Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Antipolo Realty Corporation vs.

National Housing Authority


Facts:
Jose Hernando acquired ownership over Lot 15 Block IV of Ponderosa Heights Subd. in
Antipolo Rizal from petitioner Antipolo Realty Corporation by contract to sell.
Eventually, Hernando transferred his rights over the said lot to Virgilio Yuson, through a
deed of assignment and substitution of obligor.
But because of failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the subdivision project in
accordance with Clause 17 of the contract to sell (beautification), Mr. Yuson paid only the
arrears pertaining to the period up to, and including and stop all the monthly instalments falling
due after.
Antipolo Realty sent a notice to Yuson that the required improvements have been made,
but Yuson replied that he would conform to the request as soon as he was able to verify the
truth in the notice.
Yuson refused to pay the September to October 1976 monthly instalments (during with
the Clause 17 was not complied) but agreed to pay the post October 1976 installments. Antipolo
Realty responded by rescinding the contract to sell, and claiming forfeiture of all instalment
payments previously made by Mr. Yuson.
Yuson brought the case to NHA. Antipolo Realty filed a Motion to Dismiss, which NHA
denied. After hearing, NHA decided ordering reinstatement of contract to sell.
In the present petition, Antipolo Realty asserts that in hearing the complaint of
respondent Yuson and in ordering reinstatement of the contract to sell, the NHA had not
only acted beyond its function, but in effect, also assumed performance of judicial or
quasi-judicial function which the NHA is not authorized to perform.
Issue:
Whether or not NHA acted beyond its capacity by hearing complaint of Yuson and
ordering reinstatement of contract to sell.
Ruling:
NO. Administrative agencies may exercise and perform adjudicatory functions though to
a limited extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative
agencies is well recognized in our jurisdiction basically because the need for special
competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of
complex or specialized character and because of a companion recognition that the dockets of
our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged.
The Court held under the law (P.D. 957) that NHA has the power to regulate the real
estate trade and business involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations
filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman.
They also further held that under the expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services of administrative
tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential
to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered.

Masangcay vs. COMELEC


Facts:
Masangcay, then provincial treasurer of Aklan; who was assigned to take charge and
custody of the official ballots, election forms and supplies, as well as of their distribution to
municipalities, was charged before the COMELEC for opening 3 boxes containing official and
sample ballots, in violation of instructions of COMELEC. What the said instruction requires is
that the opening must be in the presence of division superindendent of schools of Aklan, the
provincial auditor, the authorized representatives of the Nacionalista Party, the Liberal Party and
the Citizens Party. The failure to follow this procedure makes him punishable under Sec. 5 of
the Revised Election Code and Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
Masangcay et. al. appeared before COMELEC to show cause why they should not be
punished for contempt. COMELEC eventually rendered them guilty.
Masangcay then brought the petition raising the issue of constitutionality of Sec. 5 of the
Revised Election Code which grants members of COMELEC the power to punish acts of
contempt. He argued that it is unconstitutional because it infringes the principle underlying the
separation of powers that exists among the three branches of the government.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC acted beyond its function when it punished Masangcay for
contempt
Court Ruling:
When it exercises ministerial function, it cannot exercise the power to punish for
contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature. The power to punish for contempt
is inherent in all courts, its existence is important to the preservation of order in judicial
proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and in the
administration of justice.
The resolution which the COMELEC tried to enforce and for whose violation the charge
for contempt was filed merely call for an exercise of an administrative or ministerial function for
they merely concern the procedure to be followed in the distribution of ballots and other election
paraphernalia.
We had the occasion to stress that in Guevarra vs. COMELEC, under the law and the
Constitution, the COMELEC has only the duty to administer all laws to the conduct of elections,
but also the power to try, hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in
connection with the elections. Hence, they may exercise quasi-judicial functions, but the
difficulty lies in the demarcation line between the duty which is inherently administrative in
character and which calls for exercise of quasi-judicial function.

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA


Facts:
The LLDA and Technical personnel found the City Government of Caloocan was
maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate from the Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR, as required
under PD 1586 and clearance from LLDA as required under RA 4850 and issued a cease and
desist order for the Caloocan to stop the use of the dumpsite.
Issue:
1. Does LLDA and its amendatory laws have the authority to entertain complaint
against the dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Brgy. Camarin authorized by
the Caloocan city government?
2. Does LLDA have the power to issue a cease and desist order?
Ruling:
1. Yes, LLDA has authority. As special administrative agency, it is specifically
mandated under RA 4850 to carry out and make effective the declared national
policy of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of
Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and cities of
San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan with due regard and adequate
provision for environmental management and control. It has responsibility to protect
the Laguna Lake region.
2. It has the implied power to issue a cease and desist order. Note, however that writ
of mandamus and injunction are beyond the power of LLDA to issue.
Matienzo vs. Abellera
Facts:
Petitioners and respondents are all authorized taxicab operators of Metro Manila.
Respondents however admitted they operate a colorum taxicab units. On 2nd week of February,
respondents filed their petition with Board of Transportation (BOT) for the legalization of
unauthorized excess taxicabs, citing PD 101 which aims to eradicate harmful and unlawful trade
of clandestine operators, by replacing or allowing them to become legitimate and responsible
operators.
BOT set the case for hearing and granting applicants provisional authority to operate
excess taxicab units for which legalization was sought.
Respondents however claimed that BOT acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance
of petitions for legalization and awarding special permits to the private respondents.
PD 101 vested BOT to grant special permits of limited term for the operation of public
utility motor vehicle as may be necessary to convert secret operators into legitimate and
responsible operators.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the BOT has the power to grant provisional authority to respondents
2. W/n BOT has the power to legalize clandestine taxicab operators
Ruling:
1. Provisional authorities are cancelled, thus the issue of legalization remains under
consideration.

2. BOT emphasizes public need as an overriding concern. PD 101 states that it is the fixed
policy of the State to eradicate the harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine operators
by replacing or allowing them to become legitimate and responsible ones.
3. In determining whether a board or commission has certain power, the authority given
should be liberally construed in the light of the purposes for which it was created, and
that which is incidentally necessary to a full implementation of the legislative intent
should be upheld as being germane to the purpose of the law. PD 101 is merely cited as
with compassion with which colorum operators were dealt with under the law.
Taule vs. Sec. Luis Santos
Facts:
An election for the officers of the Federation of Associations of Barangay Council
(FABC) was held in June 18, 1989 despite the absence of other members of the said council.
Petitioner Taule was elected as president.
Respondent Verceles sent a letter to Sec. Santos seeking its nullification because of
some irregularities in the manner it was conducted.
Petitioner denied allegations and requested for his appointment as member of
Sanggunian Panlalawigan of the province being the duly elected president of FABC in
Catanduanes.
Respondent Santos issued a resolution nullifying the election and ordering a new one to
be conducted as early as possible. Thus the petition before the SC.
Issue:
1. W/n respondent Santos has jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the
election of officers of the FABC
2. W/n Verceles has a legal personality to file a protest.
Court Ruling: