1

City of Manila vs Teotico Facts: In January 1958, at about 8pm, Genaro Teotico was about to board a jeepney in P. Burgos, ani!a w"en "e #e!! into an unco$ered man"o!e. T"is caused injuries upon "im. T"erea#ter "e sued #or damages under %rtic!e &189 o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode t"e 'ity o# ani!a, t"e mayor, t"e city engineer, t"e city "ea!t" o##icer, t"e city treasurer, and t"e c"ie# o# po!ice. '(I ani!a ru!ed against Teotico. T"e '%, on appea!, ru!ed t"at t"e 'ity o# ani!a s"ou!d pay damages to Teotico. T"e 'ity o# ani!a assai!ed t"e decision o# t"e '% on t"e ground t"at t"e c"arter o# ani!a states t"at it s"a!! not be !iab!e #or damages caused by t"e neg!igence o# t"e city o##icers in en#orcing t"e c"arter) t"at t"e c"arter is a specia! !aw and s"a!! pre$ai! o$er t"e 'i$i! 'ode w"ic" is a genera! !aw) and t"at t"e accident "appened in nationa! "ig"way. ISSUE: *"et"er or not t"e 'ity o# ani!a is !iab!e in t"e case at bar. HELD: +es. It is true t"at in case o# con#!ict, a specia! !aw pre$ai!s o$er a genera! !aw) t"at t"e c"arter o# ani!a is a specia! !aw and t"at t"e 'i$i! 'ode is a genera! !aw. ,owe$er, !oo-ing at t"e particu!ar pro$isions o# eac" !aw concerned, t"e pro$ision o# t"e ani!a '"arter e.empting it #rom !iabi!ity caused by t"e neg!igence o# its o##icers is a genera! !aw in t"e sense t"at it e.empts t"e city #rom neg!igence o# its o##icers in genera!. T"ere is no particu!ar e.emption but mere!y a genera! e.emption. /n t"e ot"er "and, %rtic!e &189 o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode pro$ides a particu!ar prescription to t"e e##ect t"at it ma-es pro$inces, cities, and municipa!ities !iab!e #or t"e damages caused to a certain person by reason o# t"e 01defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other-public works under their control or supervision.2 T"e a!!egation t"at t"e incident "appened in a nationa! "ig"way was on!y raised #or t"e #irst time in t"e 'ity3s motion #or reconsideration in t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s, "ence it cannot be gi$en due weig"t. %t any rate, e$en t"oug" it is a nationa! "ig"way, t"e !aw contemp!ates t"at regard!ess i# w"et"er or not t"e road is nationa!, pro$incia!, city, or municipa!, so !ong as it is under t"e 'ity3s contro! and super$ision, it s"a!! be responsib!e #or damages by reason o# t"e de#ecti$e conditions t"ereo#. In t"e case at bar, t"e 'ity admitted t"ey "a$e contro! and super$ision o$er t"e road w"ere Teotico #e!! w"en t"e 'ity a!!eged t"at it "as been doing constant and regu!ar inspection o# t"e city3s roads, P. Burgos inc!uded.

4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines SUPREME COURT ani!a 56'/78 8I9I5I/7 G.R. No. !"#$ May %$& !$' (ERN)RDINO *IMENE+& petitioner, $s. CIT, OF M)NIL) an- INTERMEDI)TE )PPELL)TE COURT& respondents.

P)R)S& J.: T"is is a petition #or re$iew on certiorari o#: ;1< t"e decision . o# t"e Intermediate %ppe!!ate 'ourt in %'=G.4. 7o. >1?88@= '9Bernardino Jimenez v. Asiatic Integrated Corporation and Cit of !anila, re$ersing t"e decision .. o# t"e 'ourt o# (irst Instance o# ani!a, Branc" AAII in 'i$i! 'ase 7o. 9B?9> between t"e same parties, but on!y inso#ar as "o!ding %siatic Integrated 'orporation so!e!y !iab!e #or damages and attorneyCs #ees instead o# ma-ing t"e 'ity o# ani!a joint!y and so!idari!y !iab!e wit" it as prayed #or by t"e petitioner and ;&< t"e reso!ution o# t"e same %ppe!!ate 'ourt denying "is Partia! otion #or 4econsideration ;4o!!o, p. &<. T"e dispositi$e portion o# t"e Intermediate %ppe!!ate 'ourtCs decision is as #o!!ows: *,646(/46, t"e decision appea!ed #rom is "ereby 46964568. % new one is "ereby entered ordering t"e de#endant %siatic Integrated 'orporation to pay t"e p!ainti## P&&1.9> actua! medica! e.penses, P9>>.>> #or t"e amount paid #or t"e operation and management o# a sc"oo! bus, P&>,>>>.>> as mora! damages due to pains, su##erings and s!eep!ess nig"ts and P !>,>>>.>> as attorneyCs #ees. 5/ /486468. ;p. &>, 4o!!o< T"e #indings o# respondent %ppe!!ate 'ourt are as #o!!ows:

&
T"e e$idence o# t"e p!ainti## ;petitioner "erein< s"ows t"at in t"e morning o# %ugust 15, 19@D "e, toget"er wit" "is neig"bors, went to 5ta. %na pub!ic mar-et to buy EbagoongE at t"e time w"en t"e pub!ic mar-et was #!ooded wit" an-!e deep rainwater. %#ter purc"asing t"e EbagoongE "e turned around to return "ome but "e stepped on an unco$ered opening w"ic" cou!d not be seen because o# t"e dirty rainwater, causing a dirty and rusty #our= inc" nai!, stuc- inside t"e unco$ered opening, to pierce t"e !e#t !eg o# p!ainti##=petitioner penetrating to a dept" o# about one and a "a!# inc"es. %#ter administering #irst aid treatment at a nearby drugstore, "is companions "e!ped "im "obb!e "ome. ,e #e!t i!! and de$e!oped #e$er and "e "ad to be carried to 8r. Juanita ascardo. 8espite t"e medicine administered to "im by t"e !atter, "is !e#t !eg swe!!ed wit" great pain. ,e was t"en rus"ed to t"e 9eterans emoria! ,ospita! w"ere "e "ad to be con#ined #or twenty ;&>< days due to "ig" #e$er and se$ere pain. Fpon "is disc"arge #rom t"e "ospita!, "e "ad to wa!- around wit" crutc"es #or #i#teen ;15< days. ,is injury pre$ented "im #rom attending to t"e sc"oo! buses "e is operating. %s a resu!t, "e "ad to engage t"e ser$ices o# one Bien$enido 9a!deG to super$ise "is business #or an aggregate compensation o# nine "undred pesos ;P9>>.>><. ;8ecision, %'=G.4. '9 7o. >1?8@, 4o!!o, pp. 1?=&><. Petitioner sued #or damages t"e 'ity o# ani!a and t"e %siatic Integrated 'orporation under w"ose administration t"e 5ta. %na Pub!ic ar-et "ad been p!aced by $irtue o# a anagement and /perating 'ontract ;4o!!o, p. D@<. T"e !ower court decided in #a$or o# respondents, t"e dispositi$e portion o# t"e decision reading: *,646(/46, judgment is "ereby rendered in #a$or o# t"e de#endants and against t"e p!ainti## dismissing t"e comp!aint wit" costs against t"e p!ainti##. (or !ac- o# su##icient e$idence, t"e counterc!aims o# t"e de#endants are !i-ewise dismissed. ;8ecision, 'i$i! 'ase 7o. 9B?9>, 4o!!o, p. D&<. %s abo$e stated, on appea!, t"e Intermediate %ppe!!ate 'ourt "e!d t"e %siatic Integrated 'orporation !iab!e #or damages but abso!$ed respondent 'ity o# ani!a. ,ence t"is petition. T"e !one assignment o# error raised in t"is petition is on w"et"er or not t"e Intermediate %ppe!!ate 'ourt erred in not ru!ing t"at respondent 'ity o# ani!a s"ou!d be joint!y and se$era!!y !iab!e wit" %siatic Integrated 'orporation #or t"e injuries petitioner su##ered. In comp!iance wit" t"e reso!ution o# Ju!y 1, 1985 o# t"e (irst 8i$ision o# t"is 'ourt ;4o!!o, p. &9< respondent 'ity o# its comment on %ugust 1?, 1985 ;4o!!o, p. ?D< w"i!e petitioner #i!ed its rep!y on %ugust &1, 1985 ;4eno, p. 51<. ani!a #i!ed

T"erea#ter, t"e 'ourt in t"e reso!ution o# 5eptember 11, 1985 ;4o!!o, p. B&< ga$e due course to t"e petition and reHuired bot" parties to submit simu!taneous memoranda Petitioner #i!ed "is memorandum on /ctober 1, 1985 ;4o!!o, p. B5< w"i!e respondent #i!ed its memorandum on /ctober &D, 1985 ;4o!!o, p. 8&<. In t"e reso!ution o# /ctober 1?, 198B, t"is case was trans#erred to t"e 5econd 8i$ision o# t"is 'ourt, t"e same "a$ing been assigned to a member o# said 8i$ision ;4o!!o, p. 9&<. T"e petition is impressed wit" merit. %s correct!y #ound by t"e Intermediate %ppe!!ate 'ourt, t"ere is no doubt t"at t"e p!ainti## su##ered injuries w"en "e #e!! into a drainage opening wit"out any co$er in t"e 5ta. %na Pub!ic ar-et. 8e#endants do not deny t"at p!ainti## was in #act injured a!t"oug" t"e %siatic Integrated 'orporation tries to minimiGe t"e e.tent o# t"e injuries, c!aiming t"at it was on!y a sma!! puncture and t"at as a war $eteran, p!ainti##Cs "ospita!iGation at t"e *ar 9eteranCs ,ospita! was #ree. ;8ecision, %'=G.4. '9 7o. >1?8@, 4o!!o, p. B<. 4espondent 'ity o# ani!a maintains t"at it cannot be "e!d !iab!e #or t"e injuries sustained by t"e petitioner because under t"e anagement and /perating 'ontract, %siatic Integrated 'orporation assumed a!! responsibi!ity #or damages w"ic" may be su##ered by t"ird persons #or any cause attributab!e to it.

?
It "as a!so been argued t"at t"e 'ity o# ani!a cannot be "e!d !iab!e under %rtic!e 1, 5ection D o# 4epub!ic %ct 7o. D>9 as amended ;4e$ised '"arter o# ani!a< w"ic" pro$ides: T"e 'ity s"a!! not be !iab!e or "e!d #or damages or injuries to persons or property arising #rom t"e #ai!ure o# t"e ayor, t"e unicipa! Board, or any ot"er 'ity /##icer, to en#orce t"e pro$isions o# t"is c"apter, or any ot"er !aw or ordinance, or #rom neg!igence o# said ayor, unicipa! Board, or any ot"er o##icers w"i!e en#orcing or attempting to en#orce said pro$isions. T"is issue "as been !aid to rest in t"e case o# Cit of !anila v. "eotico ;&& 5'4% &B9=&@& I19B8J< w"ere t"e 5upreme 'ourt sHuare!y ru!ed t"at 4epub!ic %ct 7o. D>9 estab!is"es a genera! ru!e regu!ating t"e !iabi!ity o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a #or Edamages or injury to persons or property arising #rom t"e #ai!ure o# city o##icersE to en#orce t"e pro$isions o# said %ct, Eor any ot"er !aw or ordinance or #rom neg!igenceE o# t"e 'ity E ayor, unicipa! Board, or ot"er o##icers w"i!e en#orcing or attempting to en#orce said pro$isions.E Fpon t"e ot"er "and, %rtic!e &189 o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode o# t"e P"i!ippines w"ic" pro$ides t"at: Pro$inces, cities and municipa!ities s"a!! be !iab!e #or damages #or t"e deat" o#, or injuries su##ered by any person by reason o# de#ecti$e conditions o# roads, streets, bridges, pub!ic bui!dings and ot"er pub!ic wor-s under t"eir contro! or super$ision. constitutes a particu!ar prescription ma-ing Epro$inces, cities and municipa!ities ... !iab!e #or damages #or t"e deat" o#, or injury su##ered by any person by reasonE K speci#ica!!y K Eo# t"e de#ecti$e condition o# roads, streets, bridges, pub!ic bui!dings, and ot"er pub!ic wor-s under t"eir contro! or super$ision.E In ot"er words, %rt. 1, sec. D, 4.%. 7o. D>9 re#ers to !iabi!ity arising #rom neg!igence, in genera!, regard!ess o# t"e object, t"ereo#, w"i!e %rtic!e &189 o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode go$erns !iabi!ity due to Ede#ecti$e streets, pub!ic bui!dings and ot"er pub!ic wor-sE in particu!ar and is t"ere#ore decisi$e on t"is speci#ic case. In t"e same suit, t"e 5upreme 'ourt c!ari#ied #urt"er t"at under %rtic!e &189 o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode, it is not necessary #or t"e !iabi!ity t"erein estab!is"ed to attac", t"at t"e de#ecti$e pub!ic wor-s be!ong to t"e pro$ince, city or municipa!ity #rom w"ic" responsibi!ity is e.acted. *"at said artic!e reHuires is t"at t"e pro$ince, city or municipa!ity "as eit"er Econtro! or super$isionE o$er t"e pub!ic bui!ding in Huestion. In t"e case at bar, t"ere is no Huestion t"at t"e 5ta. %na Pub!ic ar-et, despite t"e anagement and /perating 'ontract between respondent 'ity and %siatic Integrated 'orporation remained under t"e contro! o# t"e #ormer. (or one t"ing, said contract is e.p!icit in t"is regard, w"en it pro$ides: II T"at immediate!y a#ter t"e e.ecution o# t"is contract, t"e 56'/78 P%4T+ s"a!! start t"e painting, c!eaning, sanitiGing and repair o# t"e pub!ic mar-ets and ta!ipapas and wit"in ninety ;9>< days t"ereo#, t"e 56'/78 P%4T+ s"a!! submit a program o# impro$ement, de$e!opment, re"abi!itation and reconstruction o# t"e city pub!ic mar-ets and ta!ipapas subject to prior appro$a! o# t"e (I45T P%4T+. ;4o!!o, p. DD< ... ... ... 9I T"at a!! present personne! o# t"e 'ity pub!ic mar-ets and ta!ipapas s"a!! be retained by t"e 56'/78 P%4T+ as !ong as t"eir ser$ices remain satis#actory and t"ey s"a!! be e.tended t"e same rig"ts and pri$i!eges as "ereto#ore enjoyed by t"em. Pro$ided, "owe$er, t"at t"e 56'/78 P%4T+ s"a!! "a$e t"e rig"t, subject to prior appro$a! o# t"e (I45T P%4T+ to disc"arge any o# t"e present emp!oyees #or cause. ;4o!!o, p. D5<. 9II T"at t"e 56'/78 P%4T+ may #rom time to time be reHuired by t"e (I45T P%4T+, or "is du!y aut"oriGed representati$e or representati$es, to report, on t"e acti$ities and operation o# t"e 'ity pub!ic mar-ets and

D
ta!ipapas and t"e #aci!ities and con$eniences insta!!ed t"erein, particu!ar!y as to t"eir cost o# construction, operation and maintenance in connection wit" t"e stipu!ations contained in t"is 'ontract. ;lbid< T"e #act o# super$ision and contro! o# t"e 'ity o$er subject pub!ic mar-et was admitted by to 5ecretary o# (inance 'esar 9irata w"ic" reads: ayor 4amon Bagatsing in "is !etter

T"ese cases arose #rom t"e contro$ersy o$er t"e anagement and /perating 'ontract entered into on 8ecember &8, 19@& by and between t"e 'ity o# ani!a and t"e %siatic Integrated 'orporation, w"ereby in consideration o# a #i.ed ser$ice #ee, t"e 'ity "ired t"e ser$ices o# t"e said corporation to underta-e t"e p"ysica! management, maintenance, re"abi!itation and de$e!opment o# t"e 'ityCs pub!ic mar-ets andC Ta!ipapasC subject to t"e contro! and super$ision o# t"e 'ity. ... ... ... It is be!ie$ed t"at t"ere is not"ing incongruous in t"e e.ercise o# t"ese powers $is=a=$is t"e e.istence o# t"e contract, inasmuc" as the Cit retains the power of supervision and control over its public markets and talipapas under the terms of the contract. ;6."ibit E@=%E< ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< ;4o!!o, p. @5<. In #act, t"e 'ity o# ani!a emp!oyed a mar-et master #or t"e 5ta. %na Pub!ic ar-et w"ose primary duty is to ta-e direct super$ision and contro! o# t"at particu!ar mar-et, more speci#ica!!y, to c"ec- t"e sa#ety o# t"e p!ace #or t"e pub!ic. T"us t"e %sst. '"ie# o# t"e ar-et 8i$ision and 8eputy ar-et %dministrator o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a testi#ied as #o!!ows: ani!aL

'ourt T"is mar-et master is an emp!oyee o# t"e 'ity o# r. +mson +es, +our ,onor. M *"at are "is #unctionsL

% 8irect super$ision and contro! o$er t"e mar-et area assigned to "im.E;T.s.n.,pp. D1=D&, ,earing o# ay &>, 19@@.< ... ... ... 'ourt %s #ar as you -now t"ere is or is t"ere any speci#ic emp!oyee assigned wit" t"e taso# seeing to it t"at t"e 5ta. %na ar-et is sa#e #or t"e pub!icL r. +mson %ctua!!y, as I stated, +our ,onor, t"at t"e 5ta. %na "as its own mar-et master. "he primar dut of that market master is to make the direct supervision and control of that particular market, t"e c"ec- or $eri#ying w"et"er t"e p!ace is sa#e #or pub!ic sa#ety is $ested in t"e mar-et master. ;T.s.n., pp. &D&5, ,earing o# Ju!y &@, 19@@.< ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< ;4o!!o, p. @B<. (ina!!y, 5ection ?> ;g< o# t"e Noca! Ta. 'ode as amended, pro$ides: "he treasurer shall e#ercise direct and immediate supervision administration and control over public markets and t"e personne! t"ereo#, inc!uding t"ose w"ose duties concern t"e maintenance and up-eep o# t"e mar-et and ordinances and ot"er pertinent ru!es and regu!ations. ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< ;4o!!o, p. @B< T"e contention o# respondent 'ity o# ani!a t"at petitioner s"ou!d not "a$e $entured to go to 5ta. %na Pub!ic ar-et during a stormy weat"er is indeed untenab!e. %s obser$ed by respondent 'ourt o# %ppea!s, it is an error #or t"e tria! court to attribute t"e neg!igence to "erein petitioner. ore speci#ica!!y stated, t"e #indings o# appe!!ate court are as #o!!ows: ... T"e tria! court e$en c"astised t"e p!ainti## #or going to mar-et on a rainy day just to buy bagoong. % customer in a store "as t"e rig"t to assume t"at t"e owner wi!! comp!y wit" "is duty to -eep t"e premises sa#e #or customers. I# "e $entures to t"e store on t"e basis o# suc" assumption and is injured because t"e

5
owner did not comp!y wit" "is duty, no neg!igence can be imputed to t"e customer. ;8ecision, %'=G. 4. '9 7o. >1?8@, 4o!!o, p. 19<. %s a de#ense against !iabi!ity on t"e basis o# a Huasi=de!ict, one must "a$e e.ercised t"e di!igence o# a good #at"er o# a #ami!y. ;%rt. 11@? o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode<. T"ere is no argument t"at it is t"e duty o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a to e.ercise reasonab!e care to -eep t"e pub!ic mar-et reasonab!y sa#e #or peop!e #reHuenting t"e p!ace #or t"eir mar-eting needs. *"i!e it may be conceded t"at t"e #u!#i!!ment o# suc" duties is e.treme!y di##icu!t during storms and #!oods, it must "owe$er, be admitted t"at ordinary precautions cou!d "a$e been ta-en during good weat"er to minimiGe t"e dangers to !i#e and !imb under t"ose di##icu!t circumstances. (or instance, t"e drainage "o!e cou!d "a$e been p!aced under t"e sta!!s instead o# on t"e passage ways. 6$en more important is t"e #act, t"at t"e 'ity s"ou!d "a$e seen to it t"at t"e openings were co$ered. 5ad!y, t"e e$idence indicates t"at !ong be#ore petitioner #e!! into t"e opening, it was a!ready unco$ered, and #i$e ;5< mont"s a#ter t"e incident "appened, t"e opening was sti!! unco$ered. ;4o!!o, pp. 5@) 59<. oreo$er, w"i!e t"ere are #indings t"at during #!oods t"e $endors remo$e t"e iron gri!!s to "asten t"e #!ow o# water ;8ecision, %'=G.4. '9 7o. > 1?8@) 4o!!o, p. 1@<, t"ere is no s"owing t"at suc" practice "as e$er been pro"ibited, muc" !ess pena!iGed by t"e 'ity o# ani!a. 7eit"er was it s"own t"at any sign "ad been p!aced t"ereabouts to warn passersby o# t"e impending danger. To recapitu!ate, it appears e$ident t"at t"e 'ity o# ani!a is !i-ewise !iab!e #or damages under %rtic!e &189 o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode, respondent 'ity "a$ing retained contro! and super$ision o$er t"e 5ta. %na Pub!ic ar-et and as tort=#easor under %rtic!e &1@B o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode on Huasi=de!icts Petitioner "ad t"e rig"t to assume t"at t"ere were no openings in t"e midd!e o# t"e passageways and i# any, t"at t"ey were adeHuate!y co$ered. ,ad t"e opening been co$ered, petitioner cou!d not "a$e #a!!en into it. T"us t"e neg!igence o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a is t"e pro.imate cause o# t"e injury su##ered, t"e 'ity is t"ere#ore !iab!e #or t"e injury su##ered by t"e peti= D petitioner. 4espondent 'ity o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode. ani!a and %siatic Integrated 'orporation being joint tort=#easors are so!idari!y !iab!e under %rtic!e &19D o#

P46 I565 '/75I86468, t"e decision o# t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s is "ereby /8I(I68, ma-ing t"e 'ity o# ani!a and t"e %siatic Integrated 'orporation so!idari!y !iab!e to pay t"e p!ainti## P&&1.9> actua! medica! e.penses, P9>>.>> #or t"e amount paid #or t"e operation and management o# t"e sc"oo! bus, P&>,>>>.>> as mora! damages due to pain, su##erings and s!eep!ess nig"ts and P1>,>>>.>> as attorneyCs #ees. 5/ /486468. $ernan %Chairman&, 'utierrez, Jr., (adilla, Bidin and Cortes JJ., concur.

GUIL)TCO v CIT, OF D)GUP)N (%'T5: Gi!atco, ;'ourt Interpreter< was about to board a tricyc!e at a sidewa!- w"en at PereG B!$d w"ens"e accidenta!!y #e!! into a man"o!e causing "er rig"t !eg to be #ractured. PereG B!$d is a 7ationa! 4oadunder t"e contro! and super$ision o# 'ity o# 8agupan.5uc" man"o!e is partia!!y co$ered by a #!owerpot !ea$ing a gaping "o!e about & #t !ong and 1O #eet wide.5"e was "ospita!iGed, operated on and con#ined. 5"e "ad been depri$ed o# income. 5"e sued #or damages. I55F6: */7 'ontro! or super$ision o$er a nationa! road by t"e 'ity o# 8agupan e.ists w"ic" ma-es 'ity!iab!e under %rt &189 ,6N8: +es.4%TI/: %rt &189 says : Pro$inces, cities and municipa!ities s"a!! be !iab!e #or damages #or t"e deat" o#, or injuries, su##ered by, any person by reason o# t"e de#ecti$e conditions o# roads, streets, bridges, pub!icbui!dings, and ot"er pub!ic wor-s, under t"eir contro! and super$ision.T"us, it is not e$en necessary t"at suc" de#ecti$e road or street be!ongs to t"e 'ity.In t"e case at bar, t"e contro! and super$ision o# t"e nationa! road e.ists and is pro$ided #or in t"ec"arter o# 8agupan. It pro$ided t"at t"e !aying out, construction and impro$ement o# streets, a$enues anda!!eys and sidewa!-s, and regu!ation o# t"e use t"ereo#, may be !egis!ated by t"e unicipa! Board.5uc" contro! and super$ision is e.ercised t"roug" t"e 'ity 6ngineer Tangco, w"o aside #rom "iso##icia! capacity as 'ity 6ngineer, was a!so 6. /##icio ,ig"way 6ngineer, 6. /##icio

B
'ity 6ngineer o# Bureau o# Pub!ic *or-s, and Bui!ding /##icia! and recei$ed compensation #or t"ese #unctions.T"e #unction o# super$ision o$er streets, pub!ic bui!dings and pub!ic wor-s, pertaining t"roug" t"e'ity 6ngineer is coursed t"roug" a aintenance (oreman and a aintenance 6ngineer. %!t"oug" t"esetwo o##icia!s are emp!oyees o# t"e 7at3! Go$3t, t"ey are detai!ed wit" t"e 'ity o# 8agupan and "ence recei$e instruction and super$ision #rom t"e city t"roug" t"e 'ity 6ngineer.,ence t"e 'ity is !iab!e. MUNICIP)LIT, OF S)N FERN)NDO /S. *UDGE FIRME G.4. 7o. N=5&1@9, %pri! 8 1991, 195 5'4% B9& (%'T5: /n 8ecember 1B, 19B5, a co!!ision occurred in$o!$ing a passenger jeepney dri$en by Bernardo Ba!agot and owned by t"e 6state o# acario 7ie$eras, a gra$e! and sand truc- dri$en by Jose anandeg and owned by TanHui!ino 9e!asHueG and a dump truc- o# t"e unicipa!ity o# 5an (ernando, Na Fnion and dri$en by %!#redo Bis!ig. 8ue to t"e impact, se$era! passengers o# t"e jeepney inc!uding Naureano BaniPa 5r. died as a resu!t o# t"e injuries t"ey sustained and #our ;D< ot"ers su##ered $arying degrees o# p"ysica! injuries. T"e pri$ate respondents instituted a comp!iant #or damages against t"e 6state o# acario 7ie$eras and Bernardo Ba!agot, owner anddri$er, respecti$e!y, o# t"e passenger jeepney in t"e 'ourt o# (irst Instance o# Na Fnion, Branc" I, 5an (ernando, Na Fnion. ,owe$er, t"e a#oresaid de#endants #i!ed a T"ird Party 'omp!aint against t"e petitioner and t"e dri$er o# a dump truc- o# petitioner. T"erea#ter, t"e case was subseHuent!y trans#erred to Branc" I9, presided o$er by respondent judge. T"e pri$ate respondents amended t"e comp!aint w"erein t"e petitioner and its regu!ar emp!oyee, %!#redo Bis!ig were imp!eaded #or t"e #irst time as de#endants. Petitioner #i!ed its answer and raised a##irmati$e de#enses suc" as !ac- o# cause o# action, non=suabi!ity o# t"e 5tate, prescription o# cause o# action and t"e neg!igence o# t"e owner and dri$er o# t"e passenger jeepney as t"e pro.imate cause o# t"e co!!ision. I55F6: *"et"er or not t"e unicipa!ity o# 5an (ernando, Na Fnion can enjoy t"e immunity #rom suit.

,6N8: T"e 'ourt granted t"e petition and t"e decision o# t"e respondent court is "ereby modi#ied, abso!$ing t"e petitioner municipa!ity o# any !iabi!ity in #a$or o# pri$ate respondents. %rtic!e A9I, 5ection ? o# t"e 'onstitution e.press!y pro$ides t"at Et"e 5tate may not be sued wit"out its consent.E It is a genera! ru!e t"at t"e 5tate may not be sued e.cept w"en it gi$es consent to be sued. 'onsent ta-es t"e #orm o# e.press or imp!ied consent. )#press consent may be embodied in a genera! !aw or a specia! !aw. % specia! !aw may be passed to enab!e a person to sue t"e go$ernment #or an a!!eged Huasi=de!ict. *"i!e implied consent occurs w"en t"e go$ernment enters into business contracts, t"ereby descending to t"e !e$e! o# t"e ot"er contracting party, and a!so w"en t"e 5tate #i!es a comp!aint, t"us opening itse!# to a counterc!aim. unicipa! corporations, !i-e pro$inces and cities, are agencies o# t"e 5tate w"en t"ey are engaged in go$ernmenta! #unctions and t"ere#ore s"ou!d enjoy t"e so$ereign immunity #rom suit. 7e$ert"e!ess, t"ey are subject to suit e$en in t"e per#ormance o#suc" #unctions because t"eir c"arter pro$ided t"at t"ey can sue and be sued. T"e municipa! corporations are suab!e because t"eir c"arters grant t"em t"e competence to sue and be sued. 7e$ert"e!ess, t"ey are genera!!y not !iab!e #or torts committed by t"em in t"e disc"arge o# go$ernmenta! #unctions and can be "e!d answerab!e on!y i# it can be s"own t"at t"ey were acting in a proprietary capacity. In t"e case at bar, petitioner unicipa!ity o# 5an (ernando, Na Fnion is a municipa! corporation e.isting under and in accordance wit" t"e !aws o# t"e 4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines. T"e dri$er o# t"e dump truc- o# t"e municipa!ity insists t"at E"e was on "is way to t"e 7agui!ian ri$er to get a !oad o# sand and gra$e! #or t"e repair o# 5an (ernandoCs municipa! streets.E In t"e absence o# any e$idence to t"e contrary, t"e regu!arity o# t"e per#ormance o# o##icia! duty is presumed pursuant to 5ection ?;m< o# 4u!e 1?1 o# t"e 4e$ised 4u!es o# 'ourt. T"ere#ore, t"e 'ourt ru!ed t"at t"e dri$er o# t"e dump truc- was per#orming duties or tas-s pertaining to "is o##ice. T"e municipa!itycannot be "e!d !iab!e #or t"e torts committed by its regu!ar emp!oyee, w"o was t"en engaged in t"e disc"arge o# go$ernmenta! #unctions. T"us, t"e deat" o# t"e passenger QQ tragic and dep!orab!e t"oug" it may be QQ imposed on t"e municipa!ity no duty to pay monetary compensation. (al0yot vs C)

Facts: /n arc" 1?, 199& petitioners as resident o# Barangay 'ruG represented by petitioner Timoteo Ba!uyot et.a! #i!ed #or speci#ic per#ormance and damages against FP respondent contending t"at t"ey "a$e been in open, peace#u!, ad$erse and continuous possession in t"e concept o# an owner o# t"at parce! o# !and in MueGon 'ity In 19@9, FP appro$ed t"e donation direct!y to t"e said residents #or about 9.& "ectares and t"at FP bac-ed out to proceed wit" t"e donation and t"e e.ecution o# t"e !ega! instrument was not #orma!iGed. %#terwards, t"e negotiation o# donation was resumed t"ru t"e de#endant MueGon 'ity go$ernment under t"e terms contrary to t"e rig"t o# t"e bona#ide residents o# t"e said barrio. Petitioners app!y #or writ o# injunction t"at was issued to restrain de#endant FP #rom ejecting p!ainti##s and demo!is"ing t"eir impro$ements on t"e 4ice!and. %!so, petitioners see- en#orcement o# t"e 8eed o# donation made by FP de#endant to t"e MueGon 'ity go$ernment. Fnder t"e said 8eed o# 8onation t"e donee s"a!! a#ter !apse o# ? years trans#er to t"e Hua!i#ied residents by way o# donation t"e indi$idua! !ots occupied by t"em. ,owe$er, FP President "ad #ai!ed to de!i$er t"e 'T' to enab!e MueGon 'ity go$ernment to register t"e 8eed o# 8onation. T"e de#endant FP "ad continuous!y, un!aw#u!!y re#used to comp!y t"e ob!igation to de!i$er t"e tit!e despite se$era! reHuests and con#erences. 4e$ocation and re$ersion o# a 8eed o# 8onation wit"out Judicia! dec!aration is i!!ega! and prejudicia! to t"e rig"ts o# t"e bona#ide residents in Barangay 'ruG na Nigas MueGon 'ity. By reason o# deception, t"e residents reiterate t"e c!aim o# owners"ip o# D& "ectares w"ic" are inc!uded in t"e ta. dec!aration under t"e name o# FP. T"e p!ainti## prayed #or t"e dec!aration o# t"e 8eed o# 8onation as $a!id and subsisting. T"e tria! court rendered its decision t"at petitioners did not "a$e a cause o# action #or speci#ic per#ormance on t"e ground t"at t"e 8eed o# donation "ad a!ready been re$o-ed denying t"e injunction. ,owe$er '% ru!ed in #a$or o# FP

Iss0e: *"et"er petitioners "as t"e rig"t to see- en#orcement o# t"e 8eed o# 8onation.

R0lin1: T"e 5upreme 'ourt ru!ed in t"e a##irmati$e, because t"ere is a stipu!ation pour autrui Fnder t"e 'i$i! 'ode %rt 1?11 ;46%8 %4T. 1?11 /7 46MFI5IT65 /( 5TIPFN%TI/7 P/F4 %FT4FI< T"at i# a contract s"ou!d contain, some stipu!ation in #a$our o# a ?rd person. ,e may demand its #u!#i!ment pro$ided t"at "e communicated "is acceptance to t"e ob!igor be#ore its re$ocation. T"e contracting parties must "a$e c!ear!y and de!iberate!y con#erred a #a$or upon a ?rd person. %!!egations are su##icient to bring t"e petitioners action wit"in &nd paragrap" o# %rt. 1?11 on stipu!ation pour autrui 1. T"at t"e 8eed o# donation contains some stipu!ation t"at MueGon city go$ernment is reHuired to trans#er donation to t"e barrio residents.

&. ?. D. 5.

Its stipu!ation is part o# conditions and ob!igations imposed by FP as donor upon MueGon 'ity go$ernment donee. T"e intent o# t"e parties to t"e deed o# donation was to con#er a #a$our upon petitioners by trans#erring !ots occupied by t"em. 'on#erence were "e!d between t"e parties to con$ince FP to surrender 'T' to t"e city go$ernment w"ic" donation "ad been accepted by petitioners by demanding #u!#i!ment and t"at pri$ate respondents were aware o# suc" acceptance. %!! a!!egations can be #air!y in#erred t"at neit"er o# pri$ate respondents acted in representation o# t"e ot"er, eac" pri$ate respondents "ad its own ob!igation in $iew o# con#erring a #a$or upon petitioners.

TU+ON v. COURT OF )PPE)LS F)CTS T"e 5angguniang Bayan o# 'ama!aniugan, 'agayan adopted 4eso!ution 7o. 9. 5aid reso!ution aut"oriGed t"e municipa! treasurer to enter into an agreement wit" a!! t"res"er operators w"o app!y #or a Permit to T"res" Pa!ay to donate 1R o# a!! t"e pa!ay t"res"ed by t"em. T"erea#ter, Jurado o##ered to pay t"e !icense #ee #or t"res"er operators. unicipa! Treasurer agapu re#used to accept payment and reHuired "im to #irst secure a ayor3s permit. ayor TuGon said t"at Jurado s"ou!d #irst comp!y wit" 4eso!ution 7o. 9 and sign t"e agreement be#ore t"e permit cou!d be issued. Jurado #i!ed wit" t"e 'ourt o# (irst Instance o# 'agayan #or mandamus, and anot"er wit" t"e same court #or judgement against t"e said reso!ution. '(I up"e!d t"e 4eso!ution, and dismissed t"e c!aim #or damages. '% a##irmed t"e $a!idity o# t"e 4eso!ution and #ound TuGon and apagu to "a$e acted ma!icious!y and in bad #ait" w"en t"ey denied Jurado3s app!ication. ISSUE *"et"er or not petitioners are !iab!e in damages #or "a$ing wit""e!d re#usa! to comp!y wit" said 4eso!ution. HELD NO. %rtic!e &@ presupposes t"at t"e re#usa! or omission o# a pub!ic o##icia! to per#orm "is o##icia! duty is attributab!e to ma!ice or ine.cusab!e neg!igence. T"ere was no e$idence o##ered to s"ow t"at petitioners sing!ed out respondent #or persecution. 7eit"er does it appear t"at t"e petitioners stood to gain persona!!y #rom re#using to issue t"e mayor3s permit and !icense. oreo$er, t"e reso!ution was uni#orm!y app!ied to a!! t"e t"res"ers in t"e municipa!ity wit"out pre#erence. % pub!ic o##icer is not persona!!y !iab!e to one injured in conseHuence o# an act per#ormed wit"in t"e scope o# "is o##icia! aut"ority and in !ine o# "is o##icia! duty. In t"e absence o# a judicia! decision dec!aring said 4eso!ution in$a!id, its !ega!ity wou!d "a$e to be presumed. %s e.ecuti$e o##icia!s o# t"emunicipa!ity, t"ey "ad t"e duty to en#orce it. %n erroneous interpretation o# an ordinance does not constitute nor amount to bad #ait". )(ELL) /S MUNICIP)LIT, OF N)G) GR NO L23 3' Facts: T"e appe!!ant t"roug" a reso!ution c!osed a road w"ic" ran t"roug" t"e pub!ic mar-et and %be!!a3s property. Portiono# t"e road was c!osed #or t"e e.pansion o# t"e pub!ic mar-et. %s a resu!t o# t"e c!osure and subseHuent e.pansionpermanent structures were bui!t. T"ese impro$ements c"omped o## t"e sidewa!- and abutted to t"e petitioner3s property, t"ey e.tended to t"e midd!e o# a street depri$ing %be!!a o# t"e use t"ereo#. %be!!a soug"t damages #rom t"e '(I o# 'amarines 5ur, w"ic" ru!ed in "er #a$or by ordering t"e municipa!ity to pay P?>> pesos #or damages. %ggrie$ed, t"e municipa!ity appea!ed to t"e 5'. Iss0e: *"et"er or not t"e municipa!ity is !iab!e #or damages considering t"at it mere!y e.ercised its po!ice power to preser$e peace and good order o# t"e community and promote genera! we!#are. Hel-: ayor3s permit and !icense because o# respondent3s

9
+es. T"e municipa!ity was not c"arged wit" any un!aw#u! act, or wit" in$ading %be!!a3s property rig"ts, it was not #ound gui!ty o# any suc" acts. *"at is in issue in t"is case is t"e !iabi!ity #or damages. 5ec. &&DB o# t"e 4e$ised %dministrati$e 'ode pro$ides: 4No 50nici6al 7oa-& st7eet& etc. o7 any 6a7t t8e7eof s8all 9e close- :it8o0t in-e5nifyin1 any 6e7son.;

4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines SUPREME COURT ani!a 56'/78 8I9I5I/7

G.R. No. !" $!< Fe970a7y %"& !$$ PERCI/)L MOD),& +OTICO MOD), =-ecease-> an- LEONOR) MOD),& petitioners, $s. COURT OF )PPE)LS& *UDGE E/)NGELINE S. ,UIPCO OF (R)NCH <& REGION)L TRI)L COURT& )GUS)N DEL SUR )ND MUNICIP)LIT, OF (UN)?)N& respondents.

