss,
P1,186,500, with the balance payable within three claiming that the action is for rescission of contract,
years. not specific performance, and is not among the
actions within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Subsequently, the parties mutually agreed to amend HLURB.
the Contract to sell to extend the payment period
from three to five years. ISSUE:

According to CGA, it religiously paid the monthly WON HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over CGA’s
instalments until its administrative pastor discovered action for rescission and damages. (YES)
that the title covering the subject property was
actually part of two consolidated lots (Lots 2-F and 2- RULING:
G) that the respondents had acquired from Nicanor
Adriano (Adriano) and Ceferino Sison (Sison), HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over CGA’s
respectively. action for rescission and damages.

Adriano and Sison were former tenant-beneficiaries In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial
of Purificacion S. Imperial (Imperial) whose subject powers which an administrative agency may exercise
property had been placed under Presidential Decree is defined in the enabling act of such agency.
(PD) No. 27’s Operation Land Transfer.
In other words, the extent to which an administrative
According to CGA, Imperial applied for the retention entity may exercise such powers depends largely, if
of five hectares of her land under Republic Act No. not wholly on the provisions of the statute creating or
6657, which the Department of Agrarian Reform empowering such agency. In the exercise of such
(DAR) granted. The DAR Order authorized Imperial powers, the agency concerned must commonly
to retain the farm lots previously awarded to the interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights
tenant-beneficiaries, including Lot 2-F previously of private parties under such contracts, One thrust of
awarded to Adriano, and Lot 2-G awarded to Sison. the multiplication of administrative agencies is that
the interpretation of contracts and the determination
Aggrieved after discovering these circumstances, of private rights thereunder is no longer a uniquely
CGA filed a complaint against the respondents before judicial function, exercisable only by our regular
the RTC. CGA claimed that the respondents courts.
fraudulently concealed the fact that the subject
property was part of a property under litigation; thus, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344, "Empowering
the Contract to Sell was a resiscible contract under the National Housing Authority to Issue Writ of
Article 1381 of the Civil Code. CGA asked the trial Execution in the Enforcement of Its Decision under
court to rescind the contract; order the respondents to Presidential Decree No. 957," clarifies and spells out
return the amounts already paid; and award actual, the quasi-judicial dimensions of the grant of
moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and jurisdiction to the HLURB.
litigation expenses.
The provisions of PD 957 were intended to
Instead of filing an answer, the respondents filed a encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and
motion to dismiss asserting that the RTC had no condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing
jurisdiction over the case. The respondents claimed for an appropriate government agency, the HLURB,
to which all parties aggrieved in the implementation

2 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

of provisions and the enforcement of contractual Lolita Dabudo, Senior Accounts analyst and Rosario
rights with respect to said category of real estate may B. Cidro, Cash Supervisor of the Development Bank
take recourse. of the Philippines were administratively charged with
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The business of developing subdivisions and The charges were based on the unposted withdrawal
corporations being imbued with public interest and of 60,000 pesos from the savings account of the Tiu
welfare, any question arising from the exercise of that family.
prerogative should be brought to the HLURB which
has the technical know-how on the matter. August 13, 1987, Dabudo was the acting teller when
the representative of the Tiu family showed the
In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB must undated withdrawal slip for 60,000 pesos. Dabudo
commonly interpret and apply contracts and then prepared the corresponding ticket and voucher in
determine the rights of private parties under such the name of Cidro, being the cash supervisor, then
contracts. This ancillary power is no longer a forwarded it to the accountant who signed the
uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by the voucher ledger card and passbook. Babaylon initiated
regular courts. the withdrawal slip and returned the documents to
Dorado, who approved the withdrawal and thereafter
The argument that only courts of justice can disbursed the P60,000.00 to Veloso. The Received
adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of payment portion of the withdrawal slip was signed by
the Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing Veloso but Cidro, who disbursed the amount, failed
times. There are hundreds of administrative bodies to initial the passbook.
now performing this function by virtue of a valid
authorization from the legislature. This quasi-judicial Another incident ensued after banking hours, wherein
function, as it is called, is exercised by them as an another withdrawal slip was presented by Bugtas Jr,
incident of the principal power entrusted to them of an employee of the Tiu family, being the second
regulating certain activities falling under their 60,000 withdrawal. Veloso did not know about the
particular expertise. withdrawal, but it was processed and approved on the
same day, Aug 13, 1987 despite it being after baking
In this era of clogged court dockets, the need for hours.
specialized administrative boards or commissions
with the special knowledge, experience and The third withdrawal on August 14, 1987 was
capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on presented by Veloso with the undated withdrawal slip
technical matters or essentially factual matters, for 60,000 pesos. Dorado received the withdrawal
subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of slip and handed it to Dabudo, which Cidro encashed
discretion. the check at PNB to satisfy the after-banking hours
withdrawal.
3. Dadubo vs. CSC
G.R. No. 106498, 28 June 1993 When Dadubo informed Cidro about the third
withdrawal, till money of P100,000.00 was made to
service it. Prior to the payment of the third
P60,000.00 withdrawal, Veloso came back and
TOPIC: Essence of Due Process in Administrative
presented another withdrawal slip for P40,000.00.
Cases
Dabudo claimed she disbursed P100,000.00 to
FACTS: Veloso, covering the third P60,000.00 and the
P40,000.00 withdrawals. On the other hand, Veloso
testified that she received only P40,000.00 from the

3 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

petitioner. She acknowledged receipt of the amount NO, due process was not ignored.
by signing the withdrawal slip and indicating
opposite her signature the amount of P40,000.00. Due process cannot be appreciated as the standard of
That left the balance of P60,000.00 unaccounted for due process that must be met in administrative
and directly imputable to Dadubo. tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as the
element of fairness is not ignored.
DBP found Dadubo Guilty of dishonesty and
embezzlement of bank funds resulting in her The petitioner had several opportunities to be heard
dismissal from the service. and to present evidence that she was not guilty of
embezzlement but only of failure to comply with the
Dadubo appealed to the MPSB which affirmed the tellering procedure. Not only did she testify at her
decision of the DBP, which discussed that there were formal investigation but she also filed a motion for
no records to show that the senior manager, personnel reconsideration with the DBP, then appealed to the
services and vice-chairman of the DBP abused their Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), and later
discretion in deciding cases against the appellant or elevated the case to the Civil Service Commission.
that their decision was unfair. Dadubo had admitted Having been given all these opportunities to be heard,
that she changed the entry of the dates in the which she fully availed of, she cannot now complain
subsidiary ledger card from August 13 to 14 in the that she was denied due process.
course of her reconciliation work although she was
not authorized to do this. Administrative charges need not to be drafted with
precision of information in a criminal prosecution as
Issues: the apprised substance of the charge against him is
important.
WON the CSC overlooked or disregarded certain
relevant facts not disputed and based its conclusions
4. Lianga Bay vs. Judge Enage
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures?
G.R. No. L-30637, 16 July 1987
WON Due process of Dadubo was ignored?
TOPIC: Jurisdiction of Administrative Bodies
Ruling:
Facts: The parties herein are both forest
NO, the CSC did not overlook/disregard certain concessionaries whose licensed areas are adjacent to
relevant facts. each other. Since the concessions of petitioner and
respondent are adjacent to each other, they have a
The rule is that the findings of fact of administrative common boundary-the Agusan-Surigao Provincial
bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are boundary-whereby the eastern boundary of
controlling on the reviewing authority. It is settled respondent Ago's concession is petitioner Lianga's
that it is not for the appellate court to substitute its western boundary. Because of reports of
own judgment for that of the administrative agency encroachment by both parties on each other's
on the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility concession areas, the Director of Forestry ordered a
of the witnesses. survey to establish on the ground the common
boundary of their respective concession areas.
Administrative decisions on matters within their Forester Cipriano Melchor undertook the survey and
jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set fixed the common boundary.
aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or
error of law. None of these vices has been shown in The Director of Forestry, after considering the
this case. evidence, ruled that the Agusan-Surigao boundary as

4 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

mentioned in the technical descriptions of both authority over the demarcation, protection,
licensees, is, therefore, patently an imaginary line management, reproduction, reforestation, occupancy,
based on B.F. License Control Map. Such being the and use of all public forests and forest reserves and
case, it is reiterated that distance and bearings control over the granting of licenses for game and fish, and
the description where an imaginary line exists. for the taking of forest products, including stone and
earth therefrom. The Secretary of Agriculture and
The decision fixed the common boundary of the Natural Resources, as department head, may repeal or
licensed areas of the Ago Timber Corporation and in the decision of the Director of Forestry when
Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. as indicated in red advisable in the public interests, whose decision is in
pencil of the sketch attached to the decision. In an turn appealable to the Office of the President.
appeal by respondent Ago, then Acting Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Feliciano, in a A doctrine long recognized is that where the law
decision, set aside the appealed decision of the confines in an administrative office the power to
Director of Forestry and ruled that "(T)he common determine particular questions or matters, upon the
boundary line of the licensed areas of the Ago facts to be presented, the jurisdiction of such office
Timber Corporation and the Lianga Bay Logging shall prevail over the courts.
Co., Inc., should be that indicated by the green line
on the same sketch which had been made an integral
part of the appealed decision." Petitioner elevated the
case to the Office of the President and the Assistant The general rule, under the principles of
Executive Secretary affirmed the Sec of Agri's administrative law in force in this jurisdiction, is that
decision. On MR, the OP reversed and overturned the decisions of administrative officers shall not be
Agri Sec's decision and affirmed in toto the decision disturbed by the courts, except when the former have
of the Director of Forestry. In the CFI petitioner, the acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction, or
lower court issued a TRO enjoining defendants from with grave abuse of discretion.
carrying out the decision of the OP.
Findings of administrative officials and agencies who
Issue: WON the Director of Forestry has the have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
exclusive jurisdiction to determine the common confined to specific matters are generally accorded
boundary of the licensed areas of petitioners and not only respect but at times even finality of such
respondents findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Ruling: As recently stressed by the Court, "in this era of

clogged court dockets, the need for specialized
YES. Respondent Judge erred in taking cognizance administrative boards or commissions with the
of the complaint filed by respondent Ago, asking for special knowledge, experience and capability to
the determination anew of the correct boundary fine hear and determine promptly disputes on technical
of its licensed timber area, for the same issue had matters or essentially factual matters, subject to
already been determined by the Director of Forestry, judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion,
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has become well nigh indispensable."
and the Office of the President, administrative
officials under whose jurisdictions the matter 5. Malaga vs. Penachos, G.R. No. 86695, 3
properly belongs. September 1992

Section 1816 of the Revised Administrative Code

DOCTRINE: Instrumentality refers to any agency of
vests in the Bureau of Forestry, the jurisdiction and
the National Government, not integrated within the

5 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

department framework, vested with special functions Yes. It is clear that ISCOF is a chartered institution
or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all and is therefore covered by PD 1818. The 1987
corporate powers, administering special funds, and Administrative Code defines a government
enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a instrumentality as follows:
charter. This term includes regulatory agencies,
chartered institutions, and government-owned or “Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National
controlled corporations (Administrative Code) Government, not integrated within the department
framework, vested with special functions or
FACTS: jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all
corporate powers, administering special funds, and
Iloilo State College of Fisheries (ISCOF) through its enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a
prequalifications, bids and awards committee charter. This term includes regulatory agencies,
(PBAC) caused a publication of the invitation to bid chartered institutions, and government-owned or
for the construction of its Micro Laboratory Building, controlled corporations”
and announced the deadline for submission of the
prequalification requirements on Dec 2. 1998 and the The code further defines a chartered institution as:
opening of the bids on Dec 12, 1998 3PM. “any agency organized or operating under a
special charter, and vested by law with functions
Petitioners, under BE Construction and Best Build relating to specific constitutional policies or
Construction, submitted their pre-qualification objectives. This term includes the state universities
documents 2PM of Dec 12, 1998. PBAC denied their and colleges, and the monetary authority of the
application, stating that it was late. state”

Petitioners filed a complaint with the RTC against ISCOF was created to further the integrated fisheries
officers of PBAC for their refusal without just cause. development policy of the state. The treasurer of the
On the same day, Judge Lebaquin issued a restraining Republic of the Philippines shall be the ex officio
order prohibiting PBAC from conducting the bidding, treasurer of the college. Heads of of bureaus and
Defendants filed a motion to lift the restraining order offices of the National Government are authorized to
on the ground that the court is prohibited from loan or transfer to it, upon request of the president of
issuing an injunction on government infrastructure the state college. Finally, it has received funding from
projects pursuant to PD 1818. the GAA.

The court lifted restraining order and denied the However, in this case, it does not automatically
injunction as it declared the building sought to be follow that ISCOF is covered by the prohibition in
constructed was an infrastructure project of the the same decree as there are irregularities present
government falling within the coverage of PD 1818 surrounding the bidding and award of the project,
which justified the injunction. In Datiles v
ISSUE: WON ISCOF is a government Sucaldito, in a similar prohibition contained in PD
instrumentality subject to the provisions of PD 1818? 605, when issues involve questions of law, the courts
could not be prevented by PD 605 from exercising
WON the project can be enjoined by the court. their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
(Nachura points)
There are two irregularities by PBAC: (1) they set
deadlines and changed them without prior notice to
RULING: prospective participants, and (2) they are require to
issue to pre-qualified applicants the plans,

6 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

specifications and proposal book forms for the

projects to be bid 30 days before bidding if the Regarding the first issue, yes, the General
estimate project cost was between 1M and 5M but Manager has the power to subject an employee to
they only issued them on Dec 2 1988, 10 days, when a preventive investigation and investigate cases
they should have issued them on Nov 12, 1988. against PPA personnel below the rank of Assistant
General Manager. A preventive suspension is not
a penalty in itself but a measure of precaution
6. BEJA SR. v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No 97149 during the pendency of an administrative
March 31 1992 investigation but it is only limited to 90 days
subject to interruption by court processes.

DOCTRINE: Attached agencies are have a lateral

PD 857 created the Philippine Ports Authority,
relationship to the Department they are attached to as
and declared it as an attached agency to the
they maintain a sense of independence including the
DOTC. As an attached agency, the PPA has a
management of its own personnel.
larger measure of independence from the
Department to which it is attached, including the
FACTS:
management of personnel. The attachment is
merely for policy and program coordination.
Petitioner Beja was an employee of the Philippine
Ports Authority (PPA), and he was charged with
Regarding the second issue, the elevation of the
administrative offenses and received a preventive
case to the Secretary and the AAB was premature
suspension from the PPA General Manager.
as it was only discretionary. The PPA GM should
have first investigated and made a proper
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the
recommendation of the penalty and sought the
RTC and an appeal by certiorari before the CA,
approval of the PPA Board of Directors. Only
claiming: (1) he was denied due process, (2) the GM
then can the AAB take jurisdiction. The quasi-
did not have the power to preventively suspend
judicial nature of the AAB, it is not exempt from the
without the approval of its Board, (3) GM cannot
observance of due process in proceedings. The court
administrative case against him at DOTC-AAB, and
is not convinced with the claim of the respondent that
4) the Secretary as the Chairperson of DOTC-AAB
the petitioner waived his right to be heard.
and the DOTC-AAB have no jurisdiction to hear the
case involving PPA personnel below the rank of
CA decision is affirmed regarding the power of the
Assistant General Manager
GM to issue the preventive suspension but reversed
the decision of AAB is declared null and void and
ISSUES:
remanded to PPA where the GM should conduct its
reinvestigation.
1. WON the General Manager has the power to
issue a preventive suspension order without
the approval of the PPA Board of Directors 7. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK vs.
2. WON the DOTC Secretary or the AAB have ASSOCIATION OF LDB EMPLOYEES
GR NO. 120319
jurisdiction over administrative cases
October 6, 1995
involving PPA personnel below the rank of
Assistant General Manager
Topic: Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision: where
RULING: appealable

Facts:

7 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

There was a submission agreement between LDB and Issue: WON the Republic of the Philippines is
the association of LDB employees. From it arose an entitled to substitute for ISA (YES)
arbitration case to resolve whether or not the
company has violated the CBA provision and Ruling:
memorandum of agreement on promotion. Both ISA is a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality
parties agreed to submit their position papers, but of the government of the Philippines. Therefore, it is
LDB failed to submit theirs despite reminders. The regarded as an agent or delegate. When the statutory
voluntary arbitrator decided in favor of the term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the power
respondents. and duties as well as liabilities revert back to the
Republic of the Philippines in the absence of
Issue: WON the decision of the voluntary arbitrator is provisions specifying otherwise.
appealable to Supreme Court and not with the Court
of Appeals (NO)
9. Eugenio vs. Civil Service Commission
Ruling: G.R. No. 115863
The nature of function of a voluntary arbitrator is in 31 March 1995
quasi judicial capacity. Hence, they enjoy the status
of quasi judicial agency, but independent from
Topic: An attached agency enjoys a larger measure of
NLRC since its decision is not appealable to the
independence from the Department to which it is
latter. BP 129 provides that CA has jurisdiction over
attached than an office under its department
instrumentalities or agencies. In the case of
supervision. The attached agency and the department
Volkschel, it is settled that judgment of courts and
to which it is attached only have a lateral relationship
decisions of quasi judicial agencies must become
with each other for purposes of policy and program
final at some time. Decisions of voluntary arbitrators
coordination.
determine the rights of parties, hence has the same
effect as the courts’.
FACTS:
Petitioner was the Deputy Director of the Philippine
8. IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY vs. CA Nuclear Research Institute and was recommended by
GR NO. 102976 the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) the
October 25, 1995 position of Civil Service Officer (CESO) IV
In October 1993, the Civil Service Commission
Topic: Republic of the Philippines is entitled to (CSC/respondent) issued a resolution abolishing the
substitute for ISA CESB and making the latter an office under the CSC.
Seeing that this resolution would serve as an
Facts: impediment to her appointment, she filed a case
ISA was created by PD272 to develop and promote against respondent, arguing that the resolution is
iron and steel industry in the country. It was also unconstitutional
given the power to expropriate. Maria Cristina Respondent on the other hand argues that the CSC
Fertilizer had lands in Iligan City to be expropriated, has authority to abolish the CESB under the Admin
but they refused. Hence, trial. During the trial, the Code of 1987, wherein it has the power to effect
statutory term of ISA ended. MCF contended that changes and organize those agencies under its
ISA no longer retained juridical personality. ISA authority
urged that the Republic of the Philippines be allowed
to substitute. ISSUE: WON the CSC has authority to revoke the
CESB

8 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

franchise taxes. Petitioner then stopped paying local

RULING: franchise taxes to the respondent.
No. As provided in the case of Beja Sr. v. CA (page
15 on Cruz), an attached agency enjoys a larger Controversy arose when respondent withheld
measure of independence from the Department to petitioner's application for a Mayor's permit pending
which it is attached than one under its departmental the unpaid franchise tax owed by PLDT to
supervision and is free from Departmental respondent. This led to PLDT filing a case with the
interference. In this case, the CESB was intended to RTC.
be an autonomous agency from the CSC and both Respondent insists on its authority to collect the
agencies only share a lateral relationship for purposes franchise tax under the LGC, despite the enactment
of policy program and coordination. To abolish or of R.A. 7925. Petitioner, after having its case rejected
reorganize the CESB would require a Congressional by the RTC, argues that the RTC did not give weight
amendment or repeal of the law which created CESB to the BLGF ruling, which is a body with technical
(PD No.1). Therefore, respondent CSC does not have expertise.
authority to revoke the CESB.
ISSUE: WON the RTC erred in dismissing the
Nachura points: reorganization vs abolition BLGF ruling

RULING:
No. Administrative agencies, in the exercise of their
10. PLDT vs. City of Bacolod
G.R. No. 149179 quasi judicial powers, are limited to construe or
15 July 2005 decide questions of fact only. The central issue in this
case, which is the interpretation of R.A. 7925, is a
question of law that is within the function of the
Doctrine: Administrative agencies, in the exercise of
judiciary, specifically the CTA. Therefore the BLGF
their quasi judicial powers, are limited to construe or
ruling was correctly dismissed.
decide questions of fact only.
*Even if it were a question of fact, the court would
FACTS:
still not give credence to the BLGF ruling since it
Petitioner, a holder of a legislative franchise
merely provides consultative services and technical
providing telecommunications services, enjoyed
assistance to LGUs.
some tax exemptions under the "in-lieu-of-all-taxes"
clause of R.A. 7082, wherein they only pay a
franchise tax equivalent to 3 percent of gross receipts. THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-DOLLAR
SALTING TASK FORCE vs. COURT OF
R.A. 7160, or the Local Government Code (LGC) APPEALS
was enacted, removing the tax exemption privileges G.R. No. 83578
once enjoyed by franchises and gave LGUs the March 16, 1989
authority to impose franchise tax on businesses
DOCTRINE: A quasi-judicial body has been
Pursuant to the LGC, petitioner started to pay
defined as "an organ of government other than a court
franchise taxes from 1994 to 1998
of law and other than a legislature, which affects the
However, the Department of Finance's Bureau of
rights of private parties through either adjudication or
Local Government Finance (BLGF) released a ruling
rule making."
which interpreted R.A. 7925, which exempts telecom
companies including petitioner therein, from paying
FACTS:

9 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

On March 12, 1985, State Prosecutor Jose B. Herein petitioner is a special quasi-judicial body with
Rosales, who is assigned with the Presidential Anti- express powers enumerated under PD 1936 to
Dollar Salting Task Force, issued search warrants prosecute foreign exchange violations defined and
Nos. 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 and 161 against the punished under P.D. No. 1883. The petitioner, in
petitioners Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc., P & B exercising its quasi-judicial powers, ranks with the
Enterprises Co., Inc., Philippine Veterans Regional Trial Courts, and the latter in the case at bar
Corporation, Philippine Veterans Development had no jurisdiction to declare the search warrants in
Corporation, Philippine Construction Development question null and void. Besides as correctly pointed
Corporation, Philippine Lauan Industries out by the Assistant Solicitor General the decision of
Corporation, Inter-trade Development (Alvin the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force is
Aquino), Amelili U. Malaquiok Enterprises and appealable to the Office of the President.
Jaime P. Lucman Enterprises.
On November 12, 1986, Karamfil Import-Export Co.,
The application for the issuance of said search Inc. sought a reconsideration, on the question
warrants was filed by Atty. Napoleon Gatmaytan of primarily of whether or not the Presidential Anti-
the Bureau of Customs who is a deputized member of Dollar Salting Task Force is "such other responsible
the PADS Task Force. Attached to the said officer' countenanced by the 1973 Constitution to
application is the affidavit of Josefin M. Castro who issue warrants of search and seizure. The Court of
is an operative and investigator of the PADS Task Appeals, on Karamfil's motion, reversed itself and
Force. Said Josefin M. Castro is likewise the sole issued its Resolution, dated September 1987, and
deponent in the purported deposition to support the subsequently, its Resolution, dated May 20, 1988,
application for the issuance of the six (6) search denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
warrants involved in this case. The application filed
by Atty. Gatmaytan, the affidavit and deposition of In submitting that it is a quasi-judicial entity, the
Josefin M. Castro are all dated March 12, 1985. petitioner states that it is endowed with "express
powers and functions under PD No. 1936, to
Shortly thereafter, the private respondent (the prosecute foreign exchange violations as defined and
petitioner) went to the Regional Trial Court on a punished under PD No. 1883." "By the very nature of
petition to enjoin the implementation of the search its express powers as conferred by the laws," so it is
warrants in question. On April 16, 1985, the lower contended, "which are decidedly quasi-judicial or
court issued the first of its challenged Orders, and discretionary function, such as to conduct preliminary
held: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the investigation on the charges of foreign exchange
Court hereby declares Search Warrant Nos. 156, 157, violations, issue search warrants or warrants of arrest,
158, 159, 160, and 161 to be null and void. hold departure orders, among others, and depending
Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ordered to upon the evidence presented, to dismiss the charges
return and surrender immediately all the personal or to file the corresponding information in court of
properties and documents seized by them from the Executive Order No. 934, PD No. 1936 and its
petitioners by virtue of the aforementioned search Implementing Rules and Regulations effective
warrants. On August 21, 1985, the trial court denied August 26, 1984, petitioner exercises quasi-judicial
reconsideration. power or the power of adjudication ."

