Acciones Correctivas - Propuesta del Procedimiento y Resultados

Capítulo 3: Propuesta del Procedimiento y Resultados

3.8 Acciones Correctivas

FACTS:

 The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) issued Resolution No. 2001-89 authorizing provisional toll rate adjustments at the Metro Manila Skyway

 The above Resolution approving provisional toll rate adjustments was published in the newspapers of general circulation.

 Tracing back the events that led to the issuance of the said Resolution, it appears that Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CITRA) filed with the TRB an application for an interim adjustment of the toll rates at the Metro Manila Skyway Project – Stage 1.CITRA moored its petition on the provisions of the "Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement" (STOA), authorizing it, as the investor, to apply for and if warranted, to be granted an interim adjustment of toll rates in the event of a "significant currency devaluation."

 Claiming that the peso exchange rate to a U.S.

dollar had devaluated, CITRA alleged that there was a compelling need for the increase of the toll rates to meet the loan obligations of the Project and the substantial increase in debt-service burden.

 Due to heavy opposition, CITRA’s petition remained unresolved. This prompted CITRA to file an "Urgent Motion for Provisional Approval,"

this time, invoking Section 3, Rule 10 of the

"Rules of Practice and Procedure Governing Hearing Before the Toll Regulatory Board" (TRB Rules of Procedure) which provides:

"SECTION 3. Provisional Relief. – Upon the filing of an application or petition for the approval of the initial toll rate or toll rate adjustment, or at any stage, thereafter, the Board may grant on motion of the pleader or in its own initiative, the relief prayed for without prejudice to a final decision after completion of the hearing should the Board find that the pleading, together with the affidavits and supporting documents attached thereto and such additional evidence as may have been requested and presented, substantially support the provisional order; Provided: That the Board may, motu proprio, continue to issue orders or grant relief in the exercise of its powers of general supervision under

existing laws. Provided: Finally, that pending finality of the decision, the Board may require the Petitioner to deposit in whole or in part in escrow the provisionally approved adjustment or initial toll rates." (Emphasis supplied)

 CITRA moved to withdraw its "Urgent Motion for Provisional Approval" without prejudice to its right to seek or be granted provisional relief under the above-quoted provisions of the TRB Rules of Procedure, obviously, referring to the power of the Board to act on its own initiative.

 Hence, petitioners Ceferino Padua and Eduardo Zialcita, as toll payer assail before this Court the validity and legality of TRB Resolution No. 2001-89.

 As a toll payer, Padua claims that: (1) Resolution No. 2001-89 was issued without the required publication and in violation of due process; (2) alone, TRB Executive Director Jaime S.

Dumlao, Jr., could not authorize the provisional toll rate adjustments because the TRB is a collegial body; and (3) CITRA has no standing to apply for a toll fee increase since it is an

"investor" and not a "franchisee-operator."

 Private respondent CITRA, in its comment counters that: (1) the TRB has primary administrative jurisdiction over all matters relating to toll rates; (2) prohibition is an inappropriate remedy because its function is to restrain acts about to be done and not acts already accomplished; (3) Resolution No. 2001-89 was issued in accordance with law; (4) Section 3, Rule 10 of the TRB Rules is constitutional; and (5) private respondent and the Republic of the Philippines would suffer more irreparable damages than petitioner.

ISSUE: WON TRB has jurisdiction to issue Resolution No. 2001-89 authorizing provisional toll rate adjustments at the Metro Manila Skyway HELD:

We take cognizance of the wealth of jurisprudence on the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies. In this era of clogged court dockets, the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters or intricate questions of facts, subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, is indispensable. Between the power

lodged in an administrative body and a court, the unmistakable trend is to refer it to the former."[24] In Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,we ruled:

"x x x, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court."

Petitioner Padua’s "Urgent Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to Stop Arbitrary Toll Fee Increases" is DENIED and petitioner Zialcita’s

"Petition for Prohibition" is DISMISSED.

G.R. No. 115844. August 15,1997

CESAR G. VIOLA, Chairman, Bgy. 167, Zone 15, District II, Manila, petitioner, vs. HON. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, Secretary, DILG, ALEX L. DAVID, President/Secretary General, National Liga ng mga Barangay, LEONARDO L. ANGAT, President, City of Manila, Liga ng mga Barangay,respondents.

FACTS: Petitioner Cesar Viola, a Bgy. Chairman, challenged the validity of Art. III, §§1-2 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines for the General Elections of the Liga ng mga Barangay Officers so far as they provide for the election of first, second and third vice presidents and for auditors for the National Liga ng mga Barangay and its chapters.

Petitioner’s contention is that the positions in question are in excess of those provided in the Local Government Code (R.A.

No. 7160),Petitioner argues that, in providing for the positions of first, second and third vice presidents and auditor for each chapter, §§1-2 of the Implementing Rules expand the number of positions authorized in §493 of the Local Government Code in violation of the principle that implementing rules and regulations cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law they are designed to implement.

ISSUE: Is the power to create additional positions necessary for the management of the National Liga and Local Liga Chapter vested upon the respective Board of Directors.

HELD: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the creation of the additional positions is authorized by the LGC which provides as follows:

§493. Organization. The liga at the municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political subdivision, and national levels directly elect a president, a vice-president, and five (5) members of the board of directors. The board shall appoint its secretary and treasurer and create such other positions as it may

deem necessary for the management of the chapter.

We hold that §493 of the Local Government Code, in directing the board of directors of the liga to “create such other positions as may be deemed necessary for the management of the chapter[s],” embodies a fairly intelligible standard. There is no undue delegation of power by Congress.

While the board of directors of a local chapter can create additional positions to provide for the needs of the chapter, the board of directors of the National Liga must be deemed to have the power to create additional positions not only for its management but also for that of all the chapters at the municipal, city, provincial and metropolitan political subdivision levels. Otherwise the National Liga would be no different from the local chapters.

Section 493 actually gives the board the power to “[1] appoint its secretary and treasurer and [2] create such other positions as it may deem necessary for the management of the chapter.” The additional positions to be created need not therefore be appointive positions.

JEAN L. ARNAULT vs EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS FACTS:

Petitioner was an attorney in-fact in the negotiations for the purchase of the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines.

The Senate of the Philippines adopted Resolution No. 8, whereby created a Special Committee to determine “whether the said purchase was honest, valid and proper, and whether the price involved in the deal was fair and just, the parties responsible therefor, any other facts the Committee in pursuance of said Resolution.

Petitioner was asked to whom a part of the purchase price was delivered. Petitioner refused to answer this question.

Petitioner was imprisoned in the new Bilibid Prison until such time when he shall reveal to the Senate the name of the person who received the part of the purchase price.

Petitioner contended that the Senate of the Philippines has no power to punish him for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the person to whom he gave the money to, that the Legislature lacks authority to punish him for contempt.

ISSUE:

WON the courts have the right to review the findings of legislative bodies in the exercise of the prerogative of legislation, or interfere with their proceedings.

RULING:

There was an inherent fundamental error in the course of action that the lower court followed. It assumed that courts have the right to review the findings of legislative bodies in the exercise of the prerogative if legislation, or interfere with their proceedings or their discretion in what is known as the legislative process.

Since the legislature is given a large discretion in reference to the means it may employ to promote the general welfare, and alone may judge what means are necessary and appropriate to accomplish an end which the Constitution makes legitimate, the courts cannot undertake to decide whether the means adopted by the legislature are the only means or even the best means possible to attain the end sought, for such course would best the exercise of police power of the state in the judicial department.

The judicial department of the government has no right or power or authority to do, much in the same manner that the legislative department may not invade the judicial realm in the ascertainment of truth and in the application and interpretation of the law, in what is known as the judicial process, because that would be in direct conflict with the fundamental principle of separation of powers established in the Constitution. The only instances when judicial intervention may lawfully be invoke are when there has been a violation of a constitutional inhibition, or when there has been an arbitrary exercise of the legislative discretion.

US vs Ang Tang Ho, GR No. 17122, February 27, 1922

Facts:

At its special session of 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2868, entitled "An Act penalizing the monopoly and holding of, and speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under extraordinary circumstances, regulating the distribution and sale thereof, and authorizing the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, to issue the necessary rules and regulations.

August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued a proclamation fixing the price at which rice should be sold.

August 8, 1919, a complaint was filed against the defendant, Ang Tang Ho, charging him with the sale of rice at an excessive price when he sold to Pedro Trinidad, one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos (P.80), which is a price greater than that fixed by Executive Order No. 53 of the Governor-General of the Philippines, dated the 1st of August, 1919, under the authority of section 1 of Act No. 2868.

Upon this charge, he was tried, found guilty and sentenced to five months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500, from which he appealed to this court, claiming that the lower court erred in finding Executive Order No. 53 of 1919, to be of any force and effect, in finding the accused guilty of the offense charged, and in imposing the sentence.

The official records show that the Act was to take effect on its approval; that it was approved July 30, 1919; that the Governor-General issued his proclamation on the 1st of August, 1919; and that the law was first published on the 13th of August, 1919; and that the proclamation itself was first published on the 20th of August, 1919.

Issue:

Whether or not the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2868 delegation to the Governor General a valid delegation of power?

Held:

No. The said Act constituted an invalid delegation of power since the said Act authorized the Governor-General to promulgate laws and not merely rules and regulations to effect the law. The said Act was not

complete when it left the legislature as it failed to specify what conditions the Governor-General shall issue the proclamation as the said Act states “for any cause”. It also failed to define “extraordinary rise” that such proclamation by the Governor-General aims to prevent. Lastly, the said Act authorized the promulgation of temporary rules and emergency measures by the Governor-General.

It must be conceded that, after the passage of act No.

2868, and before any rules and regulations were promulgated by the Governor-General, a dealer in rice could sell it at any price, even at a peso per "ganta,"

and that he would not commit a crime, because there would be no law fixing the price of rice, and the sale of it at any price would not be a crime. That is to say, in the absence of a proclamation, it was not a crime to sell rice at any price. Hence, it must follow that, if the defendant committed a crime, it was because the Governor-General issued the proclamation. There was no act of the Legislature making it a crime to sell rice at any price, and without the proclamation, the sale of it at any price was to a crime.

ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), Hon. G.V.

Tobias, in his capacity as General Manager of the National Housing Authority, The Hon. Jacobo C. Clave, in his capacity as Presidential Executive Assistant and Virgilio A. Yuson (G. R. No. L-50444 August 31, 1987) FACTS:

Jose Hernando acquired prospective and beneficial ownership over Lot. No. 15, Block IV of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision in Antipolo, Rizal, from the petitioner Antipolo Realty Corporation under a Contract to Sell. On 28 August 1974, Hernando transferred his rights over the said lot to private respondent Virgilio Yuson, embodied in a Deed of Assignment and Substitution of Obligor.

However, for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the subdivision project in accordance with its undertaking under Clause 17 of the Contract to Sell (subdivision beautification), Mr. Yuson paid only the arrearages pertaining to the period up to, and including, the month of August 1972 and stopped all monthly installment payments falling due thereafter.

On 14 October 1976, the president of Antipolo Realty sent a notice to private respondent Yuson advising that the required improvements in the subdivision had already been completed, and requesting resumption of payment of the monthly installments on Lot No. 15. For his part, Mr. Yuson replied that he would conform with the request as soon as he was able to verify the truth of the representation in the notice. In a second letter dated 27 November 1976, Antipolo Realty reiterated its request citing the decision rendered by the National Housing Authority (NHA) on 25 October 1976 in Case No. 252 (entitled "Jose B. Viado Jr., complainant vs. Conrado S.

Reyes, respondent") declaring Antipolo Realty to have

"substantially complied with its commitment to the lot buyers pursuant to the Contract to Sell. A formal demand was made for full and immediate payment of the amount of P16,994.73, representing installments which, Antipolo Realty alleged, had accrued during the period while the improvements were being completed —i.e., between September 1972 and October 1976.

Yuson refused to pay the September 1972 - October 1976 monthly installments but agreed to pay the post October 1976 installments. Antipolo Realty responded by rescinding the Contract to Sell, and claiming the forfeiture of all installment payments previously made by Mr.

Yuson. Yuson brought his dispute with Antipolo Realty before NHA. Antipolo Realty filed a motion to dismiss, which NHA denied. After hearing, the NHA rendered a decision on 9 March 1978 ordering the reinstatement of the Contract to Sell. A motion for reconsideration of Antipolo Realty was also denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not in hearing the complaint of Yuson and in ordering the reinstatement of the

Contract to Sell between the parties NHA assumed the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions which it was not authorized to perform.

HELD:

No. It is by now commonplace learning that many administrative agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative agencies (e.g., the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission) is well recognized in our jurisdiction,basically because the need for special competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized character and because of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged.

The Court held that under the law creating NHA it is empowered to regulate the real estate trade

and business involving ...specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by

buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or

salesman..

The Court held that under the "sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction . . . the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered."

DARIO VS MISON FACTS:

 President Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3 Declaring a National Policy to implement the reforms mandated by the people, protecting their basic rights, adopting a provisional constitution and providing for an orderly transition to a government under a new Constitution.

 Then the President issued a number of executive orders and directives reorganizing various other government offices, which led to EO No. 127 provided for the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs and prescribed a new staffing pattern.

 The petitioner was a Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau of Customs.

 The petitioner was one of the personnel that were terminated from office.

ISSUE:

 WON the petitioner’s dismissal was legal.

In document Procedimiento para evaluar la calidad de los procesos y productos de video en 3D del proyecto escenario 3D Centro de Informatica Industrial (CEDIN) (página 76-82)