G.R. No.

168726

March 5, 2010

PIO DELOS REYES (Deceased), represented by heirs FIDEL DELOS REYES, MAURO DELOS REYES and IRENE BONGCO (Deceased), represented by surviving spouse RODOLFO BONGCO, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE WALDO Q. FLORES, in his capacity as Senior Deputy Executive Secretary, Office of the President, HONORABLE RENE C. VILLA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Land Reform (formerly Department of Agrarian Reform), THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF DINALUPIHAN BATAAN, THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO) OF HERMOSA AND ORANI, BATAAN, and FORTUNATO QUIAMBAO, Respondents. RESOLUTION CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for review1 of the 7 January 2005 and 17 June 2005 Resolutions2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 87584. In its 7 January 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari3 of Pio delos Reyes, represented by surviving heirs Fidel delos Reyes, Mauro delos Reyes, and Irene delos Reyes Bongco, who was represented by her surviving spouse, Rodolfo Bongco (collectively referred to as "petitioners"). In its 17 June 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners. The Facts In 1985, Pio delos Reyes applied for exclusion from the coverage of operation land transfer, under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 274 and Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474,5 parcels of land situated in Hermosa and Ornani, Bataan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T2058 on Lots 2 and 3, T-4581, and T-2057 on Lots 1156 and 1159. Alternatively, he applied for the right of retention of seven hectares if the properties mentioned would be subject of operation land transfer. He claimed that the properties remained undivided and were still under coownership pending the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of his late wife, Margarita Manalili.6 In 1988, Pio and his children, Fidel, Mauro, and Irene, executed a deed of extrajudicial partition,7 which included the properties subject of the application for exclusion or retention. Under the extrajudicial partition, Pio became the owner of 11.4842 hectares of tenanted rice and corn land, Fidel of 4.5212 hectares, Mauro of 4.5212 hectares, and Irene of 4.3740 hectares. Aside from their shares in the extrajudicial partition, Fidel co-owned 2.5212 hectares of rice land and Mauro co-owned 2.5273 hectares.8 However, in the proceedings for his application for exclusion or retention, Pio failed to submit vital documents such as the deed of extrajudicial partition. Thus, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the subject landholdings within the coverage of P.D. No. 27 and LOI No. 474. The DAR wasted no time effecting operation land transfer and issuing emancipation permits in favor of farmer beneficiaries.9

In April 1989, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer recommended approval of Pios application for (i) retention of not more than seven hectares of his tenanted land planted to rice and corn, (ii) exclusion of his childrens properties from the coverage of operation land transfer, (iii) cancellation of certificates of land transfer covering the properties of his children issued in favor of farmer beneficiaries, and (iv) cancellation of certificates of land transfer covering his retention area.10 The Legal Officer and the Regional Director of the DAR approved the recommendation.11 Fortunato Quiambao, a tenant-farmer in Pios landholdings, appealed to the DAR Secretary. He claimed that Pio was guilty of misrepresentation amounting to fraud for not stating the totality of his landholdings. He averred Pio and his children owned lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes from which they derived adequate income to support themselves and their families. He further alleged that during the pendency of the petition for exclusion or retention, Pio converted portions of their landholdings into residential lands.12 After examining the records of the case and the evidence submitted by the parties, the DAR Secretary concluded that the subject landholdings fell under the governments operation land transfer program. In its order,13 the DAR Secretary ruled that Pio and his children actually owned landholdings used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes from which they derived adequate income, as evidenced by certifications issued by the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Bataan and the various certificates of title submitted on record. Pio and his children moved for reconsideration, which the DAR Secretary dismissed.14 Meanwhile, Pio died and was substituted by his surviving heirs, Fidel delos Reyes, Mauro delos Reyes, and Irene delos Reyes Bongco, represented by her surviving spouse, Rodolfo Bongco.1avvphi1 Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President.15 In its 20 June 2003 Resolution,16 the Office of the President dismissed petitioners appeal for being filed out of time. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.17 Petitioners then filed a petition for relief from denial of appeal arguing that the failure of their so-called provisional lawyer to advise them of the receipt of the 20 June 2003 resolution was justifiable. The Office of the President dismissed the same in its 30 September 2004 order, to wit: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The finality of the Resolution dated June 20, 2003, pursuant to Sec. 7 of Presidential A.O. No. 18, S. 1987, is hereby reiterated. The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby directed to implement the said resolution. No further pleadings shall be entertained. SO ORDERED.18 Instead of filing in the Office of the President a motion for reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 order, petitioners filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its 7 January 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed for prematurity the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioners. The appellate court found that petitioners failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available from the dismissal of their petition for relief. According to the appellate court, petitioners failed to file in the Office of the President a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order. In its 17 June 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. The Issue The sole issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed for prematurity the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioners. The Courts Ruling The petition has no merit. Petitioners contend the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus despite sufficient allegation in the petition why the motion for reconsideration would be useless, one of the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioners claim they no longer filed a motion for reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 order because it was already final and executory on its face as the order itself stated that no further pleadings would be entertained. Petitioners submit that a disposition of controversies through resolution on the merits is preferred over a peremptory dismissal by reason of a technicality. Respondents maintain that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the filing of a petition for certiorari, being the plain and adequate remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Respondents argue that a petition for certiorari will not prosper unless the administrative agency has been given, through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. Respondents insist the law intends to afford the administrative agency an opportunity to rectify the errors it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had. At the outset, we must point out that petitioners arguments are a mere rehash of their arguments in the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed in the Court of Appeals. We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioners ignored the procedural requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration and simply went ahead with the filing of a petition for certiorari and mandamus. The appellate court correctly dismissed the same for prematurity. We have held in a litany of cases that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and mandamus are available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration. The writ of certiorari does not lie where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of the error.19 Likewise, mandamus is granted only in cases where no other remedy is available which is sufficient to afford redress because generally, a writ of mandamus will not lie from one branch of the government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other.20 However, there are several

exceptions where a petition for certiorari will lie without the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration, to wit: a. where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; b. where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; c. where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; d. where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; e. where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; f. where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; g. where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; h. where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and i. where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.21 (Emphasis supplied) The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. To this end, administrative agencies are afforded a chance to correct any previous error committed in its forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity, and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies.22 In this case, a motion for reconsideration is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners should have first filed a motion for reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 order of the Office of the President. They cannot prematurely resort to a petition for certiorari on the wrong assumption that a plain reading of the 30 September 2004 order hinted that it was already final and executory. The parties are presumed to know the hornbook rule that judgments become final and executory only upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal or to file a motion for reconsideration without any appeal or motion for reconsideration having been made.1avvphi1 Petitioners submit they no longer filed a motion for reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 order because it would have been useless. Petitioners point out that the 30 September 2004 order

warned that no further pleadings would be entertained. We are not convinced that this constitutes an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioners may not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.23 The language of the order notwithstanding, petitioners are bound by procedural rules and may not disregard the same on a wrong assumption that a motion for reconsideration might no longer be entertained. Even so, they should have awaited the denial of their motion for reconsideration before filing the extraordinary remedy of petition for certiorari. Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. It is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, but it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.24 The procedural shortcut taken by petitioners finds no justification either in law or in jurisprudence. It is fatal to their cause of action. Accordingly, we rule that the Court of Appeals committed no error in dismissing for prematurity the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioners. As to the merits of the case, the question of whether petitioners owned landholdings used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes from which they derived adequate income is a question of fact. In a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before this Court. Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not this Courts function to re-examine the respective sets of evidence submitted by the parties.25 As this case involves the application of P.D. No. 27 and LOI No. 474, the DAR Secretary, owing to his agrarian expertise, is in a better position to make a final determination whether petitioners landholdings may be subject of exclusion from operation land transfer or retention. This Court need not weigh anew the evidence submitted by the parties and supplant the findings of fact by the DAR Secretary, especially when such findings are fully supported by evidence consisting of certifications issued by the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Bataan and the various certificates of title on record. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review. We AFFIRM the 7 January 2005 and 17 June 2005 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 87584. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001