On April 4, 1986, the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution now assailed,
Task Force went to the respondent Court of Appeals was of the opinion that "the grant of quasi-judicial
to contest, on certiorari, the twin Orders of the lower powers to petitioner did not diminish the regular
court. In ruling initially for the Task Force, the courts' judicial power of interpretation. The right to
Appellate Court held: interpret a law and, if necessary to declare one

10 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

unconstitutional, exclusively pertains to the judiciary. than a legislature, which affects the rights of private
In assuming this function, courts do not proceed on parties through either adjudication or rule making."
the theory that the judiciary is superior to the two
other coordinate branches of the government, but As may be seen, it is the basic function of these
solely on the theory that they are required to declare bodies to adjudicate claims and/or to determine
the law in every case which come before them." rights, and unless its decision is seasonably appealed
to the proper reviewing authorities, the same attain
In its petition to this Court, the petitioner alleges that finality and become executory. A perusal of the
in so issuing the Resolutions above-mentioned, the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force's organic
respondent Court of Appeals "committed grave abuse act, Presidential Decree No. 1936, as amended by
of discretion and/or acted in excess of its appellate Presidential Decree No. 2002, convinces the Court
jurisdiction," that the Task Force was not meant to exercise quasi-
judicial functions, that is, to try and decide claims
ISSUE: and execute its judgments. As the President's arm
Whether or not The Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting called upon to combat the vice of "dollar salting" or
Task Force is a quasi-judicial body, and one coequal the black-marketing and salting of foreign exchange,
in rank and standing with the Regional Trial Court, it is tasked alone by the Decree to handle the
and accordingly, beyond the latter's jurisdiction prosecution of such activities, but nothing more.
The Court sees nothing in the provisions of
RULING: Presidential Decree No. 1936 (except with respect to
No. This Court finds the Appellate Court to be in the Task Force's powers to issue search warrants) that
error, since what the petitioner puts to question is the will reveal a legislative intendment to confer it with
Regional Trial Court's act of assuming jurisdiction quasijudicial responsibilities relative to offenses
over the private respondent's petition below and its punished by Presidential Decree No. 1883. Its
subsequent countermand of the Presidential Anti- undertaking, as we said, is simply, to determine
Dollar Salting Task Force's orders of search and whether or not probable cause exists to warrant the
seizure, for the reason that the presidential body, as filing of charges with the proper court, meaning to
an entity (allegedly) coordinate and co-equal with the say, to conduct an inquiry preliminary to a judicial
Regional Trial Court, was (is) not vested with such a recourse, and to recommend action "of appropriate
jurisdiction. An examination of the Presidential Anti- authorities". It is not unlike a fiscal's office that
Dollar Salting Task Force's petition shows indeed its conducts a preliminary investigation to determine
recognition of judicial review (of the acts of whether or not prima facie evidence exists to justify
Government) as a basic privilege of the courts. Its haling the respondent to court, and yet, while it
objection, precisely, is whether it is the Regional makes that determination, it cannot be said to be
Trial Court, or the superior courts, that may acting as a quasi-court. For it is the courts, ultimately,
undertake such a review. that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.

As we have observed, the question is whether or not If the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force is
the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force is, in not, hence, a quasi-judicial body, it cannot be said to
the first place, a quasi-judicial body, and one whose be co-equal or coordinate with the Regional Trial
decisions may not be challenged before the regular Court. There is nothing in its enabling statutes that
courts, other than the higher tribunals, the Court of would demonstrate its standing at par with the said
Appeals and this Court. court.

A quasi-judicial body has been defined as "an organ

of government other than a court of law and other

11 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

In that respect, we do not find error in the respondent employees" the ongoing government reorganization
Court of Appeal's resolution sustaining the had generated and prescribed several grounds for the
assumption of jurisdiction by the court a quo. separation/replacement of personnel.

