Thursday, May 26, 2011

Administrative Cases

Factual findings made by quasi-judicial bodies and administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality by the appellate courts. This is because administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. As such, their findings of fact are binding upon the Supreme Court unless there is showing of grave abuse of discretion, or when it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. In administrative cases, the injury sought to be remedied is not merely the loss of public money or property. More significant are the pernicious effects of such action on the orderly administration of government services. Acts that go against the established rules of conduct for government personnel bring harm to the civil service, whether they result in loss or not. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee, but the improvement of the  public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government. Prejudice to the service is not only through wrongful disbursement of public funds or loss of public property. Greater damage comes with the public's perception of corruption and incompetence in the government (Jerome Japson v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 189479. April 12, 2011).

Special Courts

Per Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 23-2008, the following are designated Special Courts to hear, try and decide environmental cases in the Fifth Judicial Region:
Branch 1, Legazpi City
Branch 13, Ligao City
Branch 15, Tabaco City
Branch 25, Naga City
Branch 32, Pili Camarines Sur
Branch 35, Iriga City
Branch 38, Daet Camarines Norte
Branch 53, Sorsogon City
                                         Branch 47, Masbate City
These courts shall try and decide violations of environmental laws, viz; Revised Forestry Code (PD705); Marine Pollution (PD979); Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act (RA6969); Peoples' Small Scale Mining Act (RA7076); National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA7586); Philippine Mining Act (RA7942); Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (RA8371); Philippine Fisheries Code (RA8550); Clean Air Act (RA8749); Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA9003); National Caves and Caves Resources Management Act (RA9072); Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act (RA9147); Chainsaw Act (RA9175); Clean Water Act (RA9275).

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

BAR Matter No. 2265

Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations.
One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the annual bar exams that in the past consisted merely of naming the laws that each subject covered. This has been regarded as too general and provides no specific understanding of the entry-level legal knowledge required of beginning law practitioners. A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar exams that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of laws, doctrines, principles, and precedents, it has been noted that such examinations are unable to hit a significant cross-section of the subject matter. Further, huge number of candidates taking the exams annually and the limited time available for correcting the answers make fair correction of purely essay-type exams difficult to attain. Besides, the use of multiple choice questions, properly and carefully constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying professionals all over the world because of its proven reliability and facility of correction. A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type exams but dedicating these to the assessment of the requisite communication skills, creativity, and fine intellect that bar candidates need for the practice of law.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Wrong Mode of Appeal

The proper mode of appeal from decisions of Regional Trial Courts sitting as Special Agrarian Courts is by petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court and not through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The reference to the Rules of Court means that the specific rules for petitions for review in the Rules of Court and other relevant procedures in appeals filed before the Court of Appeals shall be followed in appealed decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. Considering that RA6657 cannot and does not provide the details on how the petition for review shall be conducted, a suppletory application of the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court is necessary. In fact Section 61 of RA6657 uses the word "review" to designate the mode by which the appeal is to be effected. The reference therefore by Section 61 to the Rules of Court only means that the procedure under Rule 42 for petitions for review is to be followed for appeals in agrarian cases.
The adoption of a petition for review as the mode of appeal is justified in order to "hasten" the resolution of cases involving issues on just compensation of expropriated lands under RA6657. The need for absolute dispatch in the determination of just compensation. Such objective is more in keeping with the nature of a petition for review. Unlike an ordinary appeal, a petition for review dispenses with the filing of a notice of appeal or completion of records as requisites before any pleading is submitted.
A resort to a wrong mode of appeal is fatal to one's cause as it results in the decision appealed from in becoming final and executory. Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process, the right thereto is not a natural right but is merely a statutory privilege (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Diaz, G.R. No. 190660. April 11, 2011).