G.R. No. 138200 . February 27, 2002.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC), petitioner, vs. ROBERTO MABALOT, respondent.

FACTS

The DOTC Secretary issued Memorandum Order No. 96-735, directing the transfer of Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB) regional functions in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) to the DOTC-CAR Regional Office, with its personnel performing LTFRB functions concurrently. Respondent Roberto Mabalot filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to declare the order illegal. During the proceedings, the succeeding DOTC Secretary issued Department Order No. 97-1025, formally establishing the DOTC-CAR Regional Office as the LTFRB Regional Office for CAR. Mabalot supplemented his petition to challenge this subsequent order.
The RTC declared both orders null and void. It ruled they constituted an undue exercise of legislative power by encroaching on Congress’s authority to transfer quasi-judicial functions. The court also found a violation of the constitutional prohibition against appointive officials holding multiple offices. The DOTC Secretary elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether Memorandum Order No. 96-735 and Department Order No. 97-1025, which transferred LTFRB regional functions to the DOTC-CAR Regional Office, are valid administrative issuances.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the RTC decision and upheld the validity of the challenged orders. The legal logic rests on two main pillars: the President’s delegated authority to reorganize and the absence of a constitutional violation. First, the creation of a public office can be effected by authority of law. Congress, through existing statutes like the Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive Order No. 202, had vested the President with broad authority to reorganize the executive department. The DOTC Secretary, as the President’s alter ego, acted within this delegated power in reorganizing regional functions for purposes of economy and efficiency.
Second, the Court found no constitutional infirmity. The transfer of functions to DOTC-CAR personnel did not violate the prohibition on holding multiple offices, as the additional duties were performed in the same region and were considered an extension of their primary office. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to prove that the personnel received additional, double, or indirect compensation, which would have breached another constitutional provision. The orders were a valid administrative reorganization within the executive’s prerogative, not an encroachment on legislative power.