ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | LOVINA VS. MORENO, 9 SCRA 557, 1963
LOVINA
VS. MORENO,
9
SCRA 557, 1963
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Findings of fact of Secretary of Public Works supported by substantial
evidence respected.
FACTS
This is an appeal
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 41639, enjoining the Secretary of Public Works and Communications
from causing the removal of certain dams and dikes in a fishpond owned by
Primitivo and Nelly Lovina in the Municipality of Macabebe Province of
Pampanga, covered by T.C.T. No. 15905.
After notice and
hearing to the parties, the said Secretary found the constructions to be a
public nuisance in navigable waters, and ordered the land owners, spouses
Lovina, to remove five (5) closures of Sapang Bulati; otherwise, the Secretary
would order their removal at the expense of the respondent.
The position of the plaintiffs-appellees in the court below was that
Republic Act No. 2056 is unconstitutional because it invests the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications with sweeping, unrestrained, final and
unappealable authority to pass upon the issues of whether a river or stream is
public and navigable, whether a dam encroaches upon such waters and is
constitutive as a public nuisance, and whether the law applies to the state of
facts, thereby constituting an alleged unlawful delegation of judicial power to
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
ISSUE
Whether Republic
Act No. 2056 gives undue delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of
Public Works and also for being unreasonable and arbitrary
RULING
No.
The court ruled that the findings of fact of the Secretary of Public Works under
Republic Act No. 2056 should be respected in the absence of illegality, error
of law, fraud, or imposition, so long as said findings are supported by
substantial evidence submitted to him. Republic Act No. 2056 does not
constitute an unlawful delegation of judicial powers to the Secretary of Public
Works. Although the exercise of the Secretary’s power under the Act necessarily
involves the determination of some questions of fact, yet these functions,
whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are merely incidental to the exercise of
the power granted by law and are validly conferable upon executive officials
provided the party affected is given opportunity to be heard, as is expressly
required by Republic Act No. 2056, section 2.