Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

September 1992 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 >

September 1992 Decisions >
G.R. No. 97356 September
30, 1992 - ARTURO C. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.:

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 97356. September 30, 1992.]

 HON. ARTURO C. CORONA, in his capacity as Acting

Secretary of the Department of Transportation and
Communications, COMMODORE ROGELIO A. DAYAN,
in his capacity as General Manager of the Philippine
Ports Authority, and EUFRACIO SEGUNDO C.
PAGUNURAN, in his capacity as Chairman of the
Department of Transportation and Communications
— Administrative Action Board, Petitioners, v. COURT
OF APPEALS, LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG and
CRISTETO E. DINOPOL, Respondents.

Abad, Bautista & Associates for respondent Dinopol.

Jose F. Miravite for respondent Bungubung.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS; PHILIPPINE
PORTS AUTHORITY; GENERAL MANAGER WITH AUTHORITY
TO REMOVE PERSONNEL BELOW THE RANK OF ASSISTANT
MANAGER. — The issue of the jurisdiction of the Secretary
of the DOTC and/or the AAB over administrative cases
involving personnel below the rank of Assistant General
Manager of the PPA has been raised and settled in Beja, Sr.
v. Court of Appeals. The Court, after discussing the nature
of an attached agency and its relationship with the
Department to which it is attached, held: "Hence, the
inescapable conclusion is that with respect to the
management of personnel, an attached agency is, to a
certain extent, free from Departmental interference and
control. This is more explicitly shown by P.D. No. 857 which
provides: . . . (d) The General Manager shall, subject to the
approval by the Board, appoint and remove personnel
below the rank of Assistant General Manager . . ."

cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; POWER TO INVESTIGATE

PERSONNEL, IMPLIEDLY GRANTED. — Although the
foregoing section does not expressly provide for a
mechanism for an administrative investigation of personnel,
by vesting the power to remove erring employees on the
General Manager, with the approval of the PPA Board of
Directors, the law impliedly grants said officials the power
to investigate its personnel below the rank of Assistant
(General) Manager who may be charged with an
administrative offense. During such investigation, the PPA
General Manager, as earlier stated, may subject the
employee concerned to preventive suspension. The
investigation should be conducted in accordance with the
procedure set out in Sec. 38 of P.D. No. 807. Only after
gathering sufficient facts may the PPA General Manager
impose the proper penalty in accordance with law. It is the
latter action which requires the approval of the PPA Board
of Directors.

3. ID.; ID.; SECRETARY OF THE DOTC; ONLY WITH

APPELLATE JURISDICTION. — The DOTC Secretary’s
jurisdiction is circumscribed by the aforequoted provisions
of the PPA Charter and the Civil Service Law which give him
only appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary matters
involving personnel below that of Assistant General
Manager. He does not have the power to initiate
proceedings against a subordinate official of the PPA;
otherwise, we shall witness the absurd spectacle of the
DOTC Secretary acting as complainant-initiator of an
administrative case which later falls upon him to review.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; COMPLAINTS INITIATED BY PROPER

OFFICIAL OR ANY AGGRIEVED PARTY; SECRETARY SHOULD
INHIBIT HIMSELF FROM FILING COMPLAINT. — What is
prescribed by the law and the Beja case is that all
complaints against a PPA official or employee below the
rank of Assistant General Manager shall be filed before the
PPA General Manager by the proper officials, such as the
PPA police or any aggrieved party. The aggrieved party
should not, however, be one and the same official upon
whose lap the complaint he has filed may eventually fall on
appeal. Nemo potest esse simul actor et judex. No man can
be at once a litigant and judge. Unless, of course, in an
exceptional case, such official inhibits himself or expresses
his willingness at the outset to waive his right to review the
case on appeal.

5. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION;

WHERE A LATER SPECIAL LAW IS REPUGNANT TO A PRIOR
GENERAL LAW, A PARTIAL REPEAL OF THE LATTER WILL BE
IMPLIED. — The Court, however, agrees with the Court of
Appeals’ ratiocination in arriving at the conclusion that Sec.
8, Art. V of the PPA Charter should prevail over Sec. 37(b)
of the Civil Service Law, considering that where a later
special law on a particular subject is repugnant to, or
inconsistent with, a prior general law on the same subject,
a partial repeal of the latter will be implied to the extent of
the inconsistency, or an exception grafted upon the general
law. Since, in a sense, the two laws are in pari materia,
both should be construed as to harmonize with each other.
Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus
interpretandi. Every statute must be so construed and
harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform
system of jurisprudence.

6. ID.; ID.; REASON. — For the assumption is that

whenever the legislature enacts a law, it has in mind the
previous statutes relating to the same subject matter, and
in the absence of any express repeal or amendment, the
new statute is deemed enacted in accordance with the
legislative policy embodied in those prior statutes.

7. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; JURISDICTION; ISSUE

THEREON MAY BE RAISED ON APPEAL; REQUISITE; CASE
AT BAR. — While it is true that a party may be estopped
from raising the question of jurisdiction on appeal, such
estoppel may be invoked successfully only if the party
failed to raise such question in the early stages of the
proceedings. The records show that Bungubung did not
wait for the rendition of an AAB decision before he
questioned its jurisdiction. After filing his answer, he filed a
motion to dismiss on the issue of jurisdiction and even
went to the extent of elevating the issue to this Court. For
his part, Dinopol also filed a motion to dismiss the case
against him and, upon its denial, filed a motion for
reconsideration. In the absence of proof of laches on the
part of the private respondents, the doctrine enunciated in
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (23 SCRA 29) upon which petitioners
rely, is inapplicable. As correctly pointed out by counsel for
respondent Dinopol, it has been clearly held in People v.
Eduarte (182 SCRA 750) that the ruling in the Tijam case is
but an exception to the general rule that the lack of
jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal.

8. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; EXHAUSTION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; RULE NOT APPLICABLE
WHERE THE ISSUE INVOLVES A QUESTION OF LAW. —
Neither is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies applicable in this case. Besides the fact that the
AAB was patently without jurisdiction to act on the
administrative complaints filed against respondents Dinopol
and Bungubung, the instant petition raises only questions
of law, one of the exceptions to the general rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Most enlightening is
the following portion of the decision in Quisumbing v.
Gumban: ". . . The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It has been repeatedly
held that the principle requiring previous exhaustion of
administrative remedies is not applicable where the
question in dispute is a purely legal one; where the
controverted act is patently illegal or was performed
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; where the
respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an
alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed
approval of the latter; where there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; or where the
respondent has acted in disregard of due process. The rule
does not apply where insistence on its observance would
result in nullification of the claim being asserted; and when
the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy."


DECISION

ROMERO, J.:

The instant petition for review on certiorari once again puts in

issue the Department of Transportation and Communications
(DOTC) Secretary’s power to discipline employees of the
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) below the rank of Assistant
General Manager in his capacity as alter ego of the President.

On May 15, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued

Administrative Order No. 25 creating a Presidential Committee
on Public Ethics and Accountability, Sec. 1 of which declares as
a policy that:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Department Secretary shall be directly responsible to the

President in eradicating graft and corruption in his Department
and the offices, agencies, government-owned or controlled
corporations attached to or under his Department. The
Department Secretary shall likewise be responsible to the
President for the implementation of policies and programs to
minimize or prevent graft and corruption and to promote the
ethical standards of public service."

cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to the mandate of A.O. No. 25, former DOTC

Secretary Rainerio Reyes issued Office Order No. 88-318
creating the Administrative Action Board (AAB) "to act, decide
and recommend to the Secretary appropriate measures on
cases of administrative malfeasance, irregularities, grafts and
acts of corruption in the Department."

cralaw virtua1aw library

On August 26, 1988, two PPA police officers, Rosmelito del

Mundo and Geronimo Gorospe, filed in the AAB which was then
presided by Chairman Onofre Villaluz, a complaint for
dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service against Leopoldo Bungubung, District Manager of the
Port of Manila (AAB-031-88).

Bungubung filed his answer but later, he filed a motion to

dismiss assailing the jurisdictional competence of the AAB on
the ground that it was the General Manager of the PPA who
had jurisdiction over the case. AAB denied the motion to
dismiss in a written order which was issued by Secretary Reyes
himself upon the recommendation of the AAB.

Subsequently, the PPA General Manager, Rogelio A. Dayan, filed

another "formal charge" against Bungubung and one Mario Tan
for dishonesty, inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties, willful violation of reasonable
office rules and regulations and/or conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service. Docketed as Adm. Case No. 11-01-
88, the case was indorsed to the AAB for appropriate action.

Questioning the jurisdiction of the AAB over the administrative

cases against him, Bungubung filed a petition for certiorari with
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order with
this Court (G.R. Nos. 86468-69). In the resolution of January
26, 1989, the Court required the respondents to file their
comment on the petition and issued a temporary restraining
order enjoining the AAB from further acting on the
administrative cases.

chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Meanwhile, on August 26, 1988 or on the same date that the

first administrative case against Bungubung was filed,
Secretary Reyes also filed a complaint with the AAB against
Cristeto Dinopol, then Manager of the Port of Davao, for
dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service and for violation of the Anti-Graft Law
(Adm. Case NO. AAB-006-88). PPA General Manager Dayan
then issued a preventive suspension order against Dinopol. On
September 19, 1988, said PPA General Manager also filed Adm.
Case No. AAB-016-88 against Dinopol for dishonesty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

At the hearings conducted by AAB, Dinopol actively

participated. He presented his evidence therein although he
asserted that the PPA General Manager, not the AAB, had
jurisdiction to initiate and conduct an administrative
investigation under Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 857, the PPA Charter.

On October 27, 1988, the AAB rendered a decision in Adm.

Case AAB-006-88 finding Dinopol guilty as charged and
imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the service with
cause plus the accessory penalties of cancellation of
eligibilities, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits,
and disqualification for re-employment in the government
service. On November 23, 1988, AAB rendered its decision in
Adm. Case AAB-016-88 also finding Dinopol guilty as charged.
He was also meted the same penalty and its accessories as
those imposed on him in Adm. Case AAB-006-88.

Copies of said decisions were mailed to Dinopol on December

6, 1988 but on that day, Dinopol filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig, 1 a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order challenging the jurisdiction of the
AAB over the administrative cases against him. The following
day, said court issued an order directing the respondents
therein (petitioners herein) "to desist from continuing the
proceedings of the Administrative Action Board" and "to
observe the status quo on the situation prior to (Dinopol’s)
suspension."

cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondents therein opposed the application for the issuance

of a writ of preliminary injunction but on January 9, 1988, the
court issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of Dinopol
to his former position of Port Manager of Davao and the
payment to him of back salaries and other emoluments during
his preventive suspension. The court also issued the writ of
preliminary injunction prayed for by Dinopol.

A motion praying for the reconsideration of the said resolution

and for the dissolution of the writ was filed by the respondent
officials therein. On the other hand, Dinopol filed a motion to
cite the PPA General Manager in contempt of court for failing to
reinstate him and pay his back salaries. On January 26, 1989,
the court denied the motion and directed the immediate
implementation of the writ of preliminary injunction with a
warning that in case of non-compliance therewith, respondent
officials therein shall be fined P1,000.00 and imprisoned for a
period not exceeding one month.

This prompted the said respondents to file with this Court a

petition for certiorari and prohibition with an urgent prayer for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction. Acting on the petition which was
captioned as "Hon. Rainerio O. Reyes, etc., Et. Al. v. Engr.
Cristeto E. Dinopol, Et. Al." and docketed as G.R. No. 86646,
on February 2, 1989, this Court issued the temporary
restraining order prayed for and enjoined the lower court to
cease and desist from implementing the resolution and writ of
preliminary injunction both dated January 9, 1989 as well as
the order of January 26, 1989.

G.R. Nos. 86468-69 (the Bungubung case) and G.R. No. 86646
(the Dinopol case) were later consolidated upon the submission
of the petitioners in the latter case that the two petitions
present the common issue of whether or not the Secretary of
the DOTC and/or the AAB have jurisdiction to initiate and hear
administrative cases against PPA personnel whose rank are
below that of an assistant general manager. After their
consolidation, the two cases were referred to the Court of
Appeals "for appropriate action."

chanrobles law library

The cases were docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R.

No. SP-17195. Asserting that the periods of their preventive
suspension had been unduly extended, Bungubung and Dinopol
moved for their immediate reinstatement pendente lite. The
Court of Appeals granted the motion in its resolution of July 5
and 20, 1989. Hence, the DOTC Secretary Oscar Orbos, PPA
General Manager Dayan and then AAB Chairman Villaluz
interposed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or
writ of preliminary injunction with this Court, submitting the
issue of whether or not Dinopol and Bungubung were entitled
to immediate reinstatement and payment of backwages
pending adjudication on the merits of their cases by the Court
of Appeals.

Acting on said petition which was docketed as G.R. No. 92358,

on March 20, 1990, the Court issued a temporary restraining
order enjoining the Court of Appeals from implementing its
resolutions of July 5, 1989, July 20, 1989 and January 19,
1990. In due course, on November 21, 1990, the Court En
Banc rendered a decision granting the petition. 2

On December 17, 1990, the Court of Appeals promulgated its

decision in CA-G.R. SP-17195. 3 In substance, the Court of
Appeals ruled that the DOTC Secretary is without jurisdiction
over the administrative cases against Bungubung and Dinopol
for two reasons:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. While the Civil Service Law vests upon the Department
heads "jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving
disciplinary action against officers and employees under their
jurisdiction," 4 said law cannot prevail over Sec. 8, Art. V of the
PPA Charter (P.D. No. 857) which states that" (t)he General
Manager (of the PPA) shall, subject to the approval of the
Board, appoint and remove personnel below the rank of
Assistant General Manager." The Court of Appeals explained:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The above-quoted provision is in the nature of a special law

while the present Civil Service Law granting jurisdiction to
department heads, is in the nature of a general law. Special
law prevails over general law. Being a special rule limited to the
creation and functions of the Philippine Ports Authority, PD No.
857 prevails over the Civil Service Law, insofar as it involves
jurisdiction to remove personnel below the rank of Assistant
General Manager as specifically lodged in the PPA General
Manager. The Civil Service Law authorizes a department head
to commence and try administrative cases, but this general
provision must yield to the specific provision found in the PPA
Charter. The particular enactment must be operative, and the
general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases
within its general language as are not within the provisions of
the particular enactment (25 R.C.L., p. 1010, citing numerous
cases)."

cralaw virtua1aw library

The appellate court also stressed that, not only is the PPA
Charter a particular law — said Charter, having been enacted
on December 23, 1975, is a more recent enactment than P.D.
No. 807 which was issued on October 6, 1975.