GUALBERTO CASTRO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY RICARDO GLORIA IN HIS CAPACITY AS

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondent. SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, J.: The principle of non-exhaustion of administrative remedy is not an iron-clad rule. There are instances when it may be pierced and judicial action may be resorted to immediately. The present case is one illustration. Sought to be set aside in this petition for review on certiorari are the: (a) Decision1 dated November 20, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu dismissing Gualberto Castro's petition for mandamus; and b) Order2 dated January 5, 1998 denying his motion for reconsideration. The factual and legal antecedents are as follows: Porfirio Gutang, Jr. filed with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) a complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct against petitioner Gualberto Castro, a teacher in Guibuangan Central School, Barili, Cebu. It was alleged that he has an illicit affair with Gutang's wife, petitioner's co-teacher at the same school. After hearing or on August 28, 1984, the DECS Regional Office VII, through Assistant Superintendent Francisco B. Concillo, rendered a decision declaring petitioner guilty of the offense charged. He was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service.3 The DECS Central Office affirmed Concillo's decision in an Indorsement dated March 25, 1986.4 On July 21, 1986, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Instead of resolving the motion, the DECS Central Office directed the School Division of Cebu to comment on the motion.5 The School Division Superintendent recommended that the motion be resolved favorably. However, the recommendation was opposed by the DECS Region VII.6 Thereafter, in his letters dated November 5, 1988 and July 19, 1990, petitioner asked the incumbent DECS Secretary to resolve his motion for reconsideration. But his letters remained unheeded, thus, on October 4, 1995, petitioner filed with the DECS Central Office a "Motion for Review Setting Aside/Modifying the Decision of Regional Director of DECS Region VII."7 DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria (respondent) referred the motion to the Regional Director of Region VII for comment. On January 3, 1996, Regional Director Eladio C. Dioko issued a 2nd Indorsement sustaining the decision of Assistant Superintendent Concillo, thus: "This Office sustains former Director Concillo's decision that respondent Castro is guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct but posits the belief that the proper penalty as provided by law be meted out for him. In the Honorable Secretary is vested by law the power to review, reaffirm, modify or reverse decisions of a lower office.8

In his 3rd Indorsement dated March 6, 1996, respondent Secretary denied petitioner' s motion for review.9 Thrice thwarted, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu, imploring that judgment be rendered ordering respondent Secretary or anyone who may have assumed the duties and functions of his office (1) to reduce his penalty from dismissal to one (1) year suspension; 2) to consider the one (1) year suspension as already served considering that he has been out of the service for more than ten (10) years; 3) to reinstate him to his former position; and 4) to pay his back salaries.10 On November 20, 1997, the trial court rendered the herein assailed decision dismissing the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. It ruled that petitioner should have appealed to the Civil Service Commission before coming to court, thus: "Considering that the Civil Service Commission has the power to review on appeal the orders or acts of respondent, petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies implies absence of cause of action. Where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before recourse can be made to the courts. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Vidad v. RTC of Negros Oriental, Branch 42, 227 SCRA 271). Mandamus If appeal or some other equally adequate remedy is still available in the ordinary course of law, the action for MANDAMUS would be improper. Sherman Vs. Horilleno, 57 Phil. 13; Fajardo Vs. Llorente, 6 Phil, 426; Paquio Vs. Del Rosario, 46 Phil. 59; Manalo v. Paredes, 47,938; Castro Revilla Vs. Garduno, 53 Phil. 934; Rural Transit Co. vs. Teodoro, 57 Phil. 11. Special Civil Actions against administrative officers should not be entertained if superior administrative officers could grant relief. Cecilio vs. Belmonte, 48 Phil. 243, 255. From the facts it is clear that the penalty of dismissal from the service was erroneously imposed upon petitioner. However, certiorari is the remedy to correct errors of judgment which are grave and arbitrary and not mandamus. Mandamus will not lie to order the reinstatement of the petitioner in his former position as Elementary Grades Teacher as it was not yet established that he is entitled to or has legal right to the office. In the case of Manalo vs. Gloria, 236 SCRA 130, the petitioner's claim for "backwages" could be the appropriate subject of an ordinary civil action as mandamus applies when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the case at bench, the Court after a judicious study and analysis on the case, has no other alternative than to DENY the present petition for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."11 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner insists that, "when the question to be settled is purely a question of law, he may go directly to the proper court so that he can have proper redress." For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that petitioner's adequate remedy was to appeal the decision of respondent Secretary to the Civil Service Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order No. 292. Since petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, his petition must be dismissed for lack of cause of action. Also, the OSG argues that the remedy of mandamus to compel payment of back salary does not lie unless petitioner's right thereto is well defined. This is based on the general proposition that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service. The petition is impressed with merit. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. It is settled that non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a cause of action,12 which is one of the grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for the dismissal of the complaint.13 The doctrine is not absolute. There are instances when it may be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately. Among these exceptions are: 1) When the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; 4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim involved is small; 6) when irreparable damage will be suffered; 7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public interest is involved; and 9) in quo warranto proceedings.14 Truly, a petition for mandamus is premature if there are administrative remedies available to petitioner.15 But where the case involves only legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust all administrative remedies before such judicial relief can be sought.16 In Cortes v. Bartolome,17 a case involving a petition for mandamus, we ruled that "while it may be that non-judicial remedies could have been available to respondent in that he could have appealed to the then Secretary of Local Government and Community Development and thereafter to the Civil Service Commission, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies need not be adhered to when the question is purely legal." This is because issues of law cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer. Appeal to the administrative officer would only be an exercise in futility.18 Thus, in the ultimate, the resolution of this case hinges on whether or not the following is a question of law or a question of fact Is dismissal from the service the proper penalty for the 1st offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct?

It is settled that for a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. And the distinction is well known. There is a question of law when the doubt or differences arise as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or differences arise as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.19 In the case at bench, petitioner no longer disputes the administrative finding of his guilt for the offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct. It is settled and final insofar as he is concerned. What petitioner only impugns is the correctness of the penalty of "dismissal from the service." He is convinced that the proper penalty for the first offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is only suspension from the service. Undoubtedly, the issue here is a pure question of law. We need only to look at the applicable law or rule and we will be able to determine whether the penalty of dismissal is in order. We find for petitioner. Petitioner has all the reasons to seek the aid of this Court since it has been clearly established by evidence that he is a first time offender. Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws)20 provides: "SECTION 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service. The following are grave offenses with its corresponding penalties: xxx xxx xxx

(o) Disgraceful and immoral conduct <1st Offense, Suspension for six (6) months and one day (1) day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense, Dismissal.>" As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the proper penalty for the 1st offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is only suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. In fact, this has been the consistent ruling of this Court. In Aquino v. Navarro,21 a secondary guidance counselor in a public high school, was merely suspended for disgraceful and immoral conduct. In Burgos v. Aquino,22 the Court suspended a court stenographer for six months for maintaining illicit relations with the complainant's husband and for perjury in not disclosing in her personal information sheet she has a daughter as a result of that relationship. Similarly, in Nalupta Jr. v. Tapec,23 a deputy sheriff was suspended for six months and one day for having a relationship with a woman other than his wife by whom he has two children. Thus: The act of respondent of having illicit relations with Consolacion Inocencio is considered disgraceful and immoral conduct within the purview of Section 36 (b) (5) of Presidential Decree No. 807, otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines, for which respondent may be subjected to disciplinary action. Memorandum Circular No. 30,

Series of 1989 of the Civil Service Commission has categorized disgraceful and immoral conduct as a grave offense for which a penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day shall be imposed for the first offense, while the penalty of dismissal is imposed for the second offense. (Emphasis supplied) Inasmuch as the present charge of immorality against respondent constitutes the first charge of this nature, the Court shall at this instance suspend respondent for six (6) months and one (1) day. Again, in the 1997 case of Ecube-Badel v. Badel,24 we imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) year without pay against respondent David Badel for his first offense of immorality. It is worthy to note that even DECS Regional Director Eladio C. Dioko stated in his 2nd Indorsement dated January 3, 1996, that while he sustains Director Concillo's decision, "the proper penalty as provided by law (should) be meted out for him." The Regional Trial Court also echoed the same sentiment, thus: "From the facts, it is clear that the penalty of dismissal from the service was erroneously imposed upon petitioner. However, certiorari is the remedy to correct errors of judgment which are grave and arbitrary and not mandamus." Anent petitioner's prayer for the payment of back salaries, we find it to be without legal basis. The issue regarding payment of back salaries during the period that a member of the civil service is out of work but subsequently ordered reinstated is settled in our jurisdiction. Such payment of salaries corresponding to the period when an employee is not allowed to work may be decreed if he is found innocent of the charges. However, if the employee is not completely exenorated of the charges25 such as when the penalty of dismissal is reduced to mere suspension, he would not be entitled to the payment of his back salaries. In Yacia v. City of Baguio,26 the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service ordering the dismissal of a government employee on the ground of dishonesty was immediately executed pending appeal. But, on appeal, the Civil Service Board of Appeals modified that penalty of dismissal to a fine equivalent to six months pay. This Court ruled that the employee's claim for back wages, for the period during which he was not allowed to work because of the execution of the decision of the Commissioner, should be denied. The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service. As he works, he shall earn. Since petitioner did not work during the period for which he is now claiming salaries, there can be no legal or equitable basis to order the payment of such salaries.27 Thus, we reduce the penalty of dismissal imposed upon petitioner to suspension for a period of one year without pay. Considering that he has been out of the service for quite a long time, we feel he has been sufficiently punished for his offense. We, therefore, order his reinstatement. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Regional Trial Court's Decision dated November 20, 1997 and Order dated January 5, 1998 are SET ASIDE. The penalty of dismissal

imposed upon petitioner is reduced to one (1) year suspension from office without pay. In view of the length of time petitioner has been out of the service, we consider the penalty of suspension to have been fully served. He must, therefore, be REINSTATED to office immediately. SO ORDERED. Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ ., concur. G.R. No. 139302 October 28, 2002

