Chapter I

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Nature
Administrative Law‐ branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government, acting in a
quasi‐legislative or quasi‐judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purp oses of promoting
the well‐being of the community, as under laws regulating the following:
i. public interest v. laws for the protection of public health
ii. professions and safety
iii. trades and callings vi. promotion of public convenience
iv. rates and prices (Pound)

‐ part of public law which:

i. fixes the organization of the government;
ii. determines the competence of the authorities; and
iii. indicates the individual remedies for violation of rights (Goodnow)
‐ branch of the law which deals with the field of legal control exercised by aw‐administering
agencies other than courts, and the field of control exercised by courts over such agencies
(Franfurter)

Object and Scope of Administrative Law

regulation of private right for public welfare

Origin and Development

1. Origin: legislation; Rationale: expediency
2. Doctrine of separation of powers: All rules and conduct are supposed to be laid down by the legislature, subject
to the direct enforcement of the executive department, and the application or interpretation by the judiciary;
Remedy: delegation of powers

Sources
1. Constitutional or statutory enactments creating administrative bodies
a. Article IX, Constitution
b. Social Security Act‐ established the Social Security Commission
c. Administrative Code of 1987
2. Decisions of courts interpreting the characters of administrative bodies and defining their powers, rights,
inhibitions, among others, and the effects of their determinations and regulations
a. Artuc v. Commission on Elections
b. Maceda v. ERB
3. Rules and regulations issued by the administrative bodies in pursuance of the purposes for which they were
created
a. Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
b. Circulars of the Central Monetary Authority on interest rates
c. Regulations of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
d. Rules promulgated by the SEC; Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer
4. Determinations and orders of the administrative bodies in the settlement of controversies arising in their
respective fields
a. Refers to the adjudications of administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasi‐judicial power

Page | 1
Administration
Two Senses
1. Institution‐ U.S v. Dorr: it refers to the aggregate of individuals in whose hands the reins of government
are for the time being; it refers to the persons who actually run the government during their prescribed
terms of office
Government Administration
‐ agency or instrumentality through which the will of the ‐ transitional in nature; it is a more or less permanent
State is formulated expressed and realized fixture in every State
2. Function‐ it means the actual running of the government by the executive authorities through the
enforcement of laws and the implementation of policies

As an Activity
1. Internal‐
a. covers those rules defining the relations of public functionaries inter se
b. embraces the whole range of the law of public officers
c. consists rules laid down in particular agency or office
2. External‐
a. defines the relations of the public office with the public in general
b. promulgated for observance by those who have dealings or transactions with said office
c. promulgated by the administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi‐legislative authority for the
regulation of specific matters placed under its jurisdiction
Law Administration
1) impersonal command provided with sanctions to be preventive rather than punitive and is accepted to be more
applied in case of violation personal than law
2) impersonal; it is concerned only with obedience to its has a more sympathetic regard for the individual and seeks
established mandate or directive to spare him from punishments of the law by persuading
him to observe its commands
may clarify certain ambiguous provisions in statutes
through the issuance of interpretative regulations meant
to make it easier for the people to understand and so obey
the law

Page | 2
 Chapter II
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Definition
Administrative Agency‐ a body endowed with quasi‐legislative and quasi‐judicial powers for the purpose of enabling
it to carry out laws entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.
o Humphrey v. US: appointed by law and informed by experience
‐ they will persist so long as the general public continues to rely on the services they offer and
are satisfied with their performance of their primordial task

Agency‐ any 1) department, 2) bureau, 3) office, 4) commission, 5) authority or officer of the National Government
(d‐b‐ca) authorized by law or executive order to 1) make rules, 2) issue licenses, 3) grant rights or privileges and 4)
adjust cases (miga); research institutions with respect to licensing functions; government corporations with respect
to functions regulating private right, privilege, occupation or business; and officials in the exercise of disciplinary
power as provided by law.
Chartered institution‐ refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter, and vested by law with
functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives.

Department‐ refers to an executive department created by law.

Bureau‐ refers to any principal subdivision of any department.

Office‐ refers, within the framework of government organization, to any major functional unit of a department or
bureau, including regional offices.
‐ refers to any position held or occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or
regulation.

Instrumentality‐ Malaga v. Penachos, Jr.,: a government instrumentality refers to any agency of the National
Government not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law,
endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
usually through a charter.
‐ includes regulatory agencies. Chartered institutions and government‐owned or controlled
corporations
o Beja, Sr. v. CA:
3 administrative relationships (Book IV, Chapter 7 of the Administrative Code)
1. supervision
2. control
3. attachment of an agency to a department
‐ refers to the lateral relationship between the department or its equivalent and
attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program coordination.
Purpose:
1. policy
2. program coordination

coordination‐ may be accomplished by the following:

1. having the department represented in the governing board of the attached
agency or corporation
how? Either as chairman or as a member, with or without voting rights,
if this is permitted by the charter
2. having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of periodic
reporting‐ shall reflect the progress of programs and projects
Page | 3
 3. having the department or its equivalent provide general policies through its
representative in the board‐ shall serve as the framework for the internal
policies of the attached corporation or agency
Authority‐ designates both incorporated and non‐incorporated agencies and instrumentalities of the
government.
Government‐owned or controlled corporation‐ Leyson v. Office of the Ombudsman: refer to any
agency organized as a stock or non‐stock corporation vested with functions relating to public needs whether
governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the government directly or indirectly or though its
instrumentalities, either wholly or applicable, as in the case of stock of corporations, to the extent of at least
51% of its capital stock
‐ may be further categorized by the 1) department of budget, 2) the civil service commission and
3) the commission on audit for the purpose of the exercise and discharge of their respective
powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations.
Nature
• Administrative bodies endowed with quasi‐judicial prerogatives are essentially executive agencies.
• Court of Tax Appeals‐ special court exercising particular expertise on the subject of tax
o Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation: RA 9282, Sec. 7(a)(3)‐ the Court of Tax Appeals
exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions, orders or resolutions if the RTC
in local tax cases originally dissolved by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction.

Creation and Abolition

‐ may be created by the Constitution or by statute
Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit‐ independent
constitutional bodies established under Article 9
Metropolitan Manila Authority‐ administrative body created by law pursuant to Section 11,
Article 10, in relation to Sec. 8 of the Transitory Provisions

Classification of Administrative Bodies

1. those set up to offer some gratuity, grant or special privileges
eg. Philippine Veterans Administration
2. to carry on certain business of government
eg. Bureau of Customs
3. to perform some business service for public
eg. Bureau of Posts
4. to regulate business affected with public interest
eg. LTFRB
5. to regulate private business and individuals under the police power
eg. SEC
6. to adjust individual controversies because of some strong social policy involved
eg. NLRC
7. to make the government a private party
eg. GSIS

‐ can be altered or abolished only by constitutional amendment.

‐ if created by law, it may be reorganized pursuant to said law providing for its establishment or another law
authorizing said reorganization‐ if it does not involve abolition or transfer of offices and is carried out in good
faith by the person, usually the President, authorized to effect the same, the validity of the same would have to
be upheld (Bagaoisan v. National Tobacco Administration)

Page | 4
 Exercise of powers:
1. discretionary
Note: the findings of the body are generally deferred by the other departments EXCEPT where
they arrived at with such obvious arbitrariness as to constitute a violation of due process
2. ministerial‐ no judgment or discretion is required or is allowed in their exercise
eg. a) duty of the RD to annotate a lie on a Torrens certificate
b) of the Commission on Elections to give due course to a certificate of candidacy duly
accomplished and seasonably filed (Abcede v. Imperial)
c) of the COA to allow claims for salaries under certain conditions (Riel v. Wright)
o RCPI v. NTC: the jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies are limited to those expressly
granted or necessary implied from those granted in the legislation creating such bodies.
‐qualified political agency‐ the power of the President to reorganize the National Government may validly be
delegated to his cabinet members exercising control over a particular executive department (DENR v. DENR
Region 12 Employees)

Advantages
1) expertise derived from specialized training and experience
2) adaptability to change and ease in reacting to a new and even emergency situations
3) more resilient
4) they can initiate action and not simply wait for their jurisdiction to be invoked
5) they may proceed to the solution of the problems confided to their attention with more expeditiousness
6) they are created by the legislature to address new social problems and vest in said agencies broad guidelines for
the resolution of said problems

Relation to Regular Departments

1. legislature
i. acts as an agent of the law‐making body and so is bound to obey and implement the legislative will
ii. may be abolished and its incidents may be altered by the legislature
2. executive
i. comes under the constitutional control of the President‐ cannot be withdrawn or limited even by the
legislature
ii. the President may issue his own orders to the administrative agency and review and, if necessary reverse
its decision
3. judicial department/courts
i. they cannot be deprived of their inherent power to decide all questions of law, particularly if they have
been initially resolved by the administrative bodies only (Medalla v. Sayo)
ii. can review, or even reverse, the administrative acts even the Chief of Executive
o Montes v. Civil Service Board of Appeals: the legality of the acts of the President is under the judicial review
because the law is above the President himself, and the courts seek only to interpret, apply or implement it.
iii. may also review the factual findings of administrative offices by authority of law or under due process of
clause if such determinations have been made arbitrarily
Note: they may review administrative adjudications only as a last resort and, usually, only when
questions of law are involved

Page | 5
 Chapter III
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

I. quasi‐legislative authority or rule‐making power

‐ the power of subordinate legislation and permits the body to promulgate rules intended to
carry out of the provisions of particular law
‐ jurisdiction of the administrative body in applying for the future
‐ public
‐ authority delegated by the law‐making body to the administrative body to adopt rules and
regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a law and implement a legislative policy
• Administrative Rule ‐ any agency statement of general applicability that implements or interprets a law,
fixes and describes the procedures in, or practice requirements of, an agency, including its regulations.

‐ includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration or

management of an agency not affecting the rights or procedure available to, the public.
• Rule‐making‐ an agency process for the formulation, amendment, or repeal of a rule
• Administrative regulations‐ intended only to implement the law and to carry out legislative policy
o Smart Comm., Inc. v. NTC
Quasi‐Legislative or Rule‐ Making Power Quasi‐judicial or Administrative Adjudicatory Power
1. the power to make rules and regulations which results the power to hear and determine question of fact to w/ch
in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in
granting statute and the doctrine of non‐delegability and accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself
separability of powers in enforcing and administering the same law
2. rules and regulations‐ when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is
a. products of a delegated legislative power essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where
b. “little laws” the power to act in such manner is incidental to or
c. may be reviewed and nullified by the courts if found to reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive
have been issued not in compliance with the requisites for or administrative duty entrusted to it
their validity

Requisites:
i. germane to the objects and purposes of the law
ii. in conformity with the standards prescribed by law.

Note: the details and manner of carrying statute out are

oftentimes left to the administrative agency entrusted
with their enforcement (Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation)
3. in case of conflict between a statute and administrative
order, STATUTE prevails
administrative officers or bodies‐ required to investigate
facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings,
weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis
for their official action and exercise of discretion in a
judicial nature

o Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc. v. International Comm. Corp.: quasi‐legislative power‐ issuance of
provisional permits or authority on the basis of its determination on the applicant’s compliance with the
requirements it has promulgated; quasi‐judicial power‐ if an issue arises from said determination, a resolution
of said contest would partake such nature
Page | 6
 o Sta. Rosa Realty Dev’t Corp. v. Amante: TWO‐FOLD JURISDICTION OF DAR‐ 1) executive‐ pertains to the
enforcement and administration of the laws, carrying them into practical operation and enforcing their due
observance, 2) judicial‐ involves the determination of rights and obligations of the parties
o Laguna Lake Dev’t Authority v. CA: the legislature cannot by its mere declaration make a private business or
something a public utility which is not in fact as such

Legislative Power Quasi‐legislative Power

1. the discretion to determine what the law shall be the discretion to determine how the law shall be enforced
2. it cannot be delegated no valid objection can be made as to delegation
3. government by legislation Government by bureaucracy
o Tio v. VRB: delegation can be made if it is merely a conferment of authority or discretion as to its execution,
enforcement and implementation
o PAL Inc., v. Civil Aeronautics Board: a franchise may be derived indirectly from the State through a duly
designated agency even to agencies other than those legislative nature
Note: the privileges conferred by grant of local authorities as agents for the State constitute as much as
legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by an act of the Legislature

o Associated Comm., & Wireless Services‐United Broadcasting Networks v. NTC:

Certificate of Public Convenience Franchise
form of regulation through the administrative agencies grant of privilege from the sovereign power

‐ Source: legislature
Notes: 1) the delegation should be canalized within the banks that keep it from
overflowing (Schecter Poultry v. US)
2) a surrender of a legislative power to the delegate is prevented
3) the legislature is not req’d to provide a detailed standards for administrative
action
‐ Tests of Delegation
1. completeness test
The law must:
a. be complete in all its terms and conditions
o U.S v. Ang Tang Ho: the law does not specifically define what such temporary and emergency measures shall
remain in force and effect, or when they shall take effect.
b. offer a sufficient standard to 1) specify the limits of the delegate’s
authority, 2) announce the legislative policy, and 3) specify the
conditions under which it is to be implemented
o Calalang v. Williams: Accepted sufficient standards‐ 1) public interest, 2) simplicity, 3) economy and efficiency
and 4) public welfare
o Ynot v. IAC: “may see fit”‐ consists of a roving commission, thus invalid delegation of legislative power

2. sufficient standard test‐ standard must be fixed, the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate or determinable‐‐‐to which the delegate must conform in the performance
of his functions
Sufficient standard‐
a. one which defines legislative policy;
b. mark its limits
c. maps out its boundaries
d. specifies the public agency to apply it

Page | 7
 e. indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to
be effected

II. quasi‐judicial power or adjudicatory function

‐ the power of adjudication, enables the administrative body to resolve, in a manner
essentially judicial, factual and sometimes even legal questions incidental to its primary
power of enforcement of the law
‐ jurisdiction of the administrative body in applying a rule for the past
‐ private in nature
‐ the power of the administrative authorities to make determination of facts in the
performance of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so
found
‐ incidental to their main function, w/ch is the enforcement of law
o Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita
Judicial Power Quasi‐judicial Power
1) question of law first, then question of fact question of fact, then question of law
2) the executive acts last, after the judgment is made and the executive acts first, with the courts acting later,
all the legal questions are settled whenever warranted, to review its legal findings

Note: administrative officers can interpret and apply the

law to the facts ascertained by them but such
determination is subject to review by courts

eg. NLRC‐ its decisions are reviewable on certiorari by the

CA, and eventually by the SC
‐ Source: 1) incidental to the power of regulation vested in the administrative body, 2)
expressly conferred by the legislature through specific provisions in the charter of agency
‐ Rationale: to enable the administrative officers to perform their executive duties
‐ quasi‐judicial‐ merely a convenient way of approving the exercise of judicial power by an
administrative officer
‐ Determinative powers:
1. enabling powers‐ those that permit the doing of an act which the law undertakes to
regulate and which would be unlawful without the government approval
eg. a) issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business or operation
b) power of the SEC to approve the articles of incorporation and by‐laws
of a corporation
c) MTRCB to allow the public exhibition of a movie
d) fire or municipal authorities to permit the occupancy of a newly‐
constructed building
2. directing powers‐ order the doing or performance of particular acts to ensure
compliance with the law and are often exercised for corrective purposes
eg. a) DENR‐ may require factories to use certain chemicals to protect the
environment
b) DOT‐ may call on common carriers to install specific safety devices to
prevent accidents or special seats for the handicapped or disabled
c) NLRC‐ may compel an employer to reinstate an illegally dismissed
employee and pay him damages
Kinds:
(1) dispensing‐ allows the administrative order to relax the general
operation of a law or exempt from the performance of a general duty
Page | 8
 eg. a) a student excused from P.E for health reasons
b) when residential buildings are permitted by the
zoning board to remain in an area designated as
commercial or industrial
c) when persons of draft age are relieved of a combat
duty because of their civil status or occupation

o Commission on Elections v. Espanol: the Commission has the authority to grant immunity from suit to those
who have committed election offenses but volunteered to give information and testify to any violation of
election laws.
(2) summary‐ those involving the use by administrative authorities of force
upon persons or things without the necessity of previous judicial warrant
eg. a) padlocking by the mayor’s office of filthy restaurants
or movie houses exhibiting obscene movies
b) shooting down a mad dog on the loose
c) taking over by the BSP of mismanaged banks
d) confiscation by the customs authorities of articles
which are prohibited per se
(3) examining‐ enables administrative body to inspect the records and
premises, and investigate the activities, of persons or entities coming
under its jurisdiction (ISIC‐BIW‐PFP)
i. issuance of subpoenas
ii. swearing in of witnesses
iii. interrogation of witnesses
iv. calling for production of books, papers and records
v. requiring that books, papers and records be made available for
inspection
vi. inspection of premises
vii. requiring written answers to questionnaires
viii. requiring periodic or special reports
ix. requiring the filing of statements
x. requiring physical and medical examinations in certain cases
‐ allows many administrative agencies to actually 1) conduct
hearings, 2) issue writs of preliminary injunction and 3) punish for contempt

Page | 9
 Chapter 4
QUASI‐LEGISLATIVE POWER

Effect of the rule‐making power of the administrative body:

‐ the active power of the State from its source to the point of application
Meaning: to apply the law and so fulfill the mandate of the legislation

Kinds of Administrative Regulations

Legislative
1) designed to provide guidelines to the law which the
administrative agency is in charge of enforcing
2) accorded by the courts or by express provision of
statute the force and effect of law immediately going into
effect
3) how:
i. supplementing the statute
ii. filling in the details
iii. making the law
iv. usually acting in pursuant to a specific delegation of
legislative power
4) issued by the administrative body pursuant to a valid
delegation of administrative body pursuant to a valid
delegation of legislative power
5) intended to have the binding force and effect of a law
enacted by the legislature itself
Interpretative
matter of subordinate legislation, designed to implement
a primary legislation by providing the details thereof
those which purports to do no more than interpret the
statute being administered, to say what it means
constitute administrator’s construction of a statute
Note: it is the statute and not the regulation which the
individual must conform
issued by the administrative body as an incident of its
power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify
its provisions for proper observance by the people
merely persuasive and is received by the courts with much
respect but finality

Classifications of Legislative Regulation

Supplementary Contingent
1) intended to fill in the details of the law and “to make it is issued upon the happening of a certain contingency
explicit what is only general” which the administrative body is given the discretion:
to determine or “to ascertain, under and
pursuant to law, some circumstances on
which the law, by its own terms, makes its
own action depend; or
to find facts or conditions properly
prescribed under which a law as passed will
or will not operate
Effect: applying/suspending a law

2) purpose‐ to enlarge upon a statute, subject only to the

standards fixed therein, to ensure its effective
enforcement in accordance with the legislative will

Page | 10
Requisites of Valid Administrative Regulation (P‐SAR):
(1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature.

Authority to promulgate the regulation‐ usually conferred by the following:

a) the charter itself of the administrative body; or
b) the law it is supposed to enforce
GENERAL RULE: a regulation is binding on the courts
EXCEPTION: if it is in contravention with the standards that the law prescribes

o Araneta v. Gatmaitan: By virtue of his constitutional power of control, the President can exercise the rule‐
making power conferred by the above provisions upon his subordinates in the executive department
Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, not supplant or modify the law.

(2) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature.

o Boie‐Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. dela Serna: the regulation promulgated must not be ultra vires or beyond
the limits of the authority conferred; an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress
o CIR v. Vda. de Prieto: a regulation that operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a mere
nullity.
o Pilipinas Kao, Inc. v. CA: no engraftment of additional requirements not contemplated by the legislature

o Republic v. CA: a statute is superior to an administrative directive and the statute cannot be repealed nor
amended by the latter.
o P v. Maceren: nowhere in the law was electro‐fishing was prohibited; hence, the Sec. of Agriculture and
the Commissioner of Fisheries were powerless to penalize it.
All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law
and that it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes.

o Metropolitan Traffic Command West Traffic District v. Gonong

LOI 43 PD 1605
1) deals with the motor vehicles that have stalled on a deals with the motor vehicles that have been deliberately
public road parked in a no‐parking area
2) accidental intentional
3) purpose‐ to discourage the use of public streets by to penalize the driver for his defiance of the traffic laws
motor vehicles that are likely to break down
Note: it does not include the removal of license plates, or
even the confiscation of the license of the offending driver
as a penalty for illegal parking
o Luzon Polymers Corp. v. Clave: an administrative agency cannot amend the law it seeks to implement
o Phil. Bank of Comm., v. CIR: the non‐retroactivity of rulings by the CIR is N/A where the nullity of a Revenue
Memorandum Circular was declared b the busy courts and not by the CIR.
o Phil. Assoc. of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres: DOLE circulars for taking over of the business of deploying
domestic helpers to HK is valid.
o CIR v. CA: administrative issuances must not override but must remain consistent and in harmony with the
law they seek to apply and implement.

o Phil. Interisland Shipping Assoc. of the Phils. v. CA: as the President could delegate the ratemaking power
to the PPA, so he could exercise it in specific instance without thereby withdrawing the power vested by the
P.O No. 857, Sec. 20(a) in the PPA to impose, fix, prescribe, increase or decrease such rates, charges or
fees…for the services rendered by the Authority or by any private organization within a Port District.
Page | 11
 determinative factors WON an act is a law or an administrative issuance‐ 1)nature, 2)source
The Congress may intervene anytime despite the existence of administrative agencies entrusted
with wage‐fixing powers, by virtue of the former’s plenary power of legislation
o Legaspi v. Minister of Finance: letters of instruction‐ 1) simply directives of the President, issued in the
exercise of his administrative power of control, to heads of departments and/or officers under the executive
branch of the government for observance by the officials and/or employees thereof, 2) cannot be a valid
source of obligation
o Bito‐onan v. Fernandez: the LIGA, although strictly not a LGU, is subject to the President’s power of general
supervision but not power of control; Rationale‐ the power of the DILG Secretary to interfere with local
affairs should be resolved in favor of the greater autonomy of the LGU.
Administrative rules and regulations are subject to judicial review.
o Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform: livestock, swine and poultry‐raising are industrial activities and do
not fall within the definition of agriculture or agricultural activity.

(3) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

GENERAL RULE: The promulgation of administrative regulations of general application does not require previous
notice and hearing; eg, those promulgated to govern future conduct (Abella, Jr. v. CSC)
EXCEPTIONS:
i. where the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain facts
as determined at an appropriate investigation;
ii. administrative adjudication‐ where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy bet. specific
parties
iii. regulations fixing rates or toll charges; Except‐ provisional rates (Republic v. Medina)

o Maceda v. ERB: while under EO No. 172, a hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from
ordering, ex parte, a provisional increase
o Freedom from Debt Coalition v. ERC: ERC’s power to fix prices and make rates must be conferred by the
statutory or constitutional language that is free from doubt, and admits of no reasonable construction.
o RCPI v. NTC: courts do not interfere with administrative action prior to its completion or finality.
o Phil. Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. Sec. of Education Culture and Sports:
Power granted to the education department to regulate the educational system of the country
includes the power to prescribe school fees
legislative function‐ the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement
of due process; quasi‐judicial function‐ prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such
rates, eg. where the rules and rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party
o Tanada v.Tuvera:
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all; Rationale‐ its purpose is to inform the public
of the contents of the law.
i. those general in application; and
ii. penal in nature
EXCEPTION: Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is
regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.
o CIR v. CA: if it substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to
accord at least those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that
new issuance is given the force and effect of law
o Pesigan v. Angeles: publication is necessary 1) to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and 2)
make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby.

Page | 12
 o Phi. Int’l Trading Corp. v. COA: publication is required as a condition precedent to the effectivity of a law to
inform the public of the contents of the law or rules and regulations before their rights and interests are
affected by the same.
o PPA Employees Hired After July 1, 1998 v. COA: the government officials and employees concerned should
be apprised and alerted by the publication of DDM‐CCC No. 10 (which completely disallows the payment of
allowances and other additional compensation to government officials and employees starting Nov. 1, 1989)
in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
o Senate of the Phils. v. Ermita: publication is necessary if the subject of such law is a matter of public interest
which any member of the body politic may question in political forums, or, if he is a proper party, even in
courts of justice; E0 464‐ has a direct effect on the rights of the people to information on matters of public
concern; due process‐ requires that the people should have been apprised of its issuance before it was
implemented
o P. v. Que Po Lay: before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation
or circular must first be published and the people officially informed of said contents and penalties.
o P. v. Veridiano: the usual 15‐day period required for the effectivity of an administrative rule or regulation is
reckoned on the date of release for the circulation of said edition in the Official Gazette; Exception‐ special
publication
Other requisites provided in Administrative Code
• every agency shall file w/ the UP Law Center 3 certified true copies of every rule adopted by it;
• prescription‐ 3 mos.
• Gen. Rule: each rule shall become effective 15 days from the date of filing; Exceptions‐ 1) if a
different date is fixed by law; 2) specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public
health, safety and welfare
• must be filed with the National Administrative Register
o Phil. Assoc. of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres:
The vesture of quasi‐legislative and quasi‐judicial powers in administrative bodies is not
unconstitutional, unreasonable and oppressive.
The power to restrict and regulate conferred by Art. 36 of the Labor Code involve a grant of police
power.
Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement
existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.
o Misamis Oriental Assoc. of Coco Traders, Inc. v. Dept. of Finance Sec.:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
i. If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate
notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views
prior to the adoption of any rule.
ii. In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid UNLESS the proposed rates shall have
been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing
thereon.
iii. In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed.

(4) It must be reasonable.

o Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v. Board of Transportation:
The BOT need not first summon taxicab operators to a conference on public hearing before
issuing circulars phasing‐out more than 6‐year old taxicabs.
Dispensing with a public hearing prior to the issuance of the Circulars is neither violative of
procedural due process.
Fixing by BOT of the lifetime ceiling of 6 years to taxicab is not unreasonable or arbitrary.
Fixing lifetime of taxicab to 6 years in Metro Manila due to heavier traffic, safety and comfort of
riding public is based on reasonable standards.
Page | 13
 Non‐applicability of phase‐out rule on taxis to other vehicles is not violative of equal protection
clause.

Penal Regulations

• Gen. Rule: violation of administrative regulations cannot give rise to criminal prosecution; Exception: if the
legislature makes such violation punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions
1) P v. Santos: Act No. 4003 does not contain prohibition punishing fishing w/in 3km from the shoreline
w/o written permission from the Sec. of Agriculture; hence it cannot be incorporated with the
promulgated rules and regulations.

Special Requisites of a Valid Administrative Regulation with a Penal Sanction (MIP):

(1) The law itself must make violation of the administrative regulation punishable.

(2) The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of regulation.

(3) The regulation must be published.

o BPI Leasing Corp. v. CA: Gen. Rule‐ statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate
prospective only; Exception‐ if the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by
necessary implication
o Phil. Global Comm., Inc. v. Relova: opinions of the Sec. of Justice are material in the construction of
statutes of the same matter.
o Hidalgo v. CIR: an administrative officer may revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of his
predecessor in office.

Enforcement

• The power to promulgate administrative regulations:

1) carries it with it the implied power to enforce them; or
2) includes the power to issue opinions and rulings to enable the administrative agency to properly execute
said regulations (Peralta v. CA)
• How? 1) via judicial action, 2) via sanctions
• It is the statute creating the administrative body that will provide for the means by which the administrative
regulations will be enforced.

Amendment or Repel
The administrative regulation made thereunder is subject to amendment
or repeal by the authorites that promulgated them in the first place.

Page | 14
 Chapter 5
THE QUASI‐JUDICIAL POWER

o Gudminidson v. Cardollo: it is the power of the administrative agency to determine questions of facts to which
the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself.
o PCGG v. Pena: quasi‐judicial‐ term applied to the action, discretion of officers who are required to investigate
facts, or ascertain the existence of facts and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action, and
to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.
o E.O No. 2192, Sec. 2(9): it is an agency process for the formulation of a final order
o Land Bank of the Phils., v. Natividad: DAR‐ vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine in a preliminary
manner the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform; RTC‐ has the original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation
o Sanado v. CA: quasi‐judicial or adjudicatory‐ if it is dependent upon ascertainment of facts by the administrative
agency, upon which a decision is to be made and rights and liabilities determined.
o DARAB v. Lubrica: the grant of original jurisdiction on a quasi‐judicial agency is not implied; DARAB‐ its limited
jurisdiction does not include authority over petitions for certiorari, in the absence of an express grant in R.A No.
6657, E.O No. 229 and E.O No. 129‐A.

Requisites of quasi‐judicial power:

1. Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body.
JURISDICTION‐ competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or to decide a certain question
legislature‐ has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the administrative body and so limit or
expand its authority
o PCGG v. Pena: in the exercise of quasi‐judicial functions, the Commission is a co‐
equal body with the RTC and co‐equal bodies have no power to control the other
o Carino v. CHR:
CHR‐ have no jurisdiction in adjudicatory powers over certain specific type
of cases like alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights
The most that may be conceded by to the CHR in the way of adjudicative
power is that it may investigate; fact finding‐ not adjudication
The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the
power to investigate all forms of human rights violations invoking civil and
political rights.
CHR cannot try and decide cases as courts of justice or even quasi‐judicial
bodies do.
The Commission should not try to resolve on the merits involve in Striking
Teachers HRC Cases‐ within the original jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Education and also within the appellate jurisdiction of CSC.
o Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC: National Electrification
Administration‐ has no power to hear and decide termination cases of employees
in electric cooperatives.
o ERB v. CA: National Power Corporation‐ not the proper authority to hear and
decide cases involving direct power connection; Department of Energy‐ has
jurisdiction over the regulation of the marketing and distribution of energy
resources.
o Int’l Broadcasting Corp. v. Jalandoon: SEC‐ had jurisdiction over any intra‐
corporate controversy which may have arisen from said ownership.
NLRC‐ allowed to award damages virtually to the same extent as court of justice; NTC‐ not applicable
o Manila Electric Company v. CA: regular court‐ has the power to adjudicate cases
involving violations of rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
Page | 15
 o Global Wireless Ltd. v. PSC: the jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies
are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied form those granted in
the legislation creating such body; any order without or beyond jurisdiction is void
and ineffective.
o PLDT v. Eastern Telecomm. Phils.,: franchises‐ always interpreted strictly against
the franchise holder.
o Lepanto Consolidated Mining Compnay v. WMC Resources Int’l Pty. Ltd: Mines and
Geosciences Bureau‐ has jurisdiction over a controversy pertaining to mining rights.
o Boiser v. CA: regular courts‐ have the power to adjudicate breach of contract cases
as well as award moral and exemplary damages.
o Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Oil Industry Commission: administrative agencies
are bereft of quasi‐judicial powers unless expressly empowered.
o Republic v. Marcopper Mining Corp.: Mines Regional Director‐ has express and
administrative and regulatory powers over mining operations and installations;
Pollution Adjudication Board‐ has adjudicative powers for violation of pollution
control statutes and regulations.
o Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. v. COSLAP: COSLAP‐ its jurisdiction is confined only to
disputes over lands in which the government has proprietary or regulatory interest.
o Nat’l Federation of Labor v. Eisma: labor arbiter‐ had the power to award damages
arising from picketing
COMELEC‐ vested with jurisdiction over an election contest involving a provincial governor or a city
mayor as well as empowered to award actual or compensatory damages.
HLURB‐ has jurisdiction over cases involving sales of subdivision lots
o Southern Cross Cement Corp. v. Cement Manufacturers Assoc. of the Phils.: DTI‐ has
no intrinsic right, absent statutory authority, to reverse the findings of the Tariff
Commission.
(1) Rules of Procedure
o Angara v. Electoral Commission: doctrine of implication‐ where an administrative
body is expressly granted the power of adjudication; it is deemed also vested with
the implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of its
proceedings.
o Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v. Batario, Jr: the agency may adopt any reasonable
method to carry out its functions.
o Phil. Lawyers Assoc. v. Agrava: the rules must not violate fundamental rights or
encroach upon constitutional prerogatives.
o Agusmin Promotional Enterprises, Inc. v. CA: administrative rules of procedure‐
should be construed liberally; Rationale‐ 1) to promote their object, 2) to assist the
parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective
claims and defenses.
o Samalio v. CA: the provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to the
rules of procedure of administrative bodies exercising judicial powers unless
otherwise provided by law or the rules of procedure of the administrative agency
concerned.
o Art. 8, Sec. 5(5): rules of procedure of special courts and quasi‐judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the SC.
o DARAB v. Lubrica: the power of administrative agencies to promulgate rules of
procedure does not or cannot be construed as allowing it to “grant itself jurisdiction”;
Rationale‐ rules of procedure‐ remedial in nature; cover only rules on pleadings and
practice
(2) The Subpoena Power
Page | 16
 ‐ not inherent
‐ may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only 1) when duly allowed
by law, and 2) always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate
‐ may be expressly granted in the charter of the administrative body, eg. NLRC, CSC
o Carmelo v. Ramos: authority to conduct an investigation does not necessarily mean it
can also summon witnesses and take testimony in the absence of a clear grant of this
power from the legislature
o Carino v. CHR: investigate‐ to follow up step by step by patient inquiry or
observation; adjudicate‐ to settle in the exercise of judicial authority
o Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners:
The constitutional guarantee against self‐incrimination extends to
administrative proceedings which possess a criminal or penal aspect.
Board of Medical Examiners cannot compel the person proceeded against to
take the witness stand without his consent.
o Manalo v. Roldan‐Confesor: the administrative determination of facts and the
consequent imposition of suspension/revocation of Authority/License do not make
the proceedings criminal.
(3) The Contempt Power
‐ essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right by the administrative body.
o Tolentino v. Inciong: A labor official’s power to hold a person for contempt for refusal
to comply with its order cannot extend to a CFI judge; remedy of administrative
official‐ seek a dismissal of the case before the court precisely on the ground that the
matter did not fall within the domain of the powers conferred on it.
o Dumarpa v. Dimaporo: the power to hold in contempt must be exercised on the
preservative principle.
o Land Bank of the Phils. v. Listana: quasi‐judicial agencies that have the power to cite
persons for indirect contempt can only do so by initiating them in the proper RTC.
2. Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.
Notice and hearing‐ essential to due process
Rationale‐ they may claim the right to appear therein and present their side or refute the
position of opposing parties

Gen. Rule: denial of the right to notice and hearing will render the administrative proceedings null and
void for denial of due process; Exceptions: 1) urgency of the immediate action, 2) tentativeness of the administrative
action, 3) the right had previously been offered but not claimed, eg. summary abatement of a nuisance per se
(1) Administrative Due Process
• Administrative tribunals are unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of procedure which govern trials before
a court, especially where the administrative order has the effect of only prima facie evidence.
o Cadalin v. POEA Administrator: technical rules of procedure and evidence‐ cardinal
rules which must be observed by the hearing officers in order to comply with the due
process requirements of the Constitution.
o Ang Tibay v. CIR

(1) right to a hearing‐ includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit
evidence in support thereof;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) the evidence must have something to support its decision;
(4) the evidence must be substantial‐ relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion; Rationale‐ to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules

Page | 17
(5) the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record
and disclosed to the parties affected; boards of inquiry‐ their report and decision are only advisory
(6) the Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in
arriving at a decision;
(7) the Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decisions rendered
o Montemayor v. Bundalian:
The burden is on the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the
allegations in his complaint.
Administrative decisions of the executive branch of the government must be
respected so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. Administrative
decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof
of 1) gross abuse of discretion, 2) fraud, or 3) error of law.
o Zambales Chromite v. CA: it is grave abuse of discretion for a department secretary to
review his own decision while Director of Mines; remedy‐ he should ask his
undersecretary to review a decision rendered by him.
o Rivera v. CSC: the reviewing officer must be other than the officer whose decision is
under review.
o Corona v. CA: the aggrieved party should not be one and the same official upon whose
lap the complaint he has filed may eventually fall on appeal; nemo potest esse simul
actor et judex‐ No man can be at once a litigant and judge.
o Caoile v. Vivo: the law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of the
decision of the board of special inquiry on the basis of the evidence previously
presented.
o Marvel Bldg. v. Ople: no denial of due process if petitioners received notice of the
scheduled investigation the day before said date of the hearing or investigation
o Alvarez v. Ople: there was denial where the decision was rendered against a person
who was not a party to or even notified of the proceedings taken before a labor arbiter.
o Globe v. NTC: hearing is essential before a fine may be imposed.
o Pefianco v. Moral: administrative resolution‐ basis for any further remedies that a
respondent in an administrative case might wish to pursue.
o Sec. of Justice v. Lantin: Reqt’s of Quasi‐Judicial Proceeding‐ 1) taking and evaluation
of evidence, 2) determining facts based on the evidence presented, 3) rendering an
order or decision supported by the facts proved.
o Phil. Merchant Marine School Inc. v. CA: findings of fact of administrative departments
are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts.
o American Tobacco Co. v. Dir. of Patents: the officer who makes the determination must
consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them.
o Valladolid v. Inciong: no denial of the right to due process on the basis of position
papers submitted by the parties.
o GMCR, Inc. v. Bell Telecomm. Phils. Inc.: the vote alone of the Chairman of Commission
is not sufficient to legally render an NTC order, resolution or decision.
o Quiambao v. CA: where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or
through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process.
o Autencio v. Manara: appeal/motion reconsideration‐ remedy to cure defects in
procedural process

Page | 18
 o Boyboy v. Yabut: Gen. Rule‐ trial‐type proceeding is not required; Exception‐ where
the findings are necessarily to be based on the credibility of the witnesses or
complaints.
o NAPOCOR v. Chiong:
ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS:
(1) there must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;
(2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or property which is the subject of the
proceedings;
(3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and
(4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
o Javier v. COMELEC: the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be
impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just.
o ERB v. CA: complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations in their complaints.

Administrative Appeals and Review

• Gen. Rule: administrative decision cannot be enforced; Exception: unless otherwise provided by law or executive
order

Enforcement of Decision
• how?‐ appeal to the force of public opinion
o CAB v. PAL: it is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose
without criminal prosecutions.
o San Luis v. CA: writ of mandamus‐ lies to ‘enforce a ministerial duty or the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust or station.

Res Judicata
o Brillantes v. Catro: the decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their quasi‐judicial
authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the
doctrine res judicata; Exceptions‐ 1) Republic v. CA: when it is repugnant to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy, 2) Nasipit Lumber Company, Inc. v. NLRC: labor relations proceedings, 3) exercise of
administrative powers, 4) judgments based on prohibited or null and void contracts.
• An administrative officer may revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of his predecessor
in office if he becomes satisfied that a different construction should be given.
o Delfin v. Inciong: bringing of the same action in the name of the individual members of the union will not take
out the case from the ambit of principle of res judicata.

Page | 19
 Chapter 6
JUDICIAL REVIEW

• administrative decision‐ may be appealed to the courts of justice only 1) if the Constitution or the law permits it
or 2) if the issues to be reviewed involve questions of law, Rationale‐ judicial tribunals cannot be deprived of
their inherent authority to decide questions of law, initially by way of review of administrative decisions.
‐ may be validly rendered final and inappealable at the administrative level without allowing
the aggrieved party a final resort to the courts of justice.
o Chung Fu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. CA: even decisions of administrative agencies which are declared
“final” by law are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted.

Methods of Review
• An appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days from receipt of a
copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing courts.
• If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned
from receipt of the resolution of denial.
• The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically
provided otherwise by law.
• The SC may review the decisions of the Office of the President on questions of law and jurisdiction when
properly raised.
o Industrial Power Sales, Inc. v. Sinsuat: Requisites of Judicial Review‐ 1) it must be shown that all the
administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted, 2) administrative decision
may be properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the administrative official or
tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrines of Judicial Review

(1) Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction‐ does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence;
simply calls for the determination of administrative questions
o Sherwill Dev’t Corp. v. Sitio Sto. Nino Residents Assoc., Inc.: it applies where a claim is originally
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the
resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence
of an administrative body.
• The judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for
its view.
o Rubio Jr. v. Paras: the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of others.
o UHC v. Dayrit: a statute may vest exclusive original jurisdiction in an administrative agency over certain
disputes and controversies falling within the agency’s special expertise.
o Smart Comm., Inc v. NTC: objective‐ to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from
exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some questions or some
aspect of some quest on arising in the proceeding before the court.
• The administrative process must continue up to the highest level before resort to judicial
tribunals may be sought.
(2) Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
o Phil. Health Insurance Corp. v. Chinese Gen. Hospital and Medical Center: an administrative decision
must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before it may be elevated
to a court of justice for review.
o Garcia v. CA: if a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to
before resort can be made to the courts.
Page | 20
 o PCGG v. Pena: courts must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge
their responsibilities within the specialized area of their respective competence.
o Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Gov’t of Caloocan City: before seeking the
intervention of courts, it is a precondition that one should first avail of all the means afforded by the
administrative processes.

1) Carale v. Abarintos: administrative superiors can correct errors committed by their subordinates.
2) Information Technology Foundation of the Phils., v. COMELEC: in deference to the doctrine of separation
of powers
3) Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Abad: courts should not be saddled with the review of administrative
cases;
4) Judicial reviews of administrative cases are available only if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.
Others: (Batelec case)
1) law
2) comity
3) convenience
o UP v. Catungcal: administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter,
will decide the same correctly.
o Paat v. CA: the premature intervention of courts is fatal to one’s cause of action.
Exceptions:
1) when the question raised is purely legal;
o Valmonte v. Belmonte: interpretation of the scope of his constitutional
right to information
2) when the administrative body is in estoppel;
3) when the act complained of is patently illegal;
4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
5) when the claim involved is small:
6) when irreparable damage will be suffered;
7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
8) when strong public interest is involved;
9) when the subject of the controversy is private land;
10) in quo warranto proceedings
o Hoskyns v. Nat’l City Bank of NY: it is discretionary upon the court to permit an aggrieved party
to institute a court action without first resorting to an administrative remedy for the purpose.
• does not apply when the assailed act pertained to administrative agency’s rule‐making or
quasi‐legislative power.

Appeal to President
o Land Car, Inc. v. Bachelor Express, Inc: the doctrine of administrative remedies empowers the
Office of the President to review any determination or disposition of a department head.
o Carpio v. The Executive Secretary: doctrine of qualified political agency‐ as the President cannot
be expected to exercise his control powers all at the same time and in person, he will have to
delegate some of them to his Cabinet members.

Effects of Noncompliance:
1) does not affect the jurisdiction of the court;
2) merely results in the lack of a cause of action
Remedy‐ motion to dismiss

Page | 21
 o Calub v. CA: exhaustion must be raised at the earliest possible time, even before filing the answer
to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, by a motion to dismiss; otherwise, such a ground
for dismissal would be deemed waived.
• A failure to exhaust administrative remedies may also constitute forum shopping‐ exists
when both actions involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances
and raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues.
o Sunshine Transportation, Inc. v. NLRC: a motion for reconsideration must be filed before the
special civil action for certiorari may be availed of.

Questions Reviewable
Question of Fact Question of Law
1) review of administrative decision lies in the discretion of may be appealed to the courts of justice independently of
the legislature, which may or may not permit it as it sees legislative permission or even against legislative
fit prohibition

Rationale‐ judiciary has an inherent power to review all

2) the right to appeal is generally not deemed embraced in
the right to a hearing
3) pertains to the truth or the falsehood of the alleged
facts
4) must be respected provided they are supported by
substantial evidence even if such evidence might not be
overwhelming or even preponderant
decisions
arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts
it is in the exercise of their quasi‐judicial function; incident
of their primary power of regulation
Note: the interpretation of an agency of its own rules
should be given more weight than the interpretation by
the agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer
(Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization)

o Atlas Consolidated Mining and Dev’t Corp. v. Factoran: findings of fact should not be disturbed if supported by
substantial evidence.
Exceptions:
1) denial of due process
2) mistake of law
3) fraud
4) collusion
5) arbitrary action in the administrative proceeding
6) when the procedure which led to factual findings is irregular
7) when palpable errors are committed
8) when grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest
o Atlas Consolidated Mining and Dev’t Corp. v. Factoran: the reviewing Court cannot re‐examine the sufficiency
of the evidence as if originally instituted therein, and receive additional evidence, that was not submitted to the
administrative agency concerned.
o Osias Academy v. DOLE: administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.
o Protector’s Services Inc. v. CA: the opinions and rulings of officials of the government called upon to execute or
implement administrative laws command respect and weight.
• Gen Rule: factual findings of administrative agencies that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are
conclusively upon and generally not reviewable by this Court.
Page | 22
Exceptions:
1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
2) when the interference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and the appellee;
7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court;
8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by respondent;
10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted
by the evidence on record; and
11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion.

Page | 23