Second. The power of review by the Office of the President has

been repealed by P.D. 1409. The DOTC Secretary, acting as the
alter ego of the President, can no longer exercise disciplinary
jurisdiction over PPA personnel:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Further, the power of review by the Office of the President

under P.D. No. 807 was repealed by P.D. 1409 creating the
Merit Systems Board in the Civil Service Commission (Meram v.
Edralin, 154 SCRA 235). The theory that Secretary Reyes,
acting as alter ego of the President, can no longer be
sustained. The Administrative Action Board (AAB) of the DOTC
must yield to the jurisdiction of the PPA General Manager."

chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the decision of the

Court of Appeals but the motion was denied. Hence, the instant
recourse through a petition for review on certiorari submitting
that the Court of Appeals’ decision is contrary to law and
settled jurisprudence because: (a) it effectively deprived the
DOTC Secretary, acting as the alter ego of the President, of the
authority to control and/or supervise personnel actions
involving employees of the PPA; (b) it nullified the proceedings
of the AAB for want of jurisdiction, notwithstanding that
respondent Dinopol submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
body, and (c) it granted writs of certiorari in favor of
respondents who, on the other hand, failed to exhaust
available and adequate remedies. 5

The issue of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DOTC

and/or the AAB over administrative cases involving personnel
below the rank of Assistant General Manager of the PPA has
been raised and settled in Beja, Sr. v. Court of Appeals. 6 The
Court, after discussing the nature of an attached agency and
its relationship with the Department to which it is attached,
held:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Hence, the inescapable conclusion is that with respect to the

management of personnel, an attached agency is, to a certain
extent, free from Departmental interference and control. This is
more explicitly shown by P.D. No. 857 which provides:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SECTION 8. Management and Staff . —

a) The President shall, upon the recommendation of the Board,

appoint the General Manager and the Assistant General
Managers.

b) All other officials and employees of the Authority shall be

selected and appointed on the basis of merit and fitness based
on a comprehensive and progressive merit system to be
established by the Authority immediately upon its organization
and consistent with Civil Service rules and regulations. The
recruitment, transfer, promotion, and dismissal of all personnel
of the Authority, including temporary workers, shall be
governed by such merit system.

c) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval of the

Board, determine the staffing pattern and the number of
personnel of the Authority, define their duties and
responsibilities, and fix their salaries and emoluments. For
professional and technical positions, the General Manager shall
recommend salaries and emoluments that are comparable to
those of similar positions in other government-owned
corporations, the provisions of existing rules and regulations on
wage and position classification notwithstanding.

d) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval by the

Board, appoint and remove personnel below the rank of
Assistant General Manager.

x       x       x.’

(Emphasis supplied)

Although the foregoing section does not expressly provide for a

mechanism for an administrative investigation of personnel, by
vesting the power to remove erring employees on the General
Manager, with the approval of the PPA Board of Directors, the
law impliedly grants said officials the power to investigate its
personnel below the rank of Assistant (General) Manager who
may be charged with an administrative offense. During such
investigation, the PPA General Manager, as earlier stated, may
subject the employee concerned to preventive suspension. The
investigation should be conducted in accordance with the
procedure set out in Sec. 38 of P.D. No. 807. Only after
gathering sufficient facts may the PPA General Manager impose
the proper penalty in accordance with law. It is the latter action
which requires the approval of the PPA Board of Directors.

From an adverse decision of the PPA General Manager and the

Board of Directors, the employee concerned may elevate the
matter to the Department Head or Secretary. Otherwise, he
may appeal directly to the Civil Service Commission. The
permissive recourse to the Department Secretary is sanctioned
by the Civil Service Law (P.D. 807) under the following
provisions:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SECTION 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. —

(a) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative

disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of
suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount
exceeding thirty days’ salary, demotion in rank or salary or
transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be
filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a
government official or employee in which case it may hear and
decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency
or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The
results of the investigation shall be submitted to the
Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be
imposed or other action to be taken.

(b) The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities,

provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to
investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action
against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. The
decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is
suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount
not exceeding thirty days’ salary. In case the decision rendered
by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission,
the same may be initially appealed to the department and
finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall
be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which
case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the
department head.

x       x       x.’

(Emphasis supplied.)

It is, therefore, clear that the transmittal of the complaint by

the PPA General Manager to the AAB was premature. The PPA
General Manager should have first conducted an investigation,
made the proper recommendation for the imposable penalty
and sought its approval by the PPA Board of Directors. It was
discretionary on the part of the herein petitioner to elevate the
case to the then DOTC Secretary Reyes. Only then could the
AAB take jurisdiction of the case."

chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Petitioners’ contention, therefore, that the DOTC Secretary,

acting as alter ego of the President, has jurisdiction over PPA
personnel like the private respondents herein, is correct only to
a certain extent. The DOTC Secretary’s jurisdiction is
circumscribed by the aforequoted provisions of the PPA Charter
and the Civil Service Law which give him only appellate
jurisdiction over disciplinary matters involving personnel below
that of Assistant General Manager. He does not have the power
to initiate proceedings against a subordinate official of the PPA;
otherwise, we shall witness the absurd spectacle of the DOTC
Secretary acting as complainant-initiator of an administrative
case which later falls upon him to review.

What is prescribed by the law and the Beja case is that all
complaints against a PPA official or employee below the rank of
Assistant General Manager shall be filed before the PPA General
Manager by the proper officials, such as the PPA police or any
aggrieved party. The aggrieved party should not, however, be
one and the same official upon whose lap the complaint he has
filed may eventually fall on appeal. Nemo potest esse simul
actor et judex. No man can be at once a litigant and judge.
Unless, of course, in an exceptional case, such official inhibits
himself or expresses his willingness at the outset to waive his
right to review the case on appeal.

Moreover, the fact that the PPA is a government agency

"attached" to the DOTC extensively affects the extent of
whatever control and supervision the said Department’s
Secretary may exercise. In Beja, the Court said:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Attachment of an agency to a Department is one of the three

administrative relationships mentioned in Book IV, Chapter 7 of
the Administrative Code of 1987, the other two being
supervision and control, and administrative
supervision.’Attachment’ is defined in Sec. 38 thereof as
follows:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘(3) Attachment. — (a) This refers to the lateral relationship

between the department or its equivalent and the attached
agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program
coordination. The coordination shall be accomplished by having
the department represented in the governing board of the
attached agency or corporation, either as chairman or as a
member, with or without voting rights, if this is permitted by
the charter; having the attached corporation or agency comply
with a system of periodic reporting which shall reflect the
progress of programs and projects; and having the department
or its equivalent provide general policies through its equivalent
provide general policies through its representative in the board,
which shall serve as the framework for the internal policies of
the attached corporation or agency;

x       x       x.’

An attached agency has a larger measure of independence

from the Department to which it is attached than one which is
under departmental supervision and control or administrative
supervision. This is borne out by the ‘lateral relationship’
between the Department and the attached agency. The
attachment is merely for ‘policy and program coordination.’
with respect to administrative matters, the independence of an
attached agency from Departmental control and supervision is
further reinforced by the fact that even an agency under a
Department’s administrative supervision is free from
Departmental interference with respect to appointments and
other personnel actions ‘in accordance with the decentralization
of personnel functions’ under the Administrative Code of 1987.
Moreover, the Administrative Code explicitly provides that
Chapter 8 of Book IV on supervision and control shall not apply
to chartered institutions attached to a Department." (Emphasis
supplied.)

Thus, while PPA personnel are, as mandated by P.D. 868,

"embraced in the Civil Service," the DOTC may not "act directly
whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation
to a subordinate." 7

It should be noted that in AAB-031-88, the complaint against

Bungubung was erroneously filed directly with the AAB and it
was no less than DOTC Secretary Reyes who, upon the
recommendation of the AAB, denied Bungubung’s motion to
dismiss. The PPA General Manager also erroneously indorsed to
the AAB Adm. Case No. 11-01-88, the complaint he himself
filed against Bungubung, without having conducted an
investigation and recommending the appropriate penalty as
required by the facts found at said investigation.

chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

With regard to Adm. Case No. AAB-006-88 against Dinopol, it

was filed with the AAB by Secretary Reyes himself while the
other case against Dinopol, Adm. Case No. 016-88, was filed
by the PPA General Manager directly with the AAB without said
PPA official’s appropriate investigation and corresponding
recommendation. Under these circumstances, the absurd
situation mentioned above could ensue: the DOTC Secretary
deciding on appeal his own complaint. On the other hand, in
Adm. Case No. 016-88, the PPA General Manager abdicated his
duty of conducting an investigation and submitting his
recommendation, as demanded by his factual findings.

Filing a case directly with the AAB may be a shortcut to

accomplish the laudable purpose of A.O. No. 25. However,
whatever advantage may accrue therefrom in terms of time
element, may be offset by the denial of the right to a fair and
unbiased proceeding insofar as the personnel complained
against is concerned. At the very least, he should be afforded
the opportunity of confronting the charges against him in the
forum where the law requires that they should be ventilated. If
at all, this procedure may deprive the DOTC Secretary of
control and supervision over personnel of the PPA below the
rank of Assistant General Manager but only at the initial stage
of an administrative proceeding. Should the defendant
employee be dissatisfied with the ruling of the PPA General
Manager, he can always elevate his case to the DOTC Secretary
wherein the AAB will play a pivotal role or, at his option, go
directly to the Civil Service Commission. Hence, the Court of
Appeals is less than accurate in its sweeping statement that
the DOTC Secretary, as alter ego of the President, has
completely lost control and supervision over disciplinary
matters involving the PPA employees concerned. In fact, in the
administrative hierarchy set up under both the PPA Charter and
the Civil Service Law, the DOTC Secretary has the ultimate say
before recourse to the courts may be made.

