8uk|dnon Doctors' nosp|ta| Inc v Metropo||tan 8ank and 1rust Co

lAC1S

8ukldnon uocLor's PosplLal lnc obLalned a loan from MeLrobank Lhrough a real esLaLe
morLgage for Lhe consLrucLlon of one of lLs hosplLals 1he former was noL able Lo pay Lhus
Lhe laLLer Look possesslon of Lhe properLy 1he sald bank leased Lhe properLy Lo 8uPl buL
laLer demanded LhaL Lhe hosplLal vacaLe Lhe properLy 8uPl now quesLlons wheLher
MeLrobank was enLlLled Lo a wrlL of possesslon as provlded under AcL 3133 as amended
desplLe Lhe lease agreemenL

lSSuL

ls Lhe lssue ralsed by 8uPl a quesLlon of law lf so ls lL revlewable by Lhe Supreme CourL?

PLLu

?LS 1he quesLlon ralsed ls one of law Llkewlse Lhere ls a quesLlon of law when Lhe doubL or
conLroversy concerns Lhe correcL appllcaLlon of law or [urlsprudence Lo a cerLaln seL of facLs
or when Lhe lssue does noL call for an examlnaLlon of Lhe probaLlve value of Lhe evldence
presenLed Lhe LruLh or falsehood of facLs belng admlLLed


Akbayan outh v CCMLLLC (2001)

lacLs

8epresenLaLlves of Lhe youLh secLor asks CCMLLLC Lo conducL a speclal reglsLraLlon for new
voLers ages 18 Lo 21 before May 12 2001 Ceneral LlecLlons CCMLLLC dlsapproved Lhe
requesLs on Lhe ground of Sec 8 of 8A 8189 (no reglsLraLlon shall be conducLed durlng Lhe
perlod sLarLlng 120 days before regular elecLlon)

eLlLloners seek Lhe SC Lo seL aslde CCMLLLC's resoluLlon and or Lo declare Sec 8 of 8A
8189 unconsLlLuLlonal Moreover Lhe peLlLloners pray for a wrlL of mandamus dlrecLlng
CCMLLLC Lo conducL a speclal reglsLraLlon of voLers llnally peLlLloners lnvoke Lhe
sLandby" powers or resldual" powers of CCMLLLC as provlded ln Sec 28 of 8A 8436 (An
AcL lnLroduclng addlLlonal reforms ln Lhe elecLoral sysLem and for oLher purposes)

lssues
1 W/n CCMLLLC commlLLed grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln lssulng Lhe CCMLLLC
8esoluLlon

Peld/8aLlo
1 nC 1here was no grave abuse of dlscreLlon on Lhe parL of CCMLLLC for Lhe rlghL Lo
voLe ls condlLloned upon procedural llmlLaLlons Moreover CCMLLLC ls Lhe one Lasked by
Lhe consLlLuLlon Lo declde all elecLlon maLLers excepL Lhe rlghL Lo voLe 1hus lL ls an
accepLed docLrlne ln admlnlsLraLlve law LhaL Lhe deLermlnaLlon of admlnlsLraLlve agency as
Lo Lhe operaLlon lmplemenLaLlon and appllcaLlon of a law would be accorded greaL welghL




u|v|var v Cff|ce of the Cmbudsman

lacLs
ur Connle 8ernardo flled a charge of grave mlsconducL conducL unbecomlng of a publlc
offlclal and varlous felonles agalnsL 8achel 8ulvlvar before Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cbudsman ur
Connle 8ernardo alleges LhaL she dropped by 8uvlvar's offlce Lo geL her company's
accredlLaLlon Suddenly 8uvlvar lnsulLed her and prevenLed her from enLerlng Lhe offlce of
Lhe L1C Commlssloner Llkewlse 8uvlvar alleges LhaL her acLlons were due Lo Lhe lnLrlgues
LhaL ur 8ernardo spread agalnsL her aL Lhe uC1C

1he Cmbudsman found 8ulvlvar admlnlsLraLlvely llable for dlscourLesy and lmposed upon
her Lhe penalLy of reprlmand AfLer whlch 8uvlvar flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon wlLh
Lhe bellef LhaL she was denled due process She was glven Llme Lo flle a counLer sLaLemenL
buL she falled Lo meeL Lhe deadllne uesplLe Lhe dlsmlssal of her M8 she flled a peLlLlon for
cerLlorarl wlLh Lhe CA uslng rule 63 whlch was denled due Lo Lhe use of wrong legal remedy

lssues
1 w/n a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl under rule 63 ls Lhe proper and only avallable remedy when
Lhe penalLy lmposed ln an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL wlLh Lhe Cmbudsman ls flnal and
unappealable
2 w/n she was denled due process and Lhe rlghL Lo confronL Lhe evldence agalnsL her

Peld
1 ?es 8ule 63 ls appllcable ln Lhls case and noL rule 43 Cne can only use 8ule 43 lf Lhe
penalLy lmposed ln Lhe sald case ls noL yeL flnal ln Lhls case Lhe penalLy ls already
unappealable Lhus 8ule 43 cannoL apply

2 no she was accorded due process because she was glven Lhe opporLunlLy Lo rebuL Lhe
affldavlLs submlLLed agalnsL her 1he exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles" prlnclple
applles when Lhe rullng of Lhe courL or Lrlbunal ls noL glven Lhe opporLunlLy Lo reexamlne lLs
flndlngs and concluslons because of an avallable opporLunlLy LhaL a parLy seeklng recourse
agalnsL Lhe Lrlbunal's rullng omlLLed Lo Lake under Lhe concepL of due process a vlolaLlon
occurs when Lhe courL or Lrlbunal rules agalnsL a parLy wlLhouL glvlng hlm or her Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo be heard ln Lhls case Lhe avallable opporLunlLy Lo conslder Lhe peLlLloner's
counLersLaLemenL of facLs was denled Lhe Cmbudsman hence Lhe peLlLloner ls barred
from seeklng recourse agalnsL Lhe CA because Lhe ground she would lnvoke was noL
consldered aL all aL Lhe Cmbudsman level She cannoL now clalm a denlal of due process
because she dld noL Lake advanLage of Lhe opporLunlLy opened Lo her aL Lhe Cmbudsman
level



os|ta Montanez v rov|nc|a| Agrar|an eform Ad[ud|cator (AAD)
lacLs
MonLanez owned Lwo parcels of land ln negros CccldenLal whlch was sub[ecLed Lo
Lhe CA8 When Lhe lands were evenLually lssued Lo Lhe beneflclarles dlscrepancles
were evenLually found 1he land area appearlng ln Lhe CLCA appeared Lo be larger

1hus MonLanez flled a peLlLlon wlLh Lhe A8Au buL hls peLlLlon was evenLually
denled for Lhe grounds on whlch MonLanez lnvoked were non exlsLenL MonLanez
evenLually flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh Lhe CA buL was denled for fallure Lo
exhausL admlnlsLraLlve remedles

lssue
1 W/n Lhere was fallure Lo exhausL admlnlsLraLlve remedles

Peld
LS 1he proper remedy from a declslon of Lhe A8Au was an appeal Lo Lhe uA8
Ad[udlcaLlon 8oard (uA8A8) 8efore a parLy can brlng a case Lo Lhe courLs Lhe parLy
concerned should have avalled all Lhe admlnlsLraLlve processes afforded hlm 1here are
excepLlons buL none of Lhem falls under Lhls case

(lor more lnfo refer Lo dlgesL)



eg|no v angas|nan Co||eges of Sc|ence and 1echno|ogy

lacLs

ln 2002 angaslnan Colleges of Sclence and 1echnology held a fund ralslng campalgn
dubbed Lhe 8ave arLy and uance 8evoluLlon 1he sald college requlres each sLudenL Lo
buy Lwo LlckeLs or else Lhey would noL be able Lo Lake Lhe flnal exams

khrlsLlne 8ea M 8eglno prohlblLed by her rellglon Lo aLLend such parLles and resLrlcLed due
Lo flnanclal reasons refused Lo pay for Lhe LlckeLs ConsequenLly her Leachers CamuroL and
8aladad dlsallowed her from Laklng her flnals

8eglno flled a ComplalnL for damages agalnsL CS1 CamuroL and 8aladad CS1 flled a
MoLlon Lo ulsmlss on Lhe ground of 8eglnos fallure Lo exhausL admlnlsLraLlve remedles
Accordlng Lo CS1 Lhe quesLlon ralsed lnvolved Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe wlsdom of an
admlnlsLraLlve pollcy of Lhe CS1 hence Lhe case should have been lnlLlaLed before Lhe
proper admlnlsLraLlve body Lhe Commlsslon of Plgher LducaLlon (CPLu)

lssue W/n 8eglno falled Lo exhausL admlnlsLraLlve remedles

Peld nC

1he peLlLlon dld noL lnvolve Lhe wlsdom of an admlnlsLraLlve pollcy of Lhe CS1
8eglno was asklng for damages 1he exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles ls
appllcable when Lhere ls compeLence on Lhe parL of Lhe admlnlsLraLlve body Lo acL
upon Lhe maLLer complalned of AdmlnlsLraLlve agencles are noL courLs Lhey are
nelLher parL of Lhe [udlclal sysLem nor are Lhey deemed [udlclal Lrlbunals
Speclflcally Lhe CPLu does noL have Lhe power Lo award damages Pence
peLlLloner could noL have commenced her case before Lhe Commlsslon 1he
exhausLlon docLrlne admlLs of excepLlons one of whlch arlses when Lhe lssue ls
purely legal and well wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe Lrlal courL 8eglnos acLlon for
damages lnevlLably calls for Lhe appllcaLlon and Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe Clvll Code
a funcLlon LhaL falls wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe courLs