Specifically, she said on May 28, 1986: WHEREAS,

in order to obviate unnecessary anxiety and
12. DARIO vs. MISON
demoralization among the deserving officials and
G.R. No. 81954
employees, particularly in the career civil service, it
August 8, 1989
is necessary to prescribe the rules and regulations for
DOCTRINE: Reorganizations have been regarded as implementing the said constitutional provision to
valid provided they are pursued in good faith. protect career civil servants whose qualifications and
performance meet the standards of service demanded
FACTS: by the New Government, and to ensure that only
On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino those found corrupt, inefficient and undeserving are
promulgated Proclamation No. 3, "DECLARING A separated from the government service. Noteworthy
NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE is the injunction embodied in the Executive Order
REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE, that dismissals should be made on the basis of
PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS, findings of inefficiency, graft, and unfitness to render
ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, public service.
AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY
TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A The President’s Memorandum of October 14, 1987
NEW CONSTITUTION. Among other things, should furthermore be considered. We quote, in part:
Proclamation No. 3 provided: SECTION 1. The Further to the Memorandum dated October 2, 1987,
President shall give priority to measures to achieve on the same subject, I have ordered that there will be
the mandate of the people to: no further lay-offs this year of personnel as a result of
the government reorganization.
(a) Completely reorganize the government, eradicate On January 30, 1987, the President promulgated
unjust and oppressive structures, and all iniquitous Executive Order No. 127, "REORGANIZING THE
vestiges of the previous regime. MINISTRY OF FINANCE." Among other offices,
Executive Order No. 127 provided for the
Actually, the reorganization process started as early reorganization of the Bureau of Customs and
as February 25, 1986, when the President, in her first prescribed a new staffing pattern therefor.
act in office, called upon "all appointive public Three days later, on February 2, 1987, the Filipino
officials to submit their courtesy resignations people adopted the new Constitution.
beginning with the members of the Supreme Court." On January 6, 1988, incumbent Commissioner of
Later on, she abolished the Batasang Pambansa and Customs Salvador Mison issued a Memorandum, in
the positions of Prime Minister and Cabinet under the the nature of "Guidelines on the Implementation of
1973 Constitution. Reorganization Executive Orders," prescribing the
procedure in personnel placement. On the same date,
On May 28, 1986, the President enacted Executive Commissioner Mison constituted a Reorganization
Order No. 17, "PRESCRIBING RULES AND Appeals Board charged with adjudicating appeals
REGULATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION from removals under the above Memorandum. On
OF SECTION 2, ARTICLE III OF THE FREEDOM January 26, 1988, Commissioner Mison addressed
CONSTITUTION." Executive Order No. 17 several notices to various Customs officials.
recognized the "unnecessary anxiety and As far as the records will likewise reveal, a total of
demoralization among the deserving officials and 394 officials and employees of the Bureau of

12 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Customs were given individual notices of separation. separation. In lieu thereof, at the option of the
A number supposedly sought reinstatement with the employees, they may be considered for employment
Reorganization Appeals Board while others went to in the Government or in any of its subdivisions,
the Civil Service Commission. The first thirty-one instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-
mentioned above came directly to this Court. The owned or controlled corporations and their
records indeed show that Commissioner Mison subsidiaries. This provision also applies to career
separated about 394 Customs personnel but replaced officers whose resignation, tendered in line with the
them with 522 as of August 18, 1988. existing policy, had been accepted.
On June 30, 1988, the Civil Service Commission
promulgated its ruling ordering the reinstatement of The Court considers the above provision critical for
the 279 employees. On July 15, 1988, Commissioner two reasons: (1) It is the only provision – in so far as
Mison, represented by the Solicitor General, filed a it mentions removals not for cause — that would
motion for reconsideration. Acting on the motion, the arguably support the challenged dismissals by mere
Civil Service Commission, on September 20, 1988, notice, and (2) It is the single existing law on
denied reconsideration. On October 20, 1988, reorganization after the ratification of the 1987
Commissioner Mison instituted certiorari Charter, except Republic Act No. 6656, which came
proceedings with this Court. much later. It is also to be observed that unlike the
grants of power to effect reorganizations under the
On November 16, 1988, the Civil Service past Constitutions, the above provision comes as a
Commission further disposed the appeal (from the mere recognition of the right of the Government to
resolution of the Reorganization Appeals Board) of reorganize its offices, bureaus, and instrumentalities.
five more employees. On January 6, 1989, Other than references to "reorganization following
Commissioner Mison challenged the Civil Service the ratification of this Constitution," there is no
Commission’s Resolution in this Court. provision for "automatic" vacancies under the 1987
Constitution. Invariably, transition periods are
ISSUE: characterized by provisions for "automatic"
Whether Section 16 of Article XVIII of the 1987 vacancies. They are dictated by the need to hasten the
Constitution is a grant of a license upon the passage from the old to the new Constitution free
Government to remove career public officials it could from the "fetters" of due process and security of
have validly done under an "automatic" vacancy- tenure.
authority and to remove them without rhyme or
reason. At this point, we must distinguish removals from
separations arising from abolition of office (not by
RULING: virtue of the Constitution) as a result of
(Nachura: NO. The reorganization was arbitrary) reorganization carried out by reason of economy or to
remove redundancy of functions. In the latter case,
No. The core provision of law involved is Section 16 the Government is obliged to prove good faith. In
Article XVIII, of the 1987 Constitution. Sec. 16. case of removals undertaken to comply with clear
Career civil service employees separated from the and explicit constitutional mandates, the Government
service not for cause but as a result of the is not hard put to prove anything, plainly and simply
reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated because the Constitution allows it. Evidently, the
March 25, 1986 and the reorganization following the question is whether or not Section 16 of Article
ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to XVIII of the 1987 Constitution is a grant of a license
appropriate separation pay and to retirement and upon the Government to remove career public
other benefits accruing to them under the laws of officials it could have validly done under an
general application in force at the time of their "automatic" vacancy-authority and to remove them

13 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

without rhyme or reason. As we have seen, since make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no
1935, transition periods have been characterized by dismissal (in case of a dismissal) or separation
provisions for "automatic" vacancies. We take the actually occurs because the position itself ceases to
silence of the 1987 Constitution on this matter as a exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not
restraint upon the Government to dismiss public be a Chinese wall. Be that as it may, if the
servants at a moment's notice. "abolition," which is nothing else but a separation or
removal, is done for political reasons or purposely to
What is, indeed, apparent is the fact that if the present defeat sty of tenure, or otherwise not in good faith, no
Charter envisioned an "automatic" vacancy, it should valid "abolition' takes place and whatever "abolition'
have said so in clearer terms, as its 1935, 1973, and is done, is void ab initio.
1986 counterparts had so stated. Whatever
reorganization is taking place is upon the authority of There is an invalid "abolition" as where there is
the present Charter, and necessarily, upon the mantle merely a change of nomenclature of positions, " or
of its provisions and safeguards. Hence, it cannot be where claims of economy are belied by the existence
legitimately stated that we are merely continuing of ample funds. The Court finds that after February 2,
what the revolutionary Constitution of the 1987 no perceptible restructuring of the Customs
Revolutionary Government had started. hierarchy — except for the change of personnel has
occurred, which would have justified the contested
Reorganization under the aegis of the 1987 dismissals. There is no showing that legitimate
Constitution is not as stern as reorganization under structural changes have been made or a
the prior Charter. Whereas the latter, sans the reorganization actually undertaken, for that matter —
President's subsequently imposed constraints, at the Bureau since Commissioner Mison assumed
envisioned a purgation, the same cannot be said of office, which would have validly prompted him to
the reorganization inferred under the new hire and fire employees. There can therefore be no
Constitution because, precisely, the new Constitution actual reorganization to speak of, in the sense, say, of
seeks to usher in a democratic regime. But even if we reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or
concede ex gratia argumenti that Section 16 is an abolition thereof by reason of economy or
exception to due process and no-removal-"except for redundancy of functions, but a revamp of personnel
cause provided by law" principles enshrined in the pure and simple. The records indeed show that
very same 1987 Constitution, which may possibly Commissioner Mison separated about 394 Customs
justify removals "not for cause," there is no personnel but replaced them with 522 as of August
contradiction in terms here because, while the former 18, 1988. 8 This betrays a clear intent to "pack" the
Constitution left the axe to fall where it might, the Bureau of Customs. He did so, furthermore, in
present organic act requires that removals "not for defiance of the President's directive to halt further
cause" must be as a result of reorganization. As we layoffs as a consequence of reorganization.
observed, the Constitution does not provide for
"automatic" vacancies. It must also pass the test of Finally, he was aware that layoffs should observe the
good faith - a test not obviously required under the procedure laid down by Executive Order No. 17. We
revolutionary government formerly prevailing, but a are not, of course, striking down Executive Order No.
test well-established in democratic societies and in 127 for repugnancy to the Constitution. While the act
this government under a democratic Charter. is valid, still and all, the means with which it was
implemented is not.
Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been
regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good
faith. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out In conclusion, we restate as follows:
in "good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to

14 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

1. The President could have validly removed well. Petitioner argues that the filing of Charges is
government employees, elected or appointed, without barred due to lack of jurisdiction (Ombudsman took
cause but only before the effectivity of the 1987 cognizance of the case) and it is redundant and
Constitution on February 2, 1987 (De Leon v. oppressive. The President then found Larin guilty of
Esguerra, supra; Palma-Fernandez vs. De la Paz, the administrative charges, hence this case.
supra); in this connection, Section 59 (on non-
reappointment of incumbents) of Executive Order ISSUE:
No. 127 cannot be a basis for termination; WON the dismissal of the petitioner from office
2. In such a case, dismissed employees shall be paid proper?
separation and retirement benefits or upon their
option be given reemployment opportunities RULING:
(CONST. [1987], art. XVIII, sec. 16; Rep. Act No. NO, the dismissal of Larin was not proper. The
6656, sec. 9); Supreme Court points to Section 2, RA 6656 for the
3. From February 2, 1987, the State does not lose the answer “No officer or employee in the career service
right to reorganize the Government resulting in the shall be removed except for a valid cause and after
separation of career civil service employees due notice and hearing. The existence of any or some
[CONST. (1987), supra] provided, that such a of the following circumstances may be considered as
reorganization is made in good faith. (Rep. Act No. evidence of bad faith in the removals made as a result
6656, supra.) of the reorganization, giving rise to a claim for
reinstatement or reappointment by an aggrieved
party:
Nachura points: Requisites for a valid abolition b) Where an office is abolished and another
performing substantially the same functions is
When is reorganization done in good faith or in bad created”
faith.
The dismissal of Larin is not proper since the basis of
the administrative charges are the criminal charges
13. Larin v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 112745, against Larin. The Criminal Charges were dismissed,
October 16, 1997 the administrative charges were not dismissed

Additionally the non-reappointment of the officer

DOCTRINE:
would be against Sec 4 of RA 6656 which states
Under RA 6656, Administrative Charges are based
“officers holding permanent appointments are given
on Criminal Charges if any. The dismissal of the
preference for appointment to the new positions in
Criminal Charges, dismisses the Administrative
the approved staffing pattern comparable to their
Charges. Employees who lost their jobs due to
former positions or in case there are not enough
restructuring must be reinstated to similar jobs if
comparable positions to positions next lower in
available.
rank.”

FACTS:
Thus Larin is reinstated with Backwages.
Larin (Petitioner) was accused of violating the Anti
Graft and Corruption Act. Larin is a public officer
(Assistant Commissioner of the BIR) and since there
is a criminal case against him, the president ordered a 14. Bagaoisan v. National Tobacco
new committee to be made to investigate. Administration, G.R. No. 152845, August 5,
Administrative Charges were filed against Larin as 2003

15 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

DOCTRINE: 15. Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora, G.R.

The President has the power to reorganize and No. 142801, 10 July 2001
restructure the administrative agencies and has the
power to let go of employees due to this. TOPIC: Reorganization, Abolition and De-
activation.
FACTS:
President Estrada ordered the restructuring and FACTS:
streamlining of the National Tobacco Authority.
Employees of the NTA Batac branch all received Petitioners seek that EO 191 (deactivation of EIIB or
termination notices thus they filed a case (petitioner the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau)
is part of the employees). The RTC of Ilocos Norte and EO 223 (all EIIB personnel are separated from
ruled in the favor of the employees. The CA ruled in office) unconstitutional.
the favor of the NTA.
In 1987 Cory issued EO 127 creating the EIIB which
gives it the following tasks:
ISSUE:
Was the dismissal of the employees proper?
Receive, investigate, gather and evaluate intelligence
reports and information and evidence on the nature,
RULING:
modes and extent of illegal activities affecting the
YES, it is proper. The Supreme Court references
national economy, such as, but not limited to,
Section 31, Book 3, Chapter 10 of the Executive
economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, and
Code “The President… shall have continuing
dollar-salting, investigate the same and aid in the
authority to reorganize the administrative structure of
prosecution of cases.
the Office of the President.
Perform such other appropriate functions as may be
For this purpose, he may take any of the following
assigned by the Minister or his deputies.
actions:
(1) Restructure the internal organization of In 1989 Cory issued Memorandum order 225
the Office of the President Proper, including declaring that all smuggling cases outside the sole
the immediate Offices, the Presidential jurisdiction of the BOC fall within EIIB.
Special Assistants/Advisers System and the
Common Staff Support System, by In 2000 Erap issued EO191 with the reason that most
abolishing, consolidating or merging units of the EIIB’s functions are done by other bureaus and
thereof or transferring functions from one agencies. He transferred the functions of EIIB to
unit to another”. BOC and NBI.