ROMERO& J.: T"e main issue presented in t"is case is w"et"er a municipa!ity may e.propriate pri$ate property by $irtue o# a municipa! reso!ution w"ic" was disappro$ed by t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan. Petitioner see-s t"e re$ersa! o# t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s decision and reso!ution, promu!gated on Ju!y 15, 199& and /ctober &&, 199& respecti$e!y,! and a dec!aration t"at unicipa! 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 o# t"e Bunawan 5angguniang Bayan is nu!! and $oid. /n Ju!y &?, 1989, t"e 5angguniang Bayan o# t"e unicipa!ity o# Bunawan in %gusan de! 5ur passed 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89, E%ut"oriGing t"e unicipa! ayor to Initiate t"e Petition #or 6.propriation o# a /ne ;1< ,ectare Portion o# Not 7o. B1?8=P!s=D %!ong t"e 7ationa! ,ig"way /wned by Perci$a! oday #or t"e 5ite o# Bunawan (armers 'enter and /t"er Go$ernment 5ports (aci!ities.E % In due time, 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 was appro$ed by t"en unicipa! ayor %nuncio '. Busti!!o and transmitted to t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan #or its appro$a!. /n 5eptember 11, 1989, t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan disappro$ed said 4eso!ution and returned it wit" t"e comment t"at Ee.propriation is unnecessary considering t"at t"ere are sti!! a$ai!ab!e !ots in Bunawan #or t"e estab!is"ment o# t"e go$ernment center.E 3 T"e unicipa!ity o# Bunawan, "erein pub!ic respondent, subseHuent!y #i!ed a petition #or 6minent 8omain against petitioner Perci$a! oday be#ore t"e 4egiona! Tria! 'ourt at Prosperidad, %gusan de! 5ur. # T"e comp!aint was !ater amended to inc!ude t"e registered owners, Perci$a! odayCs parents, Sotico and Neonora oday, as party de#endants. /n arc" B, 1991, pub!ic respondent municipa!ity #i!ed a otion to Ta-e or 6nter Fpon t"e Possession o# 5ubject atter o# T"is 'ase stating t"at it "ad a!ready deposited wit" t"e municipa! treasurer t"e necessary amount in accordance wit" 5ection &, 4u!e B@ o# t"e 4e$ised 4u!es o# 'ourt and t"at it wou!d be in t"e go$ernmentCs best interest #or pub!ic respondent to be a!!owed to ta-e possession o# t"e property. 8espite petitionersC opposition and a#ter a "earing on t"e merits, t"e 4egiona! Tria! 'ourt granted respondent municipa!ityCs motion to ta-e possession o# t"e !and. T"e !ower court "e!d t"at t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awiganCs #ai!ure to dec!are t"e reso!ution in$a!id !ea$es it e##ecti$e. It added t"at t"e duty o# t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan is mere!y to re$iew t"e ordinances and reso!utions passed by t"e 5angguniang Bayan under 5ection &>8 ;1< o# B.P. B!g. ??@, o!d Noca! Go$ernment 'ode and t"at t"e e.ercise o# eminent domain is not one o# t"e two acts enumerated in 5ection 19 t"ereo# reHuiring t"e appro$a! o# t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan. @T"e dispositi$e portion o# t"e !ower courtCs /rder dated Ju!y &, 1991 reads:

1>
*,646(/46, it appearing t"at t"e amount o# PB?&.?9 "ad been deposited as per /##icia! 4eceipt 7o. 5?@9BD@ on 8ecember 1&, 1989 w"ic" t"is 'ourt now determines as t"e pro$isiona! $a!ue o# t"e !and, t"e otion to Ta-e or 6nter Fpon t"e Possession o# t"e Property #i!ed by petitioner t"roug" counse! is "ereby G4%7T68. T"e 5"eri## o# t"is 'ourt is ordered to #ort"wit" p!ace t"e p!ainti## in possession o# t"e property in$o!$ed. Net t"e "earing be set on %ugust 9, 1991 at 8:?> oCc!oc- in t"e morning #or t"e purpose o# ascertaining t"e just compensation or #air mar-et $a!ue o# t"e property soug"t to be ta-en, wit" notice to a!! t"e parties concerned. 5/ /486468. < PetitionersC motion #or reconsideration was denied by t"e tria! court on /ctober ?1, 1991. Petitioners e!e$ated t"e case in a petition #or certiorari a!!eging gra$e abuse o# discretion on t"e part o# t"e tria! court, but t"e same was dismissed by respondent appe!!ate court on Ju!y 15, 199&. T"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s "e!d t"at t"e pub!ic purpose #or t"e e.propriation is c!ear #rom 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 and t"at since t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan o# %gusan de! 5ur did not dec!are 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 in$a!id, e.propriation o# petitionersC property cou!d proceed. 4espondent appe!!ate court a!so denied petitionersC motion #or reconsideration on /ctober &&, 199&. ' eanw"i!e, t"e unicipa!ity o# Bunawan "ad erected t"ree bui!dings on t"e subject property: t"e %ssociation o# Barangay 'ounci!s ;%B'< ,a!!, t"e unicipa! otorpoo!, bot" wooden structures, and t"e Bunawan unicipa! Gymnasium, w"ic" is made o# concrete. In t"e instant petition #or re$iew #i!ed on 7o$ember &?, 199&, petitioner see-s t"e re$ersa! o# t"e decision and reso!ution o# t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s and a dec!aration t"at 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 o# t"e unicipa!ity o# Bunawan is nu!! and $oid. /n 8ecember 8, 199?, t"e 'ourt issued a temporary restraining order enjoining and restraining pub!ic respondent Judge 6$ange!ine +uipco #rom en#orcing "er Ju!y &, 1991 /rder and respondent municipa!ity #rom using and occupying a!! t"e bui!dings constructed and #rom #urt"er constructing any bui!ding on t"e !and subject o# t"is petition. $ %cting on petitionersC /mnibus otion #or 6n#orcement o# 4estraining /rder and #or 'ontempt, t"e 'ourt issued a 4eso!ution on arc" 15, 1995, citing incumbent municipa! mayor %nuncio '. Busti!!o #or contempt, ordering "im to pay t"e #ine and to demo!is" t"e Eb!oc-tiendasE w"ic" were bui!t in $io!ation o# t"e restraining order. !" (ormer ayor %nuncio '. Busti!!o paid t"e #ine and mani#ested t"at "e !ost in t"e ay 8, 1995 e!ection. !! T"e incumbent ayor Neonardo Barrios, #i!ed a ani#estation, otion to 4eso!$e EFrgent otion #or Immediate 8isso!ution o# t"e Temporary 4estraining /rderE and emorandum on June 11, 199B #or t"e unicipa!ity o# Bunawan. !% Petitioners contend t"at t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s erred in up"o!ding t"e !ega!ity o# t"e condemnation proceedings initiated by t"e municipa!ity. %ccording to petitioners, t"e e.propriation was po!itica!!y moti$ated and 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 was correct!y disappro$ed by t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan, t"ere being ot"er municipa! properties a$ai!ab!e #or t"e purpose. Petitioners a!so pray t"at t"e #ormer ayor %nuncio '. Busti!!o be ordered to pay damages #or insisting on t"e en#orcement o# a $oid municipa! reso!ution. T"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s dec!ared t"at t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awiganCs reason #or disappro$ing t"e reso!ution Ecou!d be base!ess, because it #ai!ed to point out w"ic" and w"ere are t"ose a$ai!ab!e !ots.CE 4espondent court a!so conc!uded t"at since t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan did not dec!are t"e municipa! boardCs reso!ution as in$a!id, e.propriation o# petitionersC property cou!d proceed. !3 T"e 'ourt #inds no merit in t"e petition and a##irms t"e decision o# t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s. 6minent domain, t"e power w"ic" t"e unicipa!ity o# Bunawan e.ercised in t"e instant case, is a #undamenta! 5tate power t"at is inseparab!e #rom so$ereignty. !# It is go$ernmentCs rig"t to appropriate, in t"e nature o# a compu!sory sa!e to t"e 5tate, pri$ate property #or pub!ic use or purpose. !@ In"erent!y possessed by t"e nationa! !egis!ature, t"e power o# eminent domain

11
may be $a!id!y de!egated to !oca! go$ernments, ot"er pub!ic entities and pub!ic uti!ities. !< (or t"e ta-ing o# pri$ate property by t"e go$ernment to be $a!id, t"e ta-ing must be #or pub!ic use and t"ere must be just compensation. ! T"e unicipa!ity o# BunawanCs power to e.ercise t"e rig"t o# eminent domain is not disputed as it is e.press!y pro$ided #or in Batas Pambansa B!g. ??@, t"e !oca! Go$ernment 'ode !' in #orce at t"e time e.propriation proceedings were initiated. 5ection 9 o# said !aw states: 5ec. 9. 6minent 8omain. K % !oca! go$ernment unit may, t"roug" its "ead and acting pursuant to a reso!ution o# its sanggunian, e.ercise t"e rig"t o# eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings #or pub!ic use or purpose. *"at petitioners Huestion is t"e !ac- o# aut"ority o# t"e municipa!ity to e.ercise t"is rig"t since t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan disappro$ed 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89. 5ection 15? o# B.P. B!g. ??@ pro$ides: 5ec. 15?. 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan 4e$iew. K ;1< *it"in t"irty days a#ter recei$ing copies o# appro$ed ordinances, reso!utions and e.ecuti$e orders promu!gated by t"e municipa! mayor, t"e sangguniang pan!a!awigan s"a!! e.amine t"e documents or transmit t"em to t"e pro$incia! attorney, or i# t"ere be none, to t"e pro$incia! #isca!, w"o s"a!! e.amine t"em prompt!y and in#orm t"e sangguniang pan!a!awigan in writing o# any de#ect or impropriety w"ic" "e may disco$er t"erein and ma-e suc" comments or recommendations as s"a!! appear to "im proper. ;&< I# t"e sangguniang pan!a!awigan s"a!! #ind t"at any municipa! ordinance, reso!ution or e.ecuti$e order is beyond t"e power con#erred upon t"e sangguniang bayan or t"e mayor, it s"a!! dec!are suc" ordinance, reso!ution or e.ecuti$e order in$a!id in w"o!e or in part, entering its actions upon t"e minutes and ad$ising t"e proper municipa! aut"orities t"ereo#. T"e e##ect o# suc" an action s"a!! be to annu! t"e ordinance, reso!ution or e.ecuti$e order in Huestion in w"o!e or in part. T"e action o# t"e sangguniang pan!a!awigan s"a!! be #ina!. ... ... ... ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< T"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awiganCs disappro$a! o# unicipa! 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 is an in#irm action w"ic" does not render said reso!ution nu!! and $oid. T"e !aw, as e.pressed in 5ection 15? o# B.P. B!g. ??@, grants t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan t"e power to dec!are a municipa! reso!ution in$a!id on t"e so!e ground t"at it is beyond t"e power o# t"e 5angguniang Bayan or t"e ayor to issue. %!t"oug" pertaining to a simi!ar pro$ision o# !aw but di##erent #actua! mi!ieu t"en obtaining, t"e 'ourtCs pronouncements in *elazco v. Blas, !$ w"ere we cited signi#icant ear!y jurisprudence, are app!icab!e to t"e case at bar. T"e on!y ground upon w"ic" a pro$incia! board may dec!are any municipa! reso!ution, ordinance, or order in$a!id is w"en suc" reso!ution, ordinance, or order is Ebeyond t"e powers con#erred upon t"e counci! or president ma-ing t"e same.E %bso!ute!y no ot"er ground is recogniGed by t"e !aw. % strict!y !ega! Huestion is be#ore t"e pro$incia! board in its consideration o# a municipa! reso!ution, ordinance, or order. T"e pro$incia! ;boardCs< disappro$a! o# any reso!ution, ordinance, or order must be premised speci#ica!!y upon t"e #act t"at suc" reso!ution, ordinance, or order is outside t"e scope o# t"e !ega! powers con#erred by !aw. I# a pro$incia! board passes t"ese !imits, it usurps t"e !egis!ati$e #unction o# t"e municipa! counci! or president. 5uc" "as been t"e consistent course o# e.ecuti$e aut"ority. %" T"us, t"e 5angguniang Pan!a!awigan was wit"out t"e aut"ority to disappro$e unicipa! 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 #or t"e unicipa!ity o# Bunawan c!ear!y "as t"e power to e.ercise t"e rig"t o# eminent domain and its 5angguniang Bayan t"e capacity to promu!gate said reso!ution, pursuant to t"e ear!ier=Huoted 5ection 9 o# B.P. B!g. ??@. Per#orce, it #o!!ows t"at 4eso!ution 7o. D?=89 is $a!id and binding and cou!d be used as !aw#u! aut"ority to petition #or t"e condemnation o# petitionersC property. %s regards t"e accusation o# po!itica! oppression, it is a!!eged t"at Perci$a! oday incurred t"e ire o# t"en ayor %nuncio '. Busti!!o w"en "e re#used to support t"e !atterCs candidacy #or mayor in pre$ious e!ections. Petitioners c!aim t"at t"en incumbent ayor '. Busti!!o used t"e e.propriation to reta!iate by e.propriating t"eir !and e$en i# t"ere were ot"er properties be!onging to t"e municipa!ity and a$ai!ab!e #or t"e purpose. 5peci#ica!!y, t"ey a!!ege t"at t"e municipa!ity owns a $acant se$en= "ectare property adjacent to petitionersC !and, e$idenced by a s-etc" p!an. %!

1&
T"e !imitations on t"e power o# eminent domain are t"at t"e use must be pub!ic, compensation must be made and due process o# !aw must be obser$ed. %% T"e 5upreme 'ourt, ta-ing cogniGance o# suc" issues as t"e adeHuacy o# compensation, necessity o# t"e ta-ing and t"e pub!ic use c"aracter or t"e purpose o# t"e ta-ing, %3 "as ru!ed t"at t"e necessity o# e.ercising eminent domain must be genuine and o# a pub!ic c"aracter. %# Go$ernment may not capricious!y c"oose w"at pri$ate property s"ou!d be ta-en. %#ter a care#u! study o# t"e records o# t"e case, "owe$er, we #ind no e$identiary support #or petitionersC a!!egations. T"e uncerti#ied p"otocopy o# t"e s-etc" p!an does not conc!usi$e!y pro$e t"at t"e municipa!ity does own $acant !and adjacent to petitionersC property suited to t"e purpose o# t"e e.propriation. In t"e Huestioned decision, respondent appe!!ate court simi!ar!y "e!d t"at t"e p!eadings and documents on record "a$e not pointed out any o# respondent municipa!ityCs Eot"er a$ai!ab!e properties a$ai!ab!e #or t"e same purpose.E %@ T"e accusations o# po!itica! reprisa! are !i-ewise unsupported by competent e$idence. 'onseHuent!y, t"e 'ourt "o!ds t"at petitionersC demand t"at t"e #ormer municipa! mayor be persona!!y !iab!e #or damages is wit"out basis. *,646(/46, t"e instant petition is "ereby 867I68. T"e Huestioned 8ecision and 4eso!ution o# t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s in t"e case o# EPerci$a! oday.E et a!. $. unicipa!ity o# Bunawan, et a!.E ;'% G.4. 5P 7o. &B@1&< are %((I4 68. T"e Temporary 4estraining /rder issued by t"e 'ourt on 8ecember 8, 199? is NI(T68. 5/ /486468. +egalado, (uno, !endoza and "orres, Jr., JJ., concur.

4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines SUPREME COURT ani!a 67 B%7' G.R. No. L2$$%" Fe970a7y %$& !$<"

()RTOLOME E. S)N DIEGO& p!ainti##=appe!!ee, $s. THE MUNICIP)LIT, OF N)U*)N& PRO/INCE OF ORIENT)L MINDORO& de#endant=appe!!ant. +odegelio !. Jalandoni and Jose (. ,aurel for appellee. -elgado, $lores, !acapagal and -izon and the (rovincial $iscal of .riental !indoro for appellant. GUTIERRE+ D)/ID& J.:

1?
(o!!owing a pub!ic bidding conducted by t"e municipa!ity o# 7aujan, /rienta! indoro #or t"e !ease o# its municipa! waters, 4eso!ution DB, series o# 19D@ was passed by t"e municipa! counci! t"ereo# awarding t"e concession o# t"e Butas 4i$er and t"e 7aujan Na-e to t"e "ig"est bidder Barto!ome 5an 8iego. 'onseHuent!y, a contract was entered into between t"e said 5an 8iego and t"e municipa!ity, stipu!ating t"at #or a period o# #i$e ;5< years, #rom January 1, 19D8 to 8ecember ?1, 195&, t"e #ormer was to be t"e !essee o# Et"e e.c!usi$e pri$i!ege o# erecting #is" corra!s a!ong t"e Butas 4i$er beginning #rom its junction wit" t"e 5an %gustin 4i$er up to t"e 7aujan Na-e itse!#,E #or annua! renta! o# P&B,?>>.>>, or a tota! o# P1?1,5>>.>> #or #i$e years. Fpon petition by t"e !essee, "owe$er, t"e said counci! reduced t"e annua! renta! by &>R by $irtue o# 4eso!ution 59, series o# 19D9. /n 5eptember 5, 195>, t"e !essee reHuested #or a #i$e=year e.tension o# t"e origina! !ease period. T"e reHuest was, #or some time, !e#t pending be#ore t"e municipa! counci!, but on 8ecember 1, 1951, a#ter t"e !essee "ad reiterated "is petition #or e.tension, #or t"e reason t"at t"e typ"oon E*andaE, w"ic" too- p!ace t"at mont", destroyed most o# "is #is" corra!s, t"e counci! adopted 4eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951 e.tending t"e !ease #or anot"er #i$e ;5< years beginning January 1, 195&, wit" t"e e.press condition t"at t"e p!ainti## wou!d wai$e t"e pri$i!ege to see- #or reduction o# t"e amount o# rent w"ic" was to be based on t"e origina! contract. %#ter t"e reso!ution "ad been appro$ed by t"e Pro$incia! Board o# /rienta! indoro, t"e !essor and t"e !essee, on 8ecember &?, 1951, contracted #or t"e e.tension o# t"e period o# t"e !ease. T"e contract was appro$ed and con#irmed on 8ecember &9, 1951 by 4eso!ution &&9, series o# 1951, o# t"e municipa! counci! o# 7aujan w"ose term was t"en about to e.pire. Pursuant to t"e said contract, t"e !essee #i!ed a surety bond o# P5&,>>>.>> and t"en reconstructed "is #is" corra!s and stoc-ed t"e 7aujan Na-e wit" baPgus #inger!ings. /n January &, 195&, t"e municipa! counci! o# 7aujan, t"is time composed o# a new set o# members, adopted 4eso!ution ?, series o# 195&, re$o-ing 4eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951. /n t"e same date, t"e new counci! a!so passed 4eso!ution 11, re$o-ing 4eso!ution &&9 o# t"e o!d counci! w"ic" con#irmed t"e e.tension o# t"e !ease period. T"e !essee reHuested #or reconsideration and reca!! o# 4eso!ution ?, on t"e ground, among ot"ers, t"at it $io!ated t"e contract e.ecuted between "im and t"e municipa!ity on 8ecember &?, 1951, and, t"ere#ore, contrary to %rtic!e III, section 1, c!ause 1> o# t"e 'onstitution. T"e reHuest, "owe$er, was not granted. /n 5eptember D, 195&, t"e !essee instituted t"is proceedings in t"e court be!ow see-ing to "a$e 4eso!ution ?, series o# 195&, o# t"e municipa! counci! o# 7aujan, dec!ared nu!! and $oid, #or being unconstitutiona!, and praying #or an order enjoining t"e de#endant municipa!ity #rom conducting a pub!ic bidding #or t"e !easing o# t"e 7aujan #is"eries to any person ot"er t"an t"e p!ainti## during t"e period #rom January 1, 195? to 8ecember ?1, 195@. %nswering t"e comp!aint, t"e de#endant asserted t"e $a!idity o# 4eso!ution ?, series o# 1951, a!!eging by t"e way o# specia! de#ense t"at t"e reso!ution aut"oriGing t"e origina! !ease contract, reducing t"e !ease renta!s and renewing t"e !ease are nu!! and $oid #or not "a$ing been passed in accordance wit" !aw. 8e#endant #urt"er put up a counterc!aim #or t"e amount representing t"e i!!ega! reduction o# &>R o# t"e origina! renta!s, p!us t"e sum o# P&,191.B> per mont" beginning 8ecember 1, 195& unti! t"e case s"a!! "a$e been terminated. %#ter tria!, t"e !ower court rendered judgment up"o!ding t"e $a!idity o# t"e !ease contract, as we!! at is e.tension, and dec!aring 4eso!ution ?, series o# 195&, nu!! and $oid. T"e municipa!ity o# 7aujan "as ta-en t"is appea!. T"e main Huestion to be decided is w"et"er or not 4eso!ution 7o. ?, series o# 195&, re$o-ing 4eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951, o# t"e municipa! counci! o# 7aujan is $a!id. (or c!arity, we "a$e to reiterate t"at 4eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951, is an appro$a! o# p!ainti##=appe!!eeCs petition #or e.tension #or anot"er #i$e years, e##ecti$e January 1, 195?, o# "is #i$e=year !ease concession granted under 4eso!ution DB, series o# 19D@. 5aid 4eso!ution &&&, "owe$er, was re$o-ed by t"e municipa! counci! under a new set o# members in its 4eso!ution ?, series o# 195&, #or t"e reason, among ot"ers, t"at t"e e.tension was i!!ega!, it "a$ing been granted wit"out competiti$e pub!ic bidding. It is t"is !ast mentioned reso!ution t"at "as been dec!ared nu!! and $oid by t"e tria! court. T"e !aw ;5ec. &?&? o# t"e 4e$ised %dministrati$e 'ode< reHuires t"at w"en t"e e.c!usi$e pri$i!ege o# #is"ery or t"e rig"t to conduct a #is"=breeding ground is granted to a pri$ate party, t"e same s"a!! be !et to t"e "ig"est bidder in t"e same manner as is being done in e.p!oiting a #erry, a mar-et or a s!aug"ter"ouse be!onging to t"e municipa!ity ;5ee unicipa!ity o# 5an Nuis $s. 9entura, et a!., 5B P"i!., ?&9<. T"e reHuirement o# competiti$e bidding is #or t"e purpose o# in$iting competition and to guard against #a$oritism, #raud and corruption in t"e !etting o# #is"ery pri$i!eges ;/ee ? cMui!!in, unicipa! 'orporations, &nd 6d., p. 11@>) ,ar!es Gas!ig"t 'o. $s. 7ew +or-, ?? 7.+. ?>9) and & 8i!!on, unicipa! 'orporation, p. 1&19<. T"ere is no doubt t"at t"e origina! !ease contract in t"is case was awarded to t"e "ig"est bidder, but t"e reduction o# t"e renta! and t"e e.tension o# t"e term o# t"e !ease appear to "a$e been granted wit"out pre$ious pub!ic bidding. In t"e case o# 'a!te.

1D
;P"i!.<, Inc., et a!. vs. 8e!gado Bros., Inc., et a!., 9B P"i!., ?B8, t"e amendment to an arrastre contract was dec!ared nu!! and $oid on t"e ground t"at it was made wit"out pre$ious pub!ic bidding. In so dec!aring, t"is 'ourt "as adopted t"e #o!!owing opinion: . . . it is t"e opinion o# t"e 'ourt t"at t"e said agreement .. e.ecuted and entered into wit"out pre$ious pub!ic bidding, is nu!! and $oid, and cannot ad$erse!y a##ect t"e rig"ts o# t"ird parties . . . and o# t"e pub!ic in genera!. T"e 'ourt agrees wit" t"e contention o# counse! #or t"e p!ainti##s t"at t"e due e.ecution o# a contract a#ter pub!ic bidding is a !imitation upon t"e rig"t o# t"e contradicting parties to a!ter or amend it wit"out anot"er pub!ic bidding, #or ot"erwise w"at wou!d a pub!ic bidding be good #or i# a#ter t"e e.ecution o# a contract a#ter pub!ic bidding, t"e contracting parties may a!ter or amend t"e contract or e$en cance! it, at t"eir wi!!L Pub!ic biddings are "e!d #or t"e protection o# t"e pub!ic, and to gi$e t"e pub!ic t"e best possib!e ad$antages by means o# open competition between t"e bidders. ,e w"o bids or o##ers t"e best terms is awarded t"e contract subject o# t"e bid, and it is ob$ious t"at suc" protection and best possib!e ad$antages to t"e pub!ic wi!! disappear i# t"e parties to a contract e.ecuted a#ter pub!ic bidding may a!ter or amend it wit"out anot"er pre$ious pub!ic bidding. *"i!e in t"at case we ru!ed t"at a!t"oug" t"e Earrastre contractE t"erein Huestioned aut"oriGed t"e parties to a!ter or amend any o# t"e terms t"ereo#, suc" aut"ority must be considered as being subject to t"e reHuirement o# pre$ious pub!ic bidding, a #orma!ity obser$ed be#ore t"e origina! contract was awarded, wit" more reason s"ou!d t"e ru!e reHuiring suc" pub!ic bidding be stric-!y app!ied in t"e instant case w"ere no suc" aut"ority to a!ter or amend t"e terms o# t"e contract was reser$ed. (urt"ermore, it "as been ru!ed t"at statutes reHuiring pub!ic bidding app!y to amendments o# any contract a!ready e.ecuted in comp!iance wit" t"e !aw w"ere suc" amendments a!ter t"e origina! contract in some $ita! and essentia! particu!ar ;/ee orse vs. Boston, 1D8 7.6. 81?&5? ass. &D@.< Inasmuc" as t"e period in a !ease is a $ita! and essentia! particu!ar to t"e contract, we be!ie$e t"at t"e e.tension o# t"e !ease period in t"is case, w"ic" was granted wit"out t"e essentia! reHuisite o# pub!ic bidding, is not in accordance wit" !aw. %nd it #o!!ows t"e 4eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951, and t"e contract aut"oriGed t"ereby, e.tending t"e origina! #i$e=year !ease to anot"er #i$e years are nu!! and $oid as contrary to !aw and pub!ic po!icy. *e agree wit" t"e de#endant=appe!!ant in t"at t"e Huestion 4eso!ution ? is not an impairment o# t"e ob!igation o# contract, because t"e constitutiona! pro$ision on impairment re#ers on!y to contract !ega!!y e.ecuted. *"i!e, apparent!y, 4eso!ution ? tended to abrogate t"e contract e.tending t"e !ease, !ega!!y spea-ing, t"ere was no contract abrogated because, as we "a$e said, t"e e.tension contract is $oid and ine.istent. T"e !ower court, in "o!ding t"at t"e de#endant=appe!!ant municipa!ity "as been estopped #rom assai!ing t"e $a!idity o# t"e contract into w"ic" it entered on 8ecember &?, 1951, seems to "a$e o$er!oo-ed t"e genera! ru!e t"at K . . . t"e doctrine o# estoppe! cannot be app!ied as against a municipa! corporation to $a!idate a contract w"ic" it "as no power to ma-e or w"ic" it is aut"oriGed to ma-e on!y under prescribed conditions, wit"in prescribed !imitations, or in a prescribed mode or manner, a!t"oug" t"e corporation "as accepted t"e bene#its t"ereo# and t"e ot"er party "as #u!!y per#ormed "is part o# t"e agreement, or "as e.pended !arge sums in preparation #or per#ormance. % reason #reHuent!y assigned #or t"is ru!e is t"at to app!y t"e doctrine o# estoppe! against a municipa!ity in suc" case wou!d be to enab!e it to do indirect!y w"at it cannot do direct!y. %!so, w"ere a contract is $io!ati$e o# pub!ic po!icy, t"e municipa!ity e.ecuting it cannot be estopped to assert t"e in$a!idity o# a contract w"ic" "as ceded away, contro!!ed, or embarrassed its !egis!ati$e or go$ernment powers. ;?8 %m. Jur. pp. &>&=&>D<. %s pointed out abo$e, Epub!ic biddings are "e!d #or t"e best protection o# t"e pub!ic and to gi$e t"e pub!ic t"e best possib!e ad$antages by means o# open competition between t"e bidders.E T"us, contracts reHuiring pub!ic bidding a##ect pub!ic interest, and to c"ange t"em wit"out comp!ying wit" t"at reHuirement wou!d indeed be against pub!ic po!icy. T"ere is, t"ere#ore, not"ing to p!ainti##=appe!!eeCs contention t"at t"e parties in t"is case being in pari delicto s"ou!d be !e#t in t"e situation w"ere t"ey are #ound, #or Ea!t"oug" t"e parties are in pari delicto, yet t"e court may inter#ere and grant re!ie# at t"e suit o# one o# t"em, w"ere pub!ic po!icy reHuires its inter$ention, e$en t"oug" t"e resu!t may be t"at a bene#it wi!! be deri$ed by a p!ainti## w"o is in eHua! gui!t wit" de#endant. But "ere t"e gui!t o# t"e parties is not considered as eHua! to t"e "ig"er rig"t o# t"e pub!ic, and t"e gui!ty party to w"om t"e re!ie# is granted is simp!y t"e instrument by w"ic" t"e pub!ic is ser$ed.E ;1? '.J. p. D9@< In $iew o# t"e #oregoing, we "o!d t"at t"e municipa! counci! o# 7aujan acted arig"t in adopting 4eso!ution ?, series o# 195&, now in Huestion. In consonance wit" t"e princip!es enunciated abo$e, 4eso!ution 59, series o# 19D@, reducing t"e renta!s by &>R o# t"e origina! price, w"ic" was a!so passed wit"out pub!ic bidding, s"ou!d !i-ewise be "e!d $oid, since a reduction o# t"e renta! to be paid by

15
t"e !essee is a substantia! a!ternation in t"e contract, ma-ing it a distinct and di##erent !ease contract w"ic" reHuires t"e prescribed #orma!ity o# pub!ic bidding. T"ere seems to be no necessity o# passing on t"e $a!idity o# 4eso!ution DB, series o# 19D@, #or de#endant=appe!!ant, apparent!y, did not mean to "a$e it annu!!ed, as may be seen #rom its prayer in t"e court be!ow and a!so in t"is appea!. %t any rate, t"e $a!idity o# said reso!ution does not a!ter our #inding to t"e e##ect t"at 4eso!ution 59, series o# 19D9, and 4eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951, are i!!ega! and $oid) and t"at 4eso!ution ?, series o# 195&, is $a!id. *"ere#ore, t"e appea!ed judgment is re$ersed) p!ainti##=appe!!ee is "ereby ordered to pay t"e de#endant=appe!!ant under t"e !atterCs counterc!aim t"e sum o# P1@,9@1.B> representing t"e unappro$ed and ine##ecti$e reduction by &>R o# t"e origina! stipu!ated renta!, #or t"e period #rom Ju!y 1, 19D9 to 8ecember 1, 195& p!us t"e #urt"er sum o# P&,191.B> per mont" beginning 8ecember 1, 195&, to 8ecember ?1, 195@, as reasonab!e compensation #or t"e i!!ega! retention o# t"e 7aujan #is"eries. *it"out specia! pronouncement as to costs. Bengzon, !ontema or, Bautista Angelo, ,abrador, Concepcion, +e es, J.B.,., )ndencia, and Barrera, JJ.,concur.

RESOLUTION April 01, 0234 GUTIERRE+ D)/ID& J.: In t"e abo$e entit!ed case, w"ic" was decided on (ebruary &9, 19B>, t"e p!ainti##=appe!!ee mo$es #or reconsideration o# t"e decision on t"e grounds ;1< t"at in $irtue o# t"e dispositi$e portion t"ereo# t"e p!ainti##=appe!!ee is ordered to pay t"e sum o# P&,191.B> per mont" beginning 8ecember 1, 195& to 8ecember ?1, 195@ as reasonab!e compensation #or t"e i!!ega! retention o# t"e 7aujan #is"eries, w"i!e t"e contract, w"ic" was dec!ared i!!ega! and $oid co$ered t"e period January 1, 195? to 8ecember ?1, 195@, so t"e period o# payment o# t"e sum o# P&,191.B> s"ou!d begin not #rom 8ecember 1, 195& but #rom January 1, 195?) ;&< t"at p!ainti##=appe!!ee "as a!ready paid to t"e de#endant=appe!!ant t"e said sum o# P&,191.B> e$ery mont", #rom January 1, 195? to 8ecember ?1, 195@) ;?< t"at by c!erica! error in t"e statement o# #acts o# t"e decision ;second paragrap"< it appears t"at t"e e.tension o# t"e !ease contract commenced January 1, 195&, instead o# January 1, 195?) and ;D<t"at t"is 'ourt ordered t"e p!ainti##=appe!!ee to pay de#endant=appe!!ant t"e sum o# P1@,9@1.B> representing t"e unappro$ed and ine##ecti$e reduction by &>R o# t"e origina!!y stipu!ated renta!, w"ic" order, #rom t"e strict!y !ega! point o# $iew, cannot be assai!ed, yet on eHuitab!e grounds re!ie# #rom suc" payment o# t"e sum cou!d be gi$en #or t"e reasons a!!eged in t"e motion. T"e de#endant=appe!!ant, on ot"er "and, #i!ed an E%nswer to t"e T"e answer states: otion #or 4econsideration and %pp!ication #or 8amagesE.

%ccording to t"e e$idence in t"is case, a#ter t"e appro$a!, in June, 19D9, o# 4eso!ution 59, series o# 19D9, reducing t"e renta! by &>R, t"e p!ainti##=appe!!ee paid de#endant=appe!!ant t"e reduced renta!s #rom Ju!y 1, 19D9 to 8ecember ?1, 195&. T"e origina! !ease contract E6."ibit E%E, stipu!ates an annua! renta! o# P&B,?>>.>> payab!e e$ery trimester, and &>R t"ereo# is P5,&B>.>> or P1,?15.>> per trimester, w"ic" amount p!ainti## conseHuent!y #ai!ed to pay #rom Ju!y 1, 19D9 to 8ecember ?1, 195&. 5ince t"e period #rom Ju!y 1, 19D9 to 8ecember ?1, 195& consists o# 1D trimesters, t"e p!ainti##=appe!!ee #ai!ed to pay according!y, t"e amount o# P18,D1>.>> during t"e said period ;session o# %pri! 1&, 1955, t.s.n., pp. 1>=11<. ,owe$er, t"is ,onorab!e 'ourt, in ordering t"e p!ainti## to pay t"e sum o# P1@,9@1.B> computed and based t"e said amount #rom Ju!y 1, 19D9 to 8ecember 1, 195&, suc" t"at t"e renta! corresponding to t"e mont" o# 8ecember, 195& was not inc!uded in t"e decision ;P18,D1> == PD?8.?D Irepresenting &>R mont"!y reductionJ K P1@,9@1.B> ;w"ic" s"ou!d be P1@,9@1.BB to be e.act<. %nd since t"e tota! unpaid reduction amounting to P1@,9@1.B> as #ound by t"e court in its decisions, does not inc!ude t"e renta! #or t"e mont" o# 8ecember, 195&, t"is 'ourt conseHuent!y "ad to order t"e p!ainti## to pay de#endant t"e #u!! amount o# t"e renta! o# P&,191.B> ;P&,191.BB to be e.act<, w"ic" is one=twe!#t" ;1T&< o# P&B,?>>.>>, commencing #rom 8ecember 1, 195& to 8ecember ?1, 19B@, ot"erwise, t"ere wou!d be a gap o# one mont", t"at is, t"ere wou!d be no renta! #or t"e entire mont" o# 8ecember 195&. . . .

1B
%#ter a care#u! consideration o# grounds 1, & and ? o# t"e motion and t"e answer t"ereto, w"ic" in$o!$e c!erica! errors, t"is 'ourt deems it necessary to amend t"e decision as #o!!ows: Part o# t"e second paragrap" to read: . . . t"e counci! adopted 4eso!ution &&&, series o# 1951 e.tending t"e !ease #or anot"er #i$e ;5< years beginning January 1, 195?, wit" t"e e.press condition t"at t"e p!ainti## wou!d wai$e t"e pri$i!ege to see- #or reduction o# t"e amount o# rent w"ic" was to be based on t"e origina! contract. T"e dispositi$e portion to read: *"ere#ore, t"e appea!ed judgment is re$ersed) p!ainti##=appe!!ee is "ereby ordered to pay de#endant=appe!!ant under t"e !atterCs counterc!aim t"e sum o# P18,D1>.>> representing t"e unappro$ed and ine##ecti$e reduction by &>R o# t"e origina!!y stipu!ated renta!, #or t"e period #rom Ju!y 1, 19D9 to-ecember 50, 0267, p!us t"e #urt"er sum o# P&,191.B> per mont" beginning Januar 0, 0265 to 8ecember ?1, 195@, as reasonab!e compensation #or t"e i!!ega! retention o# t"e 7aujan #is"eries, unless the said sum of (7,020.34 per month has alread been paid b the plaintiff-appellee to the defendant-appellant during the said period. Ground D o# t"e otion #or 4econsideration is denied #or !ac- o# merit. %nd de#endant=appe!!antCs app!ication #or damages is !i-ewise denied, but wit"out prejudice to t"e #i!ing o# t"e same in t"e proper court. (aras, C.J., Bengzon, !ontema or, Bautista Angelo, ,abrador, Concepcion, +e es, J.B.,., and Barrera, JJ.,concur.

4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines SUPREME COURT ani!a THIRD DI/ISION G.R. No. !<#'$! *0ne <& %"!!

/IRGINI) M. GU)DINES& Petitioner, $s. S)NDIG)N(),)N an- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES& 4espondents. 86'I5I/7 /ILL)R)M)& *R.& J.:

1@
Be#ore us is a petition #or re$iew on certiorari under 4u!e D5 o# t"e 199@ 4u!es o# 'i$i! Procedure, as amended, assai!ing t"e 8ecision1 promu!gated on %pri! ?>, &>>D and 4eso!ution& dated %ugust &>, &>>D o# t"e 5andiganbayan con$icting petitioner o# $io!ation o# 5ection ?;e< o# 4epub!ic %ct ;4.%.< 7o. ?>19 or t"e %nti=Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct. T"e #actua! antecedents: /n %ugust &5, 199&, t"e Pro$incia! Treasurer o# MueGon directed t"e unicipa! Treasurer o# Po!i!!o, MueGon, 7aime %yuma, to conduct a pub!ic bidding #or t"e materia!s to be used in t"e repair and construction o# 7a$otas Bridge a!ong Po!i!!o=Burdeos pro$incia! road at Barangay 5ibu!an. %s a resu!t o# t"e bidding "e!d on 5eptember 8, 199&, t"e contract was awarded to 9. . Guadines 'onstruction 5upp!y owned and managed by petitioner 9irginia . Guadines. /n /ctober 19, 199&, Purc"aser /rder 7o. &>19 was issued by t"e Pro$incia! Go$ernment o# MueGon #or construction materia!s in t"e tota! price o# P8?,&&8.>>. /n 7o$ember 1?, 199&, t"e materia!s consisting o# !umber ; acaasim "ardwood cut by c"ainsaw< were stoc-pi!ed a!ong t"e road about #i$e meters away #rom t"e 7a$otas Bridge, and recei$ed by Bernie ,. %Gau!a ;%Gau!a<.? %Gau!a was t"en Barangay '"airman o# Pob!acion, Po!i!!o and ember o# t"e 5angguniang Bayan being t"e President o# t"e %ssociation o# Barangay 'aptains o# Po!i!!o.D /n 7o$ember &>, 199&, a team o# 8epartment o# 6n$ironment and 7atura! 4esources ;8674< o##icia!sT#orest rangers #rom t"e 'ommunity and 6n$ironment 4esources ;'674< Po!i!!o 5tation !ed by /##icer=in='"arge ,erminio . 5a!$osa con#iscated se$enty=t"ree ;@?< pieces o# acaasim !umber ;D,1@& board #eet $a!ued atPD1,1@&.>>< w"ic" were stoc-pi!ed a!ongside t"e Po!i!!o=Burdeos road at Barangay 5ibu!an, appro.imate!y #i$e meters away #rom t"e 7a$otas Bridge. T"ey measured t"e con#iscated !umber using ar-ing ,atc"et 7o. 1@D& in w"ic" t"e number 1@D& was 1TB o# an inc" t"ic- so t"at w"en you stri-e t"e !umber, t"e number 1@D& wi!! appear on t"e !umber. T"ey a!so mar-ed t"e !umber wit" t"e words E8674 '/7(I5'%T68E using w"ite paint. T"ese #orest products were con#iscated in #a$or o# t"e go$ernment pending submission o# certain reHuired documents. 7o person or entity was appre"ended as ownerTpossessor o# t"e !umber. 5ince %Gau!a $o!unteered to ta-e custody as a pub!ic o##icia! in t"e !oca!ity, t"e '674 decided to turn o$er t"e seiGed !umber to "im and reHuired "im to sign t"e 5eiGure 4eceipt.5 /n 8ecember 1D, 199&, t"e /angguniang Ba an o# Po!i!!o acting upon t"e petition o# some DB> indi$idua!s, and a#ter debating on w"et"er to sti!! wait #or t"e 8674 o##icia!s to ascertain t"e identity o# t"e contractor in$o!$ed in t"e i!!ega!!y cut timber or to proceed wit" t"e construction o# t"e bridge using t"e con#iscated !umber, reso!$ed to #orma!!y reHuest t"e 8674 4egiona! 8irector to donate t"e seiGed !umber so it can be used #or t"e de!ayed repair and construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge. T"e !ogs remained stoc-pi!ed near t"e said bridge, apparent!y abandoned by its owner.B Nater "owe$er, t"e /anggunian passed a reso!ution ;Uapasiya"an B!g. &D, t. 199?< reHuesting t"e 8epartment o# Pub!ic *or-s and ,ig"ways ;8P*,< t"roug" Pro$incia! 6ngineer %be!ardo %brigo to send t"eir personne! to wor- on t"e repair and construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge in t"e ear!iest possib!e time.@ %Gau!a was among t"ose members o# t"e /anggunian w"o "ad opposed t"e proposa! to reHuest t"e 8674 4egiona! 8irector #or t"e donation o# t"e con#iscated !umber, insisting t"at t"e contractor ;petitioner< be paid #or said materia!s.8 In "is !etter dated January &5, 199? addressed to 6ngr. Bert 7ier$a o# t"e Pro$incia! 6ngineer3s /##ice ;P6/<, Po!i!!o ayor 4osendo ,. 6scara reHuested #or assistance in t"e immediate construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge, citing t"e appro$a! o# Uapasiya"an B!g. &D, t. 199? by t"e /angguniang Ba an. /n January &8, 199?, Po!i!!o unicipa! Treasurer 7aime %yuma prepared t"e Inspection 4eport stating t"at t"e materia!s speci#ied under Purc"ase /rder 7o. &>19 were de!i$ered by t"e contractor ;9. . Guadines 'onstruction 5upp!y< and EIrJecei$ed in good order and condition.E T"e Inspection 4eport was signed by bot" %yuma and ayor 6scara.9 By (ebruary 5, 199?, t"e repair and construction o# 7a$otas Bridge was #inis"ed. Fpon t"e reHuest o# %Gau!a, 8isbursement 9ouc"er >>1=9?>&=95@ was prepared, aut"oriGing t"e Pro$incia! Treasurer to pay 9. . Guadines 'onstruction 5upp!y t"e tota! amount o# P8?,&&8.>>. /n (ebruary 18, 199?, petitioner recei$ed #rom t"e Pro$incia! Treasurer3s /##ice t"e amount o# P8?,&&8.>> as payment #or t"e !umber and ot"er materia!s s"e de!i$ered #or t"e repair and construction o# 7a$otas Bridge.1> In a emorandum dated (ebruary &B, 199?, '674 Po!i!!o 5tation /I' 5a!$osa reported to t"e '674/ o# 4ea!, MueGon t"at despite warnings #rom #orest rangers, wor-ers "eaded by 6ngr. 7ier$a o# t"e P6/ uti!iGed t"e con#iscated !umber in t"e construction o# 7a$otas Bridge. 5a!$osa #urt"er in#ormed t"e '674/ t"at w"i!e 6ngr. 7ier$a c!aimed to be acting on o##icia! instructions #rom t"e Pro$incia! Go$ernor, t"ey were not #urnis"ed any copy o# suc" directi$e or instruction.11 %ccording!y, Juan de!a 'ruG, '674/ o# 4ea!, MueGon, prepared a memorandum=report and #orwarded t"e same to t"e 8674 4egion I9 6.ecuti$e 8irector wit" a reHuest #or a !awyer to be sent to t"eir o##ice to assist in t"e preparation and #i!ing o# appropriate c"arges against t"e custodian w"o is t"e Barangay '"airman o# Pob!acion, Po!i!!o, MueGon. In a !etter dated arc" 1>, 199?, '674/ de!a 'ruG as-ed %Gau!a to e.p!ain w"y "e s"ou!d not be c"arged wit" esta#a and ma!$ersation #or disposing t"e con#iscated !umber wit"out !ega! aut"ority or c!earance #rom t"e 8674 5ecretary. 1&

18
/n ay 5, 199?, t"e Pro$incia! %uditor o# MueGon directed 6dgardo %. endoGa, 5tate %uditor II, to conduct an in$estigation regarding t"e payment made #or con#iscated !umber used in t"e repair and construction o# 7a$otas Bridge. %#ter inspecting t"e site and in$entory o# t"e !umber in t"e new!y constructed bridge toget"er wit" t"e unicipa! 6ngineer, endoGa con#irmed t"at t"ese materia!s were t"e same ones con#iscated by t"e '674 personne!, di##ering on!y in !engt" o# t"e !ogs used. endoGa conc!uded t"at t"ere was no justi#ication #or t"e go$ernment to pay t"e purc"ase price o# t"e !umber a!!eged!y de!i$ered by t"e contractor. T"us, in "is #ina! report submitted to t"e Pro$incia! %uditor, endoGa recommended t"at 9. . Guadines 'onstruction be ordered to re#und t"e amount paid by t"e pro$incia! go$ernment and t"at administrati$e and crimina! actions be #i!ed against said contractor, as we!! as t"e pub!ic o##icia!s w"o participated in de#rauding t"e go$ernment in t"e amount o# P8?,&&8.>> and #or $io!ation o# t"e %nti=Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct.1? /n 7o$ember 15, 199D, a 7otice o# 8isa!!owance was issued by t"e 'ommission on %udit ;'/%<, Nucena 'ity #or t"e amount o# P@>,9&D.>>. (rom t"e origina! amount o# P8?,&&8.>>, t"ey deducted t"e $a!ue o# t"e common materia!s used suc" as nai!s and E-awad.E T"e di##erence represents t"e $a!ue o# t"e con#iscated !umber actua!!y used in t"e construction o# t"e bridge.1D 5ubseHuent!y, a comp!aint was #i!ed be#ore t"e /##ice o# t"e /mbudsman by /angguniang Ba an member ay 9erGo=6stuita against petitioner, %yuma, %Gau!a and 6scara #or $io!ation o# t"e %nti=Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct ;/ B >=9?=1?88<. /n %pri! &&, 199D, a 4eso!ution15 was issued by t"e /mbudsman recommending t"e #i!ing o# appropriate in#ormation against a!! t"e respondents #or $io!ation o# 5ection ?;e< o# 4.%. 7o. ?>19. T"e /mbudsman #ound to be wit"out merit respondents3 denia! t"at t"e !umber used in t"e construction o# 7a$otas Bridge were t"e same !umber ear!ier con#iscated by t"e '674 #ie!d personne!, noting t"at %Gau!a too- cogniGance o# t"e said materia!s during t"e de!iberations in t"e /angguniang Ba an. 4espondents were t"us "e!d !iab!e #or causing undue injury to t"e pro$incia! go$ernment w"ic" was made to pay t"e amount o#P8?,&&8.>> #or t"e con#iscated !umber. T"e In#ormation c"arging petitioner, %Gau!a, 6scara and %yuma wit" $io!ation o# 5ection ?;e< o# 4.%. 7o. ?>19 ;'rimina! 'ase 7o. &>8@8< reads: T"at in or about (ebruary o# 199?, or immediate!y prior or subseHuent t"ereto, in Po!i!!o, MueGon, and wit"in t"e jurisdiction o# t"is ,onorab!e 'ourt, accused Bernie ,. %Gau!a, 4osendo 7. 6scara, 7amie 9. %yuma, being t"e Barangay 'aptain, unicipa! ayor and unicipa! Treasurer, respecti$e!y, o# Po!i!!o, MueGon, in t"e e.ercise o# t"eir administrati$e andTor o##icia! #unctions, wit" e$ident bad #ait", conspiring and con#ederating wit" accused 9irginia . GuadineG, doing business under t"e 9. . GuadineG 'onstruction 5upp!y, did t"en and t"ere wiI!J!#u!!y and un!aw#u!!y cause undue injury andTor damage to t"e pro$ince o# MueGon, by using in t"e construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge in 5ibu!an, Po!i!!o, MueGon, con#iscated !umber consisting o# @? pieces wit" a $o!ume o# D,1@& board #eet, $a!ued at P11,1@&.>>, more or !ess, and ma-e it appear in a 8isbursement 9ouc"er, 8e!i$ery 4eceipt 7o. >>B?, and Inspection 4eport dated January &8, 199?, t"at t"e !umber used in t"e construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge were purc"ased #rom t"e 9. . GuadineG 'onstruction 5upp!y #or P8?,&&8.>>, t"us enab!ing accused 9irginia GuadineG to recei$e t"e said purc"ase price, to t"e damage and prejudice o# t"e Pro$ince o# MueGon, in t"e a#orementioned amount. '/7T4%4+ T/ N%*.1B T"e a#orenamed respondents #i!ed motions #or reconsideration and re=in$estigation wit" t"e /mbudsman. In "is /rder dated January 19, 1995, t"e /mbudsman recommended t"at t"e prosecution o# petitioner, %Gau!a and 6scara be continued w"i!e t"e comp!aint against %yuma be dropped #or insu##iciency o# e$idence. 'onseHuent!y, %yuma was ordered e.c!uded #rom t"e In#ormation in 'rimina! 'ase 7o. &>8@8.1@ %#ter tria!, t"e 5andiganbayan rendered its decision con$icting petitioner, 6scara and %Gau!a o# t"e crime c"arged, as #o!!ows: *,646(/46, in $iew o# a!! t"e #oregoing, t"is 'ourt #inds accused B647I6 ,. %S%FN%, 4/5678/ 7. 65'%4% %78 9I4GI7I% . GF%8I765 GFINT+ beyond reasonab!e doubt o# $io!ation o# 5ection ? ;e< o# 4.%. 7o. ?>19, and "ereby sentences eac" o# t"em to su##er t"e indeterminate pena!ty o# imprisonment o# si. ;B< years and one ;1< mont", as minimum, to ten ;1>< years, as ma.imum. T"ey are a!so ordered to pay, joint!y and se$era!!y, t"e costs o# t"is suit. %ccused Guadines, "a$ing un!aw#u!!y recei$ed t"e amount o# P@>,9&D.>>, representing payment #or t"e con#iscated !umber, is "ereby ordered to return t"e said amount to t"e Pro$ince o# MueGon. 5/ /486468.18

19
In t"eir motion #or reconsideration,19 petitioner and %Gau!a maintained t"at t"e !umber de!i$ered by 9. . Guadines 'onstruction 5upp!y were not t"e same !umber con#iscated by t"e '674. T"ey argued t"at ;1< t"e con#iscated !umber does not matc" t"e speci#ied siGe, Hua!ity and Huantity o# t"e materia!s needed #or t"e bridge repairTconstruction project) ;&< petitioner purc"ased t"e !ogs #rom t"ird persons t"ere being no sawmi!!s in t"e !oca!ity, and it is but proper t"at s"e be paid #or t"e materia!s s"e de!i$ered) and ;?< since t"e municipa!ities o# Po!i!!o and Burdeos "a$e bene#ited #rom t"e repair and construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge, t"e a!!egation t"at t"e Pro$ince o# MueGon su##ered damage and prejudice is erroneous. %s to t"e 5andiganbayan3s re!iance on t"e statements s"e made during t"e /angguniang Ba an proceedings on 8ecember 1D, 199&, petitioner $e"ement!y denied ma-ing t"ose statements and contended t"at to gi$e t"em probati$e $a!ue wou!d $io!ate t"e ru!e on res inter a!ios acta. Petitioner #urt"er asserted t"at s"e acted in good #ait", as in #act no /angguniang Ba anmember interposed an objection to t"e payment made in "er #a$or. In its %ugust &>, &>>D 4eso!ution, t"e 5andiganbayan denied t"e motions #or reconsideration #i!ed by petitioner, %Gau!a and 6scara. T"e 5andiganbayan noted t"at petitioner "erse!# admitted in "er direct testimony t"at t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered were t"e ones used in t"e repair and construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge. 6$en i# t"e con#iscated !umber were undersiGed, t"e pieces o# !umber cou!d "a$e been bo!ted toget"er to con#orm to t"e reHuired !engt" o# && #eet !ong. Testimonia! e$idence a!so c!ear!y s"owed t"at t"e con#iscated !umber were used in t"e construction o# t"e bridge. %s to petitioner3s contention t"at no damage or injury was caused to t"e pro$incia! go$ernment, t"e 5andiganbayan "e!d t"at a#ter con#iscation by t"e 8674, t"e subject !umber became t"e property o# t"e 7ationa! Go$ernment and conseHuent!y t"e unicipa!ity o# Po!i!!o "ad no rig"t to uti!iGe t"e same wit"out aut"ority #rom t"e 8674. %nd since t"e !umber "ad a!ready been con#iscated, petitioner "ad no rig"t to recei$e payment) "ence, t"e payment made in "er #a$or by t"e Pro$ince o# MueGon did not produce any !ega! e##ect, pursuant to %rtic!e 1&D>&> o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode. Petitioner3s denia! o# t"e statements s"e made be#ore t"e /anggunian was !i-ewise #ound to be wit"out merit. T"e certi#ied copy o# t"e minutes ta-en during t"e 8ecember 1D, 199& session o# t"e /anggunian being a pub!ic document and an o##icia! record o# t"e proceedings, is considered prima #acie e$idence o# t"e #acts stated t"erein. T"e presumption o# regu!arity and aut"enticity o# pub!ic o##icia! records "ad not been o$ercome and rebutted by t"e petitioner, t"ere being no competent e$idence to support "er denia!. (urt"er, t"ere was no $io!ation o# t"e res inter a!ios acta ru!e because t"e dec!arations and admissions made by t"e accused ;petitioner< are being used against "er and not against any ot"er indi$idua! or t"ird persons. (ina!!y, petitioner3s c!aim o# good #ait" was rejected by t"e 5andiganbayan stating t"at s"e c!ear!y intentiona!!y too- ad$antage o# t"e go$ernment w"en, despite "er -now!edge t"at t"e !umber de!i$ered to t"e Pro$ince o# MueGon was con#iscated, s"e sti!! accepted and recei$ed t"e purc"ase price paid by t"e pro$incia! go$ernment.&1 ,ence, t"is petition a!!eging t"at t"e 5andiganbayan gra$e!y abused its discretion in #inding t"at s"e acted in conspiracy wit" %Gau!a and 6scara in de#rauding t"e pro$incia! go$ernment under t"eir contract #or purc"ase o# construction materia!s. Petitioner reiterates "er argument t"at t"e materia!s s"e de!i$ered on 7o$ember 1?, 199& were not t"e same !umber con#iscated by t"e 8674 #ie!d personne! on 7o$ember &>, 199&. T"e de!i$ered !umber "a$ing been !e#t unguarded and unprotected a!ong t"e nationa! "ig"way, some pieces t"ereo# cou!d "a$e been sto!en, w"ic" e.p!ains w"y t"ere was a sma!!er number ;@?< o# con#iscated !umber t"an t"e actua! Huantity ;99< de!i$ered. In any case, petitioner asserts t"at t"e matter was not anymore "er concern a#ter s"e #u!#i!!ed "er contractua! ob!igation o# de!i$ering t"e speci#ied Huantity and Hua!ity o# !umber. T"e #act t"at %yuma "ad certi#ied in "is Inspection 4eport t"at t"e de!i$ered !umber were recei$ed in good order and condition wou!d on!y mean t"at t"ere was no E'/7(I5'%T68E mar-ing #ound t"ereon. %yuma need not "a$e #ore-now!edge o# t"e 8674 con#iscation to con#irm suc" mar-ing in t"e course o# "er p"ysica! inspection o# t"e !umber de!i$ered by petitioner. /n t"e a!!egation o# conspiracy, petitioner contends t"at e$idence is wanting to support t"e prosecution case against "er. % #inding o# gui!t must not be based on specu!ation, suc" as t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered were t"e ones con#iscated !ater by t"e 8674. Indeed, t"e !umber !e#t a!ong t"e "ig"way e.posed it to possibi!ities w"ic" inc!ude substitution. 6$en i# t"e materia!s used in t"e repair and construction o# 7a$otas Bridge bore t"e 8674 mar-ing E'/7(I5'%T68E, it cannot automatica!!y mean t"at t"ose were t"e same !umber de!i$ered by petitioner, considering t"at %yuma "ad inspected t"ese pieces o# !umber and did not see t"ose mar-ings. oreo$er, w"at "appened to t"e !umber a#ter its de!i$ery was no !onger wit"in t"e contro! o# petitioner. ,er on!y responsibi!ity is to de!i$er t"e goods stated in t"e contract s"e entered wit" t"e !oca! go$ernment. %#ter receipt o# t"e !umber in good order and condition by t"e pro$incia! go$ernment t"roug" its o##icia!s w"ic" inc!ude %yuma as t"e unicipa! Treasurer, petitioner "ad a!ready #u!#i!!ed "er contractua! ob!igation. It was but natura! and proper t"at petitioner be compensated #or t"e !umber s"e purc"ased #rom t"ird persons. T"e pro$incia! go$ernment su##ered no damage or injury since t"e repair and construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge was comp!eted. %nd assuming #or t"e sa-e o# argument t"at "er !umber were actua!!y con#iscated by t"e 8674, petitioner contends t"at w"at s"ou!d "a$e been #i!ed against "er was a case #or $io!ation o# t"e (orestry 'ode and not t"e %nti=Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct. T"e petition "as no merit.

&>
*e!!=entrenc"ed is t"e ru!e t"at #actua! #indings o# t"e 5andiganbayan are conc!usi$e upon t"is 'ourt e.cept w"ere: ;1< t"e conc!usion is a #inding grounded entire!y on specu!ation, surmise and conjectures) ;&< t"e in#erence made is mani#est!y mista-en) ;?< t"ere is gra$e abuse o# discretion) ;D< t"e judgment is based on misappre"ension o# #acts and t"e #indings o# #act o# t"e 5andiganbayan are premised on t"e absence o# e$idence and are contradicted by t"e e$idence on record.&& Petitioner #ai!ed to estab!is" any o# t"e #oregoing e.ceptiona! circumstances. /n t"e contrary, t"e e$idence on record c!ear!y s"owed petitioner3s participation in t"e anoma!ous disbursement o# go$ernment #unds in #a$or o# a pri$ate contractor #or !umber w"ic" "a$e been $a!id!y seiGed by '674 #orest rangers. T"e inspection o# de!i$eries and acceptance by t"e pro$incia! go$ernment t"roug" %yuma and 6scara w"o certi#ied in t"e Inspection 4eport t"at !umber de!i$ered by petitioner were #ound to be Ein good order and conditionE re!ates on!y to t"e p"ysica! aspect and comp!iance wit" speci#ications as to Hua!ity, Huantity and siGe o# t"e materia!s. 5aid certi#ication did not state w"et"er t"e !umber de!i$ered by petitioner "a$e been cut or gat"ered in accordance wit" e.isting #orestry !aws, ru!es and regu!ations. Petitioner cou!d "a$e readi!y substantiated "er de#ense by producing documents, suc" as permits and 'erti#icate o# TimberTNumber /rigin, a!!eged!y secured by persons #rom w"om s"e boug"t t"e !umber, or presenting as witnesses t"ose wor-ers w"o supposed!y cut t"e trees and "au!ed t"e !ogs. But none o# t"ese were presented at t"e tria!. ,ence, t"e prosecution e$idence s"owing t"e !umber de!i$ered by petitioner to "a$e been i!!ega!!y cut and gat"ered, stands unrebutted. Petitioner was c"arged wit" $io!ation o# 5ection ?;e< o# 4.%. 7o. ?>19, w"ic" pro$ides: 56'. ?. 'orrupt practices o# pub!ic o##icers. == In addition to acts or omissions o# pub!ic o##icers a!ready pena!iGed by e.isting !aw, t"e #o!!owing s"a!! constitute corrupt practices o# any pub!ic o##icer and are "ereby dec!ared to be un!aw#u!: .... ;e< Ca0sin1 any 0n-0e inA07y to any 6a7ty& incl0-in1 t8e Gove7n5ent , or gi$ing any pri$ate party any unwarranted bene#its, ad$antage or pre#erence in t"e disc"arge o# "is o##icia!, administrati$e or judicia! #unctions t"roug" mani#est partia!ity, e$ident bad #ait" or gross ine.cusab!e neg!igence. T"is pro$ision s"a!! app!y to o##icers and emp!oyees o# o##ices or go$ernment corporations c"arged wit" t"e grant o# !icenses or permits or ot"er concessions. ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< T"e essentia! e!ements o# t"is crime are: ;1< t"e accused are pub!ic o##icers or pri$ate persons c"arged in conspiracy wit" t"em) ;&< said pub!ic o##icers commit t"e pro"ibited acts during t"e per#ormance o# t"eir o##icia! duties or in re!ation to t"eir pub!ic position) ;?< t"ey caused undue injury to any party, w"et"er t"e go$ernment or a pri$ate party) ;D< suc" injury is caused by gi$ing unwarranted bene#its, ad$antage or pre#erence to suc" parties) and ;5< t"e pub!ic o##icers "a$e acted wit" mani#est partia!ity, e$ident bad #ait" or gross ine.cusab!e neg!igence.&? *e e.p!ained t"e #oregoing e!ements in 5antos $. Peop!e&D: %s may be noted, w"at conte.tua!!y is punis"ab!e is t"e act o# causing any undue injury to any party, or t"e gi$ing to any pri$ate party o# unwarranted bene#its, ad$antage or pre#erence in t"e disc"arge o# t"e pub!ic o##icer3s #unctions. In 8 vs. /andiganba an, and again in /antiago vs. 'architorena, t"e 'ourt "as made it abundant!y c!ear t"at t"e use o# t"e disjuncti$e word EorE connotes t"at eit"er act o# ;a< Ecausing any undue injury to any party, inc!uding t"e Go$ernmentE) and ;b< Egi$ing any pri$ate party any unwarranted bene#its, ad$antage or pre#erence,E Hua!i#ies as a $io!ation o# 5ection ?;e< o# 4.%. 7o. ?>19, as amended. T"is is not to say, "owe$er, t"at eac" mode constitutes a distinct o##ense but t"at an accused may be proceeded against under eit"er or bot" modes. .... T"e term Eundue injuryE in t"e conte.t o# 5ection ? ;e< o# t"e %nti=Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct punis"ing t"e act o# Ecausing undue injury to any party,E "as a meaning a-in to t"at ci$i! !aw concept o# Eactua! damage.E T"e 'ourt said so in ,lorente vs. /andiganba an, t"us: In jurisprudence, Eundue injuryE is consistent!y interpreted as Eactua! damage.E 8ndue "as been de#ined as Emore t"an necessary, not proper, IorJ i!!ega!)E and in9ur as Eany wrong or damage done to anot"er, eit"er in "is person, rig"ts, reputation or property I) t"at is, t"eJ in$asion o# any !ega!!y protected interest o# anot"er.E %ctua! damage, in t"e conte.t o# t"ese de#initions, is a-in to t"at in ci$i! !aw. ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< By accepting payment #or de!i$ery o# !umber #ound to be wit"out supporting documents as reHuired by !aw, petitioner caused undue injury or damage to t"e pro$incia! go$ernment w"ic" "ad no ob!igation to pay #or con#iscated !umber considered as

&1
go$ernment property. In #act, it is on!y t"e 8674 5ecretary or "is representati$e w"o can dispose o# suc" con#iscated !umber in accordance wit" #orestry !aws and regu!ations, pursuant to 5ection B8=% o# Presidentia! 8ecree ;P.8.< 7o. @>5 ;ot"erwise -nown as t"e (orestry 'ode o# t"e P"i!ippines<, as amended by 6.ecuti$e /rder 7o. &@@, w"ic" pro$ides: 56'. B8=%. %dministrati$e %ut"ority o# t"e 8epartment ,ead or ,is 8u!y %ut"oriGed 4epresentati$e to /rder 'on#iscation. = In a!! cases o# $io!ations o# t"is 'ode or ot"er #orest !awsI,J ru!es and regu!ations, t"e 8epartment ,ead or "is du!y aut"oriGed representati$e, may order t"e con#iscation o# any #orest products i!!ega!!y cut, gat"ered, remo$ed, or possessed or abandoned, and a!! con$eyances used eit"er by !and, waterI,J or air in t"e commission o# t"e o##ense and to dispose o# t"e same in accordance wit" pertinent !aws, regu!ations or po!icies on t"e matter.E Petitioner3s contention t"at s"e s"ou!d "a$e been instead prosecuted #or i!!ega! cutting, gat"ering and possession o# timber or ot"er #orest products under 5ection B8 o# P.8. 7o. @>5 ignores t"e #act t"at s"e ne$er came out to c!aim owners"ip o# t"e seiGed !umber unti! "er appearance be#ore t"e /angguniang Ba an w"erein s"e p!eaded #or consideration in t"e de!ayed bridge construction project a#ter t"e 8674 con#iscated t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered. 6.cept #or "er bare denia!, petitioner #ai!ed to re#ute t"e correctness o# t"e statements s"e made as re#!ected in t"e o##icia! minutes o# t"e /anggunian session "e!d on 8ecember 1D, 199&, du!y certi#ied by t"e unicipa! 5ecretary and signed by t"e /anggunian embers present, to wit: %ng sumunod na binigyang pa"intu!ot upang magbigay ng -anyang pa"ayag ay si Gng. 9irginia Guadines, ang nagtatapat na 'ontractor ng tu!ay ng Barangay 5ibu!an, o tu!ay 7abotas ayon sa pag-i!a!a ng 8P*,. %yon sa -anya siya bi!ang contractor ng nabanggit na proye-to ay na!u!ung-ot sa pag-aaba!a nito da"i!an nga sa nangyaring pag"u!i ng mga tau"an ng (orestry sa mga -a"oy na gagamitin sa tu!ay. 7a!aman din niya na bunga nito ay nag-a-aroon ng parang pagpa#action=#action sa 5angguniang Bayan. 7ais niyang ipagunita na ito ay isang pub!ic -now!edge na siya ang nana!ong bidder sa ginanap na pub!ic bidding na nasabing proye-to at na!a!aman ng !a"at na siya ay "indi ma-a-apag=pro$ide ng -a"oy na gagamitin sa nasabing tu!ay. 7ang mga pana"ong iyon nga ay -ai!angang magtungo siya sa Nucban, MueGon para sa pag-o-uImJp!eto ng mga -ai!angang pape!es sa nasabing -ontrata, -aya3t siya ay na-isuyo ng taong mangangasiwa sa pag-u"a ng -a"oy. 7gayon na nangyari ang "indi inaasa"an ay "ini"i!ing niya na tayo ay magtu!ungan na maipatapos ang tu!ay na ito a!ang= a!ang sa -apa-anan ng mga taong magdaraan sa nasabing tu!ay oras na ito ay matapos. 7a!a!aman niya na siya ay mayroong pag-u-u!ang, nguni3t "ini"i!ing niya sa 5angguniang Bayan na bigyan na siya ng -onsiderasyon sa pangyayaring ito , tota! ay pinapayagan na pa!a ngayon ang pagputo! ng -a"oy -ung gagamitin sa mga go$ernment projects. %ng nabanggit na -autusan ay noon pa pa!ang 7obyembre 199& ipina!abas, -aya nga !amang ay "indi agad niya na!aman. 5iya naman ay taosI=Jpuso ang pagtu!ong sa pama"a!aang bayan ng Po!i!!o at basta at na-aba!ita siya ng proye-tong maaaring ang ma-i-inabang ay ang ating bayan ay -anyang ginagawa -a"i3t minsan nga ay nagdudu-ot bu!sa siya para maiparating ito sa ating bayan.&5 *e #ind no gra$e abuse o# discretion on t"e part o# t"e 5andiganbayan w"en it cited t"e pertinent portions o# t"e minutes o# t"e /angguniang Ba an session o# 8ecember 1D, 199&, as e$idence o# petitioner3s statements concerning t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered w"ic" were con#iscated by t"e '674 #or !ac- o# reHuisite !ega! documents. T"ese statements re$ea!ed t"at petitioner was #u!!y aware o# t"e con#iscation o# "er !umber stoc-pi!ed a!ong t"e Po!i!!o=Burdeos pro$incia! road, a#ter s"e "ad de!i$ered t"e same. *e "a$e pre$ious!y underscored t"e importance o# t"e minutes o# #orma! proceedings w"en t"e court is con#ronted wit" con#!icting c!aims o# parties as to t"e trut" and accuracy o# t"e matters ta-en up t"erein. In 8e !os 4eyes $. 5andiganbayan, T"ird 8i$ision,&B t"is 'ourt "e!d: T"us, t"e 'ourt accords #u!! recognition to t"e minutes as t"e o##icia! repository o# w"at actua!!y transpires in e$ery proceeding. It "as "appened t"at t"e minutes may be corrected to re#!ect t"e true account o# a proceeding, t"us gi$ing t"e 'ourt more reason to accord t"em great weig"t #or suc" subseHuent corrections, i# any, are made precise!y to preser$e t"e accuracy o# t"e records. In !ig"t o# t"e con#!icting c!aims o# t"e parties in t"e case at bar, t"e 'ourt, wit"out resorting to t"e minutes, wi!! encounter di##icu!ty in reso!$ing t"e dispute at "and.&@ %part #rom petitioner3s own statements, t"e 5andiganbayan3s #inding t"at it was petitioner3s !umber w"ic" were !ater con#iscated by '674 #orest rangers and used in t"e bridge repair and construction, was satis#actori!y estab!is"ed by t"e prosecution3s documentary and testimonia! e$idence. %s part o# t"eir o##icia! duties and #o!!owing standard procedure, t"ey prepared t"e 'on#iscation 4eport and 5eiGure 4eceipt, and testi#ied in court detai!ing t"e incident. Two ot"er witnesses corroborated t"eir dec!aration t"at t"e con#iscated !umber were actua!!y used in t"e repair and construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge. Jo"nny 9. %banica, a 'onstruction aintenance emp!oyee o# t"e P6/, testi#ied t"at sometime in (ebruary 199?, "is super$isor, 6ngr. (e!i.berto 7ier$a, in#ormed "im t"at t"ey were going to construct t"e 7a$otas Bridge. Fpon arri$ing at t"e site, "e noticed t"at t"e !umber t"ey were going to use was mar-ed Econ#iscated.E ,e t"en reminded 7ier$a t"at t"ey mig"t get

&&
into troub!e because o# it but 6ngr. 7ier$a to!d "im t"at "e a!ready "a$e an agreement wit" %Gau!a. T"erea#ter, "e and "is companions started demo!is"ing t"e o!d bridge. ,e e.ecuted a 5inumpaang 5a!aysay on 5eptember &5, 199? in connection wit" t"e con#iscated !umber.&8 5a!$osa w"o !ed t"e '674 team w"o seiGed t"e !umber, !i-ewise testi#ied t"at in (ebruary 199?, upon being $erba!!y in#ormed by t"eir #ie!d personne!, (orest 4angers /de!on %Gu!, %rne! (. 5imon and 6dwin ,ernandeG, "e went to t"e construction site. ,e saw #or "imse!# t"at t"e !umber used in t"e new bridge were mar-ed wit" E8674 '/7(I5'%T68E and "atc"et number 1@D&. T"erea#ter, "e prepared a emorandum=4eport addressed to t"e '674 o# 4ea!, MueGon in#orming t"e !atter o# uti!iGation o# con#iscated !umber wit"out prior appro$a! o# t"eir o##ice and despite repeated warnings #rom t"eir #orest rangers, w"ic" report was endorsed to t"e 8674 4egiona! 8irector.&9 8e!a 'ruG, t"e '674/ o# 4ea!, MueGon, a!so testi#ied t"at a#ter recei$ing t"e emorandum=4eport o# 5a!$osa, "e in#ormed t"e 4egiona! 6.ecuti$e 8irector, 8674=4egion I9 about t"e matter wit" t"e recommendation t"at a !ega! o##icer be sent to Po!i!!o to assist t"em in #i!ing t"e proper comp!aint. ,e a!so wrote %Gau!a reHuiring "im to e.p!ain but since %Gau!a did not respond to "is !etter, t"e case was re#erred to t"eir !ega! di$ision.?> Nast!y, '/% %uditor endoGa, w"o, a!ong wit" t"e unicipa! 6ngineer o# Po!i!!o, was tas-ed to in$estigate t"e purc"ase o# t"e materia!s used in t"e repair and construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge a#ter t"e comp!etion o# t"e project, a!so con#irmed t"at t"e !umber used bore t"e w"ite paint mar-ing E8674E and contained "atc"et numbers w"en t"ey inspected t"e same #rom under t"e new wooden bridge. ,e prepared t"ree reports e.p!aining "is #indings. ,e t"en recommended to t"e Pro$incia! %uditor t"at t"e money paid to t"e supp!ier be re#unded to t"e go$ernment and t"at administrati$e and crimina! actions be instituted against t"e supp!ier and t"e concerned pub!ic o##icia!s. 'onseHuent!y, t"e '/% disa!!owed t"e payment o# t"e amount o# P@>,9&D.>>, deducting #rom t"e origina! amount o# P8?,&&8.>> t"e amount paid #or common materia!s suc" as -awad and nai!s. T"e !umber used in t"e new bridge consisted o# ?,1@& board #eet w"i!e t"e $o!ume o# t"e con#iscated !umber was around D,>>> board #eet.?1 In support o# "er c!aim t"at t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered were not t"ose con#iscated by t"e '674 personne!, petitioner presented as witness P/& 4eny I. arasigan o# t"e P7P Po!i!!o 5tation. arasigan testi#ied t"at "e issued a certi#ication dated June 9, &>>> stating t"at t"e !umber con#iscated near t"e 7a$otas Bridge in 199? were deposited #or sa#e-eeping and are sti!! intact at t"e bac- o# t"eir bui!ding. T"ese rotting !umber on t"e ground were p"otograp"ed by petitioner.?& ,owe$er, arasigan #ai!ed to present proper documents e$idencing t"e o##icia! trans#er o# custody o# t"e seiGed !umber by t"e '674/ to t"eir "eadHuarters. In #act, arasigan signed t"e 'on#iscation 4eport and 5eiGure 4eceipt as part o# t"e appre"ending team?? w"i!e it was %Gau!a w"o signed as t"e E4ecei$ing /##icer.E?D oreo$er, prosecution witnesses 5a!$osa and "is #orest rangers, as we!! as %banica and endoGa, a!! categorica!!y dec!ared t"at t"e !umber con#iscated near t"e 7a$otas Bridge on 7o$ember &>, 199& were used in t"e repair and construction o# t"e bridge. %s to petitioner3s contention t"at t"e subseHuent con#iscation o# t"e !umber s"e de!i$ered, e$en i# true, was no !onger "er concern because s"e "ad a!ready #u!#i!!ed "er contractua! underta-ing to pro$ide t"e !umber #or t"e bridge repair and construction, t"e same is untenab!e. Basic is t"e ru!e t"at pro$isions o# e.isting !aws and regu!ations are read into and #orm an integra! part o# contracts, moreso in t"e case o# go$ernment contracts. 9eri!y, a!! contracts, inc!uding Go$ernment contracts, are subject to t"e po!ice power o# t"e 5tate. Being an in"erent attribute o# so$ereignty, suc" power is deemed incorporated into t"e !aws o# t"e !and, w"ic" are part o# a!! contracts, t"ereby Hua!i#ying t"e ob!igations arising t"ere#rom.?5 T"us, it is an imp!ied condition in t"e subject contract #or t"e procurement o# materia!s needed in t"e repair and construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge t"at petitioner as pri$ate contractor wou!d comp!y wit" pertinent #orestry !aws and regu!ations on t"e cutting and gat"ering o# t"e !umber s"e undertoo- to supp!y t"e pro$incia! go$ernment. Petitioner3s actua! -now!edge o# t"e absence o# supporting !ega! documents #or t"e !umber s"e contracted to de!i$er to t"e pro$incia! go$ernment == w"ic" resu!ted in its con#iscation by t"e '674 personne! == be!ies "er c!aim o# good #ait" in recei$ing t"e payment #or t"e said !umber.0:wphi0 *"en t"e de#endants by t"eir acts aimed at t"e same object, one per#orming one part, and t"e ot"er per#orming anot"er part so as to comp!ete it, wit" a $iew to t"e attainment o# t"e same object, and t"eir acts t"oug" apparent!y independent, were in #act concerted and cooperati$e, indicating c!oseness o# persona! association, concerted action and concurrence o# sentiments, t"e court wi!! be justi#ied in conc!uding t"at said de#endants were engaged in a conspiracy. ?B In t"is case, t"e #inding o# conspiracy was we!!=supported by e$idence.

&?
Indeed, petitioner3s participation and cooperation was indispensab!e in de#rauding t"e go$ernment o# t"e amount paid #or t"e said con#iscated !umber. *it"out doubt, "er acts in ma-ing de!i$ery to %Gau!a instead o# t"e pro$incia! go$ernment or P6/, e$ading appre"ension #or t"e i!!ega!!y cut !ogs and yet pursuing c!earance #or t"e re!ease o# t"e said products by appea!ing to t"e !oca! sanggunian, and !ater accepting payment wit" t"e assistance o# %Gau!a and 6scara == a!! c!ear!y s"owed "er comp!icity in t"e anoma!ous disbursement o# pro$incia! go$ernment #unds a!!ocated #or t"e bridge repairTconstruction project. 'onseHuent!y, t"e 5andiganbayan did not err in #inding "er gui!ty o# $io!ation o# 5ection ?;e< o# 4.%. 7o. ?>19 and ordering "er to return t"e amount corresponding to t"e payment #or t"e con#iscated !umber used in t"e construction o# t"e 7a$otas Bridge, t"e same materia!s de!i$ered by t"e petitioner under "er contract wit" t"e pro$incia! go$ernment. T"e pena!ty #or $io!ation o# 5ection ?;e< o# 4.%. 7o ?>19 is Eimprisonment #or not !ess t"an si. years and one mont" nor more t"an #i#teen years, and perpetua! disHua!i#ication #rom pub!ic o##ice.E?@ Fnder t"e Indeterminate 5entence Naw, i# t"e o##ense is punis"ed by specia! !aw, as in t"e present case, an indeterminate pena!ty s"a!! be imposed on t"e accused, t"e ma.imum term o# w"ic" s"a!! not e.ceed t"e ma.imum #i.ed by t"e !aw, and t"e minimum not !ess t"an t"e minimum prescribed t"erein.?8 In $iew o# t"e attendant circumstances, we "o!d t"at t"e pena!ty imposed by t"e 5andiganbayan is in accord wit" !aw and jurisprudence. *,646(/46, t"e petition #or re$iew on certiorari is 867I68. T"e 8ecision dated %pri! ?>, &>>D and 4eso!ution dated %ugust &>, &>>D o# t"e 5andiganbayan in 'rimina! 'ase 7o. &>8@8 are %((I4 68. *it" costs against petitioner. 5/ /486468. M)RTIN S. /ILL)R)M)& *R. %ssociate Justice *6 '/7'F4: CONCHIT) C)RPIO MOR)LES %ssociate Justice '"airperson )RTURO D. (RION %ssociate Justice RO(ERTO ). )()DV %ssociate Justice %TT65T%TI/7 I attest t"at t"e conc!usions in t"e abo$e 8ecision "ad been reac"ed in consu!tation be#ore t"e case was assigned to t"e writer o# t"e opinion o# t"e 'ourt3s 8i$ision. CONCHIT) C)RPIO MOR)LES %ssociate Justice '"airperson, T"ird 8i$ision '64TI(I'%TI/7 Pursuant to 5ection 1?, %rtic!e 9III o# t"e 198@ 'onstitution and t"e 8i$ision '"airperson3s %ttestation, I certi#y t"at t"e conc!usions in t"e abo$e 8ecision "ad been reac"ed in consu!tation be#ore t"e case was assigned to t"e writer o# t"e opinion o# t"e 'ourt3s 8i$ision. REN)TO C. CORON) '"ie# Justice LUC)S P. (ERS)MIN %ssociate Justice

&D
4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines SUPREME COURT ani!a 67 B%7' G.R. No. !@ '3' Fe970a7y & %"!%

C)NDEL)RIO L. /ER+OS)& *R. =in 8is fo75e7 ca6acity as EBec0tive Di7ecto7 of t8e Coo6e7ative Develo65ent )0t8o7ity>& Petitioner, $s. GUILLERMO N. C)R)GUE =in 8is official ca6acity as C8ai75an of t8e COMMISSION ON )UDIT>& R)UL C. FLORES& CELSO D. G)NG)N& SOFRONIO (. URS)L an- COMMISSION ON )UDIT& 4espondents. 465/NFTI/7 /ILL)R)M)& *R.& J.: T"is reso!$es t"e motion #or reconsideration o# our 8ecision1 dated arc" 8, &>11 a##irming '/% 8ecision 7os. 98=D&D and &>>?=>B1 dated /ctober &1, 1998 and arc" 18, &>>?, respecti$e!y. *e up"e!d t"e '/%3s ru!ing t"at petitioner is persona!!y and so!idari!y !iab!e #or t"e amount o# P881,819.>> under 7otice o# 8isa!!owance 7o. 9?=>>1B=1>1. In comp!iance wit" our 4eso!ution dated (ebruary 8, &>11, counse! #or petitioner #i!ed a 7otice, ani#estation and %po!ogy con#irming t"e demise o# petitioner on June &D, &>1> and e.p!aining t"e reason #or t"e de!ay in in#orming t"is 'ourt. T"e motion #or reconsideration #i!ed by petitioner3s counse!, son o# petitioner, is anc"ored on t"e #o!!owing grounds: 1< T"ere is no #inding o# #act in t"is 'ourt3s decision w"ic" supports t"e serious #inding t"at petitioner acted in bad #ait" w"en "e pre$ai!ed upon t"e 8%P=T6' to modi#y t"e initia! resu!t o# t"e tec"nica! e$a!uation o# t"e computers by imposing an irre!e$ant grading system intended to #a$or one o# t"e bidders) &< %ssuming wit"out admitting t"ere was an attempt to a!ter t"e resu!ts o# t"e bidding, petitioner was not direct!y responsib!e #or it since it was a certain 4ey 6$ange!ista w"ose act in itse!# did not constitute bad #ait" as to be interpreted as de!iberate!y #a$oring T6T4%) ?< T"e mere #act t"at petitioner was t"e signatory in t"e $ouc"ers and ot"er documents #or t"e processing o# t"e purc"ase a#ter t"e winning bidder "ad been c"osen does not by itse!# constitute bad #ait", ma!ice or neg!igence. ,is participation as #ina! recommendingTappro$ing aut"ority in t"e said purc"ase was mere!y ministeria!) D< 4ecords o# t"is case s"ow t"at t"e '/% decisions did not "o!d petitioner so!e!y !iab!e #or t"e disa!!owed amount o# P881,819.>>) t"ere were ot"ers adjudged so!idari!y !iab!e wit" petitioner #or t"e reimbursement o# said amount) 5< T"e decision in %rrio!a $. 'ommission on %udit& s"ou!d "a$e been app!ied in t"is case. T"e T5/ can$ass coup!ed wit" con#irmatory te!ep"one can$ass s"ou!d be re=e.amined gi$en t"e admission made by t"e '/% %uditor in "er 1st Indorsement dated June B, 199D and as "e!d in t"e 8issenting /pinion o# Justice a. Nourdes P.%. 5ereno) and B< T"e 'ourt s"ou!d consider t"e bases o# comparison w"ic" is made against a c!one generic brand ;and its re#erence price $a!ues<, in !ig"t o# comp!iance wit" inte!!ectua! property !aws on so#tware piracy and "ardware imitations.? /n 5eptember 15, &>11, t"e /##ice o# t"e 5o!icitor Genera! ;/5G< #i!ed its 'omment reiterating its position t"at petitioner s"ou!d not "a$e been made !iab!e #or t"e disa!!owed amount since t"ere was no substantia! e$idence o# "is direct responsibi!ity. It contends t"at t"e decision s"ou!d not "a$e ordered petitioner to reimburse t"e disa!!owed amount on account o# Eo$erpricing o# purc"ased eHuipmentE because "e did not "a$e any participation in t"e bidding t"at was conducted by t"e PB%', nor did "e "a$e any participation in in#!uencing r. %. Muintos, Jr., t"e 8%P=T6' e$a!uator, to c"ange t"e e$a!uation resu!ts. %s to t"e acts cited by t"e '/% in "o!ding petitioner !iab!e #or t"e disa!!owed amount, t"ese cannot be t"e Ec!ear s"owing o# bad #ait", ma!ice or gross neg!igenceE reHuired by !aw to "o!d pub!ic o##icers !iab!e #or acts done in t"e per#ormance

&5
o# "is o##icia! duties. T"ere was no contrary e$idence presented by t"e '/% to o$ercome t"e presumption o# regu!arity in t"e per#ormance o# o##icia! duty. T"e /5G a!so cites t"e discussion in t"e dissenting opinion o# Justice 5ereno t"at t"e standards set in %rrio!a s"ou!d "a$e been obser$ed by t"e '/%, i.e., it s"ou!d "a$e compared t"e same brand o# eHuipment ;wit" t"e same #eatures and speci#ications< wit" t"e items '8% purc"ased to determine i# t"ere was indeed o$erpricing. 4espondents #i!ed t"eir 'omment asserting t"at t"e arguments raised by t"e petitioner in "is motion #or reconsideration do not warrant re$ersa! o# t"e decision rendered by t"is 'ourt. T"ey point out t"at t"e bad #ait" o# petitioner was satis#actori!y estab!is"ed w"en "e pre$ai!ed upon 8%P=T6' to modi#y t"e initia! resu!t o# t"e tec"nica! e$a!uation o# t"e bidders3 computer units. %s to t"e contention t"at petitioner3s act o# signing t"e documents #or t"e processing o# t"e purc"ase was mere!y a ministeria! #unction, respondents noted t"at t"e 'erti#ication in t"e 8isbursement 9ouc"er #or t"e payment o# t"e computer states t"at EExpenses necessary, lawful and incurred under my direct supervision .E 5uc" certi#ication de#inite!y in$o!$es t"e e.ercise o# discretion and is not a ministeria! act. Petitioner recommended to t"e '"airman o# t"e Board o# %dministrators o# '8% t"e award o# t"e contract to T6T4% upon e$a!uation by t"e PB%' w"ic" "e reconstituted. ,e cannot t"ere#ore escape !iabi!ity #or t"e disa!!owed amount toget"er wit" t"e ot"er !iab!e parties, name!y: r. 6dwin 'anoniGado, PB%' '"airman, s. a. NuG %ggabao, PB%' 9ice='"airman, and PB%' embers s. 5y!$ia Posadas, a. 6r!inda 8ai!isan, r. Neoni!o 'edico!, s. %me!ia Torrente ;IT 'onsu!tant< and '8% Board '"airman s. 6dna 6. %beri!!a. %s to t"e argument t"at t"e '/%=T5/ can$ass was not accurate as it compared generic computers wit" t"e computers o##ered by T6T4%, respondent pointed out t"at aside #rom "a$ing a!ready been passed upon in t"e decision soug"t to be reconsidered, t"e report submitted by said o##ice disc!osed t"at certain speci#ications o# t"e re#erence computers were eit"er simi!ar or better t"an t"ose o# t"e Trigem brand o##ered by T6T4% at a muc" !ower price. '/% %uditor 4ubico "ad a!!owed a 15R mar- up on t"e prices o# t"e items can$assed by '/%=T5/, but sti!! t"e actua! purc"ase prices were way abo$e t"e ma.imum a!!owab!e '/% re#erence prices, "ence, t"e disa!!owance was proper. *e #ind t"at t"e arguments raised in t"e motion "a$e been adeHuate!y discussed and passed upon in our 8ecision dated arc" 8, &>11. T"ere are, "owe$er, two signi#icant issues t"at need to be c!ari#ied: #irst, w"et"er t"e '/% $io!ated its own ru!es and jurisprudence in t"e determination o# o$erpricing) second, w"et"er petitioner may be ordered to reimburse t"e disa!!owed amount in t"e purc"ase o# t"e subject computers. T"ere was no $io!ation o# '/% ru!es In %rrio!a $. '/%,D t"is 'ourt ru!ed t"at t"e disa!!owance made by t"e '/% was not su##icient!y supported by e$idence, as it was based on undocumented c!aims. T"e documents t"at were used as basis o# t"e '/% 8ecision were not s"own to petitioners t"erein despite t"eir repeated demands to see t"em) t"ey were denied access to t"e actua! can$ass s"eets or price Huotations #rom accredited supp!iers. %bsent due process and e$idence to support '/%3s disa!!owance, '/%3s ru!ing on petitioners3 !iabi!ity "as no basis. 4eiterating t"e abo$e dec!aration, 7ationa! 'enter #or enta! ,ea!t" anagement $. '/%,5 !i-ewise ru!ed t"at price #indings re#!ected in a report are not, in t"e absence o# t"e actua! can$ass s"eets andTor price Huotations #rom identi#ied supp!iers, $a!id bases #or outrig"t disa!!owance o# agency disbursements #or go$ernment projects. T"e a#oresaid jurisprudence became t"e basis o# '/% emorandum 7o. 9@=>1& dated arc" ?1, 199@ w"ic" contained guide!ines on e$idence to support audit #indings o# o$er=pricing. In t"e interest o# #airness, transparency and due process, it was pro$ided t"at copies o# t"e documents estab!is"ing t"e audit #indings o# o$er=pricing are to be made a$ai!ab!e to t"e management o# t"e audited agency. T"e memorandum !aid down t"e #o!!owing speci#ic guide!ines: ?.1 *"en t"e priceTprices o# a transaction under audit is #ound beyond t"e a!!owab!e ten percent ;1>R< abo$e t"e prices indicated in re#erence price !ists re#erred to in paIrJ. &.1 as mar-et price indicators, t"e auditor s"a!! secure additiona! e$idence to #irm=up t"e initia! audit #inding to a re!iab!e degree o# certainty. ?.& To #irm=up t"e #indings to a re!iab!e degree o# certainty, initia! #indings o# o$er=pricing based on mar-et price indicators mentioned in paIrJ. &.1 abo$e "a$e to be supported wit" can$ass s"eets andTor price Huotations indicating: a< t"e identitiesTnames o# t"e supp!iers or se!!ers) b< t"e a$ai!abi!ity o# stoc- su##icient in Huantity to meet t"e reHuirements o# t"e procuring agency)

&B
c< t"e speci#ications o# t"e items w"ic" s"ou!d matc" t"ose in$o!$ed in t"e #inding o# o$er=pricing) and d< t"e purc"aseTcontract terms and conditions w"ic" s"ou!d be t"e same as t"ose o# t"e Huestioned transaction. . . . . ;Ita!ics supp!ied.< 'ontrary to t"e t"rust o# Justice 5ereno3s dissent, t"e !ac- o# comp!iance wit" t"e abo$e guide!ines did not in$a!idate t"e audit report #or $io!ation o# t"e '8%3s rig"t to due process. *e categorica!!y ru!ed in 7a$a $. Pa!attaoB t"at neit"er %rrio!a nor t"e '/% emorandum 7o. 9@=>1& can be gi$en any retroacti$e e##ect. T"us, a!t"oug" %rrio!a was a!ready promu!gated at t"e time, it is not correct to say t"at t"e '/% in t"is case $io!ated t"e a#ore=Huoted guide!ines w"ic" "a$e not yet been issued at t"e time t"e audit was conducted in 199?. %s to '/% 4eso!ution 7o. 9>=D? dated 5eptember 1>, 199>, w"i!e indeed it aut"oriGed t"e disc!osure or identi#ication o# t"e sources o# data gat"ered by t"e Price 6$a!uation 8i$ision=T5/ in t"e conduct o# its data gat"ering and price monitoring acti$ities, perusa! o# t"is reso!ution #ai!ed to indicate t"at t"e disc!osure o# t"e names and identities o# supp!iers w"o pro$ided t"e data during price monitoring acti$ities o# t"e T5/ #ormed part o# t"e e$identiary process in audit #indings o# o$erpricing and not mere!y to guide t"e agencies on w"ere to procure t"eir supp!ies. '/% 4eso!ution 7o. 9>=D? reads as #o!!ows: *,646%5, it in"eres in its constitutiona! mandate #or t"is 'ommission to assist in t"e de$e!opment e##orts o# go$ernment by pro$iding audit ser$ices wit" a $iew to a$oiding !oss and wastage o# pub!ic #unds and property) *,646%5, in pursuance o# suc" mandate, t"e determination o# t"e reasonab!eness o# price is an essentia! aspect o# t"e audit o# procurement in goods and ser$ices) *,646%5, towards t"at end, t"e Price 6$a!uation 8i$ision ;P68< o# t"e Tec"nica! 5er$ices /##ice ;T5/<, t"is commission, pro$ides t"e %uditors wit" re#erence $a!ues w"ic" are obtained t"ru a $a!id can$ass in t"e open mar-et) *,646%5, t"e price #indings o# t"e T5/ t"at resu!t #rom suc" audit determination o# price reasonab!eness at times ad$erse!y a##ect auditees w"o wou!d reHuest T5/ to disc!ose or identi#y t"e sources o# t"ese price Huotations set by P68 so t"at t"ey can procure t"eir supp!y needs #rom said sources) *,646%5, t"is 'ommission is cogniGant o# t"e nationa! po!icy o# transparency in go$ernment operations) *,646%5, t"is 'ommission percei$es no !ega! impediment to t"e disc!osure or identi#ication o# t"e sources o# price data w"ic" wi!! ensure economy, e##iciency and e##ecti$eness in go$ernment procurement) 7/*, T,646(/46, in -eeping wit" t"e nationa! po!icy o# transparency, t"e commission Proper "as reso!$ed, as it does "ereby reso!$e, to aut"oriGe t"e disc!osure or identi#ication o# t"e sources o# data gat"ered by t"e Price 6$a!uation 8i$ision, T5/ in t"e conduct o# its data gat"ering and monitoring acti$ities) Be it #urt"er reso!$ed t"at in order to carry out suc" po!icy o# disc!osure, t"e Price onitor Bu!!etin, a '/% pub!ication, contain not on!y speci#ic items and prices o# goods and ser$ices but a!so t"e names and identities o# responsi$e supp!iers w"o pro$ided t"e data during t"e can$ass conducted by t"e P68, T5/. ;6mp"asis and underscoring supp!ied.< %ccording!y, '/% emorandum 7o. 9@=>1& was issued on arc" ?1, 199@ in $iew o# t"e 'ommission3s recognition t"at EItJ"ere is a need to c!ari#y t"e ro!e and status o# a price re#erence data, suc" as t"ose produced by t"e Tec"nica! 5er$ices /##ice, in t"e audit e$idence process wit" respect to #indings o# o$erpricing.E It is t"ere#ore improper to app!y t"is regu!ation to t"e post=audit conducted in t"e year 199? on t"e subject transaction. (urt"er, it must be noted t"at petitioner in reHuesting reconsideration o# t"e audit disa!!owance, did not ma-e a demand #or t"e production o# actua! can$ass s"eets. 7eit"er did "e Huestion t"e correctness o# t"e re#erence $a!ues used by t"e T5/. Petitioner on!y pointed out t"at t"e date o# can$ass conducted by t"e T5/ does not coincide wit" t"e date o# purc"ase. To t"is t"e '/%=T5/ countered t"at Et"ere was no s"owing t"at t"e #oreign e.c"ange rate c"anged during t"e !atter part o# 199& t"at wou!d "a$e signi#icant!y increased t"e prices o# computers.E Petitioner nonet"e!ess assai!ed t"e price comparison o# t"e branded computers purc"ased by t"e '8% wit" non=branded computers, w"ic" t"e dissent now deems as a rig"t o# pre#erence or an e.ercise o# discretion on t"e part o# '8%.

&@
'/% Fp"e!d t"e %uditor3s Position t"at Brand is Irre!e$ant on t"e Basis o# (indings o# its Tec"nica! Personne! T"e '/%, under t"e 'onstitution, is empowered to e.amine and audit t"e use o# #unds by an agency o# t"e nationa! go$ernment on a post=audit basis.@ (or t"is purpose, t"e 'onstitution "as pro$ided t"at t"e '/% Es"a!! "a$e e.c!usi$e aut"ority, subject to t"e !imitations in t"is %rtic!e, to de#ine t"e scope o# its audit and e.amination, estab!is" t"e tec"niHues and met"ods reHuired t"ere#or, and promu!gate accounting and auditing ru!es and regu!ations, inc!uding t"ose #or t"e pre$ention and disa!!owance o# irregu!ar, unnecessary, e.cessi$e, e.tra$agant, or unconscionab!e e.penditures, or uses o# go$ernment #unds and properties.E8 %s suc", '8%3s decisions regarding procurement o# eHuipment #or its own use, inc!uding computers and its accessories, is subject to t"e '/%3s auditing ru!es and regu!ations #or t"e pre$ention and disa!!owance o# irregu!ar, unnecessary, e.cessi$e and e.tra$agant e.penditures. 7ecessari!y, '8%3s pre#erences regarding brand o# its eHuipment "a$e to con#orm to t"e criteria set by t"e '/% ru!es on w"at is reasonab!e price #or t"e items purc"ased. T"e dissent points out t"at '/% 'ircu!ar 7o. 85=55=% itse!# pro$ides t"at in determining w"et"er t"e price is e.cessi$e, t"e brand o# products may be considered, t"us: 8 Q Brand o# Products Products o# recogniGed brands coming #rom countries -nown #or producing suc" Hua!ity products are re!ati$e!y e.pensi$e. 6.. = 5o!ingen scissors and t"e !i-e w"ic" are made in Germany are more e.pensi$e t"an scissors w"ic" do not carry suc" brand and are not made in Germany. In t"is case, "owe$er, brand in#ormation was #ound by t"e '/%3s T5/ 8irector, and a!so t"e In#ormation Tec"no!ogy 'enter ;IT'< 8irector arieta 5(. %corda as irre!e$ant to t"e determination o# t"e reasonab!eness o# t"e price o# t"e computers purc"ased by '8% #rom Tetra. 8irector Jorge ,.N. PereG o# t"e T5/ in "is '/% e.p!ained t"eir position as #o!!ows: .... 1. /n t"e a!!egation t"at Trigem and Genesis computers are not comparab!e since it is !i-e comparing app!es wit" oranges Q %s a genera! ru!eTprocedure, $eri#ication by T5/ o# t"e price o# an item reHuires comparison wit" t"e sameTsimi!ar c!assi#icationTgroup o# items. T"e items wou!d t"en "a$e t"e same speci#ications un!ess stated ot"erwise in t"e price #indings o# t"e /##ice. In t"is case, t"e re#erence $a!ues are in accordance wit" t"e speci#ications but e.c!usi$e o# t"e EbrandedE in#ormation, since t"is was not stated in t"e P./.TIn$oice, w"ic" was used as basis o# can$ass. 5ince Trigem and Genesis are bot" computers o# t"e same genera! c"aracteristicsTattributes, t"e branded and non=branded !abe!s propounded by t"e supp!ier is o# scant consideration. %s regards t"e FP5, t"e enumerated ad$antages o# t"e de!i$ered items are t"e same ad$antages t"at can be generated #rom a FP5 o# t"e same speci#ications and standard #eatures. In t"is case, t"e re#erence $a!ue pertains to a FP5 wit" t"e same capacity, input, output, battery pac-ed and bac-=up time, e.cept #or t"e brand. . . . .9 ;Fnderscoring supp!ied.< /n "er part, '/% %uditor NuG$iminda 9. 4ubico maintained t"at w"at is important is t"at t"e speci#ications and #unctions o# Genesis and Trigem computers are simi!ar. 5"e pointed out t"at Ei# t"e comparison o# t"e prices #or t"e disa!!owances issued was erroneous because w"at was compared was Genesis brand I$ersusJ Trigem, t"en t"e bidding conducted by '8% wou!d not be acceptab!e since in t"e %bstract o# Bids, prices were not based on simi!ar brands.E 8irector %corda o# t"e '/% IT' !i-ewise e.pressed a simi!ar $iew w"en as-ed #or comment regarding t"e pena!ty points imposed by t"e '8% a#ter t"e resu!t o# t"e 8%P tec"nica! e$a!uation initia!!y s"owed t"at Tetra was ran-ed !owest. T"us, s"e e.p!ained in "er 8ecember 9, 199B memorandum addressed to '/% Nega! 'ounse! 8irector ,abitan: emorandum dated %pri! &D, 1995 addressed to t"e Nega! /##ice 8irector o# t"e

&8
1. /n t"e #irst issue = we obser$ed t"at no additiona! computer #eatures were introduced in '8%3s grading system, rat"er t"e bidders were pena!iGed #or non=comp!iance wit" tec"nica! speci#ications #i.ed by '8%. /n '8%3s representation wit" t"e 8e$e!opment %cademy o# t"e P"i!ippines Q Tec"nica! 6$a!uation 'ommittee ;8%P 'ommittee< and based on t"e grading system de$ised by t"e #ormer, t"e 8%P 'ommittee agreed to impose pena!ties #or non=comp!iance o# t"e bids wit" t"e tec"nica! speci#ications. ,ereunder are t"eir reasons #or t"e pena!ties and our comments t"ereto: 1.1 'o!umbia 'omputer 'enter ;'o!umbia< and icro'ircuits 'orporation ; ''< were pena!iGed because t"e microprocessor o# t"e computer "ardware t"ey de!i$ered #or e$a!uation were % 8 and not Inte! as reHuired in t"e tec"nica! speci#ication. % 8 and Inte! are bot" microprocessor brands. It rare!y ma!#unctions. ,ence, t"e di##erence in brands, as in t"is case, wi!! not a##ect t"e e##iciency o# t"e computer3s per#ormance. ,owe$er, Inte! microprocessors are more e.pensi$e and are manu#actured by Inte! 'orporation w"ic" pioneered t"e production o# microprocessors #or persona! computers. 1.& 'o!umbia was pena!iGed because t"e 4/ BI/5es o# t"e computer "ardware t"ey de!i$ered were %cerBios, a de$iation #rom t"e tec"nica! speci#ications w"ic" reHuired 4/ BI/5es !icensed by IB . % I, P"oeni. or %wards. T"is wi!! not a##ect t"e e##iciency o# t"e computer3s per#ormance. *"at is important is t"at t"ese 4/ BI/5es are !ega! or !icensed. 1.? 'o!umbia was again pena!iGed because t"e casing o# t"e computer t"ey de!i$ered #or e$a!uation in t"e Tower ?8B8A category "as a des-top casing and not tower casing as pro$ided in t"e tec"nica! speci#ications. 'asings do not a##ect t"e e##iciency o# t"e computer3s per#ormance but may a##ect o##ice #urniture reHuirements suc" as t"e design o# t"e computer tab!es. 1.D Tetra 'orporation ;Tetra< was pena!iGed because t"e 4% was on!y BD>U instead o# & ;e.pandab!e<. *e agree t"at 4% o# t"e 7oteboo- it de!i$ered #or e$a!uation

capacity wi!! a##ect t"e e##iciency o# t"e computer3s per#ormance.

&. /n t"e second issue = t"e Benc"mar- testing conducted by t"e 8%P 'ommittee in w"ic" Tetra got t"e !owest score in terms o# Tec"nica! 6$a!uation is not a su##icient basis #or us to determine w"et"er or not Trigem computers are in#erior to t"e computer brands o##ered by t"e ot"er bidders. In Benc"mar- Testing, weig"ts are a!!ocated to t"e di##erent tec"nica! #eatures o# a computer. T"e computers are t"en e$a!uatedTappraised using diagnostic so#tware and ran-ed in accordance wit" t"e resu!ts o# suc" e$a!uationTappraisa!. T"e resu!ting ran-ing mere!y suggests w"ic" computer best t"e appraisa!s. ;Fnderscoring supp!ied.< In t"e !ig"t o# t"e #oregoing consistent stand o# its own tec"nica! personne! "a$ing e.pertise in computer tec"no!ogy, t"e '/% up"e!d t"e auditor3s #inding t"at brand was irre!e$ant to determining t"e reasonab!eness o# t"e price at w"ic" '8% purc"ased t"e subject computers. It is not #or t"is 'ourt, as t"e dissent attempts, to ma-e assertions to t"e contrary, i.e., t"at t"e brand pre#erred by '8% was superior to anot"er brand or generic computer "a$ing simi!ar speci#icationsT#unctions and to w"ic" t"e price o# t"e branded computer was compared by respondents. *"et"er a particu!ar brand o# computer or microprocessor is o# superior Hua!ity is not subject to judicia! notice. Judicia! notice is t"e cogniGance o# certain #acts w"ic" judges may proper!y ta-e and act on wit"out proo# because t"ey a!ready -now t"em.1> T"e dissent a!so asserted t"at it is Eun#air to compare Tetra3s proposed Trigem computers to a computer c!one t"at was not e$en Hua!i#ied to be bidded on or was not subjected to t"e same "ardware benc"mar- testing.E But as '/% IT' 8irector %corda "ad e.p!ained in "er 8ecember 9, 199B memorandum, suc" Benc"mar- Testing conducted by t"e 8%P=T6' is not a su##icient basis #or t"em to determine w"et"er or not Trigem computers are in#erior to t"e computer brands o##ered by t"e ot"er bidders.

&9
'/%3s obser$ation t"at '8% s"ou!d "a$e been entit!ed to $o!ume discount was $a!id Fnder '/% 'ircu!ar 7o. 85=55=%, t"e price is deemed e.cessi$e i# t"e discounts a!!owed in bu!- purc"ases is not re#!ected in t"e price o##ered or in t"e award or in t"e purc"aseTpayment documents. T"is imp!ies t"at bu!- purc"ases are e.pected to be accompanied by discounts t"at s"ou!d "a$e resu!ted in !owering t"e price o# items, w"ic" is contrary to t"e dissent3s stance t"at t"e supp!ier T6T4% was not !ega!!y ob!igated to gi$e suc" discount to '8%. '/% noted t"at '8% s"ou!d "a$e been entit!ed to $o!ume discount #rom t"e supp!ying dea!er considering t"e number o# units it procured #rom t"em. Instead o# e.p!aining w"y t"ere was no $o!ume discount at a!! re#!ected in t"e bid or purc"aseTpayment documents, petitioner c!aimed t"at ot"er buyers e$en boug"t t"e same computers at "ig"er prices #rom Tetra. ,owe$er, w"en t"e sa!es in$oices issued to ot"er companies were e.amined by t"e '/%, it was #ound t"at on!y one unit was procured by eac". ,ence, it was not pure conjecture on t"e part o# '/% to ta-e into consideration t"e absence o# $o!ume discount. *"et"er or not t"e ot"er bidders actua!!y committed to gi$e $o!ume discount is beside t"e point, as t"e subject o# post=audit was t"e reasonab!eness o# t"e price a!ready paid to Tetra by '8%. 7o gra$e abuse o# discretion committed by '/% in "o!ding petitioner persona!!y and so!idari!y !iab!e #or t"e o$erpricing o# t"e computers procured by '8% Pursuant to 5ection 1>? o# P.8. 7o. 1DD5 and 5ection 19 o# t"e anua! on t"e 'erti#icates o# 5ett!ement o# Ba!ances, petitioner was #ound !iab!e #or t"e audit disa!!owances tota!ing P881,819.>> representing t"e o$erprice o# t"e computers purc"ased by '8%. Petitioner3s participation in t"e transaction was not !imited to "is signatureTappro$a! o# t"e purc"ase as recommended by t"e PB%'. %s pointed out in our 8ecision, records s"owed it was petitioner w"o ordered t"e reconstitution o# t"e PB%' w"ic" nu!!i#ied t"e pre$ious bidding conducted in 8ecember 1991. ,e #urt"er secured t"e ser$ices o# t"e 8%P=T6' #or tec"nica! e$a!uation and signed t"e agreement #or t"e said tec"nica! assistance w"en it is a!ready t"e duty o# t"e PB%' '"airman. 7otwit"standing petitioner3s c!aim t"at it was part o# "is duties as 6.ecuti$e 8irector to EIsignJ outgoing communicationsT!etters e.cept !etters addressed to ,eads o# I/##iceJ, 'ongressmen, 5enators and to t"e /##ice o# t"e President,E11 t"e #act remains t"at t"e ser$ices o# 8%P=T6' #or P15,>>>.>> #ee were a$ai!ed o# at "is instance. %s it turned out, t"e 8%P=T6' came out wit" two di##erent tec"nica! e$a!uation reports, t"e second "a$ing been antedated but a!so signed by 8%P=T6' 8irector iner$a ecina w"o admitted it was "er signature in bot" documents but c!aimed s"e was unaware t"at s"e "ad signed two di##erent documents. T"e discrepancies in t"e two reports ;in t"e #irst impartia! resu!t, Tetra got t"e !owest ran-ing but in t"e second resu!t made a#ter '8% ordered certain c"anges in t"e grading system, Tetra e$entua!!y won< was #ound by %uditor 4ubico to be irregu!ar and indicati$e o# bad #ait". T"e dissent assai!s suc" Ea!!egedE instances o# manipu!ation mentioned by %uditor 4ubico as be!ated!y raised and contends t"at t"e 7o$ember &?, 1995 !etter o# t"e 8%P=T6' tec"nician #ai!ed to s"ow t"at r. 4ey 6$ange!ista ;sta## o# t"e PB%' '"airman< went to 8%P=T6' on instructions by t"e petitioner. T"ese circumstances surrounding t"e issuance o# t"e 8%P=T6' tec"nica! e$a!uation resu!ts were additiona!!y mentioned by %uditor 4ubico to t"e respondents so t"at t"e !atter may be apprised t"at t"e members o# t"e PB%', inc!uding petitioner, cou!d not "a$e been unaware o# e##orts to in#!uence t"e outcome o# t"e tec"nica! e$a!uation, and not as ground per se o# t"e disa!!owance. ,ence, t"ere was not"ing anoma!ous in t"e #act t"at %uditor 4ubico on!y disc!osed t"ese additiona! #indings in t"e course o# "er audit to t"e 'ommission3s Nega! 'ounse! and ot"er '/% o##icia!s w"en s"e was as-ed to comment on t"e appea!TreHuest #or reconsideration made by '8% #rom t"e notice o# disa!!owance. It is to be noted t"at petitioner ne$er denied t"ere were two di##erent resu!ts o# 8%P=T6' tec"nica! e$a!uation. To re#ute t"e imputation o# irregu!arity, petitioner submitted a certi#ication #rom t"e incumbent '8% 6.ecuti$e 8irector t"at as per in$entory, on!y #ourteen out o# t"e subject #orty=#our Trigem computers "a$e become unser$iceab!e, w"ic" "e said $indicated t"eir c"oice o# branded computers. T"us, t"e supposed!y E#raudu!entE imposition o# pena!ties in t"e 8%P=T6' second report during t"e p"ysica! testing o# t"e computer "ardware, construed as manipu!ati$e endea$or by t"e '/% %uditor, is now moot and academic. But as a!ready e.p!ained in our 8ecision, t"e continued ser$iceabi!ity o# t"e purc"ased items did not justi#y t"e o$erpricing nor render moot t"e disa!!owances based on post=audit e.amination o# t"e pertinent bid and purc"ase documents.

?>
(ina!!y, we #ind no merit in t"e assertion t"at in ordering t"e petitioner to reimburse t"e disa!!owed amount, t"is 'ourt misapp!ied t"e so!idary nature o# t"e !iabi!ity determined by t"e '/% #or petitioner and t"e ot"er members o# t"e PB%'. *e "a$e categorica!!y stated t"at t"e 'ourt up"o!ds t"e '/%3s ru!ing t"at petitioner is persona!!y and so!idari!y !iab!e #or t"e o$erpricing in t"e computers purc"ased by '8%. T"e directi$e #or t"e payment o# t"e amount o# disa!!owance #ina!!y determined by t"e '/% did not c"ange t"e nature o# t"e ob!igation as so!idary because t"e demand t"us made upon petitioner did not #orec!ose "is rig"t as so!idary debtor to proceed against "is co=debtorsTob!igors, in t"is case t"e members o# t"e PB%' c"arged under 7otice o# 8isa!!owance 7o. 9?=>>1B=1>1, #or t"eir s"are in t"e tota! amount o# disa!!owance.1& Petitioner is t"ere#ore !iab!e to restitute t"e P881,819.>> to t"e Go$ernment wit"out prejudice, "owe$er, to "is rig"t to reco$er it #rom persons w"o were so!idari!y !iab!e wit" "im.1? *e stress anew t"at it is t"e genera! po!icy o# t"e 'ourt to sustain t"e decisions o# administrati$e aut"orities, especia!!y one w"ic" is constitutiona!!y=created, not on!y on t"e basis o# t"e doctrine o# separation o# powers but a!so #or t"eir presumed e.pertise in t"e !aws t"ey are entrusted to en#orce.1D (indings o# Huasi=judicia! agencies, suc" as t"e '/%, w"ic" "a$e acHuired e.pertise because t"eir jurisdiction is con#ined to speci#ic matters are genera!!y accorded not on!y respect but at times e$en #ina!ity i# suc" #indings are supported by substantia! e$idence,15 and t"e decision and order are not tainted wit" un#airness or arbitrariness t"at wou!d amount to gra$e abuse o# discretion.1B T"ere being no gra$e abuse o# discretion in t"e #indings and conc!usions o# t"e '/% in t"is case, t"e 'ourt #inds no cogent reason to de$iate #rom t"ese !ong=sett!ed ru!es. *,646(/46, t"e motion #or reconsideration is 867I68 ?ITH FIN)LIT,. 7o #urt"er p!eadings s"a!! be entertained. Net entry o# judgment be made in due course. 5/ /486468. M)RTIN S. /ILL)R)M)& *R. %ssociate Justice *6 '/7'F4: ;7o Part< REN)TO C. CORON)V '"ie# Justice )NTONIO T. C)RPIO %ssociate Justice TERESIT) *. LEON)RDO2DE C)STRO %ssociate Justice DIOSD)DO M. PER)LT) %ssociate Justice ;/n !ea$e< M)RI)NO C. DEL C)STILLOVV %ssociate Justice *OSE PORTUG)L PERE+ %ssociate Justice M)RI) LOURDES P. ). SERENO PRES(ITERO *. /EL)SCO& *R. %ssociate Justice )RTURO D. (RION %ssociate Justice LUC)S P. (ERS)MIN %ssociate Justice RO(ERTO ). )()D %ssociate Justice *OSE C)TR)L MENDO+) %ssociate Justice (IEN/ENIDO L. RE,ES

?1

%ssociate Justice ESTEL) M. PERL)S2(ERN)(E %ssociate Justice '64TI(I'%TI/7

%ssociate Justice

Pursuant to 5ection 1?, %rtic!e 9III o# t"e 198@ 'onstitution, I certi#y t"at t"e conc!usions in t"e abo$e 4eso!ution "ad been reac"ed in consu!tation be#ore t"e case was assigned to t"e writer o# t"e opinion o# t"e 'ourt. REN)TO C. CORON) '"ie# Justice

DISSENTING OPINION /EL)SCO& *R.& J.: T"e 'ourt, by its 8ecision dated arc" 8, &>11, a##irmed and up"e!d t"e 'ommission on %udit ;'/%< 8ecision 7os. 98= D&D1 and &>>?=>B1& dated /ctober &1, 1998 and arc" 18, &>>?, respecti$e!y. 5aid '/% 8ecisions, in turn, a##irmed 7otice o# 8isa!!owance 7o. 9?=>>1B=1>1? dated 7o$ember 1@, 199?, w"ic" disa!!owed in audit t"e amount o# 6ig"t ,undred 6ig"ty=/ne T"ousand 6ig"t ,undred 7ineteen Pesos ;P"P 881,819<, representing t"e purported o$erprice in t"e purc"ase by t"e 'ooperati$e 8e$e!opment %ut"ority ;'8%< o# a tota! o# #orty=si. ;DB< units o# computer eHuipment and perip"era!s in t"e tota! amount o# Two i!!ion Two ,undred 6ig"ty=(i$e T"ousand Two ,undred 5e$enty=7ine Pesos ;P"P &,&85,&@9< #rom Tetra 'orporation ;Tetra<. T"e #acts o# t"e case, as stated in t"is 'ourt3s 8ecision dated arc" 8, &>11, are as #o!!ows:

/n two separate occasions in 8ecember 199&, t"e I'8%J purc"ased #rom Tetra 'orporation ;Tetra< a tota! o# #orty=si. ;DB< units o# computer eHuipment and perip"era!s in t"e tota! amount o# P&,&85,&@9.>>. Tetra was c"osen #rom among t"ree Hua!i#ied bidders ;Tetra, icrocircuits and 'o!umbia<. In t"e tec"nica! e$a!uation o# t"e units to be supp!ied by t"e Hua!i#ied bidders, '8% engaged t"e ser$ices o# t"e 8e$e!opment %cademy o# t"e P"i!ippines=Tec"nica! 6$a!uation 'ommittee ;8%P= T6'<. T"e bidding was conducted in accordance wit" t"e %ppro$ed Guide!ines and Procedures o# Pub!ic Bidding #or In#ormation Tec"no!ogy ;IT< 4esources and emorandum /rder 7o. &?@ issued by t"e /##ice o# t"e President. Petitioner w"o was t"en t"e 6.ecuti$e 8irector o# t"e '8% appro$ed t"e purc"ase. /n ay 18, 199?, t"e 4esident %uditor soug"t t"e assistance o# t"e Tec"nica! 5er$ices /##ice ;T5/<, '/% in t"e determination o# t"e reasonab!eness o# t"e prices o# t"e purc"ased computers. In its rep!y=!etter dated /ctober 18, 199?, t"e T5/ #ound t"at t"e purc"ased computers were o$erpricedTe.cessi$e by a tota! o# P881,819.>>. It was noted t"at ;1< no $o!ume discount was gi$en by t"e supp!ier, considering t"e number o# units so!d) ;&< as ear!y as 199&, t"ere were so muc" supp!y o# computers in t"e mar-et so t"at t"e prices o# computers were re!ati$e!y !ow a!ready) and ;?< w"en '8% #irst o##ered to buy computers, o# t"e t"ree Hua!i#ied bidders, icrocircuits o##ered t"e !owest bid o# P1,1&?,?15.>> w"i!e Tetra o##ered t"e "ig"est bid o# P1,&B9,B?>.>>. T"e 4esident %uditor issued 7otice o# 8isa!!owance 7o. 9?=>>1B=1>1 dated 7o$ember 1@, 199?, #or t"e amount o# P881,819.>>. In a !etter dated ay 1?, 199D, '8% '"airman 6dna 6. %beri!!a appea!ed #or reconsideration o# t"e disa!!owance to '/% '"airman 'e!so 8. Gangan, submitting t"e #o!!owing justi#ications: I1.J T"e basis o# comparison ;Genesis $s. Trigem computers and #erro=resonant type FP5 $s. ordinary FP5< is erroneous, as it is !i-e comparing app!es to oranges. . . . Genesis, a non=branded computer, is incomparab!e to Trigem, a branded computer in t"e same manner as t"e %GT6U=FP5, a #erro=resonant type o# FP5, s"ou!d not be compared wit" %P'=1>>>*, %8 %T6 1>>>* and PU 1>>>*, w"ic" are a!! ordinary types o# FP5.

?&
. . . It wou!d "a$e been more appropriate, t"ere#ore, to compare t"e acHuired computer eHuipment and perip"era!s wit" t"e same mode!s o# ot"er branded computers. I&.J T"e tec"nica! speci#ications and ot"er added #eatures were gi$en due weig"t. . . . ITJ"e criteria #or determining t"e winning bidder is as #o!!ows: 'ostTprice 5>R Tec"nica! 5peci#ications ?>R 5upport 5er$ices &>R I?.J T"e same tec"nica! speci#ications and specia! #eatures e.p!ained t"e ad$antages o# t"e acHuired computer eHuipment and perip"era!s wit" t"ose t"at are being compared wit". *it" regards to our branded computer, t"e ad$antages inc!ude t"e #o!!owing: Ia.J /rigina! and Nicensed 'opy o# its 8is- /perating 5ystem speci#ica!!y Ib.J /rigina! and Nicensed /perating 5ystem 8is-ettes and its .... Ic.J Fser3s anua! and Insta!!ation Guide . . . anua!s. 5=8/5 9er 5.>.

Id.J 'omputers o##ered s"ou!d run P4/G4655 %pp!ication 8e$e!opment 5ystem as indicated in t"e Bid 8ocument . . . because t"e de$e!oping system #or t"e estab!is"ment o# t"e agency3s anagement In#ormation 5ystem ; I5< is based on P4/G4655 %pp!ication 5o#tware. Ie.J Nega! BiosTNicense %greement #or t"e particu!ar brand o# computers o##ered to '8%. . . . *it" t"ese #eatures, t"e agency is assured t"at t"e computers were acHuired t"roug" a !egitimate process ;not smugg!edTEpiratedE<, t"ereby, up"o!ding t"e agency3s respect #or Inte!!ectua! Property Naw or P.8. 7o. D9. *it" regard to t"e FP5, . . . it is a #erro=resonant type . . . Iw"ic" "asJ ad$antages to ensure greater re!iabi!ity and wi!! enab!e users to operate wit"out interruption. ID.J I%s dec!ared inJ '/% 'ircu!ar 7o. 85=55=%, Et"e price is not necessari!y e.cessi$e w"en t"e ser$iceTitem is o##ered wit" warranty or specia! #eatures w"ic" are re!e$ant to t"e needs o# t"e agency and are re#!ected in t"e o##er or award. %s wi!! be seen #rom t"e criteria adopted by t"e agency, bot" t"e warranty and specia! #eatures were considered and gi$en corresponding weig"ts in t"e computation #or t"e support ser$ices o##ered by t"e bidder.IEJ I5.J . . . ITJ"ere is no o$erpricing because in t"e process o# comparing Eapp!es $s. app!esE, t"e ot"er buyers in e##ect procured t"eir units at a "ig"er price t"an t"ose o# t"e '8%. *e . . . are sti!! in t"e process o# gat"ering additiona! data o# ot"er transactions to #urt"er support our stand. . . . IB.J . . . T"e rapid c"anges due to researc" and de$e!opment in In#ormation Tec"no!ogy ;I.T.< resu!ts in t"e signi#icant reduction o# prices o# computer eHuipment. . . . I Ja-ing a comparison gi$en two di##erent periods ;8ecember 199& $s. %ugust 199?< may be in$a!id . . .. I@.J T"e procedures o# t"e pub!ic bidding as adopted by t"e I'8%J . . . demonstrate a $ery e##ecti$e mec"anism #or a$oiding any possib!e o$erpricing. In comp!iance wit" t"e reHuest o# t"e Nega! /##ice 8irector, t"e T5/ submitted its comments on t"e justi#ications submitted by t"e '8%. /n t"e non=comparabi!ity o# Genesis and Trigem brands, it e.p!ained t"at t"e re#erence $a!ues were in accordance wit" t"e same speci#ications but e.c!usi$e o# t"e EbrandedE in#ormation, since t"is was not stated in t"e P./.TIn$oice, w"ic" was used as basis o# t"e can$ass. 5ince t"e said brands are bot" computers o# t"e same genera! c"aracteristicsTattributes,

??
t"e branded and non=branded !abe!s propounded by t"e supp!ier is o# scant consideration. %s regards t"e FP5, it was pointed out t"at t"e enumerated ad$antages o# t"e de!i$ered items are t"e same ad$antages t"at can be generated #rom a FP5 o# t"e same speci#ications and standard #eatures) in t"is case, t"e re#erence $a!ue pertains to a FP5 wit" t"e same capacity, input, output, battery pac- and bac-=up time, e.cept #or t"e brand. %s to t"e period o# purc"ase by t"e '8%, t"e T5/ noted t"at based on its monitoring #rom /ctober 199? to ay 199D, prices o# 5tar and 6pson printers and "ard dis- ;1&> B ode! 5t= ?1DD%< eit"er remained t"e same or e$en increased by &R to 5R. It is t"ere#ore $a!id t"at t"e price o# an item is t"e same #rom one period to anot"er, and t"at an item may be a$ai!ab!e un!ess it is out o# stoc-, or p"ased out, wit" or wit"out a rep!acement. In t"is case, t"e re#erence $a!ue cannot be considered as t"e reduced price as a resu!t o# rapid c"anges due to researc" since t"e said re#erence $a!ue is t"e price #or t"e same mode! a!ready e.isting in 8ecember 199& w"en t"e purc"ase was made and sti!! a$ai!ab!e in %ugust 199?, and not an eHui$a!ent nor rep!acement o# a p"ased out mode!. /n t"e ot"er "and, t"e 4esident %uditor maintained "er stand on t"e disa!!owance and submitted to %ssistant 'ommissioner 4au! '. (!ores "er rep!ies to t"e '8%3s justi#ications, as #o!!ows: ;1< on t"e a!!eged!y erroneous comparison between Genesis and Trigem brands, i# t"is wi!! be t"e basis, t"en t"eir bidding wi!! not be acceptab!e because in t"e %bstract o# Bids, t"e comparison o# prices was not based on simi!ar brands, i.e., Tetra o##ered Trigem=Uorean #or P1,&B9,B&>, icrocircuits o##ered %rc"e=F5 brand #or P1,1&?,?15, and 'o!umbia o##ered %cer=Taiwan brand #or P1,D@B,B>>) w"at is important is t"at, t"e speci#ications and #unctions are simi!ar) ;&< t"e &nd, ?rd and Dt" justi#ications are o# no moment as a!! t"e o##ers o# t"e t"ree Hua!i#ied bidders were o# simi!ar tec"nica! speci#ications, #eatures and warranty as contained in t"e Proposa! Bid (orm) ;?< on t"e 5t" justi#ication == t"e companies re#erred to procured on!y one unit eac" and o# muc" "ig"er grade) ;D< on t"e Bt" justi#ication == w"i!e t"e date o# t"e can$ass conducted by t"e T5/ does not coincide wit" t"e date o# purc"ase, t"ere is no s"owing t"at #oreign e.c"ange rate c"anged during t"e !atter part o# 199& w"ic" wi!! signi#icant!y increase t"e prices o# computers) and ;5< on t"e @t" justi#ication == w"i!e t"e '/% witnessed t"e pub!ic bidding, t"e post=e$a!uation was !e#t to t"e Pre=Hua!i#ications, Bids and %wards 'ommittee ;PB%'<. T"e 7ationa! Go$ernment %udit /##ice I concurred wit" t"e opinion o# t"e 4esident %uditor t"at '8%3s reHuest may not be gi$en due course. /n /ctober &1, 1998, respondent '/% issued t"e assai!ed decision a##irming t"e disa!!owance. It "e!d t"at w"et"er or not t"e product is branded is irre!e$ant in t"e determination o# t"e reasonab!eness o# t"e price since t"e brand was not stated in t"e 'a!! #or Bids nor in t"e Purc"ase /rder. T"e bids o# t"e t"ree Hua!i#ied bidders were based on simi!ar tec"nica! speci#ications, #eatures and warranty as contained in t"eir proposa!s. It was a!so #ound t"at t"e per#ormance o# t"e competing computer eHuipment wou!d not $ary or c"ange e$en i# t"e attributes or c"aracteristics o# said computers cited by petitioner were to be #actored in. T"e di##erence in brands, microprocessors, BI/5es, as we!! as casings wi!! not a##ect t"e e##iciency o# t"e computer3s per#ormance. (urt"er, '/% dec!ared t"at '8% s"ou!d not "a$e awarded t"e contract to Tetra but to t"e ot"er competing bidders, w"ose bid is more ad$antageous to t"e go$ernment. It noted t"at icrocircuits o##ered t"e !owest bid o# P1,1&?,?15.>> #or t"e F5 brand said to be more durab!e t"an t"e Uorean brand supp!ied by Tetra. '8% a!so s"ou!d "a$e been entit!ed to $o!ume discount considering t"e number o# units it procured #rom Tetra. Nast!y, '/% emp"asiGed t"at t"e reHuirements and speci#ications o# t"e end=user are o# prime consideration and t"e ot"er added #eatures o# t"e eHuipment, i# not speci#ied or needed by t"e end= user, s"ou!d not be ta-en into account in determining t"e purc"ase price. T"e conduct o# pub!ic bidding s"ou!d be made objecti$e!y wit" t"e end in $iew o# purc"asing Hua!ity eHuipment as needed at t"e !east cost to t"e go$ernment. T"e price #or t"e eHuipment de!i$ered "a$ing been paid, w"en suc" eHuipment cou!d be acHuired at a !ower cost, t"e disa!!owance o# t"e price di##erence was justi#ied. ;'itations omitted.< %s mentioned abo$e, t"e 'ourt, in its 8ecision dated 'ande!ario N. 9erGosa, Jr. persona!!y !iab!e. arc" 8, &>11, a##irmed '/%3s disa!!owance and "e!d petitioner

In t"is recourse, petitioner, now deceased, t"roug" "is son and !ega! counse!, prays t"at t"e 'ourt reconsider its 8ecision, anc"oring "is arguments essentia!!y on two ;&< grounds: (irst, t"ere is no #inding o# bad #ait" on "is part as to render "im persona!!y !iab!e #or t"e disa!!owed amount.D 5econd, t"e Tec"nica! 5er$ices /##ice ;T5/< can$ass, coup!ed wit" t"e con#irmatory te!ep"one can$ass, does not comp!y wit" t"e reHuirement o# an actua! can$ass andTor price Huotations #rom identi#ied supp!iers as a $a!id basis #or outrig"t disa!!owance, consistent wit" t"is 'ourt3s ru!ing in %rrio!a $. '/%.5 T"e /##ice o# t"e 5o!icitor Genera! ;/5G< urges reconsideration. In its 'omment ;4e: Petitioner3s otion #or 4econsideration dated %pri! 8, &>11< dated 5eptember 1&, &>11, t"e /5G a$ers t"at t"ere mig"t "a$e been a misappreciation o# t"e #acts in t"e case at bar w"ic" rendered petitioner persona!!y !iab!e.B In support o# petitioner3s cause, t"e /5G in$ites attention to t"e #o!!owing: ;1< petitioner "ad no actua! participation in t"e purported o##ending transaction)@ ;&< a #inding o# !iabi!ity despite t"e '/%3s #ai!ure to pro$e it wit" substantia! e$idence amounts to a $io!ation o# petitioner3s rig"t to administrati$e due process) and ;?< t"e presumption o# regu!arity in t"e per#ormance o# duty.8

?D
(or t"eir part, respondents maintain t"at: ;1< t"e bad #ait" o# petitioner is satis#actori!y s"own by "is "a$ing pre$ai!ed upon t"e 8e$e!opment %cademy o# t"e P"i!ippines=Tec"nica! 6$a!uation 'ommittee ;8%P=T6'< to modi#y t"e initia! resu!t o# t"e tec"nica! e$a!uation o# t"e bidders3 computer units)9 ;&< petitioner3s act o# signing in$o!$es t"e e.ercise o# discretion and is not a ministeria! act)1> ;?< t"e T5/ report, w"ic" was prepared by '/% personne! "a$ing -now!edge and e.pertise on computer eHuipment, supp!ied re!iab!e data t"at #irmed up t"e #inding o# o$erpricing)11 and ;D< e$en wit"out considering t"e can$assed prices o# '/%, t"e o$erprice in t"e subject procurement by t"e '8% cou!d sti!! be su##icient!y estab!is"ed based on t"e bid resu!ts.1& 6ssentia!!y, t"e issues #or /ur reso!ution are: ;1< w"et"er t"e '/% committed gra$e abuse o# discretion amounting to !ac- or e.cess o# jurisdiction in disa!!owing in audit t"e purported o$erprice in t"e purc"ase o# t"e computer eHuipment and perip"era!s by t"e '8%) and ;&< w"et"er t"ere is substantia! e$idence to "o!d petitioner persona!!y !iab!e #or t"e disa!!owed amount. T"e majority ru!es in #a$or o# respondents. I am constrained to register my dissent. %pp!icabi!ity o# %rrio!a In %rrio!a, t"is 'ourt "e!d t"at E'/%3s disa!!owance was not su##icient!y supported by e$idence, as it was premised pure!y on undocumented c!aims.E *e a!so "e!d t"at petitioners t"erein were not accorded due process #or not "a$ing a!!owed access to source documents. %s stated: *e agree t"at petitioners I%rrio!a, et a!.J were indeed not gi$en due process in t"is case. *e note t"at w"i!e 7'% "ad pro$ided receipts and in$oices to s"ow t"e acHuisition costs o# materia!s #ound by '/% to be o$erpriced, '/% mere!y re#erred to Ea cost comparison made by an engineer o# '/%=T5/, based on unit costs #urnis"ed by t"e Price onitoring 8i$ision o# t"e '/%=T5/,E ;p. 1&D, 4o!!o<. In #airness to petitioners, '/% s"ou!d "a$e, wit" respect #or instance to t"e submersib!e pump, produced a written price Huotation speci#ica!!y #or E1 Fnit Gou!ds 5ubmersib!e Pump ode! &5 6N ?>D?&, ? ,P, &?> 9., coup!ed to E(ran-!in 5ubmersib!e 6!ectric otor, ? ,P, &?> 9. ?=p"ase, B> ,G. ?D5> 4P .E T"e cost e$a!uation s"eet, dated 5eptember 15, 198B, Item 7o. 1& ;attac"ed to t"e decision o# r. Jose (. abanta, ;%ctg. 8irector, '/%=T5/<, mere!y re#ers to a EGou!ds submersib!e pump.E . . . .... T"is is not, in t"e absence o# t"e actua! can$ass s"eets andTor price Huotations #rom identi#ied supp!iers, a $a!id basis #or outrig"t disa!!owance o# agency disbursementsTcost estimates #or go$ernment projects. % more "umane procedure, and tota!!y con#ormab!e to t"e due process c!ause, is #or t"e '/% representati$e to a!!ow t"e members o# t"e 'ontracts 'ommittee mandatory access to t"e '/% source documentsTcan$ass s"eets. Besides, t"is gesture wou!d "a$e been in -eeping wit" '/%3s own %udit 'ircu!ar 7o. 85=55=% par. &.B, t"at: . . . %s regards e.cessi$e e.penditures, t"ey s"a!! be determined by p!ace and origin o# goods, $o!ume or Huantity o# purc"ase, ser$ice warrantiesTHua!ity, specia! #eatures o# units purc"ased and t"e !i-e . . . By "a$ing access to source documents, petitioners cou!d t"en satis#y t"emse!$es t"at '/% guide!inesTru!es on e.cessi$e e.penditures "ad been obser$ed. T"e transparency wou!d a!so erase any suspicion t"at t"e ru!es "ad been uti!iGed to terroriGe and or wor- injustice, instead o# ensuring a Ewor-ing partners"ipE between '/% and t"e go$ernment agency, #or t"e conser$ation and protection o# go$ernment #unds, w"ic" is t"e main rationa!e #or '/% audit. T"e second assigned error is tied in wit" t"e #irst. *e agree wit" petitioners t"at '/%3s disa!!owance was not su##icient!y supported by e$idence, as it was premised pure!y on undocumented c!aims, as in #act petitioners were denied access to t"e actua! can$ass s"eets or price Huotations #rom accredited supp!iers. 'ircu!ar 7o. 85=55=% o# t"e 'ommission on %udit !ays down t"e #o!!owing standards #or E6.cessi$eE 6.penditures:

?5
?.? 6A'655I96 6AP678ITF465. 8e#inition: T"e term We.cessi$e e.penditures3 signi#ies unreasonab!e e.pense or e.penses incurred at an immoderate Huantity and e.orbitant price. It a!so inc!udes e.penses w"ic" e.ceed w"at is usua! or proper as we!! as e.penses w"ic" are unreasonab!y "ig", and beyond just measure or amount. T"ey a!so inc!ude e.penses in e.cess o# reasonab!e !imits. 5tandard #or W6.cessi$e3 6.penditures T"e term We.cessi$e e.penditures3 pertains to t"e $ariab!es o# Price and Muantity. 1. Price K T"e price is e.cessi$e i# it is more t"an t"e 1>R a!!owab!e price $ariance between t"e price paid #or t"e item boug"t and t"e price o# t"e same item per can$ass o# t"e auditor. 9o!ume 8iscounts K T"e price is deemed e.cessi$e i# t"e discounts a!!owed in bu!- purc"ases are not re#!ected in t"e price o##ered or in t"e award or in t"e purc"aseTpayment document. ?. (actors to be 'onsidered K In determining w"et"er or not t"e price is e.cessi$e, t"e #o!!owing #actors may be considered. % K 5upp!y and demand #orces in t"e mar-et. 6.. K *"ere t"ere is a supp!y s"ortage o# a particu!ar product, . . . prices o# t"ese products may $ary wit"in a day. B K Go$ernment Price Muotations ' K *arranty o# Products or 5pecia! (eatures. T"e price is not necessari!y e.cessi$e w"en t"e ser$iceTitem is o##ered wit" warranty or specia! #eatures w"ic" are re!e$ant to t"e needs o# t"e agency and are re#!ected in t"e o##er or award. 8 K Brand o# Products. Products o# recogniGed brand coming #rom countries -nown #or producing suc" Hua!ity products are re!ati$e!y e.pensi$e. 6.. K 5o!ingen scissors . . . made in Germany are more e.pensi$e t"an scissors w"ic" do not carry suc" brand and are not made in Germany. It was incumbent upon t"e '/% to pro$e t"at t"e #oregoing standards were met in its audit disa!!owance. T"e records do not s"ow t"at suc" was done in t"is case. /n t"e t"ird issue, absent due process and e$idence to support '/%3s disa!!owance, '/%3s ru!ing on petitioners3 !iabi!ity "as no basis.1? ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< %s correct!y stated by t"e majority, t"e abo$e=mentioned dec!aration in %rrio!a was reiterated in 7ationa! 'enter #or enta! ,ea!t" anagement $. '/%, w"ere t"e 'ourt a!so ru!ed t"at Eprice #indings re#!ected in a report are not, in t"e absence o# t"e actua! can$ass s"eets andTor price Huotations #rom identi#ied supp!iers, $a!id bases #or outrig"t disa!!owance o# agency disbursements #or go$ernment projects.E1D Bot" %rrio!a and 7ationa! 'enter #or enta! ,ea!t" anagement pa$ed t"e way #or t"e #ormu!ation o# '/% emorandum 7o. 9@=>1& dated arc" ?1, 199@, w"ic" imposed more stringent reHuirements on t"e process o# e$idence=gat"ering to support any audit #inding o# o$erpricing. 5aid '/% emorandum reHuired t"at t"e initia! #indings be supported by can$ass s"eets andTor price Huotations indicating: ;1< t"e identitiesTnames o# t"e supp!iers or se!!ers) ;&< t"e a$ai!abi!ity o# stoc- su##icient in Huantity to meet t"e reHuirements o# t"e procuring agency) ;?< t"e speci#ications o# t"e items t"at s"ou!d matc" t"ose in$o!$ed in t"e o$erpricing) and ;D< t"e purc"aseTcontract terms and conditions t"at s"ou!d be t"e same as t"ose o# t"e Huestioned transaction.

?B
In justi#ying t"at t"ere was no $io!ation o# '/% ru!es, t"e majority cited 7a$a $. Pa!attao,15 w"ere t"e 'ourt "e!d t"at neit"er %rrio!a nor '/% emorandum 7o. 9@=>1& can be gi$en any retroacti$e e##ect. I respect#u!!y e.cept. It is true t"at t"is 'ourt in 7a$a "e!d t"at neit"er %rrio!a nor t"e '/% emorandum t"at was issued pursuant to %rrio!a and 7ationa! 'enter #or enta! ,ea!t" anagement can be gi$en any retroacti$e e##ect. T"e majority, "owe$er, #ai!ed to ta-e into consideration t"at t"e $ery reason w"y %rrio!a was not app!ied in 7a$a is because bot" cases were cast under di##erent circumstances. %s t"is 'ourt wrote in 7a$a: 5econd and more important, t"e circumstances in %rrio!a are di##erent #rom t"ose in t"e present case. In t"e ear!ier case, t"e '/% mere!y re#erred to a cost comparison made by t"e engineer o# '/%=Tec"nica! 5er$ices /##ice ;T5/<, based on unit costs #urnis"ed by t"e Price onitoring 8i$ision o# t"e '/%=T5/. T"e '/% e$en re#used to s"ow t"e can$ass s"eets to t"e petitioners, e.p!aining t"at t"e source document was con#identia!. In t"e present case, t"e audit team e.amined se$era! documents be#ore t"ey arri$ed at t"eir conc!usion t"at t"e subject transactions were gross!y disad$antageous to t"e go$ernment. T"ese documents were inc!uded in t"e (orma! /##er o# 6$idence submitted to t"e 5andiganbayan. Petitioner was !i-ewise presented an opportunity to contro$ert t"e #indings o# t"e audit team during t"e e.it con#erence "e!d at t"e end o# t"e audit, but "e #ai!ed to do so. (urt"er, t"e #act t"at on!y t"ree can$ass s"eetsTprice Huotations were presented by t"e audit team does not bo!ster petitioner3s c!aim t"at "is rig"t to due process was $io!ated. To be sure, t"ere is no ru!e stating t"at a!! price can$ass s"eets must be presented. It is enoug" t"at t"ose t"at are made t"e basis o# comparison be submitted #or scrutiny to t"e parties being audited. Indubitab!y, t"ese documents were proper!y submitted and testi#ied to by t"e principa! prosecution witness, Naura 5oriano. oreo$er, petitioner "ad amp!e opportunity to contro$ert t"em.1B ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< /n t"e ot"er "and, t"e circumstances in t"e instant case are simi!ar to t"ose in %rrio!a, w"ere E'/% mere!y re#erred to Wa cost comparison made by an engineer o# '/%=T5/, based on unit costs #urnis"ed by t"e Price onitoring 8i$ision o# t"e '/%= T5/.3 E In t"e case at bar, '/% mere!y based its #indings on o$erpricing on t"e T5/ can$ass and a te!ep"one can$ass w"ic" was con#irmatory o# t"e T5/ can$ass. 6$ident!y, t"e T5/ can$ass and t"e con#irmatory te!ep"one can$ass do not comp!y wit" t"e reHuirement o# an actua! can$ass andTor price Huotations #rom identi#ied supp!iers as a $a!id basis #or outrig"t disa!!owance, #o!!owing %rrio!a. T"e majority, "owe$er, is bent on disregarding t"e #oregoing %rrio!a "o!ding on t"e basis o# t"e pronouncement in 7a$a t"at it cannot be app!ied retroacti$e!y. It is wort" noting, "owe$er, t"at in Buscaino $. '/%,1@ a case in$o!$ing an audit disa!!owance made in 198B, as in %rrio!a, t"e 'ourt3s ru!ing in %rrio!a was nonet"e!ess app!ied retroacti$e!y t"erein. 5peci#ica!!y: Going into t"e merits o# t"e case, t"e 'ourt #inds t"at t"e I'/%J acted wit" gra$e abuse o# discretion in "anding down its assai!ed decision. T"e $arious disbursements upon w"ic" petitioner3s !iabi!ity is based "a$e not been indubitab!y estab!is"ed as patent!y in$a!id or irregu!ar and t"e disa!!owances ordered by '/% were not substantiated by su##icient e$idence on record. To begin wit", as regards t"e items disa!!owed on t"e ground o# o$erpricing, petitioner was adjudged !iab!e t"ere#or because "e was a member o# t"e 'an$ass and %ward 'ommittee w"ic" was tas-ed to certi#y t"at t"e prices submitted were t"e !owest and w"ic" recommended t"e award to t"e supp!ier. T"e disa!!owances were made on t"e basis o# respondent3s a!!egation or t"eory t"at t"e sc"oo! and ot"er o##ice supp!ies may be boug"t #rom ot"er supp!iers at prices muc" !ower t"an t"ose o# t"e supp!ier to w"om t"e bid was awarded. In order to #ind out "ow t"e '/% reac"ed suc" a conc!usion, petitioner as-ed t"e '/% to #urnis" "im wit" t"e necessary in#ormation andTor documents t"at wou!d indicate t"e !arge disparity in t"e prices suc" as t"e Huotation o# prices o# e$ery item re=can$assed by t"e resident auditor, re#!ecting t"e brand or Hua!ity o# t"e items, t"e names and addresses o# t"e supp!iers w"ere t"e items were re=can$assed and t"e date subject items were re=can$assed. 4espondent '/%, "owe$er, did not #urnis" t"e same . . .. *it"out t"e necessary in#ormation andTor documents, it ba##!es t"e 'ourt "ow '/% cou!d "a$e arri$ed at t"e conc!usion t"at t"ere were cases o# o$erpricing. %nd wit"out t"e needed in#ormation andTor documents, t"e petitioner was not a##orded t"e opportunity to re#ute t"e disa!!owances, item by item, and to justi#y t"e !ega!ity o# t"e purc"ases in$o!$ed. %s argued by t"e petitioner, E,ow can t"e undersigned ;petitioner< determine t"e di##erence in prices and per cent increases between t"e t"en procurement o##icer3s can$assed prices and t"e t"en '/% %uditor3s re=can$assed prices and possib!y justi#y item by item t"e !ega!ity o# t"e purc"ase w"en as you said Wno suc" document as you indicated abo$e were turned=o$er to t"e undersigned ;present PFP '/% %uditor<3L T"e purc"ase orders contain se$era! items and it is important t"at t"ose items w"ic" were a!!eged!y o$erpriced s"ou!d be identi#ied.E

?@
T"e reHuirements o# due process o# !aw mandate t"at e$ery accused or respondent be apprised o# t"e nature and cause o# t"e c"arge against "im, and t"e e$idence in support t"ereo# be s"own or made a$ai!ab!e to "im so t"at "e can meet t"e c"arge . . .. '/%3s #ai!ure to #urnis" or s"ow to t"e petitioner t"e incu!patory documents or records o# purc"ases and price !e$e!s constituted a denia! o# due process w"ic" is a $a!id de#ense against t"e accusation. %bsent any e$idence documentary or testimonia! to pro$e t"e same, t"e c"arge o# '/% against t"e "erein petitioner must #ai! #or want o# any !eg to stand on. In t"e 1991 decision in t"e case o# 9irgi!io '. %rrio!a and Ju!ian (ernandeG $s. 'ommission on %udit and Board o# NiHuidators, . . . w"ic" was reiterated in t"e case o# 7ationa! 'enter #or enta! ,ea!t" anagement $s. 'ommission on %udit . . ., t"is 'ourt succinct!y "e!d t"at mere a!!egations o# o$erpricing are not, E W. . . in t"e absence o# t"e actua! can$ass s"eets andTor price Huotations #rom identi#ied supp!iers, a $a!id basis #or outrig"t disa!!owance o# agency disbursementsTcost estimates #or go$ernment projects.3 % more "umane procedure, and tota!!y con#ormab!e to t"e due process c!ause, is #or t"e '/% representati$e to a!!ow t"e members o# t"e 'ontracts 'ommittee mandatory access to t"e '/% source documentsTcan$ass s"eets. . . . By "a$ing access to source documents, petitioners cou!d t"en satis#y t"emse!$es t"at '/% guide!inesTru!es on e.cessi$e e.penditures "ad been obser$ed. T"e transparency wou!d a!so erase any suspicion t"at t"e ru!es "ad been uti!iGed to terroriGe andTor wor- injustice, instead o# ensuring a Ewor-ing partners"ipE between '/% and t"e go$ernment agency, #or t"e conser$ation and protection o# go$ernment #unds, w"ic" is t"e main rationa!e #or '/% audit. ... ... ...

*e agree wit" petitioners t"at '/%3s disa!!owance was not su##icient!y supported by e$idence, as it was premised pure!y on undocumented c!aims, as in #act petitioners were denied access to t"e actua! can$ass s"eets or price Huotations #rom accredited supp!iers. . . . ... ... ...

It was incumbent upon t"e '/% to pro$e t"at its standards were met in its audit disa!!owance. T"e records do not s"ow t"at suc" was done in t"is case. . . . absent due process and e$idence to support '/%3s disa!!owance, '/%3s ru!ing on petitioner3s !iabi!ity "as no basis.E Indeed, wit"out t"e e$idence upon w"ic" t"e c"arge o# o$erpricing is anc"ored, apart #rom being a denia! o# due process, it wou!d not be possib!e to attac" !iabi!ity to petitioner.18 *"y '/% emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. 9@=>1& cannot be app!ied to t"e instant case is understandab!e. It was not yet in e.istence at t"e time t"e disa!!owance was made. T"e ratio underpinning %rrio!a, "owe$er, is sHuare!y in point. T"ere is, t"us, no r"yme or reason w"y, ta-ing into account Buscaino, t"e #indings in %rrio!a cannot be made to app!y in t"e case at bar. To reiterate, %rrio!a stated: % more "umane procedure, and tota!!y con#ormab!e to t"e due process c!ause, is #or t"e '/% representati$e to a!!ow t"e members o# t"e 'ontracts 'ommittee mandatory access to t"e '/% source documentsTcan$ass s"eets. Besides, t"is gesture wou!d "a$e been in -eeping wit" '/%3s own %udit 'ircu!ar 7o. 85=55=% par. &.B, t"at: . . . %s regards e.cessi$e e.penditures, t"ey s"a!! be determined by p!ace and origin o# goods, $o!ume or Huantity o# purc"ase, ser$ice warrantiesTHua!ity, specia! #eatures o# units purc"ased and t"e !i-e . . . By "a$ing access to source documents, petitioners cou!d t"en satis#y t"emse!$es t"at '/% guide!inesTru!es on e.cessi$e e.penditures "ad been obser$ed. T"e transparency wou!d a!so erase any suspicion t"at t"e ru!es "ad been uti!iGed to terroriGe and or wor- injustice, instead o# ensuring a Ewor-ing partners"ipE between '/% and t"e go$ernment agency, #or t"e conser$ation and protection o# go$ernment #unds, w"ic" is t"e main rationa!e #or '/% audit. ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< %s t"ings stand, t"e '/% #ai!ed to gi$e mandatory access to t"e '/% source documentsTcan$ass s"eets. Its #indings on o$erpricing were based, wit"out more, on t"e T5/ can$ass and a te!ep"one can$ass con#irmatory o# t"e T5/ can$ass. T"e steps '/% t"us too- do not con#orm to t"e due process reHuirements. Ni-ewise, t"is #ai!s to satis#y petitioner t"at t"e '/%

?8
guide!ines on e.cessi$e e.penditures "ad been obser$ed. 'oncomitant!y, it be"oo$es upon t"e 'ourt to app!y its ru!ing in %rrio!a to t"e present case. 7o $a!id comparison By e.press constitutiona! pro$ision, t"e '/% is empowered to e.amine and audit t"e use o# #unds by an agency o# t"e nationa! go$ernment on a post=audit basis.19 (or t"is purpose, t"e 'onstitution "as pro$ided t"at t"e '/% Es"a!! "a$e e.c!usi$e aut"ority, subject to t"e !imitations in t"is %rtic!e, to de#ine t"e scope o# its audit and e.amination, estab!is" t"e tec"niHues and met"ods reHuired t"ere#or, and promu!gate accounting and auditing ru!es, and regu!ations inc!uding t"ose #or t"e pre$ention and disa!!owance o# irregu!ar, unnecessary, e.cessi$e, e.tra$agant or unconscionab!e e.penditures, or uses o# go$ernment #unds and properties.E&> /n t"e ot"er "and, t"e %dministrati$e 'ode $ests t"e Pre=Hua!i#ication, Bids and %wards 'ommittee ;PB%'< t"e responsibi!ity E#or t"e conduct o# preHua!i#ication o# contractors, biddings, e$a!uation o# bids and recommending awards o# contracts.E Between t"e '/%, w"ic" can on!y per#orm post=audit #unctions, and t"e PB%' members o# '8%, it is t"e !atter t"at "a$e t"e tec"nica! e.pertise to determine t"e o##ers t"at wi!! best meet t"e needs and reHuirements o# t"eir o##ice.&1 '/% cannot, t"ere#ore, substitute or impose its own judgment on t"e PB%' members o# '8% wit"out any !ega! or #actua! basis. It can on!y audit purc"ases made) it cannot prescribe w"at s"ou!d be purc"ased.0:wphi0 To up"o!d t"e '/%3s #inding t"at brand was irre!e$ant in t"e determination o# t"e reasonab!eness o# t"e price at w"ic" '8% purc"ased t"e subject computers is to trod roug"s"od at t"e discretionary powers o# t"e PB%' to set t"e criteria and appro$e t"e purc"ase o# t"e eHuipment. It is sett!ed jurisprudence t"at in assessing w"et"er t"ere was indeed an o$erpricing, a speci#ic comparison wit" t"e same brand, #eatures and speci#ications as t"ose t"at were actua!!y purc"ased s"ou!d be made.&& %side #rom t"e #oregoing reasons, I di##er wit" t"e $iew o# t"e majority t"at '/%3s obser$ation t"at t"e '8% s"ou!d "a$e been entit!ed to $o!ume discount was $a!id. /n t"e contrary, a perusa! o# '/% 'ircu!ar 7o. 85=55=% wou!d s"ow t"at t"ere was neit"er any !ega! ob!igation on t"e part o# Tetra to gi$e a $o!ume discount nor to demand #or said discount on t"e part o# '8%. Particu!ar!y: &.9o!ume 8iscounts = T"e price is deemed e.cessi$e i# t"e discounts a!!owed in bu!- purc"ases are not re#!ected in t"e price o##ered or in t"e award or in t"e purc"asesTpayment document. T"e abo$e=Huoted pro$ision simp!y states t"at i# t"e discounts a!!owed in bu!- purc"ases are not re#!ected in t"e price o##ered or in t"e award or in t"e purc"asesTpayment document, t"en t"e price is deemed e.cessi$e. *it"out suc" a!!owed discounts, said pro$ision does not "a$e any bearing #or purposes o# ascertaining w"et"er a price s"ou!d be deemed e.cessi$e or not. 8iscernib!y, no !ega! ob!igation was imposed #or t"e gi$ing or demanding o# $o!ume discount can be in#erred t"ere#rom. *"en t"e words and p"rases in t"e statute are c!ear and uneHui$oca!, t"e !aw is app!ied according to its e.press terms.&? 9erba !egis non est recedendum, or #rom t"e words o# a statute t"ere s"ou!d be no departure.&D *"en #actua! #indings o# administrati$e agencies are not binding upon t"e 'ourt %dministrati$e #indings o# #act are accorded great respect, and e$en #ina!ity w"en supported by substantia! e$idence. ,owe$er, w"en it can be s"own t"at administrati$e bodies gross!y misappreciated e$idence o# suc" nature as to compe! a contrary conc!usion, t"is 'ourt "as not "esitated to re$erse t"eir #actua! #indings.&5 %s t"is 'ourt "e!d in Nitonjua $. 'ourt o# %ppea!s:&B It is c!ear #rom t"e #oregoing discussion t"at t"e #actua! #indings o# t"e 56' are not supported by substantia! e$idence. ,ence, it is t"e e.ception, rat"er t"an t"e genera! ru!e t"at #actua! #indings o# administrati$e agencies are binding upon t"e courts, t"at s"ou!d app!y. T"e e.ceptions are we!!=stated in 8atu Tagoranao Benito $. 56': *e!!=sett!ed is t"e ru!e t"at t"e #indings o# #acts o# administrati$e bodies wi!! not be inter#ered wit" by t"e courts in t"e absence o# gra$e abuse o# discretion on t"e part o# said agencies, or un!ess t"e a#orementioned #indings are not supported by substantia! e$idence. ;Go-ongwei, Jr. $s. 56', 9@ 5'4% @8.< In a !ong string o# cases, t"e 5upreme 'ourt "as consistent!y ad"ered to t"e ru!e t"at decisions o# administrati$e o##icers are not to be disturbed by t"e courts e.cept w"en t"e #ormer "a$e acted wit"out or in e.cess o# t"eir jurisdiction or wit" gra$e abuse o# discretion . . .. ;6mp"asis supp!ied) citations omitted.< +ap $. '/% is o# t"e same tenor, to wit:

?9
*e "a$e pre$ious!y dec!ared t"at it is t"e genera! po!icy o# t"e 'ourt to sustain t"e decisions o# administrati$e aut"orities, especia!!y one t"at was constitutiona!!y created !i-e "erein respondent '/%, not on!y on t"e basis o# t"e doctrine o# separation o# powers, but a!so o# t"eir presumed e.pertise in t"e !aws t"ey are entrusted to en#orce. It is, in #act, an o#t=repeated ru!e t"at #indings o# administrati$e agencies are accorded not on!y respect but a!so #ina!ity w"en t"e decision and order are not tainted wit" un#airness or arbitrariness t"at wou!d amount to gra$e abuse o# discretion. T"us, on!y w"en t"e '/% acted wit"out or in e.cess o# jurisdiction, or wit" gra$e abuse o# discretion amounting to !ac- or e.cess o# jurisdiction, may t"is 'ourt entertain a petition #or certiorari under 4u!e B5 o# t"e 4u!es o# 'ourt.&@ ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< In t"e case at bar, t"ere is reason to set aside '/%3s decisions and t"e #actua! premises "o!ding t"em toget"er, #or t"e said decisions are not supported by substantia! e$idence indicating petitioner3s responsibi!ity #or t"e disa!!owance. 5ubstantia! e$idence means suc" amount o# re!e$ant e$idence w"ic" a reasonab!e mind mig"t accept as adeHuate to justi#y a conc!usion.&8 In up"o!ding t"e #inding by '/% o# t"e persona! !iabi!ity o# petitioner #or t"e o$erpricing o# t"e computers procured by '8%, t"e majority #ound: %s pointed out in our 8ecision, records s"owed it was petitioner w"o ordered t"e reconstitution o# t"e PB%' w"ic" nu!!i#ied t"e pre$ious bidding conducted in 8ecember 1991. ,e #urt"er secured t"e ser$ices o# t"e 8%P=T6' #or tec"nica! e$a!uation and signed t"e agreement #or t"e said tec"nica! assistance w"en it is a!ready t"e duty o# t"e PB%' '"airman. 7otwit"standing petitioner3s c!aim t"at it was part o# "is duties as 6.ecuti$e 8irector to EIsignJ outgoing communicationsT!etters e.cept !etters addressed to ,eads o# o##ices, 'ongressmen, 5enators and to t"e /##ice o# t"e President,E t"e #act remains t"at t"e ser$ices o# 8%P=T6' #or P15,>>>.>> #ee were a$ai!ed o# at "is instance. %s it turned out, t"e 8%P=T6' came out wit" two di##erent tec"nica! e$a!uation reports, t"e second "a$ing been antedated but a!so signed by 8%P=T6' 8irector iner$a ecina w"o admitted it was "er signature in bot" documents but c!aimed s"e was unaware t"at s"e "ad signed two di##erent documents. T"e discrepancies in t"e two reports ;in t"e #irst impartia! resu!t, Tetra got t"e !owest ran-ing but in t"e second resu!t made a#ter '8% ordered certain c"anges in t"e grading system, Tetra e$entua!!y won< IwereJ #ound by %uditor 4ubico to be irregu!ar and indicati$e o# bad #ait". But as apt!y obser$ed by t"e /5G, Et"ere mig"t "a$e been a misappreciation o# t"e #acts o# t"e case.E &96$ident!y, t"e on!y bases #or a #inding o# bad #ait" on t"e part o# petitioner so as to render "im persona!!y !iab!e are: ;1< t"e reconstitution o# t"e PB%' by petitioner) and ;&< petitioner3s engagement o# t"e ser$ices o# t"e 8%P=T6'. By t"emse!$es, t"ere is not"ing i!!ega! #rom t"ese actions. %s mentioned abo$e, t"e creation o# t"e PB%' is e$en sanctioned by t"e %dministrati$e 'ode, w"i!e t"e engagement o# t"e ser$ices o# t"e 8%P=T6', a t"ird=party e$a!uator, by petitioner is e$en an indication t"at "e Ewanted transparency and independence in t"e bidding process.E?> 7o bad #ait" can a!so be imputed upon petitioner, because, contrary to t"e assertion o# respondents, t"e records do not support any #inding t"at "e pre$ai!ed upon t"e 8%P=T6' to modi#y t"e initia! resu!t o# t"e tec"nica! e$a!uation o# t"e computers by imposing an a!!eged!y irre!e$ant grading system t"at was intended to #a$or one o# t"e bidders. %ssuming t"at t"ere was, indeed, an a!!eged intent to a!ter t"e e$a!uation resu!ts o# t"e bidding, no su##icient e$idence can point to petitioner3s direct participation or in$o!$ement in t"e said c"arge. It cannot be o$eremp"asiGed t"at no connection was estab!is"ed between petitioner and a certain 4ey 6$ange!ista, a member o# t"e sta## o# t"e PB%' '"airperson, w"o was said to "a$e gone to 8%P= T6' to modi#y t"e initia! resu!t o# t"e tec"nica! e$a!uation o# t"e bidders3 computer units. oreo$er, t"e mere #act t"at petitioner signed t"e $ouc"ers and ot"er documents #or t"e processing o# t"e purc"ase a#ter t"e winning bidder "as been c"osen does not per se constitute bad #ait" on "is part. 7otab!y, petitioner3s signature was gi$en as #ina! recommendingTappro$ing aut"ority on!y a#ter t"e entire bidding process was conducted. ,e cannot, t"ere#ore, be #au!ted #or re!ying and depending, to a reasonab!e e.tent, on t"e integrity and per#ormance o# duty by t"e PB%', as we!! as t"e Board o# %dministrators, w"ic" acted on t"e documents. By ana!ogy, t"is 'ourt3s ru!ing in %rias $. 5andiganbayan ?1 is instructi$e: . . . %!! "eads o# o##ices "a$e to re!y to a reasonab!e e.tent on t"eir subordinates and on t"e good #ait" o# t"ose w"o prepare bids, purc"ase supp!ies, or enter into negotiations. I# a department secretary entertains important $isitors, t"e auditor is not ordinari!y e.pected to ca!! t"e restaurant about t"e amount o# t"e bi!!, Huestion eac" guest w"et"er "e was present at t"e !unc"eon, inHuire w"et"er t"e correct amount o# #ood was ser$ed, and ot"erwise persona!!y !oo- into t"e reimbursement $ouc"er3s accuracy, propriety, and su##iciency. T"ere "as to be some added reason w"y "e s"ou!d e.amine eac" $ouc"er in suc" detai!. %ny e.ecuti$e "ead o# e$en sma!! go$ernment agencies or commissions can attest to t"e $o!ume o# papers t"at must be signed. T"ere are "undreds o# documents, !etters, memoranda, $ouc"ers, and supporting papers t"at routine!y pass t"roug" "is "ands. T"e number in bigger o##ices or departments is e$en more appa!!ing.

D>
T"ere s"ou!d be ot"er grounds t"an t"e mere signature or appro$a! appearing on a $ouc"er to sustain a conspiracy c"arge and con$iction. ;6mp"asis supp!ied.< %bsent any c!ear s"owing t"at petitioner "ad a "and in t"e a!!eged intent to a!ter t"e e$a!uation resu!ts o# t"e bidding, t"e presumption o# regu!arity in t"e per#ormance o# duty s"ou!d app!y. ere surmises and conjectures, absent any proo# w"atsoe$er, wi!! not ti!t t"e ba!ance against t"is presumption.?& %ccording!y, I $ote to grant t"e motion #or reconsideration, reca!! and set aside t"e arc" 8, &>11 8ecision o# t"is 'ourt, and re$erse and set aside '/% 8ecision 7os. 98=D&D and &>>?=>B1 dated /ctober &1, 1998 and arc" 18, &>>?, respecti$e!y, and 7otice o# 8isa!!owance 7o. 9?=>>1B=1>1 dated 7o$ember 1@, 199?. PRES(ITERO *. /EL)SCO& *R. %ssociate Justice

5e77itt vs 1ove7n5ent of t8e 68ili66ine islan- case -i1est F)CTS: T"e #acts o# t"e case too- p!ace in t"e 191>3s. 6. erritt was a constructor w"o was e.ce!!ent at "is wor-. /ne day, w"i!e "e was riding "is motorcyc!e a!ong 'a!!e Padre (aura, "e was bumped by a go$ernment ambu!ance. T"e dri$er o# t"e ambu!ance was pro$en to "a$e been neg!igent. Because o# t"e incident, erritt was "ospita!iGed and "e was se$ere!y injured beyond re"abi!itation so muc" so t"at "e cou!d ne$er per#orm "is job t"e way "e used to and t"at "e cannot e$en earn at !east "a!# o# w"at "e used to earn. In order #or erritt to reco$er damages, "e soug"t to sue t"e go$ernment w"ic" !ater aut"oriGed erritt to sue t"e go$ernment by $irtue o# %ct &D5@ enacted by t"e !egis!ature ;%n %ct aut"oriGing 6. erritt to bring suit against t"e Go$ernment o# t"e P"i!ippine Is!ands and aut"oriGing t"e %ttorney=Genera! o# said Is!ands to appear in said suit<. T"e !ower court t"en determined t"e amount o# damages and ordered t"e go$ernment to pay t"e same. ISSUE: *"et"er or not t"e go$ernment is !iab!e #or t"e neg!igent act o# t"e dri$er o# t"e ambu!ance. HELD: 7o. By consenting to be sued a state simp!y wai$es its immunity #rom suit. It does not t"ereby concede its !iabi!ity to p!ainti##, or create any cause o# action in "is #a$or, or e.tend its !iabi!ity to any cause not pre$ious!y recogniGed. It mere!y gi$es a remedy to en#orce a pree.isting !iabi!ity and submits itse!# to t"e jurisdiction o# t"e court, subject to its rig"t to interpose any !aw#u! de#ense. It #o!!ows t"ere#rom t"at t"e state, by $irtue o# suc" pro$isions o# !aw, is not responsib!e #or t"e damages su##ered by pri$ate indi$idua!s in conseHuence o# acts per#ormed by its emp!oyees in t"e disc"arge o# t"e #unctions pertaining to t"eir o##ice, because neit"er #au!t nor e$en neg!igence can be presumed on t"e part o# t"e state in t"e organiGation o# branc"es o# pub!ic ser$ice and in t"e appointment o# its agents. T"e 5tate can on!y be !iab!e i# it acts t"roug" a specia! agent ;and a specia! agent, in t"e sense in w"ic" t"ese words are emp!oyed, is one w"o recei$es a de#inite and #i.ed order or commission, #oreign to t"e e.ercise o# t"e duties o# "is o##ice i# "e is a specia! o##icia!< so t"at in representation o# t"e state and being bound to act as an agent t"ereo#, "e e.ecutes t"e trust con#ided to "im. In t"e case at bar, t"e ambu!ance dri$er was not a specia! agent nor was a go$ernment o##icer acting as a specia! agent "ence, t"ere can be no !iabi!ity #rom t"e go$ernment. 0T"e Go$ernment does not underta-e to guarantee to any person t"e #ide!ity o# t"e o##icers or agents w"om it emp!oys, since t"at wou!d in$o!$e it in a!! its operations in end!ess embarrassments, di##icu!ties and !osses, w"ic" wou!d be sub$ersi$e o# t"e pub!ic interest.2 ;%!so as attac"ment<

To7io v Fontanilla =G.R. No. L2%$$$3& %3 Oct !$ '> /n /ctober &1, 1958, t"e unicipa! 'ounci! o# a!asiHui, Pangasinan, passed a reso!ution w"ic" created t"e a!asiHui Town (iesta 6.ecuti$e 'ommittee. T"is committee "and!ed e$eryt"ing #or t"eir annua! town #iesta, w"ic" wou!d be "e!d on January &1, &&, and &? t"e #o!!owing year. T"e unicipa! 'ounci! appropriated P1>> #or t"e construction o# two stages, one to be used especia!!y #or a GarGue!a entit!ed 0 idas 6.tra$aganGa.2 T"e committee, under c"airman Jose acaraeg, super$ised t"e construction o# a stage. %t t"e nig"t o# t"e #irst s"ow, e$en be#ore t"e GarGue!a itse!# started, many peop!e were a!ready c!imbing up t"e stage to !isten or catc" a g!impse o# t"e per#ormers. idway t"roug" t"e GarGue!a, t"e stage co!!apsed, and 9icente (ontani!!a, w"o was at t"e rear o# t"e stage, was pinned underneat". ,e was ta-en to t"e "ospita! and died t"e #o!!owing a#ternoon. T"e "eirs o# (ontani!!a t"en #i!ed a comp!aint #or damages wit" t"e ani!a '(I, naming t"e unicipa!ity o# a!asiHui and a!! t"e indi$idua! members o# t"e unicipa! 'ounci! as de#endants.

D1
'(I ru!ed t"at t"e Town (iesta 6.ecuti$e 'ommittee did e.ercise due di!igence and care o# a good #at"er o# a #ami!y in constructing t"e stage #or suc" purpose, and its co!!apse was due to #orces beyond t"e 'ommittee3s contro!. T"e "eirs o# (ontani!!a appea!ed, and t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s re$ersed t"e ru!ing, and ordered a!! t"e de#endants=appe!!ees to pay joint!y and se$era!!y t"e "eirs o# (ontani!!a. T"e issue is w"et"er a town #iesta is an e.ercise o# a municipa!ity3s go$ernmenta!Tpub!ic #unction ;#rom w"ic" it incurs no !iabi!ity<, or is it o# a pri$ateTproprietary c"aracter ;#rom w"ic" it incurs !iabi!ity<. HELD: % town #iesta is considered a pri$ateTproprietary #unction. But t"e 5upreme 'ourt concedes t"at t"ere is no "ard and #ast ru!e in determining t"e nature o# a municipa!ity3s underta-ing. *"et"er it is a go$ernmenta!Tpub!ic or pri$ateTproprietary #unction wi!! depend "ea$i!y on t"e conte.t. cMui!!in3s ru!e is: 0% municipa! corporation proper "as...a pub!ic c"aracter as regards t"e state at !arge inso#ar as it is its agent in go$ernment, and pri$ate ;so=ca!!ed< inso#ar as it is to promote !oca! necessities and con$eniences #or its own community.2 T"us, a town #iesta c!ear!y #a!!s under pri$ateTproprietary #unction. T"e unicipa!ity o# a!asiHui argues t"at t"ey e.ercised due di!igence in t"e construction o# t"e stage. But t"e 'ourt o# %ppea!s correct!y ru!ed t"at t"e co!!apse was due to great number o# on!oo-ers w"o mounted t"e stage) t"is t"e municipa!ity cou!d "a$e pre$ented by as-ing t"e peop!e to step away #rom t"e stage, but t"ey did not. T"e indi$idua! members o# t"e unicipa! 'ounci!, "owe$er, cannot be "e!d !iab!e under %rt. &@ o# t"e 'i$i! 'ode, because %rt. &@ co$ers cases o# non#easance or non=per#ormance by a pub!ic o##icer o# "is or "er o##icia! duty, not to cases o# neg!igence or mis#easance in carrying out an o##icia! duty. T"e records do not s"ow t"at t"e members o# t"e unicipa! 'ounci! direct!y participated in t"e de#ecti$e construction o# t"e stage, or t"at t"ey persona!!y permitted spectators to go up t"e p!at#orm. T"e municipa! counci!ors are abso!$ed #rom !iabi!ity, but t"e unicipa!ity o# a!asiHui is sti!! !iab!e. teves vs. co5elec

F)CTS: Petitioner was a candidate #or t"e position o# 4epresentati$e o# t"e ?rd !egis!ati$e district o# 7egros /rienta! during t"e ay 1D, &>>@ e!ections. /n arc" ?>, &>>@, respondent ,erminio G. Te$es #i!ed a petition to disHua!i#y petitioner on t"e ground t"at in Te$es $. 5andiganbayan, "e was con$icted o# $io!ating 5ection ?;"<, 4epub!ic %ct ;4.%.< 7o. ?>19, or t"e %nti=Gra#t and 'orrupt Practices %ct, #or possessing pecuniary or #inancia! interest in a coc-pit, w"ic" is pro"ibited under 5ection 89;&< o# t"e Noca! Go$ernment 'ode ;NG'< o# 1991, and was sentenced to pay a #ine o# P1>,>>>.>>. 4espondent a!!eged t"at petitioner is disHua!i#ied #rom running #or pub!ic o##ice because "e was con$icted o# a crime in$o!$ing mora! turpitude w"ic" carries t"e accessory pena!ty o# perpetua! disHua!i#ication #rom pub!ic o##ice. /n ay 11, &>>@, t"e '/ 6N6' (irst 8i$ision disHua!i#ied petitioner #rom running #or t"e position o# member o# ,ouse o# 4epresentati$es and ordered t"e cance!!ation o# "is 'erti#icate o# 'andidacy. It appears, "owe$er, t"at IpetitionerJ !ost in t"e !ast 1D ay &>>@ congressiona! e!ections #or t"e position o# member o# t"e ,ouse o# 4epresentati$es o# t"e T"ird district o# 7egros /rienta! t"ereby rendering t"e instant otion #or 4econsideration moot and academic. T"e petitioner #i!ed a petition w"ic" t"e court #ound to "a$e merit. ISSUE: *"et"er or not petitioner3s $io!ation o# 5ection ?;"<, 4.%. 7o. ?>19 in$o!$es mora! turpitude. HELD: 5ec. 1&. 8isHua!i#ications. = %ny person w"o "as been dec!ared by competent aut"ority insane or incompetent, or "as been sentenced by #ina! judgment #or sub$ersion, insurrection, rebe!!ion, or #or any o##ense #or w"ic" "e "as been sentenced to a pena!ty o# more t"an eig"teen mont"s, or #or a crime in$o!$ing mora! turpitude, s"a!! be disHua!i#ied to be a candidate and to "o!d any o##ice, un!ess "e "as been gi$en p!enary pardon or granted amnesty. T"e disHua!i#ications to be a candidate "erein pro$ided s"a!! be deemed remo$ed upon t"e dec!aration by competent aut"ority t"at said insanity or incompetence "ad been remo$ed or a#ter t"e e.piration o# a period o# #i$e years #rom "is ser$ice o# sentence, un!ess wit"in t"e same period "e again becomes disHua!i#ied. ora! turpitude "as been de#ined as e$eryt"ing w"ic" is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good mora!s) an act o# baseness, $i!eness or depra$ity in t"e pri$ate and socia! duties w"ic" a man owes "is #e!!owmen, or to society in genera!. 5ection ?;"< o# 4.%. ?>19 o# w"ic" petitioner was con$icted, reads: 5ec. ?. 'orrupt practices o# pub!ic o##icers. K In addition to acts or omissions o# pub!ic o##icers a!ready pena!iGed by e.isting !aw, t"e #o!!owing s"a!! constitute corrupt practices o# any pub!ic o##icer and are "ereby dec!ared to be un!aw#u!:

D&

.... ;"< 8irect!y or indirect!y "a$ing #inancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection wit" w"ic" "e inter$enes or ta-es part in "is o##icia! capacity, or in w"ic" "e is pro"ibited by t"e 'onstitution or by any !aw #rom "a$ing any interest. T"e essentia! e!ements o# t"e $io!ation o# said pro$ision are as #o!!ows: 1< T"e accused is a pub!ic o##icer) &< "e "as a direct or indirect #inancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction) ?< "e eit"er: a< inter$enes or ta-es part in "is o##icia! capacity in connection wit" suc" interest, or b< is pro"ibited #rom "a$ing suc" interest by t"e 'onstitution or by !aw. T"us, t"ere are two modes by w"ic" a pub!ic o##icer w"o "as a direct or indirect #inancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction may $io!ate 5ection ?;"< o# 4.%. ?>19. T"e #irst mode is w"en t"e pub!ic o##icer inter$enes or ta-es part in "is o##icia! capacity in connection wit" "is #inancia! or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction. T"e second mode is w"en "e is pro"ibited #rom "a$ing suc" an interest by t"e 'onstitution or by !aw. 5ection 89. Pro"ibited Business and Pecuniary Interest. Q ;a< It s"a!! be un!aw#u! #or any !oca! go$ernment o##icia! or emp!oyee, direct!y or indirect!y, to: .... ;&< ,o!d suc" interests in any coc-pit or ot"er games !icensed by a !oca! go$ernment unit1. T"e o##ense pro$ed, t"ere#ore, is t"e second mode o# $io!ation o# 5ection ?;"< o# t"e %nti=Gra#t Naw, w"ic" is possession o# a pro"ibited interest. ,owe$er, con$iction under t"e second mode does not automatica!!y mean t"at t"e same in$o!$ed mora! turpitude. % determination o# a!! surrounding circumstances o# t"e $io!ation o# t"e statute must be considered. Besides, mora! turpitude does not inc!ude suc" acts as are not o# t"emse!$es immora! but w"ose i!!ega!ity !ies in t"eir being positi$e!y pro"ibited, as in t"e instant case. T"us, petitioner, as t"en ayor o# 9a!encia, did not use "is in#!uence, aut"ority or power to gain suc" pecuniary or #inancia! interest in t"e coc-pit. 7eit"er did "e intentiona!!y "ide "is interest in t"e subject coc-pit by trans#erring t"e management t"ereo# to "is wi#e considering t"at t"e said trans#er occurred be#ore t"e e##ecti$ity o# t"e present NG' pro"ibiting possession o# suc" interest. T"e crime committed by petitioner ;$io!ation o# 5ection ?;"< o# 4.%. ?>19< did not in$o!$e mora! turpitude.

