Admin Law Transcript/Notes Atty. Agra Nov. 16, 2012 General Topic: Chap. 3D (Adjudicatory Powers) Chap.

. 4 (Separation of Administrative Powers) (Note: These arent word-for-word transcriptions. Some are paraphrased in order to make the thought more coherent and cohesive.) I will start a new tradition this semester. First recitation in every class will be a recap of the previous class. That would be helpful in terms of your learning journey. So, for today, we will cover two topics: the power of admin agencies to resolve controversies, and at the same time, it is also a recap of administrative powers. So lets start the tradition today. Q: What were our topics last week? A: Rule-making powers and investigative powers Q: What is the general rule for a rule to be valid? A: The rule must be consistent with the enabling act. The rule must not be inconsistent with the Constitution, statues and the respective charters. Q: What are the types of rules? A: Supplementary, Interpretative, Contingent, Penal, Procedural, Internal Q: Are admin agencies authorized to issue these rules even though there are no express grants of authority? A: Only Contingent and Penal rules have to have an express grant. Authority to issue other rules may be implied from the express provisions of the enabling law. Q: Going back to the power to investigate, we have the same rules. There are certain powers which must be expressly stated, and there are rules which may be implied. What are the types of investigatory powers which must be expressed? A: Power to cite in contempt, compel production of documents ( subpoena duces tecum), compel appearance (subpoena ad testificandum) because all of these affect the rights of the individuals.

--- end of review of previous session ---

Q: What can you learn from the cases of Philex v. Zaldivia, Antipolo Realty v. NHA and Guerzon v. CA? A: In Philex, the director of the Bureau of Mines had no authority to adjudicate the controversy. The issue is not a mining controversy, but involved a contractual dispute. The Bureau of Mines has no jurisdiction over contractual disputes. It is a judicial question which is within the jurisdiction of the courts. Q: How come, in the case of Antipolo Realty v. NHA, the SC ruled differently? A: In that case, the NHA had jurisdiction because it was expressly provided for in its charter. It has exclusive jurisdiction over contractual disputes filed by buyers of subdivision lots against the owner, developer, etc. (PD 957, as amended). Q: So how come you have a different ruling in Philex and Antipolo Realty? A: In Antipolo Realty, the enabling law provided for jurisdiction to settle contractual disputes. In Philex, there was none. Q: In the case of Guerzon, did the SC side with the admin agency?

A: No. Q: In the case of Guerzon, the admin agency was wrong because? A: The power granted to the agency did not extend to the power of ejecting the lessee (gas station) when the contract expired. The act of the agency was beyond the delegated power. Q: Where can you find the delegated power? A: The enabling law or the charter. Q: What can we learn from these 3 cases? A: The extent of an administrative agencys power is determined by the charter which governs it. Q: Can an admin agency rule on questions of fact? A: Yes Q: Can an admin agency rule on questions of law? A: It depends on the charter. Q: Where can we find the jurisdiction, extent of the powers of admin agencies? A: In its charter. Those not mentioned are excluded. Q: Any other learning which can be drawn from the cases? A: The powers of an admin agency would always be subject to judicial determination if there is GADALEJ. Q: What are the remedies of an aggrieved person? A: Resort to court action in case of GADALEJ. Q: What are the 5 classes of quasi-judicial powers, and give an example each. A: (mnemonic: DEEDS) Directing ex. Ordering to pay certain fees Enabling authorizing franchises Equitable implied rule that rulings must be equitable and just Dispensing granting amnesty, doing away with strict compliance of rules Summary power to compel, ex. Abatement of nuisance

Q: Why is it important to distinguish between quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers? A: Quasi-legislative deals with future conditions. Quasi-judicial looks at the past and present, and settles controversies within the time frame. Quasi-legislative is more general (i.e. applies to the general public), while quasi-judicial only deals with, and applies to the parties in a controversy. Q: What about in terms of the grant of the power to adjudicate? A: It must be expressly stated. No exceptions. It can never be implied. For quasi-legislative, it may be implied. Q: Increasing rates for all buses. Quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial? A: Quasi-legislative because it applies to all buses. All can apply to the general public, or to specific sectors. Q: Application for rate increase by an electric company? A: Quasi-judicial because it only applies to that specific electric company. Q: Comelec coming up with the rules pertaining to disqualification of candidates. A: QL Q: Disqualifying a particular party-list organization

A: QJ Q: Removing a specific franchise A: QJ Q: In quasi-judicial, what does it presuppose? A: There is an existing controversy, dispute, adverse claimants.

---start of Chapter 4---

Q: What is the doctrine of non-delegation of powers? A: The agency which has delegated power cannot further delegate it. It would be repugnant to the doctrine of separation of powers. Q: What is the rationale behind it? A: There is an issue of capacity and expertise of the administrative agency. There is also an issue of trust reposed by the Congress in the administrative agency. Trust is non-transferable. Q: What can be delegated? What cannot be delegated? A: Power to legislate and judicial power cannot be delegated. Rule-making (quasi-legislative) power and adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) powers may be delegated. Q: The prohibition on the part of Congress not to delegate judicial and law-making power, is that absolute? Are there admin agencies which have judicial or legislative powers? A: It is not absolute. Admin agencies can possess judicial power when the Constitution itself grants it. Admin agencies can also be granted legislative power by the Constitution. Q: Does Comelec have judicial power? A: Yes. The Constitution has granted it judicial powers. Q: When you talk about lawmaking and rule-making, what questions are answered by the charter? A: For lawmaking: What, Why, Who, When. Rule-making: How. (Admin agency provides for suppletory rules.) Q: Can the admin agency provide for the when? A: No. The enabling law must answer the when. What can be delegated is the power to determine the existence of certain facts. The admin agency can determine when a law will take effect, based on the existence of certain facts/conditions outlined in the charter/enabling law. This is the case for contingent rules. Q: Aside from Congress, who would have the power to enact national laws? A: The Constitution provides that the President, in times of war, may be given emergency legislative powers by Congress. The President can also set tariffs, etc. Q: Would that be lawmaking, on the part of the President? Is the President, in prescribing emergency measures, in effect enacting a law? A: No. He is implementing rules within the bounds provided for by Congress. In effect, the President exercises executive power. Its not really lawmaking. Q: What limits the power of the President in those instances? A: The enabling law provided by Congress, and the judicial review by the Judiciary. Q: What are the requisites for a valid delegation?

A: Sufficient standards and completeness. Q: When is a law complete? When is a law incomplete? A: A law is complete when it gives the necessary policy of the law. The law must answer the what, the when, the why, and the who. Q: If a law is incomplete, can the admin agency complete the law? A: No. That would be going beyond the law. Q: What do you mean by a standard? And what do you mean by sufficient standard? What makes a standard insufficient? A: It is insufficient when it doesnt have any properties which would limit the delegated power. It is sufficient when it is able to map out the power which will guide the admin agency. Q: Why does the Constitution impose the completeness test? What is it trying to prevent? A: It wants to prevent the admin agency from having unbridled discretion. It seeks to preserve separation of powers. Q: What is the reason for the sufficient standards test? A: It prevents arbitrariness, vagueness, unlimited or unrestrained power. Q: Where can we find the standard? A: The enabling law, or from other sources. (see pp. 222-223) The standard of reasonableness and common sense are also implied. Q: If that were true, then there would be standards in all statutes? A. There is no statute without standards because in all statutes, the standards of reasonableness, public good, public welfare are implied. But not all standards are sufficient. Some statutes might need more standards (for example: range of tariff rates within which the President may set it). In reality, it is easier to comply with the sufficient standards test because standards can be found in other laws, executive orders, etc.

---cases--Delegation to Administrative Agencies Case US v Ang Tang Ho Compaa General v Board People v Vera Law Power delegated Act 2868 (monopoly Gov-General to issue rules for any and hoarding of palay, cause it deems fit corn, etc) Act 2307 (public Board of Public Utility utility finances) Commissioners to be furnished of finance reports whenever it wants Probation Act Provincial boards determine when the Act will take effect in their provinces Revised Admin President to create municipal Code corporations Admin Code on Phil fibers Reflector Law Fiber Standardization Board to determine standards of Phil fiber LTC sets the standards for the Validity No. Law is Incomplete

No. Insufficient standard

No. Absence of definite standards No. No policy to be carried out and no sufficient standard Yes. Not a delegation of Legislative power. Yes. There is a standard,

Pelaez v Auditor-Gen Alegre v Collector of Customs Edu v Ericta

Echegaray v Sec of Justice

Lethal Injection Law

enforcement of the law Sec of Justice and Director of Bureau of Corrections handles implementation of the law

albeit implied Yes. There is sufficient standard and the law is complete in itself. But the manual issued by the BuCor chief was invalid. SOJ was the proper authority to issue.

Sufficiency of Standards Case Rubi v Prov Board People v Rosenthal Cervantes v Auditor Gen Mutual Film v Industrial Commission People v Jollifee Law Admin Code Standard Prov Board and Prov Governor executes law when necessary in the interest of law and order Treasurer can cancel certificate if it is necessary or advisable in the public interest President can effect reforms to promote simplicity, economy, and efficiency in operation Censorship based on moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character Pres and Monetary Board determines to maintain monetary stability, rising level of production, & income Secretary to prescribe rules for an adequate and efficient instruction Should be simple and dignified Validity Yes. Execution of law requires discretion Yes. Standard is sufficient Yes. Policy and Standard laid down Yes. Power to ascertain facts and conditions may be delegated. Yes. Sufficient standard and it is mere execution. Yes. Power to fix minimum standard may be delegated Yes. Statute need not specify details on exercise Yes. Discretionary power conferred is judicial in character Yes. Exercise of police power. Yes. Standard is sufficient albeit implied. *However, the executive dept failed to follow standards in executing the law.

Blue Sky Law

EO 93 on Govt Enterprises Council Ohio Law creates Board of Censors of films Licensing of gold and foreign exchange Act 2706 on the power of Sec of Education Singing in flag ceremony Court of Industrial Relations to determine wages Memorandum prescribes a standard contract RA 8180- Oil Deregulation

PACU v Sec of Educ Balbuena v Sec

Intl Hardwood v Pangil Eastern Shipping v POEA Tatad v Sec of Energy

Court shall act based on justice and equity and substantial merits of the case To promote fair and equitable employment practices Will be implemented as far as practicable; decline of crude oil prices; stability of peso exchange rate

Source: Bryant Fernandezs reviewer

---Start of Chap. 5--Q: Why do we refer to admin proceedings as adversarial in nature?

A: It is adversarial in nature because in each proceeding, we resolve issues where there are parties. Q: What do you mean by issues? Whats a better term than issues? A: Controversies, disputes Q: Who are the adversaries in these adversarial proceedings? A: Between private and public, between private and private, between public and public Q: Who would determine the nature of conflicts or controversies that may be brought before the admin agency? A: It would depend on the charter. It defines the jurisdiction of the admin agencies. Q: Can the parties themselves expand the jurisdiction of the parties? A: No. It is defined and limited by the charter. Q: Can the admin agency expand its jurisdiction? A: No. An admin agencys jurisdiction is conferred by its enabling law. They cannot go beyond their enabling law because there is an element of trust reposed on them by Congress. If they go beyond, they violate this trust. Q: What is the effect if, subsequently, the charter was repealed, on controversies resolved prior to the repeal? A: The decision will still be binding on the parties. Such repeal will not affect those already resolved. Q: What if the repeal was because the Supreme Court declared it as unconstitutional, void ab initio? A: The decision will still be binding. The parties are presumed to have relied on the repealed law in good faith. (The doctrine of operative fact also comes into play here.) Q: Charter says that one admin agency will have the power to conciliate. Can the parties agree that that admin agency will arbitrate the proceedings? A: No. If the charter provides only for the power to conciliate, the power to arbitrate is excluded. If it arbitrates, it will go beyond the jurisdiction conferred to it by law. Q: Who has the power to define the procedures of a particular admin agency in terms of its quasi-judicial power? A: The charter and the admin agency itself. These would be procedural rules promulgated by the admin agency itself. If the enabling law provides that the admin agency shall have quasi-judicial powers, but it doesnt provide for procedures, the admin agency itself can issue procedural rules. They can also be called supplementary rules since they fill in the details. The authority to issue these is implied from the express grant of quasi-judicial power. Q: What are the limits to this implied authority to promulgate procedural rules? A: The authority is limited by the law itself. The rules cannot go beyond. The rules must also be published in order to satisfy due process. Reasonableness is also a requirement. The procedures must also meet the ends of the charter. Q: What are the flaws in the case of Villa v. Lazaro? A: Proceedings were conducted in such an informal manner. Villa was not even informed that there were adversarial proceedings already conducted. Villa only learned about it at the latter part of the proceeding. The evidence submitted by Villa several times was also not even appreciated by the Commission. The decision did not make reference to any document (i.e. it was not supported by anything). Thus, there was a denial of due process.

Q: In order for a decision to be valid, must it contain a narration of the facts? A: It must contain the basis for the decision with a narration of the relevant facts and explanation of the applicable laws. On appeal, the appellate body may adopt the full narration of facts by the decision brought on appeal. It is enough to say, we are affirming the decision in toto of the lower admin body. It can also attach the decision of the lower body to its decision. They can even do a cut and paste. The requirement for a full blown decision does not apply to admin agencies. This was the doctrine in Solid Homes v. Laserna. Q: What is the meaning of notice and hearing? A: Notice can either be actual or constructive. Hearing need not be a full-blown hearing all the time. The right to a full hearing includes the right: (1) to present his case and submit his evidence; (2) to know the claims of the opposite party; (3) to cross-examine the witness; (4) to submit rebuttal evidence. However, some requirements may be dispensed with, based on case law. Cross-examination can be dispensed with, unless the charter requires it. Q: When is it full-blown? When is it not full-blown? A: The charter will explicitly say if a full-blown hearing is needed. Otherwise, there can be a summary hearing where pleadings and position papers can be submitted. Basis is case law. Q: Notice and hearing cannot be dispensed with. True or False? A: True. Notice can be actual or constructive. Hearing can be full-blown or summary. Absence of any will violate due process. Of course, the charter can provide otherwise. Q: What if you are not notified, and you find out there was an adverse decision rendered against you? What can you do? A: You can file a motion for reconsideration with the admin agency which rendered the decision. You can also file an appeal with a higher body or with the courts. Both these actions will cure the defect of the lack of notice and hearing. You can also choose to not do anything because there is a defect with the decision anyway. Q: Can an admin agency cancel a certificate of public convenience without hearing? A: No. This violates property rights. (Danan v. Aspillera) Q: Is notice and hearing required before an admin agency can issue a procedural or supplementary rule? A: No. Q: How come in this case, you have to be notified? A: Because in cancelling a certificate of public convenience, the admin agency exercises quasi-judicial power. Q: Suspending the decision to increase the rates without hearing. That was the case of Meralco v. Medina. What was the ruling in that case? A: Meralco was entitled to notice and hearing. By suspending the decisio n on rate increases, Meralcos property right were violated. It was a quasi-judicial act. The PSC also wasnt empowered to suspend its decision. Q: Can the new board revise the decision entered by the previous board without notice to the parties? A: No. It is an exercise of quasi-judicial power. There must be due process. (Commissioner of Imigration v. Fernandez) Q: Summarize the three cases.

A: If the admin agency is exercising quasi-judicial power, notice and hearing are required. Not required in quasilegislative. Q: Imposing the penalty of suspension. Does that require notice and hearing? A: Yes. It is a penalty which is imposed after the exercise of a quasi-judicial hearing. Q: Placing a person under preventive suspension. Notice and hearing? A: Can be dispensed with. No quasi-judicial powers involved since it is just preventive suspension. Q: Are suspension and preventive suspension the same? A: No. Suspension is a penalty. Preventive suspension is not. Q: Mayor cancelling the license of a restaurant in QC because that restaurant violated the National Building Code, or is not paying local taxes. Does that require notice and hearing? A: Some would say that since it is a privilege, there is no need for notice and hearing. Q: Abatement of a nuisance per se. A: No need. Q: Abatement of a nuisance per accidens. A: Notice and hearing are needed. Legal remedy is to go to court.

--- end of Nov. 20 class ---

Q: Can COMELEC authorize its field offices to receive evidence on its behalf and for the field offices to draft a decision? A: Yes. It is a delegation of power to hear and receive evidence which is allowed. Drafting the decision can also be done as long as the final determination is made by the person or board authorized by the enabling law. It is a matter of practical necessity and administrative flexibility. Q: Can the power to adjudicate be delegated to the field offices? A: No. Adjudication must be done by the person authorized by law. However, the authority to hear cases can be delegated to hearing officers. Q: So what is the reason why the reception of evidence and hearing can be delegated, while adjudication itself cannot be delegated? A: The authority to hear and authority to receive evidence may be delegated to subordinate officials within the administrative agency as a matter of practical necessity. However, adjudication is reserved only to the persons specified in the charter. Q: If theres a dispute regarding the admissibility of the evidence, what is my recourse? A: Elevate the matter to the higher board.

Q: Can the head of a COMELEC division make a ruling on behalf of the entire division? A: No. When power is conferred on a collegiate body, its power may only be exercised by the body meeting for that purpose. Matters must be decided with a majority and a quorum. Q: How come the power to adjudicate cannot be delegated to the field offices? A: Adjudication must be done by the person vested with such power as authorized by the charter. As we learned in the past, there is a matter of trust reposed to it by the Congress. Delegating adjudication to field offices will be a violation of this trust. Q: Whats the quantum of proof required before an administrative agency? A: Substantial evidence. Q: Is this the general rule? A: Yes. But the charter of the admin agency may provide for a different quantum of proof. Q: Can an admin agency require preponderance of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt? A: Yes, if the charter so provides. There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits a higher or lower quantum of proof for admin agencies. But if the charter is silent as to what quantum of proof is required, the general rule of substantial evidence prevails. (This was the doctrine in Ang Tibay v. CIR.) Q: If the charter provides for a specific quantum of proof, can the admin agency change that? A: No. It cannot go beyond its charter. It would be a betrayal of the trust reposed to it by Congress. It would amount to prohibited legislation by the admin agency. Q: If youre the head of the admin agency, and the charter is silent as to the quantum of proof required, what would you require as quantum of proof, aside from substantial evidence? What would guide you in your choice? A: The nature of the proceedings itself, and the power granted by the charter can provide guides for the choice. For example, if it involves deprivation of property, then a higher quantum of evidence might be necessary. Reasonableness, as dictated by the policy and purpose in the law, is also a factor. Q: Can an admin agency admit hearsay? A: Yes, but not in matters of fact. It cannot be the primary evidence, but only as a supplement for direct evidence. It can only be admitted if it is not objected to. Q: Can an admin agency conduct ocular inspections even if it is not provided for in the charter? A: Yes, since this can be implied. Q: Can an ocular inspection be the basis of a decision? A: No, it cannot be the sole basis. There must be other pieces of evidence. This is based on the cases of Estate of Florencio Buan v. Pampanga Bus Co. and La Mallorca and Philippine Movie Pictures Workers Association v. Premier Productions, Inc. Q: Distinguish the two cases.

A: In the Philippine Movie case, the CIR judges conducted the ocular inspection upon the invitation of Premier Productions. It was held to be insufficient basis to rule that the company was suffering financial loses, thus justifying the laying off of the workers. The CIR should have looked at the actual books of the company. In the Buan case, ocular inspection by the two checkers sent by the PSC substantiated the other pieces of evidence adduced in the proceedings. In that case, there were two conflicting reports submitted by the parties, thus necessitating the PSC to send their own checkers to verify which one was correct. Q: Can the outcome of an ocular inspection be used to resolve the outcome of a labor dispute? A: Yes. The NLRC can perform an ocular inspection to determine whether a company is complying with labor standards (ex. Temperature, work conditions, etc.) This is provided for in the Labor Code. Q: What are the contents of a decision? A: It must state the facts of the case and the law on which the decision is based on. It must be presented in such a way that the parties will be informed of the basis of the decision. Q: Are the requirements for a decision penned by the courts the same as for those penned by admin agencies? Are the forms the same? A: Both require that the basis for the decision must be knowable by the parties. In court decisions, there must be a full-blown recital of the facts, issues and ratio. However, it is not as strict when it comes to admin agencies. It is enough if they merely affirm the factual findings and decisions of the subordinate officers. Q: If you were to make an affirmation, what would be the minimum requirement in your decision? A: For example, we are confirming the report in toto of the hearing officer. Q: What is the ruling of the SC in the case of Gracilla v. CIR? A: In that case, the CIR did not mention or decide on the issue of monetary claims. The SC ruled this was improper. All the claims of the parties must be resolved in the ruling. Q: What is the defect in the case of Serrano v. PSC? A: The petitioner submitted all the requirements needed for the taxi application. However, the PSC just released a joint decision which listed the successful applicants. Petitioner was not included, and the denial of his application was not explained. The SC held that the PSC committed an error. Due process was violated. Not all applications were ruled upon. Q: Can a mayor abate a nuisance per se? A: Yes. Such power is provided for by the Local Government Code. Q: Can a COMELEC chair, on his own, disqualify a candidate or a party-list? A: No. Such power is vested in the COMELEC en banc. Q: Can the COMELEC chair suspend one of the department heads of the COMELEC? A: Yes. It is within his power as the administrative head of office of the agency. This is an administrative power. Q: What is res judicata?

A: It is a principle which states that controversies decided by administrative agencies in the exercise of its quasijudicial power cannot anymore be ruled upon if it concerns the same facts and circumstances. It becomes the rule of the case with respect to the parties. Q: When you talk about powers of an admin agency, res judicata applies? A: Only with respect to the exercise of its quasi-judicial power. With respect to its quasi-legislative and other administrative powers, res judicata will not apply. Q: Why not? It presupposes what? A: Res judicata presupposes a controversy. This in turn presupposes an issue which is decided upon. Q: Can an admin agency reverse the ruling of another admin agency? A: Yes, if it is provided for in the charter of the admin agencies. There are certain modes by which a decision by an admin agency can be reviewed. One of which is a review by another admin agency. (The other kinds can be found in pp. 311-312) Q: Can the NLRC reverse the ruling of a Labor Arbiter? A: Yes. It is a form of review by a particular body of a decision made by a particular officer, both of which belong to the same agency or administrative system. Q: What do you call that process? From lower to higher? A: Exhaustion of remedies. Q: Can an officer review his own decision? A: No. That would go against the principles of due process. It would be absurd for a person to review his own decision. Due process requires that the reviewing officer is someone who has no bias and predisposition towards a case. In other words, it requires independence and fairness. Q: Do you apply technical rules of evidence in the case of admin proceedings? A: No. While they may be similar to judicial proceedings, strict rules of evidence are not required. Q: Is this rule absolute? A: No. The charter can provide otherwise. But if the charter is silent, then strict rules of evidence need not be applied. There can be summary proceedings. Q: Can the admin agency dismiss a case on the basis of non-payment of the docket fees? A: Yes. This was the doctrine in Lim v. Delos Santos. Q: Can an admin agency say that its decision may not be reviewed by the courts and is therefore final and executory? A: No. While the charter of the admin agency may provide that its decisions are final and executory, it may not say that they are not reviewable by the courts. Such would deprive the courts of its constitutional power. The recourse of the losing party in an administrative ruling may be in the form of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in the case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Q: Who enforces admin decisions?

A: The charter provides for the mode by which admin decisions may be enforced. If it is not provided for, the parties may go to the courts for a writ of execution. If it is granted, it is the ruling of the court, not of the admin agency, which is enforced. This is the same case for contempt. If the admin agency is not vested with the power to cite in contempt, it may go to the courts which can then rule whether a person should be cited for contempt. Q: Distinguish the cases of Weigall v. Shuster and CAB v. PAL. A: In Weigall, the Collector of Customs imposed a fine on the British steamer for violation of the Chinese Exclusion Law. This was not allowed because it was in the nature of a criminal penalty. Admin agencies are not allowed to impose criminal penalties and fines. In the case of CAB v. PAL, CAB imposed a fine on PAL because it made a flagstop in Baguio without obtaining permission. This was allowed by the SC. It was an administrative fine, not a criminal penalty. Such power was implied by the phrase, shall take such action, consistent with the provisions, of this Act, as may be necessary to prevent further violation of such provision, or rules and regulations so issued. (Sec. 10[d], R.A. No. 776)

---Start of Chap. 6---

Q: How do you define judicial review in relation to administrative agencies? A: It is the power of the court to take cognizance of an issue decided by an administrative agency upon questions of law, which is reviewable, questions of fact, where the power of judicial review is limited only to a determination of the presence of substantial evidence to support it, and also to determinations of WON an admin officer has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Q: Lets break down your definition to several components. And these components are? A: Judicial review is a power and a duty and a right. It is exercised by the courts, generally, after administrative action. Interlocutory orders are not subject to judicial review. With regard to questions of law, courts have full power to review. With regard to questions of fact, the courts power is limited to determination of whether or not there is substantial evidence to support such facts. Q: Can the courts reverse the findings of fact by the admin agencies? A: Yes, upon a determination that the factual findings are not based on substantial evidence, or that these are attended with fraud, mistake, arbitrariness and are capricious and whimsical. Facts supported by substantial evidence are binding on the courts in recognition of the presumption that admin agencies are experts in their respective fields. Q: Any other component in the definition? A: The courts may also determine whether or not an admin agency has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Q: What types of controversies would be subject to review? A: Courts can review both quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative acts of admin agencies. Q: Are all controversies involving admin agencies cognizable by the courts? A: No. Some controversies are not justiciable. They are not cognizable by the courts, yet they are still controversies. Some are also not ripe for adjudication. Q: What is the reason for this power given to the court? Why did the framers of the Constitution give the power of judicial review to the courts? A: It is a form of checks and balances.

Q: Who gave this power to the courts? A: The Constitution. Congress or the President cannot negate this power. Doing so would be contrary to the Constitution. Q: Must this power be specifically given in the charters of the admin agencies? Ideally, there must be a provision on judicial review, but there are charters which do not provide for the power of judicial review. What is the consequence? A: If theres a law, we should follow the law with regard to the manner and procedure of appeal or review provided for it. Ideally, the law should contain the period for appeal, the court which may review the appeal, the form of the petition, the mode of appeal, etc. Q: For our purposes, what are the modes? A: Petition for review, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto . Q: In a case wherein the steps are not spelled out in the charter, what would be the recourse? A: The courts may exercise jurisdiction on the case but only with regard to questions of law and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Q: What would be your prayer or relief you will seek before the courts involving decisions of admin agencies? A: Wherefore, premises considered, petitioner hereby prays that the decision be reversed/action be declared void or illegal/declaratory relief/etc. Q: For certiorari, what would be your prayer? A: Pray that the admin agency acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Q: For injunction, what would be your prayer? A: That the admin agency be enjoined from proceeding. Q: For mandamus, what would be your prayer? A: To compel the admin agency to do a ministerial duty. Q: For appeal, what would be your prayer? A: That the decision be reversed/nullified or modified. Q: Are there matters concerning admin agencies which are not cognizable by the courts? A: Yes. Matters which are not yet ripe for adjudication, or not ripe for justiciable controversy. Q: When is there a justiciable controversy? A: When there is already an actual or imminent damage or injury to be sustained by a party, as opposed to a merely imagined damage. Q: Any other controversy not justiciable by the courts? A: If the administrative remedies have not been exhausted yet. Another instance is when the admin agency has primary jurisdiction over the issue. This applies especially when certain factual determinations must be made by the admin agencies which are presumed to be experts in their fields. Q: How should courts treat findings of fact by admin agencies? A: The general rule is that these are binding on the courts. Courts will not disturb these factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. This is because of the expertise of the agency in that particular field. Q: In what instances can the courts reverse or disturb the factual finding of admin agencies? A: There are 8 instances: (pp. 336-337)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Findings are not supported by substantial evidence Vitiated by fraud, mistake, illegality, imposition or collusion Procedure leading to factual findings are irregular Palpable errors are committed Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest Gross misappreciation of evidence can be shown There is conflict in the factual findings Special case: The SC may review matters, even if not assigned as errors, if it is necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case

Q: What are the 4 defenses? A: Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, Doctrine of Finality of administrative action, Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, Doctrine of Ripeness for review. Q: Who raises these defenses? A: For finality of administrative action, the admin agency can raise it. For exhaustion of administrative remedies, the adverse party and the admin agency as well. For primary jurisdiction, the adverse party and the agency. For ripeness, the parties may raise the defense.

Level 3
Office of the President

Level 2
Admin Board/Admin Head

Courts

Level 1
Subordinate Admin officer

Q: Where do you raise the defense of ripeness? A: Either in the courts or in the executive branch (admin agencies) Q: For primary jurisdiction? A: In the courts only. The court will decide whether or not it has jurisdiction. Q: How about exhaustion? Where is that raised? A: In the courts and the executive branch. Q: In what scenario can you raise the defense of exhaustion in the executive branch?

A: For example, you cant directly go to the Office of the President (level 3) for review of a determination by a subordinate admin officer (level 1). You must first go to the administrative board (level 2) which is superior to the hearing officer. The admin agency can raise that defense. Q: For finality of administrative action, where do you raise it? A: Both in the courts and the executive branch. For example, there was a decision in level 1 (of the admin agency) and then you file an appeal in the admin board (level 2 of the admin agency). You cant go to the Office of the President (level 3) or to the courts if the appeal is still pending in level 2. Q: In summary, in all these defenses, what are you really questioning? A: Youre assailing the timing of the appeal. Q: What is the doctrine of finality of administrative actions? A: When an action is pending in an admin agency, the courts will not interfere. Courts are reluctant to interfere with action of an administrative agency prior to its completion or finality because administrative power has not been fully and finally exercised. There can usually be no irreparable harm. If the same action is brought to the courts while it is pending with an admin agency, it can be dismissed for lack of a justiciable controversy. This doctrine also applies to interlocutory orders (An order is interlocutory when the substantial rights of the parties involved remain undetermined and when the cause is retained for further action [p.350]) Q: In what instances can the courts proceed with the case and not suspend or dismiss it? A: There are exceptions: (p. 354) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. There is an interlocutory order affecting the merits Grant relief to preserve the status quo When it is essential to protect the right asserted from the injury threatened When there is a violation of the Constitution Where the order is not reviewable in any other way and the complainant will suffer great and obvious damage if the order is carried out Where the order is made in excess of power, contrary to specific prohibition in the governing statute of the agency thus operating as a deprivation of a right assured by the statute When such review is allowed by statute

Q: Give an example of the application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. A: This doctrine is concerned with the initiation of the action. It is a turf issue between the judiciary and the administrative agencies. For example, in an application for a franchise. Because of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the aggrieved party must first go to the executive branch first (level 1) before you go to the judiciary. This doctrine is applicable where concurrent jurisdiction is conferred. This does not preclude subsequent resort to judicial action. Q: What instances can you go to the judiciary without going to the executive first? What are the exceptions to this doctrine? A: Questions of law are cognizable by the courts. The judiciary is the final arbiter of questions of law. Q: Doctrine of ripeness for review. What is it? A: It is similar to Doctrine of Exhaustion of administrative remedies, but it applies to rule making power of the admin agency. Exhaustion of administrative remedies pertains to quasi-judicial actions of the admin agencies. It presupposes an actual and existing or imminent controversy. If there is still no actual controversy, there is nothing to be decided. Q: What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? A: By this doctrine, a person must first go through all the available remedies within the administrative system before it goes to the courts for judicial review. Based on the diagram, it must go through levels 1 to 3 before if goes

to the courts. The rationale behind it is that it gives the administrative agency every opportunity to decide a given matter correctly. It is also a matter of respect for a co-equal branch of the government. (Other reasons are in pp. 361-363.) Premature invocation of judicial intervention may result in a dismissal for lack of cause of action. Q: What are the exceptions to this doctrine? A: (There are 20 exceptions. See pp. 368-381.) Q: What is the case of Universal Robina Corporation v. LLDA? A: The LLDA issued an order imposing a fine upon petitioner for 1,247 days of discharging pollutive waste water. Petitioner questioned the order by filing a petition for certiorari in the CA. HELD: Under EO No. 192, the Office of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources took over the powers of the National Pollution Control Commission. URC failed to comply with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Q: What is the defect if an appeal memorandum is required to be filed, but you did not file it? (Refer to Heirs of Wenceslao Tabia v. CA) A: The Director of Lands granted the application of respondent for a free patent despite the opposition of the petitioners on the ground that they owned the land involved in the application because of the finding that the opposition lacked merit. Petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, but their appeal was dismissed because of their failure to file an appeal memorandum. Petitioners filed a case for annulment of the free patent issued to respondents. HELD: Petitioners did not fully exploit the administrative remedies available to them. Their failure to file an appeal memorandum caused the dismissal of their appeal. Q: What happened in the case of New Sun Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Sangguniang Barangay Sun Valley? A: The Sangguniang Barangay issued a resolution directing a homeowner association to open two streets to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The neighborhood association filed a petition to enjoin the implementation of the resolution. HELD: Sec. 32 of the LGC provides that the city or municipality through the mayor shall exercise supervision over component barangays. The case should be dismissed for failure of the neighborhood association to exhaust administrative remedies. Q: What happened in the case of Antolin v. Domondon? A: Petitioner failed when she took the licensure examination for accountancy. Believing that she deserved to pass, petitioner asked the Board of Accounting to re-correct her answers. Petitioner was shown her answer sheets. She wrote the Board of Accountancy for copies of the questionnaires, the answer keys, and an explanation of the grading system. Her request was denied because the rules allowed access to her answers only. Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus. HELD: Petitioner had an adequate remedy which is an appeal to the Professional Regulation Commission. (Again, exhaustion of administrative remedies applies.) Q: If theres a bidding and you fail in the bidding, can you go to the courts for recourse? (Refer to Dimson (Manila) Inc. v. LWUA) A: No. You must seek reconsideration from the Bids and Awards Committee first. Q: Questions regarding the CARP. What would be the steps? (Refer to Manubay v. Garilao) A: First, appeal to the Regional Director of the DAR. Then go to the Secretary of the DAR. Afterwards, you can go to the Office of the President or the CA but since the issue in the case was about the administrative implementation of the program, appeal should have been made to the OP. Q: Increasing water rates, who would have jurisdiction? (Refer to Merida Water District v. Bocarro) A: First, appeal to the Local Water Utilities Administration. Then appeal to the National Water Resources Board. Afterwards, Office of the President. Q: Where do you question midnight appointments of certain officials in a given area? (Refer to Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete)

A: First, appeal to the CSC Regional Office then to the CSC en banc. Afterwards, the appeal should be brought to the SC, not to the Office of the President since the CSC (together with COMELEC and COA) are independent bodies. (The procedure is different in the COMELEC since decisions are first made by the divisions. Motions for reconsideration for the decisions made by the decisions are brought to the en banc. Appeals from the en banc are brought to the SC. Of the three independent constitutional commissions, only the COMELEC may form divisions.) Q: What was the estoppel case in the assignment? (Refer to Allied Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) A: The BIR wrote the petitioner saying that it was the final decision of the BIR. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA. BIR moved to dismiss based on the non-exhaustion of remedies. The SC ruled that the BIR was estopped from claiming this defense because the letter said that it was the final decision already. Q: How come in the case of UST v. Sanchez, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not applied? A: It involved a question of damages and the application of the Civil Code, a purely legal question which was within the jurisdiction of the courts. Only courts can award damages.

---end of Admin Law---