FEBRUARY 14, 1992

CITIZEN J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO, petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

THE SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE, and THE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents.|||

PARAS,J.

NATURE: Declaration of unconstitutionality with TRO

SUMMARY: Congress passed RA 6975 which established the PNP under a reorganized DILG.
Petitioner J. Antonio Carpio questions the constitutionality of said law.

DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency- all executive and administrative

organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the
various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in
cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person on the
exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through
the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the
Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.|||

FACTS: Congress passed RA 6975 which established the PNP under a reorganized DILG.
Petitioner J. Antonio Carpio questions the constitutionality of said law. Petitioner advances the
view that RA 6975 emasculated the National Police Commission by limiting its power
"to administrative control" over the Philippine National Police (PNP), thus, "control" remained
with the Department Secretary under whom both the National Police Commission and the PNP
were placed.

ISSUES: W/N RA 6975 is unconstitutional for downgrading the power of the NAPOLCOM

RULING: (1) No. The President has control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices.
A corollary rule to the control powers of the President is the "Doctrine of Qualified Political
Agency". As the President cannot be expected to exercise his control powers all at the same time
and in person, he will have to delegate some of them to his Cabinet members. Under this
doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, "all executive and
administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the
various executivedepartments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in
cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person on the
exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through
the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the
Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.|||

Additionally, the circumstance that the NAPOLCOM and the PNP are placed under the
reorganized Department of the Interior and Local Government is merely an administrative
realignment that would bolster a system of coordination and cooperation among the citizenry,
local executives and the integrated law enforcement agencies and public safety agencies.
MAY 29, 1989

HEIRS OF EUGENIA V. ROXAS, INC., BENIGNA V. ROXAS, JULITA N. ROXAS,

VICTORIA R. VALLARTA, JUANITA ROXAS, and MARGARITA R.
TIOSECO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, REBECCA BOYER-
ROXAS, GUILLERMO LUIS ROXAS, JUDITH ROXAS and MARIA PILAR
ROXAS, respondents.

HEIRS OF EUGENIA V. ROXAS, INC., petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE ANTONIO U.

GONZALES, in his capacity as Secretary of Tourism, SOSTENES L. CAMPILLO, JR.,
in his capacity as Undersecretary of Tourism Services, both of the
Department of Tourism and GUILLERMO ROXAS, doing business under the name
and style "MJB Food and Services", respondents.

HEIRS OF EUGENIA V. ROXAS, INC., petitioners, vs. HON. ODILON I. BAUTISTA,

Judge Presiding over Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, HON.
JAIME GASAPOS, in his capacity as OIC Calauan, Laguna, and GUILLERMO ROXAS,
doing business under the name and style MJB FOOD and SERVICES, respondents.

CORTEZ, J.

NATURE: Petition for Certiorari

SUMMARY: Petitioner HEVR and private respondents HVABR were in conflict as to who will
manage the resort in question thus a civil case was filed before the RTC. Licenses and Mayor’s
permit were issued in favor of private respondents, notwithstanding the fact that the civil case
was pending.

DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Exceptions

FACTS: Petitioner corporation, Heirs of Eugenia V. Roxas (HEVR) was incorporated for the
purpose of owning and developing the properties of Eufrocino Roxas and his wife Dona
Eugenia V. Roxas.

The operation of a resort is one of the company’s purpose as per its Articles of Incorporation
(AOI).

Eufrocino Roxas was Chairman of the Board of Directors and President of HEVR until the
time of his death. One of his sons, Eriberto, a director, was manager of the resort until his death.

Eriberto Roxas and his family had been exclusively operating the restaurant and liquor
concession at the resort. After Eriberto Roxas’ death, the heirs of Eriberto Roxas (private
respondents), continued the operation of the restaurant . They incorporated under the name
"Hidden Valley Agri-Business and Restaurant, Inc." (hereinafter referred to as HVABR), and
through this entity they continued to carry on the concession.|||

At the HEVR’s stockholders’ and BOD’s meeting, HEVR issued a Resolution authorizing the
President to notify HVABR of its intent to take over the operation of the restaurant, and in the
event the latter refuses or fails to peaceably vacate the premises within thirty (30) days from
notice, to close the resort for an indefinite period of time to prevent further losses to the
corporation, and finally to order a financial, legal and management audit of the
operations of the resort. The President sent a letter to private respondents, informing them of
said Resolution.

Private respondents consequently filed an action for injunction with prayer for preliminary
injuction and/or restraining order with the RTC against petitioners to prevent the closure of the
resort and the unilateral termination by HEVR of the concession agreement.|||

In the meantime, HVABR filed with the Bureau of Tourism Services of the Ministry of Tourism a
petition to increase the food and beverage prices at the resort restaurant. HEVR, being the
holder of a license to operate the resort, contested this petition.

Pending resolution of HVABR's petition in the MOT, the RTC dismissed private respondent's
complaint. The concession agreement between Eriberto and Eufrocino Roxas was declared null
and void for being ultra vires since it was neither authorized nor ratified by the Board of HEVR.

With the decision of the trial court to support them, HEVR immediately caused the temporary
closure of the resort.

Private respondents, on the other hand, appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) and
in an "Urgent Omnibus Motion" prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to
prohibit petitioners from closing the resort.

IAC granted the TRO.

Meanwhile, the MOT promulgated a resolution dismissing HVABR's petition, finding inter
alia that HVABR was operating the restaurant and liquor facilities of the resort without the
requisite MOT license. The said resolution is immediately executory.

Petitioners filed an MR.

During the pendency of the case, Guillermo Roxas, one of the private respondents, was able to
obtain a license from the Department of Tourism to operate the restaurant at the disputed resort.
Likewise, a Mayor’s permit issued by the OIC was also issued in favor of Guillermo Roxas.

ISSUE: (1) W/N IAC committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted the TRO filed by the
private respondents
(2) W/N the Court may interfere in executive and administrative matters which are addressed to
the sound discretion of government agencies, such as, the grant of licenses, permits, leases, or the
approval, rejection or revocation of applications therefor||

RULING: (1) Yes. The writ of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is
sought for the protection of the rights of a party before the final determination of his rights vis-a-vis
others' in a pending case before the court. It will issue only upon a showing that there exists a clear
and present right to be protected and that the facts upon which the writ is to be directed are
violative of said right.

Private respondents failed to establish a clear and present right to continue operating the
restaurant and liquor concession at the resort considering that they, who were then incorporated
and doing business under HVABR, had NO license or authorization from the MOT to operate the
restaurant and liquor concession in the resort. Without a license private respondents cannot
legally continue to operate the restaurant, therefore they cannot claim a right which could be
protected by a writ of preliminary injunction.|||

(2) In general, courts have no supervising power over the proceedings and actions of the
administrative departments of the government. This is generally true with respect to acts
involving the exercise of judgment or discretion, and findings of fact. Findings of fact by an
administrative board or officials, following a hearing, are binding upon the courts and will not
be disturbed except where the board or official has gone beyond his statutory authority, exercised
unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave
abuse of discretion. And we have repeatedly held that there is grave abuse of discretion justifying
the issuance of the writ of certiorari only when there is capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction . . . as where the power is exercised in
an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting
to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all
in contemplation of law. This standard has been unequivocally embraced in the 1987
Constitution, which affirms the power of the judiciary to determine whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.

In the present case, public respondents undeniably had knowledge prior to the issuance of the
license to Guillermo Roxas and or MJBFS that the subject restaurant was owned by petitioner and
presently leased to Valley Resort Corporation, and that Guillermo Roxas and/or MJBFS' right to
possess and operate the restaurant was the subject of a pending litigation.
April 15, 1988

INDUSTRIAL POWER SALES, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. DUMA SINSUAT, etc.,
et al., respondents-appellees.

NARVASA,J.

NATURE: Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

SUMMARY: IPSI and Delta both bid to provide the Bureau of Telecommunications 8 trucks.
IPSI won the bidding. Delta then filed with the Office of the Secretary of General Services a
protest. Respondent Sinsuat granted the protest on the ground that Acting Director Lachica
violated a department rule when the latter agreed to announce and advertise a supplemental
or amended Invitation to Bid, which would admit offers of trucks with locally manufactured
utility bodies

DOCTRINE: Exceptions to exhaustion of administrative remedies: (1) where the issue is

purely a legal one, (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was done without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; (3) where the respondent is a department secretary
whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the latter's implied or assumed approval,
unless actually disapproved; or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention.|||

||

FACTS: 2 Invitations to Bid were advertised by the Bureau of Supply Coordination

- First Invitation called for 8 units trucks for the use of the Bureau of Telecommunications.
This contained a proviso limiting the offers to foreign made products on a CIF basis,
Port of Manila.
- Second Invitation announced also those of local manufacture on an FOB-Manila basis
will also be considered.
- Bidding took place on 11 May 1965. Among the bidders were Industrial Power Sales,
Inc. (IPSI) and Delta Motor Corp (DELTA).
- Project was awarded to IPSI
- DELTA protested on the ground that the trucks offered by IPSI were not factory built, as
stipulated in the specifications contained in the requisition itself and in the Invitation to
Bid.
- The protest of DELTA was considered by the Acting Director of Supply Coordination.
- In his decision, the Director ruled that the bidding had been made in strict compliance
with the technical specifications and requirements stated by the Bureau of
Telecommunications and that after due deliberation on the different bids received, the
Committee on Awards, with the concurrence of the requisitioner's duly authorized
representatives, had resolved to award the contract in IPSI's favor.
 - On the same date, the Acting Director of Supply informed the Acting Director of the
Bureau of Telecommunications of the Letter-Order dated June 10, 1965 in IPSI's favor,
and that delivery of the units was to be made within sixty (60) working days from date
of receipt of that order.|||
- however, Acting Undersecretary Lachica tried to reverse himself. He wrote to the
Director of Bureau of Supply Coordination recalling his 3rd indorsement of April 22, in
which he had expressed his office's absence of objection to offers of trucks with locally
manufactured utility bodies, it having been "found out that the requisition as approved
by the Secretary calls for special factory built, Line Construction Trucks, and not merely
utility trucks.|||
- The reply of the Acting Director of Supply reaffirmed that IPSI’s bid conformed strictly
to all the declared requirements.
- The letter of the Director of Supply was forwarded to the Undersecretary of the Bureau
of Telecommunications. The Undersecretary concurred with the letter.
- DELTA filed with the Office of the Secretary of General Services a letter of protest
against the proposed award to IPSI.
- DELTA's position was that IPSI's offer of locally assembled trucks was not in accordance
with the bid specification for brand new, complete and factory-built trucks. Acting thereon,
Secretary Duma Sinsuat opined that Acting Director Lachica violated a department rule
when the latter agreed to announce and advertise a supplemental or amended Invitation
to Bid, which would admit offers of trucks with locally manufactured utility bodies||.
- Sinsuat asserted that as there was no showing that Undersecretary Lachica had been
authorized to approve any modifications of the requisition|||
- Sinsuat wrote to the Acting Director that the Department approved the bid of DELTA.
- IPSI appealed to the Office of the President and to the Office of the Auditor General.
- Notwithstanding the appeal, a Letter-Order in favor of DELTA was released.
- IPSI then filed with CFI-QC a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with
application for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction.
- Court dismissed the petition of IPSI.

ISSUE: W/N IPSI should first exhaust all the administrative remedies

RULING: NO.

Certain universally accepted axioms govern judicial review through the extraordinary actions
of certiorari or prohibition of determinations of administrative officers or agencies: first, that
before said actions may be entertained in the courts of justice, it must be shown that all the
administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted; and second, that
the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing
that the administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion. There are however exceptions to the principle known as exhaustion
of administrative remedies, these being: (1) where the issue is purely a legal one, (2) where the
controverted act is patently illegal or was done without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction;
(3) where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President
bear the latter's implied or assumed approval, unless actually disapproved; or (4) where there
are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.

In the present case, the respondent Secretary had indeed acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. His acts must be nullified, and the Trial Court's
judgment upholding those acts must be set aside.|||

There being no evidence to the contrary, the Undersecretary is presumed to have regularly performed his
duty. Furthermore, there are laws conferring preferential status to locally manufactured
equipment and supplies, etc., and to domestic, as distinguished from foreign, entities. ||
OCTOBER 31, 1963

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs.

THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA, respondent-appellant.|||

NATURE: Petition for Injunction

SUMMARY: Vessel of petitioner NDC was apprehended for violation of the customs code for
carrying an unmanifested cargo. Notice was sent to petitioner. The local agent of petitioner
opined that the same was not a cargo and thus, it is not required under the law to be
manifested. The Collector of Customs did not find the explanation satisfactorily thus a penalty
was imposed on petitioner.

DOCTRINE: Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where the appeal to the
administrative superior is not a plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, as where it is undisputed that respondent officer has acted in utter
disregard of the principle of due process.|||

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.

FACTS: Petitioner NDC is engaged in shipping business and is the owner of steamship “S.S.
Doña Nati”. A.V. Rocha is the local agent in Manila of petitioner.

On 4 August 1960, the Collector of Customs sent notice to C.F. Sharp & Co. as alleged operator
S.S. Dona Nati, informing it that said vessel was apprehended and found to have committed a
violation of the customs law for carrying an unmanifested cargo of one RCA Victor TV Set 21. CF
Sharp & Co., not being the agent or operator of the vessel, referred the notice to AV Rocha, who
stated among others, that the TV set was not a cargo of the vessel and therefore, was not required
to be manifested. The Collector of Customs did not find the explanation satisfactorily to exempt
the vessel from liability. Thus, the Collector imposed a fine of PHP 5,000.00 payable within 48
hours with a threat that he will deny clearance to said vessel and will issue a warrant of seizure
against it if the fine is not paid.

Respondent set up the following defense:

(1) CFI-Manila has no jurisdiction to act on matters arising from violations of the Customs Law,
but the Court of Tax Appeals;

(2) assuming that it has, petitioners have not exhausted all available administrative remedies,
one of which is to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs;

(3) the requirements of administrative due process have already been complied with and that
the written notice given by respondent to petitioner Rocha clearly specified the nature of the
violation complained of and that the defense set up by Rocha constitutes merely a legal issue
which does not require further investigation; and
(4) the investigation conducted by the customs authorities showed that the television set in
question was unloaded by the ship's doctor without going thru the custom house as required by
law and was not declared either in the ship's manifest or in the crew declaration list.|||

ISSUE: (1) W/N there is denial of due process;

(2) W/N petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies

RULING: (1) Yes. Rocha was not given an opportunity to prove that the TV set complained of is
not a cargo that needs to be manifested under the Tariff and Customs Code. Under the Code, the
vessel, its owner or operator should be given a chance to show that the vessel is not liable. In the
present case, the Collector of Customs immediately imposed the fine. Although the proceedings
before the Collector of Customs are administrative in character, due process should still be
observed.

(2) Another point raised is that petitioners have brought this action prematurely for they have
not yet exhausted all the administrative remedies available to them, one of which is to appeal
the ruling to the Commissioner of Customs. This may be true, but such step we do not consider
a plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law as would prevent petitioners
from taking the present action, for it is undisputed that respondent collector has acted in utter
disregard of the principle of due process.|||