Notes from lectures of Atty. Treptor
Sufficient Standard Test - Statute fixes a
For Saturday Quiz
Doctrine of Separation of Powers
The doctrine declares that governmental
powers are divided among the three
departments of the government, the legislative,
executive, and the judicial, and broadly
operates to confine legislative power to
legislature, executive powers to the executive
department, and the judicial powers to the
judiciary, precluding one branch of the
government from exercising or invading the
powers of another.
NOTE: any violation of doctrine of separation of
powers will make the act unconstitutional and
void.
Doctrine of non-delagation of powers
This rule which follows as a necessary corollary
of the doctrine of separation of powers
prohibits the delegation of legislative power,
the vesting of judicial officers with non-judicial
functions, as well as the investing of non-
judicial officers with judicial powers
BASIS: from the maxim “potestas delegate non
potest delegari” which means, what has been
delegated cannot be further delegated.
GN: Delegation of legislative power by the
Congress may not delegate to administrative
agencies legislative power vested in it.
XPN: Congress may delegate when authorized
by the constitution, however on a limited
power.
EX: delegation to the ff:
a. President
b. Admin. Branches
c. People (to some authors)
Requisites for valid delegation
a. Completeness Test - The statute is complete
in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed
by the agency; and
2.
standard, mapping out the boundaries of the
agency’s authority to which it must conform.
*If a standard is contained in other sources it is
still considered as a standard, it will not make
the law which grants power as unconstitutional.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Characters:
1. Adversary in nature
2. Quasi-judicial
‐ because it is exercised by an agency of a
government which is not a court
3. More of a civil action than criminal
Jurisdiction
It is the power of the court to hear, try and
decide the case.
NOTE: Any decision rendered by an
Administrative Body(AB) without jurisdiction
over the matter is VOID
Scope:
An administrative has only such jurisdiction and
power as are expressly or by necessary
implication conferred by law.
Source
1. Statute
2. Constitution
Conduct of Estoppel
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is applicable
- when you have actively participated
knowing that the court has no
jurisdiction and that you have sought
recourse or other grants in that court,
then you can be estopped from
questioning the jurisdiction of the
court.
*Estoppel will not set in If a party questions the
jurisdiction of an AB from the early stages of the
proceeding
*Jurisdiction of is determined by law. However,
when a case is filed to an AB, it is the AB who
determines the existence of its jurisdiction
without having court action.
NOTE: An erroneous determination by an AB
regarding his jurisdiction will not bind the court.
NOTE: Failure to exercise jurisdiction over a
matter does not mean an AB has no jurisdiction.
Question: What happens when during the
proceedings the law granting Jurisdiction to a
subject case to an AB is abrogated or amended
and the law granting them jurisdiction is
removed?
- The AB will losses its jurisdiction over
the subject matter, unless the law
provides otherwise (saving clause).
Procedure to be followed
The law itself may provide for the processes the
administrative body must perform in the
exercise of quasi-judicial power. But, if the law
does not provide any procedure, the AB may
adopt its own rules provided that it must be
reasonable in that case.
NOTE: GN: administrative procedures are not
bound by the technical rules of evidence.
ADMINISTRATUVE DUE PROCESS
Requirements:
1. The right to notice, be it actual or
constructive, of the institution of the
proceedings that may affect a person’s legal
right;
NOTE: substantial compliance of notice
is sufficient. It is not bound by the strict
rules of court
2. The right to reasonable opportunity to
appear or with personal assistance of counsel
and defend his rights and to introduce
witnesses and relevant evidence on favor, by
testimony or otherwise, and to controvert the
evidence of the other party.
3. the right to a tribunal vested with competent
jurisdiction, so constituted as to give him
reasonable assurance of honesty and
impartiality; and
4. The right to a finding or decision by that
tribunal supported by substantial evidence
presented at the hearing or at least ascertained
in the records, or disclosed o made known to
the parties affected.
NOTE: absence of hearing is not a violation of
due process, what the law requires is that the
parties is given an opportunity to be heard.
Evidence required: ONLY substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence is defined as that amount
of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion (Atlas Consolidated Mining Corp. vs.
Factoran JR.)
Reason: to free the AB from the compulsion of
technical rules
NOTE: the officer in charge of deciding a
controversy may authorize a different officer to
receive evidence, to conduct hearing and make
reports on the basis of such evidence. It is not
required by law that the officer who rendered
the decision be the same officer who received
the evidence or hear the testimonies. It must be
noted that the judgment that based on the
evidence received must still be rendered by the
proper officer to decide. The officer to decide
must act on his own judgment and discretion
and not of the subordinate.
*evidence presented must be considered by the
administrative officer and decision must
supported by evidence on record. If not, it is
violative of constitutional due process.
ADMINISTRATIVE RES JUDICATA
The decision 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 of res
judicata. Meaning, Doctrine of res judicata is
applicable in administrative proceeding.
XPN: in one case, the Supreme Court held that,
if it is repugnant to law, morals, good customs,
public order and public policy then that decision
will not achieve res judicata
How to enforce administrative decision
In Administrative Body, if the law does not
provide for its enforcement, then that decision
is unenforceable. If the law provides for its
enforcement, then it shall be enforced in
accordance with that law.
Some doctrine to take note:
 It is a grave abuse of discretion for a
department secretary to review his own
decision while he is still a director of
mines.
 The reviewing officer must be other
than the officer that rendered the
decision under review
 Where opportunity to be heard either
through oral argument or pleading is
accorded, then there is no denial of due
process.
 Findings of fact of administrative
department are generally accorded
respect if not finality by the courts
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Purpose
To make sure the administrative agency does
not go beyond the statutory or constitutional
power in carrying out their task.
Right to judicial review
a. If the right to judicial review is given by a
statute- the judicial review is determined in that
statute
b. if no right of judicial review is given by the
statute- there is no inherent right to judicial
review of the action of an administrative
agency, so as a general rule, if there is no mode
appeal given to you, then you cannot go to the
courts. That administrative decision will become
final.
NOTE: however, it will not exclude the duty of
the court check the acts of the other branches
in accordance with the expanded jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court.
Ex. In cases of grave abuse of discretion,
then the court can intervene. The courts can
exercise its power to review. If there is no grave
abuse of discretion, the SC cannot reverse the
decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
GN: findings of facts by administrative bodies
are binding to the court, the court will no longer
determine the facts of the case and instead rely
on the findings of the administrative body.
Provided the findings are supported by
substantial evidence.
XPN:
1. Denial of due process
2. Palpable errors are committed;
3. Findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition, or
collusion;
4. Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or
capriciousness is manifest;
5. Procedure which led to factual findings is
irregular;
6. When expressly allowed by statute; and
7. Factual findings not supported by evidence;
8. Error in appreciation of the pleadings and in
the interpretation of the documentary evidence
presented by the parties.
NOTE:
Factual findings of administrative agencies that
are affirmed by the CA are conclusive upon and
generally not reviewable by the SC. Except:
a. When the findings are grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures.
b. when the interference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible
c. when there a grave abuse of discretion
 d. when judgment is based from
misapprehension of facts
e. when the findings of facts are
convicting
f. when in making its findings , the court
of appeals went beyond the issues of
the case
g. When findings of CA is contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and
the appellee.
h. Some other cases
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
Under the principle of primary jurisdiction,
courts cannot or will not determine a
controversy involving question within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal
especially where the:
a. Question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion
requiring special knowledge, experience
and services of the administrative
tribunal;
b. Question requires determination of
technical and intricate issues of a fact;
WHICH MEANS: if jurisdiction over a
controversy is vested to an administrative body
and to the court, the court will not take action
over the case unless, the administrative body
has already acted on the matter.
*if the doctrine is applicable and the parties
insists on filing the controversy to the court, the
court will not dismiss the action but must
suspend the proceeding and wait for further
action from the administrative body.
NOTE: if jurisdiction is vested to an
administrative body exclusively this DOPJ is not
applicable. Since, the court has no jurisdiction
over the matter. In this case, if parties will file it
to the court, the court must dismiss the case on
the basis of lack of jurisdiction and not on the
DOPJ
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies requires that where a remedy within
an administrative agency is provided by law or
available against the action of an administrative
board, body, or officer, and can still be resorted
to by giving the said agency every opportunity
to decide correctly to a given matter that comes
within its jurisdiction, relief must be first sought
by availing and exhausting this remedy before
bringing an action in or elevating it to the courts
of justice for review.
Which simply means: Before a party can seek
judicial review, he must exhaust all
administrative remedies available to him;
otherwise his action will be dismissed, on the
ground of lack of cause of action. (Premature
cause of action)
NOTE: in one case, the court held that, an
administrative decision must first be appealed
to the administrative superior up to the highest
level before it may be elevated to a court of
justice. If a remedy is available within the
administrative machinery, this should be
resorted to before the court can be made to
recourse.
XPN to DEAR:
1. When the issue involved is a purely
legal question;
2. When there is estoppel on the part of
the administrative agency concerned ;
3. Lack of cause of action;
4. Failure to allege DEAR;
5. When there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention;
6. When claim involved is small;
7. When there is irreparable injury;
8. When the rule does not provide a plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy;
9. When strong public interest is involved ;
10. When the subject matter is a private
land case proceedings;
11. Quo warranto proceedings;
*Other XPN
1. When the administrative action is
patently illegal amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction;
2. When the respondent is a Department
3. Secretary whose acts as an alter ego of
the
4. President bears the implied and
assumed approval of the latter;
5. When it would be unreasonable;
6. When no administrative review is
provided by law;
7. When the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been
rendered moot;
8. When it would amount to a nullification
of a claim; and
9. Where the rule on qualified political
agency applies
(Laguna CATV Network v. Maraan, G.R. No.
139492,
November 19, 2002).