A D MI N

L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



Definition - (CB vs. Ablaza, 63 SCRA 431). Central Bank is a
• branch of public law w/c fixes the organization of government instrumentality created as an
government, determines the competence of autonomous body under RA 265 to administer
admin. authorities who execute the law & the monetary and banking system.
indicates to individual the remedies for violation
of his rights. Is the National Coconut Co. within the term GRP? (Bacani
• system of legal principles w/c settles the vs. NACOCO, 100 Phil 468).
conflicting claims of the executive & admin. - NO, it has a separate and distinct personality.
authorities on one hand and of the individual or Hence, the payment of stenographic fees is valid.
private right on the other. NCC is not exempt from paying the same.

Scope of administrative law - Covers all portions of public Are GOCCs embraced in the term GRP?
law dealing with the actions of executive and administrative
officials. - GOCCs are included in the Government of the
Purpose of administrative law: the protection of private Republic of the Philippines if such GOCCs
rights. Its subject matter is the nature & mode of exercise perform sovereign tasks.
of admin. power and the system of relief vs. administrative
action. Instrumentality as defined in EO 292
Function of administrative law: to make the government any agency of the National Gov't not integrated w/in the
machinery work well & in an orderly manner. department framework, vested with special functions or
Origin of administrative law: Admin law is said to originate jurisdiction by law & enjoying operational autonomy,
in legislation and precedes from the increased functions of usually thru a charter.
individuals because of the complexities of modern society,
thus the so-called 4th branch of government. Status of the Manila International Airport Authority:
- not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the National
Types of administrative bodies: (BQ) Gov't vested with corporate powers to perform
1. those offering some gratuity or privilege efficiently its governmental functions. When the
2. those seeking to carry on certain business of law vests in the instrumentality corporate
government powers, it does not become a corporation but
3. those performing business service for the public remains an instrumentality exercising both
4. those seeking to regulate business affected corporate and governmental powers (MIAA vs.
w/public interest CA, 495 SCRA 592).
5. those seeking under police power to regulate
private business & individuals. • Rep vs. Rambuyong
6. adjust individual controversies xxx Following Sec. 2 of EO 292, the National Power Corporation
is an instrumentality of govt; VM Rambuyong cannot
Republic of the Philippines (or GRPIt is the corporate appear as counsel before any court in civil case vs. LGU or
governmental entity through which the functions of instrumentality [NPC] Sec. 90 LGC
government are exercised throughout the Philippines,
including the various arms through which political authority • Maceda vs. Macaraig
is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to NPC is government instrumentality tasked to undertake
the autonomous regions, provincial, city, municipal or development of hydroelectric generation of power &
barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government production of electricity from other sources xxx to improve
quality of life of people pursuant to the State policy in Art.
National Government refers to the entire machinery of the ll Sec. 9 Const.
central government, composed of the executive, legislative
& judicial departments as distinguished from the different Status of Iron and Steel Authority
forms of local governments. - It was created under PD 272 for a term of 5 years
but extended for another 10 years under EO 555
National Government is definitely a part of the government xxx; a non-incorporated agency or
of the Republic of the Philippines but this refers to the instrumentality of the GRP. When its statutory
entire machinery of the central government namely term expires, the powers, duties & functions as
executive, legislative and judicial branches of the well as assets & liabilities of that agency revert
government. back to and are reassumed by the GRP (ISA vs. CA,
249 SCRA 539).
Is Central Bank part of National Government?

ihipnghangin 1

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



Status of Air Transport Office Bureau of Immigration has the authority to decide
- An unincorporated govt agency without any deportation case & in the process determine citizenship
separate juridical personality of its own enjoys issue raised by the deportee. Judicial intervention is
immunity from suit because it is invested with an enjoined.
inherent power of sovereignty. Hence, a claim for
damages against the agency cannot prosper; What is the exception to the primary jurisdiction of the
otherwise the doctrine of sovereign immunity is Bureau of Immigration over deportation cases and where
violated (Air Transport Office vs. Ramos, 644 judicial intervention is allowed?
SCRA 36). 1. substantial evidence supporting claim of
- While such agency has immunity, an citizenship; or 

unincorporated govt agency performing 2. when the evidence submitted by the deportee is
proprietary functions has none as it was not in conclusive of his citizenship – courts may enjoin
pursuit of a necessary govt function but was deportation proceedings; BI must defer in favour
essentially a business. of court’s authority 


Status of DOH Note: Citizenship proceedings are sui generis, in that, unlike
- The DOH is an unincorporated agency which other cases, res judicata does not generally obtain.
performs functions of governmental character. As
such, it can validly invoke the defense of Application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction:
immunity from suit because it has not consented, 1. The doctrine applies only whenever it is the court
either expressly or impliedly, to be sued and the administrative agency which have
(Department of Health vs. Phil. Pharmawealth concurrent jurisdiction.
Inc., 547 Phil. 148; Sec. of Health vs. 2. The doctrine is inapplicable where there is
Phil.Pharmawealth Inc., GR 182358). concurrence of jurisdiction between two
disciplining authorities over a case (ex. the CSC &
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction the OMB), the regular courts not being involved.
1. Courts cannot & will not determine a controversy 3. What applies in that case is the EXCLUSIONARY
involving a question w/in the jurisdiction of an RULE—the tribunal that takes cognizance first of
admin tribunal, especially where the question the complaint excludes the other equally
demands the exercise of sound admin discretion competent admin authority.
requiring special knowledge
2. It applies whenever enforcement of a claim
requires resolution of an issue within the special Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP)
competence of administrative body. [EO 561]

2 reasons for the doctrine: Authority of COSLAP to resolve land disputes is limited only
1. not only to give the administrative agency the to those involving public lands or those covered by specific
opportunity to decide the controversy by itself correctly license from the government, i.e. pasture lease
2. but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to agreements, timber concessions or reservation grants.
courts; in the process, de-clogging court dockets.
• (Machado v Gatdula & COSLAP, 2/16/10)
Objective of the doctrine No jurisdiction over Gatdula’s complaint vs. Machado for
to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain right of way, the property being private. Lack of jurisdiction
from exercising its jurisdiction until an administrative cannot be cured by parties’ participation.
agency has determined some question or some aspect of
some question arising in the proceeding before the court. • UST vs. Sanchez
Rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where admin
• Sagip Kalikasan vs. Paderanga agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions.
DENR is responsible for enforcement of forestry laws; forest
products in custodia legis cannot be subject of replevin Here, RTC has jurisdiction over Sanchez’ complaint for
before the court vs. DENR. Respondent’s taking cognizance damages vs. UST. He did not violate rule vs. forum shopping
of replevin suit constitutes ignorance of law. The when he sought recourse with both CHED and RTC. Sec. 8
enforcement of forestry law & protection & management of RA 7722 (Higher Education Act of 1994) does not contain
of forest lands are w/in DENR’s jurisdiction. any express grant to CHED of quasi-judicial power

• Go, Sr. vs. Ramos HLURB (PD 957/PD 1344)

ihipnghangin 2

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8




Claims/cases over which the HLURB has exclusive • Padua vs. Ranada
jurisdiction (Sec.1, PD 1344): TRB has jurisdiction over petitions for review of the
a) Unsound real estate business practices; adjusted toll rates as well as the power to grant a qualified
b) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by person with authority to construct/maintain/operate a toll
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the facility and issue the corresponding toll operating permit.
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and Remedy of the interested expressway user who finds the
statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or toll rate adjustments to be onerous, oppressive and
condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, exorbitant is to file a petition for review of the adjusted toll
broker or salesman. rates with TRB. The issue involves question of facts xxx. TRB
decision is appealable w/in 10 days to the Office of
CASES: President.
• CT Torres vs. Hibionada
specific performance w/damages for delivery of title • Francisco vs TRB
• HLC Const. vs. Emily Homes Homeowners PD 1112 in re to PD 1894 have invested TRB w/sufficient
reimbursement of expenses incurred by homeowners in power to grant a qualified person or entity w/ authority to
repairing their defective housing units constructed by the construct, maintain & operate a toll facility & to issue the
developer corresponding toll operating permit or Toll Operation
• Chua vs. Ang Certificate (TOC).
HLURB has authority to impose administrative fines under A special franchise directly emanating from Congress is not
Sec.38 PD 1344 but not criminal penalties. HLURB is necessary if the law already specifically authorizes an admin
competent to award damages. body (like TRB, LTFRB, NTC & PPA) to grant a franchise or to
• Home Bankers vs. CA award a contract. By law, TRB was given the power to grant
HLURB has jurisdication in an action to declare void a administrative franchise for toll facility projects as well as
mortgage of lot done in violation of PD 957 and annul a impose and alter the conditions in an appropriate contract
foreclosure sale.
• Cadimas vs. Carrion Distinction bet. fixing of initial toll rates and fixing of
Mere allegation of relationship between subd. owner and periodic/interim or subsequent toll rates: The hearing
lot buyer does not vest automatic jurisdiction in HLURB. required under PD 1894 refers to notice & hearing for the
Decisive element is the nature of the action as enumerated approval or denial of petitions for toll rate adjustments – or
in Sec. 1, PD 1344. [Transfer of townhouse to 3rd party in the subsequent toll rates, not to the fixing of initial toll rates
violation of contract to sell, not w/HLURB] w/c is w/o necessity of hearing unless a challenge on the
• Arranza vs. BF Homes initial toll rates fixed ensues that public hearings are
HLURB & not SEC has jurisdiction over complaint vs. required
respondent under receivership for specific performance re:
basic homeowners’ needs. Quasi-Judicial Power
• Marina Properties Corp. vs. CA
There is no forum shopping where HL Carlos (contractor) Quasi-judicial is the term applied the action, discretion, etc.
sues before HLURB to enforce Contract to Purchase & files of public administrative officers who are required to
another suit in court to collect money re: unpaid billings investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts and
from Construction Contract. discretion of a judicial nature

Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799) Requisites:
express empowerment by law; merely incidental and in aid
RA 8799 amended PD 902-A and transferred jurisdiction of of main function
SEC over intra-corporate or partnership cases to the courts.
The action or discretion to investigate facts and draw
• SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp conclusions from them as basis for their official action & to
A criminal charge for violation of the code is a specialized exercise discretion of a judicial nature involves:
dispute that should first be looked into by the SEC under a) taking and evaluating evidence;
doctrine of primary jurisdiction and if it finds probable b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented;
cause, it should refer to the DOJ for PI. SEC investigation and
interrupts prescriptive period. c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts
proved.
Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112)

ihipnghangin 3

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



Cases
• PCGG vs. Judge Pena • Pichay vs. Ochoa, 7/24/12)
PCGG is a co-equal body of RTC. RTC cannot restrain the While the term ‘adjudicatory’ appears, the IAD-ODESLA
PCGG cannot try & resolve cases, its authority being limited to the
• Sanado vs. CA conduct of investigations, preparation of reports &
The action of the POEA to grant, deny, suspend, or revoke a submission of recommendations. The IAD-ODESLA is fact-
license of any private placement agency is quasi-judicial. finding & recommendatory body to the President, not
POEA, on its own initiative, may conduct the necessary having power to settle controversies & adjudicate cases His
proceeding for suspension or cancellation of license of any authority to issue EO 13 (abolishing PAGC under EO 12 by
private placement agency on any of grounds mentioned GMA) & set IAD-ODESLA as his fact-finding investigator is
therein based on power of control to ensure enforcement of laws.
• Eastern Telecom vs. Int’l Communication Corp.
Power of NTC to issue CPCN for installation, operation & • Jalosjos Jr v. Comelec
maintenance of communication facilities & services and Comelec did not exercise its quasi-judicial functions, nor
determine the area of operation of applicants for violated petitioner’s right to due process, when it motu
telecommunication services. The grant by NTC to ICC to proprio issued Res. 9613 cancelling his CoC as it did not
operate in areas covered by petitioner is not a grave abuse assume jurisdiction over any pending petition or resolve
of discretion. NTC took into account ICC’s technical & any election case b4 it. It merely performed its legal duty to
financial capabilities and policy of healthy competition. cancel CoC of one suffering from accessory penalty of
perpetual disqualification to run xxx by virtue of final
NTC exercises quasi-judicial powers through its power to judgment, even w/o a petition under OEC or under Sec. 40
issue certificate of public convenience and necessity for the of LGC. This is an exercise of its administrative power.
operation of communication facilities and services as well Comelec is duty bound to enforce/administer laws re
as initiation of investigations for alleged violations. conduct of election .

A PI is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and DOJ is not a Distinction bet. administrative power & quasi-judicial
quasi-judicial agency when it reviews findings of the power
prosecutor re presence of probable cause (Balangauan vs.
CA, 562 CRA 186). Administrative power is concerned with the work of
applying policies/enforcing orders as determined by proper
• Bondoc vs. Tan Tiong Bio gov’tal organs. It doesn’t entail an opportunity to be heard,
A PI is not a quasi-judicial proceeding since the prosecutor weighing of evidence, & decision thereon.
does not determine guilt or innocence of accused. PI is
merely inquisitorial. Prosecutor cannot be said to be acting Quasi-judicial function applies to the action, discretion etc.
as a quasi-court, for it is the court that ultimately passes of admin officers/ bodies who are required to investigate
judgment on the accused. A PI partakes of an investigative facts.
or inquisitorial power for sole aim of obtaining information
on what future action of judicial nature may be taken Forum Shopping
• UP Board of Regents vs. CA It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
UP Board of Regents exercises quasi-judicial power as it is forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by
empowered to withdraw conferment of degree founded on appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two
fraud or error; due process must be observed and formal or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same
type of hearing is not required. cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition.
• Carino vs. CHR
Constitution grants CHR the power to investigate all forms Forum Shopping applies to quasi-judicial proceedings.
of human rights violations involving civil & political rights,
but it does not include power to adjudicate. Fact-finding is test of violation:
not adjudication. No quasi-judicial powers. a) where the elements of litis pendenti are present
• Biraogo vs. PTC b)where final judgment in one case will amount to res
No quasi-judicial powers have been vested in the Phil. Truth judicata in the other.
Commission (PTC). It cannot adjudicate rights of persons
who come before it. Quasi-judicial powers involve the Requirement to file certificate of non-forum shopping,
power to hear and determine questions of facts to w/c the although not jurisdictional, is mandatory; if not complied,
legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance summary dismissal is warranted. Certification signed by
with the standards set by law in administering the same law

ihipnghangin 4

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



counsel alone is defective, unless clothed with special If issued in excess of rule making authority: no binding
authority. effect upon the courts; treated as mere administrative
interpretations of the law.
Cases
1. Appellate court finds merit or compelling reason Mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively
for non-compliance with the rule (Ombudsman invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable
vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 719). construction may be given.
2. OMB decision dismissing criminal case vs. DPWH
RD Montemayor does not operate as res judicata 3 categories of rules that may be promulgated by admin
in PAGC admin case vs. him for ill-gotten wealth bodies:
(Montemayor vs. Bundalian, 405 SCRA 264). 1. Those intended to supply details of legislation
3. No forum shopping since CHED is w/o quasi- 2. Those intended to interpret or construe the
judicial power and cannot make any disposition of particular law being enforced.
the case (UST vs. Sanchez, 626 SCRA 127) 3. Those intended to determine some fact or state
of things upon which the enforcement of the act
• HLC vs. Emily Homes Homeowners Assn shall depend
General rule: certificate must be signed by all plaintiffs in a ex. emergency powers that may be granted to Chief
case; Executive.
Exception: they have common interest or filed the case as a
collective, raising only one common cause of action or Cases
defense • Philbank vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Rev. Memo Circular 7-85 (change of prescriptive period on
Rule is not applicable to agency not exercising judicial or claims of excess quarterly income tax payments)
quasi-judicial function (Cabarrus vs. Bernas, 279 SCRA 388) inconsistent with the NIRC; no vested rights arising from
or the cases do not raise identical causes of action. wrong construction of law
• Ombudsman vs. Rodriguez • Ople vs. Torres
In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction AO 308 providing for adoption of a national computerized
of two or more disciplining authorities, the body in which identification reference system is unconstitutional. Its
the complaint is filed first, and which takes cognizance of establishment requires a delicate adjustment of various
the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other contending state policies, the primacy of national security
tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction. When etc. It deals w/a subject that should be covered by law.
complainants first filed the complaint in OMB, jurisdiction • Dadole vs. COA
was already vested on the OMB & could no longer be LBC of DBM setting a maximum limit to additional
transferred to the SB by virtue of a subsequent complaint allowances to be given by LGU to national government
by the same complainants. officials is invalid bec. it goes beyond the law. Sec. 458 of
LGC allows the grant “when the finances of the LGU allow.”
Quasi-Legislative Power It doesn’t authorize setting a definite maximum limit to
additional allowances.
Quasi-legislative power is the power of admin bodies to • In Re Exemption from Payment of Court &
promulgate rules and regulations in order to carry out or Sheriff’s Fees of Duly Registered Cooperatives
implement the provisions of law they are mandated to The rules promulgated by the SC for payment of legal fees
implement. cannot be modified by a law granting exemption from legal
fees
The grant of the rule-making power to administrative • Lupangco vs. CA
agencies is a relaxation of the principle of separation of PRC resolution prohibiting attendance in accountancy
powers and is an exception to the non-delegation of review classes is not valid. It violates examinees’ right to
legislative powers. liberty & the academic freedom of schools.
• Confederacion National vs. Quisumbing
Requirements for validity of rules: MECS Order phasing out Spanish is valid
a. be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, • Sand vs. Abad Santos Educational Inst.
b. conform to the standards that the law prescribes, Board of Examiners for Nursing regulation for period
c. must relate solely to carrying into effect the general inspection is valid
provisions of the law • BIR Commissioner vs. CA
Prior to RMC 37-93, Hope, Champion & More cigarettes of
the Fortune Tobacco were local brands; but w/its issuance,
they were categorized as foreign brands, thus subjecting

ihipnghangin 5

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



them to increased ad valorem tax of 55%. In so doing, the 07/24/96 while Revised Securities Act was approved on
BIR not simply interpreted the law but legislated under its 02/23/82 does not render ineffective the law where it
quasi-legislative authority disregarding legal requirements. contains sufficient standards and an unmistakable intent
The due observance of requirements of notice, of hearing and where a reasonable construction may be given.
and of publication should not have been ignored. • Commission of Internal Revenue vs. Lhuiller
• British American Tobacco vs. Camacho Pawnshop
Revenue issuance empowering the BIR Commissioner to Distinguishing a regulation w/c is in the nature of
update classification of cigarette brands every 2 years is not subordinate legislative power and interpretative
valid. Nowhere in NIRC is such authority granted to BIR. regulation: The first one is designed to implement law by
• Romulo & Mabanta vs. HDMF providing its details. It must be published. Whereas, an
HDMF BOT (1995) Amendments to IRR providing both interpretative regulation is designed to provide guidelines
provident/retirement and housing benefits is not valid as it to the law, w/c the admin agency is in charge of enforcing.
amended RA 7742. It need not be published.
• Republic vs. Migrino • CIR vs. Lhuiller Pawnshop
Creation of new AFP Anti-Graft Board thru PCGG issuance is RMOs were issued imposing a 5% lending investor’s tax on
not in accord with EO 1. pawnshop, resulting in a BIR assessment vs. Lhuiller
• Conte vs. COA demanding payment of deficiency % tax. RMOs are invalid
Rule-making power of admin body is a delegated legislative as pawnshops are not considered “lending investors” under
power w/c it may not use either to abridge the authority NIRC. In issuing the RMOs, the CIR did not simply interpret
given it by Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its the law. The due observance of the requirements of notice,
power beyond the scope intended. The SSS, in hearing and publication should not have been ignored.
promulgating Res. 56 w/c provides a supplementary • KMU vs. Dir. General
pension/ retirement plan in violation of the Teves EO 420 directing all gov’t agencies to adopt unified multi-
Retirement Law (Sec. 28 of CA 186 as amended by RA 4968), purpose ID system does not usurp legislative power. 2 ways
cannot in guise of rule-making, legislate or amend laws or to achieve unified ID system, intended to reduce cost &
render them nugatory. Res. 56 is void & of no effect ensure greater convenience. 1) Heads of gov’t entities can
enter into MOA to adopt a uniform ID format to make
Note: The Teves Retirement Law (RA 4968) bars the systems uniform. This is purely admin matter. Uniform
creation of any insurance or retirement plan – other than format results in substantial savings, greater efficiency, &
the GSIS – for government employees to prevent the undue optimum compatibility; and 2) President, pursuant to her
and inequitous proliferation of such plans. power of control, can direct thru exec./admin order the
• GSIS vs. COA gov’t entities under Exec. Dept to adopt uniform ID format.
While GSIS has authority to create a financial scheme, it is This power is self-executing.
limited only to those availing of early retirement due to • Review Center vs. Exec. Sec
reorganization in GSIS but are not yet qualified for either Following the leakage in 2006 nursing exam, Pres. GMA
optional or compulsory retirement under RA 8291 as replaced the members of Board of Nursing and issued EO
amended by PD 1146 . The Retirement Financial Plan (RFP) 566 w/c authorized the CHED to supervise the operation of
adopted by GSIS Board is void as it is not an early all review centers. Said EO is invalid and a usurpation of
retirement scheme but is a form of reward for an legislative function. The mandate of CHED under RA 7722
employee’s loyalty and lengthy service in order to help him extends only to public/private institutions of higher
enjoy the remaining years of his life. The RFP is a learning & degree-granting programs in post-secondary
supplementary retirement plan prohibited by the Teves educational institutions, but not over review centers. A
Retirement Law. review center is not an institution of higher learning.
• De la Llana vs. Chairperson, COA • Commissioner vs. Hypermix Feeds Corp
The COA issued circulars lifting pre-audit of government The Customs Commissioner issued CMO 27-2003 w/c
transactions of national government, GOCCs and LGUs. classified imported meat before the customs officers had
Petitioner argued that under Sec. 2, Art lX-D of Const. [xxx the chance to examine it.
may adopt such measures, including temporary or special
pre-audit, as are necessary], pre-audit could not be lifted. Held: Sec. 1403 of Tariff & Customs Code tasked customs
officers to determine whether the packages designated for
Held: There is nothing in proviso that requires COA to examination & their contents are in accordance w/ the
conduct pre-audit of all government transactions and for declaration before the tariff may be imposed. CMO has
all government agencies. already classified the imported meat even before
• SEC vs. Interport Corp examination by customs officers. CMO is not in conformity
Mere absence of implementing rules cannot invalidate law. with the law
That Full Disclosure Rules was promulgated by SEC only on

ihipnghangin 6

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



Fiscal Autonomy to cover the total appropriations for all entities vested with
entails freedom from outside control and limitations, other fiscal autonomy.”
than those provided by law; full flexibility to allocate &
utilize resources with wisdom & dispatch; recognizes the Concept of Independence of Constitutional Bodies
power to levy, assess and collect fees, fix compensation
rates not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law and • Gonzales v. OP; Sulit v. Ochoa
allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law The independence enjoyed by OMB and the Const’l
or prescribe by them in the discharge of their functions; Commissions shares certain characteristics – they do not
formulate and implement their organizational structure owe their existence to any act of Congress, but are created
and compensation of their personnel. by the Constitution itself; they also all enjoy fiscal
autonomy. These bodies are intended by framers to be
It is a constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by insulated from political pressure and independent from
membership. From the Constitution, it is only the: 
 executive control or supervision or any form of political
Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the COA, the influence.
COMELEC, and the Office of the Ombudsman, which enjoy
fiscal autonomy.
 • Re: Clarifying & Strengthening the Organizational
Structure & Administrative Set-up of the
• CHREA vs. CHR Philippine Judicial Academy
While the agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy are authorized Re: the SC resolution creating positions of Chief Judicial
to formulate and implement the organizational structure of Staff Officer (SG 25) & Supervising Judicial Staff Officer (SG
their respective offices and determine the compensation of 23), the DBM has no authority to downgrade such SC
their personnel, such authority is not absolute and must be positions/salary grades. The DBM authority extends only to
exercised within the parameters of the Unified Position “calling the attention of the SC” on its perceived erroneous
Classification and Compensation System (UPCCS) under RA application of budgetary laws & rules. The SC may then
6758. amend or modify its resolution as its discretion may dictate
under the law. Here, DBM encroached on SC’s fiscal
While members of the CFAG are authorized to formulate & autonomy and supervision of court personnel, hence,
implement organizational structure of their respective unconstitutional.
offices & determine the compensation of their personnel, • (GSIS Petitn for Exemp. from Payment of Legal
such authority is not absolute & must be exercised w/in the Fees, AM 08-2-01-0
parameters of the Unified Position Sec. 39 of GSIS law (RA 8291), exempting it from “all taxes,
Classification&Compensation System under RA 6758 assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds,” cannot
administered by the DBM. Thus, CHR cannot lawfully operate to exempt GSIS from payment of legal fees. SC
implement an upgrading & reclassification of positions w/o under ‘87 Const. has sole authority to promulgate rules re
DBM imprimatur. The upgrading/creation of FMO and PAO pleading, practice & procedure in all courts. Any exemption
in CHR was not authorized by any law. The 1998 GA Act did from payment of legal fees granted by Congress to GOCCs
not give authority & LGUs necessarily reduces the JDF & SAJF, thus impairing
the SC’s guaranteed fiscal autonomy & erodes its
CHR has a certain degree of fiscal autonomy thru the independence.
privilege of having its approved annual appropriations • In re COA Computation
released automatically and regularly, but not fiscal COA found that there was underpayment when retired SC
autonomy in its extensive sense like using their Justices purchased from SC the cars assigned to them
appropriations to effect changes in their organizational during incumbency because in computing appraised value
structure & their savings for certain official purposes of the cars, Property Div. of SC used CFAG Joint Reso 35 dtd
April 1997 in accord w/SC Reso rather than the formula in
• CSC vs. DBM COA Memo 98-569-A of Aug. 5,1998.
Funds for agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy should be
automatically & regularly released, and not conditioned on Held: Under guarantees of fiscal autonomy &
the “no report, no release” DBM policy. The withholding of independence, SC decide the terms, conditions &
P5.8M (of P285.6M) for FY 2002 by the DBM, allegedly due restrictions of the grant of privileges/benefits to court
to revenue shortfall, is unconstitutional. officials/personnel. Use of formula in CFAG Joint Reso is
part of SC exercise of discretionary authority to determine
Even granting there is revenue shortfall, these agencies the manner the retirement privileges/benefits can be
should be given priority. The exception is where “total availed of xxx,
revenue collections are so low that they are not sufficient

ihipnghangin 7

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



Which of the following violates the judiciary’s fiscal administrative – rather than judicial – proceeding before
autonomy? the OMB is w/o merit. Whether petitioners’ refusal to
1. An item in 2011 General Appropriations Act follow the OMB orders constitutes defiance is for
allowing P13.5B to the judiciary, the same as last respondent to determine after appropriate hearing.
year’s allocation but 50% less than the SC
proposal; If a person refuses to respond to the OMB or his Deputy’s
2. A letter of the DBM Secretary to the Chief of the subpoena, or refuses to be examined, or engages in
Budget Office of the SC requesting for data on the obstructive conduct, the OMB or his deputy shall issue an
Judiciary Development Fund from 2005 up to the order directing the person to appear before him to show
present; cause why he should not be punished for contempt. The
3. The President veto of an item in 2011 GAA contempt proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the
allocating P900M as a supplemental fund for provisions of the Rules of Court (Sec. 32(3), RA 6770).
retired members of the judiciary;
4. A COA circular requiring all government offices to Delay or refusal to comply w/OMB referral or directive is
submit post-procurement report at the end of ground for admin disciplinary action xxx(Sec. 26(4), RA
each fiscal year. 6770).

Power to issue subpoena Implementing Rules or Interpretative Policies

Admin agencies have no inherent power to require 1. Admin bodies have authority to interpret at first
attendance of witnesses, but they may be given by law the instance the laws they are to execute.
power to issue subpoena xxx 2. Interpretations are not binding upon courts but
have force/ effect of law and entitled to great
Sec. 13 & 37, Ch. 3, Bk. Vll, EO 292: admin bodies are now respect.
authorized to require attendance of witnesses, or 3. general policy is to sustain the decision of
production of records xxx. Authority to take testimony or administrative bodies on basis of separation of
receive evidence includes the power to administer oath, powers and their presumed knowledgeability and
summon witnesses and issue subpoenas. expertise.
4. Abrogation of previous acts or rulings of
Administrative subpoena distinguished from judicial predecessor in office.
subpoena:
A subpoena may be enforced if the inquiry is within the Requisites for validity of admin rules and regulations:
authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite -must be issued under authority of laws
and the information is reasonably relevant (Evangelista vs. -must be within the scope & purview of the law
Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99). -must be reasonable
-must be published
Power to punish contempt
1. It should be clearly defined and granted by law What need to be published?
and its penalty determined. - When the issuances are of general applicability,
2. EO 292 states that unless otherwise provided by publication is necessary as a requirement of due
law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, process.
invoke the aid of RTC to punish contumacy or
refusal as contempt. • SEC vs. PICOP
3. It is limited to making effective the power to elicit The SEC violated due process when it denied the public
testimony and it cannot be exercised in prior knowledge of SEC 1990 Circular removing the filing fee
furtherance of administrative functions; this ceilings provided for in SEC 1986 Circular. The 1990 SEC
limitation derives from its nature being inherently Circular was not yet effective during the time PICOP filed its
judicial & the need to preserve order in judicial request in 2002 to extend its corporate existence as the SEC
proceedings. filed said Circular w/ UP Law Center only in 2004. The OP
and the CA were correct in declaring that the applicable
• Lastimosa vs. Vasquez filing fee payable by PICOP is P100T as computed under the
RA 6770 gives the Office of the Ombudsman the power to 1986 Circular, instead of P12M SEC assessment under the
punish for contempt in accordance w/ Rules of Court & 1990 Circular.
under the same procedure and the same penalties provided
therein. Petitioners’ argument that they cannot be held 1. EO 79 providing for compulsory membership in
liable for contempt because their refusal arose out of an GSIS of qualified reserve AFP officers like Gen.

ihipnghangin 8

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



Asuncion is effective 15 days after its publication What need not be published?
in OG on 12/22/86 (GSIS vs. COA, 301 SCRA 736). 1. Interpretative regulations and those merely
2. DBM Circular disallowing payment to gov’t internal in nature, i.e regulating only the
employees of allowances is of no force & effect personnel of the agency and not the public.
due to absence of publication in OG or newspaper 2. LOIs issued by administrative superiors
xxx. That it was reissued & submitted for concerning rules to be followed by subordinates
publication in OG does not cure the defect and
retroact to the time of disallowance in audit. Requirements of Admin Due Process
Publication is a condition precedent to effectivity
of a law (Phil. International Trading vs. COA, 309 1. Impartial tribunal
SCRA 177). *Fabella vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256 (inclusion of teachers’
3. POEA Circular not filed with the National organization rep indispensable to ensure impartial
Administrative Register cannot be used as basis tribunal).
for imposition of administrative sanctions and is 2. Due notice & hearing/opportunity to be heard
ineffective and may not be enforced; a requisite *Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143
under Secs. 3 & 4, Bk Vll, EO 292 (Philsa *Alcala vs. School Principal Villar, 11/18/03
International Placement Corp. vs. Labor 3. Procedure consistent w/essentials of fair trial
Secretary, 356 SCRA 174). That it is addressed to 4. Proceedings should be conducted to give opportunity for
specific group, i.e. private employment agencies, court to determine whether applicable rule of law &
does not exclude it from publication requirement. procedure were observed.
4. Rules imposing a penalty as authorized by the law
itself must be filed & registered w/ UP Law Center CSC has no original jurisdiction over an admin case vs. a
(Secs. 3 & 4, Bk. Vll, EO 292). public school teacher as jurisdiction is lodged with the
5. The 1978 NTC Rules ought to apply in the grant of Investigating Committee under Sec. 9 of RA 4670. Still, the
provisional authority to BayanTel despite filing of SC affirmed dismissal from service of petitioner for
1993 Revised Rules with UP Law Center. The 1993 dishonesty (for faking CS eligibilities of certain teachers for
NTC RR should have been published in OG or a fee) as he was sufficiently afforded due process by CSC.
newspaper of general circulation before it can He answered the charges & participated in hearings. He is
take effect. Publication in OG or newspaper xxx is barred under principle of estoppel by laches to impugn CSC
a condition sine qua non before rule takes effect. jurisdiction (Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143).
Filing of the 1993 NTC RR w/ U.P. Law Center is
not the operative act that gives the RR force & School Principal Villar is barred under principle of estoppel
effect. The National Admin Register is merely a by laches from assailing the jurisdiction of OMB since his
bulletin of codified rules (Republic vs. Express right to procedural due process was properly observed. Not
Telecom, 373 SCRA 317). only did he file his CA and MR from decision dismissing him
6. RA 3531 authorizes SEC to collect filing fees for for dishonesty, he also participated in hearings conducted
amendments extending corporate existence. SEC by OMB-VIS & was given the opportunity to cross-examine
MC # 1 imposing a filing fee of 1/10 of 1% of AC witnesses vs. him (Alcala vs. Villar, 11/18/03).
plus 20% thereof [or P1.2M on GMA] for
amendments extending corporate existence is By virtue of RA 4670, original jurisdiction belongs to the
not a mere interpretation or an internal rule. The school superintendent. Jurisdiction is a matter of law. And
MC is invalid as it was not published in OG or a subsequent openness by the OMB to transfer the case to
newspaper, nor filed w/Office of National its office, despite the acquiescence of the DECS RO6, will
Administrative Register of UPLC. It needs to be not divest the DECS of jurisdiction already acquired. It is not
published as it implements mandate of RA 3531 lost upon instance of the parties but continues until the
and it affects public (SEC vs. GMA Network, 575 case is terminated (OMB vs. Estandarte, 521 SCRA 155).
SCRA 113).
7. OMB-DOJ Joint Circular 95-01 is merely internal RA 6770 recognizes the existence of some “proper
bet. the DOJ & the OMB, outlining the authority disciplinary authorities” i.e. Investig. Committee of the
& responsibilities among prosecutors in conduct DepEd. Sec. 23 directs that OMB may refer certain
of PI. Said circular does not regulate the conduct complaints to proper disciplinary authority for institution of
of persons or the public in general, nor does it appropriate admin proceedings vs. erring public officer.
contain any penal provision or prescribe a Thus, admin disciplinary authority of the OMB over a public
mandatory act. Hence, it need not be published school teacher is not exclusive but concurrent with DepEd
(Honasan vs. DOJ Panel, 4/13/04). Note: (OMB vs. OIC Principal Medrano, 569 SCRA 749). While
superseded by OMB-DOJ MOA dated 3/29/12 OMB should have desisted xxx but a decision had been
rendered, he is barred to assail OMB jurisdiction in an MR.

ihipnghangin 9

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



decide admin cases instituted by it or instituted
While OMB has concurrent administrative disciplinary before it directly or on appeal. CSC is still impartial
authority with the DECS over public school teachers, Sec. 23 judge so long as its decision was based on
of RA 6770 provides that the OMB may refer a complaint to substantial findings (Cruz vs. CSC, 370 SCRA 650).
the proper disciplinary authority. Under the circumstances [Mun. Treas. Zenaida Paitum took CS Prof. Exam
obtaining herein, it is more prudent for petitioner to have on behalf of Cruz].
referred the complaint to the DECS as it is in a better
position to serve the interest of justice. Respondent is a 4. Reviewing Officer should not be same officer
public school teacher and covered by RA 4670 (OMB vs. whose decision is under review. Decision of Sec.
Delijero, 634 SCRA 135). of Natural Resources was set aside as it
concerned his own decision as Director of Mines
Note: RA 4670 does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to (Zambales Mining vs. CA, 94 SCRA 261).
DepEd nor prescribe an exclusive procedure in
administrative investigation involving public school 5. Distinction between Sec. 12 and Sec. 47 of EO
teachers. The 1987 Constitution cannot be restricted by RA 292:
4670 which is of earlier enactment. Sec. 9 of RA 4670 refers Sec. 12 refers to CSC authority to institute directly
only to specific procedure to be followed by DepEd in and motu proprio admin cases of dishonesty &
administrative investigation (OMB vs. Masing, 542 SCRA falsification, intended to administer CS system &
253). protect its integrity by removing from list of
eligibles those who falsified their qualifications;
Due Process in Admin Proceedings Sec. 47 refers to the ordinary disciplinary
proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide
What it includes: member of the system (CSC vs. Albao, 472 SCRA
1) right to actual or constructive notice to the institution of 548). [EA Albao stated in PDS he passed Elec.
proceedings; Engr. Exam].
2) real opportunity to be heard personally or with counsel,
to present evidence; 6. Void. Labor Arbiter Aquino whose decision is
3) impartial tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction; subject of appeal is the reviewing officer as
and Commissioner of NLRC (Singson vs. NLRC, 274
4) finding by said tribunal w/c is supported by substantial SCRA 358)
evidence submitted during the hearing or contained in the
record or made known to parties affected. 7. OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when
he participated in reinvestigation of graft case vs.
Cases: PNB VP Tejano despite his earlier participation in
1. A decision rendered in disregard of fundamental PI as SP (Tejano vs. Desierto, 462 SCRA 568).
right to due process is void for lack of jurisdiction.
No violation even if GSIS is the complainant, 8. NTC order reviving archived application of
prosecutor and judge. (Garcia vs. Molina) BayanTel w/o notice to oppositor is not denial of
procedural due process (Rep. vs. Express
2. While GSIS Act gives Gen. Mgr. the authority to Telecom, 373 SCRA 319).
discipline GSIS personnel, this must be in accord
w/CS rules. Under CSC Unified Rules, upon receipt 9. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from
of complaint sufficient in form & substance, fundamental procedural principles, such as right
disciplining authority shall require person to to due process. Respondent must be duly
submit CA or comment under oath. The PI must informed of charge vs. him & he cannot be
be done prior to issuance of formal charge. The convicted of a crime with w/c he was not charged
filing by petitioner of formal charges vs. (CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560).
respondents without complying with mandated
PI or giving them opportunity to comment Essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard or
violated their right to due process. Formal seek a reconsideration of the ruling complained of.
charges are void & may be assailed anytime
(Garcia vs. Attys. Molina & Velasco, 627 SCRA Procedural vs. substantive due process
541). ~method or manner by w/c law is enforced
~ law itself is fair, reasonable & just
3. Petitioners were not denied due process by the
fact that CSC acted as investigator, complainant, Cases:
prosecutor and judge. CSC is mandated to hear &

ihipnghangin 10

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



1. The designation of the offense with which a 5. Unverified complaint filed w/ CHED is not the
person is charged in an administrative case is not complaint w/in purview of EO 292. It merely
controlling, and one may be found guilty of commences FFI. The formal charge of CHED Legal
another offense where the substance of the Office vs. Gaoiran constituted the complaint re:
allegations and evidence presented sufficiently mauling (Gaoiran vs. Alcala & Castillejo, 444 SCRA
prove one’s guilt. The acts alleged & proved to 420).
have been committed by Pia amounts to Conduct 6. One may be heard not solely by verbal
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, & presentation but also thru pleadings in admin
she has been afforded full opportunity to present proceedings. Technical rules of procedure &
her side & refute the act xxx (Dr. Zenaida Pia vs. evidence are not strictly applied (Concerned
Margarito Gervacio, GR 172334, 6/5/13). MWSS Officials vs. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502).
2. Pia’s culpability is anchored on her irregular & 7. Due process in administrative context does not
unjustifiable act (of selling the book), she having require trial-type proceedings similar to those in
moral ascendancy over her students, in violation courts (UP Board of Regents vs. CA, 313 SCRA
of existing PUP regulation. Also, RA 6713 404).
enunciates state policy of promoting high 8. Service of summons or order on OSG is
standards of ethics & utmost responsibility in indispensable ingredient of due process (NPC vs.
public service (id.) NLRC, 272 SCRA 707).
9. Where a party appears by counsel in an action in
The charge vs. resp. in admin case need not be court or administrative body, all notices required
crafted w/precision of an info in a criminal to be given must be served to the counsel and not
prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of to the client. Notice to counsel is notice to client
the charge; what is controlling is the allegation of (Lincoln Gerard, Inc. vs. NLRC, 7/23/90).
the acts complained of, not the designation of the 10. Notice to any one of the several counsels on
offense (Avenido vs. CSC, 553 SCRA 711). record is notice to all and such notice starts the
3. Procedural due process refers to the method or time running for appeal despite that the other
manner by w/c the law is enforced, while counsel on record has not received a copy of the
substantive due process requires that the law decision (PPA vs. Sargasso Const., 435 SCRA 512).
itself – not merely the procedures by which the 11. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part
law is enforced – is fair, reasonable and just. of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege,
exercisable only in the manner & in accordance
As applied to tenurial protection accorded to a with law (Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753)
civil servant, procedural due process requires that 12. Assistance of counsel is not an absolute
the dismissal be effected only after notice & requirement in administrative inquiry. Here,
hearing, while substantive due process requires, petitioner waived her right to assistance of
among others, that the dismissal be for legal counsel and freely acknowledged her wrongdoing
cause. (Ampong vs. CSC, 563 SCRA 294).
13. A party in an admin inquiry may or may not be
The tenurial protection accorded to a civil servant assisted by counsel, regardless of nature of
is a guaranty of both procedural & substantive charges & of respondent’s capacity to represent
due process. Procedural due process requires himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish
that the dismissal when warranted be effected the person investigated w/counsel.
only after due notice & hearing. While
substantive due process requires that dismissal Respondent has option of engaging the services
be for legal cause (Lacson vs. PAGC, 05/30/11). of counsel or not. Right to counsel is not
4. Petitioners actively participated in PAGC imperative because admin inquiry is conducted
proceedings where they explained their actions merely to determine whether the facts merit
thru their memoranda. For failure to appeal to disciplinary measures vs. erring public officers,
proper forum (to CSC & not to CA), PEA decision with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the
has become final & executory. government service (DAR RD Lumiqued vs.
Exevea, 282 SCRA 125).
There is no denial of due process when on her 14. Negligence of counsel binds the client (Maquilan
filing a MR from the decision reprimanding her vs. Maquilan, 524 SCRA 166); the only exception
was given opportunity to be heard but she is when negligence of counsel is gross, reckless &
refused to file pleading (Ruivivar vs. Omb., 565 inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day
SCRA 325) in court (Razon vs. Pp, 525 SCRA 254).

ihipnghangin 11

 A D MI N L AW 1 S T E X A M 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8



15. Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing is not lost by There is nothing irregular that theTRB Resolution No. 2001-
cessation in office of respondent during pendency 89 authorizing provisional toll rate adjustment at Metro
of his admin case. The body retains its jurisdiction Manila Skyway effective 01/01/02 was signed by the TRB
either to pronounce him innocent of the charges Exec. Director & four Directors, none of whom personally
or declare him guilty thereof (Atty. Perez vs. CFI attended the hearing (Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 679).
Judge Abiera, 62 SCRA 302).
16. Although the rule is that the death of respondent Right vs. self-incrimination
in admin case does not preclude a finding of
admin liability, there are 3 exceptions to this rule: 1. Available in all kinds of proceedings
1st, when respondent has not been heard and 2. Available only to natural persons and not to a
continuation of proceedings would deny him of juridical person.
his right to due process; 2nd where exceptional 3. Reason for exclusion of juridical persons from no
circumstances exist in the case leading to self-incriminatory rule is the need for
equitable & humanitarian reasons; and 3rd when administrative bodies tasked by legislature to see
the kind of penalty imposed would render the to the compliance with law and public policy.
proceedings useless (Mercado vs. Salcedo,
10/16/09). The right vs. self-incrimination is not self-executory or
automatically operational, it must be claimed at the
Cardinal Primary Rights in Administrative Proceedings appropriate time, or else it may be deemed waived (Nacu
1. Right to a hearing; vs. CSC, 635 SCRA 766). PEZA employee Nacu (who was
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented; charged with dishonesty & grave misconduct for illegally
3. Decision must have something to support itself; collecting fees) did not invoke her right vs. self-
4. Decision is based on substantial evidence; incrimination at the time she was asked to provide samples
5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence of her signature. She is therefore deemed to have waived
presented at hearing, or at least contained in the such right.
record & disclosed to the parties affected;
6. Board/judge must act on its own independent
consideration of law & facts of controversy, & not
simply accept views of subordinate.
7. Decision is rendered such that parties can know
various issues & reasons for decision.

Exercise of disciplining authority’s prerogative requires
prior independent consideration of law and facts, & not
simply rely on dispositive portion of PCAGC Reso & even
misquoted it. Her finding should contain factual finding &
legal assessment (DOH Secretary vs. Camposano, 457 SCRA
440)

Decision prepared by a SP Member is not the Decision of SP
for lack of signatures of requisite majority. The voting
following the deliberation of SP members did not
necessarily constitute their Decision unless embodied in an
opinion xxx (Malinao vs. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616)

Instances of admin determination where notice & hearing are not
necessary.

1. Summary abatement of nuisance per se
2. Cancellation of passport by DFA
3. Summary proceedings of distraint & levy of
property of delinquent taxpayer
4. Preventive suspension
5. Grant of provisional authority for increased rates,
or to engage in particular line of business.

ihipnghangin 12