Erap also issued EO196 which is the presidential

In this case, the President issued EO 29 anti-smuggling task force.
which authorized the restructuring of the
NTA. The dismissal of the Employees is Then the day feared by the EIIB employees came. On
determined to be part of the restructuring March 2000, President Estrada issued Executive
and as such the president ordered it. They Order No. 223 providing that all EIIB personnel
were rightfully terminated and they were occupying positions specified therein shall be
afforded the due process. deemed separated from the service pursuant to a
bona fide reorganization resulting to abolition,

16 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

redundancy, merger, division, or consolidation of It provides: Sec. 77. Organized Changes. Unless
positions. otherwise provided by law or directed by the
President of the Philippines, no changes in key
Agonizing over the loss of their employment, positions or organizational units in any department or
petitioners now come before this Court invoking our agency shall be authorized in their respective
power of judicial review of Executive Order Nos. 191 organizational structures and funded from
and 223 arguing that the EO’s should be annulled appropriations provided by this Act.
since it was made in bad faith and in violation of
Article IX-B of the Philippine Constitution and/or for The Supreme Court said that the above provision
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion recognizes the authority of the President to effect
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. organizational changes in the department or agency
under the executive structure. Such a ruling further
ISSUE: finds support in Section 78 of Republic Act No.
8760.
WON the president can reorganize the executive
department. (YES) Under this law, the heads of departments, bureaus,
offices and agencies and other entities in the
WON the reorganization was valid. (YES) Executive Branch are mandated to conduct actual
streamlining and productivity improvement in agency
RULING: organization and operation shall be effected pursuant
to Circulars or Orders issued for the purpose by the
The President is empowered by the Administrative Office of the President.
Code to validly reorganize his office even without
congressional authority in order to achieve economy Under Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No.
and efficiency. The general rule has always been that 292, the Administrative Code of 1987, the President,
the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in
legislature. This proceeds from the legal precept that order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency,
the power to create includes the power to destroy. A shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the
public office is either created by the Constitution, by administrative structure of the Office of the
statute, or by authority of law. President.

Thus, except where the office was created by the For this purpose, he may transfer the functions of
Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same other Departments or Agencies to the Office of the
legislature that brought it into existence. The President. The EIIB is a bureau attached to the
exception is that, as far as bureaus, agencies or Department of Finance. It falls under the Office of
offices in the executive department are concerned, the President. Hence, it is subject to the President’s
the President’s power of control may justify him to continuing authority to reorganize.
inactivate the functions of a particular office, or
certain laws may grant him the broad authority to The reorganization is valid. The Solicitor General
carry out reorganization measures. invoked the distinction between deactivation and
abolition.
In the whereas clause of Executive Order No. 191,
former President Estrada anchored his authority to To deactivate means to render inactive or ineffective
deactivate EIIB on Section 77 of Republic Act 8745, or to break up by discharging or reassigning
the General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. personnel, while to abolish means to do away with, to
annul, abrogate or destroy completely.

17 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Abolition denotes an intention to do away with the Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been
office wholly and permanently. While in abolition, regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good
the office ceases to exist, the same is not true in faith. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried
deactivation where the office continues to exist, out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy
albeit remaining dormant or inoperative. or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that
event, no dismissal or separation actually occurs
Deactivation and abolition are both because the position itself ceases to exist. If the
reorganization measures. As far as bureaus, abolition, which is nothing else but a separation or
agencies or offices in the executive department is removal, is done for political reasons or purposely to
concerned, the President’s power of control may defeat security of tenure, otherwise not in good faith,
justify him to inactivate the function of a particular no valid abolition takes and whatever abolitio is
office or certain law may grant him the broad done, is void ab initio. There is an invalid abolition as
authority to carry out reorganization measure. where there is merely a change of nomenclature of
positions, or where claims of economy are belied by
An examination of the pertinent Executive Orders the existence of ample funds.
shows that the deactivation of EIIB and the creation
of Task Force Aduana were done in good faith. In the present case, petitioners’ right to security of
tenure is not violate because the abolition of EIIB
It was not for the purpose of removing the EIIB within the competence of a legitimate body is done in
employees, but to achieve the ultimate purpose of good faith and suffers from no infirmity. Valid
E.O. No. 191, which is economy. abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation
of the incumbents. Hence, the petition was denied for
While Task Force Aduana was created to take the lack of merit.
place of EIIB, its creation does not entail expense to
the government.

Firstly, there is no employment of new personnel to

man the Task Force. E.O. No. 196 provides that the
technical, administrative and special staffs of EIIB
are to be composed of people who are already in the
public service, they being employees of other
existing agencies.

Secondly, the thrust of E.O. No. 196 is to have a

small group of military men under the direct control
and supervision of the President as base of the
government’s anti-smuggling campaign. The idea is
to encourage the utilization of personnel, facilities
and resources of the already existing departments
instead of maintaining an independent office with a
whole set of personnel and facilities.

And thirdly, it is evident from the yearly budget

appropriation of the government that the creation of
the Task Force Aduana was especially intended to
lessen EIIB’s expenses.

18 DIGESTED BY: Alcala,Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas