Lovina vs Moreno, 9 SCRA 557 Case Digest (Administrative Law)

Adminstrative Law Arellano Univeristy School of Law aiza ebina/2015

LOV!A vs "O#$!O % S&#A 55' Restriction on Grant of Judicial Power  (A&)S* This (A&)S* This is an appeal from from a decision of the Court of First First Instance of Manila Manila enjoining enjoining the Secretary Secretary of  Public Works and Communications from causing the removal of certain dams and dikes in a shpond o!ned by Primitivo and "elly #ovina in the Municipality of Macabebe Province of Pampanga$  The cause started by a petition of numerous residents of the said municipality municipality to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications% complaining that appellees had blocked the &Sapang 'ulati&% a navigable river in Macabebe% Pampanga% and asking that the obstructions be ordered removed% under the provisions of  (epublic (epublic )ct "o$ *+,-$ )fter notice and hearing to the parties% the said Secretary Secretary found the constructions to be a public nuisance in navigable !aters% and% in his decision dated .. )ugust ./,/% ordered the land o!ners% spouses #ovina% to remove ve 0,1 closures of Sapang 'ulati2 other!ise% the Secretary !ould order their their remova removall at the e3pense of the respond respondent$ ent$ )fter )fter receipt receipt of the decision% decision% the responden respondentt led a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the Secretary from enforcing his decision$ The trial court% after due hearing% granted a permanent injunction% !hich is no! the subject of the present appeal$  The position of the plainti4s5appellee plainti4s5appellees s in the court belo! !as that (epublic (epublic )ct "o$ *+,- is unconstitutional because it invests the Secretary of Public Works and Communications !ith s!eeping% unrestrained% nal and unappealable authority to pass upon the issues of !hether a river or stream is public public and navigabl navigable% e% !hether !hether a dam encroach encroaches es upon upon such !aters !aters and is constitu constitutive tive as a public public nuisance% and !hether the la! applies to the state of facts% thereby Constituting an alleged unla!ful delegation of judicial po!er to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications$ SSU$* Whether or not the objections to the unconstitutionality of (epublic )ct "o$ *+,-% not only as an undue delegation of judicial po!er to the Secretary of Public Works but also for being unreasonable and arbitrary% tenable #UL!+* "o$ "o$ It !ill !ill be noted noted that that the )ct )ct 0($)$ 0($)$ *+,-1 *+,-1 mere merely ly empo! empo!er ers s the Secreta Secretary ry to remo remove ve unauthori6ed obstructions or encroachments upon public streams% constructions that no private person !as any!ay entitled to make% because the bed of navigable streams is public property% and o!nership thereof is not ac7uirable by adverse possession$ It is true that the e3ercise of the Secretary8s po!er under the )ct necessarily involves the determination of  some 7uestions of fact% such as the e3istence of the stream and its previous navigable character2 but these functions% !hether judicial or 7uasi5judicial% are merely incidental to the e3ercise e3ercise of the po!er granted by la! to clear navigable streams of unauthori6ed obstructions or encroachments% and authorities are clear that they are% validly conferable upon e3ecutive o9cials provided the party a4ected is given opportunity to be heard% as is e3pressly re7uired by (epublic )ct "o$ *+,-% section *$ )ppellees invoke )merican rulings that abatement as nuisances of properties of great value can not be done e3cept through court proceedings2 but these rulings refer to summary abatements !ithout previous hearing% and are inapplicable to the case before us !here the la! provides% and the investigator actually held% a hearing !ith notice to the complainants and the% appellees% !ho appeared appeared therein$ It is note!orthy that (epublic )ct *-+, authori6es removal of the unauthori6ed dikes either as &public nuisances or as prohibited constructions& on public navigable streams% and those of appellees clearly are in the latter class$ Considering the !ell5established rule that ndings of fact in e3ecutive decisions in matters !ithin their  jurisdiction  jurisdiction are entitled to respect respect from the courts in the absence of fraud% collusion% or grave abuse of  discretion% none of !hich has been sho!n to e3ist in this case% !e agree !ith appellant that the court belo! erred in rejecting the ndings of fact of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications$ #A)O* The judicial power which may be exercises by administrative agencies agencies is a restricted one, limited to what is incidental and reasonably necessary to the proper and efcient administration o the statutes that are committed to them or administration.  Arbitrary powers or uncontrolled uncontrolled discretion may not be conerred upon administrative agencies either in the exercise o rule-making or adjuticatory unctions. 555