DISCUSSION

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 1 of 360
 What is administrative law?
• Administrative law is the branch of public law
which fixes the organization and determines the
competence of administrative authorities, and
indicates to the individual remedies for the
violation of his rights. (Goodnow, Comparative
Administrative Law, p. 8)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 2 of 360
 What is administrative law in actual
practice in the Philippines?

• On the basis of the different definitions of

administrative law, and considering how
administrative law presently operates in this
jurisdiction from day to day, it is perhaps easier
to understand administrative law by having in
mind that:

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 3 of 360
 It is a branch of public law;

It deals with the activities of executive or

administrative agencies, known and referred to as
“boards”, “bureaus”, “commissions”, “authority”,
“office” and “administration”;

These “boards”, “bureaus”, “commissions”,

“authority”, “office” and “administration” can
exercise quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers
and functions in the sense that they can issue rules
and regulations not contrary to the guidelines set

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 4 of 360
 Administrative regulations and policies enacted
by administrative bodies to interpret the law which
they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law
and are entitled to great respect. They have in their
favor a presumption of legality. (Gonzales vs Land
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 7675, March 22,
1990)

Example
There is a legal presumption that the rates fixed by
the National Telecommunications Commission are
reasonable. It must be conceded that the fixing of the
rates by the government through its authorized agent

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 5 of 360
 In the resolution of cases or issues presented to
administrative bodies and offices, they are not
bound by the technical rules of evidence. Strict
observance of the same is not indispensable in
administrative cases. (Daduvo vs CSC, 42 SCAD
750, 223 SCRA 747)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 6 of 360
1. An administrative decision may properly be
amended or set aside only upon clear showing
that the administrative official or tribunal has
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. There is an abuse of
discretion when the same was performed in a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment
which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The
abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law,
such as when the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 7 of 360
 Factual findings of administrative bodies should be
accorded not only respect but also finality if they are
supported by substantial evidence even if not
overwhelming or preponderant. (Casa Filipino Realty
Corporation vs Office of the President, 241 SCRA 165)

Although findings of facts of an administrative

agency is persuasive in courts and carries with it a
strong presumption of correctness, nonetheless, the
interpretation and application of laws is the court’s
prerogative. (Prudential Bank vs Serrano, G.R. No.
49293; Prudential Bank vs Gapultos, G.R. No. 41835,
January 19,1990)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 8 of 360
 1. Administrative remedies should first be
exhausted before filing a petition for relief.
(Walstrom vs Mapa, Jr., G.R. No. 38387,
January 29, 1990)

2. On purely legal question, however, the

aggrieved party need not exhaust
administrative remedies. REASON: Nothing
of an administrative nature is to be done or can
be done in the administrative forum.
(Prudential Bank vs Serrano, supra)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 9 of 360
 If a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper
administrative bodies because technical matters or
intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must
first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a
remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the
matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court
(Industrial Enterprises, Inc vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
88550, April 8, 1990). This is known as the principle
of primary jurisdiction

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 10 of 360
 Trace the origin of administrative
law
The origin of administrative law could be traced to
the following:

1. Statutes – Setting up administrative

authorities either by creating boards and
commissions or administrative officers or by
confiding the powers and duties to existing
boards, commissions, or officers, to amplify,
apply, execute, and supervise the operation of,
and determine controversies arising under
particular laws in the enactment of which the
legislature decided for matters of convenience

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 11 of 360
 Increase of government functions and
concerns – Complexities of modern life necessarily
increase the functions and concerns of government
which, in turn, requires the legislature to create more
administrative agencies which will take charge in
attending to matters that demand their special
competence and expertise.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 12 of 360
 Necessity of government control and regulation –
The government has intervened in contractual relations
that are affected with public interest. As it is now, the
government has exercised control and regulation of many
aspects of business such as but not limited to labor and
management relations, immigration and deportation,
banking, recruitment of overseas workers, insurance,
telecommunication industry, water services, finance,
foreign exchange, health, food and drugs, regulation of
profession, regulation of sports activities, including the
monitoring of player’s credentials and citizenship, morals,
investment, energy regulation, forest development,
mining, land conversion, election, tax collection and
administration, human settlements and regulation of
subdivisions, civil service and eligibility of government
employees, and many other businesses and activities that
are impressed with public interest.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 13 of 360
 In the course of the exercise of the above-
mentioned functions and responsibilities, rules,
regulations, decisions and orders are issued every
now and then by the different agencies of the
government. All of these, in turn, contribute to the
growth and development of administrative law.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 14 of 360
 What are the sources of
administrative law?
Administrative law is derived from the following
sources:

1. The Constitution (i.e., Article IX, Section 1 of

the 1987 Constitution which provides as
follows: “The Constitutional
Commissions, which shall be
independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on
Elections, and the Commission on
Audit” ).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 15 of 360
1. Statutes creating administrative bodies

Example:
The Board of Energy was created by Presidential Decree
No. 1208, dated October 6, 1977.
The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) took over the functions of the Overseas
Employment Development Board (OEDB). It was created by
Executive Order No. 797 dated May 1, 1972.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission was abolished
on March 31, 1976, and it was replaced by the Employees
Compensation Commission as provided by Article 176 of the
New Labor Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No.
442, as amended.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 16 of 360
1. Court decisions – interpreting the charters of
administrative agencies and defining their
powers and responsibilities.

Example:
Jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court
containing interpretations involving the principle
of primary jurisdiction; exhaustion of
administrative remedies; due process in
administrative proceedings, etc.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 17 of 360
 1. The body of rules, regulations and orders
issued by administrative agencies

Example:
Rules, regulations, circulars issued by the
different administrative agencies of the
government.
Decisions and orders of administrative bodies in
cases submitted to them (i.e. decisions of the
National Labor Relations Commission n
complaints filed by employees against their
employers).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 18 of 360
 What are the administrative bodies
or agencies in the Philippines?
1) Administrative bodies for regulation under
police power.

Example:
b) Commission on Immigration and
Deportation
c) Securities and Exchange Commission
d) Professional Regulation Commission
e) Bureau of Food and Drug
f) Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
g) Board of Food Inspectors

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 19 of 360
 1) Administrative bodies for regulation of
public utilities.

Example:
b) Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board
c) National Telecommunications Commission
d) Board of Energy
e) National Water and Resources Council
f) Civil Aeronautics Board
g) Board of Marine Inquiry

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 20 of 360
 1) Administrative bodies to carry on
governmental functions.

Example:
b) Bureau of Internal Revenue
c) Bureau of Customs
d) Civil Service Commission
e) Board of Special Inquiry
f) Bureau of Lands
g) Land Registration Authority

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 21 of 360
 1) Administrative bodies that adjudicates and
decides industrial controversies.

Example:
b) National Labor Relations Commission
c) Philippine Overseas Employment
Adjudication Office
d) Human Settlement Regulatory Commission
or the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 22 of 360
1) Administrative bodies making the
government a private party.

Example:
b) Commission on Audit
c) Social Security System Adjudication Office

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 23 of 360
 1) Administrative bodies that grant privileges.

Example:
b) Philippine Veterans Affairs Office
c) Board of Pardons and Parole
d) Bureau of Lands
e) Land Transportation and Franchising
Regulatory Board

In the case of PLDT vs City of Bacolod (G.R. No.

149179, July 15, 2005), the Supreme Court ruled
that the Bureau of Local Government Finance under
the Department of Finance is NOT an
administrative agency whose findings on questions

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 24 of 360
 Define administration
• It is an activity of the executive officer of the
government. The government administers when
it appoints an officer, instructs its diplomatic
agents, assesses and collects its taxes, drills its
army, investigates a case of the commission of
crime and executed the judgment of court.
Whenever we see the government in action as
opposed to deliberation or the rendering of a
judicial decision, there we say is administration.
Administration is thus to be found in all the
manifestation of executive action. (Goodnow,
Comparative Administrative Law, p.12).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 25 of 360
 What are the two aspects
of administration?
There are two (2) aspects of administration,
namely:

1. Internal administration – This includes

the legal structure or organization of public
administration and the legal aspects of each
institutional activity (i.e. personnel, material,
physical and planning activities.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 26 of 360
 1. External administration – This is
concerned with the problems of administrative
regulations or the exercise of power for
carrying out the ends for which such powers
were delegated. (42 Am. Jur., 290)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 27 of 360
 Distinguish the following:
(a) Administration and politics;
(b) Administration and law;
(c) Administration of government and
administration of justice;
(d) Administration as an organization and
administration as a government.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 28 of 360
 (a) Administration and politics

ADMINISTRATION POLITICS
Administration has something to do Politics has something to do with
with the execution of the policies of policies or expressions of the State’s
the State. will

Execution of said policies is entrusted

to the body of officers, called
administrative officers

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 29 of 360
 (b) Administration and law

ADMINISTRATION LAW
Administration achieves public It operates by redress or punishment
security by preventive measures. It rather than by prevention. It
selects a hierarchy of officials to each formulates general rules of action and
of whom definite work is assigned, and visits infraction of these rules with
it is governed by ends rather than penalties. It does not supervise action.
rules. It is personal. Hence, it is often It leaves individuals free to act, but
arbitrary and is subject to the abuse imposes pains on those who do not act
incident to personal as contrasted with in accordance with the rules
impersonal or law-regulated action. prescribed. (Roscoe Pound in
Proclamation, Pol. Sci. Association,
pp. 232-233)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 30 of 360
 (c) Administration of government
and administration of justice
ADMINISTRATION OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
GOVERNMENT
The administrative officers who are The judicial officers who are charged
charged with the administration of with the administration of justice
government determine what is the law decides controversies between
to find out whether they are individuals and government officers as
competent to act and if so, whether it to the applicability in the cases in a
is wise for them to act question of a particular rule of law.
Hence, they determine what law is
applicable to the facts brought before
them

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 31 of 360
 (d) Administration as an
organization and government
ADMINISTRATION AS AN ADMINISTRATION AS A
ORGANIZATION GOVERNMENT
Administration refers to that group of As an element of the State, a
aggregate of persons in whose hands government is defined as “that
the reigns of government are for the institution or aggregate of institutions
time being (U.S. vs Dorr, 2 Phil. 332). by which an independent society
It indicates the entire administrative makes and carries out those rules of
organization extending down from the action which are necessary to enable
Chief Executive to the most humble of men to live in a social state, or which
his subordinates. It is thus the totality are imposed upon the people forming
of the executive and administrative that society by those who possess the
authorities. (Goodnow, op. cit., p. 5 ) power or authority of prescribing
them.” (U.S. vs Dorr, 2 Phil. 332;
Bacani vs National Coconut
Corporation, 53 O.G. 2798)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 32 of 360
 What are the weaknesses of
administrative action?
Administration suffers from the following
weaknesses:

1. Tendency toward arbitrariness;

2. Lack of legal knowledge and attitude in sound
judicial technique;
3. Susceptibility to political bias or pressure,
often brought about by uncertainty of tenure
and lack of sufficient safeguards for
independence;
4. A disregard for the safeguards that insure a
full and fair hearing;

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 33 of 360
 II. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: THEIR NATURE,
CREATION, ESTABLISHMENT
AND ABOLITION

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 34 of 360
 What is the nature of
administrative agencies?
• An administrative agency is an organ of
government entrusted with the task of enacting
specific rules and regulations to effectuate the
purpose of the statute creating it. Its functions and
powers are quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial, or in
some instances, it acts as an agent of the executive
branch of the government, in which case, it is
entrusted with the duty to exercise executive and
administrative functions.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 35 of 360
 What are the two principal powers
and functions of administrative
agencies?
Administrative agencies have two principal kinds
of powers and functions namely:

1. Rule-making power or quasi-legislative

function
2. Power of adjudication or quasi-judicial
function. (Stasoni Cases and other Materials
on Administrative Tribunals, 2nd ed., 71)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 36 of 360
 How are administrative bodies
created and established?

• Administrative agencies may be created by: (1)

the Constitution; (2) the legislature in legislative
enactments; or (3) by authority of law

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 37 of 360
 Does the legislature exercise
control over administrative
agencies?
• Yes. The legislative branch of government enacts
the law that creates an administrative agency: (1)
It prescribes the mode of appointment, the term
of office and the compensation; (2) It fixes its
authority and procedure; (3) It determines the
size of its personnel and staff; (4) It exercises
continuing surveillance over its activities; (5) It
may investigate its operations for
remedial/corrective legislation.

At present, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 38 of 360
 Likewise, the Ombudsman, a Constitutional
Office organized precisely to look into and
investigate any irregularity of government officials
and employees, exercise an important role in filing
appropriate criminal cases against erring
government officials and employees.
Of course, the Sandiganbayan takes part in the
trial of complaints filed by the Ombudsman.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 39 of 360
 III. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 40 of 360
 A. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE OR RULE
MAKING POWER
1. DIFFERENT KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES AND REGULATIONS

a) Supplementary or detailed legislation –

They are rules and regulations “to fix the details” in
the execution and enforcement of a policy set out in
the law, e.g., Rules and Regulations Implementing
the Labor Code.
b) Interpretative legislation – They are rules
and regulations construing or interpreting the
provisions of a statute to be enforced and they are
binding on all concerned until they are changed,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 41 of 360
a) Contingent legislation – They are rules and
regulations made by an administrative authority on
the existence of certain facts or things upon which
the enforcement of the law depends. (Cruz vs
Youngberg, 56 Phil. 234). Contingent Regulation –
It is issued on account of the concurrence of
a certain contingency, as determined by
the administrative agencies. On the basis of
the latter’s determination, the operation of
a law may either be enforced or suspended.

Example:
Authority of the Governor General to lift the
prohibition against the importation of foreign cattle
upon determination that there was no longer a threat

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 42 of 360
 1. REQUISITES OF A VALID
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE OR REGULATION

What are the requisites of a valid administrative

regulation?
• The following requisites must be complied with
CODE: ASAR
A–uthorized (Its promulgation must be
authorized by the legislature)
S–cope of authority (It must be within the scope
of the authority given by the legislature)
A–ccording to prescribed procedure (It must be
promulgated in accordance with the prescribed

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 43 of 360
 Requisite

DISCUSSION OF EACH REQUISITE

1. Authority to promulgate an
administrative regulation –
This is granted either by the charter itself of an
administrative body, or by the law it is supposed
to enforce. Hence, any and all administrative
regulations issued by the administrative agency
should not be contrary to the said charter or law
that creates them, and that they should be in
conformity with the standards prescribed by law.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 44 of 360
 Explanation of each requisite

The promulgation of the said rules and

regulations must be authorized by the
legislature – The authority to promulgate
administrative rules and regulations is found in
the charter itself of the administrative body or in
the law which it seeks to enforce.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 45 of 360
 EXAMPLE:

a) Implementing rules and regulations

regarding employment of women and minors;
employment of househelpers and employment
of home workers were promulgated to
implement Articles 153 to 155 of the Labor
Code of the Philippines
b) Implementing rules and regulations to
improve telecommunications industry is
authorized under Republic Act No. 7925
c) Implementing rules and regulations to
promote liberalized foreign investment is
authorized under Republic Act No. 8179

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 46 of 360
 Requisite

1. The said rules and regulations must be

within the scope of legislative authority
– Rules and regulations which are beyond the
limits of legislative authority are not valid rules
and regulations. It has been the consistent rule
of the Supreme Court that rules and
regulations are valid only when they are within
the framework of the policy which the
legislature seeks to implement. (U.S. vs Barias,
11 Phil. 327)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 47 of 360
 Administrative rules and regulations must be
germane to the object and purpose of the law and
must conform to the standards, policies and
limitations prescribed by law. (Delman vs
Philippines Veterans Administration, 51 SCRA
340)

An administrative agency cannot amend an act

of Congress. (Santos vs Estenzo, 109 Phil. 419)

NOTE: In People vs Maceren, 79 SCRA 450, the

Secretary of Agriculture exceeded his authority in
penalizing electro-fishing by means of an

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 48 of 360
 Can traffic enforcers remove
license plates of illegally parked
vehicles?
• No. This was declared illegal in Metropolitan
Traffic Command vs Gonong (187 SCRA 432).
The alleged justification to the practice of
removing license plates of illegally parked
vehicles was LOI 43, but another law,
Presidential Decree No. 1605, was issued, and
under this law, the authority of the Metro Manila
Commission is limited only to suspension or
revocation of the license of the driver who
violated traffic rules. Said Presidential Decree
No. 1605 did not include the authority to remove

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 49 of 360
 Can the impounding of a vehicle be
sustained under a letter of
instruction prohibiting private extra
heavy and heavy vehicles from using
public streets on weekends and
holidays?
• No, as declared in Bautista vs Junio, (127 SCRA 329) on
the ground that the impounding of a vehicle finds no
statutory justification, and therefore ultra vires. The
prohibition itself, however, to said vehicles from using
public streets on weekends and holidays, was sustained.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 50 of 360
 NEW CASE:
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY VS. DANTE O. GARIN
G.R. NO. 130230, APRIL 15, 2005
There is no syllable in R.A. No. 7924 that
grants the MMDA police power, let alone
legislative power.

The power to confiscate and suspend or

revoke driver’s license without the need of

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 51 of 360
 FACTS:
1. Atty. Dante Garin parked his vehicle illegally
along Gandara Street, Binondo, Manila.
2. Atty. Garin sent a letter to Prospero Oreta,
the MMDA Chairman with these requests: (a)
that his driver’s license be returned to him. On
the same date, he expressed his preference that
his case be filed in court.
3. He did not receive a reply. Subsequently he
filed a complaint with the RTC of Paranaque
City. His contentions are as follows:

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 52 of 360
 a. Without implementing rules and
regulations, Section 5[f] of Republic Act
No. 7924 grants MMDA the unbridled
discretion to deprive erring motorists of
their licenses.
b. It will be pre-empt a judicial
determination of the validity of the
deprivation, hence, it violates the due
process clause.
c. Said law also violates the constitutional
prohibition against undue delegation of
legislative authority.
d. Said law will also allow MMDA to fix and
impose unspecified and therefore

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 53 of 360
 ISSUE:
Are the said contentions valid?

HELD:
1. There is no syllable in Republic Act No.
7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let
alone legislative power.

2. Even the Metro Manila Council has not

been delegated any legislative power.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 54 of 360
 1. Unlike the legislative bodies of the local
government units, there is no provision in
Republic Act No. 7924 that empowers the
MMDA or its council to “enact ordinances,
approve resolutions and appropriate funds for
general wefare” of the inhabitants of Metro
Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter
itself, a “development authority”. It is an
agency created for the purpose of laying down
policies and coordinating with the various
national government agencies, people’s
organization and the private sector for the
efficient and expeditious delivery of basic

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 55 of 360
 4. Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of
government. The power delegated to the MMDA
is that given to the Metro Manila Council to
promulgate its administrative rules and
regulations in the implementation of the MMDA’s
functions.

5. There is no grant of authority to enact

ordinances and regulations for the general welfare
of the inhabitants of the metropolis.

6. The power therefore to confiscate and suspend

or revoke driver’s license without the need of
legislative enactment is an authorized exercise of
police power.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 56 of 360
 Requisite

1. It must be promulgated in accordance

with prescribed procedure.
Administrative regulations of general
application does not require previous notice and
hearing except where the legislature itself requires
it and mandates that the same shall first require
the ascertainment of facts elicited from an
appropriate investigation.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 57 of 360
 What is the prescribed procedure
referred to as the third requisite?

• The prescribed procedure is notice and hearing,

if this is so required by law, and publication, as
required by Executive Order No. 200

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 58 of 360
 Is previous notice and hearing
always required in the
promulgation of administrative
regulations of general circulation?
• It is not required unless the legislature requires
it, or unless the regulation is in effect a
settlement of a controversy between specific
parties in which case it is considered as an
administrative adjudication, hence, it will
require notice and hearing.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 59 of 360
 Regarding the rates prescribed by
administrative agencies, when is
prior notice and hearing required
and when is it not required?
• When the administrative agency prescribes the
rates in the exercise of its legislative functions,
prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is
not a requirement of due process. However,
when said rates are prescribed by an
administrative agency in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing
are essential to the validity of said rates.
(Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 60 of 360
 When are rules/rates issued in the
exercise of a legislative function
and when are they issued in the
exercise of a quasi-judicial
function?
• When legislative in character:
When the rules or rates issued or prescribed by an
administrative agency are meant to apply to all
enterprises of a given kind throughout the country,
they may partake of a legislative character.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 61 of 360
 • When quasi-judicial in character:
Where the rules and the rates imposed apply
exclusively to a particular party, based upon a
finding of fact, then its function is quasi-judicial in
character.

EXAMPLE: A Department Order of the

Department of Education and Culture which
prescribed maximum school fees that may be
charged by all private schools in the country for
school year 1987 to 1988.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 62 of 360
 Was that order issued in the exercise of a
legislative function or quasi-judicial
function?

It was issued in the exercise of legislative function,

according to the Supreme Court in Philippine
Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports. (Supra)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 63 of 360
 Will a violation of an administrative
regulation give rise to a criminal
prosecution?
• No, unless the law makes the violation
punishable and prescribes a penalty.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 64 of 360
 Requisite

1. The administrative rule or regulation

must be reasonable – An administrative
rule or regulation must be reasonable, not
arbitrary and capricious. The reasonableness of
a regulation depends on the reason or the
purpose for which a regulation is issued.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 65 of 360
 Example:

In Agustin vs Edu, Letter of Instruction No. 229

which required the use of “early warning devices”
(EWD) is not repugnant to the due process clause.
It was considered justified for traffic safety.
In Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs Board
of Transportation, a regulation phasing out
taxicabs more than six years old was reasonable as
it is intended to promote not only the safety of the
passengers but also the comfort and the
convenience of the passengers.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 66 of 360
 Prohibition to private extra heavy and heavy
vehicles from using public streets on weekends
and holidays was sustained by the Supreme Court
in Bautista vs. Junio. It is apparently intended to
improve traffic conditions during the designated
days.
In Tablarin vs. Gutierrez, MECS Order No. 52,
Series of 1985, which mandates the taking and
passing of the National Medial Admission Test
(NMAT) as a condition for securing certificates of
eligibility for admission, was held to be a valid
exercise of the police power of the State. The
rationale for issuing the said order is the
improvement of the professional and technical

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 67 of 360
 AGUSTIN VS. EDU
88 SCRA 195
FACTS:
Then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued
Letter of Instruction No. 229 requiring the use of
“Early Warning Devices (EWD)”. Petitioner claims
that the use of the said early warning devices is
not necessary because his car is already equipped
with blinking lights.

ISSUE:
Is the said Letter of Instruction arbitrary?

HELD:

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 68 of 360
 BAUTISTA VS. JUNIO
127 SCRA 329
FACTS:
Letter of Instruction No. 869 is an energy
conservation measure which prohibits the use of
heavy and extra-heavy private vehicles from using
public streets on weekends and holidays. Pursuant
thereto, Memorandum Circular No. 39 was issued,
imposing penalties of “fine, confiscation of vehicle,
and cancellation of registration”.
Petitioner contends that: (1) said letter of
instruction is a violation of his right to use and
enjoy private property and of his right to travel,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 69 of 360
 ISSUE:
Is the said letter of instruction and
memorandum circular constitutional is the
confiscation or impounding of the vehicle under
Memorandum Circular ultra vires or not?

HELD:
The said Letter of Instruction was sustained but
the confiscation or impounding of the vehicle was
ultra vires because a penalty can only be imposed
in accordance with the procedure required by law.
While the imposition of a fine or the suspension of
registration is valid under the Land

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 70 of 360
 TABLARIN VS. GUTIERREZ
152 SCRA 730
FACTS:
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 2382 or the
Medical Act of 1959, MECS Order No. 52, Series of
1985, was issued. It mandates the taking and
passing of the National Medical Admission Test
(NMAT) as a condition for securing certificates of
eligibility for admission.
Petitioner assails the constitutionality of said law
and MECS Order No. 52, and sought to be
admitted to the College of Medicine for 1987-
1988, without successfully taking the NMAT.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 71 of 360
 ISSUE:
Are the said law and regulation constitutional?
Whether there is some reasonable relation
between requirement of passing NMAT as a
condition for admission to the medical school on
the one hand, and the securing of the health and
safety of the general community, on the other
hand.

HELD:
The Medical Act of 1959, as amended, and MECS
Order No. 52, Series of 1985, are constitutional.
They constitute a valid exercise of the police power
of the State as it is intended to promote the public

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 72 of 360
 There is a violation between the requirement of
passing the NMAT and the securing of the health
and safety of the general community because the
regulation of the practice of medicine is a
reasonable method of protecting the health and
safety of the public.
The said requirement is the protection of the
public from the potentially deadly effects of
incompetence and ignorance in those who would
undertake to treat our bodies and minds for
disease or trauma.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 73 of 360
 1. REQUISITES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS WITH A PENALTY

The requisites for the validity of administrative

regulations with penal sanctions are the
following:

1. The law itself which authorizes administrative

authorities to issue the same must declare as
punishable the violation of the rules and
regulations issued under its authority;
2. The law should define or fix the penalty for the
violation of the said rules and regulations;
3. Publication of said rules and regulations must

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 74 of 360
 CASES:
PEOPLE VS. MACEREN
FACTS: 79 SCRA 450
Section 11 of the Fisheries Law prohibits “the use
of any obnoxious or poisonous substance in
fishing”. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources subsequently promulgated Fisheries
Administrative Order No. 84 prohibiting electro-
fishing in all Philippine waters. Said order was
amended by A.O. 841, by instructing the ban
against electro-fishing to fresh water fishes. The
respondents were charged for having violated A.O.
841. The complaint alleged that the five accused

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 75 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether A.O. 84 and 841, penalizing electro-
fishing, are devoid of any legal basis, and hence,
invalid?

HELD:
Yes. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources exceeded its authority in issuing F.A.O.
Nos. 84 and 84-1 and that those orders are not
warranted by R.A. No. 8512. The reason is that the
Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro-
fishing. Since electro-fishing is not banned under
the law, and the Secretary is powerless to penalize
it, hence A.O. Nos. 84 and 84-1 are devoid of any

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 76 of 360
 The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an
executive official the power to declare what acts
should constitute a criminal offense. It can
authorize the issuance of regulations and the
imposition of the penalty provided for in the law
itself. But a mere administrative regulation is not
legally adequate to penalize electro-fishing.

Administrative regulations adopted under

legislative authority by a particular department
must be in harmony with the visions of the law,
and should be for the sole purpose of carrying
into effect its general provisions. An
administrative agency cannot amend the act of

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 77 of 360
 PEOPLE VS. QUE PO LAY
51 O.G. 48850
FACTS:
Central Bank issued a circular (Circular No. 20)
requiring those who had foreign currency to sell
the same to Central Bank. Que Po Lay was accused
of violating Circular No. 20 but he claimed that
the said circular has not yet been published in the
Official Gazette before his alleged violation of the
same and he should therefore be acquitted.

HELD:
The Supreme Court sustained the defense and

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 78 of 360
 GIL BALBUENA VS. SECRETARY OF
EDUCATION
110 PHIL. 150, G.R. NO. L-14283
FACTS: NOVEMBER 21, 1960
Petitioners, members of the religious sect
“Jehovah’s Witnesses”, challenged the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1265, by
virtue of which the Secretary of Education issued
Department Order No. 8, prescribing compulsory
flag ceremony in all schools as an undue
delegation of legislative power. Section 1 of the Act
requires all educational institutions to observe

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 79 of 360
 HELD:

The requirements constitute an adequate

standard to wit, simplicity and dignity of the flag
ceremony and the singing of the national anthem
– especially when contrasted with other standards
heretofore upheld by the courts such as “public
interest”, “public welfare”, “interest of law and
order”, “justice equity” and the “substantial merits
of the case”, or “adequate and efficient
instruction”. That the legislature did not specify
the details of the flag ceremony is no objection to
the validity of the statute, or all that is required of

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 80 of 360
 Without a definite standard, there would be no reasonable
means to ascertain whether or not the administrative agency
concerned has acted within the scope of authority as
determined by the legislature. When this happens, the power
of legislation would eventually be exercised by a branch of the
government other than that in which it is lodged by the
Constitution. (Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc vs. Public Service
Commission, G.R. No. L-19850, January 30, 1964)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 81 of 360
 REQUIREMENT AS TO PUBLICATION
OF ALL LAWS AS A CONDITION FOR
THEIR EFFECTIVITY
What should be published?
1. All statutes, including those of local
application and private laws.
2. Presidential Decrees and executive orders
promulgated by the President in the exercise of
legislative powers whenever the same are
validly delegated by the legislature or, at
present, directly conferred by the Constitution.
(Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 82 of 360
 How should the publication be
made?
Borrowing the words of Justice Isagani Cruz,
the publication must be in full or it is no
publication at all since its purpose id to inform
the public of the contents of the law.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 83 of 360
 Where should the law be published?
The law should be published in the Official
Gazette, and not just in newspapers of general
circulation. (Tanada vs. Tuvera, Ibid.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 84 of 360
 When does a law take effect?
A law takes effect after fifteen (15) days
following the completion of their publication
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is
otherwise provided. (Art. 2, New Civil Code). As
enunciated in Tanada vs. Tuvera, however, laws
shall be published in the Official Gazette, and not
just in newspapers of general circulation.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 85 of 360
 Should administrative rules and
regulations be published?
It depends. If the purpose of the administrative
rules and regulations is to enforce or implement
existing law, they must be published. If the
administrative regulation is of general circulation
or penal in nature, it should be published. If
regulations are merely interpretative or merely
internal in nature, they need not be published.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 86 of 360
 From what day shall fifteen-day
period (required for the effectivity
of a law or regulation) be counted?
The fifteen-day period is counted from the date
of release for circulation of the edition in the
Official Gazette, not from the date or printed date
of the edition of the Official Gazette. (People vs.
Verdicano, 132 SCRA 523)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 87 of 360
 What is the meaning of the phrase
“unless otherwise provided”?
This means that the law itself can provide when
it shall become effective. The law can provide
that it shall become effective thirty (30) days, or
twenty (20) days, after its publication in the
Official Gazette, but in no case can it provide that
it shall take effect immediately and without
publication, if it imposes a penalty, following the
rationale in Tañada vs. Tuvera, Pesigan vs.
Angeles (129 SCRA 174), and People vs. Que Po
Lay “that before the public is bound by its
contents, especially its penal provisions, a law,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 88 of 360
 1. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS EXERCISED IN
THE COURSE OF EXERCISING QUASI-
LEGISLATIVE POWERS

An administrative agency merely exercises the

power of subordinate legislation which means that
it can promulgate rules and regulations intended
to carry out the provisions of the law and
implement legislative policy. In the course of
exercising said function, an administrative
agency is vested with different powers and
functions, to wit:

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 89 of 360
 1) Enabling Powers – They are those powers
that enable an administrative agency to do an
act which the law precisely entrust to it.

Example:
a) The Land Transportation Office or LTO, is the
one entrusted with the function of registering all
motor vehicles including driver’s license.
b) The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
is the one entrusted with the function of approving
application of subdivision developers
c) The Commission on Higher Education or
CHED is the one entrusted with the function of
issuing accreditation of colleges in the Philippines.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 90 of 360
 1) Summary Powers – They are those powers
exercised by administrative authorities to
perform coercive measures upon persons or
things without the need of securing judicial
warrant.

Example:
a) An order issued by the Bureau of Immigration
and Deportation not to allow a Fil-Am player from
playing in the PBA on the ground of citizenship

b) The forcible evacuation of people residing

within six (6) km. radius of Mayon Volcano to
avoid loss of lives and properties.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 91 of 360
 1) Examining Powers – This is the power of
an administrative agency to examine and
inspect books, papers, and records to
investigate the activities of persons under its
jurisdiction.

Example:
a) The Bureau of Internal Revenue or BIR, can
lawfully examine the financial statements and
books of accounts of persons and companies
b) The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
or BID, can examine the citizenship papers of any
Fil-Am player whose citizenship is under question
c) The Bureau of Labor Standard can inspect

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 92 of 360
 1) Dispensing Power – This is the power of
an administrative officer to grant exemption
from the performance of a general duty.

Example:
a) The Bureau of Internal Revenue can exempt
some business establishments from compliance
with some laws or rules which are entrusted to it
for enforcement.
b) The Movie and Television Regulatory and
Classification Board or MTRCB, can grant
exemption or relax a rule or rules regarding the
showing of a film.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 93 of 360
 1) NOTICE AND HEARING

Is notice and hearing necessary in the

promulgation of a general regulation issued or to
be issued by an administrative body?

It is not necessary when the rules are merely

legal opinions. It is not also necessary when
substantive rules are being prepared and when the
class to be affected is large and the questions to be
resolved involved the use of discretion committed
to the rule making body.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 94 of 360
 1) WHEN IS IT NECESSARY?

