De Jesus v. Commission on Audit ( 1998) Purisima, J.
Nov 1, 1989 shall be considered as illegal
Plaintiff: Rodolfo de Jesus, Edelwina de Parungao, disbursement of public funds. Venus Pozon and other similarly situated personnel of 4. Pursuant to said law, Leonardo Jamoralin, as the Local Water Utilities Administration corporate auditor disallowed the payment of Respondent: Commission on Audit and Leonardo honorari to herein petitioners. Jamoralin in his capacity as Auditor 5. Petitioners appealed to the COA, questioning the Concept: Publication of Rues validity of DBM-CCC No. 10, contending that it is inconsistent with RA 6758 and therefore, void. Also, Brief facts: RA 6758 was passed, providing for the they claim that it is without any force and effect standardization of salary rates. Provided that other since it wasnt published in the Official Gazette. compensation being received other than those o COA: upheld validity and sanctioned the enumerated in Sec. 12 is exempt from standardization. disallowance of their honoraria. DBM-CCC-No.10 was passed, disallowing for the disbursements of such allowances. Petitioners question 6. Petitioners found their way to the SC via petitioner its validity on the grounds that it is inconsistent with for certiorari. They claim that: DBM-CCC- No. 10 the law that it seeks to implement and that it is not prohibiting the fringe benefits is violative of RA valid since it wasnt published in the Official Gazette. 6758 which authorizes payment of additional compensation not integrated into the standardized Doctrine: Administrative rules and regulations must salary. Sol Gen agrees with petitioner. also be published if their purpose is to enforce or 7. COA: to allow honoraria without statutory authority implement existing law pursuant to valid delegation. would run counter to Sec. 8, Art. IX-B of the Constitution which proscribes payment of addition Law: RA 6758 (An Act Prescribing a Revised or double compensation, unless otherwise Compensation and Position Classification System in the specifically provided by law. Also claims that DBM- Government and For Other Purposes) CCC No. 10 need not be published because it is merely an interpretative regulation of a law already Assailed Rule: DBM-CCC-No.10 was passed, published. disallowing for the disbursements of such allowances. 8. DBM Sec: honoraria are considered included in the basic salary, for the reason that they are not listed FACTS: as exceptions under Sec. 12 of RA 6758. 1. Petitioners are employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). Prior to July 1, ISSUES: 1989, they were receiving honoraria as designated 1. WON DBM-CC- No. 10 has legal force and effect members of the LWUA Board Secretariat and the notwithstanding the absence of publication in the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee Official Gazette (NO) 2. On July 1, 1989, RA 6758 (An Act Prescribing a 2. WON DBM-CCC-No. 10 can negate pertinent Revised Compensation and Position Classification provisions of RA 6758 (wasnt discussed anymore System in the Government and For Other Purposes) because it is void) took effect. o Sec 12: allowances, except for representation RATIO: and transportation allowances; clothing and Since DBM-CC-No. 10 wasnt published in the laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of Official Gazette, it has no force of law. marine offices and crew on board -Art 2 of CC: Laws shall take effect after 15 days government vessels and hospital personnel; following the completion of their publication in the hazard pay; allowances of foreign services Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. personnel stationed abroad; and such other -Tanada v Tuvera: all statues, including those of additional compensation not otherwise local applications and private laws, shall be specified herein as may be determined by published as a condition for their effectivity DBM, shall be deemed included in the covered by this rule are presidential decrees and standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Eos Administrative rules and regulations must Such other additional compensation, whether also be published if their purpose is to enforce or in cash or in kind, being received by implement existing law pursuant to valid incumbents as of July 1, 1989 not integrated delegation. Interpretative regulations and those into the standardized salary rates shall merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only continue to be authorized. the personnel of the administrative agency and not o Certain additional compensation were the public, need not be published. exempted from standardization. -DBM-CCC-No. 10s publication in the Official 3. To implement RA 6758, DBM issued Corporate Gazette is required since it is in the nature of an Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10) administrative circular, the purpose of which is to Par. 5.6 of which provides for the discontinuing enforce an existing law. It is not a mere without qualification effective Nov. 1, 1989, all interpretative or internal regulation. allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of -since it would deprive government workers of their the basic salary. Payment for such allowances after allowances and additional compensation, they should be apprised and alerted by the publication
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |1
of the circular in the Official Gazette or newspaper 5. On Feb 1, 2000, NTC granted Bayantels Motion to in general circulation in the Philippines so that Revive application and set the case for hearing. petitioners will be given opportunity to voice out 6. Respondent Express Telecommunication Co., Inc their opposition. (Extelcom) filed in NTC an opposition with Motion -since circular is void, the resolution of the other to Dismiss, praying for the dismissal of Bayantels issue is unnecessary. application. DISPOSITIVE: Petition GRANTED. o Argued that Bayantel sought to revive an application filed almost 8 years ago thus, the Republic v, Express Telecommunication Co., Inc. (2002) documentary evidence are all outdated. Also, Ynares-Santiago, J. it alleged that there was no public need for Plaintiff: Republic of the Philippines represented by the service applied for by Bayantel since the National Telecommunications Commission present 5 CMTS operators adequately Respondent: Express Telecommunication Co., Inc. and addressed the market demand. Bayan Telecommunications Co., Inc. o Also claims that there were no available radio Concept: Publication of Rules frequencies that could accommodate a new CMTS operator. Brief Facts: Bayantel filed an application with the NTC o Pointed out that Bayantel is its substantial for a Certificate of public Convenience which was stockholder (46% of its outstanding capital archived and subsequently revived years after. The stock), and Bayantels application dispute involved which of the set of rules (1978 or undermines the very operations of Extelcom 1993) of the NTC should be applied to determine the 7. NTC issued on March 9, 2000 Memorandum validity of the NTCs revival of the petition. Circular No. 9-3-2000, which re-allocated the radio frequency bands to new public telecommunication Doctrine: It is still the publication in the Official entities. On May 3, 2000, NTC issued an order Gazette or newspaper of general circulation which is granting a PA in favor of Bayantel. It found the condition sine qua non before statues, rules or Bayantel to be techinically qualified to undertake regulations can take effect (EO 200). the service. 8. Extelcom filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, Rule that should have been published: NTCs 1993 seeking the annulment of the Order reviving Revised Rules of Practice and Procedure Bayantels application and the Order granting it a PA, and Memorandum Circular 9-3-2000 FACTS: o CA granted and set aside the following 1. On Dec. 29, 1992, the International 9. NTC filed petition for review on certiorari Communications Corporation (now BAYANTEL), filed an application with the National ISSUES: Telecommunications Commissions (NTC) for a 1. WON NTCs act of granting PA to Bayantel to Certificate of Public Convenience or necessity to operate a CMTS on its own initiative was valid (YES) install, operate and maintain a digital Cellular 2. WON the filing of the 1993 Revised Rules in the UP Mobile Telephone System (CMTS) with prayer for a Law Center is enough to give it validity (NO) Provisional Authority (PA). On May 6, 1993, 3. WON NTCs act of archiving Bayantels application Bayantel filed an ex-parte motion to file an is null and void (NO) amended application. 4. WON Extelcom violated the rules on exhaustion of 2. On May 17, 1993, the notice of hearing issued by administrative remedies (YES) the NTC was published in the Manila Chronicle. 5. WON erred in annulling the Order of NTC granting Subsequently, hearings were conducted on the Bayantel PA (YES) amended application. However, before Bayantel 6. WON May 3, 2000 order violated NTC Memorandum could complete the presentation of its evidence, Circular No. 9-14-90 (NO) NTC issues an Order dated Dec. 19, 1993 stating: o In view of the recent grant to 2 separate Pas RATIO: in favor of ISLACOM and GMCP, Inc. which 1. Under Rule 15, Sec. 3 of NTCs 1978 Rules of resulted in the closing out of all available Practice and Procedure, the NTC is given frequencies for the service being applied for authority to grant the relief prayed for on by Bayantel, and in order that this case may motion of the pleader or on its own initiative. not remain pending for an indefinite period of -Extelcom contends that NTC should have applied time, let this case be ordered ARCHIVED the Revised Rules which were filed with the Office without prejudice to its reinstatement if and of the National Administrative Register on Feb 3, when the frequency becomes available. 1993. These Rules deleted the phrase on its own 3. On June 18, 1998, the NTC issued Memorandum initiative thus, a PA may be issued only upon filing Circular No. 5-6-98 re-allocating 5 megahertz (MHz) of the proper motion before the Commission. of the radio frequency spectrum for the expansion -NTC: 1993 rules have not been published in a of CMTS Networks. newspaper of general circulation and it has been 4. On May 17, 1999, Bayantel filed and ex-parte applying the 1978 rules instead. Motion to Revive Case, citing availability of new -SC: absence of publication and coupled by the frequency bands for CMTS operators. statement of the NTC, it is clear that the 1993 TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |2 Rules have not yet taken effect at the time of the availability of such. There was nothing irregular in grant of the PA. the revival of the application. -Also, regardless of which Rules should be applied, -CA ruled that NTC committed grave abuse of the records show that the amended application discretion when it revived bayantes application filed by Bayantel included a Motion for the issuance based on an ex-parte motion. of a PA. Hence, it couldnt be said that NTC granted -However, based on Sec. 5 of the 1978 rules, it the PA motu proprio. CA erred when it said that NTC provides that in cases which do not involve either granted it upon its own initiative. an application for rate increase or for PA, the NTC may entertain ex-parte motion only where there is 2. The fact that the 1993 Revised Rules were an urgent necessity to do so and no rights if the filed with the UP Law Center on Feb 3, 1993 is of opposing parties are impaired. no moment. o CA ruled that Extelcoms right to due -There is nothing in the Administrative Code of process was violated when it wasnt given 1987 which implies that the filing of the rules with the opportunity to question the motion for the UP Law Center is the operative act which gives revival the rules force and effect. o SC: The order is a simple motion for - Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 3 of the revival. At this stage, no right to procedural Administrative Code thereof merely states: due process was prejudiced. It will still Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the have the right to be heard during the full- University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) blown adversarial hearings that will follow. certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in Also, Extelcom was given the opportunity force on the date of effectivity of this Code which to file its opposition, hence there was no are not filed within three (3) violation of due process. months from the date shall not thereafter be the o No need to publish the application since it basis of any sanction against any party or persons. is a revival of an application which has (2) The records officer of the agency, or his already been published earlier equivalent functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of 4. Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of disciplinary action. administrative remedies when it went directly to (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept the CA without first filing a motion for by the issuing agency and shall be open to public reconsideration. inspection. -Its case doesnt fall within any of the exception to -The National Administrative Register is merely a this rule (i.e. issues raised are purely legal in bulletin of codified rules and it is furnished only to nature, public interest is involved, extreme urgency the Office of the President, Congress, all appellate is obvious, special circumstances warrant courts, the National Library, other public offices or immediate action) agencies as the Congress may select. -Furthermore, it is important to stress that -It is still the publication in the Official Gazette or Extelcom doesnt enjoy the grant of any vested newspaper of general circulation which is the interest on the right to render a public service. The condition sine qua non before statues, rules or PA of Extelcom isnt exclusive. CA erred when it regulations can take effect (EO 200). ruled that Extelcoms petition constitutes an -The Rules of Practice and Procedure of the NTC exception to the rule. which implements Sec. 29 of the Public Service Act fall within the scope of these laws. 5. CA erred in annulling the Order of the NTC -The 1993 Revised Rules should be published in the which granted Bayantel PA to install, operate Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general and maintain CMTS. circulation before it can take effect. Even the 1993 -Lacuesta v. Herrera: the general rule is that purely Revised Rules itself mandates that said Rules shall administrative and discretionary function may not take effect only after their publication in a be interfered with by the courts newspaper of general circulation. In the absence of -Exception would only be in instances when the such publication, therefore, it is the 1978 Rules administrative agency acted with grave abuse of that governs. discretion -In the case at bar, the court finds no reason to 3. Archiving cases is a widely accepted measure disturb the factual findings of the NTC which designed to shelve cases in which no immediate formed the basis of awarding the PA to Bayantel. action is expected by where no grounds exist for their outright dismissal, albeit without prejudice. 6. May 3, 2000 Order didnt violate Memorandum -Saves the applicant from the added expense of re- Circular 9-14-90 which set the procedure for the filing the case issuance of PA. -In this case, Bayantels application was archived -A PA may be issued even pending hearing and because of the lack of frequencies at that time, and final determination of an application on its merits was made subject to reinstatement upon the Dispositive: Petition GRANTED.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |3