Admin Law Midterms Reviewer (Final)

Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
organization of the executive, legislative and ju-
dicial branches of government. The entire gov-
* S P E C I F I C / C O UR S E DE F I N I T I O N : “ I t m e a n s t h a t p a rt of ernment is vast and huge. Consider:
p u b l i c l a w w h i c h g ov e r n s t h e or g a n i za t i on , fu n c t i on s
a n d p roc e d u re s of a d m i n i st ra t i ve a g e n c i e s of g ove rn- 1. The Office of the President has 22 secretaries repre-
m e n t t o w h i c h q u a s i - l e g i s l a t i v e p ow e r s a n d q u a s i - j u d i - senting t he 22 de pa rtme nt s of th e e xecu tive, 9 othe r ex-
c i a l p ow e r s a r e g r a n t e d , a n d t h e e x t e n t a n d m a n n e r t o e c u t i v e s s u c h a s t h e p r e s i d e n t i a l l e g a l a d v i s e r a n d p o l i t-
w h i c h s u c h a g e n c i e s a r e s u b j e c t t o c on t r ol b y t h e i c a l a d v i s e r, 9 a t t a c h e d a g e n c i e s l i k e t h e M M D A , P r e s i -
c ou r t s . ” ( M EM O R I Z E) d e n t i a l C o m m i s s i o n o n Vi s i t i n g F o r c e s A g r e e m e n t a n d
Office of the Presidential Adviser for the peace process
a n d 3 2 o t h e r e x e c u t i v e o ff i c e s l i k e t h e P h i l i p p i n e S p o r t s
Commission.
DEF I N I TI O N O F A N A DM I N I S TRATI VE A G EN CY - An a d-
m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y i s a b od y of g ov e r n m e n t c r e a t e d b y 2. The DOJ has 10 attached agencies to it namely the NBI,
t h e le gi sla t u re a n d c h a rge d w i t h t h e su p e rvi si on a n d Bureau o f I mmig ratio n a nd Dep orta tion , Bu rea u of Cor-
re gu la t i on of a pa rt i cu la r a re a of con ce rn . rect ions, Paro le a nd Prob at io ns Ad min ist ration , PCGG,
PAO, Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution, OGCC,
OSG and Land Registration Authority.
For e xa mple , t h e In su ra n ce Commission wh ich re gu la t e s 3. The DOF has 9 attached agencies such as the BIR, Bu-
t h e i n su ra n c e b u si n e ss, t h e En e rgy Re gu la t ory Boa rd reau of Cus toms, Burea u of Trea sury a nd In suran ce
w h i c h r e g u l a t e s t h e p ow e r a n d e n e r g y b u s i n e s s a n d t h e Commission.
H ou si n g a n d L a n d U se Re g u l a t ory B oa rd w h i c h re g u l a t e s
t h e h ou si n g b u si n e ss. Th e se a ge n c i e s e xe rc i se som e 4. The Department of Transportation and Communication
sign ifica n t combin a t ion of e xe cu t ive , le gisla t ive a n d h a s 2 0 a t t a c h e d a g e n c i e s s u c h a s t h e LTO , LT F R B , M A-
ju di ci a l powe rs. R I N A , C A A P, M RT, P h i l i p p i n e C o a s t G u a r d , To l l R e g u l a -
tory Board, LRTA and Manila International Airport Au-
thority.
➢ B r o a d a n d n a r r o w d e f inition of administrative Law-
• Administrati ve Law i s part of or b elongs to the

field of public law. Public law is defined as that
branch of law which governs relations between CREATI ON OF A DMI N I STRATI VE A G EN CI ES (HOW A N D
g o v e r n m e n t a n d i t s s u b j e c t s . I t i n c l u d e s c o n s t i t u- WHY ) - Th e l a w w h i c h c re a t e d a d m i n i st ra t i ve a g e n c i e s,
tional law, criminal law and international law. t h e ru le s a n d re gu la t i on s p rom u lga t e d b y t h e m , a n d t h e
b od y of d e c i s i on s t h a t t h e y h a v e fr om t i m e t o t i m e
• Broad definition of administr at ive law- I t r ef er s to re n de re d i n t h e a dju di ca t i on of ca se s brou gh t be fore
all laws that regulate or control the administrative t h e m n ow c on st i t u t e t h e b u lk of a d m i n i st ra t i ve la w.
1
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
DO CTRI N E O F QUA LI F I ED PO LI TI CA L A G EN CY A. Expre ss a n d I mplie d Powe rs - t h e ju risdict ion a n d

p ow e r s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s a r e m e a s u r e d a n d
C A R PI O V S . EXEC U TI V E S EC R ETA RY limit e d by t h e Con st it u t ion or la w cre a t in g t h e m or
gr ant ing t h eir powers , t o t hos e confer red expr es sly or
TH E PRESI D EN T H AS C ON TROL POW ERS OV ER TH E EXEC- b y n e c e s s a r y or fa i r i m p l i c a t i on . I t m u s t b e l i b e r a l l y
U TI V E BR AN C H OF TH E G OV ER N M EN T; — I t i s a fu n d a-
c on s t r u e d t o e n a b l e t h e m t o d i s c h a r g e t h e i r a s s i g n e d
m e n t a l l y a c c e p t e d p r i n c i p l e i n C on s t i t u t i on a l L a w t h a t d u t i e s i n a c c or d a n c e w i t h t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p u r p os e
t h e Pre si d e n t h a s c on t rol of a ll e xe c u t i ve d e p a rt m e n t s,
b u r e a u s , a n d offi c e s . A s t h e Pr e s i d e n t c a n n ot b e e x -
p e c t e d t o e x e r c i s e h i s c on t r ol p ow e r s a l l a t t h e s a m e
t i m e a n d i n p e rson , h e w i ll h a ve t o d e le ga t e som e of * C on s t i t u t i on – c re a t e s a n d e m p ow e rs a n a d m i n i s-
t h e m t o h i s C a b i n e t m e m b e rs, w h o i n t u rn a n d b y h i s t ra t i ve a ge n c y t h rou gh a p rovi si on
a u t h ori t y, c on t rol t h e b u re a u s a n d ot h e r offi c e s u n d e r
t h e i r re sp e c t i ve ju ri sd i c t i on s i n t h e e xe c u t i ve d e p a rt -
ment.
* S t a t u t e s u n d e r w h i c h a d m i n i s t ra t i ve a g e n c y
· D e p a rt m e n t s e c re t a ri e s a re a l t e r e g os or a s s i s t a n t s of c l a i m s t o a c t – s ou r c e a n d p ow e r s of a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
t h e p re si d e n t a n d t h e i r a c t s a re p re su m e d t o b e t h e agencies
a c t s of t h e Pre si d e n t , u n le ss d i sa p p rove d , re p u d i a t e s,
or re p rob a t e d b y h i m .
B. INHERENT POWERS – An a dmin ist ra t ive a ge n cy h a s
N O I N H ER EN T PO W ER S , a l t h ou g h i m p l i e d p ow e rs m a y
S E PA R AT I O N O F P O W E R S some t ime s be spok e n of a s in h e re n t .
PA N TR A N C O V. PS C - > Th e t h e ory of t h e s e p a ra t i on of
p ow e r s i s d e s i g n e d b y i t s or i g i n a t or s t o s e c u r e a c t i on
a n d a t t h e sa m e t i m e t o fore st a ll ove r a c t i on w h i c h
n e c e ssa ri ly re su lt s from u n d u e c on c e n t ra t i on of p ow - 3. SCOPE OF POWERS/EXTEN T OF POWERS
e rs, a n d t h e re b y ob t a i n e fc i e n c y a n d p re ve n t d e sp o-
t i sm .
A. As t o Na t u re :
2. POWERS AN D F UN CTION S OF ADMIN ISTRATIVE • Investigative or advisory (executive or administra-

A G EN CI ES / S O URCE THEREO F tive)
2
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
• Quasi-legislative or rule making
• Quasi-judicial, determinative or adjudicatory powers B. Powe rs wit h in t h e ir ju risdict ion boa rd - Admin ist ra-
t i ve b od i e s p osse ss on ly su c h p ow e rs a n d a u t h ori t y c on-
fe rre d t o t h e m b y t h e c on st i t u t i on or sp e c i c a lly gra n t-
e d t o t h e m b y t h e i r e n a b li n g st a t u t e s a n d t h ose t h a t
m a y n e n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i e d i n t h e e x e r c i s e t h e r e of or
B. As t o De gre e of su bje ct ive ch oice : i n c i d e n t a l t o t h e a t t a i n m e n t of t h e i r p u rp os e s .
• Discretionary - power or right conferred upon them C . Pow e r s s u b j e c t t o t h e C on s t i t u t i on , a p p l i c a b l e l a w,

by law of acting ofcially under certain circumstances, or a d m i n i st ra t i ve re gu la t i on – p re su m p t i on of c on st i t u-
according to the dictates of their own judgment and t i on a li t y a n d le ga li t y t o w h i c h st a t u t e s a n d a d m i n i st ra -
conscience, and not controlled b y th e ju dg ment or t i ve re gu la t i on s a re e n t i t le d u n t i l su c h st a t u e or re gu-
la t ion is re pe a le d or a me n de d, or u n t il se t a side in a n
conscience of others.
a p p rop ri a t e c a se b y a c om p e t e n t c ou rt , a n d u lt i m a t e ly
b y t h e S u p r e m e C ou r t . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s h a v e n o
i n h e re n t p ow e rs , t h e i r p ow e rs c a n n ot b e a s s u m e d n or
• Ministe rial – perf ormed in response to a dut y which c a n s u c h p ow e r s b e c on fe r r e d b y c ou r t . D e n i t i on of A d -
has been positively imposed by law and its perfor- m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w : I t i s t h e p a r t of p u b l i c i n t e r n a t i on a l
mance required at a ti me and in a m anner or upon la w wh ich gove rn s t h e orga n iza t ion , fu n ct ion s a n d pro-
conditions specically designated, t he duty t o perform c e d u r e s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s of t h e g ov e r n m e n t
under the conditions specied not being dependent t o w h i c h q u a si - le gi sla t i ve p ow e rs a re d e le ga t e d a n d
u p o n t h e o f c e r ’s j u d g m e n t o r d i s c r e t i o n . q u a s i - j u d i c i a l p ow e r s a r e g r a n t e d a n d t h e e x t e n t a n d
m a n n e r t o w h i c h s u c h a g e n c i e s a r e s u b j e c t t o c on t r ol
b y c ou r t s .
4. N ATURE OF POWERS Read : M akat i S t ock E xch an g e v s . S E C, 14 S CRA 620 -

Statut es conf erring powers o n admin ag encies m ust be
l ib e ra l l y c on st rue d t o e n a b l e t h e m t o d isc h a rg e t h e ir a s -
A. Ju risdict ion limit e d – Ju risdict ion a n d powe rs a re sign ed duties in a ccorda n ce with the l egisl a tive purpose.
m e a s u r e d a n d l i m i t e d b y t h e c on s t i t u t i on or l a w c r e a t-
C a s e # 1 : M A K AT I S TO C K E XC HA N G E , I N C . , pe t i t i o n e r, v s .
i n g t h e m . Ju ri s d i c t i on of a d m i n i s t ra t i ve ofc e rs a n d
S E C UR I T I E S A N D E XC HA N G E C O M M I S S I O N an d M A N I LA
a g e n c i e s i s sp e c i a l a n d li m i t e d .
S TO C K E XC HA N G E , r espo n den t s. [ G . R . N o . L- 2 3 0 0 4 . Ju n e
30, 1965] - > N O , t he S EC does n ot hav e t he aut hor i t y t o
3
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
pr om ulg at e t he r ule i n q uest i on . I t i s fun dam en t al t hat ABELLERA, ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD HON.
an adm i n i st rat i v e ofcer has on ly such power s as ar e ex - LEOPOLDO M. ABELLERA, ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE
pr essly g ran t ed t o hi m by t he st at ut e, an d t hose n eces - B O A R D O F T R A N S P O R TAT I O N , H O N . G O D O F R E D O Q .
A S U N C I O N , M E M B E R O F T R A N S P O R TAT I O N , H O N . G O D -
sar i ly i m pli ed i n t he ex er ci se t her eof.   OFREDO Q. ASUNCION, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
  TRANSPORTATION, ARTURO DELA CRUZ, MS OF THE
1 . Te st for d e t e rm i n i n g t h e e x i st e n c e of a u t h ori t y ― Th e B O A R D O F T R A N S P O R TAT I O N , A R T U R O D E L A C R U Z ,
MS TRAN SPO RTATION CO ., I NC., NEW FAMILIA TRANS-
c om m i s s i on c i t e s n o p r ov i s i on of l a w e x p r e s s l y s u p p or t i n g POR TATIO N CO ., TRANS PORTATI ON CO. , INC., NE W FA -
i t s ru l e a g a i n s t d ou b l e l i s t i n g . I t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e p ow e r MI LIA TRAN SPO RTATION CO. , ROBERTO MOJ ARES , E T
i s n e c e s s a ry for t h e e x e c u t i on of t h e fu n c t i on s ve s t e d i n A L . R O B E R TO M O J A R E S , E T A L . , r e s p o n d e n t s [G.R. No.
i t . I t a rg u e s t h a t s a i d ru l e w a s a p p rove d b y t h e D e p a rt - L-45839 June 1, 1988] -> Yes, the BOT have the power, at
m e n t H e a d b e for e t h e w a r a n d i t i s n ot i n c on fl i c t w i t h t h e the t ime the peti tions we re l ed, to l egitim ize c la nd estine
p r ov i s i on s of t h e S e c u r i t i e s A c t . Th e a p p r ov a l of t h e D e - operations under PD no. 101.
p a r t m e n t , b y i t s e l f, a d d s n o w e i g h t i n j u d i c i a l l i t i g a t i on . 1 ) Ex e rc i se of t h e p ow e r n ot su b je c t t o t h e a lle g e d t i m e li m i-
Th e t e st i s n ot w h e t h e r t h e Ac t forb i d s C om m i ssi on from t a t i on . "A re a d i n g of Se c t i on ! sh ow s a gra n t of p ow e r t o t h e
i m p os i n g a p roh i b i t i on b u t w h e t h e r i t e m p ow e rs t h e C om - re spon de n t Boa rd t o i ssu e provi si on a l pe rmi t s a s a st e p t o -
m i s s i on t o p r oh i b i t . I t i s n ot fou n d i n s e c . 2 8 ( of t h e S e c u - w a r d s t h e l e g a l i za t i on of c ol or u m t a x i c a b op e r a t or s w i t h ou t
ri t i e s Act ) , wh i ch i s e n t i t le d "Powe rs ( of t h e Commi ssi on ) t h e a lle ge d t i m e li m i t a t i on . Th e re i s n ot h i n g i n Se c t i on 4 t o
w i t h Re s p e c t t o Ex c h a n g e s a n d S e c u r i t i e s . " A c c or d i n g t o su gge st t h e e xpira t ion of su ch powe rs six (6 ) mon t h s a ft e r
m a n y c ou r t p r e c e d e n t s , t h e g e n e r a l p ow e r t o " r e g u l a t e " p r om u l g a t i on of t h e D e c r e e . R a t h e r, i t m e r e l y p r ov i d e s for t h e
w h i c h t h e C om m i s s i on h a s ( S e c . 3 3 ) d oe s n ot i m p l y a u t h or- w i t h d r a w a l of t h e S t a t e ' s w a i v e r of i t s r i g h t t o p u n i s h s a i d
i t y t o p roh i b i t . "   c ol or u m op e r a t or s for t h e i r i l l e g a l a c t s . I n ot h e r w or d s , t h e
c i t e d s e c t i on d e c l a r e s w h e n t h e p e r i od of m or a t or i u m s u s-
 
p e n d i n g t h e r e l e n t l e s s d r i v e t o e l i m i n a t e i l l e g a l op e r a t or s
2 . C om m i ssi on w i t h ou t p ow e r t o i m p ose p roh i b i t i on ― Th e
sh a ll e n d.
C om m i s s i on p os s e s s e s n o p ow e r t o i m p os e t h e c on d i t i on of
t h e ru le w h i c h re su lt s i n d i sc ri m i n a t i on a n d vi ola t i on of C l e a r l y, t h e r e i s n o i m p e d i m e n t t o t h e B oa r d ' s e x e r c i s e of j u -
c on s t i t u t i on a l r i g h t s . I t i s fu n d a m e n t a l t h a t a n a d m i n i s t r a- ri sdi ct i on u n de r i t s broa d powe rs u n de r t h e Pu bli c Se rvi ce Act
t i ve ofc e r h a s su c h p ow e rs a s a re e xp re ssly gra n t e d t o h i m t o i ssu e c e rt i c a t e d of p u b li c c on ve n i e n c e t o a c h i e ve t h e
b y s t a t u t e , a n d t h os e n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i e d i n t h e e x e r c i s e a vow e d p u rp ose of PD N o. 1 0 1
t h e re of. Ac c ord i n gly, t h e li c e n se of M a k a t i St oc k Exc h a n ge
i s a p p rove d w i t h ou t s u c h c on d i t i on a g a i n s t d ou b l e l i s t i n g . I t i s a se t t l e d p ri n c i p l e of d e t e rm i n i n g w h e t h e r a b oa rd or
c om m i s s i on h a s a c e r t a i n p ow e r, t h e a u t h or i t y g i v e n s h ou l d b e
libe ra lly con st ru e d in t h e ligh t of t h e pu rpose s for wh ich it
w a s c r e a t e d a n d t h a t w h i c h i s i n c i d e n t a l l y n e c e s s a r y t o a fu l l
C a s e # 2 : R U N O M AT I E N Z O , G O D O F R E D O E S P I R I T U ,
D I O S C O R R O F R A N C O , A N D L A S U E R T E T R A N S P O R TA- i m p l e m e n t a t i on of t h e l e g i s l a t i ve i n t e n t s h ou l d b e u p h e l d a s
TION CORPORATION AND LA SUERTE TRANSPORTATION b e i n g g e r m a n e t o t h e l a w. N e c e s s a r i l y, t oo, w h e r e t h e e n d i s
C O R P O R AT I O N , p e t i t i o n e r s , v s . H O N . L E O P O L D O M . re qu i re d, t h e a ppropri a t e me a n s a re de e me d gi ve n .
4
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
A . I n v est i g at o r y po wer s – Th i s i s on e of t h e d i s t i n c t i ve
fu n c t i on s w h i c h se t a d m i n i st ra t i ve a ge n c i e s a p a rt from t h e
c ou r t , t h i s p ow e r i s c on fe r r e d on p r a c t i c a l l y a l l a d m i n i s - Case #3: PA BLO CATURA an d LUZ SA LVA DOR, p e t i t i on e r s ,  
t ra t i ve a ge n c i e s. vs. THE COURT OF I N DUSTRI A L RELATI ON S an d CELESTI N O
TA B A N I A G , e t a l . , re sp on d e n t s. [ G . R . N o. L - 2 7 3 9 2 . Ja n u a ry
1. Scope: a ) i n sp e c t i on of re c ord s a n d p re m i se s; b ) i n ve s- 3 0 , 1 9 7 1 ] - > Y ES , t he r espon den t Cour t can r equi r e a labor
t i ga t i on of t h e a c t i vi t i e s of p e rson s or e n t i t i e s c om i n g u n- organizat ion’s docum ent s relat ed t o it s nances be delivered
d e r i t s j u r i s d i c t i on ; c ) or s e c u r i n g , r e q u i r i n g t h e d i s c l o- an d deposi t ed wi t h i t at t he hear i n g t o con duct such i n v es-
su re of in forma t ion by me a n s of re cords, re port s, st a t e- t i gat i on wi t hout t he ofci als of such labor or gan i z at i on bei n g
m e n t s , t e s t i m on y of w i t n e s s e s a n d p r od u c t i on of d oc u- heard pri or t o i t s i ssuan ce. Th e p ow e r t o i n ve st i ga t e , t o b e
ments. ra t i on a l a t t h e ve ry le a st , re qu i re s a n i n qu i ry i n t o e xi st i n g
fa c t s a n d c on d i t i on s.
2) As sole powers grant ed – a c t m e re l y a s i n ve st i g a t ory or
a d vi sory b od i e s, t h a t i s, t h e y e x i st sole ly t o se c u re a n d Sec. 17 of the Industrial Peace Act s tates that mem bers
p r ov i d e i n for m a t i on or m a k e r e c om m e n d a t i on s . sh a ll be e n t it le d t o in spe ct t h e re port s of a ll n a n cia l t ra n sa c-
t i on s a s p rovi d e d i n t h e c on st i t u t i on a n d b y - la w s of t h e orga -
3) As aid t o ot her powers – I n i t s g a t h e ri n g , org a n i zi n g n i za t i on ; t h a t fu n d s of t h e org a n i za t i on sh a ll n ot b e a p p li e d
a n d a n a ly zi n g e vi d e n c e , i t n ow b e c om e s a u se fu l a i d or for a n y p u rp ose ; a n d t h a t re c ord s of t h e n a n c i a l a c t i vi t i e s of
t ool i n t h e a ge n c y ’s p e rform a n c e of i t s ru le - m a k i n g or a le g i t i m a t e la b or org a n i za t i on sh a ll b e op e n i n sp e c t i on b y
q u a s i - j u d i c i a l fu n c t i on s ( e g . , LTF R B r e U b e r, G r a b C a r, ER C a n y ofc i a l or m e m b e r of t h e la b or org a n i za t i on .
re pri ce ma n i pu la t i on of powe r produ ce rs , e t c. ) . As di st i n- The Cou rt j ust exercised its statutory power of investi-
gu ish ed from judici al f unct ions, t he lat t e r is t he power gat ion t o inv est igat e and t o as sure compliance, on t he part of
a n d a u t h ori t y t o a d ju d i c a t e u p on t h e ri g h t s a n d ob li g a- p e t i t i on e r s , w i t h t h e i n t e r n a l l a b or or g a n i za t i on p r oc e d u r e s .
t i on s b e fore i t . Th e p ow e r t o i n ve st i ga t e c on si st s on ly of All t h a t t h e ch a lle n ge d orde r did wa s t o re qu ire pe t it ion e rs of
i n ve s t i g a t i n g t h e fa c t s a n d m a k i n g n d i n g s a n d re c om m e n- t h e la b or t o "d e li ve r a n d d e p osi t " w i t h re sp on d e n t C ou rt a ll of
d a t i on s t h e r e t o. I n a d m i n p r oc e e d i n g s , r e s p on d e n t h a s t h e i t s d oc u m e n t s re l a t e d t o i t s n a n c e s a t t h e h e a ri n g .
op t i on of e n ga gi n g t h e se rvi c e s of c ou n se l or n ot . Therefore, there s hould be no question about the cor -
re ct n e ss of t h e orde r h e re i n ch a lle n ge d. I t ca n n ot be sa i d
4) As dist inguished from judicial funct ions – I t s p ow e r i s t h a t su c h a re q u i re m e n t i s b e y on d t h e st a t u t ory p ow e r c on-
limit e d t o in ve st iga t in g t h e fa ct s a n d ma k in g n din gs a n d fe rre d . Th e d oc u m e n t s re q u i re d t o b e p rod u c e d c on st i t u t e s
re comme n da t i on s. e vi d e n c e of t h e m ost soli d c h a ra c t e r a s t o w h e t h e r or n ot
t h e re w a s a fa i lu re t o c om p ly w i t h t h e m a n d a t e s of t h e la w.
An a ge n cy ca n on ly compe l a t t e n da n ce a n d pre se n ce of
w i t n e s s e s a n d p u n i s h for c on t e m p t i n c a s e of n on - c om p l i -
a n c e i f su c h p ow e rs h a ve b e e n c on fe rre d u p on i t . I n a d m i n B . R u l e- m ak i n g po wer s
p r oc e e d i n g s , t e c h n i c a l r u l e s of p r oc e d u r e a n d e v i d e n c e
1 . Ba si c p ri n c i p le s
a re n ot re q u i re d .
5
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
- D oc t ri n e of s e p a ra t i on of p ow e rs ( re n d e ri n g of a n op i n i on , s t a t e m e n t of p ol i c y ) . Th e d i s-
t i n c t i on i s i m p ort a n t b e c a u se d u e p roc e ss ge n e ra lly a p p ly
- D oc t ri n e of n on - d e l e g a t i on of p ow e rs t o le gi sla t i ve ru li n gs. L e gi sla t i ve ru le s m a y re q u i re n ot i c e
a n d h e a ri n g i f t h e la w so re q u i re s a n d t h e ru le a d d s a b u r-
- D oc t ri n e of n on - d e l e g a t i on n ot a b s ol u t e d e n t o t h e g ov e r n e d . Pu b l i c a t i on i s a l s o r e q u i r e d for l e g -
i s l a t i ve ru l i n g s e x c e p t i f t h e y a re i n t e rn a l re g u l a t i on s .
- N e e d for d e l e g a t i on
Ru l e m a k i n g p ow e r s i m p l y m e a n s t h e p ow e r t o m a k e r u l e s
a n d re g u la t i on s n e c e ssa ry t o c a rry ou t i t s fu n c t i on s a n d t o 1.) Effect of valid rules or regulat ions
i m p l e m e n t t h e l a w i t i s e n t ru s t e d t o e n forc e . I t i s a l s o
c a l l e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e g i s l a t i on , d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i on , a . Th e ru le s a n d re g u la t i on s m u st h a ve b e e n i ssu e d on t h e
ord i n a n c e m a k i n g a n d q u a si - le gi sla t i on . Th e st a t u t ory a u t h ori t y of la w
gran t of ru le- maki ng power t o administ rat iv e agencies is a
va li d e xce pt i on on n on - de le ga t i on of le gi sla t i ve powe r b . Th e y m u s t n ot b e c on t r a r y t o l a w a n d t h e C on s t i t u t i on
p r ov i d e d 2 c on d i t i on s a r e p r e s e n t n a m e l y :
c . Th e y m u s t b e p r om u l g a t e d i n a c c or d a n c e w i t h t h e p r e -
a. The statute is complete in itself, setting forth the policy scribe d proce du re
to be executed by the agency.
d . Th e y m u s t b e r e a s on a b l e , fa i r a n d n ot d i s c r i m i n a t or y
b. The statute xes a standard and xes the boundaries of
the agency’s authority. e . Th e y m u st b e w i t h i n t h e p ow e rs g ra n t e d t o i t b y la w
A va li d ru le or re gu la t i on du ly promu lga t e d by a n a dmi n i s-

t ra t i ve a ge n c y h a s t h e forc e a n d e ffe c t of la w a n d i s b i n d-
2.) Am endm ent /Repeal of adm inist rat ive rules and regu -
i n g on t h e a g e n c y a n d a l l t h os e d e a l i n g w i t h t h e a g e n c y.
lat ions
An a dmin ist ra t ive a ge n cy ma y ma k e on ly ru le s a n d re gu la -
- > A n a d m i n i s t ra t i ve a g e n c y ord i n a ri l y h a s t h e a u t h ori t y t o
t i on s w i t h i n t h e li m i t s of t h e p ow e r s gra n t e d t o i t b y t h e
c h a n g e , a l t e r, a m e n d , or c or r e c t t h e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i on s
la w cre a t in g it a n d in ca se of con flict be t we e n t h e ba sic
d u l y p r om u l g a t e d b y i t . Th e fa c t t h a t a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
la w a n d t h e ru le or re gu la t ion , t h e forme r pre va ils. Ru le
ru le h a s be e n a me n de d doe s n ot n e ce ssa ri ly me a n t h a t t h e
p r om u l g a t i on of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s c a n n ot ov e r r i d e ,
e a rli e r ru le w a s u n re a son a b le . S i n c e i t i s d i sc re t i on a ry
su ppla n t , modify or a me n d t h e la w bu t mu st re ma in con-
w i t h s u c h a n a g e n c y w h e t h e r i t w i l l t a k e s u c h a c t i on , t h e
sist e n t wit h t h e la w t h e y in t e n d t o ca rry ou t .
e x e rc i se of su c h d i sc re t i on i n t h e p u b li c i n t e re st i s n ot
- L e g i s l a t i ve a n d i n t e rp re t a t i ve ru l e s - Th e p ow e r t o c re a t e su bje ct t o ju dicia l con t rol.
n e w a n d a d d i t i on a l p rovi si on s t h a t h a ve t h e e ffe c t of la w
( a ) I n ord e r t o b e va l i d , a c h a n g e i n a re g u l a t i on m u s t b e
i s l e g i s l a t i ve w h i l e i n t e rp re t a t i ve ru l e s i n t e rp re t e x i s t i n g
m a d e i n a c c or d a n c e w i t h s t a t u t or y p r oc e d u r a l r e q u i r e -
la ws a n d provide gu ide lin e s t o t h e la w t h a t t h e y in t e rpre t
m e n t s , s u c h a s r e q u i r e m e n t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o n ot i c e a n d
6
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
h e a ri n g a s w e ll a s w i t h re sp e c t t o t h e vot e n e c e ssa ry t o > so t oo, i f i t c a n b e sh ow n t h a t a p a rt i c u la r ru le w a s e s -
make a change. t a b li sh e d sole ly for t h e a ge n c y ’s sole c on ve n i e n c e , i t m a y
be waived by the agency
( b ) A s a g e n e ra l p ra c t i c e , a n a d m i n i s t ra t i ve ru l e s h ou l d
n ot b e a m e n d e d so a s t o e ffe c t a re t roa c t i ve c h a n g e , a n d > a t t h e op p osi t e e x t re m e , i t i s c le a r t h a t a n a g e n c y w i ll
t h e ri gh t s of a p e rson a c q u i re d b e fore t h e a m e n d m e n t of a n ot b e p e rm i t t e d t o a d op t a sp e c i a l ru le of p roc e d u re for
ru le h a ve be e n h e ld de t e rmi n a ble u n de r t h e provi si on s of t h e p u rp ose of a ffe c t i n g t h e ou t c om e of a p a rt i c u la r c a se ,
su ch ru le prior t o su ch a me n dme n t . H owe ve r, wh e re a n or ( w i t h a c on sc i ou s d e si re t ow a rd s t h e e n d ) w i llfu lly t o
a d m i n i st ra t i ve re g u la t i on w h i c h p u rp ort s t o i n t e rp re t a i g n ore a ru l e i n a p a rt i c u l a r c a s e . B u t i n c a s e s w h e re t h e
st a t u t e bu t is ou t of h a rmon y t h e re wit h is a me n de d so a s re cord cle a rly e st a bli sh e s t h a t di sre ga rd of a n a ge n cy ’s
t o c orre c t ly a p p ly su c h st a t u t e , su c h a m e n d m e n t h a s b e e n p r oc e d u r a l r u l e s c ou l d n ot h a v e p r e j u d i c e d a n y p a r t y t o
h e ld n ot su b je c t t o t h e ob je c t i on of b e i n g re t roa c t i ve , t h e p roc e e d i n g, t h e d e p a rt u re from p re sc ri b e d p roc e d u re s
sin ce it is, in fa ct , t h e rst corre ct a pplica t ion of t h e la w. i s n ot fa t a l .
( c ) W h e re a d m i n i s t ra t i ve b od i e s e x e rc i s e re g u l a t ory or - c om p l i a n c e w i t h d u e p roc e s s ( n ot i c e a n d h e a ri n g )
q u a s i - l e g i s l a t i v e p ow e r, l a y i n g d ow n r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i on s ,
e ve n sp e c i c ord e rs t o b e ob se rve d b y p e rson s su b je c t - n o re t roa c t i vi t y
t h e re t o, t h e d oc t ri n e of re s ju d i c a t a i s n ot a p p li c a b le .
- n ot b ou n d b y t h e d oc t ri n e of re s ju d i c a t a
Such rul es and regulat ions, or orders may be amended,
m od i e d , or r e v ok e d t o c on for m t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e
la w or t h e de ma n ds of pu blic in t e re st . Bu t e ve n t h ou gh a n
a d m i n i st ra t i ve a g e n c y i s n ot b ou n d b y t h e ru le of re s ju d i- 3.) Requirem ent s of N ot ice, hearing and publicat ion
c a t a , i t i s b ou n d t o r e c og n i ze t h e v a l i d i t y of a r u l e of
c on d u c t p r e s c r i b e d b y i t , a n d n ot t o r e p e a l i t s ow n e n a c t- ( a ) G e n e ra l l y, p ri or n ot i c e a n d h e a ri n g a re n ot e s s e n t i a l t o
m e n t w i t h r e t r oa c t i v e e ffe c t . t h e va li d i t y of ru le s a n d re gu la t i on s p rom u lga t e d t o gov -
e rn fu t u re c on d u c t . Qu a si le g i sla t i ve p ow e r i s e x e rc i se d b y
( d ) I n t h e c a s e of p roc e d u ra l ru l e s , i t i s oft e n e x p e d i t i ou s a d m i n i st ra t i ve a g e n c i e s t h rou g h t h e p rom u lg a t i on of ru le s
for a n a ge n c y t o i gn ore a c e rt a i n ru le i n a p a rt i c u la r c a se w i t h i n t h e c on n e s of t h e g r a n t i n g s t a t u e a n d t h e d oc t r i n e
a n d a d op t t h e re i n a d i ffe re n t p roc e d u re t h a n t h a t c on- of n on - d e le ga t i on of c e rt a i n p ow e rs flow i n g from t h e se p-
t e m p la t e d b y t h e a ge n c y ’s ru le . a ra t i on of t h e t h re e b ra n c h e s of t h e g ove rn m e n t . Pri or n o-
t i c e a n d h e a ri n g of e ve ry a ffe c t e d p a rt y i s n ot re q u i re d
> of c ou rse , t h e p a rt i e s m a y volu n t a ri ly w a i ve c om p li a n c e sin ce t h e re is n o de t e rmin a t ion of pa st e ve n t s or fa ct s
w i t h p r oc e d u r a l r u l e s , a n d s u c h w a i v e r m a y b e fou n d e d on t h a t h a ve t o b e e st a b li sh e d or a sc e rt a i n e d .
a c t s a s w e ll a s u p on ve rb a l d e c la ra t i on s.
( b ) W h e re ru l e s d o n ot a p p l y t o n a m e d or s p e c i e d p a rt i e s –
> si m i la rly, d i sre g a rd of m i n u t i a e of p roc e d u ra l n i c e t i e s w h e r e a fu n c t i on , l e g i s l a t i v e i n n a t u r e , r a t h e r t h a n a j u d i -
w i l l b e t ol e r a t e d , w h e r e i t c l e a r l y a p p e a r s n o p r e j u d i c e c i a l fu n c t i on , i s d e l e g a t e d t o a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y,
re su lt e d. t h e le gi sla t u re n e e d n ot re q u i re a n ot i c e or h e a ri n g a s a
7
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e a c t of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y, s i n c e t e rn a l i n n a t u re , t h a t i s, re gu la t i n g on ly t h e p e rson n e l of
t h e le gi sla t u re c ou ld i t se lf h a ve p e rform e d t h a t a c t w i t h- t h e a d m i n i st ra t i ve a ge n c y a n d n ot t h e p u b li c , n e e d n ot b e
ou t n ot i c e a n d h e a ri n g p a rt i c u la rly w h e re t h e ru le s a re of p u b l i s h e d . N e i t h e r i s p u b l i c a t i on r e q u i r e d of s o- c a l l e d l e t-
a g e n e ra l a p p li c a t i on , or p roc e d u ra l i n n a t u re , or a re n o t e rs of i n st ru c t i on s i ssu e d b y a d m i n i st ra t i ve su p e ri ors c on -
m or e t h a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i on s . Th u s , i t h a s c e r n i n g t h e r u l e s or g u i d e l i n e s t o b e fol l ow e d b y t h e i r
b e e n h e l d t h a t w h e n t h e r u l e s , e v e n w h e n t h e y i n v ol v e t h e su bordin a t e s in t h e pe rforma n ce of t h e ir du t ie s.
xing of rat e s, are me ant t o apply t o all en t erprises of a
given ki nd t hroughout t he Philippines (eg DECS Order pre- C a s e # 4 : K I L U S A N G M AY O U N O L A B O R
C E N T E R , p e t i t i o n e r, v s . H O N . J E S U S B . G A R C I A , J R . , t h e
scribin g t h e ma ximu m sch ool fe e s t h a t ma y be ch a rge d by
LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY
a ll p ri va t e sc h ools i n t h e c ou n t ry for a p a rt i c u la r sc h ool B O A R D , a n d t h e P R O V I N C I A L B U S O P E R ATO R S A S S O C I A-
y e a r) , n o p re vi ou s n ot i c e or h e a ri n g i s re q u i re d . TION OF THE PHILIPPINES, re spo nd en ts. [G.R. No. 115381
D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 9 4 ] -> N o , t h e a u t h o r i t y g i v e n b y LT F R B
( c ) W h e re ru l e s a p p l y t o n a m e d or s p e c i e d p a rt i e s – w h e re and DOTC to PBOAP to increase/decrease the fare without
su ch ru le s a n d/ or ra t e s a pply e xclu sive ly t o a pa rt icu la r a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h LT F R B a n d w i t h o u t h e a r i n g a n d a p p r o v a l i s
p a r t y a n d a r e p r e d i c a t e d u p on a n d i n g of fa c t ( e g b a s e d not valid .
u p on a re p ort su b m i t t e d b y t h e C om m i ssi on on Au d i t ) , Sect ion 16 (c) of t he Public Service Act , as am ended, reads :
w h i c h fa c t i s d e n i e d b y s a i d p a r t y, t h e a g e n c y i n m a k i n g S ec. 1 6 . P r o ceedi n g s o f t h e C o m m i ssi o n , u po n n o t i ce an d
su ch n din g of fa ct , pe rforms a fu n ct ion pa rt a k in g of a qu a - heari n g. — Th e C om m ission sh a l l h a ve p ow e r, up on p rop e r n o-
si-ju dicia l ch a ra ct e r t h e va lid e xe rcise of wh ich de ma n ds a tice a n d hea rin g in a ccorda n ce with the rules a n d provision s
p r e v i ou s n ot i c e a n d h e a r i n g t o s a t i s fy t h e r e q u i r e m e n t of of th is Act, sub je ct h e a rin g in a ccord a n ce w ith th e rul e s a n d
p rov is ion s of t h is A c t , s ub j e c t t o t h e l im it a t ion s a n d e x c e p-
d u e p r oc e s s .
tion s men tion ed a n d sa vin g provision s to the limita tion s a n d
e x c e p t ion s m e n t ion e d a n d s a v in g p rov is ion s t o t h e c on t ra ry :
( d ) W h e re re q u i re m e n t s p re s c ri b e d b y l a w – u n d e r t h e A d- xxx
m i n i s t r a t i v e C od e of 1 9 8 7 , n ot i c e s of p r op os e d r u l e s m u s t ( c ) To x a n d d e t e rm i n e i n d i vi d u a l or joi n t ra t e s , t ol l s ,
b e g i v e n w h e n r e q u i r e d b y l a w ; ot h e r w i s e , s u c h n ot i c e s c h a r g e s , c l a s s i c a t i on s , or s c h e d u l e s t h e r e of, a s w e l l a s
sh a ll be circu la t e d a s fa r a s pra ct ica ble t o a fford in t e r - c om m u t a t i on , m i l e a g e k i l om e t r a g e , a n d ot h e r s p e c i a l
e st e d p a rt i e s t h e op p ort u n i t y t o su b m i t t h e i r vi e w s p ri or ra t e s wh i ch sh a ll be i mpose d, obse rve d, a n d followe d
t o t h e a d op t i on of a n y ru le . Bu t a n y ru le w h i c h xe s ra t e s t h e re a ft e r b y a n y p u b li c se rvi c e : P rov id ed , Th a t t h e
C om m i s s i on m a y, i n i t s d i s c r e t i on , a p p r ov e r a t e s p r o-
sh a ll n ot be va lid u n le ss t h e propose d ra t e s sh a ll h a ve
p os e d b y p u b l i c s e r v i c e s p r ov i s i on a l l y a n d w i t h ou t n e-
b e e n p u b l i s h e d a n d h e a r i n g s c on d u c t e d w i t h t h e r u l e s on c e s s i t y of a n y h e a r i n g ; b u t it s h all call a h earin g
c on t e s t e d c a s e s t o b e ob s e r v e d i n c a s e of op p os i t i on . thereon within thirty d a ys therea ft er, upon public a-
tio n and notice to the c onc erns operating in the ter-
( e ) W h e re ru l e s h a ve t h e forc e a n d e ffe c t of l a w – i s - ritory affected …
su a n ce s by a n a dmin ist ra t ive a ge n cy t o e n force or imple -
m e n t a n e x i s t i n g l a w h a v e t h e for c e a n d e ffe c t of l a w. G i ve n t h e c om p l e x i t y of t h e n a t u re of t h e fu n c t i on of ra t e -
xing an d it s far -reaching effect s on m illions of com m ut ers ,
( f) W h e re re g u l a t i on s m e re l y i n t e rp re t a t i ve a n d i n t e rn a l i n gov ernme nt must not relinquish t his impo rt ant funct ion i n fa-
n a t u re – i n t e rp re t a t i ve re g u la t i on s a n d t h ose m e re ly i n - vor of t h ose wh o wou ld be n e t a n d prot from t h e i n du st ry.
N e it h e r s h o u l d t h e r e qu is it e n o t ice a n d h e a r in g b e d o n e
8
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
aw ay w ith. T h e pe o pl e , r e pr e s e n t e d b y r e pu t a b l e o ppo s i- functions, and such conferment cannot be implied from a
tor s, dese rve to be g iven full opportunity to be heard in mer e grant o f p ower to a bo d y or a ge ncy.
their op position to any fare increase.
2) The delegation by Congress to executive or administra -
Th e p re se n t a d m i n i st ra t i ve p roc e d u re , a lre a d y m i rrors a n or- tive agencies of functions of judicial, or at least quasi-
d e r l y a n d s a t i s fa c t or y a r r a n g e m e n t for a l l p a r t i e s i n v ol v e d . judicial functions which are incidental to the exercise by
To d o a w a y w i t h s u c h a pr o c e d u r e a n d a l l o w j u s t o n e pa r-
ty, a n i nt erested party at that, to determi ne what the rate such a ge ncie s of th eir exe cutive/ ad min ist rative p o we rs
shou ld be will under mine the right of the o ther parties to is not a violation of the doctrine of separation of pow-
d u e proces s . Th e p u rp os e of a h e a ri n g i s p re c i s e l y t o d e t e r- ers.
m i n e w h a t a j u s t a n d r e a s on a b l e r a t e i s . D i s c a r d i n g s u c h p r o-
c e d u r a l a n d c on s t i t u t i on a l r i g h t i s c e r t a i n l y i n i m i c a l t o ou r
fu n d a m e n t a l la w a n d t o p u b li c i n t e re st .
Case #5: BI LL MI LLER, pet i t i on er-appellee, v s. ATA N A CI O A .
Aga in , u n de r t h e Se ct ion 1 6 (a ) of Pu blic Se rvice Act , t h e re M A R DO , a n d M A N U E L G O N Z A L E S , r e s po n de n t s - a ppe l l a n t s .
m u s t b e p r op e r n ot i c e a n d h e a r i n g i n t h e x i n g of r a t e s , t o a r- G . R. N o. L- 15138 [July 31, 1961] - > Y ES , t he Reor g an i z a -
ri ve a t a ju st a n d re a son a ble ra t e a cce pt a ble t o bot h t h e pu b- t i on Plan N o. 20- A , i n sofar as con fer s judi ci al power t o t he
lic u t ilit y a n d t h e pu blic. Regi on al Ofces ov er cases ot her t han t hese falli n g un der t he
Wor km en ' s Com pen sat i on on Law, i n v ali d an d of n o effect .
Th e "fu n c t i on s" re fe rre d t o i n R. A. N o. 1 2 4 1 w h i c h c ou ld t h u s
C. A djudi cat o r y power s b e c r e a t e d , ob v i ou s l y r e fe r m e r e l y t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , n ot j u -
d i c i a l fu n c t i on s . F or t h e G ov e r n m e n t S u r v e y a n d Re or g a n i za-
Ot h e rwise k n own a s qu a si-ju dicia l fu n ct ion , it is a t e rm t i on C om m i ssi on w a s c re a t e d t o c a rry ou t t h e re orga n i za t i on
w h i c h a p p l i e s t o t h e a c t i on s , d i s c r e t i on , e t . , of p u b l i c of t h e Exe c u t i ve Bra n c h of t h e N a t i on a l G ove rn m e n t w h i c h
a d m i n i st ra t i ve ofc e rs or b od i e s t h a t a re re q u i re d t o i n ve s - p l a i n l y d i d n ot i n c l u d e t h e c r e a t i on of c ou r t s .
t i ga t e fa c t s, a sc e rt a i n t h e e xi st e n c e of fa c t s, h old h e a r - I t m a y b e c on c e d e d t h a t t h e l e g i sl a t u re m a y c on fe r on a d m i n-
i n g s a n d d ra w c on c l u s i on s from t h e m a s a b a s i s for t h e i r i s t ra t i ve b oa rd s or b od i e s q u a s i - ju d i c i a l p ow e rs i n vol vi n g t h e
ofc i a l a c t i on a n d t o e xe rc i se d i sc re t i on of ju d i c i a l n a t u re . e x e rc i se of ju d g m e n t a n d d i sc re t i on , a s i n c i d e n t t o t h e p e r-
A gove rn me n t a ge n cy pe rforms a dju di ca t ory fu n ct i on s form a n c e of a d m i n i st ra t i ve fu n c t i on s. Bu t i n so d oi n g, t h e
w h e n i t r e n d e r s d e c i s i on s or a w a r d s t h a t d e t e r m i n e t h e le gisla t u re mu st st a t e it s in t e n t ion in e xpre ss t e rms t h a t
ri gh t s of a dve rsa ri a l pa rt i e s wh i ch h a ve t h e sa me bi n di n g w ou l d l e a v e n o d ou b t , a s e v e n s u c h q u a s i - j u d i c i a l p r e r og a-
t i ve s m u st b e li m i t e d , i f t h e y a re t o b e va li d , on ly t o t h ose
e ffe c t a s a ju d g m e n t of a c ou rt of la w t h a t e ve n t h e c ou rt s
i n c i d e n t a l t o or i n c on n e c t i on w i t h t h e p e rform a n c e of ju ri s-
of ju st i c e h a ve t o re sp e c t . d i c t i on ov e r a m a t t e r e x c l u s i v e l y v e s t e d i n t h e c ou r t s .
a. Extent/Limitati on (pp. 231-235, De Leon) I f a st a t u t e i t se l f a c t u a l l y p a sse d b y t h e C on g re ss m u st b e
c l e a r i n i t s t e r m s w h e n c l ot h i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b od i e s w i t h
D e p e n d s l a rg e l y on e n a b l i n g a c t a n d t h e g ra n t of p ow e r q u a s i - j u d i c i a l fu n c t i on s , t h e n c e r t a i n l y s u c h c on fe r m e n t c a n
m u s t b e fou n d i n t h e l a w i t s e l f. n ot b e i m p li e d from a m e re g ra n t of p ow e r t o a b od y su c h a s
t h e G ove rn m e n t Su rve y a n d Re orga n i za t i on C om m i ssi on t o
1) A statute passed by Congress must be clear in its terms c r e a t e " fu n c t i on s " i n c on n e c t i on w i t h t h e r e or g a n i za t i on of
when clothing administrative bodies with quasi-judicial t h e Exe c u t i ve Bra n c h of t h e G ove rn m e n t .
9
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
served in co nfo rming wit h le ga l rules a n d stan d ard s
RATI O: Restriction on grant of judicial pow er. The doctrine of governing the power of an agent, with legal rules and
sepa ra tion of powers of govern men t a l so opera tes to restrict sta nd ar ds gove rning th e p o we r of an a gen t, and th e
the exercise of judicia l f un ction s to a dmin istra tive a gen cies. l a w ’s r e s t r i c t i o n s u p o n t h e l a t t e r ’s r i g h t t o a c t f o r h i s
Sin ce the legislatu re cannot exercise judicial functions, it
own exclusive benet while the agency is in force. Deci-
certainly i s precl uded from delegating t he ex ercise of judi-
cial func ti on s to admi nistrative agencies or ofcers. sion of such q ue stion s involve s the in terp re ta tion a nd
application of the laws and norms of justice established
W h il e t h e l e g is l a t ure is p ow e rl e s s t o c on f e r p ure l y or s t ric t l y by society and constitutes essentially an exercise of the
judicia l powers, f un ction s, a n d duties to a n a dmin istra tive judicial power which under the Constitution is exclusive -
a g e n c y, it, b y n o m e a n s, f ol l ow s th a t it m a y n ot p e rf orm ly allocated to the Supreme Court and such courts as
f un c tion s w h ic h a re in th e ir n a ture , jud ic ia l , a n d p osse ss a n d the Legislature may establish, and one that mining of -
e x e rc is e q ua s i- j ud ic ia l p ow e rs . I t is re c og n ize d t h a t s om e
cials a re ill-eq u ip pe d to d e al with.
judicia l powers ma y be con f erred upon a n d exercised by a d-
m in is t ra t iv e a g e n c ie s w it h out v iol a t in g c on s t it ut ion a l p ow e rs
in h ib itin g th e "d e l e ga tion " of jud icia l p ow e r. (2) Judicial powe r n ot conf erred up on Direct or of Mines. ----
“We see noth ing in S ec. 61 an d 7 3 o f th e Min ing La w
H ow e ve r, t h e jud ic ia l p ow e r w h ic h m a y b e e x e rc ise s b y a d- that indicates a legislative intent to confer real judicial
m in is t ra t iv e a g e n c ie s is a re s t ric t e d on e , l im it e d t o w h a t is power upon the Director of Mines. The very terms of
in cid e n ta l a n d re a son a b l y n e ce ssa ry to th e p rop e r a n d e f cie n t Sec. 73 in req uiring tha t t he a dverse claim must sta te in
a d m in istra tion of th e sta tute s th a t a re c om m itte d to th e m full detail the nature, boundaries and extent of the ad -
f or a d m in istra tion . verse claim sh ow th at the co nflicts t o be de cided b y
Of course, a rbitra ry powers or un con trol l ed discretion ma y reason of su ch a d verse claim re fer p rimarily to que s -
n ot b e c on f e rre d up on a d m in istra tive a g e n c ie s e ith e r in th e tions of fact. The controversies to be submitted and re -
e x e rc is e of rul e - m a k in g or a d j ut ic a t ory f un c t ion s . solve d by th e Direct or o f Min es u n der the section s refe r,
therefore, only to the overlapping claims, and adminis -
--- trative matters incidental thereto”.
(3) Adverse claim no t with in th e e xe cutive or a dministra tive

C a s e # 6 : PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, p e t i t i o n e r, v s . LUZ authority of the mining director to resolve. ---- ‘Philex
M. ZALDIVIA and TH E SECRETARY OF AG RI CULTURE AND Mining’s adve rse claim is no t one g ro u nde d on o ve rlap -
N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S , respondents. [G.R. No. L-29669 Feb - ping of claims nor is it a mining conflict arising out of
ruary 29, 1972] mining loca tion s bu t o ne o rigin at in g f rom th e alle g ed
The mining controversy involves contractual relations between duciary or contractual relationship between Philex and
the litigants -> N O , t h e D i r e c t o r o f M i n e s d o e s n o t h a v e j u- Scholey and his t ra nsf eree s, Za ld ivia an d Y ra sto rza. A s
risdiction over the controverted issues. such, the ad verse claim is not within th e e xecutive o r
(1) Issue involves pure question of law ---- “The sole issue administrative authority of the mining director to solve,
raised by P hilex is a pure questio n of la w. There is no but in that of the courts.
questions of fact nor matters requiring technological
knowledge and experience. The issu e is one to be re -
10
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(4) Question presented in Philex Mining’s adverse claim is ✓ Rule making
judicial in nature.
✓ Quasi-judicial
✓ Determinative
Powers of administ rat ive agencies
✓ Ad jud ica to ry
▪ Express and Impli ed P owers – th e ju risd ict ion and
powers of administrative agencies are measured ▪ As t o De gree o f S ubje ctive Ch oice:
and limited by the Constitution or law creating
them or granting their powers, to those conferred ✓ D i s c r e t i o n a r y – d i c t a t e s o f t h e i r o w n j u d g-
men t a nd con scien ce
expressly or by necessary or fair implication. It
must be li berally construed to en ab le t hem t o dis -
✓ Min isterial – in re spo nse to a d u ty which
charge thei r assigned duties in accord an ce with has been positively imposed by law and its
the legislative purpose. performance is required at a time and in a
man ne r or up on co nd it io ns specica lly d e s-
✓ Constitution – creates and empowers an ad-
ignated.
minist rative agency throug h a p rovision’
C. N a t u r e o f P o w e r s
✓ Statutes under w hich adm inistr at ive a ge ncy
claims to act – source and po wer s of an a d- ▪ Investigative or Advisory (executive or adminis -
minist rative agency trative)
▪ Inherent Powers – An administrative agency has
✓ Sco pe – inspe ctio n o f reco rds a nd pre mis -
no inherent powers, it has implied powers in - e s ; i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f p e r-
stead. son s o r en tities co min g u nd er its ju risd ic-
tion; securing, requiring the disclosure of
information by means of records, reports,
B. Scope of Admi nist rative Agencies sta te me nts, te stimo ny o f witn esse s, a nd
production of documents.
▪ As to Nature:
✓ So le p owe rs g ran ted – act s me rely a s in -
✓ Investigative or Advisory vest ig a tory o r a d viso ry bo dies. The y e xist
sole ly to secu re a nd pro vid e in fo rma tion or
❖ Executive make re co mmen da tion s.
❖ Administrati ve ✓ Aid to ot he r powe rs – g at herin g, o rga nizing

and analyzing evidences
✓ Quasi-legislative
11
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
✓ Distinguished from judicial powers – inves - o The statute is complete in itself, set-
tigating the facts and making ndings and ting forth the policy to be executed
recommendati ons b y t h e a g e n c y.
o St atu te xes a st and a rd , map pin g o ut

the boundaries of the agency’s au -
▪ Quasi-legislative (Rule-making) thority to which it must conform.
✓ Denition – agency process for formulating, ✓ Bin ding fo rce a nd e ffe ct – A valid ru le o r
amending, altering, revising, or repealing reg ulat io n du ly promulg ate d by a n admin is -
rul es, regulations and p rio r issuances trative agency has the force and effect of
which are inconsistent. law and is binding on the agency and all
those dealing with the agency.
✓ N a t u r e – p o w e r t o m a k e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a-
tions which are necessary to carry out its ✓ Prosp e ctive/Ret ro act ive a pplicat io n
functions and to implement the law it is en -
trusted to enforce. o General rule: A statute operates
p r o s p e c t i v e l y a n d n o t r e t r o a c t i v e l y.
✓ Necessity – known also as administrative
l e g i s l a t i o n , d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i o n , o r d i- o Exce pt io n: Unless the re is a sta tu te
nance making and quasi-legislation, be- expressly manifesting or by neces -
cause the pervasive legislat ive p ower of sary implicatio n the leg isla tive in -
maki ng rules and regulation s wer e con- tent to the contrary.
ferred upon administrative agencies. Now,
an administrative body may implement ✓ Requisites for validity of administrative
broad policies laid down in a statute by rules an d reg u la tion s:
lling in only details which the legislature
may neit her have time nor co mpet en ce t o ❖ Issued on authority of law
provide, provided that there exists a law
❖ Must no t b e co nt ra ry to la w or th e
which delegates this power to them. Constitution
✓ Conditions – statutory grant of rule-making ❖ Promu lg at ed in a ccorda n ce with th e
power to administrative agencies is a valid prescribed procedure
exception on non-delegation of legislative
p o w e r, p r o v i d e d t h e s e t w o c o n d i t i o n s w e r e ❖ Within the powers granted to it by
compl ied wi th: law
❖ Must be reaso n able , f air an d n o t

discriminatory
12
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
of particular proceedings or powers
and its exercises.
▪ Quasi-judicial (Determinative or Adjudicatory)
✓ It involves specic parties – decision

or determination by administrative 2. Separ ation of P ower s/Del egati on of Le gis la tiv e Pow-
agencies of the rights, duties and er to Administrative Agencies/Subordinate Legisla-
obligations of specic individuals and ti on
p e r s o n s . A p p l i e s t o t h e a c t i o n s , d i s-
cret ion of public administ ra tive Doctrine of Separation – a fundamental principle in our
ofcers or bodies. syste m of go vernmen t, obt ain ed no t th rou gh exp ress
provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Allo-
✓ Involve judicial function exercised cates the govern me nta l po we rs of : le gislative po we rs to
by a person other than a judge – the the legislative branch, executive powers to the execu -
terms “quasi-judicial” and “adjudica - tive branch and judicial powers to the judiciary branch.
tory” are synonymous or correlative, Most importan tly, the p owers a ssigne d to on e d e part -
but not all determinations by an ad- ment should n ot be exe rcise d by e it he r of the o the r de-
minist rative ag en cy are judicial in partments, and that no department ought to possess,
nature or quasi-judicial. d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y, a n o v e r r u l i n g i n f l u e n c e o r c o n t r o l
over the others.
✓ Involve exercise if judicial power
conveniently styled “ quasi- judicial” – ✓ Eff ect t o Ad min ist ra tive Ag en cie s – Doe s n ot p re-
It is the power of an administrative clud e a ce rt ain de gree of a dmixt ure of the t hree
agency to hear and determine, or to powers of government in administrative agencies.
ascertain facts and decide by the
a p p l i c a t i o n o f r u l e s t o t h e a s c e r-
tained facts. Inclusive in this power
A. R e q u i s i t e s f o r t h e v a l i d d e l e g a t i o n o f l e g i s l a-
is enabling them to interpret and
tive powers:
apply not only the implementing
rul es and regula tion s pro mulga ted What can be delegated is the discretion to deter -
✓
by them but also the laws entrusted mine ho w the law ma y be e nfo rced an d n o t wha t
to their administration. The use of the law shall be.
terms such as “quasi-judicial” or
“judici al in nature ” is simply a co n- o C o m p l e t e n e s s Te s t - t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s o f
venient way of appr oving t he exe r - the statute making the delegation
cise of a judicial power by an adm in -
i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y, a l s o , t h e s e t e r m s o Su fcien t S tan da rds Test - th e p resen ce of a
are used to designate the character suf cie nt sta nd ard
13
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
o Man ne r
Power of Subordinat e Legislation o Ext en t o f its o pe ra tion which is sta ted in it
✓ With the proliferation of specialized activities and o D e l e g a t e w i l l o n l y e n f o r c e i t w h e n i t r e a c h-

their attendant peculiar problems, the national es him
legislature has found it more and more necessary
to entrust to administrative agencies the authority ✓ Test of Comple ten ess: Whet he r th e p rovision is
to issue rules to carry out the general provisions sufcient ly de nite an d certa in to e nab le one t o
of the statute. know his righ ts a nd o bligat io n s
D o c t r i n e o f C a s e s : T h e l a w, t o b e c o m p l e t e , m u s t d e -
scribe w hat job is to be do n e, wh o shou ld do it a nd wha t
B. R e a s o n s f o r i n c r e a s i n g t r e n d t o w a r d s s u b o r d i- i s t h e s c o p e o f t h e a u t h o r i t y.
nate legislation:
o Growing complexities of modern govern-

ment Case#1: THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANG TANG HO, de-
fendant-appellant. G.R. No. 17122 February 27, 1922 -> NO. The Legisla-
o The multiplication of subjects of govern - ture did not specify or dene what was "any cause," or what was "an ex-
ment al regulation traordinary rise in the price of rice, palay or corn." Neither did it specify or
dene the conditions upon which the proclamation should be issued. In the
o Increased difculty of administering the law absence of the proclamation no crime was committed. The alleged sale was
made a crime, if at all, because the Governor-General issued the proclama-
tion. The act or proclamation does not say anything about the different
grades or qualities of rice, and the defendant is charged with the sale" of
❖ C o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e L a w - A n o t h e r a c c e p t e d t e s t t o d e-
one Janet of rice at the price of eighty centavos (P0.80) which is a price
termine whether or not there is a valid delegation of leg-
i s l a t i v e p o w e r. greater than fixed by Executive Order No. 53."
The Legislature does not specify or dene what is "an extraordinary rise."
✓ A statute must be complete in itself so that by
appropriate judicial review and control, any ac- That is also left to the discretion of the Governor-General. The Act also
tion taken pursuant to delegated authority may be says that the Governor-General, "with the consent of the Council of State,"
is authorized to issue and promulgate "temporary rules and emergency
kept within the dened limits of th e aut ho rit y con -
ferred. measures for carrying out the purposes of this Act." It does not specify or
de ne what is a temporary rule or an emergency measure, or how long
✓ A statute may be considered complete when the: such temporary rules or emergency measures shall remain in force and ef-
fect, or when they shall take effect. That is to say the Legislature itself has
o Subject no in any manner specified or defined any basis for the order, but has left it
to the sole judgment and discretion of the Governor-General to say what is
14
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
or what is not "a cause," and what is or what is not "an extraordinary rise in commodity in the Philippine Islands, and empower him to make it a crime
the price of rice," and as to what a temporary rule or an emergency mea- to sell any product at any other or different price.
sure for the carrying out the purpose of the Act Under this state of facts, if
the law is valid and the Governor-General issues a proclamation fixing the
minimum price at which rice should be sold, any dealer who, with or with-
Case#2: EDU V. ERICTA G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970 -> Yes. Reflec-
out notice, sells rice at a higher price, is a criminal. There may not have
tor Law is enacted under the police power in order to promote public safe-
been any cause, and the price may not have been extraordinary, and there
ty and order. Justice Laurel identified police power with state authority to
may not have been an emergency, but, if the Governor-General found the
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in
existence of such facts and issued a proclamation, and rice is sold at any
order to promote the general welfare. Persons and property could thus "be
higher price, the seller commits a crime.
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the gen-
When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the proclamation of eral comfort, health and prosperity of the state." The police power is thus
the Governor-General which constitutes the crime. Without that proclama- a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in
tion, it was no crime to sell rice at any price. In other words, the Legisla- the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its gov-
ture left it to the sole discretion of the Governor-General to say what was ernment limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend there-
and what was not "any cause" for enforcing the act, and what was and what by to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unrea-
was not "an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn," and under sonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to insure
certain undefined conditions to x the price at which rice should be sold, communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare.
without regard to grade or quality, also to say whether a proclamation
The same lack of success marks the effort of respondent Galo to impugn
should be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the law should be en-
the validity of Administrative Order No. 2 issued by petitioner in his official
forced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should be sus-
capacity, duly approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communica-
pended.
tions, for being contrary to the principle of non-delegation of legislative
The Constitution is something solid, permanent and substantial. Its stability power. Such administrative order, which took effect on April 17, 1970, has a
protects the life, liberty and property rights of the rich and the poor alike, provision on reflectors in effect reproducing what was set forth in the Act.
and that protection ought not to change with the wind or any emergency
It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of
condition. The fundamental question involved in this case is the right of the
powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two
people of the Philippine Islands to be and live under a republican form of
other branches of the government, subject to the exception that local gov-
government. We make the board statement that no state or nation, living
ernments may over local affairs participate in its exercise. What cannot be
under a republican form of government, under the terms and conditions
delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter
specified in Act No. 2868, has ever enacted a law delegating the power to
and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term
any one, to fix the price at which rice should be sold. That power can nev-
and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine
er be delegated under a republican form of government. In the fixing of the
whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power the in-
price at which the defendant should sell his rice, the law was not dealing
quiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enact-
with government property. It was dealing with private property and private
ed. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what
rights, which are sacred under the Constitution. If this law should be sus-
job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. It
tained, upon the same principle and for the same reason, the Legislature
bears repeating that the Reflector Law construed together with the Land
could authorize the Governor-General to fix the price of every product or
15
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Transportation Code. Republic Act No. 4136, of which it is an amendment, si bi li t y by per son s t o basi c ser v i ces i n un ser v ed an d un der-
leaves no doubt as to the stress and emphasis on public safety which is the ser v ed ar eas at affor dable rat es;
prime consideration in statutes of this character. There is likewise a cate-
gorical affirmation Of the power of petitioner as Land Transportation Com- ( c) T h e radi o fr eq u en cy spect r u m i s a scar ce pu bl i c r e -
missioner to promulgate rules and regulations to give life to and translate sour ce t hat shall be adm i n i st er ed i n t he publi c i n t er est an d
into actuality such fundamental purpose. His power is clear. There has been i n acco r dan ce wi t h i n t er n at i o n al ag r eem en t s an d co n v en-
no abuse. His Administrative Order No. 2 can easily survive the attack, far- t i on s t o whi ch t he Phi li ppi n es i s a par t y an d gran t ed t o t he
from-formidable, launched against it by respondent Galo. best q uali fi ed. The g ov er n m en t shall allocat e t he spect r um
t o ser v i ce pr ov i der s who wi ll use i t effi ci en t ly an d effec-
t i v ely t o m eet publi c dem an d for t elecom m un i cat i on s ser-
v i ce an d m ay av ai l of n ew an d cost effect i v e t echn ologi es i n
Pe rt i n e n t provi si on s of REP UB LI C A CT N o . 7 9 2 5 - A N A CT TO t he use of m et hods for i t s ut i li z at i on ;
PROMOTE AN D G OVERN THE DEVELOPMEN T OF PHILIPPIN E
TELECOMMUN I CATI ON S A N D THE DELI VERY OF PUBLI C ( d) R at es an d t ar i ff ch ar g es sh al l be fai r, ju st an d r ea-
TELECOMMUN I CATI ON S SERVI CES son able an d for t hi s pur pose, t he r egulat or y body shall de -
v el o p t ar i ff st r uct ur es based o n so ci o eco n o m i c fact o r s an d
A RTI CLE I I - P O LI CY A N D O B JECTI VES on financial, t echnical and com m ercial crit eria as m easures
S ect i o n 4 . Decl arat i o n o f N at i o n al Po l i cy. - Tel eco m m u n i ca -
t o en sur e a fai r rat e of r et ur n an d as a t ool t o en sur e eco -
t i on s i s essen t i al t o t he econ om i c dev elopm en t , i n t egr i t y n o m i c an d so ci al dev el o pm en t ;
an d secur i t y of t he Phi li ppi n es, an d as such shall be dev el-
oped and adm inist ered as t o safeguard, enrich and st rengt h
( e) P u bl i c t el eco m m u n i cat i o n s ser v i ces sh al l be pr o v i ded
t he econ om i c, cult ural, soci al an d poli t i cal fabr i c of t he by pr i v at e en t er pr i ses. The pr i v at e sect or shall be t he en -
Philippines. The growt h and developm ent of t elecom m uni- gine of rapid an d efficient gr owt h in t he t elecommunica -
cat i on s ser v i ces shall be pur sued i n accor dan ce wi t h t he
t i on s i n dust r y;
followi n g poli ci es:
( f) A h eal t h y co m pet i t i v e en v i r o n m en t sh al l be fo st er ed,
( a) A fu n dam en t al o bject i v e o f g o v er n m en t i s t o dev el o p one in which t elecom m unicat ions carriers are free t o m ake
an d m ai n t ai n a v i able, effi ci en t , r eli able an d un i v er sal busi n ess deci si on s an d t o i n t eract wi t h on e an ot her i n pr o-
t elecom m un i cat i on i n frast r uct ur e usi n g t he best av ai lable v i di n g t elecom m un i cat i on s ser v i ces, wi t h t he en d i n v i ew of
an d affor dable t echn ologi es, as a v i t al t ool t o n at i on bui ld- en couragi n g t hei r fi n an ci al v i abi li t y whi le m ai n t ai n i n g af-
i n g an d dev el o pm en t ; for dable rat es;
( b) T h e ex pan si o n o f t h e t el eco m m u n i cat i o n s n et wo r k (g) A fai r an d r easo n abl e i n t er co n n ect i o n o f faci l i t i es o f

shall gi v e pr i or i t y t o i m pr ov i n g an d ex t en di n g basi c ser - aut hor i z ed publi c n et wor k operat or s an d ot her pr ov i der s of
v i ces t o ar eas n ot yet ser v ed. For t hi s pur pose, gov er n m en t
t elecom m un i cat i on s ser v i ces i s n ecessar y i n or der t o
shall pr om ot e a fai r, effi ci en t an d r espon si v e m ar ket t o achi ev e a v i able, effi ci en t , r eli able an d un i v er sal t elecom-
st i m ulat e t he gr owt h an d dev elopm en t of t he t elecom m un i - m un i cat i on s ser v i ces;
cat i on s faci li t i es an d ser v i ces, wi t h em phasi s on t he acces -
16
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(h) T h e g o v er n m en t sh al l g i v e al l t h e assi st an ce an d en-

couragem en t t o Phi li ppi n e i n t er n at i on al car r i er s i n or der t o
est abli sh i n t er con n ect i on wi t h ot her coun t r i es so as t o pr o- A RTI CLE I I I - A DM I N I S TRATI O N
v i de access t o i n t er n at i on al com m un i cat i on s hi ghways on a S ect i o n 5 . R espo n si bi l i t i es o f t h e N at i o n al Tel eco m m u n i ca -
com pet i t i v e basi s; t i on s Com m i ssi on . - The N at i on al Telecom m un i cat i on s Com-
m i ssi on ( Com m i ssi on ) shall be t he pr i n ci pal adm i n i st rat or of
(i) Fo r effi ci en cy, pract i cabi l i t y, an d co n v en i en ce, bu t t hi s A ct an d as such shall t ake t he n ecessar y m easur es t o
wi t h due r egar d t o t he obser v an ce of due pr ocess at all i m pl em en t t he po l i ci es an d o bject i v es set fo r t h i n t hi s A ct .
t i m es, r egulat i on of t elecom m un i cat i on s en t i t i es shall r ely A cco r di n g l y, i n addi t i o n t o i t s ex i st i n g fun ct i o n s, t he Co m -
pr i n ci pally on an adm i n i st rat i v e pr ocess t hat i s st able, m i ssi on shall be r espon si ble for t he followi n g : Lawphi l& 159;
t ran spar en t an d fai r, gi v i n g due em phasi s t o t echn i cal, le-
ga l, economic and f inancial considerat ions; ( a) A do pt an adm i n i st rat i v e pr o cess wh i ch wo u l d faci l i-
t at e t he en t r y of quali fi ed ser v i ce pr ov i der s an d adopt a
( j) N o si n g l e fran ch i se sh al l au t h o r i z e an en t i t y t o en- pr i ci n g poli cy whi ch would g en erat e suffi ci en t r et ur n s t o
ga ge in bot h t elecommunicat ions and broa dcast ing, eit her en courage t hem t o pr ov i de basi c t elecom m un i cat i on s ser -
t hr ough t he ai r wav es or by cable; v i ces i n un ser v ed an d un der ser v ed ar eas;
(k) O wn er sh i p o f pu bl i c t el eco m m u n i cat i o n s en t i t i es t o ( b) E n su r e q u al i t y, safet y, r el i abi l i t y, secu r i t y, co m pat i-

as wi de a n um ber of people as possi ble, pr eferably t o i t s bi li t y an d i n t er - operabi li t y of t elecom m un i cat i on s faci li t i es
cust om er s, i n or der t o en courage effi ci en cy an d publi c ac - an d ser v i ces i n con for m i t y wi t h st an dar ds an d speci fi ca-
coun t abi li t y an d t o t ap per son al sav i n gs shall be en cour - t i on s set by i n t er n at i on al radi o an d t elecom m un i cat i on s or-
aged; ga niza t ion s t o wh ich t he Ph ilippines is a sign at ory;
(l) T h e dev el o pm en t o f a do m est i c t el eco m m u n i cat i o n s ( c) M an dat e a fai r an d r easo n abl e i n t er co n n ect i o n o f fa -
m an ufact ur i n g i n dust r y t o m eet t he n eeds of t he Phi li p - ci li t i es of aut hor i z ed publi c n et wor k operat or s an d ot her
pi n es an d t o t ake adv an t ag e of ex por t oppor t un i t i es shall pr ov i der s of t elecom m un i cat i on s ser v i ces t hr oug h appr opr i-
be pr om ot ed wi t hout pr ev en t i n g , det er r i n g or ham per i n g at e m odali t i es of i n t er con n ect i on an d at a r eason able an d
t he goal of full un i v er sal ser v i ce; an d fai r lev el of char ges, whi ch m ake pr ov i si on for t he cr oss
subsi dy t o un pr ofi t able local ex chan ge ser v i ce ar eas so as
(m) Hu m an r eso u r ces sk i l l s an d capabi l i t i es m u st be h ar- t o pr om ot e t elephon e den si t y an d pr ov i de t he m ost ex t en -
n essed an d i m pr o v ed t o sust ai n t he g r o wt h an d t he dev el - si v e access t o basi c t elecom m un i cat i on s ser v i ces av ai lable
opm ent of t elecom m unicat ions under a fast changing at affor dable rat es t o t he publi c;
t elecom m un i cat i on s en v i r on m en t .
( d) Fo st er fai r an d effi ci en t m ar k et co n du ct t h r o u g h , bu t
n o t l i m i t ed t o , t he pr o t ect i o n o f t el eco m m un i cat i o n s en t i-
t i es fr om un fai r t rade pract i ces of ot her car r i er s;
17
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
( c) t h e r epr esen t at i o n an d pr o m o t i o n o f P h i l i ppi n e i n-
( e) P r o m o t e co n su m er s wel far e by faci l i t at i n g access t o t er est s i n i n t er n at i on al bodi es, an d t he n egot i at i on of t he
t elecom m un i cat i on s ser v i ces whose i n frast r uct ur e an d n et - n at i o n ' s r i g ht s an d o bl i g at i o n s i n i n t er n at i o n al t el eco m m u -
wor k m ust be gear ed t owar ds t he n eeds of i n di v i dual an d n i cat i o n s m at t er s; an d
busi n ess user s;
( d) t h e o perat i o n o f a n at i o n al co n su l t at i v e fo r u m t o fa-
( f) P r o t ect co n su m er s ag ai n st m i su se o f a t el eco m m u n i - ci li t at e i n t eract i on am on gst t he t elecom m un i cat i on s i n dus-
cat i on s en t i t y' s m on opoly or quasi - m on opoli st i c power s by, t r i es, user gr oups, academ i c an d r esear ch i n st i t ut i on s i n
but n ot li m i t ed t o, t he i n v est i g at i on of com plai n t s an d ex - t he ai r i n g an d r esolut i on of i m por t an t i ssues i n t he fi eld of
act i n g com pli an ce wi t h ser v i ce st an dar ds fr om such en t i t y; com m un i cat i on s.
an d
(g) I n t h e ex er ci se o f i t s r eg u l at o r y po wer s, co n t i n u e t o
i m po se such fees an d char g es as m ay be n ecessar y t o co v er
r easo n abl e co st s an d ex pen ses fo r t h e r eg u l at i o n an d su -
per v i si on of t he operat i on s of t elecom m un i cat i on s en t i t i es.
❖ Suff iciency in S tan da rd s- T here must be a n a de qua te
guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the
S ect i o n 6 . R espo n si bi l i t i es o f an d Li m i t at i o n s t o Depar t m en t boundaries of the delegate authority and prevent the
Powers. - The Depart ment of Transport at ion a n d Com m un i- delegation from running riot.
cat i on s ( Depar t m en t ) shall n ot ex er ci se an y power whi ch
wi ll t en d t o i n fluen ce or effect a r ev i ew or a m odi fi cat i on ✓ Dependent upon certain considerations - the suf-
of t he Com m ission' s quasi-judicial funct ions. ficiency of a particular standard or limit governing
the authority and discretion of the administrative
I n co o r di n at i o n wi t h t he Co m m i ssi o n , ho wev er, t he Depar t- a g e n c y i n e ff e c t i n g t h e p o l i c y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e
m en t shall, i n accor dan ce wi t h t he poli ci es en un ci at ed i n g r e a t l y d e p e n d s u p o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p o w e r e x-
t hi s A ct , be r espon si ble for : ercised and the nature of the right restricted by
such p ower. I t also d epe n ds u po n wh et her or n ot
( a) t h e dev el o pm en t an d m ai n t en an ce o f a l o n g - t er m proper regulation or control requires the vesting
st rat egi c n at i on al dev elopm en t plan for t elecom m un i cat i on s of such discretion.
t o ser v e as a gui de t o t he i n dust r y an d pot en t i al i n v est or s
as well as t o t he Com m i ssi on ; ✓ Detailed standard not required - the necessities
of modern legislation dealing with complex eco-
( b) t h e co o r di n at i o n o f r esear ch an d dev el o pm en t act i v i- nomic and social problems have led to judicial
t i es i n gov er n m en t wi t h t he wor k of ot her i n st i t ut i on s i n approval of broad standards for administrative
t he fi eld of t elecom m un i cat i on s; a c t i o n . D e t a i l e d s t a n d a r d s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d , e s-
pecially in regulatory enactments under the policy
p o w e r. T h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e
such a sta nd ard as co nf ers th e le ast amo unt o f
18
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
discretion. In many situations, detailed standards Doctrine of Cases: The law must set or establish guide -
in precise and unvarying forms would be wholly lines on the boundaries and limitations regarding the
unrealistic and more arbitrary than a general in- authority delegated.
definite one.
✓ Examples of standards held sufficient - th e f ollow -

ing legislative specifications are among those Case #1: RUBI, ET AL. (manguianes), plaintiffs, vs. THE PROVINCIAL
w h i c h h a v e b e e n h e l d t o s t a t e a s u ff i c i e n t l y d e f i - BOARD OF MINDORO, defendant. [G.R. No. L-14078 / March 7, 1919] ->
nite standard for administrative action in specific I. No, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not constitute undue
fields: “necessity”, “necessary or expedient”, “ap - delegation. By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court sustained the con-
propriate”, “reasonable”, “just and reasonable”, stitutionality of this section of the Administrative Code. Under the doctrine
“fair and equitable”, “sufficie nt ”, “excessive pro f - of necessity, who else was in a better position to determine whether or not
its”, “unduly complicated corporate structures and to execute the law but the provincial governor. It is optional for the pro-
inequitable distributions of voting power”, “fit”, or vincial governor to execute the law as circumstances may arise. It is neces-
“unf it ”, “sui tabl e”, “unsuitable ”, “ com pete ncy, abil- sary to give discretion to the provincial governor. The Legislature may make
i t y, i n t e g r i t y ” , i l l u m i n a t i n g w h i c h o i l i s “ s a f e , p u r e , decisions of executive departments of subordinate official thereof, to
a n d a ff o r d s a s a t i s f a c t o r y l i g h t , ” “ w o r t h y c a u s e ” , whom it has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of
“decency and good order”, “ sub stantial” , “u nd e - fact.
sira ble residents”, “undesirab le b usiness p rac-
tices”, “unprofessional conduct”, “misconduct”, II. No, the Manguianes are not being deprived of their liberty. Among other
“offensive because of injurio us and o bn oxious things, the term ―non-Christian‖ should not be given a literal meaning or a
noise, vibrations smoke, gas, and other factors”, religious signification, but that it was intended to relate to degrees of civi-
“injurious substances”, “dan ge r to pe ace or safe - lization. The term ―non-Christian‖ it was said, refers not to religious be-
ty”, “public interest”, “public convenience or ne - lief, but in a way to geographical area, and more directly to natives of the
cessity”, “a clear and present danger ”, and “im - Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. In this case, the Manguianes
mine nt an d grave danger o f a substa nt ive evil.” were being reconcentrated in the reservation to promote peace and to ar-
rest their seminomadic lifestyle. This will ultimately settle them down
✓ Personal judgment of the ag en cy as standar d - where they can adapt to the changing times. The Supreme Court held that
the personal judgment of the agency, where unre - the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro was neither discriminatory
stra ined, i s not a standard or a su ff icie nt stan - nor class legislation, and stated among other things: ―. . . one cannot hold
dard. Even where broad standards are laid down, that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of
such standards are not sufficie nt if th e st at ute civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their
e x p r e s s l y a d d s “ i n t h e o p i n i o n ” o f t h e a g e n c y, o r own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due
expressly confers policy-making power upon the process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of due
a g e n c y. process of law and equal protection of the laws, there exists a law; the law
seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of
procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.
19
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Indeed "adequate and efficient instruction" should be considered sufficient,
in the same way as "public welfare" "necessary in the interest of law and
Case #2: PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC., order" "public interest" and "justice and equity and substantial merits of the
petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF TEXT- case" have been held sufficient as legislative standards justifying delega-
BOOKS, respondents. [G.R. No. L-5279. October 31, 1955] -> NO, petition of authority to regulate. (See Tañada and Fernando, Constitution of
tioner’s contention that the standards on the Secretary of Education unlim- thePhilippines, p. 793, citing Philippine cases.)
ited power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards enclosed in Sec-
tions 1 and 6 of Act No. 2706 is extremely vague, indefinite and uncertain On this phase of the litigation we conclude that there has been no undue
thus constituting an unlawful delegation of legislative power is incorrect. delegation of legislative power. In this connection, and to support their po-
The best answer is that despite such alleged vagueness the Secretary of sition that the law and the Secretary of Education have transcended the
Education has fixed standards to ensure adequate and efficient instruction, governmental power of supervision and regulation, the petitioners append-
as shown by the memoranda fixing or revising curricula, the school calen- ed a list of circulars and memoranda issued by the said Department. How-
dars, entrance and final examinations, admission and accreditation of stu- ever they failed to indicate which of such official documents was constitu-
dents etc.; and the system of private education has, in general, been satis- tionally objectionable for being "capricious," or pain "nuisance"; and it is
factorily in operation for 37 years which only shows that the Legislature did one of our decisional practices that unless a constitutional point is specifi-
and could, validly rely upon the educational experience and training of cally raised, insisted upon and adequately argued, the court will not con-
those in charge of the Department of Education to ascertain and formulate sider it. (Santiago vs. Far Eastern, 73 Phil., 408.)
minimum requirements of adequate instruction as the basis of government
recognition of any private school. We are told that such list will give an idea of how the statute has placed in
the hands of the Secretary of Education complete control of the various
At any rate, petitioners do not show how these standards have injured any activities of private schools, and why the statute should be struck down as
of them or interfered with their operation. Wherefore, no reason exists for unconstitutional. It is clear in our opinion that the statute does not in ex-
them to assail the validity of the power nor the exercise of the power by press terms give the Secretary complete control. It gives him powers to
the Secretary of Education. True, the petitioners assert that, the Secretary inspect private schools, to regulate their activities, to give them official
has issued rules and regulations "whimsical and capricious" and that such permits to operate under certain conditions, and to revoke such permits for
discretionary power has produced arrogant inspectors who "bully heads and cause. This does not amount to complete control. If any of such Depart-
teachers of private schools." Nevertheless, their remedy is to challenge ment circulars or memoranda issued by the Secretary go beyond the bounds
those regulations specifically, and/or to ring those inspectors to book, in of regulation and seeks to establish complete control, it would surely be
proper administrative or judicial proceedings—not to invalidate the law. For invalid. Conceivably some of them are of this nature, but besides not hav-
it needs no argument, to show that abuse by the officials entrusted with ing before us the text of such circulars, the petitioners have omitted to
the execution of a statute does not per se demonstrate the unconstitution- specify. In any event with the recent approval of Republic Act No. 1124
ality of such statute. creating the National Board of Education, opportunity for administrative
correction of the supposed anomalies or encroachments is amply afforded
Anyway, we find the defendants' position to be sufficiently sustained by the herein petitioners. A more expeditious and perhaps more technically com-
decision in Alegra vs. Collector of Customs, 53 Phil., 394 upon holding the petent forum exists, wherein to discuss the necessity, convenience or rele-
statute that authorized the Director of Agriculture to "designate standards vancy of the measures criticized by them. (See also Republic Act No. 176.)
for the commercial grades of abaca, maguey and sisal" against vigorous at-
tacks on the ground of invalid delegation of legislative power.
20
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
If however the statutes in question actually give the Secretary control over
private schools, the question arises whether the power of supervision and
regulation granted to the State by section 5 Article XIV was meant to in- Case #4: THE INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD AND VENEER COMPANY vs. THE
clude control of private educational institutions. It is enough to point out PANGIL FEDERATION OF LABOR. 1940 -> YES, the CIR has the power to
that local educators and writers think the Constitution provides for control determine minimum wages for an individual employer in connection with
of Education by the State. (See Tolentino, Government of the Philippine an industrial dispute under provisions of Section 4 of Commonwealth Act
Constitution, Vol. II, p. 615; Benitez, Philippine Social Life and Progress, p. 103, and such grant of power is constitutional. SEPARATION OF POWERS;
335.) DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS; EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. —
Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 prescribes that in the hearing,
The Constitution (it) "provides for state control of all educational institu- investigation and determination of any question or controversy and in exer-
tions" even as it enumerates certain fundamental objectives of all educa- cising any duties and power under this Act, the COURT SHALL ACT according
tion to wit, the development of moral character, personal discipline, civic to JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUBSTANTIAL MERITS OF THE CASE, without
conscience and vocational efficiency, and instruction in the duties of citi- regard to technicalities or legal forms. ** The National Assembly, under
zenship. (Malcolm & Laurel, Philippine Constitutional Law, 1936.) Sec. 20 of the CA No. 103 has also furnished a sufficient standard by which
the court will be guided in exercising its discretion in the determination of
The Solicitor General cities many authorities to show that the power to any question or controversy before it. The requisites for such delegation
regulate means power to control, and quotes from the proceedings of the therefore were complied with, namely: a.) The completeness of the statute
making the delegation; and b.) The PRESENCE OF SUFFICIENT STANDARDS
Constitutional Convention to prove that State control of private education Such discretionary power which is in judicial character being conferred to
was intended by the organic law. It is significant to note that the Constitu- the CIR does not infringe upon the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. It is
tion grants power to supervise and to regulate. Which may mean greater recognized in administrative law that such doctrine does not preclude a
power than mere regulation.
certain degree of admixture of the three powers of the government to ad-
ministrative agency. The non-delegation of powers is not absolute. Excep-
tions are circumstances which are brought by the complexities in our gov-
Case #3: GIL BALBUNA,, ET AL., petitioners and appellants,, vs. THE ernment. Example is that there are matters which really requires special-
HON.. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, respondents and appellees. -> NO, ized knowledge and expertise which is possessed by administrative agen-
the Department Order is not an undue delaegation of legislative power. The cies. STANDARDS ____ EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; POWER OF COURT OF
Department Order constitute an adequate standard, to wit, simplicity INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO DETERMINE MINIMUM WAGES; COMMONWEALTH
and dignity of the flag ceremony and the singing of the National An- ACT NO. 103. Petitioner’s view was without merit. Petitioner gave only a
them — specially when contrasted with other standards heretofore narrow construction under Section 5 of CA No. 103. The Court of Industrial
upheld by the Courts: "public interest" "public welfare" "interest of Relations was granted the plenary powers to ―settle all questions, matters,
law and order" ; justice and equity and the substantial merits of controversies, or disputes arising between, and /or affecting employees
the case" or "adequate and efcient instruction" That the Legislature and employers.‖ The Commonwealth Act should receive a construction
did not specify the details of the flag ceremony is no objection to that will lead to its very objective namely, which is to create an instrumen-
the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the lay- tality through which intervention of the government could be made effec-
ing down of standards and policy that will limit the discretion of the regu- tive in order to prevent non-pacific methods in the determinations of in-
latory agency. dustrial or agricultural disputes. — The Court of Industrial Relations has
21
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
the power to determine minimum wages for an individual employee in con- lation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a
nection with an industrial dispute which said court might take cognizance constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by
of under the provisions of section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, and the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the courts.‖
such grant of power is constitutional. — Under section 4 of Commonwealth
Act No. 103, the Court of Industrial Relations is empowered to "take cog-
nizance for purposes of prevention, arbitration, decision, and settlement,
of any industrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or Case #5: EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE
lock-out, arising from differences as regards wages, shares or compensa- OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, (POEA), MINISTER OF LABOR
tion, dismissals, lay-offs, or suspensions of employees or laborers, tenants AND EMPLOYMENT, HEARING OFFICER ABDUL KASAR and KATHLEEN D.
or farm-laborers, hours of labor, or conditions of tenancy or employment, SACO -> No, Memorandum Circular No. 2 does not violate of the principle
between employers and employees or laborers and between landlords and of non-delegation of legislative power. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one
tenants or farm- laborers." -Under section 1, the court has "jurisdiction such administrative regulation.The power of the POEA (and before it the
over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle all National Seamen Board) in requiring the model contract is not unlimited as
questions, matters, controversies, or disputes arising between, and/or af- there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the exercise of the
fecting employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or said authority. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself
farm-laborers, and regulate the relations between them, subject to the which, in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,
provisions of this Act (as amended by Com. Act No. 254); -and by section mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to "fair and
13, it is provided that "in making an award, order or decision, under the equitable employment practices." The authority to issue the said regula-
provisions of section four of this Act, the court shall not be restricted to tion is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 797, reading
the specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the industrial as follows: "...The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), as here-
or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order or decision any under provided, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to
matter or determination which may be deemed necessary or expedient for govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the Administration
the purpose of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial or (POEA)… It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents
agricultural dispute." ___ “The theory of the separation of powers is de- of the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to
signed by its originators to secure action and at the same time to forestall determine how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be. There
overreaction which necessarily results from undue concentration of powers, are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delega-
and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent despotism. Thereby, the "rule of tion of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient
law" was established which narrows the range of governmental action and standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its
makes it subject to control by certain legal devices... One thing, however, terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it
is apparent in the development of the principle of separation of powers and reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it. Under
that is that the maxim of delegatus non potestdelegari / ―no delegated the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or limita-
tions in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and
powers can be further delegated‖ — or delegatapotestas non potestdele-
prevent the delegation from
gari/ ―one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate
that power", has been made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of leg-
governments, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the prin- islative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes
ciple of "subordinate legislation"... Accordingly, with the growing complexi- of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. The princi-
ty of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regu- ple of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers
22
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
of the Government. The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions
government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or ap-
with the myriad problems demanding its attention. To many of the prob- prove or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or
lems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor, signed by
have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to at least ten per centrum of the total number of registered voters, of which
say, specific solutions.These solutions may, however, be expected from its every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of
delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned the registered voters thereof. ✓ Autonomous Regions * Section 18 - The
to them. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their atten- creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a
dant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for
more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas vot-
rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the ing favourably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous re-
"power of subordinate legislation." The petition is DISMISSED. ❖ Permissi- gion. * Section 20 - Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the
ble delegation of legislative power under the Constitution ✓ To the Presi- provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of au-
dent * Section 23(2) - In times of war or other national emergency, the tonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
Congress may, by law, authorise the President, for a limited period and sub-
ject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary (1) Administrative organisations;
and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn
(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next ad-
journment thereof. *Section 28(2) - The Congress may, by law, authorise (3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations
as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and (4) Personal, family and property relations;
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the
national development program of the Government. ✓ To Local Government (5) Regional urban and rural planning development;
Units * Section 3 - The Congress shall enact a local government code
(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;
which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local govern-
ment structure instituted through a system of decentralisation with effec- (7) Education policies;
tive mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum. * Section 5 - Each
local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of (8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage
revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, subject to such guidelines
and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic poli- (9) Such other matters as may be authorised by law for the promotion
cy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively of the general welfare of the people of the region.
to the local governments. * Section 10 - No province, city, municipality, or
Barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary sub-
stantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the
local government code and subject to approval by a majority of votes cast
in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. ✓ People’s Initiative Case #6: PRIMITIVO LOVINA, and NELLY MONTILLA, plaintiffs-appellees,
and Referendum * Section 32 - The Congress shall, as early as possible, vs. HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works and Com-
23
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
munications, and BENJAMIN YONZON, defendants-appellants. G.R. No. L- capacity. Although it is still important to distinguish “rule-making” and “adjudi-
17821 November 29, 1963 -> NO, RA 2056 is not unconstitutional cation” by administrative agencies, since in some areas there are important
and it does not vests undue delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of procedural differences in these functions.
Public Works and Communications. The objections of the appellees to the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 2056, not only as an undue delegation
of judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works but also for being unrea- (2) Fundamental procedural requirements to be observed -> Duty imposed
sonable and arbitrary, are not tenable. It will be noted that the Act (R.A. upon an administrative agency which requires a quasi-judicial proceeding as
2056) merely empowers the Secretary to remove unauthorized obstructions a requisite of action - duty which carries with it fundamental procedural re-
or encroachments upon public streams, constructions that no private per- quirements to the end that arbitrary action be excluded. It is widely different
son was anyway entitled to make, because the bed of navigable streams is
from ordinary executive action.
public property, and ownership thereof is not acquirable by adverse posses-
sion. It is true that the exercise of the Secretary's power under the Act
necessarily involves the determination of some questions of fact, such as (3) Proceeding terminates when appeal has been taken -> The administrative
the existence of the stream and its previous navigable character; but these proceeding is at end when an appeal has been taken to court, and it is
functions, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are merely incidental to the merged in the decree of the court when the agency has procured a judicial
exercise of the power granted by law to clear navigable streams of unau- decree enforcing its order.
thorized obstructions or encroachments, and authorities are clear that they
are, validly conferable upon executive officials provided the party affected
is given opportunity to be heard, as is expressly required by Republic Act
No. 2056, section 2. CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS
(1) Adversary in nature -> Every proceeding is adversary in substance if it

2. Administrative proceedings - According to the Administrative may result in an order in favour of one person against another, and the pro-
Code of 1987 -> an agency process with respect to rule-making, ceeding is nonetheless an adversary one because the primary purpose of the
adjudication and licensing. agency is to protect the public interests. (Example: case of proceedings be-
fore the National Labor Relations Commission, revocation of a license upon
an order to show cause)
GENERALLY
(2) Quasi-judicial or judicial in nature -> Proceedings before administrative
In administrative proceedings, the function and power of administrative bodies partake of the nature of judicial proceedings if it involves the (a) taking
agency principally concerned here is the adjudicatory or determinative pow- and evaluation of evidence; (b) determination of facts based upon the evi-
ers. dence presented, and (c) rendering an order or decision supported by the
facts proved.
(1) Agency acts both in legislative and judicial capacity -> In a single deter-
mination, an administrative agency may act in both a legislative and judicial
24
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(3) Civil, not criminal, in nature -> Proceeding has been held civil rather than jurisdiction is not favoured.” An administrative agency may have jurisdiction
criminal even though the charge before the agency is based upon a violation over a case before it, but where it acts in a spirit of hostility and unfairness in
of the penal law. However, in such cases, fairness may require the obser- the examination of a party’s witnesses, thereby depriving him of a full and fair
vance of the salutary purposes behind certain rules of criminal procedure. hearing, its decision will be set aside for it has rendered itself incapacitated to
Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental pro- consider and weigh the evidence impartially.
cedural principles such as the right to due process in investigations and hear-
(3) Source -> Administrative agencies, acting in their quasi-judicial capacity,
ings. (Example: departmental trials or proceedings for the discipline of police
are tribunals of limited and special jurisdiction, that is to hear and determine
officers, license revocation, quarantine proceedings, and deportation pro-
a class of cases within their peculiar competence and expertise. Their juris-
ceedings)
diction is dependent entirely upon the validity and the terms of the statutes
reposing power in them, and they cannot confer jurisdiction on themselves.
(4) Not an action at law -> An adjudicatory proceeding before an administra- Where the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal is established by the Con-
tive agency is not an action at law; nor is it a litigation between private par- stitution, a statute attempting to enlarge such jurisdiction is unconstitutional.
ties. Under some statutes, an administrative proceeding is not a private one
but is a public one looking to public ends. Some administrative proceedings (4) Conduct; waiver; estoppel -> An administrative agency cannot enlarge its
are neither preventive nor compensatory, but are preventive and remedial to own jurisdiction nor can jurisdiction be conferred upon the agency by parties
implement a public policy. before it. Accordingly, it is held that deviations from an agency’s statutorily
established sphere of action cannot be upheld because it is based upon
agreement, contract, consent of the parties; nor can they be made effective
JURISDICTION by waiver or estoppel. It is elementary, however, that the active participation
of a party in a case pending against him before a court or quasi-judicial body,
• It is a power and authority given by law to hear and decide a case. It
is tantamount to a recognition of that court’s or body’s jurisdiction and a will-
consists of two elements - jurisdiction over the subject matter and
ingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from
jurisdiction over the person.
later on impugning its jurisdiction.
(1) Necessity -> Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations
(5) Determination of existence -> When a particular statute authorises an
of administrative agencies. Without jurisdiction, their acts are void and open
administrative agency to act in a particular situation, it necessarily confers
to collateral attack. A void judgment is no judgment at all. It can never be-
upon such agency authority to determine whether the situation is such as to
come final and executory; hence, an appeal is out of the question.
authorise the agency to act - that is, to determine the coverage of the statute
- and this question need not, and in fact cannot, be initially decided by a
(2) Scope -> An administrative tribunal has only such jurisdiction and power
court. However, an administrative agency’s determination as to its jurisdiction
as are expressly or by necessary implications conferred upon it by law. Thus,
is not conclusive upon the courts.
all controversies or matters relating to the subject matter pertaining to its
specialisation are deemed to be included within its jurisdiction since “split
25
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(6) Failure to exercise power -> While failure of an agency for a long time to rendered without authority. The Wage Administration Service is not empow-
use an important power indicates a practical construction that the power ered to render a decision binding on the parties in cases involving claims for
does not exist, a failure to exercise jurisdiction does not result in its loss. The wages, underpayment, etc., unless the parties enter into a written agreement
principle is applicable where an agency has declined in certain cases to as- to submit their dispute or differences to the WAS for arbitration, pursuant to
sume jurisdiction which it possesses. Section 9, Article 7 (c), Chapter 3 of the Code of Rules and Procedure pro-
mulgated on January 20, 1953 by the Secretary of Labor, to implement the
(7) Expiration or repeal of statute -> Expiration of a statute may be held not provisions of the Minimum Wage Law. The ordinary function of the
to deprive an administrative agency of jurisdiction to enforce the statute as to Wage Administration Service is to hear complaints or claims for
liabilities incurred while the statute was in force, where a general saving wages; and conciliate the parties if possible, and if they are willing to
statute continues such liabilities. Where there is no saving clause, repeal of a submit the case for arbitration, to have said parties enter into a written
statute while proceedings are pending and prior to the filing of an order, may agreement that they submit the case for arbitration and decision, and
remove any support in law for such order. that they would abide by the result of said arbitration, otherwise, all
that the WAS could do if it found the claim for wages meritorious, is to
file the corresponding complaint in a competent court. The agreement
(8) Jurisdiction of courts -> Administrative agencies are creatures of law, and of the parties before the Industrial Court and the stipulation of the
they have no general powers but only such as have been conferred upon proviso did not fully authorized the WAS thru its agent to render a
them by law. decision. We consider that stipulation to be insufficient to confer pow-
(a) Where the law confines in an administrative office the power to determine er and jurisdiction on the WAS to decide the case. The law and the
particular questions or matters upon the facts presented, the jurisdiction of Code of Rules and Procedure issued by the Secretary of Labor re-
such office shall prevail over the courts. quire a written agreement signed by the parties to submit to arbitra-
(b) It may occur that the courts have jurisdiction to take cognisance of a par- tion and to abide by the result of the decision flowing from said arbi-
ticular case although it involves a matter that demands the special compe- tration. Furthermore Tobacco Corporation was not able to present
evidence and later to appeal from this co-called decision of the Labor
tence of administrative agencies because the matter is also judicial in char-
Attorney because he was in a hurry and the Corporation was under
acter. the impression that the Attorney was merely conducting an investiga-
tion.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction -> if the case is such that its determination
requires the expertise, specialised skills and knowledge of the proper admin-
istrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are Case #2: DOLORITO M. FELICIANO and MAXIMO B. TAPINIO, ap-
involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding plicants- appellees. MELITON D. ALBAÑA, petitioner-appellant, vs.
before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, respondent-appellee. G.R. No.
within the proper jurisdiction of a court. L-4572 -> NO, the Director of Patents has no jurisdiction over the
case. Assignments of patents and inventions covered thereby may be
recorded in books and records kept for the purpose in the Patent Of-
Case #1: LA UNION LABOR UNION vs . PHILIPPINE TOBACCO FLUE- fice if presented in due form. But where a person other than the in-
ventor files a motion with the Director of Patents praying that the ap-
CURING & REDRYING CORPORATION -> YES, the assailed decision was
26
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
plicant-inventor be compelled to sign the contract executed by a co- cial sense for it is enough that a party is given the chance to be heard before
applicant-inventor and both applicant-inventors to acknowledge it be- the case against him is decided.
fore a notary public and then to have both documents recorded in the (c) One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and per-
Patent Office and in the office of the registrar of deeds, the Director of haps many times more creditably and practicable than oral agreement,
Patents has no power and authority to compel the applicant-inventors
through pleadings. There is no violation of procedural due process even if no
to do what the movant is asking them to perform. What the movant
formal or trial-type hearing was conducted, where the party was notified of
asks the Director of Patents to do for him is essentially a judicial func-
tion which would require the determination of finding by a court of the charge against him and given a chance to defend himself or explain his
competent jurisdiction as to whether there was a meeting of the side of controversy. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for an ad-
minds of the contracting parties before it could compel any of them to ministrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affi-
perform what the movant prays the court to order him to do. davits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of wit-
nesses may take the place of their direct testimony.
(d) What is frowned upon or repugnant to due process is the denial of the
2. Rules on Adjudication under the Administrative Code opportunity to be heard. Hence, a party cannot complain denial of due
process on the ground that he was not given the chance to cross-examine
Administrative Due Process the adverse party and his witnesses where he had been afforded every op-
portunity to present his side, or that he was not allowed to present additional
(1) Nature -> The right to due process is not merely statutory. It is a constitu- evidence before a quasi-judicial official where said party, in the appeal before
tional right. It applies to, and must be observed in judicial as well as adminis- said official, had already submitted voluminous supporting documents.
trative proceedings to every case which may deprive a person of life, liberty,
or property. The liberality of procedure in administrative actions is still subject (3) Requisites:
to limitations by the fundamental requirement of this constitutional guarantee. (a) The right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the
proceedings that may affect a person’s legal right.
(2) Essence -> The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the (b) The night to reasonable opportunity to appear personally or with the as-
basic requirement of notice and real opportunity to be heard. As applied to sistance of counsel and defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and
administrative proceedings, it simply means an opportunity to explain one’s relevant evidence in his favour, by testimony or otherwise, and to controvert
side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling com- the evidence of the other party.
plained of, and to submit any evidence a person may have in support of his (c) The right to a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction, so constituted as
defense. to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality.
(a) For as long as the parties were afforded fair and reasonable opportunity (d) The right to a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial
to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their arguments before evidence presented at the hearing or at least ascertained in the records, or
judgment was rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. disclosed or made known to the parties affected. The rule is that a decision
(b) Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. Admin- rendered without due process is void ab initio, and may be attacked at any-
istrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judi- time directly or collaterally by means of a separate action or proceeding
where it is invoked.
27
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
It may be true that the temporary approval of DTS-35 resulted in the im-
mediate operation of the opposed flights before the existence of eco-
Case #1: AIR MANILA vs. HON. MARCELO S. BALATBAT -> Whether or nomic justification therefor has been finally determined. But this fact
not the Civil Aeronautics Board acted without jurisdiction when it issued alone would not work against the validity of the provisional authorization
Resolution No. 139 (68): Administrative proceedings are not exempt from thus issued. For, under the law, the Civil Aeronautics Board is not only
the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedural principles, such empowered to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity; it
as the due process requirements in investigations and trials. And this ad- can also issue, deny, revise, alter, modify, cancel suspend or revoke, in
whole or in part, any temporary operating permit, upon petition or
ministrative due process is recognized to include (a) the right to notice, be
complaint of another or even at its own initiative. It may be also pointed out
it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may affect a
that the new schedule objected to by Air Manila will affect its services in six
person’s legal rights; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his routes, but, the schedule of flights provisionally approved in Resolution No.
rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor, (c) a tribunal 139(68) was subsequently readjusted by the Board in order to conform
so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and im- with its established policy on separation time between flights. It is evident
partiality, and one of competent Jurisdiction; and (d) a finding or decision by from the foregoing facts that not only has the resolution subject of the
that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hear- present petition been modified, but its effectivity had been fixed up
ing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected. In to 30 September 1968. There being no proof that the situation
the present case, the provisional approval by the Board of PAL’s proposed existing when Resolution No. 139 (68) was issued still persists, the
issue herein presented apparently has become moot and academic.
DTS-35 does not violate the requisites of administrative due process. Admit-
tedly, after PAL’s proposal to introduce new night flights had been referred to
a hearing examiner for economic justification, PAL submitted a so-called
consolidated schedule of flights, DTS-35, that included the same night flights
involved in Case 1414, and this was allowed by Resolution No. 139 (68).
Also, the provisional authorization of DTS-35 does not violate the req-
uisite hearing and investigation of the new flight schedules, and consequent-
ly, it did not deprive Air Manila of its right to be heard. In allowing the opera-
tion or effectivity of PAL’s consolidated flight schedule, it was precisely pre-
scribed that ―all schedules under the DTS-35 for which no previous ap-
Case #2: CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING v. LORETTA ANN P.ROS-
proval has been granted by the Board, are hereby referred to a hearing ex-
ALES + [ GR No. 209283, Mar 11, 2015 ] -> NO, Quisumbing's con-
aminer for reception of evidence on its economic justification. Such hearings tention that she was denied due process is incorrect. The petition also
were actually conducted by the hearing examiner and a report on the result fails with respect to the petitioner's claim of denial of due process. There
thereof was submitted to the Board. And the Board, considering the said can be no denial of due process where a party was afforded an opportunity
report, passed Resolution no. 190 (68) approving the 3 or 4 frequencies of to present his case. In the present case, the petitioner was given ample
the 7 new flights. There is no proof, not even allegation, that in all those opportunity to air her side on the allegations against her after being suffi-
bearings, Air Manila was not notified or given opportunity to adduce evi- ciently apprised of the allegations against her; she was afforded the
dence in support of its opposition. chance to submit her written explanation. Unfortunately, the petitioner
28
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
failed to avail of that right, and chose to directly seek the intervention of (4) Right to counsel -> While investigations conducted by an administrative
this Court. These circumstances, by themselves, point the prematurity of body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, a party in an administra-
the petition. tive inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel irrespective of the nature
of the charges and of the respondents capacity to represent himself. No duty
Jurisprudence tells us that the essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is the chance to explain one's side, or seek a reconsideration rests on such body to furnish the person investigated with counsel. The right
of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because the in-
opportunity to be heard before any definitive action is taken, the demands quiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit
of due process are sufficiently met. disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees with the
purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. The right, while
We stress, at the outset, that the subsequent referral of the case to the
Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate prosecutorial action rendered desirable is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Consti-
the issues raised in the present petition moot and academic insofar as tution or the law. An administrative body is thus under no duty to provide a
the CHR is concerned. Records disclose that the CHR, through Chair- person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute re-
person Rosales and Commissioners Dela Cruz and Mamauag, issued an quirement. This is especially true in military academy disciplinary proceeding.
Order stating that it could no longer act on the petitioner's Motion to Dis-
miss since the case had been forwarded to the Office of the Ombuds-
(5) Effect of denial of due process -> Constitutes grave abuse of discretion
man. Thus, no practical relief can be granted to the petitioner by resolv-
ing the present petition since the proceedings before the CHR the initia- and may result in the invalidation of the administrative proceedings and the
tion of an investigation through the issuance of the assailed Show Cause order or determination entered against a party. A decision is void for lack of
Order had been terminated. The petition likewise fails for plain lack of due process if as a result a party is deprived of an opportunity to be heard. A
merit. The OSG correctly argued that the respondents, in their official void decision may be assailed or impugned at any time either directly or col-
capacities as Chairperson and Members of the CHR, did not engage in
laterally by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any
judicial or quasi-judicial functions; they did not adjudicate the rights and
obligations of the contending parties but simply undertook to initiate the action or proceeding where it is invoked.
investigation of the allegations against the petitioner. The inquiry was not
a quasi-judicial proceeding, where offenses were charged, parties were Case: ANITA VILLA vs. MANUEL LAZARO, as Presidential Assistant for
heard and penalties were imposed. It was at most, an exercise of fact- Legal Affairs, Office of the President, and the HUMAN SETTLE-
finding investigation, which is entirely distinct and different from the con- MENTS REGULATORY COMMISSION. 1990 |-> Yes, the petitioner is denied
cept of adjudication. The power to initiate an investigation and to refer of due process. These facts present a picture of official incompe-
the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman is within the power of the
tence or gross negligence and abdication of duty, if not of active bias and
CHR as an entity with its own distinct personality and is recognized by no
less than the Constitution. Thus, the CHR did not commit any grave partiality, that is most reprehensible. The result has been to subvert and
abuse of discretion in its actions. In sum, we find that the petition for cer- put to naught the judgment rendered in a suit regularly tried and decided by
tiorari and prohibition should be dismissed for mootness and for lack of a court of justice, to deprive one party of rights confirmed and secured
merit. thereby and to accord her adversary, in a different forum, the relief he
had sought and been denied in said case. Dr. Veneracion had resorted to
29
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
the proscribed practice of forum-shopping when, following adverse judg- Villa without informing her of the complaint which initiated the case; for
ment of the CFI in his suit to enjoin the construction of Villa's funeral conducting that inquiry in the most informal manner by means only of
parlor, he had, instead of appealing that judgment, lodged a complaint communications requiring submission of certain documents, which left the
with the respondent Commission on substantially the same ground liti- impression that compliance was all that was expected of her and with which
gated in the action, while the respondent Commission took cognizance directives she promptly and religiously complied; assuming that one of the
of the complaint and by telegram required Villa to submit a locational documents thus successively submitted had been received, but given the
clearance, said respondent did not then or at any time before issuance of fact that on at least two occasions, their transmission had been pre-
the order and writ of execution complained of bother to put her on ceded by telegrams announcing that they would follow by mail, for fail-
notice, formally or otherwise, of Veneracion's complaint. It was therefore ing to call Villa's attention to their non-
wholly natural for Villa to assume, as it is apparent she did, that no formal receipt or to make any other attempt to trace their whereabouts; for
adversarial inquiry was underway and that the telegram was what it purport- ruling against Villa on the spurious premise that she has failed
ed to be on its face: a routinary request, issued motu proprio/ on his own to submit the documents required; and for maintaining to the very end
impulse, to submit proof of compliance with locational requirements. pretense of lack of compliance even after
And such assumption was doubtless fortified by petitioner's knowl- being presented with a fourth set of documents and the decision in the
edge that she already had in her favor a judgment on the subject against court case upholding her right to operate her funeral parlor in its questioned
which her opponent had taken no recourse by appeal or otherwise. Neither is location. Whether born of ineptitude, negligence, bias or malice, su
there any serious dispute about what transpired thereafter, about the fact ch lapses are indefensible. Petitioner is plainly the victim of either gross
that in response to that first and the subsequent demands sent ignorance or negligence or abuse of power, or a combination of both. All of
by Commissioner Dizon, Villa not once but thrice furnished the Commission the foregoing translate to a DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS against which the
by registered mail with copies, variously, of official documents certifying defense of failure to take timely appeal will not avail. ——— Adminis-
to her compliance with the pertinent locational, zoning and land trative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain basic and
use requirements and plans. None of these documents appears to have fundamental procedural principles, such as the due process require-
made any impression on Commissioner Dizon, whose show-cause order of ments in investigations
April 28, 1982 and order of June 29, 1982 imposing a P10K fine on and trials. And this administrative process is recognized to include: (a)
petitioner made no mention of them whatsoever. Not even Villa's submission the
of said documents a fourth time to support her motion for reconsideration of a RIGHT TO NOTICE, be it actual or constructive, of the institution OF
writ of execution could move Commissioner Dizon to stop acting as if THE PROCEEDINGS that may affect a person’s legal right; (b) REASON-
said documents did not exist at all. True, only copies had been submitted, but ABLE
ordinary prudence and fairness dictated at least some inquiry into their OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND DEFEND HIS RIGHTS, INTRO-
authenticity, and this would not have posed any great difficulty considering DUCE
their purportedly official origins. There was absolutely no excuse for WITNESSES AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE in his favor; (c) a TRI-
initiating what is held out as an administrative proceeding against BUNAL SO CONSTITUTED as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty
30
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
and impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction; and (d) a FINDING OR such proceedings is not to be tested by the strict legal rules which prevail in
DECISION BY THAT TRIBUNAL SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVI- courts of law.
DENCE PRESENTED at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or
disclosed to the parties affected. -- And it being clear that some, (a) The atmosphere of administrative tribunals may be one of expeditious-
at least, of those essential elements did not ness, expertness, or liberally conceived remedies.
obtain or were not present in the proceedings complained of, any judg
(b) All the strict rules of evidence governing judicial controversies do not
ment rendered, or order issued, therein was null and void, could never be-
need to be observed; only such as are fundamental and essential like the
come final and could be attacked in any appropriate proceeding. Also, an
right of cross-examination. Hearsay evidence may even be admitted, provid-
earlier judgment on the merits by a competent court cannot be negated
ed the party interested is given the opportunity to explain or rebut it. Docu-
by a result of administrative proceedings. What the record shows is th
ments which cannot eb admitted in a judicial proceeding where the Rules of
at the petitioner responded promptly to orders and communications sent to
Court are strictly observed may be accepted.
her. At any rate, this court will not permit the result of an administrative pro-
ceeding riddled with serious defects already pointed out to negate an earlier
(c) Conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies have consistently
judgment on the merits on the same matter regularly rendered by competent
required some proof of authentication or reliability as a condition for admis-
court.
sion of documents. An official document from a foreign government can be
admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body even
without observing the rules on presenting official documents of a foreign
3. Applicability of rules governing judicial proceedings government as provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court where
the opposing parties have a copy of said document, and they can easily veri-
(1) Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily -> the differences in origin and fy its authenticity and accuracy.
function of courts and of administrative agencies preclude the wholesale
transportation to administrative proceedings of the rules of procedure, trial, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court -> Sec. 24. Proof of official record.
and review which have evolved from the history and experience of courts. - The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of section 19,
The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to proceed- when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
ings before an administrative body with quasi-judicial powers only in the ab- thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
sence of different and valid statutory or administrative proceedings prescrib- record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
ing the ground rules for the investigation, hearing and adjudication of cases Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the officer in
before it. which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-con-
(2) Strict legal rules not applicable -> Usually, the procedure of administrative sul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philip-
agencies is not as formal and strict as that of the court, and the regularity of
31
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
pines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and the au-  
thenticated by the seal of his office.
(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative  

agencies are, as a rule, unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of pro-
cedure applicable to courts in the adjudication of cases, administrative agen-
 
cies, the same as courts, must act within, and cannot exceed, their jurisdic-
3. Applicability of rules governing judicial proceedings
tion, nor entirely dispense with the basic rules on proving allegations.
(1) Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily -> the differences in origin and
function of courts and of administrative agencies preclude the wholesale
transportation to administrative proceedings of the rules of procedure, trial,
• An administrative agency’s exemption from strict legal rules of pro-
and review which have evolved from the history and experience of courts.
cedure does not empower it to act arbitrarily, and even a statutory
exemption from rules of procedure cannot authorise exemption from The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to proceed-
the due process guarantee in the exercise of its quasi-judicial pow- ings before an administrative body with quasi-judicial powers only in the ab-
ers. Thus, it has no power to make conclusions of fact before hearing sence of different and valid statutory or administrative proceedings prescrib-
all the parties concerned. The right to notice and hearing is essential ing the ground rules for the investigation, hearing and adjudication of cases
to due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, will invalidate before it.
administrative proceedings.
• Due process, however, in an administrative context does not require (2) Strict legal rules not applicable -> Usually, the procedure of administrative
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. The consti- agencies is not as formal and strict as that of the court, and the regularity of
tutional mandate is deemed fully satisfied where the parties are af- such proceedings is not to be tested by the strict legal rules which prevail in
forded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the courts of law.
controversy at hand.
(a) The atmosphere of administrative tribunals may be one of expeditious-
ness, expertness, or liberally conceived remedies.
(b) All the strict rules of evidence governing judicial controversies do not
need to be observed; only such as are fundamental and essential like the
right of cross-examination. Hearsay evidence may even be admitted, provid-
ed the party interested is given the opportunity to explain or rebut it. Docu-
ments which cannot eb admitted in a judicial proceeding where the Rules of
 
Court are strictly observed may be accepted.
32
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(c) Conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies have consistently ers. Thus, it has no power to make conclusions of fact before hearing
required some proof of authentication or reliability as a condition for admis- all the parties concerned. The right to notice and hearing is essential
sion of documents. An official document from a foreign government can be to due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, will invalidate
admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body even administrative proceedings.
without observing the rules on presenting official documents of a foreign • Due process, however, in an administrative context does not require
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. The consti-
government as provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court where
tutional mandate is deemed fully satisfied where the parties are af-
the opposing parties have a copy of said document, and they can easily veri-
forded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
fy its authenticity and accuracy.
controversy at hand.
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court -> Sec. 24. Proof of official record.
- The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of section 19,
 
when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the  
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the officer in
which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-con-  
sul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philip-
pines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and the au-
thenticated by the seal of his office.
(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative

agencies are, as a rule, unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of pro- Case: CONSOLACION BAUTISTA, in representation of deceased
ANDRES BAUTISTA, vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMIS-
cedure applicable to courts in the adjudication of cases, administrative agen-
SION and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS -> Yes the petitioner was
cies, the same as courts, must act within, and cannot exceed, their jurisdic- deprived of due process. Failure of the counsel of claimant to appear on
tion, nor entirely dispense with the basic rules on proving allegations. the scheduled hearings is excusable because he either received the no-
tice of hearing by ordinary mail several days after the scheduled date or
he was not notified of the said hearings. Furthermore, the WCC record
does not show that indeed counsel for claimant received notice of hear-
• An administrative agency’s exemption from strict legal rules of pro- ing prior to the aforesaid scheduled date of hearing.
cedure does not empower it to act arbitrarily, and even a statutory
exemption from rules of procedure cannot authorise exemption from The Court ruled that the respondent Commission gravely abused its dis-
cretion in ignoring and in not passing upon the issue of denial of due
the due process guarantee in the exercise of its quasi-judicial pow-
33
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
process squarely presented by claimant's counsel. The very rules of the in the course of employment and his disability took place before the
Commission require the giving of reasonable notice of hearing to each compulsory age of retirement.
party interested by service upon him personally or by registered mail of a
copy thereof at his last known post office address or if he is represented The absence of an x-ray report cannot prejudice claimant's right to com-
by a counsel, through the latter, so as to ensure observance and protec- pensation. For We have already ruled that an x-ray report/result is not an
tion of an interested party's right to a hearing. indispensable prerequisite to compensation; and that said x-ray finding
Patent therefore is the failure of the hearing officer to observe these need not be attached to the Physician's Report, because it can be logi-
rules. Under cally inferred from the said report that a previous x-ray examination was
the circumstances, claimant was clearly deprived of his day in court. made. Otherwise, the physician could not have arrived at his diagnosis.
Consequently, the dismissal of the claim premised on claimant and his
counsel's "repeated non-appearance" at the aforestated hearings cannot
stand.
ON JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 4. Quantum of proof required in administrative cases
It is the contention of the petitioner that the evidence on record is already The degree of proof required by which a case must be established before an
sufficient as a basis for the rendition of a decision on the merits; and administrative tribunal is not satisfied by proof creating an equipoise, but it
prays that the claim be now resolved on the basis thereof.
does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases or pre-
Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, We agree with petitioner. ponderance of evidence as in civil cases. A statute may specially provide for
WE have previously ruled that on the basis of the pleadings before Us, a greater or a lesser degree of proof than simple preponderance.
despite a technical or procedural lapse in the hearing below, We can de-
cide a compensation claim and terminate the matter here and now. WE Findings of facts of administrative agencies must be respected as long as
reasoned out that, the law being in claimant's favor, humane reasons they are supported by substantial evidence even if they are not overwhelm-
aimed at promoting justice and the general welfare of the workingman,
ing or preponderant as in civil cases. Substantial evidence, as has been stat-
justify the rendition of a decision on the merits. The niceties and refine-
ments of technical rules on procedure must give way to effect substantial ed before, is more than a mere scintilla, it means such relevant evidence as
justice to the claimant. a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if
other equally reasonable minds conceivably opine otherwise and its absence
It must be clarified that although Andres applied for retirement on August is not shown by stressing that there is a contrary evidence on record, direct
16, 1973 on the ground of disability and stopped working on that date, he
or circumstantial, for the court in determining wherein lies the weight of evi-
apparently resumed working when his retirement application was not
acted upon and thereafter again filed and/or reiterated his application for dence or what evidence is entitled to belief, cannot substitute its own judg-
retirement. These account for his conflicting claims as to the exact date ment or criteria for that of the administrative agency.
when he filed his application for retirement and stopped working for re-
spondent employer. At any rate, those conflicting dates cannot prejudice • substantial evidence vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt
this compensation claim as it is clear that claimant's illness supervened • substantial evidence vs. preponderance of evidence
34
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
amined them, said taxpayer must be given an opportunity to prove,
by secondary evidence that the assessment is incorrect.
Case #1: RICARDO S. SANTOS, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. MARI-
ANO NABLE, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellees. [G.R. No. Case #2: ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN, petitioner, vs. PAMPAN-
L-12073. May 23, 1961.] -> YES, the petitioner must be given an GA BUS COMPANY AND LA MALLORCA COMPANY, respon-
opportunity to prove by secondary evidence. Upon the other hand — dents. GR L-7996-99 -> No, the Public Service Commission have
as far as the record discloses — when the first reinvestigation was not erred in denying the application of Buan for additional lines. The
made, appellant's books were not returned to him in order that he law, in investing the Public Service Commission with power of
may use them to prove the inaccuracy of some of the findings of supervision and control over public transportation has also
agent Cosare, and the reinvestigation consisted merely in Cosare clothed it with broad discretion in the exercise of that power.
going over the books again by himself. When during the hearing be- With that discretion Supreme Court is not supposed to interfere
fore the Conference Staff, the Bureau of Internal Revenue could not except in case of clear abuse. Where the findings of the Public
produce appellant's books when such production was demanded, Service Commission are obviously supported by more than sub-
the latter was virtually deprived of the opportunity to prove his case stantial evidence the same are binding upon the Supreme Court
with the best possible evidence — his own books. It is true — as and the latter is not required to examine the proof de novo
appellee says in his brief — that a taxpayer who contests the cor- and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of
rectness of an assessment has the burden of proving his contention. evidence really justified the decision appealed from. The Commi-
This, appellant was willing to do but, as already stated, he was de- sion sent 2 checkers to inspect the situation to aid in the determina-
prived of the best means of doing it with the loss of his books. His tion of whether additional service is needed by the public. The Com-
only error, perhaps, was in not producing secondary evidence of their mission was able to conclude that there was indeed no need for ad-
contents during the hearing before the Conference Staff. ditional services. Absent proof that the Commission abused its dis-
cretion/powers, Court respects Commission judgment.
In view of the circumstances disclosed by the record, we believe that, in equi-
ty, appellant should be given a last opportunity to prove — even with
secondary evidence — Case #3: GLENIA UY, for and in behalf of her minors,* REYNALDO,
MARIA ELENA (MARILEN), and CONCHITA, all surnamed UY,
TAXATION; ASSESSMENT QUESTIONED; TAXPAYER'S BOOKS LOST BY petitioners, vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
B.I.R. AGENT; TAXPAYER MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO and LUCY PEREZ, respondents. [G.R. No. L-43389 April 28,
PROVE CONTENTION BY SECONDARY EVIDENCE. — Where a 1980] -> NO, Perez's contention that the Uys failed to support its
taxpayer questions the correctness of an assessment against him claim of employment with documentary evidence but only through
and is apparently not acting in bad faith or merely attempting to delay oral testimonies of witnesses is incorrect. Again, the SC cannot
payment, but is deprived of the best means of proving his contention agree with Perez for "an employee is any person in the service of
because his books of account were lost by the B.I.R. agent who ex- another under a contract for hire, express or implied, oral or written
(Sunripe Coconut Products Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
35
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
& Sunrise Coconut Workers' Union [CLO], L-2009, April 30, 1949, dent, Lucy Perez, was engaged in buying palay and milling said
XIV L.J. 472; citing Medermott's Case, 283 Mass. 74; Werner vs. palay in her rice mill at Bo. Tugbong, Kananga, Leyte and selling the
Industrial Comm., 212 Wis. 76; Emphasis supplied). Moreover, it is milled palay at Ormoc City; that because of the activities of the de-
true that the existence of employer-employee relationship is often ceased, he considered the deceased as an overseer of the respon-
difficult of determination because it was purposely made so by em- dent, Lucy Perez, that he found from his investigation that the cause
ployers bent on evading liability under the Workmen's Compensation for which the chinaman Ki Lam Uy alias Vicente Uy was murdered it
and Nationalization Laws. as because of the demand of the robbers for money from him as the
deceased was the one handling the money of the respondent in buy-
In the case at bar, records disclosed that deceased Ki Lam Uy was employed ing palay, and as such, he was entrusted with the same; that he fur-
as "machine operator," "overseer" or "cashier" of Perez. The respon- ther found out that at the time of the robbery there was no sufficient
dent Commission failed to give due weight to the police report of Pa- cash in the possession of the deceased and the cash he had was
trolman Amador Profetana, which Identified the deceased as "the hardly sufficient to buy five (5) sacks of palay, but in spite of that, the
overseer of Lucy Perez," the private respondent who resides in Or- deceased Ki Lam Uy alias Vicente Uy refused to surrender the same
moc City. Patrolman Profetana, who investigated the killing made an to the robbers as the same was in his possession, so he was killed
initial spot report stating among other things "(t)hat at about 1900H by the assailants (robbers). There is no quarrel as to the admissibility
[7:00 P.M.] 27 September 1974 an incident took place in the house of of said police report as Section 1 (d), Rule 16 of the Workmen's
a certain Lucy Perez at Sitio Agay- ayan Bo. Tugbong, Kananga, Compensation Commission Rules specifically affirms the admissibili-
Leyte per verbal report of the rice mill caretaker thereat received at ty of reports of government agencies covering material facts. Addi-
the Police Headquarters on the same evening of 27 Sept. 1974 at tionally, Section 5318.01, Labor Manual impliedly supports the ad-
around 203OH [8:30 P.M.]. missibility of police reports. It reads: The cooperation of the following
government agencies or officials may be sought in developing evi-
A combined PC-Police Team was sent to conduct an on-the-spot investiga- dence to establish claims:
tion and it as found out that a certain Vicente Uy (alias Ki Lam Uy),
67 years, married, Chinese citizen under ACR# and an overseer of a. The Bureau of Mines & Bureau of Health ... b. The Bureau of Customs ...
Lucy Perez with residence at Ormoc City was killed inside his c. The Weather Bureau ...
dwelling after having been hacked several times on different parts of
his body that resulted in his immediate death. A portion of the deci- d. Provincial, City or Municipal Officials — When appropriate, the aid of these
sion of the Hearing Officer, who found the existence of employer- officials may be requested in securing copies of police reports, locat-
employee relationship between the deceased and private respon- ing claimant's or employers' whereabouts, or in making payments of
dent, is hereunder quoted: The said witness (Patrolman Amador Pro- compensation to claimants (Fernandez & Quiazon, Labor Standards
fetana) further testified that the deceased, Ki Lam Uy, was in charge & Welfare Legislation 689 [1964]).
of the management of the farm of Lucy Perez, as well as the rice
mill, the buying and selling palay and other activities in connection xxx xxx xxx
with the business of the respondent, Lucy Perez; that the respon-
36
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
The findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commission that an employ-
ment relation existed was upheld as supported by substantial evi- Case #4: PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE
dence. In a police investigation conducted on the very day of the ac- MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, respondent. [G.R.
cident, two workers of the petitioners declared in the course of the No. L-7338. May 31, 1955] -> NO, the Court of Industrial Relations
investigation that the deceased was their co-worker. Considering that authorize the layoff of workers on the basis of an ocular inspection
these statements were made at a time when connivance was most without receiving full evidence to determine the cause of motive of
remote, because the question of such layoff. In the course of the ocular inspection Judge Roldan pro-
compensation had not yet arisen, these must be accepted as truthful, al- ceeded to interrogate the workers he found in the place in the pres-
though subsequently these workers tried to repudiate their own dec- ence of the counsel of both parties. The testimony of those interro-
larations (Fernandez & Quiason, supra, Appendix, citing the case of gated was taken down and the counsel of both parties were allowed
Jueco vs. Flores, to cross-examine them. Judge Roldan also proceeded to examine
L-19325, Feb. 28, 1964, 10 SCRA 304, 307; Emphasis supplied). some of the records of respondent company among them the time
cards of some workers which showed that while the workers reported
The initial spot report (Annexes "L" & "M") made by the police officer in the for work, when their presence was checked they were found to be no
case at bar as to surrounding circumstances of the killing of Ki Lam longer in the premises. And on the strength of the findings made by
Uy merits belief as it was likewise made at a time when connivance Judge Roldan in this ocular inspection he reached the conclusion
between the persons investigated was most remote and the question that the petition for layoff was justified because there was no more
of compensability under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not work for the laborers to do in connection with the different jobs given
yet in their minds. It may not be amiss to state further that nothing to them.
appears in the record that would sufficiently overcome the presump-
tion that official duty had been performed. Henceforth, there being no The record before the court on this matter is not clear and for such reason it
showing that the police officer in the present case maliciously or has no way of determining the truth of both claims.
recklessly conducted the investigation and prepared the police re-
port, the police report must be given more probative weight than the - The stenographic notes taken during the ocular inspection have not
bias testimonies of private respondent's witnesses. The ruling of re- been elevated for the reason undoubtedly that this is a petition for
spondent Commission was in effect not in furtherance of the pre- review and the only issue before the court is one of law.
sumption of moral sense of responsibility of police officers and the
presumption of regularity of acts of military officers contrary to Our - The only guide that the court finds is the order itself of the court of ori-
ruling in the case of People vs. Dela Cruz (L-1745, May 23, 1950; 5 gin which contains a reference to the evidence that it has consid-
Martin, Rules of Court 480 [1974]). While as a rule, matters of credi- ered for the layoff of the workers. – NOV 8 Order
bility and weight to be assigned to a particular item of evidence are - Although the CIR, in the determination of any question or controversy, may
primarily for the Commission, the same is true only where the find- adopt, its own rules of procedure and may act according to justice
ings of the Commission are supported by substantial, credible and and equity without regard to technicalities, and for that matter is
competent evidence. not bound by any technical rules of evidence, this broad grant of
37
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
power should not be interpreted to mean that it can ignore or dis- main case. This action is in our opinion premature and has worked
regard the fundamental requirements of due process in the trials injustice to the laborers.
and investigations of cases brought before it for determination. As
aptly pointed out by this court,there are certain cardinal primary
rights which the CIR must respect in the trial of every labor case. Case #5: FORTUNATO F. HALILI, petitioner, vs . JORGE R. FLORO, re-
One of them is the right to a hearing which includes the right of the spondent. [G.R. No. L-3465. October 25, 1951.] -> No. (1) Opposi-
party interested to present his own case and submit evidence in tor waived his preference. — "Halili should have applied to the
support thereof. Commission for that purpose before the respondent had presented
- An ocular inspection of the establishment or premises involved is proper if this application and made the requisite preparations for increasing
the court finds it necessary, but such is authorized only to help the his carrying capacity. The oppositor has waived his preference, if he
court in clearing a doubt, reaching a conclusion, or finding the had any, in supplying deficiency."
truth. But it is not the main trial nor should it exclude the presenta-
tion of other evidence which the parties may deem necessary to (2) No showing that PSC decision contrary to law or rendered without juris-
establish their case. It is merely an auxiliary remedy the law af- diction.
fords the parties or the court to reach an enlightened determination — "Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, known as the Public Service
of the case. Act, provides, among other things, that the Supreme Court has juris-
- Considering the merits of the controversy before us, we are of the opinion diction to modify or set aside an order, ruling, or decision of the Pub-
that the required due process has not been followed. The court a lic Service Commission 'when it clearly appears that there was no
quo merely acted on the strength of the ocular inspection it con- evidence, before the Commission to support reasonably such order,
ducted in the premises of the respondent company. The petition for ruling, or decision, or that the same is contrary to law, or that it was
layoff was predicated on the lack of work and of the further fact without the jurisdiction of the Commission.' It is not pretended that
that the company was incurring financial losses. These allegations the decision under review is contrary to law or that it was without ju-
cannot be established by a mere inspection of the place of labor risdiction of the Commission."
specially when such inspection was conducted at the request of
the interested party. (3) Factual findings supported by ample evidence binding upon the courts. —
"After a review of the evidence presented in connection with the ar-
As counsel for petitioner says, such inspection could at best witness "the su- guments of the parties regarding the conclusions of fact reached by
perficial fact of cessation of work but it could not be determinative of the Commission, We find that there is ample evidence to support the
the larger and more fundamental issue of lack of work due to lack of decision in question with very cogent reasons. We are not at liberty
funds". This fundamental issue cannot be determined without looking to substitute our own findings for those of the Commission reason-
into the financial situation of the respondent company. In fact, this ably supported by the evidence even if We had some plausible
matter is now being looked into by the court a quo in connection with ground to make the modification, which in the present case We do
the fourteen demands of the labor union, but before finishing its in- not have.”
quiry it decided to grant the layoff pending final determination of the
38
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(b) A particular administrative body is authorised to hear and decide appeals
from, and review the determinations of, certain other administrative bodies or
officers.
5. Administrative res judicata
(2) Types and kinds:
The doctrine of res judicata -> Provides that a final judgment on the merits
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of (a) That which inheres in the relation of administrative superior to administra-
the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent tive subordinate where determinations are made at lower levels of the same
action involving the same demand, claim, or cause of action. The doctrine agency or department;
operates only upon the parties and prevents them, on account of a prior de-
(b) That embraced in statutes which provide for a determination to be made
termination, from litigating a controversy or issue which, except for the prior
by a particular officer or body subject to appeal, review, or redetermination by
determination, could have been litigated in the subsequent proceeding. It,
another officer or body in the same agency or in the same administrative sys-
thus, forbids the reopening if a matter once determined by competent author-
tem;
ity acting within its jurisdiction.
(c) That in which the statute makes or attempts to make a court a part of the
As to determinations in the field of administrative law -> it is said that the rule
administrative scheme by providing in terms or effect that the court, on re-
of res judicata is applicable to determinations in the field of administrative law
view of the action of an administrative agency, shall exercise powers of such
as well as to courts whenever consistent with the purposes of the tribunal,
extent that they differ from ordinary judicial functions and involve a trial de
board, or officer. Such departures from the rule as there may be in adminis-
novo of matters of fact or discretion and application of the independent judg-
trative law appear to spring from the peculiar necessities of the particular
ment of the court;
case or the nature of the precise power being exercised, rather than from any
general distinction between courts and administrative tribunals. Even admin-
(d) That in which the statute provides that an order made by a division of a
istrative proceedings must end sometime just as public policy demands that
Commission or Board has the same force and effect as if made by the Com-
finality be written on judicial controversies.
mission subject to a rehearing by the full Commission, for the “rehearing” is
practically an appeal to another administrative tribunal;
 
(e) That in which the statute provides for an appeal to an officer on an inter-
mediate level with subsequent appeal to the head of the department or
6. Administrative appeals and review
agency;
(1) Hierarchy of authorities -> in many administrative systems, there is a hi-
(f) That embraced in statutes which provide for appeal at the highest level,
erarchy of authorities so that by express provision of statute or otherwise:
namely, the President.
(a) A review may be had within the administrative system itself of the action
of lower administrative authorities by their superiors
39
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(3) Partly entitled to appeal and review -> In order to be entitled to appeal purity, quality and fitness for consumption. There is no such provision in the
and review by an appellate administrative body of the determination of a Act No. 2613. It does not provide the basis for a standard or how and in what
subordinate or another administrative body, a party must have been affected manner it shall be ascertained.
or aggrieved by it, and must so prove.
2. Judicial Review of or Reliefs against Administrative Actions

Case: WALTER OLSEN VS. ALDANESE AND TRINIDAD March 29, 1922 - 1) Policy of the courts in general
> NO. Note Clause A and Clause B of Section 6 of Act No. 2613. * The power
of the Collector of Internal Revenue to make rules and regulations is confined > Non-interference unless there is a clear showing of whimsical exer-
to the making of rules and regulations for the classification, marking, and cise of judgment or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of ju-
packing of tobacco, and that such power is further limited to the making of risdiction
such rules for the classification, marking and packing of tobacco as may be
necessary to secure leaf tobacco of good quality and its handling under sani- General rule: It is the policy of the courts not to interfere with the actions of
tary conditions. * This power is further limited to the end that leaf tobacco be government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under
not mixed, packed and marked as of the same quality when it is not of the their special knowledge and training or specific field of specific expertise,
same class and origin. * The Legislature has not defined what shall be the considering that by their nature and functions they are in the best position to
standard or the type of leaf or manufactured tobacco which may be exported know the limits of their powers under prevailing circumstances or situations.
to the US, or even specified how or upon what basis the Collector of Internal This is applicable in the grant of licenses, permits, leases, or the approval,
Revenue should fix or determine the standard. All of that power is delegated rejection, or revocation of applications therefor, subjected to well-settled ex-
to the Collector of Internal Revenue. * Moreover, neither the Collector of In- ceptions, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus do not lie against the legisla-
ternal Revenue nor the Legislature itself has any power to discriminate in tive and executive branches or the members thereof acting in the exercise of
favor of one province against the other. The purpose of the Legislature was their official functions, basically in consideration of the respect due from the
that a proper standard of the quality of tobacco should be fixed and defined, judiciary to said departments of co-equal and coordinate ranks under the
and that all of those who produce tobacco of the same standard should have principle of separation of powers.
equal rights and opportunities. It was never intended that a standard should
be fixed which would limit the manufacture of cigars for export to certain Exception: Unless there is a clear showing of capricious or whimsical exer-
provinces of the island. That would amount to discrimination and class legis- cise of judgment or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
lation which even the Legislature has no power to enact.* The defendants jurisdiction.  
rely on the case of Buttfield vs. Stranahan (the tea case). That case, howev-
er, is not on all fours with the present case in that in the tea case, a board
was created, composed of tea experts who shall prepare and submit the 2) Right to judicial review
standard samples of tea, and that upon the recommendation of the said
board, the Secretary of Treasury shall fix and establish uniform standards of
40
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
-> It has reference both to the power and right of the court to grant the re- administrative officials from exceeding their jurisdiction or taking arbitrary and
view sought and the right in the person who invokes the power of the court. unreasonable action and no special provision of law is necessary to confer
upon the courts, authority already possessed by them under the Constitution.
> Right granted by statute or where review a matter of right under the
Constitution -> The legislative practice has ordinarily been to provide judi- Case: THE SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and FRANCISCO ANDRES,
cial review for administrative adjudications, whether required by constitutional petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, NATIONAL
commands or not. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GREGORIO YANGLAY, JR., re-
spondents. G.R. No. L-39195 May 16, 1975 -> YES, Supreme Court has
(a) Where judicial review is provided in the statute, the right if appeal to the the jurisdiction to review the decisions of NLRC and
courts is to be determined by looking at the statute, the valid regulations
promulgated pursuant to it, and proven administrative practice throwing light Secretary of Labor. That contention is a flagrant error. "It is generally under-
upon their meaning. stood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legisla-
tive power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of
(b) As a rule: where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of cer- such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of
tain administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies review is given by statute”
are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of role and stature, and
logically beyond the control of the latter. It is well-settled that Regional "The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its
Trial Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regu- jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its
larity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted in the Bureau of Cus- decisions" (73
toms even through petitions of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. 
C.J.S. 507, Sec. 165). It is part of the system of checks and balances which
restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudica-
> Where right of review not provided by statute -> There is no inherent tions.
right to judicial review of the action of an administrative agency.
Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discre-
(a) Appeal is of a statutory origin; it is not a requirement of due process. The tion, error of law, fraud or collusion.
fact, however, that a statute does not provide for judicial relief or review does
not mean that there is no power or right of relief or review in a proper case
under the general powers and jurisdiction of the courts.
The courts may declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority
(b) In many situations, the Constitution is held to require judicial review even to be illegal
though a statute does not, and even though the statute attempts to preclude
judicial review. The courts have been established to prevent executive or
41
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(1) because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of (b) By reason of their special knowledge, expertise, and experience, gained
the law or (2) because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious. Taking into ac- from the handling of specific matters falling under their respective jurisdic-
count the circumstances of the case, particularly Yanglay's initial attitude of tions and which are addressed to their sound discretion, the courts ordinarily
confessing that his error was dictated by necessity and his promise not to accord great weight and respect, even finality, to factual findings (ie veracity
repeat the same mistake, we are of the opinion that his dismissal was a dras- or falsehood of alleged facts) of administrative tribunals. The wide latitude
tic punishment. He should be reinstated but without back wages because the given to administrative agencies in the evaluation of evidence and in the ex-
company acted in good faith in dismissing him (Findlay Millar Timber Com- ercise of their adjudicative functions includes the authority to take judicial
pany vs. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union, L-18217 and L-18222, Sep- notice of facts within their special competence. Occasionally, however, courts
tember 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 226). He has been sufficiently penalized by the may delve in such matters for compelling reasons as where such findings are
loss of his wages from July 19, 1972 up to this time. not supported by substantial evidence or are vitiated by fraud, mistake, ille-
gality, imposition or collusion; or where grave abuse of discretion, arbitrari-
ness or capriciousness is manifest; or where a gross misappreciation of evi-
dence can be shown; or where there is a conflict in the factual findings as to
3) Conclusiveness of administrative findings
compel a contrary conclusion. As a corollary, the Supreme Court is clothed
with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as er-
> Factual findings supported by substantial evidence -> In reviewing
rors in the appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary to arrive at a
administrative decisions, the reviewing court cannot re-examine or weigh
just decision of the case.
once more the factual basis and sufficiency of the evidence submitted before
the administrative body and substitute its own judgment for that of said body
Case: THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION and the HON. LOURDES
or to receive additional evidence that was not submitted to the administrative
R. QUISUMBING, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Ed-
agency concerned.
ucation, Culture and Sports and Chairman, Board of Medical Education,
petitioners, vs. Hon. DANIEL P. ALFONSO, Presiding Judge of the Re-
(a) A litany of cases has consistently held that substantial evidence is all that
gional Trial Court, Branch 74, Fourth Judicial region, Antipolo, Rizal,
is needed to support an administrative finding of fact. The general rule is that,
and the PHILIPPINE MUSLIM- CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
courts will not disturb on appeal the factual findings of administrative agen-
FOUNDATION, INC., respondents -> No less than five surveys were con-
cies acting within the parameters of their own competence so long as such
ducted to determine the school's compliance with the minimum standards
findings are supported by substantial evidence (particularly when passed
established for a medical college. The members of the evaluating team came
upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals which is normally the final arbiter of
from the different sectors in the fields of education and medicine, and their
questions of facts), albeit such evidence may not be overwhelming or merely
judgment in this particular area is certainly better than that of the respondent
preponderant, or negatively stated, it is sufficient that findings of fact are not
Judge whose sole and only visit to the school could hardly have given him
shown to be unsupported by evidence. This is known as the substantial evi-
much more to go on than a brief look at the physical plant and facilities and
dence rule.
into the conduct of the classes and other school activities. The respondent
42
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
College knew that the recommendation for its closure was made as early as • Order or decision - > statutes relating to judicial review of action of
1986, that the recommendation was reiterated and reaffirmed four times an administrative agency commonly provide for review of “orders”,
thereafter until it was finally approved and acted upon by the Secretary, “any order”, “final orders”, “final agency action”, or final decisions”.
whose action was confirmed by the Office of the President. Said respondent
was given notice in 1988, that in consequence of all these, the time for its
(a) Particular order or determination may be held not subject to review be-
definite closure had been unalterably set at 1989, a notice which was ac-
cause it does not constitute an “order” or “decision” or because it does not
companied by assurances of assistance in the relocation of its students and
meet other requirements specifically laid down in the statute providing for
in its rehabilitation as a school for other courses. Given these facts, and it review. Thus, review may be denied as to mere pronouncement or recom-
being a matter of law that the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports mendation not acted upon.
exercises the power to enjoin compliance with the requirements laid down for
medical schools and to mete out sanctions where he finds that violations (b) The mere informality of a decision does not prevent its review if it is oth-
thereof have been committed, it was a grave abuse of discretion for the re- erwise final. Thus, a letter may constitute an appealable order or determina-
spondent judge to issue the questioned injunction and thereby thwart official tion. “Findings” may constitute reviewable “order” where further proceedings
action, in the premises correctly taken, allowing the College to operate with- have been ordered discontinued.
out the requisite government permit. A single ocular inspection, did not, in the
circumstances, warrant overturning the findings of more qualified inspectors
about the true state of the College. • Threatened or pending action -> Judicial relief or review is often de-
nied for lack of finality where action of the administrative agency is
only anticipated, even though threatened, or where the action is still
pending without final disposition.
> Only administrative actions which have attained finality are subject to
judicial review -> Courts are reluctant to interfere with action of an adminis- Several different grounds are stated by the courts in denying relief or review
trative agency prior to its completion or finality, the reason being that absent in such situations. Thus, it is said that:
a final order or decision, power has not been fully and finally exercised, and (a) Jurisdiction lies in the administrative agency rather than in the courts;
there can usually be no irreparable harm. It is only after judicial review is no (b) An administrative officer to whom public duties are confided by law is not
longer premature that a court may ascertain in proper cases whether the subject to the control of the courts in the exercise of the judgment and discre-
administrative action or findings are not in violation of law, or are free from tion which the law reposes in him as part of his official functions;
fraud or imposition or find substantial support from the evidence. (c) Determinations by subordinate officials, acting under the instruction of
their official superiors, are, in the nature of things, under the control of and
subject to review by their official superiors;
(d) The courts will not render a decree in advance of the agency’s action and
thereby render such action nugatory;
43
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(e) It is not for a court to stop an administrative officer from performing his further testimony. But certiorari is available against administrative
statutory duty for fear he will perform it wrongly, particularly where the statute agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, whether the order is in-
is not unconstitutional on its face, that to interfere with action which is simply terlocutory or not where the due process was not followed.
“threatened” would render a statute unworkable and unenforceable and
would unduly hamper the discharge by the administrative agencies of their 4) Division of functions between courts and administrative agencies
responsibility; or
(f) Prior to final administrative determination, the party seeking relief has not -> it inevitably creates problems of determining which tribunal may take initial
suffered a present injury. action and at what stage of administrative action an aggrieved party may go
to court. These problems are governed by three main doctrines:
• Action requiring approval by superior -> An order required to be
submitted to a superior for approval is not final for purposes of re- (a) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction -> is not concerned with judicial review
view. However, the fact that in some circumstances the grant of relief but determines in some circumstances whether initial actions should be tak-
might have to be submitted for approval does not detract from the en by a court or by an administrative agency.
finality of an order denying relief.
• Pendency of rehearing or administrative appeal -> The pendency of (b) The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies -> is designed pri-
an application for a rehearing or recommendation filed within the marily to control the timing of judicial relief from adjudicative action of an
time prescribed by law or regulations deprives the original order of agency. It is customarily applied to adjudication and not to rule-making.
finality. However, a statute may provide otherwise.
• Rules and regulations -> Regulations of an administrative agency (c) The doctrine of ripeness for review -> in essence, it is the same as that of
are addressed to and set a standard of conduct for all to whom their exhaustion of administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making
terms apply. and to administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making and to
• Purely administrative matters -> It is a well-recognised principle that administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making and to adminis-
purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be inter-
trative action which is embodied neither in rules or regulations nor in adjudi-
fered with by the courts.
cation or final orders.
• Preliminary, procedural and interlocutory determinations -> The uni-
versal rule is that appeal to the courts will not lie from an interlocuto-
 
ry order unless such order affects the merits. Examples: (a) orders
directing an investigation and inquiry, appointing a conservator or
conciliator, providing for a hearing and requiring corporations under
1. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
investigation to appear and present certain data; (b) denial of a mo-
-> is not concerned with judicial review but determines in some circum-
tion to change place of hearing; (c) denial of application for a stay;
stances whether initial actions should be taken by a court or by an adminis-
(d) approval or disapproval of a compromise agreement; (e) denial of
trative agency.
application for rehearing; (f) an order of an administrative appellate
tribunal reversing and remanding a case to the hearing officer to take
44
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
> Concept -> This principle has been also referred to as the doctrine of prior discretion. Whether or not the requirement of prior resort should be imposed
resort, or exclusive administrative jurisdiction, or preliminary resort. The term is said to depend on the court’s determination whether Congress intended
“primary jurisdiction” is the most common in recent treatment of the subject. It the issues to be left to the administrative agency for initial determination.
usually refers to cases involving specialised disputes which are referred to an When an affirmative indication of legislative intent does not clearly appear,
administrative agency of special competence to resolve the same. the courts are on the whole, free to determine on the basis of policy consid-
erations the need (or desirability) of prior resort to administrative determina-
> Application -> The doctrine applies only where the administrative agency tions
exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Strictly speaking, the ob-
*> Issues involve question of law -> Be that as it may, prior resort to an
jective of the doctrine is to guide a court in determining whether it should re-
agency should be limited to questions of fact and questions requiring the
frain or not from exercising its jurisdiction over a matter or question even if it
skills of administrative specialists. Question of law may appropriately be de-
may well be within its proper jurisdiction where relief may be obtained in ad- termined in the first instance by courts, because uniformity may be secured
ministrative proceeding. Under the doctrine, "courts cannot and will not de- through review by a single Supreme Court, and that unifying influence will
termine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of involve neither factual determination nor the exercise of specialised judg-
an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exer- ment. There is no danger of by-passing administrative action. Purely legal
cise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, ex- questions will ultimately have to be decided by courts of justice; hence they
perience and services of the tribunal to determine technical and intricate mat- are within the competence and jurisdiction of the courts and not an adminis-
ters of facts and where a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the trative agency.
purposes of the regulatory statute administered.
(c) Where concurrent jurisdiction conferred -> The doctrine is clearly applica-
(a) Where elements of administrative discretion important considerations -> ble whenever courts and administrative agencies have concurrent jurisdic-
Courts are in agreement that prior resort should be required where the rea- tion.
sons mentioned justify its application. Thus, prior resort would be required
where elements of administrative discretion are often important considera-
tions, such as in cases involving issuance and revocation of licenses and the
Case #1: VICENTE VILLAFLOR, substituted by his heirs, petitioner,
enforcement of licensing rules.
vs OF APPEALS and NASIPIT LUMBER CO., INC. vs. COURT .
(b) Where reasons for doctrine inapplicable -> May prior resort be required COURT OF APPEALS and NASIPIT LUMBER CO., INC., respondents.
even in cases where the reasons on which the rule is based are inapplica- -> Yes, the findings of Bureau of Lands which was affirmed by the Secretary
ble? of Natural Resources can be relied by the appellate court. The findings of
fact of an administrative agency, such as the Bureau of Lands and the
*> Application involves exercise of judicial discretion -> The doctrine of pri- Minister of Natural Resources, must be respected as long as they are
mary jurisdiction is not an inflexible mandate. It is predicated on an attitude of supported by substantial evidence, even, if such evidence might not be
judicial self-restraint, and its application involves the exercise of a judicial
overwhelming or even preponderant. By reason of the special knowl-
45
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
edge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters falling the function of establishing a comprehensive and integrated national program
under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment for the exploration, exploitation, and development and extraction of fossil fu-
thereon; thus, their findings of fact in that regard are generally accord- els, such as the country's coal resources; adopting a coal development pro-
ed great respect, if not finality, by the courts. The rationale underlying gram; regulating all activities relative thereto; and undertaking by itself or
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application in this case, since through service contracts such exploitation and development, all in
the interest of an effective and coordinated.
the questions on the identity of the land in dispute and the factual
qualification of private respondent as an awardee of a sales application
require a technical determination by the Bureau of Lands as the admin-
istrative agency with the expertise to determine such matters. Because
these issues preclude prior judicial determination, it behooves the courts
to stand aside even when they apparently have statutory power to pro- Case #3: NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. and NESTLE WATERS PHILIP-
ceed, in recognition of the primary jurisdiction of the administrative PINES, INC. (formerly HIDDEN SPRINGS & PERRIER, INC.) vs . UNI-
agency. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the WIDE SALES, INC., UNIWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., NAIC RESOURCES AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, UNIWIDE SALES REALTY AND RE-
court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy,
SOURCES CLUB, INC., FIRST PARAGON CORPORATION, and UNIWIDE
the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body
SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC. -> NO. The Court takes judicial notice of
of special competence.
the fact that from the time of the filing in the Court of the instant petition, su-
pervening events have unfolded substantially the factual backdrop of this
 
rehabilitation case. In light of supervening events that have emerged from the
Case #2: INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., vs. THE HON. COURT OF
time the SEC approved the SARP on 23 December 2002 and from the time
APPEALS, MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, THE
the present petition was filed on 3 November 2006, any determination by this
HON. GERONIMO VELASCO, in his capacity as Minister of Energy AND
Court as to whether the SARP should be revoked and the rehabilitation pro-
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK [G.R. No. 88550. April 18, 1990.] -> HELD:
ceedings terminated, would be premature. Undeniably, supervening events
YES BED HAS JURISDICTION. While the action filed by IEI sought the
have substantially changed the factual backdrop of this case. The Court
rescission of what appears to be an ordinary civil contract cognizable by a
thus defers to the competence and expertise of the SEC to determine
civil court, the fact is that the MOA sought to be rescinded is derived from a
whether, given the supervening events in this case, the SARP is no
coal-operating contract and is inextricably tied up with the right to de-
longer capable of implementation and whether the rehabilitation case
velop coal-bearing lands and the determination of whether or not the rever-
should be terminated as a consequence.
sion of the coal operating contract over the subject coal blocks to IEI
would be in line with the integrated national program for coal-development
and with the objective of rationalizing the country's over-all coal-supply-de-
mand balance, IEI's cause of action was not merely the rescission of a con- Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts will not
tract but the reversion or return to it of the operation of the coal blocks. These determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the exer-
are matters properly falling within the domain of the BED.BED is tasked with cise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, ex-
46
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
perience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical risdiction, relief must be first sought by availing and exhausting this remedy
and intricate matters of fact. In other words, if a case is such that its determi- before bringing an action in or elevating it to the courts of justice for review.
nation requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an ad-
ministrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative pro- (a) The thrust of the doctrine is to allow first the administrative agency to car-
ceeding before resort to the court is had even if the matter may well be within ry out its functions and discharge its responsibilities within the specialised
the latter's proper jurisdiction. The objective of the doctrine of primary juris- areas of its competence as a pre-condition before resort can be made to the
diction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from courts.
exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has deter-
mined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the (b) The premature invocation of a court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause
proceeding before the court. It is not for the Court to intrude, at this stage of of action. Absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the complaint is suscepti-
the rehabilitation proceedings, into the primary administrative jurisdiction of ble of dismissal for lack of cause of action. The doctrine which is based on
the SEC on a matter requiring its technical expertise. Pending a decision of sound public policy and practical grounds (like the doctrine of primary juris-
the SEC on SEC En Banc Case No. 12-09-183 and SEC En Banc Case No.
diction) is, however, flexible depending on the peculiarity and uniqueness of
01-10-193, which both seek to resolve the issue of whether the rehabilitation
the factual settings of a case. It admits of certain exceptions.
proceedings in this case should be terminated, the Court is constrained to
dismiss the petition for prematurity.
> Application
(a) As a prerequisite of judicial review -> In some instances, the statute

makes the exhaustion of the remedies a pre-condition of the right to seek the
intervention of the courts. The principal application is to compel parties to an
administrative proceedings to take full advantage of all the means of adminis-
trative processes afforded them. It serves to prevent private litigants from
2. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies ousting administrative bodies from the exercise of adjudications properly
committed to them. The classic example of failure to exhaust administrative
-> is designed primarily to control the timing of judicial relief from adjudicative
remedies is a failure to appeal from an administrative decision to a higher
action of an agency. It is customarily applied to adjudication and not to rule-
administrative authority or tribunal within the administrative system; and even
making.
the filing of an appeal does not exhaust the remedy where there is failure to
> Concept -> It requires that where a remedy within an administrative await the determination thereon before seeking the aid of the courts. In like
agency is provided by law or available against the action of an administrative manner, only judicial review of decisions of administrative bodies made in the
board, body, or officer, and can still be resorted to by giving the said agency exercise of their quasi-judicial function (ie, adjudicative, not rule-making or
every opportunity to decide correctly a given matter that comes within its ju- legislative power) is subject to exhaustion doctrine.
47
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(b) As affecting one’s cause of action -> The authorities are not in accord as > Exceptions -> The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, like
to whether the application of the doctrine lies in the discretion of the court or the corollary doctrine of primary jurisidiction, does not preclude in all cases a
goes to its jurisdiction and does not permit the exercise of discretion. party from seeking judicial relief. The rule is not a hard and fast one but a
relative one. It is subject to limitations and exceptions provided by law or re-
*> some cases have held that the requirement may be waived by the parties quired by public interest. Its observance has been dispensed with or relaxed
and the proceedings entertained by the court, and that the court in some sit- or disregarded, among others, in the situations mentioned below:
uations may, in its own discretion, relax the rule.
(a) Where by the terms of the statute authorising an administrative remedy,
*> other cases have held that, where the rule applies, the court lacks jurisdic- such remedy is permissive warranting the conclusion that the legislature in-
tion to act and may not relax the rule in its discretion. This is particularly true tended to allow the judicial remedy even though administrative remedy has
where the statute in terms vests exclusive jurisdiction in the administrative not been exhausted, or where the administrative remedy is not exclusive but
agency, and in view of the rule that a right of appeal is purely statutory and is merely cumulative or concurrent to a judicial remedy, or there is grave doubt
dependent upon compliance with the terms of the statute authorising review. as to the availability of the administrative remedy.
*> in our jurisdiction, it has been held that failure of a party to exhaust the (b) Where the issue involves not a question of fact, but one of pure law and
procedure of administrative remedies provided by law therefor affects his nothing of an administrative nature is to be done or can be done particularly
cause of action, not the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. where the controverted act is patently illegal, arbitrary and oppressive (eg
Hence, such failure is a ground for dismissal of the action for lack of a cause violated petitioner’s constitutional right to security of tenure) or clearly devoid
of action which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court for the dismissal of any colour of authority, or has been performed without or in excess of ju-
of a complaint. risdiction with grave abuse of discretion.
*> exhaustion must be raised at the earliest time possible, even before filing (c) Where the issue raised is the constitutionality of the statute under which
the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim by a motion to dis- the administrative acts, or providing the administrative remedy, of itself, as
miss. Failure to invoke it at the proper time operates as a waiver of the objec- distinguished from a possible exercise of administrative power under the
tion as a ground for a motion to dismiss and the court may then proceed with statute. But the doctrine is not prevented from operation solely by the fact
the case and try it as if the doctrine had been observed. Thus, the only effect that the party applying for judicial relief urges a violation of rights secured by
of non-compliance with the doctrine is to render the action premature, ie. the the Constitution and the holding of the administrative hearing would result in
claimed cause of action not ripe for judicial determination and for that reason irreparable damage in the absence of a sufficient showing of inadequacy of
a party has no cause of action to ventilate in court. Accordingly, absent any prescribed administrative relief and threatened or impending irreparable in-
finding of waiver or estoppel, the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of jury.
cause of action.
48
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
• Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or in such case would be in keeping with the court’s broad discretion in granting
regulation issued by the administrative body in the exercise of its injunctions.
quasi-legislative power, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass
upon the same, but an act performed by it pursuant to its quasi-judi- (g) In special circumstances where there is no other plain, speedy, or ade-
cial function is subject to the exhaustion doctrine. quate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, where the order terminat-
ing the services of the appellee as Chief of Police was immediately executed
and another was appointed to the position on the same day, an appeal to the
(d) Where questions involved are essentially judicial. Thus in Bueno vs Pa- Commissioner of Civil Service, even if available, was ruled not an adequate
terno (9 SCRA 794, 1963) although the boundary dispute between the two remedy in the ordinary course of law. Furthermore, appeal to the Commis-
concessionaires of adjacent forest lands was still pending investigation in the sioner is not prerequisite to, nor a bar to the institution of quo warrants pro-
Bureau of Forestry, yet in view of showing of violence or riotous acts that ceedings so that to require the appellee in the cases of Laganapan vs Asedil-
would necessitate the immediate interference of the courts and the questions lo; Palma-Fernandez vs Dela Paz (160 SCRA 751, 1988) to exhaust adminis-
involved pertained to the contractual relations between the parties, it was trative remedies before bringing the action (which prescribes in one year and
held that the principle was not applicable because considerations of the pub- an administrative appeal does not interrupt the running of the period could
lic order must transcend the mere administrative issue of conflict of bound- easily result in grave injustice of barring him forever from bringing the matter
aries. to the courts of justice for judicial determination.
(e) Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine or (h) Where respondent officer acted in utter disregard of due process as
where the administrative body is in estoppel to invoke the doctrine. Thus, where one had been dismissed without any administrative charges having
where the respondent Commission, in its resolution, declared that the opin- filed nor any investigation conducted, or where the Collector of Customs im-
ions of the Secretary of Justice (to which it refused to abide) were “advisory posed a fine without first giving the petitioner opportunity to be heard.
in nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office seeking the
opinion and the aggrieved party has the court for recourse,” thereby leading (i) Where insistence on its observance would result in the nullification of the
the petitioner in the case of Tan vs Veterans Backpay Commission (105 Phil. claim being asserted, as where the period within which to bring the case to
377, 1959) to conclude that only a final judicial ruling in her favour would be court (ie quo warranto) is limited by law, said period not being interrupted by
accepted by the Commission, the rule of exhaustion does not apply. the filing of any administrative remedy. Also, where petitioner in the case of
Savoy vs Tantuico Jr. (50 SCRA 455, 1973) failed to get the relief sought af-
(f) If it should appear that an irreparable damage or injury will be suffered by ter filing formal protests with the Commissioner of Civil Service against their
a party unless resort to the court is immediately made. A preliminary injunc- dismissal and in the meantime, the period of one year from the date of re-
tion will usually be granted when it is made to appear that there is a substan- moval within which a judicial action of this nature should be commenced was
tial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or fast running out, it was held that the petitioners had substantially complied
threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable with the rule before applying for judicial relief.
injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can
be be had on the merits. The invocation of the urgency of judicial intervention
49
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(j) When there is long-continued and unreasonable delay or official inaction (n) In land cases, where the land subject of litigation is not part of the public
that will unretrievably prejudice the complainant. In Gonzales vs Aldana (107 domain. The legal provisions giving the government the exclusive authority to
Phil. 754, 1960), the petitioners wrote to the Commissioner of Civil Service seek cancellation of a title issued in conformity with a homestead patent and
and to the Secretary of Education. They failed to obtain the relief sought, and a reversion of “land to the public domain are, in the very nature of things,
instead the Director of Public Schools threatened to replace them. It was held confined in their application to lands of the public domain which have been
that they had already given an opportunity to these high officials to act on granted in pursuance of the Public Lands Act. The doctrine is not applicable
their petition for relief which practically was equivalent to an exhaustion of the even to private lands acquired by the government by purchase for resale to
administrative remedies provided by law. In Camus vs Civil Service Board of individuals.
Appeals (2 SCRA 370, 1961), two letters sent by the petitioner to the Presi-
dent seeking reinstatement was held to constitute a substantial compliance (o) On the other hand, the application of the principle of the exhaustion of
with the requirement. administrative remedies with reference to public lands as a condition prece-
dent to the filing of a judicial action is confined to controversies arising out of
(k) When there are special reasons or circumstances demanding immediate the disposition or alienation of public lands, or to the determination of the
judicial intervention, in the case of Alzate vs Aldana (105 Phil. 298, 1960), as respective rights of rival claimants to public lands, and not to possessory ac-
where the account claimed by the petitioner and which respondent had tions involving public lands which are limited to the determination of who has
committed to pay would be reverted to the general funds of the government if the actual physical possession or occupation of the land in question. Pending
he waited for the final decision on his petition for reconsideration and what- final adjudication of ownership by the Bureau of Lands, the courts have juris-
ever action may thereafter be taken by the respondent even if favourable to diction to determine in the meantime the right of the possession over the
the petitioner would be of no avail. land.
(l) Where the amount involved is relatively small so that to require exhaustion (p) Where the respondent is a Department of Secretary whose acts, as an
would be oppressive and unreasonable. In the case of Cipriano vs Marcelino alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter,
(43 SCRA 291, 1972), it was held that to require a clerk in the municipal trea- unless actually disapproved by him, particularly where they are declared as
surer’s office claiming a salary and computation pay equivalent to the small “final and unappealable. “ In the absence of a constitutional or statutory pro-
account of P949, to pursue his administrative appeal all the way to the Presi- vision to the contrary, the official acts of the Department Secretary “when
dent of the Philippines would not only be oppressive, but patently unreason- performed and promulgated in the regular course of business” are deemed or
able for by the time her appeal shall have been decided by the President the are presumptively the acts of the President unless disapproved or reprobated
amount of much more than P949 would all in likelihood have been spent. by the latter. This is the doctrine of qualified political agency under which the
action of a department secretary, as the alter ego of the President, is deemed
(m) When no administrative review (ie by the President or the Executive Sec- to be that of the latter; and therefore, the failure to appeal to the Office of the
retary) is provided as a condition precedent to the taking of an action in court, President cannot be considered a violation of the exhaustion rule.
a party, without awaiting the action of the President to which he elevated the
case or without first bringing his case to the Executive Secretary for review, (q) Where the administrative officer has not rendered any decision, or made
may seek judicial relief. any final finding of any sort, the rule of prior exhaustion of administrative
50
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
remedies does not apply. The principle rests upon the assumption that the the issue does not require technical knowledge and experience out one that
administrative body, board, or officer, if given the chance to correct its/his involves the interpretation and application of the law; in quo warrants pro-
mistakes or errors, may amend his/her decision on a given matter. It follows, ceeding; where the petitioners raising the issues have voluntarily submitted
therefore, that there has some sort of a decision, order, or act, more or less themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court, and where there are circum-
final in character, that is ripe for review and properly the subject of an appeal stances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
to a higher administrative body or officer, for a principle to operate.
(r) Where plaintiff in the civil action for damages has no administrative reme-
dy available to him, he is not required to exhaust administrative remedies Case #1: CATIPON vs JAPSON -> The Court denies the Petition, Macario
before filing his complaint, although the same incident complained of in the violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and he should
administrative case filed by the defendant (who was allegedly humiliated by be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Our
the plaintiff) against the plaintiff is the subject of the action for damages filed fundamental law, particularly Sections 2 (1) and 3 of Article DC-B, state that –
by the plaintiff. As in the case of Escuerte vs Court of Appeals (193 SCRA Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instru-
541, 1991), the cause of action in the administrative case is different from mentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or
that of the civil case for damages. While the complainant in the former may controlled corporations with original charters. Section 3. The Civil Service
be a private person, it is the government that is the aggrieved party and no
Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall es-
award for damages may be granted in favour of private persons. In the civil
tablish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
actin for damages, the trial court’s concern is whether or not damages, per-
integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service.
sonal to the plaintiff, were caused by the acts of the defendant. The civil ac-
It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human re-
tion for damages may proceed notwithstanding the pendency of the adminis-
trative action. sources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a
management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the
(s) Where a strong public interest is involved, the doctrine may be dispensed President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs. ·
with the judicial action validly resorted to immediately. Thus, ―the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the Government, has
jurisdiction over disputes involving the removal and separation of all employ-
(t) Other cases -> said principle may also be disregarded as where the con- ees of government branches,
troverted act is patently illegal; or was performed without or one excess of
jurisdiction; where the controverted act violate due process; where the subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including government-owned or
protestant has no other recourse, or when to require exhaustion of adminis- controlled corporations with original charters. Simply put, it is the sole arbiter
trative remedies would be unreasonable; where the issue of non-exhaustion
of controversies relating to the civil service. · In line with the above provisions
has been rendered moot and academic; where a government corporation
of the Constitution and its mandate as the central personnel agency of gov-
had an affirmative statutory duty to disclose to the public the terms and con-
ernment and sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service, the
ditions of the sale of its lands and was even in breach of this legal duty;
CSC adopted Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999 (MC 19), or the
where nothing of an administrative is to be or can be done, such as where
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which
51
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
the CA cited as the basis for its pronouncement. Section 4 thereof provides: tive agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of
Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. — The Civil Service the case. Indeed, the administrative agency concerned – in this case the
Commission shall hear and decide administrative cases instituted by, or Commission Proper – is in the ―best position to correct any previous error
brought before it, directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, committed in its forum. · The CA is further justified in refusing to take cog-
and shall review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies at- nizance of the petition for review, as ―[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction
tached to it. Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a con-
Civil Service Commission shall have the final authority to pass upon the re- troversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative
moval, separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the civil body of special competence.ǁ7 When petitioner’s recourse lies in an appeal
service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency to the Commission Proper in accordance with the procedure prescribed in
of such officers and employees. · As pointed out by the CA, pursuant to Sec- MC 19, the CA may not be faulted for refusing to acknowledge petitioner be-
tion 5(A)(1) of MC 19, the Civil Service Commission Proper, or Commission fore it. · We likewise affirm the CA’s pronouncement that petitioner was negli-
Proper, shall have jurisdiction over decisions of Civil Service Regional Offices gent in filling up his CSPE application form and in failing to verify beforehand
brought before it on petition for review. And under Section 43, ―decisions of the specific requirements for the CSPE examination. Petitioner’s claim of
heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities and other good faith and absence of deliberate intent or wilful desire to defy or disre-
instrumentalities imposing a penalty exceeding thirty days suspension or fine gard the rules relative to the CSPE is not a defense as to exonerate him from
in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, may be appealed to the Commis- the charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; under our
sion Proper within a period of fifteen days from receipt thereof. ―Commis- legal system, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance there-
sion Properǁ refers to the Civil Service Commission-Central Office. · The doc- with.8 Moreover, petitioner – as mere applicant for acceptance into the pro-
trine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that ―before a party fessional service through the CSPE – cannot expect to be served on a silver
is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed platter; the obligation to know what is required for the examination falls on
himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him him, and not the CSC or his colleagues in office. As aptly ruled by the appel-
or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can late court: · The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the best in-
still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity terest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public officer as long as
to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such the questioned act or conduct taints the image and integrity of the office; and
remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be the act need not be related to or connected with the public officer’s official
sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to functions. Under our civil service laws, there is no concrete description of
one’s cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative service, but the following acts or omissions have been treated as such: mis-
remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of appropriation of public funds; abandonment of office; failure to report back to
controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and work without prior notice; failure to safekeep public records and property;
convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative making false entries in public documents; falsification of court orders; a
redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administra- judge’s act of brandishing a gun, and threatening the complainants during a
52
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
traffic altercation; a court interpreter’s participation in the execution of a doc- cause of action to ventilate in court. Hence, petitioner asserts that private
ument conveying complainant’s property which resulted in a quarrel in the respondent's case is not ripe for judicial determination. Moreover, there is no
latter’s family; selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program exemption convincing evidence of grave abuse of discretion on petitioners part. This is a
cards to his officemates during office hours; a CA employee’s forging of re- mere allegation which private respondent failed to substantiate. Official func-
ceipts to avoid her private contractual obligations; a Government Service tions are presumed to be regular unless proven otherwise. However, under
Insurance System (GSIS) employee’s act of repeatedly changing his IP ad- Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law, a recourse is available
dress, which caused network problems within his office and allowed him to to him by way of appeal which could be brought to the agency head, with
gain access to the entire GSIS network, thus putting the system in a vulnera- further recourse, if needed, to the Civil Service Commission. Worth noting,
ble state of security;11 a public prosecutor’s act of signing a motion to dis- the possibility of an administrative charge was only speculative on the part of
miss that was not prepared by him, but by a judge;12 and a teacher’s act of private respondent, who could avail of administrative remedies already cited.
directly selling a book to her students in violation of the Code of Ethics for Ortizo failed to reckon with the fact that the issue in Civil Case No. 22462
Professional Teachers.13 In petitioner’s case, his act of making false entries was not purely a question of law. Most importantly, the Court of Appeals, in
in his CSPE application undoubtedly constitutes conduct prejudicial to the our view, committed reversible error in finding that the trial court did not err
best interest of the service; the absence of a willful or deliberate intent to fal- nor gravely abused its discretion for taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No.
sify or make dishonest entries in his application is immaterial, for conduct 22462. DISPOSITION: Petition was granted, setting aside the decision of
grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service ―may or may not be the CA.
characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard
established rules.
 
Case #2: [G.R. No. 139302.October 28, 2002] EDUARDO P. CORSIGA, 5. Statutory methods of review
Former Deputy Administrator, National Irrigation Administration,peti- -> it may be divided into three groups:
tioner, vs. HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 36, Iloilo City, and ROMEO P. ORTIZO,respondents - (a) Where remedy itself governed by statute -> Statutory methods in the
broad sense of the term are afforded where the remedy itself is governed by
> NO, Civil Case No. 22462 is not an exception to the general rule on ex-
statutory provisions, although the express terms of such statute relating to
haustion of administrative remedies and thus, Ortizo has no a cause of ac-
administrative agencies make no provision that this remedy shall be available
tion. Being an NIA employee covered by the Civil Service Law, in our view,
for the review of agency action. Illustration: declaratory judgment, which is
private respondent should have first complained to the NIA Administrator, and
purely a creation of statute;
if necessary, then appeal to the Civil Service Commission. As ruled in Abe-
Abe vs. Manta, 90 SCRA 524 (1979), if a litigant goes to court without first (b) Where proceedings in court required by statute for enforcement of admin-
pursuing his administrative remedies, his action is premature, and he has no istrative decision -> A statutory method of review is afforded where a statute
53
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
governing the action of a particular administrative agency does not permit the inferred from the use of the words "decision" and of the clause "may be taken
enforcing of an administrative decision except by proceedings in a court to be to a court it means that it will be taken thereto by way of an appeal for review.
instituted by the prevailing party or the administrative agency itself, and these The law also significantly provides that the decisions shall be taken to the
proceedings are designed for judicial review of the agency action; court as in ordinary civil cases, in another words, the appeal may be taken in
the same manner as appeals are made in the courts of justice in ordinary
(c) Where direct judicial review afforded by legislation providing generally for civil actions defined in section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. TIME
such a review -> Statutory methods of review in a narrower sense, some-
DURING WHICH MOTION HAS BEEN PENDING TO BE DEDUCTED
times called “direct review proceedings”, are afforded by legislation providing
FROM PERIOD FOR APPEAL. — Appeal may be taken by serving upon the
generally for review of action of administrative agency and prescribing the
adverse party and filing with the trial court within thirty days from notice of
manner and extent of such review, whether by way of appeal, injunction, de-
order or judgment a notice of appeals, an appeal bond, and a record on ap-
claratory judgment, or simply by a provision for “suit”, “action”, “civil action”,
petitioner to a court of original jurisdiction. Where the right to appeal is grant- peal. The time during which a motion to set aside has been pending shall be
ed by statue, one who seeks to avail of it must comply with the statute or rule deducted. REASON FOR ADOPTING -- The right to appeal from a decision
in effete of when that right arose. of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is a statutory right; it
can be invoked only in accordance with the manner which the Legislature
1. Appeal -> Appeal to the courts was taken within reglementary period has provided for the purpose. The considered opinion of the members of the
of 30 days counted not from the receipt of the decision but from the Court is that the Legislature has adopted the principle contained in the Rules
denial of the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Secre- as to the manner of perfecting appeals in ordinary civil actions for the pur-
tary of Agriculture and Natural Resources pose of uniformity and to prevent the confusion that may be caused to liti-
gants and lawyers by an appeal different from that applicable in courts of jus-
tice. => For the foregoing consideration, the petition should be granted. The
Case: THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RE-
order denying the dismissal of the action in the CFI is hereby reversed and
SOURCES, DIRECTOR OF MINES AND MINLAWI MINING ASSOCIATION
the complaint in said court filed by the respondents herein ordered dis-
vs. THE HON. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANI-
missed. With costs against the respondent Louis W. Hora. 2. CERTIORARI -
LA, Branch IX and LOUIS W. HORA. 1955 -> Yes, the time during which the
> The Supreme Court passed upon not only the legal issues involved, but
motion for reconsideration was pending be deducted from the 30-day period
also the findings of facts upon which the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals
for taking the decision to court.
is based.
APPEAL AND ERROR; DECISION OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO

A COURT OF JUSTICE FOR REVIEW; RULE IN ORDINARY CIVIL CASES
APPLICABLE. — Pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of Republic Act 739
an appeal may be had against the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources to court of justice. That an appeal is meant may be
54
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
2. Certiorari -> The Supreme Court passed upon not only the legal tions, provided the taxpayer either deposits the amounts claimed or files a
issues involved, but also the findings of facts upon which the deci- surety bond for not more than double the amount with the court. Republic Act
sion of the Court of Tax Appeals is based. No. 1125, being of later enactment, is deemed to have modified said Section
305 of the National Internal Revenue Code. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FILING OF BOND
WHEN REQUIRED. — The requirement of a bond before a writ of injunction
Case: THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. MA-
could be issued by the Tax Court applies only to cases where the means
TIAS H. AZNAR and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. ->
sought to be employed for the enforcement of the collection of the tax are by
ISSUE: Whether the Collector of Internal Revenue could enforce collection of
themselves legal and not where same were declared null and void, as where
the alleged deficiency income taxes of Matias H. Aznar through the summary
the summary methods of distraint and levy would be utilized in the collection
methods of distraint and levy? RULING: Supreme Court said that the collec-
of deficiency income taxes, after the 3-year prescriptive period as provided
tion of income taxes, after the lapse of three years from the date the income
by Section 51-d of the Internal Revenue Code has already elapsed. 4.
tax return said to be false, fraudulent or erroneous had been filed, may no
COURT OF TAX APPEALS; REMEDY OF PERSONS ADVERSELY AF-
longer be effected by means of administrative methods but only through judi-
FECTED BY RULING OF THE COURT; POWER OF THE SUPREME
cial proceedings. In the light of the aforementioned ruling, were We to con-
COURT TO REVIEW QUESTIONS OF FACT. — Any party adversely affect-
sider as valid and in order the disputed warrant dated February 17, 1953,
ed by any ruling, order or decision of the Court of Tax Appeals has by law two
placing the properties of the taxpayer under constructive destraint and levy,
ways of elevating his case to the Supreme Court, i.e., firstly, filing in the
the collection of the taxes for 1949, 1950 and 1951 by extra-judicial methods
Court a quo a notice of appeal and with this Court a petition for review within
would be proper and the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals as far as it
30 days from the date he receives notice of said ruling, order or decision ad-
concerns this later period would be erroneous, although summary adminis-
verse to him (Sec. 18, Rep. Act 1125), and second, by causing such ruling,
trative means would no longer be the proper recourse for the collection of
order or decision of the Court of Tax Appeals likewise reviewed upon a writ of
taxes corresponding to 1948 and the years previous to that as 3 years, 11
certiorari in proper cases(Sec. 19, R.A. No. 1125). In the first case, this Court
months and 22 days has already elapsed from the time the income tax return
could go over the evidence on record and pass upon the questions of fact. In
for that year was filed. Syllabus: 1. TAXATION; COLLECTION OF INCOME
the second case, this Court could only pass upon issues involving questions
TAX AFTER THE THREE YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD, HOW EFFEC-
of law. However, when the interest of justice so demands, petitions for review
TIVE. — The collection of income taxes, after the lapse of three years from
may be considered as petition for a writ of certiorari and vice-versa, and if
the date the income tax return said to be false, fraudulent or erroneous had
this Court has the power to consider the evidence to determine the facts in
been field, may no longer be effected by means of administrative methods
cases of review, there is no plausible reason for depriving this Court of such
but only through judicial proceedings. 2. ID.; INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN
power in petitions for certiorari specially because in the latter cases the peti-
COLLECTION; AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO ISSUE. — While Section
tioner oftenly charges the respondent Court with the commission of grave
of the National Internal Revenue Code precludes the use of injunction to re-
abuse of discretion the determination of which usually depends on the facts
strain the collection of taxes, however, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125
and circumstances of the points in controversy.  
allows the Tax Court to issue said writ of injunction subject to certain limita-
55
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
56

Admin Law Midterms Reviewer (Final)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Admin Law Midterms Reviewer (Final)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Administrative Law

➢ B r o a d a n d n a r r o w d e f inition of administrative Law-

• Administrati ve Law i s part of or b elongs to the

DO CTRI N E O F QUA LI F I ED PO LI TI CA L A G EN CY A. Expre ss a n d I mplie d Powe rs - t h e ju risdict ion a n d

2. POWERS AN D F UN CTION S OF ADMIN ISTRATIVE • Investigative or advisory (executive or administra-

• Discretionary - power or right conferred upon them C . Pow e r s s u b j e c t t o t h e C on s t i t u t i on , a p p l i c a b l e l a w,

4. N ATURE OF POWERS Read : M akat i S t ock E xch an g e v s . S E C, 14 S CRA 620 -

A va li d ru le or re gu la t i on du ly promu lga t e d by a n a dmi n i s-

(3) Adverse claim no t with in th e e xe cutive or a dministra tive

❖ Administrati ve ✓ Aid to ot he r powe rs – g at herin g, o rga nizing

o St atu te xes a st and a rd , map pin g o ut

❖ Must be reaso n able , f air an d n o t

✓ It involves specic parties – decision

Power of Subordinat e Legislation o Ext en t o f its o pe ra tion which is sta ted in it

✓ With the proliferation of specialized activities and o D e l e g a t e w i l l o n l y e n f o r c e i t w h e n i t r e a c h-

o Growing complexities of modern govern-

( b) T h e ex pan si o n o f t h e t el eco m m u n i cat i o n s n et wo r k (g) A fai r an d r easo n abl e i n t er co n n ect i o n o f faci l i t i es o f

(h) T h e g o v er n m en t sh al l g i v e al l t h e assi st an ce an d en-

(k) O wn er sh i p o f pu bl i c t el eco m m u n i cat i o n s en t i t i es t o ( b) E n su r e q u al i t y, safet y, r el i abi l i t y, secu r i t y, co m pat i-

✓ Examples of standards held sufficient - th e f ollow -

(1) Adversary in nature -> Every proceeding is adversary in substance if it

(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative

(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative

ON JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 4. Quantum of proof required in administrative cases

2. Judicial Review of or Reliefs against Administrative Actions

(a) As a prerequisite of judicial review -> In some instances, the statute

APPEAL AND ERROR; DECISION OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative  