PCGG v.
PENA - Ombudsman violated Lopez’
- PCGG created to assist in recovery of ill-
gotten wealth of Marcos
- PCGG ordered to freeze assets of 2
garment manufacturing firms
- Yim Kam Shing was revoked as co-
signatory to effect deposits & withdrawals of
the funds
- Action for damages + writ of prelim
injunction against bank, PCGG questioning
the revocation of the authorization as
signatory
- RTC has no jurisdiction over the PCGG
- PCGG exercises quasi-judicial functions
- With this, the Commission is a co-equal
body with RTC and co-equal bodies have
no power to control the other.
- Necessarily, those who wish to question the
Commission’s acts or orders in such cases
must seek recourse in the same court,
Sandiganbayan, which is vested with
exclusive and original jurisdiction.
LBP v. Natividad
- Natividad filed w/ RTC for det. of
compensation for parcel of land acquired by
gov pursuant to PD 27.
- RTC: determined amt. to be paid is at 30
pesos per square m.
- DAR & LBP: filed separate MR -> denied
due to lack of notice of hearing
- LBP: respondents should have sought
consideration of DAR’s initial valuation of
their properties before going to RTC
- RTC has jurisdiction
- Respondents did file a letter to DAR
secretary which prompted them to file with
RTC due to said reply
- DAR’s jurisdiction – limited to
implementation of agrarian reform but may
include just compensation
- RTC’s original and exclusive jurisdiction –
determination of just compensation; refers
to judicial proceedings
Lopez v. Ombudsman
- Jose Lopez, admin officer of DECS ordered
several lab equipment
- COA discovered deficiencies in transactions
+ falsification of pub doc against Lopez etal
- Lopez filed to ombudsman denying
- 4 yrs later, ombudsman ended prelim inv +
recommended that he be prosecuted for
graft and corrupt practices
- MR filed by Lopez: there was deprivation of
due process due to inordinate delay
constitutional right to a speedy
disposition
- The right to a speedy disposition of a case,
= violated when attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are
asked for and secured, or even without
cause or justifiable motive a long period of
time is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried.
- Delay could only be attributed to inaction on
the part of investigating officials.
United Residents of Dominican Hills v. COSLAP
- UCPB donated DH property to PH to be
used for priority programs, projects,
activities, econ dev, gov purposes
- Presidential Management Staff received
app from United, to acquire a portion of DH
- MoA signed between HIGC, PMS and
United: to sell DH to HIGC, then to United
- United: alleges that resp constructed
houses there, so United secured demolition
order -> Resps filed for annulment of
contracts + TRO in COSLAP
- COSLAP required parties to maintain status
quo + issued contested order
- COSLAP has no jurisdiction to try + hear
petition for annulment of contracts +
TRO
- It discharges quasi-judicial functions. Its
decisions have the force + effect of a
regular admin decision. Exec. Dept. may not
impose judgment of one its own agencies
upon judiciary.
- Admin agencies are not considered courts
DARAB v. Lubrica
- Suntay filed petition for payment of just
compensation under PD 27 against DAR
- Alleged that the value determined by DAR
and LBP were low, and violative of due
process
- RARAD in favor of Suntay; LBP filed petition
for just compensation with RTC
- Suntay filed MTD for res judicata, lack of
capacity to sue + cause of action
- RTC dismissed LBP for failure to pay docket
fees
- LBP appealed CA; meanwhile RARAD
issued writ of execution
- LBP filed pettion for certiorari + TRO before
DARAB against Suntay & RARAD
- DARAB can’t take cognizance of LBP’s
petition for certiorari
 - Only particular courts are expressly
designated to issue writ of certiorari.
- The extent to which an admin agency may
exercise such powers depends largely on
statute provisions (not implied)
- Here, DARAB adopted its Rules of
Procedure where it delegated to RARAD
and PARAD the authority to hear,
determine, adjudicate all agra cases +
disputes.
Bautista v. CA (Aloña)
- Bautista issued check to Alona, was
dishonored due to insufficient funds
- Alona filed complaint with city prosec of
cavite -> latter ruled in favor of Alona.
- Bautista filed w/ ORSP pet. For review ->
denied
- Bautista filed w/ CA pet. For review of
ORSP’s resolution -> denied
- Prosecutor conducting preliminary
investigation is not performing a quasi-
judicial function
- OP not a QJ body, its decisions approving
the filing of a criminal complaint not
appealable to CA under Rule 43.
- Prosecutor in a prelim, does not determine
the guilt/innocence of accused – merely
inquisitorial
Sabio v. Gordon
- Miriam Defensor introduced Senate Res.
455 directing an inquiry in aid of legislation
on the anomalous losses incurred by POTC,
PHILCOMSAT
- Gordon then wrote Sabio of PCGG inviting
him to be one of the resource persons in the
meeting -> declined, and invoked EO No. 1
“no member of Commission shall be
required to testify / produce evid in any
judicial, legis, admin proceeding”
- Gordon threatened Sabio to be cited with
contempt
- EO No. 1 is unconstitutional on the
ground that it tramples upon the
Senate’s power to conduct legislative
inquiry under Art. 6, Sec. 21 of consti
- “the power of inquiry is co-extensive with
the power to legislate.”
- The State adopts and implements a policy
of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.
Carino v. CHR
- 800 public school teachers did not attend
work + staged rallies
- 8 were suspended for 90 days
- DECS Sec. Carino dismissed 1 teacher and
suspended 3 more
- Case appealed to CHR
- CHR has no power to try, decide, and
determine cases such as the alleged
human rights violation involving civil
and political rights.
- It has no judicial power. It can only
investigate all forms of human rights
violation involving civil and political rights
but it cannot and should not try and decide
on the merits and matters involved therein.
The CHR is hence then barred from
proceeding with trial.
Lastimosa v. Vasquez
- Dayon filed rape case against Mayor
Illustrisimo in Ombudsman
- O directed Mayor to be charged w/ rape
- case referred to prosecutor Lastimosa
- L conducted prelim investigation -> found
only acts of lasciviousness.
- L then filed an info for the said crime against
mayor w/ MTC of Santa Fe
- As no rape case has been filed by Prosec
office, Deputy ombudsman ordered L to
explain why he refused to obey order of O
- L was filed w/ admin. Complaint for grave
misconduct + maliciously refraining from
prosecuting a crime
- Ombudsman has authority to file admin
case against Lastimosa and suspend
him
- When a prosecutor is deputized, he comes
under the supervision and control of the
Ombudsman which means he is subject to
the power of the Ombudsman to direct,
review, approve, reverse or modify his
(prosecutor) decision.
Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative v. NLRC
- ISECO dismissed Engr. Sabio when he
questioned expenses incurred by acting
gen. manager Bautista + excessive leaves
- Sabio filed illegal suspension before LA
- He was then dismissed -> filed illegal
dismissal before NLRC
- ISECO filed petition questioning NLRC’s
jurisdiction
- NLRC has jurisdiction over cases
involving ISECO’s employees
- PD 269 not appropriate; it pertains to
National Electric Admin’s power to control
electric cooperatives -> doesn’t say NEA
 has power to hear and decide cases of
employees in electric cooperatives.
- Dismissal arose frm purely labor disputes
which falls within LA and NLRC’s jurisdiction
Syqia v. BPWW
- BPWW + Ruiz, et.al filed complaints against
Syqia for selling electricity w/o permit.
- Syqia asserts BPWW has no right to involve
themselves w/ contractual obligations of
respondents as such was beyond their
jurisdiction
- BPWW has no jurisdiction over
complaints involving contractual
obligations
- PD No. 1 (amended by 458): jurisdiction,
supervision, control over electric light,
power, waterworks utilities public service
formerly vested in Public Service Act were
transferred to respondent board.
- Since Syqia is not engaged in a public
service, BPWW has no jurisdiction.
Divinagracia v. CBSI
- CSB and PBS were granted legislative
franchises to operate broadcasting systems
- NTC issued Provisional Authorities allowing
them to install + operate AM and FM
stations throughout
- Petitioner filed complaint w/ NTC alleging
that despite the law mandating the public
offering of at least 30% of common stocks
of respondents, both failed to do so
- NTC dismissed complaints, positing that
even if it had jurisdiction to revoke the PA
for violations, it refrained from exercising it
- NTC does not have power to revoke
Provisional Authorities or CPC for
infractions of terms and conditions
- Doing so gives veto power to admin agency
over the implementation of the law and
enforcement. No such statute provides them
that power
- Not under Public Service Commission’s
jurisdiction except as to rate-fixing, and C’s
authority to impose fines did not carry over
to NTC
Continental Micronesia v. Joseph Basso
- Continental Airlines offered Basso position
of gen manager of PH branch -> accepted.
- When CMI took over PH operations, Basso
was eventually terminated -> filed complaint
for illegal dismissal w/ NLRC
- CMI filed MTD for lack of jurisdiction OTG of
presence of foreign elements
- LA granted MTD -> NLRC reversed -> CA
affirmed
- Labor tribunals had jurisdiction over the
case
- That the contract of Basso was replete w/
references to US laws do not preclude our
labor tribunals from exercising jurisdiction
- Art. 217 clearly vests original and exlcusive
jurisdiction to hear cases involving
termination disputes to the LA.
- Also, LA acquired jurisdiction over Basso
when he filed complaint against CMI, and
CMI was acquired through coercive process
of service of summons.
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations and
National Labor Union Inc
- Ang Tibay supplies PH Army with leather
- Toribio (owner) claimed there was shortage
of leather soles so temporarily laid off
employees who were members of NLU
- NLU alleges unfair labor practices
- Case brought to CIR then elevated to SC
which ruled in favor of Toribio
- CIR thru OSG filed MR while NLU filed MNT
- New trial is needed due to failure to
follow due process
- CIR is more an admin board than a part of
the integrated judicial system of the nation.
- Its functions are comprehensive and
extensive -> not constrained by technical
rules
- BUT must comply w/ procedural due
process (right to hearing, etc)
Anillo v. COSLAP
- COSLAP commissioner was asked to settle
a land dispute in Cavite (squatters resided
in Green Valley by virtue of Estate of
Rodriguez)
- COSLAP -> subjected parties to mediation
conferences
- Only complainant submitted position paper
- COSLAP in favor of complainant; Petitioner
appealed to CA via Rule 45 to nullify
COSLAP decision
- COSLAP has jurisdiction over the case
- 1) Petitioners wrong to have brought the
case to SC – hierarchy of courts
- 2) complied w/ due process -> petitioners
given notices thru mail + directed them to
appear
- 3) CA’s resolution -> res judicata.
Corona v. United Harbour Pilots
 - PPA violated respondent’s right to
exercise profession and right to due
process in issuing PPA-AO 04-92,
limiting the term of appointment of
harbor pilots to 1 year subject to yearly
renewal/cancellation
- SC: 2 conditions must concur: 1) there is
deprivation, 2) such is done w/o proper
observance of due process.
- Also, GR: notice and hearing, as the
fundamental requirements of procedural
due process, are essential only when an
administrative body exercises its quasi-
judicial function. In the performance of its
executive or legislative functions, such as
issuing rules and regulations, an
administrative body need not comply with
the requirements of notice and hearing.
- However, their license is granted in the form
of an appointment w/c allows them to
engage in pilotage until 70 yrs old
- Here, PPA-AO restricts pilots’ right to enjoy
their profession before their compulsory
retirement.
Montoya v. Varilla
- Montoya member of PNP -> he was
dropped from the rolls due to failure to
attend enhancement course
- Also AWOL for 67 days -> CSC dismissed
him
- Montoya’s right to due process was
violated
- 1) no due notice -> unable to attend
hearing, present arguments, submit
evidence.
Ynot v. IAC
- Ynot caught transporting 6 carabaos ->
charged w/ violation of EO 626-A.
- Ynot claimed EO was unconstitutional +
violated his right to due process
- “no carabao shall be transported to another
province – failure to follow this rule =
confiscate and distribute to charitable
institutions as Chairman of Natl Meat
Inspection Commission may see fit”
- The manner of disposition of the
confiscated property in the EO is not
valid
- “May seem fit” is extremely generous and
dangerous – loaded w/ hazardous
opportunities for bias, abuse, corruption
- oppressive, not necessary
Reyes v. Zamora
- Reyes is credit and collection manager and
operations coordinator of Marsman
- Marsman suspended him for
misappropriation of funds
- Reyes filed illegal dismissal with NLRC
- Found innocent -> Respondent appealed to
Office of President and reversed decision
- Pres. did not act GADLEJ in conducting
new hearings on appeal
- Reyes’ participation estopped him from
complaining
- SG: “no law which prohibits OP from
conducting new additional hearings in an
appealed case” … the office “is by itself an
administrative body and is possessed w/
fact-finding prerogative”
San Luis v. CA
- San Luis issued Office Order 72 transferring
Berroya to office of Provincial Engineer.
- B challenged this, but CSC ruled that the
order stands -> didn’t follow -> suspended
by San Luis
- CSC ruled suspension illegal -> San Luis
appealed to Office of Pres.
- OP reversed CSC, then changed again to
original decision
- Final orders of OP and CSC has force
and is binding
- Decisions of admin agencies pursuant to
quasi-judicial authority -> binding within the
purview of res judicata
Alvarez v. People
- Alvarez, mayor of Munoz, Nueva Ecija,
invited Australian-Professional Inc (API) to
construct Wag-wag shopping mall ->
approved under BOT arrangement
- But no mall was constructed as API stopped
work after a few months.
- Petitioner charged before Sandiganbayan
for violation of Sec.3 RA 3019 (Anti-Graft &
Corrupt Practices Act) for giving
unwarranted benefits
- Petitioner liable for violating RA 3019
- Prosecution successfully demonstrated that
Alvarez acted with manifest partiality and
gross inexcusable negligence
- Sandiganbayan convicted him after finding
that: (1) petitioner railroaded the project; (2)
there was no competitive bidding; (3) the
contractor was totally unqualified to
undertake the project; and (4) the provisions
of the BOT law and relevant rules and
regulations were disregarded and not
followed.