4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines SUPREME COURT ani!a FIRST DI/ISION G.R. No. !@<"@% Fe970a7y !3& %""'

SOCI)L *USTICE SOCIET, =S*S>& /L)DIMIR )L)RICUE T. C)(IG)O an- (ONIF)CIO S. TUM(ODON& petitioners, $s. HON. *OSE L. )TIEN+)& *R.& in 8is ca6acity as Mayo7 of t8e City of Manila& respondent. .======================.

D?
CHE/RON PHILIPPINES INC.& PETRON CORPOR)TION an- PILIPIN)S SHELL PETROLEUM CORPOR)TION& mo$ants= inter$enors. .======================. DEP)RTMENT OF ENERG,& mo$ant=inter$enor. RESOLUTION CORON), J.: %#ter we promu!gated our decision in t"is case on arc" @, &>>@, '"e$ron P"i!ippines Inc. ;'"e$ron<, Petron 'orporation ;Petron< and Pi!ipinas 5"e!! Petro!eum 'orporation ;5"e!!< ;co!!ecti$e!y, t"e oi! companies< and t"e 4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines, represented by t"e 8epartment o# 6nergy ;8/6<, #i!ed t"eir respecti$e motions #or !ea$e to inter$ene and #or reconsideration o# t"e decision. '"e$ron1 is engaged in t"e business o# importing, distributing and mar-eting o# petro!eum products in t"e P"i!ippines w"i!e 5"e!! and Petron are engaged in t"e business o# manu#acturing, re#ining and !i-ewise importing, distributing and mar-eting o# petro!eum products in t"e P"i!ippines.& T"e 8/6 is a go$ernmenta! agency created under 4epub!ic %ct ;4%< 7o. @B?8? and tas-ed to prepare, integrate, coordinate, super$ise and contro! a!! p!ans, programs, projects and acti$ities o# t"e go$ernment re!ati$e to energy e.p!oration, de$e!opment, uti!iGation, distribution and conser$ation.D T"e #acts are restated brie#!y as #o!!ows: Petitioners 5ocia! Justice 5ociety, 9!adimir %!ariHue T. 'abigao and Boni#acio 5. Tumbo-on, in an origina! petition #or mandamus under 4u!e B5 o# t"e 4u!es o# 'ourt, soug"t to compe! respondent ,on. Jose N. %tienGa, Jr., t"en mayor o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a, to en#orce /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. T"is ordinance was enacted by t"e /angguniang (anlungsod o# ani!a on 7o$ember &>, &>>1,5 appro$ed by respondent ayor on 7o$ember &8, &>>1,B and became e##ecti$e on 8ecember &8, &>>1 a#ter pub!ication.@ 5ections 1 and ? t"ereo# state: 56'TI/7 1. (or t"e purpose o# promoting sound urban p!anning and ensuring "ea!t", pub!ic sa#ety, and genera! we!#are o# t"e residents o# Pandacan and 5ta. %na as we!! as its adjoining areas, t"e !and use o# It"oseJ portions o# !and bounded by t"e Pasig 4i$er in t"e nort", P74 4ai!road Trac- in t"e east, Beata 5t. in t"e sout", Pa!umpong 5t. in t"e sout"west, and 6stero de Pandacan in t"e westI,J P74 4ai!road in t"e nort"west area, 6stero de Pandacan in t"e InJort"east, Pasig 4i$er in t"e sout"east and 8r. .N. 'arreon in t"e sout"west. T"e area o# Punta, 5ta. %na bounded by t"e Pasig 4i$er, arce!ino /brero 5t., ayo &8 5t., and (. ana!o 5treet, are "ereby rec!assi#ied #rom Industria! II to 'ommercia! I. ... ... ...

56'. ?. /wners or operators o# industries and ot"er businesses, t"e operation o# w"ic" are no !onger permitted under 5ection 1 "ereo#, are "ereby gi$en a period o# si. ;B< mont"s #rom t"e date o# e##ecti$ity o# t"is /rdinance wit"in w"ic" to cease and desist #rom t"e operation o# businesses w"ic" are "ereby in conseHuence, disa!!owed. /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ rec!assi#ied t"e area described t"erein #rom industria! to commercia! and directed t"e owners and operators o# businesses disa!!owed under t"e rec!assi#ication to cease and desist #rom operating t"eir businesses wit"in si. mont"s #rom t"e date o# e##ecti$ity o# t"e ordinance. %mong t"e businesses situated in t"e area are t"e so=ca!!ed EPandacan Termina!sE o# t"e oi! companies. /n June &B, &>>&, t"e 'ity o# ani!a and t"e 8epartment o# 6nergy ;8/6< entered into a memorandum o# understanding ; /F<8 wit" t"e oi! companies. T"ey agreed t"at Et"e sca!ing down o# t"e Pandacan Termina!s IwasJ t"e most $iab!e and practicab!e option.E T"e /angguniang (anlungsod rati#ied t"e /F in 4eso!ution 7o. 9@.9 In t"e same reso!ution, t"e /anggunian dec!ared t"at t"e /F was e##ecti$e on!y #or a period o# si. mont"s starting Ju!y &5, &>>&. 1> T"erea#ter, on January ?>, &>>?, t"e /anggunian adopted 4eso!ution 7o. 1?11e.tending t"e $a!idity o# 4eso!ution 7o. 9@ to %pri! ?>, &>>? and aut"oriGing t"e mayor o# ani!a to issue specia! business permits to t"e oi! companies.1&

DD
T"is was t"e #actua! bac-drop presented to t"e 'ourt w"ic" became t"e basis o# our arc" @, &>>@ decision. *e ru!ed t"at respondent "ad t"e ministeria! duty under t"e Noca! Go$ernment 'ode ;NG'< to Een#orce a!! !aws and ordinances re!ati$e to t"e go$ernance o# t"e city,E1? inc!uding /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. *e a!so "e!d t"at we need not reso!$e t"e issue o# w"et"er t"e /F entered into by respondent wit" t"e oi! companies and t"e subseHuent reso!utions passed by t"e /anggunian cou!d amend or repea! /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ since t"e reso!utions w"ic" rati#ied t"e /F and made it binding on t"e 'ity o# ani!a e.press!y ga$e it #u!! #orce and e##ect on!y unti! %pri! ?>, &>>?. *e conc!uded t"at t"ere was not"ing t"at !ega!!y "indered respondent #rom en#orcing /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. %#ter we rendered our decision on arc" @, &>>@, t"e oi! companies and 8/6 soug"t to inter$ene and #i!ed motions #or reconsideration in inter$ention on arc" 1&, &>>@ and arc" &1, &>>@ respecti$e!y. /n %pri! 11, &>>@, we conducted t"e ora! arguments in Baguio 'ity to "ear petitioners, respondent and mo$ants=inter$enors oi! companies and 8/6. T"e oi! companies ca!!ed our attention to t"e #act t"at on %pri! &5, &>>?, '"e$ron "ad #i!ed a comp!aint against respondent and t"e 'ity o# ani!a in t"e 4egiona! Tria! 'ourt ;4T'< o# ani!a, Branc" ?9, #or t"e annu!ment o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ wit" app!ication #or writs o# pre!iminary pro"ibitory injunction and pre!iminary mandatory injunction.1D T"e case was doc-eted as ci$i! case no. >?=1>B?@@. /n t"e same day, 5"e!! #i!ed a petition #or pro"ibition and mandamus !i-ewise assai!ing t"e $a!idity o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ and wit" app!ication #or writs o# pre!iminary pro"ibitory injunction and pre!iminary mandatory injunction.15 T"is was doc-eted as ci$i! case no. >?=1>B?8>. Nater on, t"ese two cases were conso!idated and t"e 4T' o# ani!a, Branc" ?9 issued an order dated ay 19, &>>? granting t"e app!ications #or writs o# pre!iminary pro"ibitory injunction and pre!iminary mandatory injunction: *,646(/46, upon t"e #i!ing o# a tota! bond o# T*/ INNI/7 ;P"p &,>>>,>>>.>>< P65/5, !et a *rit o# Pre!iminary Pro"ibitory Injunction be issued ordering IrespondentJ and t"e 'ity o# ani!a, t"eir o##icers, agents, representati$es, successors, and any ot"er persons assisting or acting in t"eir be"a!#, during t"e pendency o# t"e case, to 46(4%I7 #rom ta-ing steps to en#orce /rdinance 7o. 8>&@, and !et a *rit o# Pre!iminary andatory Injunction be issued ordering IrespondentJ to issue I'"e$ron and 5"e!!J t"e necessary Business Permits to operate at t"e Pandacan Termina!.1B Petron !i-ewise #i!ed its own petition in t"e 4T' o# ani!a, Branc" D&, a!so attac-ing t"e $a!idity o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ wit" prayer #or t"e issuance o# a writ o# pre!iminary injunction andTor temporary restraining order ;T4/<. T"is was doc-eted as ci$i! case no. >?=1>B?@9. In an order dated %ugust D, &>>D, t"e 4T' enjoined t"e parties to maintain t"e status Huo.1@ T"erea#ter, in &>>B, t"e city counci! o# ani!a enacted /rdinance 7o. 8119, a!so -nown as t"e ani!a 'ompre"ensi$e Nand Fse P!an and Soning /rdinance o# &>>B.18 T"is was appro$ed by respondent on June 1B, &>>B.19 %ggrie$ed anew, '"e$ron and 5"e!! #i!ed a comp!aint in t"e 4T' o# ani!a, Branc" &>, as-ing #or t"e nu!!i#ication o# /rdinance 7o. 8119.&> T"is was doc-eted as ci$i! case no. >B=115??D. Petron #i!ed its own comp!aint on t"e same causes o# action in t"e 4T' o# ani!a, Branc" D1.&1 T"is was doc-eted as ci$i! case no. >@=11B@>>.&&T"e court issued a T4/ in #a$or o# Petron, enjoining t"e 'ity o# ani!a and respondent #rom en#orcing /rdinance 7o. 8119.&? eanw"i!e, in ci$i! case no. >?=1>B?@9, t"e parties #i!ed a joint motion to wit"draw comp!aint and counterc!aim on (ebruary &>, &>>@.&D In an order dated %pri! &?, &>>@, t"e joint motion was granted and a!! t"e c!aims and counterc!aims o# t"e parties were wit"drawn.&5 Gi$en t"ese additiona! pieces o# in#ormation, t"e #o!!owing were submitted as issues #or our reso!ution: 1. w"et"er mo$ants=inter$enors s"ou!d be a!!owed to inter$ene in t"is case)&B &. w"et"er t"e #o!!owing are impediments to t"e e.ecution o# our arc" @, &>>@ decision:

;a< /rdinance 7o. 8119, t"e enactment and e.istence o# w"ic" were not pre$ious!y broug"t by t"e parties to t"e attention o# t"e 'ourt and ;b< writs o# pre!iminary pro"ibitory injunction and pre!iminary mandatory injunction and status Huo order issued by t"e 4T' o# ani!a, Branc"es ?9 and D& and ?. w"et"er t"e imp!ementation o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ wi!! undu!y encroac" upon t"e 8/63s powers and #unctions in$o!$ing energy resources.

D5
8uring t"e ora! arguments, t"e parties submitted to t"is 'ourt3s power to ru!e on t"e constitutiona!ity and $a!idity o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ despite t"e pendency o# conso!idated cases in$o!$ing t"is issue in t"e 4T'.&@ T"e importance o# sett!ing t"is contro$ersy as #u!!y and as e.peditious!y as possib!e was emp"asiGed, considering its impact on pub!ic interest. T"us, we wi!! a!so dispose o# t"is issue "ere. T"e parties were a#ter a!! gi$en amp!e opportunity to present and argue t"eir respecti$e positions. By so doing, we wi!! do away wit" t"e de!ays concomitant wit" !itigation and comp!ete!y adjudicate an issue w"ic" wi!! most !i-e!y reac" us anyway as t"e #ina! arbiter o# a!! !ega! disputes. Be#ore we reso!$e t"ese issues, a brie# re$iew o# t"e "istory o# t"e Pandacan Termina!s is ca!!ed #or to put our discussion in t"e proper conte.t. Histo7y Of T8e Pan-acan Oil Te75inals Pandacan ;one o# t"e districts o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a< is situated a!ong t"e ban-s o# t"e Pasig ri$er. %t t"e turn o# t"e twentiet" century, Pandacan was uno##icia!!y designated as t"e industria! center o# ani!a. T"e area, t"en !arge!y unin"abited, was idea! #or $arious emerging industries as t"e nearby ri$er #aci!itated t"e transportation o# goods and products. In t"e 19&>s, it was c!assi#ied as an industria! Gone.&8 %mong its ear!y industria! sett!ers were t"e oi! companies. 5"e!! estab!is"ed its insta!!ation t"ere on January ?>, 191D.&9 'a!te. ;now '"e$ron< #o!!owed suit in 191@ w"en t"e company began mar-eting its products in t"e country.?> In 19&&, it bui!t a ware"ouse depot w"ic" was !ater con$erted into a -ey distribution termina!.?1 T"e corporate presence in t"e P"i!ippines o# 6sso ;Petron3s predecessor< became more -een!y #e!t w"en it won a concession to bui!d and operate a re#inery in Bataan in 195@.?& It t"en went on to operate a state=o#=t"e=art !ube oi! b!ending p!ant in t"e Pandacan Termina!s w"ere it manu#actures !ubes and greases.?? /n 8ecember 8, 19D1, t"e 5econd *or!d *ar reac"ed t"e s"ores o# t"e P"i!ippine Is!ands. %!t"oug" ani!a was dec!ared an open city, t"e %mericans "ad no interest in we!coming t"e Japanese. In #act, in t"eir Gea!ous attempt to #end o## t"e Japanese Imperia! %rmy, t"e Fnited 5tates %rmy too- contro! o# t"e Pandacan Termina!s and "asti!y made p!ans to destroy t"e storage #aci!ities to depri$e t"e ad$ancing Japanese %rmy o# a $a!uab!e !ogistics weapon.?D T"e F.5. %rmy burned unused petro!eum, causing a #rig"tening con#!agration. ,istorian 7ic- JoaHuin recounted t"e e$ents as #o!!ows: %#ter t"e F5%((6 e$acuated t"e 'ity !ate in 8ecember 19D1, a!! army #ue! storage dumps were set on #ire. T"e #!ames spread, en$e!oping t"e 'ity in smo-e, setting e$en t"e ri$ers ab!aGe, endangering bridges and a!! ri$erside bui!dings. 1 (or one wee- !onger, t"e Eopen cityE b!aGedKa c!oud o# smo-e by day, a pi!!ar o# #ire by nig"t.?5 T"e #ire conseHuent!y destroyed t"e Pandacan Termina!s and rendered its networ- o# depots and ser$ice stations inoperati$e.?B %#ter t"e war, t"e oi! depots were reconstructed. Pandacan c"anged as ani!a rebui!t itse!#. T"e t"ree major oi! companies resumed t"e operation o# t"eir depots.?@ But t"e district was no !onger a sparse!y popu!ated industria! Gone) it "ad e$o!$ed into a bust!ing, "odgepodge community. Today, Pandacan "as become a dense!y popu!ated area in"abited by about 8D,>>> peop!e, majority o# w"om are urban poor w"o ca!! it "ome.?8 %side #rom numerous industria! insta!!ations, t"ere are a!so sma!! businesses, c"urc"es, restaurants, sc"oo!s, daycare centers and residences situated t"ere.?9 a!acaPang Pa!ace, t"e o##icia! residence o# t"e President o# t"e P"i!ippines and t"e seat o# go$ernmenta! power, is just two -i!ometers away. D> T"ere is a pri$ate sc"oo! near t"e Petron depot. %!ong t"e wa!!s o# t"e 5"e!! #aci!ity are s"anties o# in#orma! sett!ers.D1 ore t"an 15,>>> students are enro!!ed in e!ementary and "ig" sc"oo!s situated near t"ese #aci!ities.D& % uni$ersity wit" a student popu!ation o# about &5,>>> is !ocated direct!y across t"e depot on t"e ban-s o# t"e Pasig ri$er.D? T"e ?B="ectare Pandacan Termina!s "ouse t"e oi! companies3 distribution termina!s and depot #aci!ities.DD T"e re#ineries o# '"e$ron and 5"e!! in Tabangao and Bauan, bot" in Batangas, respecti$e!y, are connected to t"e Pandacan Termina!s t"roug" a 11D=-i!ometerD5 underground pipe!ine system.DB Petron3s re#inery in Nimay, Bataan, on t"e ot"er "and, a!so ser$ices t"e depot.D@ T"e termina!s store #ue! and ot"er petro!eum products and supp!y 95R o# t"e #ue! reHuirements o# etro ani!a,D8 5>R o# NuGon3s consumption and ?5R nationwide.D9(ue! can a!so be transported t"roug" barges a!ong t"e Pasig ri$er or tan- truc-s $ia t"e 5out" NuGon 6.pressway. *e now discuss t"e #irst issue: w"et"er mo$ants=inter$enors s"ou!d be a!!owed to inter$ene in t"is case. Inte7vention Of T8e Oil Co56anies )n- T8e DOE S8o0l- (e )llo:e- In T8e Inte7est of *0stice

DB
Inter$ention is a remedy by w"ic" a t"ird party, not origina!!y imp!eaded in t"e proceedings, becomes a !itigant t"erein to enab!e "im, "er or it to protect or preser$e a rig"t or interest w"ic" may be a##ected by suc" proceedings.5> T"e pertinent ru!es are 5ections 1 and &, 4u!e 19 o# t"e 4u!es o# 'ourt: 56'. 1. *"o may inter$ene. K % person w"o "as a !ega! interest in t"e matter in !itigation, or in t"e success o# eit"er o# t"e parties, or an interest against bot", or is so situated as to be ad$erse!y a##ected by a distribution or ot"er disposition o# property in t"e custody o# t"e court or o# an o##icer t"ereo# may, wit" !ea$e o# court, be a!!owed to inter$ene in t"e action. T"e court s"a!! consider w"et"er or not t"e inter$ention wi!! undu!y de!ay or prejudice t"e adjudication o# t"e rig"ts o# t"e origina! parties, and w"et"er or not t"e inter$enor3s rig"ts may be #u!!y protected in a separate proceeding. 56'. &. Time to inter$ene. K T"e motion to inter$ene may be #i!ed at any time be#ore rendition o# judgment by t"e tria! court. % copy o# t"e p!eading=in=inter$ention s"a!! be attac"ed to t"e motion and ser$ed on t"e origina! parties. T"us, t"e #o!!owing are t"e reHuisites #or inter$ention o# a non=party: ;1< Nega! interest ;a< in t"e matter in contro$ersy) or ;b< in t"e success o# eit"er o# t"e parties) or I against bot" parties) or ;d< person is so situated as to be ad$erse!y a##ected by a distribution or ot"er disposition o# property in t"e custody o# t"e court or o# an o##icer t"ereo#) ;&< Inter$ention wi!! not undu!y de!ay or prejudice t"e adjudication o# rig"ts o# origina! parties) ;?< Inter$enor3s rig"ts may not be #u!!y protected in a separate proceeding51 and ;g<T"e motion to inter$ene may be #i!ed at any time be#ore rendition o# judgment by t"e tria! court. (or bot" t"e oi! companies and 8/6, t"e !ast reHuirement is de#inite!y absent. %s a ru!e, inter$ention is a!!owed Ebe#ore rendition o# judgmentE as 5ection &, 4u!e 19 e.press!y pro$ides. Bot" #i!ed t"eir separate motions a#ter our decision was promu!gated. In +epublic of the (hilippines v. 'ingo on,5& a recent!y decided case w"ic" was a!so an origina! action #i!ed in t"is 'ourt, we dec!ared t"at t"e appropriate time to #i!e t"e motions=in=inter$ention was be#ore and not a#ter reso!ution o# t"e case.5? T"e 'ourt, "owe$er, "as recogniGed e.ceptions to 5ection &, 4u!e 19 in t"e interest o# substantia! justice: T"e ru!e on inter$ention, !i-e a!! ot"er ru!es o# procedure, is intended to ma-e t"e powers o# t"e 'ourt #u!!y and comp!ete!y a$ai!ab!e #or justice. It is aimed to #aci!itate a compre"ensi$e adjudication o# ri$a! c!aims o$erriding tec"nica!ities on t"e time!iness o# t"e #i!ing t"ereo#.5D T"e oi! companies assert t"at t"ey "a$e a !ega! interest in t"is case because t"e imp!ementation o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ wi!! direct!y a##ect t"eir business and property rig"ts.55 ITJ"e interest w"ic" entit!es a person to inter$ene in a suit between ot"er parties must be in t"e matter in !itigation and o# suc" direct and immediate c"aracter t"at t"e inter$enor wi!! eit"er gain or !ose by direct !ega! operation and e##ect o# t"e judgment. /t"erwise, i# persons not parties to t"e action were a!!owed to inter$ene, proceedings wou!d become unnecessari!y comp!icated, e.pensi$e and interminab!e. %nd t"is wou!d be against t"e po!icy o# t"e !aw. T"e words Ean interest in t"e subjectE means a direct interest in t"e cause o# action as p!eaded, one t"at wou!d put t"e inter$enor in a !ega! position to !itigate a #act a!!eged in t"e comp!aint wit"out t"e estab!is"ment o# w"ic" p!ainti## cou!d not reco$er.5B

D@
*e agree t"at t"e oi! companies "a$e a direct and immediate interest in t"e imp!ementation o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. T"eir c!aim is t"at t"ey wi!! need to spend bi!!ions o# pesos i# t"ey are compe!!ed to re!ocate t"eir oi! depots out o# ani!a. 'onsidering t"at t"ey admitted -nowing about t"is case #rom t"e time o# its #i!ing on 8ecember D, &>>&, t"ey s"ou!d "a$e inter$ened !ong be#ore our arc" @, &>>@ decision to protect t"eir interests. But t"ey did not.5@ 7eit"er did t"ey o##er any wort"y e.p!anation to justi#y t"eir !ate inter$ention. Be t"at as it may, a!t"oug" t"eir motion #or inter$ention was not #i!ed on time, we wi!! a!!ow it because t"ey raised and presented no$e! issues and arguments t"at were not considered by t"e 'ourt in its arc" @, &>>@ decision. %#ter a!!, t"e a!!owance or disa!!owance o# a motion to inter$ene is addressed to t"e sound discretion o# t"e court be#ore w"ic" t"e case is pending.58 'onsidering t"e compe!!ing reasons #a$oring inter$ention, we do not t"in- t"at t"is wi!! undu!y de!ay or prejudice t"e adjudication o# rig"ts o# t"e origina! parties. In #act, it wi!! be e.pedited since t"eir inter$ention wi!! enab!e us to ru!e on t"e constitutiona!ity o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ instead o# waiting #or t"e 4T'3s decision. T"e 8/6, on t"e ot"er "and, a!!eges t"at its interest in t"is case is a!so direct and immediate as /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ encroac"es upon its e.c!usi$e and nationa! aut"ority o$er matters a##ecting t"e oi! industry. It see-s to inter$ene in order to represent t"e interests o# t"e members o# t"e pub!ic w"o stand to su##er i# t"e Pandacan Termina!s3 operations are discontinued. *e wi!! tac-!e t"e issue o# t"e a!!eged encroac"ment into 8/63s domain !ater on. 5u##ice it to say at t"is point t"at, #or t"e purpose o# "earing a!! sides and considering t"e transcendenta! importance o# t"is case, we wi!! a!so a!!ow 8/63s inter$ention. T8e InA0nctive ?7its )7e Not I56e-i5ents To T8e Enfo7ce5ent Of O7-inance No. '"% Fnder 4u!e B5, 5ection ?59 o# t"e 4u!es o# 'ourt, a petition #or mandamus may be #i!ed w"en any tribuna!, corporation, board, o##icer or person un!aw#u!!y neg!ects t"e per#ormance o# an act w"ic" t"e !aw speci#ica!!y enjoins as a duty resu!ting #rom an o##ice, trust or station. %ccording to t"e oi! companies, respondent did not un!aw#u!!y #ai! or neg!ect to en#orce /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ because "e was !aw#u!!y pre$ented #rom doing so by $irtue o# t"e injuncti$e writs and status Huo order issued by t"e 4T' o# ani!a, Branc"es ?9 and D&. (irst, we note t"at w"i!e '"e$ron and 5"e!! sti!! "a$e in t"eir #a$or t"e writs o# pre!iminary injunction and pre!iminary mandatory injunction, t"e status Huo order in #a$or o# Petron is no !onger in e##ect since t"e court granted t"e joint motion o# t"e parties to wit"draw t"e comp!aint and counterc!aim.B> 5econd, t"e origina! parties #ai!ed to in#orm t"e 'ourt about t"ese injuncti$e writs. 4espondent ;w"o was a!so imp!eaded as a party in t"e 4T' cases< de#ends "imse!# by saying t"at "e in#ormed t"e court o# t"e pendency o# t"e ci$i! cases and t"at a T4/ was issued by t"e 4T' in t"e conso!idated cases #i!ed by '"e$ron and 5"e!!. It is true t"at "ad t"e oi! companies on!y inter$ened muc" ear!ier, t"e 'ourt wou!d not "a$e been !e#t in t"e dar- about t"ese #acts. 7e$ert"e!ess, respondent s"ou!d "a$e updated t"e 'ourt, by way o# mani#estation, on suc" a re!e$ant matter. In "is memorandum, respondent mentioned t"e issuance o# a T4/. Fnder 5ection 5 o# 4u!e 58 o# t"e 4u!es o# 'ourt, a T4/ issued by t"e 4T' is e##ecti$e on!y #or a period o# &> days. T"is is w"y, in our arc" @, &>>@ decision, we presumed wit" certainty t"at t"is "ad a!ready !apsed.B1 4espondent a!so mentioned t"e grant o# injuncti$e writs in "is rejoinder w"ic" t"e 'ourt, "owe$er, e.punged #or being a pro"ibited p!eading. T"e parties and t"eir counse!s were c!ear!y remiss in t"eir duties to t"is 'ourt. In reso!$ing contro$ersies, courts can on!y consider #acts and issues p!eaded by t"e parties.B& 'ourts, as we!! as magistrates presiding o$er t"em are not omniscient. T"ey can on!y act on t"e #acts and issues presented be#ore t"em in appropriate p!eadings. T"ey may not e$en substitute t"eir own persona! -now!edge #or e$idence. 7or may t"ey ta-e notice o# matters e.cept t"ose e.press!y pro$ided as subjects o# mandatory judicia! notice. *e now proceed to t"e issue o# w"et"er t"e injuncti$e writs are !ega! impediments to t"e en#orcement o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. 5ection ?, 4u!e 58 o# t"e 4u!es o# 'ourt enumerates t"e grounds #or t"e issuance o# a writ o# pre!iminary injunction: 56'. ?. Grounds #or issuance o# pre!iminary injunction. X % pre!iminary injunction may be granted w"en it is estab!is"ed:

D8
;a< T"at t"e app!icant is entit!ed to t"e re!ie# demanded, and t"e w"o!e or part o# suc" re!ie# consists in restraining t"e commission or continuance o# t"e act or acts comp!ained o#, or in reHuiring t"e per#ormance o# an act or acts, eit"er #or a !imited period or perpetua!!y) ;b< T"at t"e commission, continuance or nonper#ormance o# t"e act or acts comp!ained o# during t"e !itigation wou!d probab!y wor- injustice to t"e app!icant) or ;g< IT"at a party, court, agency or a person is doing, t"reatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or su##ering to be done, some act or acts probab!y in $io!ation o# t"e rig"ts o# t"e app!icant respecting t"e subject o# t"e action or proceeding, and tending to render t"e judgment ine##ectua!. T"ere are two reHuisites #or t"e issuance o# a pre!iminary injunction: ;1< t"e rig"t to be protected e.ists prima facie and ;&< t"e acts soug"t to be enjoined are $io!ati$e o# t"at rig"t. It must be pro$en t"at t"e $io!ation soug"t to be pre$ented wi!! cause an irreparab!e injustice. T"e act soug"t to be restrained "ere was t"e en#orcement o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. It is a sett!ed ru!e t"at an ordinance enjoys t"e presumption o# $a!idity and, as suc", cannot be restrained by injunction.B? 7e$ert"e!ess, w"en t"e $a!idity o# t"e ordinance is assai!ed, t"e courts are not prec!uded #rom issuing an injuncti$e writ against its en#orcement. ,owe$er, we "a$e dec!ared t"at t"e issuance o# said writ is proper on!y w"en: ... t"e petitioner assai!ing t"e ordinance 8as 5a-e o0t a case of 0nconstit0tionality st7on1 eno018 to ove7co5e& in t8e 5in- of t8e A0-1e& t8e 67es056tion of vali-ity , in addition to a s"owing o# a c!ear !ega! rig"t to t"e remedy soug"t....BD ;6mp"asis supp!ied< Judge 4eyna!do G. 4os, in "is order dated ay 19, &>>?, stated "is basis #or issuing t"e injuncti$e writs:

T"e 'ourt, in reso!$ing w"et"er or not a *rit o# Pre!iminary Injunction or Pre!iminary andatory Injunction s"ou!d be issued, is guided by t"e #o!!owing reHuirements: ;1< a c!ear !ega! rig"t o# t"e comp!ainant) ;&< a $io!ation o# t"at rig"t) and ;?< a permanent and urgent necessity #or t"e *rit to pre$ent serious damage. T"e 'ourt be!ie$es t"at t"ese reHuisites are present in t"ese cases. T"ere is no doubt t"at t"e p!ainti##Tpetitioners "a$e been !egitimate!y operating t"eir business in t"e Pandacan Termina! #or many years and t"ey "a$e made substantia! capita! in$estment t"erein. 6$ery year t"ey were issued Business Permits by t"e 'ity o# ani!a. Its operations "a$e not been dec!ared i!!ega! or contrary to !aw or mora!s. In #act, because o# its $ita! importance to t"e nationa! economy, it was inc!uded in t"e In$estment Priorities P!an as mandated under t"e E8ownstream /i! Industry 8eregu!ation %ct o# 1988 ;4.%. 8D@9<. %s a !aw#u! business, t"e p!ainti##Tpetitioners "a$e a rig"t, t"ere#ore, to continue t"eir operation in t"e Pandacan Termina! and t"e rig"t to protect t"eir in$estments. T"is is a c!ear and unmista-ab!e rig"t o# t"e p!ainti##Tpetitioners. T"e enactment, t"ere#ore, o# 'ity /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ passed by t"e 'ity 'ounci! o# ani!a rec!assi#ying t"e area w"ere t"e Pandacan Termina! is !ocated #rom Industria! II to 'ommercia! I and reHuiring t"e p!ainti##Tpetitioners to cease and desist #rom t"e operation o# t"eir business "as certain!y $io!ated t"e rig"ts o# t"e p!ainti##Tpetitioners to continue t"eir !egitimate business in t"e Pandacan Termina! and depri$ed t"em o# t"eir "uge in$estments t"ey put up t"erein. T"us, be#ore t"e 'ourt, t"ere#ore, determines w"et"er t"e /rdinance in Huestion is $a!id or not, a *rit o# Pre!iminary Injunction and a *rit o# andatory Injunction be issued to pre$ent serious and irreparab!e damage to p!ainti##Tpetitioners.B5 No:8e7e in t8e A0-1eEs -isc0ssion can :e see t8at& in a--ition to a s8o:in1 of a clea7 le1al 7i18t of C8ev7on anS8ell to t8e 7e5e-y so018t& 8e :as convince- t8at t8ey 8a- 5a-e o0t a case of 0nconstit0tionality o7 invali-ity st7on1 eno018 to ove7co5e t8e 67es056tion of vali-ity of t8e o7-inance. 5tatutes and ordinances are presumed $a!id un!ess and unti! t"e courts dec!are t"e contrary in c!ear and uneHui$oca! terms.BB T"e mere #act t"at t"e ordinance is a!!eged to be unconstitutiona! or in$a!id wi!! not entit!e a party to "a$e its en#orcement enjoined.B@ T"e presumption is a!! in #a$or o# $a!idity. T"e reason #or t"is is ob$ious: T"e action o# t"e e!ected representati$es o# t"e peop!e cannot be !ig"t!y set aside. T"e counci!ors must, in t"e $ery nature o# t"ings, be #ami!iar wit" t"e necessities o# t"eir particu!ar municipa!ity and wit" a!! t"e #acts and circumstances w"ic" surround t"e subject and necessitate action. T"e !oca! !egis!ati$e body, by enacting t"e ordinance, "as in e##ect gi$en notice t"at t"e regu!ations are essentia! to t"e we!! being o# t"e peop!e . . . T"e

D9
Judiciary s"ou!d not !ig"t!y set aside !egis!ati$e action w"en t"ere is not a c!ear in$asion o# persona! or property rig"ts under t"e guise o# po!ice regu!ation.B8 AK.K. ...I'ourtsJ accord t"e presumption o# constitutiona!ity to !egis!ati$e enactments, not on!y because t"e !egis!ature is presumed to abide by t"e 'onstitution but a!so because t"e judiciaryI,J in t"e determination o# actua! cases and contro$ersiesI,J must re#!ect t"e wisdom and justice o# t"e peop!e as e.pressed t"roug" t"eir representati$es in t"e e.ecuti$e and !egis!ati$e departments o# t"e go$ernment.B9 T"e oi! companies argue t"at t"is presumption must be set aside w"en t"e in$a!idity or unreasonab!eness appears on t"e #ace o# t"e ordinance itse!#.@> *e see no reason to set aside t"e presumption. T"e ordinance, on its #ace, does not at a!! appear to be unconstitutiona!. It rec!assi#ied t"e subject area #rom industria! to commercia!. (rima facie, t"is power is wit"in t"e power o# municipa! corporations: T"e power o# municipa! corporations to di$ide t"eir territory into industria!, commercia! and residentia! Gones is recogniGed in a!most a!! jurisdictions inasmuc" as it is deri$ed #rom t"e po!ice power itse!# and is e.ercised #or t"e protection and bene#it o# t"eir in"abitants.@1 AK.K. T"ere can be no doubt t"at t"e 'ity o# ani!a "as t"e power to di$ide its territory into residentia! and industria! Gones, and to prescribe t"at o##ensi$e and unw"o!esome trades and occupations are to be estab!is"ed e.c!usi$e!y in t"e !atter Gone. ... ... ...

Ni-ewise, it cannot be denied t"at t"e 'ity o# ani!a "as t"e aut"ority, deri$ed #rom t"e po!ice power, o# #orbidding t"e appe!!ant to continue t"e manu#acture o# to o in t"e Gone w"ere it is now situated, w"ic" "as been dec!ared residentia!....@& 'ourts wi!! not in$a!idate an ordinance un!ess it c!ear!y appears t"at it is unconstitutiona!. T"ere is no suc" s"owing "ere. T"ere#ore, t"e injuncti$e writs issued in t"e ani!a 4T'3s ay 19, &>>? order "ad no !eg to stand on. *e are aware t"at t"e issuance o# t"ese injuncti$e writs is not being assai!ed as tainted wit" gra$e abuse o# discretion. ,owe$er, we are con#ronted wit" t"e Huestion o# w"et"er t"ese writs issued by a !ower court are impediments to t"e en#orcement o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ ;w"ic" is t"e subject o# t"e mandamus petition<. %s a!ready discussed, we ru!e in t"e negati$e. O7-inance No. '"% ?as Not S06e7se-e- (y O7-inance No. '!!$ T"e arc" @, &>>@ decision did not ta-e into consideration t"e passage o# /rdinance 7o. 8119 entit!ed E%n /rdinance %dopting t"e ani!a 'ompre"ensi$e Nand Fse P!an and Soning 4egu!ations o# &>>B and Pro$iding #or t"e %dministration, 6n#orcement and %mendment t"eretoE w"ic" was appro$ed by respondent on June 1B, &>>B. T"e simp!e reason was t"at t"e 'ourt was ne$er in#ormed about t"is ordinance. *"i!e courts are reHuired to ta-e judicia! notice o# t"e !aws enacted by 'ongress, t"e ru!e wit" respect to !oca! ordinances is di##erent. /rdinances are not inc!uded in t"e enumeration o# matters co$ered by mandatory judicia! notice under 5ection 1, 4u!e 1&9 o# t"e 4u!es o# 'ourt.@? %!t"oug", 5ection 5> o# 4% D>9@D pro$ides t"at: 56'. 5> Judicia! notice o# ordinances. = %!! courts sitting in t"e city s"a!! ta-e judicia! notice o# t"e ordinances passed by t"e I/angguniang (anglungsodJ.

5>
T"is cannot be ta-en to mean t"at t"is 'ourt, since it "as its seat in t"e 'ity o# ani!a, s"ou!d "a$e ta-en steps to procure a copy o# t"e ordinance on its own, re!ie$ing t"e party o# any duty to in#orm t"e 'ourt about it. 6$en w"ere t"ere is a statute t"at reHuires a court to ta-e judicia! notice o# municipa! ordinances, a court is not reHuired to ta-e judicia! notice o# ordinances t"at are not be#ore it and to w"ic" it does not "a$e access. T"e party as-ing t"e court to ta-e judicia! notice is ob!igated to supp!y t"e court wit" t"e #u!! te.t o# t"e ru!es t"e party desires it to "a$e notice o#.@5 'ounse! s"ou!d ta-e t"e initiati$e in reHuesting t"at a tria! court ta-e judicia! notice o# an ordinance e$en w"ere a statute reHuires courts to ta-e judicia! notice o# !oca! ordinances.@B T"e intent o# a statute reHuiring a court to ta-e judicia! notice o# a !oca! ordinance is to remo$e any discretion a court mig"t "a$e in determining w"et"er or not to ta-e notice o# an ordinance. 5uc" a statute does not direct t"e court to act on its own in obtaining e$idence #or t"e record and a party must ma-e t"e ordinance a$ai!ab!e to t"e court #or it to ta-e notice. @@ In its de#ense, respondent c!aimed t"at "e did not in#orm t"e 'ourt about t"e enactment o# /rdinance 7o. 8119 because "e be!ie$ed t"at it was di##erent #rom /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ and t"at t"e two were not inconsistent wit" eac" ot"er.@8 In t"e same way t"at we deem t"e inter$enors3 !ate inter$ention in t"is case unjusti#ied, we #ind t"e #ai!ure o# respondent, w"o was an origina! party "ere, ine.cusab!e. T8e R0le On *0-icial )-5issions Is Not )66lica9le )1ainst Res6on-ent T"e oi! companies assert t"at respondent judicia!!y admitted t"at /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ was repea!ed by /rdinance 7o. 8119 in ci$i! case no. >?=1>B?@9 ;w"ere Petron assai!ed t"e constitutiona!ity o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@< w"en t"e parties in t"eir joint motion to wit"draw comp!aint and counterc!aim stated t"at Et"e issue ..."as been rendered moot and academic by $irtue o# t"e passage o# I/rdinance 7o. 8119J.E@9 T"ey contend t"at suc" admission wor-ed as an estoppe! against t"e respondent. 4espondent countered t"at t"is stipu!ation simp!y meant t"at Petron was recogniGing t"e $a!idity and !ega!ity o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ and t"at it "ad conceded t"e issue o# said ordinance3s constitutiona!ity, opting instead to Huestion t"e $a!idity o# /rdinance 7o. 8119.8> T"e oi! companies deny t"is and #urt"er argue t"at respondent, in "is answer in ci$i! case no. >B= 115??D ;w"ere '"e$ron and 5"e!! are as-ing #or t"e nu!!i#ication o# /rdinance 7o. 8119<, e.press!y stated t"at /rdinance 7o. 8119 rep!aced /rdinance 7o. 8>&@:81 ... Fnder /rdinance 7o. 8>&@, businesses w"ose uses are not in accord wit" t"e rec!assi#ication were gi$en si. mont"s to cease It"eirJ operation. O7-inance No. '!!$& :8ic8 in effect& 7e6lace- O7-inance FNo.G '"% , mere!y too- note o# t"e time #rame pro$ided #or in /rdinance 7o. 8119.... /rdinance 7o. 8119 t"us pro$ided #or an e$en !onger term, t"at isI,J se$en years)8& ;6mp"asis supp!ied< 4u!e 1&9, 5ection D o# t"e 4u!es o# 'ourt pro$ides: 5ection D. Judicia! admissions. X %n admission, $erba! or written, made by a party in t"e course o# t"e proceedings in t8e sa5e case, does not reHuire proo#. T"e admission may be contradicted on!y by s"owing t"at it was made t"roug" pa!pab!e mista-e or t"at no suc" admission was made. ;6mp"asis supp!ied< *"i!e it is true t"at a party ma-ing a judicia! admission cannot subseHuent!y ta-e a position contrary to or inconsistent wit" w"at was p!eaded,8? t"e a#orestated ru!e is not app!icab!e "ere. 4espondent made t"e statements regarding t"e ordinances in ci$i! case nos. >?=1>B?@9 and >B=115??D w"ic" are not Et"e sameE as t"is case be#ore us.8D To constitute a judicia! admission, t"e admission must be made in t"e same case in w"ic" it is o##ered. ,ence, respondent is not estopped #rom c!aiming t"at /rdinance 7o. 8119 did not supersede /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. /n t"e contrary, it is t"e oi! companies w"ic" s"ou!d be considered estopped. T"ey re!y on t"e argument t"at /rdinance 7o. 8119 superseded /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ but, at t"e same time, a!so impugn its ;81193s< $a!idity. *e #rown on t"e adoption o# inconsistent positions and distrust any attempt at c!e$er positioning under one or t"e ot"er on t"e basis o# w"at appears ad$antageous at t"e moment. Parties cannot ta-e $aci!!ating or contrary positions regarding t"e $a!idity o# a statute85 or ordinance. 7onet"e!ess, we wi!! !oo- into t"e merits o# t"e argument o# imp!ied repea!. O7-inance No. '!!$ Di- Not I56lie-ly Re6eal O7-inance No. '"%

51
Bot" t"e oi! companies and 8/6 argue t"at /rdinance 7o. 8119 repea!ed /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. T"ey assert t"at a!t"oug" t"ere was no e.press repea!8B o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@, /rdinance 7o. 8119 imp!ied!y repea!ed it. %ccording to t"e oi! companies, /rdinance 7o. 8119 rec!assi#ied t"e area co$ering t"e Pandacan Termina!s to E,ig" 8ensity 4esidentia!T i.ed Fse Sone ;4=?T A8<E8@ w"ereas /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ rec!assi#ied t"e same area #rom Industria! II to 'ommercia! I: 56'TI/7 1. (or t"e purpose o# promoting sound urban p!anning and ensuring "ea!t", pub!ic sa#ety, and genera! we!#are o# t"e residents o# Pandacan and 5ta. %na as we!! as its adjoining areas, t"e !and use o# It"oseJ portions o# !and bounded by t"e Pasig 4i$er in t"e nort", P74 4ai!road Trac- in t"e east, Beata 5t. in t"e sout", Pa!umpong 5t. in t"e sout"west, and 6stero de Pancacan in t"e westI,J P74 4ai!road in t"e nort"west area, 6stero de Pandacan in t"e InJort"east, Pasig 4i$er in t"e sout"east and 8r. .N. 'arreon in t"e sout"west. T"e area o# Punta, 5ta. %na bounded by t"e Pasig 4i$er, arce!ino /brero 5t., ayo &8 5t., and (. ana!o 5treet, are "ereby 7eclassifie- f7o5 In-0st7ial II to Co55e7cial I. ;6mp"asis supp!ied< oreo$er, /rdinance 7o. 8119 pro$ides #or a p"ase=out o# se$en years: 56'. @&. 6.isting 7on='on#orming Fses and Bui!dings. = T"e !aw#u! use o# any bui!ding, structure or !and at t"e time o# t"e adoption o# t"is /rdinance may be continued, a!t"oug" suc" use does not con#orm wit" t"e pro$ision o# t"e /rdinance, pro$ided: ... ... ...

