Republic of the Philippines vs. Bayao et al.

Posted Jun 5, 2013

By Anonymous

7 min read

Case Title and Citation

Republic of the Philippines, represented by Abusama M. Alid, Officer-in-Charge, Department of Agriculture - Regional Field Unit XII (DA-RFU XII), petitioner, vs. Abdulwahab A. Bayao, Osmeña I. Montañer, Rakma B. Buisan, Helen M. Alvarez, Neila P. Limba, Elizabeth B. Pusta, Anna Mae A. Sideno, Udtog B. Tabong, John S. Kamenza, Delia R. Subaldo, Dayang W. Macmod, Florence S. Tayuan, in their own behalf and in behalf of the other officials and employees of DA-RFU XII, respondents.
G.R. No. 179492, 2013-06-05
Supreme Court - Third Division
Ponente: Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen

Facts

On March 30, 2004, Executive Order No. 304 designated Koronadal City as the regional center and seat of SOCCSKSARGEN Region and provided that national government departments in the region shall transfer their regional seat of operations to Koronadal City.
By Memorandum dated April 1, 2005, DA Undersecretary Edmund J. Sana directed OIC and Regional Executive Director Abusama M. Alid to immediately effect the transfer of DA-RFU XII’s administrative, finance and operations base from Cotabato City to Koronadal City, with an action plan due April 6, 2005 and execution to commence by April 16, 2005.
Respondents (DA-RFU XII officials and employees) opposed implementation. In an April 22, 2005 memorandum to DA Secretary Arthur Yap they alleged a prior presidential pronouncement suspending E.O. No. 304, cited potential costs (including dislocation pay and equipment hauling), alleged lack of suitable buildings in Koronadal, and raised concerns about employees’ family and schooling.
On May 17, 2005, OIC Alid ordered the transfer to the ATI Building in Tantangan and Tupi Seed Farm in Tupi, Koronadal, to be carried out on May 21, 2005.
On May 18, 2005, respondents filed a Complaint for Injunction with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Cotabato City.
By Order dated October 9, 2006, the RTC granted respondents’ prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the transfer.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on December 17, 2006, arguing inter alia that the RTC order violated the separation of powers principle and was contrary to DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees (409 SCRA 359 [2003]).
The Court of Appeals dismissed the Rule 65 petition by Resolution dated March 21, 2007 for failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC; a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration to the CA was denied on August 16, 2007.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA Resolutions and the RTC Order.

Issues

Is a Petition via Rule 45 the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals Resolutions dismissing the Rule 65 petition and denying reconsideration? (Yes/No)
Does this case fall within recognized exceptions excusing the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration prior to filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65? (Yes/No)
May petitioner raise substantive issues not addressed by the Court of Appeals Resolutions on procedural grounds? (Yes/No)
Does the RTC’s issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer of the DA regional office to Koronadal City violate the separation of powers by intruding on executive discretion regarding the wisdom of the transfer? (Yes/No)

Ruling

Yes — A Petition under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals’ final Resolutions dismissing the Rule 65 petition and denying reconsideration.
Yes — The case falls within the well-defined exception that excuses filing a Motion for Reconsideration where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings were already duly raised and passed upon by the lower court.
Yes — Petitioner may present substantive issues since the procedural obstacles were overcome and the Court permissibly addressed the merits in light of public interest and prior adjudication of the issues by the RTC.
Yes — The issuance of the preliminary injunction violated separation of powers because the transfer of a regional office is an executive function addressing wisdom and expediency beyond judicial inquiry.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

On remedy and finality: The Court distinguished Rule 45 and Rule 65: certiorari under Rule 65 is an original, independent action, while a Rule 45 petition continues appellate review of a final CA resolution. The CA Resolutions (March 21, 2007 dismissal and August 16, 2007 denial of reconsideration) are final and therefore reviewable under Rule 45; absent such review they would render the RTC Order unassailable. (See De Mendez v. Court of Appeals; Chua v. Santos citations as in the source.)
On exceptions to Motion for Reconsideration: The Court reiterated the settled rule that a Motion for Reconsideration is generally a condition sine qua non to a Rule 65 petition but listed well-defined exceptions (e.g., patent nullity, questions already raised and passed upon, urgent necessity, where MR would be useless, deprivation of due process, purely legal question, public interest). The Court found the second exception applicable because petitioner had raised the same questions before the RTC and the RTC had passed upon them before issuing the injunction. Precedent: Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. (as cited).
On substantive issue and public interest: The Court noted that procedural defects may be disregarded when public interest or stability in public service demands resolution. The case affected effective administration of the executive department and warranted addressing merits.
On separation of powers and executive discretion: Citing DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees (409 SCRA 359 [2003]), Chiongbian v. Orbos, and constitutional/local government provisions (Art. X, Sec. 4; RA No. 7160 Sec. 25), the Court held that the determination of regional centers and transfers of regional offices are executive functions lodged with the President and the executive branch. The judiciary cannot inquire into the wisdom, expediency, or advisability of such transfers; concerns about timing, housing, employees’ family hardships, and related inconveniences address wisdom, not legality, and thus are beyond judicial review. The RTC’s preliminary injunction substituted judicial judgment for executive discretion and therefore constituted grave abuse of discretion.
On executive pronouncements and validity of executive orders: The Court held that a verbal or informal presidential pronouncement purportedly suspending an executive order should not be given weight; formal amendment, modification, or revocation of executive orders must follow proper administrative procedure. (Civil Code Article 7 as cited regarding validity of administrative acts.)

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Transfers of regional offices and designation of regional centers are executive functions implicating the President’s power of general supervision over local government units; judicial inquiry into the wisdom or expediency of such transfers is impermissible.
A Motion for Reconsideration is ordinarily a condition precedent to a Rule 65 petition, but well-defined exceptions exist, including where the issues raised in the petition were already raised and passed upon by the lower court.
Procedural requirements may be relaxed when public interest, stability in public service, or effective administration of the executive department justify addressing substantive issues.
Executive orders are valid only when not contrary to law or the Constitution; informal or verbal pronouncements do not substitute for formal amendment or revocation of executive issuances.

Disposition

The Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is GRANTED.
The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated March 21, 2007 and August 16, 2007 (CA-G.R. SP No. 01457-MIN) are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Decision/Order dated October 9, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City (which granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Effect: The injunction against transferring the DA-RFU XII regional office to Koronadal City was lifted; the executive may proceed with the transfer consistent with applicable law.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

No separate concurring or dissenting opinions were indicated in the decision; the opinion states “We concur” and lists the participating Associate Justices.

Significance / Notes

Reinforces the noninterference doctrine: courts will not substitute their judgment for the executive’s on matters of administrative planning and regional organization that concern wisdom or expediency.
Clarifies application of exceptions to the Motion for Reconsideration requirement for Rule 65 petitions: where issues were already raised and decided by the lower court, filing an MR may be excused.
Emphasizes that procedural formalities may be relaxed where public interest and stability in public service necessitate timely judicial resolution.
Confirms that informal executive pronouncements do not modify or suspend executive orders; formal procedures govern amendment or revocation of executive issuances.
Practical implication for public agencies: injunctive relief that effectively prevents executive reorganization or relocation of offices will be scrutinized for encroachment on executive prerogatives; courts will require legal, not merely prudential, grounds to enjoin such transfers.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.