CHARLES L. YANG, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, BOARD OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, AND BENJAMIN M. LIMSON, RESPONDENTS.

Yang versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Charles L. Yang against the Court of Appeals, the Professional Regulation Commission, the Board of Electrical Engineering, and Benjamin M. Limson. Yang, a professional electrical engineer, was suspended from practice for two years after an administrative complaint for unprofessional conduct. He asks the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court's refusal to restrain enforcement of that suspension. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between administrative supervision and quasi-judicial review: it holds that placing a regulatory agency under a department's supervision does not empower that department to review the agency's adjudicatory decisions, and it clarifies the proper route of appeal from the Professional Regulation Commission.

Procedural History

Benjamin Limson filed an administrative complaint for unprofessional conduct against Yang before the Board of Electrical Engineering. After hearing, the Board found Yang guilty and imposed a two-year suspension. Yang appealed to the Professional Regulation Commission, which upheld the Board and required him to surrender his certificate of registration for safekeeping during the suspension. His motion for reconsideration was denied.

Yang then went to the Court of First Instance of Rizal to challenge the Commission's decision. The trial court dismissed his petition for review for lack of cause of action, ruling that he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies because he did not appeal to the Civil Service Commission in accordance with Presidential Decree Number 839. Yang appealed to the Court of Appeals. While that appeal was pending, he received a letter from the Executive Director of the Board ordering him to surrender his certificate within ten days and to desist from practice. He filed a verified petition for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order, but after hearing it set the order aside and denied the injunction by a resolution dated March 8, 1978. His motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Benjamin Limson lodged an administrative complaint for unprofessional conduct against Charles L. Yang before the Board of Electrical Engineering. After due hearing, the Board declared Yang guilty and suspended him from the practice of electrical engineering for two years.

Yang appealed to the Professional Regulation Commission, which upheld the Board's decision and required him to surrender his certificate of registration for safekeeping during the suspension. His plea for reconsideration was denied. He then sought relief from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which dismissed his petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, specifically for not appealing to the Civil Service Commission under Presidential Decree Number 839.

While his appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, Yang received a letter from the Executive Director of the Board ordering him to surrender his certificate within ten days and to desist from practice. He sought a writ of preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals initially issued a temporary restraining order, but later set it aside and denied the injunction, holding that under Letter of Implementation Number 47 the function of deciding appeals in administrative cases involving professionals had been transferred to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and that Yang's failure to appeal there meant he had not exhausted administrative remedies.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Yang failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the Professional Regulation Commission's decision to the Civil Service Commission.
• Whether or not Letter of Implementation Number 47 validly transferred to the Civil Service Commission the power to review decisions of the Professional Regulation Commission.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to act on Yang's appeal from the Professional Regulation Commission.

Applicable Provisions

Section 35 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree Number 223 provides:

Any party aggrieved by the decision of any professional board may appeal within thirty days from receipt thereof to the Commission whose decision shall be final.

This fixes the finality of the Commission's decision and shows that no further administrative appeal was contemplated.

Paragraph 2, Article II, Chapter IV, Part II of the Integrated Reorganization Plan, as adopted under Presidential Decree Number 1, provides:

A regulatory agency like the Professional Regulation Commission, having statutorily conferred authority, among others, to adjudicate contested cases, is subject to the administrative supervision of the department under which it is placed, but its decisions in the exercise of its rule-making and adjudicatory powers are not subject to review by the department head unless otherwise stated specifically by the law establishing it.

This is the core provision distinguishing supervision from review of adjudicatory decisions.

Paragraph 5 of the same Plan provides:

Appeals from decisions of such regulatory agencies shall be to the courts of justice, unless otherwise specifically provided by law.

This identifies the courts, not a superior administrative body, as the proper forum for review.

Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

Administrative supervision which shall govern the administrative relationship between a department or its equivalent and regulatory agencies or agencies as may be provided by law, shall be limited to the authority of the department or its equivalent to generally oversee the operations of such agencies and to insure that they are managed effectively, efficiently and economically but without interference with day-to-day activities; or require the submission of reports and cause the conduct of management audit, performance evaluation and inspection to determine compliance with policies, standards and guidelines of the department; to take such actions as may be necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of violations, abuses and other forms of maladministration; and to review and pass upon budget proposals of such agencies but may not increase or add to them.

This confirms that supervision does not include the power to review adjudicatory decisions.

Section 38 further provides:

Such authority shall not, however, extend to the power to review, reverse, revise, or modify the decisions of regulatory agencies in the exercise of their regulatory or quasi-judicial functions.

This expressly excludes quasi-judicial review from the scope of administrative supervision.

Section 29 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides:

The Court of Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions except those falling under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

This changed the forum for appeals from the Commission to the Court of Appeals.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Yang did not fail to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals relied on Letter of Implementation Number 47, which transferred to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission the function of deciding appeals in administrative cases involving professionals. But that function no longer pertained to the Office of the President when the Letter of Implementation was issued. As early as 1973, when the Professional Regulation Commission was created by Presidential Decree Number 223, its Implementing Rules already provided that a party aggrieved by a board decision may appeal to the Commission, whose decision shall be final, and that the Commission's decisions shall be final within thirty days from receipt. Under Presidential Decree Number 1, a regulatory agency with authority to adjudicate contested cases is subject to administrative supervision but its decisions in the exercise of rule-making and adjudicatory powers are not subject to review by the department head unless specifically stated by the law establishing it, and appeals from such decisions shall be to the courts of justice unless otherwise specifically provided by law. Thus, at the time of Letter of Implementation Number 47, the Office of the President had no authority to resolve appeals from the Commission. The provision purporting to transfer that function was founded on a mistaken assumption. Presidential Decree Number 839, which the Letter of Implementation was designed to implement, contains no provision specifically granting the Civil Service Commission or the Office of the President the power of review over the Commission's decisions.

On the second issue, the Court held that Letter of Implementation Number 47 did not transfer the power of review to the Civil Service Commission. The placing of the Professional Regulation Commission under the administrative supervision of the Civil Service Commission is of no moment. As Presidential Decree Number 1 states, administrative supervision does not make the agency's adjudicatory decisions subject to review by the department head unless otherwise stated specifically by the law establishing it. This is consistent with the Administrative Code of 1987, which limits administrative supervision and expressly excludes the power to review, reverse, revise, or modify decisions of regulatory agencies in the exercise of their regulatory or quasi-judicial functions.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in declining to act on Yang's case on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The Civil Service Commission has no power to review, reverse, revise, or modify the decision of the Professional Regulation Commission or the professional boards under it. Appeals from its decisions shall be to the courts of justice unless otherwise specifically provided by law. This was the state of the law when Yang commenced proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Rizal and when he appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, the law has since changed: Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, effective August 14, 1981, conferred on the Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards, or commissions. In virtue of that law, appeals from the Professional Regulation Commission are now exclusively cognizable by the Court of Appeals.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, administrative supervision is not the same as quasi-judicial review. A regulatory agency placed under the administrative supervision of a department retains the finality of its adjudicatory decisions; the department head cannot review, reverse, revise, or modify them unless the law establishing the agency specifically provides otherwise. Second, appeals from decisions of regulatory agencies lie to the courts of justice, unless a law specifically provides another mode of review. Third, Letter of Implementation Number 47 could not transfer a power that the Office of the President did not possess. Fourth, under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the Professional Regulation Commission.

Disposition

The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 8, 1978 and April 11, 1978, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, which shall take cognizance of Yang's appeal from the adverse decision of the Professional Regulation Commission dated November 18, 1976, proceed with it in due course, and resolve it on the merits. No costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: administrative supervision does not carry with it the power to review, reverse, revise, or modify the adjudicatory decisions of a regulatory agency. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between supervision and control, the exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over quasi-judicial agencies under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129.