;g< In case t"e non=con#orming use is an industria! use: ... ... ...

d. T8e lan- 0se classifie- as non2confo75in1 s8all 67o17a5 t8e 68ase2o0t an- 7elocation of t8e non2 confo75in1 0se :it8in seven = > yea7s f7o5 t8e -ate of effectivity of t8is O7-inance . ;6mp"asis supp!ied< T"is is opposed to /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ w"ic" compe!s a##ected entities to $acate t"e area wit"in si. mont"s #rom t"e e##ecti$ity o# t"e ordinance: 56'. ?. /wners or operators o# industries and ot"er businesses, t"e operation o# w"ic" are no !onger permitted under 5ection 1 "ereo#, are "ereby gi$en a period o# si. ;B< mont"s #rom t"e date o# e##ecti$ity o# t"is /rdinance wit"in w"ic" to cease and desist #rom t"e operation o# businesses w"ic" are "ereby in conseHuence, disa!!owed. /rdinance 7o. 8119 a!so designated t"e Pandacan oi! depot area as a EP!anned Fnit 8e$e!opmentT/$er!ay Sone ;/=PF8<E: 56'. &?. Fse 4egu!ations in P!anned Fnit 8e$e!opmentT/$er!ay Sone ;/=PF8<. Q /=PF8 Sones are identi#ied speci#ic sites in t"e 'ity o# ani!a w"erein t"e project site is compre"ensi$e!y p!anned as an entity $ia unitary site p!an w"ic" permits #!e.ibi!ity in p!anningT design, bui!ding siting, comp!ementari!y o# bui!ding types and !and uses, usab!e open spaces and t"e preser$ation o# signi#icant natura! !and #eatures, pursuant to regu!ations speci#ied #or eac" particu!ar PF8. 6numerated be!ow are identi#ied PF8: ... ... ...

B. Pan-acan Oil De6ot )7ea ... ... ...

6numerated be!ow are t"e a!!owab!e uses: 1. a!! uses a!!owed in a!! Gones w"ere it is !ocated &. t"e INand Fse Intensity 'ontro! ;NFI'<J under w"ic" Gones are !ocated s"a!!, in a!! instances be comp!ied wit"

5&
?. t"e $a!idity o# t"e prescribed NFI' s"a!! on!y be IsupersededJ by t"e de$e!opment contro!s and regu!ations speci#ied #or eac" PF8 as pro$ided #or eac" PF8 as pro$ided #or by t"e masterp!an o# respecti$e PF8s.88 ;6mp"asis supp!ied< 4espondent c!aims t"at in passing /rdinance 7o. 8119, t"e /anggunian did not intend to repea! /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ but meant instead to carry o$er 8>&@3s pro$isions to 8119 #or t"e purpose o# ma-ing /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ app!icab!e to t"e oi! companies e$en a#ter t"e passage o# /rdinance 7o. 8119.89 ,e Huotes an e.cerpt #rom t"e minutes o# t"e Ju!y &@, &>>D session o# t"e /anggunian during t"e #irst reading o# /rdinance 7o. 8119: ember G%4'I%: +our ,onor, iyong patung-o! po roon sa oi! depot doon sa amin sa 5i.t" 8istrict sa Pandacan, wa!a pong na-a!agay eit" sa ordinansa rito na ta!iwas o -a-aiba roon sa ordinansang ipinasa noong na-araang Uonse"o, iyong /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. 5o -ung ano po ang nandirito sa ordinansa na ipinasa ninyo !ast time, iyon !ang po ang ni=!i#t eit"e at ini!agay eit". %t eit" eit" ordinansang 1iyong naipasa ng "u!ing Uonse"o, niri=c!assi#y IninyoJ #rom Industria! II to 'ommercia! '=1 ang area ng Pandacan -ung nasaan ang oi! depot. 5o ini=!i#t !ang po Ieit"eJ iyong de#inition, density, at sa-a po yon pong 1 ng1 noong ordinansa ninyo na siya eit" naming ini!agay eit", iniba !ang po naming iyong tit!e. So :ala 6o Ha5in1 9ina1o na tali:as o naila1ay na tali:as -oon sa o7-inansan1 i6inasa ninyo& ni2lift lan1 6o Feit8eG f7o5 O7-inance No. '"% .E9> ;6mp"asis supp!ied< *e agree wit" respondent. 4epea! by imp!ication proceeds on t"e premise t"at w"ere a statute o# !ater date c!ear!y re$ea!s t"e intention o# t"e !egis!ature to abrogate a prior act on t"e subject, t"at intention must be gi$en e##ect.91 T"ere are two -inds o# imp!ied repea!. T"e #irst is: w"ere t"e pro$isions in t"e two acts on t"e same subject matter are irreconci!ab!y contradictory, t"e !atter act, to t"e e.tent o# t"e con#!ict, constitutes an imp!ied repea! o# t"e ear!ier one.9& T"e second is: i# t"e !ater act co$ers t"e w"o!e subject o# t"e ear!ier one and is c!ear!y intended as a substitute, it wi!! operate to repea! t"e ear!ier !aw.9? T"e oi! companies argue t"at t"e situation "ere #a!!s under t"e #irst category. Imp!ied repea!s are not #a$ored and wi!! not be so dec!ared un!ess t"e intent o# t"e !egis!ators is mani#est.9D %s statutes and ordinances are presumed to be passed on!y a#ter care#u! de!iberation and wit" -now!edge o# a!! e.isting ones on t"e subject, it #o!!ows t"at, in passing a !aw, t"e !egis!ature did not intend to inter#ere wit" or abrogate a #ormer !aw re!ating to t"e same subject matter.95 I# t"e intent to repea! is not c!ear, t"e !ater act s"ou!d be construed as a continuation o#, and not a substitute #or, t"e ear!ier act.9B T"ese standards are deep!y ens"rined in our jurisprudence. *e disagree t"at, in enacting /rdinance 7o. 8119, t"ere was any indication o# t"e !egis!ati$e purpose to repea! /rdinance 7o. 8>&@.9@ T"e e.cerpt Huoted abo$e is proo# t"at t"ere was ne$er suc" an intent. *"i!e it is true t"at bot" ordinances re!ate to t"e same subject matter, i.e. c!assi#ication o# t"e !and use o# t"e area w"ere Pandacan oi! depot is !ocated, i# t"ere is no intent to repea! t"e ear!ier enactment, e$ery e##ort at reasonab!e construction must be made to reconci!e t"e ordinances so t"at bot" can be gi$en e##ect: T"e #act t"at a !ater enactment may re!ate to t"e same subject matter as t"at o# an ear!ier statute is not o# itse!# su##icient to cause an imp!ied repea! o# t"e prior act, since t"e new statute may mere!y be cumu!ati$e or a continuation o# t"e o!d one. *"at is necessary is a mani#est indication o# !egis!ati$e purpose to repea!.98 (or t"e #irst -ind o# imp!ied repea!, t"ere must be an irreconci!ab!e con#!ict between t"e two ordinances. T"ere is no con#!ict between t"e two ordinances. /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ rec!assi#ied t"e Pandacan area #rom Industria! II to 'ommercia! I. /rdinance 7o. 8119, in 5ection &?, designated it as a EP!anned Fnit 8e$e!opmentT/$er!ay Sone ;/=PF8<.E In its %nne. ' w"ic" de#ined t"e Gone boundaries,99 t"e Pandacan area was s"own to be wit"in t"e E,ig" 8ensity 4esidentia!T i.ed Fse Sone ;4=?T A8<.E T"ese Gone c!assi#ications in /rdinance 7o. 8119 are not inconsistent wit" t"e rec!assi#ication o# t"e Pandacan area #rom Industria! to 'ommercia! in /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. T"e E/=PF8E c!assi#ication mere!y made Pandacan a Eproject site ... compre"ensi$e!y p!anned as an entity $ia unitary site p!an w"ic" permits #!e.ibi!ity in p!anningTdesign, bui!ding siting, comp!ementarity o# bui!ding types and !and uses, usab!e open spaces and t"e preser$ation o# signi#icant natura! !and #eatures....E1>> Its c!assi#ication as E4=?T A8E means t"at it s"ou!d Ebe used primari!y #or "ig"=rise "ousingTdwe!!ing purposes and !imited comp!ementaryTsupp!ementary trade, ser$ices and business acti$ities.E1>1 T"ere is no con#!ict since bot" ordinances actua!!y "a$e a common objecti$e, i.e., to s"i#t t"e Goning c!assi#ication #rom industria! to commercia! ;/rdinance 7o. 8>&@< or mi.ed residentia!Tcommercia! ;/rdinance 7o. 8119<. oreo$er, it is a we!!=sett!ed ru!e in statutory construction t"at a subseHuent genera! !aw does not repea! a prior specia! !aw on t"e same subject un!ess it c!ear!y appears t"at t"e !egis!ature "as intended by t"e !atter genera! act to modi#y or repea! t"e

5?
ear!ier specia! !aw. 'eneralia specialibus non derogant ;a genera! !aw does not nu!!i#y a speci#ic or specia! !aw<.1>& T"is is so e$en i# t"e pro$isions o# t"e genera! !aw are su##icient!y compre"ensi$e to inc!ude w"at was set #ort" in t"e specia! act.1>? T"e specia! act and t"e genera! !aw must stand toget"er, one as t"e !aw o# t"e particu!ar subject and t"e ot"er as t"e !aw o# genera! app!ication.1>D T"e specia! !aw must be ta-en as intended to constitute an e.ception to, or a Hua!i#ication o#, t"e genera! act or pro$ision.1>5 T"e reason #or t"is is t"at t"e !egis!ature, in passing a !aw o# specia! c"aracter, considers and ma-es specia! pro$isions #or t"e particu!ar circumstances dea!t wit" by t"e specia! !aw. T"is being so, t"e !egis!ature, by adopting a genera! !aw containing pro$isions repugnant to t"ose o# t"e specia! !aw and wit"out ma-ing any mention o# its intention to amend or modi#y suc" specia! !aw, cannot be deemed to "a$e intended an amendment, repea! or modi#ication o# t"e !atter.1>B /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ is a specia! !aw1>@ since it dea!s speci#ica!!y wit" a certain area described t"erein ;t"e Pandacan oi! depot area< w"ereas /rdinance 7o. 8119 can be considered a genera! !aw1>8 as it co$ers t"e entire city o# ani!a. T"e oi! companies assert t"at e$en i# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ is a specia! !aw, t"e e.istence o# an a!!=encompassing repea!ing c!ause in /rdinance 7o. 8119 e$inces an intent on t"e part o# t"e /anggunian to repea! t"e ear!ier ordinance: 5ec. 8D. 4epea!ing '!ause. Q %!! ordinances, ru!es, regu!ations in con#!ict wit" t"e pro$isions o# t"is /rdinance are "ereby repea!ed) (+.*I-)-, T"at t"e rig"ts t"at are $ested upon t"e e##ecti$ity o# t"is /rdinance s"a!! not be impaired. T"ey cited ;ospicio de /an Jose de Barili, Cebu Cit v. -epartment of Agrarian +eform:1>9 T"e presence o# suc" genera! repea!ing c!ause in a !ater statute c!ear!y indicates t"e !egis!ati$e intent to repea! a!! prior inconsistent !aws on t"e subject matter, w"et"er t"e prior !aw is a genera! !aw or a specia! !aw... *it"out suc" a c!ause, a !ater genera! !aw wi!! ordinari!y not repea! a prior specia! !aw on t"e same subject. But wit" suc" c!ause contained in t"e subseHuent genera! !aw, t"e prior specia! !aw wi!! be deemed repea!ed, as t"e c!ause is a c!ear !egis!ati$e intent to bring about t"at resu!t.11> T"is ru!ing in not app!icab!e "ere. T"e repea!ing c!ause o# /rdinance 7o. 8119 cannot be ta-en to indicate t"e !egis!ati$e intent to repea! a!! prior inconsistent !aws on t"e subject matter, inc!uding /rdinance 7o. 8>&@, a specia! enactment, since t"e a#oreHuoted minutes ;an o##icia! record o# t"e discussions in t"e /anggunian<actua!!y indicated t"e c!ear intent to preser$e t"e pro$isions o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. To summariGe, t"e con#!ict between t"e two ordinances is more apparent t"an rea!. T"e two ordinances can be reconci!ed. /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ is app!icab!e to t"e area particu!ar!y described t"erein w"ereas /rdinance 7o. 8119 is app!icab!e to t"e entire 'ity o# ani!a. Mandamus Lies To Co56el Res6on-ent Mayo7 To Enfo7ce O7-inance No. '"% T"e oi! companies insist t"at mandamus does not !ie against respondent in consideration o# t"e separation o# powers o# t"e e.ecuti$e and judiciary.111 T"is argument is misp!aced. Indeed, It"eJ 'ourts wi!! not inter#ere by mandamus proceedings wit" t"e !egis!ati$e Ior e.ecuti$e departmentsJ o# t"e go$ernment in t"e !egitimate e.ercise o# its powers, eBce6t to enfo7ce 5e7e 5iniste7ial acts 7eI0i7e- 9y la: to 9e 6e7fo75e- 9y so5e office7 t8e7eof.11& ;6mp"asis 5upp!ied< since t"is is t"e #unction o# a writ o# mandamus, w"ic" is t"e power to compe! Et"e per#ormance o# an act w"ic" t"e !aw speci#ica!!y enjoins as a duty resu!ting #rom o##ice, trust or station.E11? T"ey a!so argue t"at petitioners "ad a p!ain, speedy and adeHuate remedy to compe! respondent to en#orce /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ w"ic" was to see- re!ie# #rom t"e President o# t"e P"i!ippines t"roug" t"e 5ecretary o# t"e 8epartment o# Interior and Noca! Go$ernment ;8ING< by $irtue o# t"e President3s power o# super$ision o$er !oca! go$ernment units. %gain, we disagree. % party need not go #irst to t"e 8ING in order to compe! t"e en#orcement o# an ordinance. T"is suggested process wou!d be unreasonab!y !ong, tedious and conseHuent!y injurious to t"e interests o# t"e !oca! go$ernment unit ;NGF< and its constituents w"ose we!#are is soug"t to be protected. Besides, petitioners3 resort to an origina! action #or mandamus be#ore t"is 'ourt is undeniab!y a!!owed by t"e 'onstitution.11D

5D
O7-inance No. '"% Is Constit0tional )n- /ali,a$ing ru!ed t"at t"ere is no impediment to t"e en#orcement o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@, we now proceed to ma-e a de#initi$e ru!ing on its constitutiona!ity and $a!idity. T"e tests o# a $a!id ordinance are we!! estab!is"ed. (or an ordinance to be $a!id, it must not on!y be wit"in t"e corporate powers o# t"e NGF to enact and be passed according to t"e procedure prescribed by !aw, it must a!so con#orm to t"e #o!!owing substanti$e reHuirements: ;1< must not contra$ene t"e 'onstitution or any statute) ;&< must not be un#air or oppressi$e) ;?< must not be partia! or discriminatory) ;D< must not pro"ibit but may regu!ate trade) ;5< must be genera! and consistent wit" pub!ic po!icy and ;B< must not be unreasonab!e.115 T8e City of Manila Has T8e Po:e7 To Enact O7-inance No. '"% /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ was passed by t"e /angguniang (anlungsod o# ani!a in t"e e.ercise o# its po!ice power. Po!ice power is t"e p!enary power $ested in t"e !egis!ature to ma-e statutes and ordinances to promote t"e "ea!t", mora!s, peace, education, good order or sa#ety and genera! we!#are o# t"e peop!e.11B T"is power #!ows #rom t"e recognition t"at salus populi est suprema le# ;t"e we!#are o# t"e peop!e is t"e supreme !aw<. 11@ *"i!e po!ice power rests primari!y wit" t"e nationa! !egis!ature, suc" power may be de!egated.118 5ection 1B o# t"e NG', -nown as t"e genera! we!#are c!ause, encapsu!ates t"e de!egated po!ice power to !oca! go$ernments:119 5ection 1B. Genera! *e!#are. X 6$ery !oca! go$ernment unit s"a!! e.ercise t"e powers e.press!y granted, t"ose necessari!y imp!ied t"ere#rom, as we!! as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidenta! #or its e##icient and e##ecti$e go$ernance, and t"ose w"ic" are essentia! to t"e promotion o# t"e genera! we!#are. *it"in t"eir respecti$e territoria! jurisdictions, !oca! go$ernment units s"a!! ensure and support, among ot"er t"ings, t"e preser$ation and enric"ment o# cu!ture, promote "ea!t" and sa#ety, en"ance t"e rig"t o# t"e peop!e to a ba!anced eco!ogy, encourage and support t"e de$e!opment o# appropriate and se!#=re!iant scienti#ic and tec"no!ogica! capabi!ities, impro$e pub!ic mora!s, en"ance economic prosperity and socia! justice, promote #u!! emp!oyment among t"eir residents, maintain peace and order, and preser$e t"e com#ort and con$enience o# t"eir in"abitants. NGFs !i-e t"e 'ity o# ani!a e.ercise po!ice power t"roug" t"eir respecti$e !egis!ati$e bodies, in t"is case, t"e/angguniang (anlungsod or t"e city counci!. 5peci#ica!!y, t"e /anggunian can enact ordinances #or t"e genera! we!#are o# t"e city: 5ection. D58. Q (owers, -uties, $unctions and Compensation. Q ;a< T"e sangguniang panglungsod, as t"e !egis!ati$e branc" o# t"e city, s"a!! enact ordinances, appro$e reso!utions and appropriate #unds #or t"e genera! we!#are o# t"e city and its in"abitants pursuant to 5ection 1B o# t"is 'ode .... T"is po!ice power was a!so pro$ided #or in 4% D>9 or t"e 4e$ised '"arter o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a:

5ection 18. Negis!ati$e powers. K T"e I'ity 'ounci!J s"a!! "a$e t"e #o!!owing !egis!ati$e powers: ... ... ...

(g) To enact a!! ordinances it may deem necessary and proper #or t"e sanitation and sa#ety, t"e #urt"erance o# t"e prosperity, and t"e promotion o# t"e mora!ity, peace, good order, com#ort, con$enience, and genera! we!#are o# t"e city and its in"abitants, and suc" ot"ers as may be necessary to carry into e##ect and disc"arge t"e powers and duties con#erred by t"is c"apter ....1&> 5peci#ica!!y, t"e /anggunian "as t"e power to Erec!assi#y !and wit"in t"e jurisdiction o# t"e city.E1&1 T8e Enact5ent Of O7-inance No. '"% Is ) Le1iti5ate EBe7cise Of Police Po:e7 %s wit" t"e 5tate, !oca! go$ernments may be considered as "a$ing proper!y e.ercised t"eir po!ice power on!y i# t"e #o!!owing reHuisites are met: ;1< t"e interests o# t"e pub!ic genera!!y, as distinguis"ed #rom t"ose o# a particu!ar c!ass, reHuire its e.ercise and ;&< t"e means emp!oyed are reasonab!y necessary #or t"e accomp!is"ment o# t"e purpose and not undu!y oppressi$e upon indi$idua!s. In s"ort, t"ere must be a concurrence o# a !aw#u! subject and a !aw#u! met"od.1&&

55
/rdinance 7o. 8>&@ was enacted E#or t"e purpose o# promoting sound urban p!anning, ensuring "ea!t", pub!ic sa#ety and genera! we!#areE1&? o# t"e residents o# ani!a. T"e /anggunian was impe!!ed to ta-e measures to protect t"e residents o# ani!a #rom catastrop"ic de$astation in case o# a terrorist attac- on t"e Pandacan Termina!s. Towards t"is objecti$e, t"e /anggunian rec!assi#ied t"e area de#ined in t"e ordinance #rom industria! to commercia!. T"e #o!!owing #acts were #ound by t"e 'ommittee on ,ousing, 4esett!ement and Frban 8e$e!opment o# t"e 'ity o# w"ic" recommended t"e appro$a! o# t"e ordinance: ani!a

;1< t"e depot #aci!ities contained ?1?.5 mi!!ion !iters o# "ig"!y #!ammab!e and "ig"!y $o!ati!e products w"ic" inc!ude petro!eum gas, !iHue#ied petro!eum gas, a$iation #ue!, diese!, gaso!ine, -erosene and #ue! oi! among ot"ers) ;&< t"e depot is open to attac- t"roug" !and, water or air) ;?< it is situated in a dense!y popu!ated p!ace and near a!acaPang Pa!ace and

;D< in case o# an e.p!osion or con#!agration in t"e depot, t"e #ire cou!d spread to t"e neig"boring communities.1&D T"e ordinance was intended to sa#eguard t"e rig"ts to !i#e, security and sa#ety o# a!! t"e in"abitants o# ani!a and not just o# a particu!ar c!ass.1&5 T"e depot is percei$ed, rig"t!y or wrong!y, as a representation o# western interests w"ic" means t"at it is a terrorist target. %s !ong as it t"ere is suc" a target in t"eir midst, t"e residents o# ani!a are not sa#e. It t"ere#ore became necessary to remo$e t"ese termina!s to dissipate t"e t"reat. %ccording to respondent: 5uc" a pub!ic need became apparent a#ter t"e 9T11 incident w"ic" s"owed t"at w"at was percei$ed to be impossib!e to "appen, to t"e most power#u! country in t"e wor!d at t"at, is actua!!y possib!e. T"e destruction o# property and t"e !oss o# t"ousands o# !i$es on t"at #ate#u! day became t"e impetus #or a pub!ic need. In t"e a#termat" o# t"e 9T11 tragedy, t"e t"reats o# terrorism continued Isuc"J t"at it became imperati$e #or go$ernments to ta-e measures to combat t"eir e##ects.1&B *ide discretion is $ested on t"e !egis!ati$e aut"ority to determine not on!y w"at t"e interests o# t"e pub!ic reHuire but a!so w"at measures are necessary #or t"e protection o# suc" interests.1&@ '!ear!y, t"e /anggunianwas in t"e best position to determine t"e needs o# its constituents. In t"e e.ercise o# po!ice power, property rig"ts o# indi$idua!s may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to #u!#i!! t"e objecti$es o# t"e go$ernment.1&8 /t"erwise stated, t"e go$ernment may enact !egis!ation t"at may inter#ere wit" persona! !iberty, property, !aw#u! businesses and occupations to promote t"e genera! we!#are.1&9 ,owe$er, t"e inter#erence must be reasonab!e and not arbitrary. %nd to #oresta!! arbitrariness, t"e met"ods or means used to protect pub!ic "ea!t", mora!s, sa#ety or we!#are must "a$e a reasonab!e re!ation to t"e end in $iew.1?> T"e means adopted by t"e /anggunian was t"e enactment o# a Goning ordinance w"ic" rec!assi#ied t"e area w"ere t"e depot is situated #rom industria! to commercia!. % Goning ordinance is de#ined as a !oca! city or municipa! !egis!ation w"ic" !ogica!!y arranges, prescribes, de#ines and apportions a gi$en po!itica! subdi$ision into speci#ic !and uses as present and #uture projection o# needs.1?1 %s a resu!t o# t"e Goning, t"e continued operation o# t"e businesses o# t"e oi! companies in t"eir present !ocation wi!! no !onger be permitted. T"e power to estab!is" Gones #or industria!, commercia! and residentia! uses is deri$ed #rom t"e po!ice power itse!# and is e.ercised #or t"e protection and bene#it o# t"e residents o# a !oca!ity. 1?& 'onseHuent!y, t"e enactment o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ is wit"in t"e power o# t"e /angguniang (anlungsod o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a and any resu!ting burden on t"ose a##ected cannot be said to be unjust: T"ere can be no doubt t"at t"e 'ity o# ani!a "as t"e power to di$ide its territory into residentia! and industria! Gones, and to prescribe t"at o##ensi$e and unw"o!esome trades and occupations are to be estab!is"ed e.c!usi$e!y in t"e !atter Gone. ET"e bene#its to be deri$ed by cities adopting suc" regu!ations ;Goning< may be summariGed as #o!!ows: T"ey attract a desirab!e and assure a permanent citiGens"ip) t"ey #oster pride in and attac"ment to t"e city) t"ey promote "appiness and contentment) t"ey stabi!iGe t"e use and $a!ue o# property and promote t"e peace, ItranHui!ityJ, and good order o# t"e city. *e do not "esitate to say t"at t"e attainment o# t"ese objects a##ords a !egitimate #ie!d #or t"e e.ercise o# t"e po!ice power. ,e w"o owns property in suc" a district is not depri$ed o# its use by suc" regu!ations. ,e may use it #or t"e purposes to w"ic" t"e section in w"ic" it is !ocated is dedicated. T"at "e s"a!! not be permitted

5B
to use it to t"e desecration o# t"e community constitutes no unreasonab!e or permanent "ards"ip and resu!ts in no unjust burden.E ... ... ...

ET"e 1Dt" %mendment protects t"e citiGen in "is rig"t to engage in any !aw#u! business, but it does not pre$ent !egis!ation intended to regu!ate use#u! occupations w"ic", because o# t"eir nature or !ocation, may pro$e injurious or o##ensi$e to t"e pub!ic.E1?? *e entertain no doubt t"at /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ is a $a!id po!ice power measure because t"ere is a concurrence o# !aw#u! subject and !aw#u! met"od. O7-inance No. '"% Is Not Unfai7& O667essive O7 Confiscato7y ?8ic8 )5o0nts To TaHin1 ?it8o0t Co56ensation %ccording to t"e oi! companies, /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ is un#air and oppressi$e as it does not on!y regu!ate but a!so abso!ute!y pro"ibits t"em #rom conducting operations in t"e 'ity o# ani!a. 4espondent counters t"at t"is is not accurate since t"e ordinance mere!y pro"ibits t"e oi! companies #rom operating t"eir businesses in t"e Pandacan area. Indeed, t"e ordinance e.press!y de!ineated in its tit!e and in 5ection 1 w"at it pertained to. T"ere#ore, t"e oi! companies3 contention is not supported by t"e te.t o# t"e ordinance. 4espondent succinct!y stated t"at: T"e oi! companies are not #orbidden to do business in t"e 'ity o# ani!a. T"ey may sti!! $ery we!! do so, e.cept t"at t"eir oi! storage #aci!ities are no !onger a!!owed in t"e Pandacan area. 'ertain!y, t"ere are ot"er p!aces in t"e 'ity o# ani!a w"ere t"ey can conduct t"is speci#ic -ind o# business. /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ did not render t"e oi! companies i!!ega!. T"e assai!ed ordinance a##ects t"e oi! companies business on!y in so #ar as t"e Pandacan area is concerned.1?D T"e oi! companies are not pro"ibited #rom doing business in ot"er appropriate Gones in ani!a. T"e 'ity o# e.ercised its power to regu!ate t"e businesses and industries in t"e Gones it estab!is"ed: ani!a mere!y

%s to t"e contention t"at t"e power to regu!ate does not inc!ude t"e power to pro"ibit, it wi!! be seen t"at t"e ordinance copied abo$e does not pro"ibit t"e insta!!ation o# motor engines wit"in t"e municipa!ity o# 'abanatuan but on!y wit"in t"e Gone t"erein #i.ed. I# t"e municipa! counci! o# 'abanatuan is aut"oriGed to estab!is" said Gone, it is a!so aut"oriGed to pro$ide w"at -ind o# engines may be insta!!ed t"erein. In banning t"e insta!!ation in said Gone o# a!! engines not e.cepted in t"e ordinance, t"e municipa! counci! o# 'abanatuan did no more t"an regu!ate t"eir insta!!ation by means o# Goni#ication.1?5 T"e oi! companies a$er t"at t"e ordinance is un#air and oppressi$e because t"ey "a$e in$ested bi!!ions o# pesos in t"e depot.1?B Its #orced c!osure wi!! resu!t in "uge !osses in income and tremendous costs in constructing new #aci!ities. T"eir contention "as no merit. In t"e e.ercise o# po!ice power, t"ere is a !imitation on or restriction o# property interests to promote pub!ic we!#are w"ic" in$o!$es no compensab!e ta-ing. 'ompensation is necessary on!y w"en t"e state3s power o# eminent domain is e.ercised. In eminent domain, property is appropriated and app!ied to some pub!ic purpose. Property condemned under t"e e.ercise o# po!ice power, on t"e ot"er "and, is no.ious or intended #or a no.ious or #orbidden purpose and, conseHuent!y, is not compensab!e.1?@ T"e restriction imposed to protect !i$es, pub!ic "ea!t" and sa#ety #rom danger is not a ta-ing. It is mere!y t"e pro"ibition or abatement o# a no.ious use w"ic" inter#eres wit" paramount rig"ts o# t"e pub!ic. Property "as not on!y an indi$idua! #unction, inso#ar as it "as to pro$ide #or t"e needs o# t"e owner, but a!so a socia! #unction inso#ar as it "as to pro$ide #or t"e needs o# t"e ot"er members o# society. 1?8 T"e princip!e is t"is: Po!ice power proceeds #rom t"e princip!e t"at e$ery "o!der o# property, "owe$er abso!ute and unHua!i#ied may be "is tit!e, "o!ds it under t"e imp!ied !iabi!ity t"at "is use o# it s"a!! not be injurious to t"e eHua! enjoyment o# ot"ers "a$ing an eHua! rig"t to t"e enjoyment o# t"eir property, nor injurious to t"e rig"t o# t"e community. 4ig"ts o# property, !i-e a!! ot"er socia! and con$entiona! rig"ts, are subject to reasonab!e !imitations in t"eir enjoyment as s"a!! pre$ent t"em #rom being injurious, and to suc" reasonab!e restraints and regu!ations estab!is"ed by !aw as t"e !egis!ature, under t"e go$erning and contro!!ing power $ested in t"em by t"e constitution, may t"in- necessary and e.pedient.1?9

5@
In t"e regu!ation o# t"e use o# t"e property, nobody e!se acHuires t"e use or interest t"erein, "ence t"ere is no compensab!e ta-ing.1D> In t"is case, t"e properties o# t"e oi! companies and ot"er businesses situated in t"e a##ected area remain t"eirs. /n!y t"eir use is restricted a!t"oug" t"ey can be app!ied to ot"er pro#itab!e uses permitted in t"e commercia! Gone. O7-inance No. '"% Is Not Pa7tial )n- Disc7i5inato7y T"e oi! companies ta-e t"e position t"at t"e ordinance "as discriminated against and sing!ed out t"e Pandacan Termina!s despite t"e #act t"at t"e Pandacan area is congested wit" bui!dings and residences t"at do not comp!y wit" t"e 7ationa! Bui!ding 'ode, (ire 'ode and ,ea!t" and 5anitation 'ode.1D1 T"is issue s"ou!d not detain us #or !ong. %n ordinance based on reasonab!e c!assi#ication does not $io!ate t"e constitutiona! guaranty o# t"e eHua! protection o# t"e !aw.1D& T"e reHuirements #or a $a!id and reasonab!e c!assi#ication are: ;1< it must rest on substantia! distinctions) ;&< it must be germane to t"e purpose o# t"e !aw) ;?< it must not be !imited to e.isting conditions on!y and ;D< it must app!y eHua!!y to a!! members o# t"e same c!ass.1D? T"e !aw may treat and regu!ate one c!ass di##erent!y #rom anot"er c!ass pro$ided t"ere are rea! and substantia! di##erences to distinguis" one c!ass #rom anot"er.1DD ,ere, t"ere is a reasonab!e c!assi#ication. *e reiterate t"at w"at t"e ordinance see-s to pre$ent is a catastrop"ic de$astation t"at wi!! resu!t #rom a terrorist attac-. Fn!i-e t"e depot, t"e surrounding community is not a "ig"=$a!ue terrorist target. %ny damage caused by #ire or e.p!osion occurring in t"ose areas wou!d be not"ing compared to t"e damage caused by a #ire or e.p!osion in t"e depot itse!#. %ccording!y, t"ere is a substantia! distinction. T"e enactment o# t"e ordinance w"ic" pro$ides #or t"e cessation o# t"e operations o# t"ese termina!s remo$es t"e t"reat t"ey pose. T"ere#ore it is germane to t"e purpose o# t"e ordinance. T"e c!assi#ication is not !imited to t"e conditions e.isting w"en t"e ordinance was enacted but to #uture conditions as we!!. (ina!!y, t"e ordinance is app!icab!e to a!! businesses and industries in t"e area it de!ineated. O7-inance No. '"% is Not Inconsistent ?it8 R) <3' )n- R) '# $ T"e oi! companies and t"e 8/6 assert t"at /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ is unconstitutiona! because it contra$enes 4% @B?8 ;8/6 %ct o# 199&<1D5 and 4% 8D@9 ;8ownstream /i! Industry 8eregu!ation Naw o# 1998<.1DB T"ey argue t"at t"roug" 4% @B?8, t"e nationa! !egis!ature dec!ared it a po!icy o# t"e state Eto ensure a continuous, adeHuate, and economic supp!y o# energyE 1D@ and created t"e 8/6 to imp!ement t"is po!icy. T"us, under 5ection 5 I, 8/6 is empowered to Eestab!is" and administer programs #or t"e e.p!oration, transportation, mar-eting, distribution, uti!iGation, conser$ation, stoc-pi!ing, and storage o# energy resources.E 'onsidering t"at t"e petro!eum products contained in t"e Pandacan Termina!s are major and critica! energy resources, t"ey conc!ude t"at t"eir administration, storage, distribution and transport are o# nationa! interest and #a!! under 8/63s primary and e.c!usi$e jurisdiction.1D8 T"ey #urt"er assert t"at t"e termina!s are necessary #or t"e de!i$ery o# immediate and adeHuate supp!y o# oi! to its recipients in t"e most economica! way.1D9 Noca! !egis!ation suc" as /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ ;w"ic" e##ecti$e!y ca!!s #or t"e remo$a! o# t"ese termina!s< a!!eged!y #rustrates t"e state po!icy o# ensuring a continuous, adeHuate, and economic supp!y o# energy e.pressed in 4% @B?8, a nationa! !aw.15> Ni-ewise, t"e ordinance t"warts t"e determination o# t"e 8/6 t"at t"e termina!s3 operations s"ou!d be mere!y sca!ed down and not discontinued.151T"ey insist t"at t"is s"ou!d not be a!!owed considering t"at it "as a nationwide economic impact and a##ects pub!ic interest transcending t"e territoria! jurisdiction o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a.15& %ccording to t"em, t"e 8/63s super$ision o$er t"e oi! industry under 4% @B?8 was subseHuent!y underscored by 4% 8D@9, particu!ar!y in 5ection @ t"ereo#: 56'TI/7 @. Promotion o# (air Trade Practices. X T"e 8epartment o# Trade and Industry ;8TI< and 8/6 s"a!! ta-e a!! measures to promote #air trade and pre$ent carte!iGation, monopo!ies, combinations in restraint o# trade, and any un#air competition in t"e Industry as de#ined in %rtic!e 18B o# t"e 4e$ised Pena! 'ode, and %rtic!es 1B8 and 1B9 o# 4epub!ic %ct 7o. 8&9?, ot"erwise -nown as t"e EInte!!ectua! Property 4ig"ts NawE. T8e DOE s8all continue to enco07a1e ce7tain 67actices in t8e In-0st7y :8ic8 se7ve t8e 609lic inte7est and are inten-e- to ac8ieve efficiency an- cost 7e-0ction& ens07e contin0o0s s066ly of 6et7ole05 67o-0cts& and en"ance en$ironmenta! protection. T"ese practices may inc!ude borrow=and=!oan agreements, rationa!iGed depot and manu#acturing operations, "ospita!ity agreements, joint tan-er and pipe!ine uti!iGation, and joint actions on oi! spi!! contro! and #ire pre$ention. ;6mp"asis supp!ied< 4espondent counters t"at 8/63s regu!atory power does not prec!ude NGFs #rom e.ercising t"eir po!ice power.15?

58
Indeed, ordinances s"ou!d not contra$ene e.isting statutes enacted by 'ongress. T"e rationa!e #or t"is was c!ear!y e.p!ained in !agta9as vs. (r ce (roperties Corp., Inc.:15D T"e rationa!e o# t"e reHuirement t"at t"e ordinances s"ou!d not contra$ene a statute is ob$ious. unicipa! go$ernments are on!y agents o# t"e nationa! go$ernment. Noca! counci!s e.ercise on!y de!egated !egis!ati$e powers con#erred on t"em by 'ongress as t"e nationa! !awma-ing body. T"e de!egate cannot be superior to t"e principa! or e.ercise powers "ig"er t"an t"ose o# t"e !atter. It is a "eresy to suggest t"at t"e !oca! go$ernment units can undo t"e acts o# 'ongress, #rom w"ic" t"ey "a$e deri$ed t"eir power in t"e #irst p!ace, and negate by mere ordinance t"e mandate o# t"e statute. E unicipa! corporations owe t"eir origin to, and deri$e t"eir powers and rig"ts w"o!!y #rom t"e !egis!ature. It breat"es into t"em t"e breat" o# !i#e, wit"out w"ic" t"ey cannot e.ist. %s it creates, so it may destroy. %s it may destroy, it may abridge and contro!. Fn!ess t"ere is some constitutiona! !imitation on t"e rig"t, t"e !egis!ature mig"t, by a sing!e act, and i# we can suppose it capab!e o# so great a #o!!y and so great a wrong, sweep #rom e.istence a!! o# t"e municipa! corporations in t"e 5tate, and t"e corporation cou!d not pre$ent it. *e -now o# no !imitation on t"e rig"t so #ar as to t"e corporation t"emse!$es are concerned. T"ey are, so to p"rase it, t"e mere tenants at wi!! o# t"e !egis!ature.E T"is basic re!ations"ip between t"e nationa! !egis!ature and t"e !oca! go$ernment units "as not been en#eeb!ed by t"e new pro$isions in t"e 'onstitution strengt"ening t"e po!icy o# !oca! autonomy. *it"out meaning to detract #rom t"at po!icy, we "ere con#irm t"at 'ongress retains contro! o# t"e !oca! go$ernment units a!t"oug" in signi#icant!y reduced degree now t"an under our pre$ious 'onstitutions. T"e power to create sti!! inc!udes t"e power to destroy. T"e power to grant sti!! inc!udes t"e power to wit""o!d or reca!!. True, t"ere are certain notab!e inno$ations in t"e 'onstitution, !i-e t"e direct con#erment on t"e !oca! go$ernment units o# t"e power to ta., w"ic" cannot now be wit"drawn by mere statute. By and !arge, "owe$er, t"e nationa! !egis!ature is sti!! t"e principa! o# t"e !oca! go$ernment units, w"ic" cannot de#y its wi!! or modi#y or $io!ate it.155 T"e Huestion now is w"et"er /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ contra$enes 4% @B?8 and 4% 8D@9. It does not. Fnder 5ection 5 I o# 4% @B?8, 8/6 was gi$en t"e power to Eestab!is" and administer programs #or t"e e.p!oration, transportation, mar-eting, distribution, uti!iGation, conser$ation, stoc-pi!ing, and storage o# energy resources.E /n t"e ot"er "and, under 5ection @ o# 4% 8@D9, t"e 8/6 Es"a!! continue to encourage certain practices in t"e Industry w"ic" ser$e t"e pub!ic interest and are intended to ac"ie$e e##iciency and cost reduction, ensure continuous supp!y o# petro!eum products.E 7ot"ing in t"ese statutes pro"ibits t"e 'ity o# ani!a #rom enacting ordinances in t"e e.ercise o# its po!ice power. T"e princip!e o# !oca! autonomy is ens"rined in and Gea!ous!y protected under t"e 'onstitution. In %rtic!e II, 5ection &5 t"ereo#, t"e peop!e e.press!y adopted t"e #o!!owing po!icy: 5ection &5. T"e 5tate s"a!! ensure t"e autonomy o# !oca! go$ernments. %n entire artic!e ;%rtic!e A< o# t"e 'onstitution "as been de$oted to guaranteeing and promoting t"e autonomy o# NGFs. T"e NG' was specia!!y promu!gated by 'ongress to ensure t"e autonomy o# !oca! go$ernments as mandated by t"e 'onstitution: 5ec. &. 8ec!aration o# Po!icy. X ;a< It is 8e7e9y -ecla7e- t8e 6olicy of t8e State t8at t8e te77ito7ial an- 6olitical s09-ivisions of t8e State s8all enAoy 1en0ine an- 5eanin1f0l local a0tono5y to ena9le t8e5 to attain t8ei7 f0llest -evelo65ent as self27eliant co550nities an- 5aHe t8e5 5o7e effective 6a7tne7s in t8e attain5ent of national 1oals. Toward t"is end, t"e 5tate s"a!! pro$ide #or a more responsi$e and accountab!e !oca! go$ernment structure instituted t"roug" a system o# decentra!iGation w"ereby !oca! go$ernment units s"a!! be gi$en more powers, aut"ority, responsibi!ities, and resources. T"e process o# decentra!iGation s"a!! proceed #rom t"e 7ationa! Go$ernment to t"e !oca! go$ernment units. ;6mp"asis supp!ied< *e do not see "ow t"e !aws re!ied upon by t"e oi! companies and 8/6 stripped t"e 'ity o# ani!a o# its power to enact ordinances in t"e e.ercise o# its po!ice power and to rec!assi#y t"e !and uses wit"in its jurisdiction. To guide us, we s"a!! ma-e a brie# sur$ey o# our decisions w"ere t"e po!ice power measure o# t"e NGF c!as"ed wit" nationa! !aws. In "an v. (ere<a,15B t"e 'ourt ru!ed t"at /rdinance 7o. @ enacted by t"e municipa!ity o# 8aanbantayan, 'ebu a!!owing t"e operation o# t"ree coc-pits was in$a!id #or $io!ating P8 DD9 ;or t"e 'oc-#ig"ting Naw o# 19@D< w"ic" permitted on!y one coc-pit per municipa!ity.

59
In Batangas CA"*, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,15@ t"e /angguniang (anlungsod o# Batangas 'ity enacted 4eso!ution 7o. &1> granting Batangas '%T9, Inc. a permit to operate a cab!e te!e$ision ;'%T9< system in Batangas 'ity. T"e 'ourt "e!d t"at t"e NGF did not "a$e t"e aut"ority to grant #ranc"ises to operate a '%T9 system because it was t"e 7ationa! Te!ecommunications 'ommission ;7T'< t"at "ad t"e power under 6/ 7os. &>5 and D?B to regu!ate '%T9 operations. 6/ &>5 mandated t"e 7T' to grant certi#icates o# aut"ority to '%T9 operators w"i!e 6/ D?B $ested on t"e 7T' t"e power to regu!ate and super$ise t"e '%T9 industry. In ,ina, Jr. v. (a<o,158 we "e!d t"at =apasi ahan Bilang 641, "aon 0226 o# t"e /angguniang (anlalawigan o# Naguna cou!d not be used as justi#ication to pro"ibit !otto in t"e municipa!ity o# 5an Pedro, Naguna because !otto was du!y aut"oriGed by 4% 11B9, as amended by BP D&. T"is !aw granted a #ranc"ise to t"e P"i!ippine '"arity 5weepsta-es /##ice and a!!owed it to operate !otteries. In !agta9as v. (r ce (roperties Corp., Inc.,159 t"e /angguniang (anlungsod o# 'agayan de /ro 'ity passed /rdinance 7os. ??5? and ??@5=9? pro"ibiting t"e operation o# casinos in t"e city. *e ru!ed t"at t"ese ordinances were $oid #or contra$ening P8 18B9 or t"e c"arter o# t"e P"i!ippine %musements and Gaming 'orporation w"ic" "ad t"e power to operate casinos. T"e common dominator o# a!! o# t"ese cases is t"at t"e nationa! !aws were c!ear!y and e.press!y in con#!ict wit" t"e ordinancesTreso!utions o# t"e NGFs. T"e inconsistencies were so patent t"at t"ere was no room #or doubt. T"is is not t"e case "ere. T"e !aws cited mere!y ga$e 8/6 genera! powers to Eestab!is" and administer programs #or t"e e.p!oration, transportation, mar-eting, distribution, uti!iGation, conser$ation, stoc-pi!ing, and storage o# energy resourcesE and Eto encourage certain practices in t"e Ioi!J industry w"ic" ser$e t"e pub!ic interest and are intended to ac"ie$e e##iciency and cost reduction, ensure continuous supp!y o# petro!eum products.E T"ese powers can be e.ercised wit"out emascu!ating t"e NGFs o# t"e powers granted t"em. *"en t"ese ambiguous powers are pitted against t"e uneHui$oca! power o# t"e NGF to enact po!ice power and Goning ordinances #or t"e genera! we!#are o# its constituents, it is not di##icu!t to ru!e in #a$or o# t"e !atter. 'onsidering t"at t"e powers o# t"e 8/6 regarding t"e Pandacan Termina!s are not categorica!, t"e doubt must be reso!$ed in #a$or o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a: 56'TI/7 5. 4u!es o# Interpretation. X In t"e interpretation o# t"e pro$isions o# t"is 'ode, t"e #o!!owing ru!es s"a!! app!y: ;a< %ny pro$ision on a power o# a !oca! go$ernment unit s"a!! be !ibera!!y interpreted in its #a$or, and in case o# doubt, any Huestion t"ereon s"a!! be reso!$ed in #a$or o# de$o!ution o# powers and o# t"e !ower !oca! go$ernment unit. %ny #air and reasonab!e doubt as to t"e e.istence o# t"e power s"a!! be interpreted in #a$or o# t"e !oca! go$ernment unit concerned) ... ... ...

;g< IT"e genera! we!#are pro$isions in t"is 'ode s"a!! be !ibera!!y interpreted to gi$e more powers to !oca! go$ernment units in acce!erating economic de$e!opment and upgrading t"e Hua!ity o# !i#e #or t"e peop!e in t"e community .... T"e !east we can do to ensure genuine and meaning#u! !oca! autonomy is not to #orce an interpretation t"at negates powers e.p!icit!y granted to !oca! go$ernments. To ru!e against t"e power o# NGFs to rec!assi#y areas wit"in t"eir jurisdiction wi!! sub$ert t"e princip!e o# !oca! autonomy guaranteed by t"e 'onstitution.1B> %s we "a$e noted in ear!ier decisions, our nationa! o##icia!s s"ou!d not on!y comp!y wit" t"e constitutiona! pro$isions on !oca! autonomy but s"ou!d a!so appreciate t"e spirit and !iberty upon w"ic" t"ese pro$isions are based.1B1 T8e DOE Cannot EBe7cise T8e Po:e7 Of Cont7ol Ove7 LGUs %not"er reason t"at mi!itates against t"e 8/63s assertions is t"at 5ection D o# %rtic!e A o# t"e 'onstitution con#ines t"e President3s power o$er NGFs to one o# genera! super$ision: 56'TI/7 D. T"e President o# t"e P"i!ippines s"a!! e.ercise genera! super$ision o$er !oca! go$ernments. A... 'onseHuent!y, t"e '"ie# 6.ecuti$e or "is or "er a!ter egos, cannot e.ercise t"e power o# contro! o$er t"em.1B&'ontro! and super$ision are distinguis"ed as #o!!ows:

B>
I5uper$isionJ means o$erseeing or t"e power or aut"ority o# an o##icer to see t"at subordinate o##icers per#orm t"eir duties. I# t"e !atter #ai! or neg!ect to #u!#i!! t"em, t"e #ormer may ta-e suc" action or step as prescribed by !aw to ma-e t"em per#orm t"eir duties. 'ontro!, on t"e ot"er "and, means t"e power o# an o##icer to a!ter or modi#y or nu!!i#y or set aside w"at a subordinate o##icer "aIsJ done in t"e per#ormance o# "is duties and to substitute t"e judgment o# t"e #ormer #or t"at o# t"e !atter.1B? 5uper$isory power, w"en contrasted wit" contro!, is t"e power o# mere o$ersig"t o$er an in#erior body) it does not inc!ude any restraining aut"ority o$er suc" body.1BD It does not a!!ow t"e super$isor to annu! t"e acts o# t"e subordinate.1B5 ,ere, w"at t"e 8/6 see-s to do is to set aside an ordinance enacted by !oca! o##icia!s, a power t"at not e$en its principa!, t"e President, "as. T"is is because: Fnder our present system o# go$ernment, e.ecuti$e power is $ested in t"e President. T"e members o# t"e 'abinet and ot"er e.ecuti$e o##icia!s are mere!y a!ter egos. %s suc", t"ey are subject to t"e power o# contro! o# t"e President, at w"ose wi!! and be"est t"ey can be remo$ed #rom o##ice) or t"eir actions and decisions c"anged, suspended or re$ersed. In contrast, t"e "eads o# po!itica! subdi$isions are e!ected by t"e peop!e. T"eir so$ereign powers emanate #rom t"e e!ectorate, to w"om t"ey are direct!y accountab!e. By constitutiona! #iat, t"ey are subject to t"e President3s super$ision on!y, not contro!, so !ong as t"eir acts are e.ercised wit"in t"e sp"ere o# t"eir !egitimate powers. By t"e same to-en, t"e President may not wit""o!d or a!ter any aut"ority or power gi$en t"em by t"e 'onstitution and t"e !aw.1BB T"us, t"e President and "is or "er a!ter egos, t"e department "eads, cannot inter#ere wit" t"e acti$ities o# !oca! go$ernments, so !ong as t"ey act wit"in t"e scope o# t"eir aut"ority. %ccording!y, t"e 8/6 cannot substitute its own discretion #or t"e discretion e.ercised by t"e sanggunian o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a. In !oca! a##airs, t"e wisdom o# !oca! o##icia!s must pre$ai! as !ong as t"ey are acting wit"in t"e parameters o# t"e 'onstitution and t"e !aw. 1B@ O7-inance No. '"% Is Not Invali- Fo7 Fail07e To Co56ly ?it8 R) $%# )n- EO % T"e oi! companies argue t"at Goning ordinances o# NGFs are reHuired to be submitted to t"e etropo!itan ani!a 8e$e!opment %ut"ority ; 8%< #or re$iew and i# #ound to be in comp!iance wit" its metropo!itan p"ysica! #ramewor- p!an and regu!ations, it s"a!! endorse t"e same to t"e ,ousing and Nand Fse 4egu!atory Board ;,NF4B<. T"eir basis is 5ection ? ;e< o# 4% @9&D:1B8 56'TI/7 ?. 5cope o# 8% 5er$ices. X Met7o2:i-e se7vices 0n-e7 t8e A07is-iction of t8e MMD) are t"ose ser$ices w"ic" "a$e metro=wide impact and transcend !oca! po!itica! boundaries or entai! "uge e.penditures suc" t"at it wou!d not be $iab!e #or said ser$ices to be pro$ided by t"e indi$idua! INGFsJ comprising etropo!itan ani!a. T"ese ser$ices s"a!! inc!ude: ... ... ...

;g< U79an 7ene:al& Jonin1& an- lan- 0se 6lannin1, and s"e!ter ser$ices w"ic" inc!ude t"e #ormu!ation, adoption and imp!ementation o# po!icies, standards, ru!es and regu!ations, programs and projects to rationa!iGe and optimiGe urban !and use and pro$ide direction to urban growt" and e.pansion, t"e re"abi!itation and de$e!opment o# s!um and b!ig"ted areas, t"e de$e!opment o# s"e!ter and "ousing #aci!ities and t"e pro$ision o# necessary socia! ser$ices t"ereo#. ;6mp"asis supp!ied< 4e#erence was a!so made to 5ection 15 o# its imp!ementing ru!es: 5ection 15. Nin-ages wit" ,F8'', ,NF4B, 7,%, NGFs and /t"er 7ationa! Go$ernment %gencies 'oncerned on Frban 4enewa!, Soning and Nand Fse P!anning and 5"e!ter 5er$ices. *it"in t"e conte.t o# t"e 7ationa! ,ousing and Frban 8e$e!opment (ramewor-, and pursuant to t"e nationa! standards, guide!ines and regu!ations #ormu!ated by t"e ,ousing and Nand Fse 4egu!atory Board I,NF4BJ on !and use p!anning and Goning, t"e I 8%J s"a!! prepare a metropo!itan p"ysica! #ramewor- p!an and regu!ations w"ic" s"a!! comp!ement and trans!ate t"e socio=economic de$e!opment p!an #or etro ani!a into p"ysica! or spatia! terms, and pro$ide t"e basis #or t"e preparation, re$iew, integration and imp!ementation o# !oca! !and use p!ans and Goning, ordinance o# cities and municipa!ities in t"e area. 5aid #ramewor- p!an and regu!ations s"a!! contain, among ot"ers, p!anning and Goning po!icies and procedures t"at s"a!! be obser$ed by !oca! go$ernment units in t"e preparation o# t"eir own p!ans and ordinances pursuant to 5ection DD@ and D58 o# 4% @1B>, as we!! as t"e identi#ication o# sites and projects t"at are considered to be o# nationa! or metropo!itan signi#icance.

B1
Cities an- 50nici6alities s8all 67e6a7e t8ei7 7es6ective lan- 0se 6lans an- Jonin1 o7-inances an- s095it t8e sa5e fo7 7evie: an- inte17ation 9y t8e FMMD)G an- in-o7se5ent to HLUR( in acco7-ance :it8 EBec0tive O7-e7 No. % an- ot8e7 6e7tinent la:s. In t"e preparation o# a etropo!itan ani!a p"ysica! #ramewor- p!an and regu!ations, t"e I 8%J s"a!! coordinate wit" t"e ,ousing and Frban 8e$e!opment 'oordinating 'ounci!, ,NF4B, t"e 7ationa! ,ousing %ut"ority, Intramuros %dministration, and a!! ot"er agencies o# t"e nationa! go$ernment w"ic" are concerned wit" !and use and Goning, urban renewa! and s"e!ter ser$ices. ;6mp"asis supp!ied< T"ey a!so c!aim t"at 6/ @&1B9 pro$ides t"at Goning ordinances o# cities and municipa!ities o# etro ani!a are subject to re$iew by t"e ,NF4B to ensure comp!iance wit" nationa! standards and guide!ines. T"ey cite 5ection 1, paragrap"s I, ;e<, ;#< and ;g<: 56'TI/7 1. P!an #ormu!ation or updating. X ... ... ...

(g) 'ities and municipa!ities o# etropo!itan ani!a s"a!! continue to #ormu!ate or update t"eir respecti$e co567e8ensive lan- 0se 6lans, in accordance wit" t"e !and use p!anning and Goning standards and guide!ines prescribed by t"e ,NF4B pursuant to 6/ ?9&, 5. o# 199>, and ot"er pertinent nationa! po!icies. ... ... ...

;e< Pursuant to N/I @&9, 5. o# 19@8, 6/ BD8, 5. o# 1981, and 4% @&@9, t"e co567e8ensive lan- 0se 6lans o# pro$inces, "ig"!y urbaniGed cities and independent component cities s"a!! be re$iewed and rati#ied by t"e ,NF4B to ensure comp!iance wit" nationa! standards and guide!ines. ;#< Pursuant to 6/ ?9&, 5. o# 1999, t"e co567e8ensive lan- 0se 6lans o# cities and municipa!ities o# ani!a s"a!! be re$iewed by t"e ,NF4B to ensure comp!iance wit" nationa! standards and guide!ines. etropo!itan

(g) 5aid re$iew s"a!! be comp!eted wit"in t"ree ;?< mont"s upon receipt t"ereo# ot"erwise, t"e same s"a!! be deemed consistent wit" !aw, and, t"ere#ore, $a!id. ;6mp"asis supp!ied< T"ey argue t"at because /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ did not go t"roug" t"is re$iew process, it is in$a!id. T"e argument is #!awed. 4% @9D& does not gi$e 8% t"e aut"ority to re$iew !and use p!ans and Goning ordinances o# cities and municipa!ities. T"is was on!y #ound in its imp!ementing ru!es w"ic" made a re#erence to 6/ @&. 6/ @& e.press!y re#ers to compre"ensi$e !and use p!ans ;'NFPs< on!y. /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ is admitted!y not a 'NFP nor intended to be one. Instead, it is a $ery speci#ic ordinance w"ic" rec!assi#ied t"e !and use o# a de#ined area in order to pre$ent t"e massi$e e##ects o# a possib!e terrorist attac-. It is /rdinance 7o. 8119 w"ic" was e.p!icit!y #ormu!ated as t"e E ani!a I'NFPJ and Soning /rdinance o# &>>B.E 'NFPs are t"e ordinances w"ic" s"ou!d be submitted to t"e 8% #or integration in its metropo!itan p"ysica! #ramewor- p!an and appro$ed by t"e ,NF4B to ensure t"at t"ey con#orm wit" nationa! guide!ines and po!icies. oreo$er, e$en assuming t"at t"e 8% re$iew and ,NF4B rati#ication are necessary, t"e oi! companies did not present any e$idence to s"ow t"at t"ese were not comp!ied wit". In accordance wit" t"e presumption o# $a!idity in #a$or o# an ordinance, its constitutiona!ity or !ega!ity s"ou!d be up"e!d in t"e absence o# proo# s"owing t"at t"e procedure prescribed by !aw was not obser$ed. T"e burden o# proo# is on t"e oi! companies w"ic" a!ready "ad notice t"at t"is 'ourt was inc!ined to dispose o# a!! t"e issues in t"is case. +et aside #rom t"eir bare assertion, t"ey did not present any certi#ication #rom t"e 8% or t"e ,NF4B nor did t"ey append t"ese to t"eir p!eadings. '!ear!y, t"ey #ai!ed to rebut t"e presumption o# $a!idity o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@.1@> Concl0sion 6ssentia!!y, t"e oi! companies are #ig"ting #or t"eir rig"t to property. T"ey a!!ege t"at t"ey stand to !ose bi!!ions o# pesos i# #orced to re!ocate. ,owe$er, based on t"e "ierarc"y o# constitutiona!!y protected rig"ts, t"e rig"t to !i#e enjoys precedence o$er

B&
t"e rig"t to property.1@1 T"e reason is ob$ious: !i#e is irrep!aceab!e, property is not. *"en t"e state or NGF3s e.ercise o# po!ice power c!as"es wit" a #ew indi$idua!s3 rig"t to property, t"e #ormer s"ou!d pre$ai!.1@& Bot" !aw and jurisprudence support t"e constitutiona!ity and $a!idity o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. *it"out a doubt, t"ere are no impediments to its en#orcement and imp!ementation. %ny de!ay is un#air to t"e in"abitants o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a and its !eaders w"o "a$e categorica!!y e.pressed t"eir desire #or t"e re!ocation o# t"e termina!s. T"eir power to c"art and contro! t"eir own destiny and preser$e t"eir !i$es and sa#ety s"ou!d not be curtai!ed by t"e inter$enors3 warnings o# doomsday scenarios and t"reats o# economic disorder i# t"e ordinance is en#orced. 5econdary to t"e !ega! reasons supporting t"e immediate imp!ementation o# /rdinance 7o. 8>&@ are t"e po!icy considerations w"ic" dro$e ani!a3s go$ernment to come up wit" suc" a measure: ... IT"eJ oi! companies sti!! were not ab!e to a!!ay t"e appre"ensions o# t"e city regarding t"e security t"reat in t"e area in genera!. 7o speci#ic action p!an or security measures were presented t"at wou!d pre$ent a possib!e !arge= sca!e terrorist or ma!icious attac- especia!!y an attac- aimed at a!acaPang. T"e measures t"at were insta!!ed were more directed towards t"eir interna! security and did not inc!ude t"e pre$ention o# an e.terna! attac- e$en on a bi!atera! !e$e! o# cooperation between t"ese companies and t"e po!ice and mi!itary. ... ... ...

It is not enoug" #or t"e city go$ernment to be to!d by t"ese oi! companies t"at t"ey "a$e t"e most sop"isticated #ire= #ig"ting eHuipments and "a$e in$ested mi!!ions o# pesos #or t"ese eHuipments. T"e city go$ernment wants to be assured t"at its residents are sa#e at any time #rom t"ese insta!!ations, and in t"e t"ree pub!ic "earings and in t"eir position papers, not one statement "as been said t"at indeed t"e abso!ute sa#ety o# t"e residents #rom t"e "aGards posed by t"ese insta!!ations is assured.1@? *e are a!so putting an end to t"e oi! companies3 determination to pro!ong t"eir stay in Pandacan despite t"e objections o# ani!a3s residents. %s ear!y as /ctober &>>1, t"e oi! companies signed a /% wit" t"e 8/6 ob!iging t"emse!$es to: ... underta-e a compre"ensi$e and comparati$e study ... Iw"ic"J s"a!! inc!ude t"e preparation o# a aster P!an, w"ose aim is to determine t"e scope and timing o# t"e #easib!e !ocation o# t"e Pandacan oi! termina!s and a!! associated #aci!ities and in#rastructure inc!uding go$ernment support essentia! #or t"e re!ocation suc" as t"e necessary transportation in#rastructure, !and and rig"t o# way acHuisition, resett!ement o# disp!aced residents and en$ironmenta! and socia! acceptabi!ity w"ic" s"a!! be based on mutua! bene#it o# t"e Parties and t"e pub!ic.1@D 7ow t"at t"ey are being compe!!ed to discontinue t"eir operations in t"e Pandacan Termina!s, t"ey cannot #eign unreadiness considering t"at t"ey "ad years to prepare #or t"is e$entua!ity. Just t"e same, t"is 'ourt is not about to pro$o-e a crisis by ordering t"e immediate re!ocation o# t"e Pandacan Termina!s out o# its present site. T"e en#orcement o# a decision o# t"is 'ourt, specia!!y one wit" #ar=reac"ing conseHuences, s"ou!d a!ways be wit"in t"e bounds o# reason, in accordance wit" a compre"ensi$e and we!!=coordinated p!an, and wit"in a time=#rame t"at comp!ies wit" t"e !etter and spirit o# our reso!ution. To t"is end, t"e oi! companies "a$e no c"oice but to obey t"e !aw. ) ?a7nin1 To Petitione7sE Co0nsel *e draw t"e attention o# t"e parties to a matter o# gra$e concern to t"e !ega! pro#ession. Petitioners and t"eir counse!, %tty. 5amson %!cantara, submitted a #our=page memorandum t"at c!ear!y contained eit"er substance nor researc". It is abso!ute!y insu!ting to t"is 'ourt. *e "a$e a!ways tended towards judicia! !eniency, temperance and compassion to t"ose w"o su##er #rom a wrong perception o# w"at t"e majesty o# t"e !aw means. But #or a member o# t"e bar, an o##icer o# t"e court, to #i!e in t"is 'ourt a memorandum o# suc" unacceptab!e Hua!ity is an entire!y di##erent matter. It is indicati$e !ess o# a persona! s"ortcoming or contempt o# t"is 'ourt and more o# a !awyer3s sorry descent #rom a "ig" sense o# duty and responsibi!ity. %s a member o# t"e bar and as an o##icer o# t"e court, a !awyer oug"t to be -een!y aware t"at t"e c"ie# sa#eguard o# t"e body po!itic is respect #or t"e !aw and its magistrates.

B?
T"ere is not"ing more e##ecti$e t"an t"e written word by w"ic" counse! can persuade t"is 'ourt o# t"e rig"teousness o# "is cause. (or i# trut" were se!#=e$ident, a memorandum wou!d be comp!ete!y unnecessary and super#!uous. T"e inabi!ity o# counse! to prepare a memorandum wort"y o# t"is 'ourt3s consideration is an e9emplo malo to t"e !ega! pro#ession as it betrays no genuine interest in t"e cause "e c!aims to espouse. /r did counse! t"in- "e can earn "is moment o# g!ory wit"out t"e "ard wor- and dedication ca!!ed #or by "is petitionL ) Final ?o7/n *ednesday, January &?, &>>8, a de#ecti$e tan-er containing &,>>> !iters o# gaso!ine and 1D,>>> !iters o# diese! e.p!oded in t"e midd!e o# t"e street a s"ort distance #rom t"e e.it gate o# t"e Pandacan Termina!s, causing deat", e.tensi$e damage and a #rig"tening con#!agration in t"e $icinity o# t"e incident. 7eed we say ant"ing about w"at wi!! "appen i# it is t"e estimated 1B& to &11 mi!!ion !iters1@5 o# petro!eum products in t"e termina! comp!e. w"ic" b!ow upL ?HEREFORE, t"e motions #or !ea$e to inter$ene o# '"e$ron P"i!ippines Inc., Petron 'orporation and Pi!ipinas 5"e!! Petro!eum 'orporation, and t"e 4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines, represented by t"e 8epartment o# 6nergy, are "ereby GR)NTED. T"eir respecti$e motions #or reconsideration are "ereby DENIED. T"e 4egiona! Tria! 'ourt, ani!a, Branc" ?9 is ORDERED to DISMISS t"e conso!idated cases o# 'i$i! 'ase 7o. >?=1>B?@@ and 'i$i! 'ase 7o. >?=1>B?8>. *e reiterate our order to respondent ayor o# t"e 'ity o# ani!a to en#orce /rdinance 7o. 8>&@. In coordination wit" t"e appropriate agencies and ot"er parties in$o!$ed, respondent ayor is "ereby ordered to o$ersee t"e re!ocation and trans#er o# t"e Pandacan Termina!s out o# its present site. To ensure t"e order!y trans#er, mo$ement and re!ocation o# assets and personne!, t"e inter$enors '"e$ron P"i!ippines Inc., Petron 'orporation and Pi!ipinas 5"e!! Petro!eum 'orporation s"a!!, wit"in a non=e.tendib!e period o# ninety ;9>< days, submit to t"e 4egiona! Tria! 'ourt o# ani!a, Branc" ?9, t"e compre"ensi$e p!an and re!ocation sc"edu!e w"ic" "a$e a!!eged!y been prepared. T"e presiding judge o# ani!a 4T', Branc" ?9 wi!! monitor t"e strict en#orcement o# t"is reso!ution. %tty. 5amson %!cantara is "ereby ordered to e.p!ain wit"in #i$e ;5< days #rom notice w"y "e s"ou!d not be discip!ined #or "is re#usa!, or inabi!ity, to #i!e a memorandum wort"y o# t"e consideration o# t"is 'ourt. Treb!e costs against petitioners3 counse!, %tty. 5amson %!cantara. SO ORDERED. 5gd. REN)TO C. CORON) %ssociate Justice

*6 '/7'F4: 5gd. RE,N)TO S. PUNO '"ie# Justice '"airperson 5gd. )NGELIN) S)NDO/)L2GUTIERRE+ %ssociate Justice 5gd. )DOLFO S. )+CUN) %ssociate Justice

5gd. TERESIT) *. LEON)RDO2DE C)STRO %ssociate Justice

BD
CER !"!C# !$%

Pursuant to 5ection 1?, %rtic!e 9III o# t"e 'onstitution, I certi#y t"at t"e conc!usions in t"e abo$e reso!ution "ad been reac"ed in consu!tation be#ore t"e case was assigned to t"e writer o# t"e opinion o# t"e 'ourt3s 8i$ision. 5gd. RE,N)TO S. PUNO '"ie# Justice 4epub!ic o# t"e P"i!ippines SUPREME COURT ani!a 67 B%7'

G.R. No. !"%@#$ )010st !"& !$$% ED?IN (. *)/ELL)N)& petitioner, $s. DEP)RTMENT OF INTERIOR )ND LOC)L GO/ERNMENT )ND LUIS T. S)NTOS& SECRET)R,& respondents. +e es, ,ozada and /abado for petitioner.

GRIKO2)CUINO& J.: T"is petition #or re$iew on certiorari in$o!$es t"e rig"t o# a pub!ic o##icia! to engage in t"e practice o# "is pro#ession w"i!e emp!oyed in t"e Go$ernment. %ttorney 6rwin B. Ja$e!!ana was an e!ected 'ity 'ounci!or o# Bago 'ity, 7egros /ccidenta!. /n /ctober 5, 1989, 'ity 6ngineer 6rnesto '. 8i$inagracia #i!ed %dministrati$e 'ase 7o. '=1>=9> against Ja$e!!ana #or: ;1< $io!ation o# 8epartment o# Noca! Go$ernment ;8NG< emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. 8>=?8 dated June 1>, 198> in re!ation to 8NG emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. @D=58 and o# 5ection @, paragrap" b, 7o. & o# 4epub!ic %ct 7o. B@1?, ot"erwise -nown as t"e E'ode o# 'onduct and 6t"ica! 5tandards #or Pub!ic /##icia!s and 6mp!oyees,E and ;&< #or oppression, misconduct and abuse o# aut"ority. 8i$inagraciaCs comp!aint a!!eged t"at Ja$e!!ana, an incumbent member o# t"e 'ity 'ounci! or 5anggunian Pang!ungsod o# Bago 'ity, and a !awyer by pro#ession, "as continuous!y engaged in t"e practice o# !aw wit"out securing aut"ority #or t"at purpose #rom t"e 4egiona! 8irector, 8epartment o# Noca! Go$ernment, as reHuired by 8NG emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. 8>=?8 in re!ation to 8NG emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. @D=58 o# t"e same department) t"at on Ju!y 8, 1989, Ja$e!!ana, as counse! #or %ntonio Ja$iero and 4o!ando 'atapang, #i!ed a case against 'ity 6ngineer 6rnesto '. 8i$inagracia o# Bago 'ity #or EI!!ega! 8ismissa! and 4einstatement wit" 8amagesE putting "im in pub!ic ridicu!e) t"at Ja$e!!ana a!so appeared as counse! in se$era! crimina! and ci$i! cases in t"e city, wit"out prior aut"ority o# t"e 8NG 4egiona! 8irector, in $io!ation o# 8NG emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. 8>=?8 w"ic" pro$ides: 6 /4%78F 'I4'FN%4 7/. 8>=?8 F7I'IP%NIT+ %+/45, UNG'8 46GI/7%N

T/ %NN: P4/9I7'I%N G/9647/45, 'IT+ %78 8I46'T/45 %78 %NN '/7'64768

5FBJ6'T: % 678I7G 6 /4%78F 'I4'FN%4 7/. 8>=18 /7 5%7GGF7I%7 5655I/75,()+ -I)!/, %NN/*%7'65, 5T%((I7G %78 /T,64 46N%T68 %TT645

B5
In $iew o# t"e issuance or 'ircu!ar 7o. 5=% by t"e Joint 'ommission on Noca! Go$ernment Personne! %dministration w"ic" a##ects certain pro$isions o# ' 8>=18, t"ere is a need to amend said emorandum 'ircu!ar to substantia!!y con#orm to t"e pertinent pro$isions o# 'ircu!ar 7o. 9=%. ... ... ... '. (ractice of (rofession T"e 5ecretary ;now inister< o# Justice in an /pinion 7o. DB 5eries o# 19@? stated inter alia t"at Emembers of local legislative bodies, ot"er t"an t"e pro$incia! go$ernors or t"e mayors, do not -eep regu!ar o##ice "ours.E ET"ey mere!y attend meetings or sessions o# t"e pro$incia! board or t"e city or municipa! counci!E and t"at pro$incia! board members are not e$en reHuired Eto "a$e an o##ice in t"e pro$incia! bui!ding.E 'onseHuent!y, t"ey are not t"ere#ore to reHuired to report dai!y as ot"er regu!ar go$ernment emp!oyees do, e.cept w"en t"ey are de!egated to per#orm certain administrati$e #unctions in t"e interest o# pub!ic ser$ice by t"e Go$ernor or ayor as t"e case may be. (or t"is reason, t"ey may, t"ere#ore, be allowed to practice their professions provided that in so doing an authorit . . . first be secured from the +egional -irectors pursuant to !emorandum Circular >o. ?@-61, provided, however, t"at no go$ernment personne!, property, eHuipment or supp!ies s"a!! be uti!iGed in t"e practice o# t"eir pro#essions. *"i!e being aut"oriGed to practice t"eir pro#essions, t"ey s"ou!d as muc" as possib!e attend regu!ar!y any and a!! sessions, w"ic" are not $ery o#ten, o# t"eir 5anggunians #or w"ic" t"ey were e!ected as members by t"eir constituents e.cept in $ery e.treme cases, e.g., doctors w"o are ca!!ed upon to sa$e a !i#e. $or this purpose it is desired that the alwa s keep a calendar of the dates of the sessions, regular or special of their /anggunians so that conflicts of attending court cases in the case of law ers and /anggunian sessions can be avoided. %s to members o# t"e bar t"e aut"ority gi$en #or t"em to practice t"eir pro#ession s"a!! a!ways be subject to t"e restrictions pro$ided #or in 5ection B o# 4epub!ic %ct 5185. In a!! cases, the practice of an profession should be favorabl recommended b the /anggunian concerned as a bod and b the provincial governors, cit or municipal ma ors, as the case ma be. ;6mp"asis ours, pp. &8=?>, +ollo.< /n %ugust 1?, 199>, a #orma! "earing o# t"e comp!aint was "e!d in I!oi!o 'ity in w"ic" t"e comp!ainant, 6ngineer 8i$inagracia, and t"e respondent, 'ounci!or Ja$e!!ana, presented t"eir respecti$e e$idence. eanw"i!e, on 5eptember 1>, 199>, Ja$e!!ana reHuested t"e 8NG #or a permit to continue "is practice o# !aw #or t"e reasons stated in "is !etter=reHuest. /n t"e same date, 5ecretary 5antos rep!ied as #o!!ows: 1st Indorsement 5eptember 1>, 199> 4espect#u!!y returned to 'ounci!or 6rwin B. Ja$e!!ana, Bago 'ity, "is wit"in !etter dated 5eptember 1>, 199>, reHuesting #or a permit to continue "is practice o# !aw #or reasons t"erein stated, wit" t"is in#ormation t"at, as represented and consistent wit" !aw, we interpose no objection t"ereto, pro$ided t"at suc" practice wi!! not con#!ict or tend to con#!ict wit" "is o##icia! #unctions. N F I 5 T . 5 % 7 T / 5 5

BB
e c r e t a r y . ;p. B>, +ollo.< /n 5eptember &1, 1991, 5ecretary Nuis T. 5antos issued emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. 9>=81 setting #ort" guide!ines #or t"e practice o# pro#essions by !oca! e!ecti$e o##icia!s as #o!!ows: T/: %!! Pro$incia! Go$ernors, 'ity and 'oncerned. unicipa! ayors, 4egiona! 8irectors and %!!

5FBJ6'T: (ractice of (rofession and (rivate )mplo ment of ,ocal )lective .fficials 5ection @ o# 4epub!ic %ct 7o. B@1? ;'ode o# 'onduct and 6t"ica! 5tandards #or Pub!ic /##icia!s and 6mp!oyees<, states, in part, t"at EIn addition to acts and omission o# pub!ic o##icia!s . . . now prescribed in t"e 'onstitution and e.isting !aws, t"e #o!!owing s"a!! constitute pro"ibited acts and transactions o# any pub!ic o##icia!s . . . and are "ereby dec!ared to be un!aw#u!: . . . ;b< (ublic .fficials . . . during their incumbenc shall not: ;1< . . . accept emp!oyment as o##icer, emp!oyee, consu!tant, counse!, bro-er, agent, trustee or nominee in any pri$ate enterprise regu!ated, super$ised or !icensed by t"eir o##ice un!ess e.press!y a!!owed by !aw) ;&< 6ngage in t"e pri$ate practice o# t"eir pro#ession un!ess aut"oriGed by t"e 'onstitution or !aw, pro$ided t"at suc" practice wi!! not con#!ict or tend to con#!ict wit" t"eir o##icia! #unctions: . . . ... ... ... Fnder emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. 1@ o# t"e /##ice o# t"e President dated 5eptember D, 198B, the authorit to grant an permission, to accept private emplo ment in an capacit and to e#ercise profession, to an government official shall be granted b the head of the !inistr %-epartment& or agenc in accordance with /ection 07, +ule A*III of the +evised Civil /ervice +ules, which provides, in part, t"at: 7o o##icer s"a!! engage direct!y in any . . . $ocation or pro#ession . . . wit"out a written permission #rom t"e "ead o# t"e 8epartment: (rovided, t"at t"is pro"ibition wi!! be abso!ute in t"e case o# t"ose o##icers . . . w"ose duties and responsibi!ities reHuire t"at t"eir entire time be at t"e disposa! o# t"e Go$ernment: (rovided, further, T"at i# an emp!oyee is granted permission to engage in outside acti$ities, t"e time so de$oted outside o# o##ice s"ou!d be #i.ed by t"e '"ie# o# t"e agency to t"e end t"at it wi!! not impair in anyway t"e e##iciency o# t"e o##icer or emp!oyee . . . subject to any additiona! conditions w"ic" t"e "ead o# t"e o##ice deems necessary in eac" particu!ar case in t"e interest o# t"e ser$ice, as e.pressed in t"e $arious issuances o# t"e 'i$i! 5er$ice 'ommission. Conformabl with the foregoing, the following guidelines are to be observed in the grant of permission to the practice of profession and to the acceptance of private emplo ment of local elective officials, to wit: 1< "he permission shall be granted b the /ecretar of ,ocal 'overnmentB &< Pro$incia! Go$ernors, 'ity and unicipa! ayors w"ose duties and responsibi!ities reHuire t"at t"eir entire time be at t"e disposa! o# t"e go$ernment in con#ormity wit" 5ections 1D1, 1@1 and &>? o# t"e Noca! Go$ernment 'ode ;BP ??@<, are pro"ibited to engage in t"e practice o# t"eir pro#ession and to accept pri$ate emp!oyment during t"eir incumbency:

B@
?< .ther local elective officials ma be allowed to practice their profession or engage in private emplo ment on a limited basis at the discretion of the /ecretar of ,ocal 'overnment, sub9ect to e#isting laws and to the following conditions: a< T"at t"e time so de$oted outside o# o##ice "ours s"ou!d be #i.ed by t"e !oca! c"ie# e.ecuti$e concerned to t"e end t"at it wi!! not impair in any way t"e e##iciency o# t"e o##icia!s concerned) b< T"at no go$ernment time, personne!, #unds or supp!ies s"a!! be uti!iGed in t"e pursuit o# oneCs pro#ession or pri$ate emp!oyment) c< "hat no conflict of interests between the practice of profession or engagement in private emplo ment and the official duties of the concerned official shall arise thereb B d< 5uc" ot"er conditions t"at t"e 5ecretary deems necessary to impose on eac" particu!ar case, in t"e interest o# pub!ic ser$ice. ;6mp"asis supp!ied, pp. ?1=?&, +ollo.< /n arc" &5, 1991, Ja$e!!ana #i!ed a otion to 8ismiss t"e administrati$e case against "im on t"e ground main!y t"at 8NG emorandum 'ircu!ars 7os. 8>=?8 and 9>=81 are unconstitutiona! because t"e 5upreme 'ourt "as t"e so!e and e.c!usi$e aut"ority to regu!ate t"e practice o# !aw. In an order dated ay &, 1991, Ja$e!!anaCs motion to dismiss was denied by t"e pub!ic respondents. ,is motion #or reconsideration was !i-ewise denied on June &>, 1991. (i$e mont"s !ater or on /ctober 1>, 1991, t"e Noca! Go$ernment 'ode o# 1991 ;4% @1B>< was signed into !aw, 5ection 9> o# w"ic" pro$ides: 5ec. 9>. (ractice of (rofession. K ;a< %!! go$ernors, city and municipa! mayors are pro"ibited #rom practicing t"eir pro#ession or engaging in any occupation ot"er t"an t"e e.ercise o# t"eir #unctions as !oca! c"ie# e.ecuti$es. ;b< /anggunian members ma practice their professions, engage in an occupation, or teach in schools e#cept during session hours: (rovided, "hat sanggunian members who are members of the Bar shall not: ;1< Appear as counsel before an court in an civil case wherein a local government unit or an office, agenc , or instrumentalit of the government is the adverse part B ;&< %ppear as counse! in any crimina! case w"erein an o##icer or emp!oyee o# t"e nationa! or !oca! go$ernment is accused o# an o##ense committed in re!ation to "is o##ice) ;?< 'o!!ect any #ee #or t"eir appearance in administrati$e proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an officialB and ;D< Fse property and personne! o# t"e Go$ernment e.cept w"en t"e sanggunian member concerned is de#ending t"e interest o# t"e Go$ernment. ;c< 8octors o# medicine may practice t"eir pro#ession e$en during o##icia! "ours o# wor- on!y on occasions o# emergency: (rovided, T"at t"e o##icia!s concerned do not deri$e monetary compensation t"ere#rom. ;6mp"asis ours.< %dministrati$e 'ase 7o. '=1>=9> was again set #or "earing on 7o$ember &B, 1991. Ja$e!!ana t"ereupon #i!ed t"is petition #or certiorari praying t"at 8NG emorandum 'ircu!ars 7os. 8>=?8 and 9>=81 and 5ection 9> o# t"e new Noca! Go$ernment 'ode ;4% @1B>< be dec!ared unconstitutiona! and nu!! $oid because:

B8
;1< t"ey $io!ate %rtic!e 9III, 5ection 5 o# t"e 198@ 'onstitution, w"ic" pro$ides: 5ec. 5. T"e 5upreme 'ourt s"a!! "a$e t"e #o!!owing powers: ... ... ... ;5< Promu!gate ru!es concerning t"e protection and en#orcement o# constitutiona! rig"ts, p!eading, practice, and procedure in a!! courts, t"e admission to t"e practice o# !aw, t"e Integrated Bar, and !ega! assistance to t"e underpri$i!eged. 5uc" ru!es s"a!! pro$ide a simp!i#ied and ine.pensi$e procedure #or t"e speedy disposition o# cases, s"a!! be uni#orm #or a!! courts o# t"e same grade, and s"a!! not diminis", increase, or modi#y substanti$e rig"ts. 4u!es o# procedure o# specia! courts and Cuasi-9udicial bodies s"a!! remain e##ecti$e un!ess disappro$ed by t"e 5upreme 'ourt. ;&< T"ey constitute c!ass !egis!ation, being discriminatory against t"e !ega! and medica! pro#essions #or on!y sanggunian members w"o are !awyers and doctors are restricted in t"e e.ercise o# t"eir pro#ession w"i!e dentists, engineers, arc"itects, teac"ers, opticians, morticians and ot"ers are not so restricted ;4% @1B>, 5ec. 9> Ib=1J<. In due time, t"e 5o!icitor Genera! #i!ed "is 'omment on t"e petition and t"e petitioner submitted a 4ep!y. %#ter de!iberating on t"e p!eadings o# t"e parties, t"e 'ourt reso!$ed to dismiss t"e petition #or !ac- o# merit. %s a matter o# po!icy, t"is 'ourt accords great respect to t"e decisions andTor actions o# administrati$e aut"orities not on!y because o# t"e doctrine o# separation o# powers but a!so #or t"eir presumed -now!edgeabi!ity and e.pertise in t"e en#orcement o# !aws and regu!ations entrusted to t"eir jurisdiction ;5antiago $s. 8eputy 6.ecuti$e 5ecretary, 19& 5'4% 199, citing 'uerdo $s. '/%, 1BB 5'4% B5@<. *it" respect to t"e present case, we #ind no gra$e abuse o# discretion on t"e part o# t"e respondent, 8epartment o# Interior and Noca! Go$ernment ;8ING<, in issuing t"e Huestioned 8NG 'ircu!ars 7os. 8>=?> and 9>= 81 and in denying petitionerCs motion to dismiss t"e administrati$e c"arge against "im. In t"e #irst p!ace, comp!aints against pub!ic o##icers and emp!oyees re!ating or incidenta! to t"e per#ormance o# t"eir duties are necessari!y impressed wit" pub!ic interest #or by e.press constitutiona! mandate, a pub!ic o##ice is a pub!ic trust. T"e comp!aint #or i!!ega! dismissa! #i!ed by Ja$iero and 'atapang against 'ity 6ngineer 8i$inagracia is in e##ect a comp!aint against t"e 'ity Go$ernment o# Bago 'ity, t"eir rea! emp!oyer, o# w"ic" petitioner Ja$e!!ana is a counci!man. ,ence, judgment against 'ity 6ngineer 8i$inagracia wou!d actua!!y be a judgment against t"e 'ity Go$ernment. By ser$ing as counse! #or t"e comp!aining emp!oyees and assisting t"em to prosecute t"eir c!aims against 'ity 6ngineer 8i$inagracia, t"e petitioner $io!ated emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. @D=58 ;in re!ation to 5ection @Ib=&J o# 4% B@1?< pro"ibiting a go$ernment o##icia! #rom engaging in t"e pri$ate practice o# "is pro#ession, i# suc" practice wou!d represent interests ad$erse to t"e go$ernment. PetitionerCs contention t"at 5ection 9> o# t"e Noca! Go$ernment 'ode o# 1991 and 8NG emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. 9>=81 $io!ate %rtic!e 9III, 5ection 5 o# t"e 'onstitution is comp!ete!y o## tangent. 7eit"er t"e statute nor t"e circu!ar trenc"es upon t"e 5upreme 'ourtCs power and aut"ority to prescribe ru!es on t"e practice o# !aw. T"e Noca! Go$ernment 'ode and 8NG emorandum 'ircu!ar 7o. 9>=81 simp!y prescribe ru!es o# conduct #or pub!ic o##icia!s to a$oid con#!icts o# interest between t"e disc"arge o# t"eir pub!ic duties and t"e pri$ate practice o# t"eir pro#ession, in t"ose instances w"ere t"e !aw a!!ows it. 5ection 9> o# t"e Noca! Go$ernment 'ode does not discriminate against !awyers and doctors. It app!ies to a!! pro$incia! and municipa! o##icia!s in t"e pro#essions or engaged in any occupation. 5ection 9> e.p!icit!y pro$ides t"at sanggunian members Emay practice t"eir pro#essions, engage in any occupation, or teac" in sc"oo!s e.pect during session "ours.E I# t"ere are some pro"ibitions t"at app!y particu!ar!y to !awyers, it is because o# a!! t"e pro#essions, t"e practice o# !aw is more !i-e!y t"an ot"ers to re!ate to, or a##ect, t"e area o# pub!ic ser$ice. *,646(/46, t"e petition is 867I68 #or !ac- o# merit. 'osts against t"e petitioner. 5/ /486468.