Contents Tapales Tapales vs UP................................... UP....................................................... ........................................ ........................................ ................................... ............... 1 Mangubat vs. Osmeña, 105 Phil. 1308.......................................................................4 Marinduue vs !e"retar#................................... !e"retar#...................................................... ....................................... ...................................... .................. 4
Tapales vs UP G.R. No. L-17523
March 30, 1963
RAMON vs. THE PRESIDENT a! "OARD O# PHILIPPINES, respondents-appellants. PHILIPPINES, respondents-appellants.
TAPALES, petitioner-appellee, REGENTS
O#
THE
$NI%ERSIT&
O#
THE
Francisco Carreon for petitioner-appellee. Office of the Solicitor General, Jose A. Espiritu and Vicente Abad Santos for respondents-appellants. PAREDES, J.: Ramon Tapales, Tapales, petitioner-app petitioner-appellee ellee herein, was, prior to December December 5, 1945, a duly appointed Director of the onservatory of !usic of "illiman #niversity in Duma$uete. %n December 5, 1945, by a resolution of the &oard of Re$ents, upon recommendation of the 'resident of the #niversity of the 'hilippines, he was appointed (ctin$ Director of the onservatory of !usic of the #'. #'. &ecause of the re)uirement of the #' harter *"ec. 1+, providin$ that deans or directors are to be selected from amon$ the members of the faculty, Tapales Tapales was on the same date *Dec. 5, 1945, etended an appointment appointment as professor professor of violin and chamber chamber music. "uch appointment appointment *as professor professor was also necessary for salary ratin$ purposes. %n (u$ust 14, 194, li/ewise by resolution of the &oard of Re$ents, Tapales was appointed permanent and re$ular Director of the #' onservatory of !usic. 0ith 0ith the view of increa increasin sin$ $ his salary to an amount amount befittin befittin$ $ his new status status,, as re$ular re$ular and permanent Director, and for salary ratin$ purposes, other appointments increasin$ his salary as professor of violin and chamber music from '4,++.++ in 194 to ',52+.++ in 1952, were etended to him *3hs. -2. #nder date of %ctober , 1959, the &oard of Re$ents of the #' approved the followin$ resolution Tenure Tenure of office, duties and functions of deans and directors The term of office of all deans of colle$es and directors or heads of schools and institutes of the #niversity of the 'hilippines shall be five *5 years from the date of their appointment6
1
and the present deans and directors who have served five *5 years or more, previous to the approval of this resolution, shall continue to serve in such capacities, only until !ay 71, 192+, unless reappointed for another term of five years. The functions of the dean or director shall be to act as presidin$ officer of the faculty of the colle$e, the school, or the institute as prescribed by the charter of the #niversity and to eercise such other administrative duties which the &oard of Re$ents, on recommendation of the 'resident of the #niversity may prescribe. 8o dean or director shall serve as academic head of any department or division in his colle$e, school or institute. %n (pril 1, 192+, respondent-appellant 'resident of the #', promul$ated the followin$ !3!%R(8D#! Deans #niversity of the 'hilippines
T% and
Directors
Deans and directors whose terms will epire on !ay 71, 192+, as provided in the resolution of the &oard of Re$ents of %ctober , 1959, are hereby informed that unless notified of the action of this office recommendin$ their reappointment on or before !ay 1, 192+, shall consider their term as deans automatically terminated on !ay 71, 192+, but shall remain members of the faculty with the ran/ that they are actually holdin$ on the date of this notice. ou are advised of the resolution of the &oard of Re$ents adopted in its meetin$ of (pril 1, 192+, which runs as follows: "tartin$ with the new deans and directors, every dean shall be entitled to only one salary which shall be the salary in the re$ular scale of his ran/ as faculty member, ecept when a hi$her salary is epressly provided for him by reason of superior )ualifications. The dean shall be entitled to reduce the number of his teachin$ hours at his discretion. 0herefore, the parties respectfully pray that the fore$oin$ stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this ;onorable ourt, without pre
Tapales, not havin$ been recommended for reappointment as Director of the onservatory of !usic of the #', and the termination of his appointment as such bein$ imminent, presented to the => of Ri?al, @ue?on ity &ranch, a petition as/in$ that the Resolution of the &oard of Re$ents of the #' dated %ctober , 1959, be declared unconstitutional and that the #' 'resident and &oard of Re$ents, respondents herein, be prohibited from enforcin$ the resolution of %ctober , 1959. Tapales further as/ed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary in
"">%8" and D38>(A", alle$ed as "pecial and (ffirmative Defenses, that the Director or Dean in the
$
#niversity of the 'hilippines performs administrative functions and not academic, that he holds office at the pleasure of the &oard of Re$ents and can be removed without cause and without hearin$6 that what is protected by the onstitution and the ivil "ervice Aaw is his position as member of the academic faculty *professors and members of the teachin$ staff, not as member of the administrative staff6 that under the resolution in )uestion, petitioner remains and continues to be a professor and member of the academic faculty6 that the #' harter *"ec. 2 BeC, refers to faculty and employees and not to Deans or Directors and that petitioner had not ehausted the administrative remedies. >n connection with the writ of preliminary in8 >30 %= T;3 (&%3 %8">D3R(T>%8", the ourt renders D, bein$ contrary to the onstitution, the ivil "ervice Aaw of 1959 and even to the harter of the #niversity concerned and, conse)uently, the ourt permanently prohibits and en>, onstitution, sec. , sec. 5*e 6 Rep. (ct 8o. 2+, 'hilippine ivil "ervice Aaw. (s such, he is protected a$ainst removal or suspension ecept for cause, as provided by law and after due process *(rt. E>, sec. 4, onstitution6 section 294, Rev. (dm. ode6 "ec. 7, Rep. (ct 8o. 2+, ivil "ervice (ct of 1959. The constitutional and statutory $uaranty of security of tenure is etended to both those in the classified and unclassified civil service *Aacson v. Romero, F.R. 8o. A-7+1, %ct. 14, 19496
3
Farcia v. Aen view of the conclusions reached, we deem it unnecessary and irrelevant to discuss and determine the first issue. >t is contended in this connection, that the appellee failed to ehaust his administrative remedies by not as/in$ the &oard of Re$ents to reconsider the challen$ed resolution before brin$in$ the matter to court. (n administrative review is not a condition precedent to 8 >30 ;3R3%=, the appellants are hereby permanently restrained from enforcin$ the resolution of %ctober , 1959, a$ainst the herein appellee Ramon Tapales, and others similarly situated and affected, with costs a$ainst the appellants. 'en%(on, C.J., )adilla, 'autista An%elo, *abrador, Concepcion, +ees, J.'.*., 'arrera, i(on and a/alintal, JJ., concur.
Mangubat vs. Osmeña, 105 Phil. 1308 Marinu!ue vs "e#retar$ G.R. No. L-159'2
Ma( 31, 1963
MARIND$)$E IRON MINES AGENTS, IN*., petitioner-appellant, vs. THE SE*RETAR& O# P$"LI* +ORS AND *OMM$NI*ATIONS, respondent-appellee. Catral and +ees Office of the Solicitor General for respondents-appellees. MAALINTAL,
J.:
4
for
petitioner-appellant.
(ppellantHs petition for certiorari in the ourt of =irst >nstance of !anila was dismissed for lac/ of cause of action, on the $round that petitioner had not ehausted the administrative remedy available to him, namely, appeal to the 'resident from the decision of respondent "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications. The events which $ave rise to that petition are stated in the order of dismissal dated Guly 7+, 1959, as follows: >t appears from the alle$ations of the petition that the petitioner was denounced before the 'ort and ;arbor &oard, !anila, for ma/in$ certain constructions near the mouth of alat-an ree/ in "ipalay, 8e$ros %ccidental6 that on "eptember 11, 195, petitioner was served with copy of the char$es filed a$ainst it by two investi$ators of respondent "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications who conducted an investi$ation of said char$es6 that on the basis of this investi$ation, respondent "ecretary rendered a decision dated Ganuary 12, 1959 orderin$ the petitioner herein to remove the causeway ille$ally constructed at the mouth of the alat-an River and restore the bed of said river to its ori$inal condition within thirty days from receipt of copy of the decision, otherwise, the removal shall be effected by the $overnment at the epense of herein petitioner. 0ithout appealin$ the decision of the respondent "ecretary to the 'resident, herein petitioner has filed with this ourt the present petition for certiorari see/in$ that the decision of respondent be annulled. The order of dismissal was issued after a preliminary hearin$ on the )uestion of whether or not an appeal to the 'resident should first have been ta/en. >t is the same )uestion now raised before us. 0herefore, the parties respectfully pray that the fore$oin$ stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this ;onorable ourt, without pre
RespondentHs action orderin$ petitioner-appellant to remove the causeway constructed by it at the mouth of the alat-an River was based on Republic (ct 8o. +52, sections and 7 of which provide: "3. . 0hen it is found by the "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications, after due notice and hearin$, that any dam, di/e or any other wor/s . . . encroaches into any public navi$able river, stream, coastal waters and any other public navi$able waters or waterways, . . . he shall have the authority to order the removal of any such wor/s and shall $ive the party concerned a period not to eceed thirty days for the removal of the same: . . . )ro0ided , further , That should the party concerned fail to comply with the order of the "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications within the period so stated in the order, such removal shall be effected by the "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications at the epense of said party within ten days followin$, the epiration of the period $iven the party concerned: )ro0ided , further&ore, That the investi$ation and hearin$ to be conducted by the "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications under the section shall be terminated and decided by him within a period which shall not eceed ninety days from the time he shall have been notified in writin$ or a written complaint shall have been filed with him by any interested party apprisin$ him of the eistence of a dam, di/e or any other wor/s and that encroaches into any public navi$able river, streams, coastal waters or any other public waters or waterways . . .: )ro0ided ,still further&ore, That the failure on the part of the "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications without
5
$iven him in the said order for the removal of any wor/s, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than si months or more than si years and a fine of not less than five hundred pesos or more than si thousand pesos. >n the case of any "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications, in addition to the fine and imprisonment herein provided, he shall suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute dis)ualification to h old any office. 8owhere in the fore$oin$ provisions, or in any other part of Republic (ct 8o. +52, is it re)uired that appeal to the 'resident should precede recourse to the courts. The silence of the statute, to be sure, does not mean the 'resident may not review the action of the "ecretary. ;is power to do so is implicit in his constitutional power of control of all the eecutive departments *"ection 1+, par. 1, (rt. >> of the onstitution. This, however, does not resolve the issue, which is not whether petitioner could have appealed to the 'resident but whether he should have done so before see/in$ t is to be noted that the law does not provide for an administrative appeal. &ut even assumin$ that such appeal is le$ally authori?ed, in the face of the unmista/able le$islative policy disclosed by the )uoted statute, > am inclined to the view that an appeal to the
%
'resident from a decision of the "ecretary of 'ublic 0or/s and ommunications, does not in the meantime stay the eecution of the appealed decision. 8evertheless, in order to afford the a$$rieved party ample opportunity to secure n any event, we believe the facts of this case place it within the rule enunciated in i&aisip 0s. Court of Appeals, F.R. 8o. A-17+++, "eptember 5, 1959, as follows: "uch failure *to appeal from the decision of the "ecretary at ($riculture and 8atural Resources to the 'resident cannot preclude the plaintiffs from ta/in$ court action in view of the theory that the "ecretary of a Department is merely an alter-e$o of the 'resident6 the assumption is that the action of the "ecretary bears the implied sanction of the 'resident, unless same is disapproved by the latter. The order appealed from is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court a uo for trial and
&
