Admin Notes 2nd Exam

1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2nd Exam Lectures – Atty. Elman

Notes typewritten during class (unedited) January 20, 2015 Right vs. Self-‐incrimination This right is applicable in all kinds of proceedings – whether criminal, administrative or civil. But this right applies or is available only to natural persons and not to juridical persons (corporations, enterprises). The reason for this is on the basis for the need of xxx of particular laws like filing of particular reports. Reason for exclusion of juridical persons from no self-‐incriminatory rule is the need for administrative bodies tasked by legislature to see to the compliance with law and public policy. Nacu vs. CSC: You have here an employee of PEZA in Bataan – a service officer. He was charged administratively of grave misconduct in his act of illegal collecting fees from Edison. There was a complaint filed against here in the PEZA. She was requested to submit her sample signatures to which she willingly submitted. The signatures were examined by the NBI. After the investigation, the Board of the PEZA issued a decision, as approved by the PEZA Director General, finding her guilty of the charges and dismissing her from the service. She went to the CSC but the latter affirmed the decision. So she went to the CA and same ruling. Among the issues she raised was that there was a violation of her right against self-‐incrimination by reason of her signatures. The SC said that the right vs. self-‐incrimination is not self-‐executory or automatically operational, it must be claimed at the appropriate time, or else it may be deemed waived. So the SC said that she already waived her right because of the voluntary submission of the signatures. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies This is very important. In the bar, most questions come from this topic. Before a party can be allowed to seek judicial intervention, he is required to exhaust all means of administrative redress or remedies available under the law. This principle applies whenever the is a provision under the law giving a relief on the part of the party. In the NACU case earlier, the remedy availed of was going to the CSC first. After the CSC ruled affirmed the ruling the administrative agency, she then went to the CA. Before a

judicial recourse, there must be compliance with this doctrine. There are three reasons for the doctrine:

1. The need for the administrative tribunal to correct itself

2. The need to prevent premature resort to courts (still related to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction – the ends of justice may be attained more effectively and efficiently through this administrative process thus there will be de-‐clogging of the court dockets)

3. Because of the basis on the separation of powers (if the law allows the administrative tribunal, all remedies must be availed of before going to the court)

A direct action in court without prior exhaustion of administrative remedies when required, is premature, warranting its dismissal on a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action. The failure to observe the doctrine does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The dismissal of the case of the court on the basis of prematurity does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Holy Spirit vs. Defensor: The doctrine applies only in the discharge of a quasi-‐judicial power by the administrative authority. This doctrine has no applicability or relevance where what is being performed by the authority is quasi-‐legislative. If what is in issue is the validly of these rules, certainly, the administrative tribunal cannot decided the case with finality. The issue is the validity is the IRR of the National Government Center Admin Committee pursuant to its quasi-‐legislative power under RA 9207, the doctrine of exhaustion is not applicable. It is only the court that has jurisdiction to pas upon the issue on the validity of xxx. Take note that the rules of any administrative authority or tribunal may direct the party to first file a motion for reconsideration. Sunshine Transp. vs. NLRC: MR must first be filed under NLRC Rules of Procedure before special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be availed of. Task Force Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga: Action to recover forestry products under DENR custody shall be directed to that agency and not the courts thru a complaint for replevin and damages. Any remedy should be filed before the same administrative authorities. So if the DENR confiscated the products, the remedy must be filed before DENR and not the court. The remedy is not replevin. The impounded timber products have already been the subject of

2

seizure by the proper government agency. Therefore, the remedies must be those provided under the law. Whatever the action of the Bureau of Forest Director is the subject of review by the DENR Secretary consistent with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Section 8 of PD 705 States:

1. All actions and decisions of the Bureau of Forest Development (now LMB) Director are subject to review by the DENR Secretary

2. The decisions of DENR Secretary are appealable to the President (not in all cases; if there is no such provision in the law that the decision of the DENR secretary should be appealed to the president, then no appeal na)

3. Courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR Secretary except thru a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition

It is not in all cases that the decision on appeal rendered by the department secretary ought to to be the subject of appeal by the President. This can only be done if there is such a provision of law. (Alter ego doctrine or doctrine of qualified agency) Distinction between Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction and Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Ø Both deal with the proper relationships between courts and administrative bodies.

Ø Exhaustion applies where the claim is originally cognizable in the first instance by the administrative body alone, while Primary Jurisdiction applies where the case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and administrative agency but the case requires determination of some technical or factual matter xxx.

Merida vs. Bacarro: Increase in water rates by LWD is subject to review and approval by LWUA. After LWUA reviews the rate established by a LWED, a water concessionaire may appeal the same to the NWRB whose decision may then be appealed to Office of the President. Deltaventures Resources vs. Cabato: The Labor authorities rendered an adverse decision so there was a levy of properties. Delta claims that the property belong to them so they filed a case before the court for the recovery of the possession of the properties subject of the levy by reason of the decision of the labor authorities. The SC said that the proper remedy is not with the court. The action is incident to the action before the administrative authorities. Therefore, the complaint shall be lodged not with the court but with the administrative agency.

Another issue here is WON the RTC have the competence to prevent the NLRC from enforcing its decision? No. They cannot enjoin the NLRC. Ombudsman vs. Valera: OSP is merely a component of OMB and may only act under the supervision and control of OMB. Instead of exhausting administrative remedies, the aggrieved party Valera went to court. One of the issues raised is WON there should be exhaustion of admin remedies. Should the remedy still be before the superior admin authority or in this case, the ombudsman? The SC ruled here that the doctrine is not applicable. When the issue is legal, the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies is not applicable. The legal issue is WON the special OMB has the authority to issue preventive suspension. Kasi under the law, only the OMB or the Dep. OMB may issue the preventive suspension. The review as an act of supervision and control by the DOJ Secretary over fiscals finds basis in this doctrine. He may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. Mistakes, abuse or negligence by an admin agency (or officer) in the initial steps (preliminary) should be corrected by higher admin authorities, and not directly by the courts. So the remedy is not before the court. The regional state prosecutor does not have the power to conduct preliminary investigations. The power belongs to the prosecutors. Basically, his power is administrative supervision – yung admin matters – under the law gives them authority or power to review. RSP Aurillo vs. Rabi: In a criminal case decided by the city prosecutor, the regional state prosecutor took over with the proceedings and directed his assistant to conduct preliminary investigation. In so doing, the office of the RSP already exceeded its authority. It is no longer exercising admin supervision but already the review power of the DOJ Secretary. Applying the doctrine of exhaustion, what should have happened here is that the decision of the city prosecutor ought to be appealed… the RSP may review it and then an appeal with the DOJ Secretary. In this case, Rabi was not given a right to appeal. The SC said here that RSP has administrative supervision, not control over CPs and PPs. CASES: DAR vs. PCPI Corsiga vs. Defensor Republic vs. Extelcom SEC vs. PICOP (566 S 451) Laguna CATV vs. Maraan (392 S 226) Berba vs. Pablo (474 S 686)

3

January 23, 2015 The basis for the dismissal would be “no cause of action” because of the denial of the opportunity given to the admin body to rectify whatever error it may have committed in the process of adjudication. We also mentioned the three causes for the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies. We also stated so many illustrations of this principle in different laws. DAR vs. PCPI: This pertains to the action of the PARO subjecting the properties owned by PCPI under the CARP. We know that CARP is being administered and carried out by the DAR. The DAR has exclusive jurisdiction over CARP cases. There was such order issued by PARO. The aggrieved party, the owner of the property, did not even contest the xxx. What it did was to immediately file a petition for certiorari before the CA. Is this the proper appeal? No. What the aggrieved party should have resorted to was to first file the motion for reconsideration before the PARO. Protests regarding CARP implementation are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. Corsiga vs. Defensor: The complaint of Senior Engr. Ortizo for prohibition and injunction should have been dismissed. He should appeal the reassignment order of RM to the NIA Administrator and if necessary, to CSC. Applying the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies, the party here should have first filed a MR before the issuing authority – the Regional Manager Corsiga. If this motion is denied, the next step would be an appeal to a higher admin authority – the administrator. If you recall in our study in PubCorp, whenever the issue is reassignment, the exclsusive authority is with the CSC. In other words, if the aggrieved party is still not satisfied (after MR and appeal), the next step is an appeal to the CSC (from the administrator to the CSC). This is consistent to the doctrine of administrative remedies. Republic vs. Extelcom: There was an order issued by NTC. Under the rules, Extelcom should have filed an MR with in 15 days from the receipt of the NTC Rules. Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of admin remedies when it went directly to CA on a petition for certiorari and prohibition from the NTC order without first filing a MR within 15 days pursuant to NTC Rules. That the NTC order became immediately executor does not mean foreclosure or remedy of filing MR. It does not mean that whenever the law provides that there is a decision adverse to a party, that is already prevented

from taking the next step simply because the law itself allows it to be executor. Even under the OMB Rules, dispute the taking of an appeal, the decision is being executory. So it depends on the provision of law. The law itself may provide for the executory nature of the decision. SEC vs. PICOP: Under Section 4 of Rule 43 of ROC, an appeal (thru petition for review before CA), shall be taken within 15 days from the date of the denial of the first and only MR allowed. The filing of the second MR by SEC before the OP did not suspend the running of the period to file a petition for review before the CA, which expired 15 days after petitioner SEC received the OP Resolution denying the first MR of the SEC and upholding the position of PICOP. The 2nd MR does not have any legal effect. “It” neglected the necessary appeal before the Office of the President. So the SC ruled that the second MR does not have any legal. The filing of the 2nd MR by the SEC before the Office of the President will not stop the running of the period to file the petition for review before the CA. What should happen here; if the party receives the order of the OP in this case denying its motion, it has a period of 15 days to appeal to the CA counted from the time of receipt of order. When the SEC filed a 2nd MR before the OP, the period xxx. Laguna vs. Maraan: Under the Labor Code, Article 128 confers visitorial power to the Department Secretary of Labor. This power may be exercised by the delegated authority. Such authority is delegated to the Regional Director. Petitioner should have appealed the order denying tis motion to quash the writ of execution re: monetary award of the DOLE Reg. Director (in exercise of his visitorial and enforcement powers) to the Labor Secretary, instead of filing with CA a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review. What should be done was to appeal the order with the Sec. of Labor. What the party did was to file a motion for extension to file the petition for review so the period has already lapsed. Berba vs. Pablo: Submission of dispute to Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for amicable settlement under Section 408 LGC. If complainant fails to comply with this requirement, court may dismiss the complaint. If the court finds that there is non-‐compliance with the doctrine, it may dismiss the complaint. Or if the parties do not timely invoke this doctrine, it is possible that the court may take cognizance of the matter. That is why it is important for the party to raise the doctrine. The failure to do so means a

4

waiver on their part. The invocation of this doctrine must be made timely and before filing the answer to the complaint. Alexandra Condominum Corp vs. Laguna Lake Development Authority: LLDA has the power to award damages and fines such as in this case because of its duty to discharge into the Laguna de Bay. There was an order issued here by LLDA against Alexandara Condo Corp. imposing the penalty of P1.062M because of the latter’s discharge of pollutive wastewater. The aggrieved party here, applying the doctrine, ought to file an MR. If the MR is still denied, the next step is still administrative in nature before the DENR. The LLDA has already been placed under admin supervision of the DENR Secretary under EO 149. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the immediate filing of a certiorari before the CA. TACC should have appealed the LLDA Order, imposing penalty of P1.062M for its pollutive wastewater discharge, to the DENR Secretary in view of the transfer of LLDA to DENR thru Pollution, Adjudication Board for administrative supervision under EO 149, before filing a petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule 65. On TACC’s offer to pay a reduced fine, power to compromise claims is vested with COA under PD 1445 or Congress under EO 292. Another issue raised here the offer of the petitioner to pay the penalty but in a reduce amount, the power to compromise really depends on the amount. If the amount is more than P100k, the authority is conferred with Congress. Otherwise, the power is vested with COA. Province of Siquijor vs. COA: SC dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari to nullify decision of COA Region VII – as affirmed by COA Legal – diallowing the grant of P20T Xmas bonues for failure to exhaust admin remedies. Petitioner having failed to pursue an appeal with the Comission Proper under COA Rules of Procedure, the disallowance as ruled by COA LAO-‐Local has become final and executor. Remedy of certiorari may be availed of only if there is no appeal, or plain, speedy, adequate remedy xxx. What should have been done is to appeal the matter with the highest tribunal. This was not done in this case so what the province did was to file a petition for certiorari before the court. What should have been done is to file, within the timeframe, an appeal to the commission proper. This was not done so the disallowance already became final and executory. So the province can no longer file the petition before the court by reason that the allowance already became final. There was a failure to exhaust admin remedies. The remedy for certiorari under Rule 65 if there is no appeal or recourse under the xxx. (?)

5

January 27, 2015 PD 242 PD 242 dated July 9, 1973 is a general law which provides for admin settlement or adjudication by the DOJ of disputes, claims and controversies between or among agencies of the government. But if the general law conflicts with a special law (ex. PD 464 which deals specifically with assessment and appraisal of real property for purposes of taxation by LGUs), the special law prevails. This is the general law dealing with the settlement of conflicts and matters involving government agencies. It is vested with the Department of Justice. Between a special law and a general law, what ought to apply is the special law dealing with the assessment, appraisal and collection of taxes. So there is no basis here for the dismissal of the case for collection of such taxes filed by the province before the court. So PD 464 does not applies. Distinction: Exhaustion of Admin Remedies and Due Process

Ø Both embody linked and related principles Ø Exhaustion principle is based on the respective of

the ruling tribunal, while due process is considered from the viewpoint of the litigating party against whom a ruling was made

Ø The commonality they share is in the same opportunity that underlies both, ie. opportunity for the ruling tribunal to re-‐examine its findings and opportunity to the party to be head

The principle of exhaustion of admin remedies is taken from the viewpoint of the adjudicative tribunal – the ruling tribunal or body. While the due process principle is considered from the viewpoint of the adverse party or the party against whom the complaint has been filed. There is a requirement that the person must be given an opportunity for due process – this may extend to appeal when such is accorded by the law. We mentioned that there are cases where an MR is required to be filed when there is a requirement provided under the law. But there are instances where they may be no need to file MR. Cases where a prior MR is not necessary

Ø The order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal has no jurisdiction

Ø There is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of Government or of the petitioner

Ø Deprivation of due process and there is urgency for relief

Ø Issue is purely legal

Ø Public interest is involved Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies Demaisip vs. Bacal: Demaisip was appointed as the head of PAO replacing the incumbent Bacal. Bacal got appointed during the time of Ramos but when Estrada took over the presidency, Bakal was transferred to region 10. If what is being raised is that there is constructive dismissal, that the transfer was illegal and it was done without his consent, this raises legal issue. Therefore, there is no need to exhaust admin remedies. Whether respondent’s transfer to the position of Reg. Dir. of PAO which was made without her consent, amounts to removal without cause is a legal issue. Arimao vs. Taher: Then ARMM Governor promoted Arimao, who at the time was occupying the position of education supervisor. He was promoted to the position of director but his appointment was disapproved by the CSC. During the period of occupancy of Arimao, Taher got his designation as the education director. So when CSC disapproved the appointment of Arimao, the ARMM Government issued an order appointing Arimao back as education supervisor despite the fact that he was already dropped by the rolls. Whether the memo of ARMM Governor, ordering the reinstatement of petitioner already declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls, was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a legal question. Clearly, there was arbitrariness committed by Governor so an appeal may be directly raised by the court. Lastimoso vs. Senior Insp. Asayo: Case filed against a police by a private individual. Whether or not the PNP Chief had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by a private citizen vs. him is a legal question. What is being raised is a legal matter – who has jurisdiction over the complaint? So no need to comply with the exhaustion of admin remedies. Quisumbing vs. Gumban: Where respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as alter ego of the President, bear implied or assumed approval of the latter. Binamira vs. Garucho: Where the doctrine of qualified political agency applies. Garucho was the then-‐secretary of Tourism. The pre-‐decessor of Garucho was Gonzales. An order was issued designating Binamira as xxx. Take note, it was not the president who designated him. Later on, when a new secretary of Tourism assumed office, Binamira was replaced. Of course, one of the

6

issues raised here is that according to Binamira, there was a violation of her security of tenure. Another issue: WON there is a need to exhaust admin steps by taking an appeal before the OP. Here, the doctrine of qualified political agency is applicable so there is no need to exhaust admin remedies. There is no need to appeal the matter with the office of the President. Castro vs. Gloria and Gutang: Castro filed a complaint against his school teacher against Gutang. Gutang has an illicit affair with Castro’s wife. The DEPED issued an order dismissing Gutang. The issue is WON it was the proper penalty for this conduct. Is there a need for Gutang to exhaust admin remedies by seeking relief first before the Secretary of Education or even before the CSC? What is being raised clearly is a elgal matter. The legality of the imposition of dismissal from the service for the first offense… so there is no need to apply the exhaustion of admin remedies. Whether or not petitioner’s dismissal form the service is the proper penalty for the first offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is a question of law. Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology: Where petitioner is not asking for the reversal of policies of PCST nor demanding that she be allowed to take the final exams. Should there first be exhaustion of admin remedies? No because Regino was not seeking the remedy of reversing the policies of the school or that she be allowed to take the final exam. What she was seeking was for payment of damages. Sabello vs. Decs: Asked in the bar. Sabello used to be a school principal in Gingoog City. He was charged and convicted but later on he was granted pardon. Because of the pardon, he got reinstated but not to his original higher position of principal but to the position of teacher so he complained. Was there a violation of doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies without seeking relief first before the DepEd? Let me get back to what we mentioned earlier re: administrative proceedings liberally applied. So here, the SC was quite lenient or liberl taking into account that the petition filed before the court was filed by a non-‐lawyer who claims that poverty denied him the services of the lawyer so the SC may set aside the requirement of exhaustion of admin remedies and resolve to go direct to the merits of the petition. Sta. Maria vs. Lopez: There is nothing left to be done except to seek court action. This is about the dean of the UP who received an order resigning him from the Office of the Dean

of Arts. Here, there was constructive dismissal. There is no need to exhaust admin remedies. Other instances when the doctrine is not applicable

Ø There is estoppel on the part of the party invoking it Ø There is unreasonable delay of official action that will

irreparably prejudice the complainant Ø There is no plain, adequate and speedy remedy

except court action Ø The land in question is private Ø The amount is too small so as to make the rule

impractical Ø There is nothing left to be done except court action

CASES: Perez vs. Sandiganbayan Province of Cam. Norte vs. Province of Quezon NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assoc vs. NPC DENR Sec. vs. DENR Employees

7

February 3, 2015 Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency This has been asked in the bar. It’s also known as the alter-‐ego principle. In the absence of a constitutional proviso or statute to the contrary, official acts of department secretary are deemed acts of the President unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter. Except where the Constitution or law requires that he acts in person, multifarious functions are performed by department heads. Recognizes the existence of a single executive, all executive organizations are adjuncts of Exec. Department and the heads of these departments are agents of the Chief Executive. Under this principle, there is only one chief executive. All the bureaus in the executive department are said to be extensions of the chief executives. All the heads of these bureaus or offices are agents of the chief exec. Any action taken by the department head is also the action of the president. Example: What bureaus are under the Department of Finance? BIR, BoC. An action of BIR commissioner will be elevated in the Secretary of Finance. Whenever on appeal, the Sec. of Fin. Appeals or affirms the action of the commissioner, that action is the action of the President under the doctrine of qualified political agency. What about the executive secretary? Ochoa. The executive secretary has the authority to reverse the decision of the direction which has been affirmed by the department secretary. In the hierarchy in the exec. branch, the exec secretary is said to be acting in behalf of the president. In fact, many of the issuances by the President are signed not by the President but by the exec sec. Is it possible for the exec sec to reverse or modify the decision of the Bureau of Director which has been affirmed by the Dept. Sec? Yes. He is not equal but higher in rank to the department of sec. Therefore, he has the power to affirm, modify, or set aside the decision even if the said decision has already been overturned by the department sec. but it must be done within the bounds of the law. This concept does not apply to constitutional offices. Perez vs. Sandiganbayan: Doctrine is not applicable to the office of the ombudsman. The office is an independent office. It’s not part of the executive branch of the government. It should be a non-‐political office.

Province of Cam. Norte vs. Province of Quezon: The authority of the DENR technical team which conducted the survey emanated from the Special Order issued by the DENR Sec, the alter ego of the President. His acts are presumed to be the acts of the President, unless repudiated by the latter. The DENR Sec issued an order creating a xxx. This issuance was questioned by the parties on the ground that it was not authorized. According to them, it was made without the authority of the President. The official action taken by the DENR Sec is the act of the president applying the doctrine. The DENR Sec here is the alter ego of the President so his acts are definitely the acts of the President unless the latter disowns or repudiates the acts of the former. NPC Drivers vs. NPC: Department secretaries cannot delegate their duties as members of NPB, much less their power to vote and approve board resolutions. The department secretaries who are ex-‐officio members of the boards of the GOCCs cannot delegate acts of discretion. It involves exercise of personal judgment. Acts of discretion cannot be delegated. Only ministerial functions may be delegated. DENR Sec. vs. DENR: DENR Sec’s order transferring the regional office from Cotabato city to Koronadal city is deemed the President’s act. As executive head, President under Article 7 Section 17 has continuing authority to reorganize any agency of executive branch. This power may be delegated to his cabinet members under the doctrine of qualified political agency. Because of the conduct of the plebiscite in the ARMM area that time, there was this transfer of provinces. The provinces of Saranggani and South Cotabato that time were part of Region 11 but now Region 12 na. Because of this transfer, the sec of DENR issued an order transferring the regional office of the DENR from Cot. To Kor. This move was questioned by the employees of the office based in Cotabato. They claimed that the issuance was illegal because it was not approved by the President. The SC again applied the principle or doctrine of qualified political agency. The issuance of the dept. secretary is the issuance of the President. The authority of the President under the Constitution, power of control, includes the power or authority to effect changes in the organization in the executive branch. (?) Does the president need to get executive xx? No. There is a continuing agency given to the President based on the power of control. Under E0 292, he has the continuing authority to effect changes.

8

This power to organize by the President may be delegated to cabinet members under the doctrine. Power of control of the President applies to executive branch. Power of supervision applies to local government units -‐ The authority to insure that laws are faithfully executed by the local chief executives. Principle of Presidential Power of Control The power of control is exercised by the President. President’s power over the exec branch of government, including all executive officers xxx (Section 17, Article 7). Power of control – power to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter. Tondo Medical Center vs. OP. Reorganization of DOH under EO 102: not a usurpation of legislative power. EO 292 gives continuing authority to the Pres to reorganize the admin structure of the OP. WON there was usurpation for the issuance without getting the authority from Congress? No. Banda vs. Ermita: The President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in the exec department in line with his constitutionally granted power of control and by virtue of a valid delegation of the legislative power to reorganize exec. offices under existing statutes. Chavez vs. NHA: President can exercise exec power motu proprio and can supplant decision or act of the subordinate with his own. When the President ordered the development of housing project (Smokey Mountain) with reclamation work, making the DENR part of the implementing committee, the required authorization of DENR to reclaim land is deemed satisfied. The ultimate power over alienable and disposable public lands is reposed in the President and not the DENR Sec. To still require DENR authorization on Smokey Mountain would be a derogation of President’s power as head of exec branch. The SC said that who is higher? Of course the Chief Executive so there is no need for him to get authority from the department sec because the latter is just his subordinate. The power here is vested with the Pres and not with the sec of the DENR. CASES: Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora Domingo vs. Zamora Bito-‐onon vs. Fernandez 350 S 732 David vs. Paredes 439 S 130

9

February 10, 2015 What is the difference between the power of control and power of supervision? The power of control is based on the Constitution (Article 7). The power of supervision of the chief executive is one which is usually ensures… the laws are faithfully executed by the local executives. When you talk of the power of control, we are talking of existing offices. Biraogo vs. PTC: The creation of PTC is not justified by the President’s power of control. The power of control is different from power to create public offices – the former is inherent in the executive, while the latter finds basis from either a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws. PTC’s creation is justified under Section 17, Article 7 imposing on President the duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. The power to create a public office is exclusively legislative. But what would be the basis of xxx in creating the public office? It is because of the continuing authority under EO 292, Book 3. This applies to all department bureaus and offices so it follows that the President has the power to transfer this from one to another so long as it falls within the executive branch. Note: PTC is not borne out of restructuring of the OP since PTC is not part of the OP structure prior to EO 1. Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora: Although the general rule is power to abolish a public office is lodged with legislature (unless created by the Cons. Itself), the exception is that as far as agencies or offices in the Exec Dept are concerned, the President’s power of control may justify him to inactive the functions of a particular office, or a law may grant him broad authority to carry out organizational measures. Also, under Section 31 of Book 3 of EO 292, The president in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the OP. For this purpose, he may transfer functions of other departments or agencies to the OP. The EEIB is a bureau attached to the Bureau of Finance. Domingo vs. Zamora: Rationale of this continuing authority: OP is nerve center of executive branch. To remain effective and efficient, OP must be capable of being shaped and reshaped by President in the manner he deems fit to carry out his policies or directives OP is a command post of the President. Since EO 81 (transferring sports activities of DECS to PSC) is based on Pres.’s continuing authority under EO 292, EO 81 is a

valid exercise of the President’s delegated power to reorganize OP. President’s power of general supervision:

• Ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or the subordinate acts within the law

• Not incompatible with power to discipline which includes power to investigate

• Jurisdiction over admin disciplinary cases vs. elective local officials lodged in two authorities: Disciplining Authority and Investigating Authority

The power to discipline includes the power to investigate. What is being delegated in not really the power to discipline but the power to investigate. But of course, the President has the final say. Bito-‐onon vs. Fernandez: Distinguishing power of control from power of supervision: the latter is the power of mere oversight over LGUS, checking whether LGU or its officers perform their duties as provided by law and whether the rules are followed. He cannot lay down the rules for the doing of the act. If rules are not observed, the superior may order the work done or redone to conform to prescribed rules but he cannot prescribe his own manner for doing of the act. If the rules are not being observed by the local government official, the President here can of course ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. He cannot prescribe the manner of doing the act. President’s power of general supervision extends to the Liga ng mga Barangay. The representatives of the Liga sit in an ex officio capacity at the municipal, city and provincial sanggunians. Liga is the vehicle through which the barangay participates in enactment of ordinances. David vs. Paredes: The Liga ng mga Barangay is not subject to control by Chief Executive or his alter ego. The acts of the DILG in nullifying results of Liga elections and appointing Rayos as President of Liga-‐Caloocan went beyond supervision. There was this order issued by the court and the DILG was designated as the administrator. Here, the DILG cancelled the Liga elections. Here, the DILG is not exercising merely the power of supervision but power of control. There is already an abuse.

10

February 24, 2015 Review of Admin Decisions General rule: Factual findings are not subject to judicial review and must be accorded not only utmost respect but finality as long as decisions are supported xxx Factual findings of admin authorities are not only accorded with respect but with finality so long as the decisions are made within the area of competence and on the basis of requirement of substantial evidence. Exceptions: Misappreciation of facts; not supported by substantial evidence; when so warranted, there may be judicial review; findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or collusion; procedure is irregular, palpable or serious errors have been committed; grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest Baustista vs. Araneta: Factual finding of DARAB which relied on certification by MARO that petitioner is a tenant is not conclusive on courts. Tenancy is not purely a factual relationship but also a legal relationship. What is the factual manner in administrative proceedings? What the tenant is doing with the land. Tenancy is also a legal relationship between the supposed tenant and the lawful owner. There should be a relation which should be more than factual issue that indeed, consent has been given by the land owner. Rep vs. Imperial: Classification of public land is a function of the Director of LMB and his decision when approved by DENR Sec. as to question of fact is conclusive and not subject to judicial review. Take note that I emphasized that whenever the property is classified as public, it is within the xxx of the administrative authority not so with those covered by titles. The LMB is under DENR and the decision of the director of LMB is conclusive when approved by the DENR secretary. It is within the expertise of the administrative authorities. Samson vs. OMB: The calibration of evidence to assess whether a prima facie graft case exists vs. private respondents is a question of fact. Mandamus will lie to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty but not to compel the performance of a discretionary act requiring the exercise of judgment, as in determining whether or not probably cause exists vs. them. In the exercise of the discretionary power by the prosecutor or fiscal of the DOJ, he cannot be compelled by mandamus to perform such action. Mandamus lies only in the xxx of a ministerial duty but not in the exercise of an act of discretion on the part of the officer. Whether or not there is a probable

cause to file the case in court is solely within the discretion of the prosecutor so you cannot compel it by mandamus. Fabian vs. Agustin: Inconsistency of facts – conflicting factual findings. Contractor Fabian here was able to get projects from DPWH on the basis of her relationship with Agustin. The affair did not last so this woman filed a case against Agustin for grave misconduct and acts of immorality. The penalty was modified from dismissal to 1 year suspension. Later on, the OMB 1 inhibit from the case so a new OMB took place. The penalty was again dismissal from the service. The CA made another finding. The factual findings here were conflictinf and thus this would be the basis for the court to include them. Matuguina Wood Products vs. CA: The issue of won petitioner is an alter ego of Milgaros Matuguina, the losing party in the MNR case, is one of fact, and should be threshed out in said admin proceedings and not in prohibition proceedings in court. This is simple in compliance with the exhaustion of admin remedies. Whatever related issue should be threshed out in the same admin proceeding and not before the court. If the issue requires admin expertise, then the court will not look into it. When may courts review administrative decisions?

§ Determine constitutionality of law, treaty or order § Determine jurisdiction of admin body § Determine any other question of law § Determine question of fact when necessary to

determine either a constitutional or jurisdictional issue, the commission of abuse of authority or error of law

Under Article 8, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, all errors or decisions of admin bodies involving questions of law are subject to judicial review. Principle that only questions of law shall be raised in an a appel by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 admins of exceptions, namely:

1. Findings are grounded entirely on speculations or conjectures

2. Inference made is manifestly mistaken 3. There is grave abuse of discretion 4. Judgment is based on his appreciation of facts 5. Findings of facts are conflicting 6. Findings are conclusions without citation of specific

evidence on which they are based 7. Factual findings are premised on supposed absence

of evidence but contradicted by evidence on record (Bernaldo vs. OMB). Here, the OMB decision suspending Bernaldo for 9 months (as affirmed by

11

CA) was not supported by substantial evidence SC granted her petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper grounds in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Such petition will prosper only if there is showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction of admin tribunal. Requisites for petition for certiorari to prosper: Petitioner TACC must show that:

a. LLDA acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion’ and

b. There is no appeal or a plain, speedy and adequate remedy is a MR of the assailed decisions (Alexandra Condo Corp vs. LLDA)

Lacson vs. PEA: The PEA decision to dismiss petitioners from the service, upon recommendation of PAGC as proved by the President after due proceedings, should have been appealed to the CSC under EO 292. From CSC, it can be elevated to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. From there, it can be appealed to the SC thru a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Petitioners chose wrong remedy by appealing under Rule 65 their dismissal by the PEA to the CA instead of CSC. As their dismissal has become final and executor, SC no longer has power to review and act. Difference between Rule 45 Petition (Petition for Review on Certiorari) and Rule 65 Petition (Petition for Certiorari): A Rule 65 petition is an original action that dwells xxx In judicial review of administrative decisions:

a. Courts can re-‐examine the sufficiency of evidence and are authorized to receive additional evidence not submitted earlier

b. A trial de novo is not contemplated c. Factual findings are accorded not only respect but

finality binding on the court as long as supported by preponderance of evidence

d. Errors or decisions of administrative bodies may be questioned in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

Correct answer: B (You cannot do a new trial in admin xxx)

12

March 3, 2015 Immunities

• Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and civil immunities to persons unless the law explicitly confers such power

• PCGG under EO 14A may grant immunity from criminal prosecution xxx

• Apply Article 2028, Civil Code: amicable settlement in civil cases applicable to PCGG cases

• OMB under Section 17 of RA 6770 may grant immunity from criminal prosecution xxx

PCGG under EO 14A may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any individual who testifies in any investigation of the PCGG. For this successful prosecution of the case of the PCGG, the law itself empowers the PCGG to grant immunity to the person who is deemed to act as a witness. It follows that whenever there is failure to comply with the obligations under the agreement, he can still be impleaded as a respondent. If there is no law giving or granting the admin body or tribunal such power, the remedy available is to file before the court. The court may grant such immunity subject to the conditions. Under the Rules of Court, immunity may be given to a person who gives testimony provided that he is the least guilty and that his testimony is necessarily for the successful prosecution of the case. What about civil immunity from prosecution? What law will apply? Even if there is no such authority with respect to the grant of immunity from civil suit, nonetheless, Article 2028 of the Civil Code will apply. PCGG may, therefore, on the basis of said provision, grant immunity from civil suit to a person testifying in a PCGG case. Illustration under RA 6770, Section 17. The ombudsman may grant immunity to any person who testifies in the case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. Just like the other requirements, the persons granted this immunity must have in his possession information or testimony indispensable for the successful prosecution of the case filed against the public officer. Before the filing of the PDAF cases, there was this issue: Won the ombudsman ought to grant immunity to Napoeles. The OMB decided that the case can still be successful prosecuted even in the absence of the testimony of Napoles. There are evidence independent to the testimony of Napoles. The person must be the least guilty among the accused. His testimony must be necessary. Three-‐fold responsibility

• A public official may be held criminally, civilly and administratively liable for violation of duty or for wrongful act or omission

• Remedies may be invoked separately, alternately, simultaneously or successively

• Rule: Administrative cases are independent from criminal cases

In other words, the prosecution of one case is not dependent upon the other. The filing of the criminal suit against the public officer is independent from the filing of the admin suit arising from the same facts and circumstances against the same officer. The principle of prejudicial question does not apply even if we are talking about the same facts arising from the wrongful act of the officer. The quantum of evidence is different. In admin cases, the requirement is substantial evidence. But in penal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt. Before the institution of the case before the court, there is a finding of the government body (DOJ) whether or not there is probable cause for the commission of the crime. If yes, the case is filed before the DOJ. It is still the court which ultimately decides whether the required quantum of evidence is satisfied. If the accused is exonerated in criminal case does not mean that he is not guilty for the admin cases. If the criminal case will be dismissed does not mean that the admin case will be dismissed. Substantial evidence, the lowest in the hierarchy, lang ang need sa admin. Admin cases are independent from crim cases. Exception: If the law itself makes it a prime requirement that there should be an administrative determination. In such case, the criminal case cannot be instituted or filed without determining the admin liability of the person. Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final administrative determination. Example: In prosecution of unfair labor practice under Labor Code, no criminal prosecution for ULP can be filed without a final judgment in a previous administrative proceeding. Chua vs. Ang: The dismissal by the CP of petitioner’s criminal complaint vs. Fil-‐Estate for violation of PD 957 in failing to construct and deliver to petitioner the condo unit – on the view that an administrative finding of violation must first be obtained before resort to criminal prosecution – is wrong. Nothing in PD 957 expressly requires prior administrative finding. Where the law is silent on this matter, the fundamental rule that the administrative case is independent from criminal action fully applies. ERB vs. CA: Hierarchy of evidentiary values: Proof of guilty beyond reasonable douct is the highest level, followed by

13

clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence, in that order. Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. Naldoza: A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts xxx Naldoza was the legal counsel of Gatchalian. There was this POEA case wherein the respondent was Gatchalian. The decision was adverse to Gatchalian. On the part of Naldoza, he made his representation that an appeal can still be taken of the POEA decision. He collected the amount of $2,555. Admin and penal cases were filed against Naldoza. The criminal case for estafa was dismissed. On that basis, Naldoza argues that the disbarment case against him should also be dismissed. He is wrong. The dismissal of the criminal case does not have anything to do with the disbarment case. Ocampo vs. OMB: Absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence for there is another class of evidence which, though insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in admin case. The same issue with the case of Gatchalian. He pocketed a certain amount. The RTC dismissed the RTC cases here. There was an admin case filed before the OMB. He claimed na dapat i-‐dismiss na din ang admin case. The SC said na the crim and admin cases are entirely different – not related with one another. In admin case, a lower form of evidence is required. The requirement simply is substantial evidence. Floria vs. Sunga: Administrative offenses do not prescribe. Floria was charged administratively. She was the employee of the CA and she had an affair with a co-‐employee whose spouse was also working in the same office. The defense here of Floria was that this was a thing of the past – tapos na, I’ve moved on. The issue now is whether or not the action has prescribed. In criminal cases, meron diba? Pero sa admin cases, walang prescription. Kahit matagal na, the SC said that the stigma still lingers. The SC meted the penalty to a fine of P10,000. What do you think is the reason for this principle? Unlike in criminal cases, the subject is the punishment of the wrong doer. Here, the SC ruled that there is no such prescription of offenses in admin proceedings but the law itself may provide for the exercise of discretion on the part of the body or tribunal whether or not to proceed with admin adjudication. Dr. Melendres, Exec. Of Director of Lung Center of Phil vs. PAGC: The dismissal of the two criminal cases by the Sandiganbayan and of several criminal complaints by the Ombudsman did not result in the absolution of the petitioner from the admin charges.

Section 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but the discretion given to the OMB not to conduct the investigation if filed after one year from occurrence xxx Is this mandatory? Is this connected with the concept of prescription? No. Section 20 simply means that the law itself gives the utmost discretion on the part of the OMB whether the corresponding investigation could still be made. The OMB may deem is no longer necessary if the case is filed more than 1 year from the happening of the act. It involves an exercise of judgment on the aprt of the OMB. In most cases, the OMB still continues with the conduct of investigation even if the complaint is filed more than a year from the happening of the act. OMB vs. BAC Chair De Sahagun of Intramuros Administration: The object sough is not the punishment of the officer but the improvement of public service and preservation of public faith and confidence. While complaint was filed by FFIB of OMB only in September 2000 or more than 7 years after commission (1992) of the act, OMB may still investigate said anonymous complaint filed in 1996. In this case, the issue here was about the late institution of the charge against De Sahagun. The act complained of happened in 1992. An anonymous complaint was filed before the OMB. It took a while from the OMB to file the formal charge. The wrongful act was committed in 1992 and the complaint was filed in 1996 before the office of the OMB. It took the OMB 4 years to docket the case in 2000 after gathering evidence from its fact-‐finding body. De Sahagun complained that there was a violation of his rights and the case should have been dismissed. He raised Section 20 of the Ombudsman Act. The SC ruled that the OMB still has the discretion whether to proceed in the investigation or not. Exec. Judge Loyao vs. Clerk of Court Caube: The death or retirement of officer from service does not preclude a finding of admin liability to which he shall be answerable. Jurisdiction over the admin complaint was not lost by mere fact of respondent Caube’s death during the pendency of the admin case. The tribunal retains jurisdiction to pronounce him innocent or guilty. At the time of the institution of the case against Caube, he was still connected with the Judiciary as a Clerk of Court. During the pendency of the case, he died. Is his death during the pendency of the admin proceedings a legal basis for the dismissal for such proceeding? The rule here is that: The death or retirement of officer from service does not prevent a finding of admin liability. The person can still be held answerable. The tribunal continues to retain jurisdiction and

14

therefore, is empowered to pronounce him innocent or guilty. OMB vs. Dep. Dir. Andutan: Prevailing doctrine: Admin jurisdiction can no longer be exercised by OMB if public officer has already separated from the service prior to the filing of charges regarding illegal transfer of tax credit certificates. Andutan was no longer a public servant at the time the case was filed. Andutan here was asked to tender his resignation because he was not eligible. He complied. Subsequently, a case was filed against him before the OMB. Did the OMB acquire jurisdiction? No. At the time of filing the admin case, he was no longer connected with the office. He was asked to tender resignation letter here. What is the exception to this rule? If his separation was the cause of the intention to evade liability. Pagano vs. Nazarro: Exception: When public officer resigned in bad faith or specifically, when resignation was done in anticipation of charges (P1.4M shortage) to be filed against her. Even if the officer filed his certificate of candidacy, the officer is still made liable because it was done in bad faith. Rules

• The withdrawal of a complaint or desistance of complainant will not automatically result to dismissal of admin case. Complainant is a mere witness xxx

• The tribunal has an interest apart from complaint’s own in determining the truth and when necessary, imposing sanctions versus erring employees (This is the reason)

• Rule on anonymous complaints: such complaints do not always justify outright dismissal, particularly when allegations may be easily verified an established by other competent evidence

• Under “Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation,” elective officials cannot be subject to disciplinary action for admin misconduct committed during a prior term. Reasons for the rule. (Applies only when the officer is elected to the same position)

Garcia vs. Mojica: While a re-‐elected official may no longer be held administratively liable for singing a questionable contract before his reelection, this will not prejudice the filing of any case other than the administrative versus him. OMB vs. Torres: Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer seeking elective office.

15

March 7, 2015 Aggrieved party who may appeal the administrative decision Section 39a PD 807: Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party adversely affected by the decision CSC vs. Dacoycoy: CSC as aggrieved party may appeal the CA decision to SC. By this ruling, SC abandoned and overruled prior decisions that the Civil Service Law does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating public officers from administrative charges. The real party in interest in admin cases is the state. The complainant is only the witness. Section 37 of PD 807: CSC decides on appeal all admin disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than 30 days, or a fine in an amount exceeding 30 days’ slaray, demotion, transfer or dismissal from service A party may elevate a decision of CSC before the CA thru petition for review under Rule 43 of Revised Rules of Court OMB vs. CT Samaniego: The OMB has clear legal interest to intervene in the petition for review on certiorari before the CA. The respondent city treasurer was sanctioned with suspension for one year. CT appealed the decision of the OMB. The petition for review as filed by CT. The OMB filed a motion to intervene and it was denied by the CA. The OMB went to the high court. The SC said that the OMB has a legal interest because precisely, it was the decision of the OMB which is now pending with the CA. In fact, it is the real party representing the state. General rule: Decisions of admin agencies have, upon their finality, the binding effect of a final judgment within purview of res judicata doctrine Exceptions to the res judicata doctrine:

a. supervening events make it imperative to modify a final judgment to harmonize it with prevailing circumstances

b. its application would sacrifice justice to technicality c. parties involved waived it or do not timely raised it as

a defense d. issue of citizenship

PNP

o Section 6, Article XVI of 1987 Constitution o Authority of local chief executives: one of

operational control and supervision (Section 62, RA 8551)

o Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members upon citizen’s complaint under Section 42 of RA 6895 is concurrent with PNP Chief or regional directors under Section 45

o Appellate jurisdiction of NAPOLCOME through NAB and RAB

o Appeals form decisions of NAPOLCOM should be with DILG and then with CSC

Under Article 16, the state shall establish and maintain xxx to be administered by the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). One of the more doubtful provisions of this draft, proposed Bangsamoro Law, this is really unconstitutional in the matter of MILF having its own police force. Even if we say that they are still part of the PNP… Criminal cases involving PNP members are within exclusive jurisdiction of regular courts. Courts-‐martial are not courts but are instrumentalities of executive power. Andaya vs. RTC: Regional Police Director has prerogative to name the 5 eligibles for position of city police chief (3 for provincial police chief) from a pool of eligible officers screened by the Senior Officers Promotion and Selection Board of the PNP without interference from local executives. The mayor has limited power to select one from among the list of the eligible as police chief. You cannot appoint somebody who is not named in the list. The mayor has a limited power. The mayor here wanted to include somebody not included in the list. So, he filed a peititon before the RTC. The SC ruled that it is clearly provided under the law that the mayor cannot appoint somebody who is not included in the list from the Regional Director. AFP

o RA 7055: An act strengthening civilian supremacy over the military by returning to civil courts the jurisdiction over certain offenses involving AFP members, other persons subject to military law

General rule: AFP member and other persons subject to military law, who commit crimes penalized under RPC (like coup d’etat), other special penal laws, or local ordnances shall be tried by the proper civil court Who are the other persons here? CAFGU. Exception: Where the civil court, before arraignment, has determined the offense to be service connected, then the offending soldier shall be tried by a court martial. Exception to the exception: Where the President, in the interest of justice directs before arraignment that any such crime shall be tried by the proper civil court.

16

Gonzales et. al. vs. Abaya: Service-‐connected offenses are limited to those defined in the Articles of War (CA 408), violations of which are triable by the court martial. The delineation of jurisdiction between civil courts and courts martial over crimes committed by military personnel is necessary to preserve the peculiar nature of military justice system, which is aimed at achieving the highest form of discipline to ensure the highest degree of military efficiency. The charge vs. petitioners concerns their alleged xxx. Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) PD 478, Book IV, Admin Code General rule: Solicitor General is the lawyer of the government, its agencies and officials. He represents a public official in all civil, criminal and special proceedings, when such proceedings arise from the latter’s acts in his official capacity. Rule: Actions in the name of the RP or its instrumentality, if not imitated by the Solicitor General, will be summarily dismissed. Exceptions:

1. When the government office is adversely affected by the contrary stand of OSG (Orbos vs. CSC, 12 Sept. 1990)

2. SolGen deputizes legal officers xxx (Section 35, Chapter 123, Book IV EO 292)

General rule: SolGen can represent a public official in all civil, criminal and special proceedings when such proceedings arise from the latter’s acts in his official capacity. Exception: Such official or agent is being charged criminally or being sued civilly for damages arising from a felony. Dir. Pascual vs. Judge Beltran: The mention of petitioner’s name in the complaint for damages with the RTC as TelCom Director, arising from the alleged malicious administrative suit vs. respondent Raymundo, does not transform the action into one vs. him in his official capacity. Urbano vs. Chavez: OSG cannot represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case or in a civil case for damages arising from a felony. A public official sued in a criminal case is actually sued in his personal capacity since the State can never be the author of a wrongful act. Similarly, any pecuniary liability an official may be held to account in the civil suit is for his own account. Republic vs. Desierto: Assuming the PCGG has no authority to file the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the dismissal by OMB of the graft complaint vs. Cojuangco et al,

its unauthorized filing was ratified and the defect was cured with the OSG signed as co-‐counsel. Ombudsman Constitutional Mandate As protector of the people, OMB has the power, function and duty to act promprtly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials and to investigate any acts xxx Need for Prompt Action

o Delay od 3 years in PI violates accused’s right to due process xxx (Tatad vs. SB)

o Anchangco vs. OMB (1997) – same principle was applied

o Constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases extends to all parties in all cases and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-‐judicial hearings (OMB vs. Jurado)

o No violation of due process here. (FF) in 1992: admin case in 1997 and decision in 1999 – 6 months, suspension of Customs employee for neglect of duty

OMB Jurisdiction

o Jurisdiction encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance committed by any officer during his tenure of office

UY vs. OMB: OMB is clothed with authority to conduct PI and to prosecute all criminal cases involving all public officers and employees not only within the jurisdiction of the SB, but those within the jurisdiction of regular courts Sanchez vs. Demetriou: OMB authority is shared or concurrent with similarly authorized government offices. Honasan vs. DOJ Panel: DOJ is not precluded from investigating the case, but if the case falls under exclusive jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, then OMB may in exercise of its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage of the investigation of such case. If the case filed against a high-‐ranking officer is under the jurisdiction of the SB, meaning office-‐connected, under the law, the OMB has the primary authority or jurisdiction. It means that the OMB may take over the conduct of investigation at any stage of the proceeding. Orcullo vs. Gervacio: A money claim vs. a councilor is within the jurisdiction of court, not the OMB. If money claim is vs. City Government, claim is within the jurisdiction of the SP. Under OMB-‐DOJ MOA date March 29, 2012 (which modifies Join OMB-‐DOJ Circular of 10/05/95), OMB has primary jurisdiction in conduct of PI and inquest over cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan.

17

Both have concurrent jurisdiction over cases within jurisdiction of RTC/MTC; but the office where such complaint is filed for PI acquires jurisdiction to exclusion of other’ provided that OMB may refer any complaint to DOJ. Also, the prosecution of cases investigated by OMB but referred to DOJ for prosecution is under the DOJ control. Let’s say the complaint a high-‐ranking officer is filed with the OMB, then it is to the exclusion to the DOJ. But under the new MOA, the OMB has the discretion to have the DOJ to prosecute the case. So if the OMB asks the DOJ to prosecute the case, even if the PI was conducted by the PI, then it is the DOJ which shall decide it. Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary Authority?

o Impeachable officials (In re: Raul M. Gonzales) o Members of Congress (Section 16, Article VI) o OMB vs. Mojica o Judiciary (Sec. 6, Article VIII)

*Maceda vs. Vasquez *Caoibes vs. Alumbres *Fuentes vs. OMB *Garcia vs. Miro

Maceda vs. Vasquez: Where a criminal complaint vs. a judge or court employee arises from this admin duties, the OMB must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the SC for determination whether said judge or employee had acted within the scope of his admin duties. Dolalas vs OMB: OMB has no jurisdiction to investigate the alleged “undue delay in the disposition of criminal case” which involves determination whether the judge acted in accord with Code of Judicial Conduct Fuentes vs. OMB: Before a civil or criminal action vs. a judge for violation Article 204 (knowingly rendering unjust judgment) and Article 205 RPC can be entertained, there must be a final and authoritative judicial declaration that the decision is unjust. Garcia vs. Mojica: Meaning of phrase “under his authority” in RA 6770, all officials under investigation by his office regardless of the branch of government which they are employed *Yabut vs. Ofifce of the OMB * Buenaseda vs. Flavier *OMB vs. Valera

Admin Notes 2nd Exam

Documents

Transcript of Admin Notes 2nd Exam