SYMAN VS JACINTO

FACTS:The herein petitioner (appellee) received a copy of the aforesaid

decision of the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila. Counsel for the
petitioner (appellee) sent a letter to the Collector of Customs for the Port of
Manila, asking for the execution of the decision, in view of the fact that it
had become final and could no longer be reviewed by the Commissioner of
Customs after the lapse of fifteen days from the date of notification thereof
was given to the herein petitioner who did not appeal from said decision to
the Commissioner of Customs within the aforesaid period of time.
The petition of Sy Man above mentioned sought (1) to declare null and
void that portion of the Memorandum Order promulgated by the Insular
Collector of Customs dated August 18, 1947, which provides that as in
protected cases, decisions of the Collector of Customs in seizure cases,
whether appealed or not, are subject to review by the Insular Collector (now
commissioner).
ISSUE: Whether or not the decisions of the Collector of Customs in seizure
cases are subject to review by the Commissioner.
HELD: It is argued that if this power of review and revision by the
Commissioner of unappealed seizure cases is not conceded, then in cases
where the Collector in his decision commits a blunder prejudicial to the
interests of the Government, or renders a decision through fraud or in
collusion with the importer, the Government cannot protect itself. The
argument is not without merit; but we must bear in mind that the law is
promulgated to operate on ordinary, common, routine cases. The rule is and
the law presumes that in seizure cases Collector of Customs act honestly
and correctly and as Government officials, always with an eye to the
protection of the interests of the Government employing them. If mistakes
are committed at all more often than not they are in favor of the
Government and not against it, and that is the reason why when the
importer feels aggrieved by their decision, he is given every chance and
facility to protest the decision and appeal to the Commissioner. Cases of
erroneous decisions against the interest of the Government of decisions
rendered in collusion and connivance with importers are the exception. To
protect the Government in such exceptional cases, we find that in every
seizure case, section 1378 of the Revised Administrative Code requires the
Collector to immediately notify the Commissioner and the Auditor General.
It maybe that this requirement has for its main purpose the recording of and
accounting for the articles seized so that in case of confiscation the
Commissioner and the Auditor General will know what articles have become
government property. But the notice will also inform the Commissioner and
the Auditor General of the seizure. If the seizure is important or unusual, the
Commissioner may, if he so desires, order the Collector as his subordinate to
withhold action on the seizure, or hold in abeyance, within a reasonable
time, the promulgation of his decision until after he had conferred with the
Commissioner or the latter had studied the case and given suggestions. At
that stage of the proceedings before definite action is taken by the
Collector, and a decision rendered by him, it would seem that any action by
him as a subordinate is still subject to the supervisory authority and control
of the Commissioner as his Chief, and the latter may still influence and direct
the Collector's action if he finds occasion for doing so.
But if the Government deems it necessary to provide for review and
revision by the Commissioner or even by the Department Head of the
decisions of the Collector of Customs in unappealed seizure cases, the
Legislature may be requested to insert a section in the Revised
Administrative Code similar to Section 1393 which applies to unprotested
cases of assessment duties. The defect in said section however is that it does
not fix the period within which the automatic review and revision or
reliquidation to be ordered by the Commission and the Secretary of Finance
must be effected. This defect should be remedied.



PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA

FACTS:On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing
that he had scheduled an examination for the purpose of determining who
are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent
Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers
and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are
qualified to take the said examination. The petitioner contends that one
who has passed the bar examination sand is licensed by the Supreme Court
to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing is duly
qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that the
respondent Directors holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of
his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.The respondent, in reply,
maintains the prosecution of patent cases does not involve entirely or
purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and
technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to
include engineers and other individuals who passed the examination can
practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long
time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been
questioned formally.


ISSUE:Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the
preparation and the prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is
included in the practice of law.


HELD:The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such
appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants,
oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for
patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent
cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the
interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as
the existence of facts to be established in accordance with the law of
evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected
with the law and any work involving the determination by the legal mind of
the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that
any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision
of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office
involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and
training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial
body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which
is not the case.


























PEOPLE vs MACEREN

Facts: Jose Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes, Benjamin Reyes, Nazario
Aquino and Carlito del Rosario were charged with having violated Fisheries
Administrative Order No. 84-1.

It alleged that the five accused resorted to electro fishing in the waters
of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz by using their own motor banca,
equipped with motor and electrocuting device locally known as sensored
with a somewhat webbed copper wire on the tip or other end of a bamboo
pole with electric wire attachment which was attached to the dynamo direct
and with the use of these devices or equipments catches fish thru electric
current, which destroy any aquatic animals within its cuffed reach, to the
detriment and prejudice of the populace.

Sec. 11 of the Fisheries Law prohibits "the use of any obnoxious or
poisonous substance" in fishing.

Section 76 of the same law punishes any person who uses an
obnoxious or poisonous substance in fishing with a fine of not more than
five hundred pesos nor more than five thousand, and by imprisonment for
not less than six months or more than five years.

It is noteworthy that the Fisheries Law does not expressly punish
electro fishing. Notwithstanding the silence of the law, the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, upon the recommendation of the
Commissioner of Fisheries, promulgated Fisheries Administrative Order No.
84 (62 O.G. 1224), prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine waters

On June 28, 1967 the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
upon the recommendation of the Fisheries Commission, issued Fisheries
Administrative Order No. 84-1, amending section 2 of Administrative Order
No. 84, by restricting the ban against electro fishing to fresh water fisheries
(63 O.G. 9963).
Thus, the phrase "in any portion of the Philippine waters" found in section 2,
was changed by the amendatory order to read as follows: "in fresh water
fisheries in the Philippines, such as rivers, lakes, swamps, dams, irrigation
canals and other bodies of fresh water."

Issue: Whether or not Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and
the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing Fisheries
Administrative Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1

Held: Yes. They exceeded their authority.

The rule-making power confined to details for regulating the mode or
proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power
cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements
or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.

The Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing .As
electro fishing is not banned under that law. Hence, the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are
powerless to penalize it. Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro
fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have been easily embodied in
the old Fisheries Law. Nowhere in the said law is electro fishing specifically
punished. Administrative agents are clothed with rule-making powers
because the lawmaking body finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to
anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may
be encountered in enforcing the law. All that is required is that the
regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and
that it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes.