G.R. Nos.

90660-61

January 21, 1991

UTE PATEROK, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and HON. SALVADOR N. MISON, respondentsappellees.
Facts:
In March 1986, the petitioner shipped from Germany to the Philippines two
(2) containers, one with used household goods and the other with two (2) used
automobiles (one Bourgetti and one Mercedes Benz 450 SLC). The first container
was released by the Bureau of Customs and later on, the Bourgetti car, too. The
Mercedes Benz, however, remained under the custody of the said Bureau. In
December 1987, the petitioner received a notice of hearing from the legal officer of
the Manila International Container Port, Bureau of Customs informing the former
that seizure proceedings were being initiated against the said Mercedes Benz for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 73 in relation to Section 2530(F) of the Tariff and
Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended, and Central Bank Circular
(CBC) 1069.
While the said case was pending, the petitioner received only on April, 1988,
a letter informing her that a decision ordering the forfeiture of her Mercedes Benz
had been rendered on December 16, 1986 by the District Collector of Customs. The
petitioner had not been informed that a separate seizure case was filed on the same
Mercedes Benz in question before the said District Collector, an office likewise under
the Bureau of Customs. The petitioner later found out that on November 13, 1986, a
Notice of Hearing set on December 2, 1986, concerning the said Mercedes Benz,
was posted on the bulletin board of the Bureau of Customs at Port Area, Manila. The
petitioner, thereafter, filed a motion for new trial5 before the Collector of Customs,
Port of Manila, but the latter, in an order6 dated May 30, 1988, denied the same,
invoking the failure of the former to appear in the said hearing despite the posting
of the notice on the bulletin board.
Issue:
Whether or not the publication on the bulletin board was sufficient
compliance with proper service of notice.
Held:
NO. Time and again, the Court has emphasized the imperative necessity for
administrative agencies to observe the elementary rules of due process. In the
present case, although there was a notice of hearing posted on the bulletin board,
the said procedure is premised on the ground that the party or owner of the
property in question is unknown. In the case at bar, the facts evidently show that
the petitioner could not have been unknown. If only the public respondents had
exercised some reasonable diligence to ascertain from their own records the
identity and address of the petitioner as the owner and the consignee of the
property in question, the petitioner would have been afforded the opportunity to be

heard and to present her defense which is the essence of procedural due process.
Notwithstanding the procedural infirmity aforementioned, the Court cannot allow
the petitioner to retrieve the vehicle as the importation of the same is clearly in
violation of BP 73 which prohibits the importation of gasoline powered motor cars
with an engine displacement of over 2,800 cubic centimetres.
[G.R. No. 132048. March 6, 2002]
HON. ANTONIO M. NUESA in his capacity as the Regional Director of DAR
Region III and RESTITUTO RIVERA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS (14th Div.), HON. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) and JOSE VERDILLO, respondents.
Facts:
On May 25, 1972, then Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Order of
Award in favor of Jose Verdillo over two (2) parcels of agricultural land under the
conditions that within a period of six (6) months, the private respondent shall
personally cultivate or otherwise develop at least one-fourth of the area or occupy
and construct his house in case of residential lot and pay at least the first
instalment.
On August 26, 1993, or after twenty-one years, private respondent filed an
application with the Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform for the
purchase of said lots claiming that he had complied with the conditions set forth in
the Order. Restituto Rivera, herein petitioner, filed a letter of protest against private
respondent claiming that contrary to the manifestation of private respondent, it is
petitioner who had been in possession of the land and had been cultivating the
same. Petitioner had filed his own application for said parcels in opposition to that of
private respondent. On January 24, 1994, petitioner, the Regional Director of DAR,
Antonio M. Nuesa, promulgated an Order cancelling the award in favour of Jose
Verdillo and ordering the processing of the application of Restituto Rivera to
purchase the lots.
Aggrieved by the cancellation of his award, private respondent then filed on
March 20, 1994, a Petition with the Provincial Adjudication Board, Region III, for
Annulment of said Order. Instead of filing an Answer to the Petition, herein
petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the ground that the proper
remedy was an appeal to the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform from
the Order of the Regional Director, under DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5-87, and
not by a Petition with the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator. The DARAB Provincial
Adjudicator, however, chose to resolve the case on the merits and on October 14,
1994, promulgated a Decision denying the petitioners Motion to Dismiss and
reversing the Order of the Regional Director
Issue:
the case
Held:

