Republic v. Bayao

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 179492. June 5, 2013.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by ABUSAMA M. ALID, Officer-in-Charge, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-REGIONAL FIELD UNIT XII (DA-RFU XII), petitioner, vs. ABDULWAHAB A. BAYAO, OSMEÑA I. MONTAÑER, RAKMA B. BUISAN, HELEN M. ALVARES, NEILA P. LIMBA, ELIZABETH B. PUSTA, ANNA MAE A. SIDENO, UDTOG B. TABONG, JOHN S. KAMENZA, DELIA R. SUBALDO, DAYANG W. MACMOD, FLORENCE S. TAYUAN, in their own behalf and in behalf of the other officials and employees of DA-RFU XII, respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN, J p:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45. This Petition prays for the reversal and setting aside of the Court of Appeals' (1) Resolution dated March 21, 2007 that dismissed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed by petitioner for failure to resort to a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed trial court Order dated October 9, 2006 and (2) Resolution dated August 16, 2007 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioner Department of Agriculture-Regional Field Unit XII (DA-RFU XII) is a government office mandated to implement the laws, policies, plans, programs, rules, and regulations of the Department of Agriculture in its regional area, while respondents are officials and employees of DA-RFU XII. 1

On March 30, 2004, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 304 was passed designating Koronadal City as the regional center and seat of SOCCSKSARGEN Region. 2 It provides that all departments, bureaus, and offices of the national government in the SOCCSKSARGEN Region shall transfer their regional seat of operations to Koronadal City. 3

In an April 1, 2005 Memorandum, the Department of Agriculture (DA) Undersecretary for Operations Edmund J. Sana directed Officer-in-Charge (OIC) and Regional Executive Director of DA-RFU XII Abusama M. Alid as follows: ACcaET

In compliance with Executive Order No. 304 of which Section 2 states "Transfer of Regional Offices. All departments, bureaus and offices of the National Government on the SOCCSKSARGEN Region shall transfer their regional seat of operations to Koronadal City," you are hereby directed to immediately effect the transfer of the administrative, finance and operations base of RFU XII from Cotabato City to Koronadal City. On the interim, part of the staff can temporarily hold office at either or both the ATI building in Tantangan and Tupi Seed Farm, but the main office shall be within Koronadal City.

The action plan for transfer should be submitted to my office not later than 6 April 2005 so that appropriate funding can be processed soonest. Further, execution of the plan should commence by 16 April 2005 or earlier so that concerned personnel can benefit from the summer break to make personal arrangements for the transfer of their work base.

For strict compliance. 4

In a Memorandum dated April 22, 2005 addressed to DA Secretary Arthur Yap, private respondents opposed the implementation of the April 1, 2005 Memorandum. 5

They alleged that in 2004, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo made a pronouncement during one of her visits in Cotabato City that the regional seat of Region 12 shall remain in Cotabato City. 6 Only three departments were not covered by the suspension of E.O. No. 304, namely, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Tourism (DOT), and Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). 7

Respondents alleged further in their Memorandum to the DA Secretary that on March 7, 2005, they appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture that the implementation of E.O. No. 304 be held in abeyance. A copy of the Petition was attached to the Memorandum. It cited reasons such as the huge costs the physical transfer will entail and the plight of employees who have already settled and established their homes in Cotabato City. 8 ICESTA

On March 8, 2005, their Petition was endorsed by Department of Agriculture Employees Association-12 (DAEAS-12) President Osmeña I. Motañer to then President Macapagal-Arroyo, and on April 12, 2005, this was referred to DA Secretary Yap for his information and appropriate action. 9 Respondents justified their appeal saying that a building was constructed in Cotabato City that can accommodate the whole staff of DA-RFU XII. On the other hand, there is no building yet in Koronadal City where rent is very expensive. 10 Moreover, if the regional office remains in Cotabato City, the government need not spend over P7,200,000.00 as dislocation pay as well as other expenses for equipment hauling and construction. 11 Finally, respondents alleged that the proposed third floor of the ATI Building in Tantangan has a sub-standard foundation and will not be issued a certificate of occupancy by the City Engineering Office of Koronadal City as per information from an auditor. 12

On May 17, 2005, OIC Abusama M. Alid held a meeting and ordered the transfer of the regional office to ATI Building in Tantangan and Tupi Seed Farm in Tupi, both located in South Cotabato and Uptown, Koronadal City, to be carried out on May 21, 2005. 13

This prompted respondents to file on May 18, 2005 a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 of Cotabato City. 14

By Order dated October 9, 2006, the trial court granted respondents' Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. 15

In a petition dated December 17, 2006, 16 petitioner went to the Court of Appeals via Rule 65 on the ground that the assailed Order of the trial court is contrary to the pronouncement of this Court in DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees.

Through the March 21, 2007 Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for failure of petitioner to resort to a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed trial court Order. 17

Hence, the present Petition under Rule 45. CDHaET

Petitioner argues that (1) this case falls under the exceptions for filing a Motion for Reconsideration prior to filing a Petition under Rule 65; (2) the trial court Order enjoining the transfer is contrary to DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees18 that upheld the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary on the wisdom of transfer of regional offices; (3) the trial court interfered into this wisdom of the executive in the management of its affairs; and (4) the trial court disregarded basic rules on amendment and revocation of administrative issuances and the propriety of injunction as a remedy. 19

In their Comment, respondents counter that a Petition via Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail the disputed Resolutions. 20 They allege that the assailed Court of Appeals Resolution dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for failure of the petitioners to file a Motion for Reconsideration is not a "final order or resolution" contemplated by Rule 45. 21 It is not an adjudication on the merits. 22 In fact, the Court of Appeals did not even attempt to resolve the propriety of the issuance of the assailed trial court Order. 23 In any case, respondents argue that petitioner's failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration is fatal. They contend that this is a condition sine qua non for a Petition under Rule 65, and none of the exceptions are present in this case. 24

Based on both parties' contentions, the issues involved in this case may be summarized as follows:

I. Whether a Petition via Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail the disputed Resolutions

II. Whether the present case falls within the exceptions on the requisite for filing a Motion for Reconsideration prior to filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

III. Whether petitioner can raise other issues not addressed in the assailed Resolutions

IV. Whether the issuance by the RTC of a preliminary injunction against the transfer of the DA Regional Office to Koronadal City violates the separation of powers between the executive department and the judiciary as to the wisdom behind the transfer

First, we discuss the procedural issues. SCaIcA

Respondents contend that a Petition via Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail the disputed Resolutions. 25 They allege that the assailed Court of Appeals Resolution dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for failure of the petitioners to file a Motion for Reconsideration is not a "final order or resolution" contemplated by Rule 45. 26

On the other hand, petitioner argues that if the assailed Resolutions are not elevated via Rule 45, they would attain finality and consequently, the trial court Order dated October 9, 2006 would become unassailable as well. 27

A dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a Petition via Rule 65 for failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration may be assailed via Rule 45.

Unlike a Petition via Rule 45 that is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original or independent action. 28 Consequently, the March 21, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the Petition via Rule 65 as well as its August 16, 2007 Resolution denying reconsideration are the final Resolutions contemplated under Rule 45. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, these Resolutions would attain finality if these are not elevated on appeal via Rule 45. As a result, the trial court Order dated October 9, 2006 would also become unassailable. 29

Respondents also argue that petitioner's failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed Regional Trial Court Order dated October 9, 2006 is fatal. 30 They contend that the reasons raised by petitioner do not justify dispensing with the prerequisite of filing a Motion for Reconsideration. 31

For its part, petitioner argues that its Petition for Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals falls under the exceptions to the necessity of filing a Motion for Reconsideration. 32 In its Petition with the Court of Appeals, petitioners explained its reasons for no longer filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed order in that (a) the questions to be raised in the motion have already been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court 33 and (b) there is urgent necessity for the resolution of the questions or issues raised. 34 Petitioners allege that the trial court presiding judge was not acting on the disposition of the case with dispatch and that any further delay would unduly prejudice the interests of the government in pursuing its economic development strategies in the region. 35

The settled rule is that a Motion for Reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a Petition for Certiorari. 36 Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. 37 EDHTAI

This rule admits well-defined exceptions as follows:

Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceeding were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. 38 (Emphasis provided)

The second exception is present in this case.

In Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 39 this Court found that the non-filing of a Motion for Reconsideration in the case was not fatal since the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have already been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, viz.:

Respondent explained their omission of filing a motion for reconsideration before resorting to a petition for certiorari based on exceptions (b), (c) and (i). The CA brushed aside the filing of the motion for reconsideration based on the ground that the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court. We agree. aHSAIT

Respondent had filed its position paper in the RTC stating the reasons why the injunction prayed for by petitioner should not be granted. However, the RTC granted the injunction. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA and presented the same arguments which were already passed upon by the RTC. The RTC already had the opportunity to consider and rule on the question of the propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the injunction. We found no reversible error committed by the CA for relaxing the rule since respondent's case falls within the exceptions. 40

Similarly, the various issues raised in the Petition with the Court of Appeals have already been raised by petitioner on several occasions through its pleadings with the trial court. The lower court, therefore, passed upon them prior to its issuance of its Order dated October 9, 2006. Specifically, the table below summarizes the issues and arguments raised by petitioner before the trial court vis a vis those raised in the Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals:

TRIAL COURT	COURT OF
			APPEALS
Motion to Dismiss 41	Memorandum 42	Manifestation and	Petition for
		Reply 43	Certiorari 44
dated June 27, 2005	dated September 1,	dated September 5,	dated December 17,
	2006	2006	2006
The Honorable	The instant complaint	To reiterate, the	Respondent judge
Supreme Court had	filed by plaintiffs for	Supreme Court has	committed grave
already ruled that the	injunction is an	held in the	abuse of discretion
propriety or wisdom	indirect way of	applicable case of	to lack or excess
of the transfer of	preventing the	DENR v. DENR	of jurisdiction
government agencies	transfer of the	Region 12	when he enjoined
or offices from	regional seat of DA-	Employees (409	petitioner from
Cotabato City to	RFU XII which has	SCRA 359 [2003])	transferring DA-
Koronadal, South	been upheld by the	that respondent	RFU XII from
Cotabato is beyond	Supreme Court in	DENR employees	Cotabato City to
judicial inquiry. 45	DENR v. DENR	cannot, by means	South Cotabato
	Region 12 Employees	of an injunction,	and Koronadal
	(409 SCRA 359	force the DENR XII	City. The assailed
	[2003]). If this	Regional Offices to	order of the lower
	Honorable Court	remain in Cotabato	court enjoining
	cannot countermand	City, as the exercise	petitioner from
	the Supreme Court's	of the authority to	transferring the
	ruling directly, it	transfer the same is	seat of the DA-
	cannot do so	executive in nature."	RFU XII office to
	indirectly. 46	The Supreme Court	Koronadal City in
		further stated in said	South Cotabato is
		case that "the	contrary to the
		judiciary cannot	pronouncement of
		inquire into the	the Supreme Court
		wisdom or	in DENR v. DENR
		expediency of the	Region 12
		acts of the executive	Employees (409
		or the legislative	SCRA 359
		department." 47	[2003]). 48
	Corollary to the above,
	the Order dated May
	31, 2005 of this
	Honorable Court
	enjoining defendants
	from transferring the
	seat of the DA-RFU
	XII office to Koronadal
	City in South Cotabato
	is contrary to the
	above pronouncement
	of the Supreme Court.
	Perforce, the Order
	must be set aside
	accordingly. 49
The allegation under	Executive orders are		Respondent judge
Paragraph 4 of the	amended, modified or		acted arbitrarily,
Complaint that her	revoked by		whimsically and in a
Excellency,	subsequent ones. The		very bias[ed] manner
President Gloria	alleged public		when he concluded
Macapagal-Arroyo	pronouncement of the		that the President of
only made a public	President suspending		the Republic has
pronouncement that	the implementation of		suspended the
the effect of E.O.	Executive Order No.		implementation of
No. 304 is	304 is contrary to the		Executive Order No.
suspended is hearsay	ordinance power of		304. 52
