J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2014-0060: BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN CRUISE LINE, AND MS. CYNTHIA C. MENDOZA, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS – JOEL P. HIPE, JR., RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 204699, 12 NOV 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) BRIEF TITLE: BAHIA SHIPPING ET AL VS. HIPE.

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 2, 2012 and the Resolution dated December 3, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115888 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Joel P. Hipe, Jr. ‘s claim for disability benefits is DENIED.

SO ORDERED “

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGESTS:

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI?

IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY?

WHEN DOES SUCH REMEDY OF CERTIORARI APPLIES?

WHEN THE COURT OR QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY GRAVELY ABUSED THE DISCRETION CONFERRED UPON IT.

WHAT IS MEANT BY GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

IT CONNOTES A CAPRICIOUS AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT, DONE IN A DESPOTIC MANNER BY REASON OF PASSION OR PERSONAL HOSTILITY, THE CHARACTER OF WHICH BEING SO PATENT AND GROSS AS TO AMOUNT TO AN EVASION OF POSITIVE DUTY OR TO A VIRTUAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM THE DUTY ENJOINED BY OR TO ACT ALL IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW.

“To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in contemplation of law.”

IN LABOR CASES WHEN IS THERE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

WHEN NLRC’S FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED  BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,65 OR THAT AMOUNT OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE WHICH A REASONABLE MIND MIGHT ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO JUSTIFY A CONCLUSION.

“In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence,65 or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.66 The onus probandi falls on the seafarer to establish his claim for disability benefits by the requisite quantum of evidence to justify the grant of relief.”

……………………………………………..

THE PHYSICIAN OF SEAFARER HIPE CERTIFIED THAT HIPE SUFFERS FROM PERMANENT DISABILITY. HIS COMPANY’S PHYSICIAN CERTIFIED THAT HIPE IS FIT TO WORK. IS HIPE ENTITLED TO PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFIT?

NO. HE DID NOT AVAIL OF THE CONFLICT-RESOLUTION PROCEDURE UNDER THE POEA-SEC AND CBA. IT CALLS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A THIRD PARTY DOCTOR TO DECIDE AND WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE BINDING. IF THERE IS NO THIRD PARTY DOCTOR, THEN THE FINDINGS OF THE COMPANY PHYSICIAN PREVAILS.

“Whatever his reasons might have been, [the seafarer’s] disregard of the conflict-resolution procedure under the POEA-SEC and the CBA cannot and should not be tolerated and allowed to stand, lest it encourage a similar defiance. x x x The third-doctor-referral provision of the POEA- SEC, it appears to us, has been honored more in the breach than in the compliance. This is unfortunate considering that the provision is intended to settle disability claims voluntarily at the parties’ level where the claims can be resolved more speedily than if they were brought to court.

Given the circumstances under which [the seafarer] pursued his claim, especially the fact that he caused the non-referral to a third doctor, [the company doctor’s] fit-to-work certification must be upheld. In Santiago v. Pacbasin Ship Management, Inc., the Court declared: “[t]here was no agreement on a third doctor who shall examine him anew and whose finding shall be final and binding. x x x”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2014-0059: APO CEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VERSUS MINGSON MINING INDUSTRIES CORPORATION (G.R. NO. 206728, 12 NOV 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ) SUBJECT/S: DUE PROCESS, APPEAL (BRIEF TITLE: APO CEMENT VS. MINGSON MINING)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 13, 2012 and the Resolution dated April 23, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100456 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

APO CEMENT SUBMITTED A MINERAL PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT TO DENR OVER AN UN-USED MINING AREA. MINGSON MINING PROTESTED CLAIMING THE AREA ENCROACHED HIS MINING SITE. DENR AT FIRST RULED IN FAVOR OF MINGSON MINING. THEN UPON MOTION FOR RECON OF APO CEMENT, DENR RULED IN FAVOR OF APO CEMENT BUT SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS OF THE PANEL OF ARBITRATORS (POA) WHICH BY LAW HAS THE JURISISCTION TO DETERMINE SUCH CLAIMS. WITHOUT CONDUCTING HEARINGS, PAO AFFIRMED THE DENR DECISION. SINGSON MINING APPEALED TO DENR MAB (MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD) WHICH NULLIFIED POA’S FINDINGS BECAUSE POA DID NOT CONDUCT HEARING IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. C.A. AFFIRMED THE RULING OF DENR MAB. IS CA RULING CORRECT?

YES. BY MERELY REVIEWING THE DENR FINDINGS WITHOUT CONDUCTING HEARING, POA RULED IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. THUS, ITS RULING IS NULL AND VOID.

Sections 22330 (on preliminary conference), 22431 (on hearing), and 22732 (on the proceedings before the POA), as well as Sections 22133 (on due course) and 22234 (on answers) of DENR DAO 95-23, or the Implementing Rules of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995,35 clearly require that the parties involved in mining disputes be given the opportunity to be heard. These rules – which were already in effect36 during the time the dispute between the parties arose – flesh out the core requirement of due process; thus, a stark and unjustified contravention of the same would oust the errant tribunal of its jurisdiction and, in effect, render its decision null and void. …

………………………………….

WHAT HAPPENS IF A COURT MAKES A RULING IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS?

THE COURT IS OUSTED FROM ITS JURISDICTION.

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS IS A VIOLATION OF BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. WHERE THERE IS A VIOLATION OF BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, COURTS ARE OUSTED FROM THEIR JURISDICTION.

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party’s right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.38 (Emphases supplied)

Here, it has been established that the POA proceeded to resolve the present mining dispute without affording either party any fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard in violation of the aforementioned provisions of DENR DAO 95-23. Thus, as correctly ruled by the DENR MAB and later affirmed by the CA, Mingson’s due process rights were violated, thereby rendering the POA’s Decision null and void.

……………………

WHEN MINGSON MINING APPEALED TO THE DENR MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD (MAB), IT DID NOT RAISE THE ISSUE ON DUE PROCESS. YET DENR MAB CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS IN ITS RULING. WAS DENR MAB CORRECT?

YES. MINGSON MINING, AFTER FILING ITS APPEAL, WROTE TO MAB AND IN SAID LETTER RAISED THE ISSUE ON DUE PROCESS. DENR MAB CAN CONSIDER SAID LETTER AS PART OF THE APPEAL. DENR MAB IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND THEREFORE NOT BOUND BY TECHNICAL RULES. ALSO, APPARENT LACK OF DUE PROCESS MAY BE RAISED AT ANY TIME IN THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE IT IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.

In this relation, the Court finds it apt to clarify that the DENR MAB did not err in taking cognizance of the due process issue. While such issue was not assigned as an error in Mingson’s Appeal39 dated July 27, 1996, the same was squarely raised in Mingson’s August 8, 1996 letter40 to the DENR MAB. Given the lack of any formal procedure on appeals at that time,41 the DENR MAB cannot be faulted for considering the letter and the issues raised therein as part of Mingson’s appeal. It must be added that the DENR MAB is not a court of law but an administrative body; hence, it is not bound by strict rules of procedure and evidence, and is allowed to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of each case speedily and objectively without resort to technical rules,42 as in this case.  

Besides, an apparent lack of due process may be raised by a party at any time since due process is a jurisdictional requisite that all tribunals, whether administrative or judicial, are duty bound to observe. In Salva v. Valle, 43 the Court pronounced that “[a] decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at anytime directly or collaterally by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked.” The Court sees no defensible reason as to why this principle should not be herein applied.  

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2014-0059-NOV-2014-APO CEMENT

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2014-0058: ALROBEN J. GOH, PETITIONER, VERSUS HON. LUCILO R. BAYRON AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 212584, 25 NOVEMBER 2014, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECT/S: COMELEC BUDGET; RECALL ELECTION (BRIEF TITLE:: GOH VS. HON. BAYRON AND COMELEC).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

We PARTIALLY REVERSE and SET ASIDE Resolution No. 9864 insofar as it directed the suspension of any and all proceedings in the recall petition. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE Resolution No. 9882, and DIRECT the Commission on Elections to immediately carry out the recall elections of Mayor Lucilo R. Bayron of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 7505.

This Decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

COMELEC SAYS THERE IS NO BUDGET IN THE 2014 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR THE CONDUCT OF RECALL ELECTION AND THEREFORE THEY CANNOT CONDUCT RECALL ELECTIONS. IS THIS CORRECT?

NO. THE 2014 GAA PROVIDES THE LINE ITEM APPROPRIATION TO ALLOW COMELEC TO CONDUCT RECALL ELECTIONS.

“We grant the petition. We hold that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882. The 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to allow the COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections. There is no need for supplemental legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall elections for 2014.”

……………………………………….

TO BE VALID AN APPROPRIATION MUST INDICATE A SPECIFIC AMOUNT AND A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. DOES THE PURPOSE ‘TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS’ COVER RECALL ELECTIONS”?

YES. THE PURPOSE MAY BE BROKEN DOWN INTO DIFFERENT RELATED SUB-CATEGORIES. THEREFORE THE PURPOSE “TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS” COVERS, EVEN IF NOT EXPRESSLY SPELLED OUT, REGULAR, SPECIAL AND RECALL ELECTIONS.

“Under these· factual circumstances, we find it difficult to justify the COMELEC ‘s reasons why it is unable to conduct recall elections in 2014 when the COMELEC was able to conduct recall elections in 2002 despite lack of the specific words “Conduct and supervision of x x x recall votes x x x” in the 2002 GAA. In the 2002 GAA, the phrase “Conduct and supervision of elections and other political exercises” was sufficient to fund the conduct of recall elections. In the 2014 GAA, there is a specific line item appropriation for the “Conduct and supervision of x x x recall votes x x x.”

More importantly, the COMELEC admits in its Resolution No. 9882 that the COMELEC has “a line item for the ‘Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites.”‘ This admission of the COMELEC is a correct interpretation of this specific budgetary appropriation.· To be valid, an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a specific purpose. However, the purpose may be specific even if it is broken down into different related sub-categories of the same nature. For example, the purpose can be to “conduct elections,” which even if not expressly spelled out covers regular, special, or recall elections. The purpose of the appropriation is still specific -to fund elections, which naturally and logically include, even if not expressly stated, not only regular but also special or recall elections.

………………………………………….

CAN COMELEC TAP ITS SAVINGS TO FUND THE CONDUCT OF RECALL ELECTIONS?

YES. IT CAN AUGMENT FROM SAVINGS ITS APPROPRIATIONS FOR PERSONNEL SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES. RECALL ELECTIONS ONLY NEED OPERATING EXEPENSES BECAUSE THE EXISTING PERSONNEL ARE THE SAME PERSONNEL WHO WILL EVALUATE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE RECALL PETITIONS.

However, contrary to the COMELEC’s assertion, the appropriations for personnel services and maintenance and other operating expenses falling under “Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites” constitute a line item which can be augmented from the COMELEC’s savings to fund the conduct of recall elections in 2014. The conduct of recall elections requires only operating expenses, not capital outlays. The COMELEC’s existing personnel in Puerto Princesa are the same personnel who will evaluate the sufficiency of the recall petitions. and conduct the recall elections.43

………………………………………….

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2014-0058-NOV-2014-GOH