San Miguel Corp. vs. Sec. of LaborJudicial review by the SC is questioned on the ground that it is not provided by governing statute.Does the SC have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the NLRC and the Sec. of Labor? YES. Power exists though not expressly given by statute. Purpose: to keep the admin agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. When judicial review proper: in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law or collusion.

Board of Medical Education vs. AlfonsoLower court issued an injunction to restrain implementation the order of the Sec. of Education, Culture and Sports directing the closure of a medical college.Does the lower court have the power to make its own independent determination of WON medical institution has complied with the minimum standards laid down for its continued operation? NO. There is NO court that has competence to substitute its own opinion for that of the DECS Secretary on such issue. Decision of DECS Secretary within scope of his power is not subject to judicial review. Courts have no supervisory power over purely administrative and discretionary functions of AA because by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction, the AA are in a better position to pass upon judgment on such matters and their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts.

Gordon vs. Veridiano II Y is the owner of SS drugstore. A joint team conducted a test buy to all drugstores. The G mayor revoked summarily Ys mayors permit for rampant violation of Dangerous Drugs Act, while FDA directed the closure of the drugstore for 3 days and payment of P100.00 fine but such order was later lifted. Y sought for reconsideration from G of the revocation of the mayors permit. No reply happened. Y filed against G with the RTC a complaint for mandamus and damages. G came to SC in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, to challenge the RTCs decision declaring the revocation of G as null and void.While admitting that the FDA possesses the power to grant and revoke licenses for the operation of drugstores, may the mayor G nevertheless in the exercise of his won power, prevent the operation of drugstores previously permitted by the FDA? NO. The power to determine if the opening of the drugstore is conformable to the national policy and the laws on the regulation of drug sales belongs to the FDA. Hence, a permit issued by the mayor to a drugstore not previously cleared with and licensed by the said agency will be a nullity. Should the mayor find that the local requirements have not been observed, the mayor must then, in the exercise of his own authority under the Charter, refuse to grant the permit sought. Power to approve license includes the power to revoke it. Thus, if the FDA grants a license upon its findings that the applicant drugstore has complied with the requirements of the general laws and the implementing admin rules and regulations, it is only for their violation that the FDA may revoke the said license. By the same token, it is only for the violation of such conditions that the mayor may revoke the said permit.

Macailing vs. Andrada A party appealed the decision of the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the Office of the President after said decision has become final and executory.Has A, etc., lost their right to appeal to the office of the President? YES, Certiorari the appropriate remedy for review of admin action. Some statutes specially provide for such judicial review; others are silent. Where the law stands mute, the accepted view is that the extraordinary remedies in the Rules of Court are still available. In admin law, an admin regulation adopted pursuant to law, has the force and effect of law. The decision of the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources becomes final 30 days after receipt by the interested parties, EXCEPT in cases of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, default or excusable neglect, in which case the Sec. may relieve a party of a decision taken against him upon application made within 1 year after such decision is taken. (AO #6) Admin rule laid down by a Dept. Secretary is to all intents and purposes that of the President unless countermanded by the latter. When there are vested rights already acquired after decision has become final and executory, the decision of the assistant Exec. Sec. reversing the decision of the Dept. Sec. is null and void and of no effect.

Nation Multi-Service Labor Union vs. Agcaoili 3 unfair labor cases practice cases filed with the NLRC. The matter was passed upon by the NLRC and lastly by the Sec. of Labor. A Hotel, Inc. instituted with the RTC of Manila and without notice and hearing, it issued a preliminary restraining order/prohibition.Did the RTC Judge commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the restraining order/prohibition? YES. The issuing of restraining order was committed with grave abuse of discretion. The appropriate step to take if private respondents were dissatisfied was to appeal to the President. Appeal to President is a remedy both adequate and appropriate. From the procedural point of view, the prohibition is available only if theres no remedy by appeal.

PAL, Inc. vs. Civil Aeronautics Board PAL, Inc. filed a special civil action of certiorari to set aside an order of the CAB granting provisional authority to an air line operator to operate aircrafts, alleging denial of due process.1. Is certiorari available as a remedy against admin agencies like CAB? YES. What we have here is the special civil action of certiorari enabling a person aggrieved to complain against any tribunal/board/officer exercising functions judicial in character acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Requirement of due process was observed by CAB.

Quintos, Jr. vs. National Stud Farm Q, race-horse owner, did not move for the reconsideration of the cancellation of his horses certificate of registration nor appeal to superior admin agency, before instituting a suit in court for damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of exhaustion of admin. Remedies. CA certified the case to SC since it found that a purely legal question was involved, to wit: WON the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.Does Q have a valid cause for complaint? NONE. Suit is prematurely instituted. He gives no reason for his failure to exhaust admin remedies. The order of dismissal, therefore, certainly cannot be considered as being in derogation of the due process guarantee. The precise function of doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether the admin agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. In this case, there was an unwarranted disregard of the concept of primary jurisdiction. The stage for ripeness for judicial review had not been reached.

Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA IEI was granted a coal operating contract by the govt thru the Bureau of Devt Energy (BED). IEI was later advised that the logical area operator in the area should be MMIC. Thus, IEI and MMIC executed a memorandum of agreement whereby IEI assigned to MMIC all the formers rights in the 2 coal blocks covered by its coal operating contract. Subsequently, an action for rescission of the memorandum agreement was filed against MMIC and Sec. of Energy.WON the civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit for rescission of the memo agreement concerning a coal operating contract over coal blocks. Considering PD 1206 and PD 972, the jurisdiction of the BED, in the 1st instance, to pass upon any question involving the Memo of Agreement between IEI and MMIC, revolving as it does around a coal operating contract, should be sustained. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies in this case since the question of what coal areas should be exploited and developed and which entity should be granted coal operating contracts over said areas involves a technical determination by the BED. HOWEVER, the application of the doctrine in this case does NOT call for the dismissal of the case below. It need only be suspended until after the matters within the competence of the BED are examined and determined. The petition for review of the decision of the CA holding that it is the BED that has the power to decide controversies relative to the exploration/exploitation and devt of coal blocks is denied.

Sec. Of Agriculture and Natural Resources vs. Judge of the CFIAppeal Appeal to the courts was taken within reglementary period of 30 days counted not from the receipt of the decision, but from the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources.Should the time during which the motion for reconsideration was pending be deducted from the 30-day period for taking the decision to court? Yes. Appeal to court is to be made as in ordinary civil action; it means that it will be taken thereto by way of an appeal OR for review. The time during which a motion to set aside has been pending shall be deducted. The right to appeal form a decision of the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources is a statutory right; it can be invoked only in accordance with the manner which the legislature has provided for the purpose..

Aratuc vs. COMELEC Petitioners brought the resolution of the Board of Canvassers declaring result of the voting to the COMELEC which subsequently declared the final result of the canvass. The petition alleged that comelec exceeded its jurisdiction and denied due process to petitioner M; such raised pure questions of law; the comelec committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioners invoke SCs certiorari jurisdiction over the COMELEC, not its appellate jurisdiction.Whether the petitions should be granted or dismissed for lack of merit. From the Phil. Constitution and the Election Code of 1978, it is evident that there is definite tendency to enhance and invigorate the role of the COMELEC as the independent constitutional body charged with the safeguarding of free, peaceful and honest elections. Actuations of the comelec are final, executory and even inappealable. However, the Supreme Court have the certiorari jurisdiction over orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC but this is confined only to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process. (when certiorari jur. may be invoked?) Certiorari deals exclusively with grave abuse of discretion, which may not exist even when the decision is otherwise erroneous. It implies an indifferent disregard of law, arbitrariness and caprice and omission to weigh pertinent considerations, a decision arrived at without rational deliberation. Review includes digging into the merits and unearthing errors of judgment.

Elks Club vs. Rovira The form of petition against CIR is that of a special civil action of certiorari but appeal by certiorari is intended. Appellant contended that the CIR has jurisdiction only to consider industrial and agricultural disputes; and the controversy between the petitioner and its labourers and employees is not an industrial dispute, because petitioner is not an industrial organization.May the SC pass upon this question? NO. Special civil action of certiorari only question that may be raised is whether or not the respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Appeal by certiorari (petition for review on certiorari) mode of appeal; raises questions of law The question whether or not the petitioner corporation is an industrial organization taking into consideration its purpose and activities that can be determined only by the evidence, if there is any in the record, CANNOT now be pass upon because:1. Only questions of law may be raised on appeal, and2. From the records of the court below, it does not appear that such question has never been raised in the lower court.

CIR vs. Eznar CTAs resolution enjoins the Collector of Internal Revenue from enforcing collection of the alleged income tax liability of a taxpayer thru summary admin methods. He filed a petition for review by certiorari/ appeal by certiorari (in which notice of appeal is not necessary). But a notice of appeal was filedMay the SC consider the questions of facts involved in the controversy? YES Two ways of elevating ruling, etc. of CTA to SC:1. By filing in the court a quo a notice of appeal and with SC a petition for review within 30 days from the date he receives notice of said ruling, order or decision adverse to him Court would go over the evidence on record and pass upon the questions of fact2. By causing such ruling of the CTA likewise reviewed by the SC upon a writ of certiorari Court only pass upon issues involving questions of law SC may interchangeably consider petitions for review as petitions for writ of certiorari and vice versa when the interest of justice so demands Collector of Internal Reference filed notice of appeal with the CTA (petition for review); the SC said that no matter how inappropriate may be the wording of the petition filed in this instance, it could not conceal that respondents intention was to appeal the matter to SC, as otherwise he would not have filed the notice of appeal which is required in petitions for review. SC passed upon not only the legal issues involved but ALSO the findings of facts upon which the decision of the CTA is based.

Blanco vs. The Board of Medical Examiners Petition for mandamus asks the SC to order the Sec. of Interior to confirm the final results of the physicians examinations. Medical Law provides that the results of all examinations including the average and grades obtained by each applicant shall be submitted for confirmation to the Department Head (Sec. of Interior) and make known to the respective candidates within one month after the date of the exam.Is this official duty of the Sec. of Interior ministerial in nature? NO. The duty of secretary is discretionary under the law. Under the plain terms of the Med. Law, it is the discretionary duty of the Sec. to confirm or, as in this instance, to annul the report of the medical exam. To hold that the secretary must in all cases confirm, shutting his eyes to any irregularity, no matter how glaring/evident, would convert him into an automatic rubber stamp for imprinting the requisite approval. Writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of the discretion of a public officer. Likewise, mandamus may issue to correct abuse of discretion, if the case is otherwise proper. But here, the record discloses that the Sec. of Interior did not exercise the power granted to him with manifest injustice, or with grave abuse.

Policarpio vs. Phil Veterans BoardRTC declared for the issuance of writ of mandamus to compel the release of treasury warrants which were delivered to petitioner P, but subsequently stopped, for the reason that the preparation of warrants was ordered by mistake because petition had not been as yet acted upon by the Board.Was it proper for the RTC to compel the delivery of warrants? NO. The RTC improperly intervened in ordering delivery, it being established facts that the resumption of pension had not yet been approved by the Veterans Board. The Board might, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to restore petitioners pension; and even if its refusal should be wrongful or erroneous, the court could not properly intervene until the appellee-petitioner should have exhausted her administrative remedies. Therefore the RTC should have limited itself into ordering the Board to take action upon Ps petition that her pension payments be resumed.

Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board Proceedings were instituted before the Deportation Board against CH who is alleged to have secured the cancellation of his alien certificate of registration with the Bureau of Immigration through fraud and misrepresentation. CH filed petition for prohibition asking to prohibit the Deportation Board from continuing deportation proceedings against him who claims to be a Filipino Citizen.Should the question of alienage or citizenship be decided first in a judicial proceeding suspending the deportation proceedings in the meantime? YES. Jurisdiction of Deportation Board is dependent upon alienage of CH in deportation proceedings. The power to deport is limited to aliens only. If the alienage of CH is not denied, the Boards jurisdiction and its proceedings are unassailable. If the respondent is admittedly a citizen, or conclusively shown to be such, the Board lacks jurisdiction and its proceedings are null and void ab initio and may summarily enjoined in the courts. A respondent in deportation proceedings, who claims to be a citizen and not therefore subject to deportation, has the right to have his citizenship reviewed by the courts, after deportation proceedings. When the evidence submitted by a respondent in a deportation proceeding is conclusive of this citizenship, the right to immediate review should be recognized and the courts should promptly join the deportation proceedings. If he is a citizen and evidence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense of justice in allowing the deportation proceedings to continue; granting him the remedy only after the Board has finished its investigation of his undesirability. Jurisdictional fact alienage. However, judicial determination is not allowed in all cases. The remedy should be allowed only when the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. In the case at bar, SC finds that only an impartial judicial investigation can evaluate the evidence, with fairness to the petitioner and with justice to all concerned.

Cabanero vs. Torres Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, licensed to recruit, contract and embark labourers for the Territory of Hawaii, renewed its license. Petitioner objected alleging that the association had no juridical personality in the Philippines. Respondent Sec. of Labor issued a provisional license to the association, but is subject to the condition that the license will ipso facto expire after 90 days, upon a satisfactory showing that it had already acquired a juridical personality under the laws of the Phil Islands by registration as a foreign corporation company/association. Petition for writ of prohibition was filed by petitioners to prohibit the Sec. of Labor form renewing license to recruit labourers or issuing new license.Does ground exist from the issuance of a writ of prohibition? No ground exists for issuance of writ. Prohibition is not the proper remedy. Its function is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done; not intended to provide remedy for acts already accomplished. If the thing be already done, it manifests that the writ of prohibition cannot undo it for that would require an affirmative act. Its only effect is to suspend all action, and to prevent any further proceeding in the prohibited direction. The secretary has thus announced in his petition that no new license will be issued, unless the Association duly registers itself before any license may be issued under the law.

Lemi vs. Valencia Petitioner L applied for renewal of his license to operate radio station and paid its corresponding fees. But the Radio Control Office did not acted at all on this application, so L continued the operation. L again applied for another renewal of license and again the RCO took no action on it. Respondents served a search warrant issued by the RTC and seized the transmitter then being used by L for being different from the one he was authorized to use for the purpose. L prays for the return of his radio transmitters seized under a search warrant.Is there justification for the grant of the preliminary writ of mandatory injunction prayed for? YES. The seizure amounted to closure of station and/or non-renewal of license because by reason of such seizure effected in the middle of a broadcasting program, Ls radio station had to be discontinued. Ls last application for renewal of license has not been disapproved. The SC believe that the requirement of a hearing applied:1. if a radio license is to be revoked or2. before the Radio Control Office may lawfully do anything that, for all practical purposes, would amount to such revocation because it makes it impossible for the radio station concerned to continue broadcasting. SC set forth grounds for entitling the writ of injunction:1. To preserve the status quo between the parties AND to compel one of them to perform a positive act in cases of extreme urgency2. Where considerations of relative inconvenience are strongly in his favor3. Where there appears to be a wilful invasion of petitioners right, the injury inflicted in him being a continuing one4. Where the effect of the writ would not be to create a new relation bet. the parties but solely to re-establish a pre-existing relation bet. them recently and arbitrarily interrupted by respondent.

CIR vs Reyes and CA A petition for certiorari seeks to nullify resolution of Court of Tax Appeals restraining the Collector of Collector of Internal Revenue from collecting taxes allegedly due from a taxpayer. It contended that CTA disregard Sec. 305 of NIRC prohibiting injunction to restrain collection of tax. But Sec. 11 of RA No. 1125 prescribes for an appeal.May the Collector of Internal Revenue be restrained from proceeding with the collection, levy, distraint and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer? YES. Sec. 11 of RA 1125 must be deemed to have amended Sec. 305 of NIRC. It is premised on the assumption that the collection by summary proceedings is by itself in accordance with existing law; and then what is suspended is act of collecting, whereas in the case at bar, what the respondent Court suspended was the use of method employed to verify the collection which was evidently illegal after the lapse of the 3-yr limitation period.

Azajar vs. Ardales abd Bureau of Lands In a complaint filed in the CFI, AZ seeks a declaratory judgment or relief pleading that she applied for the purchase of a parcel of land belonging to public domain. FA opposed to the application on the ground that AZ is a Chinese citizen. Upon allegations in the complaint, she prays that after due hearing, judgment be rendered declaring her to be a Filipino citizen and be entitled to acquire lands of the public domain.May appellants citizenship be determined in the complaint for declaratory relief? NO. Complaint for declaratory judgment of relief is not a proper remedy for determination of citizenship. If she is a Filipino citizen as she claims, she should go ahead with the administrative proceedings in the Bureau of Lands and submit the evidence to prove her citizenship. The appellant may resort to courts, if the exercise of her rights as citizen be prevented or denied her exercise of her rights as a Filipino citizen, to allow her to exercise such rights. Such is not the action brought t=herein. Consequently, the court below should have dismissed it. It is true that CFIs have general jurisdiction for all cases except those the cognizance of which have been vested by law in other courts. BUT it is not the jurisdiction of the court below that is involved but the availability of the remedy sought on the basis of the averments in the complaint. Bureau of Lands Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources The court may only compel the Director of Lands or the Secretary on appeal to decide any sale application as that is vested in them after all admin remedies shall have been exhausted.

Chang Yung Pa vs. Guanzon Petitioner prays in a declaratory relief that the CFI of Manila declare if the Commissioner of Immigration (in Commonwealth Act. No. 613) has a right to limit period of stay in the Philippines of petitioners as immigrants. Appellants contend that they should have been admitted for permanent residence in this country because the word immigrant is defined to be a person who comes into the country and permanent residence and therefore the imposition of limiting their stay to not more than 2 yrs by the Commissioner is in violation of lawIs the contention of appellants tenable? NO. The Act makes its own definition, which is, that the term immigrant means any alien departing from any place outside the Phil. destined for the Phil. The limitation imposed upon petitioner as regards their stay in the Philippines by the Commissioner of Immigration does NO violence to the law since it does not clearly appear therein that such class of aliens can only be admitted with the status of permanent residence.

Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons Alien who was ordered to be deported had been in detention for more than 2 years because the Government had been unable to ship him abroad.Is M entitled to protection equally with citizens? YES. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to phil. citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality. M must be released from custody but be placed under reasonable surveillance of the immigration authorities to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Govt is ready to deport him. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Phil. in its constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of law as part of the law of the land.

Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Domingo Board of Special Inquiry recommended the exclusion and deportation of M, who was said to be an alien who entered the country through false & misleading statements. M filed in the RTC of Pangasinan a petition for declaratory judgment with mandamus and injunction asking that he be declared a Filipino Citizen and to restrain his deportation and order his release.Was M entitled to the declaratory judgment he filed in the trial court? NO. The proper remedy to test legality of detention is habeas corpus and NOT an action for declaratory judgment with incidental mandamus to release him. The action should be brought in Manila where he was detained.

Ignacio vs. CA Re: Homestead application in the Bureau of Lands Regional Land Officer Director of Lands Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources Office of the President (thru Assistant Exec. Sec.) LB filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC for review and annulment of the decision, alleging that the decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction. RTC dismissed the petition for failing to allege any error committed by exec. Sec. in his findings of facts/conclusions which would constitute a grave abnuse of discretion as required by R65. LB appealed to CA which certified the case to SC as one having only questions of law.1. Are the issues raised by LB before the CA involved only pure questions of law?2. Assuming there was error committed by the Exec. Sec., did it constitute a grave abuse of discretion and consequently, annullable by certiorari? 1. YES. The issues raised by LB involved only pure questions of law, not calling for an examination of the probative value of evidence. The only issue is the correction of the legal conclusions drawn or the construction made by the trial judge of the pleadings or averments in LBs petition before said court. Question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what is the law on a certain state of facts. Question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of the facts alleged. 2. NO. The alleged error of the Exec. Sec. is merely an error of judgment, not constituting grave abuse of discretion and consequently, not annullable by certiorari. Findings of facts by executive officials generally conclusive upon the courts. Decisions of admin officers should NOT be disturbed, EXCEPT when they have acted:1. Without or in excess of their jurisdiction; or2. With grave abuse of discretion When grave abuse of discretion committed-The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. Not every error in the proceeding or erroneous conclusion of law or fact is abuse of discretion.

Orlina vs. Singson Encarnacion Director of Lands rejected sale application for a tract of public land on his conclusion from the facts found that the applicant was a Chinese citizen. O seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directed against the Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce and the Dir. Of Lands, for the purpose of compelling them to give due course to his sales application for a tract of public land.Was the question of law if O should be considered a Filipino citizen arising from the undisputed evidence, correctly decided upon by the Dir. Of Lands? NO. The Director of Lands performs his functions pursuant to the provisions of the Public Land Law. Acc. to it, the Dir. Of Lands is vested with direct executive control over land matters and his decisions as to question of fact shall be conclusive on the courts WHEN approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. As a QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICER, the Dir. of Lands makes findings of fact, even passes upon questions of mixed fact and law, and considers and decides the qualifications of applicants for the purchase of public lands. The decisions of Director of Lands on the construction of the Public Land Law were entitled to great respect by the courts. BUT, certain decisions of the director are subject to review by the courts, such as decisions/actions which is based upon a misconstruction of the law. They can be corrected by the courts. In this case, facts show that petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

Gonzales vs. Victory Labor Union The charge of unfair labor practice is based on the bare testimony of complainants.Whether or not the conclusion of the bare majority of the Court of Industrial Relations that complainants were dismissed for their union application meet the test of substantial evidence. The testimonies of complainants witnesses were contradictory. Being contradictory, it clearly indicates that the employer has no knowledge of their membership at the time. When an employee has committed an act unfavourable to the employers interest, his dismissal is just cause and may be permitted by the SC.

Edwards vs. McCoy British subject under detention was denied entry by the Board of Special Inquiry on the ground that he was a person of Chinese descent. It is urged that no abuse of authority or discretion by the board has been shown.Is the decision of the Board final where no abuse of authority is shown? YES. The right to adduce evidence is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration. The body to which the law permits the presentation of evidence is undoubtedly designed by the law to be a deliberative body. Deliberation is its chief function. If it declines to deliberate, it abdicates its function and its decisions are entitled to no more consideration than if made with no hearing at all. To deliberate is also to have something to support its decision. If the decision has absolutely nothing to support it, it is subject to judicial review - because the drawing of such decision is an arbitrary act, an abuse of discretion and wholly, without authority. Decision in case at bar based upon conceded facts.

HE Heacock Co. vs. National Labor Union Court of Industrial Relations found that the company made a promise that a bonus of one month salary would be distributed to all its low-salaried employees yearly as long as the company would realize sufficient profits. This is based on the newspaper advertisement which featured Heacock Supplement. When this was not realized, the employees declared a strike. After a hearing, the CIR rendered a decision ordering company to pay the employees. Mr. Orosa, VP of the company, contends that he has never assumed the obligation of paying bonus.

Is there evidence to support the findings of the CIR? YES. There was no denial or correction made by the company of newspaper advertisement re: promise to give bonus. The CIR gave no weight to the denial of Mr. Orosa, and observed that the latter was aware, or should have read and known the Supplemental in question, and his failure to make any correction or denial of its contents shortly after its publication negates any stand now taken by him.

Energy Regulatory Board vs. CA Shell filed with the former Bureau of Energy Utilization an application for authority to relocate its Station still within Pasay City (but nearer to PDSC, another gasoline station) PDSC opposed the application contending that ruinous competition will result from the establishment of the proposed new station and that there is a decline in the volume of sales in the area. Shell asserts that the construction of an advanced gasoline station in the area is a necessity dictated by the emerging economic landscape. ERB approved Shells application. CA reversed ERBs decision on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to support its decision.The propriety of building such a modern edifice is the bone of contention in the consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. SC disagrees with CA. The decision of ERB was supported by substantial evidence: hard economic data on devtal projects, residential subdivision listings, population count, public conveyances, commercial establishments, traffic count, fuel demand, growth of private cars, public utility vehicles, etc. It is NOT for the reviewing court (like CA) to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the AA on the sufficiency of evidence. Admin decision in matters within the executive decision can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. ERB is in a better position to resolve Shells application, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter, not the appellate courts. In this regard, it is the policy of the govt to allow a free interplay of market with minimal govt supervision. This is to liberalize the downstream oil industry in order to ensure a truly competitive market under a regime of fair prices, adequate and continuous supply, environmentally clean and high-quality petroleum products. Indeed, exclusivity of any franchise has not been favoured by courts. The mere possibility of reduction in the earnings of a business is not sufficient to prove ruinous competition.

Caspena vs. Salisi En banc order of Public Service Commission setting aside a decision of its division does not recite any circumstance to justify reversal.Must en banc order be set aside? YES. The Commission en banc when passing upon a motion for reconsideration of a decision rendered by division occupies, by analogy, the position of a reviewing court, and hence, would ordinarily be bound by factual findings made in the decision except:1. Where such findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises/guesswork, or conjectures; or2. When based on an inference that is manifestly mistaken, absurd or are impossible or conflicting3. When based on misapprehension of facts or mistake4. When findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties. There are no contrary findings of fact made to justify reversal order since it is the same commission with full membership that acted to rule upon motions for reconsideration of decisions of its 2 divisions.

Borja vs. Moreno An admin complaint was filed with the office of the Sec. of Public Works and Communications against landowners for abatement of nuisance and demolition of illegality constructed dams. Secretary ordered the removal of dams.Does the substantial evidence rule in admin decisions apply to the adjudications of a claim of private ownership of property vis-vis the govt? YES. Where substantial evidence rule applicable, courts are bound to look NO further. But a decision of the admin official which carries with it a finding that certain property claimed by a private party to be his while in fact is a public domain findings are not conclusive upon the courts even if supported by substantial evidence. There is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the Secretary that the stream is a public navigable river. (testimonies of a farmer and a fisherman, and of the result of the ocular inspection conducted by the investigator as embodied in the report subsequently submitted by him and depicted in a sketch prepared by an assistant engineer) HOWEVER, the investigation wherein the evidenced receive was conducted with manifest disregard to the requirements of due process.

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon -