10. evangelista v. jarencio, 68 scra 99, g.r. no. l-29274 november 27, 1975

8/10/2019 10. Evangelista v. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99, G.R. No. L-29274 November 27, 1975

1/22

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-29274 November 27, 1975

SEC. QUIRICO P. EVNGELIST, !" #!$ %&'&%!() &$ Se%re(&r) o* (#ePre$!+e"(!& e"%) o" Re*orm$ &"+ Gover"me"( O'er&(!o"$, &"+ (#ePRESIENTIL GENC/ ON RE0ORMS N GOVERNMENTOPERTIONS PRGO, petitioner,

vs.3ON. 3ILRION U. RENCIO, &$ Pre$!+!" +e, Cor( o* 0!r$(I"$(&"%e o* M&"!&, 6r&"%# III, &"+ 0ERNNO MNLSTS,

$$!$(&"( C!() Pb!% Serv!%e O**!%er o* M&"!&, &"+ LL OT3ER CIT/O00ICILS N EMPLO/EES SIMILRL/ SITUTE, respondents.

Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Ist. Assistant Solicitor GeneralEsmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for petitioners.

Gregorio A. Ejercito and Felix . ha!e" for respondents.

MRTIN,J.:

This is an original action for certiorari and prohibition with preliinar! in"unction,under Rule #$ of the Rules of Court, see%ing to annul and set aside the order ofrespondent &udge, the 'onorable 'ilarion &. &arencio, Presiding &udge of the Court of(irst )nstance of Manila, dated &ul! *, *+#, in Civil Case No. -/$, entitled0(ernando Manalastas vs. 1ec. Raon 2. Bagatsing, etc.0, which reads as follows3

)T )1 4R2ERE2 that, upon the filing of a bond in the aount ofP$,///.//, let the writ of preliinar! in"unction pra!ed for b! the

petitioner 5private respondent6 be issued restraining the respondents5petitioners6, their agents, representatives, attorne!s and7or other personsacting in their behalf fro further issuing subpoenas in connection with the

fact#findinginvestigations to the petitioner 5private respondent6 and froinstituting contept proceedings against the petitioner 5privaterespondent6 under 1ection $/ of the Revised Adinistrative Code. 81tresssupplied9.


2/22

Pursuant to his special powers and duties under 1ection #: of the RevisedAdinistrative Code,1the President of the Philippines created the Presidential Agenc!on Refors and ;overnent 4perations 8PAR;49 under E


3/22

factfinding investigations to the petitioner 5private respondent6 and froinstituting contept proceedings against the petitioner 5privaterespondent6 under 1ection $/ of the Revised Adinistrative Code. 81tresssupplied9.

Because of this, petitioners $ elevated the atter direct to @s without a otion forreconsideration first filed on the fundaental subission that the 4rder is a patent

nullit!.

As unfurled, the doinant issue in this case is whether the Agency, acting thruits officials, enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact-finding investigations.

)t has been essa!ed that the life &lood of the administrati!e process is the flo/ of fact,the gathering, the organi"ation and the analsis of e!idence.7Investigations are%sef%l for all administrative functions, "o( o")for rule making,adjudication,and licensing, but alsofor prosecuting,for supervising and

directing,for determining general policy,for recommending, legislation,and for purposes no ore specific than illuminating obscure areas to find outwhat if anything should be done.:An adinistrative agenc! may beauthoried to make investigations, "o( o") in proceedings of a legislative orjudicial nature,b( &$oin proceedings whose sole purpose is to obtaininformation upon which future action of a legislative or judicial naturemay be taken9and may re!uire the attendance of witnessesin proceedingsof a purely investigatory nature. )t may conduct general in!uiriesinto evilscalling for correction, and to report findings to appropriate bodies and

make recommendations for actions.

1;

>e recogniFe that in the case before @s,petitioner Agency draws its subpoenapower from "#ecutive $rder %o. &, para. 'which, in an effect%ating mood,empo/ered itto 0s%mmon /itness, administer oaths, and ta2e testimon rele!ant tothe in!estigation3 )) /ith the a%thorit 3to re4%ire the prod%ction of doc%ments %ndera s%&poena d%ces tec%m or other/ise, s%&ject in all respects to the same restrictionsand 4%alificationsas apply in judicial proceedings of a similar character.0 121uch subpoena power o'er&(e$ in e#tenso to all the functions of the Agenc! as laidout in the afore=uoted subparagraphs 8b9,8e9, and 8h9.It is not &ordered & nor is it

merel exercisa&le, as respondents would have it, in =uasi"udicial or ad"udicator!function under subparagraph 8b9. The functions enuerated in all these subparagraphs 8b9, 8e9, and 8h9 interlink or intertwine with one another with theprincipal aim of meeting the very purpose of the creation of the Agency,which is to forestall and erode nefarious activities and anoalies in the civil service. $ohold that the s%&poena po/er of the Agenc is confined to mere 4%asi#j%dicial oradj%dicator f%nctionswould therefore imperil or inactiviate the Agency inits investigatory functions under subparagraphs 8e9 and 8h9. More than that, theenabling authority itself8E


4/22

when and in what function should the subpoena power be e#ercised.1iilarl!, >e see no reason to depart fro the established rule that forbidsdifferentiation when the law itself a%es none.

Nor could >e ipress upon this subpoena power the alleged strictures of a subpoenaissued under the Rules of Court 18to abridge its application. The seeing proviso in1ection $/ of the Revised Adinistrative Code that the right to s%mmon /itnesses

and the a%thorit to re4%ire the prod%ction of doc%mentsunder a subpoena d%cestec%mor otherwise shall be 0sub"ect in all respects to the sae restrictions and=ualifications as appl! in "udicial proceedings of a siilar character0 cannot &e !alidlsei"ed %pon to re4%ire, in respondentsG forulation, that, as in a subpoena under theRules, a specific case ust be pending before a court for hearing or trial and that thehearing or trial ust be in connection with the e


5/22

agencyH 8D9 the demand is not too indefiniteH and 89 the information isreasonably relevant. 22

There is no doubt that the fact#finding in!estigations &eing cond%cted & the Agenc!upon sworn stateents iplicating certain public officials of the Cit! ;overnent ofManila in anoalous transactions 28fall /ithin the Agenc5s sphere of a%thorit andthat the information so%ght to &e elicited from respondent(ernando Manalastas, of

which he is claied to be in possession, 24is reasonabl! relevant to the investigations.

>e are indful that the pri!ilege against self#incrimination extends in administrati!ein!estigations, generall, in scope similar to ad!ersar proceedings. 25)n a&al !.

6ap%nan, 7r., 2the Court ruled that since the adinistrative charge of unee findthat respondent (ernando Manalastas is not facing an! adinistrative charge. 2:'e iserel! cited as a witness in connection with the factfinding investigation of anoaliesand irregularities in the Cit! ;overnent of Manila with the ob"ect of subitting theassebled facts to the President of the Philippines or to file the corresponding charges.29Since the onl p%rpose of in!estigation is to disco!er facts as a &asis of f%t%reaction, an %nnecessar extension of the pri!ilege /o%ld th%s &e %n/ise.8;An!wa!,& all means, respondent Fernando 8analastas ma contest an attempt in the

in!estigation that tends to disregard his pri!ilege against self#incrimination.

A =uestion of constitutional diension is raised b! respondents on the inherent powerof the President of the Philippines to issue subpoena. 81More tersel! stated,respondents would now challenge, in a collateral wa!, the validit! of the basicauthorit!, E


6/22

>ithout pronounceent as to costs.

14 4R2ERE2.

astro, Antonio, Esg%erra, 8%9o" Palma and A4%ino, 77., conc%r.

8a2alintal, .7., conc%rs in the res%lt.

Barredo, 8a2asiar, and oncepcion, 7r., 77, too2 no part.

Se'&r&(e O'!"!o"$

0ERNNO,J., concurring3

The opinion of the Court, abl! penned b! &ustice Martin, is both learned and

coprehensive. )t reflects the current state of doctrinal pronounceents in AericanAdinistrative aw, which up to now possesses worth in this "urisdiction. )t is inaccordance with the views e


7/22

itself to the construction that an inroad into the right of search and seiFure is nowperissible3 0The CoissionGs order is criticiFed upon grounds that the ordertransgresses the (ourth AendentGs proscription of unreasonable searches andseiFures and the (ifth AendentGs due process of law clause. )t is unnecessar! here toe


8/22

force of the Cabal 17and the Pascual, &r. decisions 1:a! be eroded if the prospectiverespondent is first called as a witness and is thus copelled to testif!. (or the present,it a! suffice if ) e


9/22

investigating the coplaint against hi for alleged une


10/22

incriination b! e


11/22

Se'&r&(e O'!"!o"$

0ERNNO,J., concurring3

The opinion of the Court, abl! penned b! &ustice Martin, is both learned andcoprehensive. )t reflects the current state of doctrinal pronounceents in Aerican

Adinistrative aw, which up to now possesses worth in this "urisdiction. )t is inaccordance with the views e


12/22

searches and seiFures as such, but ehile the! a! andshould have protection fro unlawful deands ade in the nae of publicinvestigation, ... corporations can clai no e=ualit! with individuals in the en"o!entof a right to privac! . ... The! are endowed with public attributes. The! have a collectiveipact upon societ!, fro which the! derive the privilege of acting as artificial entities.

The (ederal ;overnent allows the the privilege of engaging in interstate coerce.(avors fro governent often carr! with the an enhanced easure of regulation. ...Even if one were to regard the re=uest for inforation in this case as caused b! nothingore than official curiosit!, nevertheless lawenforcing agencies have a legitiate rightto satisf! theselves that corporate behavior is consistent with the law and the publicinterest.0 1;Thus is rendered clear that the landar% Bo!d decision which warnedagainst the use of the subpoena power to trench upon this guarantee still spea%sauthoritativel!. This Court has spo%en to the sae effect, Bo!d having been cited in anuber of cases. 11) would, therefore, read the opinion of ! brethren as not departing

fro but precisel! adhering to its coand. >hatever relahen read in connection with the earlier reference to the fact thatthe respondent is called as a witness not as the part! proceeded against, it cannot besaid, in the light of the ruling inPlanas !. Gil, 1that it offends against thisconstitutional guarantee. As of now then, with the =uestion of an! odification of thePlanas doctrine not being properl! before us, ) can !ield ! concurrence. Candorcopels the stateent, however, that for e a ree


13/22

) a constrained to dissent fro the ain opinion of Mr. &ustice Martin which grantsthe petition and sets aside respondent courtGs order and writ of preliinar! in"unctionof &ul! *, *+# and would therefore re=uire respondent (ernando Manalastas asassistant cit! public service officer of Manila 8and all other cit! officials siilarl!situated9 to copl! with the PAR;4 subpoena 0to testif! to atters relevant to theinvestigation of anoalies and sworn stateents involving or iplicating certain Cit!officials or other public officers.01

>hile the subpoena coands respondent Manalastas to appear as /itnessbefore thePAR;4,2on the basis whereof the ain opinion finds that said respondent 0is notfacing an! adinistrative charge0 and that 0he is erel! cited as witness in connection

with the factfinding investigation of anoalies and irregularities in the Cit!;overnent of Manila with the ob"ect of subitting the assebled facts to thePresident of the Philippines or to file the corresponding charges0,8it is a fact shown b!the ver! petition at bar itself and its Anne


14/22

Pasc%al 7r. !s. Bd. of Examiners7is e=uall! in point, wherein the Court sustained thelower courtGs writ of in"unction against the respondent boardGs order copellingtherein petitioner to ta%e the witness stand in a alpractice case 8wherein he wasrespondent9 in view of the penal nature of the proceedings and the right of the accusedto refuse 0not onl! to answer incriinator! =uestions, but also to ta%e the witnessstand.0:The Court therein stressed that 0the constitutional guarantee, along with otherrights granted an accused, stands for a belief that while crie should not go

unpunished and that the truth ust be revealed, such desira&le o&jecti!esshould notbe accoplished according to means or methods offensi!e to the high sense of respectaccorded the h%man personalit. More and ore in line with the deocratic creed, thedeference accorded an individual even those suspected of the ost heinous cries isgiven due weight. To =uote fro Chief &ustice >arren, 0the constitutional foundationunderl!ing the privilege is the respect a go!ernment ... m%st accord to the dignit andintegrit of its citi"ens.00 and that 0while earlier decisions stressed the principle ofhuanit! on which this right is predicated, precluding as it does all resort to force orcopulsion, whether ph!sical or ental, current "udicial opinion places e=ual

ephasis on its identification with the right to privac!. Thus according to &ustice2ouglas3 0The (ifth Aendent in its 1elf)ncriination clause enables the citiFen tocreate a Fone of privac! which governent a! not force to surrender to hisdetrient.0

That petitionerGs investigation and subpoena against respondent Manalastas were insubstance and effect criminal in nat%reagainst hi as a respondent8and not erel! as

witness9 as indicated above, is borne out b! the fact of record inS%ga !s. Pamaran98of which the Court can well ta%e "udicial notice9 that on &ul! DD, *+-* respondentManalastas as well as Carlos MontaKeF the trader 8affiant in Anne< B*, petition,

s%pra,1;

9 and a nuber of other cit! officials were charged b! the cit! fiscal in theCircuit Criinal Court of Manila for violations of Republic Act /*+ 8Anti;raft aw9in connection with the alleged gross overpricing of the sae e=uipent 8stea cleanersand air copressor9 purchased for the Cit!.

The ain opinionGs "ustification for upholding the subpoena, !i", that 0since the onl!purpose of investigation is to discover facts as a basis of future action, an! unnecessar!e


15/22

Respondent Manalastas was therefore "ustified in invo%ing the privilege against selfincriination and in securing the respondent courtGs in"unction against enforceent ofpetitionerGs subpoena. Respondent was un=uestionabl! a part! respondent who underthe doctrine of a&alandPasc%al, s%pra, had the right to reain silent and invo%e theprivilege against selfincriination and refuse to ta%e the witness stand. This legal andconstitutional right a! not be defeated b! the transparent e


16/22

official, coittee, or person b! who such investigation shall beconducted.0

D E


17/22

*+ 1EC v. acuu Can Co., *$- (. Dd $/, cert den / @1 D/ 8*+:-9.

D/ 1ee Marchitto, ante.

D* @nited 1tates v. Morton 1alt Co., @1 #D 8*+$/9, abandoning the:arriman, D** @1 :/-H 8*+/9 andAmerican $o&acco, D#: @1 D+H 8*+D:9doctrine against 0fishing e


18/22

: Cf. IatF Cases and Materials in Adinistrative aw, *-$DD* 8*+:-9.

$ Cf. Mc(arland and anderbilt, Adinistrative aw3 Cases and Materials,# 8*+$D9.

# According to Article ), 1ection of the present Constitution3

0The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers andeffects against unreasonable searches and seiFures of whatever nature andfor an! purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant ofarrest shall issue e


19/22

* According to Article ), 1ection D/ of the present Constitution3 0Noperson shall be copelled to be a witness against hiself. An! personunder investigation for the coission of an offense shall have the right toreain silent and to counsel, and to be infored of such right. No force,

violence, threat, intiidation, or an! other eans which vitiate the free willshall be used against hi. An! confession obtained in violation of thissection shall be inadissible in evidence.0

*: Cf. Magtoto v. Manguera, -/D*, March , *+-$, # 1CRA :.

*$ At +.

*# #- Phil. #D 8*++9.

*- Cabal v. Iapunan, &r., *+/$D, 2eceber D+, *+#D, # 1CRA */#:. .

* Pascual, &r. v. Board of Medical E


20/22

President0 thus provides that petitioner shall 0receive and evaluate, and8to9 conduct factfinding investigations of sworn coplaints against theacts, conduct or behavior of an! public official or eplo!ee and 8to9file aid

prosec%te the proper charges /ith the appropriate agenc.0 Petition,Anne


21/22

To investigate all activities involving or affecting ioral practices,graft and corruptions, suggling 8ph!sical or technical9, lawlessness,subversion, and all other activities which are pre"udicial to thegovernent and the public interests, and to subit properrecoendations to the President of the Philippines.

To investigate cases of graft and corruption and violations of Republic

Acts Nos. *-+ and /*+, and gather necessar! evidence to establishpria facie, acts of graft and ac=uisition of unlawfull! aassedwealth ... .

To receive and evaluate, and to conduct factfinding investigations ofsworn coplaints against the acts, conduct or behavior of an! publicofficial or eplo!ee and to file and prosecute the proper charges withthe appropriate agenc!.

(or a realistic perforance of these functions, the President vested in theAgenc! all the powers of an investigating coittee under 1ections -* and$/ of the Revised Adinistrative Code, including the power to suonwitnesses b! subpoena or subpoena duces tecu, adinister oaths, ta%etestion! or evidence relevant to the investigation.

>hereupon, on &une -, *+#, petitioner ?uirico Evangelista, as@ndersecretar! of the Agenc!, issued to respondent (ernando Manalastas,then Acting Cit! Public 1ervice 4fficer of Manila, a subpoena ad

testificandu coanding hi 0to be and appear as witness at the 4ffice ofthe PRE1)2ENT)A A;ENC 4N RE(4RM1 AN2 ;4ERNMENT4PERAT)4N1 ... then and there to declare and testif! in a certaininvestigation pending therein.0

ISSUE=>hether the Agenc!, acting thru its officials, en"o!s the authorit! toissue subpoenas in its conduct of factfinding investigations.

3EL= E1. )t has been essa!ed that the life blood of the adinistrativeprocess is the flow of fact, the gathering, the organiFation and the anal!sis ofevidence. )nvestigations are useful for all adinistrative functions, not onl!for rule a%ing, ad"udication, and licensing, but also for prosecuting, forsupervising and directing, for deterining general polic!, forrecoending, legislation, and for purposes no ore specific thanilluinating obscure areas to find out what if an!thing should be done. Anadinistrative agenc! a! be authoriFed to a%e investigations, not onl! in


22/22

proceedings of a legislative or "udicial nature, but also in proceedings whosesole purpose is to obtain inforation upon which future action of alegislative or "udicial nature a! be ta%en and a! re=uire the attendance ofwitnesses in proceedings of a purel! investigator! nature. )t a! conductgeneral in=uiries into evils calling for correction, and to report findings toappropriate bodies and a%e recoendations for actions.

>e recogniFe that in the case before @s, petitioner Agenc! draws itssubpoena power fro E

10. evangelista v. jarencio, 68 scra 99, g.r. no. l-29274 november 27, 1975

Documents