ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE AriD ELECUON LAW

New Era University College of law

Saturdays 6-9 Atty. Eleonor Arcadio
Balatbat

COURSE OUTUNE

Suggested Book: AdministratiVe law, law on Public Officers and Election law
Ruben E. Agpalo, 2005 edition

I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. Development of Administrative Law

1. Factors responsible for the emergence of administrative agencies

2. The docbine of separation of powers and the constitutional position of administrative
agencies

B. Definitions: Administrative Law and Administrative Agencies

1. Manila Electric Company v. Pasay Transportation Co. (G.R. No. L-37878, November 25, 1932)
2. Antonio H. Noblejas vs. aaudlo Teehankee, et at. (G.R. No. L-28790, Aprll29, 1968)
3. Garcia v. Macaraig, 39 SCRA 106 (1972)
4. In reJudge Rodolfo Manzano, 166 SCRA 246 (1988)
5. Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr. (G.R. No. L-51122, March 25, 1982)
6. SeJa, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97149, 31 March 1992, 207 SCRA 689
7. Eugenio vs. Ovil Service Commission, G.R. No. 115863, 31 March 1995, 243 SCRA 196
8. De Ia Llana vs. Alba, G.R. No. L-57883, 12 March 19821 112 SCRA 291
9. Medalla vs. Sayo, G.R. No. L-54554, 30 March 1981, 103 SCRA 587
10. Lianga Bay Logging Co. vs. Enage, G.R. No. L-30637, 6 July 1987, 152 SCRA 80

II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACUON

A. Administrative Agendes and Executive Power

• Art. vn, Sees. 1 and 17, 1987 Constitution

III. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER

A. Non-delegation Doctrine
1. U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 PHIL 1 (1922)
2. People v. Vera, 65 PHIL 56 (1937)
3. Emmanuel Pelaez v. The Auditor General (G.R. No. L-23:825, December 24, 1965)
4. Edu v. Erlcta (G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970)
5. Agustin v. Edu (GR No. L-49112, G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979)
6. Phikomsat v. Alcuaz (G.R. No. 84818, December 18, 1989)
7. Chongbian v. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253 (1995)
8. Santiago v. Commission on Elections , 270 SCRA 106 { 1997) - - only on non-de~ation issue
9. Abakada Guro Party Ust v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168207, September 1, 2005 - only on non-
delegation Issue
10. Review Center Association of the Philippines v. Ermita 583 SCAA 428 (2009)

1 1 1-.. agf! \dtnin .... trnliv~ L~l\\

 
 B. Permissible Delegation

(1} Ascertainment of FiJCt

1. Lovina v. Moreno (G.R. No. L-178221, November 29, 1963)

(2) Filling in of details

2. Alegre v. Collector of Customs, 53 Phil. 394 (1920)

(3) Administrative Rule-Making

Book Vll, Administrative Procedure, Sees. 1-9, Administrative Code of 1987

3. cawad v. Abad (G.R. No. 207145, July 28, 2015)

C. Umits on Rule-Making Power

1. Olsen & Co., Inc. v. Aldanese, 43 Phil. 259 ( 1922)
2. Syman v. Jacinto, 93 Phil . 1093 (1953)
3. Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, 105 Phil 173 (1959)
4. Toledo v. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 507 (1991)
5. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 368 (1995)
6. PCSO v. Pu'lido-Tan (G.R. No. 216776, Aprll19, 2016)
D. Admlnlstra.tive Rules

{1) Publication and Effectivity

1. People v. Que Po Lay, 94, Phil. 640
2. Philippine Blooming Mills v. SSS, G.R. No. 21223, August 31, 1966, 17 SCRA 1077
3. Taiiada v. Tuvera 146 SCRA 446
4. Phil. Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres, 212 SCRA 298 {1992)
5. Republic of the Philippines v. Extekxlm, G.R. No. 147096, January 15, 2002
6. NASECORE v. ERC G.R. No. 163935, February 2, 2006
7. GMA v. MTRCB 514 SCRA 191 (2007)
8. Republic v. Pilipinas Shell Corp. 550 SCRA 680 (2008)

Book VII, Sees. 3-8, Administrative Code of 1987

(2) Penal Regulations

9. People v. Que Po Lay, supra
10. People v. Maceren, supra

(3) Interpretative Rules/Contemporaneous Construction

11. Director of Forestry v. Muiioz, G.R. No. L-24796, June 28, 1968
12. Victorias Co v. Social Security Commission G.R. No. 16704, March 17, 1962; 114 Phil 555
(1962)
13. Peralta v. Civil Service Commisslon, 212 SCRA 425 (1992)

(4) Examples of rule-IT1i1king in various agencies

14. Director of Forestry v. Muiioz, G.R. No. 24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 1183
15. Sand v. Abad Santos Educational Institution, G.R. No. l-30918, July 19, 1974; 58 SCRA 33
(1974)
16. American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, L-26803, Oct. 14, 1975; 67 SCRA 287
17. Rabor v. Civil Service Commission, 244 SCRA 614 (1995)
18. Realty Exchange Venture Corporation v. Sendeno, 223 SCRA 665 (1994)

211'ag~ Admana~lralht.- l.aw  

 19. Soriano v. La Guardia 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
20. Dagan v. Phil. Racing Commission 578 SCRA 585 (2009)

(5) Rate-FIXing
21. Director or Forestry v. Munoz, G.R. No. L-24796, June 28, 1968

Administrative Code or 1987 Sec. 9, Book VII

22. Panay Autobus Co. v. Phil. Railway Co., 57 Phil. 172 (1993)
23. KMU Labor Center v. Garcia, 239 SCRA 386) (1994)
24. Ynchaustic S.S. Co. v. Public Utility Commission, 42 Phil. 621 (1922)
25. Vigan Electric Co. v. PSC, G.R. No. L-19850, Jan. 30, 1964, 10 SCRA 46
26. Phil. Communications Corp. v. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218 (1989)
27. MlAA v. Airspain Corp. 445 SCRA 471 (2004)

(6) LfceMing
28. Sees. 17-18, Book vn, Administrative Code of 1987
29. Gonzalo Sy Trading vs. Central Bank, 70 SCRA 570, April 30, 1976

IV. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

(1} (b) Special Statutoty Grant

Presidential Decree No. 902-A
1. Evangelista v. Jarenclo, L-29274, Nov. 27, 1975, 68 SCRA 99
2. Guevarra v. Commission on Election.s, G.R. No .. 12596, July 31, 1958
3. Catura v. 37 SCRA 303 (1971)
4. Tolentino v. Indong, G.R. No. L-36385, July 25, 1979

(2) Wa~nts ofarrest/Administrative seerches

Art. m, Sec. 2 or the 1987 Constitution
1. Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. 10280, Sept. 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 27
2. Santos v. Commissioner, 74 SCRA 96 ( 1976)
3. Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 840 (1988)
, 4. Luden Tran Van Nghia v. Uwag, 175 SCRA 318 (1989)
5. Salazar v. Adlaooso, 183 SCRA 145 (1990)
6. Board or Commissioners (CID) v. De Ia Rosa, 197 SCRA 853 (1991)

(3) Imposition of Fines and Penalties

1. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 UI.S. 320 (1908)
2. Civil Aeronautics Board v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., l-40245, April 30, 1975; 63 SCRA 524
(1975)
3. Scoty's Dept. Store v. Mlcailer, 99 PHIL 762 (1956)
4. u.s. v. Banrlas, 11 Phil. 327 (1908)
5. RCPI v. Board of CommunlcatJons, No. L-43653, N~v. 29, 1977, 80 SCRA 471
6. Perez v. LPG Relillers Association or the Philippines, Inc. 492 SCRA 638 (2006)

B. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards

(1) Interest of Law and Order

• Rubi v. The Prov. Board or Mindoro, 39 Phil. 661 (1919)

(2) Public Interest and General Welfare

People v. Rosenthal & Osmeiia, 68 Phil 328 (1939)
CRESA v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010
31 Pag~ AdministrativP I .lw
 
 (J) Justice, equity and subst<Jntial merits of the case
• International Hardwood & Veneer Co. v. Pangil Federation, 70 Phil. 602 (1940)

(4) Adequate and efftdent Instruction

• PACU v. Secretary, 97 Phil. 806 (1955)

{5) What is mora~ education or amusing

• Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 236 U.S. 230 (1914)

{6) What is sacrilegfous

• Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)

(7} Reasonableness as an lmpffed st<Jndard

• Wisconsin Inspection ·Bureau v. Whitman, 196 Wis. 427, 220M. W. 929 (1928)

-IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Bool< VII, Administrative Procedure, Sec. 1-26, Administrative Code of 1987

A. Rules of Procedure
See Art. IX-A, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution

B. Due Process in Administrative Hearings

(1) Qlrdinal primary rights

1. Ang Tlbay v. Court ofIndustrial Relations, 69 Phil635 (.1.950)
2. Aspec v. Itchon, G.R. No. 21685, April 30, 1966, 15 SCRA 921
3. Vigan Electric v. PSC, G.R. No. 19850, Jan. 30, 1954, 10 SCRA 46
4. Borja v . Moreno, G.R. No. L-16487, July 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 568
5. Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. vs. NLRC- 284 SCRA 656 (1998)
1 6. Bachrach Motor Co., inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-26136, October 30, 1978, 86 SCRA 27 (1978)
7. U.P. Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals 313 SCRA 404 (1999)
8. American Inter-Fashion Corp. v. Office of the President, 197 SCRA, 409 (1991)
9. Pefianco v. Moral 322 SCRA 439 (2000)
10. NAPOLCOM, National Appellate Board and PNPO v. Police Chief Inspector Leonardo
Bernabe, G.R. No. 129914, May 12, 2000
11. Montemayor v. Bundalian, G.R. No. 149335, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 26
12. Shoppes Manila, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147125, January 14, 2004, 419 SCRA 354
13. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1996)
14. Magcamit v. lAS- PDEA, G.R. No. 198140, January 25, 2016

{2) Notice and Hearing

When reouired
1. Halili v. PSC, 9Z Phil. 1036 (1953)
2. Commissioner of Immigration v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-22696, May 29, 1964, 11 SCRA
184 • National Deve'l'pment Co. v. Collector, G.R. No. L-19180, Oct. 31, 1963, 9
SCRA 429 (1963)
3. Bautista v. Workmen's Co: · >ensation Commission, No. L-43027, January 31, 1979, 88
SCRA 121
4. Equitable Banking Corp. v. 'JLRC- 273 SCRA 352 (1997)
5. Felix Uy et. ai., v. COA et al., G.R. No. 130685, March 21, 2000.

41 1'age Adm i ni>trotive law  

 When not reauired
1. Suntay v. People, 101 Phil 833 (1957)
2. Bishop v. Galang, G.R. No. 18365, May 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 244
3. Pollution Adjudication Board vs. Court or Appeals, 195 SCRA 112 {1991)
4. QC PTCA v. DepEd (G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016)
5. Javier v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 215847, January 12, 2016)
6. Go Yu Tak Wal v. Vrvo, No. l-22257, May 23, 1997, 77 SCRA 55
7. Sichanagc:o v. The Board or Commissioners of Immigration, G.R. L- 23545, Nov. 7, 1979
8. Realty Exchange Venture Corp. vs. Sendino, 233 SCRA 665 (1994)

(4) Jurisdiction
1. Feliciano v. Director of Patents, 93 Phil113 {1953)
2. canno v. Commission on Puman Rights, 204 SCRA 483 (1991)
3. Simon, Jr. v. Commission t•n Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117 (1994)
4. Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA, 231 SCRA 292 ( 1994)
5. Mateo v. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 284 {1995)
6. Philippine Airtines, Inc. v. CAB, 270 SCRA 538 (1997)
7. ERB v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 327 (1999)
8. Delta Ventures Resources Inc. v. cabato- 327 SCRA 521 (2000).
9. Jesus Um Arranza, et. al., v. B.F. Homes, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 131683, June 19, 2000
10. CooperatiVe Development Authortty v. Oolefil Agrarian Reform BenefiCiaries CooperatiVe,
Inc., 432 Phil. 290 (2002)
11. De Jesus v. COA G.R. No. 149154, June 10, 2003
12. CSC v. Alfonso, 589 SCRA 88 (2009)

(S) Administrat!Ye andJudicial Proceedings Arising !'rom the same

facts
13. Vlllanos v. Subldo, G.R. No. L-23169, May 31, 1971, 45 SCRA 142
14. PNR v. Domingo, G.R. No. L-30772 Oct. 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 142
15. The Police Commission v. Lood, 96 SCRA 819 (1980)
16. Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman, 322 SCRA 17 (2000)
17. Mlralles vs. Go, 349 SCRA 596 (2001)
18. Ferrer v. Sandlganbayan, G.R. No. 161067, March 14, 2008

(6) Rules of Evidence (SubstantliJI Evidence)

Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court
1. Philippine Movie Pictures Workers Ass'n. v. Premier Production, 92 Phil. 844 (1953)
2. Estate of Florenclo Buan v. Pambusco, 99 Phil. 373 (1956)
3. Borja v. Moren~ G.R. No. L-16487, July 31, 1964, 11 SCRA S68
4. Maceda v. Energy Regulatory Board, 199 SCRA 454 (1991)
5. Bantoli no v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, 403 SCRA 699 (2003)
6. CSC v. Colangco, 553 SCRA 640 (2008)

YD. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

1. Fortich vs. Corona, 239 SCRA 624 (1998)
2. Antique Sawmill Inc. v. Zayc:o, G.R. No. 20051, May 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 316
3. Sotto v. Ruiz, 41 Phil 468 (1921)
4. Uy v. Palomar, G.R. No. 2448, Feb. 28, 1969; 27 SCRA 287 (1969)
s. Manuel v. Villena, G.R. No. 28218, Feb. 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 745 (1971)
6. San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, L-39195, May 16, 1975, 64 SCRA 56.
7. UCPB v. E. •Guanzon, Inc., 591 SCRA 321 (2009)

SI Pag,• Aamani .. tr.lll\e Law  

 B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
1. Pascual v. Prov., Board, 106 Phil 446 ( 1959)
2. Alzate v • .A!Idana, G.R. No. 14407, Feb. 29, 1960, 107 Phil. 298 (1960)
3. Paredes v. C.A. 253 SCRA 126 (1996), 1978, 81 SCRA 574
4. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438 (1996)
5. PAAT v. C.A. 266 SCRA 167 (1997)
6. lopez v. Oty of Manila, 303 SCRA 448 (1999)
7. Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100579, June 6, 2001
8. Smart Communications, Inc. v. NTC, 408 SCRA 678 (2003)
9. Estrada v. C.A., 442 SCRA 117 (2004)
10. Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Sciences and Technology, 443 SCRA 56 (2004)
11. Flores v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan, G.R. No. 159022, February 23, 2005
12. CSC v. DBM 464 SCRA 115 (2005)
13. Alta Vista v. City of Cebtt, G.R. No. 180235, January 20, 2016

c. Primary Jurisdiction and Concurrent Jurisdiction

1. Texas & Pac. Railway Co. v. Abilene, 204 U.S. 426 (1907)
2. Phil. Globa'l Communications, Inc. v. Relova, l-52819, Oct. 2, 1980
3. Viadad v. RTC of Negros Oriental, Br. 42, 227 SCRA 271 (1993)
4. Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426 (1990)
s. Conrad and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 691 (1995)
6. Philippine Veterans Bank v. C.A., 322 SCRA 139 (2000)
7. Hilario v. Prudente (G.R. No. 150635, September 11, 2008)
8. In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Sehwani, Inc., G.R. No. 179127, December 24, 2008

D. Standing to Challenge
1. Ursal v. CTA, 101 Phil 209 (1957)
2. Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
3. Joya v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 225 SCRA 568 (1993)
4. Kilos Bayara, Inc. v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994)
5. KMU Labor Center v. Garcia, 239 SCRA 386 (1994)
6. Kilos Bayan, Inc. v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1995)
7. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, et. al., G.R. No. 141284. August 15, 2000-
standing issue only ~
E. Ripeness
8. Abbot laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967)
9. Ferrer v. Mayor Roco, G.R. No. 174129, July 5, 2010
10. National Automatic laundry & Oeaning Council v. Shultz, 443 F.2d 689 (OC Cir. 1971)

VIII. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Art. IX, A. Common Provisions, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution

B.P. Bldg. 129•, Sec. 9, as amended by R.A. No. 7902 (1995).
Book VII, Sec. 25 of the Administrative Code of 1987
Supreme Court, Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, May 16, 199
Rule 43, Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
1. Sebastian v. Hon. Morales (G.R. No. 141116, February 17, 2003)
2. Tan v. link (G.R. No. 172849, December 10, 2008)

A. Certiorari
1. St. Martin Funeral Homes. v. NlRC- 295 SCRA 494 (1998)
2. Azores v. SEC, 252 SCRA 387 (1996)
3. Villaruel vs. NlRC - 284 SCRA 399 (1998)
6 1 Pa~e Admini:,t r ative law  
 4. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. General Foods (Phils.) Inc., G.R. No. 143672, April 24,
2003
5. Cruz v. Gangan, G.R. No. 143403, 395 SCRA 711 [2003]
6. Pagayanan R. Hadji·Sirad v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 182267, August 28, 2009.

B. Prohibition
1. Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board, 96 Phil. 665 (1955)
2. Co. v. The Deportation Board, 78 SCRA 104 ( 1977)
3. Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117 (1994)
4. Paredes v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 126 (1996)

c. Mandamus
1. Blanco v. Board of Examiners, 46 Phil. 190 (1924)
2. Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission, 105 Phil. 377 ( 1959)
3. Province of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission, No. L-27448, Nov. 29, 1977, 80
SCRA 376
4. PRC v. de Guzman, G. R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004

D. Declaratory Relief
1. Azajar v. Ardalles, 97 Phll851 (1955)
2. De Borja v. Villadolid, 35 Phil 36 (1949)
3. National Dental Supply Co. v. Meer, 90 Phlls 265 (1951.)
4. Mirando v. Wellington Ty & Bros, Inc. No. L-44062, Feb. 16, 1978, 81 SCRA 506

F. Injunction as provisional remedy

1. Philippine Pacific Fishing Co., Inc. v. Luna, 112 SCRA 604 (1982)
2. Lemi v. Valenda, G.R. No. 22756, March 18, 1966, 16 SCRA 406 (1966)
3. Honda v. San Diego, G.R. No. 22756, March 18, 1966, 16 SCRA 406 (1966)
4. Nocnoc v. Vera, No., L-37737, Feb. 27, 1979, 88 SCRA 529

I X. EXTENT OF JUDI CIAL REVIEW

A. The Law ..f act distinction ,

1. Dauan v. Sec. G.R. No. 19547, May 18, 1959, 105 Phil 1317 (1959)
2. Reyes Vda. De Santiago v. Reyes, G.R. No. 13115, Feb. 29, 1960, 107 Phil 210 (1960)
3. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Pepeti, G.R. No. L·21335, Dec. 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 1028

B. Question of Law
1. Ortua v. Vicente SingsonEncamadon, 59 Phll440 (1934)
2. Mejia v. Mapa, so o.,G. No.6, 2507 {1954)
3. People v. Santos, 63 Phil 300 (1936)
4. Japanese War Notes Claimants v. SEC. G.R. No. 8987, May 23, 1957, 101 Phil 540 (1957)
5. Ysmael v. OR, G.R. No. 14280, May 30, 1960, 108 Phil. 407
6. Okeeffe v. Smith Associates; 380 U.S. 359 { 1965)

C. Question of Fact
1. Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union, G.R. No. 23256, Oct. .31, 1969, 30 SCRA 47
2. Yutuc v. Rep. of the Phil. G.R. No. 43270, Dec. 29, 1978
3. Suarnaba v. WCC, G.R. No. L42337, Oct. 9, 1978
4. Manahan v. People, 167 SCRA 1 (1988)
5. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines,
204 SCRA 767 (1991)
6. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Confessor, 231 SCRA 41 {1994)

71 Page Adrnini;,trative law  

 7. Manila Electric Co. v. NlRC, 198 SCRA 681 (1991)
8. Lameyra v. Panglllnan, 322 SCRA 117 (2000)
9. German Marine Agencies, Inc. vs. NlRC, G.R. No. 142049, January 30, 2001, 350 SCRA 629
10. Velasquez v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 150732, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 357, 369
11. Civil Service Commission v. <:ayobit, 410 SCRA 357 (2003)
12. Office of the Ombudsman v. RorentiM Santos, G.R. No. 166116. M3rth 31, 2006

0. Question of Discretion
1. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., v. PSC, G.R. No. 10903, Jan. 18, 1957
2. Manila Trading v. Zulueta, 69 Phil 485 (1940)
3. Kapisanan ng rnga Manggagawasa La Suerte·POITAF v. Noriel G.R. No. L·45475, June 20,
1977,

A. Res Judicata/Finality of Judgment

1. Ipel<djlan Merchandising v. CTA, G.R. No. 15430, Sept. 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72 (1963)
2. Nasipit lumber Co., Inc. v. NlRC 177 SCRA 93 ( 1989)
3. Dulay v. Minister or Natural Resources, 218 SCRA 562 (1993)
4. Meralco v. Phil. Consumers Foundation, et. al. G.R. No. 101783, January 23, 2002

B. Writ of Exeoutlon/Mandamus
1. Apolega v. Hlzon, G.R. No. l·23832, Sept. 28, 1968, 25 SCRA 336 (1968)
2. Vda. De Corpuz v. The Commanding General, Phil. Army, G.R. No. L-44077, Sept., 30, 1978
3. Ambrosio v. SalvadOr, G.R. No. l-476S1, Dec. 11, 1978
4. Merano v. Tutaan, 115 SCRA 343 (1982)
S. GSIS c. CMI Service Commission, 202 SCRA 799 (1991)
6. Clavano v. HLURB, G.R. No. 143781, February 27, 2002

X. LAW ON PUBUC OFFICERS

A. Public Office defined

8. Apointment or Public Officers
C. Ad interim Appointments
D. CSC appointments/career Executive Service
E. Hold-over Concept '

cases
1. canonizado vs. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312
2. Cornejo vs. Gabriel 41 Phil 188
3. Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas, 242 SCRA 192
4. Morfe vs. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424
5. Abeja vs. Tanaoda, 236 SCRA 60
6. Uenes vs. Dicdlcan, 260 SCRA 206
7. Alarcon vs. Sandlganbayan, 268 SCRA 747
8. Borromeo vs. CA, 70 SCRA 329
9. Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCAA 392
10. Friv.!ldo vs. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245
11. Paredes vs. esc,192 SCRA 84
12. Yee vs. Director or Public Schools, 7 SCRA 832
13. Valencia vs. Peralta, 8 SCRA 692
14. Santia9<> vs. Commission on Appointments, 199 SCRA 12S
IS. Government vs. Springer, SO Phil 2S9
16. calderon vs. carafe, 208 SCRA 254
17. Matibag vs. Benlpayo, 380 SCRA 49
Sl l'd)!.~ Adm•n • ..,tr.-lti\·~ Law  
18. Bnllantes vs. Yorac, 192 SOV. 358
19. Meram vs. Edralln, 154 SOV. 238
20. Achacoso vs. Macaralg, 195 SCRA 235
21. Home Insurance and Guaranty Corp. vs. esc, 220 SCRA 148
22. Gloria vs. De Guzman, 249 SCRA 126
23. Menzon vs. Petllla, 197 sav. 251
24. Luego vs. CSC, 143 SCRA 327
25. Province of Samar vs. CA, 246 SOV. 281
26. Aquino vs. esc, 208 sav. 2'10
27. Mitra vs. Sublso, 21 SOV. 127
28. Debulgado vs. esc, 237 sav. 184
29. Aparri vs. CA. 127 sav. 231
30. Triste vs.leyte State Colfe9e Soard of Trustees, 192 SOV. 326
31. Chua vs. esc, 206 sav. 65
32. Ambas vs. Buenaseda, 201 sav. 308
33. tecaros vs. sandiganbayan, 305 SOV. 396
34. Mendola vs. Qulso.wnblng, 186 sav. 108
35. Nacionlaisla Party vs. BautiSUI, 85 Phil 101
36. Teolo9o vs. esc, 191 sav. 238
37. Laurel vs. esc, 203 SCRA 195
38. Santiago vs. COA, 199 SOV. 125
39. 0e1a Cruz vs. esc, 204 seRA 419
40. General vs. Roco, 142 SCAD 390

A. De Facto Offteer
B. COmpensation, Senelits and PriVileges
c. Security of Tenure and Disciplinary Office~
D. Other Modes of Termination of OffiCial relations
E. Ovil and Criminal Uabllity

I. Aparri vs. CA. 127 sav. 231

2. Flores vs. Orilon, 223 sav. 568
3. Gamboa vs. CA, 108 S0V. I
4. Gonzales vs. Comeles, 21 sav. 774
s. Triste vs. Leyte State Colfe9e of Soard of Trustees, 192 sav. 326
6. Maleniza vs. COA, 179 SOV. 408
7. Paredes vs. Acting Chairman, 116 SOV. 176
8. GSIS vs. esc, 245 SCRA 179
9. Mancenldo vs. CA, 330 SCRA 419
10. People vs, Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689
11. In Re: Raul Gonzales, 160 SOV. 711
12. Echece vs. CA. 198 SOV. 577
13. Jocom vs. Regalado, 201 SOV. 73
14. Cuevas vs. Bacal, 347 SOV. 338
15. CHR vs. esc, 227 S0V. 42
16. Camus vs. esc. 2 sav. 370
17. Malonzo vs. ~. 311 sav. 224
16. Hipolito vs. ~. 195 SCAA 6
19. escvs. Lucas, 301 sav. 560
20. Garcia vs. Exec:utl've Secn!Qry, 6 SOV. I

91 Patte Admtnt~lr.~tl\t.' I .1w

 
XI. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
A. Art IX-c of the 1987 Constitution
B. Jurisdiction of COMELEC
C. Powers of COMELEC

1. Pads vs. Comelec, 25 SCRA 375

2. Dlpatuan vs. Comelec, 47 SCRA 258
3. Sandoval vs. Comelec, 323 SCRA 403
4. Vlllarosa vs. Comelec, 319 SCRA 470
5. Sannlento vs. Oomelec, 212 SCRA 307
6. Ramirez vs. Comelec, 270 SCRA 1996
8. Bagatslng vs. Comelec, 320 SCRA 817
9. Kho vs. Comelec, 279 SCRA 463
10. Villaroya vs. Comelec, 155 S<!RA 633
11. Abes vs. Comelec, 21 5CRA 1252
12Javler vs. Comelec, 13 5CRA 156
13. Demafiles vs. Comelec, 21 5CRA 1462
14. Espino vs. Zaldivar, 21 SCRA 1204
15. Santos vs. Comelec, 103 SCRA 628
16. People vs. Intlng 187 SCRA 788
17. Montejo vs. Comelec, 242 SCRA 415
18. Masangkay vs. Comelec, 6 SCRA 27

D. Eligibility of candidates

1. Bengson vs. HRET, 357 SCRA 545

2. Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727
3. Mercado vs. Mandoza, 307 SCRA 630
4. Romuladez-Marcos vs. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300
5. Aquino vs. Comelec, 248 SCRA 400
6. Co vs. HRET, 199 5CRA 692
7. Rodriguez vs. Comelec, 259 SCRA 296
8. Sinaca vs. Mula, 315 SCRA 266

E. Petition for Disqualification

1. caasl vs. CA, 191 seRA 229 ,

2. Codllla vs. Jose De Venecia, 179 SCRA 58 (2002) I
3. Nolasco vs. Cornelec, 275 SCRA 762
4. Perez vs. Comelec, 317 SCRA 641
5. Farinas vs. Comelec, 106 SCRA 202
6. Bagatslng vs. Comelec, 320 SCRA 817
7. Domino vs. Comelec, 310 SCRA 546
8. Miranda vs. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617
9. Loreto vs. Brion, 311 SCRA 694
10. Salcedo 11 vs. Comelec, 312 SCRA 447

F. Registration of Voters

• RA No. 81.89 (Voters Registration Act or 1996)

• RA No. 9189 (Absentee Voting law)
• Inclusion and Exclusion of Voters
• -campaign and Expenditures
10 I P ,1 ~ \! A d m i n l ~ t r ~~ l i v l! I ,1 w  
 • casting and Counting of Votes
• Pre-proclamation controversies
• Post-election dispute
• Election Offenses

cases

1. canicosa vs. Comelec, 282 SCRA 512

2. Domino vs. Comelec, 310 SCRA 546
3. Agujetas vs. CA, 261 SCRA 17
4. Abella vs. Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509
5. Sandoval vs. Comelec, 323 SCRA 403
6. Ocampo vs. Comelec, 235 SCRA 636
7. Trinidad vs. Comelec, 320 SCRA 836
8. Cordero vs. Comelec, 310 SCRA 118
9. Kho vs. Comelec, 279 SCRA 463
10. Robles vs. HRET, GR No. 86647, February 5, 1990
11. Tecson vs. Comelec, GR No. 16134, March 3, 2004
12. Defensor-Santiago vs. Comelec, 252 SCRA 559
13. Faelnar vs. Comelec, 331 SCRA 429
14. Mappala vs. Nunez, 240 SCRA 600

'

l l l f'ag<> AdminislrJtive I a"