O’RACCA BUILDING TENANTS ASSOCIATION INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. FILOMENO C. KINTANAR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal
from the orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated December
19, 1959 and January 28, 1960, dismissing appellant’s petition for
declaratory relief with prohibition and preliminary injunction, and
denying the motion for reconsideration, respectively.

A
non-stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Republic, the O’Racca Building Tenants Association (Association for
short) is composed of tenants of the O’Racca Building, one of the enemy
alien properties turned over to the National Government and placed
under the administration of the Board of Liquidators (herein referred
to simply as the Board) pursuant to Executive Order No. 372 (Nov. 24,
1950) in connection with Republic Act 477.

In accordance with
Republic Act 997, Reorganization Plan 7-A was approved, providing in
Section 5 thereof, for the transfer to the Department of General
Services (Department for short), of all functions of the Board
pertaining to residential, commercial, and urban properties of the
National Government. To implement the plan, the President of the
Philippines, on March 14, 1958, promulgated Executive Order No. 290,
vesting the Bureau of Building and Real Property Management under the
Department with the power to “transfer, rent, lease or sell commercial,
industrial and urban properties owned by the government.”

By
a series of directives (dated December 17, 1958, January 16, 1959, and
October 6, 1959), the office of the President ordered the Board to
relinquish to the Department the administration of all formerly enemy
alien-owned properties which may be classified as residential,
commercial or urban. A conflict as to the interpretation of certain
provisions in the law and executive order involved explains why no
immediate transfer materialized. In the meantime, and in connection
with the written offers to lease the O’Racca Building, the directive of
October 20, 1959 was issued, authorizing the Board to accept the offer
of Catalina de la Cruz Rodil “without prejudice to the future
implementation of our directive of October 6, 1959 for the turn-over of
all residential, commercial and industrial properties of the National
Government to the Department of General Services”. On October 26, 1959,
the Board served the members of the Association with notice that the
building had been leased to Rodil effective November 1, 1959; that
arrangements for occupancy of the building should thenceforth be made
with the new lessee; and directing the tenants to pay their accrued
rentals to the Board.

In its petition of October 31, 1959, the Association prayed—

(1)
That a judgment for declaratory relief be granted as to who is the
entity or person authorized by law to have the custody, control and
administration of the O’Racca Building;

(2) That pending
resolution of the above legal question, a writ of preliminary
injunction be issued to all the respondents restraining them from the
commission of any act or acts which may adversely affect and disturb
the status a quo of the herein petitioners with respect to their
respective leasehold rights in the O’Racca Building;

(3)
That pending resolution of the above legal question, a writ of
preliminary injunction and/or prohibition be issued against the
respondent Chairman and members of the Board of Liquidators from
enforcing their order to the herein petitioners to pay to the Board of
Liquidators their rentals up to October 31, 1959, and rentals for the
subsequent months;

(4) That the herein petitioner be
directed to deposit their rentals with the Clerk of Court of the Court
of First Instance of Manila pending the resolution of the question as
to who is the entity or person authorized by law to have the custody,
control and administration of the O’Racca Building;

(5)
That this Honorable Court grant such further and other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.

Without
going to the merits, we note that actually, these proceedings are not
for declaratory relief but for prohibition. A petition for declaratory
judgment coupled with a prayer for the issuance of injunction is
equivalent to an action for prohibition against public officers
(Feliciano, et al., vs. Alipio, et al., 94 Phil., 621; 50
Off. Gaz., [4] 1548). Beneath the legal phraseology, the essence of the
action seeks to prevent the enforcement of the lease executed in favor
of Rodil. In other Words, the controversy has ceased to be merely one
of uncertainty or challenge, but has ripened into a conflict between
concrete acts directly contravening certain alleged leasehold rights.
Indeed, what use would there be for a declaratory judgment as to which
entity is authorized to administer the O’Racca Building, unless it
would prohibit the enforcement of the lease executed?

Appeal in prohibition should be taken 15 days from notice or receipt of the decision (Sec. 17, Rule 41; Portugalete vs.
Azcona, L-14666, May 25, 1960). The appealed order was received by
appellant on December 24, 1959. Counting fifteen days, appellant had up
to January 8, 1960 within which to file either a motion for
reconsideration or his notice of appeal. His motion for reconsideration
was filed only on January 13, 1960; his notice of appeal, only on
January 23, 1960. By then, the order dismissing the case had become
final. If only for this reason, this instant appeal should be dismissed.

But
the action must also fail on other grounds. Either as one for
declaratory relief or for prohibition, the crucial issue centers on the
authority of the Board to continue administering the O’Racca Building
in the light of Reorganization Plan 7-A, Executive Order 290, in
relation to the directive dated October 20, 1959. Whether the notice of
October 26, 1959 and the lease effective November 1, 1959 in favor of
Rodil validly terminated the month-to-month lease of the members of the
Association are but incidents ultimately dependent upon the question of
the Board’s authority. Appellant contends that the the directive of
October 20, 1959 authorizing the Board to enter into a lease agreement
with Rodil was illegal, being allegedly violative of Reorganization
Plan 7-A, Executive Order 290, and the previous directive issued. We do
not think so. The transfer of functions from the Board to the
Department is not ordained by any self-executing statute. Quite the
contrary, it was precisely necessary for the President to issue
Executive Order 290 on March 14, 1958, setting up in detail the
organizational structure of the Department, delineating its functions
as well as those of the divisions under it. To complement the authority
given to the Chief Executive to implement the reorganization, and
because there was assurance as to when that reorganization could
finally be completed, the agencies or offices affected were authorized
to continue discharging their functions in the interim period.

Section 6 (c), Republic Act 997, as amended by Republic 1241, provides:

“After
any reorganization plan or plans or modifications thereof, shall have
been approved as provided under subsection (a) hereof, the Commission
shall prepare the implementing details thereof, should such details be
necessary and the same shall be submitted to the President, who, if he
approves them, shall promulgate an executive order or orders for their
immediate execution; Provided, however. That if any such
reorganization plan or plans or modifications thereof is not
implemented as above provided, the particular department, office,
bureau, agency or instrumentality of the Executive Branch of the
National Government affected shall continue to exist and function.” (Italics supplied)

Section 43, Executive Order No. 290, Series of 1958, states—

“The
Secretary shall direct the orderly scheduling of transfers, changes and
other transitional actions required by the Plan and by these
Implementing Details within 60 days from the effective date of the
Implementing Details. In the interim, each entity affected shall
continue to perform its existing functions until such time as the
Secretary orders change or cessation, and each officer and employee
shall continue to perform his duties and to exercise his authority
until such time as the Secretary orders otherwise.” (Italics supplied)

What
the above provisions make clear is that pending implementation of the
transfer, the office or agency affected (in this case, the Board) shall
continue to discharge those functions of which it is being divested
under the reorganization. Accordingly, the Board still had
administration of the O’Racca Building when it gave the notice of
October 26, 1959 informing the tenants that said building had been
leased to Rodil. The Department, thru the Bureau of Building and Real
Property Management, recognized this when on October 15, 1959, it
indorsed to the Board, for action, the written offers of lease
submitted separately by Rodil and the appellant Association. Instead of
violating the laws and executive orders on the subject, the directive
of October 20, 1959 was a reaffirmation of the intent to give
continuity to governmental functions pending actual implementation of
the reorganization. Assuming that the above directive contravenes other
directives previously issued, suffice it to say that as Head of the
Executive Branch, the President may at any time modify or revoke his
own directives so long as no law is infringed (see Ollada vs. Sec. of Finance, 109 Phil., 1072).

Wherefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed, with costs against petitioner-appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.