Whether or not the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator had jurisdiction over

NO. As held by this Court in Centeno vs. Centeno, the DAR is vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall
have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the
agrarian reform program. The DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction
to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters
or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3844 as amended by
R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.
Agrarian dispute is defined to include (d) ...any controversy relating to
tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over
lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers
associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It
includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act
and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to
farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
In the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent had no tenurial,
leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that could have brought this
controversy between them within the ambit of the abovecited provision.
Consequently, the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the controversy and should not
have taken cognizance of private respondents petition in the first place.
While it bears emphasizing that findings of administrative agencies, which
have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are
accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts, care should be taken that
administrative actions are not done without due regard to the jurisdictional
boundaries set by the enabling law for each agency. In this case, respondent DARAB
officials and boards, provincial and central, had overstepped their legal boundaries
in taking cognizance of the controversy between petitioner Rivera and private
respondent Verdillo.

[G.R. Nos. 115121-25. February 9, 1996]

NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY and ROMEO G. DAVID, petitioners, vs. THE
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon City, HON. RODOLFO ORTIZ,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City, HON. TIRSO
D. C. VELASCO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Quezon
City, HON. BENEDICTO B. ULEP, Presiding Judge, Branch 105, Quezon City,
HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN, Presiding Judge, Branch 98, Quezon City, COL.
FELIX M. MANUBAY, MASADA SECURITY AGENCY, CONTINENTAL WATCHMAN
AND SECURITY AGENCY, ALBERTO T. LASALA, and NORMAN D. MAPAGAY,
respondents.
Facts:

In 1990, the NFA, through then Administrator Pelayo J. Gabaldon,

conducted a public bidding to award security contracts for the protection of
its facilities. Among those awarded were the private respondents. In August
1992, petitioner Romeo G. David became NFA Administrator. He caused a
review of all security service contracts, procedures on the accreditation of
private security agencies and the bidding for security services. Pending this
review, Administrator David extended the services of private respondents
and the other incumbent security agencies on a periodic basis.
On April 6, 1993, Special Order No. 04-07 was issued under which
Administrator David created a Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee
(PBAC) to undertake the prequalification, conduct of bidding, evaluation, and
recommendation to the Administrator of the bids accepted. When the time of
the bidding came, some bids were disqualified for failure to comply with
documentary requirements including those of Respondents. Respondents

Lanting Security and Watchman Agency filed complaints with the RTC to
restrain the Administrator from proceeding with the public bidding. During
the pendency of the writ of preliminary injunction, David terminated the
contracts of the security agencies and engaged the services of seven new
agencies. Respondents filed another complaint to restrain the NFA from
terminating their services. The lower court ruled in favor of Respondents. On
appeal to the SC, the NFA contends that respondents did not exhaust
administrative remedies and hence, their complaint is premature.
Issue:
Whether or not the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies renders the complaint of the defendants premature.
Held:
NO. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a
hard and fast rule. It is subject to some limitations and exceptions. In this
case, private respondents contracts were terminated in the midst of bidding
preparations and their replacements hired barely five days after their
termination. In fact, respondent Masada, a prequalified bidder, submitted all
requirements and was preparing for the public bidding only to find out that
contracts had already been awarded by negotiation. Indeed, an appeal to the
NFA Board or Council of Trustees and the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to
the provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 was not a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The urgency of the
situation compelled private respondents to go to court to stop the
implementation of these negotiated security contracts.