ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW

ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

ARATUC v. COMELEC
The authority of the Commission is in reviewing such actuations does not spring
88 SCRA 251
from any appellant jurisdiction conferred by any provisions of the law, for there
is no such provision anywhere in the Election Code, but from the plenary
RECIT-READY: prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed to it by the provision
In 1978, elections for the positions of Representatives to the Batasang Pambansa in Sec. 168. And in Administrative Law, it is a too well settled postulate to
were held. Petitioner Aratuc, a candidate under Kunsensya ng Bayan partylist need any supporting citation here, that a superior body or office having
sought the suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by the Regional supervision and control over another may do directly what the latter is
Board of Canvassers in Cotabato City and in which the returns in 1,966 out of supposed to do or ought to do.
4,107 voting centers in the region had already been canvassed. Supervening
Panel headed by Commissioner of Election Hon. Duque had conducted hearings Notes:
of the complaints of Aratuc et al. about the alleged irregularities in the election -Cannot be a “petition to review” because the Court cannot rule on the decision
records in provinces of Lanao Del Sur, Lanao Del Norte, Maguindanao, North of the COMELEC regarding election matters because its final, unappealable,
Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat, and the cities of Marawi, Iligan, and Cotabato. and executory; unless, it is based on GADALEJ under a petition for certiorari,
The Regional Board of Canvassers issued a resolution proclaiming 8 Kilusang or purely questions of law.
Bagong Lipunan candidates elected. Kunsensya ng Bayan partylist filed an -A GADALEJ is based on a violation of due process.
appeal to the COMELEC. COMELEC issued a Resolution declaring 7 KBL
candidates elected and 1 KB candidate elected, and ordering the Regional Board
Ponente: Justice Bernardo
of Canvassers to proclaim the winners. The issue before the Court is w/n
Petitioner: Tomatic Aratuc, Sergio Tocao, Ciscolario Dias, Fred Tamula,
COMELEC committed GADALEJ in including in the canvass the election
Mangontawar Guro and Bonifacio Legaspi
return from the questioned voting centers. The Court ruled in the negative. We
Respondent: The Commission on Elections, Regional Board of Canvassers
cannot say that the COMELEC whimsically or capriciously or without any
for Region XII (Central Mindanao), Abdullah Dimaporo, Jesus Amparo,
rational basis, considering their function, they are in a better position to
Anacleto Badoy, et al.
appreciate and assess vital circumstances closely and accurately. The
Commission could also order the inclusion in the canvass of these elections
Facts:
returns under the injunction of the Supreme Court that extreme caution must be
Petitioners Aratuc, et al. who are under Kunsensya ng Bayan
exercised in rejecting returns unless these are palpably irregular as it would
partylist are seeking to review the decision of the respondent COMELEC
result to disenfranchisement of the voters. The Commission chose to give prima
resolving their appeal from the respondent Regional Board of Canvassers
facie validity to the election returns mentioned and uphold the votes cast by the
regarding the canvass of the results of the election in Region XII for
voters in those areas. Furthermore, votes cast by honest voters cannot be
Representatives held on April 7, 1978. Lina Mandangan filed a similar
nullified even if the administrative officers who were tasked to enforce the
petition, an abo candidate for representative in the same region to review the
orders of the COMELEC failed to abide to such orders.
decision of the COMELEC declaring Ernesto Roldan as eligible to be
proclaimed as one of the eight winners in said election.
DOCTRINE:
As the Superior administrative body having control over boards of canvassers,
A supervening panel headed by Commissioner of Elections, Hon.
the COMELEC may review the actuations of the Regional Board of Canvassers,
Venancio Duque had conducted complaints of Aratuc, et al. of alleged
such as by extending its inquiry beyond the election records of the voting centers
irregularities in the election records in all the voting center in the different
in question.
provinces. They had asked that the returns from such provinces be excluded
from the canvass. COMELEC suspended the canvass but lifted such
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

suspension so that it be done in Manila instead. Such order was assailed “The authority of the Commission is in reviewing such actuations
before the Court. The Court issued a RO. does not spring from any appellant jurisdiction conferred by any provisions
of the law, for there is no such provision anywhere in the Election Code, but
Aratuc, et al. brought to the Court the results from the Board of from the plenary prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed to it
Canvassers after the vote-counting. However, COMELEC issued a resolution by the provision in Sec. 168. And in Administrative Law, it is a too well
stating that they have to dig deeper into the examination of voting records settled postulate to need any supporting citation here, that a superior body or
and interview disinterested people whether there really was voting that took office having supervision and control over another may do directly what the
place. COMELEC required parties to file their comments on the reports. latter is supposed to do or ought to do.
Aratuc, et al. claimed in their comments that the registered voters were not
the ones who actually voted as the fingerprints do not match. However, MACEDA v. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD
COMELEC denied the request of the petitioners to open up ballot boxes on G.R. No. 95203-05
the ground that it was no longer necessary to proceed.

Aratuc, et al. alleged that COMELEC committed GADALEJ in not RECIT-READY:

pursuing the examination of the registration and voting records, in denying Due to an outbreak in the Persian Gulf, the private Respondents, Caltex, Shell,
the opening of ballot boxes, in not taking into consideration the affidavits of and Petron applied for an increase in oil prices with the Energy Regulatory
their Watchers, in not identifying which ballots have padlocks, and which Board. A provisional increase has been effected by the ERB while public
were empty before the elections, etc. hearings on oil price increase are being held. During the hearing on Nov. 21,
1990, Chairman Fernando said that herein Respondents will have to present their
Issue/s: evidence-in-chief first before cross-examinations. Petitioner Maceda is now
1.) W/N COMELEC committed GADALEJ in including in the claiming that rearranging the sequence of the hearing effectively deprived him
of his right to cross-examinations. Maceda is now seeking the nullification of
canvass the election return from the questioned voting centers
the ERB Order allowing provisional oil price increase on the ground that he was
(NO) deprived of due process. The lower court upheld the provisional increase by the
Held: ERB because while hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the ERB from
1.) NO. doing an ex-parte increase subject to disposition whether (1) to make it
We might disagree with the Comelec as to which voting center permanent, (3) to reduce or increase further, or (3) to deny the application. The
should be excluded or included, were we to go over the same records issue is whether Respondent ERB erred in changing the conduct of the Public
ourselves, but still a case of grave abuse of discretion would not come out, Hearing on Oil Price Increase. The Court held NO. The Solicitor General pointed
considering that Comelec cannot be said to have acted whimsically or out, “the order of testimony both with respect to the examination of the particular
capriciously or without any rational basis, particularly if it is considered that witness and to the general course of the trial is within the discretion of the court
in many respects and from the very nature of our respective functions, and the exercise of this discretion in permitting to be introduced out of the order
becoming candor would dictate to Us to concede that the Commission is in a prescribed by the Rules is not improper.
better position to appreciate and assess the vital circumstances closely and
accurately. DOCTRINE:
Such relaxed rules are especially true in administrative bodies, such as ERB
“As the Superior administrative body having control over boards of which in matters of rate or price fixing is considered as exercising a quasi-
canvassers, the COMELEC may review the actuations of the Regional Board legislative, not quasi-judicial function. As such administrative agency, it is not
of Canvassers, such as by extending its inquiry beyond the election records bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence governing court proceedings.
of the voting centers in question.”
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

cross-examinations. This is the reason why Maceda was deprived from doing
Sec. 2, Rule I of the Rules of Practice and Procedure Governing Hearings
his cross-examinations.
Before the ERB provides:
These Rules shall govern pleadings, practice and procedure before the Energy
Regulatory Board in all matters of inquiry, study, hearing, investigation and/or any other Issue/s:
proceedings within the jurisdiction of the board. However, in the broader interest of 1.) W/N ERB erred in preventing the Petitioner Maceda changing
justice, the Board may, in any particular matter, except itself from these rules and apply the conduct of the Public Hearing on Price Increase (NO)
such suitable procedure as shall promote the objectives of the Order. Held:
1.) NO.
Ponente: Justice Medialdea The Court disagreed. The Solicitor General has pointed out that “the order of
Petitioner: Ernesto M. Maceda testimony both with respect to the examination of the particular witness and
Respondent: Energy Regulatory Board, Caltex, Inc., Pilipinas Shell to the general course of the trial is within the discretion of the court and the
Petroleum Corporation, and Petron Corporation exercise of this discretion in permitting to be introduced out of the order
prescribed by the rules is not improper. Such relaxed rules are is especially
Facts: true in administrative bodies, such as ERB which in matters of rate or price
Petitioner Maceda seeks nullification of the ERB Orders on the fixing is considered as exercising a quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial
ground that he was not allowed to conduct cross-examination during hearings function. As such administrative agency, it is not bound by the strict or
on the second provisional increase in oil prices, in effect, allegedly, a denial technical rules of evidence governing court proceedings.”
of due process.
In fact, Sec. 2, Rule I of the Rules of Practice and Procedure
Due to the outbreak conflict in the Persian Gulf, Respondents filed Governing Hearings Before the ERB provides:
their respective applications on oil price increases with the ERB. ERB issued
an order granting a provisional increase of 1.42php/liter. Maceda sought for These Rules shall govern pleadings, practice and procedure before the Energy
its nullification but the Court upheld ERB’s Order saying that while hearing Regulatory Board in all matters of inquiry, study, hearing, investigation and/or any
other proceedings within the jurisdiction of the board. However, in the broader
is indispensable, it does not preclude ERB from ordering, ex-parte, a
interest of justice, the Board may, in any particular matter, except itself from these
provisional increase, subject to its disposition whether or not: (1) to make it rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall promote the objectives of the Order.
permanent; (2) to reduce or increase further; or (3) to deny the application.
Notes:
The Order in question set applications for hearing with due notice to Court says, “we lament our helplessness over this second
all interested parties. However, Maceda failed to appear on both hearings provisional increase in oil price. We have stated that this is a question best
held. A 3rd hearing was conducted for which Maceda received a written judged by the political leadership…In this regard, we also note that the
notice. Solicitor General’s comments that ‘the ERB is not averse to the idea of a
presidential review of its decision,’ except that there is no law at present
Respondents filed their respective motions for leave to file authorizing the same. Perhaps, as pointed out by Justice Padilla, our
amended/supplemental applications to further increase the prices of lawmakers may see the wisdom of allowing presidential review of the
petroleum products. ERB admitted such and required the Respondents to decisions of the ERB since, despite its being a quasi-judicial body, it is still
publish corresponding Notices of Public Hearing in two newspapers of an administrative body under the Office of the President whose decisions
general circulation. should be appealed to the President under the established principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, especially on matters as
During the hearing on Nov. 21, 1990, Chairman Fernando said that
herein Respondents will have to present their evidence-in-chief first before
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

transcendental as oil price increases which affect the lives of almost all
An act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any
Filipinos.”
number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are
not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in
TIO v. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD
furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying
151 SCRA 208
out the general object."

RECIT-READY:
Petitioner Tio and other videogram operators are assailing the P.D. 1987
creating Videogram Regulatory Board on various grounds such as (2) its tax
provision is a rider and that (2) the Decree itself constitutes undue delegation of Ponente: Justice Melencio-Herrera
legislative power to the executive branch for giving too much authority on Petitioner: Valentin Tio
soliciting and directing assistance of other gov’t units to perform the Respondent: Videogram Regulatory Board, Minister of Finance, Metro
enforcement functions of the Board. The Court held that both mentioned Manila Commission, City Mayor, and City Treasurer of Manila
contentions by the Petitioner is untenable. The Constitutional requirement that
every bill shall share only one subject will shall be expressed in the title thereof Facts:
is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane to the subject Petitioner Tio on his behalf and purportedly on behalf of other
matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with foreign videogram operators are assailing the constitutionality P.D. No. 1987 creating
to the general subject and title. In this case, the tax provision is germane to the Videogram Regulatory Board, with broad powers to regulate and supervise
objective of the Decree which is regulation and rationalization of the video the videogram industry.
industry through the Board. Furthermore, the Decree does not constitute undue
delegation of legislative power because the authority to the Board to "solicit the The petitioner’s contentions are as follows:
direct assistance of other agencies and units of the government and deputize, for 1. Section 10 thereof, which imposes a tax of 30% on the gross
a fixed and limited period, the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to receipts payable to the local government is a RIDER and the
perform enforcement functions for the Board" is merely a conferment of same is not germane to the subject matter thereof;
authority or discretion as to its execution, enforcement, and 2. The tax imposed is harsh, confiscatory, oppressive and/or in
implementation. Besides, in the very language of the decree, the authority of unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the due process clause
the BOARD to solicit such assistance is for a "fixed and limited period" with of the Constitution;
the deputized agencies concerned being "subject to the direction and control
of the BOARD." Thus, P.D. 1987 successfully passed the completeness test and 3. There is no factual nor legal basis for the exercise by the
sufficient standard test. President of the vast powers conferred upon him by
Amendment No. 6;
DOCTRINE: 4. There is undue delegation of power and authority;
The Constitutional requirement that "every bill shall embrace only one subject 5. The Decree is an ex-post facto law; and
which shall be expressed in the title thereof" is sufficiently complied with if the 6. There is over regulation of the video industry as if it were a
title be comprehensive enough to include the general purpose which a statute nuisance, which it is not.
seeks to achieve. The requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the statute
are related, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title, or Issue/s:
as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject 1.) W/N the tax provision in P.D. No. 1987 is a rider (NO)
and title.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

2.) W/N P.D. No. 1987 is unconstitutional undue delegation of comprehensive enough to include the purposes expressed in its preambles and
legislative power (NO) reasonably covers all provisions.

Held: 2. NO.
1. NO. The grant in Section 11 of the Decree of authority to the Board to "solicit
The Constitutional requirement that "every bill shall embrace only one the direct assistance of other agencies and units of the government and
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof" is sufficiently complied deputize, for a fixed and limited period, the heads or personnel of such
with if the title be comprehensive enough to include the general purpose agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the Board" is not a
which a statute seeks to achieve. It is not necessary that the title express each delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority
and every end that the statute wishes to accomplish. The requirement is or discretion as to its execution, enforcement, and implementation.
satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane to the Besides, in the very language of the decree, the authority of the BOARD to
subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not solicit such assistance is for a "fixed and limited period" with the deputized
inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title. agencies concerned being "subject to the direction and control of the
BOARD." That the grant of such authority might be the source of graft and
An act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain corruption would not stigmatize the DECREE as unconstitutional. Should the
any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they eventuality occur, the aggrieved parties will not be without adequate remedy
are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be in law.
considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and
means of carrying out the general object." The rule also is that the WHEREFORE, PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
constitutional requirement as to the title of a bill should not be so narrowly
construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. It should be given
practical rather than technical construction. US v. ANG TANG HO
43 Phil 1
Tested by the foregoing criteria, petitioner's contention that the tax
RECIT-READY:
provision of the DECREE is a rider is without merit. That section reads, inter R.A. 2686 penalizes monopoly and holding of, and speculation in, palay
alia: rice, and corn and authorizing the Governor-General to issue necessary rules and
Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or Disposition of Videograms. — Notwithstanding
any provision of law to the contrary, the province shall collect a tax of thirty
regulations for any cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinary rise in
percent (30%) of the purchase price or rental rate, as the case may be, for every the price of palay, rice or corn. The Governor-General promulgated E.O. 53
sale, lease or disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any motion prescribing the maximum price of rice, palay and corn. A week after the
picture or audiovisual program. Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax promulgation, Respondent Ang Tang Ho was charged with excessive charging
collected shall accrue to the province, and the other fifty percent (50%) shall for the rice, palay, and corn, and was found guilty. The Respondent appealed to
acrrue to the municipality where the tax is collected; PROVIDED, That in this Court the decision of the lower court claiming that the E.O. was invalid in
Metropolitan Manila, the tax shall be shared equally by the City/Municipality the first place and that he should not be sentenced to imprisonment. The issue
and the Metropolitan Manila Commission. before the court is w/n there was undue delegation of legislative power conferred
upon the Governor-General under R.A. 2686. The Court held in the positive.
The above provision is germane too and reasonably necessary for Legislature did not undertake to specify or define under what conditions or for
the accomplishment of the general object of the Decree which is to regulate what reasons the Governor-General shall issue the proclamation, but says that it
the video industry through the Board. The tax provision’s purpose is to may be issued "for any cause," and leaves the question as to what is "any cause"
regulate and rationalize heretofore uncontrolled distribution of videograms. to the discretion of the Governor-General. In the absence of the Governor-
The title, which is the creation of the Videography Regulatory Board is
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

On August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued a proclamation

General’s proclamation, it would have not been illegal to sell rice any price for
(E.O.No. 53) fixing the price at which rice should be sold. A violation of
there was no act of the Legislature making it a crime to sell rice at any price.
which would result to a criminal act. A week later, complaint was filed
Thus, it was the proclamation itself that made it a criminal act which is a blatant
against the Respondent Ang Tang Ho, charging him with the sale of rice at
usurpation of legislative branch’s law-making power. The R.A. gave too much
an excessive price, thus:
discretion to the Governor-General so as to give him the liberty to make his own
rules which constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. That on or about the 6th day of August, 1919, in the city of Manila, Philippine
Islands, the said Ang Tang Ho, voluntarily, illegally and criminally sold to
DOCTRINE: Pedro Trinidad, one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos (P.80), which
Leaving to the administrative officer the discretion to determine “for any cause” is a price greater than that fixed by Executive Order No. 53 of the Governor-
or “extraordinary rise” is letting him determine what the law is which constitutes General of the Philippines, dated the 1st of August, 1919, under the authority
an undue delegation of legislative power. of section 1 of Act No. 2868. Contrary to law.

Upon this charge, Ang Tang Ho was tried and proven guilty of the
Ponente: Justice Johns offense charged. He appealed to this Court claiming that the lower court erred
Petitioner: The United States in finding E.O. No. 53 to be of any force and effect, in finding the accused
Respondent: Ang Tang Ho guilty, and in imposing the sentence of 5 months imprisonment.

Facts: Issue/s:
The Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2868, entitled "An Act 1.) W/N R.A. 2868 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
penalizing the monopoly and holding of, and speculation in, palay, rice, and
power to the Governor-General (YES)
corn under extraordinary circumstances, regulating the distribution and sale
thereof, and authorizing the Governor-General, with the consent of the
Council of State, to issue the necessary rules and regulations therefor, and Held:
making an appropriation for this purpose.” 1.) YES.
Under Section 1 of R.A. 2868, by its very terms, the promulgation
In Section 1 of such act, the Governor-General is authorized, of temporary rules and emergency measures is left to the discretion of the
whenever, for any cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinary rise Governor-General. The Legislature does not undertake to specify or define
in the price of palay, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate, with the consent under what conditions or for what reasons the Governor-General shall issue
of the Council of State, temporary rules and emergency measures for the proclamation, but says that it may be issued "for any cause," and leaves
carrying out the purpose of this act, to wit: the question as to what is "any cause" to the discretion of the Governor-
(a) To prevent the monopoly and hoarding of, and speculation in, General.
palay, rice or corn.
(b) To establish and maintain a government control of the The Act also says: "For any cause, conditions arise resulting in an
distribution or sale of the commodities referred to or have such extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn." The Legislature does
distribution or sale made by the Government itself. not specify or define what is "an extraordinary rise." That is also left to the
(c) To fix, from time to time the quantities of palay rice, or corn that discretion of the Governor-General. The Act also says that the Governor-
a company or individual may acquire, and the maximum sale price General, "with the consent of the Council of State," is authorized to issue and
that the industrial or merchant may demand. promulgate "temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the
(d) . . . purposes of this Act." It does not specify or define what is a temporary rule
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

or an emergency measure, or how long such temporary rules or emergency

RECIT-READY:
measures shall remain in force and effect, or when they shall take effect.
Petitioner Ynot transported 6 carabaos in a pump boast from Masbate to Ilo-Ilo.
Police Station Commander confiscated the carabaos because transporting them
Under this state of facts, if the law is valid and the Governor-General
from one province to another is in violation of E.O. 626-A. RTC declared the
issues a proclamation fixing the minimum price at which rice should be sold,
confiscation valid. Ynot brought the matter to IAC which also upheld the
any dealer who, with or without notice, sells rice at a higher price, is a
decision of the RTC and refused to rule on the constitutionality of the assailed
criminal. There may not have been any cause, and the price may not have
E.O. The issue now before the Court is w/n the E.O. is unconstitutional due to
been extraordinary, and there may not have been an emergency, but, if
invalid delegation of power in so far as it authorizes the Chairman of the
the Governor-General found the existence of such facts and issued a
National Meat Inspection Commission in case of carabeef and Director of
proclamation, and rice is sold at any higher price, the seller commits a
Animal Industry in case of carabaos, to distribute such seized items as they may
crime.
see fit. The Court held that it is indeed undue delegation of legislative power.
The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition, if
But then again, the law is not valid in so far as it confers authority to the
condition it is. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse,
Governor-General of what “any cause” and what “extraordinary rise in the
and even corruption. Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and
price” mean. In the absence of the Governor-General’s proclamation, it
sweeping authority that is not "canalized within banks that keep it from
would have not been illegal to sell rice any price for there was no act of the
overflowing," in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of
Legislature making it a crime to sell rice at any price. Thus, it was the
legislative powers.
proclamation itself that made it a criminal act which is a blatant usurpation
of legislative branch’s law-making power. The R.A. gave too much discretion
DOCTRINE:
to the Governor-General so as to give him the liberty to make his own rules
The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous
which constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power.
condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality
and abuse, and even corruption. Definitely, there is here a "roving commission,"
The Act in so far as it confers a right to the Governor-General, upon the
a wide and sweeping authority that is not "canalized within banks that keep it
terms and conditions stated in the Act, to fix the price of rice and make it a
from overflowing," in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation
crime to sell it at a higher price are unconstitutional. The Court will not decide
of legislative powers.
on the constitutionality of the remaining portions of the Act.
“Roving Commission”- authority or power given in a general area, without
precisely defined terms of reference
JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT REVERSED, AND THE
DEFENDANT DISCHARGED.
Ponente: Justice Cruz
YNOT v. IAC Petitioner: Restituto Ynot
148 SCRA 659 Respondent: Intermediate Appellate Court

Facts:
Petitioner Ynot is assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 626-A
which states that no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition, or
purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another.
Violation of which would result to confiscation and forfeiture by the
government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar
institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous
dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous opportunities for
carabaos. partiality and abuse, and even corruption. One searches in vain for the usual
standard and the reasonable guidelines, or better still, the limitations that the
Petitioner Ynot had transported 6 carabaos in a pump boast from said officers must observe when they make their distribution. There is none.
Masbate to Ilo-Ilo, such were confiscated by the police station commander of Their options are apparently boundless. Who shall be the fortunate
Barotoc Nuevo, Ilo-Ilo as it is against the E.O. proclaimed by the President. beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall they be chosen?
He then sued for recovery and the RTC of Ilo-Ilo issued a writ of replevin Only the officers named can supply the answer, they and they alone may
upon his filing but then eventually sustained the confiscation of the carabaos. choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their own exclusive discretion.
Ynot brought the case to the Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court which Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping
upheld the decision of the RTC and declined to rule on the constitutionality authority that is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing,"
of the E.O. in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative
powers. Thus, there is invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers
Petitioner has now brought the matter to this Court assailing the mentioned therein who are granted the unlimited discretion in the distribution
constitutionality of the E.O. for being an improper exercise of legislative of the properties arbitrarily taken.
power by the former President.
E.O. HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Issue/s: MARCOS v. MANGLAPUZ
1.) W/N there was undue delegation of legislative power (YES)
RECIT-READY:
Held: Former President Marcos in his deathbed, is requesting to be allowed to
1.) YES. return to the Philippines to die. The President Cory Aquino refused such request
The challenged measure is denominated an executive order but it is really for the fear that it would worsen the destabilization of the country considering
presidential decree, promulgating a new rule instead of merely implementing that it was only in its first years of recovering from the People Power Revolution.
an existing law. It was provided thereunder that whenever in his judgment The issues before the court is w/n President Cory has the power to prevent the
there existed a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof or whenever Marcoses from returning to the Philippines and w/n she committed GADALEJ
the legislature failed or was unable to act adequately on any matter that in his in doing so. The Court ruled in the negative on both issues. The President is
judgment required immediate action, he could, in order to meet the exigency, vested with all the executive power by the Constitution and the President is not
issue decrees, orders or letters of instruction that were to have the force and limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. President’s Residual
effect of law. As there is no showing of any exigency to justify the exercise Power is a power borne by the President’s duty to preserve and defend the
of that extraordinary power then, the petitioner has reason, indeed, to question Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the President’s
the validity of the executive order. duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. More particularly, this
case calls for the exercise of the President’s powers as protector of peace.
The Court marks the questionable manner of the disposition of the The request made by the Marcoses should be treated using the President’s
confiscated property as prescribed in the questioned executive order. It was residual powers and thus, such request should submit to the broader discretion
stated that the seized property will “be distributed to charitable institutions of the President whether to grant or deny it. In this case, it was denied. And in
and other similar institutions as the Charman of the National Meat Inspection doing so, the President did not commit GADALEJ. With the presence of
may see fit, in case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal communist insurgencies, separatist movement in Mindanao, urban terrorism, the
as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in case of carabaos.” murder with impunity of military men, the President cannot be said to have acted
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

government, there must be legislation to that effect. They also assert that their
arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the
right to return to the PH is guaranteed by UDHR.
Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in
prohibiting their return.
Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security
over individual rights.
DOCTRINE:
The power involved is the President’s residual power to protect the
The parties are in agreement that the underlying issue is one of the
general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as
scope of the presidential power and its limits.
steward of the people. It is a power borne by the President’s duty to preserve and
defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the
Issue/s:
President’s duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. More
1.) W/N President Cory Aquino has the power to bar the return of
particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President’s powers as
protector of peace. the Former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines
(YES)
2.) W/N President Cory committed GADALEJ in exercising her
Ponente: Justice Cortes
Petitioner: Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, residual powers (NO)
Jr., Irene M. Araneta, Imee M. Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio
Araneta, Pacifico E. Marcos, Nicnor Yñiguez, and Philippine Constitution Held:
Association, represented by its President, Conrado F. Estrella 1.) YES.
Respondent: Honorable Raul Manglapus, Catalino Macaraig, Sedfrey As stated in the Constitution, that the executive power shall be vested in
Ordoñez, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Fidel Ramos, Renato De Villa, in their the President of the Philippines. However, it does not define what is meant
capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Immigration by “executive power” although in the same article it touches on the exercise
Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of certain powers by the President, i.e., the (1) power of control over all
executive departments, bureaus and offices, (2) the power to execute laws,
Facts: (3) the appointing power, (4) the powers under the commander-in-chief
In February 1986, Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from presidency clause, (5) the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, (6) the
through the non-violent People Power Revolution and was forced into exile. power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress, (7) the power to
Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the contract or guarantee foreign loans, (8) the power to enter into treaties or
Philippines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the international agreements, (9) the power to submit the budget to Congress, and
nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened (10) the power to address Congress.
from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of the former To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare
president and his family. and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain
individuals. The power involved is the President’s residual power to
Petitioners contend that the President is without power to impair the protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the
liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so “within the President, as steward of the people. It is a power borne by the President’s duty
limits prescribed by law.” Nor may the President impair their right to travel to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power
because no law has authorized her to do so. They advance the view that before implicit in the President’s duty to take care that the laws are faithfully
the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the executed. More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President’s
powers as protector of peace.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from

It must be pointed out that the individual right involved is not the right taking pre-emptive action against threats to its existence if, though still
to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. nascent, they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct.
These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the
right involved is the right to return to one’s country, a totally distinct right The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the
under international law, independent although related to right to travel. return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past
few years and lead to total economic collapse.
UDHR treat the freedom of movement and abode within the territory of
a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one’s country as WHEREFORE, PRESIDENT DID NOT ACT IN GADALEJ.
separate and distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of it separately from the
right to leave any country, including his own and return to his country.
CARIÑO v. CA
The Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement and residence 204 SCRA 1991
within the borders of each state separately from the right to leave any country,
including his own, which rights may be restricted by such law as are
RECIT-READY:
necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals
Respondent public school teachers from Manila Public School Teachers
or the separate rights and freedoms of others.
Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) conducted
mass actions to express their dramatize and highlight their plight resulting from
The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically
alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon their grievances that has time
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights
and again been brought to the latter’s attention. The respondents were served a
back-to-work order by the DECS Secretary herein Petitioner ordering them to
The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the
return to work in 24 hours or risk getting suspended. The respondents together
Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional
with their lawyer demonstrated a walk out signifying their complete boycott of
provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to
the entire proceedings. DECS Secretary then decreed that the public school
certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations
teachers be suspended for 90 days and 1 teacher be dismissed from the service.
even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that
MPSTA filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila saying that their
is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the
right to due process and peaceable assembly were violated. The CHR issued and
President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty
Order enjoining the Petitioners to bring evidence and documents to aid their
residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that
investigation regarding the matter, wanting to adjudicate the case themselves.
context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a
Petitioner DECS Secretary through the Solicitor General filed a motion to
broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it
dismiss on the ground that CHR does not have the jurisdiction over the case.
must be granted or denied.
CHR dismissed the motion and continued on with its investigation. The issue
before the court is w/n the CHR has the power to adjudicate. The Court ruled
2.) NO.
NO.
With the presence of communist insurgencies, separatist movement in
Mindanao, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of military men, the DOCTRINE:
President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such
whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious power; and that it was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or
threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

MPSTA filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila

quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the
which was dismissed and later went to the Supreme Court alleging the
functions of the latter.
violation of the teachers’ right to due process and peaceable assembly. The
respondents claim that while they were participating in their peaceful mass
The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative
actions, they suddenly learned of their replacement as teachers without notice
power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact
and consequently for reasons unknown to them.
as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights.
But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function
CHR issued an Order enjoined the Petitioners to aid their own
of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official.
investigation regarding the matter of the suspension of some 42 teachers. The
DECS Secretary through the Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss on
Ponente: Justice Narvasa the ground of lack of jurisdiction of CHR over the case. CHR denied such
Petitioner: Hon. Isidro Cariño, in his capacity as Secretary of the motion to dismiss.
Department of Education, Culture & Sports, Dr. Erlinda Lolarga, in her
capacity as Superintendent of City Schools Manila Issue/s:
Respondent: The Commission on Human Rights, Graciano Budoy, Julieta 1.) W/N the CHR has the power to adjudicate the case (NO)
Babaran, Elsa Ibabao, Helen Lumpo, Amparo Gonzalez, Luz Del Castillo,
Elsa Reyes, and Apolinario Esber Held:
1.) NO.
Facts: The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such
On Sept. 17, 1990, on a school day, some 800 public school teachers, power; and that it was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court
among them members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the
(MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook what they functions of the latter.
described as a mass concerted actions to dramatize and highlight their plight
resulting from alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon their The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of
grievances that has time and again been brought to the latter’s attention. adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make
findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil
The Respondents claim that their mass actions did not disrupt and political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened
classes, it was consisted of staying away from their classes, converging at the to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency
Liwasang Bonficio, gathering in peaceable assemblies, etc. or official. The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out,
to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of
The teachers participating in the mass actions were served with an settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired
order from DECS to return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal. For failure into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry.
to heed the return-to-work order, they were administratively charged on the
basis of the principal’s report, was also preventively suspended for 90 days, To be considered as judicial function, the faculty of receiving evidence
and temporarily replaced. Herein respondents staged a walkout to boycott the and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the
entire proceedings. As a result, herein petitioner DECS Sec. Cariño decreed authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the
the dismissal from the service of Respondent Esber and the suspension of the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and
others for 9 months. definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided
by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not have.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

In any event, the investigation by the Commission on Human Rights

Powers is necessarily implied to it). In the exercise, therefore, of its express
would serve no useful purpose. If its investigation should result in
powers under its charter, as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to
conclusions contrary to those reached by Secretary Cariño, it would have no
pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a
power anyway to reverse the Secretary's conclusions. Reversal thereof can
"cease and desist order" is, perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be
only be done by the Civil Service Commission and lastly by this Court. The
reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.
only thing the Commission can do, if it concludes that Secretary Cariño was
in error, is to refer the matter to the appropriate Government agency or
tribunal for assistance; that would be the Civil Service Commission.

LLDA v. CA Ponente: Justice Herosisima, Jr.

21 SCRA 292 Petitioner: Laguna Lake Development Authority
Respondent: Court of Appeals, et al.

RECIT-READY: Facts:
R.A. 4850 created the Laguna Lake Development Authority environmental R.A. 4850 created the Laguna Lake Development Authority to carry
protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable development. The out and effectuate the striking of balance between environmental protection
law also provides that it has the exclusive authority to grant permits for fishpens, and individual personal interests of people through environmental protection
fishcages, and other aqua-cultural structures. R.A. 7610 also known as the Local and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable development. This is to
Government Code was also passed granting local governments the exclusive accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and
authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters and impose rental the surrounding provinces, cities and towns, in the act clearly named, within
fees or charges therefor. With this, LLDA served notice to the general public the context of the national and regional plans and policies for social and
that those fishpens, fishcages, and other aqua-cultural structures which are not economic development.
registered with the LLDA will be considered illegal and hence, be subject to
demolition. When the affected owners were served with notices, they filed and Consequently, R.A. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The
injunction against the LLDA and the latter filed motions to dismiss which were municipalities in the Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this
scraped. CA decided, among others, that LLDA does not have a quasi-judicial law to mean that the newly passed law gave the municipal governments the
powers to adjudicate matters regarding the fishpens and that LLDA does not exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters
have the exclusive authority to grant permits as its charter was repealed by the because it provides:
Local Government Code. The Court held that LLDA does have adjudicatory (a) Municipalities shall have the exclusive authority to grant fishery
powers and that the Local Government Code did not take away its authority to privileges in the municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefor
grant permits for construction of fishpens, fishcages, and other aqua-cultural in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
structures. When in conflict, a special law such as LLDA’s charter trumps a (b) The Sangguniang Bayan may:
general law such as the LGC. (1) Grant fishing privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussel or other
aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the municipal
DOCTRINE: waters, as determined by it; . . . .
(2) Grant privilege to gather, take or catch bangus fry, prawn fry or
While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such
kawag-kawag or fry of other species and fish from the municipal waters
powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an by nets, traps or other fishing gears to marginal fishermen free from
administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the any rental fee, charges or any other imposition whatsoever.
exercise of its express powers. (There is an express power conferred upon the
LLDA to grant permits which is a Determinative Power and thus, Summary
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

With this, the LLDA served notice to the general public stating that While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such
all fishpens, fishcages, and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna de Bay powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that
Region that are not registered with the LLDA will be considered illegal and an administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in
thus subject to demolition. The owners of such illegal structures will also be the exercise of its express powers. In the exercise, therefore, of its express
criminally charged. A month after, notices were sent to the owners of the powers under its charter, as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect
illegal aqua-culture structures telling them to dismantle their respective to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to
structures in 10 days. issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well
be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.
The affected owners filed an injunction against LLDA to which
LLDA responded with a motion to dismiss all the cases on jurisdictional The Authority's pretense, however, that it is co-equal to the Regional
grounds. The motions to dismiss were denied. Trial Courts such that all actions against it may only be instituted before the
Court of Appeals cannot be sustained. On actions necessitating the resolution
The LLDA has now come to court with a petition for certiorari, of legal questions affecting the powers of the Authority as provided for in its
prohibition, and injunction seeking to: (1) nullify the TROs and writs of charter, the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction.
preliminary injunction issued in 3 civil cases; (2) prohibit the RTC from
exercising jurisdiction over cases involving the Authority which is a co-equal 2.) YES.
body; and (3) a judicial pronouncement that the Local Government Code did The Local Government Code did not necessarily repeal R.A. 7610. There was
not repeal, alter or modify the provisions of R.A.4850, empowering the no express provision which categorically expressly repeal the charter of the
Authority to issue permits for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture Authority. It has to be conceded that there was no intent on the part of the
structures in Laguna de Bay, and that it has the exclusive authority. legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendments. The repeal
of laws should be made clear and expressed.
In its decision, CA dismissed LLDA’s consolidated petition holding
that A) LLDA is not among those quasi-judicial agencies of government Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, is a
whose decision or order are appealable only to the Court of Appeals; (B) the general law. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later
LLDA charter does vest LLDA with quasi-judicial functions insofar as legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a
fishpens are concerned; (C) the provisions of the LLDA charter insofar as special law. Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special
fishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had been repealed by the statute, the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent
Local Government Code of 1991; (D) in view of the aforesaid repeal, the more clearly than the general statute.
power to grant permits devolved to and is now vested with their respective
local government units concerned.

Issue/s:
RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE CORP v. NLRC
1.) W/N the LLDA has quasi-judicial functions insofar as fishpens 150 SCRA 565
are concerned (YES)
2.) W/N LLDA holds the exclusive right to give our permits RECIT-READY:
regarding fishpens and other aqua-culture structures (YES) Respondent Rogelio Coria was employed by Petitioner Rizal Empire Insurance
Corp. Coria started as a casual employee in 1977 and worked his way up until
Held: he became an inspector of the Fire Department. In 1983, Coria was dismissed
1.) YES. from work allegedly on the grounds of tardiness and unexcused absences. He
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), and in a

brought the matter to NLRC. Labor Arbiter Teodorico Ruiz, in a Decision
Decision Labor Arbiter Teodorico L. Ruiz reinstated him to his position with
reinstated Respondent Coria with backwages. Petitioner Rizal Empire filed an
back wages. Petitioner filed an appeal with the National labor Relations
appeal with the NLRC but the same was dismissed as it was filed out of time.
Commission (NLRC) but, in a Resolution, the appeal was dismissed on the
Under the Revised Rules of NLRC, appeals should be submitted within 10
ground that the same had been filed out of time.
calendar days from receipt of notice thereof and that no motion or request for
extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be entertained. In
The Petitioner is claiming that the NLRC committed GADALEJ
this case, it was shown in the records that the Petitioner received the notice on
because it dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal on a technicality. It invokes the
April 1, 1985, it filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of
Rules of Court provision on liberal construction of the Rules in the interest
Appeal on April 11, and finally filed a Memorandum of Appeal on April 22. The
of substantial justice.
Petitioner is now claiming that the NLRC committed GADALEJ in dismissing
their appeal based on a technicality and invoked the Rules of Court which
Issue/s:
provision on liberal construction of the Rules in interest of substantial justice.
1.) W/N the NLRC is bound by the Rules of Court (NO)
The Court disagreed.

DOCTRINE: Held:
In Administrative Law, administrative regulations and policies enacted by 1.) NO.
the administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission
enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect. The Rules on appeal, provides:
of Court does not apply to NLRC. The provisions of the Revised NLRC Rules
are clear and explicit and leave no room for interpretation that “no motion or SECTION 1. (a) Appeal. — Decision or orders of a labor Arbiter shall be
final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of
request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be
the parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice thereof.
entertained.” Thus, dismissal of the Petitioner’s case was only appropriate.
xxx xxx xxx
Ponente: Justice Paras
SECTION 6. No extension of period. — No motion or request for extension
Petitioner: Rizal Empire Insurance Group
of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be entertained.
Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission, Teodorico L. Ruiz, as
Labor Arbiter and Rogelio R. Coria
The record shows that the Petitioner received a copy of the decision of the
Labor Arbiter on April 1, 1985. It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
Facts:
File Memorandum of Appeal on April 11, 1985 and filed the Memorandum
In August 1977, herein private respondent Rogelio R. Coria was
of Appeal on April 22, 1985. Pursuant to the "no extension policy" of the
hired by the petitioner Rizal Empire Insurance Group as a casual employee
National Labor Relations Commission, aforesaid motion for extension of
with salary of 10php a day. In January 1978, he was made a regular employee
time was denied in its resolution dated November 15, 1985 and the appeal
with a monthly salary of 300php. Because of his regularization, he was given
was dismissed for having been filed out of time.
a copy of the company’s General Information, Office Behavior and other
Rules and Regulations. He was transferred to different departments until he
In Administrative Law, administrative regulations and policies
was made an inspector of the Fire Division.
enacted by the administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are
entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect.
In October 1983, Coria was dismissed from work, allegedly, on the
The Rules of Court does not apply to NLRC. The provisions of the Revised
grounds of tardiness and unexcused absences. Accordingly, he filed a
NLRC Rules are clear and explicit and leave no room for interpretation that
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW
ATTY. DINO ROBERT L. DE LEON

“no motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an
appeal shall be entertained.” Thus, dismissal of the Petitioner’s case was only
appropriate.

WHEREFORE, PETITION IS DISMISSED.