Adminstrative Law
Arellano Univeristy School of Law
aiza ebina/2015
LOV!A vs "O#$!O
% S&#A 55'
Restriction on Grant of Judicial Power
(A&)S* This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila enjoining the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications from causing the removal of certain dams and dikes in a shpond
o!ned by Primitivo and "elly #ovina in the Municipality of Macabebe Province of Pampanga$
The cause started by a petition of numerous residents of the said municipality to the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications% complaining that appellees had blocked the &Sapang 'ulati&% a navigable river
in Macabebe% Pampanga% and asking that the obstructions be ordered removed% under the provisions of
(epublic )ct "o$ *+,-$ )fter notice and hearing to the parties% the said Secretary found the constructions
to be a public nuisance in navigable !aters% and% in his decision dated .. )ugust ./,/% ordered the land
o!ners% spouses #ovina% to remove ve 0,1 closures of Sapang 'ulati2 other!ise% the Secretary !ould order
their removal at the e3pense of the respondent$ )fter receipt of the decision% the respondent led a
petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the Secretary from enforcing his decision$ The
trial court% after due hearing% granted a permanent injunction% !hich is no! the subject of the present
appeal$
The position of the plainti4s5appellees in the court belo! !as that (epublic )ct "o$ *+,- is
unconstitutional because it invests the Secretary of Public Works and Communications !ith s!eeping%
unrestrained% nal and unappealable authority to pass upon the issues of !hether a river or stream is
public and navigable% !hether a dam encroaches upon such !aters and is constitutive as a public
nuisance% and !hether the la! applies to the state of facts% thereby Constituting an alleged unla!ful
delegation of judicial po!er to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications$
SSU$* Whether or not the objections to the unconstitutionality of (epublic )ct "o$ *+,-% not only as an
undue delegation of judicial po!er to the Secretary of Public Works but also for being unreasonable and
arbitrary% tenable
#UL!+* "o$ It !ill be noted that the )ct 0($)$ *+,-1 merely empo!ers the Secretary to remove
unauthori6ed obstructions or encroachments upon public streams% constructions that no private person
!as any!ay entitled to make% because the bed of navigable streams is public property% and o!nership
thereof is not ac7uirable by adverse possession$
It is true that the e3ercise of the Secretary8s po!er under the )ct necessarily involves the determination of
some 7uestions of fact% such as the e3istence of the stream and its previous navigable character2 but these
functions% !hether judicial or 7uasi5judicial% are merely incidental to the e3ercise of the po!er granted by
la! to clear navigable streams of unauthori6ed obstructions or encroachments% and authorities are clear
that they are% validly conferable upon e3ecutive o9cials provided the party a4ected is given opportunity to
be heard% as is e3pressly re7uired by (epublic )ct "o$ *+,-% section *$
)ppellees invoke )merican rulings that abatement as nuisances of properties of great value can not be
done e3cept through court proceedings2 but these rulings refer to summary abatements !ithout previous
hearing% and are inapplicable to the case before us !here the la! provides% and the investigator actually
held% a hearing !ith notice to the complainants and the% appellees% !ho appeared therein$ It is note!orthy
that (epublic )ct *-+, authori6es removal of the unauthori6ed dikes either as &public nuisances or as
prohibited constructions& on public navigable streams% and those of appellees clearly are in the latter class$
Considering the !ell5established rule that ndings of fact in e3ecutive decisions in matters !ithin their
jurisdiction are entitled to respect from the courts in the absence of fraud% collusion% or grave abuse of
discretion% none of !hich has been sho!n to e3ist in this case% !e agree !ith appellant that the court
belo! erred in rejecting the ndings of fact of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications$
#A)O* The judicial power which may be exercises by administrative agencies is a restricted one, limited
to what is incidental and reasonably necessary to the proper and efcient administration o the statutes
that are committed to them or administration.
Arbitrary powers or uncontrolled discretion may not be conerred upon administrative agencies either in
the exercise o rule-making or adjuticatory unctions.
555
