212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The Court sets aside respondent board’s orders ruling upon the

ourt sets aside respondent board’s orders ruling upon the complaints of the
three private respondents-tenants of petitioner’s apartment building that petitioner
Cruz de Syquia vs. Board of Power and Water Works
may not charge them pro rata the extra cost of electricity consumed for the
No. L-42783-85. November 29, 1976.* building’s common areas and facilities such as the elevator and servants’ quarters.
CARIDAD CRUZ DE SYQUIA, petitioner, vs. BOARD OF POWER AND WATER WORKS The question of the proportionate amount that each tenant should bear for the
(formerly Public Service Commission), RAFAEL J. RUIZ, PETER ENRIQUEZ and CYRIL D. additional electricity cost for common facilities of the apartment building used by
MOSES, respondents. the tenants in common is purely civil in character, (involving the conditions of lease
Board of Power and Water Works;  Jurisdiction;  The question of how much an between landlord and tenant), to be adjudged under the applicable civil laws
apartment tenant should shoulder by way of cost of electricity consumed in exclusively by the regular courts of general jurisdiction and is beyond the
common areas and facilities of the apartmenthouse is civil in nature and should be jurisdiction of respondent board.
adjudged by the regular courts.—The question of the proportionate amount that In December, 1974, private respondents filed three separate complaints with
each tenant should bear for the additional electricity cost for common facilities of respondent Board of Power and Waterworks charging petitioner as administrator of
the apartment building used by the tenants in common is purely civil in character, the South Syquia Apartments at Malate, Manila with the offense of selling
(involving the conditions of lease between landlord and tenant), to be adjudged electricity without permit or franchise issued by respondent board, in that
under the applicable civil laws exclusively by the regular courts of general petitioner billed respondents-complainants various specified amounts for their
jurisdiction and is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent board. electricity consumption at their respective apartments for the months of May to
Same; Same.—Respondent board as a regulatory board manifestly exceeded September, 1974 in excess of the Meralco rates authorized by respondent board.
its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and adjudicating the complaints filed by Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaints asserting that they involved
respondents against petitioner. Respondent board acquired no jurisdiction over contractual obligations of respondents as apartment tenants and were beyond
petitioner’s contractual relations with respondents-complainants as her tenants, respondent board’s jurisdiction was denied by the latter.
since petitioner is not engaged in a public service nor in the sale of electricity Petitioner thereupon filed her answer, wherein she again questioned the
without permit or franchise. Respondents’ complaints against being charged the complaints as beyond the jurisdiction of
additional cost of electricity for common 214
_______________ 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cruz de Syquia vs. Board of Power and Water Works
*
 FIRST DIVISION. respondent as a regulatory board, since she is not engaged in the sale of electric
power but merely passes to the apartment tenants as the end-users their legitimate
213
electric current bills in accordance with their lease contracts, and their relationship
VOL. 74, NOVEMBER 29, 1976 213 is contractual in nature.
Petitioner added that the tenants including respondents had no complaint
Cruz de Syquia vs. Board of Power and Water Works
under the contractual set-up of billings for water and electric service consumption,
facilities used by the tenants (in additional to those registered in their whereby while individual electric meters are installed in each apartment, Meralco
respective apartment meters) give rise to a question that is purely civil in character billings include all consumption in the entire compound, including the common
that is to be adjudged under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code x x x. areas, servants’ quarters and elevators, the payment for which was advanced by
petitioner and later collected by way of reimbursement from the tenants pro
PETITION for review of the orders of the Board of Power and Water Works. rata; but that respondents alone complained later when on account of the energy
crisis, additional fuel adjustment costs were added by Meralco to their billings
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
which were likewise passed on by petitioner to all the tenants pro rata.
     Enrique O. Chan for petitioner.
As stated in respondent board’s questioned order of August 28, 1975, petitioner
     Zosimo Rivas for private respondents.
further manifested her willingness to abide by such computations as respondent
board may determine to be the correct electric billing that should be charged
TEEHANKEE, J.:
1
against complainants-respondents for their respective electric consumption and “The dispute between the petitioner landlord and her tenants as to how much
submitted pertinent records of the electrical consumption and Meralco billings. each tenant should be correspondingly billed, for the actual electricity consumed
Respondent board in said order however came up with its computation which and as to the proportionate amount each tenant should bear for the common
would allow petitioner to charge respondents only the cost of electricity registered facilities used in the apartments, if such amounts should be borne by the tenants at
in their individual apartment meters and disallow the actual cost of additional all, is an issue affecting mathematical computations and conditions of lease
electricity charged them pro rata by petitioner for the cost of electricity consumed between landlord and tenant.”
by all tenants in the common areas.
When petitioner pointed out in her motion for reconsideration that respondent The Court resolved to treat the petition as a special civil action and to grant the
board’s computation would not reimburse petitioner for the cost of the electric petition. Under the reorganization plan effected by Presidential Decree No. 1 as
consumption in the common areas and elevators with a resultant loss to her at the amended by Presidential Decree No. 458 issued on May 16, 1974, jurisdiction,
least of P1,250.00 a month or P15,000.00 a year and reiterated that this was a supervision and control over public service related to electric light, power and
contractual obligation of the tenants over which respondent regulatory board had waterworks utilities formerly vested in the Public Service Act 1 were transferred to
no jurisdiction, the board, acting through its Acting Chairman alone, Cesar S. de respondent board.
Guzman, (as seems to be the case with all the board actions herein involved) denied _______________
reconsideration and ruled that 1
“It is the considered opinion of this Board, that since the tenants (complainants) are  Sec. 13(a) of the Public Service Act, C.A. No. 146, provides that: “The
already paying rentals for the use of their rooms Commission shall have jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all public services
and their franchises, equipment, and other
215
216
VOL. 74, NOVEMBER 29, 1976 215
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cruz de Syquia vs. Board of Power and Water Works
Cruz de Syquia vs. Board of Power and Water Works
and for the cost of their electricity within their rooms, they should no longer be
required to pay for the extra cost of electricity in common areas such as the Respondent board as a regulatory board manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction in
elevator and the servants’ quarters, for it is only fair and equitable that the cost of taking cognizance of and adjudicating the complaints filed by respondents against
electricity for common areas such as the elevator and servants’ quarters be petitioner.
shouldered alone by the owner of the building as part of the cost for the rentals Respondent board acquired no jurisdiction over petitioner’s contractual
being paid by the tenants (complainants). x x x” relations with respondents-complainants as her tenants, since petitioner is not
engaged in a public service nor in the sale of electricity without permit or franchise.
Hence, the petition at bar, wherein petitioner raises the basic question of the Respondents’ complaints against being charged the additional cost of electricity
board’s lack of jurisdiction, aside from the error of its action based on the admitted for common facilities used by the tenants (in addition to those registered in their
facts. respective apartment meters) give rise to a question that is purely civil in character
The Court required comment and private respondents as well as respondent that is to be adjudged under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code (not the
board’s counsel filed their comments simply assuming the board’s jurisdiction and Public Service Act) and not by the respondent regulatory board which has no
supported its questioned orders. jurisdiction but by the regular courts of general jurisdiction.
Also required to comment, Acting Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. Respondent board in resolving the complaints against petitioner and requiring
concurred with petitioner and submitted that respondent regulatory board acted her to absorb the additional rising costs of electricity consumed for the common
without jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the complaints, succinctly stating the areas and elevator service even at a resultant loss of P15,000.00 a year arrogated
State’s position as follows: the judicial function. Its orders were beyond its jurisdiction and must be set aside as
“Since the petitioner does not operate, manage or control the power plant and null and void.
furthermore, since electricity is directly and uninterruptedly supplied to the end- ACCORDINGLY, the questioned orders of respondent board are annulled and the
user, it cannot be correctly claimed that the petitioner is selling electricity nor can complaints of private respondents are ordered dismissed. With costs against private
she be considered a middleman in the electric power business respondents.
2
 SO ORDERED. Mercantile Law;  Public Service Commission; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction of the
     Makasiar,  Muñoz Palma, Concepcion Jr. and Martin, JJ., concur. Public Service Commission limited only to the rate which petitioner may charge the
public, but not in the imputed negligence of petitioner in failing to deliver a
Orders annulled and complaints dismissed. telegraphic message.—Verily, Section 13 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as
Note.—A property owner divested of his vessel for violation amended, otherwise known as the Public Service Act, vested in the Public Service
_______________ Commission jurisdiction, supervision and control over all public services and their
franchises, equipment and other properties. However, Section 5 of Republic Act No.
properties, and in the exercise of its authority, it shall have the necessary 4630, the legislative franchise under which petitioner was operating, limited
powers and the aid of public force”. respondent Commission’s jurisdiction over petitioner only to the rate which
Sec. 13(b) defines the term “public service” thus: “The term ‘public service’ petitioner may charge the public. x x x The act complained of consisted in petitioner
includes every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control having allegedly failed to deliver the telegraphic message of private respondent to
in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele, the addressee in Madrid, Spain. Obviously, such imputed negligence had nothing
whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business whatsoever to do with the subject matter of the very limited jurisdiction of the
purposes, x x x gas, electric, light, heat and power, water supply and power x x x”. Commission over petitioner.
217 Same; Same; Same; Commission empowered to impose an administrative fine
in cases of violation of or failure by a public service
VOL. 74, NOVEMBER 29, 1976 217
Dometita vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission _______________
of customs laws should appeal the decision of the Collector of Customs to the
* SECOND DIVISION.
Commissioner of Customs and not apply for replevin from the regular courts. (Daud
270
vs. Collector of Customs, 68 SCRA 157).
The Collector of Customs may order the seizure of untaxed goods without being 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
liable for unsurpation of judicial function. (Pacis vs. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16). Globe Wireless Ltd. vs. Public Service Commission
The customs authorities acquire exclusive jurisdiction over goods sought to be to comply with the terms and conditions of any certificate or any orders,
imported into the Philippines, for the purpose of enforcement of Philippine customs decisions or regulations of the Commission; Absence of violation by petitioner of
laws, from the moment the goods are actually under their possession and control, said terms or orders or decisions in case at bar.—Moreover, under Section 21 of C.A.
even if no warrant for seizure or detention thereof has previously been issued by No. 146, as amended, the Commission was empowered to impose an administrative
the port collector of customs. (Señeres vs. Frias, 39 SCRA 533). fine in cases of violation of or failure by a public service to comply with the terms
The Public Service Commission (now Board of Power and Waterworks) properly and conditions of any certificate or any orders, decisions or regulations of the
refrained from resolving the issue of the enforceability of the deed of sale, not only Commission. Petitioner operated under a legislative franchise, so there were no
because it had no jurisdiction to do so but also because the issue was pending terms nor conditions of any certificate issued by the Commission to violate. Neither
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. However, it does not mean that the was there any order, decision or regulation from the Commission applicable to
Commission was totally without jurisdiction to act on the respondents’ application petitioner that the latter had allegedly violated, disobeyed, defied or disregarded.
for approval and to decide it favorably on a prima facie showing of merit. (Tamaraw Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies
Taxicab Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, 40 SCRA 424). limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in the
legislation creating such body.—Too basic in administrative law to need citation of
VOL. 147, JANUARY 21, 1987 269 jurisprudence is the rule that the jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies,
Globe Wireless Ltd. vs. Public Service Commission like respondent Commission, are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily
No. L-27520. January 21, 1987.* implied from those granted in the legislation creating such body; and any order
GLOBE WIRELESS LTD., petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and ANTONIO without or beyond such jurisdiction is void and ineffective. The order under
B. ARNAIZ, respondents. consideration belonged to this category.

