Pol.Sci 1o5: Midterms Notes

ADMNISTRATIVE LAW: 
Field of public law that deals with (basically):

• Constitution (XI, VII)
• Jurisprudence (cases that have been decided)
• Rules and Regulations relative to as depicting the establishment, function, and actual operations of Phil. Administrative agencies (IRR)


JURISPRUDENCE:  Bodies of principles and knowledge based on decided cases



FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
1. Makes the government machinery work in an orderly manner
2. Governs the transmission of the active powers of the state towards its application
3. Protects private rights of clients (tax payers)
4. Provides a system of relief against administrative action (exhaustion of administrative remedies: Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies –DEAR)


THREE KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
1. STATUTES:  setting up administrative bodies or authorities/board
2. PRECEDENTS: body of doctrine or rulings and decisions of administrative bodies
3. IRR: Implementing Rules and Regulations of administrative bodies


DIFFERENCE:
*CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: General framework of government
*ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:  Actualization of executive power, bureaucracy of executive power
RES ADJUDICATA - ‘’Let the matter rest’’

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION:
*Courts will not interfere on matters which are address to sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities

*Technical expertise (cunning with technical expertise)
PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW of ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES:
• When there is a ‘’question of law’’
• There is determination of proper administration involved
• There is a ‘’question of facts’’
CONDITIONS:
-abuse of authority
-administrative body has an application of error of law
-determination of jurisdictional or constitutional answer to the issue


ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES (AB’s) – parts of b bureaucracy
FUNCTIONS OF AB’s:
1. Implement/Actualize Enforcement
2. Perform quasi-legislative function (Rule Making) = making IRR( which  seeks to implement
3. Perform to quasi-judicial power
• Administrative bodies are vested with their own expertise
• Power to hear cases or settle dispute is also called ADJUDICATORY POWER of administrative body
• Court sometimes don’t bother to change the decision decided by the bureaus and they don’t distort the decision of these bodies as long as there is no violation of due process


* There must be a R.A as a source to implement a law.
*Essential requirement: DUE PROCESS
*If the secretary upheld the decision, appeal to the Office of the President is the LAST RESORT, but the president usually says YES to the decision of the secretary of the department involved.


DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION F ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (D.E.A.R) -
that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly.  There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and more speedy solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts – for reasons of law, comity, and convenience – will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.






S.C.R.A REPORTS:


#1.)  VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC., petitioner,
vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROGELIO BISULA, RUBEN ARROZA, JUAN GACUTNO, LEONILO ATOK, NILO CRUZ, ALVARO ANDRADA, NEMESIO ADUG, SIMPLICIO BAUTISTA, ROMEO ACOSTA, and JOSE ENCABO, respondents.
Administrative Bodies Concerned:
* National Seamen Board (NSB)
*NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC)
ISSUE:  Petitioner seeking the annulment or setting aside, on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.
DECISION:
• The Supreme Court grants the petition of the Vir-Jen Shipping Company and disregards the decision of the NLRC.




# 2) PEDRO B. NARAG,
vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AIRBORNE SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY INVOLVED:
• National Labor Relations Commission

ISSUE: Whether or not that the NLRC has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of Airborne Security Service Inc.
TWO THINGS TO DO:
* REINSTATEMENT
*Payment of one (1) year back wages
DECISION:
*Decision of NLRC is reversed and was set aside and that NLRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the private respondent Airborne Security Service INC.
**REGLEMENTARY PERIOD means APPEALING PERIOD



#3) CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. (COACO) petitioner,
vs.  SECRETARY FRANKLIN M. DRILON
ISSUE: Whether or not an Implementing Order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE) can provide for a prohibition not contemplated by the law it seeks to implement.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (C.B.A):
- Negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit, including mandatory provisions for grievances and arbitration machineries.

Republic Act No. 6640 - Sec. 2. The statutory minimum wage rates of workers and employees in the private sector, whether agricultural or non-agricultural, shall be increased by ten pesos (P10.00) per day, except non-agricultural workers and employees outside Metro Manila who shall receive an increase of eleven pesos (P11.00) per day: Provided, that those already receiving above the minimum wage up to one hundred pesos (Pl 00.00 shall receive an increase of ten pesos (Pl 0.00) per day. Excepted from the provisions of this Act are domestic helpers and persons employed in the personal service of another.
As to the issue of the validity of Section 8 of the rules implementing Republic Act No. 6640, which prohibits the employer from crediting the anniversary wage increases provided in collective bargaining agreements, it is a fundamental rule that implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of law it is designed to implement. The provisions of Republic Act No. 6640, do not prohibit the crediting of CBA anniversary wage increases for purposes of compliance with Republic Act No. 6640. The implementing rules cannot provide for such a prohibition not contemplated by the law. Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. The law itself cannot be expanded by such regulations. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.
DECISION:
• The petition is GRANTED.



#4) JOSE DE LINA vs.  CARINIO
CARINIO: Secretary of DECS (now DepED)
DECS ORDER No.30 (1991)
-allowing private schools to increase tuition and other fees which subjected to the ff:
*entering freshmen determined by admin itself
*NO CONSULTATION if the tuition is not more than P80 (College) and P1, 500(secondary)
THIRD PARTIES (INTERVENORS):
• CEAP (Catholic Education Association of Phils)
• PACU (Philippine Association of College and Universities)
ISSUE:
Whether or not DECS Order no. 30 is valid and whether or not consultation is needed, should there be any questions to increase other fees?
LAWS:
1. R.A 6728: created the SAC (State Assistant Council)
2. PD 451
3. PD 232 ‘’Educ Act of 1982)
CARINIO: ‘’ Not divested with my authority because PD 232 is what I implement, not RA 6728’’
R.A 6728 already transferred to SAC the power of tuition increase not to DECS
DECISION:
Appealed!

#5) SHELL PHILIPPINES, INC vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
Circular No. 309: The stabilization tax shall begin to apply on January 1st following the calendar year during which such export products shall have reached the aggregate F.O.B. value of more than US $5 million
CENTRAL BANK first filed to the Court of First Instance of Manila
Presidential Decree No. 230: Amending the Tariff and Customs Code, creating Title III in Book — I Export Tariff," expressly repealed Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6125 and transferred the assessment and collection of the export duty from the Central Bank to the Bureau of Customs by ordering the Commissioner of Customs to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of the decree, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance (Section 2 of the Decree).
The resolution states the factual background of the case.
On May 1, 1970, Congress approved the Act imposing a stabilization tax on consignments abroad (RA 6125). Section 1 of the statute, in part, provided as follows:
Section 1. There shall be imposed, assessed and collected a stabilization tax on the gross F.O.B. peso proceeds, based on the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of receipt of such proceeds, whether partial or total, of any exportation of the following schedule:
a. In the case of logs, copra, centrifugal sugar, and copper ore and concentrates;
Central Bank was given the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the statutory provision in question; we reiterate the principle that this authority is limited only to carrying into effect what the law being implemented provides.
It is, therefore, undeniable that the respondent was liable to pay the tax and that the Central Bank merely collected the said tax prematurely.
DECISION:
The assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED to the effect that the tax refund granted by the trial court is ordered retained by or reverted to, as the case may be, the Central Bank.

#6.) EASTERN SHIPPING LINES INC vs POEA and KATHLEEN SACO
Sued damages under:
-C.O #2:
-E.O No. 797
POEA (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration)
• Created under Executive Order No. 797
• It replaced the National Seamen Board created earlier under Article 20 of the Labor Code in 1974. Under Section 4(a) of the said executive order, the POEA is vested with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, involving employee-employer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino contract workers, including seamen." These cases, according to the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment issued by the POEA, include "claims for death, disability and other benefits" arising out of such employment

OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT defined:
Employment of work outside the Phil. Including employment on board vessels, plying international waters covered by a valid contract.
- ‘’a contract worker is described as ANY PERSON WORKING  OR WHO HAS WORKED OVESEAS UNDER A VALID EMPLOYMENT’’

ISSUE: Whether or not Vitaliano Saco an overseas worker? Was the circular no.2 is violation of regulation power?
UNDUE DELEGATION= invalid
Types of Test:
• COMPLETENESS TEST – Law must be complete of all its terms and conditions when it leaves legislature such hat when it reaches the delegate, the only thing will it have to do is ENFORCE it.

• SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST – there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the binderies of the delegation from running riot.

PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES – goal of POEA
DECISION: Petition is dismissed, temporary restraining order dated Dec. 10, 1986 hereby LIFTED.

#7.) ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING and DEVELOPMENT CORP. Vs. COURT OF APPEALS
P.D 1281 – Revised Commonwealth Act no. 136
-creation of Bureau of Mines
-did not create new rights, it just implement
-prevails over earlier statutes
-DANR (Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources)
Bureau of Mines – have the jurisdiction to decide issues regarding mining
ISSUE: Whether or not a person who is not a party to a contract files a petition for declaratory relief and seeks a judicial intepretation of such contract? Can a trial court which had already taken cognizance of an action involving a mining controversy be divested of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 1281?
DECISION: The decision of Court of appeals is affirmed (in favour of the respondents and that the that respondent Judge has jurisdiction over the declaratory action of which he was not divested by the promulgation of PD 1281, he should have precisely exercised his jurisdiction by sustaining petitioners' motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action primordially because the allegations of the complaint patently present no justifiable controversy)

#8.) PLDT vs. NTC and CellCom INC
*CPCN - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity)
RA 2090 – (An act granting Felix Alberto and Company Incorporated of FACI, a franchise to establish radio station for domestic and transoceanic communication)
- Enacted without EA 1985)
- Radio station
- Aeronautic and Land Mobile
- Wireless Message (RADIOTELEGRAPHY)
RA 6849 (Municipal Act of 1990)
- Provide INTERCONNECTION
SECRETARY of PUBLIC WORKS and COMMUNICATION (may approve the RA 2090)

DECISION: Justifies RA 6849


#9.) ANTIPOLO REALTY CORP. Vs NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

• PD 957
• Virgillo Yuso
• Antipolo Realty Corp
• Contract to Self:
-Clause 17
-Clause 7
  * GV Tobias
  ‘’violated the beautification’’ – complaint by Yuson
RESCIND – recession

• NHA (National Housing Authority)
— The National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business
• Office of the President
• Regional Trial Court  (the same decision as well) – that Antipolo Realty Corporation shall sent to Virgilio Yuzon a statement of account for the monthly amortizations from November 1976 to the present
ISSUE:  Whether or not the NHA had not only acted on a matter beyond its competence, but had also, in effect, assumed the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions which the NHA was not authorized to perform.

SUPREME COURT:  The quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which an administrative agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act of such agency. In other words, the extent to which an administrative entity may exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency. 10 In the exercise of such powers, the agency concerned must commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. One thrust of the multiplication of administrative agencies is that the interpretation of contracts and the determination of private rights thereunder is no longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by our regular courts.

DECISION:
Petition for certiorari is dismissed, decision of NHA is affirmed.



#10.) TORIBIO: ANG TIBAY vs C.I.R
• SUPREME COURT (America’s Guidance) – to review the ANG TIBAY (contract to distribute and make the shoes of American soldiers based in the Phil.
RETRENCHMENT of TORIBIO:
• C I R (Court of Industrial Relations (now NLRC) ) – oral argument of the lawyer of the union and the lawyer of ang tibay

According to the lawyer of ANG TIBAY:
‘’The shipment (leather) was delayed’’
CIR claimed that Toribio’s retrenchment is illegal.
SUPREME COURT:
CARDINAL/BASIC RIGHTS in ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

1. Right to hearing (right to present one’s case and submit evidence)
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence
3. Evidence must be substantial
4. Decision must have something to support itself
5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented in the hearing or at least contained  in the record and disclosed to the parties
6. Tribunal must render decision after consideration of law and facts
 CHARACTERISTICS of EVIDENCE;
- Substantial
- Proper hearing (proper notification)
EXEMPTIONS:
- Cancelation of passport
- Suspension of officers and employees (during investigation)
- Removal of an acting employee
- Restraint on property delinquent

DECISION: The motion for a new trial should be and the same is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with instruction that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth hereinabove.

#11.) AIR MANILA INC vs. BALATBAT
Administrative body:
• CIVIL AERONAUTIC BOARD
     TIMELINE:
• APRIL 1, 1968 -  PAL petitioned to CAB for approval of 7 flights
• April 15, 1968 -   approval of 7 flights was postponed by the CAB
• April 22, 1968 – passed resolution 109 (68)
• April 29, 1968 – PAL move for reconsideration
• May 9 – PAL filed another motion for duration of Resolution 109
• May 28 – CAB issued resolution 139
• May 30 – filed instant petition claiming that the respondent board acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with abuse of discretion in issuing its resolution 139
• DTS – Domestic Travel Schedule-35

Period of 30 days
REQUIREMENT IN DUE PROCESS;
• Right to notice
• Reasonable opportunity  to be heard
• Unbiased tribunal
• Decision supported by substantial evidence
FACP – Foreign Air Carrier’s Permit
DC-3 – Die Cast3
PETITION OF AIR MANILA: to determine the validity of Resolution No. 139 (68) of the Civil Aeronautics Board in CAB Case No. 1414, allegedly issued without or in excess of jurisdiction.
DECISION: Petition is dismissed.


#12. )  ALFREDO MALABAGUIO VS. COMELEC and MIRALI MENDOZA
• Malabaguio fled election protet case no. 9712 (Judge Armando)
MMTC – Mababang Municipal Trial Court
RA 6653 – May 9, 1988 to second Monday of November 1988
RA 6679 – Amend the RA 6653 to postpone the brgy. Elections to March 28, 1989
• Supreme court review the decision of COMELEC that Mendoza won; and that the COMELEC review the case in an arbitrary manner
DECISION:
Case affirmed. Winner is Malabaguio.
#13.) CASE MISSING

#14.) Valmonte vs. Belmonte
Loan Transaction
GSIS: ‘’we cannot access the transaction because it is private in nature’’
Petitioner proceed to the SC
SUPREME COURT:  ‘’GSIS must issue it (loan transaction), it is not necessary to have MANDAMOUS’’
*Violation of DEAR*

**End of reports**



You may proceed to Supreme Court if:
• There is a denial of due process
• Purely legal questions (of law)

IRR must not go beyond the law that is seeks to implement.