GUY V. IGNACIO 2010

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 167824 July 2, 2010

GERALDINE GAW GUY and GRACE GUY CHEU, Petitioners,
vs.
ALVIN AGUSTIN T. IGNACIO, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 168622

GERALDINE GAW GUY and GRACE GUY CHEU, Petitioners,
vs.
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, HON. MARICEL U. SALCEDO, MAYNARDO MARINAS, RICARDO CABOCHAN and ELISEO EXCONDE, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari¹ under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking, among others, to annul and set aside the Decisions dated January 6, 2005² and April 20, 2005³ and Resolutions dated March 10, 2005⁴ and June 29, 2005⁵ rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA), reversing and setting aside the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court⁶ (RTC), Branch 37, Manila.

The antecedent facts follow.

The father of petitioners Geraldine Gaw Guy and Grace Guy Cheu became a naturalized⁷ Filipino citizen sometime in 1959. The said petitioners, being minors at that time, were also recognized⁸ as Filipino citizens.

Respondent Atty. Alvin Agustin T. Ignacio, filed a Complaint⁹ dated March 5, 2004 for blacklisting and deportation against petitioners Geraldine and Grace before the Bureau of Immigration (BI) on the basis that the latter two are Canadian citizens who are illegally working in the Philippines, petitioners having been issued Canadian passports.

Acting upon the Complaint, respondent Maricel U. Salcedo, Special Prosecutor, Special Task Force of the BI Commissioner, directed the petitioners, through the issuance of a subpoenae,¹⁰ to appear before her and to bring pertinent documents relative to their current immigration status, to which the petitioners objected by filing with the Special Task Force of the BI Commissioner a Comment/Opposition with Motion Ad Cautelam to Quash Re: Subpoena¹¹ dated 30 April 2004 (Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum), which was eventually denied by respondent Salcedo in an Order¹² dated May 14, 2004.

Respondent Board of Commissioners (BOC) filed a Charge Sheet¹³ dated June 1, 2004 for Violation of Sections 37 (a) 7, 45 (e) and 45-A of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, which reads as follows:

The undersigned Special Prosecutor charges GRACE GUY CHEU and GERALDINE GAW GUY, both Canadian citizens, for working without permit, for fraudulently representing themselves as Philippine citizens in order to evade immigration laws and for failure to comply with the subpoena duces tecum/ad testificandum, in violation of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, committed as follows:

That respondents GRACE GUY CHEU and GERALDINE GAW GUY, knowingly, willfully and unlawfully engage in gainful activities in the Philippines without appropriate permit by working as the Vice-President for Finance & Treasurer and General Manager, respectively, of Northern Islands Company, Inc., with office address at No. 3 Mercury Avenue, Libis, Quezon City;

That both respondents, knowingly, willfully and fraudulently misrepresent themselves as Philippine citizens as reflected in the general Information Sheet of Northern Islands Company, Inc., for 2004, in order to evade any requirement of the Philippine Immigration Laws;

That both respondents, duly served with subpoenas duces tecum/ad testificandum, dated April 20, 2004, knowingly, willfully and unlawfully failed to comply with requirements thereof.1avvphi1

CONTRARY TO LAW.

As a remedy, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with Damages and a Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction¹⁴ dated May 31, 2004 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 37.¹⁵

The trial court, after hearing petitioner's application for issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction, issued an Order¹⁶ dated June 28, 2004, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for temporary restraining order is hereby GRANTED. The respondents and all persons acting in their behalf and those under their instructions are directed to cease and desist from continuing with the deportation proceedings involving the petitioners. In the meantime set the case for hearing on preliminary injunction on July 5 and 6, 2004, both at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon and the respondents are directed to show cause why writ of preliminary injunction should not issue.

SO ORDERED.

On July 5, 2004, public respondents filed their Answer¹⁷ and on July 13, 2004, filed a Supplement (To the Special and Affirmative Defenses/Opposition to the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction).¹⁸ The parties were then directed to file their respective memoranda as to the application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and public respondents' special and affirmative defenses. On July 16, 2004, public respondents as well as the petitioners,¹⁹ filed their respective Memoranda.²⁰ On the same day, respondent Atty. Ignacio filed his Answer²¹ to the petition.

In an Order²² dated July 19, 2004, the trial court granted the application for preliminary injunction enjoining public respondents from further continuing with the deportation proceedings. The Order reads, in part:

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that, indeed, there exists a pressing reason to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to protect the rights of the petitioners pending hearing of the main case on the merits and unless this Court issues a writ, grave irreparable injury would be caused against the petitioners.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for the Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby GRANTED. The respondents and all persons acting on their behalf and those under their instructions are directed to cease and desist from continuing with the deportation proceedings involving the petitioners during the pendency of the instant case. The petitioners are directed to post a bond in the amount of P50,000.00 to answer for whatever damages that may be sustained by the respondent should the court finally resolve that the petitioners are not entitled thereto.

SO ORDERED.

As a consequence, public respondents, on September 10, 2004, filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction²³ before the CA²⁴ and, on September 17, 2004, respondent Atty. Ignacio filed a Petition for Certiorari,²⁵ also with the CA.²⁶ Both petitions prayed for the nullification of the Orders dated June 28, 2004 and July 19, 2004 issued by the RTC in Civil Case No. 04-110179 and for the dismissal of the petition therein. Later on, petitioner Geraldine filed a Motion to Consolidate both petitions.

On January 6, 2005, the Ninth Division of the CA granted the petition filed by respondent Atty. Ignacio and annulled the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court, the dispositive portion of the Decision²⁷ reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Manila, dated July 19, 2004, is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

On January 21, 2005, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.²⁸

On March 1, 2005, petitioners reiterated²⁹ their prayer for the consolidation of the petitions in the Eighth and Ninth Divisions. In its Resolution³⁰ dated March 10, 2005, the CA Ninth Division denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, petitioners filed before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari³¹ dated March 31, 2005 praying for the reversal of the Decision rendered by the CA's Ninth Division, which is now docketed as G.R. No. 167824.

Thereafter, the CA's Eighth Division rendered its own Decision³² dated April 29, 2005 granting the petition therein and nullifying the Orders dated June 28 and July 19, 2004 in Civil Case No. 04-110179, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the instant petition impressed with merit and in accordance with our decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 86432, the same is GIVEN DUE COURSE and is GRANTED. The assailed Orders of the respondent court dated 28 June and 19 July 2004 are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration³³ from the said Decision, which the CA denied in its Resolution³⁴ dated June 21, 2005.

Thus, petitioners filed before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari³⁵ dated July 12, 2005 seeking to reverse and set aside the said Decision and Resolution rendered by the Eighth Division of the CA and is now docketed as G.R. No. 168622. In its Resolution³⁶ dated August 10, 2005, the Court dismissed the said petition and said dismissal, despite petitioners' motion for reconsideration,³⁷ was affirmed in a Resolution³⁸ dated October 17, 2005. This Court, however, upon another motion for reconsideration³⁹ filed by the petitioners, reinstated the petition and ordered its consolidation with G.R. No. 167824.⁴⁰

On September 7, 2007, a Manifestation⁴¹ was filed informing this Court that petitioner Grace Guy Cheu died intestate on August 12, 2007 in the United States of America.

Petitioners raised the following grounds in their Consolidated Memorandum⁴² dated March 27, 2007:

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOWER COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL CASE NO. 04-110179 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREIN CONSIDERING THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ON PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE AND WARRANTS PETITIONERS' IMMEDIATE RESORT TO JUDICIAL INTERVENTION.

A.

CONSIDERING THAT PROOF OF PETITIONERS' PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IS SUBSTANTIAL, PETITIONERS ARE ALLOWED UNDER THIS HONORABLE COURT'S RULING IN BID V. DELA ROSA, SUPRA, TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT TO ENJOIN THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED AGAINST THEM.

B.

LIKEWISE, CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONERS STAND TO SUFFER GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE INJURIES SHOULD THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, PETITIONERS ARE ALLOWED UNDER TE LAW TO IMMEDIATELY SEEK JUDICIAL RELIEF DESPITE THE PENDENCY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.

II.

FURTHER, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE RULING OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN DWIKARNA V. DOMINGO, 433 SCRA 748 (2004) DID NOT STRIP THE LOWER COURT OF ITS AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 04-110179 AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THE AFORESAID CASE.

III.

EVEN IF THE RULING OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN DWIKARNA V. DOMINGO, SUPRA, DID STRIP THE LOWER COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION IN BID V. DELA ROSA, SUPRA, TO ENJOIN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, THE RULING CAN ONLY HAVE PROSPECTIVE EFFECT.

Basically, petitioners argue that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, relied upon by the CA in its decision, does not apply in the present case because it falls under an exception. Citing Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa,⁴³ petitioners assert that immediate judicial intervention in deportation proceedings is allowed where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. In connection therewith, petitioners assail the applicability of Dwikarna v. Domingo in the present case, which the CA relied upon in ruling against the same petitioners.

After a careful study of the arguments presented by the parties, this Court finds the petition meritorious.

Petitioners rely on Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa,⁴⁴ wherein this Court ruled that when the claim of citizenship is so substantial as to reasonably believe it to be true, a respondent in a deportation proceeding can seek judicial relief to enjoin respondent BOC from proceeding with the deportation case. In particular, petitioners cited the following portions in this Court's decision:

True, it is beyond cavil that the Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in the process, determine also their citizenship (Lao vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 756 [1089]. And a mere claim of citizenship cannot operate to divest the Board of Commissioners of its jurisdiction in deportation proceedings (Miranda vs. Deportation Board, 94 Phil. 531 [1951]).

However, the rule enunciated in the above-cases admits of an exception, at least insofar as deportation proceedings are concerned. Thus, what if the claim to citizenship of the alleged deportee is satisfactory? Should the deportation proceedings be allowed to continue or should the question of citizenship be ventilated in a judicial proceeding? In Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board (96 Phil. 665 [1955]), this Court answered the question in the affirmative, and We quote:

When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to live in peace, without molestation from any official or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation proceeding, he has the unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the legal ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction. If he is a citizen and evidence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor justice in allowing the deportation proceedings to continue, granting him the remedy only after the Board has finished its investigation of his undesirability.

x x x And if the right (to peace) is precious and valuable at all, it must also be protected on time, to prevent undue harassment at the hands of ill-meaning or misinformed administrative officials. Of what use is this much boasted right to peace and liberty if it can be availed of only after the Deportation Board has unjustly trampled upon it, besmirching the citizen's name before the bar of public opinion?

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction of petitioners Board of Commissioners over deportation proceedings is, therefore, not without exception (Calayday vs. Vivo, 33 SCRA 413 [1970]; Vivo vs. Montesa, 24 SCRA 155 [1967]). Judicial intervention, however, should be granted in cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. In other words, the remedy should be allowed only on sound discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding (Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board, supra; Co vs. Deportation Board, 78 SCRA 107 [1977]). It appearing from the records that respondent's claim of citizenship is substantial, as We shall show later, judicial intervention should be allowed.⁴⁵

The present case, as correctly pointed out by petitioners and wrongfully found by the CA, falls within the above-cited exception considering that proof of their Philippine citizenship had been adduced, such as, the identification numbers⁴⁶ issued by the Bureau of Immigration confirming their Philippine citizenship, they have duly exercised and enjoyed all the rights and privileges exclusively accorded to Filipino citizens, i.e., their Philippine passports⁴⁷ issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In BOC v. Dela Rosa, it is required that before judicial intervention is sought, the claim of citizenship of a respondent in a deportation proceeding must be so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such claim is correct. In the said case, the proof adduced by the respondent therein was so substantial and conclusive as to his citizenship that it warranted a judicial intervention. In the present case, there is a substantial or conclusive evidence that petitioners are Filipino citizens. Without necessarily judging the case on its merits, as to whether petitioners had lost their Filipino citizenship by having a Canadian passport, the fact still remains, through the evidence adduced and undisputed by the respondents, that they are naturalized Filipinos, unless proven otherwise.

However, this Court cannot pass upon the issue of petitioners' citizenship as this was not raised as an issue. The issue in this petition is on the matter of jurisdiction, and as discussed above, the trial court has jurisdiction to pass upon the issue whether petitioners have abandoned their Filipino citizenship or have acquired dual citizenship within the confines of the law.

In this regard, it must be remembered though that this Court's ruling in Dwikarna v. Domingo did not abandon the doctrine laid down in BOC v. Dela Rosa. The exception remains. Dwikarna merely reiterated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction when this Court ruled that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, he can move for its reconsideration and if his motion is denied, then he can elevate his case by way of a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, utmost caution must be exercised in availing of the exception laid down in BOC v. Dela Rosa in order to avoid trampling on the time-honored doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services in determining technical and intricate matters of fact.⁴⁸ In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.⁴⁹

Above all else, this Court still upholds the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. As enunciated in Republic v. Lacap:⁵⁰

The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes.⁵¹ The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.⁵²

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.⁵³

Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;⁵⁴ (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;⁵⁵ (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. x x x⁵⁶

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Consequently, the Decisions dated January 6, 2005 and April 20, 2005, and the Resolutions dated March 10, 2005 and June 29, 2005 of the Court of Appeals, nullifying and setting aside the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Manila, are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The case is hereby remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division, Chairperson

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

Footnotes

¹ Rollo, (G.R. No. 167824), pp. 3-152; rollo, (G.R. No. 168622), pp. 3-138.

² Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Mariano C. del Castillo (now a member of this Court), concurring; CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 86432), pp. 254-261.

³ Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Magdangal M. de Leon, concurring; CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 86298), pp. 391-397.

⁴ CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 86432), pp. 350-351.

⁵ CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 86298), p. 427.

⁶ Records, Vol. II, pp. 373-378.

⁷ Id. at 48-53.

⁸ Id. at 46-47.

⁹ Id. at 29-31.

¹⁰ Id. at 34-35.

¹¹ Id. at 36-44.

¹² Id. at 45.

¹³ Id. at 67-68.

¹⁴ Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-53.

¹⁵ Docketed as SCA No. 04-110179.

¹⁶ Supra note 6.

¹⁷ Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-12.

¹⁸ Records, Vol. II, pp. 335-341.

¹⁹ Id. at 366-372

²⁰ Id. at 345-366.

²¹ Id. at 380-394.

²² Id. at 373-378.

²³ Supra note 3.

²⁴ Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 86298 and raffled off to the Eighth Division and entitled, The Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, Atty. Maricel I. Salcedo, Maynardo Marinas, Ricardo Cabochan and Eliseo Exconde v. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, and Geraldine Gaw Guy and Grace Guy Cheu.

²⁵ Supra note 2.

²⁶ Docketed as CA-GR SP No. 86432 and raffled off to the Ninth Division and entitled, Alvin Agustin T. Ignacio v. Hon, Vicente A. Hidalgo, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, Geraldine Gaw Guy and Grace Gaw Cheu.

²⁷ Supra note 2, at 261.

²⁸ CA rollo, pp. 309-320.

²⁹ Id. at 332-337.

³⁰ Id. at 350-351.

³¹ Supra note 1.

³² Supra note 3.

³³ CA rollo, pp. 404-416.

³⁴ Id. at 427.

³⁵ Supra note 1.

³⁶ Rollo (G.R. No. 168622), p. 139.

³⁷ Id. at 140-144.

³⁸ Id. at 161.

³⁹ Id. at 162-166.

⁴⁰ Id. at 169.

⁴¹ Id. at 366-369.

⁴² Id. at 235-291.

⁴³ G.R. Nos. 95122-23 and G.R. Nos. 95612-13, May 31, 1991, 197 SCRA 853, 874-875.

⁴⁴ Supra note 43.

⁴⁵ Id. (Emphasis supplied.)

⁴⁶ Marked as Annexes "D" and "E" in the Comment of petitioners Grace and Geraldine, respectively; CA rollo, 257, 313.

⁴⁷ Copies marked as Annexes "C" and "F," id.

⁴⁸ Omictin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007, 512 SCRA 70, 82, citing Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil. 932 (1954).

⁴⁹ Machete v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995, 250 SCRA 176, 182.

⁵⁰ G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255.

⁵¹ Associate Communications and Wireless Services (ACWS), Ltd. v. Dumlao, 440 Phil. 787, 801-802 (2002); Zabat v. Court of Appeals, 393 Phil. 195, 206 (2000).

⁵² ACWS, Ltd. v. Dumlao, supra, at 802.

⁵³ Paloma v. Mora, G.R. No. 157783, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 711, 725; Fabia v. Court of Appeals, 437 Phil. 389, 403 (2002).

⁵⁴ Rocamora v. Regional Trial Court-Cebu (Branch VIII), No. L-65037, November 23, 1988, 167 SCRA 615, 623.

⁵⁵ Carale v. Abarintos, 336 Phil. 126, 137 (1997).

⁵⁶ Castro v. Sec. Gloria, 415 Phil. 645, 651-652 (2001).

PIMENTEL V. SENATE 2011

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 187714 March 8, 2011

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., MANUEL B. VILLAR, JOKER P. ARROYO, FRANCIS N. PANGILINAN, PIA S. CAYETANO, and ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO, Petitioners,
vs.
SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE represented by SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a petition for prohibition¹ with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order filed by Senators Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. (Senator Pimentel), Manuel B. Villar (Senator Villar), Joker P. Arroyo, Francis N. Pangilinan, Pia S. Cayetano, and Alan Peter S. Cayetano (petitioners). Petitioners seek to enjoin the Senate Committee of the Whole (respondent) from conducting further hearings on the complaint filed by Senator Maria Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal (Senator Madrigal) against Senator Villar pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 706 (P.S. Resolution 706) on the alleged double insertion of P200 million for the C-5 Road Extension Project in the 2008 General Appropriations Act.

The Antecedents

On 15 September 2008, Senator Panfilo Lacson (Senator Lacson) delivered a privilege speech entitled "Kaban ng Bayan, Bantayan!"² In his privilege speech, Senator Lacson called attention to the congressional insertion in the 2008 General Appropriations Act, particularly the P200 million appropriated for the construction of the President Carlos P. Garcia Avenue Extension from Sucat Luzon Expressway to Sucat Road in Parañaque City including Right-of-Way (ROW), and another P200 million appropriated for the extension of C-5 road including ROW. Senator Lacson stated that C-5 is what was formerly called President Carlos P. Garcia Avenue and that the second appropriation covers the same stretch – from Sucat Luzon Expressway to Sucat Road in Parañaque City. Senator Lacson inquired from DBM Secretary Rolando Andaya, Jr. about the double entry and was informed that it was on account of a congressional insertion. Senator Lacson further stated that when he followed the narrow trail leading to the double entry, it led to Senator Villar, then the Senate President.

On 8 October 2008, Senator Madrigal introduced P.S. Resolution 706,³ the full text of which reads:

WHEREAS the Senate President has repeatedly and publicly "advocated" (sic) the construction of the C-5 Road/Pres. C.P. Garcia Avenue Extension linking Sucat Road in Parañaque City to the South Luzon Expressway;

WHEREAS it was discovered that there was a double insertion of P200 million for the C-5 Road Extension project in the 2008 General Appropriations Act;

WHEREAS Committee on Finance Chair Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile confirmed that the double insertion for the C-5 Road Extension Project was made by the Senate President;

WHEREAS this double insertion is only the tip of the iceberg;

WHEREAS there is overwhelming evidence to show that the Senate President, from the time he was member of the House of Representatives, used his influence on the executive to cause the realignment of the C-5 Road Extension project to ensure that his properties in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque City and Barangays Pulang Lupa and Mayuno Uno, Las Piñas would be financially benefited by the construction of the new road;

WHEREAS there is overwhelming evidence to show that the Senate President, through his corporations, negotiated the sale of his properties as roads right of way to the government, the same properties affected by the projects he proposed;

WHEREAS there is overwhelming evidence to show that the Senate President caused the sale of his landholdings to government as a grossly overpriced cost prejudicial to other lot owners in the area, the government, and the Filipino people;

WHEREAS there is overwhelming evidence to show that the Senate President, in the overpriced sale of another property, used his power and influence to extort from the original landowner the profit made from the overprice by the Villar owned corporations;

WHEREAS these acts of the Senate President are in direct violation of the Constitution, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officers;

WHEREAS the Senate President has violated the public trust of the people in order to serve his personal interests thereby sacrificing the people’s welfare;

WHEREAS the illegal and unethical conduct of the Senate President has betrayed the trust of the people, and by doing so has shamed the Philippine Senate;

WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the members of the Senate now to reclaim the people’s trust and confidence and show that the illegal conduct of any of its member, even of its leaders, shall not go unpunished;

WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, TO DIRECT THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PRIVILEGES TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDUCT OF SENATE PRESIDENT MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR. FOR USING HIS POSITION OF POWER TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN RELOCATING THE C-5 ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT TO DELIBERATELY PASS THRU HIS PROPERTIES, AND TO NEGOTIATE THE OVERPRICED PURCHASE OF ROAD RIGHTS OF WAY THRU SEVERAL PROPERTIES ALSO OWNED BY HIS CORPORATIONS REDOUNDING IN HUGE PERSONAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS FOR HIM TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE, THEREBY RESULTING IN A BLATANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Adopted,

(Sgd.)
M.A. MADRIGAL⁴

On even date, P.S. Resolution 706 was referred to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges (Ethics Committee) which at that time was composed of the following members:

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano - Chairperson

Sen. Loren Legarda - Member in lieu of Sen. Madrigal

Sen. Joker Arroyo - Member

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano- Member

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago- Member

Sen. Gregorio Honasan - Member

Sen. Panfilo Lacson - Inhibited and replaced by Sen. Rodolfo Biazon

On 17 November 2008, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (Senator Enrile) was elected Senate President. The Ethics Committee was reorganized with the election of Senator Lacson as Chairperson, and Senators Richard Gordon, Gregorio Honasan, Loren Legarda, and Mar Roxas as members for the Majority. On 16 December 2008, Senator Lacson inquired whether the Minority was ready to name their representatives to the Ethics Committee.⁵ After consultation with the members of the Minority, Senator Pimentel informed the body that there would be no member from the Minority in the Ethics Committee.⁶ On 26 January 2009, Senator Lacson reiterated his appeal to the Minority to nominate their representatives to the Ethics Committee.⁷ Senator Pimentel stated that it is the stand of the Minority not to nominate any of their members to the Ethics Committee, but he promised to convene a caucus to determine if the Minority’s decision on the matter is final.⁸ Thereafter, the Senate adopted the Rules of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges (Committee Rules) which was published in the Official Gazette on 23 March 2009.⁹

On 20 April 2009, Senator Villar delivered a privilege speech¹⁰ where he stated that he would answer the accusations against him on the floor and not before the Ethics Committee. On 27 April 2009, Senator Lacson delivered another privilege speech¹¹ where he stated that the Ethics Committee was not a kangaroo court. However, due to the accusation that the Ethics Committee could not act with fairness on Senator Villar’s case, Senator Lacson moved that the responsibility of the Ethics Committee be undertaken by the Senate, acting as a Committee of the Whole. The motion was approved with ten members voting in favor, none against, and five abstentions.¹²

Respondent Senate Committee of the Whole conducted its hearings on 4 May 2009, with eleven Senators present, and on 7 May 2009, with eight Senators present. On both hearings, petitioners objected to the application of the Rules of the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole. In particular, petitioners questioned the determination of the quorum. On 11 May 2009, petitioners proposed 11 amendments to the Rules of the Ethics Committee that would constitute the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole, out of which three amendments were adopted. On 14 May 2009, Senator Pimentel raised as an issue the need to publish the proposed amended Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole. On even date, respondent proceeded with the Preliminary Inquiry on P.S. Resolution 706. On 18 May 2009, the Chairman submitted a report on the Preliminary Inquiry with a directive to all Senators to come up with a decision on the preliminary report on 21 May 2009. On 21 May 2009, respondent declared that there was substantial evidence to proceed with the adjudicatory hearing. The preliminary conference was set on 26 May 2009.

Petitioners came to this Court for relief, raising the following grounds:

1. The transfer of the complaint against Senator Villar from the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole is violative of Senator Villar’s constitutional right to equal protection;

2. The Rules adopted by the Senate Committee of the Whole for the investigation of the complaint filed by Senator Madrigal against Senator Villar is violative of Senator Villar’s right to due process and of the majority quorum requirement under Art. VI, Sec. 16(2) of the Constitution; and

3. The Senate Committee of the Whole likewise violated the due process clause of the Constitution when it refused to publish the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole in spite of its own provision [which] require[s] its effectivity upon publication.¹³

In its Comment, respondent argues that:

1. The instant petition should be dismissed for failure to join or implead an indispensable party. In the alternative, the instant petition should be archived until such time that the said indispensable party has been joined or impleaded and afforded the opportunity to be heard;

2. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Committee;

3. Petitioners are not entitled to a writ of prohibition for failure to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Committee of the Whole;

4. The principle of separation of powers must be upheld;

5. The instant petition must be dismissed for being premature. Petitioners failed to observe the doctrine or primary jurisdiction or prior resort;

6. It is within the power of Congress to discipline its members for disorderly behavior;

7. The determination of what constitutes disorderly behavior is a political question which exclusively pertains to Congress;

8. The Internal Rules of the Senate are not subject to judicial review in the absence of grave abuse of discretion; [and]

9. The Rules of the Ethics Committee, which have been duly published and adopted[,] allow the adoption of supplementary rules to govern adjudicatory hearings.¹⁴

The Issues

The issues for the Court’s resolution are the following:

1. Whether Senator Madrigal, who filed the complaint against Senator Villar, is an indispensable party in this petition;

2. Whether the petition is premature for failure to observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort;

3. Whether the transfer of the complaint against Senator Villar from the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole is violative of Senator Villar’s right to equal protection;

4. Whether the adoption of the Rules of the Ethics Committee as Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole is a violative of Senator Villar’s right to due process and of the majority quorum requirement under Art. VI, Section 16(2) of the Constitution; and

5. Whether publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole is required for their effectivity.

The Ruling of this Court

Indispensable Party

Section 7, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

SEC. 7 – Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants.

The test to determine if a party is an indispensable party is as follows:

An indispensable party is a party who has an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been considered that an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete or equitable. Further, an indispensable party is one who must be included in an action before it may properly go forward.

A person who is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his presence would merely permit a complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the action. It is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an indispensable party that his presence will avoid multiple litigation.¹⁵

In this case, Senator Madrigal is not an indispensable party to the petition before the Court. While it may be true that she has an interest in the outcome of this case as the author of P.S. Resolution 706, the issues in this case are matters of jurisdiction and procedure on the part of the Senate Committee of the Whole which can be resolved without affecting Senator Madrigal’s interest. The nature of Senator Madrigal’s interest in this case is not of the nature that this case could not be resolved without her participation.1awphi1

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Respondent asserts that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction "simply calls for the determination of administrative questions, which are ordinarily questions of fact, by administrative agencies rather than by courts of justice."¹⁶ Citing Pimentel v. HRET,¹⁷ respondent avers that primary recourse of petitioners should have been to the Senate and that this Court must uphold the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the government.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply to this case. The Court has ruled:

x x x It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of fact are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of the court. x x x¹⁸

The issues presented here do not require the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of respondent for their resolution. On the contrary, the issues here are purely legal questions which are within the competence and jurisdiction of the Court, and not an administrative agency or the Senate to resolve.¹⁹

As regards respondent’s invocation of separation of powers, the Court reiterates that "the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government by no means prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that part of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people."²⁰ Thus, it has been held that "the power of judicial review is not so much power as it is [a] duty imposed on this Court by the Constitution and that we would be remiss in the performance of that duty if we decline to look behind the barriers set by the principle of separation of powers."²¹ The Court, therefore, is not precluded from resolving the legal issues raised by the mere invocation by respondent of the doctrine of separation of powers. On the contrary, the resolution of the legal issues falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court.

Transfer of the Complaint from the Ethics Committee

to the Senate Committee on the Whole

Petitioners allege that the transfer of the complaint against Senator Villar to the Senate Committee of the Whole violates his constitutional right to equal protection. Petitioners allege that the Senate Committee of the Whole was constituted solely for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction over the complaint against Senator Villar. Petitioners further allege that the act was discriminatory and removed Senator Villar’s recourse against any adverse report of the Ethics Committee to the Senate as a body.

We do not agree with petitioners.

Reviewing the events that led to the constitution of the Senate Committee of the Whole, the Court notes that upon the election of Senator Enrile as Senate President on 17 November 2008, the Ethics Committee was also reorganized. Senator Lacson, who first called the Senate’s attention to the alleged irregularities committed by Senator Villar, was elected as Chairperson. On 16 December 2008, when Senator Lacson inquired whether the Minority was ready to name their representatives to the Ethics Committee, Senator Pimentel informed the body that there would be no member from the Minority in the Ethics Committee. On 26 January 2009, Senator Lacson reiterated his appeal to the Minority to nominate their representatives to the Ethics Committee. Senator Pimentel informed him that it is the stand of the Minority not to nominate any of their members to the Ethics Committee. Senator Pimentel promised to convene a caucus to determine if the Minority’s decision on the matter is final but the records did not show that a caucus was convened.

On 20 April 2009, Senator Villar delivered a privilege speech where he stated that he would answer the accusations against him on the floor and not before the Ethics Committee. It was because of the accusation that the Ethics Committee could not act with fairness on Senator Villar’s case that Senator Lacson moved that the responsibility of the Ethics Committee be undertaken by the Senate acting as a Committee of the Whole, which motion was approved with ten members voting in favor, none against, and five abstentions.

The Rules of the Ethics Committee provide that "all matters relating to the conduct, rights, privileges, safety, dignity, integrity and reputation of the Senate and its Members shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges."²² However, in this case, the refusal of the Minority to name its members to the Ethics Committee stalled the investigation. In short, while ordinarily an investigation about one of its members’ alleged irregular or unethical conduct is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee, the Minority effectively prevented it from pursuing the investigation when they refused to nominate their members to the Ethics Committee. Even Senator Villar called the Ethics Committee a kangaroo court and declared that he would answer the accusations against him on the floor and not before the Ethics Committee. Given the circumstances, the referral of the investigation to the Committee of the Whole was an extraordinary remedy undertaken by the Ethics Committee and approved by a majority of the members of the Senate.

Adoption of the Rules of the Ethics Committee

by the Senate Committee of the Whole

Petitioners allege that the adoption of the Rules of the Ethics Committee by the Senate Committee of the Whole is violative of Senator Villar’s right to due process.

We do not agree.

Again, we reiterate that, considering the circumstances of this case, the referral of the investigation by the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole is an extraordinary remedy that does not violate Senator Villar’s right to due process. In the same manner, the adoption by the Senate Committee of the Whole of the Rules of the Ethics Committee does not violate Senator Villar’s right to due process.

The Constitutional right of the Senate to promulgate its own rules of proceedings has been recognized and affirmed by this Court. Thus:

First. Section 16(3), Article VI of the Philippine Constitution states: "Each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings."

This provision has been traditionally construed as a grant of full discretionary authority to the House of Congress in the formulation, adoption and promulgation of its own rules. As such, the exercise of this power is generally exempt from judicial supervision and interference, except on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will constitute a denial of due process.

x x x. The issue partakes of the nature of a political question which, under the Constitution, is to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. Further, pursuant to his constitutional grant of virtually unrestricted authority to determine its own rules, the Senate is at liberty to alter or modify these rules at any time it may see fit, subject only to the imperatives of quorum, voting and publication.²³

The only limitation to the power of Congress to promulgate its own rules is the observance of quorum, voting, and publication when required. As long as these requirements are complied with, the Court will not interfere with the right of Congress to amend its own rules.

Prior Publication

Petitioners assail the non-publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole. Respondent counters that publication is not necessary because the Senate Committee of the Whole merely adopted the Rules of the Ethics Committee which had been published in the Official Gazette on 23 March 2009. Respondent alleges that there is only one set of Rules that governs both the Ethics Committee and the Senate Committee of the Whole.

In Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations,²⁴ the Court declared void unpublished rules of procedure in Senate inquiries insofar as such rules affect the rights of witnesses. The Court cited Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution which mandates:

Sec. 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective Committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. (Emphasis supplied)

The Court explained in the Resolution²⁵ denying the motion for reconsideration:

The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure is categorical. It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules of its legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the published rules clearly state that the same shall be effective in the subsequent Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put public on notice.

If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative inquiries to be effective even in the next Congress, it could have easily adopted the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity.

Lest the Court be misconstrued, it should likewise be stressed that not all orders issued or proceedings conducted pursuant to the subject Rules are null and void. Only those that result in violation of the rights of witnesses should be considered null and void, considering that the rationale for the publication is to protect the rights of the witnesses as expressed in Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. Sans such violation, orders and proceedings are considered valid and effective.²⁶ (Emphasis supplied)

In the recent case of Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, et al.,²⁷ the Court further clarified:

x x x inquiries in aid of legislation under Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution is the sole instance in the Constitution where there is a categorical directive to duly publish a set of rules of procedure. Significantly notable in Neri is that with respect to the issue of publication, the Court anchored its ruling on the 1987 Constitution’s directive, without any reliance on or reference to the 1986 case of Tañada v. Tuvera. Tañada naturally could neither have interpreted a forthcoming 1987 Constitution nor had kept a tight rein on the Constitution’s intentions as expressed through the allowance of either a categorical term or a general sense of making known the issuances.²⁸

The Constitution does not require publication of the internal rules of the House or Senate. Since rules of the House or the Senate that affect only their members are internal to the House or Senate, such rules need not be published, unless such rules expressly provide for their publication before the rules can take effect.

In this case, the proceedings before the Senate Committee of the Whole affect only members of the Senate since the proceedings involve the Senate’s exercise of its disciplinary power over one of its members. Clearly, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole are internal to the Senate. However, Section 81, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole provides:

Sec. 81. EFFECTIVITY. These Rules shall be effective after publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.²⁹

Hence, in this particular case, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole itself provide that the Rules must be published before the Rules can take effect. Thus, even if publication is not required under the Constitution, publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole is required because the Rules expressly mandate their publication. The majority of the members of the Senate approved the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole, and the publication requirement which they adopted should be considered as the will of the majority. Respondent cannot dispense with the publication requirement just because the Rules of the Ethics Committee had already been published in the Official Gazette. To reiterate, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole expressly require publication before the Rules can take effect. To comply with due process requirements, the Senate must follow its own internal rules if the rights of its own members are affected.

Incidentally, we note that Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole³⁰ is an exact reproduction of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges³¹ which states that the Ethics Committee shall be composed of seven members, contrary to the fact that the Senate Committee of the Whole consists of all members of the Senate. In addition, Section 5(B), Rule 1 of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole³² is an exact reproduction of Section 5(B), Rule 1 of the Rules of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges³³ which states that only two members of the Ethics Committee shall constitute a quorum, contrary to respondent’s allegation in its Comment that eight members of the Senate Committee of the Whole shall constitute a quorum.³⁴

However, if the Senate is constituted as a Committee of the Whole, a majority of the Senate is required to constitute a quorum to do business pursuant to Section 16(2), Article VI of the Constitution.³⁵ Otherwise, there will be a circumvention of this express provision of the Constitution on quorum requirement. Obviously, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole require modification to comply with requirements of quorum and voting which the Senate must have overlooked in this case. In any event, in case of conflict between the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole and the Constitution, the latter will of course prevail.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition in part. The referral of the complaint by the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to the Senate Committee of the Whole shall take effect only upon publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice	TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice	DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice	MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice	MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice	JOSE C. MENDOZA Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

Footnotes

¹ Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

² Rollo, pp. 117-123.

³Id. at 53-54. RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PRIVILEGES TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDUCT OF SENATE PRESIDENT MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR. FOR USING HIS POSITION OF POWER TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN RELOCATING THE C-5 ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT TO DELIBERATELY PASS THRU HIS PROPERTIES, AND TO NEGOTIATE THE OVERPRICED PURCHASE OF ROAD RIGHTS OF WAY THRU SEVERAL PROPERTIES ALSO OWNED BY HIS CORPORATIONS REDOUNDING IN HUGE PERSONAL PERSONAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS FOR HIM TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE, THEREBY RESULTING IN A BLATANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

⁴ Id.

⁵ Id. at 131. Journal of the Senate.

⁶ Id.

⁷ Id. at 132. Journal of the Senate.

⁸ Id.

⁹ Id. at 141-154.

¹⁰ Id. at 155-159. Journal of the Senate.

¹¹ Id. at 162-164. Journal of the Senate.

¹² Id. at 165.

¹³ Id. at 19-20.

¹⁴ Id. at 86-87.

¹⁵ Lagunilla v. Velasco, G.R. No. 169276, 16 June 2009, 589 SCRA 224, 232-233 citing Regner v. Logarta, G.R. No. 168747, 19 October 2007, 537 SCRA 277 and Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 250 (1997).

¹⁶ Rollo, p. 108, Comment.

¹⁷ 441 Phil. 492 (2002).

¹⁸ Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88550, 18 April 1990, 184 SCRA 426, 431-432.

¹⁹ Arimao v. Taher, G.R. No. 152651, 7 August 2006, 498 SCRA 74.

²⁰ Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830 (2003).

²¹ Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, 25 August 1994, 235 SCRA 630.

²² Section 2.

²³ Dela Paz v. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, G.R. No. 184849, 13 February 2009, 579 SCRA 521, 525.

²⁴ G.R. No. 180643, 25 March 2008, 549 SCRA 77.

²⁵ G.R. No. 180643, 4 September 2008, 564 SCRA 152.

²⁶ Id. at 230-231.

²⁷ G.R. No. 193459, 15 February 2011.

²⁸ Emphasis in the original.

²⁹ Rollo, p. 52.

³⁰ Id. at 31.

³¹ Id. at 141. It states:

Sec. 4. Composition. - It shall have seven (7) members who, including the Chairperson, shall be chosen by the Senate. The President Pro Tempore and both the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate are Ex-Officio Members of the Committee.

³² Id. at 32.

³³ Id. at 141. It states:

Sec. 5. Meetings. x x x.

B. QUORUM: The presence of at least two (2) Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum.

³⁴ Id. at 96. The Comment states:

x x x For instance, with respect to the quorum, the records of the deliberations of the Respondent Committee of the Whole will show that Senate President Enrile, after tracing the long history of instances when the Senate was constituted as a Senate Committee of the Whole, pointed out that for purposes of its proceedings and consistent with tradition and practice, eight (8) of its members – not two (2) as Petitioners claimed – will constitute the quorum.

³⁵ Section 16. x x x

(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-37052 November 29, 1973

EDUARDO QUINTOS, JR., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
NATIONAL STUD FARM; BOARD OF TRUSTEES, NATIONAL STUD FARM; PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB, INC.: and BOARD OF STEWARDS PHILIPPINE, RACING, INC., defendants-appellees.

F. Reyes Cabigao and Associates Law Office for plaintiff-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Jaime M. Lantin and Solicitor Reynato S. Puno for defendants-appellees National Stud Farm and Board of Trustees.

Odon Nabong for defendants-appellees Philippine Racing Club, Inc., etc.

FERNANDO, J.:

In this case certified to us by a resolution of the Court of Appeals ¹ on the ground that the appeal from an order of dismissal by the lower court "is beyond[its] competent jurisdiction ... considering that, as correctly pointed out by defendants-appellees National Stud Farm and its Board of Trustees in their comment ... "what is involved here is a pure legal question", and that is whether or not the lower court erred in dismissing appellant's complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies." ² Such a principle is, of course, of compelling force in this jurisdiction. ³ But there are exceptions, one of them being the invocation of the due process clause which is precisely the basis from the judicial review sought by plaintiff before the lower court. While his stand was put forth with vigor and plausibility in the memorandum of his counsel, ⁴ still the point-by-point refutation of his arguments by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza ⁵ and deference to controlling principles of administrative law in terms of primary jurisdiction and ripeness of review call for the affirmance of the appealed judgment. So we rule.

The basis for the complaint by plaintiff, now appellant, Eduardo Quintos, Jr., before the lower court ⁶ was set forth therein thus. "2. That Plaintiff is the legitimate owner of a race horse named "King's Toss" which was duly and officially registered on February 17, 1970 with defendant National Stud Farm and which certificate of Registration No. 002426 was issued by said defendant for said race horse, thereby acknowledging it to participate in horse races and sweepstakes draws that were held and are being held in legally authorized racing, clubs or tracks ...; 3. That the race horse "King's Toss" by virtue of its official registration as such, has since participated or taken part in horse races and sweepstakes draws starting with its debut on March 15, 1970 up to June 11, 1972; 4. That in line with the standard operating procedure and usual racing practices for horse owners to apply for and submit the names of race horses for inclusion in a particular race at least three days, the plaintiff on June 13, 1972 applied for and submitted the name of his race horse "King's Toss" to the defendant Philippine Racing Club, Inc., at Makati, Rizal, for either the races programmed for June 17, or 18, 1972, which application was duly accepted [and] approved by said defendant, consequent to which race horse "King's Toss" was declared eligible to participate [and] take part in the actual race that was conducted on June 17, 1972, more particularly in Race No. 15 thereof, resulting in the inclusion of said race horse in the racing list or program "Lucky Choice" for the scheduled race on June 17, 1972 ...; 5. That on June 17, 1972, the very day when plaintiff's race horse "King's Toss" was scheduled to participate in race No. 15 at the racing tracks of defendant Philippine Racing Club, Inc., an announcement was made through the public address system before the start of Race 13 that plaintiff's race horse "King's Toss" is being scratched or excluded from taking part in Race 15 where it is supposed to run that racing day ... ." ⁷

It was then alleged that such withdrawal or cancellation of the certificate of registration of plaintiffs race horse was arbitrary and oppressive, due process being denied him in the absence of a formal investigation or inquiry prior thereto. ⁸ Such actuation was characterized by plaintiff as not only amounting to defendant National Stud Farm and its Board of Trustees gravely abusing its discretion, but also exceeding "its legitimate function and authority [thus resulting in] lack of jurisdiction, ... ." ⁹ There was an answer filed on behalf of the aforesaid defendants by the Solicitor General wherein the special defenses of immunity from suit as well as the lack of cause of action and the failure to exhaust administrative remedies were interposed. As noted at the outset, the lower court, in its order of October 9, 1972, dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground of lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus: "The Court is convinced that Quinto's instant complaint was prematurely instituted. His administrative remedy is to ask the Board of Trustees of National Stud Farm to reconsider its resolution cancelling the certificate of registration of "King's Toss" and in case the reconsideration is denied, to appeal to the Games and Amusements Board or to the Office of the President of the Philippines." ¹⁰

As noted at the outset, the order of dismissal based on non exhaustion of administrative remedies is invulnerable to attack. We therefore affirm.

1. Plaintiff is not unaware of the impress of authoritativeness affixed to the basic principle of administrative remedies having to be fully utilized before resort to courts is allowable. Nonetheless, he would seek its operation in the case at hand by the invocation of the alleged denial of due process. It is to be admitted that under certain circumstances, such a plea would not go unheeded because of the inadequacy of the remedy that could be supplied administratively. Before its invocation, however, is to be accorded a degree of plausibility, it must first be ascertained whether from the standpoint of what still could be done by the higher authorities in the Executive branch, plaintiff would really have a valid cause for complaint. The Solicitor General, in his comment certainly disputed such a claim. He would hit a grave inaccuracy in the allegation that there was lack of notice of the investigation conducted by defendant National Stud Farm, there being two letters requiring him to answer the complaint of a certain Mr. Elwick Jr. sent to him, one by regular mail on December 18, 1970 and the other by registered mail on February 5, 1971. With the presumption that the sending thereof ordinarily is followed by their receipt, the assertion, as he pointed out, was far from persuasive. ¹¹ Plaintiff, moreover, did know of the cancellation of the registration papers of his race horse on June 17, 1970, but he next moved for a reconsideration thereof prior to his going to court on June 21 of that year. ¹² Even without according due weight to the allegation that protection of public interest did require such cancellation, a step that can be taken without a hearing, the additional argument offered in such comment as to the exhaustion of administrative remedies not being procedurally impossible does commend itself for approval thus: "Appellant's allegation that he could not have appealed to the Executive Secretary at the time he filed his complaint in the lower court on June 21, 1972 is also inaccurate. There is no question that on June 17, 1972, appellant already had knowledge of the revocation of the certificate of registration of his race horse. This is admitted in paragraph 5 of, the Complaint of appellant, ... . Despite this knowledge on June 17, 1972, appellant did not appeal the resolution in question to the Executive Secretary. Instead he premature instituted a suit in court for damages. The reason for this short circuiting of administrative processes is not explained by appellant. He gives no reason for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Indeed there is none." ¹³ The order of dismissal therefore, cannot considered as being in derrogation of the due process guarantee.

2. What further lends support to the decision now on appeal is that the failure to apply such a basic concept as exhaustion of administrative remedies would be attended with consequences adverse to such equally well-settled postulates in administrative law of primary jurisdiction and ripeness of review. It is true that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction ¹⁴ or prior resort ¹⁵ goes no further than to determine whether it is the court or the agency that should make the initial decision. ¹⁶ Parker, in his text, would put the matter thus: "The fact that a governmental authority is empowered to deal with a given type of matter gives rise to a presumption that it has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. If the law delegates A to make decisions this means that in dubio B is not so delegated." ¹⁷ Davis clarifies the point in this wise: "The precise function of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether the court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court." ¹⁸ The important thing is that the dispute be determined according to the judgment, in the language of an American Supreme Court decision, "of a tribunal appointed by law and informed by experience." ¹⁹ In this particular case, as pointed out by the Solicitor General even prior to the Executive Secretary, the question could have been resolved in a manner satisfactory to the parties if the Games and Amusements Board which certainly had the necessary qualifications to view its manifold aspects were appealed to. When, therefore, as was likewise adverted to by the Solicitor General, the judicial forum was sought by plaintiff, there was in effect an unwarranted disregard of the concept of primary jurisdiction. In the traditional language of administrative law, the stage of ripeness for judicial review had not been reached. ²⁰ As so well put by another authoritative treatise writer, Jaffe, that would be to ignore factors not predetermined "by formula but by seasoned balancing [thereof] for and against the assumption of jurisdiction." ²¹ All that had been said so far would seem to indicate that under such a test, the lower court's insistence on the observance of the fundamental requirement of exhausting administrative remedies is more than justified.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal of the lower court of October 9, 1972 is affirmed. With costs against plaintiff-appellant.

Zaldivar (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-52282-R by a division headed by Justice Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., with Justices Ramon C. Fernandez and Emilio A. Gancayco as members. It was dated May 16, 1973.

2 Ibid, 4.

3 Cf. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources v. De los Angeles, L-30216, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 494, citing 43 other cases.

4 Attorney F. Reyes Cabigao.

5 He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Jaime M. Lantin and Solicitor Reynato S. Puno.

6 Civil Case No. 87436 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

7 Petition, pars. 2-5.

8 Ibid, par. 7.

9 Ibid, par. 9.

10 Order of the lower court, Record on Appeal 150.

11 Comment of Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, 2 and 3.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid, 6-7.

14 Cf. Public Utilities Commission v. United States, 355 US 534 (1958); United States v. Western Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 59 (1956).

15 Cf. Stason, Cases and Other Materials on Administrative Terminals First Ed. 541 (1937).

16 Cf. 3 Davis on Administrative Law Treatise 2 (1958).

17 Parker on Administrative Law, 114 (1952).

18 Davis, op. cit. 3.

19 Cf. Radio Corp. of America v. United States, 341 US 412 (1951).

20 Cf. Phil. Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, L-24321, July 21, 1967 SCRA 727.

21 Jaffe Judicial Control of Administrative Action, 396 (1965).