3
PETITION for certiorari to review the order of the Public Service Commission. equipment and other properties. However, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 4630, the
legislative franchise under which petitioner was operating, limited respondent
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. Commission’s jurisdiction over petitioner only to the rate which petitioner may
RESOLUTION charge the public. Thus,
G.R. No. 27520 [Globe Wireless Ltd., vs. Public Service Commission and Antonio B. “Sec. 5. The Public Service Commission is hereby given
Arnaiz].—Challenged in this petition for certiorari is the jurisdiction of the defunct 272
Public Service Commission [PSC] under Section 21 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
as amended, to discipline and impose a fine upon petitioner, Globe Wireless, Ltd., a Globe Wireless Ltd. vs. Public Service Commission
duly-organized Philippine corporation engaged in international telecommunication jurisdiction over the grantee only with respect to the rates which the grantee may
business under a franchise granted by Public Acts Nos. 3495, 3692 and 4150, as charge the public subject to international commitments made or adhered to by the
amended by Republic Act No. 4630. Republic of the Philippines.” (Italics supplied.)
A message addressed to Maria Diaz, Monte Esquina 30, Madrid, Spain, filed by The act complained of consisted in petitioner having allegedly failed to deliver the
private respondent Antonio B. Arnaiz telegraphic message of private respondent to the addressee in Madrid, Spain.
271 Obviously, such imputed negligence had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject
VOL. 147, JANUARY 21, 1987 271 matter of the very limited jurisdiction of the Commission over petitioner.
Globe Wireless Ltd vs. Public Service Commission Moreover, under Section 21 of C.A. No. 146, as amended, the Commission was
with the telegraph office of the Bureau of Telecommunications in Dumaguete City empowered to impose an administrative fine in cases of violation of or failure by a
was transmitted to the Bureau of Telecommunications in Manila. It was forwarded public service to comply with the terms and conditions of any certificate or any
to petitioner Globe Wireless Ltd. for transmission to Madrid. Petitioner sent the orders, decisions or regulations of the Commission. Petitioner operated under a
message to the American Cable and Radio Corporation in New York, which, in turn, legislative franchise, so there were no terms nor conditions of any certificate issued
transmitted the same to the Empresa Nacional de Telecommunicaciones in Madrid. by the Commission to violate. Neither was there any order, decision or regulation
The latter, however, mislaid said message, resulting in its non-delivery to the from the Commission applicable to petitioner that the latter had allegedly violated,
addressee. disobeyed, defied or disregarded.
After being informed of said fact, private respondent Arnaiz sent to then Public Too basic in administrative law to need citation of jurisprudence is the rule that
Service Commissioner Enrique Medina an unverified letter-complaint relating the the jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies, like respondent Commission,
incident. The complaint was docketed as PSC Case No. 65–39-OC and petitioner was are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in
required to answer the same. Petitioner, in its answer, questioned PSC’s jurisdiction the legislation creating such body; and any order without or beyond such
over the subject matter of the letter-complaint, even as it denied liability for the jurisdiction is void and ineffective. The order under consideration belonged to this
non-delivery of the message to the addressee. category.
Hearing ensued, after which the PSC issued an order finding petitioner ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is hereby granted and the order of
“responsible for the inadequate and unsatisfactory service complained of, in respondent Public Service Commission in PSC Case No. 65–39-OC is set aside for
violation of the Public Service Act” and ordering it “to pay a fine of TWO HUNDRED being null and void.
[P200.00] PESOS under Sec. 21 of Com. Act 146, as amended.” Petitioner was Petition granted. Order set aside.
likewise required to refund the sum of P19.14 to the remitter of the undelivered Notes.—Section 13(b) of the Public Service Act, as amended, defines “Public
message. [Annex “C", Petition, p. 23, Rollo]. Service” as “includes every person that now or hereafter may own, operate,
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner instituted the manage or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or
instant petition. limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and
We find for petitioner. 273
Verily, Section 13 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, otherwise VOL. 147, JANUARY 21, 1987 273
known as the Public Service Act, vested in the Public Service Commission Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals
jurisdiction, supervision and control over all public services and their franchises,
4
done for general business purposes, any common carrier, railroad, xxx, wire or ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition and Injunction with
wireless communications system, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other Preliminary Injunction.
similar public services x x x.” (Bureau of Telecommunications vs. Public Service The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Commission, 29 SCRA 751.) Arturo A. Alafriz for petitioner.
The jurisdiction to act on a motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Public Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Pacífico P. de Castro for
Service Commission is vested in the Commission en banc, and no commissioner can respondent.
act alone thereon unless such power has been delegated to him. (Manila Electric
Co. vs. Medina, 14 SCRA 510; Tacloban Electric & Ice Plants Co., Inc. vs. Medina, 22 MONTEMAYOR, J.:
SCRA 775; Beltran vs. Medina, 32 SCRA 458.)
o. L-12426. February 16, 1959] This is a petition filed by the Philippine Lawyer's Association for prohibition and
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA, in his injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines
capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office, respondent. Patent Office.
On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had
1. 1.ATTORNEYS AT LAW; PRACTICE OF LAW; BEFORE PATENT OFFICE.— scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who
Practice of law in the Philippines includes such appearance before the are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office,
Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other the said examination to cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of
persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their practice before said office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar,
oppositions thereto or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are
qualified to take the said examination. It would appear that heretofore, respondent
Director has been holding similar examinations.
1. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; WITHOUT FURTHER EXAMINATION.—A member of the bar,
It is the contention of the petitioner Philippine Lawyer's Association that one
because of his legal knowledge and training should be allowed to practice
who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to
before the Patent Office, without further examination or other
practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to
qualification.
practice before the Philippines Patent Office, and that consequently, the act of the
respondent Director requiring members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to
1. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; REASON.—Under the present law, members of the Philippine take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office as a condition precedent to
Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law, and in good their being allowed to practice before
standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, for the 175
reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation
VOL. 105, FEBRUARY 16, 1959 175
and determination of the scope and application of the patent law and
other laws Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc.
said office, such as representing applicants in the preparation and prosecution of
174 applications for patent, is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.
In his answer, respondent Director, through the Solicitor General, maintains
174 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED that the prosecution of patent cases "does not involve entirely or purely the
Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc. practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge
and training, so much so that, as a matter of actual practice, the prosecution of
patent cases may be handled not only by lawyers, but also by engineers and other
1. applicable as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts persons with sufficient scientific and technical training who pass the prescribed
involved. That part of the functions of the Patent Director are judicial or examinations as given by the Patent Office; * * * that the Rules of Court do not
quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decision are prohibit the Patent Office, or any other quasi-judicial body from requiring further
under the law taken to the Supreme Court. condition or qualification from those who would wish to handle cases before such

5
bodies, as in the prosecution of patent cases before the Patent Office which, as "Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work
stated in the preceding paragraph, requires more of an application of scientific and performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in
technical knowledge than the mere application of provisions of law; * * * that the court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of
action taken by the respondent is in accordance with Republic Act No. 165, subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an
otherwise known as the Patent Law of the Philippines, which is similar to the United extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these
States Patent Law, in accordance with which the United States Patent Office has transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always
also prescribed a similar examination as that prescribed by respondent. * * *." subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree
Respondent further contends that just as the Patent Law of the United States of of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for
America authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to prescribe examinations to adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of
determine as to Who may practice before the United States Patent Office, the _______________
respondent, is similarly authorized to do so by our Patent Law, Republic Act; No.
1
165. Although as already stated, the Director of Patents, in the past, would appear  In re: Albino Cunanan, 50 Off. Gaz., 1617, prom. March 18, 1954.
to have been holding tests or examinations the passing of which was imposed as a
required qualification to practice before the Patent Office, to our knowledge, this is 177
the first time that the right of the Direc- VOL. 105, FEBRUARY 16, 1959 177
176 Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc.
176 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of
Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc. justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth
tor of Patents to do so, specially as regards members of the bar, has been in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which
questioned formally, or otherwise put in issue. And we have given it careful thought involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of
and consideration. instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these
The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate
admission to the practice of law in the Philippines 1 and any member of the learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy
Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law anywhere and before any entity, trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys." (Moran, Comments on
whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the Philippines. Naturally, the the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 (1953 ed.), p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the Justices
question arises as to whether or not appearance before the Patent Office and the (Mass.), 194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. vs. Automobile Service
preparation and prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is included Assoc. (R. I.) 179 A. 139, 144). (Italics ours)
in the practice of law. In our opinion, the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent
"The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the
special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of enforcement of their rights in patent cases. In the first place, although the
clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to transaction of business in the Patent Office involves the use and application of
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such business has to be
law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating conducted and all orders and decisions of the Director of Patents have to be
an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the
of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law.
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been Not only this, but practice before the Patent Office involves the interpretation and
held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. For instance:
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions." (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). (Italics Section 8 of our Patent Law provides that an invention shall not be patentable if it is
supplied) contrary to public order or morals, or to public health or welfare. Section 9 says that
6
an invention shall not be considered new or patentable if it was known or used by any other proceeding in the Office may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final
others in the Philippines before the invention thereof by the inventor named in the order or decision of the Director."
application for patent, or if it was patented or described in any printed publication
in the Philippines or any foreign country more than In other words, the appeal is taken to this Tribunal. If the transaction of business in
178 the Patent Office and the acts, orders and decisions of the Patent Director involved
exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then logically,
178 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of
Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc. scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case.
one year before the application for a patent therefor, or if it had been in public use Another aspect of the question involves the consideration of the nature of the f
or on sale in the Philippines for more than one year before the application for the unctions and acts of the Head of the Patent Office.
patent therefor. Section 10 provides that the right to the patent belongs to the true "* * *. The Commissioner, in issuing or withholding patents, in reissues,
and actual inventor, his heirs, legal representatives or assigns, and Section 12 says interferences, and extensions, exercises quasi-judicial functions. Patents are public
that an application for a patent may be filed only by the inventor, his heirs, legal records, and it is the duty of the Commissioner to give authenticated copies to any
representatives or assigns. Sections 25 and 26 refer to correction of any mistake in a person, on payment of the legal fees." (40 Am. Jur. 537). (Italics supplied).
patent. Section 28 enumerates the grounds for cancellation of a patent; that "* * *. The Commissioner has the only original initiatory jurisdiction that exists
although any person may apply for such cancellation. under Section 29, the Solicitor up to the granting and delivering of a patent, and it is his duty to decide whether
General is authorized to petition for the cancellation of a patent. Section 30 the patent is new and whether it is the proper subject of a patent; and his action in
mentions the requirements of a petition for cancellation. Sections 31 and 32 awarding or refusing a patent is a judicial function. In passing on an application the
provide for a notice of hearing of the petition f or cancellation of the patent by the commissioner should decide not only questions of law, but also questions of fact, as
Director of Patents in case the said cancellation is warranted. Under Section 34, at whether there has been a prior public use or sale of the article invented. * * *." (60
any time after the expiration of three years from the day the patent was granted, C.J.S. 460). (Italics supplied).
any person may apply for the grant of a license under a particular patent on several
grounds, such as, if the patented invention is not being worked in the Philippines on The Director of Patents, exercising as he does judicial or quasi-judicial functions, it is
a commercial scale, or if the demand for the patented article in the Philippines is reasonable to hold that a member of the bar, because of his legal knowledge and
not being met to an adequate extent and reasonable terms, or if by reason of the training, should be allowed to practice before the Patent Office, without further
patentee's refusal to grant a license on reasonable terms or by reason of the examination or other qualification. Of course, the Director of Patents, if he deems it
conditions attached by him to the license, purchase, lease or use of the patented advisable
article or working of the patented process or machine of production, the 180
establishment of a new trade or industry in the Philippines is prevented; or if the 180 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
patent or invention relates to food or medicine or is necessary to public health or Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc.
public safety. All these things involve the application of laws, legal principles, or necessary, may require that members of the bar practising before him enlist the
practice and procedure. They call for legal knowledge, training and experience for assistance of technical men and scientists in the preparation of papers and
which a member of the bar has been prepared. documents, such as, the drawing or technical description of an invention or
In support of the proposition that much of the business and many of the acts, machine sought to be patented, in the same way that a lawyer filing an application
orders and decisions of the Patent for the registration of a parcel of land on behalf of his client, is required to submit a
179 plan and technical description of said land, prepared by a licensed surveyor.
VOL. 105, FEBRUARY 16, 1959 179 But respondent Director claims that he is expressly authorized by the law to
Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc. require persons desiring to practice or to do business before him to submit to an
Director involve questions of law or a reasonable and correct evaluation of facts, examination, even if they are already members of the bar. He contends that our
the very Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, Section 61, provides that: Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, is patterned after the United States Patent Law;
"* * * . The applicant for a patent or for the registration of a design, any party to a and that the U. S. Patent Office in its Rules of Practice of the United States Patent
proceeding to cancel a patent or to obtain a compulsory license, and any party to Office in Patent Cases prescribes an examination similar to that which he
7
(respondent) has prescribed and scheduled. He invites our attention to the attorneys, or other persons representing applicants or other parties before his office,
following pro visions of said Rules of Practice: and may require of such persons, agents, or attorneys., before being recognized as
"Registration of attorneys and agents.—A register of attorneys and a register of representatives of applicants or other persons, that they shall show they are of
agents are kept in the Patent Office on which are entered the names of all persons good moral character and in good repute, are possessed of the necessary
recognized as entitled to represent applicants before the Patent Office in the qualifications to enable them to render to applicants or other persons valuable
preparation and prosecution of applications for patent. Registration in the Patent service, and are likewise competent to advise and assist applicants or other persons
Office under the provisions of these rules shall only entitle the person registered to in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other business before the
practice before the Patent Office. Office. The Commissioner of Patents may, after notice and opportunity
"(a) Attorneys at law.—Any attorney at law in good standing admitted to for a hearing, suspend or exclude, either generally or in any particular case, from
practice before any United States Court or the highest court of any State or further practice before his office any person, agent, or attorney shown to be
Territory of the United States who fulfills the requirements and complied with the incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross misconduct, or who refuses to
provisions of these rules may be admitted to practice before the Patent Office and comply with the said rules and regulations, or who shall, with intent to defraud in
have his name entered on the register of attorneys. any manner, deceive, mislead, or threaten any applicant or prospective applicant,
or other person having immediate or prospective business before the office, by
*                    *                    *                    *                    *                    *                    * word, circular, letter, or by advertising. The reasons for any such suspension or
exclusion shall be duly recorded. The action of the Commissioner may be reviewed
"(c) Requirement for registration.—No person will be admitted to practice and upon the petition of the person so refused recognition or so suspended or excluded
register unless he shall apply to the Commissioner of Patents in writing on a by the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia under such
prescribed form supplied by the Commissioner and furnish all requested conditions and upon such proceedings as the said court may by its rules determine."
information and material; and shall establish to the satisfaction of the (Italics supplied).
Commissioner that he is
182
181 182 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 105, FEBRUARY 16, 1959 181 Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc.
Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc. Respondent Director concludes that Section 78 of Republic Act No. 165 being similar
of good moral character and of good repute and possessed of the legal and to the provisions of law just reproduced, then he is authorized to prescribe the rules
scientific and technical qualifications necessary to enable him to render applicants and regulations requiring that persons desiring to practice before him should
for patent valuable service, and is otherwise competent to advise and assist him in submit to and pass an examination. We reproduce said Section 78, Republic Act No.
the presentation and prosecution of their application before the Patent Office. In 165, for purposes of comparison:
order that the Commissioner may determine whether a person seeking to have his "SEC. 78. Rules and regulations.—The Director subject to the approval of the
name placed upon either of the registers has the qualifications specified, Secretary of Justice, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations, not
satisfactory proof of good moral character and repute, and of sufficient basic inconsistent with law, for the conduct of all business in the Patent Office."
training in scientific and technical matters must be submitted and an examination
which is held from time to time must be taken and passed. The taking of an The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and by far, are different from the
examination may be waived in the case of any person who has served for three provisions of the United States Patent Law as regards authority to hold
years in the examining corps of the Patent Office." examinations to determine the qualifications of those allowed to practice before
the Patent Office. While the U. S. Patent Law authorizes the Commissioner of
Respondent states that the promulgation of the Rules of Practice of the United Patents to require attorneys to show that they possess the necessary qualifications
States Patent Office in Patent Cases is authorized by the United States Patent Law and competence to render valuable service to and advise and assist their clients in
itself, which reads as follows: patent cases, which showing may take the form of a test or examination to be held
"The Commissioner of Patents, subject to the approval of the Secretary of by the Commissioner, our Patent Law, Section 78, is silent on this important point.
Commerce may prescribe rules and regulations governing the recognition of agents, Our attention has not been called to any express provision of our Patent Law, giving
8
such authority to determine the qualifications of persons allowed to practice before People vs. Gorospe
the Patent Office. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for prohibition is granted and the
Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizes every chief of bureau respondent Director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine
to prescribe forms and make regulations or general orders not inconsistent with Bar to submit to an examination or tests and pass the same before ore being
law, to secure the harmonious and efficient administration of his branch of the permitted to appear and practice before the Patent Office. No costs.
service and to carry into full effect the laws relating to matters within the Parás, C. J., Bengzon,  Padilla,  Reyes, A., Bautista
jurisdiction of his bureau. Section 608 of Republic Act 1937, known as the Tariff and Angelo, Labrador, Concepción,  Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Customs Code of the Philippines, provides that the Commissioner of Customs shall,
subject to the approval of the Department Head, make all rules and regulations Petition granted.
necessary to enforce the provisions of said code. Section 338 of the
183 Republic of the Philippines
VOL. 105, FEBRUARY 16, 1959 183 SUPREME COURT
Philippine Lawyer's Association vs. Agrava, etc. Manila
National Internal Revenue Code, Commonwealth Act No. 466 as amended, states
that the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Collector of Internal EN BANC
Revenue, shall promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective
enforcement of the provisions of the code. We understand that rules and G.R. No. L-12596             July 31, 1958
regulations have been promulgated not only for the Bureaus of Customs and
Internal Revenue, but also for other bureaus of the Government, to govern the JOSE L. GUEVARA, petitioner,
transaction of business in and to enforce the law for said bureaus. vs.
Were we to allow the Patent Office, in the absence of an express and clear THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
provision of law giving the necessary sanction, to require lawyers to submit to and
pass on examination prescribed by it before they are allowed to practice before said Enrique M. Fernando for petitioner.
Patent Office, then there would be no reason why other bureaus specially the Dominador D. Dayot for respondent.
Bureaus of Internal Revenue and Customs, where the business in the same area are
more or less complicated, such as the presentation of books of accounts, balance BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
sheets, etc., assessments exemptions, depreciation, these as regards the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, and the classification of goods, imposition of customs duties,
Petitioner was ordered by the Commissioner on Elections to show cause why he
seizures, confiscation, etc., as regards the Bureau of Customs, may not also require
should not be punished for contempt for having published in the Sunday Times
that any lawyer practising before them or otherwise transacting business with them
issue of June 2, 1957 an article entitled "Ballot Boxes Contract Hit", which tended to
on behalf of clients, shall first pass an examination to qualify.
interfere with and influence the Commission on Elections and its members in the
In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine
adjudication of a controversy then pending investigation and determination before
Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice
said body "arising from the third petition for reconsideration of May 20, 1957 and
their pro fession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business
the supplementary petition thereof of June 1, 1957 filed by Acme Steel Mfg. Co.,
in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and
Inc., praying for reconsideration of the resolutions of the Commission of May 4 and
application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation
13, 1957, awarding the contracts for the manufacture and supply of 34,000 ballot
of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent
boxes to the National Shipyards & Steel Corporation and the Asiatic Steel Mfg. Co.,
Director are judicial or quasijudicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and
Inc. and the respective answers of the latter two corporations to said petitions; and
decisions are, under the law, taken to the Supreme Court.
which article likewise tended to degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine the
184
exclusive constitutional function of this Commission and its Chairman Domingo
184 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
9
Imperial and Member Sixto Brillantes in the administration of all the laws relative to P14.00, and P17.00 each, respectively. On May 8, 1957, both the NASSCO and the
the conduct of elections." ASIATIC signed with the Commission on Elections the corresponding contracts
thereon. On May 13, 1957, the Commission cancelled the award to the ACME for
Petitioner, answering summons issued to him by the Commission, appeared and failure of the latter to sign the contract within the designated time and awarded to
filed a motion to quash on the following grounds: the NASSCO and the ASIATIC, one-half each, the 11,000 ballot boxes originally
alloted to the ACME. The corresponding contracts thereon were signed on May 16,
a) The Commission has no jurisdiction to punish as contempt the 1957.
publication of the alleged contemptuous article, as neither in the
Constitution nor in statutes is the Commission granted a power to so Then followed a series of petitions filed by the ACME for the reconsideration of the
punish the same, for should Section 5 of Republic Act No. 180, vesting the resolution of the Commission of May 13, 1957. The first of these petitions was filed
Commission with "power to punish contempts provided for in Rule of the on May 14, 1957 which, after hearing, was denied by the Commission in its
Court under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided resolution of May 16, 1957. The second petition was filed on May 16, 1957 and was
therein," be applied to the case at hand, said provision would be denied on May 17, 1957. The third petition was filed on May 20, 1957, and because
unconstitutional. of the seriousness of the grounds alleged therein for the annulment of its previous
resolutions, the Commission resolved to conduct a formal investigation on the
b) Assuming that the Commission's power to punish contempt exists, the matter ordering the NASSCO and the ASIATIC to file their respective answers.
same cannot be applied to the instant case, where the Commission is Thereafter, after these corporations had filed their answers, the Commission held a
exercising a purely administrative function for purchasing ballot boxes. formal hearing thereon on May 24, 1957. On May 28, 1957, the ACME filed a
memorandum on the points adduced during the hearing, and on June 4, 1957, the
Commission issued its resolution denying the third motion for reconsideration. The
c) Assuming that the Commission's power to punish contempt exists, said
article signed by petitioner was published in the June 2, 1957 issue of the Sunday
power cannot apply to the present case because the matter of purchasing
Times, a newspaper of nation-wide circulation.
the ballot boxes was already a closed case when the article in question was
published.
The question to be determined is whether the Commission on Elections has the
power and jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings against petitioner with a
d) Assuming that controversy contemplated by the law was still pending,
view to imposing upon him the necessary disciplinary penalty in connection with
the article in question was a fair report because it could be assumed that
the publication of an article in the Sunday Times issue of June 2, 1957 which,
the news report of the respondent was based on the motion for
according to the charge, tended to interfere with and influence said Commission in
reconsideration filed by the Acme Steel where there was an allegation of
the adjudication of a controversy then pending determination and to degrade and
fraud, etc.
undermine the function of the Commission and its members in the administration
of all laws relative to the conduct of elections.
The Commission, after hearing, denied the motion to quash but granted petitioner a
period of fifteen (15) days within which to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court
The Commission on Elections is an independent administrative body which was
in view of the issue raised which assails the jurisdiction of the Commission to
established by our Constitution to take charge of the enforcement of all laws
investigate and punish petitioner for contempt in connection with the alleged
relative to the conduct of elections and devise means and methods that will insure
publication. Hence the present petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction.
the accomplishment of free, orderly, and honest elections (Sumulong vs.
Commission on Elections, 73 Phil., 288; Nacionalista Party vs. The Solicitor General,
The facts which gave rise to the present contemptuous incident are: The 85 Phil., 101; 47 Off. Gaz. 2356). Its powers are defined in the Constitution. It
Commission on Elections, on May 4, 1957, after proper negotiations, awarded to
provides that it "shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration
the National Shipyards & Steel Corporation (NASSCO), the Acme Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions
(ACME), and the Asiatic Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. (ASIATIC), the contracts to manufacture which may be conferred upon it by law. It shall decide, save those involving the
and supply the Commission 12,000, 11,000 and 11,000 ballot boxes at P17.64,
10
right to vote, all administrative questions, affecting elections, including the determination of the number and location of polling places, and the appointment of
determination of the number and location of polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and other election officials, while the latter is silent as to what
election inspectors and of other election officials" (Section 2, Article X). The Revised questions may be brought it for determination. But it is clear that, to come under its
Election Code supplements what other powers may be exercised by said jurisdiction, the questions should be controversial in nature and must refer to the
Commission. Among these powers are those embodied in Section 5 thereof which, enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of election. The
for ready reference, we quote: difficulty lies in drawing the demarcation line between a duty which inherently is
administrative in character and a function which is justiciable and which would
SEC. 5. Powers of Commission. — The Commission on Elections or any of therefore call for judicial action by the Commission. But this much depends upon
the members thereof shall have the power to summon the parties to a the factors that may intervene when a controversy should arise.
controversy pending before it, issue subpoenas  and subpoenas duces
tecum and otherwise take testimony in any investigation or hearing Thus, it has been held that the Commission has no power to annul an election which
pending before it, and delegate such power to any officer. Any controversy might not have been free, orderly and honest for such matter devolves upon other
submitted to the Commission on Elections shall be tried, heard and agencies of the Government (Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on Elections, 85
decided by it within fifteen days counted from the time the corresponding Phil., 148; 47 Off. Gaz. 2851); neither does it have the power to decide the validity
petition giving rise to said controversy is filed. The Commission or any of or invalidity of votes cast in an election for such devolves upon the courts or the
the members thereof shall have the power to punish contempts provided electoral tribunals (Ibid.); it does not also have the power to order a recounting of
for in rule sixty-four of the Rules of Court, under the same procedure and the votes before the proclamation of election even if there are discrepancies in the
with the same penalties provided therein. election returns for it is a function of our courts of justice (Ramos vs. Commission on
Elections, 80 Phil., 722); nor does it have the power to order the correction of a
Any violation of any final and executory decision, order or ruling of the certificate of canvass after a candidate had been proclaimed and assumed office (De
Commission shall constitute contempt of the Commission. Leon vs. Imperial, 94 Phil., 680); and only very recently this Court has held that the
Commission has no power to reject a certificate of candidacy except only when its
Any decision, order or ruling of the Commission on Elections may be purpose is to create confusion in the minds of the electors (Abcede vs. Imperial, 103
reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari accordance with the Phil., 136).
Rules of Court or with such rules as may be promulgated by the Supreme
Court. On the other hand, it has been held that the Commission has the power to annul an
illegal registry list of voters (Feliciano, et al. vs. Lugay, et al., 93 Phil., 744; 49 Off.
It would therefore appear that the Commission on Elections not only has the duty Gaz. 3863); to annul an election canvass made by a municipal board of canvassers
to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections but the power (Mintu vs. Enage, et al., G. R. No. L-1834); and to investigate and act on the illegality
to try, hear and decide any controversy  that may be submitted to it in connection of a canvass of election made by a municipal board of canvassers (Ramos vs.
with the elections. And as an incident of this power, it may also punish for contempt Commission on Elections, 80 Phil., 722). And as to what are the ministerial duties
in those cases provided for in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court under the same which the Commission on Elections must perform in connection with the conduct of
procedure and with the same penalties provided therein. In this sense, the elections, the following resume made by the Commission itself in a controversy
Commission, although it cannot be classified as a court of justice within the which was submitted to it for determination is very enlightening:
meaning of the Constitution (Section 13, Article VIII), for it is merely an independent
administrative body (The Nacionalista Party vs. Vera, 85 Phil., 126; 47 Off. Gaz. In the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of
2375), may however exercise quasi-judicial functions in so far as controversies that elections, the first duty of the Commission is to set in motion all the
by express provision of the law come under its jurisdiction. As to what question may multifarious preparatory processes ranging from the purchase of election
come within this category, neither the Constitution nor the Revised Election Code supplies, printing of election forms and ballots, appointments of members
specifies. The former merely provides that it shall come under its jurisdiction, saving of the boards of inspectors, establishment of precincts and designation of
the right to vote, all administrative questions affecting elections, including the polling places to the preparation of the registry lists of voters, so as to put

11
 in readiness on election day the election machinery in order that the token an imperative ministerial duty which the Commission is bound to perform if
people who are legally qualified to exercise the right of suffrage may be the elections are to be held. Such is the incident which gave rise to the contempt
able to cast their votes to express their sovereign will. It is incumbent upon case before us. It stems from the ministerial act of the Commission in requisitioning
the Commission to see that all these preparatory acts will insure free, for the necessary ballot boxes in connection with the last elections and in so
orderly and honest elections. All provisions of the Revised Election Code proceeding it provoked a dispute between several dealers who offered to do the
contain regulations relative to these processes preparatory for election job.
day. It is incumbent upon the Commission on Elections to see that all these
preparatory acts are carried out freely, honestly and in an orderly manner. Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has resulted in controversy
It is essential that the Commission or its authorized representatives, in between several dealers, that however merely refers to a ministerial duty which the
establishing precincts or designating polling places, must act freely, Commission has performed in its administrative capacity in relation to the conduct
honestly and in an orderly manner. It is also essential that the printing of of elections ordained by our Constitution. In proceeding on this matter, it only
election forms and the purchase of election supplies and their distribution discharged a ministerial duty; it did not exercise any judicial function. Such being
are done freely, honestly and in an orderly manner. It is further essential the case, it could not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in
that the political parties or their duly authorized representatives who are the law, for such power is inherently judicial in nature. As this Court has aptly said:
entitled to be represented in the boards of inspectors must have the "The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential
freedom to choose the person who will represent them in each precinct to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of
throughout the country. It is further essential that once organized, the judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and, consequently, in the administration
boards of inspectors shall be given all the opportunity to be able to of justice" (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil., 271; U. S. vs. Loo Hoe, 36
perform their duties in accordance with law freely, honestly and in an Phil., 867; In Re Sotto, 46 Off. Gaz. 2570; In Re Kelly, 35 Phil., 944). The exercise of
orderly manner, individually and as a whole. In other words, it is the duty this power has always been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of courts
of the Commission to see that the boards of inspectors, in all their (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, Ibid.). Its exercise by administrative bodies has
sessions, are placed in an atmosphere whereby they can fulfill their duties been invariably limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony (People vs.
without any pressure, influence and interference from any private person Swena, 296 P., 271). And the exercise of that power by an administrative body in
or public official. All these preparatory steps are administrative in nature furtherance of its administrative function has been held invalid (Langenberg vs.
and all questions arising therefrom are within the exclusive powers of the Decker, 31 N.E. 190; In Re Sims 37 P., 135; Roberts vs. Hacney, 58 S.W., 810). We
Commission to resolve. All irregularities, anomalies and misconduct are therefore persuaded to conclude that the Commission on Elections has no
committed by any official in these preparatory steps are within the power nor authority to submit petitioner to contempt proceedings if its purpose is
exclusive power of the Commission to correct. Any erring official must to discipline him because of the publication of the article mentioned in the charge
respond to the Commission for investigation. Of these preparatory acts, under consideration.
the preparation of the permanent list of voters is the matter involved in
this case, which to our mind is completely an administrative matter. Wherefore, petition is granted. Respondent Commission is hereby enjoined from
(Decision of the Commission on Elections, October 28, 1951, In Re Petition proceeding with the case set forth in its resolution of June 20, 1957, with
of Angel Genuino vs. Prudente, et al., Case No. 196) 1 pronouncement as to costs.

Considering that the paramount administrative duty of the Commission is to set in The preliminary injunction issued by this Court is made permanent.
motion all the multifarious preparatory processes ranging from the purchase of
election supplies, printing of election forms and ballots, appoinments of members
AIR MANILA,INC., petitioner, vs. HON.MARCELO S. BALATBAT,DIRECTOR NILO DE
of the board of inspectors, appointment of precincts and designation of polling
GUIA,DR.GREGORIO Y. ZARA, and COL.JUAN B. GUEVARRA as members of the CIVIL
preparation of registry lists of voters, so as to as to put in readiness on election day
AERONAUTICS BOARD and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES,INC., respondents.
the election machinery, it may also be reasonably said that the requisitioning and
Administrative proceedings;  Due process; Due process is applicable to
preparation of the necessary ballot boxes to be used in the elections is by the same
administrative proceedings.—It has been correctly said that administrative
12
proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain basic and fundamental proposed schedule introducing seven flights—F515/516, F555/556, F561/562,
procedural principles, such as the due process requirements in investigations and F531/532, F591/338, F527/528, and F211/212—and the adjustment of the flight
trials. schedule that may thus be affected (CAB Case No. 1414). On 15 April 1968, action
Same; Same; Requisites.—Administrative due process is recognized to include on the petition was deferred for further study.
(a) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the On 22 April 1968, the Board passed Resolution No. 109 (68), referring PAL’s
proceedings that may af- petition to a hearing examiner for economic justification. Accordingly, the
designated hearing officer set the initial hearing thereof for 30 April 1968.
_______________ On 29 April 1968, PAL moved for reconsideration of Resolution No. 109 (68). By
resolution of 6 May 1968, the Board deferred action on this later motion, until PAL
1
 Cf. Tan vs. Republic, L-22077, 18 February 1967, 19 SCRA 367; O Ku Phuan vs. shall
Republic, 20 SCRA 1219, L-23406, 31 August 1967. 491
2
 Tan vs. Republic, L-19580, 30 April 1965 (18 SCRA 663): Ong Hock Lian vs. VOL. 38, APRIL 29, 1971 491
Republic, L-21197, 19 May 1966 (17 SCRA 188).
Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat
490
have resumed its DC-3 services in certain airports named therein.
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED On 9 May 1968, PAL filed another motion, this time for reconsideration of the
Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat Board resolution of 6 May 1968, on the ground that the new flights which it was
feet a person’s legal rights; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend proposing to operate in Case No. EP-1414 will be serviced by jet-prop or pure jet
his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor; (c) a tribunal so equipment only, thus, the order for resumption of DC-3 services in said resolution
constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality, and was improper and should be deleted. In its Resolution No. 131 (68) of 20 May 1968,
one of competent jurisdiction; and (d) a finding or decision by that tribunal the Board deferred action on this motion for reconsideration.
supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in It appears, however, that on 15 May 1968, PAL filed an Urgent Petition for
the records or disclosed to the parties affected. approval of a consolidated schedule of jet and jet prop flights, with an interim DC-3
schedule to different secondary and feeder points (DTS-35). On 28 May 1968, the
ORIGINAL PETITION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari. Board issued its Resolution No. 139 (68), approving DTS-35 for a period of 30 days,
effective 1 June 1968, subject to the conditions that (a) the flight between Manila
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. and San Fernando, La Union, F210/211 of the same timetable, be operated daily
     Bautista Angelo,  Antonio, Lopez & Associates and Santos, Buted & instead of twice a week as proposed, and (b) that all schedules under DTS-35, for
Associates for petitioner. which no previous approval has been granted by the Board, are to be referred to a
     Crispin D. Baizas and Cenon Cervantes, Jr. for respondent Philippine Air Lines, hearing examiner for reception of evidence on its economic justification. After the
Inc. examiner’s report, several of the proposed flights were approved for 30 days from
     Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for 31 July 1968.
respondent Civil Aeronautics Board. On 31 May 1968, Air Manila, Inc., filed the instant petition claiming that the
respondent Board acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with abuse of
REYES, J.B.L., J.: discretion in issuing its Resolution No. 139 (68). It is petitioner’s allegation that the
proposed new schedule, involving an increase of frequencies, would not only
This is a petition for certiorari filed by Air Manila, Inc., to determine the validity of saturate the routes served also by petitioner, but would also affect its schedule;
Resolution No. 139 (68) of the Civil Aeronautics Board in CAB Case No. 1414, that the Board’s approval of said Domestic Traffic Schedule without receiving the
allegedly issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. evidence of the parties constituted a deprivation of petitioner’s right to be heard:
There is no dispute as to the facts of this case. and that such authorization to PAL to operate the proposed schedule without
On 1 April 1968, the Philippine Air Lines, hereafter referred to as PAL, petitioned economic justification amounted to a capricious and whimsical exercise by the
the Civil Aeronautics Board, referred to hereafter as the Board, for approval of a Board of its power amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

13
 492 no previous approval has been granted by the Board, are hereby referred to a
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED hearing examiner for reception of evidence on its economic justification.” 3 It has not
been denied that such hearings were actually conducted by the hearing examiner
Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat
and a report on the result thereof was submitted to the Board. And the Board,
There is no merit to the contention of petitioner. It has been correctly said that
considering the report of the hearing examiner, passed Resolution No. 190
administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain basic and
(68)4 approving, for a period of 30 days starting 31 July 1968, only three or four
fundamental procedural principles, such as the due process requirements in
frequencies of the seven proposed new flights (F338, F591, F531/532, F555/556,
investigations and trials.1 And this administrative due process is recognized to
F527/528, F561/562, and F515/516). There is no proof, not even allegation, that in
include (a) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the
all those hearings petitioner was not notified or given opportunity to adduce
proceedings that may affect a person’s legal rights; (b) reasonable opportunity to
evidence in support of its opposition.
appear and defend his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his
It may be true that the temporary approval of DTS-35 resulted in the immediate
favor, (c) a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty
operation of the opposed flights before the existence of economic justification
and impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction; and (4) a finding or decision by
therefor has been finally determined. But this fact alone would not work against the
that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
validity of the provisional authorization thus issued. For, under the law, the Civil
contained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected. 2
Aeronautics Board is not only empowered to grant certificates of public
In the present case, it can not truthfully be said that the provisional approval by
convenience and necessity; it can also issue, deny, revise, alter, modify, cancel,
the Board of PAL’s proposed DTS-35 violates the requisites of administrative due
suspend or revoke, in whole or in part, any temporary operating permit, upon
process. Admittedly, after PAL’s proposal to introduce new-Mercury night flights (in
petition or complaint of another or even at its own initiative. 5 The exercise of the
CAB Case No. EP-1414) had been referred to a hearing examiner for economic
power, of course, is supposed to be conditioned upon the paramount consideration
justification, PAL submitted a so-called consolidated schedule of flights, DTS-35, that
of public convenience and necessity, and nothing has been presented in this case to
included the same Mercury night flights involved in Case EP-1414, and this was
prove that the disputed action by the Board has been prompted by a cause other
allowed by Board Resolution No. 139(68). According to respondents, however, the
than the good of the service.
Board’s action was impelled by the circumstance that at the time, the
authorizations of certain flight schedules previously allowed but were incorporated
_______________
in DTS-35 were about to expire; thus, the consolidated schedule had to be approved
temporarily if the operations of the flights referred to were not to be suspended. In 3
 Annex R, Petition for Certiorari.
short, the temporary permit was issued to prevent the stoppage or cessation of 4
 Respondent Board’s Answer, page 8.
services in the affected areas. This point petitioner has failed to refute. 5
 Section 10 (C) (1), Republic Act No. 776.
Neither can the provisional authorization of DTS-35 be
494
_______________ 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat
1
 Asprec vs. Itchon, L-21685, 30 April 1966, 16 SCRA 921. It may be also pointed out that the new schedule objected to by petitioner will
2
 Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, L-19748, 13 September 1962, 6 SCRA 1. affect its services in six routes in the following manner:
Concurring Opinion; also Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 635
493 1. (a)Route—MANILA-MACTAN-MANILA F515/516—Seven
VOL. 38, APRIL 29, 1971 493 (7) additional flights a week and vice-versa; schedule is timed just ahead
Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat of Air Manila’s schedule.
said to have done away with the requisite hearing and investigation of the new 2. (b)Route—MANILA-DAVAO-MANILA F555/556—Seven (7) additional flights
flight schedules and, consequently, to have deprived the petitioner of its right to be a week and vice-versa; schedule is timed just ahead of Air Manila’s
heard. Note that in allowing the operation or effectivity of PAL’s consolidated flight schedule.
schedule, it was precisely prescribed that “all schedules under the DTS-35 for which
14
 3. (c)Route—MANILA-BACOLOD MANILA F531/532—Seven IA1 ERWIN L. MAGCAMIT, petitioner, vs. INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE-PHILIPPINE
(7) additional flights a week and vice-versa; timed just ahead of Air DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, as represented by SI V ROMEO M. ENRIQUEZ and
Manila’s schedule. DIRECTOR GENERAL DIONISIO R. SANTIAGO, respondents.
4. (d)Route—MACTAN-TACLOBAN-MACTAN F527/528—Seven
(7) additional flights a week and vice-versa. Procedural Rules and Technicalities; As a rule, technical rules of procedure and
5. (e)Route—TACLOBAN-MACTAN-TACLOBAN F579/580—PAL’s old schedule evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings in order “to assist the parties in
revised to adversejust ahead of Air Manila’s schedule. obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and
6. (f)Route—MACTAN-DAVAO-MACTAN F391/392—Flight schedule revised as defenses.”—Administrative determinations of contested cases are by their nature
to make it ly affect Air Manila’s schedule in this route. quasi-judicial; there is no requirement for strict adherence to technical rules that
are observed in truly judicial proceedings. As a rule, technical rules of procedure
and evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings in order “to assist the
Respondents disclosed, however, and this has not been denied by petitioner, that
parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective
the schedule of flights provisionally approved in Resolution No. 139 (68) was
claims and defenses.” By relaxing technical rules, administrative agencies are, thus,
subsequently readjusted by the Board in order to conform with its established
given leeway in coming up with a decision. Nonetheless, in deciding disciplinary
policy on separation time between flights.6 While the aforementioned readjustment
cases pursuant to their quasi-judicial powers, administrative agencies must still
of the schedule was secured by the Filipinas Orient Airways and, therefore, may not
comply with the fundamental principle of due process. Administrative tribunals
particularly improve petitioner’s situation, the resolution indicated that relief can
exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural
still be obtained from the Board, thus precluding resort at once to the relief
requirements, subject to the observance of fundamental and essen-
afforded by a certiorari proceeding in this Tribunal. 7 Likewise, the records show that
by Resolution No. 190 (68) in the same Case No. EP-1414, the Board allowed only _______________
three or four frequencies of the proposed seven new flights, such authorization
terminating after 30 days from 31 July 1968. *  SECOND DIVISION.

_______________  
 
6 &
 7 Editor’s Note: No corresponding footnotes in the manuscript. 574
495 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 38, APRIL 29, 1971 495 Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
National Development Company vs. Galamgam tial requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them.
It is evident from the foregoing facts that not only has the resolution subject of the Due Process; For as long as the parties were given fair and reasonable
present petition been modified, but its effectivity had been fixed up to 30 opportunity to be heard before judgment was rendered, the demands of due
September 1968. There being no proof that the situation existing when Resolution process were sufficiently met.—Due process in administrative cases, in essence, is
No. 139 (68) was issued still persists, the issue herein presented apparently has simply an opportunity to explain one’s side or to seek a reconsideration of the
become moot and academic. action or ruling. For as long as the parties were given fair and reasonable
FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the petition in this case is hereby opportunity to be heard before judgment was rendered, the demands of due
dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. process were sufficiently met. The cardinal primary rights and principles in
     Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal,  Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando,  Teehanke administrative proceedings that must be respected are those outlined in the
e,  Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur. landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940),
Petition dismissed. quoted below: (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes
the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit
G.R. No. 198140. January 25, 2016.* evidence in support thereof. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to
  present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he

15
asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (3) While the duty to process.—In administrative proceedings, the requirement of due process is satisfied
deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity if the party has had the opportunity to be heard. If the party has been given the
which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its right to controvert the allegations and evidence against him, as when the party is
decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when able to file a motion for reconsideration, there is no deprivation of due process.
directly attached. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or Procedural Rules and Technicalities; View that technical rules of procedure
conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. “Substantial evidence is more and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative cases.—Technical rules of
than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative cases. In the
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” (5) The decision must be rendered on National Labor Relations Commission, evidence introduced on appeal may still be
the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and considered so long as the adverse party is given the opportunity to rebut the
disclosed to the parties affected. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its evidence. This rule should equally apply in this administrative case since it involves
judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law employment, albeit of a public officer.
and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in
arriving at a decision. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial  
questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding  
can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. 576
The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it. 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
 
Administrative Law; Dismissal from Service; Grave Misconduct; View that the
 
May 7, 2008 Affidavit is substantial to prove that petitioner consented to and
575
shared in the money extorted from Luciana M. Jaen. This constitutes grave
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 575 misconduct punishable by dismissal from the service.—The May 7, 2008 Affidavit is
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency substantial to prove that petitioner consented to and shared in the money extorted
Criminal Law; Conspiracy; For conspiracy to exist, it must be proven or at least from Luciana M. Jaen. This constitutes grave misconduct punishable by dismissal
inferred from the acts of the alleged perpetrator before, during, and after the from the service. The Internal Affairs Service, the Civil Service Commission, and the
commission of the crime.—We discern no showing from this allegation that Court of Appeals did not err in their respective Decisions.
Magcamit extorted money from Jaen, or that he was among those who took part in
the division of the money allegedly extorted from Jaen. For conspiracy to exist, it PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
must be proven or at least inferred from the acts of the alleged perpetrator before, Appeals.
during, and after the commission of the crime. It cannot simply be surmised that The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
conspiracy existed because Magcamit was part of the team that took part in the     Charlito Martin R. Mendoza for petitioner.
buy-bust operation which resulted in Jaen’s arrest. In other words, respondents BRION, J.:
failed to pinpoint Magcamit’s participation in the extortion that would make him  
administratively liable. After evaluating the totality of evidence on record, we find We resolve the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
that the records are bereft of substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Court1 filed by IA1 Erwin L. Magcamit (Magcamit) from the March 17, 2011
Magcamit should be held administratively liable for grave misconduct; Magcamit decision2 and the August 9, 2011 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
was dismissed from the service based on evidence that had not been disclosed to G.R. S.P. No. 108281. The CA upheld the March 17, 2009 decision of the Civil Service
him. By affirming this dismissal, the CA committed a grave reversible error. Commission (CSC)  denying Magcamit’s appeal from the May 20, 2008
Leonen, J.,  Dissenting Opinion: memorandum of the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Administrative Proceedings; Due Process; View that if the party has been Agency (IAS-PDEA),  which found Magcamit guilty of grave misconduct and,
given the right to controvert the allegations and evidence against him, as when the consequently, recommending his dismissal from the service.
party is able to file a motion for reconsideration, there is no deprivation of due _______________

16
 1  Rollo, pp. 3-17. 578
2  Id., at pp. 10-27; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Franchito N.
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
Diamante.
Investigator I Dolorsindo M. Paner (CI Paner) who recalled that IO2 Renato
3  Id., at pp. 28-29.
Infante (IO2 Infante) told him to meet him at the office for an important matter
  about their operation; and that when IO2 Infante arrived, he handed the money to
  CI Paner who then counted it on the spot. This incident was allegedly captured by a
577 surveillance camera.
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 577 On July 10, 2008, Magcamit filed his motion for reconsideration arguing that the
IAS-PDEA committed errors of law and/or irregularities prejudicial to his interest; its
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency decision, too, was not supported by the evidence on record.
  The Factual Antecedents Aside from the procedural lapses Magcamit claimed the IAS-PDEA had
  committed, he raised the fact that his name never came up in the sworn
In a letter dated April 13, 2008, addressed to Director General Dionisio R. statements submitted to SI V Enriquez. Moreover, he argued that the application of
Santiago, a person named Delfin gave information about an alleged extortion done the “doctrine of implied conspiracy” was misplaced because the evidence on record
to his mother by Magcamit and other PDEA agents. The PDEA agents denied the did not show any act showing that he participated in the alleged extortion.
irregularities imputed to them and maintained that the letter-complaint was made On July 23, 2008, SI V Enriquez denied the motion for reconsideration of
only to destroy their reputation. Magcamit and his coagents as they had been duly afforded administrative due
On May 5, 2008, Magcamit and his coagents, namely, IO3 Carlo Aldeon, IO2 process and had been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side.
Renato Infante, IO2 Ryan Alfaro, and IO2 Apolinario Mationg, Jr., were formally He added that the absence of a preliminary investigation was not fatal to their case.
charged with Grave Misconduct for demanding and/or obtaining P200,000.00 from Lastly, he maintained that direct proof is not necessary to establish conspiracy as
Luciana M. Jaen (Jaen) in exchange for her release after she was apprehended in a long as it is shown that the parties demonstrate they concur with the criminal
buy-bust operation in Lipa City. After they had submitted their Answer, their case design and its objective.
was submitted for recommendation and action. Magcamit responded by filing a notice of appeal and elevating his case to the
In a memorandum dated May 20, 2008, Special Investigator V Romeo M. CSC.
Enriquez (SI V Enriquez) found Magcamit and his coagents liable for grave In its March 17, 2009 decision, the CSC denied Magcamit’s appeal and affirmed
misconduct and recommended that they be dismissed from the civil service. his dismissal from the civil service. It ruled that administrative tribunals exercising
Accordingly, they were dismissed on June 5, 2008. quasi-judicial powers — such as the IAS-PDEA — are unfettered by the rigidity of
SI V Enriquez gave credence to Jaen’s narration of events that when she sought certain procedural requirements especially when due process has been
help from the team leader of the buy-bust team, she was referred to SPO1 Peter fundamentally and essentially observed. It found that Magcamit was positively
Sistemio (SPO1 Sistemio) as the person who would facilitate her release; that SPO1 identified by
Sistemio bluntly demanded money in exchange; that she had initially offered  
P50,000.00 but SPO1 Sistemio rejected it outright; and that, eventually, they agreed  
on P200,000.00. 579
After the agreed monetary consideration was produced, the PDEA agents
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 579
allegedly instructed Jaen’s son, Delfin, to wait at the ATM outside PDEA. Jaen still
remained in detention after a lapse of several hours. Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
The narration was reinforced by the sworn statements dated April 15, CI Paner in his sworn statement as the person who identified the members of
2008 and April 17, 2008, of Compliance the group who received their respective shares from the P200,000.00, thus,
  establishing his participation in the extortion. The CSC noted that Magcamit failed
  to controvert this allegation against him.

17
 Reiterating the grounds he relied upon in his appeal to the CSC, Magcamit filed Magcamit questions how the IAS-PDEA never presented him with pieces of
a petition for review under Rule 43 with the CA, imputing error on the part of the evidence — specifically CI Paner’s sworn statement — that were considered against
CSC in affirming his dismissal from the service. him. He emphasizes that the CSC and the CA affirmed his dismissal based on an
  affidavit of complaint executed by CI Paner on May 7, 2008, that was only attached
The CA’s Decision to the IAS-PDEA’s comment before the CSC.
  As to his alleged participation in the extortion, Magcamit alleges that he never
In its March 17, 2011 decision, the CA denied the petition for review and upheld had any discussion with CI Paner about each agent’s share in the P200,000.00.  He
the March 17, 2009 CSC decision. argues that he could not have refuted the allegation against him since he was not
The CA held that the CSC, in investigating complaints against civil servants, is not even aware of CI Paner’s sworn statement until the case was brought up before
bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable in judicial the CSC.
proceedings; that rules of procedure are to be construed liberally to promote their Magcamit claims support for his case after the dismissal of the criminal
objective and to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy, and inexpensive complaint filed against him and his coagents. In its June 18, 2010 resolution, the
determination of their respective claims and defenses. Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office found the evidence against them insufficient to
The CA found that the CSC correctly appreciated CI Paner’s sworn statement prove that they requested or received any money from Jaen.
which described Magcamit’s link to the extortion. The CA said that apart from his  
bare and self-serving claim, Magcamit failed to show that CI Paner was actuated by  
ill motive or hate in imputing a serious offense to him. 581
On August 9, 2011, the CA denied Magcamit’s motion for reconsideration; VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 581
hence, the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court.
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
 
Finally, Magcamit maintains that the purported surveillance video is
The Petition
inadmissible as evidence because it was not authenticated nor shown to him.
 
 
Magcamit filed the present petition on the following grounds:
Our Ruling
 
 
 
We GRANT the present petition because Magcamit’s dismissal was unsupported
580
by substantial evidence.
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Although Magcamit assails that the letter-complaint should not have been
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency entertained to begin with as it was not in accord with the Revised Rules on
1. his right to due process was denied because gross irregularities attended Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), 4 we do not find any need to dwell
the administrative investigation conducted by the IAS-PDEA; and on this point. The administrative complaint was initiated when Jaen and Delfin
2. the evidence on record does not support his dismissal. executed sworn statements and filed them with the IAS-PDEA. As the CA correctly
Magcamit contends that the anonymous letter-complaint of a pointed out, the letter-complaint did not, by itself, commence the administrative
certain Delfin should not have been given due course as it was not corroborated by proceedings against Magcamit; it merely triggered a fact-finding investigation by
any documentary or direct evidence and there was no obvious truth to it. Worse, the IAS-PDEA. Accordingly, these sworn statements — together with the letter-
the letter-complaint had no narration of relevant and material facts showing the complaint — were used as pieces of evidence to build a prima facie case for
acts or omission allegedly committed by Magcamit and his coagents. Further, the extortion warranting a formal charge for grave misconduct.
letter-complaint only referred to him as “Erwin” and did not specifically identify Administrative determinations of contested cases are by their nature quasi-
him. judicial; there is no requirement for strict adherence to technical rules that are
Magcamit claims that he was deprived of his right to seek a formal investigation observed in truly judicial proceedings.5 As a rule, technical rules of procedure and
because the IAS-PDEA deliberately failed to inform him of this right. _______________

18
 4  Rule 3, Section 10. “x x x No anonymous complaint shall be entertained unless 7  Samalio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140079, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 462,
there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations therein or supported by 471.
documentary or direct evidence, in which case the person complained of may be 8  Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166780, December 27, 2007, 541 SCRA
required to comment. x x x” [then CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, or the Uniform 444, 452.
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule II, Section 8.] 9  69 Phil. 635, 642-644 (1940).
5  See Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 114683, January 18, 2000,
322 SCRA 17; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hantex Trading Co., Inc., G.R. No.  
136975, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 301; Velasquez v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 150732,  
August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 357. 583
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 583
 
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
 
fected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
582
(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency the tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings in order “to assist the (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to
parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely,
claims and defenses.”6 By relaxing technical rules, administrative agencies are, thus, that of having something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely
given leeway in coming up with a decision. nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached.
Nonetheless, in deciding disciplinary cases pursuant to their quasi-judicial (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or
powers, administrative agencies must still comply with the fundamental principle of conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. “Substantial evidence is
due process. Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
cases presented before them.7 hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
Due process in administrative cases, in essence, is simply an opportunity to affected.
explain one’s side or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling. For as long as (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore,
the parties were given fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard before judgment must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of
was rendered, the demands of due process were sufficiently met. 8 the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving
The cardinal primary rights and principles in administrative proceedings that at a decision.
must be respected are those outlined in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial
Industrial Relations,9 quoted below: questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the
decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the
(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the authority conferred upon it.
right of the party interested or af-  
_______________ The first of the enumerated rights pertains to the substantive rights of a party at
the hearing stage of the proceedings.10
6  Police Commission v. Lood, No. L-34637, February 24, 1984, 127 SCRA 757, _______________
761, citing Maribojoc v. de Guzman, 109 Phil. 833 (1960).

19
 10  Mendoza v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188308, October 15, 2009, 603 SCRA 692, 585
713. VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 585
  Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
  With the issue on due process at the hearing stage resolved, we now move on
584 to discuss the merits of the petition before us.
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Claiming that he was not involved in the extortion, Magcamit argues that the
CSC and the CA misappreciated the facts when they considered the affidavit of
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency complaint CI Paner executed on May 7, 2008, as substantial evidence supporting
The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth aspects of the Ang Tibay requirements the conclusion that he conspired with his coagents. This issue involves a question of
are reinforcements of the right to a hearing and are the inviolable rights applicable fact as there is need for a calibration of the evidence, considering mainly the
at the deliberative stage, as the decision-maker decides on the evidence presented credibility of witnesses and the existence and the relevancy of specific surrounding
during the hearing.11 These standards set forth the guiding considerations in circumstances, their relation to one another and to the whole, and the probabilities
deliberating on the case and are the material and substantial components of of the situation.14
decision-making.12 In cases brought before us via  a petition for review on certiorari, we are limited
Finally, the last requirement, relating to the form and substance of the decision to the review of errors of law. 15 We, however, may review the findings of fact when
of a quasi-judicial body, further complements the hearing and decision-making due they fail to consider relevant facts that, if properly taken into account, would justify
process rights and is similar in substance to the constitutional requirement that a a different conclusion or when there is serious ground to believe that a possible
decision of a court must state distinctly the facts and the law upon which it is miscarriage of justice would result. 16
based.13 We recall that only the April 17, 2008 affidavit of Jaen and the April 17, 2008
At the hearing stage, while Magcamit was never afforded a formal investigation, affidavit of Delfin were attached to the formal charge for grave misconduct against
we have consistently ruled that there is no violation of procedural due process even Magcamit and four (4)17 other members of the PDEA-Special Enforcement Service
if no formal or trial-type hearing was conducted, where the party was given a (SES). This formal charge required them to submit their respective position papers
chance to explain his side of the controversy. on the administrative charge. Notably, both affidavits never mentioned the name
Before the IAS-PDEA, Magcamit had the opportunity to deny and controvert the of Magcamit.
complaint against him when he filed his reply to the letter-complaint and his answer _______________
to the formal charge. Dissatisfied with the IAS-PDEA’s decision, he elevated his case
to the CSC which likewise found him guilty of conspiring with his coagents, 14  Imperial v. Jaucian, G.R. No. 149004, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 517, 523-524.
rendering him liable for gross misconduct. From these developments, it can hardly 15  Rules of Court, Rule 45, Section 1.
be said that the IAS-PDEA and the CSC denied Magcamit his opportunity to be 16  See Office of the Ombudsman v. Reyes, G.R. No. 170512, October 5, 2011,
heard. 658 SCRA 626. See also Marcelo v. Bungubung, 575 Phil. 538, 539; 552 SCRA 589,
In addition, Magcamit was duly represented by counsel who could properly 608 (2008).
apprise him of what he is entitled to under law and jurisprudence. Thus, he cannot 17  Namely, IO3 Carlo Aldeon, IO2 Renato Infante, IO2 Ryan Alfaro, and IO2
claim that he was deprived of his right to a formal hearing because the IAS-PDEA Apolinario Mationg, Jr., Rollo, p. 132.
failed to inform him of such right.
_______________  
 
11  Id. 586
12  Id. 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
13  Id.
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
  SI V Enriquez’s memorandum/decision dated May 20, 2008 — which found
  Magcamit and his four co-accused guilty of grave misconduct, and recommended
20
their dismissal from the service — relied on the affidavits of CI Paner dated April 15, Under these circumstances, the CA erred in affirming the CSC’s dismissal of
2008 and April 17, 2008, respectively, which it considered to have “reinforced the the respondent on the basis of Paner’s May 7, 2008 affidavit — a document that
allegations” of Jaen and her son, Delfin. CI Paner’s two affidavits were never shown was not part of the proceedings before the IAS-PDEA.
to Magcamit. At any rate, CI Paner’s two affidavits, like the affidavits of Jaen and Given how the evidence against him came out, we find that Magcamit could
Delfin, did not mention Magcamit. not have adequately and fully disputed the allegations against him since during the
Probably realizing that the April 17, 2008 affidavit of Jaen, the April 17, 2008 administrative investigation he was not properly apprised of all the evidence against
affidavit of Delfin, and the April 15, 2008 and April 17, 2008 affidavits of CI Paner did him. We point out that Magcamit could not have refuted the May 7, 2008 affidavit
not mention the involvement of Magcamit in the extortion, the CSC’s Resolution of Paner, which was the sole basis of the CSC’s and the CA’s finding of Magcamit’s
No. 090431 dated March 17, 2009, used as basis another affidavit of CI liability; notably, the formal charge requiring him and his co-accused to file their
Paner (dated May 7, 2008) in affirming the May 20, 2008 decision of the IAS-PDEA. position papers was dated May 5, 2008. Corollarily, Magcamit and his coagents
Curiously, the CSC termed this affidavit as CI Paner’s ‘original affidavit’ although it were not even furnished a copy of the affidavits of CI Paner dated April 15, 2008
was the third affidavit that CI Paner had executed. and April 17, 2008 before the recommendation for dismissal came out. Magcamit
The evidence on record shows that CI Paner executed three (3) affidavits with was thus blindsided and forced to deal with pieces of evidence he did not even
different dates,18 relating to the manner the members of the PDEA-SES tried to give know existed.
him a share of the P200,000.00 they extorted from Jaen. It must be noted, however, Thus, the requirement that “[t]he decision must be rendered on the evidence
that it was only the Affidavit of Complaint dated May 7, 2008, that linked Magcamit presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record AND disclosed to the
to the scheme. Curiously, this affidavit was never mentioned, despite being a more parties affected,” was not complied with. Magcamit was not properly apprised of
complete narration of what transpired, in SI V Enriquez’ recommendation dated the evidence presented against him, which evidence were eventually made the
May 20, 2008. In fact, the investigating officer referred only to the affidavits dated bases of the decision finding him guilty of grave misconduct and recommending his
April 15, 2008 and April 17, 2008.19 dismissal.
Surprisingly, the CSC ruled that the statements of CI Paner in his May 7, 2008
affidavit “was never controverted by  
_______________  
588
18  Affidavit dated April 15, 2008, Rollo, p. 145; Affidavit dated April 17, 2008, p. 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
146; Affidavit of Complaint dated May 7, 2008, pp. 174-175. Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
19  Rollo, pp. 142-143. Although, in the past, we have held that the right to due process of a
respondent in an administrative case is not violated if he filed a motion for
 
reconsideration to refute the evidence against him, the present case should be
 
carefully examined for purposes of the application of this rule. Here, the evidence of
587
Magcamit’s participation was made available to him only after he had elevated the
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 587 case to the CSC. Prior to that, or when the IAS-PDEA came up with the decision
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency finding him guilty of gross misconduct, there was no substantial evidence proving
Magcamit” although the latter had not been furnished this document. It was Magcamit was even involved.
only when Magcamit requested for certified true copies of the Comment and the We consider, too, that even if we take into account CI Paner’s May 7, 2008
other documents submitted by the IAS-PDEA to the CSC that he discovered the affidavit, we find this document to be inadequate to hold — even by standards of
existence of Paner’s May 7, 2008 affidavit. substantial evidence — that Magcamit participated in the PDEA’s extortion
As the CSC did, the CA ruled that Magcamit participated in the extortion on activities.
the basis of Paner’s May 7, 2008 alone. Accordingly, it affirmed the CSC’s resolution. We note that the CSC and the CA linked Magcamit to the alleged extortion in
paragraph 13 of CI Paner’s May 7, 2008 affidavit of complaint,  which reads:
 

21
 13. That pretending nothing had happened and yet projecting to the backwages, and benefits from the time of his dismissal from the service up to his
group that I am a bit apprehensive as to the evident inequality in the sharing reinstatement.
of the extorted money from subject Jaen, I was able to talk with Agent Erwin SO ORDERED.
Magcamit, one of the members of the arresting team, and asked the latter
as to how the group came up with the Php21,500.00 sharing for each
member out of the Php200,000.00; from which Agent Magcamit simply said
to me that such was the sharing and everybody except me seemed to have
consented; in addition thereto, Agent Magcamit vividly mentioned all other
members who got their share of the Php21,500.00, namely, [1] Carlo S.
Aldeon, [2] PO3 Emerson Adaviles, [3] PO2 Reywin Bariuad, [4] IO2 Renato
Infante, [5] IO2 Apolinario Mationg, [6] IO2 Ryan Alfaro, and [7] PO3 Peter
Sistemio.20
_______________

20  Id., at p. 175.

 
 
589
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 589
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
We discern no showing from this allegation that Magcamit extorted money
from Jaen, or that he was among those who took part in the division of the money
allegedly extorted from Jaen. For conspiracy to exist, it must be proven or at least
inferred from the acts of the alleged perpetrator before, during, and after the
commission of the crime. It cannot simply be surmised that conspiracy existed
because Magcamit was part of the team that took part in the buy-bust operation
which resulted in Jaen’s arrest. In other words, respondents failed to pinpoint
Magcamit’s participation in the extortion that would make him administratively
liable.
After evaluating the totality of evidence on record, we find that the records are
bereft of substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Magcamit should be
held administratively liable for grave misconduct; Magcamit was dismissed from the
service based on evidence that had not been disclosed to him. By affirming this
dismissal, the CA committed a grave reversible error.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the present petition. The March
17, 2011 decision and the August 9, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-
G.R. S.P. No. 108281 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency is ORDERED to reinstate IA1 Erwin L. Magcamit to his previous
position without loss of seniority rights and with full payment of his salaries,

22