EDUARDO P. CORSIGA, Former Deputy Administrator, National Irrigation Administration, petitioner, vs HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Iloilo City, and ROMEO P. ORTIZO, respondents. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: Before us is a petition for review seeking the reversal of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated June 30, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 44123, dismissing the petition for review filed by petitioner. The petition assailed the orders dated January 8, 1996 and January 13, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 36, which respectively denied petitioner's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 22462 and his motion for reconsideration. The facts are undisputed. Private respondent Romeo P. Ortizo was the Senior Engineer B in the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Jalaur-Suague River Irrigation System, Region VI,2 tasked with the duty of assisting the Irrigation Superintendent in the said station.3 Sometime in June, 1995, petitioner Eduardo P. Corsiga, then Regional Irrigation Manager of the NIA, Region VI, issued Regional Office Memorandum (ROM) No. 52, reassigning private respondent to Aganan-Sta. Barbara River Irrigation System, likewise to assist the Irrigation Superintendent thereat.4 Aggrieved, private respondent wrote petitioner Corsiga requesting exemption and citing Memorandum Circular No. 47, Series of 1987 issued by the NIA Administrator, which states that the policy of rotation applies only to Department Managers, Irrigation Superintendents, Provincial Engineers and Division Manager of Field Offices. Petitioner denied the request. On July 31, 1995, private respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City a complaint for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, but the motion was denied on January 8, 1996. The Regional Trial Court likewise denied the motion for reconsideration on January 13, 1997. Alleging that these

two orders were issued without jurisdiction, petitioner elevated the controversy to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. On June 30, 1999, the appellate court rendered a decision5 finding no merit in the petition and dismissing it. It affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462 saying that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the controverted act is patently illegal, arbitrary, and oppressive. Regional Office Memorandum No. 52, according to the court, was illegal since it violated private respondent's constitutional right to security of tenure. Private respondent's original appointment as Senior Engineer B in the NIA Jalaur River Irrigation System, Region VI is a permanent one; thus, it entitled him to a security of tenure. He cannot, therefore, be reassigned to another position that involves a reduction in rank without his consent. Concluded the appellate court: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this petition for certiorari is DENIED DUE COURSE and is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.6 Hence, this petition where petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that: I THE COURT A QUO [Regional Trial Court] HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURE AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 13, RULE VII OF THE OMNIBUS RULES IMPLEMENTING BOOK V OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292. II RESPONDENT HAS NO VALID CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.7 The issues for our resolution are (a) whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462, and (b) whether private respondent has a cause of action despite his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.1awphil.net On the first issue, petitioner avers that law and jurisprudence are clear and incontrovertible on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission on all cases involving personnel actions including reassignment. Petitioner cites Section 13, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V8 of E.O. 292. He stresses our ruling in Mantala vs. Salvador9 that disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel actions affecting employees in the civil service including appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail, reassignment, demotion and separation, and employment status and qualification standardsare within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Likewise cited is our holding in Dario vs. Mison10 that no fundamental difference exists between the Commission on Elections and the Civil Service Commission (or the Commission on Audit, for that matter) as to the constitutional intent to leave the constitutional bodies alone in the enforcement of laws relative to elections, with respect to the former, and the civil service, with

respect to the latter (or the audit of government accounts, with respect to the Commission of Audit). As the poll body is the "sole judge" of all election cases, so is the Civil Service Commission the single arbiter of all controversies pertaining to the civil service. Petitioner also avers that private respondent's allegation that the remedy under the Civil Service Rule is neither speedy nor adequate as well as his allegation that he will inevitably and doubtlessly be subjected to administrative charges in case of non-compliance with the memorandum, is pure speculation and conjecture. Private respondent's fears of administrative charges do not, by mere allegation, ipso facto divest the Civil Service Commission of its exclusive jurisdiction on all controversies pertaining to civil service. In his comment, private respondent maintains that as a civil service appointee to a position with a specification of a particular station, he cannot be validly and legally transferred or assigned to any other unit in the same agency without his consent. To do so is a violation of his constitutional right to security of tenure. For this reason, Regional Office Memorandum No. 52 reassigning him to a station different from that specified in his appointment papers was invalid. Yet, in spite of the patent illegality of the contemplated action, petitioner was adamant in implementing it. This, according to private respondent, left him with no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy but to go to court via a petition for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. We shall now resolve the issues raised in this petition. (1) Does the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462? The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over all employees of Government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.11 As such, it is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service.12 The National Irrigation Administration, created under Presidential Decree No. 1702, is a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter. Thus, being an employee of the NIA, private respondent is covered by the Civil Service Commission. Section 13 Rule VII of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (the Adm. Code of 1987) provides how appeal can be taken from a decision of a department or agency head. It states that such decision shall be brought to the Merit System Protection Board (now the CSC En Banc per CSC Resolution No. 93-2387 dated June 29, 1993). It is the intent of the Civil Service Law, in requiring the establishment of a grievance procedure in Rule XII, Section 6 of the same rules, that decisions of lower level officials be appealed to the agency head,13 then to the Civil Service Commission.14 Decisions of the Civil Service Commission, in turn, may be elevated to the Court of Appeals. Under this set up, the trial court does not have jurisdiction over personnel actions and, thus, committed an error in taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462. The trial court should have dismissed the case on motion of petitioner and let private respondent question RMO No. 52 before the NIA Administrator, and then the Civil Service Commission. As held in Mantala vs. Salvador,15 cases involving personnel actions, reassignment included, affecting civil service employees, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

(2) Does private respondent have a cause of action<16 although his complaint was filed in the trial court without first exhausting all available administrative remedies? Being an NIA employee covered by the Civil Service Law, in our view, private respondent should have first complained to the NIA Administrator, and if necessary, then appeal to the Civil Service Commission.17 As ruled in Abe-Abe vs. Manta, 90 SCRA 524 (1979), if a litigant goes to court without first pursuing his administrative remedies, his action is premature, and he has no cause of action to ventilate in court. Hence, petitioner asserts that private respondent's case is not ripe for judicial determination. Private respondent contends, however, that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an absolute rule. It has exceptions, namely, (1) where the issue involved is one of law and cannot be resolved administratively, (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal, arbitrary, and oppressive, (3) where irreparable injury exists, (4) where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, (5) or where urgent circumstances require judicial intervention. According to private respondent, the circumstances of the case required him to urgently act on his reassignment since he might be administratively charged if he resisted petitioner's order, yet, at the same time he could be in estopped to question the order had he yielded to it without protest. According to private respondent, petitioner was guilty of bad faith; his real objective was to assign someone close to him to replace private respondent. Petitioner's action was capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, and discriminatory, said private respondent since he was the only one, from among the officials or employees of the same rank, who was reassigned. This discrimination constituted a grave and patent abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, against which private respondent said he had no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law except to institute an action before the regional trial court. However, private respondent failed to reckon with the fact that the issue in Civil Case No. 22462 was not purely a question of law. Certain facts needed to be resolved first. Did private respondent's reassignment involve a reduction in rank? Private respondent claimed his transfer to a new station violated the rule on reassignment for he was allegedly transferred to a lower position.18 But petitioner had refuted this contention, adding that his order reassigning private respondent was a lawful exercise of management prerogatives.19 Also, was private respondent the only one, among the employees of his rank, who was reassigned? Private respondent alleged he was singled out, but he did not present any evidence to prove it. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence of grave abuse of discretion on petitioner's part. Private respondent speculated that petitioner's real intent in reassigning him was to create a vacancy in his position so that petitioner could appoint someone close to him. This is a mere allegation which private respondent failed to substantiate. Official functions are presumed to be regular unless proven otherwise.20 Lastly, private respondent claimed urgency in that he had no other recourse but to go to court, or he would be charged administratively. However, under Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law, a recourse is available to him by way of appeal which could be brought to the agency head, with further recourse, if needed, to the Civil Service Commission. Worth noting,

the possibility of an administrative charge was only speculative on the part of private respondent, who could avail of administrative remedies already cited.lawphil.net In sum, Civil Case No. 22462 is not an exception to the general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals, in our view, committed reversible error in finding that the trial court did not err nor gravely abused its discretion for taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 44123 is REVERSED. The orders dated January 8, 1996 and January 13, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 36, denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration, respectively, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 22462 ought to be and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Costs against private respondent. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Acting Chief Justice, (Chairman), Mendoza, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur. Austria-Martinez, J., on leave. G.R. No. 180388 January 18, 2011

GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), DPWH UNDERSECRETARIES TEODORO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO V. MIR, DPWH ASSISTANT SECRETARY JOEL L. ALTEA, DPWH REGIONAL DIRECTOR VICENTE B. LOPEZ, DPWH DISTRICT ENGINEER ANGELITO M. TWAO, FELIX A. DESIERTO OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP VALIDATION AND AUDITING TEAM, AND LEONARDO ALVARO, ROMEO N. SUPAN, VICTORINO C. SANTOS OF THE DPWH PAMPANGA 2ND ENGINEERING DISTRICT, Petitioners, vs. ARNULFO D. AQUINO, Respondent. DECISION SERENO, J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 82268, dated 25 September 2006. The antecedent facts are as follows: On 19 June 1992, petitioner Angelito M. Twao, then Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) 2nd Engineering District of Pampanga sent an Invitation to Bid to respondent Arnulfo D. Aquino, the owner of A.D. Aquino

Construction and Supplies. The bidding was for the construction of a dike by bulldozing a part of the Porac River at Barangay Ascomo-Pulungmasle, Guagua, Pampanga. Subsequently, on 7 July 1992, the project was awarded to respondent, and a "Contract of Agreement" was thereafter executed between him and concerned petitioners for the amount of PhP1,873,790.69, to cover the project cost. By 9 July 1992, the project was duly completed by respondent, who was then issued a Certificate of Project Completion dated 16 July 1992. The certificate was signed by Romeo M. Yumul, the Project Engineer; as well as petitioner Romeo N. Supan, Chief of the Construction Section, and by petitioner Twao. Respondent Aquino, however, claimed that PhP1,262,696.20 was still due him, but petitioners refused to pay the amount. He thus filed a Complaint3 for the collection of sum of money with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 3137. Petitioners, for their part, set up the defense4 that the Complaint was a suit against the state; that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies; and that the "Contract of Agreement" covering the project was void for violating Presidential Decree No. 1445, absent the proper appropriation and the Certificate of Availability of Funds.5 On 28 November 2003, the lower court ruled in favor of respondent, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant Department of Public Works and Highways is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff Arnulfo D. Aquino the following: 1. PhP1,873,790.69, Philippine Currency, representing actual amount for the completion of the project done by the plaintiff; 2. PhP50,000.00 as attorneys fee and 3. Cost of this suit. SO ORDERED. 6 It is to be noted that respondent was only asking for PhP1,262,696.20; the award in paragraph 1 above, however, conforms to the entire contract amount. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Decision of the lower court and disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The "CONTRACT AGREEMENT" entered into between the plaintiff-appellees construction company, which he represented, and the government, through the Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH) Pampanga 2nd Engineering District, is declared null and void ab initio.

The assailed decision of the court a quo is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. In line with the pronouncement in Department of Health vs. C.V. Canchela & Associates, Architects,7 the Commission on Audit (COA) is hereby ordered to determine and ascertain with dispatch, on a quantum meruit basis, the total obligation due to the plaintiff-appellee for his undertaking in implementing the subject contract of public works, and to allow payment thereof, subject to COA Rules and Regulations, upon the completion of the said determination. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.8 Dissatisfied with the Decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioners are now before this Court, seeking a reversal of the appellate courts Decision and a dismissal of the Complaint in Civil Case No. G-3137. The Petition raises the following issues: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF NON-SUABILITY OF THE STATE HAS NO APPLICATION IN THIS CASE. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE COA TO ALLOW PAYMENT TO RESPONDENT ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS DESPITE THE LATTERS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1445. After a judicious review of the case, the Court finds the Petition to be without merit. Firstly, petitioners claim that the Complaint filed by respondent before the Regional Trial Court was done without exhausting administrative remedies. Petitioners aver that respondent should have first filed a claim before the Commission on Audit (COA) before going to the courts. However, it has been established that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not ironclad rules. In Republic of the Philippines v. Lacap,9 this Court enumerated the numerous exceptions to these rules, namely: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other

plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings. In the present case, conditions (c) and (e) are present. The government project contracted out to respondent was completed almost two decades ago. To delay the proceedings by remanding the case to the relevant government office or agency will definitely prejudice respondent. More importantly, the issues in the present case involve the validity and the enforceability of the "Contract of Agreement" entered into by the parties. These are questions purely of law and clearly beyond the expertise of the Commission on Audit or the DPWH. In Lacap, this Court said: ... It does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said question at best could be resolved only tentatively by the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with them but with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done. The issue does not require technical knowledge and experience but one that would involve the interpretation and application of law. (Emphasis supplied.) Secondly, in ordering the payment of the obligation due respondent on a quantum meruit basis, the Court of Appeals correctly relied on Royal Trust Corporation v. COA,10 Eslao v. COA,11 Melchor v. COA,12 EPG Construction Company v. Vigilar,13 and Department of Health v. C.V. Canchela & Associates, Architects.14 All these cases involved government projects undertaken in violation of the relevant laws, rules and regulations covering public bidding, budget appropriations, and release of funds for the projects. Consistently in these cases, this Court has held that the contracts were void for failing to meet the requirements mandated by law; public interest and equity, however, dictate that the contractor should be compensated for services rendered and work done. Specifically, C.V. Canchela & Associates is similar to the case at bar, in that the contracts involved in both cases failed to comply with the relevant provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1445 and the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. Nevertheless, "(t)he illegality of the subject Agreements proceeds, it bears emphasis, from an express declaration or prohibition by law, not from any intrinsic illegality. As such, the Agreements are not illegal per se, and the party claiming thereunder may recover what had been paid or delivered."15 The government project involved in this case, the construction of a dike, was completed way back on 9 July 1992. For almost two decades, the public and the government benefitted from the work done by respondent. Thus, the Court of Appeals was correct in applying Eslao to the present case. In Eslao, this Court stated: ...the Court finds that the contractor should be duly compensated for services rendered, which were for the benefit of the general public. To deny the payment to the contractor of the two buildings which are almost fully completed and presently occupied by the university would be to allow the government to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another. Justice and equity demand compensation on the basis of quantum meruit. (Emphasis supplied.)

Neither can petitioners escape the obligation to compensate respondent for services rendered and work done by invoking the states immunity from suit. This Court has long established in Ministerio v. CFI of Cebu,16 and recently reiterated in Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO,17 that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen. As this Court enunciated in EPG Construction:181avvphi1 To our mind, it would be the apex of injustice and highly inequitable to defeat respondents right to be duly compensated for actual work performed and services rendered, where both the government and the public have for years received and accepted benefits from the project and reaped the fruits of respondents honest toil and labor. xxx xxx xxx

Under these circumstances, respondent may not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty and conveniently hide under the State's cloak of invincibility against suit, considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. True enough, the rule, in any case, is not absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstance. xxx xxx xxx

Although the Amigable and Ministerio cases generously tackled the issue of the State's immunity from suit vis a vis the payment of just compensation for expropriated property, this Court nonetheless finds the doctrine enunciated in the aforementioned cases applicable to the instant controversy, considering that the ends of justice would be subverted if we were to uphold, in this particular instance, the State's immunity from suit. To be sure, this Court as the staunch guardian of the citizens' rights and welfare cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the perpetration thereof. Justice and equity sternly demand that the State's cloak of invincibility against suit be shred in this particular instance, and that petitionerscontractors be duly compensated on the basis of quantum meruit for construction done on the public works housing project. (Emphasis supplied.) WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 82268 dated 25 September 2006 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice G.R. No. 158253 March 2, 2007

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and THE NATIONAL

TREASURER, Petitioner, vs. CARLITO LACAP, doing business under the name and style CARWIN CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, Respondent. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated April 28, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 56345 which affirmed with modification the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga (RTC) in Civil Case No. 10538, granting the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages filed by Carlito Lacap (respondent) against the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner). The factual background of the case is as follows: The District Engineer of Pampanga issued and duly published an "Invitation To Bid" dated January 27, 1992. Respondent, doing business under the name and style Carwin Construction and Construction Supply (Carwin Construction), was pre-qualified together with two other contractors. Since respondent submitted the lowest bid, he was awarded the contract for the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare.3 On November 4, 1992, a Contract Agreement was executed by respondent and petitioner.4 On September 25, 1992, District Engineer Rafael S. Ponio issued a Notice to Proceed with the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare.5 Accordingly, respondent undertook the works, made advances for the purchase of the materials and payment for labor costs.6 On October 29, 1992, personnel of the Office of the District Engineer of San Fernando, Pampanga conducted a final inspection of the project and found it 100% completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Accordingly, the Office of the District Engineer issued Certificates of Final Inspection and Final Acceptance.7 Thereafter, respondent sought to collect payment for the completed project.8 The DPWH prepared the Disbursement Voucher in favor of petitioner.9 However, the DPWH withheld payment from respondent after the District Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA) disapproved the final release of funds on the ground that the contractors license of respondent had expired at the time of the execution of the contract. The District Engineer sought the opinion of the DPWH Legal Department on whether the contracts of Carwin Construction for various Mount Pinatubo rehabilitation projects were valid and effective although its contractors license had already expired when the projects were contracted.10 In a Letter-Reply dated September 1, 1993, Cesar D. Mejia, Director III of the DPWH Legal Department opined that since Republic Act No. 4566 (R.A. No. 4566), otherwise known as the Contractors License Law, does not provide that a contract entered into after the license has expired is void and there is no law which expressly prohibits or declares void such contract, the

contract is enforceable and payment may be paid, without prejudice to any appropriate administrative liability action that may be imposed on the contractor and the government officials or employees concerned.11 In a Letter dated July 4, 1994, the District Engineer requested clarification from the DPWH Legal Department on whether Carwin Construction should be paid for works accomplished despite an expired contractors license at the time the contracts were executed.12 In a First Indorsement dated July 20, 1994, Cesar D. Mejia, Director III of the Legal Department, recommended that payment should be made to Carwin Construction, reiterating his earlier legal opinion.13 Despite such recommendation for payment, no payment was made to respondent. Thus, on July 3, 1995, respondent filed the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against petitioner before the RTC.14 On September 14, 1995, petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complaint states no cause of action and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the nature of the action since respondent did not appeal to the COA the decision of the District Auditor to disapprove the claim.15 Following the submission of respondents Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,16 the RTC issued an Order dated March 11, 1996 denying the Motion to Dismiss.17 The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 but it was likewise denied by the RTC in its Order dated May 23, 1996.19 On August 5, 1996, the OSG filed its Answer invoking the defenses of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of non-suability of the State.20 Following trial, the RTC rendered on February 19, 1997 its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter, thru its District Engineer at Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, to pay the following: a) P457,000.00 representing the contract for the concreting project of Sitio 5 road, Bahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga plus interest at 12% from demand until fully paid; and b) The costs of suit. SO ORDERED.21 The RTC held that petitioner must be required to pay the contract price since it has accepted the completed project and enjoyed the benefits thereof; to hold otherwise would be to overrun the long standing and consistent pronouncement against enriching oneself at the expense of another.22

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal with the CA.23 On April 28, 2003, the CA rendered its Decision sustaining the Decision of the RTC. It held that since the case involves the application of the principle of estoppel against the government which is a purely legal question, then the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply; that by its actions the government is estopped from questioning the validity and binding effect of the Contract Agreement with the respondent; that denial of payment to respondent on purely technical grounds after successful completion of the project is not countenanced either by justice or equity. The CA rendered herein the assailed Decision dated April 28, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in that the interest shall be six percent (6%) per annum computed from June 21, 1995. SO ORDERED.24 Hence, the present petition on the following ground: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER, CONSIDERING THAT: (a) RESPONDENT FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; AND (b) IT IS THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT WHICH HAS THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE RESPONDENTS MONEY CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.25 Petitioner contends that respondents recourse to judicial action was premature since the proper remedy was to appeal the District Auditors disapproval of payment to the COA, pursuant to Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1445 (P.D. No. 1445), otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines; that the COA has primary jurisdiction to resolve respondents money claim against the government under Section 2(1),26 Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section 2627 of P.D. No. 1445; that non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the principle of primary jurisdiction results in a lack of cause of action. Respondent, on the other hand, in his Memorandum28 limited his discussion to Civil Code provisions relating to human relations. He submits that equity demands that he be paid for the work performed; otherwise, the mandate of the Civil Code provisions relating to human relations would be rendered nugatory if the State itself is allowed to ignore and circumvent the standard of behavior it sets for its inhabitants. The present petition is bereft of merit. The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes.29 The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a

court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.30 Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.31 Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;32 (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of nonexhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;33 (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings.34 Exceptions (c) and (e) are applicable to the present case. Notwithstanding the legal opinions of the DPWH Legal Department rendered in 1993 and 1994 that payment to a contractor with an expired contractors license is proper, respondent remained unpaid for the completed work despite repeated demands. Clearly, there was unreasonable delay and official inaction to the great prejudice of respondent. Furthermore, whether a contractor with an expired license at the time of the execution of its contract is entitled to be paid for completed projects, clearly is a pure question of law. It does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.35 Said question at best could be resolved only tentatively by the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with them but with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done.36 The issue does not require technical knowledge and experience but one that would involve the interpretation and application of law. Thus, while it is undisputed that the District Auditor of the COA disapproved respondents claim against the Government, and, under Section 4837 of P.D. No. 1445, the administrative remedy available to respondent is an appeal of the denial of his claim by the District Auditor to the COA itself, the Court holds that, in view of exceptions (c) and (e) narrated above, the complaint for specific performance and damages was not prematurely filed and within the jurisdiction of the

RTC to resolve, despite the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As the Court aptly stated in Rocamora v. RTC-Cebu (Branch VIII):38 The plaintiffs were not supposed to hold their breath and wait until the Commission on Audit and the Ministry of Public Highways had acted on the claims for compensation for the lands appropriated by the government. The road had been completed; the Pope had come and gone; but the plaintiffs had yet to be paid for the properties taken from them. Given this official indifference, which apparently would continue indefinitely, the private respondents had to act to assert and protect their interests.39 On the question of whether a contractor with an expired license is entitled to be paid for completed projects, Section 35 of R.A. No. 4566 explicitly provides: SEC. 35. Penalties. Any contractor who, for a price, commission, fee or wage, submits or attempts to submit a bid to construct, or contracts to or undertakes to construct, or assumes charge in a supervisory capacity of a construction work within the purview of this Act, without first securing a license to engage in the business of contracting in this country; or who shall present or file the license certificate of another, give false evidence of any kind to the Board, or any member thereof in obtaining a certificate or license, impersonate another, or use an expired or revoked certificate or license, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than five hundred pesos but not more than five thousand pesos. (Emphasis supplied) The "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is that if the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation.40 This rule derived from the maxim Index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intention or will and preclude the court from construing it differently. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by use of such words as are found in the statute.41 Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.42 The wordings of R.A. No. 4566 are clear. It does not declare, expressly or impliedly, as void contracts entered into by a contractor whose license had already expired. Nonetheless, such contractor is liable for payment of the fine prescribed therein. Thus, respondent should be paid for the projects he completed. Such payment, however, is without prejudice to the payment of the fine prescribed under the law. Besides, Article 22 of the Civil Code which embodies the maxim Nemo ex alterius incommode debet lecupletari (no man ought to be made rich out of anothers injury) states: Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

This article is part of the chapter of the Civil Code on Human Relations, the provisions of which were formulated as "basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order, x x x designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience, x x x guides human conduct [that] should run as golden threads through society to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and dominance of justice."43 The rules thereon apply equally well to the Government.44 Since respondent had rendered services to the full satisfaction and acceptance by petitioner, then the former should be compensated for them. To allow petitioner to acquire the finished project at no cost would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the petitioner to the prejudice of respondent. Such unjust enrichment is not allowed by law. WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 28, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 56345 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 175039 April 18, 2012

ADDITION HILLS MANDALUYONG CIVIC & SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS, INC., WILFREDO I. IMPERIAL, in his capacity as Director, NCR, and HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondents. DECISION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Decision1 dated May 16, 2006 as well as the Resolution2 dated October 5, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 63439, entitled "ADDITION HILLS MANDALUYONG CIVIC & SOCIAL ORGANIZATION INC. vs. MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS, INC., WILFREDO I. IMPERIAL in his capacity as Director, NCR, and HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES." In effect, the appellate courts issuances reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated September 10, 1998 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 158 in Civil Case No. 65171. The facts of this case, as narrated in the assailed May 16, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals, are as follows: [Private respondent] MEGAWORLD was the registered owner of a parcel of land located along Lee Street, Barangay Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City with an area of 6,148 square meters,

more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12768, issued by the Register of Deeds for Mandaluyong City. Sometime in 1994, [private respondent] MEGAWORLD conceptualized the construction of a residential condominium complex on the said parcel of land called the Wack-Wack Heights Condominium consisting of a cluster of six (6) four-storey buildings and one (1) seventeen (17) storey tower. [Private respondent] MEGAWORLD thereafter secured the necessary clearances, licenses and permits for the condominium project, including: (1) a CLV, issued on October 25, 1994, and a Development Permit, issued on November 11, 1994, both by the [public respondent] HLURB; (2) an ECC, issued on March 15, 1995, by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); (3) a Building Permit, issued on February 3, 1995, by the Office of the Building Official of Mandaluyong City; and (4) a Barangay Clearance dated September 29, 1994, from the office of the Barangay Chairman of Addition Hills. Thereafter, construction of the condominium project began, but on June 30, 1995, the plaintiffappellee AHMCSO filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 158, docketed as Civil Case No. 65171, for yo (sic) annul the Building Permit, CLV, ECC and Development Permit granted to MEGAWORLD; to prohibit the issuance to MEGAWORLD of Certificate of Registration and License to Sell Condominium Units; and to permanently enjoin local and national building officials from issuing licenses and permits to MEGAWORLD. On July 20, 1995, [private respondent] MEGAWORLD filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for lack of cause of action and that jurisdiction over the case was with the [public respondent] HLURB and not with the regular courts. On July 24, 1994, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss filed by [private respondent] MEGAWORLD. On August 3, 1995, [private respondent] MEGAWORLD filed its Answer. On November 15, 1995, pre-trial was commenced. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.4 The trial court rendered a Decision dated September 10, 1998 in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Certificate of Locational Viability, the Development Permit and the Certificate of Registration and License to Sell Condominium Units, all issued by defendant Wilfredo I. Imperial, National Capital Region Director of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Boad (HLURB-NCR) are all declared void and of no effect. The same goes for the Building Permit issued by defendant Francisco Mapalo of Mandaluyong City. In turn, defendant Megaworld Properties and Holdings Inc. is directed to rectify its Wack Wack

Heights Project for it to conform to the requirements of an R-2 zone of Mandaluyong City and of the Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance 81-01. Costs against these defendants.5 Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which issued the assailed May 16, 2006 Decision which reversed and set aside the aforementioned trial court ruling, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 10, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 158, rendered in Civil Case No. 65171 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING the complaint.6 As can be expected, petitioner moved for reconsideration; however, the Court of Appeals denied the motion in its assailed October 5, 2006 Resolution. Hence, the petitioner filed the instant petition and submitted the following issues for consideration: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE SEEKING JUDICIAL INTERVENTION FROM THE COURTS. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE CASE FILED BEFORE AND DECIDED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, BRANCH 158, DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS (The Court) ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE SEEKING JUDICIAL INTERVENTION FROM THE COURTS. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS (The Court) ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE HLURB HAD JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS TO ANNUL CERTIFICATES OF LOCATIONAL VIABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.7 On the other hand, private respondent put forth the following issues in its Memorandum8: I WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE FOR BEING IMPROPERLY VERIFIED. II

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR PETITIONERS FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. III WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE FACTS. A. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CLV WAS IMPROPERLY AND IRREGULARLY ISSUED. 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT HLURB HAS NO POWER TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE TO REQUIREMENTS OF METRO MANILA COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO. 81-01. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3(B), ARTICLE VII OF METRO MANILA COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO. 81-01 TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXCEPTION OR DEVIATION. B. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS IMPROPERLY AND IRREGULARLY ISSUED. C. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT DEPRIVES THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OF AIR.9 We find the petition to be without merit. At the outset, the parties in their various pleadings discuss issues, although ostensibly legal, actually require the Court to make findings of fact. It is long settled, by law and jurisprudence, that the Court is not a trier of facts.10 Therefore, the only relevant issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the remedy sought by the petitioner in the trial court is in violation of the legal principle of the exhaustion of administrative remedies. We have consistently declared that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed.11 In the case of Republic v. Lacap,12 we expounded on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the related doctrine of primary jurisdiction in this wise:

The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation. Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.13 It is true that the foregoing doctrine admits of exceptions, such that in Lacap, we also held: Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. x x x.14 Upon careful consideration of the parties contentions, we find that none of the aforementioned exceptions exist in the case at bar. What is apparent, however, is that petitioner unjustifiably failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) before seeking recourse with the trial court. Under the rules of the HLURB which were then in effect, particularly Sections 4 and 6 of HLURB Resolution No. R-391, Series of 1987 (Adopting the 1987 Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board),15 a complaint to annul any permit issued by the HLURB may be filed before the Housing and Land Use Arbiter (HLA). Therefore, petitioners action to annul the Certificate of Locational Viability (CLV) and the Development Permit issued by the HLURB on October 25, 1994 and November 11, 1994, respectively, in favor of private respondent for its Wack-Wack Heights Condominium Project should have been properly filed before the HLURB instead of the trial court. We quote with approval the Court of Appeals discussion of this matter:

In the case at bar, plaintiff-appellee AHMCSO failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention via a petition for annulment. The power to act as appellate body over decisions and actions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies and deputized official of the board was retained by the HLURB and remained unaffected by the devolution under the Local Government Code. Under Section 5 of Executive Order No. 648, series of 1981, the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC) later renamed as Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), pursuant to Section 1(c) of Executive Order No. 90, series of 1986, has the power to: f) Act as the appellate body on decisions and actions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies of the deputized officials of the Commission, on matters arising from the performance of these functions. In fact, Section 4 of E.O. No. 71 affirms the power of the HLURB to review actions of local government units on the issuance of permits Sec. 4. If in the course of evaluation of application for registration and licensing of projects within its jurisdiction, HLURB finds that a local government unit has overlooked or mistakenly applied a certain law, rule or standard in issuing a development permit, it shall suspend action with a corresponding advice to the local government concerned, so as to afford it an opportunity to take appropriate action thereon. Such return and advice must likewise be effected within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt by HLURB of the application. Moreover, Section 18 and 19 of HSRC Administrative Order No. 20 provides: Section 18. Oppossition to Application. Opposition to application shall be considered as a complaint, the resolution of which shall be a prerequisite to any action on the application. Complaints and other legal processes shall be governed by the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, and shall have the effect of suspending the application. Section 19. Complaints/Opposition Filed After the Issuance of Locational Clearance.1wphi1 Temporary issuance of locational permit or land transaction approval shall be acted upon by the Office that issued the same. Such complaint shall not automatically suspend the locational clearance, temporary use permit, development permit or land transaction approval unless an order issued by the commission to that effect. The appropriate provisions of the Rules of Procedure governing hearings before the Commission shall be applied in the resolution of said complaint as well as any motion for reconsideration that may be filed thereto, provided that if the complaint is directed against the certificate of zoning compliance issued by the deputized zoning administrator, the same shall be acted upon the Commissioner in Charge for adjudication. Under the rules of the HLURB then prevailing at the time this case was filed, a complaint to annul any permit issued by the HLURB may be filed before the Housing and Land Use Arbiter (HLA). The decision of the HLA may be brought to the Board of Commissioners

by Petition for Certiorari and the decision of the Board of Commissioners [is] appealable to the Office of the President.16(Citations omitted; emphases supplied.) It does not escape the attention of the Court that in its Reply, petitioner admitted that it had a pending complaint with the HLURB involving private respondents the Development Permit, the Certificate of Registration and License to Sell Condominium Units, aside from complaints with the Building Official of the Municipality (now City) of Mandaluyong and the MMDA, when it instituted its action with the trial court. As discussed earlier, a litigant cannot go around the authority of the concerned administrative agency and directly seek redress from the courts. Thus, when the law provides for a remedy against a certain action of an administrative board, body, or officer, relief to the courts can be made only after exhausting all remedies provided therein. It is settled that the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.17 In view of the foregoing discussion, we find it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised by the parties. To conclude, it is our view that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in setting aside the trial court decision and dismissing said complaint. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 16, 2006 and the Resolution dated October 5, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 63439 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 191427 May 30, 2011

UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORP. (CORN DIVISION), Petitioner, vs. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: The present petition for review on certiorari assails the Court of Appeals Decision1 dated October 27, 2009 and Resolution dated February 23, 2010 in CA-G. R. SP No. 107449. Universal Robina Corp. (petitioner) is engaged in, among other things, the manufacture of animal feeds at its plant in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City. Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), respondent, through its Pollution Control Division Monitoring and Enforcement Section, after conducting on March 14, 2000 a laboratory analysis of petitioners corn oil refinery plants wastewater, found that it failed to

comply with government standards provided under Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Orders (DAOs) Nos. 34 and 35, series of 1990. LLDA later issued on May 30, 2000 an Ex-Parte Order requiring petitioner to explain why no order should be issued for the cessation of its operations due to its discharge of pollutive effluents into the Pasig River and why it was operating without a clearance/permit from the LLDA. Still later, the LLDA, after receiving a phone-in complaint conducted on August 31, 2000, another analysis of petitioners wastewater, which showed its continued failure to conform to its effluent standard in terms of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Color and Oil/Grease. Hearings on petitioners pollution case were thereafter commenced on March 1, 2001. Despite subsequent compliance monitoring and inspections conducted by the LLDA, petitioners wastewater failed to conform to the parameters set by the aforementioned DAOs. In early 2003, petitioner notified LLDA of its plan to upgrade the wastewater treatment facility (WTF) of its corn oil refinery plant in an effort to comply with environmental laws, an upgrade that was completed only in 2007. On May 9, 2007 on its request,2 a re-sampling of petitioners wastewater was conducted which showed that petitioners plant finally complied with government standards. Petitioner soon requested for a reduction of penalties, by Manifestation and Motion3 filed on August 24, 2007 to which it attached copies of its Daily Operation Reports and Certifications4 to show that accrued daily penalties should only cover a period of 560 days. After conducting hearings, the LLDA issued its Order to Pay5 (OP) dated January 21, 2008, the pertinent portion of which reads: After careful evaluation of the case, respondent is found to be discharging pollutive wastewater computed in two periods reckoned from March 14, 2000 the date of initial sampling until November 3, 2003 the date it requested for a re-sampling covering 932 days in consideration of the interval of time when subsequent monitoring was conducted after an interval of more than 2 years and from March 15, 2006 the date when re-sampling was done until April 17, 2007 covering 448 days6 for a total of 1,247 days. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby ordered to pay within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof the accumulated daily penalties amounting to a total of Pesos: One Million Two Hundred Forty-Seven (Thousand) Pesos Only (PHP 1,247,000.00) prior to dismissal of the case and without prejudice of filing another case for its subsequent violations. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Petitioner moved to reconsider, praying that it be ordered to pay only accumulated daily penalties in the sum of Five Hundred Sixty Thousand (P560,000) Pesos7 on grounds that the LLDA erred in first, adopting a straight computation of the periods of violation based on the flawed assumption that petitioner was operating on a daily basis without excluding, among others, the period during which the LLDA Laboratory underwent rehabilitation work from December 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 (covering 212 days); and second, in disregarding the Daily Operation Reports and Certifications which petitioner submitted to attest to the actual number of its operating days, i.e., 560 days. By Order8 of July 11, 2008, the LLDA denied petitioners motion for reconsideration and reiterated its order to pay the aforestated penalties, disposing of the issues thusly: On the first issue, while it is true that the Authority failed to state in its OP dated 21 January 2008 the basis for actual computation of the accumulated daily penalties, the Authority would like to explain that its computation was based on the following, to wit: The computation of accumulated daily penalties was reckoned period [sic] from 14 March 2000 the date of initial sampling to 03 November 2003 the date when its letter request for resampling was received which covers 932 days computed at 6 days per week operation as reflected in the Reports of Inspection. Since subsequent inspection conducted after two (2) years and four (4) months, such period was deducted from the computation. Likewise, the period when the LLDA Laboratory was rehabilitated from December 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 was also deducted with a total of Two Hundred Twelve (212) days. On the second claim, the same cannot be granted for lack of legal basis since the documents submitted are self-serving. The period from 15 March 2006 to 17 April 2007 was computed from the date of re-sampling when it failed to conform to the standards set by law up to the date of receipt of its letter request for re-sampling prior to its compliance on May 9, 2007. The period covers 342 days. Hence, respondent is found to be discharging pollutive wastewater not conforming with the standards set by law computed from March 14, 2000 November 3, 2003 covering 932 days and from March 15, 2006 April 17, 2007 covering 342 days for a total of 1,274 days. Petitioner challenged by certiorari the twin orders before the Court of Appeals, attributing to LLDA grave abuse of discretion in disregarding its documentary evidence, and maintaining that the lack of any plain, speedy or adequate remedy from the enforcement of LLDAs order justified such recourse as an exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to judicial action. By Decision of October 27, 2009 the appellate court affirmed both LLDA orders, which it found to be amply supported by substantial evidence, the computation of the accumulated daily penalties being in accord with prevailing DENR guidelines. The appellate court held that while petitioner may have offered documentary evidence to support its assertion that the days when it did not operate must be excluded from the computation, the LLDA has the prerogative to disregard the same for being unverified, hence, unreliable.

The appellate court went on to chide petitioners petition for certiorari as premature since the law provides for an appeal from decisions or orders of the LLDA to the DENR Secretary or the Office of the President, a remedy which should have first been exhausted before invoking judicial intervention.9 Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of February 23, 2010, it filed the present petition. Petitioner cites deprivation of due process and lack of any plain, speedy or adequate remedy as grounds which exempted it from complying with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. The petition fails. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.10 The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed.11 Executive Order No. 19212 (EO 192) was issued on June 10, 1987 for the salutary purpose of reorganizing the DENR, charging it with the task of promulgating rules and regulations for the control of water, air and land pollution as well as of promulgating ambient and effluent standards for water and air quality including the allowable levels of other pollutants and radiations. EO 192 also created the Pollution Adjudication Board under the Office of the DENR Secretary which took over the powers and functions of the National Pollution Control Commission with respect to the adjudication of pollution cases, including the latters role as arbitrator for determining reparation, or restitution of the damages and losses resulting from pollution.13 Petitioner had thus available administrative remedy of appeal to the DENR Secretary. Its contrary arguments to show that an appeal to the DENR Secretary would be an exercise in futility as the latter merely adopts the LLDAs findings is at best, speculative and presumptuous. As for petitioners invocation of due process, it fails too. The appellate court thus aptly brushed aside this claim, in this wise: Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

. . . Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense for it is enough that the party is given the chance to be heard before the case against him is decided. Here, petitioner URC was given ample opportunities to be heard it was given show cause orders and allowed to participate in hearing to rebut the allegation against it of discharging pollutive wastewater to the Pasig River, it was given the chance to present evidences in support of its claims, it was notified of the assailed "Order to Pay," and it was allowed to file a motion for reconsideration. Given these, we are of the view that the minimum requirements of administrative due process have been complied with in this case.14 (emphasis in the original) In fine, the assailed LLDA orders of January 21, 2008 and July 11, 2008 correctly reckoned the two periods within which petitioner was found to have continued discharging pollutive wastewater and applied the penalty as provided for under Article VI, Section 32 of LLDA Resolution No. 33, Series of 1996.15 LLDAs explanation that behind its inclusion of certain days in its computation of the imposable penalties that it had already deducted not just the period during which the LLDA Laboratory underwent rehabilitation work from December 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 (covering 212 days) but had also excluded from the computation the period during which no inspections or compliance monitorings were conducted (a period covering two years and four months) is well-taken. It is noted that during the hearing on June 19, 2007, the LLDA gave petitioner the opportunity "to submit within fifteen (15) days.any valid documents to show proof of its non-operating dates that would be necessary for the possible reduction of the accumulated daily penalties,"16 but petitioner failed to comply therewith. As earlier noted, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to which it attached Daily Operation Reports and Certifications, which voluminous documents were, however, unverified in derogation of Rule X, Section 217 of the 2004 Revised Rules, Regulations and Procedures Implementing Republic Act No. 4850. Absent such verification, the LLDA may not be faulted for treating such evidence to be purely self-serving. Respecting LLDAs decision not to attach any evidentiary weight to the Daily Operation Reports or Certifications, recall that the LLDA conducted an analysis of petitioners wastewater discharge on August 31, 2000, upon receiving a phone-in complaint. And it conducted too an analysis on May 3, 2002 in the course of periodic compliance monitoring. The Daily Operation Reports for both August 31, 200018 and May 3, 200219 submitted by petitioner clearly manifest that the plant did not operate on those dates. On the other hand, LLDAs Investigation Report and Report of Inspection20 dated August 31, 2000 and May 3, 2002, respectively, disclose otherwise. Petitioner never disputed the factual findings reflected in these reports. Thus spawns doubts on the veracity and accuracy of the Daily Operation Reports.lawphi1 Petitioner asserts that LLDA had not credited it for undertaking remedial measures to rehabilitate its wastewater treatment facility, despite the prohibitive costs and at a time when its income from the agro-industrial business was already severely affected by a poor business climate; and that the enforcement of the assailed LLDA orders amounted to a gross disincentive to its business.

Without belaboring petitioners assertions, it must be underscored that the protection of the environment, including bodies of water, is no less urgent or vital than the pressing concerns of private enterprises, big or small. Everyone must do their share to conserve the national patrimonys meager resources for the benefit of not only this generation, but of those to follow. The length of time alone it took petitioner to upgrade its WTF (from 2003 to 2007), a move arrived at only under threat of continuing sanctions, militates against any genuine concern for the well-being of the countrys waterways. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 27, 2009 Decision and the February 23, 2010 Resolution, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 107449, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 177878 April 7, 2010

SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR, Petitioner, vs. APRONIANO JOROLAN and HON. EDUARDO A. APRESA, PEOPLE'S LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD (PLEB) Chairman, New Corella, Davao del Norte, Respondents. DECISION VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, filed by petitioner SPO1 Leonito Acuzar assailing the March 23, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 77110. The assailed decision reversed and set aside the October 15, 2002 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City, Branch 31, which had annulled the Decision3 of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of the Municipality of New Corella, Davao del Norte, finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordering his dismissal from service. The facts are as follows: On May 2, 2000, respondent Aproniano Jorolan filed Administrative Case No. 2000-014 against petitioner before the PLEB charging the latter of Grave Misconduct for allegedly having an illicit relationship with respondents minor daughter. On May 11, 2000, respondent also instituted a criminal case against petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court of New Corella, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1712, for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Child Abuse Act. On May 15, 2000, petitioner filed his Counter-Affidavit5 before the PLEB vehemently denying all the accusations leveled against him. In support thereof, petitioner attached the affidavit of

complainants daughter, Rigma A. Jorolan, who denied having any relationship with the petitioner or having kissed him despite knowing him to be a married person. On July 24, 2000, petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings before the PLEB pending resolution of the criminal case filed before the regular court. The PLEB denied his motion for lack of merit and a hearing of the case was conducted. The PLEB also denied petitioners motion for reconsideration on August 9, 2000 for allegedly being dilatory. On August 17, 2000, after due proceedings, the PLEB issued a decision, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board finds the respondent, SPO1 Leonito Acuzar, PNP New Corella, Davao del Norte Police Station GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT (Child Abuse) which is punishable by DISMISSAL effective immediately. SO ORDERED.6 Immediately upon receipt of the decision, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order7 with the RTC of Tagum City, Branch 31, docketed as Special Civil Case No. 384. Petitioner alleged that the subject decision was issued without giving him an opportunity to be heard. He likewise averred that the respondent Board acted without jurisdiction in proceeding with the case without the petitioner having been first convicted in the criminal case before the regular court. Petitioner pointed out that under the PLEB Rules of Procedure, prior conviction was required before the Board may act on the administrative case considering that the charge was actually for violation of law, although denominated as one (1) for grave misconduct. On September 16, 2000, petitioner was ordered dismissed from the Philippine National Police (PNP) by the Chief Regional Directorial Staff of the PNP, Police Regional Office 11, effective September 7, 2000. On October 15, 2002, the trial court rendered a Decision annulling the Decision of the PLEB. The trial court noted: xxxx But nothing in the record would show that the Board scheduled a hearing for the reception of the evidence of the petitioner. In a nutshell, the petitioner was not given his day in Court. The Board could have scheduled the hearing for the reception of petitioners evidence and if he failed to appear, then the Board could have considered the non-appearance of the petitioner as a waiver to present his evidence. It was only then that the decision could have been rendered. xxxx The hearing at the Peoples Law Enforcement Board, although administrative in nature, has penal sanction of dismissal and for forfeiture of benefits of the petitioner. It is along this context

that the petitioner should be afforded all the opportunities of hearing which principally includes the reception of his evidence consistent with our established rules. Due process of law embraces not only substantive due process, but also procedural due process. xxxx While this Court does not tolerate any form of misconduct committed by members of the Philippine National Police, yet it equally considers the right of the petitioner enshrined under the Bill of Rights and the deprivation of petitioners gainful employment which is the economic life blood of the family, especially the innocent dependents.8 Respondent thereafter elevated the case to the CA. On March 23, 2007, the CA rendered its Decision reversing and setting aside the trial courts decision. The CA found merit in respondents argument that the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner before the RTC was not the proper remedy because (1) appeal was available and (2) the issues raised were not pure questions of law but both questions of law and fact. According to the CA, the existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one (1) of the requirements for its availment is the absence of the remedy of appeal or any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy. The CA ruled that petitioner should have appealed the decision of the PLEB to the regional appellate board of the PNP before resorting to certiorari before the court. The CA added that while it is true that there are instances where the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the availability of an appeal, petitioner, however, failed to demonstrate any ground to warrant immediate resort to it. Thus, it held that the trial court erred in giving due course to the petition. Petitioner now assails the Decision of the CA in this recourse raising the following assigned errors: 1. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Certiorari was not a proper remedy [to assail] the Decision of the Respondent-Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), New Corella, Davao del Norte, because (1) appeal was available; and (2) the issue raised were not pure questions of law but both questions of law and fact. And that herein Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 2. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Petitioner was accorded with due process before the Respondent-Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), New Corella, Davao del Norte, and was given his day in court for his defense.9 In essence, the issue is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that petitioners resort to certiorari was not warranted as the remedy of appeal from the decision of the PLEB was available to him. Petitioner contends that the petition he filed before the trial court was appropriate because the instant case falls under the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, the decision being patently illegal. Petitioner maintains that a conviction should have been first obtained in the criminal case filed against him for child abuse before the PLEB can acquire

jurisdiction over his administrative case. He also maintains that the Boards decision was reached without giving him an opportunity to be heard and his right to due process was violated. The Boards decision having been rendered without jurisdiction, appeal was not an appropriate remedy. We affirm the appellate courts ruling. To reiterate, petitioner opted to file a petition for certiorari before the trial court on the pretext that the PLEB had no jurisdiction to hear the administrative case until petitioner is convicted before the regular court. According to petitioner, although the case filed before the PLEB was captioned as "Grave Misconduct," the offense charged was actually for "Violation of Law," which requires prior conviction before a hearing on the administrative case can proceed. Thus, petitioner insists that the PLEB should have awaited the resolution of the criminal case before conducting a hearing on the administrative charge against him. The contention however is untenable. A careful perusal of respondents affidavit-complaint against petitioner would show that petitioner was charged with grave misconduct for engaging in an illicit affair with respondents minor daughter, he being a married man, and not for violation of law, as petitioner would like to convince this Court. Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.10 It usually refers to transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention but implies wrongful intention and not to mere error of judgment.11 On the other hand, "violation of law" presupposes final conviction in court of any crime or offense penalized under the Revised Penal Code or any special law or ordinance.12 The settled rule is that criminal and administrative cases are separate and distinct from each other.13 In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed whereas in administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required. Verily, administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings.14 The PLEB, being the administrative disciplinary body tasked to hear complaints against erring members of the PNP, has jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, Section 43 (e) of Republic Act No. 6975,15 is explicit, thus: SEC. 43. Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). - x x x xxxx (e) Decisions The decision of the PLEB shall become final and executory: Provided, That a decision involving demotion or dismissal from the service may be appealed by either party with the regional appellate board within ten (10) days from receipt of the copy of the decision. It is apparent from the foregoing provision that the remedy of appeal from the decision of the PLEB to the Regional Appellate Board was available to petitioner. Since appeal was available, filing a petition for certiorari was inapt. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action of certiorari.16 Corollarily, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that before a party is allowed to seek the

intervention of the court, it is a precondition that he should have availed of the means of administrative processes afforded to him. If a remedy is available within the administrative machinery of the administrative agency, then this alternative should first be utilized before resort can be made to the courts. This is to enable such body to review and correct any mistakes without the intervention of the court. Moreover, for a special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.17 For sure, petitioners bare allegation that appeal from the judgment of the Board may not be adequate does not justify immediate resort to certiorari. Moreover, the extraordinary writ of certiorari may be issued only where it is clearly shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.18 Here, not only was an appeal available to petitioner as a remedy from the decision of the PLEB, petitioner also failed to sufficiently show any grave abuse of discretion of the Board which would justify his immediate resort to certiorari in lieu of an appeal. Contrary to petitioners claim that he has not been afforded all the opportunity to present his side, our own review of the records of the proceedings before the PLEB reveals otherwise. The PLEB summarized its proceedings as follows: The Board issued a summon to SPO1 Leonito Acuzar on May 03, 2000 informing him of the case filed against him. On May 4, 2000, the respondents wife Mrs. Arcella Acuzar made an informal letter addressed to the Chairman of the PLEB that the respondent cannot answer the summon because he was still in a critical condition in the hospital as alleged. After three days, May 9, 2000 the respondent through his legal counsel filed a motion for extension of time to submit counter affidavit. The Board received the sworn statement of the respondent on May 16, 2000. Subpoenas were sent to both parties informing them of the first hearing which was set on June 01, 2000; 8:00 a.m. at the SB session hall, New Corella, Davao del Norte. Then the Board set for a second hearing on June 15, 2000; 8:30 a.m. but the respondents counsel moved for a postponement because he was slated to appear before the Regional Trial Court Branch 1, Tagum City of the same date and time; the third hearing on June 21, 2000; 8:30 a.m.; the fourth hearing on July 13, 2000, 8:30 a.m.; the fifth hearing on July 19, 2000, 9:00 a.m.; [and] the sixth hearing on July 26, 2000 [were] postponed because the respondents counsel filed motions for postponement and to suspend proceedings pending resolution of criminal case before the regular court and the final hearing was set on August 03, 2000; 9:00 a.m. of the same place but the respondent walked out during the hearing because of the non-appearance of his legal counsel but the PLEB Members continued to hear the case without the respondent and legal counsels presence based on sworn affidavit in the hands of the PLEB Members.19 In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which

may affect a respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.20 In the instant case, petitioner was notified of the complaint against him and in fact, he had submitted his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses. He attended the hearings together with his counsel and even asked for several postponements. Petitioner therefore cannot claim that he had been denied of due process. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process. The requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of direct testimony. Here, we note that petitioner had more than enough opportunity to present his side and adduce evidence in support of his defense; thus, he cannot claim that his right to due process has been violated. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 23, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77110 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.