An administrative rule in the nature of

subordinate legislation which will implement a
law by providing its details, must be heard before
they are adopted. In other words, when a rule or
regulation is being issued by an administrative
agency in the exercise of its quasi-legislative
authority, the requirement of notice, hearing and
publication shall be complied with.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 95 of 360
 CRUZ VS. CSC
G.R. NO. 144464, NOVEMBER 27,
FACTS: 2001
Private individual Esteban wrote a letter to the
Chairperson of the CSC claiming that during the
examinations for non-professional in the career
civil service, Paitim, the Municipal Treasurer of
Norzagaray, Bulacan, falsely pretended to be the
examinee, Cruz, a co-employee in the said office,
and took the examination for the latter.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 96 of 360
 The Director IV of the CSC wrote a
Memorandum to the Civil Service Commissioner
declaring that based on the record, she found a
prima facie case against petitioners Paitim and
Cruz. A fact finding investigation was conducted
and a ‘Formal Charge’ for “Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service” was filed against
petitioners before the CSC.

After filing their Answer, petitioners filed a

Motion to Dismiss averring that if the
investigation will continue, they will be deprived
of their right to due process because the CSC was

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 97 of 360
 The Attorney III of CSC was directed to conduct
the formal administrative investigation. She found
petitioner guilty of ‘Dishonesty’ and ordered their
dismissal from the government service.
The CSC thereafter issued a Resolution finding
the petitioners guilty of the charges and ordered
their dismissal from the government service.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 98 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether the petitioners were denied due process
because the CSC acted as the investigator, the
complainant, the prosecutor and the judge all at
the same time.

RULING:
No. Petitioners were not denied due process.
The CSC is mandated to hear and decide
administrative cases instituted by it or instituted
before it directly or on appeal including actions of
its officers and the agencies attached to it
pursuant to Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 3,
Section 12, Paragraph 11 of the Administrative

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 99 of 360
 The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC
itself does not mean that it could be an impartial
judge. As an administrative body, its decision was
based on substantial findings. Factual findings of
administrative bodies, being considered experts in
their field, are binding on the Supreme Court.

Petitioners were also properly informed of the

charges. They submitted an Answer and were
given the opportunity to defend themselves.
Petitioners cannot, therefore, claim that there was
a denial of due process much less the lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the CSC to take
cognizance of the case.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 100 of 360
 1) CAN LEGISLATIVE POWERS BE
DELEGATED?

Legislative powers may be delegated in the

following cases:

2. When authorized by the Constitution

such as in the following cases:
a) The Congress may by law grant emergency
powers to the President. (Section 23 [2], Article
VI)
b) Congress may by law grant tariff powers to
the President (Section 28 [2], Article VI)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 101 of 360
 1. Legislative powers may be delegated
to local governments:
• Police power has been expressly delegated by the
legislature to the local law-making bodies;
• Eminent Domain.

1. Legislative powers may be delegated

to the people at large:
a) REFERENDUM – a method of submitting an
important legislative measure to a direct vote of
the whole people;
b) PLEBISCITE – a device to obtain a direct
popular vote on a matter of political importance.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 102 of 360
 1. Legislative powers may be delegated
to administrative bodies (e.g. POEA,
LTFRB, CAB, OWWA, BOI, BMI etc.).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 103 of 360
 1) TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
GIVEN POWER HAS BEEN VALIDLY
EXERCISED BY A PARTICULAR
DEPARTMENT.

FIRST TEST: The first test is to determine

whether or not the power in question, regardless
of its nature, is granted by the Constitution to the
department which seeks to exercise such power. If
it is granted by the Constitution, the exercise of
the power is sustained.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 104 of 360
 SECOND TEST: If the power sought to be
exercised is not expressly conferred by the
Constitution, can the power sought to be exercised
be reasonably inferred from, or is it necessary to
the proper exercise of, the express power granted
to the department seeking to exercise said power,
hence, justified under the DOCTRINE OF
IMPLICATION.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 105 of 360
 What is the doctrine of implication?
This means that even in the absence of an
express conferment, the exercise of a given power
may be justified or reasonably inferred from the
express power already granted, or that it may be
necessary to the proper exercise of the express
power granted to the department seeking to
exercise the said power.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 106 of 360
 Example:

1. Rules of procedure promulgated by the

Electoral Commission were challenged
because they were allegedly not
expressly authorized by the 1935
Constitution. In Angara vs. Electoral
Commission, the Supreme Court upheld
the promulgation of the said rules of
procedure because they were found out
to be necessary to the proper exercise of
the express power of the Electoral
Commission to hear and decide election

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 107 of 360
 1. The power of Congress to conduct
legislative investigation may be implied
from the express power of legislation.
This power, however, is now subject to
the following restraints:

a) The legislative inquiry must be in aid of

legislation;

b) The conduct of the investigation must be

strictly in accordance with the rules of
procedure that must have been published
in advance for the information and
protection of the witnesses;

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 108 of 360
 THIRD TEST: If the power sought to be
exercised is not granted by the Constitution, either
expressly or impliedly, can its exercise be justified
as inherent or incidental? If they are, the exercise
of the said power may be sustained.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 109 of 360
 FOURTH TEST: Assuming that the power of the
act sought to be performed is expressly or
impliedly granted by the Constitution, or that it is
justified as inherent, the fourth is whether or not
the act of power in question has been performed
in accordance with the rules laid down by the
Constitution. A good example is the compliance
required by Section 21, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, which provides that the power to
conduct legislative investigation, although implied
from the power of legislation, is now subject to the
following restraints:

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 110 of 360
 a) The legislative inquiry must be in aid of
legislation;
b) The conduct of investigation must be strictly
in accordance with the rules of procedure that
must have been published in advance for the
information and protection of the witnesses;
c) The rights of persons appearing in, affected by
such inquiries, shall be respected. (Principles,
Comments and Cases in Constitutional Law I,
First Edition, by Suarez, citing Section 21,
Article VI, 1987 Constitution)

The other example is when the President extends

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 111 of 360
1) DISTINGUISH LEGISLATIVE POWER
FROM QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER.
Legislative power is the power to make laws and
the power to fix a legislative policy. This cannot be
delegated by the legislature to administrative
agencies. Quasi-legislative power is also known as
the power of subordinate legislation. It is the power
of administrative agencies to issue administrative
rules and regulations in order to implement the law
and the legislative policy fixed by the legislature.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 112 of 360
 1) WHAT IS THE GUIDELINE TO
OBSERVE IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT
THERE IS A VALID AND LAWFUL
DELEGATION OF POWER?

The legislature should lay down (1) A policy and

a (2) definite standard by which the executive or
administrative officer or board may be guided in
the exercise of his discretionary authority. If this is
observed, there is a valid delegation of legislative
power (Cervantes vs. Auditor General, G.R. No.
L-4043, May 26, 1952). If, on the other hand, the
statute furnishes no standard and the officer or
board is granted uncontrolled or unlimited

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 113 of 360
 1. POLICY – The determination of legislative
policy is vested in the legislature and this cannot
be delegated to the administrative agencies. It
must be clearly declared in the language of the
statute and should not be left to the discretion of
the said administrative agencies.

2. STANDARD – The statute must pronounce

a definite standard which will guide the
administrative agency concerned. A standard
defines the policy fixed by the legislature and
marks and limits.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 114 of 360
 1) WHAT IS THE CLASSIFICATION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS?

An administrative agency may either be

involved in the task of adopting rules and
regulations intended to carry out the provisions
of a law and to implement legislative policy, or in
the task of interpreting the statute being
administered.

The rules they adopt to implement the law and

the said policy are called legislative rules or
regulations.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 115 of 360
 1) DISTINGUISH LEGISLATIVE
REGULATIONS FROM
INTERPRETATIVE REGULATION

Legislative regulations Interpretative regulations

What is employed in They constitute the
promulgating this regulation is administrator’s construction
not the discretion to of a statute and they are valid
determine what the law shall if they construe the statute
be, as this is exclusively vested correctly. If not, they are
in the legislature, but the subject to judicial review.
discretion on how the law
shall be enforced.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 116 of 360
 MTRCB IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION UNDER
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1986

MTRCB has the power to supervise, regulate,

grant, deny or cancel permits for the exhibition,
and/or television broadcast of all motion
pictures, television programs and publicity
materials, and in accordance with this power, the
MTRCB shall see to it that no such pictures,
programs and materials as it determines to be
objectionable, shall be exhibited and subject of
broadcast. In the exercise of said express
regulatory and supervisory statutory mandate, it

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 117 of 360
 B. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
1. DEFINE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER.

Quasi-judicial power is the power of an

administrative agency to hear, determine, and
make findings of facts, and to resolve the case
presented to it on the basis of the said findings of
facts and on the basis of its interpretation of the
laws and jurisprudence concerning the issues of
the case, subject only to the power of the courts
to review and scrutinize the same on questions of
law and jurisdiction.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 118 of 360
 1. WHY IS QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
GRANTED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY?

Quasi-judicial power is needed so that the

administrative officers in the different boards,
bureaus and offices can perform their executive
duties as well as their quasi-judicial authority. For
this purpose, the legislative may grant to such
boards, bureaus and offices quasi-judicial powers
involving the exercise of judgment and discretion
as an incident to the performance of
administrative functions.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 119 of 360
 1. WHAT IS THE LIMITATION TO THE
LEGISLATURE WHENEVER IT GRANTS
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY?

The legislature must state its intention in

express terms that would leave no doubt that the
power and jurisdiction being transferred are not
those vested in the courts but only those powers
and jurisdiction which are incidental to or in
connection with the performance of
administrative duties. The case of Miller vs.
Mardo, et al. (Supra) which was cited earlier,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 120 of 360
 1. WHAT IS THE MAIN FUNCTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN-
CHARGE OF SAID BOARDS, BUREAUS
AND OFFICES?

Their main function is to enforce the law entrusted

to them for implementation. The exercise of quasi-
judicial power is only incidental to their main
function of enforcing the law.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 121 of 360
 1. POWERS INCLUDED IN THE TERM
“QUASI-JUDICIAL”.

The following powers are included:

(1)Determinative Powers; and

(2) Summary Powers

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 122 of 360
 Two kinds of determinative powers:

a) Enabling Powers – Powers of

administrative bodies to act, to grant or deny
applications for licenses to engage in a
particular business or occupation. (i.e. Power
of the Land Transportation Office to grant
professional or non-professional driver’s
license).

b) Directing Powers – Powers of

administrative agencies to see to it that laws
and regulations are duly complied with (i.e.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 123 of 360
 1. DIFFERENT POWERS
Directing powers are further classified into:

a. Dispensing Powers – Authority to grant

exemption, or be relieved, from complying with a
law or regulation. (i.e. Authority of the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
to relieve school bus operators from an earlier
requirement to paint their school buses with
yellow every beginning of the school year).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 124 of 360
 a. Examining Powers – This refers to the
investigatory or inquisitorial powers of
administrative agencies which includes the following:

(b.1) Power to conduct inspection of accounts,

records, documents, and other papers relative to its
investigation.
(b.2) Power to obtain other information which it finds
relevant to a matter being investigated.
(b.3) Power to issue subpoena and notices.
(b.4) Power to swear and interrogate witnesses.
(b.5) Power to inspect premises.
(b.6) Power to require written answers to
questionnaires.
(b.7) Power to require periodic or special reports.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 125 of 360
 a. Summary Powers – This refers to the power
of administrative agencies to apply compulsion or
force against a person or property without the
need of prior judicial warrant. (i.e. Authority of the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation to
prohibit certain persons and animals from leaving
the NAIA and to order that they be subject first to
quarantine regulations and procedures.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 126 of 360
 1. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS ARISING FROM THE
EXERCISE OF THE SAID POWERS?

They are administrative proceedings that

partake of the nature of a judicial proceeding,
hence, they are described as a proceeding of a
quasi-judicial character. (Morgan vs. U.S. 468)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 127 of 360
 1. WHY DO THEY PARTAKE OF THE
NATURE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS?

They partake of the nature of judicial

proceedings because they involve the task of
hearing, taking and evaluating the evidence, and
the making of factual findings based on the
evidence presented, and issuing the order or
decision on the basis of the said findings and their
interpretation of the law entrusted to their
enforcement, subject only to the ultimate power of
the courts to review the same on questions of law
and jurisdiction.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 128 of 360
 1. ARE THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
ADVERSARIAL IN NATURE?

Some proceedings before administrative

agencies are adversarial in nature and some are
held ex-parte.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 129 of 360
 1. WHEN ARE PROCEEDINGS
ADVERSARIAL AND WHEN ARE THEY
HELD EX-PARTE?

They are adversarial when the order or decision of

an administrative agency is in favor of one person or
party and against another. In such a case, the said
order or decision is issued to protect public interest
(2 Am. Jur. 2nd, 143-144). EXAMPLE: Complaint
for unlawful dismissal filed by the employees of
Philippine Airlines in the National Labor Relations
Commission. A decision for or against the
employees or for or against Philippine Airlines is
adversarial in nature. A return to work order that
may be issued in the process of an ongoing strike is

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 130 of 360
 An administrative proceeding may be held ex-parte
if there is an urgent and compelling reason to take an
immediate action on a matter that is injurious to a
public interest, health and sanitation, public safety
and morals. EXAMPLE: (1) An order directing
policemen to confine lepers to Culion Leper Colony to
protect the people from being adversely affected by
the contagious disease of leprosy; (2) An order
directing that restaurants operating as fronts of
prostitution and illegal gambling activities be closed
to protect morals.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 131 of 360
 JURISDICTION
1. WHAT IS JURISDICTION?

Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine

a case; the right to act in a particular case (Palma
vs. Q.S., Inc., 17 SCRA 97). The authority to decide a
case and not the decision rendered therein is what
makes up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction
over the person and the subject matter, the decision
of all other questions arising in the case is but an
exercise of that jurisdiction. Any error that the Court
may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is
merely an error of judgment, and it is a settled rule

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 132 of 360
 What are the classification of
jurisdiction as to its nature?
General Jurisdiction – Extends to all controversies which may be brought
before a court within the legal bounds of rights and remedies.

Limited or Special Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction which is confined to particular

cases, or which can be exercised only under the limitations and circumstances
prescribed by the statute.

Original Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction conferred upon, or inherent in a court in

the first instance. Original jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of regional trial courts,
when it is exclusive or concurrent; exclusive jurisdiction exists when no other
court has the power to render a judgment in a particular case or class of cases;
concurrent jurisdiction exists when anyone of several distinct courts has the power
to render a judgment in a particular case or class of cases; appellate jurisdiction is
the power to hear, reverse, affirm or modify a judgment rendered by an inferior
court, whether a city/municipal trial court or regional trial court; general
jurisdiction is the largest power any regional trial court can have in that political
unit.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 133 of 360
 Appellate Jurisdiction – The power and
authority conferred upon a superior court to
rehear and determine cases which have been tried
in the lower court, or the review by a superior
court of the final judgment or order of some lower
courts.

Exclusive Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction

conjorned to a particular tribunal or grade of
courts to the exclusion of all others.

Criminal Jurisdiction – That which exists for

the punishment of crimes.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 134 of 360
 Who has exclusive jurisdiction over courts and
court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of
the Court of Appeals down to the lowest
municipal
This Court,trial court
in the clerk?
case of Sanz Maceda vs. Vasquez,
221 SCRA 464, held that:

“Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution

exclusively vests in the Supreme Court
administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of
Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court
clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme
Court that can oversee the judge’s and court

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 135 of 360
 1. SOURCE OF AUTHORITY AND
JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARDS, BUREAUS AND OFFICES.

Said authority and jurisdiction is derived from

the Constitution, or from the statute that created
the administrative board, bureaus, and offices.
The administrative agencies created under the
1987 Constitution are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and
the Commission on Audit. All other agencies are
created by law or by the legislature.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 136 of 360
 1. ARE THE ORDERS AND THE
DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARDS, BUREAUS AND OFFICES
FINAL?

The factual findings of said administrative

boards, bureaus and offices are final if they are
supported by substantial evidence. They are,
however, appealable on questions of law and
jurisdiction.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 137 of 360
 1. WHEN IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISION CONSIDERED RES
JUDICATA?

The Supreme Court ruled that whenever any

board, tribunal or person is by law vested with
authority to judicially determine a question, such
determination, when it has become final, is as
conclusive between the same parties litigating for
the same cause as though the adjudication had
been made by a court of general jurisdiction. (174
SCRA 258)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 138 of 360
 1. WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS?

The decisions and orders of administrative

agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial
authority, have upon their finality, the force and
binding effect of a final judgment. (Brillantes vs.
Castro, 99 Phil. 497)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 139 of 360
 ROXAS VS. SAYOC
200 PHIL. 448
FACTS:
The petitioner claimed that when Republic Act
No. 650, also known as the Import Control Law,
expired, the Commissioner of Customs also lost
jurisdiction over the case involving the forfeiture
of goods in favor of the government. The said
forfeiture was declared by the Collector of
Customs on May 19, 1953 and was affirmed by the
Commissioner of Customs on June 16, 1953.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 140 of 360
 ISSUE:
Did the Commissioner of Customs retain the
jurisdiction of the case when Republic Act No. 650
expired on June 16, 1953?

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that once the
Commissioner of Customs has acquired
jurisdiction over the case, the expiration of
Republic Act No. 650 did not divest said
Commissioner of his jurisdiction duly acquired
while said law was in force.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 141 of 360
 RCPI VS. BOARD OF
COMMUNICATIONS
FACTS:
80 SCRA 471
There were two separate complaints for damages
that were filed against petitioner RCPI, one is BC
Case No. 75-01-C where a certain Diego Morales
alleged that he failed to receive a telegram sent by
his daughter to him through RCPI on October 15,
1974, informing him about the death of his wife.
He prayed for damages. Another case is BC Case
No. 75-08-0c where a certain Pacifico Inocencio
alleged that he also failed to receive a telegram
sent by Lourdes Inocencio to him through RCPI

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 142 of 360
 The Board of Communications imposed a
disciplinary fine of P200.00 against RCPI pursuant
to Section 21 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as
amended and held that RCPI’s service was
inadequate and unsatisfactory. RCPI filed two
petitions to review by certiorari which were
consolidated.

ISSUE:
Does the Board of Communications have
jurisdiction over the said claims for damages arising
from the failure to receive telegrams through RCPI’s
facilities?

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 143 of 360
 MONTEMAYOR VS. ARANETA
UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
FACTS:
77 SCRA 321
On two separate occasions in 1974, a complaint
was filed against petitioner, a full time professor of
Araneta University and was serving as head of the
Department of Humanities and Psychology. The
first is a complaint of immorality filed on April 17,
1974. The second is a complaint for conduct
unbecoming of a faculty member which was filed
on November 8, 1974.
On the first complaint, an investigation was

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 144 of 360
 On the second complaint, another committee
was created. After investigation, the committee
recommended his separation from the university
the charges against him having been established.
Subsequently, his dismissal was ordered on
December 10, 1974, effective on November 15,
1974. On December 12, 1974, an application for
clearance to terminate him was filed.
Petitioner filed a complaint for reinstatement in
the NLRC on November 21, 1974, with a prayer for
payment of back salaries and all the benefits
payable to him.
The NLRC granted the petition but the
University appealed to the Secretary of Labor. The

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 145 of 360
 ISSUE:
Is petitioner’s contention tenable?

HELD:
There was compliance with procedural due
process regarding the first complaint but it
appears that the hearing of the committee on the
second complaint proceeded despite the absence
of petitioner who, in fact filed a motion for
postponement of the hearing o November 18 and
19, 1974. This deficiency, however, was cured
because petitioner was able to present his case as
well as his evidence before the NLRC. More than

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 146 of 360
 IV. IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES IN ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 147 of 360
 What are the important principles
in administrative law?
Among the many principles discussed in the
books of administrative law, and oftentimes
referred to by the Supreme Court in cases
involving administrative law, the following are
considered to be important, to wit:

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 148 of 360
 PRINCIPLES OF MAJOR PRINCIPLE
1) Doctrine of finality of administrative
decisions
2) Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies
3) Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
4) Doctrine of qualified political agency
5) Doctrine of res judicata in administrative
proceedings
6) Due process in administrative proceedings
7) Requisites of judicial review

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 149 of 360
 DISCUSSION OF EACH PRINCIPLE
1. DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

What is necessary before a decision of an

administrative body may be subject of
judicial review?
Administrative action must have been fully
completed before a decision of an administrative
body may be subject of judicial review. Otherwise,
it will only cause delay to the disposition of

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 150 of 360
 Is there an instance when the court can
intervene prior to the completion of an
administrative action?

Yes, such as in the following cases:

1. When the administrative officer assumes to act
in violation of the Constitution and other laws;
2. When a questioned order is not reviewable in
any other way, and the complainant will suffer
great and obvious damage if the order is carried
out, or when such relief is expressly allowed by
law;
3. When the questioned order is made in excess

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 151 of 360
 Are the orders and decisions of
administrative boards, bureaus and
offices, final?

Already answered.

What is the doctrine of res judicata in

administrative proceedings?

Already answered.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 152 of 360
 1. DOCTRINE OF
EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES
What is the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies?

Where the enabling statute indicates a

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 153 of 360
 What is the consequence of the
non-observance of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative
remedies?
It results in lack of a cause of action which is one
of the grounds allowed in the Rules of Court for
the dismissal of the complaint. (Sunville Timber
Products, Inc. vs. Judge Abad, G.R. No. 85502,
February 24, 1991)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 154 of 360
 Is the deficiency (non-observance
of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies?
It is not jurisdictional. Failure to invoke it
operates as a waiver of the objection as a ground
for a motion to dismiss and the court may then
proceed with the case as if the doctrine had been
observed. (Sunville Timber Products, Inc. vs.
Judge Abad, G.R. No. 85502, February 24, 1991)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 155 of 360
 What are the reasons for the
doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies?
Under the principle of separation of powers, the
judiciary is enjoined not to interfere on matters
which are within the competence of the other
departments. The theory is that the administrative
authorities are in a better position to resolve
questions addressed to their particular expertise
and that errors committed by subordinates in
their resolution may be rectified by their superiors
if given a chance to do so. (Sunville Timber
Products, Inc. vs. Judge Abad, G.R. No. 85502,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 156 of 360
 Is the observance of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative
remedies absolute?
No. The said doctrine yields to the following
exceptions as enumerated in Paat vs Court of
Appeals (266 SCRA 167):

1) When there is violation of due process;

2) When the issue involved is purely legal; (see

also Duenas vs. SSHA, G.R. No. 14917, June 4,
2004)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 157 of 360
 4) When there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned; (see also Tan
vs. Veterans Backpay Commission, 105 Phil.
377)

5) When there is irreparable injury; (see also De

Lara vs. Plaribel, 14 SCRA 291)

6) When he respondent is a department

secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the
president bears the implied and assumed
approval of the latter; (see also Kilusang Bayan
sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong
Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. vs.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 158 of 360
 9) When the subject matter is a private land in
land case proceedings; (see also Marcoso vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96605, May 8, 1992)

10) When the rule does not provide a plain,

speedy adequate remedy; (see also National
Development Co. vs. Collector of Customs, 9
SCRA 429; National Food Authority vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 115121-25, 68 SCAD 246,
February 9, 1996) and

11) When there are circumstances indicating the

urgency of judicial intervention. (see also Aquino

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 159 of 360
 Other exceptions:

1. When the claim involved is small; (Cipriano

vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291)

2. When strong public interest is involved;

(Arrow Transportation Corp. vs. Board of
Transportation, 63 SCRA 193; Sison vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 124086, June 26, 2006)

3. In quo warranto proceedings; (Corpus vs.

Cuaderno, 4 SCRA 749); and

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 160 of 360
 OLD CASES:
1. Pascual vs. Provincial Board, 106 Phil. 466
2. Dimaisip vs. Court of Appeals, 106 Phil. 237
3. Mangubat vs. Osmeña, 105 Phil. 1308
4. Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230
5. Tapales vs. President, 7 SCRA 553

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 161 of 360
 SUBSEQUENT CASES:
1. Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga
Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng
Muntinlupa, et al. vs. Dominguez, G.R. No.
85439, January 13, 1992
2. Bunye, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
91927, January 13, 1992
3. Heirs of Tanjuan vs. Office of the President, et
al., G.R. No. 126847, December 4, 1996

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 162 of 360
 SUNVILLE TIMBER PRODUCTS, INC.
VS. JUDGE ABAD
G.R. No. 85502, FEBRUARY 24,
FACTS:
1992
A Timber License Agreement (TLA) was granted
to Sunville Timber Products, Inc. for a period of
ten (10) years expiring on September 31, 1992. On
July 31, 1987, Gilbolingco filed a petition with the
DENR praying for the cancellation of the said TLA
on the ground of serious violations of its
conditions, and forestry laws and regulations. The
same charges were later made in complaint for
injunction with damages against Sunville.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 163 of 360
 Sunville moved for the dismissal of the case on
the following grounds: (1) The court had no
jurisdiction over the complaint; (2) The plaintiffs
had not yet exhausted administrative remedies;
and (3) The injunction was expressly prohibited
by Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 605.
The said motion to dismiss was denied by the
trial judge and this was sustained by the Court of
Appeals on the ground that administrative
remedies need not be exhausted if there is an
urgent need for judicial intervention. The Court of
Appeals also declared invalid Section 1 of
Presidential Decree No. 605 as this is an
encroachment on the judicial power vested in the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 164 of 360
 ISSUE:
Does the alleged urgent necessity for judicial
action justify the court’s intervention without
giving the DENR the opportunity to rule first on
the alleged unlawful logging activities of Sunville?

HELD:
No. The charge involves factual issues calling for
the presentation of supporting evidence. Such
evidence is best evaluated first by the
administrative authorities employing their
specialized knowledge of the agreement and the
rules allegedly violated before the courts may step

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 165 of 360
 MORCOSO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 96605, MAY 8, 1992
FACTS:
Tirol claims to be the owner of a 4.5 hectares of
land by way of inheritance from his father in 1930.
On December 28, 1979, she entered into a lease
agreement with Morcoso, allowing the latter
without paying rental and for a period of six years,
to develop a fishpond in a 85,880 sq. meters of
land within the 4.5 hectares of land, with
usufructuary rights.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 166 of 360
 While working on the fishpond, Morcoso was
informed by the personnel of the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources that said portion
of land which Tirol leased to Morcoso is within the
alienable and public land.
Records show that Morcoso applied for a
fishpond permit with BFAR in 1973, and that
Morcoso refused to surrender possession of the
fishpond to Tirol in 1976 when the term of the
lease required. It is for this reason that Tirol filed
an unlawful detainer case against Morcoso but the
same was dismissed for not having been filed on
time.
The trial court ruled that the fishpond belongs to

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 167 of 360
 ISSUE:
Is the contention of Morcoso correct?

HELD:
No. The technical descriptions of the fishpond
stated in the lease contract and in the sketch plan
of the BFAR personnel who conducted an ocular
inspection of the fishpond areas applied for by
Morcoso explicitly show that the latter was the
subject of the lease contract between Tirol and
Morcoso.
The fishpond not having been part of the public

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 168 of 360
 NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, ET AL.
VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. NOS. 115121-25, 68 SCAD 246
FACTS:
FEBRUARY 9,1996
Private respondent’s contacts were terminated
in the midst of bidding preparation and their
replacements were hired barely five days after the
termination. Masada, another respondent, is a
pre-qualified bidder who submitted all
requirements and was preparing for the public
bidding only to find out that contract had already
been awarded by negotiation. Because of the
urgency of the situation, the private respondents

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 169 of 360
 ISSUE:
Should there still be an exhaustion of
administrative remedies before going to court to
stop implementation of the negotiated security
contracts?

HELD:
The case is an exception to the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. An appeal
to the NFA Board of Council of Trustees and to the
Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the
provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 was
not plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 170 of 360
 ESPIRITU VS. MELGAR
G.R. NO. 100874, FEBRUARY 13,
FACTS: 1992
Ramir Garing filed three complaints against
Mayor Melgar of Narjan, Oriental Mindoro. The
first is a letter-complaint for grave misconduct,
oppression, abuse of authority, culpable violation
of the Constitution and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of public service, filed with the
Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local
Government. The same letter-complaint was filed
with the Provincial Governor of Mindoro
requesting that the Mayor be placed under

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 171 of 360
 After Mayor Melgar submitted his answer to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the latter
recommended to the Provincial Governor that the
Mayor be preventively suspended for forty-five
(45) days pending the investigation of the
complaint. Mayor Melgar moved to dismiss the
complaint but the same was denied by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Meanwhile, Governor
Espiritu placed Mayor Melgar under preventive
suspension on May 28,1991.
Upon receipt of the order of suspension, Mayor
Melgar filed a petition for certiorari with
Preliminary Inspection with prayer for a
restraining order in the Regional Trial Court

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 172 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether the judge of the Regional Trial Court
has jurisdiction to stop the governor from placing
a municipal mayor under preventive suspension
pending the investigation of administrative
charges against the latter? Can Mayor Melgar go
to court without exhausting administrative
remedies?

HELD:
The Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction
over the special civil action and gravely abused its
discretion in refusing to dismiss the case. There is
nothing improper in suspending an officer before
the charges against him are heard and before he is

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 173 of 360
 NEW CASES:
NICANOR T. SANTOS DEV’T. CORP.
VS. HON. SEC., DAR
G.R. NO. 159654, FEBRUARY 28,
FACTS:
Petitioner is a domestic corporation which owns
2006as the Santos Farm in
a large tract of land known
Tuba, Benguet. A portion of said farm, according
to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)
of Tuba, Benguet, would be placed under the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) for acquisition and distribution
to prospective beneficiaries.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 174 of 360
 Petitioner wrote to the DAR Secretary and to the
MARO that the Santos Farm should be exempted
from the coverage of the CARP program because
the property is untenanted, mountainous and is
not planted with rice and corn.
The DAR Regional Director advised petitioner to
pursue the exemption of the Santos Farm in
accordance with the mandates of two DAR
Administrative Orders. Instead, petitioner filed a
protest with the DAR and a protest letter to the
DAR Secretary reiterating the grounds for the
exemption of the Santos Farm from the CARP
program.
Petitioner also filed a Complaint before DARAB.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 175 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether petitioner was able to exhaust all the
administrative remedies.

RULING:
Petitioner was not able to exhaust all
administrative remedies hence the CA rightfully
dismissed the Complaint.
As a general rule, before a party may be allowed
to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of justice,
he is expected to have exhausted all means of
administrative redress. In the instant case, it is
beyond dispute that petitioner failed to resort to
proper administrative recourse in resisting the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 176 of 360
 There are instances when judicial action may be
resorted to immediately. Among these exceptions
are: (1) when the question raised is purely legal;
(2) when the administrative body is in estoppels;
(3) when the act complained of is patently illegal;
(4) when there is urgent need for judicial
intervention; (5) when the respondent acted in
disregard of due process; (6) when the respondent
is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter
ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed
approval of the latter; (7) when irreparable
damage will be suffered; (8) when there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (9)
when strong public interest is involved; (10) when

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 177 of 360
 LAGUNA CATV NETWORK, INC. VS.
MARAAN
G.R. NO. 139492, NOVEMBER 19,
FACTS: 2002
Private respondents filed with the Department
of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. IV
(DOLE Region IV), separate complaints for
underpayment of wages and non-payment of other
employee benefits against their employer, Laguna
CATV Network, Inc., petitioner herein.
DOLE Regional Director Maraan, after a
summary investigation, issued an Order directing

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 178 of 360
 Instead of appealing to the Secretary of Labor,
petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion
for extension of time to file a petition for review.
Petitioner was of the view that an appeal to the
Secretary of Labor ‘would be an exercise in futility
considering that the said appeal will be filed with
the Regional Office and it will surely be
disapproved.’ The Court of Appeals denied said
motion ruling, among others, that petitioner failed
to exhaust administrative remedies.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 179 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying
its motion for extension and in dismissing the case
on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.

RULING:
No. The Court of Appeals was correct in holding
that petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative
remedies.
As provided under Article 128 of the Labor Code,
as amended, an order issued by the duly
authorized representative of the Secretary of
Labor may be appealed to the latter. Thus,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 180 of 360
 This Court, in a long line of cases, has
consistently held that if a remedy within the
administrative machinery can still be resorted to
by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that
comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy
should be exhausted first before the court's
judicial power can be sought. The party with an
administrative remedy must not merely initiate
the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain
relief but also pursue it to its appropriate
conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in
order to give the administrative agency an
opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 181 of 360
 CSC vs. DBP
G.R. NO. 158791, JULY 22, 2005

FACTS:
The CSC (petitioner)
via the present petition
for mandamus seeks to
compel the Department
of Budget and

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 182 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies applies.

RULING:
The rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies invoked by respondent applies only
where there is an express legal provision requiring
such administrative step as a condition precedent
to taking action in court. As petitioner is not
mandated by any law to seek clarification from the
Secretary of Budget and Management prior to
filing the present action, its failure to do so does
not call for the application of the rule.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 183 of 360
 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
(LBP) VS. CELADA
G.R. NO. 164876, JANUARY 23,
FACTS:
2006
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
expropriated 14.19343 hectares of respondent
Celada's land in Bohol. Petitioner LBP valued
respondent's land at P21,106.22 per hectare. DAR
offered said amount to respondent but the latter
rejected it. Nevertheless, LBP deposited said sum
in the name of respondent.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 184 of 360
 The matter was referred to the DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB) for summary
administrative hearing on determination of just
compensation. While the case was pending before
the DARAB, respondent filed a petition for judicial
determination of just compensation against LBP,
DAR and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
(MARO) of Carmen, Bohol before the RTC.
Respondent claims that her land is worth at least
P15,000 per hectare.
LBP, in its answer, raised non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies and forum shopping. It
contended that respondent should first await the
outcome of the DARAB case before taking any

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 185 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is still applicable despite
the order issued affirming the valuation made by
LBP.

RULING:
There is no merit to petitioner's contention that
respondent failed to exhaust administrative
remedies when she directly filed the petition for
determination of just compensation with the SAC
even before the DARAB case could be resolved.
The issue is now moot considering that the
valuation made by petitioner had long been

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 186 of 360
 CORSIGA VS. DEFENSOR
G.R. NO. 139302, OCTOBER 28,
FACTS:
2002
Private respondent Ortizo was the Senior
Engineer B in the National Irrigation
Administration (NIA), Jalaur-Suague River
Irrigation System, Region VI. Petitioner Corsiga,
then Regional Irrigation Manager of NIA, Region
VI, reassigned private respondent to Aganan-Sta.
Barbara River Irrigation System. Aggrieved,
private respondent wrote petitioner requesting
exemption from the policy of rotation. When
petitioner denied the said request, private

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 187 of 360
 Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition for lack
of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies but the motion was
denied. The appellate court affirmed the trial
court's decision saying that the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies does not
apply where the controverted act is patently
illegal, arbitrary, and oppressive.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 188 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether private respondent has a cause of
action despite his failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.

RULING:
Being a NIA employee covered by the Civil
Service Law, in our view, private respondent
should have first complained to the NIA
Administrator, and if necessary, then appeal to the
Civil Service Commission. As ruled in Abe-Abe vs.
Manila, 90 SCRA 524 (1979), if a litigant goes to
court without first pursuing his administrative
remedies, his action is premature, and he has no

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 189 of 360
1. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION OR PRIOR RESORT

What is the doctrine of primary

jurisdiction or prior resort?

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction dictates

that courts cannot determine a dispute on a
question requiring the special knowledge and
expertise of the administrative tribunals (Septimo
vs. Judge Villarama, G.R. No. 101943, February

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 190 of 360
 What happens when a claim which is originally
cognizable in court, requires the resolution of
issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have
been placed within the special competence of an
In such a case, the
administrative judicial process is suspended pending
body?
referral of such issues to the administrative body for its
view. (Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 88550, April 18, 1990)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 191 of 360
 What is the rationale behind the
observance of the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction or prior resort?
1. Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business entrusted
to an administrative agency are secured.

2. The limited function of review by the judiciary are more rationally

exercised, by preliminary report, for ascertaining and interpreting the
circumstances underlying legal issues, to agencies that are better
equipped than courts by specialization, by insight gained through
experience, and by more flexible procedure. (Ibid.; Antipolo Realty
Corp. vs. National Housing Authority, 153 SCRA 399).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 192 of 360
 What is the purpose of the doctrine
of primary administrative
The purpose of the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction?
administrative jurisdiction, as enunciated in
Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
79684, February 19, 1991), is more in consonance
with reality. Its purpose, according to the Supreme
Court, is not only to give the administrative
agency the opportunity to decide the controversy
by itself correctly, but also to prevent unnecessary
and premature resort to courts”.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 193 of 360
 What is the difference between the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies and the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction?
Doctrine of exhaustion of Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
administrative remedies
1. The administrative agency 1. Both the court and
has authority to pass on every administrative agency have
question raised by a person jurisdiction to pass on a question
resorting to judicial relief and when a particular case is presented
enables the court to withhold its to court, as an original matter,
aid entirely until the administrative rather than a matter of review.
remedies have been exhausted.
2. The claim or matter is 2. The claim or matter is
cognizable in the first instance by cognizable by both the court and
an administrative agency alone. administrative agency.
3. The purpose of the rule is to 3. Doctrine of primary
control the timing of judicial relief jurisdiction is not concerned with
from adjudicative action of an judicial review but determines in
agency. some instances whether initial
action should be taken by a court
or administrative agency.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 194 of 360
 Note: Both principles do not apply where
the issue involved is a pure question of
law.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 195 of 360
 1. DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED
POLITICAL AGENCY
What is the doctrine of qualified political
agency?

The doctrine of qualified political agency is a

corollary rule to the control powers of the
President. Under this doctrine, which recognizes
the establishment of a single executive, "all
executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads
of the various executive departments are
assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 196 of 360
 What is the extent of the
President's power of control over
The presidential power of control over the
the executive
executive branch
branch of the of the
government extends over
government?
all executive officers from Cabinet Secretary to the
lowliest clerk and has been held to mean, “the
power of the President to alter or modify or nullify
or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in
the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former with that of the latter. It is
at the very heart of the meaning of Chief
Executive." (Carpio vs. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 96409, February 14, 1992, En Banc, Paras, J.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 197 of 360
 1. DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA IN
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS?
What is the doctrine of res judicata in
administrative proceedings?

The doctrine of res judicata forbids the

reopening of a matter that has been determined by
competent authority. The prevailing rule is that
the doctrine applies to judicial and quasi-judicial

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 198 of 360
 What is the basis of the doctrine of
res judicata in administrative
proceedings?
The judgment of courts an awards of quasi-
judicial agencies must become final at some
definite date fixed by the law. (Carreon vs. W.C.C.,
77 SCRA 297)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 199 of 360
 What are the instances when the
doctrine of res judicata is not
applicable to administrative
In Nasipit Lumber Company, Inc. vs. NLRC,
proceedings?
(Section 5, Rule XIII, Books of Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code) for
instance, the Supreme Court ruled that the
doctrine of res judicata does not apply to labor
relations proceedings “considering that Section 5,
Rule XIII, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code provides that such
proceedings are non-litigious and summary in
nature without regard to legal technicalities

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 200 of 360
 NEW CASE:

MONTEMAYOR VS. BUNDALIAN

FACTS:
G.R. NO. 149335, JULY 1, 2003
In a letter-complaint addressed to the Philippine
Consulate General in San Francisco, California,
USA, private respondent accused petitioner, then
OIC-Regional Director, Region III, of the DPWH,
of accumulating unexplained wealth, in violation
of Section 8 of RA No. 3019. The letter was
indorsed to the Philippine Commission Against
Graft and Corruption (PGAGC) for investigation.
Petitioner pointed out that the charge against

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 201 of 360
 Nevertheless, the PGAGC conducted its own
investigation. Based on its findings, PGAGC
recommended petitioner’s dismissal for service.
The Office of the President, concurring with the
findings and adopting the recommendation of the
PGAGC, issued Administrative Order No. 12,
ordering petitioner’s dismissal from service with
forfeiture of all government benefits.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 202 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether the earlier dismissal of similar cases before the Ombudsman
rendered the administrative case before the PCAGC moot and
academic.

RULING:
No. The earlier dismissal of similar cases before the Ombudsman
does not render the administrative case before the PCAGC moot and
academic.
The decision of the Ombudsman does not operate as res judicata in
the PCAGC case subject of this review. The doctrine of res judicata
applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the
exercise of administrative powers. Petitioner was investigated by the
Ombudsman for his possible criminal liability for the acquisition of the
Burbank property in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act and the Revised Penal Code.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 203 of 360
 For the same alleged misconduct, petitioner, as a
presidential appointee, was investigated by the
PCAGC by virtue of the administrative power and
control of the President over him. As the PCAGC's
investigation of petitioner was administrative in
nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no
application in the case at bar.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 204 of 360
 1. DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS

What is the common requirement of

procedural due process, whether in
judicial or administrative proceedings?

There is a common requirement of procedural

due process, whether in judicial or administrative
proceedings, and this is the element of NOTICE
AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. For as long
therefore as the defendant, or anyone similarly
situated, is given a notice and an opportunity to be
heard, he cannot later on complain that he was

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 205 of 360
 What is procedural due process as
understood in administrative
proceedings?
For the Supreme Court to sustain the findings
of an administrative body exercising quasi-
judicial functions, such body must abide by the
elementary rules of due process. However,
procedural due process as understood in
administrative proceedings accepts of a more
flexible standard as long as the proceeding were
undertaken in an atmosphere of fairness and
justice. (Valderama and Sons, Inc. vs. Drilon,
G.R. No.78212, January 22, 1999, First Division,
Gancayco J.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 206 of 360
 How can an "atmosphere of fairness
and justice," as referred to in
Valderama and Sons, Inc. vs. Drilon
be attained?
The answer would still be to comply with the
cardinal rights to be observed in administrative
proceedings, as pronounced in Ang Tibay vs. CIR
(69 Phil. 635) as follows:

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 207 of 360
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case
and submit evidence in support thereof;

2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

3. The decision must have something to support itself;

4. The evidence must be substantial;

5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the

hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected;

6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and
not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision;

7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its

decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know
the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 208 of 360
 EXPLANATION OF EACH REQUISITE
FIRST REQUISITE: The right to a hearing
– The element of notice and opportunity to be
heard is part and parcel of due process, whether in
judicial or administrative proceedings. In the
absence of this element, there can be no fair play.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 209 of 360
 Is notice and hearing always
necessary in administrative
determinations?
It is necessary only when some constitutional
rights is claimed to be invaded.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 210 of 360
 When is notice and hearing not
necessary?
It is not necessary if the purpose of an administrative determination
is to decide whether a right or privilege which an applicant does not
possess shall be granted to him or withheld in the exercise of a
discretion vested by statute.
It is not also necessary if the power exercised is essentially
administrative or executive and not judicial or quasi-judicial, unless
otherwise required by law.
Even if the power exercised is quasi-judicial, notice or hearing may
not be necessary to due process of law if no personal or property rights
are involved.
When powers of determination and action of a quasi-judicial
character are given to officers entrusted with duties of local or
municipal administration by which not of the property, but the lives of
individuals, may be affected, and which, from their nature, must be
exercised without a prior hearing or notice to the parties who may be
affected. (42 Am. Jur., pp. 474-475)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 211 of 360
 What are the instances of valid
administrative determinations
without prior notice and hearing?
Nuisance per se may be the subject of summary
abatement. (Article 704 New Civil Code).
Permits to operate and maintain night clubs,
cabaret, massage parlors, discohouses, may be
revoked when found out to be used for immoral
activities or fronts of prostitution. (Darling Apt.
Co. vs. Springer, 137 ALR 803).
Preventive suspension of government employees
on account of graft cahrges. (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 212 of 360
 SECOND REQUISITE: A tribunal must
consider the evidence presented - The right
of a party to present his own case and submit his
evidence to support thereof will be a useless right
if there is no corresponding duty on the part of
administrative tribunal to consider the same.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 213 of 360
 THIRD REQUISITE: The decision must
have something to support itself – A
decision which does not state clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based, deprived
not only the parties but also the practitioners ,
professors and students as to the factual and legal
considerations that guided the court, or even a
quasi-judicial tribunal, in reaching a decision.
Decisions of courts and administrative tribunals,
particularly the decisions of the Supreme Court,
are discussed, scrutinized and cited by lawyers
and non-lawyers alike from time to time and in
the years to come. This goes on and on even at a

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 214 of 360
 FOURTH REQUISITE: The evidence must
be substantial – It is not enough that there is an
evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but
the evidence must be substantial. Substantial
evidence “is more than a mere scintilla”. It means
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
This is precisely the difference between an
administrative proceeding and a criminal case
where the evidence required is proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 215 of 360
 What must be the reason for this
rule?
The obvious purpose of this rule is to free
administrative bodies from the compulsion of
technical rules of evidence and procedure.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 216 of 360
 FIFTH REQUISITE: The decision must be
rendered on the basis of the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to
the parties affected - Any other evidence not
presented or disclosed during the proceedings
cannot be made the basis of the decision. They are
not known to the parties and neither are they
brought to the attention of the administrative
tribunal making the decision.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 217 of 360
 It is sufficient, however, that administrative
findings of facts are supported by evidence. Such
finding will not be disturbed so long as they are
supported by substantial evidence, even if not
overwhelming or preponderant (Earth Minerals
Exploration, Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary,
Catalino Macaraig, G.R. No. 78569, February 11,
1991, 2nd Div., Paras, J.), and except when the
former have acted without or in excess with their
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
(Biak na Bato Mining Company vs. Tanco, Jr.,
G.R. No. 342670-68, January 25, 1991, 2nd Div.,
Paras, J.).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 218 of 360
 SIXTH REQUISITE: The board or its
judges must act on its or their own
independent consideration of the law and
facts of the controversy, and not simply
accept the views of a subordinate in
arriving at a decision - This means that the
administrative officer who is entrusted with the
duty to decide a case, must be the one to make a
decision based on the factual findings laid on his
table and based on his own interpretation of the
law entrusted to him for implementation.
Necessarily, he cannot entrust the same to anyone
in his office for his determination and
appreciation of the facts of the case and of the law,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 219 of 360
 SEVENTH REQUISITE: In all controversial
questions, the decision must be rendered in
such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reasons for the decision
rendered. The performance of this duty is
inseparable from the authority conferred
upon it - It is a part and parcel of fair play that the
reasons involved, particularly the reasons for the
decision, should be stated clearly in the decision so
that the parties will know not only the factual
findings but also how the one making the decision
appreciates the totality of the circumstances involved
in the case and his own appreciation of what law
applies to the facts and the evidence presented before

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 220 of 360
 1. REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

What are the requisites before an

administrative decision may be subject of
judicial review?

Before an administrative decision may be

subject of judicial review, the following requisites
should be complied with:
2) The administrative action has already been
fully completed and has therefore become
final; (This is known as Doctrine of Finality
of Administrative Action)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 221 of 360
 How can a party appeal from a final
award, order or decision of an
administrative agency, board or
1. tribunal?
With respect to the decision,
order/rulings of the three independent
commissions created under and by
virtue of 1987 Constitution, namely: (1)
Civil Service Commission; (2) Comelec;
and (3) Commission on Audit: The
aggrieved party has to file a petition for
certiorari within thirty (30) days from receipt
of said decision, order of ruling. This petition is

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 222 of 360
1. With respect to Appeals from the Court of
Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to
the Court of Appeals: Secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
of the Revised Rules of Court in the
Philippines, provides as follows:

"Sec. 1. Scope - This Rule shall apply to appeals

from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax
Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or
resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial
agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
Among these agencies are the Civil Service
Commission, Central Board Assessment Appeals,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the
President, Land Registration Authority, Social

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 223 of 360
 "Sec. 2. Cases not covered - This Rule shall
not apply to judgments or final orders issued
under the Labor Code of the Philippines.”

"Sec. 3. Where to appeal - An Appeal under

this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals
within the period and in the man herein provided,
whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of
law, or mixed questions of fact and law."

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 224 of 360
 “Sec. 4. Period of appeal - The appeal shall
be taken within 15 days from notice of the award,
judgment, final order or resolution, or from the
date of its last publication, if publication is
required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial
of petitioner's motion for new trial or
reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the
governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only
one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be
allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of
the full amount of the docket fee before the
expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of
Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen
(15) days only within which to file the petition for

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 225 of 360
 "Sec. 5. How appeal taken - Appeal shall be
taken by filing a verified petition for review in
seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals,
with proof of service of a copy thereof on the
adverse party and on the court or agency a quo.
The original copy of the petition intended for the
Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the
petitioner.
Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner
shall pay to the clerk of court of the Court of
Appeals the docketing and other lawful fees and
deposit the sum of P500.00 for costs. Exemption
from payment of docketing and other lawful fees
and the deposit for costs may be granted by the
Court of Appeals upon a verified motion setting

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 226 of 360
 1. Regarding appeal by certiorari to the
Supreme Court: Section 1, Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
provides as follows: Section 1. Filing of petition
with Supreme Court. - A Party desiring to
appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final
order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or
other courts whenever authorized by law,
may file with the Supreme Court a verified
petition for review on certiorari. The petition
shall raise only questions of law which must
be distinctly set forth.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 227 of 360
 What question can be raised in an
appeal by certiorari to the Supreme
Court?
Only questions of law may be raised in the
petition and must be distinctly set forth. If no
record on appeal has been filed in the Court of
Appeals, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, upon
admission of the petition, shall demand from the
Court of Appeals the elevation of the whole record
of the case.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 228 of 360
 Is this mode of appeal different
from certiorari as a special civil
action under Rule 65?
An appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court
under Rule 45 is different from the special action
of certioriari under Rule 65.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 229 of 360
 What is the difference?
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR
UNDER RULE 45 CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65
1. The petition is based on 1. The Petition raises the
questions of law which the issues as to whether the lower
appellant desires the appellate court acted without or in excess
court to resolve. of jurisdiction or with grave
2. Involves the review of the abuse of discretion.
judgment, award, or final order 2. May be directed against an
on the merits. interlocutory order of the court
3. Must be made within the prior to appeal from the
reglementary period for appeal. judgment or where is there not
4. Stays with the judgment, appeal or other plain, speedy or
award, or order appealed from. adequate remedy.
5. Petitioner and respondent 3. May be filed not less than
are the original parties to the sixty (60) from notice of the
action, and the lower court or judgment order or resolution
quasi-judicial agency is not to be sought to be assailed.
impleaded.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 230 of 360
 1. Prior filing of a motion for 1. Does not stay the challenged
reconsideration is not required (Sec. proceeding unless a writ of preliminary
1, Rule 45) injunction or a temporary restraining
order shall have been issued.
2. The appellate court is in the
2. The parties are the aggrieved party
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
against the lower court or quasi-judicial
and power of review. agency and the prevailing parties, who
thereby respectively become the
petitioner and respondents.
3. A motion for reconsideration is a
condition precedent (Villa-Rey Transit
vs. Belo, L-18957, April 23, 1963).
4. The Higher court exercises original
jurisdiction under its power of control
and supervision over the proceedings of
lower courts. (In Re: Petition for
Assistance in the Liquidation of the
Rural Bank of Bokod vs. BIR, G.R. No.
158261, December 18, 2006, citing the
case of Paa vs. CA

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 231 of 360
 Can a petition be categorized as a petition
under Rules 65 and 45 of the Rules of Court?
No and neither may a petitioner or petitioners
delegate upon the court the task of determining
which rule the petition should fall. The Supreme
Court ruled that under Circular No. 2-90, wrong
or inappropriate mode of appeal merits an
outright dismissal.
(See Ibañez vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 540)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 232 of 360
 In an appeal by certiorari under Rule
45, only questions of law may be
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The
raised.
resolutionWhat is the
of factual reason
issues is the for this?of
function
lower courts, whose findings on these matters are
received with respect and are in fact binding on
the Supreme Court subject to certain exceptions.
(FNCB vs. Estavillo, G.R. No. 93394, December
20, 1990, 192 SCRA 514; Universal Motors vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47432, January 27,
1992)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 233 of 360
 Distinguish questions of law
fromQUESTIONS
questions
OF LAW of facts.
QUESTIONS OF FACTS
If the facts are established or A question of fact arises when there
admitted, their legal effect is a is a conflict in testimony. The
question of law for the court to question must be resolved by the
determine. court. No question of fact exists if
There is a question of law in a given only one conclusion is possible from
case when the doubt or difference the facts established.
arises as to what the law is on a There is a question of fact when the
certain state of facts. (Ramos vs. doubt or difference arises as to the
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I., truth or the falsehood of alleged
19 SCRA 289) facts. (Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Co. of the P.I., 19 SCRA
289)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 234 of 360
 What is the test of whether a question
is one of law or of fact?
Whether the appellate court can determine the
issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
evidence, in which case, it is a question of law;
otherwise, it is a question of fact. (Crisostomo vs.
Garcia, G.R. No. 164787, January 31, 2006;
Velayo-Fong vs. Spouses Velayo, G.R. 155488,
December 6, 2006; L&L Lawrence Footwear, Inc.
vs. PCI Leasing and Finance Corp., G.R. No.
160531, August 30, 2005).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 235 of 360
 Is the finding of negligence a
question of law or of fact?
The finding of negligence is a question of fact.
In the same vein, whether one acted in good faith
or in bad faith is a question of fact. Hence, they
are not proper subjects of the Supreme Court's
discretionary power of judicial review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which is concerned
solely with questions of law. (PNB vs. Campos,
G.R. No. 167270, Jun 30, 2006)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 236 of 360
 What are the exceptions to
conclusiveness of facts?
1. When the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculations surmises or conjecture;
2. When the interference made is manifestly
absurd, mistaken or impossible;
3. When there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. When the judgment is premised on a
misapprehension of facts;
5. When the findings of facts are conflicting;

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 237 of 360
 1. When the Court of Appeals in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case
and the same is contrary to the admissions of
both appellants and appellees;
2. When the findings of fact are contrary to
those of the trial court;
3. When the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based;
4. When the facts set forth in the petition as well
as in the petitioners‘ main and reply briefs are
not disputed by respondents; and
5. When the findings of fact of the Court of

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 238 of 360
 Within what period can a party
appeal by a certiorari from a
The petition shall be filed within 15 days from
judgment of the Court of Appeals?
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s
motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in
due time after notice of the judgment. On motion
duly filed and served, with full payment of the
docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for
costs before the expiration of the reglementary
period, the Supreme Court may, for justifiable
reasons, grant an extension of 30 days only

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 239 of 360
 Besides the foregoing reliefs and remedies,
what is the general relief that may also be
Generalof
availed relief,
under when
theproper, may also be availed of
1987 Constitution?
under the provisions of Section 1, Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution, which provides as follows: "The
judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by
law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 240 of 360
 ( NOTE: New definition of judicial power as
well as the case of Manila Prince Hotel vs.
GSIS, Manila Hotel Corporation, et al., G.R.
No. 122156 has already been discussed in
Chapter VI.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 241 of 360
 What are the most common remedies available
to an aggrieved party with respect to a
decision or order of administrative agencies
The common remedies are the following:
1.
and offices?
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule
65, Section 1 of the New Rules of Court.
2. A petition for prohibition may also be filed
under Section 2, Rule 65 of the New Rules of
Court.
3. A petition for mandamus may also be filed
under Rule 65, Section 3 of the New Rules of
Court.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 242 of 360
 V. OTHER ANCILLIARY PRINCIPLES OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 243 of 360
 What are the other principles of
administrative law?
They are the following:
1. Administrative agencies are not bound by the
technical rules of evidence and procedure.
2. The findings of facts of administrative bodies
are binding to the courts if they are supported
by substantial evidence.
3. Administrative bodies can resolve questions
of law in the exercise of their quasi-judicial
function but (a) the same is only an incident to
their primary power of regulation and to
perform executive duties; and (b) their

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 244 of 360
1. Requisites for validity of administrative
regulations with penal sanctions.
2. Legal force and effects of administrative rules
and regulations.
3. Legal effects of duly executed acts of an
administrative body.
4. “Republic of the Philippines” and “National
Government" are not interchangeable.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 245 of 360
 BRIEF EXPLANATION OF
EACH PRINCIPLE
1. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE
NOT BOUND BY THE TECHNICAL
RULES OF EVIDENCE AND
PROCEDURE

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 246 of 360
 Administrative agencies charged with the task of
adjudicating contested cases are necessarily
involved in exercising functions which are judicial
in nature. This does not mean, however, that they
are bound to observe the technical rules of
evidence and procedure observed by the regular
courts of justice.

The reason for this is because administrative

tribunals are expected to adjudicate cases
expeditiously and without unnecessary delay. The
main function of administrative agencies is
primarily to enforce the law entrusted to them for

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 247 of 360
 AL-AMANAH ISLAMIC INVESTMENT
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. NO. 100599, APRIL 8, 1992
The Civil Service Commission is free from the
rigidity of certain procedural requirements.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 248 of 360
 FACTS:
The investigating committee found Malbun guilty of neglect of
duty and imposed the penalty of forced registration without
prejudice to reinstatement.
The Merit Systems Protection Board agreed with the
investigating committee's findings that there is no proof that
Malbun tolerated the anomalies nor is there any showing that he
has benefited directly or indirectly from the transactions to the
detriment of the Bank, and is therefore presumed to have acted in
good faith.
The Civil Service Commission found Malbun guilty not only of
"gross neglect of duty" which is a less grave offense under Civil
Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 8, 1970, but also
of “Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the best interest
of the Service,” which are grave offenses under the said
Memorandum Circular.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 249 of 360
 Philippines Al-Almanah Bank moved to
reconsider the said finding of the Civil Service
Commission and urged that the previous
conviction of Malbun in 1979, for "Neglect of
Duty" and subsequent suspension from the
service, should be considered in determining the
proper penalty against Malbun. The Bank
contends that the proper penalty should be
dismissal.
The Civil Service Commission refused, however,
to consider the prior conviction of Malbun on the
ground that this is not a newly discovered
evidence and that the Bank in the exercise of its
reasonable diligence could have discovered and

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 250 of 360
 ISSUE:
Is the said contention of Civil Service
Commission correct?

HELD:
No. The prior conviction should have been
considered by the Commission in imposing the
proper penalty on Malbun, although it was
presented only in the bank's motion for
reconsideration or for new trial.
Malbun's prior conviction in 1979 is not a newly
discovered evidence but "forgotten evidence.” It
already existed or was already available before or
during the trial which was known and obtainable

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 251 of 360
1. THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ARE
BINDING TO THE COURTS IF THEY
ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE

In Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.

99357, January 27, 1992), the Supreme Court ruled
as follows:

1. Factual findings of administrative agencies are

accorded not only respect but finality, because of the
special knowledge and expertise gained by these
quasi-judicial tribunals from handling specific

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 252 of 360
 4. The findings of fact must be respected, as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence.

"Factual findings of administrative bodies should be accorded not

only respect but even finality if they are supported by
substantial evidence even if not overwhelming or
preponderant.”
(Casa Realty Filipino vs. Office of the President)
“The factual findings of the Ombudsman are conclusive on the
parties absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion. The findings
of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not
only respect but even finality.”
(Sesbreno vs. Ala, et al., G.R. No. 95393, and Sesbreno vs. Cahig, et
al., G.R. No. 103471, May 5, 1992, En Banc, Paras, J.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 253 of 360
 “Administrative decisions on
matters within the jurisdiction of the
executive department can only be set
aside on proof of gross abuse of
jurisdiction, fraud or error of law.
There being no motion for its
reconsideration, the decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources became final on July 3,
1959, 30 days from receipt by the
parties of the copies of the decision.”

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 254 of 360
 "Court of Appeals are totally devoid of support
in the records, or that they are so glaringly
erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of
discretion. Wherefore, the findings of fact made
by the Court of Appeals are conclusive and
binding on this Court even if contrary to those of
the DANR, so long as such findings are supported
by the records or based on substantial evidence.
(Mendizabel vs. Apao, G.R. No. 143185, February
20, 2006)
NOTE: The Court of Appeals held that the
evidence presented by respondents ‘tend to
disprove the factual findings of administrative

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 255 of 360
1. ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES CAN RESOLVE
QUESTIONS OF LAW IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION BUT
(A) THE SAME IS ONLY AN INCIDENT TO
THEIR PRIMARY POWER OF REGULATION
AND TO PERFORM EXECUTIVE DUTIES;
AND (B) THEIR RESOLUTION IS SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions,

administrative agencies are necessarily involved in
the resolution of contested cases brought to their
determination. On matters involving questions of
law, the authority vested in administrative agencies
is merely to interpret the law entrusted to them for

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 256 of 360
 This means that an administrative action or
decision may be disturbed or set aside by the
judicial department if there is an error of law, or
abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either
the letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment.
(Peralta vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
95832, May 10, 1992, En Banc, Padilla, J.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 257 of 360
 Before an administrative determination may be
subject of judicial review, it is required, however:

1. That the administrative action has already

been fully completed and has become final;
and
2. That all the administrative remedies have
been exhausted.

The first requirement is what is known and

referred to as the Principle of Finality of
Administrative Requirement and the second
requirement is what is known and referred to

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 258 of 360
 REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Decisions of administrative agencies may be
subject to review by any court specified by the
statute, or in the absence thereof, it is subject to
review by any court of competent jurisdiction in
accordance with the provision on venue of the
Rules of Court. (Board of Commissioners vs.
Judge Capulong, G.R. No. 95612, May 31, 1991)

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 did not intend to raise

all quasi-judicial bodies to the same level or rank
of the Regional Trial Court except those

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 259 of 360
1. REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY
OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
AND REGULATIONS

Already discussed. Just remember the important

points, as discussed earlier, thus:

1. Requisites of a valid administrative regulation

2. Requirement as to publication of all laws as a

condition for their effectivity

3. Requisites for validity of administrative

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 260 of 360
 4. Cases:
Old Cases:
a) People vs. Maceren (79 SCRA 450)
b) Metropolitan Traffic Command vs.
Gonong (187 SCRA 432)
c) Bautista vs. Junio (127 SCRA 239)
d) Agustin vs. Edu (88 SCRA 195)
e) Tablarin vs. Gutierrez (152 SCRA
730)

New Cases:
a) MMDA vs. Dante Garin, G.R. No. 130230,
April 15, 2005

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 261 of 360
 VI. IS THERE A RELIEF FROM WITHIN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ITSELF?

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 262 of 360
 Unless otherwise provided by law or executive
order, an action or decision of lower
administrative authorities may be appealed to,
or reviewed by, higher administrative
authorities or superiors like the Department
Head (EO 292, Book VII, Chapter 4, Section 19),
or to the Commission or Board en banc (e.g.
National Labor Relations Commission,
Securities and Exchange Commission, National
Telecommunications Commission). In fact, an
appeal need not be filed at once. A motion for
reconsideration may suffice to obtain desired
changes in the decision so long as no rights have
vested in the meantime and so long as they have

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 263 of 360
 A resolution therefore of a labor arbiter, is
reviewable by any of the divisions of the National
Labor Relations Commission, and thereafter,
whoever is the aggrieved party may appeal the
decision to the Commission En Banc. The
hierarchy of authorities within the framework of
the National Labor Relations Commission ends
here. The decision of the Commission En Banc is
now appealable to the Court of Appeals, not to the
Supreme Court, unlike before.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 264 of 360
 EXAMPLE:

NOTICE
GREETINGS:
OF JUDGMENT/DECISION
You are hereby notified that on ___________,
JUDGMENT/DECISION, copy attached, was
rendered in the above-entitled case.
Under Article 232 of the Labor Code (as
amended by R.A. No. 6715) and pertinent
provisions of the Revised Rules of the NLRC, no
motion for reconsideration from said judgment
shall be entertained, but only an appeal, a notice
of memorandum thereof, in 5 typewritten copies
must be filed before the Labor Arbiter or the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 265 of 360
 An appeal shall be deemed perfected only upon the payment
of an appeal fee. PROVIDED, that in case of judgment
involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be
perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond issued
by a reputable and duly accredited bonding company, an
amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from.
The decision of the Labor Arbiters reinstating a dismissed
employee, in so far as the reinstatement is concerned shall
immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The same
terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or
separation, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in
the payroll.
Quezon City, Philippines, ______________.

_______________________
Labor Arbitration Officer

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 266 of 360
 VII. RELIEF AFTER RESOLUTION OF THE HIGHEST
LEVEL OF AUTHORITY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY CONCERNED

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 267 of 360
 What relief is available as against an
action or decision of an
administrative bureau, agency, or
office?
It depends. If the law that created the said administrative bureau,
agency or office provides for an appeal as well as the procedure and
the requisites for taking that appeal, the specific relief or reliefs
provided for in the law itself can be obtained. If the law does not
provide for an appeal, or for judicial relief or review, the questioned
decision can nevertheless be the subject of judicial review under
Rule 65 of the New Rules of Court on the ground of lack or
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 268 of 360
 What is required prior to judicial
review of an administrative
1. That the administrative action has already
decision?
been completed; and
2. That all the administrative remedies have
been exhausted.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 269 of 360
 Is compliance with the said
requirements absolute?
No. The said requirements need not be complied
with in the following instances:

1. When the question involved is purely legal, or

where the questioned act is patently illegal,
arbitrary or oppresive (Kilusang Bayan sa
Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong
Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, et al. vs.
Dominguez, G.R. No. 85439; Bunye, et al. vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 91927, January 13,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 270 of 360
 1. When there is an urgent need for judicial
intervention (Aquino vs. Luntok, 184 SCRA
177);

2. When the administrative body is in estoppel

(Tan vs. Veterans Backpay Commission, 105
Phil. 377);

3. When the claim involved is small (Cipriano

vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291);

4. When irreparable damage will be suffered (De

Lara vs. Plaribel, 14 SCRA 269);

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 271 of 360
 1. When there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy (National Development Co.
vs. Collector of Customs, 9 SCRA 429);

2. When strong public interest is involved

(Arrow Transportation Corp. vs. Board of
Transportation, 63 SCRA 193); and

3. When the subject of controversy is private

land (Morcoso vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
96605, May 8, 1992).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 272 of 360
 Can the reviewing court re-examine the
sufficiency of the evidence and receive
additional evidence that was not submitted
to the administrative agency concerned?
As a rule, factual findings of administrative agencies will
not be disturbed by the courts except in the following
cases: (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, supra; Alejandro vs. Court of
Appeals, 191 SCRA 700; Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, 203 SCRA 504 [1991])

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 273 of 360
 1. When it is not supported by substantial
evidence;
2. When it is vitiated by fraud, imposition or
collusion;
3. When the procedure which led to the
factual findings is irregular;
4. When palpable errors are committed;
5. When abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or
capriciousness is manifest.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 274 of 360
 What are the other matters that
1.
mayPurely
not administrative
be interfered with by the
and discretionary functions
courts?
may not be interfered by the courts except if an agency
or official concerned has acted arbitrarily and with
grave abuse of discretion. (Beautifont vs. Court of
Appeals, 157 SCRA 481 [1988]). Example: Power
granted to LTFRB to grant provisional increase in
transportation fares.

2. Appeal to the courts will not lie from an interlocutory

order. Example: Order of NLRC to set a motion for
execution for hearing by the Labor Arbiter a quo.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 275 of 360
 Assuming that an order is
interlocutory, is there a relief that
is available to civil
Yes, a special a party
action aggrieved
for certiorariby
is
available if the administrative agency, board or
the said kind of order?
tribunal concerned acted without jurisdiction, in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion, or if petitioner's right to due process is
disregarded. (Philippine Airlines vs. Civil
Aeronautic Board, 20 SCRA 727 [1967])

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 276 of 360
 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. VS. CIVIL
AERONAUTICS BOARD
FACTS: 20 SCRA 727
Philippine Airlines questioned the provisional
permit to operate four aircrafts on the following
grounds: (1) alleged violation of due process for
failure to hear its evidence; (2) alleged absence of
factual basis for granting said provisional permit;
(3) there is no public need; (4) documents to
support legality of the grant were not disclosed to
it. CAB countered that petitioner was notified

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 277 of 360
 ISSUE:
Is PAL's petition for certiorari tenable? Is there
abuse of discretion in granting the said provisional
permit to operate four aircrafts?

HELD:
PAL's petition for certiorari was sustained as a
special civil action which allows an aggrieved
party to complain against any tribunal, board or
officer exercising functions judicial in character
without or in excess of jurisdiction with grave
abuse of discretion.
The claim, however, that there was violation of

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 278 of 360
 VIII. APPEAL FROM, OR REVIEW OF ORDERS,
ACTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE DIFFERENT
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, BUREAUS AND
OFFICES

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 279 of 360
 OLD CASES

PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE

SCHOOL, INC. VS. COURT OF
(As long as the parties were given opportunity to
APPEALS
be heard beforeG.R. NO. 112844,
the judgment JUNE
was rendered, the 2,
demands of due process1995
were sufficiently met)
61 SCAD 720

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 280 of 360
 FACTS:

Despite prior disapproval of petitioner's request

for renewal of permit to operate, the DECS Inter-
Agency Technical Committee (IATCOM)
recommended the grant of permit to the school in
1987, provided that it improves its buildings,
laboratory and library facilities before the start of
school year 1987-1988. Petitioner continued to fail
to improve itself in 1988.
In 1989, the TPME (DECS Technical Panel for
Maritime Education) recommended the gradual
phase-out of the courses in Bachelor of Science in
Marine Education and eventual closure should the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 281 of 360
 On August 8, 1989, despite another inspection,
the inspection team reiterated the
recommendation for the gradual phase-out of the
school and for the non-acceptance of freshman
beginning SY 1990-1991. DECS approved and
implemented the recommendation and
accordingly issued the phase-out order. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration. When motion was
denied, it appealed to the Office of the President.
While the appeal was pending, DECS issued a
closure order dated August 27, 1991, effective the
second semester of SY 1991-1992. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration of said order of closure.
While the said motion for reconsideration was

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 282 of 360
 Due to the denial, petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari in the Court of Appeals on the
following grounds: (1) There was violation of due
process because the basis for affirmance of the
DECS phase-out and closure orders was not
sufficiently disclosed; (2) that it had presented
incontrovertible proof that it had introduced
substantial improvements on its facilities for the
past two and a half years.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition as well
as the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed by the
petitioner to the Supreme Court faulting the
Court of Appeals in not setting aside the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 283 of 360
 ISSUE:
Was there a violation of due process? Is the
closure order valid? Is the basis of the affirmance
of the DECS' phase-out and closure orders
disclosed to the petitioner?

HELD:
Before the DECS issued the phase-out and
closure orders, petitioner was duly notified,
warned and given several opportunities to correct
its deficiencies and to comply with pertinent
orders and regulations. Petitioner has gone all the
way up to the Office of the President to seek a
reversal of the phase-out and closure orders.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 284 of 360
 The phase-out and closure orders were based not only on petitioner's
deficiencies as a maritime institution but also on its continued
operation without the requisite authorization for the DECS and
acceptance of freshman students in blatant violation of the latter's
order and/or persistent warnings not to do so. Verily, there are
sufficient grounds to uphold the phase-out and closure orders of the
DECS which were issued conformably with Sec. 28 of the Education
Act of 1982.
In the case at bench, it is not the function of this Court nor any other
court for that matter - X X X to review the decisions and order of the
Secretary on the issue of whether or not an educational institution
meets the standards required for permission to operate and to
continue operating as such. On this question, no Court has the power
or prerogative to substitute its opinion for that of the Secretary.
Indeed, it is obviously not expected that any court would have the
competence to do so.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 285 of 360
 ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC
CORPORATION, INC. VS. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. NO. 106161, FEBRUARY 1, 1995
58
(Under Section 10 SCAD
of P.D. 679
No. 269, as amended by P.D.
No. 1645, the National Electrification Administration has
no power to hear and decide termination cases of
employees in electric corporations.
That authority is vested in the Labor Arbiter.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 286 of 360
 FACTS:

Engr. Egdon Sabio, Manager of the Engineering

Department of the Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative
(ISECO) was dismissed on July 1, 1989, by virtue
of ISECO's Bond Resolution No. 63, S. 1989, dated
July 19, 1989. He was placed under preventive
suspension without pay effective July 1, 1989.
Engr. Sabio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with damages against petitioner in the
Department of Labor. The Labor Arbiter ruled in
favor of Engr. Sabio and ordered ISECO to
reinstate the latter with full backwages. ISECO
appealed the decision.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 287 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether NLRC has jurisdiction over the case of
Engr. Sabio. Whether the Board of Directors of
ISECO dismissed Engr. Sabio in accordance with
law.

HELD:
Under Section 10 of P.D. No. 269, as amended
by P.D. No. 1645 only the power of supervisions
and control over electric cooperatives and other
borrowers, supervised or controlled, is given to the
NEA. There is nothing in said law which provides
that the NEA administration has the power to hear
and decide termination of employees in electric

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 288 of 360
 CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS
SYSTEM (MWSS) VS. VASQUEZ, ET
AL.
G.R. NO. 109113, JANUARY 25,
(The decision to accept or reject a bid and award contracts is
vested in the government agencies entrusted with that function.

interfere in the exercise of1995,

Neither the Court, nor Congress, nor the Ombudsman should
said discretion which is a policy

fraudulent award.) 58 SCAD 409

decision, unless it is apparent that it is used as a shield to a

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 289 of 360
 FACTS:
MWSS published its invitation for pre-
qualification and bids. Fourteen (14) contractors
submitted applications to the Awards Committee
for Construction Services and Technical
Equipment (PBAC-CSTE). After evaluation, only
11 were pre-qualified to bid.
Meanwhile, between February 10 and March 24,
1992, former MWSS Administrator Luis Sison,
issued 6 addenda to the biding documents that
embodied some suggestions of respondent
Philippine Large Diameter Pressure Pipes
Manufacturer's Association (PLDPPMA).
After the 3 lowest bidders for Project APM-01

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 290 of 360
 Finally, on June, 1992, PBAC-CSTE submitted to
bid evaluation report. It recommended the second
lowest but complying bidder, FF Cruz and Co.,
Inc. for APM-01. Meanwhile, on April 7, 1992,
PLDPPMA, private respondent, through its
President, filed a letter-complaint with the Office
of the Ombudsman protesting the public bidding
on APM-01 and APM-02, charging that there was
an "apparent plan” on the part of MWSS to favor
suppliers of fiberglass pipes, and urging the
Ombudsman to investigate the complaint and
hold in abeyance the award of the contracts.
The Ombudsman, in its order dated October 19,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 291 of 360
 ISSUE:
Can the Ombudsman interfere in the
adjudicative responsibility of the MWSS Board of
Trustees?

HELD:
The MWSS, a government-owned and
controlled corporation created by law through
R.A. No. 6234, is charged with the construction,
maintenance and operation of waterworks
system to insure an uninterrupted and adequate
supply and distribution of potable water. It is the
agency that should be in the best position to

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 292 of 360
 NOTE: This affirms the decision of the
Supreme Court in Razon, Inc. vs. PPA (151
SCRA 233), thus:

"x x x we have said that neither this Court nor

congress and now perhaps the Ombudsman,
could be expected to have the time and technical
expertise to look into matters of this nature.
While we cannot go so far as to say, MWSS
would have the monopoly of technical know-how
in the waterworks system, by the very nature of
its functions, however, it obviously must enjoy the
advantage over other agencies on the subject at
hand.”

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 293 of 360
 Likewise, this affirms the decision in Felipe
Ysmael, Jr. and Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive
Secretary (190 SCRA 673)
The decision in Bureau Veritas vs. Office of the
President is emphatic. The Supreme Court said:
"The discretion to accept or reject a bid and
award contracts is vested in the Government
agencies entrusted with that function. The
discretion given to the authorities on this matter
is of such wide latitude that the Courts will not
interfere therewith, unless it is used as a shield to
a fraudulent award."

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 294 of 360
 SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. VS.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. NO. 112243, FEBRUARY 23,
1995, 59 SCAD 270
(Jurisdiction once acquired by a court over a case
remains with it until the full termination of the case,
unless the law provides the contrary.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 295 of 360
 FACTS:
For gross misconduct and dishonesty, Fe
Siballuca, Administrative Officer III of the
Provincial Health of Cagayan, was placed under a
90 day preventive suspension. She instituted an
action to nullify the said order of suspension
claiming that when the New Local Government
Code took effect on January 1, 1992, the Secretary
of Health had lost his disciplinary power and
authority over her, considering that such power of
the provincial Health Office is now vested in the
Provincial Governor.
The Secretary of Health moved to dismiss the
action and to quash the temporary restraining

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 296 of 360
 The trial court ruled in favor of Siballuca and
issued an order for execution of judgment.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but was
denied. They filed a Notice of Appeal with the
court a quo and moved to stay execution of the
asserted decision. Both were denied.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals
but the same was dismissed on the ground that the
petition could not be a substitute for a lost appeal.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 297 of 360
 ISSUE:
Is the decision of the Court of Appeals
correct?

HELD:
No. At the time of the commencement of the
administrative action, the operative laws are the
Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive Order
No. 119. Under the said laws, the Secretary of
Health exercises control, direction and
supervision over his subordinates, which include
private respondent. Consequently, since
jurisdiction has been acquired by the Secretary of

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 298 of 360
 NEW CASES

AMADORE VS. ROMULO

G.R.
(Only NO. 161608,
one motion AUGUST
for reconsideration 9, 2005
is allowed to be
filed from a decision, resolution or order of the Office of
the President. A second motion for reconsideration is
allowed only in exceptionally meritorious cases.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 299 of 360
 FACTS:

Petitioner Amadore, the Director of PAGASA

entered into a contract with Inter-Technical
Pacific Philippines, Inc. (INTER PAC) for the
supply, delivery installation, testing and
commissioning of S-Band Weather Surveillance
Radar System and Other Related Equipment for
Baguio and Tanay Radar Stations. The contract
was approved by then Secretary Padolina of the
Department of Science and Technology (DOST).
The concerned employees of the DOST reported
the rampant graft and corruption in the DOST.
The charge of entering into a contract manifestly

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 300 of 360
 Then Executive Secretary Romulo approved the
recommendation of the PCAGC and dismissed
petitioner, Deputy Director Ferraris and Deputy
Director Angeles from government service. They
filed a motion for reconsideration. The complaint
against Deputy Director Ferraris was dismissed,
while Deputy Director Angeles was suspended for
six (6) months and petitioner's dismissal from the
service was affirmed.
An urgent motion to admit second motion for
reconsideration was filed by petitioner and Deputy
Director Angeles on the ground that they were
unable to present documents which, if admitted,

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 301 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether a second motion for reconsideration for
the decision of the Office of the President is
allowed.

RULING:
A second motion for reconsideration of the
decision of the Office of the President may only be
allowed in exceptionally meritorious cases.
Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987,
prescribes the rules and regulations governing
appeals to the Office of the President of the
Philippines. Section 7 and 9 read as follows:

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 302 of 360
 Sec. 7. Decision/resolutions/orders of the Office
of the President shall, except as otherwise
provided for by special laws, become final after the
lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
thereof by the parties, unless a motion for
reconsideration thereof is filed within such period.
Only one motion for reconsideration by any one
party shall be allowed and entertained, save in
exceptionally meritorious cases.
Sec. 9. The Rules of Court shall apply in a
suppletory character whenever practicable.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 303 of 360
 It is clear from Sec. 7 of Administrative Order
No. 18 that only one motion for reconsideration is
allowed to be filed from a decision, resolution or
order of the Office of the President. A second
motion for reconsideration is allowed only in
exceptionally meritorious cases.
In the case of petitioner, he, together with a co-
respondent, filed a second motion for
reconsideration claiming he will be presenting
evidence that he was not able to present during
the hearings, which, if admitted, will probably
change the judgment.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 304 of 360
 SGMC REALTY CORPORATION VS.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
G.R. NO. 126999, AUGUST 30, 2000
(Unless otherwise governed by special laws, an
appeal to the Office of the President shall be taken
within thirty (30) days from receipt by the
aggrieved party of the decision/resolution/order
complained of or appealed from.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 305 of 360
 FACTS:
Petitioners filed before the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) a complaint for
breach of contract, violation of property rights and
damages against private respondents. Their
complaint was dismissed.
Petitioners then filed a petition for review with
the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB. The
petition was dismissed so they filed an appeal with
public respondent. Public respondent, without
delving into the merits of the case, dismissed the
appeal for being filed out of time and denied their
motion for reconsideration.
Alleging that public respondent committed grave

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 306 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether public respondent committed grave
abuse of discretion in ruling that the reglementary
period within which to appeal the decision of
HLURB to public respondent is fifteen days.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 307 of 360
 RULING:
No. Public respondent did not commit grave
abuse of discretion.
Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987,
issued by public respondent reads:

“Section 1. Unless otherwise governed by

special laws, an appeal to the Office of the
President shall be taken within thirty (30) days
from receipt by the aggrieved party of the
decision /resolution/order complained of or
appealed from.”

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 308 of 360
 The said thirty (30) day period mentioned under
Administrative Order No. 18 is subject to the
qualification that there are no other statutory
periods of appeal applicable. If there are special
laws governing particular cases which provide for
a shorter or longer reglementary period, the same
shall prevail over the thirty-period provided for in
the administrative order.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 309 of 360
 Indeed, there are special laws that mandate a
shorter period of fifteen (15) days within which to
appeal a case to public respondent. First, Section
15 of PD No. 957 provides that the decisions of the
National Housing Authority (NHA) shall become
final and executor after the lapse of fifteen (15)
days from the date of receipt of the decision.
Second, Section 2 of PD No. 1344 states that
decisions of the NHA shall become final and
executor after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from
the date of its receipt. The latter decree provides
that the decisions of NHA are appealable only to
the Office of the President. Further, we note that
the regulatory functions of the NHA relating to
housing and land development has been

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 310 of 360
 CABRERA VS. LAPID
G.R. NO. 129098, DECEMBER 6,
2006
(Direct resort to the SC from a resolution or
order of the Ombudsman is not sanctioned by
any rule of procedure.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 311 of 360
 FACTS:
Petitioner Amelia Cabrera accused named
respondents Manuel Lapid, Fernando Baltazar,
Reynaldo F. Cabrera and Superintendent Diony
Ventura, respectively, in their capacities of
Governor of Pampanga, Mayor of Sasmuan,
Pampanga, Vice-Mayor of Sasmuan, Pampanga,
and Superintendent of the PNP-Region 3,
Pampanga of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Article 324 of
the Revised Penal Code.
In her Complaint-Affidavit filed with the Office
of the Ombudsman, petitioner stated that she
entered into a lease agreement with the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 312 of 360
 Despite pleas from petitioner, respondents
ordered the destruction of petitioner’s fishpond.
The property was demolished on 10 October 1995
by dynamite blasting. Petitioner alleged that the
demolition was purposely carried out in the
presence of media representatives and other
government officials to gain media mileage.
Petitioner imputed evident bad faith on
respondents Mayor Baltazar and Vice-Mayor
Cabrera in allowing the destruction of the
fishpond despite their prior knowledge of the
existence of the lease agreement. She also charged
respondents Governor Lapid and Senior

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 313 of 360
 On 13 May 1996, the Ombudsman issued
assailed Resolution, dismissing petitioner’s
complaint. The dismissal was based on the
declaration that the fishpond was a nuisance per
se and, thus, may be abated by respondents in the
exercise of the police power of the State.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the
Resolution. In its May 21, 1997 Order, the
Ombudsman affirmed its earlier Resolution.
Petitioner elevated the matter to this Court via a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court to assail the Resolution and
Order of the Ombudsman.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 314 of 360
 ISSUE:
Whether petitioner can resort directly to the
Supreme Court from a resolution or order of the
Ombudsman.

RULING:
Direct resort to the SC from a resolution or order
of the Ombudsman is not sanctioned by any rule of
procedure.
Clearly, this is an appeal from the questioned
issuances of the Ombudsman. However, such direct
resort to this Court from a resolution or order of the
Ombudsman is not sanctioned by any rule of
procedure.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 315 of 360
 However, an aggrieved party in criminal actions
is not without any recourse. Where grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction taints the findings of the
Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause,
the aggrieved party may file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. The remedy from
resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary
investigations of criminal cases is a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 316 of 360
 But in this case, petitioner has taken the position
that the Ombudsman has decided questions of
substance contrary to law and the applicable
decisions of the Supreme Court. That is a ground
under a Rule 45 petition. Indeed, from a reading
of the assignment of errors, it is clear that
petitioner does not impute grave abuse of
discretion to the Ombudsman in issuing the
assailed Resolution and Order. Rather, she merely
questions his findings and conclusions. As stated
earlier, direct appeal to the Supreme Court via a
petition for review on certiorari is not sanctioned
by any rule of procedure. By availing of a wrong

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 317 of 360
 Should an order of preventive
suspension be nullified because the
Secretary of Health lost his
disciplinary power and authority
when thejurisdiction
No. The new Local Government
acquired by the Secretary of
Health before the effectivity of the Local
Code took Code
Government effect on January
on January 1, 1992, 1,
continues
1992?
until the final disposition of the administrative
case.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 318 of 360
 THE MECHANICS OR THE MANNER
OF APPEALING THE DECISION OF
THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT IS
DIFFERENT
Both under theBECAUSE ITConstitutions,
1973 and 1987 IS A any
CONSTITUTIONAL
decision, order or rulingBODY
of the Commission on
Audit may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days
from receipt of a copy thereof.
The same is true with respect to any decision,
order or ruling of the Commission on Elections
and the Civil Service Commission. (Orocio vs.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 319 of 360
 What is the relief available against
awards of ale lots issued by NHA?
An action to annul awards of sale of its lots
should first be filed in the National Housing
Authority. Thereafter, an appeal may be filed in
the Office of the President within thirty three (33)
days from receipt of the NHA decision awarding
the lot to another party. After which step, the
aggrieved party can go to the Courts under Rule
65. (Swan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
97319; Swan, et al. vs. Abesamis, G.R. No.
101054, August 4, 1992)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 320 of 360
 The old case of Raymundo vs. PHHC
(114 SCRA 717)had this ruling:
“The power to dispose of the lands placed under
the administration of Philippine Homesite and
Housing Corporation is lodged in said body. There
is no provision of law authorizing courts to review
decisions of respondent PHHC and to take
cognizance of actions to annul awards of sale or
any other actions made by it pursuant to the
authority granted it by law. If the courts are to
take cognizance of cases involving errors or abuse
of power exercised by the respondent PHHC, the
remedy would be by means of an action for

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 321 of 360
 Can the courts interfere with the
Ombudsman's exercise of his
discretion to determine whether or
not to file an information against
an accused?

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 322 of 360
 GENERAL RULE
The Ombudsman having authorized the Special
Prosecutor to investigate the charges, and we
cannot assume that the former acted without any
justifiable cause, the latter is and should, at this
stage, be the proper adjudicator of the question as
to the existence of a case warranting the filing of
an information in court. To deny said functionary
of the opportunity to discharge such duty through
this prohibitory recourse, under the obtaining
circumstances herein before explained, would be
violative of settled rules of criminal procedure and
would, in effect grant an immunity against even an

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 323 of 360
 EXCEPTION
Except if there is a misapprehension of justice
and the courts have to step in to prevent the
respondents from using the iron arm of the law to
harass, oppress, and persecute a member of the
democratic opposition in the Philippines against
whom an information for subversion had been
filed. The petitioners, Fernando and Mison, are by
no means, opposition men who need to be rescued
from the “iron arm" of the law.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 324 of 360
 IX. METHODS OF REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 325 of 360
 What are the methods of review of
administrative action?
The methods of review of administrative action
may be (1) Statutory or Non-Statutory; (2) Direct
or Collateral.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 326 of 360
 a) Statutory Methods - They are those that
are provided by a specific statutory provision.
The manner and extent of its exercise is
therefore governed by statutes.

b) Non-Statutory Methods - Are those

methods which are not expressly provided for
by law. They are resorted by courts on account
of their inherent power to review such
proceedings and to decide questions of
jurisdiction and questions of law.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 327 of 360
a) Direct Proceeding - This is a proceeding
which includes a petition for review or relief
from a judgment. The purpose of which is to
seek relief other than to set aside judgment,
although it may involve an attack on the
judgment itself.

b) Collateral Attack - Through collateral

attack, there is an attempt to question in a
subsequent proceeding, the conclusiveness or
validity of a prior administrative decision on
the ground that the decision of invalid for lack
of jurisdiction over the person, or over the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 328 of 360
 STATUTORY METHODS
(They are available on account of
a specific law that allows it. If
statutory methods for review are
available, they are ordinarily
exclusive, and the use of non-
statutory methods will not likely
be permitted.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 329 of 360
 Example:
1. Judicial review of the decisions of the
Constitutional Commissions, those created
under Article IX(A), Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution (Commission on Elections,
Commission on Audit, and Civil Service
Commission)

"Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution

or by law, any decision, order or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 330 of 360
 1. Judicial Review of decisions and final orders
under the Labor Code of the Philippines

Judgments and final orders issued under the

Labor Code of the Philippines may only be
brought to the Supreme Court under Rule 65. The
reliefs in Rule 65 are the following:

(a) Petition for Certiorari, Section 1, Rule 65

(b) Petition for Prohibition, Section 2, Rule 65

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 331 of 360
 Within what period shall the
petition for certiorari be filed?
There is no rule which specifies the period
within which a petition for certiorari should be
filed. The yardstick to measure the timeliness of a
petition for certiorari is the reasonableness of the
duration of time that has expired from the
commission of the act complained of, up to the
institution of the proceedings to annul the same.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 332 of 360
 NOTE:

1. In San Juan vs. Cuento (G.R. No. 45063,

April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 277), it was held that
an interval of 2 years is too long.
2. In Allied Leasing Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals (197 SCRA 71 [1991]).
3. In Claridad vs. Santos (120 SCRA 148), 99
days in filing certiorari after receipt of denial
of the motion for reconsideration was
considered as barred laches.
4. In People vs. Magallanes (G.R. No. 118013,
64 SCAD 968, October 11. 1995, citing Philec
Workers Union vs. Young, January 22, 1992),

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 333 of 360
 NON-STATUTORY METHODS (If
there is no specific law granting
review, relief is obtained by means
of the common law remedies, or by
the prerogative writs of certiorari,
mandamus, habeas corpus, quo-

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 334 of 360
 Example:
1. A special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65, Section 1 of the New Rules of Court.
2. A petition for prohibition may also be filed
under Section 2, Rule 65 of the New Rules of
Court.
3. A petition for mandamus may also be filed
under Rule 65, Section 3 of the New Rules of
Court.
4. A quo-warranto proceeding may also be
filed under Section 1, Rule 66 of the New Rules
of Court.
5. Petition for habeas corpus may also be filed

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 335 of 360
 DIRECT PROCEEDING
(Administrative action is being
questioned in a subsequent
proceeding on account of lack of
jurisdiction, grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 336 of 360
 Example:
1. A special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65, Section 1 of the New Rules of Court
2. Appeal under Rule 43, Section 1 of the New
Rules of Court.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 337 of 360
 COLLATERAL ATTACK (The conclusiveness or
validity of a prior administrative decision is
being questioned on the ground that the
decision is invalid for lack of jurisdiction over
the person, or over the subject matter, or
because the decision attacked was not the act
of the administrative body concerned which is
vested with the power to make the said

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 338 of 360
 Can the citizenship of an individual
be attacked in a collateral
proceeding?
No. (Co vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 339 of 360
 Is a certificate of title issued under
an administrative proceeding
indefeasible as a certificate of title
issued under a judicial registration
proceeding?
Yes, provided that the land covered by said
certificate is a disposable public land within the
contemplation of the public land law. (Ybañez vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68291,
March 6, 1991).

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 340 of 360
 Can a decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued pursuant
thereto be attacked on the ground
ofNo,
actual fraud
such attack inbeadirect
must collateral
and not through a
collateral proceeding. The validity of the certificate
proceeding?
of title in this regard can be threshed out only in
an action expressly filed for the purpose. (Ibid.)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 341 of 360
 X. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 342 of 360
 What specifically are the
guarantees provided by the
Constitution to said commissions?
The Constitution provides for the following
guarantees:

1. The Members of the Constitutional

Commissions cannot be removed from office
except by impeachment. (Article XI, Section 2)

2. The powers conferred to each of the said

Commissions cannot be withdrawn or reduced
by statute. (Article IX[B], [C], and [D])

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 343 of 360
 1. Their term of office are staggered in order that
the majority of them may not be appointed by
the same President. (Ibid.)
2. They may not be re-appointed or appointed in
an acting capacity. (Ibid.)
3. Their salaries are fixed by law and shall not
be decreased during their tenure. (Section 3,
Article IX[A])
4. All the said commissions may promulgate its
own procedural rules. (Section 5, Ibid.)
5. All the said commissions may promulgate its
own procedural rules. (Section 6, Ibid.)
6. All the said commissions can appoint their
own officials and employees in accordance

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 344 of 360
 What is the mechanics of staggering
the terms?
Every two (2) years, the term of one
Commissioner expires leaving behind two
experienced Commissioners. If a vacancy occurs,
the commissioner so appointed to fill up the
vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired term of
the predecessor.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 345 of 360
 No member shall be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting
capacity?
The last sentence of Section 1(2), Article IX[B]
states: "In no case shall any member be appointed
or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”

Under this rule, the President may not fill up a

vacancy by designating one of the Commissioners
a temporary Chairman.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 346 of 360
 BRILLANTES VS. YORAC
192 SCRA 358
FACTS:
Commissioner Haydee Yorac, then an Associate
Commissioner of the Commission on Elections,
was designated by President Corazon C. Aquino as
Acting Chairperson of the Commission because
the regular chairman was appointed to another
position in the government. The petitioner
challenged the designation invoking the
prohibition that "no member may be appointed or
designated in a temporary capacity."

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 347 of 360
 ISSUE:
Is the said designation valid?

HELD:
The Chairman and the Commissioners of the
Commission on Elections must be extended
permanent appointments by the President but
such appointments shall have the consent of the
Commission on Appointments. The President has
no power to designate a temporary Chairman.
This prerogative may be exercised by the members
of the Commission on Elections for they may, by a
majority vote, designate one of them as temporary
chairman pending the appointment of a

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 348 of 360
 Within what period must a case or
matter be decided by each
commission?
Section 7, Article IX [A] answers this question,
thus:

“Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a

majority vote of all its Members any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date
of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
or matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 349 of 360
 Who made the said decisions?
Decisions are made by the said commissions, not
by the individual members of said commissions.
REASON: The said constitutional commissions
are collegial bodies. The cases pending in said
commissions should, therefore, be decided "by a
majority vote of all its members and Section 7
fixes a period of sixty (60) days from the date of its
submission within which to make that decision.“
Again, the sixty (60)-day period is counted from
the filing of the last pleading, brief or
memorandum required by the Rules of the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 350 of 360
 How many days within which to file
a petition for certiorari?
The aggrieved party has to file a petition for
certiorari within thirty (30) days from receipt of
said decision, order or ruling. This petition is
actually a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 and, therefore, the ground or the issue to
be brought to the Supreme Court for decision is
limited to grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction.
There is lack of jurisdiction if the grave abuse of
discretion was done in a capricious or whimsical

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 351 of 360
 It is now settled that in providing that the
decisions, orders or rulings of Comelec "may be
brought the Supreme Court on certiorari," the
Constitution in its Article IX[A], Section 7, means
the special civil action for certiorari under Rule
65, Section 1.
For this reason, the aggrieved party must first
file a motion for reconsideration before the
petition for certiorari is brought to the Supreme
Court. (Reyes vs. Regional Trial Court, et al., G.R.
No. 108886, 61 SCAD 44, May 5, 1995)

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 352 of 360
 REYES VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET
AL.
FACTS:
G.R. NO. 108886, MAY 5, 1995
After the May 11, 1992 synchronized elections,
61 SCAD
the Municipal Board 44
of Canvassers proclaimed
Aquiles U. Reyes as the 8th winning candidate for
the position of member of the Sangguniang Bayan
of Nauja, Oriental Mindoro.
Thereafter, Adolfo G. Comia, a candidate for the
same position, filed before the trial court an
election protest alleging that the Board of
Canvassers had committed a mistake in the

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 353 of 360
 After the mistake was admitted and rectified, the
trial court annulled the proclamation of Reyes and
declared Comia as the duly elected winner.
Reyes filed a notice of appeal with the
COMELEC and also a petition for mandamus and
prohibition in the Court of Appeals.
The COMELEC's First Division dismissed Reyes'
appeal on the ground that he failed to pay the
appeal fee within the prescribed period and the
Court of Appeals dismissed his petition in view of
his pending appeal in the COMELEC citing
Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 which prohibits
the filing of multiple petitions involving the same
issues.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 354 of 360
 Reyes then brought the present action. Reyes contends that both
the trial court and the COMELEC's First Division committed a
grave abuse discretion, the first, by assuming jurisdiction over the
election contest filed by Comia despite the fact that the case was
filed more than ten days after Reyes' proclamation, and the
second, i.e., the COMELEC's First Division, by dismissing Reyes'
appeal from the decision of the trial court for late payment of the
appeal fee.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Reyes failed to first
file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc
before filing his petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court
contrary to Article IX(A), Section 7 of the Constitution. It likewise
held that the COMELEC's First Division properly dismissed Reyes'
appeal from the decision of the trial court for his failure to pay the
appeal fee within the time for perfecting an appeal.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 355 of 360
 The Solicitor General, in behalf of the COMELEC, raises
a fundamental question. He contends that the filing of the
present petition, without Reyes first filing a motion for
reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, violates
Article IX, Section 7 of the Constitution because under this
provision only decisions of the COMELEC en banc may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 356 of 360
 HELD:

This is correct. It is now settled that providing

that the decisions, orders and rulings of
COMELEC “may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari," the Constitution in its Article
IX(A), Section 7 means the special civil action of
certiorari under Rule 65, Section 1 (Galido vs.
COMELEC, 193 SCRA 78 (1991); Rivera vs.
COMELEC, 199 SCRA 178 [1991]). Since a basic
condition for bringing such action is that Reyes
first file a motion for reconsideration (Regalado,
Remedial Law, pp. 459-460 (1998), it follows that

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 357 of 360
 Reyes argues that this requirement may be
dispensed with because the only question raised in
his petition is a question of law. This is not
correct. The questions raised by Reyes involve the
interpretation of constitutional and statutory
provisions in the light of the facts of this case. The
questions tendered are, therefore, not pure
questions of law.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 358 of 360
 Moreover, that a motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC En Banc is required for the filing of a petition
for certiorari is clear from the provisions of Article IX(C),
Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Conformably to these
provisions of the Constitution, all election cases, including
pre-proclamation controversies, must be decided by the
COMELEC in Division. Should a party be dissatisfied with
the decision, he may file a motion for reconsideration
before the COMELEC En Banc. It is, therefore, the
decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC En Banc that is,
in accordance with Article IX(A), Section 7, may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.”

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 359 of 360
 Reyes also assails the decision of the trial court as having
been rendered without jurisdiction. He contends that the
election protest of Comia was filed more than 10 days after
his (Reyes) proclamation. Reyes, however, is estopped to
raise this question now. He did not only appeal from the
decision of the trial court to the COMELEC raising this
question, but he also filed a petition for mandamus and
prohibition in the Court of Appeals. Having decided on this
course of action, he should not be allowed to file the
present petition just because he lost in those cases.

[Link] 1/19/20, 5:08 PM

Page 360 of 360