Case Digest: Ernesto M. Maceda vs. Energy Regulatory Board, et al.

18 July 1991         ::             G.R. No. 96266    

Medialdea, J.

FACTS:

Upon the outbreak of the Persian Gulf conflict on August 1990, private respondents oil companies filed with the ERB their respective applications on oil price increases.  ERB then issued an order granting a provisional increase of P1.42 per liter.  Petitioner Maceda filed a petition for Prohibition seeking to nullify said increase. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the decisions of the Energy Regulatory Board should be subject to presidential review.

HELD:

Pursuant to Section 8 of E.O. No. 172, while hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from ordering a provisional increase subject to final disposition of whether or not to make it permanent or to reduce or increase it further or to deny the application.  The provisional increase is akin to a temporary restraining order, which are given ex-parte.

The Court further noted the Solicitor General’s comments that “the ERB is not averse to the idea of a presidential review of its decision,” except that there is no law at present authorizing the same.  The Court suggested that it will be under the scope of the legislative to allow the presidential review of the decisions of the ERB since, despite its being a quasi-judicial body, it is still “ an administrative body under the Office of the President whose decisions should be appealed to the President under the established principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies,” especially on a matter as transcendental as oil price increases which affect the lives of almost all Filipinos.

Case Digest: Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs. Jose Paño, et. al.

G.R. No. L-27811  ::             27 November 1967            

Sanchez, J.

FACTS:

In 1932, Jose Magallanes was a permittee and actual occupant of a 1,103-hectare pasture land situated in Davao.  On 1953, Magallanes ceded his rights and interests to a portion of the above public land to the plaintiff.  On 1954, the same was officially released from the forest zone as pasture land and declared agricultural land.  On 1955, Jose Paño and nineteen other claimants applied for the purchase of 90 hectares of the released area.  Plaintiff in turn filed its own sales application covering the entire released area.  The Director of Lands, following an investigation of the conflict, rendered a decision on 1956 giving due course to the application of plaintiff corporation.  When the case was elevated to the President of the Philippines, Executive Secretary Juan Pajo, by authority of the president, declared that it would be for public interest that appellants, who are mostly landless farmers, be allocated that portion on which the petitioner have made improvements.

ISSUES:

May the Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, reverse a decision of the Director of Lands that had been affirmed by the Executive Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources?

HELD:

YES.  The President’s duty to execute the law and control of all executive departments are of constitutional origin.  Naturally, he controls and directs their acts.  Implicit then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries.  It may also be stated that the right to appeal to the President reposes upon the President’s power of control over the executive departments.  He may delegate to his Executive Secretary acts which the Constitution does not command that he perform in person.  As the Executive Secretary acts by authority of the President, his decision is that of the President’s.  Such decision is to be given full faith and credit by our courts, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive.

Case Digest: Leandro Montes vs. The Civil Service Board of Appeals and The Secretary of Public Works and Communications

G.R. No. L-10759  ::             20 May 1957

Labrador, J.

FACTS:

Montes, a watchman of the Ports and Harbors Division, Bureau of Public Works, was exonerated by the Commissioner of Civil Service in an administrative case instituted against him for negligence in the performance of duty.  He failed to pump out water from the bilge of Dredge no. 6 while under his carem which eventually led to the sinking of the same. He was ordered to resign without prejudice to reinstatement at the discretion of the appointing officer.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, without exhausting all administrative remedies, the CFI of Manila can take jurisdiction of the case.

HELD:

NO.  Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 598 is a clear expression of the policy or principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.  If the President, under whom the Civil Service directly falls in our administrative system as head of the executive department, may be able to grant the remedy that petitioner pursues, reasons of comity and orderly procedure demand that resort be made to him before recourse can be had to the courts.

Case Digest: Gaudencio Demaisip v. The Court of Appeals

25 September 1959 :: G.R. No. L-13000

FACTS:

The late Geronimo Destacamento filed his application for a fishpond permit on 01 April 1927.  Before his death, Destacamento, without the knowledge and consent of the Director of Forestry, executed a deed of sale covering the lots in question in gavor of Seragin Villanueva – an act which was illegal and contrary to the rules of the permit granted him.  Nevertheless, the Director of Forestry requested Villanueva to apply for a fishpond permit over the same lots, but the latter neglected and failed to do so. 

Gaudencio Demaisip then filed with the Fish and Game Administration a fishpond permit application for the same lots.  He complied with all the prerequisites necessary for the issuance of a fishpond permit, namely, payment of annual rental of P21 and posting a surety bond in the sum of P350.  When said fishpond permit was ready to be issued to Demaisip, Villanueva executed a deed of sale covering the lots in question in favour of Luis Buenaflor who started to occupy the land and introduced improvements thereon consisting of a big dam.

The Director of Fish and Game Administration decided that Demaisip be given due course upon payment of an additional rental of P16 which is 1% of the value of improvements assessed at P1,600.  However, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reversed the said decision.  Demaisip then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction over the said case, due to the fact that Demaisip had not exhausted all administrative remedies before approaching the judiciary.

HELD:

It is true that plaintiff did not appeal from the decision of the Secretary of Agreculture and Natural Resources to the President, but such failure cannot preclude the plaintiff from taking court action in view of the theory that the Secretary of a department is merely an alter-ego of the President.  The presumption is that the action of the Secretary bears the implied sanction of the President, unless disapproved by the latter.  It is therefore incorrect to say that plaintiff’s action should not be entertained.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that there is interference of the courts with the acts of executive officers for such defense might only be valid in special civil actions – this is not one – wherein the petitioner must allege and prove that he has no other speedy and adequate remedy.

Case Digest: Sincere Z. Villanueva vs. Marilyn P. Nite

G.R. No. 148211 :: 25 July 2006

Corona, J.

Facts:

Nite allegedly took out a loan of P409,000 from Villanueva.  As security, Nite provided Villanueva with an Asian Bank Corporation check of P325,500.00 originally dated 08 February 1994 and later on changed to 08 June 1994 with the consent of Villanueva.  The check was later on dishonoured for material alteration. On 24 August 1994, Nite paid P235,000 of her loan.  The balance is to be paid on 08 December.  Due to said dishonour, Villanueva filed an action for sum of money and damages against ABC for full amount of the dishonoured check.  ABC remitted to the sheriff a manager’s check amounting to P325,500 drawn on respondent’s account.

Issue:  Whether or not Villanueva has a cause of action against ABC.

Held:

NO, VILLANUEVA CANNOT SUE ABC.

Invoking Sections 185 and 189 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, if a bank refuses to pay a check, the payee-holder cannot sue the bank.  the payee should instead sue the holder who might in turn sue the bank.  there is no privity of contract that exists between the drawee-bank and the payee.