EVANGELISTA VS JARENCIO
aside for the issuance of subpoena to
ISSUE: Whether PARGO enjoys the authority
to issue subpoena in the conduct of its fact-
finding investigation
FACTS:
Petitioner Evangelista, the Secretary of the
Presidential Agency on Reforms and
Government Operations (PARGO), filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction, to seek the annulment
of the previous order of the respondent Judge
Jarencio. Judge Jarencio, in his order, issued
a preliminary injunction restraining PARGO
from further issuing subpoenas in connection
with its fact-finding investigations.
Petitioner contended that PARGO is vested
with the powers of an investigating
committee and draws its subpoena power
from EO No.4, thus, the issuance of a
subpoena to Manalastas commanding the
latter to appear as a witness and to testify in
the fact-finding investigation is valid.
The respondent, on the other hand, averred
that the right of PARGO to summon witnesses
shall only be valid in the exercise of
adjudicatory or judicial function, and not
purely investigatory in nature. Hence, this
petition.
RULING:
The COURT ruled that YES, PARGO has the
authority to issue subpoenas in the conduct of
its fact-finding investigations.
An administrative agency may be authorized
to make investigations, not only in
proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature,
but also in proceedings whose sole purpose is
to obtain information and to require the
attendance in purely investigatory nature.
PARGO draws its subpoena power from EO No.
4. The enabling statute fixes no distinction
when and in what function should the
subpoena power be exercised. The power of
inquisition of an administrative agency is not
dependent on the existence of a pending case
or controversy. It is a well-settled rule that
the subpoena power can be validly exercised
by an administrative agency when it is within
its authority and such is reasonably relevant
to the investigation.
In the instant case, there is no doubt that the
subpoena power of PARGO in its fact-finding
investigation falls within the authority
conferred to it by the enabling statute and
the information sought is reasonably relevant
to the investigation conducted, hence, the
order of Judge Jarencio was reversed and set
Manalastas is valid.
RCPI VS SANTIAGO
ISSUE: Whether the Public Service Commision
(PSC) has the jurisdiction over the complaints
against RCPI and has the authority to impose
fines thereof
FACTS:
Petitioner RCPI filed two petitions for review
before the Supreme Court in relation to the
order of PSC imposing fine as penalty for its
failure to render services required of them.
Petitioner RCPI contended that PSC was
devoid of such power because of the express
limitation found in the Public Service Act
expressly exempting radio companies from
the jurisdiction, supervision and control of
the administrative body, except for fixing its
rates.
Respondents on the other hand averred that
their power to impose fines was pursuant to
Section 21 of the same Act. Hence, this
petition
RULING:
The court ruled that NO, PSC does not have
the jurisdiction over the complaints against
RCPI, more so, in imposing fines as penalty
for the former’s failure.
The government itself is merely an agency
through which the will of the State is
expressed and enforced. Its officers are
likewise agents entrusted with the
responsibility of discharging its functions. A
public official must first locate in a statute,
whether express or implied, the grant of
power before he can exercise authority.
Absence of such authority makes them devoid
of power.
Here, although PSC has been granted the
authority to impose fines for such violations,
Section 14 of the same Act expressly limits
the power of PSC. Under the said Section, the
only power that PSC has over radio companies
was the power to fix rates. It is apparent that
PSC lacked the required authority to proceed
against RCPI and impose fines thereof; thus,
the order was reversed and set aside.
FRANCISCO VS FERNANDO
ISSUE:
1. Whether MMDA has legal basis to
implement the Wet Flag Scheme
 2. Does the petitioner violate the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts
3. Whether the Wet Flag Scheme is a
reasonable enforcement of the Anti-
Jaywalking Ordinances
4. Does Francisco has a legal standing
FACTS:
Francisco, a member of IBP and a taxpayer,
filed an original action for the issuance of
writs of prohibition and mandamus to enjoin
Fernando and MMDA from further
implementing the agency’s Wet Flag Scheme
against jaywalking.
Petitioner contended that the said scheme
has no legal basis since the MMDA’s governing
board, the MMC, did not authorize it. He
contended further that the same scheme
violates the constitutional rights of the
pedestrians to due process, against cruel,
degrading and inhumane punishment and
exposes the pedestrians to potential hazards,
thus, posing a question on the reasonableness
of the scheme.
Respondent Fernando, on the other hand,
sought the dismissal of the petition for lack of
standing and violation of the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts. He further averred that
the scheme is a valid enforcement of a
regulation.
RULING:
1. The Court ruled YES, MMDA has a
legal basis to implement the Wet Flag
Scheme.
MMDA is an administrative agency
tasked with the implementation of
rules and regulations enacted by
proper authorities. The anti-
Jaywalking Ordinances enacted by
different cities and municipalities
within the MMDA’s jurisdiction are
sufficient basis for the agency to
implement various schemes, including
the Wet Flag Scheme, to enforce
regulations. The fact that the
implementation of the scheme is
within the authority vested to MMDA
by the enabling legislation, such
action is justified.
2. The Court ruled YES, the petitioner
violated the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts.
Under the said doctrine, direct resort
to SC will no longer be entertained
unless the redress cannot be obtained
in the appropriate lower courts or
under exceptional and compelling
circumstances.
Here, Francisco violated the said
doctrine when he filed his petition
directly to SC instead of bringing it
first to a lower court. The fact that
SC has a concurrent jurisdiction with
RTC and CA over the matter does not
give Francisco unrestrained freedom
of choice to seek relief directly from
SC.
3. The Court ruled that it could not
make a factual determination of
whether the scheme is a reasonable
enforcement of the anti-jaywalking
ordinances because the SC is not a
“trier of facts”. The Court cannot
determine the reasonableness based
on petitioner’s mere accusations.
4. The Court ruled that Francisco does
NOT have the required legal standing
Settled is the rule that a citizen can
raise a constitutional question when
(1) he can show that he has
personally suffered some actual or
threatened injury because of the
allegedly illegal conduct of the
government; (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action;
and (3) a favorable action will likely
redress the injury.
On the other hand, a party suing as a
taxpayer must specifically show that
(1) he has a sufficient interest in
preventing the illegal expenditure
of money raised by taxation and (2)
that he will sustain a direct injury as
a result of the enforcement of the
questioned statute.
Since Francisco did not meet the
requirements under each category,
he has no legal standing to assail the
validity of the action.