The Court, however, agrees with the Court of Appeals’

ratiocination in arriving at the conclusion that Sec. 8, Art. V of
the PPA Charter should prevail over Sec. 37(b) of the Civil
Service Law, considering that where a later special law on a
particular subject is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, a prior
general law on the same subject, a partial repeal of the latter
will be implied to the extent of the inconsistency, or an
exception grafted upon the general law. 8 Since, in a sense,
the two laws are in pari materia, both should be construed as
to harmonize with each other. Interpretare et concordare
legibus est optimus interpretandi. Every statute must be so
construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a
uniform system of jurisprudence. 9

For the assumption is that whenever the legislature enacts a

law, it has in mind the previous statutes relating to the same
subject matter, and in the absence of any express repeal or
amendment, the new statute is deemed enacted in accordance
with the legislative policy embodied in those prior statutes. 10

Applying the foregoing rules on statutory construction, the

DOTC Secretary has not entirely relinquished his power of
control and supervision over an attached agency, such as the
PPA. The PPA Charter merely defined and, to a certain extent,
delimited such power which, under the Civil Service law is of
general application.

chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Petitioners’ claim that the private respondents are estopped

from challenging the jurisdiction of the AAB as they actively
participated in the proceedings therein deserves scant
consideration. While it is true that a party may be estopped
from raising the question of jurisdiction on appeal, 11 such
estoppel may be invoked successfully only if the party failed to
raise such question in the early stages of the proceedings. The
records show that Bungubung did not wait for the rendition of
an AAB decision before he questioned its jurisdiction. After
filing his answer, he filed a motion to dismiss on the issue of
jurisdiction and even went to the extent of elevating the issue
to this Court. For his part, Dinopol also filed a motion to
dismiss the case against him and, upon its denial, filed a
motion for reconsideration. 12 In the absence of proof of laches
on the part of the private respondents, the doctrine enunciated
in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy 13 upon which petitioners rely, is
inapplicable. As correctly pointed out by counsel for respondent
Dinopol, it has been clearly held in People v. Eduarte 14 that
the ruling in the Tijam case is but an exception to the general
rule that the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

Neither is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

applicable in this case. Besides the fact that the AAB was
patently without jurisdiction to act on the administrative
complaints filed against respondents Dinopol and Bungubung,
the instant petition raises only questions of law, one of the
exceptions to the general rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Most enlightening is the following portion of the
decision in Quisumbing v. Gumban: 15

". . . The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is

not a hard and fast rule. It has been repeatedly held that the
principle requiring previous exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not applicable where the question in dispute is a
purely legal one; where the controverted act is patently illegal
or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction; where the respondent is a department secretary,
whose acts as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or
assumed approval of the latter; where there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; or where the
respondent has acted in disregard of due process. The rule
does not apply where insistence on its observance would result
in nullification of the claim being asserted; and when the rule
does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy."
(Emphasis supplied.).

chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby

DENIED. The decisions of the Administrative Action Board in
AAB-006-88 and AAB-016-88 against Cristeto E. Dinopol are
hereby declared NULL AND VOID and, together with the cases
against Leopoldo F. Bungubung, AAB-031-88 and Adm. Case
No. 11-01-88, they shall be REMANDED to the General
Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority for immediate
reinvestigation.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Melo, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.

Endnotes:


1. Presided by Judge Armie E. Elma.

2. 191 SCRA 563. The Court found that there were

still 38 days remaining of Bungubung’s preventive
suspension. On the other hand, the Court found
that having been in suspension for 103 days in
AAB-006-88, Dinopol’s preventive suspension
therein had run out. However, there were still 11
days remaining of Dinopol’s preventive suspension
in AAB-016-88.

3. Rollo, p. 89. Penned by Justice Abelardo M.

Dayrit, the decision was concurred in by Justices
Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. and Celso D. Magsino.

4. Sec. 37(b), P.D. 807.

5. Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 20.

6. G.R. No. 97149, March 31, 1992.

7. This is part of the definition of "supervision and

control" under Sec. 38(1) of the Administrative
Code of 1987.

8. National Power Corporation v. Presiding Judge,

RTC, Br. XXV, G.R. No. 72477, October 16, 1990,
190 SCRA 477; Lagman v. City of Manila, G.R. No.
23305, June 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 579.

9. Agpalo, R.E., Statutory Construction, p. 192.

10. Ibid.

11. See: Bañaga v. Commission on the Settlement

of Land Problems, G.R. No. 66386, January 30,
1990, 181 SCRA 599.

12. Respondents Comment, p. 14, Rollo, p. 126;

 Dinopol’s Memorandum, p. 16, Rollo, p. 217.

13. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29.

Petitioners claim the applicability of the doctrine
enunciated in this case that a party cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief
against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing
to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.

14. G.R. No. 88232, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA

750.

15. G.R. No. 85156, February 5, 1991, 193 SCRA

520, pp. 523-524.

Back to Home | Back to Main

Search

ChanRobles
Professional Review,
Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review

ChanRobles CPA
Review Online

ChanRobles Special
Lecture Series

September-1992
Jurisprudence              
  

A.M. No. RTJ-88-22

September 1, 1992 -
JOEL GARGANERA v.
ENRIQUE JOCSON

G.R. No. 32075

September 1, 1992 -
SIAO TIAO HONG v.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE

G.R. No. 32657

September 1, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOSE S.
RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 70746-47

September 1, 1992 -
BIENVENIDO O.
MARCOS v. FERNANDO
S. RUIZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 86051

September 1, 1992 -
JAIME LEDESMA v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 86844

September 1, 1992 -
SPOUSES CESAR DE
RAMOS, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

A.M. No. 92-8-027-

SC September 2, 1992
- RE: JOSEFINA V.
PALON

G.R. No. 43747

September 2, 1992 -
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF
MANILA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 46025

September 2, 1992 -
FLORITA T. BAUTISTA
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 50618

September 2, 1992 -
LEOPOLDO FACINAL,
ET AL. v. AGAPITO I.
CRUZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 51289

September 2, 1992 -
RODOLFO
ENCARNACION v.
DYNASTY AMUSEMENT
CENTER
CORPORATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 56865

September 2, 1992 -
IRENEO TOBIAS, ET
AL. v. TEMISTOCLES B.
DIEZ

G.R. No. 61043

September 2, 1992 -
DELTA MOTOR SALES
CORPORATION v. NIU
KIM DUAN, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 62554-55

September 2, 1992 -
REPUBLIC BANK v.
COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 70120

September 2, 1992 -
CIVIL AERONAUTICS
ADMINISTRATION, ET
AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 73198

September 2, 1992 -
PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF THE
PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 74618

September 2, 1992 -
ANA LIM KALAW v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 75242

September 2, 1992 -
MANILA RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 78777

September 2, 1992 -
MERLIN P. CAIÑA v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 80812

September 2, 1992 -
LUZ E. TAN v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.


G.R. No. 84256

September 2, 1992 -
ALEJANDRA RIVERA
OLAC, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 87318

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JAIME G. SERDAN

G.R. No. 91535

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDUARDO L. DE
JESUS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92461

September 2, 1992 -
ESTATE DEVELOPERS
AND INVESTORS
CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 92789

September 2, 1992 -
SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY
v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92795-96

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FREDDIE B.
TANTIADO

G.R. No. 93141

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v.
ESTANISLAO
GENERALAO, JR.

G.R. No. 93634

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MASALIM CASIM

 G.R. No. 94918

September 2, 1992 -
DANILO I. SUAREZ, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 95249

September 2, 1992 -
REPUBLIC PLANTERS
BANK v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 95843

September 2, 1992 -
EDILBERTO C.
ABARQUEZ, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 95921

September 2, 1992 -
SPOUSES ROBERT
DINO, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96333

September 2, 1992 -
EDUARDO C. DE VERA
v. ERNESTO L. PINEDA

G.R. Nos. 96952-56

September 2, 1992 -
SMI FISH INDUSTRIES,
INC., ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 97408-09

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. TOMAS MORENO, JR.

G.R. No. 97805

September 2, 1992 -
NILO H. RAYMUNDO v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 99050

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. CONWAY B.
OMAWENG

G.R. No. 99359

September 2, 1992 -
ORLANDO M.
ESCAREAL v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 100970

September 2, 1992 -
FINMAN GENERAL
ASSURANCE
CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 103269

September 2, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. REYNALDO
VALIENTE

A.M. No. P-90-418

September 3, 1992 -
EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD
v. ALFONSO B.
MELGAR

G.R. No. 86695

September 3, 1992 -
MARIA ELENA MALAGA,
ET AL. v. MANUEL R.
PENACHOS, JR., ET AL.

G.R. No. 90693

September 3, 1992 -
SPARTAN SECURITY &
DETECTIVE AGENCY,
INC. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91284

September 3, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. PEPITO T. PEÑERO

 G.R. No. 92310

September 3, 1992 -
AGRICULTURAL AND
HOME EXTENSION
DEVELOPMENT GROUP
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 77285

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. AMADEO ABUYEN

G.R. No. 83995

September 4, 1992 -
BENJAMIN EDAÑO v.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 88788

September 4, 1992 -
RESTITUTO DE LEON v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 89278

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FERNANDITO S.
SICAT

G.R. No. 94375

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. SOTERO A. CRUZ

G.R. No. 94825

September 4, 1992 -
PHIL. FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97111-13

September 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MONICA P. PADILLA

G.R. No. 101469

September 4, 1992 -
MALAYAN INTEGRATED
INDUSTRIES,
CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 101539

September 4, 1992 -
CECILE DE OCAMPO,
ET AL. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 102397

September 4, 1992 -
BAGUIO COUNTRY
CLUB CORPORATION v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105120

September 4, 1992 -
SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO,
ET AL. v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105346

September 4, 1992 -
RAUL H. SESBREÑO v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 93842

September 7, 1992 -
ERNANDO C. LAYNO v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 92988

September 9, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. IRENEO TIWAKEN

G.R. No. 55741

September 11, 1992 -
LUZ LATAGAN v.
EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

 G.R. No. 73071

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. REYNALDO S.
ALVAREZ

G.R. No. 82586

September 11, 1992 -
SALVADOR M. MISON,
ET AL. v. ELI G.C.
NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91159

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. LARRY A.
FRANCISCO

G.R. No. 91915

September 11, 1992 -
DIVINE WORD
UNIVERSITY OF
TACLOBAN v.
SECRETARY OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 97441

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. DOMINGO
CASINILLO

G.R. No. 98062

September 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. REGOBERTO YBEAS

G.R. No. 103903

September 11, 1992 -
MELANIO D.
SAMPAYAN, ET AL. v.
RAUL. A. DAZA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 57475

September 14, 1992 -
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. RUFO NERI, ET
AL.

 G.R. No. 74851

September 14, 1992 -
RIZAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING
CORPORATION v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT

A.C. No. 3248

September 18, 1992 -
DOMINGO R. MARCELO
v. ADRIANO S. JAVIER,
SR.

G.R. No. 70890

September 18, 1992 -
CRESENCIO LIBI, ET
AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 73919

September 18, 1992 -
NATIONAL IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION, ET
AL. v. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 75915-16

September 18, 1992 -
SPS. GO IT BUN, ET
AL. v. BALTAZAR R.
DIZON, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84917

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. QUEROBEN A.
POLIZON

G.R. No. 86218

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ELSIE B. BAGISTA

G.R. No. 91001

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. SILFERIO F. SILLO

 G.R. No. 94511-13

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ALEJANDRO C.
VALENCIA

G.R. No. 94828

September 18, 1992 -
SPOUSES ROMULO DE
LA CRUZ, ET AL. v.
ASIAN CONSUMER AND
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE
CORP., ET AL.

G.R. No. 95456

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MARIO A. BAÑEZ

G.R. No. 95540

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ARCHIE Q.
DISTRITO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 96255

September 18, 1992 -
HERCULES
INDUSTRIES, INC. v.
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 96329

September 18, 1992 -
MABUHAY VINYL CORP.
v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97918

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. VICTOR E. JAPSAY

G.R. No. 102141

September 18, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. WILFREDO
SABORNIDO

 G.R. No. 105227

September 18, 1992 -
LEANDRO I. VERCELES
v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 61218

September 23, 1992 -
LIBERTAD SANTOS, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 81883

September 23, 1992 -
KNITJOY
MANUFACTURING, INC.
v. PURA FERRER-
CALLEJA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 83580

September 23, 1992 -
ENRICO SY v. ARTURO
A. ROMERO

G.R. Nos. 85403-06

September 23, 1992 -
ANTONIO T. TIONGSON
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 101706

September 23, 1992 -
CONSOLIDATED
PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES
INC., ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 102693

September 23, 1992 -
SPOUSES AGOSTO
MUÑOZ, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 85086

September 24, 1991

ARSENIO P.
BUENAVENTURA
ENTERPRISES v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90254

September 24, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. CARLOS C. FLORIDA

G.R. No. 97765

September 24, 1992 -
KHOSROW MINUCHER
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. L-44936

September 25, 1992 -
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91114

September 25, 1992 -
NELLY LIM v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 91359

September 25, 1992 -
VETERANS MANPOWER
AND PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, INC. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 58027

September 28, 1992 -
GOLDEN COUNTRY
FARMS, INC. v.
SANVAR DEVELOPMENT
CORP.

G.R. No. 97431

September 28, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JONATHAN J.
ALABAN

G.R. No. 99046

September 28, 1992 -
AQUALYN
CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 100574

September 28, 1992 -
SPS. MARINO
SAPUGAY, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 102381

September 29, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDGARDO H. LOPEZ

G.R. No. 53630

September 30, 1992 -
ENRIQUE KHO, ET AL.
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 82531

September 30, 1992 -
DOMINGO T. MENDOZA
v. MARIA MENDOZA
NAVARETTE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 82630

September 30, 1992 -
MARIA GULANG v.
GENOVEVA NADAYAG,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 94461

September 30, 1992 -
INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATE BANK,
INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 97356

September 30, 1992 -
ARTURO C. CORONA v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 105017

September 30, 1992 -
PABLO NIDOY v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.


Copyright © 1995 - 2022 REDiaz