 |
|||
|
| |||
The respondent then filed a supplemental petition alleging that due to the implementation of Resolution No. 03-211, his carriers were forbidden to transport or deliver fish from Palawan to his clients resulting in loss of income amounting to ₱132,000.00; and that such supervening event was a mere scheme to circumvent the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CA. As stated, the CA promulgated its assailed decision on May 28, 2008, disposing as follows:
Hence, this appeal by the petitioners. Issues The sole issue for determination is whether or not the CA erred in declaring A.O. No. 00-05, Series of 2002; Resolution No. 03-211; and the the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order null and void for having been issued in excess of the PCSD’s authoity. The petitioners submit the following grounds for consideration, to wit: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN INTERPRETING SECTIONS 4, 6, 16, AND 19 OF RA 7611 AS LIMITATIONS TO THE POWER OF THE PCSD TO PROMULGATE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO 00-05. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PCSD'S ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 05 (sic) IS AN ENCROACHMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALA WIGAN OF PALA WAN,
III THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROMULGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 00-05 AND ITS REVISIONS IS VESTED SOLELY IN THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF PALAWAN. 14 Ruling of the Court We grant the petition for review on certiorari, and reverse the decision of the CA 1. Procedural Matters We first deal with the propriety of the petition for prohibition for the purpose of annulling the challenged administrative issuances. Administrative agencies possess two kinds of powers, the quasi-legislative or rule-making power, and the quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. The first is the power to make rules and regulations that results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. 15 The issuance of the assailed A.O. No. 00-05, Resolution. No. 03-211 and the other issuances by the PCSD was in the exercise of the agency's quasilegislative powers. The second is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act that is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. 16 The challenge being brought by the petitioners rests mainly on the theory that the CA should not have interpreted the functions of the PCSD, particularly those provided for in Sections 4, 6, 16, and 19 of R.A. No. 7611, as limitations on the power of the PCSD to promulgate A.O. No. 00-05. Clearly, what was assailed before the CA was the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the PCSD as an administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function. The question thus presented was a matter incapable of pecuniary estimation, and exclusively and originally pertained to the proper Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Indeed, Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court expressly states that any person "whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation" may bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court "to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder." The judicial course to raise the issue against such validity should have adhered to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts except only if the respondent had sufficient justification to do otherwise. Yet, he utterly failed to show justification to merit the exception of bypassing the Regional Trial Court. Moreover, by virtue of Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution,17 the Court's power to evaluate the validity of an implementing rule or regulation is generally appellate in nature. In this regard, the Court has categorically observed in Smart Communications, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission 18 that if what is being assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative functions, then the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the Constitution is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. 19 To accord with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, therefore, the petition for prohibition should have been originally brought in the proper Regional Trial Court as a petition for declaratory relief. We also need to remind that a petition for prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail an administrative order issued in the exercise of a quasilegislative function. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, ordering said entity or person to desist from further proceedings when said proceedings are without or in excess of said entity's or person's jurisdiction, or are accompanied with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 20 Its lies against the exercise of judicial or ministerial functions, not against the exercise of legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Generally, the purpose of the writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels.21 In other words, prohibition is the proper remedy to afford relief against usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an inferior court, or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its cognizance the inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the law, or where there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can be obtained.22 Nevertheless, the Court will not shirk from its duty to rule on this case on the merits if only to facilitate its speedy resolution. In proper cases, indeed, the rigidity of procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice. The power of the Court to except a particular case from its rules whenever the purposes of justice so require cannot be questioned. 23 2. Substantive Matters Were A.O. No. 00-05, Series of 2002; Resolution No. 03-211; and the the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order null and void for having been issued in excess of the PCSD's authority? We answer the query in the negative. R.A. No. No. 7611 has adopted the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan consistent with the declared policy of the State to protect, develop, and conserve its natural resources. The SEP is a comprehensive framework for the sustainable development of Palawan to protect and enhance the Province's natural resources and endangered environment. Towards this end, the PCSD was established as the administrative machinery for the SEP' s implementation.1avvphi1 The creation of the PCSD has been set forth in Section 16 ofR.A. No. 7611, to wit:
The functions of the PCSD are specifically enumerated in Section 19 of R.A. No. 7611, which relevantly provides:
Accordingly, the PCSD had the explicit authority to fill in the details as to how to carry out the objectives of R.A. No. 7611 in protecting and enhancing Palawan's natural resources consistent with the SEP. In that task, the PCSD could establish a methodology for the effective implementation of the SEP. Moreover, the PCSD was expressly given the authority to impose penalties and sanctions in relation to the implementation of the SEP and the other provisions of R.A. No. 7611. As such, the PCSD's issuance of A.O. No. 00-95 and Resolution No. 03-211 was well within its statutory authority. WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on May 28, 2008; DECLARES VALID and EFFECTIVE Administrative Order No. 00-05, Series of 2002; Resolution No. 03-211; and all their revisions, as well as the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order issued to the respondent; LIFTS the permanent injunction issued by the Court of Appeals enjoining petitioner Palawan Council for Sustainable Development from enforcing Administrative Order No. 00-05, Series of 2002; Resolution No. 03-211; and all their revisions, as well as the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order issued to the respondent; and ORDERS the respondent to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN WE CONCUR: MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Footnotes 1 Rollo, pp. 42-60; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, and concurred in by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga (retired), and Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon. 2 Id. at 201-222. 3 Id. at 43-44. 4 ld. at 44. 5 Id. at 45. 6 Id. parts 7 Id. at 47. 8 Id. 9 Approved on June 19,. 1992. 10 Rollo, p. 47. 11 Id. at 49. 12 Id. at 245. 13 Id. at 60. 14 Id. at 21-22. 15 Smart Communications, Inc. (SMART) v. National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), G.R. No. 15 1908 and G.R. No. 152063, August 12, 2003, 408 SCRA 678, 686. 16 Id. at 687. 17 The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
18 Supra note 15. 19 Id. at 689. 20 Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 21 Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Defensor, G.R. No. 163980, August 3, 2006, 497 SCRA 581,595. 22 Id., citing Davidv. Rivera, G.R. Nos. 129913 and 140159, January 16, 2004, 420 SCRA 90, 100. 23 Id. at 596. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||
