THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, 1 G.R. No. 1051.

VS May 19, 1903.

FRED L. DORR ET AL., defendants-appellants.

DOCTRINE:
The term "government" as employed in Act No. 292 of the United States Philippine Commission is
used in the abstract sense of the existing political system as distinguished from the concrete organism
of the Government. The publication of an article can not be punished under Act No. 292 of the United
States Philippine Commission as having seditious tendencies unless it has a tendency to produce
disaffection or a feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and
obedient to its laws

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Defendants, Fred L. Dorr et al., were charged with writing, publishing, and circulating a scurrilous
libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine
Islands.
• The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the "Manila Freedom" newspaper on April 6, 1902.

• The article criticized the policy of the Civil Commission in appointing natives to important
government positions and accused them of corruption and incompetence.

• The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the "Manila Freedom" issue under the caption of A
few hard facts. appointing rascally natives to important Government positions
• There is no doubt but that the Filipino office holders of the Islands are in a good many instances
rascals.
• The Commission has exalted to the highest positions in the islands Filipinos who are alleged to be
notoriously corrupt and rascally, and men of no personal character.

• there can be no such thing as a scurrilous libel, or any sort of a libel, upon an abstraction like the
Government in the sense of the laws and institutions of a country.

ISSUE:
Whether the publication of the article constitutes an offense under section 8 of Act No. 92, which
prohibits the uttering of seditious words or speeches, writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous
libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine
Islands.

RULING:

No, the defendants were acquitted of the charges. The court found that the article did not have a
seditious tendency and did not attack the governmental system. The article, although critical of the
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Civil Commission and its members, did not incite disloyalty or disobedience to the government.
Therefore, it did not fall within the offenses described in section 8 of Act No. 92.

Further, The offenses punished by section 8 of Act No. 92 consist of inciting acts of disloyalty or
disobedience to the lawfully constituted authorities in the Philippine Islands. The article may have
caused dissatisfaction with the Civil Commission among certain classes, but it did not have a
tendency to produce disaffection or a state of feeling incompatible with loyalty to the government
and obedience to the laws. The term "government" in the statute refers to the existing laws and
institutions of the country, rather than the individuals administering the government.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Maria Elena Malaga Et al,. petitioner. 2 G.R. No. 1051.

VS September 3, 1992

MANUEL R. PENACHOS., defendants-appellants.

DOCTRINE:

• The case involves a group of construction companies filing a complaint against the Pre-qualification
Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) of the Iloilo State College of Fisheries (ISCOF) for
irregularities in the bidding process.

• The bidding process was for the construction of the Micro Laboratory Building.
• The deadline for the submission of pre-qualification requirements was set for December 2, 1988, and
the bids would be received and opened on December 12, 1988.

• Petitioners Maria Elena Malaga, Josieleen Najarro, and Jose Occe submitted their pre-qualification
documents, but they were not allowed to participate in the bidding because their documents were
considered late.

• They filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, seeking the resetting of the bidding
and the acceptance of their documents.

• The court issued a restraining order prohibiting PBAC from conducting the bidding and awarding
the project.

ISSUE:

Whether the court has jurisdiction to issue a restraining order in cases involving infrastructure
projects of the government, as prohibited by law.

RULING:

Yes, The Court has considered the arguments of the parties in light of their testimonial and
documentary evidence and the applicable laws and jurisprudence. It finds for the petitioners.

1987 Administrative Code defines a government instrumentality as any agency of the National
Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or
jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and
enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter.

The same Code describes a chartered institution any agency organized or operating under a special
charter and vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. This
term includes the state universities and colleges, and the monetary authority of the state. It is clear
from the above definitions that ISCOF is a chartered institution and is therefore covered by P.D.
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 1818. There are also indications in its charter that ISCOF is a government instrumentality. First, it
was created in pursuance of the integrated fisheries development policy of the State, a priority
program of the government to effect the socio-economic life of the nation. Second, the Treasurer of
the Republic of the Philippines shall also be the ex-officio Treasurer of the state college with its
accounts and expenses to be audited by the Commission on Audit or its duly authorized
representative. Third, heads of bureaus and offices of the National Government are authorized to
loan or transfer to it, upon request of the president of the state college, such apparatus, equipment, or
supplies and even the services of such employees as can be spared without serious detriment to public
service. Lastly, an additional amount of P1.5M had been appropriated out of the funds of the National
Treasury and it was also decreed in its charter that the funds and maintenance of the state college
would henceforth be included in the General Appropriations.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force, 3 G.R. No. 83578

VS Mar 16, 1989

Court of Appeals

DOCTRINE:

the importance of protecting fundamental rights and liberties and constitutional safeguards against
arbitrary and unreasonable acts of the government, even in the fight against illegal activities like
dollar salting.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The petitioner, the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force, argues that it is a quasi-judicial body
and therefore the RTC does not have jurisdiction over it.

• On March 12, 1985, State Prosecutor Jose B. Rosales, assigned with the Task Force, issued search
warrants against several individuals and corporations, including Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc.

• Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc. filed a petition with the RTC to enjoin the implementation of the
search warrants.

• The RTC issued a temporary restraining order and set the case for hearing.
• The RTC later declared the search warrants null and void and ordered the return of the seized
properties.

• The Task Force appealed to the Court of Appeals, which initially ruled in favor of the Task Force.
• However, upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reversed its decision and upheld the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force is a quasi-judicial body and therefore
beyond the jurisdiction of the RTC.
RULING:

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Task Force is not a quasi-judicial body and therefore the RTC
has jurisdiction over it. The Court defines a quasi-judicial body as an organ of government other
than a court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either
adjudication or rule making.

The Court finds that the Task Force's role is to conduct an inquiry preliminary to a judicial recourse
and to recommend action to appropriate authorities.
The Task Force is not a quasi-court and does not have the power to pass judgment on the accused.
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 The Court compares the Task Force to the Presidential Commission on Good Government, another
executive body with prosecutorial powers, and concludes that neither entity is a quasi-judicial body.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force, 4 G.R. No. 83578

VS Mar 16, 1989

Court of Appeals

DOCTRINE:

the importance of protecting fundamental rights and liberties and constitutional safeguards against
arbitrary and unreasonable acts of the government, even in the fight against illegal activities like
dollar salting.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The petitioner, the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force, argues that it is a quasi-judicial body
and therefore the RTC does not have jurisdiction over it.

• On March 12, 1985, State Prosecutor Jose B. Rosales, assigned with the Task Force, issued search
warrants against several individuals and corporations, including Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc.

• Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc. filed a petition with the RTC to enjoin the implementation of the
search warrants.

• The RTC issued a temporary restraining order and set the case for hearing.
• The RTC later declared the search warrants null and void and ordered the return of the seized
properties.

• The Task Force appealed to the Court of Appeals, which initially ruled in favor of the Task Force.
• However, upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reversed its decision and upheld the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force is a quasi-judicial body and therefore
beyond the jurisdiction of the RTC.
RULING:

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Task Force is not a quasi-judicial body and therefore the RTC
has jurisdiction over it. The Court defines a quasi-judicial body as an organ of government other
than a court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either
adjudication or rule making.

The Court finds that the Task Force's role is to conduct an inquiry preliminary to a judicial recourse
and to recommend action to appropriate authorities.
The Task Force is not a quasi-court and does not have the power to pass judgment on the accused.
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 The Court compares the Task Force to the Presidential Commission on Good Government, another
executive body with prosecutorial powers, and concludes that neither entity is a quasi-judicial body.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 5
Manila International Airport Authority, G.R. No. 83578

VS Mar 16, 1989

HON. FERDINAND J. MARCOS

DOCTRINE:
the principle that taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception. The power to tax is
primarily vested in Congress but may be exercised by local legislative bodies subject to limitations
and guidelines.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The case involves the issue of whether the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA)
is exempt from paying realty taxes imposed by the City of Cebu.

• MCIAA was created to promote and develop international and domestic air traffic in the Central
Visayas and Mindanao regions and to upgrade airport services and facilities.
• MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption from payment of realty taxes since its creation.

• In 1994, the City of Cebu demanded payment of realty taxes on several parcels of land owned by
MCIAA.

• MCIAA objected to this demand, claiming that it was exempt from paying these taxes under its
charter.

• MCIAA objected to the demand, claiming exemption under its charter.

• The City of Cebu argued that MCIAA's tax exemption privilege has been withdrawn by the Local
Government Code (LGC) of 1991.

• ISSUE:
Is MCIAA exempt from paying realty taxes imposed by the City of Cebu?
RULING:

MCIAA is not exempt from paying realty taxes. Taxation is the rule, exemption is the exception.
Exemptions from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law. The power
to tax is primarily vested in Congress but may be exercised by local legislative bodies, subject to
guidelines and limitations provided by Congress. The LGC specifically provides for the withdrawal
of tax exemption privileges previously granted to government-owned or controlled corporations.
MCIAA, as a government-owned corporation, is not exempt from paying realty taxes.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 MIAA, Petitioner,6 G.R. No. 163072

VS April 2, 2009

CITY OF PASAY, Respondents

DOCTRINE:

the Local Government Code, which exempts real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines
or any of its political subdivisions from payment of real property tax, except when the beneficial use
thereof has been granted to a taxable person.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The case involves a dispute between the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) and the City
of Pasay over the real property tax on NAIA Pasay properties.

• MIAA operates and administers the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex.
• The City of Pasay issued notices of levy and warrants of levy for the NAIA Pasay properties due to
delinquent real property taxes.
• MIAA filed a petition seeking to enjoin the City of Pasay from imposing real property taxes on the
NAIA Pasay properties.
• The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and upheld the power of the City of Pasay to impose
and collect realty taxes on the NAIA Pasay properties.

ISSUE:
Whether the NAIA Pasay properties of MIAA are exempt from real property tax.

RULING:

The Court ruled in favor of MIAA and declared the NAIA Pasay properties exempt from real
property tax imposed by the City of Pasay, except for the portions that MIAA has leased to private
parties. The Court held that MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but a
government instrumentality vested with corporate powers. As a government instrumentality, MIAA
is exempt from any kind of tax from local governments. The Court considered the NAIA Pasay
properties as properties of public dominion, which are owned by the Republic and thus exempt from
real estate tax. However, the Court clarified that only the portions of the NAIA Pasay properties that
are leased to private parties are subject to real property

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Manila International Airport Authority , 7 G.R. No. 83578

VS Mar 16, 1989

Court of Appeals

DOCTRINE:

the principle that taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception. The power to tax is
primarily vested in Congress but may be exercised by local legislative bodies subject to limitations
and guidelines.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
(NAIA) Complex in Parañaque City.
• MIAA administers the land, improvements, and equipment within the NAIA Complex.

• City of Parañaque issued Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency to MIAA for the years 1992
to 2001.

• City of Parañaque threatened to sell the Airport Lands and Buildings if MIAA failed to pay the real
estate tax delinquency.

• MIAA sought clarification from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) regarding
its tax exemption.
• OGCC issued an opinion stating that MIAA is exempt from real estate taxes.

• MIAA filed a petition with the Court of Appeals to restrain the City of Parañaque from imposing real
estate tax on the Airport Lands and Buildings.
• Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.

• MIAA filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax under existing
laws.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of MIAA, declaring it exempt from real estate taxes imposed by
the City of Paranaque. The Court held that MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled
corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government, and therefore exempt from local
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 taxation.The Court also ruled that the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic of
the Philippines and are exempt from real estate tax as properties of public dominion.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Light Rail Transit Authority, 8 G.R. No. 221626

VS Oct 9, 2019

Quezon City

DOCTRINE:

The doctrine of precedents is fundamental to our legal system. It provides certainty while permitting
the orderly development of the law in incremental steps. Stare decisis, however, is not a straitjacket
which condemns the law to stasis or a state of suspended animation and disbelief. Where there is a
change in the circumstances which fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate, especially the
collective thinking of the Court expressed in later decisions and the present social milieus on which
our decisions will greatly impact, we have to understand and give effect to precedents in such new
light.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The The case involves a dispute over real property taxes imposed on the properties of the Light Rail
Transit Authority (LRTA).

• The LRTA is a government instrumentality created to construct, operate, maintain, and/or lease the
light rail transit system in the Philippines.

• The LRTA acquired real properties for this purpose and commenced its operations in 1984.

ISSUE:

1) Is the LRTA a GOCC or a government instrumentality; and

2) Are the LRTA's properties subject to real property tax?

RULING:

The Local Government Code provides for the exercise by local government units of the power to
tax, its scope or limitations, and those who are exempt from local taxation. On this score, Section
232 of the Code recognizes the power of the local government units to tax real property not otherwise
exempt therefrom

Section 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. — A province or city or a municipality within the
Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual Ad Valorem tax on real property such as land,
building, machinery, and other improvement not hereinafter specifically exempted.
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Section 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. — A province or city or a municipality within the
Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual tax on real property such as land, building,
machinery, and other improvement not hereinafter specifically exempted.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Philippine Heart Center, 9 G.R. No. 221626

VS Mar 11, 2020

Local Government of Quezon City

DOCTRINE:

The Philippine Heart Center is exempt from paying real property taxes on its properties in Quezon
City, except for those leased to private individuals. Thus, Properties of public dominion intended for
public use and welfare.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The The case involves the Philippine Heart Center (PHC) and the Local Government of Quezon City.

• The PHC was established in 1975 and was exempted from paying taxes for a period of ten years.

• The PHC owned eleven properties in Quezon City, which were being leased to private individuals.

• In 2004, the Quezon City Government issued notices of delinquency for unpaid real property taxes
on the PHC's properties.

• The PHC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Quezon City Government to
settle its tax liabilities by providing free medical services.

• The PHC later suspended the MOA and claimed exemption from paying real property taxes based
on a ruling by the Supreme Court.

• The Quezon City Government assessed, levied, and sold the PHC's properties for failure to pay taxes.

• The PHC filed a petition for certiorari.

• ISSUE:

Is the PHC exempt from paying real property taxes on its properties in Quezon City?
RULING:
The PHC, as a government instrumentality with corporate powers, is exempt from local taxes.

The properties of the PHC are properties of public dominion intended for public use or service and
are therefore exempt from real property taxes.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO Et al, petitioners, 10 G.R. No. 133132

VS January 25, 2000

HON. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, Et al, respondents.

DOCTRINE:
The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function, The reorganization
must be carried out in good faith, for the purpose of economy or making bureaucracy more efficient

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Petitioners: Alexis C. Canonizado, Edgar Dula Torres, and Rogelio A. Pureza

• Respondents: Hon. Alexander P. Aguirre, Hon. Emilia T. Boncodin, Jose Percival L. Adiong, Romeo
L. Cairme, and Virginia U. Cristobal

• Date: January 25, 2000

• Place: Philippines

• Petitioners were members of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM)

• Republic Act No. 8551 resulted in the removal of the petitioners from office

• Petitioners claimed that their removal violated their right to security of tenure

.
ISSUE:

Is Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8551, which resulted in the removal of the petitioners from office,
constitutional?
RULING:

The Supreme Court declared Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8551 unconstitutional, The removal of
the petitioners was nullified, and The petitioners are entitled to reinstatement and full backwages,
The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function, Congress has the
power to abolish offices, but it must be done in good faith and not for political or personal reasons,
The removal of the petitioners violated their right to security of tenure as members of the civil
service, The abolition of the petitioners' office and the creation of a new office with similar functions
lacked good faith.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 Energy Regulatory Board Et al, petitioners, 11 G.R. No. 150974

VS Jun 29, 2007

Barin, Et al, respondents.

DOCTRINE:
If the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional functions, duties or powers,
so that it may be said in fact to create an office different from the one abolished, even though it
embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be considered as an abolition of one office
and the creation of a new or different one. The same is true if one office is abolished and its duties,
for reasons of economy are given to an existing officer or office.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The case involves a special civil action challenging the constitutionality of the abolition of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB) and the creation of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).

• The petitioner, Kapisanan ng mga Kawani ng Energy Regulatory Board (KERB), argues that the
abolition of the ERB and the creation of the ERC violated the Constitution.

• The ERC was created as an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory board to replace the ERB.

• The Commissioners of the ERC were appointed by the President of the Philippines.

• The ERC issued guidelines for the selection and hiring of its employees, stating that Civil Service
laws, rules, and regulations have suppletory application in the selection and placement of ERC
employees.

• KERB objected to this view and claimed that the ERC should follow Civil Service rules in the
selection and placement of its employees.

ISSUE:

Whether the ERC should follow Civil Service rules in the selection and placement of its employees.

RULING:

The Court upholds the constitutionality of the abolition of the ERB and the creation of the ERC.The
Court explains that the ERC has new and expanded functions to meet the needs of a deregulated
power industry. service, The abolition of the petitioners' office and the creation of a new office with
similar functions lacked good faith. The ERC's selection and placement of employees were in
accordance w ith its guidelines and did not violate Civil Service rules.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 ISABELO T. CRISOSTOMO, petitioner,12 G.R. No. 150974

VS Jun 29, 2007

THE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DOCTRINE:

failing to comply with administrative circulars, resulting in fines, highlighting the importance of
judges respecting court orders and being transparent in their actions.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Isabelo T. Crisostomo was the former president of the Philippine College of Commerce (PCC).
• Crisostomo faced administrative cases and criminal charges during his tenure.

• On July 11, 1980, he was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be reinstated as the president of the
PCC.

• Cases filed before the Tanodbayan were dismissed.

• On February 12, 1992, Crisostomo filed a motion for execution of the judgment, seeking
reinstatement and payment of his salaries and benefits during his suspension.

• The trial court granted the motion and issued a writ of execution.

• President Corazon C. Aquino appointed a new acting president for the PCC following the expiration
of the previous president's term.

• The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining Crisostomo from acting as the
president of the PCC and stopping further proceedings.

• The Court of Appeals later rendered a decision setting aside the orders and writ of reinstatement
issued by the trial court.

• The payment of salaries and benefits to Crisostomo was limited to the period of his suspension until
the conversion of the PCC to the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP).ISSUE:

Whether the ERC should follow Civil Service rules in the selection and placement of its employees.

RULING:

The Court of Appeals set aside the orders and writs of reinstatement issued by the trial court.It
disallowed the payment of salaries and benefits to Crisostomo after the conversion of the PCC to
the PUP. Crisostomo argues that the conversion only changed the name of the institution and he
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 should be reinstated as the president of the PUP. The Supreme Court agrees with the Court of
Appeals' ruling. It states that an express declaration is required to abolish an office or institution and
create a new one. The law converting the PCC into the PUP did not contain such an express
declaration. Crisostomo's term as president of the PUP was terminated when Dr. Mateo was
appointed as the president. Crisostomo is only entitled to retirement benefits or separation pay

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 CESAR G. VIOLA petitioner, 13 G.R. No. 115844

VS August 15, 1997

HON. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III ET AL, respondents.

DOCTRINE:

If the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional functions, duties or powers,
so that it may be said in fact to create an office different from the one abolished, even though it
embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be considered as an abolition of one office
and the creation of a new or different one. The same is true if one office is abolished and its duties,
for reasons of economy are given to an existing officer or office.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The case of Viola v. Alunan III involves a petition for prohibition filed by Cesar G. Viola, Chairman
of Barangay 167, Zone 15, District II, Manila.

• Viola challenges the validity of certain provisions in the Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines
for the general election of the Liga ng mga Barangay officers.

• Specifically, Viola challenges the provisions that provide for the election of first, second, and third
vice presidents and auditors for the National Liga ng mga Barangay and its chapters.

• Viola's Argument and Supreme Court's Ruling

• Viola argues that these positions are in excess of those provided for in Section 493 of the Local
Government Code.

• The Supreme Court rules that Viola's contention is untenable.

• The Court states that the creation of these additional positions is authorized by Section 493 of the
Local Government Code.

• Section 493 allows the board of directors to create other positions as it deems necessary for the
management of the chapter.

ISSUE:

Whether the board of directors of a local chapter can create additional positions for the needs of the
chapter?

RULING:

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
The Court explains that the board of directors of a local chapter can create additional positions for the needs
of the chapter. However, the board of directors of the National Liga has the power to create additional
positions not only for its management but also for all the chapters at different political subdivision levels.

The National Liga is responsible for coordinating the activities of all the chapters. Undue Delegation of
Legislative Power, The Court addresses the argument of undue delegation of legislative power. It states that
Section 493 of the Local Government Code provides a sufficient and fairly intelligible standard for the
creation of additional positions. The Court cites previous cases that have upheld the validity of similar
delegation of power .

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC.Et al, petitioners, 15 G.R. No. 151908 VS
August 12, 2003

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC), respondents.

DOCTRINE:

the trial court has jurisdiction to pass upon the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation
issued by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-legislative or rule-making power.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The case involves telecommunications companies challenging the constitutionality and validity of
billing circulars issued by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

• The NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000, which contained rules and regulations on
the billing of telecommunications services.
• The telecommunications companies filed an action for the declaration of nullity of the billing
circulars, asserting that the NTC exceeded its jurisdiction in regulating the sale of consumer goods
and that the circulars violated their rights.

• The case was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

• ISSUE:

Whether telecommunications companies is required to exhaust administrative remedies before

going to court.

RULING:

The trial court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the civil case. The telecommunications companies
were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. The billing circulars
issued by the NTC are within its rule-making power. The telecommunications companies have a
clear right to an injunction. The case clarified the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear cases
challenging the constitutionality and validity of administrative rules and regulations. The
telecommunications companies were exempted from exhausting administrative remedies. The
legality of the billing circulars was upheld.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 BLAS F. OPLE, petitioners, 16 G.R. No. 151908 VS
August 12, 2003

RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL respondents.

DOCTRINE:

Administrative orders are issued by the President to implement laws and should be in harmony with
the law and for the purpose of carrying out legislative policy.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 308 on December 12, 1996.

• The order establishes a National Computerized Identification Reference System.

• The purpose of the system is to provide a convenient way for Filipino citizens and foreign residents
to transact business with government agencies and reduce fraudulent transactions.

• The system is decentralized among key government agencies and overseen by an Inter-Agency
Coordinating Committee (IACC).

• The order mandates the use of the Population Reference Number (PRN) generated by the National
Statistics Office as a common reference number.

• The order does not require the use of biometrics technology, but it allows for its potential use in the
future.
ISSUE:

Whether the Administrative Order No. 308 is a valid exercise of executive power.

RULING:

Administrative Order No. 308 is a valid exercise of executive power. Administrative Order No. 308
does not violate the right to privacy and freedom of thought and conscience. The case challenges
the establishment of a National Computerized Identification Reference System in the Philippines.
The system aims to provide convenience and reduce fraudulent transactions. The petitioner argues
that the system violates the right to privacy and freedom of thought. The court finds that the system
does not violate these rights as it is intended for identification purposes and does not involve massive
dossiers on individuals. The implementation of the system is still in its early stages, and guidelines
for its use have not yet been promulgated.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION, petitioners, 21 G.R. No. L-50444 VS
August 31, 1987

THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, HON. G.V. TOBIAS

DOCTRINE:

administrative agencies, such as the NHA, to exercise quasi-judicial powers in resolving disputes
involving specialized or technical matters.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Executive Petitioner: Antipolo Realty Corporation

• Antipolo Realty and Yuson entered into a Contract to Sell for a subdivision lot in Antipolo, Rizal.

• The contract included a provision stating that Antipolo Realty was obligated to complete certain
improvements in the subdivision within two years.
• Antipolo Realty failed to fulfill this obligation.

• Yuson suspended his monthly installment payments.

• Antipolo Realty attempted to rescind the contract and retain the installment payments made by
Yuson.

• The National Housing Authority (NHA) ruled in favor of Yuson, stating that Antipolo Realty could
not rescind the contract or forfeit the installment payments due to their failure to complete the
specified improvements.
• The NHA ordered the reinstatement of the Contract to Sell and directed Yuson to continue paying
the monthly installments until the full contract price is paid

ISSUE:

Whether the NHA exceed its jurisdiction and did violate Antipolo Realty's right to due process.

RULING:

The court affirmed the decision of the National Housing Authority (NHA), which had jurisdiction
over the case. The court ordered the reinstatement of the Contract to Sell. the court held that the
developer was not entitled to rescind the contract or forfeit the installment payments due to its failure
to complete the improvements. Instead, it was the buyer who had the option to either rescind the
contract and receive reimbursement of all installment payments with interest, or suspend payment
of further installments until the developer fulfilled its obligations. Thus, administrative agencies,
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 such as the NHA, to exercise quasi-judicial powers in resolving disputes involving specialized or
technical matters.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO, ET ALpetitioners, 26 G.R. No. 96681 VS
December 2, 1991 THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, GRACIANO BUDOY, ET AL
respondents.

DOCTRINE:

The Commission's function is limited to investigating violations and making factual findings, not to
adjudicate or decide cases like a court or quasi-judicial agency.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Hon. Isidro Cariño, Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture & Sports, and Dr. Erlinda
Lolarga, Superintendent of City Schools of ManilaRespondents: Commission on Human Rights and
eight private individuals

• On September 17, 1990, around 800 public school teachers, including the respondents, participated
in a mass action organized by the Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) Respondents
supported the non-political demands of the MPST, Respondents were administratively charged and
given five days to answer the charges.

• Respondents were preventively suspended for 90 days, Respondents filed separate answers,
requested a formal investigation, and moved for the suspension of the administrative proceedings
pending resolution by the Supreme Court, Motion for suspension was denied, respondents staged a
walkout during the proceedings

• Secretary Cariño rendered a decision dismissing one respondent from service and suspending the
others, MPSTA filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which was
later dismissed. MPSTA and another teacher association filed similar petitions before the Supreme
Court, Respondents submitted sworn statements to the Commission on Human Rights, complaining
that they were replaced as teachers without notice. Commission scheduled a dialogue and issued an
order requiring Secretary Cariño and other officials to appear and bring relevant documents
• Secretary Cariño filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was denied by the Commission

• ISSUE:

Whether Human Rights have the power to reverse decisions made by courts or government
agencies?

RULING:

No, The Commission on Human Rights does not have the power to reverse decisions made by courts
or government agencies, the Commission's power is limited to investigating human rights violations
and making factual findings, The Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate or decide
cases like a court or quasi-judicial agency, Fact-finding is not adjudication and the Commission does
not have the authority to apply the law to factual conclusions and make final and definitive decisions
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FDA, petitioners, 27 G.R. No. 190837 VS
March 5, 2014

DRUGMAKER'S LABORATORIES, INC. and TERRAMEDIC, INC

DOCTRINE:

administrative agencies, such as the NHA, to exercise quasi-judicial powers in resolving disputes
involving specialized or technical matters.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Food and Drugs
(BFAD), now Food and Drug Administration (FDA), against Drugmaker's Laboratories, Inc. and
Terramedic, Inc.

• Petition challenges the nullification of bioavailability/bioequivalence testing requirements for

pharmaceutical products.

• FDA issued Circular Nos. 1 and 8, series of 1997, which required certain pharmaceutical products to
undergo bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) testing to secure a Certificate of Product
Registration (CPR).

• Respondents, who manufacture and trade a pharmaceutical product called "Refam," applied for and
were issued a CPR without undergoing BA/BE testing.

• Respondents later applied for renewals of their CPR, but were required to submit satisfactory BA/BE
test results.

• Instead of complying, respondents filed a petition to nullify Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997.

ISSUE:

Whether declared Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 as valid.

RULING:
The Court ruled in favor of the FDA and declared Cir cular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 as valid. The Court
held that the FDA has the authority to issue the circulars as it is mandated by law to administer and
enforce laws related to pharmaceutical products. The circulars were found to be valid issuances and
binding to all concerned partiesThe Court emphasized the importance of ensuring the safety and
effectiveness of generic drugs and medicines. The Court's ruling upholds the validity of the testing
requirements and emphasizes the importance of protecting public health by ensuring the quality and
efficacy of generic drugs and medicines in the market.
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FDA, petitioners, 28 November 20, 1995 VS
March 5, 2014

COURT OF APPEALS and CELESTINO VILLALON

DOCTRINE:

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, is the appropriate administrative body

designated to resolve agrarian reform disputes. Its proceedings are summary in nature and not bound
by technical rules of procedure and evidence

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Petition The case involves a dispute over the collection of back rentals from leasehold tenants.

• The petitioners in the case are Lope Machete, Nicasio Jumawid, Santiago Jumawid, John Jumawid,
Pedro Gamaya, Renato Delgado, Fernando Ombahin, Matias Roleda, Pasiano Baro, Ignacio Baro,
Mamerto Plaras, and Justiniano Villalon.

• They were sued by private respondent Celestino Villalon for failing to pay their respective rentals
under a leasehold agreement for private respondent's landholdings in Carmen, Bohol.

• Celestino Villalon filed a complaint for collection of back rentals and damages before the RTC of
Tagbilaran City against Lope Machete and other petitioners.

• The complaint alleged that the parties entered into a leasehold agreement, but the petitioners failed
to pay their respective rentals despite repeated demands.

• The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the case falls within the jurisdiction of
the DAR due to its quasi-judicial powers over agrarian reform matters.

• The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, which was later affirmed by the CA

ISSUE:

Whether he DAR has exclusive original jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters

RULING:
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the RTC does not have jur isdiction over the case. The SC held
that the DAR has exclusive original jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters, including disputes
relating to tenurial arrangements over lands devoted to agriculture. The failure of the petitioners to
pay back rentals pursuant to the leasehold contract is an agrarian dispute that is beyond the legal
competence of the trial court to resolve. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not allow the court
to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy that is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence. Therefore, the CA erred in directing the trial court to
__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 assume jurisdiction over the case. The SC emphasized that the DAR is in a better position to resolve
agrarian disputes, as it possesses the necessary expertise on the matter.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024
 FEDERATION OF JEEPNEY OPERATORS ET AL, petitioners, 28 G.R. No. 209479 VS
July 11, 2023

GOVERNMENT OF MANILA CITY ET AL

DOCTRINE:

duty of government agencies to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay, as mandated by various laws
and regulations. the importance of preserving and protecting the bay for future generations and urged
the agencies to fulfill their obligations promptly.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Petition Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, including the petitioners, for the cleanup,
rehabilitation, and protection of Manila Bay.

• The complaint alleged that the water quality of the bay had fallen below the allowable standards set
by law.

• The respondents argued that the continued neglect of the petitioners in abating the pollution of the
bay violated their constitutional rights to life, health, and a balanced ecology, among others.

• The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondents, ordering the government agencies to clean
up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.

• The decision also directed each agency to perform their respective duties, such as installing sewerage
treatment facilities, providing adequate budget, and removing structures that obstruct the free flow
of waters to the bay.

ISSUE:
Whether The government agencies have a ministerial duty to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay

RULING:
The government agencies have a ministeria l duty to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. The
agencies must collaborate and fulfill their obligations as mandated by various laws and regulations.
The duty to clean up the bay extends to the overall improvement of water quality and cannot be
limited to specific pollution incidents. The Supreme Court directed specific government agencies to
take action, such as establishing sanitary landfills, monitoring waste disposal, integrating
environmental education in school curricula, and removing illegal structures along the bay. The
Supreme Court based its ruling on the duty of government agencies to clean up and rehabilitate
Manila Bay, as mandated by various laws and regulations.

__________________________________________________
Sha-Ad B. Kayting
PCU College of Law, Admin Law
Under Judge Immaculada Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024