You are on page 1of 68

Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

JUNE 26 government found itself unable to deal with


Definition of Terms these complexities. And thus the need to create
administrative authorities dealing on specific
1. Administrative Law- is the branch of public law matters w/in their competence. And so the
which fixes the organization of government. It legislature and courts felt that they were not
determines the competence of administrative competent to deal with these intricacies and so
authorities who execute the law and indicates to the need therefore for congress to create
the individual the remedies available in case of administrative bodies.
violation of his rights.
- It also refers to the system of legal principles in How then do we distinguish administrative
settlement of conflicting claims involving authorities from the court? Take note that the
administrative and executive officers in their court has only one function, that is,
dealings with individuals. adjudication—the adjudication of legal rights, but
- The purpose is the protection of private rights of not so in the case of administrative authorities. It
individuals. has multiple functions. The exercise of quasi-
legislative function and quasi-judicial function of
What concepts are important in the study of administrative bodies.
administrative law?
- The doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction The administrative authorities are empowered
- Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies under their laws not only to promulgate rules.
- The Doctine/Power of Control as distinguished Principally, the purpose of administrative
from Power of ______ authority is regulatory, although in the process it
- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency may have the authority to adjudicate
- Exceptions of Exhaustion of Administrative controversies. But take note, in the latter _____,
Remedies it is incident to the principal function, still
- Due process provision in the administrative regulatory.
proceedings.
So the test here whether, the administrative body
It also deals with powers and procedures of is judicial or administrative is whether the body is
administrative authorities, importantly, the relief tasked to regulate even if it is empowered to hear
against abuses committed by administrative but the latter is only incident to its principal
authorities. The power of judicial review of function to _____ out the provisions of the law.
administrative decisions. Therefore, its authority is administrative.
Whereas, if that tribunal has only one kind of
So administrative law deals with all portions of power that is to adjudicate legal rights, to decide
administrative law involving administrative and legal controversies, then that tribunal is the
executive officers. The objective here is the court.
protection of private rights, therefore the subject
matter is the nature and the mode of exercise of This has been asked in the bar, what are the
the administrative power and the system of the types of administrative authorities? The
need against administrative action. government may set up to create bodies to offer
some privilege, grant or gratuity, for example, the
The function of administrative law is to make the Philippine Veteran’s Affairs Office, the GSIS, SSS.
government machinery work in an efficient and Or the government may establish an entity to
orderly manner. carry out certain business function of
governmental activity, for example, Bureau of
The government have only a few functions to Internal Revenue. Or the government may make
deal with. But because of the complexities of the a body tasked to regulate business affected in
activities of individuals and entities, the public interest, let’s say the Department of
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

Energy. Certainly, there must be administrative government instrumentality that has been
authorities to regulate these activities affected (rated?) as an autonomous entity, it has its own
with public interest. Or an agency may be created charter of ____ (??? 265 as amended). And the
by government through legislature in order to purpose of this Institution is to administer the
adjust individual controversies. Basically, because monetary and banking system of the Philippines.
of enshrined constitutional social policy, for
example, the NLRC, DOLE. Or the government In the case of Bacani vs NACOCO. The issue of
may create an agency that will perform some w/n the coconut corporation is within the term
kind of business activity, for example the Phil. GRP. COA contended that there should be no
Postal Corporation. Or an entity may be payment because NACOCO is embraced in GRP
established to consider the government as a and under the Rules of Court, it is exempt from
private entity, for example in the case of the payment of such fees. The SC ruled that this
Commission on Audit, the authority under the government corporation has a personality
constitution to audit the transactions of separate and distinct from the GRP.
government entities.
In the Bar, this has been asked twice: Are GOCCs
Very important! The distinction between the embraced in the term GRP? Yes. If they are
term Republic of the Philippines aka the performing political or governmental function.
Government of the Republic of the Philippines as No. if they’re not. So clearly GOCCs may perform
distinguished from the term National governmental and corporate functions or
Government. So the GRP is defined under Sec. 2 proprietary functions. The latter capacity, these
of the Revised Administrative Code (EO 292) GOCCs performing proprietary functions are not
refers to the corporate governmental entity to embraced with the term GRP.
which the functions of the government are
exercised throughout the Phils. including the What other important terms? Instrumentality of
various arms of its political authority is made the Government as defined in the Revised Admin
effective, rather we’re talking of the various local Code. It refers to the agency of the National
government units, such as the Autonomous Government that has not been integrated within
Region, the province, city, municipality and the department framework, but vested, it is given
barangay; Whereas, the National Government special functions as provided by law. And this
refers to the entire machinery of the central instrumentality enjoys operational autonomy
government composed of the executive, under its charter.
legislative and judicial departments. And this
concept ought to be distinguished from the LGUs, You have here the case of MIAA of the status of
which are part of the term GRP. LGU is not part of the MIAA. The SC ruled that MIAA is not a GOCC
National Government. but rather an instrumentality of the National
Government vested with not only governmental
Old case. Is the Central Bank part of the term functions but with corporate powers. So it is
National Government? This arose because of the vested with a corporate function in order for it to
unilateral rescission made by the Central Bank in perform efficiently governmental functions. The
the matter of construction agreement, although fact that the law vests in the instrumentality
verbal, it had with the Ablaza Construction. And corporate functions, it does not mean that this
here the Central Bank contend that it is part of corporation is already an instrumentality, unless
the term National Government under the old this corporation has been organized as a stock or
administrative code. Sec 607 of that code non-stock corporation. So it remains an
declared that whenever there is a disbursement instrumentality exercising both corporate and
of public fund by the National Government, there governmental powers. So an instrumentality may
must be a certificate of availability. But there was also be a GOCC, but not all GOCCs are
none in this case. The SC ruled that the CB is a
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

intrumentalities as defined under the Revised Very important! The Doctrine of Primary
Administrative Code. Jurisdiction. Under this concept, the court cannot
and will not determine controversies involving an
The case of Rp vs. Rambuyong, pertainting to the issue w/in the jurisdiction of the administrative
definition under Sec. 2 of EO 292. The term tribunal. More so, where the issue reminds the
instrumentality includes GOCCs. What about the exercise of sound administrative question and
status of the National Power Corporation? It has this calls for the expertise and special knowledge
dual status, it is also an instrumentality of of the administrative tribunal. And so the court
government. The problem here was that refer to the authority of the administrative
Rambuyong and the Vice Mayor of Sibugan, tribunal on the basis of this Doctrine of Primary
Zamboanga, appeared as counsel in a case filed Jurisdiction.
against the NPC. Under the LGC, it declares that
no member of the Sangguniang Bayan fo the LGU There are two reasons for this Doctrine of
shall appear as counsel in a case against the Primary Jurisdiction. First, the person here is
instrumentality, agency of a government unit. allowed the administrative agency to decide the
The SC ruled that Rambuyong cannot appear as issue correctly and the Second is the need to
counsel un this case for damages against NPC prevent resorting to two courts, in the process
because NPC is an instrumentality of government declogging the court’s dockets.
and therefore within the ambit of the provision
under Sec. 90 of LGC. Precisely issues were generally resolved under
the provisions of the Civil Code and were taken
In an earlier case, Maceda vs Macaraig, the SC cognizance by the courts. But not anymore.
declared that NPC is a government Because on the basis of the law, the
instrumentality that is tasked to undertake the administrative tribunal may take cognizance of
development of hydroelectric generation of the issue requiring its expertise. So ascertainment
power, in order to improve the quality of life. This of factual matters which used to be within the
is on the basis of Art. 2 Sec. 9 of the Constitution. competence of the court are now within the
admin tribunal. And in fact, again on the basis of
In the case of Iron and Steel Authority vs CA, in the provision of law, the administrative tribunal
the status of ISA. ISA was created under PD 272 may even award damages.
for a term of 5 years. Subsequently, after the
lapse of 5 years, it was extended under EO 555 A good illustration of this application of the
for another 10 year period. And so during the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the case of Sagip
corporate life of ISA, it instituted an imminent Kalikasan vs Paderanga. The authorities were able
domain proceeding over the Ma. Cristina plant in to confiscate in the alleged illegal _____ of timber
Iligan. And so while the case was pending, the products and these products were turned over to
corporate term of ISA expired. And so the issue CENRO. But what happened here was there was a
w/n the expiration of term also mean the private individual who claimed ownership over
extinction of the suit it filed during its corporate the timber products and filed a suit for replevin
term. The SC ruled, looking into the status of the before the court presided by Judge Paderanga. In
ISA that the GRP should substitute in the place of here, the judge was even dismissed by the SC for
ISA because the ISA is a non-incorporated agency gross ignorance of the law because he took
or instrumentality of the GRP. Therefore, upon cognizance of the case knowing that this was
the expiration of its authority, all the powers of already been handled by the competent
the ISA ought to revert back and should be authority, DENR. Under the law, DENR is
assumed by the principal, the GRP, unless there is responsible in matters of enforcement of forestry
a specific provision in the law providing for such laws (PD 705 as amended). The forest products
disposition. that were confiscated were in custodial egis and

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

therefore cannot be the subject of replevin suit jurisdiction does not apply. So this principle will
before the court against DENR. apply whenever there is a concurrent jurisdiction
between the court and the admin tribunal.
The law provides that the enforcement of Because of what is provided by law the admin
forestry laws as wells as rules and regulations, tribunal must be given the power to decide the
the protection, conservation and management of controversy. But where there is concurrence of
forest lands are within the exclusive authority of the authority of disciplining authorities. For
the DENR. example, the CSC and OMB, these are both
disciplining authorities, the doctrine of primary
The exclusive authority being exercised by the jurisdiction does not apply. So what applies is the
Bureau of Immigration over deportation cases. exclusionary rule. The tribunal that takes
Applying the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction. So cognizance first of the complaint is an exclusion
whenever the issue in the deportation of an alien, of the other equally competent admin authority.
it is within the competence of the BI and in the
process, whenever there is a claim of citizenship Another application of this doctrine, the case of
of this alleged alien, it will not divest the BI of its the Commission of the Settlement of Land
authority to take cognizance of this case and in Problems (under DOJ)(EO 561). The competence
the process it will also look into the issue of of the COSLAP who resolve public land disputes.
citizenship. As a rule, judicial is enjoined. The So it is limited to those public lands or those
court will have to defer to the authority of the BI. covered by specific agreements with the
government, license obtained from the
This rule is subject to exceptions. What is the government, such as pasture lease agreements,
exception to the primary authority of the BI over timber concessions or reservation grants. In the
deportation cases where there is judicial case of Machado vs Gatdula, there was such a
intervention? complaint by Gatdula against Machado
1. Where the court itself believes that there is pertaining to the need of complainant to a right
substantial evidence in support of the claim by of way over the property owned by Machado. But
the deportee of his citizenship; or this was a private property and certainly the
2. Whenever the evidence submitted by the COSLAP does not have and could not have
deportee is conclusive of his citizenship. jurisdiction over such property classified as
private. Not even in such in this case, the parties
In these cases the BI must defer in favor of the participated in the proceedings even if there was
authority of the court. this writ of execution issued by the COSLAP, the
COSLAP never acquired jurisdiction. And so its
What is the nature of a citizenship proceeding? It authority may be questioned at any time. The
is sui generis. Therefore, the concept of the res proceedings are in fact null and void. SO the lack
judicata will not apply. Whenever the issue of of jurisdiction could not be cured by the
citizenship is raised time and again, the concept participation of the parties. SO COSLAP’s
of res judicata will not apply. authority is limited to those involving public
lands, covered by specific agreements granted by
The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction is applicable the government. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
only whenever there is a concurrence of does not apply in this case because what is at
jurisdiction between the court and the issue is the right to pay the private individual.
administrative tribunal. What the law provides,
the court should defer to respect the authority In a case of UST vs Sanchez. The issue is w/n the
given to the administrative agency under such a doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies. What
law. But where what is involved is the happened here was that Sanchez filed a suit for
concurrence of jurisdiction between two or more damages against UST before the court because
disciplining authorities, the doctrine of primary UST refused to give Sanchez the transcript of
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

records despite repeated demands. UST said this units in the subdivision, it is clearly within the
should be claimed within the competence of the competence of HLURB.
Commission on Higher Education. And in fact
Sanchez filed an administrative complaint against In the case of CT Torres vs Hibionada, asked in
UST before the CHED. Sabi ng UST, the fact that the bar, whenever the issue is specific
Sanchez instituted this complaint before the performance with damages for delivery of title.
CHED is an indication that they recognize that this There was failure on the part of the developer to
should be a matter brought before the CHED not deliver the Certificate of Title accompanied by a
before the court. demand for damages. The SC ruled that under
the law HLURB is empowered to award damages.
Take note, another concept. The Doctrine of On the matter of a complaint for reimbursement
Primary Jurisdiction applies only in the exercise of expenses incurred by homeowners to repair
by the administrative authority of its quasi- defective housing units as so constructed by the
judicial or adjudicatory power. It has no developer, again this falls under the second
application in the exercise of a quasi-legislative, situation, within the ambit of the jurisdiction of
rule making power of the administrative the HLURB.
authority.
In the case of Chua vs Ang, take note, the
Now the law of the CHED, RA 77, the Higher authority of the HLURB applies only the matter of
Education Act of 1994, does not confer to the imposition of administrative fines, but not
CHED quasi-judicial power. In other words, if this payment of penalties under Section 39 PD 1344
suit is one for damages, and the law itself, RA 77, because there is criminal violation on the
does not vest to CHED a power to adjudicate. The provisions of PD 1344, of course you have to file
SC ruled it is within the competence of the courts. the case before the courts. It is the courts that
In fact the CHED, not only does not have such impose these penalties, not the HLURB. SO
power of quasi-judicial, it does not have the HLURB must interpret and apply contracts. This
power also to award damages. used to be within the competence of the court,
not anymore, because of PD 957 as amended by
What is the law of HLURB? Applying the Doctrine PD 1344.
of Primary Jurisdiction, PD 957 as amended by PD
1344. Very important, Section 1. Section 1 Where the complaint refers to the need to
provides for the cases over which the HLURB has declare void a mortgage. The voidance of a
the exclusive jurisdiction. What are these cases? mortgage of a lot done for a violation of PD 957
(1) Unsound real estate business practices. So if as amended by PD 1344 and the nullification of a
the complaint involves the unsound real estate foreclosure sale, this used to be the function of
business practice of the owner of a subdivision, the court, but not anymore. These are already
this is within the competence of HLURB. (2) within the authority of the HLURB.
Claims involving refund and any other claims filed
by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer The mere claim of relationship between the
against the project owner, developer, dealer, subdivision owner or developer and the lot buyer
broker or salesman. (3) Cases involving specific or condominium unit buyer does not
performance of contractual and statutory automatically confer jurisdiction to the HLURB. It
obligations filed by buyer of subdivision lot or should be any of the three cases mentioned
condominium unit against the owner, developer, under Section 1.
dealer, broker or salesman. Whenever there is
failure on the part of the developer to comply In the case of Cadimas vs Carrion, there was this
with its statutory and contractual obligations, let contract to sell executed between seller Tagimas
say providing for the basic needs of the housing and buyer Carrion but later on the buyer dispose
of such unit. There was a transfer of the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

townhouse to a third party which is a violation of was filed by the contractor against the developer
his contract to sell. The SC ruled that it is not the pertaining to the unpaid sum of money in
HLURB that has authority to take cognizance of connection with its accomplishment with the
the issue but rather the court. This issue is not construction project. It was claimed by petitioner
any of those three cases mention under Section 1 that it was forum shopping because the
of PD 1344. contractor resorted to the filing of suit before
two courts. Is there forum shopping here? No,
In Arranza vs BF Homes, the problem here was because we are talking here of two separate
that the developer BF Homes was already placed actions. The first one, the suit before the HLURB
under receivership. In fact the SEC appointed a pertained to failure on the part of the developer
board of receivers to manage the affairs of BF to comply with statutory obligations, etc.. and the
Homes. But nonetheless the aggrieved second one pertained to sum of money suit and it
homeowners filed this suit before the HLURB. The should be filed before the courts. So there is no
court ruled that even if the developer was forum shopping.
already placed under receivership by the SEC,
there was no violation of this order of the SEC Previously under PD 902-A, the SEC had the
preventing payment to creditors. And in fact the authority and jurisdiction over intra-corporate or
HLURB under the law still has the competence to partnership cases, not the courts, but not
take cognizance of the case because the principal anymore. A new law, RA 8799, the Securities
action is not monetary in nature. So there is no Regulation Code, it now within the competence
violation of the SEC order prohibiting payment to of the courts.
creditors. Although in the process of adjudication
of the HLURB, it may incidentally award monetary Whenever there is a claim of violation, criminal in
claim, but that is not the principal action. If ever nature, of the provisions of the Securities
there is such monetary award, such matter would Regulation Code, this is a specialized dispute that
be referred to the board of receivers. should first be looked into by the SEC under the
Receivership as the objective of ascertaining the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. So whenever
rights of the parties, it does not mean the there is violation, criminal in nature, of the
extinction of the corporation itself. So here, the provisions of SRC, you cannot immediately file
homeowners filed suit because of the failure of the case before the prosecutor’s office. Applying
BF Homes to comply with the statutory the doctrine of primary jurisdiction because this
obligations on the matter of providing open is a specialized issue/dispute within the
spaces, etc. The SC ruled, even if the corporation competence of the SEC. SEC must have the power
is under receivership the HLURB still has to take to look first into the alleged violation. Whenever
cognizance of the case. it makes a finding of probable cause then it only
when this matter shall be referred to the DOJ for
In the case of Marina Properties Corp. vs CA, the the conduct of preliminary investigation. But
issue, whether there is forum shopping resorted nonetheless, whenever the SEC conducts the
to by HL Carlos. What happened here was that investigation, it already interrupts the
there was an agreement between HL Carlos for it prescriptive period.
to construct the houses and condominiums of the What happens if there is non-compliance with
Marina Properties Corp. There were actually two this requirement? There was no adoption of this
contracts. The first one is a construction contract doctrine of primary jurisdiction because the
and the other the contract to purchase, because complaint immediately was filed before the
here the contractor also purchased a unit from president’s office or prosecutor’s office. The
Marina. So there was failure of Marina Property prosecutor’s office has the competence to
to comply with its obligations under its contract dismiss the case.
to purchase. So a suit was instituted by the
contractor before the HLURB and another suit
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

Applying again the doctrine of primary no need of such hearing, there is no violation of
jurisdiction, Toll Regulatory Board, PD 1112 as this due process requirement because the law
amended. What therefore is the remedy of an itself confers such power. But where there is a
express way user, whenever he finds the toll rate challenge, there is a question on the initial toll
adjustments are oppressive and exorbitant? The rate made, it only in such situation that public
remedy under the TRB law is to file a petition for hearings are required. So there is a challenge as
review of this adjusted toll rates with the TRB, to the fixing of toll rate, the general rule there is
because this involves a question of fact within the no need as provided under the law. Of course in
competence of the TRB. TRB has the expertise, the latter case, whenever subsequent to the
applying the formula in other factors as so initial rates, there have been adjustments, so
provided by law. This calls for the determination there are petitions filed for the amendment or
of factual matters thus the doctrine of primary increase in the toll rates, there should be conduct
jurisdiction applies. Under the same law, the of public hearing because in the latter case this
decision of TRB is appealable within 10 days to calls for the exercise of a quasi-judicial function.
the office of the president. Again this is
consistent with the doctrine of exhaustion of Quasi-judicial power, what does it mean? It
administrative remedies. Within the simply means the power to decide, to adjudicate.
administrative realm, there must be exhaustion. Take note, NOT ALL administrative authorities are
empowered, that possess a quasi-judicial
Under the same law, in relation to PD 8094, the function. There must be an express conferment,
TRB is invested with the power to grant to any an empowerment on the basis of its law given to
qualified entity or person the authority to the administrative tribunal. Even if there is such
construct, to maintain, operate a toll facility. Thus grant of this adjudicatory power on the basis of
in the process issue the corresponding toll law, this is simply incidental. This is simply an aid
operating permit, also known as toll operating to the principal power of any administrative
certificate. If the law confers such power to the agency, which is regulatory, in order to carry out
administrative agency like TRB to grant such the provisions of its charter that is regulatory.
franchise or _____, there is no need to secure And in the process in the express conferment,
from legislature to secure a special franchise empowerment by law it may decide
because the law already provides the mechanism. controversies, it may adjudicate.
The law itself confers the power to the
administrative agency to grant such privilege or So what is the nature of this quasi-judicial power
franchise or award such contract by explicit, of the administrative agency? This calls for the
express provision of law. TRB is empowered to exercise of discretion, the action or discretion of
grant administrative privilege for the operation of the administrative authority in investigating facts.
toll facility and impose, alter the terms and How do you investigate facts? First gather your
conditions in the appropriate contract. evidence and from such evidence gathered, you
determine the facts. This would be the basis of
Same case, Francisco vs TRB, the Court made a your decision. So the exercise of discretion of
distinction between the fixing of initial toll rate judicial nature. This calls for the taking and
and the fixing of the subsequent periodic interim evaluating of evidence and determination of facts
toll rates. What is the distinction? (1) Quasi- based on such evidence gathered and presented.
legislative, rule-making power, no need of a An order or decision is issued. Such order or
public hearing. But the subsequent fixing of decision must be supported by the facts.
interim/periodic toll rates, whenever there are
adjustments of the toll rates subsequent to the If there is no authority given by law to the
initial fixing, this would require the conduct of a administrative body to apply the law, although it
public hearing. Even in the matter of fixing of be conferred the power to gather evidence, does
initial toll rates, the general rule here is there is it mean that this administrative body possess of a
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

quasi-judicial power? It only means that that services. Therefore in the process determine the
agency, given the power to gather evidence, to area of operation that the applicant may have
determine facts is conducting a fact finding such competence for the operation of this
investigation which is different from adjudicatory telecommunication services. The NTC is under
power. what department? DOTC. Even the DOTC can
usurp this power of the NTC to issue a certificate
The case of PCGG vs Judge Pena. The law of of public convenience and applying the doctrine
PCGG, Executive Orders 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. To of primary jurisdiction. And it can even, by
investigate alleged ill-gotten wealth of the provision of law, initiate the conduct of
Marcos’ and his cronies. What happened here investigation just like the POEA, it is empowered
was that, in its early years of existence, the PCGG by the DOLE to initiate, whenever there is a
had the authority to issue freeze orders. This report of an alleged violation by placement
freeze order was issued by PCGG over two agencies pertaining to the rights of overseas
apparel companies. These apparel companies Filipino workers. The POEA has authority on its
went to the court to enjoin, to prevent the PCGG own to initiate and conduct an investigation,
from carrying out its task. Question: May the quasi-judicial power.
court restrain the PCGG from exercising its
authority, in this case, from issuing this freeze In the case of Eastern Telecom vs International
order. The SC ruled, the PCGG is a co-equal body Communication Corp. What happened here was
of the trial court and and exercises quasi-judicial that the NTC granted the provisional authority to
power. The court cannot restrain the PCGG. the ICC to operate of an area that is already
within the authority of the Eastern Telecom as
In the matter of the power of the administrative granted to it by its permit. The SC ruled that there
tribunal either to grant, deny or suspend or was not abuse of authority committed here by
revoke a license or permit, that is an exercise of a the NTC by issuing a permit covering the area
quasi-judicial power. So in the case of Philippine already within the coverage of Easter Telecom’s
Overseas Employment Authority, the authority of permit because this is consistent with the policy
this agency either to grant, deny, suspend or of healthy competition. Taking into account the
revoke a license of any private placement agency, technical and financial capabilities of the ICC.
this is a quasi-judicial power. When we talk of There was no grave abuse committed by the NTC.
quasi-judicial power you should equate this to
observance of due process requirement. Always The conduct of investigation by the prosecutors
compliance with the due process requirement under the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial function.
although the law itself may allow the agency to Why do you say it is not a quasi-judicial function?
issue provisional authority. Because provisional is Because it will not, whatever the resolution
temporary, it is still subject to a full blown issued by the prosecutor will not resolve the
determination in a hearing where all the parties finality, which is in the competence of the court.
are the given the opportunity to present their The DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency whenever it
evidence. Here the POEA, in the exercise of such releases the finding of the prosecutor regarding
quasi-judicial power has such competence to the existence of probable cause. Because the
suspend, cancel any license of the private agency prosecutor simply makes a determination that
on any grounds whenever there is a violation of there is, the crime has been probably committed.
the terms or provisions of its permit or license. It is within the competence of the court to
Case of Sanado vs CA. determine the finality of the case.

In the same manner as the NTC has such Any other agency you can think of where the
competence to issue a certificate of public question is not a quasi-judicial power, whenever
convenience and necessity for the operation, you can say the NBI conduct an investigation,
installation of communication of facilities and would you say that is an exercise of quasi-judicial
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

power? NBI? Pagmagimbestiga ang NBI, would cases were filed against them by the Sec. And
you say that it is already performing a quasi- some of them were suspended and some were
judicial power? NO. because it simply dismissed for service. One of the public school
recommends. It will not put to rest the issue. teachers did was file a case against Carino before
When filing, san ifafile yan? the prosecutor’s the CHR. What is the CHR under the Constitution?
office or office of the ombudsman. The resolution The CHR has the authority to investigate all kinds
or recommendation of the NBI does not of human rights violations involving civil and
terminate the proceeding. It is not a quasi-judicial political rights. Its authority is limited. It does not
function. have the power to adjudicate. Its authority is
simply to make a determination of the facts. So
In the case of UP Board of Reagents vs CA, what fact finding investigation, which is not
happened here there was this Indian national adjudication. The SC ruled that the CHR has no
took her post graduate studies in anthropology in business interfering with the conduct of
the UP. Later on, she was issued a Doctorate investigation because the Constitution does not
Degree by the UP. It was later found out that her confer CHR adjudicatory power.
thesis was plagiarized. The issue here is w/n there
was violation of the rights of this Indian national, What is the objective in creating the Philippine
then the doctorate degree given earlier was Truth Commission? The PTC is a fact finding body.
withdrawn from her by the UP board of reagents. It does not have the power to adjudicate. No
The SC ruled that as an act in the pursuit of quasi-judicial power is given to the commission. It
academic excellence and the need to defend its is not even a creation of legislature, simply to the
integrity, the UP board of Reagents has such issuance of President which came into being. So
power to withdraw such degree conferred quasi-judicial power involves power to hear,
whenever it was found to be issued because determine questions of facts. Not only in matters,
there was fraud, or there were errors committed, but also the authority to apply and decide in
but of course subject to the requirement of due accordance with the standards provided by law.
process. The UP board cannot simply withdraw In the absence of such authority, it is not an
the degree without giving the person opportunity adjudicatory tribunal.
to answer.
Forum shopping. We mentioned this a while ago.
One other issue raised here, there was no formal When do you say there is forum shopping? There
hearing conducted that is why violation. The SC is forum shopping whenever a party against
ruled, whenever there is such a case involving the whom another decision has been rendered, seeks
student, the due process requirement is already a favorable decision or opinion in another forum.
complied with whenever opportunities are given In other words, the first one speaks of the
to file pleading, etc. No need for the conduct of concept of res judicata, there has been
formal hearing. So the UP board is empowered to adjudication of this same issue that has already
determine who should be its students and who been resolved in another forum. Or where the
should be given this privilege to be considered its party files, the same cause of action before two
graduates. It follows that this institution of higher or more forums, litis pendentia. There is a
learning has the power to withdraw this degree pending suit filed before another tribunal and
whenever the grant was founded on fraud or here the party feels that he may not get a
error. favorable decision, files a case involving the same
cause of action before the court.
In the case of Carino vs CHR, there were public
school teachers of the Ramon Magsaysay The rule on forum shopping also applies to quasi-
Highschool who were on strike sometime in 1990. judicial proceedings. What is the test for us to
They were required by the Sec. of Education to conclude that there is a violation against forum
report to classes, they refused. So administrative shopping? Where the elements of litis pendentia
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

are present, there is an ongoing investigation or Special Prosecutor is of the same rank as the
pending proceeding involving the same cause. Or Deputy Ombudsman, he does not have the same
where final judgment in a case will amount to res rights/powers. The law does not confer this
judicata in another. So the law as a rule, so many power to the Special Prosecutor. So there is no
laws of agencies, there is a requirement of filing a violation of this rule against forum shopping.
certificate of non-forum shopping.
In the case of Montemayor vs Bundalian, there
This requirement is not jurisdictional but it is a are theses two cases filed against the Regional
mandatory requirement. Failure to comply with Director of Public Works, Montemayor. First was
this mandatory requirement may justify the the criminal case before the Ombudsman,
dismissal of a suit, of course at the discretion of another case before the Special Anti-Graft
the investigation officer. Whenever there is a Commission. It happened that the Ombudsman
complaint filed verified under oath, attached to dismissed the criminal case and on that basis
such verified complaint is a certificate of non- Montemayor agreed that the administrative case
forum shopping that there is not similar case filed ought to be dismissed. Is he correct? We are
before any other tribunal. talking here of two different causes of action. The
first one is criminal and the other one is
Is the certification signed by the counsel of the administrative. So no violation of this rule against
parties sufficient? No. The certification signed by forum shopping.
the lawyer representing the plaintiffs is defective,
unless there is special authority or power of In Cabarrus vs Bernas, Atty. Bernas filed a civil
attorney given. As a rule, the parties themselves suit for damages against Cabarrus in connection
must sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. with alleged perjury committed by the latter. At
What is the exception to this rule? The case of HL the same time, Atty. Bernas filed a criminal
Construction, the exception here is where it is complaint before the NBI. The question now is
impractical for all of them to sign. One of them w/n forum shopping is applicable in this case.
may sign on behalf of the others, provided that This rule is not applicable to agencies not
they share the same cause, they have common exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Take
interest and the file the case collectively. note, what it the nature of the case filed by Atty.
Bernas before the NBI? We look into the criminal
In the case of Ombudsman vs Valera, the issue is liability of Cabarrus for alleged perjury committed
w/n there was a violation of this rule against and the NBI is not performing a quasi-judicial
forum shopping. Here, deputy commissioner power. It conducts investigation based on the
Valera was the subject of an administrative complaint it received coming from Atty. Bernas.
investigation by the Ombudsman and in fact And in fact it was the filing of the civil case
during the pendency of the investigation he was independently with the criminal case.
preventively suspended. The one who
preventively suspended Valera was the Special In the case of Velasquez vs Hernandez, there was
Prosecutor. So he filed a motion for this case before the CSC and another case before
reconsideration of his preventive suspension the office of the Ombudsman. two different
order, only for him to file a petition before the causes of action. No violation.
appellate court, certiorari. The SC ruled that
there was no violation. Why? Because contested In administrative cases involving the concurrent
in the court was the authority of the Special authority before two or more disciplining bodies,
Prosecutor’s to issue the preventive suspension the tribunal that take cognizance of the
and there was really basis because under the law complaint acquires authority to the exclusion of
the Special Prosecutor does not have the power other equal competent tribunals. In the case of
to issue preventive suspension, only the Ombudsman vs Rodriguez where the complaints
Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman. Even if the were first filed with the OMB means that the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

authority and jurisdiction is already conferred the need for publication of such rules and
with the OMB and this same admin case can no regulations.
longer be filed before the Sangguniang Bayan.
Under the LGC Sec. 60-69 the Sanggunian has Take note that not all rules and regulations ought
also concurrent authority in cases filed against to be published either in the Official Gazette or in
the elective official. If the case was filed before a newspaper of general circulation. Essentially,
the Sanggunian then hindi na dapat makialam
only those rules and regulations that are
ang OMB.
intended to apply to the public, so where it binds
the public at large, therefore there’s a need for
02 JULY the publication of such rules issued by the
administrative authority.
Earlier, we discussed the exercise of a quasi-
judicial power by administrative authorities. Nonetheless, whatever rules and regulations of
these administrative authorities to carry out the
What is this quasi-legislative authority of
mandate given to them are merely
administrative tribunals? It is the power of
interpretations or constructions of the law.
administrative bodies to promulgate rules and
Moreso, if these rules are in excess of the
regulations in order to carry out or implement
authority given to the administrative bodies, they
the provisions of law that they are mandated
do not have a binding effect upon the courts. It’s
to…that they are tasked by the legislature to
simply an interpretation of such law and,
implement.
therefore, ultimately it is still the court that
So this is, actually, the charge of this quasi- makes a decision on the validity of such rules.
legislative power is a relaxation of the principle of
The fact that the administrative authority has not
separation of powers and, in fact, an exception to
yet issued the implementing rules does not mean
the rule of non-delegation of legislative power. So
that the law itself is no longer valid. So, mere
the rule here is for the legislature not to delegate.
absence of the promulgation cannot effectively
But because of the multifarious
______________ the provisions of the law where
functions/activities now being performed by
there can a reasonable construction made by
individuals and entities, the need therefore for
administrative authorities.
legislature to authorize the discharge of certain
governmental functions and this is delegated to Now, what about a promulgation on the basis of
administrative authorities and, thus, these law giving the power to the chief executive to
administrative authorities are given such power suspend the operation of the law upon the
to promulgate rules and regulations. happening of an act, the ascertainment of which
is left to the chief executive, is this a valid law?
So, what are the requirements for the validity of
YES, in this case, the president is simply
such rules promulgated by administrative
implementing what is provided under the law
authorities? (1)The rules and regulations must be
and, thus, the president has such power to
germane to the purpose or objects of the
promulgate rules in order to carry out the
law;(2)Must conform to the requirements of such
mandate as provided in such statute.
law and must carry out the purposes; and of
course one other important requirement is (3) There are three (3)categories of rules that may
be promulgated by administrative tribunals.

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

1. Those intended to supply the details of an amendment of the law itself. And so, there
legislation; can be no vested rights arising from the wrong
construction or interpretation of such law by
administrative authorities, in this case the
2. Those intended to make a construction or Commissioner of the BIR. And this cannot a shield
interpretation of the particular statement that to be used by the taxpayer against such action
the administrative authority is duty-bound to that may be instituted by the government against
enforce. the taxpayer.

From time to time, government tribunals, Now, in the case of Ople vs. Torres, in the matter
especially those performing front line operations of the issuance by the Office of the President of
issue rules and regulations in interpretation of Administrative Order No. 308 which provides for
the provisions of law. Eg. BIR, CSC the adoption of the National Computerized
Identification Reference System—is this
constitutional? Take note that this rule involved
contending state policies, for example: the right
3. Those intended to determine some fact or state
of the state to gather information against the
of things upon which the enforcement of a law
right of individuals to privacy. So clearly, this
shall depend.
cannot be done simply through the issuance of
AO by the Office of the President, this involves a
subject matter that should be embodied in a law
We mentioned earlier the president may himself
as passed by congress. So the establishment of
be authorized from the basis of such law, the
this identification reference system requires
ascertainment of such act is dependent upon the
delicate adjustments of contending state policies.
rules as promulgated by the administrative
authority. Or let’s say the grant of the legislature
of emergency powers to the president, but for
In the case of ________ vs. COA, in the matter of
this law to be valid, giving such emergency
the issuance by the DBM of this local budget
powers to the president, there must be sufficient
circular setting the maximum amount as
standards.
additional honorarium or allowance that may be
given by the local government unit to officials of
national agencies. Now, take note, the basis for
In the case of PhilBank vs. CIR, there was this
the issuance by the DBM of this LBC is Sec. 458 of
circular issued by the BIR changing the
the LGC, but the LGC simply provides that the
prescriptive period for claims of excessive
LGU may grant such allowance whenever its
corporate income tax payments. Now, under the
finances allowed. Nowhere in the provision of the
law, the prescriptive period provided therein was
LGC does it provide a maximum limit, the
only two (2) years, but under this Memorandum
maximum amount that may be paid by the LGU
Circular 7-885 this period was extended to ten
to the national government official with office in
(10) years. So clearly, the rule is not in conformity
the locality in the LGU. So clearly, the LBC issued
with what the law provides. It is, in fact, already
by the DBM is contrary to the law itself. What did
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

we say earlier? The rules and regulations must Circular 37-93 reclassifying these fourteen
always be in conformity with the law. It cannot go brands, Hope, Champion, and more. They were
beyond what it provided in the law, otherwise, it classified as local, but on the basis of this
will already be usurping a power belonging to memorandum circular, they were classified as
legislature. foreign brands based on the World Tobacco
Listing. And so, by reason of this issuance, there
was an imposition, and assessment of 55% ad
In the case Lopangco vs. CA, a resolution was valorem tax, and the validity of this circular was
passed by the PRC prohibiting the attendance by questioned before the court. Clearly, in the guise
the reviewees of accountancy review classes. You of an exercise of a quasi-legislative power, it is
can just imagine if you will be prohibited from actually a quasi-judicial power. It is made
attending review classes, of course this would be applicable only to one tobacco company, the
a violation of the established right to liberty, and Fortune Tobacco Company. Clearly, the
on the part of the schools, the academic freedom requirements of the law have not been met in the
of these institutions. So clearly, take note, one issuance of this memorandum circular, moreso,
other requirement we mentioned earlier, that the requirement of notice and hearing, and of
whatever promulgation made by the course, the need to have this published, none of
administrative authority must be reasonable, which were complied with. Clearly, the
must not be arbitrary or capricious. memorandum circular is arbitrary, is capricious, is
not in conformity with the law.
In the case of Confederacion vs. Quisumbing,
there was an order issued by then Minister Subsequently, another case involving the
Quisumbing phasing out Spanish subjects.In place issuance by the commissioner of the BIR, this
of Spanish, the inclusion of Arabic on an optional circular gives authority to the commissioner of
basis. And so, the association of Spanish the BIR to make updates of the classification of
professors all over the country questioned this cigarette brands every two (2) years. Of course,
order. The SC sustained the validity of this order. there is no such authority given under the law for
This is a reasonable issuance, and it is intended to the commissioner to make such reclassification.
apply to all similarly situated, all Spanish teachers This must be embodied in the law. So nowhere in
all over the country. the NIRC is there authority given to the BIR
commissioner to update the classification of
In the case of _____________ vs. Abad Santos, cigarette brands periodically.
the Board of Examiners of Nursing issued a
regulation providing for periodic inspection of In the case of Romulo vs. HDMF, put in issue here
nursing schools and preventing the graduates of are two (2) amendments issued by the Board of
these nursing schools which are not able to Trustees of the HDMF, amendments to the IRR of
conform to the minimum standards set by the the HDMF. The first one, the 1995 amendments,
Board of Examiners. Of course, this is a declared that for the employer to be exempt
reasonable regulation, a valid exercise of police from the Pag-ibig Fund coverage, the employer
power. must have both provident retirement and
housing benefits. Now, is this 1995 amendment
There was a time that then BIR Commissioner valid? The law itself, RA 7742 does not require
__________ issued this regulation Memorandum the existence of both provident retirement and

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

housing benefits. It only provides, it declares that and employees. The reason for this law is to
for purposes of exempting the employer, there prevent the iniquitous and undue proliferation of
must be a showing that either he has provident such retirement plans for gov’t officers and
retirement or housing benefits, not both benefits. employees. So this law bars the creation any
So clearly, in promulgating these 1995 similar insurance or retirement plan. And there
amendments, the BOT of HDMF amended the law was such plan issued by the BOT of the SSS. Now,
itself. earlier we mentioned the important rule that this
power to promulgate rules by the administrative
Subsequently, the BOT issued the 1996
agency, being a delegated task given to it by the
amendments, abolishing these provident
legislature, cannot be used to defeat the
retirement and housing benefits. And clearly,
authority given to it by congress or the
they do not have such authority because in doing
constitution itself by, for example, enlarging its
so, the BOT already repealed the law itself. The
powers or issuing rules that go beyond the scope
law provides for the existence of either benefits,
of the power of the administrative authority. So
and here the 1996 amendments passed by the
here, clearly, the SSS, in promulgating this
BOT abolished. So clearly repealing the law.
resolution, and this resolution provides
Now, in the matter of the creation of the AFP supplementary retirement or pension plan for the
Anti-Graft Board, now take note that the powers retiring SSS employee is a violation of this Teves
of this Board must always be in accord with what retirement law. So this resolution is null and void.
is provided under the law. What is the law of the
Another situation here, similar to the case of
PCGG? Executive Orders Nos. 1 – 14 and 14A in
Conde vs. COA, the BOT of GSIS also issued a
the matter of the conduct of an investigation
promulgation establishing the retirement
involving unexplained wealth cases of the
financial plan for GSIS officers and employees. Of
Marcoses, their cronies, or their associates. We
course, we know that the officers and employees
have here a situation where the AFP Anti-Graft
of GSIS are already enjoying higher salaries
Board created by the Commissioner Chair of the
compared to their counterparts in ordinary
PCGG, that time Salonga, conducted an
offices of gov’t, and this in fact was an
investigation on the alleged unexplained wealth
observation of the SC in the case of GSIS vs. COA.
of one Col. Pecson, and here there was no
Although, the GSIS law, 8291, confers the power,
allegation that this retired military officer was a
the authority, to the GSIS through the Board to
crony or associate of the Marcoses. And clearly,
create a financial scheme, but nonetheless, this
the issuance of this rule creating this anti-graft
power is limited only to those officers and
board with the power to investigate military
employees availing, in the course of
officers whether in the active service or those
reorganization, of an early retirement plan
retired, or whether they are cronies or not, is not
because they are not qualified under existing
consistent with the law of the PCGG.
retirement plan of the GSIS. So you know, the
Now, before discussing this ________________ gov’t officer has the option to retire upon
vs. COA, there is in fact a law, the Teves reaching the age of 60, or mandatory retirement
Retirement Act, RA 4968 which prohibits the at the age of 65 under the GSIS Act. Now, here,
creation, or establishment of any insurance or what the BOT of GSIS did was to create such
retirement scheme or package or plan other than financial scheme clearly in violation of this Teves
that already provided by the GSIS for govt officers Retirement Law because it provides for some
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

financial package apart from those existing under gov’t agencies to enter into a MOA. And this can
the GSIS Act. So here, the retirement financial be done if, on its own, the government
plan, as adopted by the GSIS BOT is null and void. corporation, on the basis of law or its charter, is
It is, in fact, a form of reward for the GSIS allowed to formulate or establish an ID format,
employees’ lengthy service and loyalty, which is and there are so many government offices vested
already taken cared of under the GSIS Act. So with such authority under their laws. With more
clearly, a violation of this Teves Retirement Act. reason that these heads of gov’t entities may
enter into a memorandum in order to adopt a
Now, earlier, we mentioned that even in the
uniform ID format to make their systems uniform.
absence of rules and regulations the law is still
And this is purely administrative, not requiring
effective, so long as there can be a reasonable
the enactment of a law by legislature. The second
construction made of such a law. So, in the case
mode of having this unified multipurpose ID
of SEC vs. Inter_______ Corporation, the SC ruled
system is on the basis of the power of control
that even in the absence of the rules to
under Art. VII, Sec. 17 of the President. Meaning,
implement the Revised Securities Act, the Act
the Pres has control over all departments,
was approved way back in 1982 but it was only
bureaus, and offices, and so clearly, the President
after 14 years, in 1996, that the full disclosure
can issue this EO on the basis of her power of
rules were promulgated by the SEC, even in the
control directing that these gov’t agencies ought
absence of such IRR, it does not invalidate nor
to adopt a uniform ID format. Again, this is
make ineffective the Revised Securities Act. So
merely administrative, through the issuance of an
long as there are reasonable and sufficient
EO by the president. This does not require
standards embodied in the law itself, and
legislative function.
reasonable interpretation may be given.
Again take note that this applies to offices under
This is case ought to be distinguished from the
the office of the President because the president,
earlier case we mentioned, the case of PNU vs.
being the chief executive, has control and
Rector?? General. What happened here was then
supervision over all departments, bureaus, and
Pres. GMA issued Executive Order. 420 directing
offices in the executive branch.
all government agencies to adopt a unified
multipurpose ID system in order to reduce cost In the case of Review Center…You know, there
brought about by the existence of multiple ID was this leakage in the nursing exam and the
systems/requirements of various government then President ordered that the examinees
offices; and of course, to bring about greater retake the examination, and another act was
convenience on the part of the public dealing made to replace the members of the Board of
with government offices. The question now is Nursing, and she further issued EO 566. This EO
whether or not the EO issued by GMA is a authorized the CHED to supervise the operation
usurpation of legislative power. Is this EO valid. of all review centers. And so, the issue not is
Now, the SC ruled the validity of this EO. Why? WON this EO is valid. Of course, the EO is not
This can be done in two (2) ways in order to valid. The issuance of this EO is a usurpation of a
achieve this unified ID system. The objective here power belonging to legislature. Why? Because
is to reduce cost, bring about efficiency and the law of the CHED, RA 7722 gives authority to
greater convenience in transacting with gov’t the CHED only over institutions of higher learning
agencies. The first mode is for these heads of and degree granting programs and all secondary

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

educational institutions. Take note that review In the case of the CHR, you know these offices,
centers are not under the category of secondary the SC, COA, CSC, and the COMELEC, and the
educational institutions. A review center is not an Office of the Ombudsman have this group known
institution of higher learning. And clearly, the EO as CFAG, the _____________ (39:28) Fiscal
expands the coverage of authority of CHED. Not a Autonomy Group. The CHR applied as a member
valid promulgation. and it was admitted, so the CHR is also a member
of the CFAG. So, the SC ruled that the matter of
Now, there’s also this important concept known
enjoying this fiscal autonomy is a grant given
as Fiscal Autonomy. Take note, not all gov’t
under the Constitution, it is not a grant obtained
offices enjoy fiscal autonomy. What offices are
by membership. But nonetheless, the CHR, being
vested with fiscal autonomy? Under the
a member of the CFAG, enjoys, in a limited sense,
Constitution you have the SC, the members of
that is the right to have its appropriations
constitutional commissions, and the office of the
automatically and regularly released.
Ombudsman. These are the only offices under
the constitution conferred with fiscal autonomy. So, this offices enjoying fiscal autonomy,
What about the CHR? It is also created under the although they are authorized to formulate and
constitution because of the obligation of the implement their administrative structure, and
Philippines under the international law. even determine the compensation of their staff,
nonetheless, this power is not absolute. This
What is this fiscal autonomy all about? This
must be exercised within the parameters, the
means the freedom of these institutions vested
criteria, under the unified position classification
with fiscal autonomy from outside limitations and
and compensation system as administered by the
control except those provided by _________
DBM on the basis of RA 6758, the Salary
(36:40) laws. It is the power, the authority to levy,
Standardization Law. Remember there’s such a
assess, and collect fees. You know, the CSC from
restructuring plan, that plan ought to be
time to time, even the courts, collect fees. Any
submitted for review by the DBM.
document you require from CSC, you have to pay
the necessary fees. The authority likewise to fix In the case of the CHR Employees Assoc. vs. CHR,
the compensation rates. And this is not enjoyed what happened here was that the management
by other gov’t offices—theauthority to fix the of the CHR made a reorganization, and in so
compensation rates provided that such doing it created the finance management office
compensation rates does not exceed the highest and the public affairs office, and this creation,
rates authorized by the Salary Standardization upgrading of positions, was opposed by the
Law. It also refers to the power to allocate and employees assoc. on the ground, among others,
disburse such funds as may be provided by law. that this will diminish the benefits due to the CHR
So, the alignment of funds, and there’s no employees. And so the SC ruled that while the
violation of law because this is a power belonging members of the CFAG have the power to
to these offices. The authority likewise to formulate and implement organizational
formulate and implement their organizational structures and even determine the compensation
structure and compensation of the personnel. of their personnel, nonetheless, this power is not
But again, there’s an existing limitation on this absolute, it must be done in accordance with the
authority as provided under the Unified Position requirements of the law, the parameters imposed
Classification Plan of the DBM. under the unified position classification and

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

compensation system as implemented by the if there is such revenue shortfall. The only
DBM. And so, here, the SC ruled that the creation exception to this rule where there can be no
of these offices by the CHR, in the absence of the release is where the total revenue collections of
imprimatur by the DBM, is not valid. It is not even the gov’t are so insufficient that they are not able
authorized under the General Appropriations to cover the entire appropriations for these
Law. entities vested with fiscal autonomy. This has
never happened, this is improbable. So even if
The CHR here filed a MFR, and so the SC made
there is revenue shortfall on the part of the gov’t,
the clarification that considering that the CHR has
nonetheless, because the Constitution itself
been made a member of the CFAG, it is therefore
confers fiscal autonomy to these institutions,
given a certain degree of fiscal autonomy, and
these offices ought to be released their regular
that is in the matter of having its annual
appropriations by the DBM.
appropriations regularly and automatically
released. But not the fiscal autonomy in its broad In the matter of the creation by the SC of
sense that is given to constitutional offices, the positions pertaining to the Philippine Judicial
Ombudsman, and the SC. Academy (PHILJA), a resolution was passed by the
SC creating the positions of Chief Judicial Staff
In the case of CSC vs. DBM, what happened here
Officer with SG 25, and Supervising Judicial Staff
was in the 2002 General Appropriations Act, the
Officer with SG 23 in the PHILJA. And so the SC
CSC was appropriated the amount of P285M for
submitted to the authority of the DBM, because
the central office of CSC. Of this amount, there
this matter of formulating and implementing its
remained a balance of P5.8M which was not
organizational structure and even the salary must
released to the CSC by the DBM on the ground
conform with the requirements of the unified
that the CSC failed to submit its report. And DBM
position classification system, and this plan was
had the policy, “No report, no release.” Another
submitted to the DBM. Now, the DBM
reason cited by the DBM in refusing to release
downgraded the created positions. The position
the balance was that there was revenue shortfall,
of Chief JSO was downgraded from SG 25 to SG
there was shortfall in the collections of the gov’t.
24, while the Supervising JSO was downgraded
The SC ruled that these are not valid reasons for
from SG 23 to SG 22. The SC ruled that the DBM
the DBM not to release the balance because the
does not have the power to downgrade these
CSC enjoys fiscal autonomy, and fiscal autonomy
positions created by the SC. Why? Because this is
means automatic and regular release of the
within the power of the SC under fiscal
appropriations as provided under the General
autonomy. The authority of the DBM simply
Appropriations Act. In other words, even if there
refers to the need to call the attention of the SC
is no compliance with this DBM requirement, this
whenever such a resolution does not comply with
does not apply to the members of the CFAG.
the requirements of budgetary laws and rules,
What about the other excuse made by the DBM
and on that basis, the SC, at its discretion, may
that there was insufficient revenue collection?
amend or modify the resolution, as dictated
The SC ruled that this contention was not even
depending upon the needs of the questioned
true, but granting that there is such revenue
offices. And so, the SC ruled that there was
shortfall, nonetheless, those agencies enjoying
encroachment by the DBM of the fiscal autonomy
fiscal autonomy should be given priority in the
power of the SC.
matter of the release of their appropriations even

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

Example of an MCQ: Which of the following Now, which of this is a violation of the judiciary’s
violates the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy? fiscal autonomy? Which concept falls within the
concept of fiscal autonomy?
A. An item in the 2011 GA Law allowing P13.5B to
the judiciary, which is the same amount allotted B is a violation of the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy.
last year but less than 15% than the proposal of The demand of DBM to the SC requesting for data
the SC. on the judiciary discretionary funds…Of course
it’s part of the prerogatives of the constitutional
office, moreso the SC, this falls under the ambit
Is this valid? Is this within the concept of fiscal of the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy. And no other
autonomy? No. But it’s valid because the branch of gov’t can intervene in such discretion in
constitution, as well as existing laws, provide that the matter of disposition of its discretionary
the budget of government offices cannot be funds.
reduced. Even if there is no appropriations act
Now, the power to issue subpoena, take note, is
passed by congress, the remedy here would be to
not inherent in administrative agencies. For the
adopt the same budget of the preceding year, but
administrative agency to have the authority to
it cannot go below the preceding appropriations.
issue subpoena, there must be a law conferring
Clearly, A is valid but it is not within the concept
such power. Administrative agencies do not have
of fiscal autonomy.
inherent power to require the attendance of
witnesses but they may be authorized by law to
issue subpoena ducestecum or subpoena ad
B. A letter of the BM Secretary to the chief of the testificandum. Is there such a law? Yes, the
budget office of the SC requesting for data on the Revised Administrative Code, EO 292, under this
judiciary discretionary funds from 2005 up to the law, administrative bodies are now given the
present. power to require the attendance of witnesses or
the production of records or documents. And the
authority here to take testimony or receive
C. The president’s veto of an item in 2011 GA Law evidence includes the power to administer oaths,
allotting P900M as supplemental fund for retired to summon witnesses, and issue subpoenas. And
members of the judiciary. in case of refusal to comply with such subpoena
issued by the administrative tribunal, there is
disobedience, this may be the basis for the
Does the president have such power to veto this contempt of such officer refusing to comply with
item? Yes, of course. the subpoena.

Now, is there a difference here between


administrative subpoena and judicial subpoena?
D. A COA circular requiring all gov’t offices to submit Administrative subpoena is different from judicial
post-procurement report at the end of each fiscal subpoena because in the latter case, such a
year. subpoena is intended to prove a charge pending
in court, whereas in administrative subpoena, the
issuance of this subpoena has for the purpose of
gathering and obtaining evidence, and on the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

basis of this evidence gathered, this may be the such provision of law giving power to punish
basis for the filing of the charge. So that is the contempt. One such example of a law giving to
objective of the administrative subpoena, to the administrative office the power to punish
gather evidence which may be used as basis for contempt is under the Ombudsman Act, RA 6770.
the filing of the charge, whereas in the case of The Ombudsman has the power to punish
judicial subpoena, this is for the purpose of contempt. There is in fact a decided case on this.
proving the charge. So, the power to punish contempt is limited to
make effective this power to elicit testimony or
The subpoena may be enforced if the
gather evidence, and this cannot be exercised in
investigation or the inquiry to be conducted is
furtherance of administrative quasi-legislative
within the competence of the agency of the basis
functions. So this is limitation derives from the
of the conferment to it of such power under the
nature of this power, it is not inherent. It is
law, and that the demand of the administrative
inherent in courts but not in administrative
tribunal is not too indefinite. In other words, the
tribunals.
subpoena itself must indicate specifics, what
documents are required. And the information is In the case of Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, there were
reasonably relevant or related to the subject of provincial prosecutors who refused to comply
inquiry. with the directives of the Office of the
Ombudsman and after due proceedings, they
In the same manner that, just like the power to
were sanction. And the prosecutors question the
issue subpoena, the power to punish contempt is
authority of the ombudsman to punish them for
not inherent in administrative authorities. There
contempt. The SC sustained the power of the
must be law clearly defining and granting to
Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act. So the
administrative authorities this power to punish
argument made here by prosecutors that they
contempt. And the law itself must make a
cannot be held liable for contempt because their
determination of the penalty for the
refusal, their alleged disregard of the orders of
administrative agency to punish such act as
the Ombudsman arose out of an administrative
contempt.
rather than judicial proceeding. The SC held that
What about a situation where the law does not this is without merit because the law itself
provide for such authority to punish such conferred such power to the Ombudsman.
contempt but there is refusal to submit to the
Necessarily, in order for administrative
demands of the issuing officer, there is disregard
authorities to be able to effectively carry out
of the subpoena issued by the competent
their mandate, they must be given the
authority. In the absence of such law giving the
competence to interpret, to make a construction
power to punish contempt, the remedy available
of the laws that they are duty-bound to
to the administrative tribunal or officer issuing
implement. We have mentioned this, one of the
such subpoena is to invoke the aid of the courts
categories of the promulgations that may be
to punish such act as contempt.
made by administrative bodies, the authority to
Now, EO 292 provides that the agency, in case of interpret or the issuance of rules. But these
disobedience, may invoke the aid of the RTC to interpretations are not binding upon the courts
punish refusal, or there is disobedience to its but they carry persuasive effect. They have the
demand. That is in situations where there is no force and effect of law and therefore they must

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

be respected. The courts will respect the liable under provisions of laws or the rules
determination made by the administrative promulgated by administrative authorities of
authority, consistent with the Doctrine of Primary which they were never notified through this
Jurisdiction, because the law confers to them publication requirement. This is simply part of
such expertise or competence within the fields this due process principle.
bestowed to them under the law. So, the general
In the case of SEC vs PICOP, in the matter of the
policy therefore is to uphold the decision, the
application filed by PICOP for extension of its
resolution, the order of the administrative
corporate existence. One issue raised here is:
tribunal because of the principle of separation of
which rule or circular of the SEC ought to apply in
powers and because of the expertise and
the matter of the application filed by PICOP for
eligibility of these administrative tribunals as
extension of its corporate existence. Should it be
conferred to them by law. In the passage of time,
the 1986 circular or the 1990 circular issued by
administrative tribunals become experts in their
the SEC? The 1986 circular imposed ceilings on
particular fields. But nonetheless, whatever
the filing fees to be paid by the applicants,
interpretation made by the administrative officer
whereas under the 1990 circular, it removes the
may be abrogated by the successor. The
filing fee ceilings. And so, if this 1986 circular was
successor is not duty-bound to uphold the
to be applied, the filing fee payable by PICOP was
interpretation of the predecessor should the
only P1,000.00 But under the 1990 circular,
successor make a determination that there
because of the removal of the filing fee ceiling,
should be a different interpretation of what the
the fee would reach P12M. The SC ruled that at
law should be.
the time of the filing of this application by PICOP,
Now, in the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera, the SC the 1990 circular was never published. So, in
provided for the requirements for the validity of other words, because of the lack of publication,
administrative rules. We have mentioned this the 1990 circular never became effective. Even
earlier, they must always be in conformity, must this 1990 circular was submitted to the UP Law
be issued under authority of law, the rule making Center only in 2004. Now, the requirement of the
power is on the basis of law, must be within the law is that there should be publication either in
scope or purview of the law, must be reasonable, the O.G. or in a newspaper of general circulation.
must not be capricious, and last important So here, the SC ruled that the rule applicable to
requirement, the need for publication. the PICOP was the 1986 circular and not the 1990
circular because at the time of the filing of the
The Civil Code Art. 2 provides that laws shall take
application, the 1990 circular was never
effect after 15 days following the completion of
submitted for publication.
their publication either in the Official Gazette or
in a newspaper of general circulation. So Art. 2 In the case of GSIS vs. COA, there was this EO 79
has been amended by EO ____. So not only the issued, providing for the compulsory membership
O.G. but also in a newspaper of general in the GSIS of qualified Reserved Armed Forces of
circulation. the Philippines officers, like retired Gen.
Asuncion, and he died in a helicopter crash, and
Now, not all rules need to be published, only
here the heirs of Gen. Asuncion claimed the
those issuances which are of general application
death benefits. One argument raised here is that
intended to be binding upon the public. The
there should be no payment of said death
rationale here is that the people cannot be made
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

benefits because this EO has not yet been Register with the UP Law Center and therefore in
implemented by the GSIS Board, the BOT did not cannot be used as a basis for the imposition of
yet issued the resolution to implement the EO. Is administrative sanctions. So it is ineffective by
this contention valid? Take note that applying reason of non-observance of this requirement
Art.2 of the Civil Code, if this EO was published on under the RAC. It does not matter that this
December 22, 1986, when did the EO take effect? circular is addressed to a specific group, the
After 15 days following the completion of the private employment agencies. It does not excuse
publication, or on January 6, 1987. Here, it was compliance with the registration requirement
not correct that the EO was not yet effective with the UP Law Center through the National
because of the non-issuance of a resolution by Administrative Register.
the BOT of GSIS because the law itself provides
Take note, earlier, prior to this
for the validity of the EO following the
_________________, (74:05), we had this joint
completion of its publication.
circular Ombudsman-DOJ 95-01, and the question
In the case of Phil. Int’l Trading vs. COA, here raised here by Honasan in the case of Honasan vs.
again the DBM issued a circular disallowing the DOJ Panel, Honasan question the authority of the
payment of allowances and other emoluments to DOJ Panel, he being a high ranking official , and
public officers and employees. Now, take note therefore it should be the Ombudsman that
that it is intended for general application, in the ought to take cognizance of the cases for coup
absence of such publication this DBM circular is detat filed against him. And another reason here
not effective. It is of no force and effect. One is that there was non-observance of an important
other issue raised here was that there was requirement, no publication of the Joint Circular
reissuance, and the submission by the DBM of 95-01. The SC ruled that the DOJ Panel had the
this circular cured the defect. The SC ruled that authority to proceed with the investigation
this requirement for the publication of this rule is because it is a case of concurrent jurisdiction
a prior condition, a condition precedent for the between the Ombudsman and the DOJ. Now, as
effectivity of the law or the rules. to this issue of publication, considering that this
circular is intended to apply only to the
Now, the requirement of the law is that the rules
prosecutors of the DOJ and the Ombudsman in
must be published either in the O.G. or a
the matter of the conduct of preliminary
newspaper of general circulation. Now, take note
investigation, there is no need for publication.
of an added requirement under the Revised
The circular is not intended to regulate the
Administrative Code where the circular or rule
conduct of outside persons or the public in
issued by the administrative tribunal imposes
general. The circular does not even provide for
administrative sanctions. Because where the
penalties in case of violation. It does not
circular issued by the administrative body as
prescribe the performance of an act. It merely
authorized to it under the law imposes
prescribes the procedure to be followed by the
administrative sanctions, the RAC provides that
prosecutors of the Ombudsman and the DOJ in
there must be filing and registration of this rule
handling the cases filed against public officers.
with the UP Law Center under Sec. 3, 4, and 7 of
Because under this Joint Circular, if a case of
EO 292. So here, in the case of Philsa Int’l
concurrent jurisdiction, even if the case against
Placement, the circular issued by the POEA was
the public officer is filed with the DOJ, the DOJ
not filed with the National Administrative
has authority even in the absence of the approval
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

by the Office of the Ombudsman. But either in the O.G. or newspaper of general
nonetheless, under this Joint Circular, whenever circulation.
the case against the public officer is office
In the case of Republic vs. Express
related, moreso if he is high ranking, there must
Telecommunication, one issue raised here is
be approval by the Ombudsman. But this was
which rules the MTC ought to apply in the matter
already repealed by the Ombudsman-DOJ MOA
of the application of BAYANTEL to be granted
dated March 29, 2012. Now, under this MOA,
provisional authority, should be the 1978 MTC
there is no need anymore to secure the authority
rules or the 1993 MTC rules. The 1993 rules were
of the Ombudsman for the DOJ prosecutor to file
never published at the time of the application of
the case against the public officer before the
BAYANTEL either in the O.G. or in a newspaper of
court or even the dismissal of such case, again
general circulation. Although, the MTC did file the
because of the concurrent jurisdiction before the
rules with the UP Law Center, is this is operative
DOJ and the Ombudsman. The only situation
act? No, the operative act is publication.
where there is this imprimatur in the handling of
Therefore, since the 1993 MTC Revised Rules
this case by the DOJ, the need to secure the
were not published, although filed with the UP
approval of the Ombudsman is in cases involving
Law center, but that is not the operative act, it
high ranking government officials committing the
means therefore that the application of the
offense in relation to his office because in such
Bayantel shall be governed under the 1978 MTC
situation, the Ombudsman has primary
rules.
jurisdiction. Meaning, primary jurisdiction, the
ombudsman can take over at any stage because The requirement for the submission of this rule to
the authority to prosecute cases against high the National Administrative Register is merely a
ranking officers before the Sandiganbayan is bulletin of qualified rules that were furnished
vested under the law with the Office of the upon by important main offices of the gov’t, the
Ombudsman through the Office of the Special judiciary, the courts, and such other offices of the
Prosecutor. But for regular cases, RTC/MTC, even gov’t.
if a case is filed against a public officer before a
DOJ prosecutor, there is no need for the In the case of SEC vs. GMA Network, in the
prosecutor to get the approval of the matter of the authority of the SEC to collect filing
Ombudsman. Even if he files or dismisses the fees under RA 3531. And so, here, the SEC issued
case, he can already decide on the matter. Circular No. 1 imposing a filing fee of 1/10 of 1%
of the authorized capital. So here, the GMA filing
So what need to published? Of course, those of an application for the extension of its corporate
general application. It follows that, those rules existence. Now, one issue raised here is there a
which are merely internal to govern the internal need for the publication the SEC Circular? Yes, of
affairs of the agency or to provide for rules to be course, it is intended to bind the public and
observed by the personnel of the office, relating therefore in the absence of such publication, the
only to the personnel of the gov’t agency and not SEC circular cannot be made effective.
the public, then there’s no need for publication.
Letters of instructions issued by superior officers JULY 3
or rules to be adopted or followed by
Lets go to the requirements of administrative due
subordinates, these do not require publication process as laid down in the case of Ang Tibay. (1)
There must be and impartial tribunal. (2) Due
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

notice and hearing or the opportunity to be dismissed from service. A finding that he
heard. The essence of due process is simply the committed the offense of grave misconduct and
opportunity to be heard. (3) the procedure of the dishonesty. It was only for the first time that he
admin tribunal must be consistent with the raised the issue of the competence of the CSC
essentials/requirements of fair trial and fair that under the Magna Carta law Sec 9. it should
dealing. (5) the proceedings should be conducted have been investigated by the investigating
by the admin tribunal in such manner for the committee. The SC ruled, applying the principle
court to determine whether the applicable rules of Estoppel by Laches, he may not anymore
of law or procedure were in fact observed. question the authority of the CSC. There was
sufficient opportunity in fact he participated in all
In the case of Fabella vs CA, there were stages of the proceedings. It cannot be said that
administrative cases filed against public school he was denied due process by the CSC.
teachers. The cases were filed before the CSC.
The proceedings were undertaken. This case was In the case of Alcala vs Villar, here the school
______ Department of Education. What law principal Villar was charged before the office of
ought to apply the admin cases against Public the OMB for dishonestly. Proceedings were
School Teachers? Under the Magna Carta for undertaken and he participated fully in these
Public School Teachers (RA 4670), the proceedings before the OMB in Visayas. In fact he
Department of Education through the cross-examined the witnesses of the
investigating committee created under Sec. 9 of complainant. Subsequently when a resolution
this law, has the original jurisdiction. Indeed was issued by the OMB dismissing him from
there was such proceeding undertaken by the service, he raised for the first time the issue of
investigating committee of the DepEd. But Sec 9 jurisdiction that it should have been the DepEd
provides for the membership of this committee through the investigation committee. The SC
tasked to investigate the cases. So the chair of ruled that it was estoppeled by laches. There was
this committee is the school division no denial of due process. In fact this public school
superintendent, and the members include, the principal fully participated in all the stages of the
division supervisor and a representative coming proceedings.
from the teacher’s organization. The committee
that _____ the cases did not include the What happens if complainants file the admin case
representation coming from the teacher’s and subsequently have a change of mind and
organization. So the SC ruled here that there was would like the transfer the admin complaint to
a tribunal that did not comply with the some other tribunal equally competent? What
requirements of Sec 9 of RA4670. It cannot be happened in this case was the DepEd first took
said that the conduct of proceedings was cognizance of the complaint and subsequently
undertaken by an impartial tribunal. Because the complainants later on wanted to withdraw
what gives flesh to this requirement of an the complaint in favor their filing of the ______
impartial tribunal is the inclusion in this admin case before the office of the OMB. The
investigating committee of the representative of DepEd was willing, so the OMB likewise
the teacher’s organization. There was none in this acquiesced in such transfer. The issue here w/n
case. the transfer of this case was during that the
DepEd through the investigating committee
In Emin vs De Leon you have here an Non-formal already acquired authority and in fact
education supervisor Emin of the Dept. of commenced proceedings by virtue of the Magna
Education, who was charged before the CSC in Carta for Public School Teachers. The original
connection with his acts of receiving fees in authority belongs to the schools superintendent
return for the issuance of certificates, false as the chair in the investigating committee. The
certificates of eligibility. When CSC came out with SC ruled that jurisdiction is conferred by law that
its decision, it was adverse to Emin. He was it cannot be simply transferred to another on the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

say so of the parties. Jurisdiction is not lost upon its charter has the option, it may choose to refer
the instance of the parties. And once it is this admin complaint to the other agency on the
acquired the tribunal continues to have authority basis of law concurring that power to the latter
and it should continue with the proceedings until but this was not done and in fact proceedings
the case is terminated despite the acquiescence were already conducted by the Office of the
of such transfer by the Office of the OMB and OMB.
DepEd.
In the case of OMB vs Delijero, again sexual
On the case of OMB vs Medrano, you have here harassment. Principal Delijero was teaching
the OIC principal who was charged in connection mathematics, courted his pupil, a 12 year old girl,
with alleged acts of sexually harassing his school 1st year highschool. Some place in Leyte. He
teacher. So a complaint was filed against him. wrote letters to this pupil. He gave Php 200
Take note that the matter of jurisdiction is allowance and so the admin case was filed
concurrent, it is not exclusive. Here the law itself, against him before the OMB. Again the OMB took
the OMB Act 6770 recognizes the existence of cognizance of the case and after the proceedings
some proper disciplinary authorities these he was dismissed from service. He appealed to
wordings of law Sec 23 and OMB may refer the CA. The CA sustained him, declaring that the
complaint to the proper disciplinary authority for DepEd has the exclusive authority under the
the institution of the appropriate administrative Magna Carta law. The SC ruled the OMB has
proceeding against the public official or concurrent jurisdiction together with the DepEd
employee. The wording of the law is that the despite the Magna Carta. It cannot be said there
OMB has such discretion because this is not a was no violation of due process by reason of the
case for exclusive authority on the part of the active participation on the part of Delijero in the
DepEd. So the proceedings were undertaken in proceedings before the Office of the OMB.
the Office of the OMB and after due proceedings, Although it would have been more prudent for
the OMB rendered a decision dismissing OIC the OMB to have referred this matter to the
Principal Medrano and for the first time he raised DepEd but nonetheless this was not done. But it
in his motion for reconsideration that under the does not meant that the OMB is deprived of its
Magna Carta law. It should have been the authority.
investigating committee. The SC ruled although
the OMB should have desisted because of this A Davao City case of OMB vs Masing, The SC
Magna Carta and in fact the OMB recognizes the made the clarification about the nature of this
competence, it is not a case of exclusivity but one Magna Carta. It does not mean exclusive
of concurrence that there should be respect for jurisdiction granted by law to the DepEd. Neither
the authority of the DepEd, but nonetheless, does this law prescribe an exclusive procedure in
proceedings were already undertaken. In fact the the conduct of investigation of admin cases filed
principal fully participated in the proceedings against public school teachers. And more than
before the Office of the OMB, he is now barred that the _____ was enacted way before so here
from assailing the jurisdiction of the OMB the jurisdiction cannot be restricted by the
through the filing of the motion for Magna Carta law. The SC ruled that this Sec 9 of
reconsideration. Incidentally this issue was raised the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers
before the CA. The CA ruled against the OMB referring to the creation of the investigating
declaring that the DepEd, under the Magna Carta committee simply provides for a specific
law, has the exclusive jurisdiction. But when this procedure. It does not mean the exclusive
matter was elevated by the SC. The SC ruled it is jurisdiction or an exclusive procedure, rather a
not a case of exclusive authority on the part of specific procedure that must be observed to be
the DepEd but rather it is a case of concurrent followed by the investigating committee in the
jurisdiction between the office of the OMB and handling of administrative investigation of the
the DepEd. But the OMB on the basis of Sec 23 of case filed against a public school teacher.
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

The due process requirement in admin investigation, the parties will be given the
proceeding includes the (1) right to an actual or opportunity to present their evidence. It is just
constructive notice about the institution of the like a show cause order by <….???>. So period:
proceeding, the case filed against him. (2) there within 2 hours, is given under the Civil Service
must be real opportunity to be heard. So service, law, rules and regulations for this officer to
either through mail or personal service and the submit his counter affidavit or answer under
opportunity to be heard for him to file his oath. A prima facie determination must be made
pleadings personally or with assistance of a by the disciplining authority. If there is such
lawyer and to present evidence. And one other prima facie case, a formal charge follows. What
important requirement, (3) that the tribunal must happened in this case was that, a day after the
be impartial. Must be competent. Must be concerted activities led by these lawyers, Molina
authorized under the law. (4) the basis of its and Velasco, a formal charge was immediately
finding must be substantial evidence. It is issued by the GSIS general manager. And so
evidence that such fact and circumstances clearly, there was a shortcut of the procedure.
sufficient to justify a conclusion. There was no preliminary investigation
conducted. The SC ruled that there was violation
In the case of Garcia vs Molina, the SC made the of due process. That when this formal charge was
pronouncement, a violation of any of the issued by Garcia, directing Molina to answer
requirements of due process is void for lack of within three days, they were placed under
jurisdiction. Lets say, the tribunal is not preventive suspension.
empowered or there was absence of the
compliance with the procedural and substantive The lawyer went to the CSC to question the
due process or the decision is not supported by issuance of the preventive suspension. They also
substantial evidence, etc. Any violation pertaining questioned the lack of observance of the
to this requirements means the proceedings are requirements as provided under the Civil Service
null and void. And anytime the decision may be Uniform Rules. The SC granted the lawyers back
questioned. So in the case of Molina, involving salaries. You know… subsequently in our
lawyers of the GSIS, who were charged by then discussion in Public Officers that in preventive
president of GSIS, Garcia in connection with the suspension there can be no back salaries. An
illegal acts of these lawyers in ________ of the exception in this case where there was a violation
GSIS in concerted activities sometime in 2002. of the requirements of due process of the
Garcia issued a formal charge. The basic issue proceedings undertaken by the disciplining
here is the was there observance of the basic authority of the GSIS where totally null and void.
requirement of due process in the handling of the
administrative case, in the institution of a formal This has been asked in the bar. The
charge against Molina? Take note, undisputedly, administrative tribunal performs multiple offices.
under the GSIS law (RA 8291), the president It acts as investigator and in this capacity it
general manager has the competence as the gathers evidence. After the evidence is gathered,
disciplining authority to initiate the case. But it proceeds with the preparation of the
nonetheless, this power of the General Manager complaint. It becomes the complainant. It files
of the GSIS under the GSIS law to discipline its the complaint in the same agency and so it also
own personnel must be in accordance with the becomes the prosecutor as well as the judge. Is
Civil Service law, rules and regulation. In other there violation of due process here? There is
words, there must still be observance of the none. So long as the administrative body is
uniform rules of admin cases in the civil service to brought with such power. It is within the
be followed in the handling of these cases competence of the tribunal. And the decision
involving GSIS personnel. So what does the rule rendered is still based on substantial evidence. So
provide in this matter? That there must be a given this, there must be compliance with the
preliminary investigation. During this preliminary
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

requirements of procedural and substantive due of the CS system by removing from the Civil
process. Service list of eligibles those who falsified their
In the case of Cruz vs CSC, Palitum, the municipal qualification. There are so many cases of
treasurer, took the alleged sum on behalf of her fraudulent appointments on the basis of falsified
friend Cruz from the CSC. Later on this anomaly submission of false credentials, etc. And the basis
was discovered. On its own, the CSC conducted of the commission is Sec. 12. Whereas in Section
an investigation and that with evidence, there 47 of the law refers to the ordinary disciplinary
was such evidence as a basis for its filing. It action, the need to discipline a bona fide member
became the complainant, the CSC became the of the CS system. The grounds provided under
complainant so the case was judged before the Sec. 46 in relation to 47. So here the case of CSC
same office. Is there violation of due process? vs Albao, this respondent Albao, who got an
The SC said, there was none. So long as the appointment as executive assistant in the Office
decision rendered is based on substantial of the V-President, he declared in his personal
evidence. data sheet that he passed the electrical
engineering exam with a grade of 76%, but in fact
In the case of Garcia as discussed a while ago. he failed said exam. So he was dismissed from
One other issue here is the competence of the service after the proceedings on the basis of Sec.
GSIS to act as complainant, prosecutor and judge 12, the authority of the commission to directly
was disallowed. There was violation of the and motu propio conduct the case involving the
procedural requirements as provided in the act of the public officer in falsifying documents.
Uniform Rules of the CSC.
In the case of Singson vs NLRC, here the labor
In the case of Zambales Mining, it is important arbiter Aquino, rendered a decision, and his
that whenever there is a decision, the defeated decision was subject of an appeal before the
party has the remedy of appealing to higher NLRC. Then the LA got promoted and became a
authority. The reviewing official must not be the commissioner and he was one of the
same officer whose decision is under review. commissioners reviewing his own decision
Otherwise, it would be a violation of due process. rendered in his capacity as LA and participated.
So in the case of Zambales, you have here The fatal defect is not here, the fact that
Director Juson, in his capacity as the Director of subsequently, upon the filing of MR, he inhibited
Mines, issuing a decision adverse to the himself. And the order denying the MR by the
applicants, denial of the application for operation aggrieved party, was done by the two other
of mineral claims. When this appeal was taken, commissioners without his participation, this
Juzon got promoted. He became the Secretary. does not cure the fatal defect. There was
He is the same officer now reviewing his own violation of due process.
decision. Certainly a violation of due process. He
should have inhibited himself and allowed it to be In the case of Tejano vs Desierto, in the matter of
handled by the next lower rank official. an investigation and later on the filing of graft
charges against Tejano, that time VP of PNB, in
There is a distinction here between the authority connection with the 2.2 million fraud. In the first
of the Commission under Section 12 and its investigation, Desierto already had participated in
authority under Section 47 of the Revised his capacity as Special Prosecutor. When he
Administrative Code of EO 292. PD (67?) Section became the OMB, he again participated in the
37.. Take note, under Sec. 12 of the Revised conduct of investigation. In fact denied the
Administrative Code, the CSC has the power, in determination of the reinvestigating officer for
its own initiative, to institute, to conduct the dismissal of the case against PNB VP. The SC
investigation, to institute motu propio and ruled that there was commission of grave abuse
directly administrative cases for dishonesty and of authority by Desierto. This defect was not
falsification. The reason is to protect the integrity cured by the fact that upon filing for
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

reinvestigation this was resolved by his successor, the law is being enforced by the admin tribunal,
Simeon Marcelo, nonetheless the proceedings the hearing officer. Whereas substantive due
were already in violation of the requirements of process refers to the law itself whether it is fair.
due process. The application of this law should fair, reasonable
and just.
In the case of Rp. vs Express Telecom, an order
was issued by the NTC reviving the _________, As applied to the requirement in tenurial
the order was done without notice with the other protection given under the constitution to public
party, the oppositor Express Telecom. Is there officers and employees, is due process means in
denial of due process? The SC ruled, there was its procedural sense requires that the dismissal of
none. Why? Because all the parties, including the the public officer or any sanction for that matter
oppositor, will have the full opportunity present ought to be effected after due notice and
their sides during the full blown hearing. hearing. Notice, part of the requirement of
procedural due process. Whereas, substantive
As part of the requirement of due process, it is due process requires that the dismissal must be
important that the respondent should only be for any of the grounds provided under the law. It
convicted of an offense with which he was duly must be for legal cause. Art 9-B Sec. 2 par 3. No
notified. The administrative proceedings are not public officer or employee shall be removed or
exempt from the fundamental requirements of suspended except for cause as provided by law.
procedural principles, right to due process. IN the The last part refers to the requirement of
case of CSC vs Lucas, Lucas was an employee of substantive due process. It must be for legal
the Department of Agriculture. He had been in cause provided by law.
the service for more than 20 years. He committed
the mistake of touching the thigh a female In the case of Lacson vs PAGC, petitioners were
<convoy?>. This woman filed this admin case officers of Philippine Estate Authority. They were
before the Department of Agriculture Secretary investigated for violations on the basis of the
against Lucas. The secretary created this findings of the PAGC (Presidential Anti-Graft
committee on personnel to conduct Commission). After the investigation conducted
investigation. Subsequently after due by the PAGC, it submitted its report and the
proceedings, Lucas was found liable for simple recommendation for the dismissal of the
misconduct. The penalty imposed against him petitioners, the employees, officers of the
was suspension of 1 month and 1 day. The Philippine Estate Authority. This matter was
woman filed an appeal before the CSC. On appeal submitted to the PEA management for
the CSC reversed, set aside, the decision of the implementation. One issue raise here is what
DA secretary and imposed the penalty of should be the remedy available to the
dismissal for grave misconduct. The SC ruled petitioners? The other one, w/n there is violation
violation of due process, because the respondent of the requirements of substantive due process.
should be due informed of the charge of grave Was their dismissal for a valid cause? The SC
misconduct, in fact he was only notified of simple ruled, yes. It was for a question investigated, a
misconduct. He cannot be convicted of an ground provided by law. What is the remedy here
offense with which he was not duly charged. available to the aggrieved parties? What
happened here was that Lacson, et al filed a
The essence of due process is simply the petition before the CA, petition for certiorari. Is
opportunity to be heard or to seek a this the proper remedy? The proper remedy
reconsideration of an adverse finding or decision. should have been to seek an appeal before the
There is a difference, a distinction between next administrative body. In this case, under the
procedural due process and substantive due law, the CSC. Of course, it follows that there
process. What is the distinction? Procedural due should be filing of a motion for reconsideration
process refers to the method or manner in which and is denied. The decision here is rendered by
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

the Office of the President(PAGC). The next step CHED. The SC said this is not the complaint
would be an appeal before the CSC under rule contemplated under the law to commence formal
what? Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. If still investigation but it may be the basis for the
aggrieved, if the CSC does not rule in favor of the conduct of a fact finding investigation. In fact
aggrieved party, what is the next remedy? The there was such inquiry, fact finding conducted by
remedy would be under Rule 45 of the Rules of the legal office of the CHED. The formal charge of
Court. From the CSC to the CA, then to the SC. the legal office of the CHED is the complaint
Here there was failure on the part the petitioners contemplated under the law, not the complaint
Lacson from taking the appeal to the CSC, thus that was filed by Castillejo because in the first
period to file said appeal expired. When this place it was never verified under oath. So the
matter was elevated, the SC could no longer act filing of the unverified complaint may merit the
on the issue because the decision already conduct of a fact finding inquiry.
became final and executory because of their
failure to comply with the requirement in the In the case of MWSS vs Vasquez, the SC ruled
matter of the appeal to be taken. In here there that the due process requirement, the need to be
was no violation of due process because the heard, is made legal not solely through verified
petitioners fully participated in the proceedings presentation. It is not required in all admin
before the PAGC. They in fact submitted their proceedings. Meaning, if the law itself confers
memoranda as their evidence. such prerogative to the hearing officer or the
tribunal to decide the case simply on the basis of
In the case of Ruivivar vs OMB, an LTO employee. submissions, there is no violation of due process.
What happened here was that she complained. So one may be heard not solely by verbal
While the decision was issued by the OMB in the presentation but also through submission of
admin case filed against her, she raised the issue position papers, counter affidavits and other
that during the formal investigation there was in documents in admin proceedings. The technical
fact denial of due process because she was not rules and procedures of evidence as seen in
given copies of the affidavits of the witnesses of judicial proceedings are not strictly applied in
the other party. What happened was the OMB, in administrative adjudication.
an order, directed her to submit whatever
pleadings she deems to submit. She was You still recall the case of the Indian? The case of
furnished copies of those affidavits of witnesses. this woman who submitted a plagiarized thesis
Question: Is there denial of due process? No. and one of the issues she raised was there was
Because she was given such opportunity to file a violation of due process because there was no
motion for reconsideration and she was furnished formal hearing conducted just like what is being
copies upon such filing, upon her filing of her MR. done in the courts. The SC ruled, in admin
She was furnished copies of those documents proceedings against students, the requirement of
and was directed to submit whatever pleading due process is already observed if the respondent
she may desire. But she refused to do so. And so is accorded the opportunity to file her evidence
the SC ruled, there was no denial of due process. to file whatever pleadings she deems necessary.
So the process here does not require the
In the case of Gaoiran vs Alcala, there is here the proceedings that is seen in judicial proceedings.
term formal charge, the complaint as mentioned In the case of National Power Corporation vs
under the law (Revised Administrative Code). This NLRC, on the basis of law PD 478, the Office of
refers to the verified complaint. It has no the Solicitor General is the representative of the
reference to an unverified complaint. In fact a Government, any of its instrumentalities and
formal investigation can only be undertaken on agencies and it may also be the legal counsel of a
the basis of an affidavit under oath. What GOCC if there is authority given to the OSG by the
happened here was that Castillejo filed this President or Head of the GOCC. In this case of
unverified complaint against Gaoiran before the NPC, it was represented by the Office of the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

Solicitor General. Here is an adverse decision In Alba vs Nitorreda, a Davao City case, the
rendered by the Labor Authorities binding upon respondent in this case, the Assistant ______ of
the OSG where the notice was given to the the DepEd was charged __________________
special agent of the OSG. The SC ruled that the committed against the students. When a decision
service of summons, or order, or any decision was rendered after the observance of due
adverse to the client should be made in the OSG. process, he was given the penalty of suspension
This is part of the requirement, this is an of 1 month. He claims that there was violation of
indispensable ingredient of due process. Where his right to appeal, the decision imposing the
the decision of the rendered by the LA was given penalty of suspension under the law is already
not to the OSG but to the Special Attorney on final and executory, I need to appeal from such
behalf of the OSG. The reglementary period to decision. The SC ruled that appeal is not a matter
file appeal never commenced to run. It of right, it is not even part of due process. Here
commences to run only from the time of the the aggrieved party is already given all the
receipt of the decision by the OSG. chances during the formal investigation, the
formal trial of its case. So long as this
In the case of Lincoln Gerard, Inc. vs NLRC, there requirement has been complied with, there is no
was an adverse decision against petitioner in a violation of due process where he is not given his
labor case and the decision was given to the right to appeal where the law itself provides for
counsel of record of petitioner. But here, in the finality of this decision, in those cases where
reality the lawyer was no longer the counsel the penalty imposed by the administrative agency
handling the case. So Lincoln Gerard was the is reprimand, suspension not to exceed thirty
losing party in the labor case, but the counsel days, 1 month. In all other cases, subject to an
never notified the client Lincoln Gerard about of appeal.
the adverse decision until the period to file
appeal had prescribed. The SC ruled, where the The issue in the case of Ampong vs CSC is w/n the
party appears by counsel in proceedings either respondent in the admin case is ought as a
before the court or in admin bodies, notices to be matter of right to be assisted by a lawyer. The
given must be served not to the client but to the assistance of a lawyer is not an absolute
counsel. The notice to the counsel is already requirement in admin proceedings. There is even
notice to the Lincoln Gerard because on record no duty imposed by law for the admin tribunal to
there was no formal withdrawal of his provide counsel to the parties, more so to the
appearance as a lawyer for Lincoln Gerard. On respondent in such admin case. It is one that may
record it appears that the lawyer was still the be invoked by the respondent. The respondent
lawyer of Lincoln Gerard. So whatever fault has such option whether to engage or not the
committed is already binding on this petitioner. services of a lawyer. And so in this case where the
aggrieved party Ampong willingly submitted to
In the case of Philippine Ports Authority vs the jurisdiction of the tribunal and in fact she
Sargasso Construction, if the principal, the Gov’t acknowledged her fault, she cannot complain
Office, in this case the PPA, is represented by later on that there was violation of due process
several lawyers on record, notice is given to any because she was not assisted by a lawyer. So it is
of them is notice to all. Thus the period for the really up to the respondent whether she would
filing already commenced to run, despite the fact engage the services of a lawyer because the
the other counsels on record have not received tribunal, the admin authority is not duty bound to
the copy of the decision. For example in this case provide the parties the counsel.
of PPA it was also represented by its own in
house counsel apart from the OSG, etc. Notice to So a party of an admin investigation may or may
any participants is also notice to all of them. not be assisted by a lawyer. This rule applies
regardless of the gravity, the nature of the
charges, even of the respondent is facing so many
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

grave charges, and regardless of the capacity of because of the separation in office of the
the respondent to represent himself. There is no respondent public officer during the pendency of
duty imposed on the tribunal to furnish the the admin case. (So subsequent to the filing, new
person investigated with services of a lawyer. developments, such as for example the public
officer respondent filed his certificate of
So in the case of Lumiqued vs Exevea, here the candidacy. Yun ginagawa nila yan. Dismiss ang
Regional Director of the Department of charges. Why? what happens when you file a
Agriculture, he was charged with so many certificate of candidacy? You are deemed
offenses. So due proceedings were conducted resigned.) What is the effect of this separation? It
and he was not represented by a lawyer. Then will not deprive the authority of its jurisdiction,
there was this committee in the Department of which was acquired upon such filing. The admin
Justice that investigated the cases upon tribunal continues to retain jurisdiction and the
instructions of the President, and after the due power to continue with the proceedings and to
proceedings a decision was rendered, dismissing make a pronouncement that you’re innocent of
him from the service. He complained for the first the charge or to declare him guilty.
time on appeal that he was not represented by a
lawyer. The SC ruled, that the respondent has the The rule here is that death of respondent in the
option whether to engage in the services of a admin case does not prevent the finding of admin
lawyer or not. The right to a lawyer is not liability. This is consistent with the early ruling
imperative because the admin investigation has mentioned, the admin tribunal acquires
the objective of determining whether the facts jurisdiction upon the filing, upon its taking
would merit disciplinary measure against the cognizance of the complaint and whatever
public officer. The objective here is of course in developments that are subsequent to the finding
relation to the purpose of the CS system, the will not have any effect on the jurisdiction of the
need to maintain the integrity, dignity of the tribunal.
Gov’t Service.
What happens if subsequent to the filing during
What about in criminal cases? Custodial the pendency of the case, the respondent dies? It
investigation, right to counsel. May this be does not preclude a finding of admin liability. But
waived? Cannot be waived unless the waiver be there are three exceptions to this rule:
done in writing and in the presence of the (1) the respondent has not been heard and the
accused. Does not apply to admin cases. continuation of the proceedings would deny him
of his right to due process. Let us say, pagkatapos
In the case of Maquilan vs Maquilan, the ng filing ng reklamo before the admin tribunal.
negligence of the counsel is binding on the client. And before the filing of his answer even before
The exception to this rule is where the negligence the issuance of an order requiring him to file an
of the lawyer is so gross, reckless and inexcusable answer, namatay. So here the first exception
that this would tantamount to deprivation of his would apply. When respondent has not been
day in court. There is actually absence of fair trial. heard and the continuation of the proceedings
would deny him of the right to due process.
In the case of Perez vs Abiera, the issue here is
what happens if during the pendency of the (2) Where exceptional circumstances exist in the
admin case against the public officer, he later on case leading to equitable and humanitarian
is separated from the bureaucracy either by considerations. This has been applied so many
resignation, abandonment or retirement. Is this a times because of so many public officers, because
basis for the extinction, the termination of the of the filing of cases against them, subsequently
proceedings? The rule here is, the jurisdiction is namatay, na hear attack, I recall years back, I
acquired at the time of the filing of the case won’t mention a name. There was this
before the admin authority is not lost simply department director of a department in the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

executive branch here in Region 11 Davao city. 2 Corruption. After the proceedings, there was this
to 3 weeks before he died he already made a information. But take note any Anti-Graft
_____ because of the filing of the charges against Commission under the Office of the President
him. There was a case filed before the does not have the power itself to discipline. What
Sandiganbayan. Sabi ko tapos na eh. Wala na it is doing is on the basis of the authority given to
magawa. So one of the exceptions where the it by the president, the creation of the president,
tribunal be considered for humanitarian reasons, is to make an investigation and submit its
we have applied liberality for humanitarian recommendation whether to impose the
reasons, instead of imposing the penalty or the necessary sanction against the public officer.
forfeiture of benefits. Allow the heirs to recover Here the Secretary of the DOH, upon submission
the benefits from the deceased public officer. to her of the resolution she said even copied in
toto in another ______ kahit na mali mali. Here
(3) when the kind of penalty imposed or there was a violation of the according to the SC of
imposable would render the proceedings useless. the Cardinal Requirement mentioned earlier that
the judge must act on her own independent
The Cardinal Primary Right in Admin Proceedings consideration of the law and facts of the
as laid down in the Ang Tibay case: controversy and not simply accept the views of
(1) The right to a hearing; the subordinate conducting the investigation.
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence Here in the decision issued by the DOH Secretary
presented; relying on the recommendation, it did not
(3) The decision must have something to support contain factual findings and legal assessment. The
itself; SC ruled, there was violation of the cardinal
(4) The decision must be based on substantial requirements of due process. There should be an
evidence; independent ascertainment by the disciplining
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence authority of the facts and the applicable law
presented. So the decision must be based on pertaining to the case.
evidence at least on record. The decision cannot In the case of Malinaw vs Reyes, the SC ruled that
be made on the basis of evidence that was not a decision that is prepared by a member, the one
given to the respondent. Let us say, the basis of who has been assigned to prepare the resolution
the decision against the respondent is the for the Sanggunian Panlalawigan, should have
inspection report, but the respondent never been submitted to the SP and for the members of
knew about the existence of this inspection the SP to deliberate on the issues and to make a
report. This is clearly a violation of his primary decision. So if the decision is prepared and signed
rights. So the proceeding is null and void; by only one member, the one who prepared the
(6) The tribunal must act on its own independent decision, it is not the decision of SP. It does not
consideration of the law and facts of the comply with the requirements of the law, more
controversy. Should not simply accept the views so the provision of the Local Government Code,
of the subordinate, there must be an particularly Sec. 66, there must be statement of
independent ascertainment of the facts and law facts and the law of the case that must be
of the case; approved by at least majority of the members of
(7) The decision rendered should be that the parties the SP.
are able to know the various issues and the
reasons. So the need therefore for statement of We have emphasized that there should be notice
facts and of the law as a basis for the issuance of and hearing as an important part of due process.
the decision. But there are instances in the conduct of admin
adjudication where notice and hearing need not
In the case of DOH Secretary vs Camposano, be observed:
there was this investigation conducted by the (1) The summary abatement of a nuisance per se. Of
Presidential Commission Against Graft and course we know the nature of a nuisance per se.
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

Is there somebody here who is a nuisance per se? because the law may require the compliance of
Summarily ejected. For example, the illegal requirements. For example the need for regular
structures under the bridge all along the submission of financial reports. The need to
riverbanks. Is this nuisance per so? Or a insure that there is compliance with the
basketball court sa middle of the street. The requirements of law. So public policy.
summary abatement of a nuisance per se, but not
where the thing is classified as a nuisance per In the case of Naco vs CSC. You have here an
accidens because the requirement of notice and employee of the Philippine Export(expo?) Zone
hearing should be observed; Authority. She was charged with dishonestly and
(2) Cancellation of the passport by the DFA; grave misconduct because of her acts of illegally
(3) Summary proceedings of distraint and levy of collecting fees. In the proceedings against her,
property of delinquent taxpayer as provided by she was requested to submit samples of her
law; signature. She voluntarily submitted such
(4) Preventive suspension. Why? Because of the samples. May she later on claim that this violates
nature of preventive suspension. What is the the right against self-incrimination? This right
nature of preventive suspension? Is this a against self-incrimination is not self-executory, it
penalty? No. It is not yet penalty. There is no is not automatically operational. It must be
need for this requirement of notice and hearing invoked, it must be claimed within an appropriate
because the parties will still be given the time. Otherwise, there is a waiver of this right
opportunity to hear their side in an adversarial against self-incrimination. So the fact that, in this
proceedings; case of Naco, she voluntarily submitted samples
(5) The grant of provisional authority for increase of her signature, it means that she waived such
rates or to engage in a particular line of business. right against self-incrimination.
For example, toll regulatory board, increase rates
as provided by law even there are so many An important doctrine, the Doctrine of
agencies the government empowered to already Exhaustion of Admin Remedies. This has been
authorize provisional increase of rate. But by its asked a number of times. Before the aggrieved
nature it is still subject to a hearing to determine party may be allowed to seek judicial relief from
the final rate to be set. The TRB resolution the courts he, by law, must exhaust all means of
number 2099, authorizing the provisional toll rate administrative relief available to him. For
adjustment at the Manila Metro Skyway was example, a good illustration of the application of
signed by the TRB executive director and four this doctrine is the filing of a motion for
directors none of whom personally attended the reconsideration. This is consistent with the
hearing. Is there violation of due process? You doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies.
have here the TRB issuing a resolution. This
resolution was signed by the directors and There are three reasons for this doctrine:
executive directors but not them. They attended (1) The need to allow the admin tribunal to correct
the public hearings. The task of conducting the whatever error it may have committed in the
hearing or gathering evidence may be delegated process of adjudication.
to subordinates by the superiors. For example (2) On the basis of separation of powers because
this case of the executive director and directors, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
there is no violation, there is nothing irregular in tribunal is clothe with the expertise on the
the issuance of this TRB resolution. determination a field within its expertise.
(3) The need to declog the court dockets.
The right against Self-Incrimination. It is available
in all kinds of proceedings, but nonetheless it A direct action in the court without complying
applies only to natural persons. The right against with the requirement of exhaustion of admin
self-incrimination is not applicable to a juridical remedies is premature. If the law provides that
entity. What is the reason for this? Simply the party should file a motion for reconsideration
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

but this was not complied with. The aggrieved replevin and damages. The law itself provides
party files the writ before the court, what that the action of the Bureau Forest
happens? The case may be dismissed by the court Development, now known as the Land
because it is still premature. The other party may Management Bureau, is subject to review,
file a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action. consistent with this doctrine of exhaustion, to the
It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the higher admin authority, in this case the Secretary
court. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the of the DENR. Many departments of government
court. are under them offices, bureaus, agencies right?
Applying this doctrine, whatever decision that the
One important principle. This doctrine of director lets say, director of bureau or agency
exhaustion of admin remedies applies only in the attached to this department may be subject of
performance by the admin officer or tribunal of a authority to the secretary of this department
quasi-judicial power. It has no application in the consistent on the doctrine of exhaustion of admin
exercise of a quasi-legislative or rule-making remedies.
power by admin tribunal.
Is there a need for exhausting further from the
So in the case of Homeowner’s Association vs DENR Secretary to the Office of the President?
Defensor, what is being put in issue is the validity May an appeal be still taken from the
of the implementing rules and regulations issued Department Secretary to the Office of the
by the National Government Center President? You know, all departments are under
Administration Committee on the basis of its law, the Office of the President in the executive
RA 9207. Clearly, this is not the discharge of a branch. If it is already the decision of the
quasi-judicial power. The relief is already before Department Secretary, may there still be appeal
the court because the admin tribunal cannot to the Office of the President? IT DEPENDS upon
decide with finality of this issue of the validity of the provision of law. If there is such requirement,
this implementing rules and regulations. The go the Office of the President. But if there is
court has such final say on this matter. So there is none, what applies is the Doctrine of Qualified
no need to comply with the requirement of Political Agency.
exhaustion of admin remedies.
Under the PD 705, this law is being implemented
Under the rules of the NLRC, rules of procedure, by the DENR. All the actions, decisions of the
before the aggrieved party may file this special Land Management Bureau Director are subject to
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 the sole review by the Secretary of the DENR. The
ground of grave abuse, there must first be procedures embodied here are simply consistent
observance of this requirement, consistent with with the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Admin
the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies, Remedies. The decision of the DENR Secretary
the filing of a motion for reconsideration in are appealable to the president. So there is such
accordance with the NLRC rules of procedure provision, because in the absence of this
before Rule 65 petition may be invoked by the provision there is no need to go to the office of
aggrieved party. the president. The courts may not and will not
review the decision of the department secretary
In Task Force Sagip Kalikasan vs Judge Pederanga, unless there is commission of grave abuse or
where this guy (Edma?) filed a suit in court, arbitrariness. And if there is such grave abuse or
action for replevin with damages to recover this arbitrariness committed, the remedy under Rule
confiscated products timber which was already 65 Special Civil Action for Certiorari or
under the custody of the CENRO. Clearly, what prohibition.
should have been applied here is the doctrine of
exhaustion of admin remedies. The remedy here
is not before the court through this complaint for JULY 9
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

So in our last meeting, we discussed the concept increase in the water rates by local water
of exhaustion of administrative remedies. districts? The law requires that before such an
Pursuant to this doctrine, whenever the party has increase in water rates be done, there should be
administrative remedies available to him as public hearing conducted by the local water
provided by law, he must not only _______ (4:18) district. And so, such determination made in the
such remedies, but he must ______ (4:22) until course of public hearing, nonetheless, must still
the conclusion of the proceedings, until there is be submitted for review and approval by the local
determination made by the administrative water utilities administration. And this is in line
tribunal. And of course, the reasons for this simply with the doctrine of exhaustion of
would be the need of the superior administrative administrative remedies. It follows therefore that
authority to correct whatever error, abuse, or the rate that was adjudged in the course of the
mistake that may have been committed by the public hearing must be the same rate as
subordinate administrative officer, and of course submitted for review and approval of the local
the need to reduce court dockets, because the water utilities administration. Now, after the
law itself has conferred the authority to the review made by the local water utilities
administrative tribunal to decide on such a administration of this increase in water rates, and
matter within its expertise, its competence. they are still questioned by the water
concessionaire, such rate may be the subject of
There is a distinction between the Doctrine of
appeal, and again consistent with the doctrine of
Primary Jurisdiction and the Doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, to the
Exhaustion of Administrative remedies. First off,
national water resources board. And the law itself
the similarities between this two doctrines is that
provide for further administrative step from the
both dealing with the proper relationships
decision of the National Water Resources Board,
between the administrative authorities and the
the same may still be appealed to the Office of
courts. The distinction between this two
the President, again in line with the doctrine of
principles is that this Doctrine of Exhaustion of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. But take
Administrative Remedies is applicable where the
note, this mechanism is resorted to by the
issue, the question is legally cognizable in the first
aggrieved party whenever there is a provision of
instance by the administrative authority.
law providing for the taking of such
Whereas, the doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction is
administrative ________ (9:03) to higher
applicable where the issue is within the
administrative tribunal.
concurrent authority of the courts and the
administrative tribunal, but because the issue Now in the case of Delta Ventures Resources vs.
requires the determination of technical or factual _____________, there was this labor case filed
matters certainly not within the competence of against Green Mountain Farm and Roberto
the courts but rather the administrative Ongpin, and after the requisite due proceedings,
authority, the court will have to suspend the labor authorities rendered a decision for
proceedings, will have to defer to the authority of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal against
the administrative tribunal, in line with what is the labor case respondent. But subsequently,
provided under the law. there was this writ of execution madeon
properties owned by Roberto Ongpin, and here
What is the proper remedy or the process that
the petitioner Delta Ventures filed a third party
ought to be observed whenever there is an
claim, not before the NLRC but before the court
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

for recovery of possession and injunction, department clearly has the power of control and
claiming that such property subject of the writ is supervision over the heads of bureaus and offices
owned by Petitioner. Now, the court ruled that, under such department. And this in fact, is
clearly, the proper remedy is not before the court recognized in the Revised Administrative Court.
for the recovery of possession and injunction So in line with that thinking, the review made by
because this claim is simply an incident to the the DOJ Secretary is just consistent with the
action before the labor authorities. This is simply power of control exercised by the secretary over
an incident of the labor case and therefore, it the subordinate officials under the department.
should be the NLRC that ought to take Of course, we know that the power of control
cognizance, and not the court, of this third party includes the power of supervision, and as
claim. So here, the court ruled that the RTC consistent with the doctrine of exhaustion of
cannot enjoin the NLRC. So again, consistent with administrative remedies, whatever resolution or
this principle, the remedy available should be to decision of the prosecutor may still be the subject
exhaust administrative remedies. of an appeal to the higher administrative
authority, in this case, the DOJ Secretary. And
In Ombudsman vs. Valera, take note again, in line
thus, the Secretary has the power either to
with the administrative hierarchy, whenever a
affirm, modify, or reverse the ruling of the
decision is rendered by a lower administrative
provincial, city, or state prosecutor. Simply, this is
authority, the same may still be subject of an
in order for the higher administrative authority to
appeal to or review made by the superior
make necessary corrections whenever any such
authority. And so, the Office of the Special
mistake, negligence, or abuse that may be made
Prosecutor is simply a unit of the Office of the
by the lower administrative authorities in the
Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, and in
course of the administrative process.
fact, the former acts under the control and
supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman. So Now, in the case Regional State Prosecutor Orillo
clearly, the determination made by the OSP is still vs. Ravi(???), again you have to, you know, the
subject to the power of review by the nature of the powers and function being
Ombudsman herself. Of course, in this case, the performed by the RSP. You know that the RSP is
issue involved here is _________ (12:12) and part of the hierarchy in the DOJ and he exercises
there is no need for exhaustion, why? The special administrative supervision over all city and
prosecutor issued an order for the preventive provincial prosecutors. But take note, this
suspension of Deputy Commissioner Valera. authority exercised by the RSP does not extend to
What is being raised here is the authority of the the conduct of preliminary investigation. In fact,
special prosecutor in issuing this preventive the RSP, the nature of the functions of the RSP is
suspension order because the law provides that it simply administrative, he’s not empowered to
should be the Ombudsman or the Deputy. Even if conduct PI. And so, what happened here was that
the Special Prosecutor has the ____________ there was a resolution issued by inquest
(12:42) as the Deputy Ombudsman but, prosecutor, as approved by the city prosecutor,
nonetheless, it does not mean that he possess but nonetheless, the Petitioner here, Orillo, took
the same duties and responsibilities. cognizance of the case and directed his asst. RSP
to conduct a preliminary investigation, and in so
Now, in line with the doctrine of exhaustion of
doing, he was no longer performing the power of
administrative remedies, the head of the
supervision. That is the power properly tasked to
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

the RSP. But in this case, in conducting the PI, he matter of the propriety of subjecting a land under
in fact took over a function belonging to the the CARP is still within the exclusive authority of
inquest prosecutor and the city prosecutor who DAR and not before the court.
approves the resolution of the inquest
In Corsiga(???) vs. Defensor, there was this
prosecutor. And in the process, he also deprived
regional manager of the NIA, Corsiga, who issued
the party to file a motion for reconsideration of
an order reassigning Senior Engineer
such resolution issued by the city prosecutor, and
Isoc(???)(21:05) to a workplace different from
if still denied, the party still has the remedy to
that stated in his appointment. If we were to
appeal to the Secretary of Justice. But here, by
apply the doctrine of exhaustion of
reason of the conduct of the PI made by the RSP,
administrative remedies, what should have been
clearly, he was already usurping a power. He was
done in this ? First off, the aggrieved party Sr.
exercising power beyond what is given to him
Engr.Isoc ought to have filed an MR. And if still
under the law.
aggrieved, if the MR is denied, what is the next
In the case of DAR vs. ________ Coconut step? An appeal to be taken to the next superior
Plantation, Inc., this issue refers to the matter of authority, in this case the head of the NIA, in this
the implementation of the CARP Law by the DAR. case, Corsiga. But what the aggrieved party did
Here, what happened was that the PARO(???) was to file in court a petition for prohibition and
subjected the parcels of land owned by the injunction. Clearly, this is not the proper remedy.
coconut plantation under the CARP. But instead Now, take note, if you still recall the provision in
of filing a motion for reconsideration and later on the Constitution, the CSC has the exclusive power
appealing to higher authority, in this case, the and authority over all personnel matter,
Secretary of DAR, what PCPI did was to file a personnel action, including reassignment. Any
petition for certiorari before the CA, asserting movement of personnel is within the exclusive
that there was grave abuse of discretion competence of the CSC. And so, following what is
committed by the PARO. Now, the SC ruled here provided in the Constitution, and this is
that there was non-compliance by PCPI of what is consistent with the doctrine of exhaustion of
prescribed even under the rules of procedure of administrative remedies, from the decision of the
the DARAB. Because the rules provide for the NIA, the aggrieved party may still appeal the
application of the doctrine of exhaustion of same to the CSC because the issue involved
administrative remedies. First off, MR, and if still personnel reassignment.
denied, file the appeal before the next superior
In the case of Republic vs. Extelcom, again here,
authority. In this case, the appeal should have
the Extelcom violated the doctrine of exhaustion
been taken before the Secretary of the DAR.
of administrative remedies when it filed the
Under the law, the DAR Secretary has the
petition for certiorari directly before the CA
exclusive authority to determine the qualification
without complying with what is required under
and eligibility of tenants and beneficiaries. In fact,
the rules of procedure of the NTC. The rules of
in this case, the PCPI never questioned, never put
the NTC provide that the aggrieved party must
in issue the qualification and eligibility of the
first file his within a period of 15 days from
beneficiaries, and it just filed this petition for
receipt of decision. And so, considering, let’s say
certiorari before the CA which is a violation of the
if the aggrieved party fails to do so and the 15-
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
day period to file the appeal or the MR, it means
remedies. And the law itself provides that the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

that the decision becomes final and executory. SEC? Upon receipt of the denial of its MR, the
And in this case, by reason of the lapse of this Rules of Court grants the aggrieved party a period
period, the NTC order already become of 25 days to file the petition. This was not
immediately executor. Now, take note, the filing complied in this case.
of the MR may still be allowed as provided by
In Laguna ________ vs. ________ (29:20),
law, even if the law itself provides for the
consistent with Art. 128 of the Labor Code, the
immediate execution of the order subject of the
authorized representative of the Secretary of
appeal. It does not mean that the remedy is
Labor, has, after due proceedings, the authority
already not available to the aggrieved party. So
to order a monetary award in the exercise of the
here, what is clearly provided is the filing of the
department secretary’s visitorial and
MR from the decision of the NTC. Here, Extelcom
enforcement powers, and so, by delegation of
violated this principle by not exhausting his
law, this authority is also exercised by the
administrative remedies.
regional director of the DOLE. What should have
Now, in the case of SEC vs. _______(26:18), take been done? The aggrieved party should have filed
note, under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, a the appeal before the next superior
petition for review may be taken from the administrative authority, in this case, the
decision of the administrative authority to the CA Secretary of Labor. Now, what the petitioner did
within 15 days from the date of the denial of the in this case, upon receipt of the order of the
MR. Now, take note again, under the Rules of DOLE Regional Director denying the motion it
Court, it allows only the filing of only one, the filed to quash the writ of execution, because here
first and only motion for reconsideration. In this the regional director issued an order granting
case, the SEC, when it received the denial of its monetary award adverse to Petitioner. What
MR, persisted by filing a second MR. Of course, Petitioner did was to file a motion to quash the
this is already a prohibited pleading. And so what writ of execution issued by the regional director,
is the effect of the filing of a prohibited pleading? and upon denial, the Petitioner filed before the
The filing of the second MR does not produce any CA, of course this is not a proper remedy, a
legal effect. And so, if this is so, if the aggrieved motion for extension of time to file a petition for
party still fails to make the necessary appeal review. What should have been done was for
within the timeframe provided under the rules by petitioner to appeal to the Secretary of Labor
filing the second motion for reconsideration, consistent with the doctrine of exhaustion of
certainly, the decision may have already become administrative remedies.
final and executor and so the court may no longer
I have emphasized repeatedly that this doctrine
act on this matter. So here in this case, the SEC
of exhaustion of administrative remedies must be
did not exhaust the proper remedies as provided
applied whenever there is a provision of law
under existing laws, rather, it filed a second MR
providing for such administrative mechanism
before the Office of the President, and the filing
before there may be recourse to the courts. One
of the second motion before the Office of the
such example is under Sec. 408 of the LGC. Sec.
President which had already denied the first
408 provides that the parties in a dispute must
motion, did not stop the running of the
submit the issue, their conflict, to the
reglemantary period to file the petition for
LuponngTagapamayapa for amicable settlement
review before the CA. What should have been
or mediation. Now, question, supposing the
done by the aggrieved party, in this case, the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

complainant, one of the parties in the dispute, Petitioner immediately filed a petition for
files an action before the court without certiorari in the CA under Rule 65. Of course, this
complying with Sec. 408, what is the effect? The is not a proper remedy. In fact, here the matter
effect is that the court has basis to dismiss the does not involve a legal issue but rather a factual
complaint that was directly filed before the court issue, and so this must be threshed out before
without complying with what is required under the administrative agency and not before the
the LGC. So here, a motion to dismiss on the court. Now, take note also, under Rule 65 on the
ground of prematurity, on the ground of lack of filing of this action, petition for certiorari, of
cause of action. But nonetheless, again, I have course we know the ground, the sole ground is
emphasized that the party must invoke at the grave abuse. Now, this cannot be invoked
earliest time, generally before the filing of the without taking the administrative step as
answer, availing of this doctrine of exhaustion of provided by law such as the filing a MR. In fact,
administrative remedies because the failure to this petition is available when there is no other
comply with this doctrine does not mean that the plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary
court no longer has jurisdiction. In fact, this does course of law. What is the plain, speedy,
not involve the jurisdiction of the court, it simply adequate remedy under the course of law? That
means that the action is premature by reason of is the filing of the MR, and this was not complied
failure to comply with what is required under the with by the Petitioner.
law. So if the party does not invoke this timely,
Now, on another issue upon the offer of
the court may even look into the merits of the
Petitioner to pay a reduced amount, condoned
case despite the non-compliance with the
amount. It offered to pay about a million, now it
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
depends. The question now is which body has the
remedies.
power to compromise claims? Applying the
In the case of Alexandra Condominium government auditing code, PD 1445, the
Corporation vs. Laguna Lake Development authority to compromise claims if the amount is
Authority, here the Laguna Lake issued an order P100K and below, belongs to the COA, if the
after complying with this principle of due process amount of compromise is more than such, under
imposing a penalty of more than a million upon the RAC, the authority is vested with congress. So
Alexandra because of its polluted waste water in this case, congress has such power to
discharge causing pollution to the Laguna Lake. compromise claims.
Again, if we are to apply the doctrine of
In the Province of Siquijor vs. COA, what
exhaustion of administrative remedies, file first
happened here was the Province, on the basis of
an MR before the tribunal issuing the questioned
the resolution passed by the sanggunian, granted
order, so LLDA. But this was not done, and so, if
a Christmas Bonus of P20k to each employee of
not done, what should have been the next proper
the province. And so the COA disallowed the
administrative step? To go to the higher
payment of this bonus. It was argued by the
administrative authority, which in this case would
Province that this grant was in fact approved by
be the DENR because under EO 149, the LLDA has
the President. And so, nonetheless, when there
been placed under the DENR through the
was this disallowance made by the COA Region
Pollution Adjudication Board in the Office of the
VII, and this was affirmed by the COA legal office,
Secretary of the DENR. So here there was failure
and so, what should have been the proper
to comply with this requirement when the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

remedy in case of the denial of this motion filed submitted if let’s say the disputants are in the
by the Province? Consistent with the doctrine of same branch, let’s say, office of the President, the
exhaustion of administrative remedies and under matter may be submitted to the office of the Sol.
the government auditing code, the remedy Gen.;if the disputants are GOCCs, the matter may
should have been an appeal before the COA be submitted to the Gov’t Corporate Counsel; in
Central, the office of the Chair of the COA, but all other cases, the matter has to be submitted to
this was not done. In fact, under the COA rules of the DOJ for resolution. This is the general law, so
procedure, clearly, it so provided that the appeal broad.
should be taken before the COA through the
Now there is this special law, PD 464 pertaining
Chairman. Until such time that the disallowance,
to the matter of assessment, appraisal, and
because of the failure to make the appeal within
collection of real property tax by LGUs. Now, in
the timeframe, the disallowance became final
the case of the Province of Misamis vs.
and executory. And so, clearly, the remedy of
NAPOCOR, here the province of Misamisfiled an
certiorari may no longer be invoked when the
action before the court of the basis of PD 464 for
timeframe has already lapsed. As I mentioned a
the collection of realty taxes from the NPC. NPC
while ago, the remedy of certiorari may be
failed to pay the realty taxes to the LGU. Now, in
availed only when there is no appeal or when
this case, the NPC raises the issue of
there is no plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the
administrative settlement on the basis of PD 242.
ordinary course of law. So, if the law itself and
According to NPC, there should be application of
even the rules of procedure of the agency
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
provides for the filing of MR, then that is the
remedies in relation to doctrine of primary
speedy adequate remedy provided under the
jurisdiction, so the need for the DOJ can solve this
law.
issue because the disputants are both gov’t
The SC further ruled in this case that the matter entities, the LGU and the NPC, a GOCC. So the SC
of determining whether indeed the marginal note ruled, between the general law and a special law,
made by the president is approval of the grant is this special law providing authority to the LGU for
a factual matter and therefore should have been the assessment, appraisal, and collection of realty
determined by the COA and not before the court. taxes, this should prevail over PD 242 and so the
Take note, whatever decision, under the law and court has the authority to take cognizance over
even under rules of procedure of the COA, what the matter because of the failure on the part of
is the remedy of the aggrieved party? If the COA NPC to pay the realty taxes.
Central still denies the appeal, what is the
Now, there’s a distinction between the doctrine
remedy? It is before what court? IT IS BEFORE
of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the
THE SC, not before the CA.
due process principle. This has been asked in the
Now, PD 242, and old law, 1973 law, is a general bar. Take note that these two principles are
law providing for the administrative adjudication related. The distinction here is that this principle
or settlement by the DOJ of matters, of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based
controversies, disputes, involving agencies of on the view point of the ruling tribunal. So if this
government, instrumentalities, agencies, GOCCs, is decision rendered by the ruling tribunal,
so long as the disputants belong to the applying doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
government, under this law, the matter may be remedies, opportunity should be given for the

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

higher authority to amend the decision. Whereas parties, it may be the gov’t or any of the parties.
from the view point of the litigant, the adverse There is the clear prejudice by reason of, let us
party against whom the decision is rendered, so say, undue delay. Let us say, in a petition to oust
due process has to be considered. So due process the possessor of the office, what is the proper
is considered from the view point of the party remedy for one who claims that he is lawfully
against whom the decision is rendered. So clearly, entitled to the possession, what is the remedy?
in both doctrines there is this opportunity given Quo warranto, this should be filed within what
to them. What is the opportunity? Under the timeframe? Within one year. So to wait further
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative will cause will only cause grave irreparable
remedies, opportunity is given to the higher damage. So there is no need to wait further, go to
administrative authority to make a ruling in order court.Or when there is a deprivation of the due
to correct whatever error that may have been process clause, and the need for urgent remedy,
made by the lower administrative subordinate. or as we said, where the issue is purely legal. If
Whereas, in the administrative adjudication purely legal, of course the administrative
opportunity is also given to the aggrieved party authority does not have the competence to rule
against whom the decision is rendered by making on such issue; or where what is involved is public
necessary remedies provided by law, an interest.
opportunity for the party to be heard, part of the
You know, the rules in administrative law are not
requirement of due process.
so rigid. The court time and against has applied
We have mentioned that the rule is there should liberality in the implementation of administrative
be filing of a motion for reconsideration rules and regulations. What are the exceptions to
consistent with the doctrine of exhaustion of this doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
administrative remedies, and what are the remedies? Let’s discuss not the cases applying
exceptions to this rule? In what cases may there the exceptions to this doctrine of exhaustion of
be no prior motion for reconsideration? administrative remedies.

1. If the order of the administrative authority is a In the case of Dimaisip vs. Bakal (???), if your
clear nullity, null and void. For example, the recall you study of public officers, there was this
tribunal issuing the order or decision never, head of PAO, Bakal, she was the chief of the PAO
under the law, never had the power or during the time of Pres. Ramos, but during the
jurisdiction. Of course, we know if what is being time of Estrada, she was replaced and transferred
raised is the jurisdiction, if in the first place the to PAO Region 10, so from Chief, she became a
tribunal never acquired jurisdiction, all subordinate, a regional director of PAO Region
proceedings are null and void, at any time the 10. So the issue is whether there is a need to
decision can be questioned. So there is no need exhaust administrative remedies. What’s the
to exhaust, what is there to exhaust? The issue? Whether the transfer of Bakal, she was
immediate recourse is before the court. replaced by Dimaisip who was not even CESO, to
Region 10, which was made without the consent
of Bakal is constructive dismissal in violation of
2. Where there is an urgent necessity for the her security of tenure guaranteed under the
determination of the issue, then any _______ Constitution. Clearly, this is a legal issue that
may cause irreparable damage or injury to the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

ought to be looked into by the court, there is no of the PLEB is to take cognizance of citizens’
need to exhaust administrative remedies. complaints filed by citizens against police officers.
So what’s being raised here by Asayo, is that this
In the case of Rimao vs. Tajer(???), the Petitioner
matter should have been taken cognizance by
was promoted by then ARMM Gov. Missuari,
PLEB rather than the chief.
from Education Supervisor to director, but
unfortunately was disapproved by the CSC, and In the case of Quisumbing vs. Lumbang (??), there
later on an order was issued by Missuari was this District Supervisor of DepEd Esther Yap.
reinstating her to her former position of And you have this issuance made by the Minister
supervisor. During period that Petitioner was of DepEd, at that time Quisumbing,
director, her old position was occupied by transferring/reassigning Esther Yap from Mlang
Respondent as supervisor. Of course, the concept to ______________, and so instead of exhausting
of de facto applies in this case. The issue here is administrative remedies, the aggrieved party Yap
whether the memorandum issued by Missuari went to court. Is there a violation of the doctrine
reinstating Petitioner in spite of the fact that she of exhaustion of administrative remedies? One
was already on AWOL. Clearly, this already exception to this doctrine is that if the issuance
exceeds the authority given to the governor. So emanated from the superior, in this case the
clearly there is here grave abuse of discretion, an head of the department, Quisumbing. And so, if
act done in excess of jurisdiction which is also a the issuance is from the dept. secretary, there is
legal issue, and so there is no need exhaust no other higher authority, of course except the
administrative remedies. There is no need for the office of the Pres., but applying the alter ego
aggrieved party to wait further for the resolution principle, the act of the dept. secretary is the act
of this matter by the Office of the Governor of the Pres., so there is no need to take the
because the governor is the same person who matter to the office of the Pres., unless there is a
issued conflicting resolutions. In fact, the order of provision of law providing for such administrative
reinstatement issued was done based on an mechanism, in this case there is none. And so,
outmoded civil service resolution. So according to since the issuance emanated from the dept.
the SC, there is no need, the matter ought to be secretary herself, therefore, it was just proper for
heard before the court and not before the local the aggrieved party to file the case before the
government of ARMM, Office of the Governor. court where the respondent is the dept. secretary
whose acts as alter ego, bear the approval of the
In the case of Lastimoso vs. Asayo (???), what is
Pres.
being raised here is whether or not the chief of
the PNP has the authority to take cognizance of In the Case of Benamira vs. Garucho (???),
the administrative complaint filed by a private Benamira was not even appointed but
citizen against Sr. Insp. Asayo, because what designated, not by the president who is the
happened here was that the PNP Chief took appointing power, but by the head of the tourism
cognizance of the case. Now, again, this is a dept. And so Benamira got designated as the GM
matter within the competence of the court and of the PTA. And Benamira complained violation of
not within the authority of the PNP. In fact, under his security of tenure. Where the doctrine of
RA 6975 as amended by RA 8551, the law of the qualified political agency applies, of course this is
PNP, there is in such a law created the PLEB, also another exception. Under the doctrine of
People’s Law Enforcement Board. The authority QPA, the alter ego principle, whenever the action

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

was done by the superior authority, the dept. policies of the school, the nature of her action is
secretary, of course this means that that act of simply one of damages.
the dept. secretary is the act of the Pres. And so,
This has been asked twice in the bar, the case of
applying, as an exception to this doctrine, the
Sabello vs. DECS(???), you know this guy Sabello
remedy here is before the court.
was then a public school principal, he was
In the case of Castro vs. Gloria, this complainant charged and he was convicted by the court, and
Gutang filed an administrative case against so one of the accessory penalties in conviction is
Castro, a public school teacher for disgraceful and dismissal from service, and he was in fact
immoral conduct, because Castro had an illicit removed from service by reason of his conviction.
affair with the wife of Gutang. And so, when a And later on, he was granted absolute pardon,
decision was rendered after complying with the and he was reinstated by reason of this absolute
requirements of due process, Castro was pardon but not to his original higher position but
dismissed. Take note, he had been in service for a lower position of school teacher. And without
so long a time and this was the first violation he exhausting administrative remedies, he went to
committed, and dismissal kaagad. What is being court arguing that poverty denied him the
raised by Castro is the propriety in imposing the services of a lawyer. I have said earlier, the rules
penalty of dismissal considering that this is first of administrative law are not strictly applied,
administrative case. So it is a question of law, and from time to time liberality is applied by the
as the SC ruled, there is no need for the aggrieved court. And so here the SC applied liberality, taking
party, Castro, to exhaust administrative into account that the petition filed before the
remedies, he can already seek relief before the court was by a non-lawyer who claims that
court in order to make a determination. He is not poverty denied him the services of a lawyer, he
even questioning the conviction rendered in the could not pay a lawyer, and so he has to rely on
administrative case, he is only questioning what his own in seeking legal review, and so the SC set
is the proper penalty that ought to be imposed aside the requirement of the doctrine of
against him? exhaustion of administrative remedies and
decided to look into the merits of the position
In the case of Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of
filed Sabello.
Science and Technology, here the student,
Regino, was not able to take the final In the case of Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, this involves
examination because of her refusal to buy the the issuance by the President of UP Diliman of an
tickets sold to her by her teachers and so order reassigning Sta. Maria from the College of
hindisiyanaka-graduate. So here, the student filed Arts Education of UP to the Office of the
a damage suit against the school, and here the President. Now, take note, the appointment
college argued that what ought to apply is the given to Sta. Maria was as Dean of the College
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative Arts for a term of 5 years, but even before the
remedies. Is this doctrine applicable? No, because expiration of this 5-year term, the president
the suit is for damages and the CHED does not issued this reassignment order, so he was
have the authority to award damages. It is in fact reassigned to the Office of the President with the
a matter resolvable under the provisions of the rank of Dean, and so he claimed that this is
Civil Code. In fact, she is not questioning the constructive dismissal in violation of his security
of tenure. And so SC ruled that there is nothing

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

left to be done except for court action. This raises by the dept. heads and not by the pres. himself,
a legal issue, and so there is no need to exhaust otherwise, mauubosnayungbuhokniPNoy. So, this
administrative remedies. QPA simply is a recognition of one executive, the
president, and all branches, offices, departments
What other exceptions are there to the rule?
in the executive branch are mere adjuncts of the
When there is estoppel on the part of the party
executive depts., and the heads of those offices,
invoking. For example, if the administrative
bureaus, and departments are mere agents of the
officer or tribunal declares that it should have
chief executive. So they are mere agents who
been court action, upon the filing of the petition
implement the policies that may have been
in court, he cannot declare that it should have
adopted by the Pres. They are the alter ego of the
been raised before the administrative tribunal, he
President.
is already in estoppel. Or when there is
unreasonable delay of official action such that it Now, is it correct to say that the executive
will cause irreparable damage or injury to the secretary is of the same level as the dept.
complainant. Non-action despite compliance, secretary in the executive hierarchy? That is not a
there is undue delay, so this may be a basis for correct statement because the executive
the filing the suit. Or as I mentioned a while ago, secretary is higher than the department
there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate secretary, he acts by authority of the President,
remedy except for court action. Now, take note, that is known as the “little president”. So the
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative executive secretary has the authority either to
remedies applies only to public lands. Because if affirm, modify, set aside, nullify the decision of
it’s a public land, where should the exhaustion be the director, even if the decision of the director
made? Before the DENR. If it involves private has been affirmed by the dept. secretary. Again,
property, it means that it is already under the that is simply consisted with the doctrine of QPA,
Torrens system, and it is only the court that can he acts by authority of the President.
revoke such title. So, if the property in question is
Now, one other important principle you need to
private, the authority belongs to the court and
know, you should remember that this doctrine
not the administrative tribunal. Or, one
does not apply to offices outside the Office of the
exception, the amount is so small to make the
President. So meaning, this does not have any
application of the rule to so impractical. There is
application whatsoever to Constitutional
nothing left to be done except court action.
Commissions or the Office of the Ombudsman.
Very important doctrine in administrative law is Why? Because this commissions created under
the doctrine of qualified political agency, the alter the constitution are supposed to be non-political,
ego doctrine. In the absence of provision either in independent of the office of the president. That is
the law or the Constitution, the official acts of the the case of Perez vs. Sandiganbayan. So the
dept. secretary are deemed the acts of the doctrine of QPA does not apply to the office of
president unless the president himself the Ombudsman.
disapproves the acts of the subordinate dept.
In the case of the Province of CamarinesNorte vs.
secretary. So, unless the Constitution or the law
Province of Quezon, you know there was this
requires personal action by the Pres., you know
boundary dispute between the Province of
under our existing system of gov’t, all the
CamNor and Quezon. And so because of this
functions in these various depts. are performed
conflict, there was an order issued for the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

conduct of a survey, and because of this order, declaring that effective January 2003, all the NPC
there was a special order issued by the Secretary employees were terminated from their positions,
of DENR authorizing the creation of this technical but the matter was raised before the SC. Of the 9
team from the DENR with the objective of board members in the passage of this resolution,
conducting the survey in order to delineate the upon determination, only 3 were declared valid.
boundaries of these two provinces. And so here Why? Because the thee were declared valid
the governor of Quezon claimed that the conduct because the 3 came from the department
of the survey is null and void because this was secretaries, all others were merely
not authorized by the President. The SC ruled representatives, so null and void yung resolution.
that the fact the special order creating the survey So the task of voting on the resolution cannot be
team came from the secretary of DENR, it means delegated to the representative, this is a function
that such act is the act of the President, applying that is exclusive to the department secretary be
the doctrine of QPA. reason of his office, it involves an act of utmost
discretion.
Now, there are laws providing that the dept.
secretaries, by reason of their position, are ex- In the case of DENR Secretary vs. DENR
officio members of governing boards of GOCCs. employees, you know there this conduct of
By provision of law, the head of the department plebiscite determining which provinces should
is made ex-officio member, by reason of his belong to the ARMM. And so, after that, an order
office. And so, in those cases where the dept. was issued by the Secretary transferring the
secretaries are made ex-officio members of regional office of DENR from Cotabato City to
GOCCs and other instrumentalities where there is Koronadal. And so because of this issuance, the
a board of trustees, it means that personal families of the employees were affected, so they
judgment must be made by the department complained that the issuance was illegal because
secretary. And so, this duty, this authority to vote it did not have the imprimatur of the president.
and approve resolutions of the board must not be The SC ruled that the order of the DENR Secretary
conferred to the subordinate. Rather, this is one is also the act of the President under the doctrine
that involves the exercise of utmost sound of QPA, that’s one. Another reason here is that
discretion. It can only be exercised by the dept. the President under Sec. 17, Art. 7, has the power
secretary. He cannot delegate such task to his of control over all departments, bureaus, and
agent. You know, there have been so many times offices within the executive branch. And you
in the past, I was once a corporate secretary in a know, the multifarious acts of the executive
GOCC, and many of the members of the board branch are performed through this departments,
are department secretaries, but because of the and certainly the department heads are within
distance of Mindanao, they designate their their competence, within their power to issue
representatives. And so many resolutions passed such an order in implementation of the policies of
by the board were made with the participation of the president. This power may be delegated to
these representatives, and at that time wala pa the members of his cabinet under the doctrine of
itong decision naito, mali- QPA. And another reason here, take note that
malipalayungginagawanamin. under the Constitution, not only the power of
control, and this power of control includes the
Anywasy, so here the SC ruled that, you know
power of supervision in the need for the faithful
there was this resolution passed by the NP Board
observance of laws by the subordinates. So the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

principle of this Presidential power of control as belonging to legislature because there is already
provided in Art. 7, Sec. 17. I’ve already mentioned an existing law conferring to the president a
this a number of times, the authority of the blanket authority to undertake changes in any
president over the executive branch of office or department of the executive branch.
government including all executive officials and Take note, the authority belongs to the president
subordinates, and this power of control refers to whenever what is involved is a department, or
the authority of the president to modify, set aside office, or bureau under the executive branch of
what the subordinate had done. So the question, gov’t. So clearly, under the Revised Admin Law,
may the president nullify the action of the there is a continuing authority granted to the
subordinate and perform the act himself? Yes, President to effect reorganization whenever the
because this is consistent with the power of need arises. So whenever to reorganize the
control. He can also issue an order that the act be structure of existing offices in the executive
undone or the act be re-done. This is again within branch, can he do this? Yes, because that is
the concept of power of control. May he issue the within the powers given to him under the RAC.
rules? Yes, because this is consistent with the Again, this rule applies only to offices in the
doctrine of control, presidential control. But as executive branch.
distinguished from the power of supervision, the
Again, the same principle applies in the case of
president does not have the power to issued
Manda vs. Mipa (??), the president has the
rules. This applies only, the issuance of rules
authority to effect reorganization of offices,
applies only whenever he performs consistent
agencies, instrumentalities in the executive dept.
with his power of control. But under the power of
And the basis here is the Constitution, the grant
supervision, and this applies to LGUs under Art.
of power of control under Art. 7, Sec. 17, and by
10, Sec. 4, and the ARMM under Art. 10, Sec. 16,
virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power
it is one of supervision. In the latter case, power
under the RAC to effect reorganization of
of supervision does not include to issue himself
executive offices under EO 292. So that’s the
the rules. The authority of the president in so far
basis in any reorganization effected by the
as his power of supervision simply means the
President without securing specific authority
power to ensure that these rules faithfully carried
from the executive.
out in accordance with law, but he cannot order
the formulation of new rules to suit the manner JULY 10
of the doing of the act. So the power to
substitute the judgment of the former with that Under the doctrine of qualified political agency,
of the latter. the President as Chief of the Executive branch has
the power to alter, modify, or affirm whatever
In the case of Tondo(??) Medical Center decisions may be rendered or acted upon by the
Employees Association vs. CA, in the matter of subordinates in their respective departments.
the reorganization effected in the DOH in the
time of Pres. Estrada under EO 102, and it is In the case of Chavez v NHA, even without the
claimed that this is a usurpation of legislative required authorization of the secretary of the
power. Even without specific legislative fiat, the DENR, the President issued an Executive Order
President issued this EO calling for or giving motu proprio for the development of the housing
authorityto reorganization the DOH. Is this project known as the Smoky Mountain Dagat-
proper? There is no usurpation of a power Dagatan Housing Project with the directive for
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

the implementation of the undertaking. In fact, restructuring of the Office of the President so as
this project happened during the time of to justify this power of control. Rather, the
President Aquino and this program was extended authority here is on the basis of the obligation,
even way beyond the term of office of then the duty imposed under the Constitution in the
President Corazon Aquino, so during the time of same provision, Article 7, Section 17 that there
President Ramos. The issue here is WON there is should be faithful compliance of the laws and this
still a need to secure the authorization needed is carried out by the President. And so the need
for the implementation of this project more so to ensure that there is faithful adherence, and in
that there is here the need to claim public land case of violation, it follows that the President has
and thus the authorization of the DENR should be the authority and duty in fact to file the necessary
obtained. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled cases against the erring public officials.
that this authority the President can exercise,
There is here a distinction between the power of
being the Chief Executive of the executive branch
control and the power to create a public office.
and in fact the president ordered the creation of
In the case of power of control, this refers to the
this project through the implementing committee
authority of the President to adopt, to alter,
and included in this committee was the DENR.
modify or nullify the action taken by the
The DENR was made part of the implementing
department secretary, the president’s agent. In
committee, so this already complies with the
the case of this power to create a public office,
requirement needed that there should be
take note, the basis is the conferment to the
authorization of the DENR. The other reason here
President by law. There must be a law granting
is that the ultimate authority over disposable and
such power, delegated authority to create. There
alienable public land is vested NOT in the
must be a law and in fact, there is such a law, the
secretary of the DENR but rather with the Office
Revised Administrative Code, EO 292, conferring
of the President. Otherwise, if the requirement is
the power to the President but only to reorganize
that there should be prior authorization of the
the existing bureaucracy in the Executive branch
DENR secretary, this would negate the power of
of the government. But more than that, the duty
the President over the department secretaries.
likewise imposed under the Constitution to the
So this would in fact be a derogation of the
President to ensure that there is faithful
authority of the power of the President as Chief
compliance or observance of the laws.
Executive of the executive branch of government.
The question is, whether or not the President has
In the case of Meralco v Philippine Truth
the authority to reorganize the Executive branch
Commission, one of the issues raised in this case
of government. Take note, the rule here is that
is the basis for the creation of the Philippine
the power to create includes the power to
Truth Commission. The basis here is not the
destroy. This principle is made applicable to
power of control, under Art. 7 Sec 17 because this
offices that have been created on the basis of
provision, power of control, applies already to
legislative fiat. Congress itself provides for the
those existing departments, offices, bureaus in
creation of these public offices, and so it follows
the executive branch and clearly, this Philippine
therefore that, proceeding from this power to
Truth Commission, is not yet part of the structure
create, Congress likewise has the power to
of the executive branch of government when the
destroy. There may be amendatory law or there
Executive Order 1 was issued. So, the Philippine
Truth Commission is not born out of the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

may be a delegated conferment given by departments, to the office of the President. Take
Congress to the Chief Executive. not that the EIIB is a Bureau under the
Department of Finance and the Department of
What are the bases for the authority of the
Finance of the structure of the Office of the
President to reorganize the Executive
President. Thus, it is within the authority of the
department? We mentioned that there must be
President to effect the changes in the Executive
legislative imprimatur. This principle is not
branch of government.
applicable to an office created under the
Constitution as Congress does not have the In the earlier case Domingo v Zamora, here this
power to abolish an office created under the was during the time of President Estrada; he
Constitution. This authority of Congress is limited issued EO 321 which provides for the transfer of
to those offices Congress itself created on the the sports programs and activities from the
basis of legislative enactment. The authority Department of Education to the Philippines
likewise of the President under the power of Sports Commission. The affected employees
control is to ensure that there is faithful questioned the issuance and the SC upheld the
observance of the law and so the need for the authority of the President and in fact, the
President to review the actions of the rationale for this continuing authority granted to
subordinate officers. the President under existing law, EO 292, is that
the Office of the President is the command post,
In the case of Buklod ng Kawaning Manggagawa,
it is the nerve center and therefore, the President
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau.
has the prerogative to shape or reshape, being
This bureau was created during the time of
the commander of the administration, this
Corazon Aquino. Subsequently, during the time of
bureaucracy within his control. The objective
President Estrada, he issued an Office Order
here is efficiency and effectivity of those
3149(?) effecting the deactivation of the EIIB and
departments and offices in the Executive branch
so the employees who were affected by such
of government.
issuance questioned this order on the ground
that this usurps the power belonging to the So, continuing authority given by Congress on the
Legislature. The SC ruled that the authority of the basis of EO 292, the RAC to effect this
President is recognized, in fact, there may be a reorganization of the Office of the President. But
law passed by Congress, giving to the President this is subject to the caveat, (important in our
the power to carry out organizational measures study of Public Officers), that one mode of the
but this authority applies to departments, offices termination of the public office is abolition, but
in the Executive branch of government. Is there the condition here is that it must be done BONA
such authority? Yes, under the Revised FIDE, in good faith.
Administrative Code, EO 292, conferring to the
We have mentioned and discussed the power of
President the power in order to achieve,
the President of control. On the other hand,
simplicity, economy and efficiency to reorganize
there is also the President’s power of general
the administrative structure of the office of the
supervision. As earlier said, power of control
President. And so, consistent with this authority
applies to the departments, bureaus offices in the
given by Congress on the basis of law, the Revise
executive branch, whereas the power of
Administrative Code, the President has the power
supervision applies to the LGUs under Art. 10,
to transfer the functions of agencies and
Sec. 4 and Art 10, Sec 16 and insofar as the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

ARMM is concerned, we have Art. 10, Sec 18 of investigating tribunal or committee is conducting
the Constitution. This simply means that the the investigation as so directed by the President
authority of the President to make sure that and submitting the report with recommendation.
there is faithful compliance and execution by the And so, ultimately it is still with the President to
local government units acting through their local impose the necessary final action. Whatever
chief executives, of the law of the land. action that must be made still belongs to the
President as the disciplining authority.
This power of general supervision exercised by
the President over LGUs is not inconsistent with Specifically, the power of supervision is one of
the power of the President to order the conduct mere oversight over local government units as
of investigation or whatever. The laws of the land declared by the Supreme Court in Bituonon v
are not faithfully observed by the local chief Fernandez. This simply refers to the authority of
executives. It therefore follows that the President the President to check whether the officials of
has the power or authority, whenever these laws the LGU or LGUs, perform their obligations as
are breached, there is no faithful adherence by prescribed by law and if the rules are being
the local chief executive, for the President to followed. But the President himself CANNOT by
conduct investigation, even the filing of himself lay down the rules for the doing of the
disciplinary cases against erring local chief act. And if these rules or laws are not observed,
executives. what the President, as the superior, may do is to
order that the work be done or undone, in order
There is here a distinction between disciplining
to conform to the prescribed rules or what was
authority and investigating authority. Disciplining
provided by law. But the superior, in this case the
authority is vested with the President as the Chief
Chief Executive, cannot himself prescribe his own
Executive who has the power of control as well as
manner for the performance of the act.
the power of supervision over the LGUs. This task
Otherwise, if this were so, it would already be
of conducting the investigation in order to obtain
power of control and no longer power of
the ends of this administrative, disciplinary action
supervision.
may be conferred or delegated to subordinate
officers. Thus, this task may be assigned to the The power of general supervision exercised by
alter ego and this alter ego becomes the the President extends to the Liga ng mga
investigating authority. Assuming (?) this task is Barangay. Of course we know that the Liga ng
being performed by the DILG Secretary or the mga Barangay is recognized in the Local
Secretary may create an investigating committee. Government Code. What is this Liga ng mga
Some other body may be tasked by the President Barangay? This is simply an aggroupment of
other than the DILG secretary, for example, the barangays which are represented by their
President may task the secretary of the barangay captains. And in fact, the
Department of Justice. In those cases, the representatives of this Liga sit in an ex officio
investigating official becomes the investigating capacity at the higher aspect, the administrative
authority. And so there is no incompatibility here aspect, municipal, city and provincial Sanggunians
because the authority to disciple is vested with and so in this manner, the Liga ng mga Barangay
the President. There is NO delegation of the now becomes the medium, to which the
power to disciple but simply the power to barangay is able to participate in the enactment
investigate. In fact, the authority here of the of ordinances and the formulation of policies

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

beneficial to the barangay. Of course, before the administrative tribunal is elevated before the
Present Vice Mayor of Davao became the Vice court. What is the general rule? The general rule
Mayor, he used to be sitting in the Sangguian, ex is that the findings of fact of administrative
officio as the head of the Liga. authorities are not only given respect but even
FINALITY. Meaning, this factual findings of
Again we emphasize that the authority of the
administrative authorities are not subject to
President is one of supervision insofar as the Liga
judicial review insofar as the findings of facts of
ng mga Barangay is concerned. So in the case in
administrative authorities are concerned,
David v Paredes, where the judge here Victoria
premised on the condition that the decision
Paredes, issued the order designating the DILG as
rendered by the administrative tribunal is
the interim caretaker to manage the affairs of the
supported by SUBSTANTIAL evidence and another
Liga and because of this order of the court, the
requirement is that such decision or proceeding
DILG issued orders nullifying the results of the
was done within the ambit of authority of the
Liga election in Caloocan and in fact promulgated
administrative tribunal or body.
rules and regulations for the holding
synchronized elections and more than that, the There is an exception of the many exceptions to
DILG appointed Rayos as president of the Liga ng this rule. In what cases, even the factual findings
mga Barangay in the local city and this guy was of administrative authorities may be subject to
not the duly elected. The one chosen by the Liga judicial review? Because the rule here is the
ng mga Barangay in Caloocan was David. Clearly, factual findings of administrative authorities
in so issuing these acts, performing these powers, ought not to be given only respect but finality.
the DILG already usurped a power. It already What are the exceptions?
went beyond the authority which is only one of
1. If there is misappreciation of facts by the
supervision. Here, the DILG was already
administrative authority or if the decision is not
performing powers of control. The DILG deprived
supported by substantial evidence. There is here
the National Liga Board of its authority of its
a disparity since the decision is not supported by
authority over the Liga. So clearly a grave abuse
evidence on record or where the findings are
of discretion was committed here by the DILG
vitiated because of the existence of fraud,
and as to the part of the judge in issuing this
collusion or imposition or there is an irregular
order.
proceeding done by the administrative authority
What is the rule in the review of administrative in violation of procedural due process; or there
decisions? are serious, grave errors committed by the
administrative authority, grave abuse of
We know that before there may be a judicial
discretion or there is clear arbitrariness or
review of the administrative decisions, what we
capriciousness committed by the hearing officer
have to follow is the doctrine of exhaustion of
or tribunal.
administrative remedies. Before there may be
resort to court, you have to exhaust your The rule here is that factual findings must be
administrative remedies within the respected and accorded finality.
administrative realm.
2. What about more than factual findings? The issue
Let us say there is compliance and in the proper now involves not only factual but even a legal
case as so provided by law, the decision of the issue. MIXED factual finding of facts and of law.
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

Thus the 2nd exception: the doctrine of capriciousness, there is an irregular proceeding, a
assimilation of facts. violation of the requirements of due process, etc.
In this situation, the general rule would not apply.
In the case of Bautista v Araneta, where the
petitioner argues that the certification issued by The issue of whether to file the case in court or
the agrarian authorities to the effect that he is a not involves determination of the evidence, the
tenant of Araneta is a factual issue because a required evidence to sustain the filing of the case,
certification has been issued. And in the basis of that is probable cause. This determination is
this declaration, this finding, the MARO, the made by the prosecutor whether of the DOJ or
DARAB likewise affirmed this certification. The the Office of Ombudsman whether there is
Supreme Court here said that the issue of sufficient basis, there is probable cause that a
tenancy is NOT purely a factual relationship. crime has been committed and this crime was
What is the factual relationship here? The factual committed by this public officer. The
relationship is the fact of this guy tilling the land. determination of evidence to assess whether a
But more than that, the Supreme Court said that prima facie graft case exists is a question of fact.
there is a need also to establish a legal It involves the exercise of discretion. And
relationship. Whether indeed consent has been whenever what is being performed by the
obtained or whether the consent of the lawful administrative or quasi-judicial officer is an
owner has been given. So more than being a exercise of discretion, mandamus will not lie.
factual relationship, tenancy is also a legal Mandamus may not be filed in order to compel
relationship. What does this mean? This means the official, in this case, the prosecutor, to
that this mixed finding of fact and law is subject perform a discretionary function. But if the power
to judicial review. being performed by this public officer is
ministerial, mandamus will lie in order to compel
In the case of Republic v Imperial, the Supreme
the officer to perform not a discretionary act but
Court ruled that the classification of whether the
rather a ministerial function. The matter of
land is public or not is made by the Director of
determining whether there is probable cause so
the Land Management Bureau under the DENR.
to warrant the filing of the criminal case before
The fact is that this Director of LMB declares that
the court involves the exercise of discretion and
the land is public land. Of course this is within the
so, the aggrieved parties cannot compel the filing
competence and technical expertise of the
of the case where the prosecutor himself
executive official, in this case the LMB Director,
declares that there is no evidence. So it is one of
and so this is a factual finding and is thus
discretion. We know that the exception would
conclusive upon the court and the latter cannot
apply if clearly there is arbitrariness, clear
interfere with such declaration made by the
capriciousness in the exercise of this power by
administrative officer exercising his authority
the public officer.
under the law within the powers given to him
under the law. The classification of public land is We mentioned the general rule that factual
the duty, the function of the LMB Director and his findings are not only accorded respect but
decision when affirmed by the Secretary of the finality. One exception, the 3rd exception, is
DENR as to this question of fact, is conclusive and where there are conflicting factual findings at
not subject to judicial review. The exception various levels of the investigation by the
would apply if there is arbitrariness, different tribunals. Here is the case of Fabian v

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

Agustin. In here, Agustin was charged by Teresita decision of the administrative tribunal, it will not
Fabian, a contractor. They used to be interfere with the latter’s exercise of power.
sweethearts, the petitioner is the paramour of
In what cases may there be a review by the
Agustin and because of such relationship, the
courts of administrative decisions?
petitioner contractor was able to have lucrative
contracts in the public works but their 1. To determine the constitutionality of a law or
relationship turned sour and the petitioner, the order or
woman, filed administrative cases against Agustin
for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to 2. To determine the jurisdiction of the
the best interest of the public service, immorality, administrative tribunal or
etc. and after due proceedings, the hearing
3. Or in order to determine a question of law or
officer rendered a decision finding Agustin guilty
and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the 4. When there’s a need to determine a question of
service. Of course, this has to be approved by the fact in order to determine a higher issue which
head which is Desierto and he modified the may be jurisdictional or constitutional. So in
penalty, that it was not grave misconduct, so order to determine a constitutional or
instead of dismissal from service, he imposed the jurisdictional issue or
penalty of 1 year suspension. Desierto was
5. The commission by the admin tribunal by abuse
subsequently asked to inhibit himself and this
of authority amounting to lack or excess of
was assigned to a deputy Ombudsman Guerrero
jurisdiction or
and the latter subsequently dismissed the case.
When the matter was raised before the Court of 6. There has been error of law committed by the
Appeals, it adopted the earlier decision of administrative hearing officer.
Desierto of 1 year suspension. But later, it issued
a modified decision dismissing the case against Take note that under the Constitution, Article 8,
Agustin. So at various stages there are conflicting Section 5, this justifies judicial review on all the
factual findings and so this is an exception to the errors or decisions of administrative bodies
rule when this matter was elevated to the SC. The involving questions of law. These are subject to
SC looked into the factual milieu of the case judicial review. And this is based on what rule?
because of the conflicting versions. Rule 43, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rule 43 on
quasi-judicial agencies to be reviewed by the CA.
In the case of Matuguina Wood Products v CA, Under Rule 45, petition for review on certiorari is
the issue is whether or not Matuguina Wood from the CA to the SC, not on factual findings but
Products, a party in this natural resources case is on legal issues.
the alter ego of Milagros Matuguina. It is one of
fact and this matter should be threshed out not The principle that only questions of law shall be
in court. This involves a factual issue and this raised in appeal in a petition for review on
should be resolved in the natural resources case. certiorari under rule 45 has exceptions. The rule
Again, the rule here is that the court would not under Rule 45 that only questions of law may be
interfere with such competence, with the reviewed in a petition for review on certiorari
authority given by law to the administrative from the CA to the SC.
tribunal to determine factual and technical What are the exceptions?
issues. And in fact, the court will support the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

1. Where the findings of the tribunal are grounded fact the SC ruled that the decision of the
on mere speculations, conjectures and there is no Ombudsman was based on conjectures. The SC
basis at all; nullified the decision rendered by the
Ombudsman where the factual findings are
2. There is contradiction between the evidence on
premised on supposed evidence or not supported
record and the findings of the administrative
by evidence on record. The requirement is
tribunal;
substantial evidence and if this requirement is
3. Or the inference made by the administrative not met, this will be a basis for the court to set
authority is manifestly mistaken, GAD has been aside the decision.
committed;
The basic rule we should all know that under Rule
4. Misappreciation of facts; or 65, factual or evidentiary matters are not basis in
a Petition for Certiorari because the basis is grave
5. As mentioned earlier in Fabian v Agustin, the abuse of discretion; or the act done by the
findings of fact are conflicting; or administrative tribunal or officer was without or
is in excess of jurisdiction.
6. In Section 66 of the LGC, the decision must be,
valid and legal, there must be a statement of the In the case of Alexandra Condominium
facts and the law. Kung walang ganun, not even Corporation, the emission of waste matter
citation of specific evidence which would be the pollution into the Laguna Lake and this resulted
basis of the decision. Of course this would call for in the imposition of penalties and what the
a a judicial review; Alexandra Condominium Corporation did was to
file a petition under Rule 65.
SECTION 66. Form and Notice of Decision. - (a)
The investigation of the case shall be terminated Was this the proper remedy? No, because there
within ninety (90) days from the start thereof. must be taking of this petition before the court,
Within thirty (30) days after the end of the this can only be done if there is no other plain,
investigation, the Office of the President or the speedy, adequate remedy available. Is there such
Sanggunian concerned shall render a decision in a remedy here? Yes, there is. It may file an MR,
writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and an appeal before the proper Department
the reasons for such decision. Copies of said Secretary or before the Department. The law
decision shall immediately be furnished the created this PAB (Pollution Adjudication Board)
respondent and all interested parties. which is under the DENR. So the LLDA has been
placed under the DENR. The remedy of the
In the case of Bernaldo v Ombudsman, Barrita
aggrieved party is not immediately to file a
Bernaldo was charged in the Office of the
petition, Original Action for Certiorari under Rule
Ombudsman for conduct prejudicial to the best
65 but rather exhaust first administrative
interest of the service and after due proceedings,
remedies. So, dun muna sa Secretary ng DENR in
the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman finding
his capacity as head of the PAB. Here, the petition
that she was guilty of this offense was suspension
of the ACC cannot be given merit because there is
for 9 months. This decision was affirmed by the
no showing of grave abuse committed by LLDA
CA. The SC decided otherwise on the ground that
and more than that, there is a remedy available
clearly contrary to this disposition, there is no
to the aggrieved party and this was not invoked
evidence on record to sustain such a finding. In
or availed of by Alexandra Condominium
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

Corporation. So the filing of the petition under President. What is the remedy therefore of the
Rule 65 will not prosper. aggrieved parties? What the petitioners did here
was to file in court this Petition for Certiorari
The doctrine of assimilation of facts which
under Rule 65. Is this the proper remedy?
involves mixed questions of facts and law and
these are subject to judicial review. This doctrine Of course, what they did first was to file a Motion
states that when the finding of fact is intimately for Reconsideration which was denied. And
involved and dependent upon the more because of this denial of the Office of the
important matter, a question of law, in order for President, they went straight to the Supreme
the court to resolve the higher issue which is one Court. Is this proper? The decision of the
of law, it may look into the evidence, the factual President may be appealed to what office? To the
setting of the case. The more important matter Civil Service Commission under Rule 43 of the
here which is one of law assimilates the facts Rules of Court (since this involved the movement,
under the doctrine of assimilation of facts. i.e. dismissal of career officers). This was not
Although the general rule here is, as we have done. Rather, the petitioners, immediately filed
emphasized, factual findings must not only be their petition under Rule 65 clearly violating
respected but given finality by the courts. The these available remedies given to them under the
court will not interfere. BUT if this fact is law such that when they went to the Supreme
intimately related with the question of law, there Court, the matter, the decision already became
is a need to determine this question, how to final and executory and thus the Court no longer
resolve this question of law, you have to go into has the competence to review the decision by
the merits of the case, the factual setting of the reason of the lapse of the period for the
case, so applying this doctrine, the court is petitioners in this case to take the necessary
authorized to review factual matters under this remedy. The applicable remedy was supposed to
doctrine in order to determine the more be before the CSC but this was not done.
important issue which is one of law.
So you have to verify: if the decision is rendered
In the case of Lacson v PEA (Philippine Estates by the Office of the Ombudsman, there is no
Authority), (not the Lacson we know) the need to go to the CSC. From the Ombudsman, go
petitioners were officials from the Philippine to the CA under Rule 43. But if the decision is
Estates Authority, deputy managers etc. but they rendered by OTHER offices, for example, any
were not appointed by the President but Department in the Executive branch or even if
nonetheless, they were career officers. Upon the Office of the President has rendered such a
order of the President, they were the subject of decision, what is the remedy? The remedy under
investigation because of the alleged commission Rule 43 is from the Department Secretary or from
of graft and corruption and after the proceedings the Office of the President to the CSC. Is there
conducted by the PAGC (Presidential Anti-Graft any other remedy from the CSC? YES. To the
Commission), the PAGC submitted its report and Court. From the CSC to the Court of Appeals. And
recommendation to the President. The from the CA to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
recommendation was the dismissal of the Here, clearly, this remedy was not availed of by
respondents now petitioners. This became the the aggrieved parties, the petitioners. So, from
decision of the PEA management by reason of the the decision of the CSC it can be elevated to the
fact that this decision was approved by the CA under Rule 43 Petition for Review and from

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

the CSC, it can be further appealed to the SC Take note, there’s this distinction: review of
through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under administrative decision to a higher administrative
Rule 45. authority v review of administrative decision to a
judicial body. In the first instance, pwede yan trial
You should know these. The differences between
de novo. Meaning, pag–iakyat mo yan sa
a Rule 45 Petition and a Rule 65 Petition
administrative agency pwede mag-conduct ng
whenever the administrative tribunal has
panibagong trial, new evidence may be
rendered a decision, of course, Rule 43 and Rule
submitted. Pag-dating sa korte, wala nang ganun.
45 this has to be distinguished from Rule 65.
No trial de novo because the review conducted
Rule 65 is an original action whereas Rule 45 is by the court is limited to evidence earlier
not an original action. Rule 65 is a Petition submitted earlier before the administrative
dwelling on jurisdictional errors, whether there tribunal. There is already opportunity granted so
has been commission of GAD whereas a Rule 45 pag-dating sa korte, di na factual, but purely
Petition is not an original action, it is a mode of question of law or under Rule 65 pag may grave
appeal, centering on the review of the judgment abuse na.
or order or decision or award rendered by the
The rule here is administrative authorities do not
tribunal involving, as a general rule, a question of
have the inherent power to grant criminal and
law, unless it involves mixed question of fact and
civil immunities to persons. The exception, first,
law (assimilation doctrine) or there is error
there must be conferment of this power to grant
committed.
immunity or the administrative tribunal (you
MCQ know this power is inherent in courts, but not in
administrative tribunals), unless there is authority
In judicial review of administrative decisions: or express provision of law conferring the power
to the administrative tribunal to grant immunity
A. Courts can examine the sufficiency of evidence
from criminal and civil suits. Example of such
and are authorized to receive additional evidence
body: the PCGG (Presidential Commission on
not submitted earlier. Tama or mali? Parang di
Good Government) under AO 1 up to 14-A. 14-A
kayo sure sa inyong answer. True or false? FALSE!
because this law grants immunity from criminal
Very good! (HAHA) Parang tayong nasa kinder. :P
prosecution to any person who testifies in any
C. Letter C muna. (Kay B man ang answer.) conduct of investigation made by the PCGG in the
Factual Findings are accorded not only respect matter of the alleged ill-gotten acquisitions by
but finality binding on the court so long as the Marcoses, cronies or associates.
supported by preponderance of evidence. Is this
The law, AO 14-A clearly mentions the power of
statement true? FALSE. Why? Substantial
the PCGG to grant immunity from criminal
evidence. Simple lang.
prosecution. This has been asked (in the bar).
D. Errors on decisions of administrative bodies What about the authority of the PCGG to grant
may be questioned in a Petition for Certiorari immunity from civil prosecution? Yes, although
under Rule 65. False. Why? Errors yan. So, under there is no such express provision under the AOs,
Rule? 45, yes! Susmaryosep. under the law of PCGG, what applies is the
general law, the Civil Code under Article 2028
B. The correct answer is B: Trial de novo is not
contemplated.
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

referring to the amicable settlement in civil cases In the case of Chua v Ang, where the petitioner
which rule is also applicable to cases of the PCGG. filed a criminal case against the developer of a
real estate because of violation of PD 957 as
Another law, RA 6770, the Ombudsman Act
amended by PD 1344, what is this law all about?
particularly Section 17 which confers authority to
Yung the competence of the HLURB, unsound
the Ombudsman to grant immunity from criminal
real estate business practices, failure of the
prosecution to any person who is essential to the
contractor to provide for the basic necessities.
successful prosecution of the case the
There was failure here on the part of the
Ombudsman may file against any public officer.
developer to construct and deliver to the
Of course there are conditions which you ought
petitioner the condominium unit. So, there was
to know before the grant of this immunity.
this supposed violation criminal in nature and the
What is the three-fold responsibility of public petitioner filed the case before the prosecutor’s
officers? Very easy. Civil, criminal and office. But what the prosecutor’s office did was to
administrative. These remedies exist dismiss the criminal on the ground that there
independently of the other. One is not dependent should be prior determination, there should be a
upon the other. Whenever there is a conclusion finding of administrative liability before the
reached in one remedy, it will not be res judicata criminal case may be allowed.
on the other. A public official may be held civilly,
Is this correct? No. because the law, PD 957 as
criminally, and administratively liable for any
amended by PD 1344 never mentions any mode
violation of duty or the wrongful act or omission
of this nature that there should be prior
of such public officer. These remedies may be
administrative determination. And so clearly, the
invoked separately, simultaneously, alternately or
city prosecutor was wrong. There is no law
successively. Meaning, the general rule is,
requiring that there should be prior
administrative cases are independent from
administrative determination for the criminal suit
criminal cases.
to prosper. Where the law is silent on this matter,
Is there an exception? Yes, if the law itself what should be adopted? The fundamental rule
prescribes that there should be prior that is that the administrative case is
administrative determination before a criminal independent form the criminal action.
action may be resorted to. But the general rule,
This was already asked in the bar: Hierarchy of
in the absence of such provision of rule, the GR
quantum of evidence. Of course the highest is
here is that administrative cases are independent
criminal case: proof of guilt beyond reasonable
from criminal cases and vice-versa.
doubt. Followed by clear and convincing
Exceptions where the law itself declares the need evidence; next in line is preponderance of
for prior final administrative determination: In evidence and lastly, the lowest: substantial
prosecution of unfair labor practice under the evidence in administrative cases.
Labor Code. No criminal prosecution for ULP can
In the case of Gatchalian Talents Pool v
be filed without first making a determination in
Mendoza, wag sana kayon gumaya kay Atty.
the administrative proceeding. There must be a
Mendoza. Atty. Mendoza, a lawyer defrauded
final judgment in a previous administrative
this Gatchalian Talents Pool. GTP was the losing
proceeding. But in the absence of such law,
party in a POEA case but there was lack of full
paminsan-minsan lang yan, hiwalay talaga yan.
disclosure of Atty. Mendoza declaring that there
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

is still an appeal to be taken from the decision administrative case? In fact here, he was
rendered by the POEA. And so for this purpose, dismissed by the Ombudsman he went to the
Atty. Mendoza asked the amount of $2,555.00 as Court and alleged that because of the dismissal of
the supposed bond for the filing of the petition. the criminal case, the administrative case should
But actually the decision already became final likewise be dismissed. Of course the
and so he pocketed the amount. And so the client requirements are different in those cases. In the
filed a disbarment case against Mendoza which is criminal case, it simply means that there is
administrative in nature as well as a criminal case absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt but it
for estafa. But unfortunately, the trial court does not mean that there is no more evidence to
dismissed the criminal case for estafa filed pin down the respondent.
against Mendoza. And because of the dismissal,
In criminal cases, you have prescription of
Mendoza argued that the administrative case
offenses. The RPC provides for that. Is there such
should also be dismissed because of the dismissal
a similar concept in administrative law? In
of the case.
administrative law, administrative cases do not
Is this contention correct? Of course not. A prescribe.
criminal prosecution will not constitute a
The case of Guiang (?) v Sunga, Guiang a woman
prejudicial question even if the same facts are
government employee in the court of appeals
attendant in the administrative proceedings.
was administratively charged because she had an
Regardless of the results in either case, it will not
illicit affair with a co-employee of the court of
have any bearing on the other because of the
appeals. She argued that she should not anymore
different requirements of evidence, the quantum
be sanctioned because this was a thing of the
of evidence is different in administrative cases
past. Tapos na yan. Matagal na, years back. But
and different likewise in criminal cases. It simply
nonetheless, the courts here took cognizance of
means that if the criminal case is dismissed, the
this case stating that administrative offenses did
requirement proof of guilt beyond reasonable
not prescribe. The stigma of this immorality still
doubt has not been established. Whereas we
attaches. Here the SC instead of imposing a more
have the lower kind of evidence in administrative
serious penalty simply imposed the fine of 10T
cases, the required evidence is simply substantial
against her. Administrative offenses do not
evidence.
prescribe.
In the case of Ocampo v Ombudsman, Ocampo,
In the case of Dr. Melendres, Executive Director
an employee of the National Irrigation Authority
of the Lung Centre v Pasig, it is possible, take
who received the amount of $9,600.00 as training
note, that the criminal cases are filed in another
fee but he did not remit this amount to the
administrative tribunal whereas the
agency so he malversed this amount so
administrative charges are in a different tribunal.
administrative cases as well as criminal cases for
For example, in this case, the administrative
falsification and estafa were filed against him
charges against Dr. Melendres were filed before
before the regular courts and administrative
the PAGC under the Office of the president
cases before the Ombudsman for dishonesty,
whereas the criminal cases were filed before the
grave misconduct. And again the criminal case
Office of the Ombudsman. Here, the SC ruled that
was dismissed by the court. Does this mean that
the dismissal of these criminal cases either by the
the Ombudsman has to dismiss the
Sandiganbayan or the Ombudsman will not result
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

in the dismissal of the administrative case in the committee were charged. Take note here, the
absolution or acquittal of the petitioner from the alleged act constituting the administrative
administrative charges filed against him before offense or even the criminal case happened in
the PAGC. He was sanctioned by the PAGC. 1992 and it was only in 1996 that this complaint,
anonymous at that, was filed before the
There may be a provision of law giving the power
Ombudsman against De Sahagun. What is the
to the administrative tribunal not to investigate
effect of such filing of an anonymous complaint?
anymore the administrative offense but take note
It only commences the fact finding investigation.
in the light of what we mentioned earlier that
It is not yet the formal investigation. It was only
administrative offenses do not prescribe, such
in September of 2000 that the fact finding
provision as provided by law simply refers to the
investigation Bureau of the Ombudsman issued
discretion exercised by the administrative
this report and information for the filing of formal
authority whether or not to still proceed with
charges against De Sahagun et al. That was more
the investigation, to pursue the administrative
than 7 years after the commission and it was only
charge. So a matter of discretion.
after a few years that the administrative
Under Sec 20 of the Ombudsman Act, the proceeding was promulgated and the decision
Ombudsman may no longer conduct the rendered against De Sahagun adverse to them.
necessary investigation of an act complained of if Clearly here there was a long lapse of time from
the complaint was filed after or more than the the appealing of the act complained of to the
year from the occurrence of the act complained investigation not yet even formal to the
of. It does not mean that under this provision, the disposition of the administrative case. Here, there
ombudsman is duty bound NOT to investigate is NO prescription.
anymore. It is an exercise of sound judgment,
What is the reason of the non-application of the
discretion on the part of the Ombudsman
prescription concept? Because the object of
whether to conduct the investigation. It may do
administrative proceedings is not the punishment
so even after the lapse of so many years. More
of the public official but rather the need to
than 1 year. That is at the option of the
preserve the integrity of the public service, the
Ombudsman. This provision is not mandatory but
improvement of public service and the need to
rather directory, an exercise of discretion on the
preserve the public face and confidence in the
part of the Ombudsman, whether to still proceed
bureaucracy. Unlike in criminal cases, because
with the investigation. It has nothing to do with
the liability there is directly applied on the public
prescription of offenses.
officer like imprisonment and the accessory
A good illustration of what we have mentioned a penalties.
while ago is the case of Ombudsman v De
What is the effect on an administrative case upon
Sahagun. Sahagun in his capacity as the chair of
the happening of an event subsequent to the
the Bids and Awards Committee of the
filing of the administrative charge against the
Intramuros Administration, a government entity.
public officer? Let us say, after such filing,
This has relation to the giving of a award without
namatay yung respondent or he was able to
public bidding of a video event. Etong public
retire. So does it mean that the case should
bidding, required sa Procurement Act. But this
already be dismissed by reason of the fact that he
was not complied with. So, this guy with the
is no longer in government service? No. The rule
other members of the bids and awards
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

here is the death or retirement of the public separate yourself from the public service. That is
officer from service does not prevent the finding a different scenario.
of administrative liability and the imposition of
Here, in the case of Andutan, what happened
the proper penalty because he is answerable to
here was that the respondents Andutan et al
all such offense.
were no longer connected with the government
We have mentioned so many times, jurisdiction service at the time the administrative and
over the administrative complaint is acquired at criminal cases were filed. Of course, the criminal
the time of the filing, upon taking cognizance by case will subsist and may prosper. What about
the administrative complaint, upon filing of the the administrative cases? Depende. If at the time
complaint and this is not lost because of of the filing you are no longer with the
subsequent events such as the death or government service, the administrative case will
retirement during the pendency of the no longer prosper. But that is the general rule.
administrative case. Here, the administrative There is also an exception to that rule. On the
tribunal continues to retain jurisdiction in order other hand if the separation from the service
to pronounce the respondent either guilty if came after the filing of course the rule here is the
there is evidence or the need to vindicate his administrative tribunal continues to acquire
name to acquit him in the administrative case. jurisdiction and has to decide the case.

In the case of Ombudsman v Deputy Director Exception: Bacano (?) v Nasap. Etong si Ester
(Andutan) (?) the one stop shop of the Bacano was the cashier of the Provincial
Department of Finance. What happened here Treasurer’s Office in the province of Benguet and
was that before the filing of the charges against she was involved in this shortage upon audit. She
Andutan et al, they were officers of a Bureau was found to have a shortage in here
under the Department of Finance. A accountabilities of more than 1.4 million and she
memorandum was issued by Executive Secretary was ordered to explain why not formal charge
Zamora for them to enter their resignation. They should be filed against her. But 4 days PRIOR to
were not career officers. They complied. It was the issuance of said notice for her to explain, she
only when they were no longer in service that filed her certificate of candidacy! What is the
they were charged criminally and effect of the filing a certificate of candidacy under
administratively. This pertains to alleged illegal Section 66 of the OEC? Automatically resigned ka
transfer of tax credit certificates, tax scam cases. na. Sabi nya, Yehey! Wala na ako from service!
The prevailing doctrine is that the administrative The exception here is if it was done in bad faith;
authority or jurisdiction can no longer be if the separation was made in bad faith. Clearly in
exercised by the administrative tribunal, in this this case, there was bad faith because she
case, the Ombudsman, if the public officer is anticipated the filing of formal charges against
already separated from the service prior to the her. That was a precursor that the filing of this
filing of the charge. Take note, PRIOR to the filing requirement, explained why she should not be
of the case. The general rule, dapat mauna yung formally charged, that is the procedure in the civil
separation mo. If so, as a rule, you can no longer service law, the need for the conduct of a
be administratively charged. The rule would be preliminary investigation in order to determine a
different if kinasuhan ka and subsequently you prima facie case before a formal charge may be
issued. So she anticipated this. So the exception is

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

when the public offer resigned in BAD FAITH or It will not justify the outright dismissal of this
the resignation was done in anticipation of the complaint where the allegations of this
filing of charges against her. This case is the anonymous complaint can be verified and
exception to the rule. established by competent evidence. Of course we
have mentioned so many times that it triggers
Now, in so many cases especially those coming
the fact finding investigation if there is such
from the autonomous region of Muslim
evidence, if there are sufficient leads.
Mindanao (ARMM) magfafile sila ng kaso, then
subsequently they issue an affidavit of desistance What is the doctrine of forgiveness or
or the withdrawal of the complaint. What does condonation?
this mean? Does this have any effect on the
This applies only to ELECTIVE officials. It simply
charge?
means that the elective official can no longer be
The withdrawal of the complaint or the subject to disciplinary action for prior misconduct
desistance by the party complainant will NOT or any act or offense committed during a prior
automatically result in the dismissal of the term. Why? Because the two terms are NOT a
administrative case because the rule here is if you continuation. The succeeding term is not a
file an administrative case, the State has a higher continuation of the prior term of office. It is a
stake in this charge. You are merely an informant, separate term. If you commit or violate a law and
a witness because the objective here is to you are answerable administratively, the State no
preserve the integrity of the public service. This longer has the power to sanction you
rule applies if there is sufficient evidence to administratively by reason of the lapse of the
justify or to support the charge. But of course, term of office as provided under the law. The
the rule would be different if it is only through reason here is if this guy is again re-elected gaya
the testimony of the complainant that the case ng nangyayari sa bayan natin, the bad guys
may prosper and therefore the tribunal will no always get re-elected, and so this simply means
longer have an option except to dismiss. But the that the doctrine of forgiveness also known as
general rule is even if you execute an affidavit of the Aguinaldo doctrine, the doctrine of
desistance, it does not mean that the case you condonation, applies. And kasalanan ng tao eh.
filed will already be dismissed. The reason here is Pinatawad na xa nga taong bayan by electing him
that the tribunal has an interest apart from the to public office. In the other hand, if he does not
complainant. This tribunal represents the State, get re-elected, penalty na yan. He has been
perhaps through the COA or the Office of the sanctioned by the people by not electing him to
Ombudsman, to determine the truth and to public office. Take note, this is NOT applicable to
determine the proper imposition of sanctions appointive officers but rather to elective officials
against the employee including the accessory seeking re-election.
penalties of forfeiture of benefits, retirement
In Garcia v Mojica, the case here of Garcia of
benefits and perpetual disqualification. This is
Cebu. A few days before the election is that the
important. Even if the public officer is no longer
Mayor of Cebu entered into a contract negotiated
in service, the tribunal may impose perpetual
without public bidding in violation of the Anti-
disqualification to hold public office.
Graft and Corrupt Practices act, and of course, an
What is the rule on anonymous complaints? act or omission of a public officer gives rise to
administrative and criminal liabilities. And so,
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

charges were filed, administrative and criminal. Of course this principle is NOT applicable to
Sabi ng Supreme Court, only the criminal case will appointive officers more so these co-terminus
prosper or will be looked into but not the appointive officials. There is here no violation of
administrative case because of expiration of the the condonation doctrine.
term. 4 days before the end of the term of Mayor
Moreover, is this a violation of the equal
Garcia, entered illegally into these negotiated
protection of the law? Kasi if ganun sa elective
agreements and his term expired thereafter.
official, dapat din ganun ang principle sa
In the case of Ombusdman v Maricar Torres, this appointive officials. Right to equal protection?
Maricar Torres was the executive assistant of her The situation is totally different because in the
father. Her father was a councilor in Malabon case of elective officials, they have the mandate
City. And so during her tenure as such assistant of of the people electing them. There is no
her father councilor, she was charged allegedly disenfranchisement of the electorate in the case
for falsifying her daily time records before the of appointive co-terminus employees. They
Office of the Ombudsman. She claimed that since cannot claim that they have the mandate of the
she ran for elective office as councilor, and she electorate unlike the elective officials. Otherwise,
won, and so applying this doctrine, she should no if the rule would be different, lahat na lang, wala
longer be administratively charged nor nang makasuhan.
sanctioned. Is this contention proper? NO.
JULY 16
Because she was an appointive officer, NOT an
elective officer so the doctrine cannot benefit the The civil service law as well as the revised
appointive officer seeking elective office. But administrative code it provides that appeals shall
nonetheless, the Ombudsman still dismissed the be made by the party adversely affected by the
administrative case because of the failure to decision. In the earlier ruling of the court in
produce the daily time records by the Paredes vs CSC, the SC ruled that the aggrieved
complainant. party who has the right to appeal the decision is
the government officer. The issue here is whether
Same principle was applied in the case of
or not an appeal may still be taken from a
Salumbides (?) v Ombudsman, the condonation
decision extenuating the respondent more so on
by the electorate of the prior administrative
appeal. Take note that section 39 should be read
infractions. Violations committed by the re-
in relation to section 37. Section 37 of PD 87
elected official cannot be extended to re-
provides that the Commission shall have
appointed con-terminus employees. Whenever
appellate authority over all administrative and
the term of office of an elective official ends,
disciplinary cases. So the remedy of the aggrieved
together with the expiration of his term, the
party is from the decision of the department and
other appointive employees who were appointed
to the civil service commission and from the
on the basis of confidence, are also terminated.
decision the civil service commission to the court
Co-terminus yan. So they have no more business
of appeals. So under section 37 the civil service
in office. Pag ma-tapos na yung termino ng
commission decides on appeal on disciplinary
superior nyang elective official, the other co-
cases involving the imposition of a penalty
terminus elective officers likewise have to end
suspending the officer for more than 30 days or a
their term. And so because of such fact, they
fine in amount not exceeding 30 day salary or
claim that they should no longer be sanctioned.

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

their penalty is demotion or dismissal of such already an existence of litis pendentia or by


employee from the public service. reason of the fact that a decision has already
been rendered in one forum and that the same
Take note. In all other cases, meaning if the
cause is now being raised before another forum
decision imposes the penalty of suspension of 30
in order to obtain a different ruling. The rule, of
days or less or even the imposition of a fine
course, is that the decision of the administrative
equivalent to a salary of 1 month or less the law
agency upon the finality of such decision has a
provides that such a decision is already final and
binding effect of a final judgment within the
executor. But in all these cases where appeal is
ambit of the res judicata principle.
allowed, it should be lodged before the civil
service commission. In the case of civil service So what are the exceptions to this rule, this res
commission vs. dacoycoy where the CSC in the judicata may not apply? Of course when there
administrative case against school administrator are: (1) supervening events making it imperative
dacoycoy imposed, after due proceedings, the to modify a final judgment to harmonize it with
penalty of dismissal from the service or violation prevailing circumstances. For example the
of the ______ rule against dacoycoy. Here, the decision is not __________ with the evidence on
aggrieved party went to the court of appeals, record. (2) the application of this principle would
where it reversed the judgment rendered by the mean sacrificing justice to technicality or (3) the
CSC. The SC ruled that the aggrieved party here is parties themselves waived this principle or do not
certainly the CSC because under the Constitution, timely raise this as a matter of defense and (4) in
it has the mandate to uphold the integrity of the the case of citizenship where this issue is raised
CS system. The aggrieved party here cannot be by the party.
the respondent because precisely on appeal, he
Lets discuss some of the more important
was exonerated by the Court of Appeals. Because
administrative organizations of government.
of this ruling, the SC abandoned its earlier rulings
that the CS Law as well as the Revised The Philippine National Police. The basis for the
Administrative Code does not _____ review on creation of the PNP is article 16 section 6 of the
the decisions exonerating public officials from constitution. “the state shall establish and
administrative charges. maintain one police force, national in scope and
civilian in character to be administered and
The decision of the CSC may still be the subject of
controlled by the national police commission. The
appeal under Rule 43, Petition for review. In the
authority of local executives over the police units
case of OMB vs City Treasurer Samaniego, the
in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.”
Court of Appeals on the motion of the OMB to
intervene in a case. Theres an earlier So what is, therefore, the authority of the local
administrative case decided against a chief executives? Of course in the news lately is…
government officer CT Samaniego. The SC ruled our own mayor in light of what happened here in
that the OMB is the aggrieved party it has clear claveria. Is it within the authority of the local
legal interest to intervene in the petition for chief executive? Yes. Because under the law RA
review on certiorari brought out before the court 8551, the local chief executive exercises
under Rule 43. operational control and supervision of units and
elements of the PNP. So what does this mean the
If you recall, we have discussed the concept of res
authority of the local chief executive is one of
judicata. This may apply in cases where there is
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

operational control and supervision? It is the administrative cases involving the members of
power of the local chief executive to employ and the PNP.
deploy the elements of police, in police functions
Take note of this creation this national appellate
such as crime prevention, traffic control and
board and regional appellate board which are
police investigation.
both appellate machineries belonging to the
In what instances may there be no control by the NAPOLCOM. So it is erroneous to make appeal
local chief executive? 30 days prior and 30 days from the NAP or the RAB to the NAPOLCOM
after the election. So that is the exception to the because the NAP and the RAB are the appellate
rule. The rule here is the authority of this local machineries of the NAPOLCOM itself. So what
chief executive is one of operational control and should be the remedy from a decision rendered
supervision. The power of the mayor to deploy by PLEB? Under the law, the decision of the PLEB
the police resources. the basis of which is the citizen’s complaint, shall
be appealable to the RAB, whereas the decision
So what are the authority of the NAPOLCOM? It is
the chief of the PNP is appealable to the NAB and
one of administrative control and supervision
from such board an appeal may be taken to the
which is different from operational control and
Secretary of the Department of the Interior and
supervision. In the bar, the question asked was
Local Government and not the NAPOLCOM.
about the function given to the armed forces of
Because these courts are part of the integral
the Philippines to act as the protector of the
machineries of the NAPOLCOM. From the
people. Now is this mandate equally applicable to
decision of the Secretary of the DILG, where
the PNP? Take note under this law RA 8551, the
should it be taken? Of course applying again the
________ under which the PNP has been
principle of the doctrine of exhaustion of
attached is only given a supporting role. The main
administrative remedies, the appeal may be
role in matters pertaining to the suppression of
further taken to the CSC, in accordance with the
insurgency belongs to the armed forces of the
provisions of the CS Law and Revised
Philippines. The authority of the PNP is
Administrative Code.
information gathering and police investigation
but nonetheless the exception here is on the Let me mention that prior to the 87 Constitution,
basis of the order of the chief executive, the you know that then integrated national police
president of the Philippines calling on the PNP to were not subject to the civil courts. Other words
play a supporting role to AFP in combat there was fusion of the AFP and the Integrated
operations in matters pertaining to insurgency. National Police or Municipal Constabulary such
that offenses, crimes committed by the officers of
In the law, RA 8551, it provides for the creation of
the then Integrated National Police were not
the People’s Law Enforcement Board. It has the
brought before the Civil Courts but rather on the
power to take cognizance of citizen’s complaints.
basis of the provisions of CA 408 the court
Here, the authority of the PLEB in administrative
marshal law. Court marshal is not part of our
cases against members of the PNP after due
judicial system, it is part of the executive branch
proceedings. The board has the power to dismiss
of government. And so because of the 87
or suspend the members of the PNP. This
Constitution there is delineation now. The
authority is concurrent with the authority of the
members of the PNP are civilian and therefore
PNP chief and the regional directors of the PNP.
whenever they are involved in cases in violation
So it’s a case of concurrent jurisdiction over
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

of the revised penal code or special penal laws, of the CAFGU are subject to this law. The need to
they shall be brought not before the courts return _______ … the authority to try certain
marshal but before the regular courts. So courts offenses involving the members of the AFP. What
marshal are not judicial courts but are is the rule? There is in fact a delegation of the
instrumentalities of the executive branch authority here between the court marshal under
government. CA 408 pertaining to office-connected (service-
connected siguro) offenses committed by the
What about the authority to appoint the local
members of the armed forces as well as offenses
chief of police? In our case, Dela Rosa. Who has
committed under the RPC and special penal laws.
the power to appoint the police chief, city or
So the General Rule here is that these officers,
provincial police chief? The authority of course is
AFP and other individuals subject to military law
vested under the law the local chief executive but
committing crimes penalized under the RPC,
nonetheless such authority is limited in a sense
special criminal laws or even local ordinances are
that he must rely on the list submitted to him by
to be tried by the proper civil court.
the regional police director. The regional police
director has the authority to name the 5 eligibles What is the exception to this rule? The exception
for the position of city police chief. In the case of here if there is determination before arraignment
the appointment to the regional police chief, the by the court that the offense committed by the
regional police director has to submit 3 names AFP member is service-connected. When do we
and these shall be from the pool of eligible say that the offense is service-connected? When
officers also screened by the senior officers of the it is any of the offenses mentioned in the articles
_________ and selection board in camp crame. of war (CA 408). So where the civil court makes a
So the authority here is to select one or among determination before arraignment of the accused
the list. member of the AFP that the offense is service-
connected, then the offender should be filed to
In the case of Dayap vs RTC, the mayor of Cebu
the court marshal.
filed a case in court to compel the inclusion of
Inspector Andres Sarmiento for him to appoint as Exception to the exception. Again before
police chief. The SC ruled that the authority of arraignment, the president, in the interest of
the mayor is limited. He has to select from among justice, directs that such a crime be tried by the
the names submitted to him by the regional proper civil court.
police director. So the regional police director
What are these service-connected offenses?
cannot be compelled to include a name because
These are defined and enumerated in the Articles
that involves the exercise of discretion on the
of War CA 408. Violations of this Articles are
part of the police director.
triable by the court marshal. So there is here a
What is the law applicable to the Armed Forces of distinction, delineation of jurisdiction between
the Philippines? You have RA 7055. An act the military court and the civil court over cases
strengthening civilian supremacy over military by involving military officers or personnel. The
returning to civil courts the jurisdiction over reason for this delineation is the need to achieve
certain offenses involving not only AFP members, the highest form of discipline in order to insure
but also CAFGU. What is the CAFGU? Citizen the highest degree of military efficiency.
Armed Force Geographical Unit. Yes. Anybody is a
CAFGU here? So the AFP as well as the members
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

So in the case of Gonzales vs Abaya, where the instrumentalities or agencies should be done by
petitioners were charged with coup de etat. Now the SG otherwise there is basis for the summary
there was in fact an order issued by the RTC, that dismissal of such petition filed without the
handled the cases filed against petitioners, to the participation of intervention of the SG. So
effect that the charges filed against them in remember the petition is filed in the name of the
court, the court marshal are not service Republic or any of its intrumentalities, it should
connected and therefore they are absorbed(?) in be initiated, should be filed with the office of the
the crime of coup de etat and therefore these SG.
offenses should be tried by the RTC. The SC ruled
What are the exceptions to this rule? Of course
that such an order is null and void. Here the
we mentioned earlier that the OSG is the lawyer
petitioners were charged in connection with the
of government offices and it is possible that there
act committed, coup de etat, under the RPC and
may be conflict involving 2 or more government
this in fact is a violation of article 96 of the
offices. One government office takes a position
Articles of War. The violation of their solemn oath
contrary to the position taken by the other. So
to defend the constitution and the duly
the SG has to take a side. Such position taken in
constituted authorities. That’s putting the
favor of one government office may be adverse
suspect to the military institution which clearly is
to another. So that is one exception. (1) when the
service connected.
government office is adversely affected by the
Is it possible for the military officer to be tried adverse position taken by the OSG. If you recall
before both the court marshal and the civil court? the case of Orbos vs CSC, in the matter of the
Yes, if it is being charged before the civil court for organization effected by petitioner Orbos in his
violation of any of the crimes under the revised capacity as Secretary of the Department of
penal code such as coup de etat and such an Transportation and Communication during the
offense is also service-connected, a violation of time of Corazon Aquino. Here there was an order
the articles of war. Take note that the court issued by the CSC for the appointment of these
marshal has to its objective the dismissal of the employees who invested the appointments
military officer from the service. issued by Orbos. The OSG took the side of the
DOTC and the position is certainly adverse to the
The OSG, the creation of this agency, this office of
CSC. So if the government office still believes in
government is under PD 478 as well as Book 4 of
the merits of its case that its position is not the
the Revised Administrative Code EO 292.
same position taken by the OSG it has to
The mandate given under the law to the SG is represent itself through its in-house lawyers.
that he acts as the lawyer of the government
Second exception on the basis of the provision of
authorities or agencies including government
law, (2) where the authority is given under the
owned and controlled corporations with or
law for the SG to deputize legal counsels to
without a charter and officials. So here he
government offices to represent him in the cases
represents the public officer in all proceedings
involving their respective offices. Under Section
whether civil, criminal or administrative. Such
35 of Book 4 of the Revised Administrative Code.
proceedings ought to arise from the discharge of
official functions by the public officer. So the rule I mentioned a while ago that the SG may
here is any action taken or initiated in the name represent a public officer in these proceedings,
the republic of the Philippines or any of its some proceedings arise from the officers acts in
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

his official capacity. What is the exception? (1) if intervention by OSG. We have here the case of
the public officer is being charged criminally. Republic vs Desierto as an exception to this rule.
Certainly the SG cannot represent the public What happened here was that the PCGG had filed
officer because the state can never be author of a cases against Coguangco et al before the office of
wrongful act. (2) the SG cannot represent the the OMB and subsequently the OMB dismissed
public officer in civil cases for damages arising the cases filed by the PCGG. PCGG was not
from the commission of felonies. Because any satisfied, they felt that there was arbitrariness
judgment rendered against the public officer, say committed by the OMB dismissing the case filed
monetary board, is adjudged against the against Coguangco. PCGG filed a petition under
respondent public officer, it is the sole liability of Rule 65 for certiorari. In such petition on behalf
the public officer and not the government or any of the Republic should have been lodged by the
of its agencies. So here in this cases, the SG office of the OSG, but nonetheless here the SC
cannot represent the public officer. adopted liberality because according the SC
whatever defect in the filing of this petition
In Dir. Pascual vs Judge Beltran, a suit was filed, a
without the intervention of the SG was cured
civil suit for damages was filed by employee
when in the Consolidated Reply the OSG signed
Raymundo against her boss, the Regional Director
as co-counsel for the Republic of the Philippines.
of the Telecommunication office, TELECOM. She
So there was ratification of whatever defect that
made mention in the suit the fact that Pascual is
occurred in the filing of the petition.
the TELECOM director, is in itself sufficient basis
to transform the case as one filed against the Under the Constitution, the OMB has the
public officer in his official capacity. Clearly there authority to act promptly on complaint filed in
is no basis here for the OSG to represent Dir. any manner against any public officer when such
Pascual in this suit for damages filed by act or omission appears to be illegal, improper or
Raymundo before the Regional Trial Court. So it unjust. So broad. So the OMB is given the
does not transform the action into one filed authority to act as protector of the people so it
against a public officer in his official capacity. must take cognizance of any complaint filed from
any Citizen against any action or inaction of the
In Urbano vs Chavez, in the matter of the
public officer.
institution of a graft charge against SG Chavez. At
the time of Corazon Aquino, Chavez was In Tatad vs Sandiganbayan, in the matter of
represented by OSG. The SC ruled that in no case alleged undue delay in the disposition _____ then
may the OSG represent the public officer charged followed by the predecessor of the OMB when
with the commission of graft before any tribunal the case was filed for failure on the part of Tatad
or court. In the same manner in the case of CO vs to comply with the requirements under the law
Chavez where a civil suit for damages was filed _____ (ambot). Here the SC ruled that gross
because of alleged defamation committed by violation of Tatad’s right to due process and the
Chavez in an interview with the Business World right to speedy disposition of cases. The cases
and made insinuations against the petitioner CO. were before the Sandiganbayan were ordered
The SC ruled that the OSG cannot represent dismissed by the SC.
Chavez in this case against him.
Same case in Angchangco vs OMB, you here the
I mentioned a while ago that many petitions filed deputy sheriff, despite several follow-ups, took 6
in behalf of the Rp of the Phils. there should be years for the OMB to decide. Then the case was
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

finally decided before the Sandiganbayan. The SC competence of the regular courts, whether MTC
ordered the dismissal because there was or RTC, whether office related or non office
violation by OMB of the right to speedy related. But there are rules pertaining to the
disposition of cases. handling of cases by the DOJ and the OMB.

If you recall one important principle that there is Is there a conflict here between the powers,
no prescription of administrative offenses and so authorities vested under the law to the DOJ and
here the case of OMB vs Jurado, where there was the OMB? No. Because they both have
the filing of administrative charges against an concurrent jurisdiction. This power of the OMB is
employee of customs for an act committed in shared with the DOJ. Recall the case of Sanchez
1992 but it was only year after that a formal vs Demetrio. The mayor was the charged with
complaint was initiated by the fact finding ______ in the bidding. The municipal mayor
bureau. Between 1992 and 1997, there was a claim that I am the municipal mayor and the OMB
conduct of fact finding investigation. It was only should be investigating me, not DOJ. The SC ruled
in 1997 that he was formally charged and that this case is of concurrent jurisdiction. More
ordered to submit his answer. It was only in 1999 so, you don’t have to be a public officer to
that a decision adversely was rendered imposing commit these crimes.
the penalty of 6 month suspension. Was there
In the case of Honasan vs DOJ Panel, again
violation of due process? The SC ruled, No. No
Honasan at the time was charge with coup de
violation of due process because in the interim
etat under the RPC and was investigated by
from the time of the occurrence in 1992 up to the
special panel created by the DOJ Secretary. He
time of the supposed filing of the admin case
claimed that he is a high ranking officer with
against him in 1997, he was not yet subjected
salary grade 31 and therefore it should be the
into formal investigation. What happened was
OMB not the DOJ. _______ . Under the law, it
that the OMB was still conducting a fact finding
should be the OMB that takes primary authority
investigation.
over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The
The process of fact finding investigation, the DOJ could not be prevented from conducting the
public officer is not yet considered a respondent. preliminary investigation even if the case falls
He is merely a subject of investigation. under the exclusive authority of the
Sandiganbayan. The authority of the OMB is
The authority over all kinds of malfeasance,
primary. Meaning, the OMB in the exercise of its
misfeasance and nonfeasance committed by any
primary jurisdiction, may take over the
public officer during his tenure of office is clear in
investigation at any stage.
the case of Uy vs OMB. Because in the early ruling
of the SC this case was that the authority of the In the case of Orcullo vs Gervacio, Davao City
OMB was only to investigate administrative cases case. Councilor Nenita Orcullo was charged by a
before sandiganbayan. The authority as provided certain _______ for unpaid wages. According to
under the Constitution is disciplinary is quite Morales, the complainant, this constitutes a
absolute. And so it is empowered to conduct violation of anti-graft and corrupt practices act
investigation and prosecute all kinds of criminal because of the failure to pay the salaries. The SC
cases involving public officers and employees not ruled, a money claim against a public officer is
only those within the authority of the within the authority of the court and not the
sandiganbayan but also those within the OMB. If the money claim is against the
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa
Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

government, therefore it should be submitted for Under the MOA, the OMB will have
the city council. Why is there such a need to such “primary jurisdiction in the conduct of
submission to the city council? In order for the preliminary investigation and inquest
city council to make appropriation for such a proceedings over complaints for crimes
claim. cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.”

You have here the memorandum of agreement Under Sec. 4 of RA 8249, among the cases
between the OMB and the DOJ dated March 29, over which the Sandiganbayan has exclusive
2012 modifying or amending the earlier circular jurisdiction are the following: “I) Violations of RA
regarding these offices. Take note again, 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); II)RA
concurrent jurisdiction but nonetheless what is 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth);
important here is the control of the OMB is only III)Crimes by public officers or employees
over criminal cases committed by high ranking embraced in Ch. II, Sec. 2 Title VII, Bk. II of the
officers even those in conspiracy with high Revised Penal code (Crimes committed by Public
ranking officers and these cases are cognizable by Officers) namely : Direct Bribery, Indirect Bribery,
the Sandiganbayan. Office related offenses Qualified Bribery, Corruption of Public Officials;
committed by these officials. So the OMB IV) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
exercises primary jurisdiction. complexed with other crimes committed in
relation to their office by the public officials and
What about other cases? The law recognizes the
employees mentioned above” and cases involving
concurrent jurisdiction over these cases between
government officials and employees with Salary
these two offices. Let’s say a criminal case is filed
Grade 27 or higher for a)Violation of RA 6713
before the DOJ prosecutor against a public
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards)
officer, because it is a case of concurrent
b)Violation of RA 7080 (The Plunder Law)
jurisdiction, the DOJ can already proceed and
c)Violation of RA 7659 (The Heinous Crime Law)
decide the case without even the approval of the
d) RA 9160 (Violation of the Anti-Money
OMB. In the same manner that if the case of filed
Laundering Law when committed by a public
before the OMB, it has the option of whether in
officer) e) PD 46 (Prohibition Against Gift-Giving)
referring or allowing the DOJ to conduct the
and f)PD 749(law granting immunity to bribe-
preliminary investigation. Or if the OMB itself
givers who voluntarily gives information).
may conduct the investigation and proceed to
determine whether the case ought to be filed to It said that when complaints involving the
the court or not. Even in those cases where it is above-mentioned cases were filed before the
the OMB that conducted the preliminary DOJ, the same shall immediately be endorsed to
investigation, it is still referred to the DOJ for the OMB.
prosecution of the case. And whatever, that once
The two officials also agreed that the OMB
there is referral of this case to be filed before the
and the DOJ shall have concurrent jurisdiction
court through the DOJ prosecutor, therefore that
over cases involving public officials falling outside
case so filed shall now be under the full control of
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
the DOJ, even without the participation of the
However, “the office where such complaint is
office of the OMB. Know that the OMB will only
filed for preliminary investigation shall acquire
insist of taking cognizance of cases cognizable by
jurisdiction over the complaint to the exclusion of
the Sandiganbayan. So Primary Jurisdiction yan.

Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa


Administrative Law Transcribed Lectures 2013

the other”. (sa net ni gikan. Dili klaro ang gina answer to the criminal charge. Take note a
ingon ni sir) criminal case filed against him before the OMB.
Here the SC ruled that when a criminal case
We mentioned a while ago the mandate applies
against the judge arises from the discharge of his
to all public officers and employees. What are the
official duties as such judge, the OMB ought to
excretions? Who are not subject to the authority,
refer to the authority, must respect the authority
take note the administrative authority of the
of the SC because the SC was made prior to the
OMB? Under Article 11 Sec. 2 of the Constitution
determination whether the judge had acted
pertaining to (1) impeachable officials. Who are
within the scope of his administrative duties.
the impeachable officials? (a) The president, (b)
vice president, (c) members of the SC, (d) TO BE CONTINUED… kulang pa ni gamay mga 40
members of the constitutional commissions, (e) or 35 mins.
and the Ombudsman. So these are the
impeachable officials.

In Re: Raul Gonzales, there was such a complaint


filed before the office of the _______ (naputol.
Dunno why. sori) Impeachable Officials have to
be impeached before a case may be filed against
them.

(2) Members of congress. Why? Because the


constitution itself provides under Article 6
Section 16 the house of congress shall have the
power to discipline its members by a vote, the
concurrence of 2/3s of all members to suspend
for good such a member. Or where the
respondent is a (3) member of the Judiciary, an
employee of the judiciary from the highest to the
lowest rank. So many cases here. Maceda vs
Vasquez, Caoibes vs Alumbres, these parties here
were both judges, nagsuntukan silang dalawa
over a piece of wood. So the aggrieved party who
got a black eye filed this administrative case
against the other party to the OMB. The
Ombudsman was directed by the SC, “you have
no authority to take cognizance of this case”.

In Maceda vs Vasquez, judge maceda signed a


certificate of service declaring that he had no
pending cases. But in he still had pending cases.
And so a criminal case for falsification was filed
against him before the OMB. He went to the SC
when he was ordered by this OMB to submit his
Gil Garcia II Daryl Ritchie Valdez 4 Manresa