Administrative Law That 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.

Kinds of Administrative Law (1) Statutes setting up administrative authorities;

(2) Rules, regulations or orders of such administrative authorities
promulgated pursuant to the purposes for which they were created; (3)
Determinations, decisions and orders of such administrative authorities made
in the settlement of controversies arising in their particular fields; (4) Body of
doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation and effect of
determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities.
Administration As a function, it means the execution, in non-judicial matters,
of the law or will of the State as expressed by competent authority. As an
organization, it means that group or aggregate of persons in whose hands the
reins of government are for the time being.

Administrative Bodies / Agencies It is an organ of government, other than a

court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties
either through adjudication or rule-making. They are created either by: (1)
Constitutional provision; (2) Legislative enactment; (3) Authority of law.

When a body or agency is "administrative" It is administrative where its

function is primarily regulatory even if it conducts hearings and determines
controversies to carry out its regulatory duty. On its rule-making authority, it
is administrative when it does not have discretion to determine what the law
shall be but merely prescribes details for the enforcement of the law.

Powers of administrative bodies (1) Quasi-legislative or rule-making power;

(2) Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power; (3) Determinative powers

Quasi-legislative power This is the exercise of delegated legislative power,

involving no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority
to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law
itself. In HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs. SECRETARY DEFENSOR
2006, the Supreme Court said that quasi-legislative power is the power to
make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is

within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of nondelegability and separation of powers.

Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations (1) Supplementary or detailed

legislation; (2) Interpretative legislation; (3) Contingent legislation

Supplementary / Detailed legislation They are rules and regulations that "fix
the details" in the execution and enforcement of a policy set out in the law.
Example is the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.

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, such as BIR Circulars and CB Circulars.
In GONZALEZ vs. LAND BANK 1990, they have the effect of law and are
entitled to great respect. They have in their favor the presumption of legality.
The erroneous application of the law by public officers does not bar a
subsequent correct application of the law (MANILA JOCKEY CLUB vs. CA
1998).

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 1931)

Determinative powers of administrative bodies (1) Enabling; (2) Directing; (3)

Dispensing; (4) Examining / Investigatory power; (5) Summary

Enabling power A determinative power of administrative bodies to permit or

allow something which the law undertakes to regulate, illustrated by the
grant or denial of licenses to engage in a particular business.

Directing A determinative power of administrative bodies illustrated by the

power of assessment of the BIR or Bureau of Customs.

Dispensing A determinative power of administrative bodies to exempt from a

general prohibition, or relieve an individual or corporation from an affirmative
duty. This is illustrated by the authority of zoning boards to vary provisions of
zoning ordinances, or the authority of the Acceptance Board of the Philippine
Army to relieve certain persons from military training.

Examining / Investigatory power A determinative power of administrative

bodies to require production of books, papers, the attendance of witnesses
and compelling their testimony. (1) The power to compel attendance of
witnesses is not inherent in an administrative body, but an administrative
officer authorized to take testimony or evidence is deemed authorized to
administer oath, summon witnesses, and require production of documents;
(2) The power to punish contempt must be expressly granted to the
administrative body, and when so granted, may be exercised only when the
administrative body is actually performing quasi-judicial functions. (GUEVARA
vs. COMELEC, MASANGCAY vs. COMELEC, CARINO vs. COMMISSION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS)

Summary A determinative power of administrative bodies to apply

compulsion or force against persons or property to effectuate a legal purpose
without a judicial warrant to authorize such action, illustrated in the fields of
health inspections and abatement of nuisances.

Quasi-judicial / Adjudicatory power The administrative body is normally

granted the authority to promulgate its rules of procedure over proceedings
which partake of the character of judicial proceedings, provided they do not
increase, diminish or modify substantive rights, and subject to disapproval by
the Supreme Court (SEC. 5[5] ARTICLE VIII). The requisites of procedural due
process must be complied with.

Requisites of administrative due process (1) The right to a hearing, which

includes the right of the party to present his own 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 based on the evidence adduced at
the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;
(6) The Board or its judges must act on its or their independent consideration
of the law and the facts of the case, and not simply accept the views of a

subordinate in arriving at a decision; (7) The decision must be rendered in

such a manner that the parties to the controversy can know the various
issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered. (ANG TIBAY vs. CIR
1940)

Decisions and order of administrative agencies have upon their finality, the
force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine
of res judicata These decisions and orders are as conclusive upon the rights
of the affected parties as though the same had been rendered by a court of
general jurisdiction. The rule of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a
matter once determined by competent authority acting within their exclusive
jurisdiction. (YSMAEL vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 1990)

Doctrine of res judicata does not apply in administrative adjudication relative

to citizenship On questions of citizenship, the doctrine of res judicata can
apply only when the following conditions mentioned in ZITA NGO BURCA vs.
REPUBLIC 1973 obtain: (1) The question of citizenship is resolved by a court
or an administrative agency, as a material issue in the controversy after a
full-blown hearing; (2) With the active participation of the Solicitor General;
and (3) The finding made by the administrative body on the citizenship issue
is affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Whenever there is an available

administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made
until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted. (AQUINO vs.
MARIANO 1984, NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY vs. HERVILLA 1987,
UNION BANK vs. CA 1998)

Reason for exhaustion of administrative remedies (1) If relief is first sought

from a superior administrative agency, resort to the courts may be
unnecessary; (2) The administrative agency should be given a chance to
correct its error; (3) Principles of comity and convenience require that the
courts stay their hand until the administrative processes are completed; (4)
Since judicial review of administrative decisions is usually made through
special civil actions, such proceedings will not normally prosper if there is
another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
(See BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK vs. LANZANAS 2003, BERNARDO vs. ABALOS
2001)


Doctrine of Prior Resort / Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction
Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon an administrative
body to act upon a matter, no resort to the courts may be made before such
administrative body shall have acted upon the matter. The reason behind this
rule was explained in NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. CA 1991 in this wise: "The
courts give much weight to the government agency or officials charged with
the implementation of the law, considering their competence, expertise,
experience and informed judgment, and the fact that they frequently are the
drafters of the law they interpret."

Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action No resort to the courts will be

allowed unless the administrative action has been completed and there is
nothing left to be done in the administrative structure. A party aggrieved
must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain
relief, but must also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking
judicial intervention in order to give that administrative agency an
opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly and prevent unnecessary
and premature resort to the courts. (ZABAT vs. CA 2000)