Administrative Law (Case Assignments for
Chapters I to V) re-assumed by, the Republic of the Philippines,
IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY v. CA, 1995
The National Steel Corporation (NSA) planned to
construct an integrated steel mill in Iligan City.
The President of the Philippines then issued
Proclamation No. 2239 withdrawing from sale or
settlement a large tract of public land in Iligan for
the construction. But Maria Cristina Fertilizer
Corporation (MCFC) occupied portions of the land
reserved for NSAs construction. So negotiations
between NSA and MCFC took place, but eventually
failed. Thus, Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) began
the expropriation proceedings. While the trial was
on-going, ISAs statutory existence expired. MCFC
then moved to dismiss the case since there was no
real party in interest anymore.
Question
Despite ISAs death, may the Republic of the
Philippines substitute it?
Answer
Yes. ISA was vested with some of the powers
or attributes normally associated with juridical
personality. There is, however, no provision in
P.D. No. 272 recognizing ISA as possessing
general or comprehensive juridical personality
separate and distinct from that of
Government. ISA in fact appears to the Court
to be a non-incorporated agency
instrumentality of the Republic of
Philippines, or more precisely of
Government of the Republic of the Philippines.
Thus, when the statutory term of a non-
incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties
and functions as well as the assets and
liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are
in the absence of special provisions of law
specifying some other disposition thereof such
as, e.g., devolution or transmission of such
powers, duties, functions, etc. to some other
identified successor agency or instrumentality
of the Republic of the Philippines. Thus,
further, the principal or the real party in
interest is thus the Republic of the Philippines
and not the National Steel Corporation, even
though the latter may be an ultimate user of
the properties involved should the
condemnation suit be eventually successful.
MECANO v. COA, 1992
Antonio Mecano was a Director of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). He was hospitalized
for cholecystitis. As a result, he incurred medical
and hospitalization expenses. He asked that such
expenses be defrayed by the Government through
COA. He based his entitlement on Section 699 of
the Revised Administrative Code (Allowances in
case of injury, death, or sickness incurred in
performance of duty). COA denied Mecanos
claim because the Administrative Code of 1987
the repealed Sec. 699 by not restating or reenacting it.
Question
or
the Did the Administrative Code repeal sec. 699?
the
Answer
No, it did not repeal sec. 699. The
Administrative Code of 1987 only contained a
general repealing provision in its Section 27
provision. It is certainly not an express
repealing clause because it fails to identify or
designate the act or acts that are intended to be
repealed. Rather, it is an example of a general
repealing provision, as stated in Opinion No.
73, S. 1991. It is a clause which predicates the
intended repeal under the condition that
substantial conflict must be found in existing and
prior acts. The failure to add a specific repealing
clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal
any existing law, unless an irreconcilable
inconcistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of
the new and old laws. This latter situation falls
under the category of an implied repeal.
Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise
that where a statute of later date clearly reveals
an intention on the part of the legislature to
abrogate a prior act on the subject, that
intention must be given effect. Hence, before
there can be a repeal, there must be a clear
showing on the part of the lawmaker that the
intent in enacting the new law was to abrogate
the old one. The intention to repeal must be
clear and manifest; otherwise, at least, as a
general rule, the later act is to be construed as a
continuation of, and not a substitute for, the
first act and will continue so far as the two acts
are the same from the time of the first
enactment.
There are two categories of repeal by
implication. The first is where provisions in the
two acts on the same subject matter are in an
irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent
of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of
the earlier one. The second is if the later act
covers the whole subject of the earlier one and
is clearly intended as a substitute, it will
operate to repeal the earlier law.
Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency
takes place when the two statutes cover the
same subject matter; they are so clearly
inconsistent and incompatible with each other
that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized;
and both cannot be given effect, that is, that
one law cannot be enforced without nullifying
the other.
Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that
the new Code does not cover nor attempt to
cover the entire subject matter of the old Code.
There are several matters treated in the old
Code which are not found in the new Code,
such as the provisions on notaries public, the
leave law, the public bonding law, military
reservations, claims for sickness benefits under
Section 699, and still others.
COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions
of the two Codes on the matter of the subject
claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In fact,
there can be no such conflict because the
provision on sickness benefits of the nature
being claimed by petitioner has not been
restated in the Administrative Code of 1987.
Question
What weight does the Secretary of Justices
opinion have?
Answer
Opinions of the Secretary and Undersecretary
of Justice are material in the construction of
statutes in pari materia.
 BUKLOD v. ZAMORA, 2001 improvement in agency organization and operation
shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders
President Estrada deactivated the Economic
issued for the purpose by the Office of the
Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB)a
President.
part of the structural organization of the Ministry
of Financeand transferred its functions to the Question
Bureau of Customs and the National Bureau of
How must the reorganization be carried out?
Investigation. He reasoned that EIIB was
superfluous because other agencies were also Answer
