Corona vs. CA

11/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corona vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 97356. September 30, 1992.
HON. ARTURO C. CORONA, in his capacity as Acting

Secretary of the Department of Transportation and
Communications, COMMODORE ROGELIO A. DAYAN, in
his capacity as General Manager of the Philippine Ports
Authority, and EUFRACIO SEGUNDO C. PAGUNURAN,
in his capacity as Chairman of the Department of
Transportation and CommunicationsAdministrative
Action Board, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG and CRISTETO E.
DINOPOL, respondents.
Administrative Law; DOTC Secretary; Jurisdiction over PPA

personnel merely appellate.Petitioners contention, xxx that the
DOTC
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
379
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 379
Secretary, acting as alter ego of the President, has jurisdiction

over PPA personnel like the private respondents herein, is correct
only to a certain extent. The DOTC Secretarys jurisdiction is
circumscribed by the aforequoted provisions of the PPA Charter
and the Civil Service Law which give him only appellate
jurisdiction over disciplinary matters involving personnel below
that of Assistant General Manager. He does not have the power to
initiate proceedings against a subordinate official of the PPA;
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc3be9638eec1dc46003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
otherwise, we shall witness the absurd spectacle of the DOTC

Secretary acting as complainant-initiator of an administrative
case which later falls upon him to review. What is prescribed by
the law and the Beja case is that all complaints against a PPA
official or employee below the rank of Assistant General Manager
shall be filed before the PPA General Manager by the proper
officials, such as the PPA police or any aggrieved party. The
aggrieved party should not, however, be one and the same official
upon whose lap the complaint he has filed may eventually fall on
appeal. Nemo potest esse simul actor et judex. No man can be at
once a litigant and judge. Unless, of course, in an exceptional
case, such official inhibits himself or expresses his willingness at
the outset to waive his right to review the case on appeal.
Same; Same; Same; Statutory Construction; PPA Charter;
Civil Service Law; Special law prevails over prior general law on
same subject.The Court, however, agrees with the Court of
Appeals ratiocination in arriving at the conclusion that Sec. 8,
Art. V of the PPA Charter should prevail over Sec. 37(b) of the
Civil Service Law, considering that where a later special law on a
particular subject is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, a prior
general law on the same subject, a partial repeal of the latter will
be implied to the extent of the inconsistency, or an exception
grafted upon the general law. Since, in a sense, the two laws are
in pari materia, both should be construed as to harmonize with
each other. Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus
interpretandi. Every statute must be so construed and
harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of
jurisprudence. For the assumption is that whenever the
legislature enacts a law, it has in mind the previous statutes
relating to the same subject matter, and in the absence of any
express repeal or amendment, the new statute is deemed enacted
in accordance with the legislative policy embodied in those prior
statutes.
Same; Jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss based on lack of
jurisdiction; Estoppel successfully invoked only if party failed to
raise question in the early stages of the proceedings.Petitioners
claim that the
380
private respondents are estopped from challenging the

jurisdiction of the AAB as they actively participated in the
proceedings therein deserves scant consideration. While it is true

that a party may be estopped from raising the question of
jurisdiction on appeal, such estoppel may be invoked successfully
only if the party failed to raise such question in the early stages of
the proceedings. The records show that Bungubung did not wait
for the rendition of an AAB decision before he questioned its
jurisdiction. After filing his answer, he filed a motion to dismiss
on the issue of jurisdiction and even went to the extent of
elevating the issue to this Court. For his part, Dinopol also filed a
motion to dismiss the case against him and, upon its denial, filed
a motion for reconsideration. In the absence of proof of laches on
the part of the private respondents, the doctrine enunciated in
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy upon which petitioners rely, is inapplicable.
As correctly pointed out by counsel for respondent Dinopol, it has
been clearly held in People v. Eduarte that the ruling in the Tijam
case is but an exception to the general rule that the lack of
jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal.
Same; Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies;
Exception; Where administrative body was patently without
jurisdiction; Where petition raises only questions of law.Neither
is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
applicable in this case. Besides the fact that the AAB was
patently without jurisdiction to act on the administrative
complaints filed against respondents Dinopol and Bungubung, the
instant petition raises only questions of law, one of the exceptions
to the general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Most enlightening is the following portion of the decision in
Quisumbing v. Gumban: x x x . The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It has been
repeatedly held that the principle requiring previous exhaustion
of administrative remedies is not applicable where the question in
dispute is a purely legal one; where the controverted act is patently
illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction; where the respondent is a department secretary,
whose acts as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or
assumed approval of the latter; where there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; or where the
respondent has acted in disregard of due process. The rule does
not apply where insistence on its observance would result in
nullification of the claim being asserted; and when the rule does
not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
381
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 381

PETITION for review on certiorari from the decision of the

Court of Appeals. Dayrit, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Abad, Bautista & Associates for respondent Dinopol.
Jose F. Miravite for respondent Bungubung.
ROMERO, J.:
The instant petition for review on certiorari once again

puts in issue the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) Secretarys power to discipline
employees of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) below
the rank of Assistant General Manager in his capacity as
alter ego of the President.
On May 15, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
Administrative Order No. 25 creating a Presidential
Committee on Public Ethics and Accountability, Sec. 1 of
which declares as a policy that:
The Department Secretary shall be directly responsible to the

President in eradicating graft and corruption in his Department
and the offices, agencies, government-owned or controlled
corporations attached to or under his Department. The
Department Secretary shall likewise be responsible to the
President for the implementation of policies and programs to
minimize or prevent graft and corruption and to promote the
ethical standards of public service.
Pursuant to the mandate of A.O. No. 25, former DOTC

Secretary Rainerio Reyes issued Office Order No. 88-318
creating the Administrative Action Board (AAB) to act,
decide and recommend to the Secretary appropriate
measures on cases of administrative malfeasance,
irregularities, grafts and acts of corruption in the
Department.
On August 26, 1988, two PPA police officers, Rosmelito
del Mundo and Geronimo Gorospe, filed in the AAB which
was then presided by Chairman Onofre Villaluz, a
complaint for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service against Leopoldo Bungubung,
District Manager of the Port of Manila (AAB-031-88).
Bungubung filed his answer but later, he filed a motion
to dismiss assailing the jurisdictional competence of the
AAB on
382
the ground that it was the General Manager of the PPA

who had jurisdiction over the case. AAB denied the motion
to dismiss in a written order which was issued by Secretary
Reyes himself upon the recommendation of the AAB.
Subsequently, the PPA General Manager, Rogelio A.
Dayan, filed another formal charge against Bungubung
and one Mario Tan for dishonesty, inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties, willful
violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and/or
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Docketed as Adm. Case No. 11-01-88, the case was
indorsed to the AAB for appropriate action.
Questioning the jurisdiction of the AAB over the
administrative cases against him, Bungubung filed a
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order with this Court (G.R. Nos.
86468-69). In the resolution of January 26, 1989, the Court
required the respondents to file their comment on the
petition and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
the AAB from further acting on the administrative cases.
Meanwhile, on August 26, 1988 or on the same date that
the first administrative case against Bungubung was filed,
Secretary Reyes also filed a complaint with the AAB
against Cristeto Dinopol, then Manager of the Port of
Davao, for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for
violation of the Anti-Graft Law (Adm. Case No. AAB-006-
86). PPA General Manager Dayan then issued a preventive
suspension order against Dinopol. On September 19, 1988,
said PPA General Manager also filed Adm. Case No. AAB-
016-88 against Dinopol for dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
At the hearings conducted by the AAB, Dinopol actively
participated. He presented his evidence therein although
he asserted that the PPA General Manager, not the AAB,
had jurisdiction to initiate and conduct an administrative
investigation under Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 857, the PPA
Charter.
On October 27, 1988, the AAB rendered a decision in
Adm. Case AAB-006-88 finding Dinopol guilty as charged
and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the
service with cause plus the accessory penalties of
cancellation of eligibilities, forfeiture of leave credits and
retirement benefits, and disquali-
383
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 383

fication for re-employment in the government service. On

No-vember 23, 1988, AAB rendered its decision in Adm.
Case AAB-016-88 also finding Dinopol guilty as charged.
He was also meted the same penalty and its accessories as
those imposed on him in Adm. Case AAB-006-88.
Copies of said decisions were mailed to Dinopol on
December 6, 1988 but on that day,1
Dinopol filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with prayer for preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order challenging
the jurisdiction of the AAB over the administrative cases
against him. The following day, said court issued an order
directing the respondents therein (petitioners herein) to
desist from continuing the proceedings of the
Administrative Action Board and to observe the status
quo on the situation prior to (Dinopols) suspension.
Respondents therein opposed the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction but on January
9, 1988, the court issued a resolution ordering the
reinstatement of Dinopol to his former position of Port
Manager of Davao and the payment to him of back salaries
and other emoluments during his preventive suspension.
The court also issued the writ of preliminary injunction
prayed for by Dinopol.
A motion praying for the reconsideration of the said
resolution and for the dissolution of the writ was filed by
the respondent officials therein. On the other hand,
Dinopol filed a motion to cite the PPA General Manager in
contempt of court for failing to reinstate him and pay his
back salaries. On January 26, 1989, the court denied the
motion and directed the immediate implementation of the
writ of preliminary injunction with a warning that in case
of non-compliance therewith, respondent officials therein
shall be fined P1,000.00 and imprisoned for a period not
exceeding one month.
This prompted the said respondents to file with this
Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with an
urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Acting on the
petition which was captioned as Hon. Rainerio O. Reyes,
etc., et al. v. Engr. Cristeto
_________________
1 Presided by Judge Armie E. Elma.
384

E. Dinopol, et al. and docketed as G.R. No. 86646, on

February 2, 1989, this Court issued the temporary
restraining order prayed for and enjoined the lower court to
cease and desist from implementing the resolution and writ
of preliminary injunction both dated January 9, 1989 as
well as the order of January 26, 1989.
G.R. Nos. 86468-69 (the Bungubung case) and G.R. No.
86646 (the Dinopol case) were later consolidated upon the
submission of the petitioners in the latter case that the two
petitions present the common issue of whether or not the
Secretary of the DOTC and/or the AAB have jurisdiction to
initiate and hear administrative cases against PPA
personnel whose rank are below that of an assistant
general manager. After their consolidation, the two cases
were referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate
action.
The cases were docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA-
G.R. No. SP-17195. Asserting that the periods of their
preventive suspension had been unduly extended,
Bungubung and Dinopol moved for their immediate
reinstatement pendente lite. The Court of Appeals granted
the motion in its resolutions of July 5 and 20, 1989. Hence,
then DOTC Secretary Oscar Orbos, PPA General Manager
Dayan and then AAB Chairman Villaluz interposed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or
writ of preliminary injunction with this Court, submitting
the issue of whether or not Dinopol and Bungubung were
entitled to immediate reinstatement and payment of
backwages pending adjudication on the merits of their
cases by the Court of Appeals.
Acting on said petition which was docketed as G.R. No.
92358, on March 20, 1990, the Court issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining the Court of Appeals from
implementing its resolutions of July 5, 1989, July 20, 1989
and January 19, 1990. In due course, on November 21,
1990, the2 Court En Banc rendered a decision granting the
petition.
______________
2 191 SCRA 563. The Court found that there were still 38 days
remaining of Bungubungs preventive suspension. On the other hand, the
Court found that having been in suspension for 103 days in AAB-
385
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 385

On December 17, 1990, the Court3 of Appeals promulgated

its decision in CA-G.R. SP-17195. In substance, the Court
of Appeals ruled that the DOTC Secretary is without
jurisdiction over the administrative cases against
Bungubung and Dinopol for two reasons:
First. While the Civil Service Law vests upon the
Department heads jurisdiction to investigate and decide
matters involving disciplinary action against
4
officers and
employees under their jurisdiction, said law cannot
prevail over Sec. 8, Art. V of the PPA Charter (P.D. No.
857) which states that (t)he General Manager (of the PPA)
shall, subject to the approval of the Board, appoint and
remove personnel below the rank of Assistant General
Manager. The Court of Appeals explained:
The above-quoted provision is in the nature of a special law while

the present Civil Service Law granting jurisdiction to department
heads, is in the nature of a general law. Special law prevails over
general law. Being a special rule limited to the creation and
functions of the Philippine Ports Authority, PD No. 857 prevails
over the Civil Service Law, insofar as it involves jurisdiction to
remove personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager
as specifically lodged in the PPA General Manager. The Civil
Service Law authorizes a department head to commence and try
administrative cases, but this general provision must yield to the
specific provision found in the PPA Charter. The particular
enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be
taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are
not within the provisions of the particular enactment (25 R.C.L.,
p. 1010, citing numerous cases).
The appellate court also stressed that, not only is the PPA
Charter a particular lawsaid Charter, having been
enacted on 006-88, Dinopols preventive suspension therein
had run out. However, there were still 11 days remaining
of Dinopols preventive suspension in AAB-016-88.
_____________
3 Rollo, p. 89. Penned by Justice Abelardo M. Dayrit, the decision was

concurred in by Justices Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. and Celso D. Magsino.
4 Sec. 37(b), P.D. 807.
386

December 23, 1975, is a more recent enactment than P.D.

No. 807 which was issued on October 6, 1975. Second. The
power of review by the Office of the President has been
repealed by P.D. 1409. The DOTC Secretary, acting as the
alter ego of the President, can no longer exercise
disciplinary jurisdiction over PPA personnel:
x x x. Further, the power of review by the Office of the President

under P.D. No. 807 was repealed by P.D. 1409 creating the Merit
Systems Board in the Civil Service Commission (Meram v.
Edralin, 154 SCRA 235). The theory that Secretary Reyes, acting
as alter ego of the President, can no longer be sustained. The
Administrative Action Board (AAB) of the DOTC must yield to the
jurisdiction of the PPA General Manager.
Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the decision of

the Court of Appeals but the motion was denied. Hence, the
instant recourse through a petition for review on certiorari
submitting that the Court of Appeals decision is contrary
to law and settled jurisprudence because: (a) it effectively
deprived the DOTC Secretary, acting as the alter ego of the
President, of the authority to control and/or supervise
personnel actions involving employees of the PPA; (b) it
nullified the proceedings of the AAB for want of
jurisdiction, notwithstanding that respondent Dinopol
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the body, and (c) it
granted writs of certiorari in favor of respondents who, on
the otherhand,
5
failed to exhaust available and adequate
remedies.
The issue of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the
DOTC and/or the AAB over administrative cases involving
personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager of
the PPA 6has been raised and settled in Beja, Sr. v. Court of
Appeals. The Court, after discussing the nature of an
attached agency and its relationship with the Department
to which it is attached, held:
Hence, the inescapable conclusion is that with respect to the

management of personnel, an attached agency is, to a certain
extent,
______________
5 Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 20.

6 G.R. No. 97149, March 31, 1992.
387
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 387

free from Departmental interference and control. This is more

explicitly shown by P.D. No. 857 which provides:
SEC. 8. Management and Staff.
a) The President shall, upon the recommendation of the Board,

appoint the General Manager and the Assistant General
Managers.
b) All other officials and employees of the Authority shall be selected
and appointed on the basis of merit and fitness based on a
comprehensive and progressive merit system to be established by
the Authority immediately upon its organization and consistent
with Civil Service rules and regulations. The recruitment,
transfer, promotion, and dismissal of all personnel of the
Authority, including temporary workers, shall be governed by such
merit system.
c) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval of the Board,
determine the staffing pattern and the number of personnel of the
Authority, define their duties and responsibilities, and fix their
salaries and emoluments. For professional and technical
positions, the General Manager shall recommend salaries and
emoluments that are comparable to those of similar positions in
other government-owned corporations, the provisions of existing
rules and regulations on wage and position classification
notwithstanding.
d) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval by the Board,
appoint and remove personnel below the rank of Assistant General
Manager.
x x x x x x x x x.
(Italics supplied)
Although the foregoing section does not expressly provide for a

mechanism for an administrative investigation of personnel, by
vesting the power to remove erring employees on the General
Manager, with the approval of the PPA Board of Directors, the
law impliedly grants said officials the power to investigate its
personnel below the rank of Assistant (General) Manager who
may be charged with an administrative offense. During such
investigation, the PPA General Manager, as earlier stated, may

subject the employee concerned to preventive suspension. The
investigation should be conducted in accordance with the
procedure set out in Sec. 38 of P.D. No. 807. Only after gathering
sufficient facts may the PPA General Manager impose the proper
penalty in accordance with law. It is the latter action which
requires the approval of the PPA Board of Directors.
From an adverse decision of the PPA General Manager and the
Board of Directors, the employee concerned may elevate the
matter to
388

the Department Head or Secretary. Otherwise, he may appeal

directly to the Civil Service Commission. The permissive recourse
to the Department Secretary is sanctioned by the Civil Service
Law (P.D. 807) under the following provisions:
SEC. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.
(a) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative

disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of
suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount
exceeding thirty days salary, demotion in rank or salary or
transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be
filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a
government official or employee in which case it may hear and
decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or
official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The
results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission
with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other
action to be taken.
(b) The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities,
provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to
investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action
against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. The
decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension
for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding
thirty days salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or
office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be
initially appealed to the department and finally to the
Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory
except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall
be executory only after confirmation by the department head.
x x x x x x x x x.
(Italics supplied.)
It is, therefore, clear that the transmittal of the complaint by

the PPA General Manager to the AAB was premature. The PPA
General Manager should have first conducted an investigation,
made the proper recommendation for the imposable penalty and
sought its approval by the PPA Board of Directors. It was
discretionary on the part of the herein petitioner to elevate the
case to the then DOTC Secretary Reyes. Only then could the AAB
take jurisdiction of the case.
389
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 389

Petitioners contention, therefore, that the DOTC

Secretary, acting as alter ego of the President, has
jurisdiction over PPA personnel like the private
respondents herein, is correct only to a certain extent. The
DOTC Secretarys jurisdiction is circumscribed by the
aforequoted provisions of the PPA Charter and the Civil
Service Law which give him only appellate jurisdiction over
disciplinary matters involving personnel below that of
Assistant General Manager. He does not have the power to
initiate proceedings against a subordinate official of the
PPA; otherwise, we shall witness the absurd spectacle of
the DOTC Secretary acting as complainant-initiator of an
administrative case which later falls upon him to review.
What is prescribed by the law and the Beja case is that
all complaints against a PPA official or employee below the
rank of Assistant General Manager shall be filed before the
PPA General Manager by the proper officials, such as the
PPA police or any aggrieved party. The aggrieved party
should not, however, be one and the same official upon
whose lap the complaint he has filed may eventually fall on
appeal. Nemo potest esse simul actor et judex. No man can
be at once a litigant and judge. Unless, of course, in an
exceptional case, such official inhibits himself or expresses
his willingness at the outset to waive his right to review
the case on appeal.
Moreover, the fact that the PPA is a government agency
attached to the DOTC extensively affects the extent of
whatever control and supervision the said Departments
Secretary may exercise. In Beja, the Court said:
Attachment of an agency to a Department is one of the three

administrative relationships mentioned in Book IV, Chapter 7 of
the Administrative Code of 1987, the other two being supervision

and control, and administrative supervision. Attachment is
defined in Sec. 38 thereof as follows:
(3) Attachment.(a) This refers to the lateral relationship between the

department or its equivalent and the attached agency or corporation for
purposes of policy and program coordination. The coordination shall be
accomplished by having the department represented in the governing
board of the attached agency or corporation, either as chairman or as a
member, with or without voting rights, if this is permitted by the charter;
390

having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of

periodic reporting which shall reflect the progress of programs and
projects; and having the department or its equivalent provide general
policies through its representative in the board, which shall serve as the
framework for the internal policies of the attached corporation or agency;
x x x x x x x x x.
An attached agency has a larger measure of independence from

the Department to which it is attached than one which is under
departmental supervision and control or administrative
supervision. This is borne out by the lateral relationship between
the Department and the attached agency. The attachment is
merely for policy and program coordination. With respect to
administrative matters, the independence of an attached agency
from Departmental control and supervision is further reinforced
by the fact that even an agency under a Departments
administrative supervision is free from Departmental interference
with respect to appointments and other personnel actions in
accordance with the decentralization of personnel functions under
the Administrative Code of 1987. Moreover, the Administrative
Code explicitly provides that Chapter 8 of Book IV on supervision
and control shall not apply to chartered institutions attached to a
Department. (Italics supplied.)
Thus, while PPA personnel are, as mandated by P.D. 868,

embraced in the Civil Service, the DOTC may not act
directly whenever a specific function
7
is entrusted by law or
regulation to a subordinate.
It should be noted that in AAB-031-88, the complaint
against Bungubung was erroneously filed directly with the
AAB and it was no less than DOTC Secretary Reyes who,
upon the recommendation of the AAB, denied Bungubungs
motion to dismiss. The PPA General Manager also
erroneously indorsed to the AAB Adm. Case No. 11-01-88,

the complaint he himself filed against Bungubung, without
having conducted an investigation and recommending the
appropriate penalty as required by the facts found at said
investigation.
With regard to Adm. Case No. AAB-006-88 against
Dinopol,
______________
7 This is part of the definition of supervision and control under Sec.

38(1) of the Administrative Code of 1987.
391
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 391

it was filed with the AAB by Secretary Reyes himself while

the other case against Dinopol, Adm. Case No. 016-88, was
filed by the PPA General Manager directly with the AAB
without said PPA officials appropriate investigation and
corresponding recommendation. Under these
circumstances, the absurd situation mentioned above could
ensue: the DOTC Secretary deciding on appeal his own
complaint. On the other hand, in Adm. Case No. 016-88,
the PPA General Manager abdicated his duty of conducting
an investigation and submitting his recommendation, as
demanded by his factual findings.
Filing a case directly with the AAB may be a shortcut to
accomplish the laudable purpose of A. O. No. 25. However,
whatever advantage may accrue therefrom in terms of time
element, may be offset by the denial of the right to a fair
and unbiased proceeding insofar as the personnel
complained against is concerned. At the very least, he could
be afforded the opportunity of confronting the charges
against him in the forum where the law requires that they
should be ventilated. If at all, this procedure may deprive
the DOTC Secretary of control and supervision over
personnel of the PPA below the rank of Assistant General
Manager but only at the initial stage of an administrative
proceeding. Should the defendant employee be dissatisfied
with the ruling of the PPA General Manager, he can
always elevate his case to the DOTC Secretary wherein the
AAB will play a pivotal role or, at his option, go directly to
the Civil Service Commission. Hence, the Court of Appeals
is less than accurate in its sweeping statement that the
DOTC Secretary, as alter ego of the President, has
completely lost control and supervision over disciplinary

matters involving the PPA employees concerned. In fact, in
the administrative hierarchy set up under both the PPA
Charter and the Civil Service Law, the DOTC Secretary
has the ultimate say before recourse to the courts may be
made.
The Court, however, agrees with the Court of Appeals
ratiocination in arriving at the conclusion that Sec. 8, Art.
V of the PPA Charter should prevail over Sec. 37(b) of the
Civil Service Law, considering that where a later special
law on a particular subject is repugnant to, or inconsistent
with, a prior general law on the same subject, a partial
repeal of the latter will be implied to the extent of the
inconsistency, or an exception grafted upon
392

8
the general law. Since, in a sense, the two laws are in pari
materia, both should be construed as to harmonize with
each other. Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus
interpretandi. Every statute must be so construed and
harmonized with other9 statutes as to form a uniform
system of jurisprudence.
For the assumption is that whenever the legislature
enacts a law, it has in mind the previous statutes relating
to the same subject matter, and in the absence of any
express repeal or amendment, the new statute is deemed
enacted in accordance 10with the legislative policy embodied
in those prior statutes.
Applying the foregoing rules on statutory construction,
the DOTC Secretary has not entirely relinquished his
power of control and supervision over an attached agency,
such as the PPA. The PPA Charter merely defined and, to a
certain extent, delimited such power which, under the Civil
Service Law is of general application.
Petitioners claim that the private respondents are
estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the AAB as
they actively participated in the proceedings therein
deserves scant consideration. While it is true that a party
may be estopped
11
from raising the question of jurisdiction
on appeal, such estoppel may be invoked successfully only
if the party failed to raise such question in the early stages
of the proceedings. The records show that Bungubung did
not wait for the rendition of an AAB decision before he
questioned its jurisdiction. After filing his answer, he filed
a motion to dismiss on the issue of jurisdiction and even

went to the extent of elevating the issue to this Court. For
his part, Dinopol also filed a motion to dismiss the case
against him and, 12
upon its denial, filed a motion for
reconsideration. In the absence of proof of laches on the
part of the private
_______________
8 National Power Corporation v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. XXV, G.R.

No. 72477, October 16, 1990, 190 SCRA 477; Lagman v. City of Manila,
G.R. No. 23305, June 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 579.
9 Agpalo, R.E., Statutory Construction, p. 192.
10 Ibid.
11 See; Baaga v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,
G.R. No. 66386, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 599.
12 Respondents Comment, p. 14, Rollo, p. 126; Dinopols Memo-
393
VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 393

respondents, 13 the doctrine enunciated in Tijam v.

Sibonghanoy upon which petitioners rely, is inapplicable.
As correctly pointed out by counsel for respondent 14
Dinopol,
it has been clearly held in People v. Eduarte that the
ruling in the Tijam case is but an exception to the general
rule that the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at
any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.
Neither is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies applicable in this case. Besides the fact that the
AAB was patently without jurisdiction to act on the
administrative complaints filed against respondents
Dinopol and Bungubung, the instant petition raises only
questions of law, one of the exceptions to the general rule
on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Most
enlightening is the following
15
portion of the decision in
Quisumbing v. Gumban:
x x x. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is

not a hard and fast rule. It has been repeatedly held that the
principle requiring previous exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not applicable where the question in dispute is a
purely legal one; where the controverted act is patently illegal or
was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction;
where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an
alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval
of the latter; where there are circumstances indicating the

urgency of judicial intervention; or where the respondent has
acted in disregard of due process. The rule does not apply where
insistence on its observance would result in nullification of the
claim being asserted; and when the rule does not provide a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy. (Italics supplied.)
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is

hereby DENIED. The decisions of the Administrative
Action Board in randum, p. 16, Rollo, p. 217.
_______________
13 L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29. Petitioners claim the

applicability of the doctrine enunciated in this case that a party cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction.
14 G.R. No. 88232, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 750.
15 G.R. No. 85156, February 5, 1991, 193 SCRA 520, pp. 523-524.
394

Nidoy vs. Court of Appeals
AAB-006-88 and AAB-016-88 against Cristeto E. Dinopol

are hereby declared NULL AND VOID and, together with
the cases against Leopoldo F. Bungubung, AAB-031-88 and
Adm. Case No. 11-01-88, they shall be REMANDED to the
General Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority for
immediate reinvestigation.
SO ORDERED.
Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Melo, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., On official leave.
Petition denied.
Note.Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not

applicable where the question in dispute is purely a legal
one or where the controverted act is patently illegal or was
performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction
or where the respondent is a Department Secretary, who
acts as an alter-ego of the President x x x. (Animos vs.
Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, 174 SCRA 214).
o0o
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Corona vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corona vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corona vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 214

378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

HON. ARTURO C. CORONA, in his capacity as Acting

Administrative Law; DOTC Secretary; Jurisdiction over PPA

VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 379

Corona vs. Court of Appeals

Secretary, acting as alter ego of the President, has jurisdiction

otherwise, we shall witness the absurd spectacle of the DOTC

380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corona vs. Court of Appeals

private respondents are estopped from challenging the

proceedings therein deserves scant consideration. While it is true

VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 381

PETITION for review on certiorari from the decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The instant petition for review on certiorari once again

The Department Secretary shall be directly responsible to the

Pursuant to the mandate of A.O. No. 25, former DOTC

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corona vs. Court of Appeals

the ground that it was the General Manager of the PPA

VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 383

fication for re-employment in the government service. On

1 Presided by Judge Armie E. Elma.

384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

E. Dinopol, et al. and docketed as G.R. No. 86646, on

VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 385

On December 17, 1990, the Court3 of Appeals promulgated

The above-quoted provision is in the nature of a special law while

3 Rollo, p. 89. Penned by Justice Abelardo M. Dayrit, the decision was

386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

December 23, 1975, is a more recent enactment than P.D.

x x x. Further, the power of review by the Office of the President

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the decision of

Hence, the inescapable conclusion is that with respect to the

5 Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 20.

VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 387

free from Departmental interference and control. This is more

SEC. 8. Management and Staff.

a) The President shall, upon the recommendation of the Board,

Although the foregoing section does not expressly provide for a

investigation, the PPA General Manager, as earlier stated, may

388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the Department Head or Secretary. Otherwise, he may appeal

SEC. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.

(a) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative

It is, therefore, clear that the transmittal of the complaint by

VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 389

Petitioners contention, therefore, that the DOTC

Attachment of an agency to a Department is one of the three

the Administrative Code of 1987, the other two being supervision

(3) Attachment.(a) This refers to the lateral relationship between the

390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of

An attached agency has a larger measure of independence from

Thus, while PPA personnel are, as mandated by P.D. 868,

erroneously indorsed to the AAB Adm. Case No. 11-01-88,

7 This is part of the definition of supervision and control under Sec.

VOL. 214, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 391

it was filed with the AAB by Secretary Reyes himself while