Republic v Bayao GR No.

179492 June 5, 2013

FACTS:
 Petitioner Department of Agriculture–Regional Field Unit XII (DARFU XII) is a
government office mandated to implement the laws, policies, plans, programs, rules,
and regulations of the Department of Agriculture (DA) in its regional area, while
respondents are officials and employees of DA-RFU XII.
 EO 304 was passed designating Koronadal City as the regional center and seat of
SOCCSKSARGEN Region. 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.
 In a memorandum, the DA Undersecretary for Operations Edmund J. Sana directed
OIC and Regional Executive Director of DA-RFU XII Abusama M. Alid to immediately
effect the transfer of the administrative, finance and operations base of RFU XII from
Cotabato City to Koronadal City.
 Private respondents opposed the implementation of this memorandum saying that
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo made a pronouncement that the regional
seat of Region 12 shall remain in Cotabato City. 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). They appeal to hold in abeyance the implementation of EO
304 citing reasons like the huge costs the physical transfer will entail and the plight
of employees who have already settled and established their homes in Cotabato.
 Respondents justified their appeal saying that a building was constructed in
Cotabato City that can accommodate the whole staff of DARFU XII. On the other
hand, there is no building yet in Koronadal City where rent is very expensive.
Moreover, if the regional office remains in Cotabato City, the government need not
spend over ₱7,200,000.00 as dislocation pay as well as other expenses for
equipment hauling and construction. 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.
 OIC Alid held then 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.
 Respondents then filed for a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. This was
granted.
  Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals via Rule 65. This is denied for failure of
petitioner to resort to a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed trial court Order.

ISSUE:
WON 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? YES

HELD:
YES. 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.

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. This power of supervision is found in the Constitution as well as in the Local
Government Code of 1991:
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.
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

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.

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

The judiciary cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the acts of the executive.
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. The judiciary as Justice Laurel emphatically asserted "will
neither direct nor restrain executive or legislative action x x x. "

Also, 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.

OTHER ISSUES:

On procedural matters

Respondents argue that petitioner’s failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the
assailed Regional Trial Court Order is fatal. They contend that the reasons raised by
petitioner do not justify dispensing with the prerequisite of filing a Motion for
Reconsideration.

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 re-examination of the legal and
factual circumstances of the case. However, there are exceptions:

(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

The second exception is present in this case. 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. (*refer to the table of comparisons of issues in the case hehe)

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.