performing the formers functions. He then created
Reorganization must be carried out in good
the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force
faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to
Aduana. Further, the president removed EIIB
make bureaucracy more efficient.
personnel from service pursuant to act of
reorganization. Republic Act No. 6656 provides for the
circumstances which may be considered as
Question
evidence of bad faith in the removal of civil
Does the President have the authority to service employees made as a result of
reorganize the executive department? reorganization, to wit: (a) where there is a
significant increase in the number of positions
Answer
in the new staffing pattern of the department
Yes. As decided in Larin, the President has the or agency concerned; (b) where an office is
authority to effect organizational changes in abolished and another performing
the department or agency under the executive substantially the same functions is
structure. Section 78 of Republic Act No. 8760 created; (c) where incumbents are replaced by
provides that the heads of departments, those less qualified in terms of status of
bureaus, offices and agencies and other entities appointment, performance and
in the Executive Branch are directed (a) to merit; (d) where there is a classification of
conduct a comprehensive review of their offices in the department or agency concerned
respective mandates, missions, objectives, and the reclassified offices perform
functions, programs, projects, activities and substantially the same functions as the original
systems and procedures; (b) identify activities offices, and (e) where the removal violates the
which are no longer essential in the delivery of order of separation.
public services and which may be scaled
An examination of the pertinent Executive
down, phased-out or abolished; and (c) adopt
Orders shows that the deactivation of EIIB and
measures that will result in the streamlined
the creation of Task Force Aduana were done
organization and improved overall
in good faith. It was not for the purpose of
performance of their respective agencies.
removing the EIIB employees, but to achieve
Section 78 ends up with the mandate that
the ultimate purpose of E.O. No. 191, which is
the actual streamlining and productivity
economy. While Task Force Aduana was
created to take the place of EIIB, its creation
does not entail expense to the government for
there is no employment of new personnel.
BAGAOISAN v. NATIONAL TOBACCO
ADMINISTRATION, 2003
President Estrada mandated the streamlining of the
National Tobacco Administration (NTA). As a
result, NTA prepared and adopted a new
Organization Structure and Staffing Pattern
(OSSP). This led to the letting go of petitioners
from NTA.
Question
Was the Presidents action legally justified?
Answer
Yes. As decided in Buklod v. Zamora, whose
justification has been quoted in this case at
length, the President has the authority to effect
reorganization in the executive branch based
on economic need or bureaucratic-efficiency
considerations.
Question
Was the organization carried out in good faith?
Answer
Yes. Firstly, the number of positions did not
increase. Secondly, petitioners failed to show
which offices were abolished and the new ones
that were created to perform substantially the
same functions. Thirdly, nor did they prove
that less qualified employees were appointed.
GSIS v. CSC, 1991
GSIS dismissed 6 of its employees for allegedly
being connected with irregularities in the canvass of
supplies and materials. The employees appealed to
the Merits Systems Board, which found the
dismissal to be illegal because GSIS dismissed them
without formal charges and without giving them an
opportunity to be heard. GSIS appealed to the Civil
Servies Commission. The Commission ruled that
GSIS dismissed its employees illegally. When the
decision has become final, some of the petitioners
heirs moved for the execution of the CSC
Resolution.
Question
Can the Commission execute its judgments,
final orders, or resolutions?
Answer
Yes. The Civil Service Commission, like the
Commission on Elections and the Commission
on Audit, is a consitutional commission
invested by the Constitution and relevant laws
not only with authority to administer the civil
service, but also with quasi-judicial powers. It
has the authority to hear and decide
administrative disciplinary cases instituted
directly with it or brought to it on appeal.
Thus, it would appear absurd to deny to the
Civil Service Commission the power or
authority to order the execution of its
decisions, resolutions or orders which, it
should be stressed, it has been exercising
through the years. It would seem quite obvious
that the authority to decide cases is inutile
unless accompanied by the authority to see
that what has been decided is carried out.
Hence, the grant to a tribunal or agency of
adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear submitted their respective evidence. Moreover,
and adjudge cases, should normally and they were able to seek reconsideration of the
logically be deemed to include the grant of decision of the CSCRO 1 and, subsequently, to
elevate the case for review to the CSC and the CA.
authority to enforce or execute the judgments it
thus renders, unless the law otherwise
provides.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.

CA, 1994

DONATO v. CSC, 2007

Donato, Jr. was a public school teacher. Allegedly,

he falsely represented himself as Arcean
Assessment Clerk at the Office of the Municipal
Treasurer of Pangasinanduring the latters
Career Service Sub-Professional Examination. After
investigation, the Civil Service Commission
Regional Office No. 1 found Donato Jr. guilty of
dishonesty and falsification of official document. It
ordered his dismissal from service. Donata appealed
to the Commission, but it affirmed the Regional
Offices findings. Donato claimed that his right to
due process was violated because he could not
confront the person who had the Picture Seat Plan
(PSP) (an evidence used in the case).

Question

Was Donatos right to due process violated?

Answer

No. In administrative proceedings, due process is

satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy or given opportunity to move for a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of. Such minimum requirements have been
satisfied in this case for, in fact, hearings were
conducted by the CSCRO 1 and the petitioner and
Arce actively participated therein and even