and contrary to the	the President as
procedure on the	provided under the
repeal, amendment	Administrative Code
or modification of	of 1987. 51
rules and
regulations. 50
By the nature of			Respondent judge
their appointment as			committed grave
Regional Officials			abuse of discretion
and Employees,			when he concluded
plaintiffs can be			that the transfer of
reassigned anywhere			DA-RFU XII to
within Region XII in			Koronadal City will
the exigency of the			affect seriously the
service. 53			studies of
			respondents' children
			and that there will be
			no buildings to
			house respondents. 54
	The allegation of	If the plight and
	possible injury to	conditions of the
	plaintiffs and their	families of the
	families as a	DENR employees
	consequence of the	are worth
	planned transfer of	considering, like the
	the regional seat of	dislocation of
	DA-RFU XII to	schooling of their
	Koronadal City had	children, which
	been ruled upon by	without doubt has
	the Supreme Court in	more adverse impact
	DENR v. DENR	than the supposed
	Region 12 Employees	absence of
	(409 SCRA 359	allowances for the
	[2003]) to be beyond	transfer, the
	judicial inquiry	Supreme Court
	because it involves	should have granted
	concerns that are	the injunction
	more on the propriety	prayed for by said
	or wisdom of the	DENR employees.
	transfer rather than
	on its legality. 55	Apparently, the
		Supreme Court did not
		find it compelling to
		grant the injunction
		over and above the
		wisdom of the
		transfer. 56
	The families of the
	employees can still
	stay in Cotabato City
	in as much as they
	have established
	residences in the area.
	It must be emphasized
	that the employees
	derive salaries and
	benefits from their
	government work,
	from which they
	support their families.
	The movement of
	employees thus would
	not cause much
	financial dislocation
	as long as the
	employees received
	their salaries
	and benefits. 57
		The Honorable	Respondent judge
		Court must further	committed grave
		realize that the	abuse of discretion
		employees are being	when he concluded
		paid their salaries. In	that the transfer of
		the given order of	DA-RFU XII would
		things, such salaries	stretch out the
		are enough to	meager salaries of
		provide for their	respondents and that
		basic necessities.	it would cause them
		The Regional Office	economic
		can simply provide	strangulation. 59
		for transportation to
		effectuate the
		minimum required
		for the transfer to
		Koronadal City and
		expect the
		employees to live on
		their salaries. Any
		allowances due and
		owing the employees
		connected with the
		transfer can be given
		to them later as back
		payments. This is
		not to forget that the
		Regional Office has
		provided temporary
		housing for said
		employees to
		alleviate any
		inconvenience that
		they may suffer. 58
There is absolutely	The issues on the		Respondent judge
no technical	alleged illegal		committed grave
malversation in the	realignment of funds,		abuse of discretion
realignment of	unauthorized		when he ordered the
budgetary allocation	issuance of		issuance of a writ of
for the intended	memorandum and the		preliminary
transfer of DA-RFU	alleged unjust		injunction based on
XII to Koronadal	transfer of employees		the absence of
City. 60	of DA-RFU XII are		appropriation for the
	acts that are		transfer to
	executive in nature		Koronadal City in
	. . . . 61		the amount of
			P9,250,000.00. 62
	. . . the funds needed
	for the transfer can be
	sourced and met by the
	DA from sources
	such as the
	discretionary
	administrative fund
	of the Office of the
	Secretary.
	Respondent's
	computation of the
	amount required for
	the transfer in the
	amount of
	P9,222,000.00 is
	bloated or
	exaggerated. 63
	Respondents who are		Respondent judge
	accountable officers		committed grave
	cannot be coerced to		abuse of discretion
	transfer funds that are		when he concluded
	deemed illegal or		that respondents
	improper. Hence, no		would suffer
	personal liability or		irreparable damage
	irreparable injury		if the transfer of DA-
	would be caused		RFU XII from
	upon them. On the		Cotabato City to
	other hand, the rest of		Koronadal City is
	respondents who are		not enjoined. 65
	ordinary employees
	would not suffer any
	irreparable injury.
	This is due to the fact
	that they have no
	privity to the alleged
	illegal transfer of
	funds. 64

Thus, the present case falls under the second exception in that a Motion for Reconsideration need not be filed where questions raised in the certiorari proceedings are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court. HSEcTC

In any case, this Court disregards the presence of procedural flaws when there is necessity to address the issues because of the demands of public interest, including the need for stability in the public service and the serious implications the case may cause on the effective administration of the executive department. 66

The instant Petition involves the effective administration of the executive department and would similarly warrant relaxation of procedural rules if need be. Specifically, the fourth clause of E.O. No. 304 states as follows: "WHEREAS, the political and socio-economic conditions in SOCCSKSARGEN Region point to the need for designating the regional center and seat of the region to improve government operations and services." 67

Respondents' final contention is that the disputed Resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals dwell solely on the indispensability of the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration with the trial court before filing a Petition via Rule 65; thus, the other grounds in the present Petition need not be addressed. 68

Considering that the Petition has overcome the procedural issues as discussed above, we can now proceed to discuss the substantive issues raised by petitioner.

Petitioner argues that the assailed Order of the trial court enjoining it from transferring the seat of the DA-RFU XII Regional Office to Koronadal City is contrary to this Court's pronouncement in DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees upholding the separation of powers of the executive department and the judiciary when it comes to the wisdom of transfer of regional offices. 69

This Court has held that while the power to merge administrative regions is not provided for expressly in the Constitution, it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments. 70 This power of supervision is found in the Constitution 71 as well as in the Local Government Code of 1991, as follows:

Section 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units. —

(a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. TaHDAS

The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to barangays. 72

In Chiongbian v. Orbos, we held further that the power of the President to reorganize administrative regions carries with it the power to determine the regional center. 73

The case of DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees is in point. This Court held that the DENR Secretary can reorganize validly the DENR by ordering the transfer of the DENR XII Regional Offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal, South Cotabato. 74 We also found as follows:

It may be true that the transfer of the offices may not be timely considering that: (1) there are no buildings yet to house the regional offices in Koronadal, (2) the transfer falls on the month of Ramadan, (3) the children of the affected employees are already enrolled in schools in Cotabato City, (4) the Regional Development Council was not consulted, and (5) the Sangguniang Panglungsod, through a resolution, requested the DENR Secretary to reconsider the orders. However, these concern issues addressed to the wisdom of the transfer rather than to its legality. It is basic in our form of government that the judiciary cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the acts of the executive or the legislative department, for each department is supreme and independent of the others, and each is devoid of authority not only to encroach upon the powers or field of action assigned to any of the other department, but also to inquire into or pass upon the advisability or wisdom of the acts performed, measures taken or decisions made by the other departments. 75 (Emphasis provided)

The transfer of the regional center of the SOCCSKSARGEN region to Koronadal City is an executive function. AIHaCc

Similar to DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees, the issues in the present case are addressed to the wisdom of the transfer rather than to its legality. Some of these concerns are the lack of a proper and suitable building in Koronadal to house the DA regional office, the inconvenience of the transfer considering that the children of respondent-employees are already enrolled in Cotabato City schools, and other similar reasons.

The judiciary cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the acts of the executive. 76 When the trial court issued its October 9, 2006 Order granting preliminary injunction on the transfer of the regional center to Koronadal City when such transfer was mandated by E.O. No. 304, the lower court did precisely that.

The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great government branches has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in concerns falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. 77 The judiciary as Justice Laurel emphatically asserted "will neither direct nor restrain executive [or legislative] action . . . ." 78

Finally, a verbal pronouncement to the effect that E.O. No. 304 is suspended should not have been given weight. An executive order is valid when it is not contrary to the law or Constitution. 79

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 21, 2007 and August 16, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 01457-MIN, as well as the Decision dated October 9, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 of Cotabato City are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 15-16.

2.Id. at 85.

3.Id.

4.Id. at 86.

5.Id. at 88.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 92.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 88.

10.Id. at 89.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 90.

13.Id. at 17.

14.Id. at 189.

15.Id. at 18.

16.Id. at 182.

17.Id. at 43-46.

18.DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees, 456 Phil. 635 (2003).

19.Rollo, p. 359.

20.Id. at 316.

21.Id. at 317.

22.Id. at 317-318.

23.Id. at 318.

24.Id. at 318-321.

25.Id. at 316.

26.Id. at 317.

27.Id. at 330.

28.De Mendez v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 174937, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 200, 207 citing Chua v. Santos, 483 Phil. 392, 400 (2004); G.R. No. 132467, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 365, 373.

29.Rollo, p. 330.

30.Id. at 318.

31.Id. at 386.

32.Id. at 360.

33.Id. at 169. See also p. 360.

34.Id. See also p. 362.

35.Id. See also p. 362.

36.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 190680, September 13, 2012; Medado v. Heirs of Consing, G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 534, 548 citing Pineda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 181643, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 274, 281-282.

37.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, supra.

38.Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 457, 469-470. See also Republic v. Pantranco North Express, et al., G.R. No. 178593, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 199, 205-206. See also Domdom v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 528, 532-533 citing Tan v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 570, 576-578 (1997).

39.Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., supra.

40.Id. at 470-471.

41.Rollo, pp. 98-114.

42.Id. at 132-154.

43.Id. at 160-166.

44.Id. at 167-184.

45.Id. at 99.

46.Id. at 136.

47.Id. at 161.

48.Id. at 173.

49.Id. at 138.

50.Id. at 108.

51.Id. at 144-145.

52.Id. at 174.

53.Id. at 104.

54.Id. at 176.

55.Id. at 149.

56.Id. at 163.

57.Id. at 144.

58.Id. at 163.

59.Id. at 177.

60.Id. at 106-107.

61.Id. at 140.

62.Id. at 178.

63.Id. at 143.

64.Id. at 142-143.

65.Id. at 181.

66.DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees, supra note 18, at 643. Similarly, this involves an Order by the trial court to cease and desist the transfer of DENR XII regional office from Cotabato City to Koronadal. In this case, although no appeal was made within the reglementary period to appeal, the Court found that "departure from the general rule that the extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal is justified because the execution of the assailed decision would amount to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority."

67.Executive Order No. 304 (2004).

68.Rollo, p. 389.

69.Id. at 362-363.

70.Abbas v. COMELEC, 258-A Phil. 870, 884 (1989).

71.CONSTITUTION, Art.X, Sec. 4.

    Sec. 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays, shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.

72.Republic Act No. 7160 (1991), Chap. III, Art. I, Sec. 25.

73.Chiongbian v. Orbos, 315 Phil. 251, 269 (1995).

74.DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees, supra at 645-646.

75.Id.

76.DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees, supra at 648.

77.Santiago v. Guingona, 359 Phil. 276, 284 (1998).

78.Tan, et al. v. Macapagal, 150 Phil. 778, 784 (1972) citing Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. 62, 73 (1939).

79.CIVIL CODE, Art. 7.

    "Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.

    When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.

    Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution."