You are on page 1of 6

Pefianco vs Moral

facts:

On 26 July 1994 former DECS Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria filed a complaint against
respondent Maria Luisa C. Moral, then Chief Librarian, Catalog Division, of the
National
Library for dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the
service. The complaint charged respondent Moral with the pilferage of some
historical
documents from the vaults of the Filipiniana and Asian Division (FAD) of the
National
Library which were under her control and supervision as Division Chief and keeping
in her
possession, without legal authority and justification, some forty-one (41) items of
historical documents which were missing from the FAD vaults of the National
Library.

The DECS Investigating Committee conducted several hearings on the complaint. Atty.
Jose M. Diaz, Special Prosecutor from the Department of Justice, represented the
DECS
Secretary in the administrative case while respondent was represented by her own
private
counsel. On 25 September 1996 Secretary Gloria issued a resolution finding
respondent
"guilty of the administrative offenses of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, for the commission of pilferage of
historical
documents of the national library, to the prejudice of the national library in
particular, and
the country in general." She was ordered dismissed from the government service with
prejudice to reinstatement and forfeiture of all her retirement benefits and other
remunerations.

On 2 October 1996 respondent filed a Petition for the Production of the DECS
Investigation Committee Report purportedly to "guide [her] on whatever action would
be
most appropriate to take under the circumstances." 2 Her petition was, however,
denied.
Unfazed, she filed a Reiteration for DECS Committee Report and DECS Resolution
dated
September 25, 1996, which Secretary Gloria similarly denied in his Order of 23
October
1996. Respondent moved for reconsideration but the motion was merely "noted" in
view of
the warning in the 23 October 1996 Order that the denial of the request for the
production
of the Investigation Committee Report was final. 3 As earlier stated, respondent
did not
appeal the Resolution dated 30 September 1996 dismissing her from the service.

Meanwhile, Secretary Gloria was replaced by Secretary Erlinda C. Pefianco who was
thereafter substituted in the case for Secretary Gloria.

ISSUE: whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for
certiorari for failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the
order denying
the motion to dismiss, and in holding that the trial court did not commit grave
abuse of
discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

HELD:

Primarily, respondent did not appeal to the Civil Service Commission the DECS
resolution
dismissing her from the service. 7 By her failure to do so, nothing prevented the
DECS
resolution from becoming final and executory. Obviously, it will serve no useful
purpose
now to compel petitioner to furnish her with a copy of the investigation report.

Moreover, there is no law or rule which imposes a legal duty on petitioner to


furnish
respondent with a copy of the investigation report. On the contrary, we
unequivocally held
in Ruiz v. Drilon 8 that a respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to
be informed
of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to
inquire
into charges filed against him. He is entitled only to the administrative decision
based on
substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the
charges
and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of the investigation
committee. Respondent no doubt had been accorded these rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
1) Makati Stock Exchange vs SEC

Makati Exchange Commission (MakEC) filed a review on the resolution issued by the
SEC denying them to operate a stock exchange because the list of securities on its
trading board is already listed in the Manila Stock Exchange (ManEC).

MakEC argued that the Commission has no power to impose it because it is illegal,
discriminatory and unjust.

Under the law, a stock exchange can only do a business in the Ph when it is
previously registered with the Commission by filing a statement containing the
information required by law (Sec. 17, Securities Act/ Commonwealth Act 83). It is
assumed that the Commission may permit registration if this is complied with; if
not, it may refuse.

MakEC is challenging this particular requirement of the Commission (rule against


double listing) may deemed to have shown inability or refusal to abide by its
rules, and thereby given ground for denying registration.

RULING:

It is fundamental that an administrative officer has only such powers as are


expressl
granted to him by the statute, and these necessarily implied in the exercise
thereof.

In its brief and its resolution now subject to review, the Commission cites no
provision expressly supporting its rule. Nevertheless, it suggests that the power
is "necessary for the execution of the functions vested in it"; but it makes no
explanation, perhaps relying on the reasons advanced in support of its position
that trading of the same securities in two or more stock exchanges, fails to give
protection to the investors, besides contravening public interest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

2) Taule vs Santos
GR No. 90336, August 12, 1991

Facts:

The Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils (FABC) of Catanduanes convened


in Virac for the purpose of holding the election of its officers.

On June 19, 1989, respondent Leandro I. Verceles, Governor of Catanduanes, sent a


letter to respondent Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of Local Government,* protesting
the election of the officers of the FABC and seeking its nullification in view of
several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted. filed his comment
on the letter-protest of respondent Governor denying the alleged irregularities and
denouncing said respondent Governor for meddling or intervening in the election of
FABC officers which is a purely non-partisan affair and at the same time requesting
for his appointment as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province
being the duly elected President of the FABC in Catanduanes.

Respondent Secretary issued a resolution nullifying the election of the officers of


the FABC in Catanduanes held on June 18, 1989 and ordering a new one to be
conducted as early as possible to be presided by the Regional Director of Region V
of the Department of Local Government.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by respondent


Secretary.

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving
elective barangay officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of
the trial courts. Likewise, the jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests
over the organizational set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay composed of
popularly elected punong barangays as prescribed by law whose officers are voted
upon by their respective members. The authority of the COMELEC over the katipunan
ng mga barangay is
limited by law to supervision of the election of the representative of the
katipunan concerned to the sanggunian in a particular level conducted by their own
respective organization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------

4) Villaluz vs Zaldivar

FACTS:

Petitioner seeks his reinstatement as Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Office


with
payment of back salaries in a petition filed before this Court on April 1, 1964.
Ruben Villaluz was appointed as the Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Office in
1958. In 1960, Congressman Joaquin Roces alleged that Villaluz was an ineffective
leader and had caused losses to the government. He indorsed the removal of
Villaluz. Consequently, Executive Secretary Calixto Zaldivar suspended Villaluz and
ordered a committee to investigate the matter. After investigation, it was
recommended that Villaluz be removed. The President then issued an Administrative
Order removing Villaluz from his post. Villaluz averred that the president has no
jurisdiction to remove him.

RULING:

The Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Office, being a presidential appointee,


belongs to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the government and as
such he can only be investigated and
removed from office after due hearing by the President of the Philippines under the
principle that "the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint" as can be
implied
from Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2260. Consequently, the Commissioner of Civil
Service
is without jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative charges filed against
said
officials, because his authority to pass upon questions of suspension, separation
or
removal can only be exercised with reference to permanent officials and employees
in the
classified service to which classification the administrator does not belong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Ruiz vs Drilon

Facts:

On 6 May 1991, President Corazon Aquino issued Administrative Order ("AO") No. 218
dismissing petitioner Eliseo Ruiz for cause from his office as President of the
Central
Luzon State University ("CLSU").

the Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, denied petitioner's


first and second motions for reconsideration therefrom, the first for lack of merit
and the second for being pro forma.
Consequently, AO No. 218 became final and executory. Petitioner there sought to
annul, as products of grave abuse of discretion, President Aquino's order dated 13
September 1991 appointing Dr. Fortunato Battad as the new CLSU President, as well
as DECS Undersecretary Marina Pangan's order dated 24
September 1991 directing petitioner to turn-over the CLSU Presidency to Dr. Battad.

RULING:

Petitioner has failed to show any grave abuse of discretion or


any act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents in
rendering
the assailed administrative orders.

Petitioner is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of


any
investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him. He is
entitled
only to an administrative decision that is based on substantial evidence made of
record
and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and the evidence
presented against him during the hearings of the investigating committees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------

Secretary of Justice vs Lantion

Facts:

The United States Government, on June 17, 1999, through Department of Foreign
Affairs U.
S. Note Verbale No. 0522, requested the Philippine Government for the extradition
of Mark
Jimenez, herein private respondent, to the United States. The request was forwarded
the
following day by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Justice
(DOJ).
Pending evaluation of the extradition documents by the DOJ, private respondent
requested
for copies of the ocial extradition request and all pertinent documents and the
holding in
abeyance of the proceedings. When his request was denied for being premature,
private
respondent resorted to an action for mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. The
trial court
issued an order maintaining and enjoining the DOJ from conducting further
proceedings,
hence, the instant petition.

Ruling:

In administrative law, a quasi-judicial proceeding involves: (a) taking and


evaluation of
evidence; (b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and (c)
rendering an
order or decision supported by the facts proved.

The Court had occasion to rule on the functions of an investigatory body with the
sole power of investigation. It does not exercise judicial functions and its power
is limited to investigating the facts and making ndings in respect thereto. The
Court laid down the test of determining whether an administrative body is
exercising judicial functions or merely investigatory functions: Adjudication
signies the exercise of power and authority to adjudicate upon the rights and
obligations of the
parties before it. Hence, if the only purpose for investigation is to evaluate
evidence
submitted before it based on the facts and circumstances presented to it, and if
the
agency is not authorized to make a nal pronouncement affecting the parties, then
there is
an absence of judicial discretion and judgment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------

Salazar vs Achacoso

Facts:

petitioner had no license


to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas
D. Achacoso issued his challenged CLOSURE AND SEIZURE