Admin Law Case Digest.docx

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies Powers and Functions in General 1. Makati Stock Exchange Inc. vs. SEC, 14 SCRA 620 (1965) 2. Radio Communications of the Phil. vs. Board of Communications, 80 SCRA 471 (1977) 3. Matienzo vs. Abellera, 162 SCRA 11 (1988) 4. Vda. de Herrera vs. Bernardo, 650 SCRA 87 (2011) Investigatory Powers 5. Ruperto vs. Torres, 100 Phil. 1098 (1957) 6. Carmelo vs. Ramos, 6 SCRA 836 (1962) 7. Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 69 SCRA 99 (1975) 8. Catura vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 37 SCRA 303 (1971) Rule-Making Powers

22. US vs. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil 169 (1014) 23. People vs. Santos, 63 Phil 300 (1936) 24. People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil 640 (1954) 25. Hilado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 100 Phil 288 (1956) 26. Ollada vs. Secretary of Finance, 109 Phil 1072 (1960) 27. Fortich vs. Corona, 298 SCRA 685 (1998) 28. Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. vs. CA, 291 SCRA 485 (1998) Adjudicatory Powers 29. Philex Mining Co. vs. Zaldivia, 43 SCRA 479 (1972) 30. Antipolo Realty Co. vs NHA, 153 SCRA 399 (1987) 31. Guerzon vs. CA, 164 SCRA 182 (1988)

9. Victorias Milling Co. vs. Social Security

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

Commission, 4 SCRA 627 (1962)

Makati Stock Exchange vs SEC

10. Manuel vs. General Auditing Office, 42 SCRA

G.R No. L-23004 June 30, 1965

660 (1976)

This is a review of the resolution of the

11. Olsen and Co. vs. Aldanese, 43 Phil 259(1922)

Securities and Exchange Commission which

12. Young vs. Rafferty, 33 Phil. 276 (1916)

would deny the Makati Stock Exchange, Inc.,

13. Sy Man vs. Fabros, 93 Phil. 1093 (1913)

permission to operate a stock exchange

14. Interprovincial Auto Bus Co. vs. Collector of

unless it agreed not to list for trading on its

Internal Revenue, 98 Phil. 290 (1956)

board, securities already listed in the Manila

15. Phil. Lawyers' Assoc. vs. Agrava, 105 Phil 173

Stock Exchange.

(1959)

Objecting to the requirement, Makati Stock

16. Philippines Inter-Island Shipping Association of

Exchange, Inc. contends that the

the Phil. vs. CA, 266 SCRA 489 (1997)

Commission has no power to impose it and

17. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fortune

that; anyway, it is illegal, discriminatory and

Tobacco Co., 658 SCRA 289 (2011)

unjust.

18. Lupangco vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848 (1988)

Issue: Whether the Commission may "in the public

19. Olsen and Co. vs. Herstein and Rafferty, 35 Phil

interest" prohibit (or make impossible) the

520 (1915)

establishment of another stock exchange (besides

20. People vs. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450 (1977)

the Manila Stock Exchange), on the ground that the

21. US vs. Panlilio, 28 Phil 608 (1914)

operation of two or more exchanges adversely

affects the public interest. Ruling: The Legislature has specified the conditions under which a stock exchange may legally obtain a permit (sec. 17, Securities Act); it is not for the Commission to impose others. If the existence of two competing exchanges jeopardizes public interest — which is doubtful — let the Congress speak. 12 Undoubtedly, the opinion and recommendation of the Commission will be given weight by the Legislature, in judging whether or not to restrict individual enterprise and business opportunities. But until otherwise directed by law, the operation of exchanges should not be so regulated as practically to create a monopoly by preventing the establishment of other stock exchanges and thereby contravening: (a) the organizers' (Makati's) Constitutional right to equality before the law; (b) their guaranteed civil liberty to pursue any lawful employment or trade; and (c) the investor's right to choose where to buy or to sell, and his privilege to select the brokers in his employment. 13 And no extended elucidation is needed to conclude that for a licensing officer to deny license solely on the basis of what he believes is best for the economy of the country may amount to regimentation or, in this instance, the exercise of undelegated legislative powers and discretion. Thus, it has been held that where the licensing statute does not expressly or impliedly authorize the officer in charge, he may not refuse to grant a license simply on the ground that a sufficient number of licenses to serve the needs of the public have already been issued. (53 C.J.S. p. 636.)

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies People vs Santos Facts: The herein accused and appellee Augusto A. Santos is charged with having ordered his fishermen to manage and operate the motor launches Malabon II and Malabon Ill registered in his name and to fish, loiter and anchor within three kilometers of the shore line of the Island of Corregidor over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military authorities of the United States, without permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. Section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2 relative to fish and game, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, provides as follows: 28. Prohibited fishing areas. — No boats licensed in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 4003 and this order to catch, collect, gather, take, or remove fish and other sea products from Philippine waters shall be allowed to fish, loiter, or anchor within 3 kilometers of the shore line of islands and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval or military authorities of the United States, particularly Corregidor, Pulo Caballo, La Monja, El Fraile, and Carabao, and all other islands and detached rocks lying between Mariveles Reservation on the north side of the entrance to Manila Bay and Calumpan Point Reservation on the south side of said entrance: Provided, That boats not subject to license under Act No. 4003 and this order may fish within the areas mentioned above

only upon receiving written permission

power conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture

therefor, which permission may be granted

and Commerce, but also an exercise of a legislative

by the Secretary of Agriculture and

power which he does not have, and therefore said

Commerce upon recommendation of the

conditional clause is null and void and without

military or naval authorities concerned.

effect.

Issue: Whether Augusta Santos Section 28 Order

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

No. 2 relative to fish and game, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture is valid. Ruling: Act No. 4003 contains no similar provision prohibiting boats not subject to license from fishing within three kilometers of the shore line of islands

FORTICH VS. CORONA (G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998) Facts: The Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6, dated January 7, 1993, designating certain areas along

and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised

Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon AgroIndustrial Zones where the subject property is situated.

by naval and military authorities of the United

Pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as

States, without permission from the Secretary of

the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan of

Agriculture and Commerce upon recommendation

Sumilao, Bukidnon, on March 4, 1993, enacted Ordinance No.

of the military and naval authorities concerned.

24 converting or re-classifying 144 hectares of land in Bgy. San

Inasmuch as the only authority granted to the

Vicente, said Municipality, from agricultural to

Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by section

industrial/institutional with a view of providing an

4 of Act No. 4003, is to issue from time to time such

opportunity to attract investors who can inject new economic

instructions, orders, rules, and regulations

vitality, provide more jobs and raise the income of its people.

consistent with said Act, as may be necessary and

During the public consultation, the people of the affected

proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof

barangay rallied behind their respective officials in endorsing

and for the conduct of proceedings arising under

the project. Notwithstanding the foregoing favorable

such provisions; and inasmuch as said Act No. 4003,

recommendation, however, on November 14, 1994, the DAR,

as stated, contains no provisions similar to those

thru Secretary Garilao, invoking its powers to approve

contained in the above quoted conditional clause of

conversion of lands under Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, issued

section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2, the

an Order denying the instant application for the conversion of

conditional clause in question supplies a defect of

the subject land from agricultural to agro-industrial and,

the law, extending it. This is equivalent to legislating

instead, placed the same under the compulsory coverage of

on the matter, a power which has not been and

CARP and directed the distribution thereof to all qualified

cannot be delegated to him, it being exclusively

beneficiaries.

reserved to the then Philippine Legislature by the

The DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director “to

Jones Law, and now to the National Assembly by

proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of

the Constitution of the Philippines. Such act

the property.”Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon

constitutes not only an excess of the regulatory

appealedthe order of denial to the Office of the President and

prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the subject land

acted beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questioned

as the same would be more beneficial to the people of

Resolution.

Bukidnon.

Issue:

In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through

Whether the final and executory Decision dated March 29,

then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision in

1996 can still be substantially modified by the “Win-Win”

OP Case No. 96-C-6424, dated March 29, 1996, reversing the

Resolution.

DAR Secretary’s decision. OP found that the instant

Held:

application for conversion by the Municipality of Sumilao,

NO. The Supreme Court held that:

Bukidnon is impressed with merit. To be sure, converting the

1. The rules and regulations governing appeals to the

land in question from agricultural to agro-industrial would

Office of the President of the Philippines are

open great opportunities for employment and bring about

embodied in Administrative Order No. 18. Section 7

real development in the area towards a sustained economic

thereof provides:

growth of the municipality. On May 20, 1996, DAR filed a

SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of

motion for reconsideration of the OP decision. However, on

the President shall, except as otherwise provided for by

June 23, 1997, an Order was issued by then Executive

special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen

Secretary Ruben D. Torres denying DAR’s motion for

(15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties,

reconsideration for having been filed beyond the

unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed

reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. The said order

within such period.

further declared that the March 29, 1996 OP decision had

Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party

already become final and executory.

shall be allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally

On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began

meritorious cases.

their hunger strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

City to protest the OP Decision of March 29, 1996. On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the strikers’ protest by issuing the so-called “Win/Win” Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona. The said Resolution modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial area only to the extent of fortyfour (44) hectares, and ordered the remaining one hundred

When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23,1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the

(100) hectares to be distributed to qualified farmerbeneficiaries.

Office of the President has no more authority to

The petitioners cried foul. They filed a case to the Supreme

entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed

Court urging it to annul and set aside the “Win-Win”

by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion

Resolution and to enjoin respondent Secretary Ernesto D.

became the basis of the assailed “Win-Win” Resolution.

Garilao of the Department of Agrarian Reform from

Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18 and Section 4,

implementing the said Resolution. The petitioners further

Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only

alleged that respondent then Deputy Executive Secretary

one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be

Renato C. Corona “committed grave abuse of discretion and

taken from the Decision of March 29, 1996. And even if

a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to

1. to ship or otherwise bring into the Philippine

be filed in “exceptionally meritorious cases,” as

Islands any animal suffering from, infected with,

provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18,

or dead of any dangerous communicable

still the said motion should not have been entertained

disease, or any of the effects pertaining to such

considering that the first motion for reconsideration

animal which are liable to introduce such

was not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the Decision

disease into the Philippine Islands;

of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act

2. to expose such animal either alive or dead on

of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and

any public road or highway where it may come

substantially modifying its March 29,1996 Decision

in contact with other domestic animals; and

which had already become final and executory, was in

3. to transport in any form without a certificate

gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that

issued by authority of the Director of Agriculture

accord finality to administrative determinations."

whenever the Secretary of the Interior shall

2. The orderly administration of justice requires that the

declare that a dangerous communicable animal

judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body

disease prevails in any island, province,

must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and

municipality, township, or settlement and that

regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to

there is danger of spreading such disease

disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental

Pursuant to the said Act, the Director of Agriculture

principle in our justice system, without which there

issued an order that all of his carabaos in the barrio of

would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and

Masamat, municipality of Mexico, Pampanga Province,

adherence to this principle must always be maintained

had been exposed to the disease commonly known as

by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act

rinderpest, and that said carabaos were accordingly

which violates such principle must immediately be

declared under quarantine, and were ordered kept in a

struck down.

corral designated by an agent of the Bureau of

Therefore, the assailed “Win-Win” Resolution which

Agriculture and were to remain there until released by

substantially modified the Decision of March 29, 1996 after it

further order of the Director of Agriculture. However, it

has attained finality, is utterly void

was alleged that Adriano Panlilio, illegally and

Notes: Act No. 4003

voluntarily and without being authorized to do so, and

"Fisheries Act" Approved December 5, 1932 .

while the quarantine against said carabaos was still in

AN ACT TO AMEND AND COMPILE THE LAWS RELATING TO

force, permitted and ordered said carabaos to be taken

FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES OF THE PHILIPPINE

from the corral in which they were then quarantined and

ISLANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

that by virtue of said orders of the accused, his servants

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

and agents took the said carabaos from the said corral

US vs. Panlilio (G.R. No. L-9876 December 8, 1914) Facts: Act No. 1760 provides that the following acts of any person, firm or corporation are unlawful:

and drove them from one place to another for the purpose of working them. Nowhere in the Act is the violation of the order of Bureau of Agriculture prohibited or made unlawful, nor

is there provided any punishment for a violation of such

K.S. YOUNG, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JAMES J.

order.

RAFFERTY, Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L10951

Issue:

FACTS:

Whether the accused may be convicted for violation of

Section 6(j) of the Internal Revenue Act (Act No.

the quarantine order issued by the Director of

2239) authorizes the Collector of Internal Revenue

Agriculture, assuming there was a violation.

to specify the manner in which the proper books of

Held:

accounts shall be kept. Pursuant thereto, the

No. The court held that:

Collector of Internal Revenue issued a circular letter

Section 6 of the Act simply authorizes the Director of

requiring every merchant and manufacturer, to keep

Agriculture to do certain things, among them, paragraph

a record of his daily sales either in English or in the

(c) "to require that animals which are suffering from

Spanish language, and providing that any violation

dangerous communicable diseases or have been

or failure to comply with the provisions of the circular

exposed thereto be placed in quarantine at such place

will subject the offender to prosecution under the

and for such time as may be deemed by him necessary

provisions of Section 185 of Act No. 2339.

to prevent the spread of the disease." Nowhere in the

ISSUE:

law, however, is the violation of the orders of the Bureau

Is the consular letter in question within the scope

of Agriculture prohibited or made unlawful, nor is there

and purview of the authority delegated by Act No.

provided any punishment for a violation of such orders.

2339?

Section 8 provides that "any person violating any of the

HELD:

provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished

No. (1) Keeping of books in any particular language

by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos, or by

not required by law. ~ The Collector is authorized to

imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both

determine that persons subject to the percentage

such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the

tax shall keep their sales record in a bound book of

court, for each offense." A violation of the orders of the

numbered pages, and that this record shall be

Bureau of Agriculture, as authorized by paragraph (c),

spread upon the books, in the tabulated form

is not a violation of the provision of the Act. The orders

specified in the circular. But the law does not

of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly

provide nor require that the books be kept in any

be said to have the force of law, are statutes and

particular language.

particularly not penal statutes, and a violation of such

(2) keeping of books in any language allowed by

orders is not a penal offense unless the statute itself

law. ~ No one will deny that sales could be recorded

somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and

in a bound volume as is specified using the

penalizes it. Nowhere in Act No. 1760 is a violation of

tabulated form prescribed by the Collector in any

the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture made a penal

modern language.

offense, nor is such violation punished in any way

In other words, all the information could be recorded

therein.”

in the designated book in the required form in

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

Chinese or in local dialect or in some other

languages as accurately as it could be recorded in

of social unrest, or other similar critical situations

English or Spanish.

requiring immediate action. In resolving whether to

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer the same to

CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA vs. EMELITA BERNARDO, EVELYN BERNARDO as Guardian of Erlyn, Crislyn and Crisanto Bernardo (G.R. No. 170251)

the particular agency concerned, the COSLAP has to consider the nature or classification of the land involved, the parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injuries to persons and damage or destruction to

FACTS: Respondents heirs of Crisanto S. Bernardo filed a complaint before the Commission for the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against petitioner for interference and trespassing over a portion of a parcel of land. Petitioner alleged that he inherited his property from his father who bought from a certain Domingo Villaran. The COSLAP ruled that respondents have a rightful claim over the subject property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Hence, petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the COSLAP has jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership between the parties. HELD: No. Administrative agencies, like the COSLAP, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction that can only wield powers which are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. 1 Under Section 3 of E.O. No. 561, the COSLAP has two options in acting on a land dispute or problem lodged before it, to wit: (a) refer the matter to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for settlement/resolution; or (b) assume jurisdiction if the matter is one of those enumerated in paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of the law, if such case is critical and explosive in nature, taking into account the large number of parties involved, the presence or emergence

property. The law does not vest jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem. In the instant case, the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of respondents' complaint. The present case does not fall under any of the cases enumerated under Section 3, paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of E.O. No. 561. The dispute between the parties is not critical and explosive in nature, nor does it involve a large number of parties, nor is there a presence or emergence of social tension or unrest. It can also hardly be characterized as involving a critical situation that requires immediate action. ~ It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs. Since the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the decision rendered, are null and void.2 A judgment issued by a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It cannot be the source of any right or create any obligation.3 All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.

4 Having

to inspection by the members.2

no legal effect, the situation is the same as it would be as

Thereafter, respondent Celestino Tabaniag and the other

if there was no judgment at all. It leaves the parties in the

members sought an injunction to prevent Pablo Catura from

position they were before the proceedings.

taking his oath of office after being re-elected in view of his

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

alleged persistence in the abuse of his authority in the

CATURA vs CIR G.R. No. L-27392 January 30, 1971 FACTS: Celestino Tabaniag as well as other employees constituting more than ten percent of the entire membership of such labor organization filed a complaint against Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador, the President and Treasurer, respectively, of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration Employees Association, a legitimate labor organization duly registered. That during their tenure, they were responsible for unauthorized disbursement of union funds with complainants on various occasions and that when demanded from them a full and detailed report of all financial transaction of the records of the financial activities of the union open to inspection by the members, they refused. The executive board of the said labor organization called for a general membership meeting so that Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador could be confronted about the status of the union funds. Pablo Catura, as President cancelled the meeting. The same was reiterated but there was no response. The members then referred the matter to the Department of Labor which issued subpoenas for the presentation of book accounts but without success. After setting forth that complainants had exhausted all remedies provided in the union's constitution and by-laws, which were all unavailing, the complaint sought, after due hearing and judgement, to declare present petitioners, as respondents, guilty of unfair labor practice under the above provision of the Industrial Peace Act, for them to cease and desist from further committing such unfair labor practice complained of, and to render a full and detailed report of all financial transactions of the union as well as to make the book of accounts and other records of these financial activities open

disbursement of union funds as well as his refusal to make a full and detailed report of all financial transactions of the union. Instead of granting the injunction sought, the order issued by Associate Judge Joaquin M. Salvador limited itself to requiring and directing "personally the respondents Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador, president and treasurer, respectively, of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration Employees' Association, to deliver and deposit to this Court all the said Association's book of accounts, bank accounts, pass books, union funds, receipts, vouchers and other documents related to the finances of the said labor union. There was a motion for reconsideration on January 2, 1967 by now petitioners Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador on the ground that they were not heard before such order was issued, which moreover in their opinion was beyond the power of respondent Court. With Associate Judge Ansberto P. Paredes dissenting, the order was sustained in a resolution by the Court en banc on February 28, 1967. Hence the present petition filed. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court acted beyond its power, when it ordered delivery and deposit of Association's book of accounts, bank accounts, pass books, union funds, receipts, vouchers and other documents related to the finances HELD: No, the Court did not act beyond its power when it called for the exercise of the statutory power of investigation by requiring the petitioners to deliver and deposit with the Court all of its book of accounts, bank accounts, pass books, union funds, receipts, vouchers and other documents related to its finances at the hearing of the petition before it on January 3, 1967. The complaint against petitioners as President and

Treasurer of the union, specifically recited an unauthorized disbursement of union funds as well as the failure to make a full and detailed report of financial transactions of the union and to make the book of accounts and other records of its financial activities open to inspection by the member. The matter was deemed serious enough by the prosecutor of respondent Court to call for the exercise of the statutory power of investigation to substantiate the alleged violation so as to assure that the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization as specifically set forth in Section 17 be respected. It cannot be said that such a requirement is beyond the statutory power conferred. If it were otherwise, the specific provisions of law allegedly violated may not be effectively complied with. The authority to investigate might be rendered futile if respondent Court could be held as having acted contrary to law. To paraphrase Justice Laurel, the power to investigate, to be conscientious and rational at the very least, requires an inquiry into existing facts and conditions. The documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to whether or not there was a failure to comply with the mandates of the law. It is not for this Court to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative agencies to assure the effective administration of a statute, in this case intended to protect the rights of union members against its officers. The matter was properly within its cognizance and the means necessary to give it force and effectiveness should be deemed implied unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights of petitioners entitled to priority. No such showing has been made; no such showing can be made. To repeat, there should be no question about the correctness of the order herein challenged

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies G.R. Nos. 167274-75 July 21, 2008 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Respondent. Facts: Fortune Tobacco Corporation, herein respondent, is a manufacturer/producer of several cigarette brands. On the other hand, herein Petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Fortune Tobacco was granted a tax refund or tax credit representing specific taxes erroneously collected from its tobacco products. The tax refund is being re-claimed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in this petition. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund as alleged overpaid excise tax for the month of January 2000? Held: Yes. Fortune Tobacco is entitled to a refund. Fortune Tobaccos claim for refund is premised on its erroneous payment of the tax, or better still the government’s exaction in the absence of a law. Tax refunds (or tax credits), on the other hand, are not founded principally on legislative grace but on the legal principle which underlies all quasi-contracts abhorring a person’s unjust enrichment at the expense of another. The dynamic of erroneous payment of tax fits to a tee the prototypic quasi-contract, solutio indebiti, which covers not only mistake in fact but also mistake in law. In the case at bar, the rule in the interpretation of tax laws is that a statute will not be construed as imposing a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously. A tax cannot be imposed without clear and express words for that purpose. Accordingly, the

general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in

fundamental and decisive if as a matter of fact circular

construing statutes applies with peculiar strictness to tax

#20 had not been published as required by law before

laws and the provisions of a taxing act are not to be

its violation then in the eyes of the law there was no such

extended by implication.

circular to be violated consequently appellant

The Government is not exempt from the

committed no violation on the circular nor committed

application of solutio indebiti. Indeed, the taxpayer

any offense.

expects fair dealing from the Government, and the latter

Under the provisions of the old and new civil

has the duty to refund without any unreasonable delay

code both requires publication on the Official Gazette to

what it has erroneously collected. If the State expects its

be binding, although such circular of the central bank is

taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying

not a statute or law but it has a penal sanction for its

their taxes, it must hold itself against the same standard

violation thus having the force and effect of the law

in refunding excess (or erroneous) payments of such

which should be published before becoming effective.

taxes. It should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

of taxpayers. And so, given its essence, a claim for tax refund necessitates only preponderance of evidence for its approbation like in any other ordinary civil case.

Phil. Lawyer’s Association vs AGRAVA FACTS: Respondent Director issued a circular

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

announcing that he had scheduled for an

G.R. No. L-6791 March 29, 1954

examination for the purpose of determining

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys

vs.

before the Philippines Patent Office. The

QUE PO LAY, defendant-appellant.

petitioner contests that one who passed the bar

Facts:

examinations and licensed by the Supreme

This is an appeal raised by Que Po Lay based on

Court are duly qualified to practice before the

the claim that Circular #20 was not published in the

Philippine Patent Office.

Official Gazette prior to the act or omission imputed by

Respondent answered that the prosecution of

the appellant. Under C.A. 638 and Act 2930 both

patent cases does not involve entirely and

require that such circular be published in the Oficial

purely the practice of law but includes the

Gazette, but Solicitor General contends that the two

application of scientific and technical knowledge

acts merely enumerate and make a list of what should

and training.

be published in the Official Gazette for guidance of the

Respondent also stated Sec. 78 of the Patent

different branches of the government.

Law of the Philippines which stated that the

Issue:

“Director, subject to the approval of the Sec. of

Whether or not such circular should be

Justice, shall promulgate the necessary rules

published?

and regulations, not inconsistent with law, for

Held:

the conduct of all business in the Patent Office.”

Yes. The question of non publication is

ISSUE:

WON the Director of Patents is allowed to hold an examination even if they are already member of the Bar? HELD: Although the transaction of business in the

his orders and decisions are, under the law, taken to the Supreme Court. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for prohibition is granted and the respondent Director is hereby prohibited from requiring

Patent Office involves the use and application of

members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an

technical and scientific knowledge and training,

examination or tests and pass the same before

still, all such business has to be rendered in

being permitted to appear and practice before

accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other

the Patent Office. No costs.

laws, including the Rules and Regulations

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law. Not only this, but practice before the Patent Office involves the interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and by far, are different from the provisions of the United States Patent Law as regards authority to hold examinations to determine the qualifications of those allowed to practice before the Patent Office. In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from

MANUEL VS GENERAL AUDITING OFFICE FACTS: Benito Manuel who was Mayor of Lingayen, Pangasinan applied for retirement. He sought for the commutation of his vacation and sick leave wherein he filed a memorandum to the General Auditing Office stating that he is entitled to unused vacation and sick leave earned for a period of 10 years and 7 months. The General Auditing Office ruled that the application of the petitioner could not be allowed in audit. ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to the commutation of his vacation and sick leaves. HELD: It is expressly provided under Section 286 of the Revised Administrative Code that vacation and sick leave shall be cumulative, any part thereof not taken within the calendar year earned being carried over the succeeding years with the employee voluntarily retiring or being separated from the service without fault on his part, being entitled to the commutation of all such accumulated vacation or sick leave to his credit provided that it shall in no case exceed

ten (10) months. There cannot be the least doubt therefore that

the power to summon witnesses by subpoena dues tecum, administer oaths, testimony or

the petitioner, who was a municipal mayor and

evidence relevant to the investigation.

as such an elective official for sixteen (16)

• Petitioner Evangelista as Undersecretary of the

years, having to his credit four (4) successive

Agecy issued to respondent Manalasta the

terms as Mayor of Lingayen, Pangasinan could

Acting City Public Service Officer of Manila, a

not be denied his plea for the commutation for

subpoena ad testificandum commanding him

vacation and sick leave.

to appear as witness a th office of PARGO to

If, however, to be considered as having

declare and testify on a pending investigations.

pertinence and relevance, it cannot as an

• Instead of obeying the subpoena respondent

administrative order supplant the plain and

filed with CFI of Manila a petition for

explicit statutory command.

prohibition, certiorari on the case and assailed

A rule is binding on the courts as the procedure

its legality

fixed for its promulgation is followed and its

Issue:

scope is within the statutory power granted by

Whether the Agency, acting thru its officials, enjoys th

the legislature, even if the courts are not in

authority to issue subpoena in its conduct of factfinding investigations?

agreement with the policy stated therein or its innate wisdom. Nothing can be clearer therefore than that the claim of petitioner to a commutation of his vacation and sick leave not exceeding ten (10) months must be upheld, inasmuch as the facts show that the total amount sought to be paid to him was precisely in accordance with the controlled legal provisions. The ruling now on review must be versed and petitioner's plea granted. Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

Held: Yes. • The life blood of the administrative process is the flow of fact. the gathering, the organization and the analysis of evidence. Investigations are useful for all administrative function, not only for rule-making, adjudication, and licensing, but also for prosecuting, for supervising and directing, for determining general policy, for recommending legislation, and for the purpose no more specific than illuminating obscure ares to find out what if anything should be done. An

Evangelista vs Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99 (1975)

adminstrative agency may be authorized to

Importance of administrative investigations

make investigations, not only in proceedings of

Facts:

a legislative or judicial nature, but alos in

• The President of the Philippines created the

proceeding whose sole purpose is to obtain

Presidential Agency on Reforms and

information upon which future action of a

Government Operations (PARGO).

legislative or judicial nature may be taken and

• The President vested in the Agency all the

may require the attendance of witnesses in

powers of an investigating committee including

proceedings of a purely investigatory nature. It

may conduct general inquiries into evils calling

caused personal injury and inconvenience and

for correction, and to report findings to

prays for damages.

appropriate bodies and make

• After hearing, the respondents BOC in both

recommendations for actions.

cases held that the services renedered by

• administrative agencies may enforce

petitioners was inadequate and unsatisfactory

subpoenas issued in the course of

and imposed upon petitioners in each case a

investigations, whether or not adjudication is

disciplinary fine of P200.

involved, and whether or not probable cause is

Issue:

shown and even before the issuance of a

Whether respondent Board has no jurisdiction to

complaint. The purpose of the subpoena is to

entertain and take congizance of complaints for injury

discover evidence, not to prove a pending

caused by breach of contractual obligatios arising from

charge, but upon which to make one if the

negligence? and quasi-delict which should be ventilated

discovered evidence so justifies.

in proper courts?

• Subpoena meets the requirements for

Held:

enforcement if the inquiry is a.) within the

No. BOC has no jurisdiction.

authority of the agency ,b.) the demand is not

• The court stated that:

too definite , c.) the information is reasonably

"There can be no jurisdiction then for the BOC

relevant.

imposing fines in there two petitions. The law cannot be

• There is no doubt that the fact-finding

any clearer. The only power if possessed over radio

investigations being conducted by the Agency

companies as noted was to fix rates. It could not take to

upon sworn statements implicating certain

task a radio company for any negligence or misfeasance.

officials of the City Government of Manila in

It was not vested with such authority. That it did then in

anomalous transactions fall within the Agency's

these two petitions lacked the impress of validity."

sphere of authority and that the information

• The functions of BOC are limited and

sought to be elicited from respondent

administrative in nature and it has only

Manalastas, of which he is claimed to be in

jurisdiction and power as are expressly or by

possession is reasonably relevant to the

necessary implication conferred upon it by

investigations.

statues.

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

• One of these powers provided by law is the

Radio Communications of the Philippines vs BOC Facts: • Two complaints were filed by complainants Deigo Morales and Pacifica Innocencia against RCPI for its failure to transmit to them telegrams informing them of the deaths of close relatives which accordings to them

power to issue certificate of public convenience and which does not carry with it the power of supervision and control over matters not related thereto or performance therewith in the matter suitable to promote public interest. • It is clear that petitioner has not been charge of any violations or failure to comply with the

terms and conditions of its certificate of public

of bookkeeping records under the new regulation.

convenience or of any order, decision,

He then instituted proceedings praying that

regulation of respondent Board.

respondent financial officials be enjoined from

• The proper forum for complainants to ventilate

further accepting, authorizing, and tolerating the

their grievances for the proper recovery of

public’s use of simplified sets of bookkeeping

damages against petitioner should be in the

records not prepared in accordance with the new

Courts and not in the respondent BOC.

regulation.

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

ISSUE

Ollada vs Sec of Finance 109 Phil. 1072 The Secretary of Finance expressly authorized the non-retroactivity of regulation which amended a previous one. FACTS Under Sec.334 (now Sec.232) of the National Internal Revenue Code, all corporations, companies, partnerships or persons required by law to pay internal revenue taxes whose gross quarterly sales, earnings, etc. do not exceed P5000 are required to keep & use a simplified set of Bookkeeping Records duly authorized by the Sec. of Finance. Pursuant to such authority, the Sec. of

Whether the Secretary of Finance acted within his authority in not giving retroactive effect to Revenue Regulations No. V-43. HELD Yes. The Secretary if Finance’s Resolution that Revenue Regulations No. V-43 was not intended to have retroactive effect was fully within his powers and authority and becomes part of the regulation itself. The Resolution is not clearly unreasonable and arbitrary, and is, thus, entitled to recognition & respect from the Courts. No one is better qualified to interpret the intent behind the revenue regulations than the authority that issued them. Granting that the subsequent permission to use old

Finance promulgated Revenue Regulations No. V13 authorizing the use by the taxpayers whose

bookkeeping forms was incompatible with the new

gross quarterly sales do not exceed P5000 a

regulation, such incompatibility would not render the

simplified set of bookkeeping records.

permission illegal and void since the Secretary may,

The Secretary amended Revenue Regulations No.

at any time, amend or revoke any of the regulations

V-13 by promulgating Revenue Regulations No. V43, which requires that simplified set of bookkeeping

he issued so long as it is in consonance with the

records should be especially designed for each

the regulations he issued as he may see fit.

class/kind of trade and prepared by a CPA. The new regulation was not intended to have a retroactive

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

effect and, therefore, could not adversely affect

IN RE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

those who had already acquired an accrued right

ARMANDO RAMOS, JESUS L. CARMELO, in his

under the old regulation.

capacity as Chairman of the Probe Committee, Office

A CPA prepared & devised his own simplified sets

of the Mayor of Manila, petitioner-appellant, vs.

statute. The Secretary may change or repeal any of

ARMANDO RAMOS, respondent-appellee.

FACTS: The Mayor of Manila issued an executive order

power. All that the order gives to this body is the power

creating a committee "to investigate the anomalies involving the

to investigate anomalies involving certain city employees.

license inspectors and other personnel of the License

Even granting that the Mayor has the implied power to

Inspection Division of the Office of the City Treasurer and of the

require the appearance of witnesses before him, the rule,

License and Permits Division of this Office (of the Mayor)." He

is that the Mayor cannot delegate this power to a body

named Mr. Jesus L. Carmelo as chairman of said committee.

like the committee of the petitioner.

In a statement given to investigators of the Office of

One who invokes this provision of the law

the Mayor, Armando Ramos, a private citizen working as a

(Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code) must

bookkeeper in the Casa de Alba, admitted having

first show that he has "authority to take testimony or

misappropriated sums of money given to him by the owner of

evidence" before he can apply to the courts for the

Casa de Alba for the payment of the latter's taxes and that he

punishment of hostile witnesses. Such provisions are

is used to entertain employees in the City Treasurer's office.

applicable to the City of Manila as these pertain to

With the information, the committee issued subpoenas to

national bureaus or offices of the government.

Ramos, in connection with an administrative case against

Petitioner contends that the Mayor of Manila has

Crisanta Estanislao but Ramos, refused to appear.

the implied power to investigate city officials and

Claiming that Ramos' refusal tended "to impede,

employees appointed by him to the end that the power

obstruct, or degrade the administrative proceedings," petitioner

expressly vested in him to suspend and remove such

filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition to declare

officials of employees may be justly and fairly exercised.

Armando Ramos in contempt.

We agree with this proposition. But We do not agree with

The lower court held that there is no law empowering

the petitioner that a delegation of such power to

committees created by municipal mayors to issue subpoenas

investigation implies also a delegation of the power to

and demand that witnesses testify under oath. And to compel

take testimony or evidence of witnesses whose

Ramos to confirm this statement in the administrative case

appearance may be require by the compulsory process

against certain employees in the Office of the City Treasurer

of subpoena.

would be to compel him to give testimony that could be used

Citing 50 Am. Jur. 449, petitioner contends that

against him in a criminal case for estafa of which the owner of

"the power of the investigation committee to issue

Casa de Alba was the offended party. From that decision,

compulsory process to secure the attendance of

petitioner appealed to this Court.

witnesses undoubtedly exists since only complimentary

Petitioner invokes Section 580 of the Revised

to the power of the mayor to investigate, suspend and

Administrative Code which provides for Powers incidental to

remove city officers and employees, supra, is the

taking of testimony of administrative authorities.

recognized rule that where the statute grants a right, it

ISSUE: Whether the power to investigate of the

also confers by implication every particular power

committee includes the power to take testimony or

necessary for the exercise thereof." There is no merit in

evidence of witnesses?

the argument. In the first place, the authority cited speaks

HELD: There is nothing said in the executive order of the

of statutory, grant of power to a body. Here, We have

Mayor creating the committee about such a grant of

seen that whatever power may be claimed by petitioner's

committee may only be traced to the power of the Mayor

No leaf tobacco or

to investigate as implied from his power to suspend or

manufactured tobacco shall be

remove certain city employees. There is no statutory

exported from the Philippine Islands to

grant of power to investigate to petitioner's committee.

the United States until it shall have

50 Am. Jur. Sec. 428, p. 450 itself admits an exception to

been inspected by the Collector of

the rule invoked by the petitioner. Thus, it is stated that

Internal Revenue or his duly authorized

"where the liberty and property of persons are sought to

representative and found to be

be brought within the operation of a power claimed to be

standard for export ...

impliedly granted by an act because necessary to its due

The Collector of Internal Revenue then

execution, the case must be clearly seen to be within

promulgated Administrative Order No. 35, known as

those intended to be reached." Here, no less than the

"Tobacco Inspection Regulations," in which clause B of

liberty of Armando Ramos is involved in the claim of the

section 6 provides:

committee to the right to cite witnesses.

To be classed as standard,

The rule is that Rule 64 (Contempt) 1 of the Rules

cigars must be manufactured under

of Court applies only to inferior and superior courts and

sanitary conditions from good, clean,

does not comprehend contempt committed against

selected tobacco, properly cured and

administrative officials or bodies

seasoned, of a crop which has been

We hold, therefore, that petitioner's committee

harvested at least six months, exclusively

has no power to cite witnesses to appear before it and to

the product of the provinces of Cagayan,

ask for their punishment in case of refusal.

Isabela, or Nueva Vizcaya. The cigars

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance

must be well made, with suitable spiral

of Manila is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as

wrapper and with long filler, etc.

to costs.

The petitioner applied to the Collector of Internal

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

Revenue for a certificate of origin covering a consignment

WALTER E. OLSEN & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. VICENTE ALDANESE, as Insular Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands, and W. TRINIDAD, as Collector of Internal Revenue, respondents. FACTS: Act No. 2613 entitled "an act to improve the methods of production and the quality of tobacco in the Philippine and to develop the export trade therein." Empowers the Collector of Internal Revenue to establish certain general and local rules respecting the classification, marking and parking of tobacco for domestic sale or for exportation to the United States, and, among other things, provide:

of 10,000 machine-made cigars to San Francisco, and as the petitioner himself stated on making such application that the cigars sought to be exported must have been manufactured from short-filler tobacco which was not the product of the provinces of Cagayan, Isabela, and Nueva Vizcaya, said cigars were neither inspected nor examined by the Collector of Internal Revenue and were rejected because they were not long-filler and were not manufactured from tobacco grown in one of the three provinces. Hence, petitioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

ISSUE: Whether clause B of section 6 of Administrative

tobacco produced in any other province. That would

Order No. 35, known as "Tobacco Inspection

amount to discrimination and class legislation, which

Regulations," is valid?

even the Legislature, would not have the power to enact.”

HELD: No. The court held clause B of section 6 of the Act

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies

to be null and void. By the express terms and provisions of such rules and regulations promulgated by the Collector of Internal Revenue, it was his duty to refuse petitioner's request, and decline the certificate or origin, because the cigars tendered were not of the specified kind, and we have a right to assume that he performed his official duty as he understood it. After such refusal and upon such grounds, it would indeed, have been a vain and useless thing for the Collector of Internal Revenue to his examined or inspected the cigars. Having refused to issue the certificate of origin for the reason above assigned, it is very apparent that a request thereafter made examine or inspect the cigars would also have been refused. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is sustained, and the writ will issue, as prayed for in the petition, without costs. So ordered. Note: Guys..nothing in the full text yung hinahanap ni Atty. Guerrero na “may dating” na decision ng court. Mas inexplain pa ng court yung naging actions ng CIR based sa clause B of section 6 of ng A.O. No. 35 na void nman. I’ll quote na lang De Leon p. 111 of Admin Law Book: “The purpose and intent of the Legislature was that a proper standard of the quality of tobacco should be fixed and defined, and that all of those who produce tobacco at the same standard should have equal rights and opportunities. It was never intended that a standard should be fixed which would limit the manufacture of cigars for export to certain provinces of the Islands, or that the tobacco produced in one province should be measured by another and different standard than the

Philippines Interisland Shipping Association of the Phlippines vs CA 266 SCRA 489 Facts: On Feb 3, 1986, President Ferdinand Marcos (hereinafter PM) issued Executive Order 10885 which increased the rates of the exisiting pilotage fees previously fixed by the Philippine Ports Authority6 (PPA hereinafter). PPA refused to enforce the said EO and, instead, issued Memorandum Order No 43-867 (MO hereinafter). PPA and Intervenors maintained that EO 1088 was merely an administrative issuance and could be superseded by the MO by PPA. Moreover, to consider EO 1088 as a statute would deprive PPA of its power to fix pilotage rates as mandated under its charter. Issue: W/N EO is constitutional Decision: NO. EO is in the nature of a law. PPA’s orders were in the nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated in the exercise of delegated power. As such, the orders can be amended or revised by law, as the president did by issuing the said EO. PM was authorizd under the 1973 Constitution to exercise legislative power. With the same power conferred to him, he created PPA8 and as PM can delegate the rate fixing power to PPA, he could also exercise the same in specific instances without withdrawing the delegated power to PPA. EO 1088’s legislative purpose is the rationalization of pilotage service charges, through the imposition of uniform and adjusted rates for foreign and coastwise veseels in all Philippine Ports.

SC conclude that EO 1088 is a valid statute and PPA is

the Department of Finance, promulgated under the

duty bound to comply with its provisions. PPA may

Authority11 of Admin Code.

increase the rates but it may not drecease them below

Issue: Is the Regulation No. 26 unconstitutional when it

those mandated by EO 1088. PPA cannot refuse to

created a presumption of liability to tax if the receipt fails

implement EO 1088 or alter it as it did in issuing MC 43-

to state such value?

86.

Held: NO. The regulation falls within the scope of the

Therefore, the policy was one of governmental regulation

administrative power of the Secretary of Finance, as

of the pilotage business. By leaving the matter to the

authorized in the Revised Administrative Code, because it is essential to the strict enforcement and proper

5 Providing for uniform and modified rates for pilotage

execution of the law which it seeks to implement. Said

services rendered to foreign and coastwise vessels in all

regulations have the force and effect of law. The

private and public ports.

regulation impliedly required the statement of the value

6 Government entity specially charged with the financing,

of the goods in the receipts so that the collection of the

management and operations of public ports throughout the

tax can be enforced. IAB failed to do and now claims the

archipelago. – www.ppa.com.ph

unreasonableness of the provision as a basis for his

determination of the parties, the PPA jettisoned this

exemption.

policy and changed it to laissez-faire, something which

“All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax

only the legislature, or whoever is vested with law-making

assessments. The good faith of tax assessors and the

authority could do.

validity of their actions are presumed. They will be

7

presumed to have taken into consideration all the f acts

Fixing pilotage fees at rates lower than those provided in

to which their attention was called. No presumption can

EO 1088.

be indulged that all of the public officials of the state in

8 By Issuing PD 857. Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Agencies Interprovincial Auto Bus Co (IAB) vs CIR Facts: IAB9 was assessed, on the 194,406 stubs of the receipts which did not state the value of the goods transported, by the Tax Agent with an assessed amount of Php 7,776.24. The assessed amount was computed by assuming that the value of the goods covered by each of the reciprts amounted to more than Php 5.00, and assessed a Documentary Stamp Tax on each of the

9 A common carrier engaged in transporting passengers and freight receipts. 10 “SEC. 121. Basis of the tax and affixture of stamps.—Bills of lading are exempt from the documentary stamp tax imposed by paragraphs (q) and (r) of section 1449 of the Administrative Code when the value of the goods shipped is P5 or less. Unless the bill of lading states that the goods are worth P5 or less, it must be held that the tax is due, and internal revenue officers

194,406 stubs. Plaintiff demanded the refund of the

will see to it that the tax is paid in all cases where the bill of lading does not

amount, and upon refusal, plaintiff filed the action

state that the shipment is worth P5 or less.”

anchoring on the validity of the Regulation No. 2610 by

“SEC. 127. ‘Chits,’ memorandum slips, and other papers not in the usual commercial form of bills of lading, when used by common carriers in the the various counties who have to do with the assessment of property for taxation will knowingly violate the duties imposed upon them by law.” “As a logical outgrowth of the presumption in favor of the validity of assessments, when such assessments are assailed, the burden of proof is upon the complaining party. It is incumbent upon the property owner clearly to show that the assessment was erroneous, in order to relieve himself from it.” transportation of merchandise or goods for the collection of fees therefor are considered as bills of lading, and the orginal thereof issued or used should bear the documentary stamp as provided by paragraphs (q) and (r) of section 1449 of the Administrative Code.” 11 The Department Head shall have power to promulgate, whenever he may see fit to do so, all rules, regulations, orders, circulars, memorandums, and other instructions, not contrary to law, necessary to regulate the proper working and harmonious and efficient administration of each and all of the offices and dependencies of his Department, and for the strict enforcement and proper execution of the laws relative to matters under the jurisdiction of said Department; but none of said rules or orders shall prescribe penalties for the violation thereof, except as expressly authorized by law. * * *."