ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
A. Introduction
1 Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v.
PSC (1940)
B. Nature of Administrative Agencies
1. Structure of Government
2. Doctrine of Separation of Powers
2 Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)
3 Macalintal v. COMELEC (2003)
ART VIII, 1987 Constitution
PanTranco apllied for an increase of its equipment to
enable it comply with the conditions of its certificates
of public convenience with PSC (10 additional new
Brockway trucks). PSC granted application but with 2
limitations—one of which is limiting the life of its CPCs
to 25 years.
Legislative powers abdicated by Congress to PSC unconstitutional?
NO.
Sec 8 of ART XIII Consti provides that no franchise, certificate, or any
other form of authorization for the operation of public utility shall be for
a longer period than 50 years. The National Assembly meant to give
effect to the aforesaid constitutional mandate, also declaring its will
that the period to be fixed by the PSC shall not be longer tha 50 years.
What is delegated then to PSC?
Administrative function, involving the discretion to carry out the will
of the National Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of
public interests in a proper and suitable manner.
Theory of separation of powers
 Delegatus non potest delegari (no delegated powers can be
further delegated)
o Principle of subordinate legislation
PSC exceeded authority bc (1) CA 454 applies to future certificates
only, and (2) violates constitutional guarantees?
NO.
CA 454 constitution, but PSC decision REVERSED and case
REMANDED. Neither notice nor opportunity given PanTranCo to be
heard or present evidence.
Focus on ISSUE 1.
Constitution excluded from Electoral Commission’s exclusive
jurisdiction the power to regulate the proceedings of election
contests, thus reserving such power to the legislative department?
NO.
Electoral Commission may regulate when National Assembly failed to
avail of its primary power to regulate such proceedings?
NO.
The EC is a constitutional organ created to determine all contests
relating to election, returns, and qualifications of members of the Nat’l
Assembly pursuant to Sec 4, ART VI 1935 Consti. Purpose is to give
to the EC, an independent and impartial tribunal, all the powers
exercised by the Assembly re ERQ of the members. Intended to be as
complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the
Legislature.
Focus on J. Puno’s history lesson.
Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
4 Manila Electric Co., v. Pasay
Transportation Co., (1932)
5 In Re: Rodolfo Manzano (1988)
3. Creation and Abolition of Administrative Agencies
6 Republic v. CA (1991)
7 Eugenio v. CSC (1995)
Manila Electric requests SC members to fix terms SC members may act as board of arbitrators?
wherein certain transpo companies shall be permitted NO.
to use the Pasig bridge of Manila Electric and the Organic Act provides that the SC shall possess and exercise
compensation to be paid as a board of arbitrators jurisdiction as a court. A board of arbitrators is not a court in any
pursuant to Sec 11 of Act 1446 granting franchise to proper sense of the term, and possess none of the jurisdiction which
Charles Swift to construct electric railway.
Judge Manzano, Executive Judge of Branch XIX
RTC, appointed by Governor Fariñas as member of
Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice. Created
to insure speedy disposition of cases of detainees,
especially poor and indigent one, alleviating jail
congestion and improving local jail conditions.
Republic Planters Bank (RPB) and sugar producers
sue PHILSUCOM & NASUTRA for sum of money and
delivery of personal property with restraining order
and preliminary injunction. Compromise Agreement
was entered into by the parties before PHILSUCOM &
NASUTRA could answer. EO 18 abolished
PHILSUCOM, juridical personality to continue after 3
yrs during wc period it may prosecute and defend
suits brought against it. Sugar Regulatory
Administration and RPB sought the review of the CA
decision.
Eugenio is the Deputy Director of the Phil Nuclear
Research Institute. Applied for CES Eligibility and
CESO rank. Given CES eligibility, and recommended
to the President for a CESO rank.
CSC Reso No. 93-4359 passed abolishing CESB. OP
refrained from considering appointments of career
service eligible to career exec ranks.
the Organic Act contemplates shall be exercised by the SC.
Power conferred to SC?
Exclusively judicial.
SC and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise
any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining
to or connected with the administering of judicial functions.
Judge Manzano may accept appointment? May not abandon present
position? Consider Committee as part of primary functions as an Exec
Judge?
NO.
Pursuant to Sec 12, ART VIII, members of the SC and other courts
established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
Only a higher court can pass on his actuation. He is not a subordinate
of an executive or legislative official, however eminent.
Admin agency?
Government body charged with administering and implementing
particular legislation. Agency includes any department, independent
establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau.
May CSC abolish Career Executive Service Board?
NO.
As the CESB was created by law, it can only be abolished by the
legislature. The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a
legislative function.
Except for such offices as are created by the Constitution, the creation
of public offices is primarily a legislative function.
An office created by the legislature is wholly within the power of that
body, and it may prescribe the mode of filling the office and the
powers and duties of the incumbent, and, if it sees fit, abolish the
office.
 Extent of CSC’s power?
Reorganization limited to offices under its control.
CESB was intended to be an autonomous identity, albeit
administratively attached to CSC.

Attachment meaning and purpose?

Lateral relationship between the dept or its equivalent and the
attached agency or corp for purposes of policy and program
coordination

8 Ople v. Torres (1998)
Pres Ramos issued AO 308 adopting a national
computerized identification reference system among
the key basic services and social security providers
and creation of IACC to draw up the implementing
guidelines and oversee the implementation of the
System.
AO 308 implements legislative policy of Admin Code?
NO.
Redefines parameters of some basic rights of our citizenry vis-à-vis
the State as well as the line that separates administrative power of the
President to make rules and legislative power of the Congress.
Not correct that the law confers no right, imposes no duty, affords no
protection, and creates no office.

Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute for the general policy-

making that Congress enacts in the form of a public law. Although
admin regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe
rules and regulations is not an independent source of power to make
laws.

Administrative power of the President

- enables him/her to fix a uniform standard of admin efficiency
and check the official conduct of his agents
- over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to
discharge his duties effectively

Executive power
- power to enforce and administer laws
- power of carrying the laws into practical operation and
enforcing their due observance.

CHAPTER 8
Organization of the Office of the President

SECTION 21. Organization.—The Office of the President shall consist of the Office of the President Proper and the agencies under it.
SECTION 22. Office of the President Proper.—
(1) The Office of the President Proper shall consist of the Private Office, the Executive Office, the Common Staff Support System, and the Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers
System;
(2) The Executive Office refers to the Offices of the Executive Secretary, Deputy Executive Secretaries and Assistant Executive Secretaries;
(3) The Common Staff Support System embraces the offices or units under the general categories of development and management, general government administration and
internal administration; and
(4) The Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System includes such special assistants or advisers as may be needed by the President.
SECTION 23. The Agencies under the Office of the President.—
 those offices placed under the chairmanship of the President,
 those under the supervision and control of the President,
  those under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President,
 those attached to it for policy and program coordination, and
 those that are not placed by law or order creating them under any special department.

SECTION 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office.—The President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity,
economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President. For this purpose, he may take any of the following
actions:
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including the immediate Offices, the Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the
Common Staff Support System, by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another;
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions to the Office of the President from other Departments
and Agencies; and
(3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other department or agency as well as transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other departments or
agencies.
9 Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Exec EO 12 (PGMA) created Presidential Anti-Graft EO 13 unconstitutional?
Secretary (2012) Commission (PAGC) and vested it with power to NO. President’s continuing authority to reorganize the Exec Dept (EO
investigate or hear admin cases/complaints for 292)
possible graft and corruption v. presidential Express grant by the legislature to carry out reorganization in any
appointees and to submit its report and branch or agency of the exec dept by virtue of EO 292. In recognition
recommendations to the Pres. of the recurring need of every Pres to reorganize his office to achieve
simplicity, economy, and efficiency. Capable of being shaped and
EO 13 (PNOY) abolished PAGC and transferred its reshaped by the Pres in the manner he deems fit to carry out his
functions to Office of Deputy Exec Sec for Legal directives and policies.
Affairs (ODESLA), specifically its newly-established
Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD). Reorganize OPP under Sec Reorganize OP under Sec
31(1) 31(2) and (3)
Complaint for grave misconduct filed against Pichay OPP, including immediate Offices outside the OPP but still
et al. of Local Water Utilities Administration before the Offices, the Presidential Special within the O
IAD-ODESLA. Pichay filed MTD due to a pending Assistans/Advisers and
case for grave misconduct @ the OMB. Common Staff Support
1. Abolishing, consolidating, or Merely transferring fxns or
merging units agencies from OP to Depts or
2. Transferring functions from Agencies, and vice versa
one unit to another

Creation of PAGC v. ODESLA?

PAGC placed directly under the OP. ODESLA, to which the functions
of PAGC have been transferred, is an office within the OPP. Since
both of these offices belong to the OPP, the reorganization by way of
abolishing PAGC and transferring its fxns to ODESLA is allowable
under Sec 31(1), EO 292.
Reorganization req’d no more than a mere alteration of admin
structure of ODESLA through the establishment of a 3rd division (IAD)
through wc ODESLA could take on the add’l fxns it has been tasked to
discharge under EO 13.

Reorganization meaning and requisites for validity?

Alteration of existing structure of gov’t offices or units therein,
including lines of control, authority and responsibility between them.
Involves a reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition
by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. (Canonizado v.
Aguirre)

10 Biraogo v. Truth Commission (2010)
C. Control of Administrative Action
1. By the President
ART VII, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.
Sec. 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
Assailing the constitutionality of EO No. 1, creating
the PH Truth Commission of 2010—ad hoc body
formed to investigate reports of graft and corruption
committed by 3rd level public officers and employees
etc. during the Arroyo administration, and submit its
finding and recommendations to the President,
Congress and OMB. Described as an independent
collegial body, within the Office of the President
Proper and subject to his control. Not a quasi-judicial
body, mere fact-finding body.
BOOK III
Office of the President
TITLE I
Powers of the President
1. exercised through legit authority
2. pursued in GF
Creation of PTC falls within the President’s power to reorganize?
NO.
Reorganization limited to
1. restructuring the internal organization of the OPP by
abolishing, consolidating, or merging units thereof or
transferring functions from one unit to another
2. transferring any function under the OP to any other
Dept/Agency or vice versa
3. transferring any agency under the OP to any other
Dept/Agency or vice versa
Sec 31, Admin Code refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of
offices, or abolition by reason of economy or redundancy of functions.
Situations where a body/office is already existent but a modification or
alteration thereof has to be effected.
Creation justified by President’s power of control?
NO. Entirely different from power to create public offices.
Control: power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter.
Power of control is inherent in the Executive, while the power to create
public offices finds basis from either a valid delegation from Congress,
or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws.
Valid delegation of power from Congress empowering Pres to create
public office?
NO. PD 1416 inoperable.
Delegation then to Pres Marcos of the authority to reorganize the
administrative structure of the nat’l gov’t from presidential to
parliamentary. Deemed repealed upon adoption of 1987 Consti.
Justification under Sec 17, ART VII 1987 Consti?
YES.
President’s power to conduct investigations to aid him in ensuring the
faithful execution of laws (fundamental laws on public accountability
and transparency) is inherent in President’s powers as Chief Exec.
 CHAPTER 1
Power of Control
SECTION 1. Power of Control.—The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

CHAPTER 2
Ordinance Power
SECTION 2. Executive Orders.— rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers
SECTION 3. Administrative Orders.— particular aspects of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head
SECTION 4. Proclamations.— fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation
is made to depend; have the force of an executive order.
SECTION 5. Memorandum Orders.—Acts of the President on matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only concern a particular officer or office
of the Government shall be embodied in memorandum orders.
SECTION 6. Memorandum Circulars.—Acts of the President on matters relating to internal administration, which the President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the
departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the Government, for information or compliance, shall be embodied in memorandum circulars.
SECTION 7. General or Special Orders.—Acts and commands of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as
general or special orders.

BOOK IV
The Executive Branch
CHAPTER 1
The Departments
SECTION 1. Purpose and Number of Departments.—The Executive Branch shall have such Departments as are necessary for the functional distribution of the work of the
President and for the performance of their functions.

CHAPTER 7
Administrative Relationships
SECTION 38. Definition of Administrative Relationships.—Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Code or in other laws defining the special relationships of particular agencies,
administrative relationships shall be categorized and defined as follows:
(1) Supervision and Control.—Supervision and control shall include authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct
the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the
execution of plans and programs; and prescribe standards, guidelines, plans and programs. Unless a different meaning is explicitly provided in the specific law governing the
relationship of particular agencies, the word “control” shall encompass supervision and control as defined in this paragraph.
(2) Administrative Supervision.—(a) Administrative supervision which shall govern the administrative relationship between a department or its equivalent and regulatory agencies
or other agencies as may be provided by law, shall be limited to the authority of the department or its equivalent to generally oversee the operations of such agencies and to insure
that they are managed effectively, efficiently and economically but without interference with day-to-day activities; or require the submission of reports and cause the conduct of
management audit, performance evaluation and inspection to determine compliance with policies, standards and guidelines of the department; to take such action as may be
necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of violations, abuses and other forms of maladministration; and to review and pass upon budget
proposals of such agencies but may not increase or add to them;
(b) Such authority shall not, however, extend to: (1) appointments and other personnel actions in accordance with the decentralization of personnel functions under the Code,
except when appeal is made from an action of the appointing authority, in which case the appeal shall be initially sent to th e department or its equivalent, subject to appeal in
accordance with law; (2) contracts entered into by the agency in the pursuit of its objectives, the review of which and other procedures related thereto shall be governed by
appropriate laws, rules and regulations; and (3) the power to review, reverse, revise, or modify the decisions of regulatory agencies in the exercise of their regulatory or quasi-
judicial functions; and
(c) Unless a different meaning is explicitly provided in the specific law governing the relationship of particular agencies, the word “supervision” shall encompass administrative
supervision as defined in this paragraph.
(3) Attachment.
(a) This refers to the lateral relationship between the department or its equivalent and the attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program coordination. The
coordination may be accomplished by having the department represented in the governing board of the attached agency or corporation, either as chairman or as a member, with or
without voting rights, if this is permitted by the charter; having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of periodic reporting which shall reflect the progress of
programs and projects; and having the department or its equivalent provide general policies through its representative in the board, which shall serve as the framework for the
internal policies of the attached corporation or agency;
(b) Matters of day-to-day administration or all those pertaining to internal operations shall be left to the discretion or judgment of the executive officer of the agency or corporation.
In the event that the Secretary and the head of the board or the attached agency or corporation strongly disagree on the interpretation and application of policies, and the Secretary
is unable to resolve the disagreement, he shall bring the matter to the President for resolution and direction;
(c) Government-owned or controlled corporations attached to a department shall submit to the Secretary concerned their audited financial statements within sixty (60) days after
the close of the fiscal year; and
(d) Pending submission of the required financial statements, the corporation shall continue to operate on the basis of the preceding year’s budget until the financial statements
shall have been submitted. Should any government-owned or controlled corporation incur an operating deficit at the close of its fiscal year, it shall be subject to administrative
supervision of the department; and the corporation’s operating and capital budget shall be subject to the department’s examination, review, modification and approval.
11 Marcos v. Manglapus (1989) Marcos’s wish to return to the Philippines to die. President has power to prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the
PH?
YES.

Express powers of the President?

 Control over all exec depts, bureaus, and offices
 Execute laws
 Appointing power
 Commander-in-chief clause
 Grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons
 Grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress
 Contract or guarantee foreign loans
 Enter into treaties or international agreements
 Submit budget to Congress
 Address Congress

President’s powers limited to those enumerated?

NO. Whatever power inherent in the gov’t that is neither legislative nor
judicial has to be executive.
Corwin: What the presidency is at any particular moment depends in
important measure on who is President.
Schelsinger: The exec branch was a chameleon, taking its color from
the character and personality of the President.

1935 Consti: strong President w explicitly broader powers than the US

President
1973 Consti: parliamentary gov’t, w President as mere figurehead, but
through numerous amendments, became even more powerful, to the
point he was the de facto Legislatures
1987 Consti: presidential gov’t—restored the separation of legislative,
executive, and judicial powers with provision checks and balances

Power involved?
President’s residual power to protect the general welfare of the people
and to keep the peace.
Founded on the President’s duty as steward of the people. An
allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any gov’t and is
best lodged in the President.

a. Control and Supervision

12 Carpio v. Executive Secretary (1990) RA 6975 established PNP under a reorganized DILG. RA 6975 emasculated NAPOLCOM by limiting its power to
NAPOLCOM exercised admin control and administrative control over PNP, thus control remained w the Dept
supervision, while local execs exercised operational Secretary under whom both NAPOLCOM and PNP were placed?
supervision and direction over the Integrated Natl NO.
 Police units assigned within their respective localities.
13 Moran v. Office of the President (2014) Moran filed complaint with Consumer Arbitration
Office (CAO) holding PGA Cars liable for the product
imperfections of a BMW car wc it sold to Moran. CAO
order refund of purchase price in addition to other
costs.
PGA Cars appealed to DTI Sec pursuant to RA 7394
(Consumer Act), designating DTI to entertain appeals
from adverse decisions and orders of CAO.
Dismissed.
PGA Cars appealed to OP. Granted. Reversed DTI
Presidential power of control over exec branch of govt extends over all
exec officers from Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest clerk. Power to
alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate officer had done
in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the
former with that of the latter.
Corollary rule to the control powers?
Doctrine of qualified political agency.
Recognizes the establishment of a single executive. All exec and
admin orgs are adjuncts of the Exec Dept, heads of the various exec
depts are assistants and agents of the Chief Exec, and, except in
cases where the Chief Exec is required by the Consti or law to act in
person on the exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious exec and admin functions of the Chief
Exec are performed by and through the exec depts, and the acts of
Secretaries of such depts., performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief
Exec presumptively the acts of the Chief Exec.
President’s power of control is directly exercised by him over the
members of the Cabinet who, in turn, and by his authority, control the
bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions in the
exec dept.
Circumstance of NAPOLCOM and PNB placed under DILG?
Administrative realignment.
National police force falls under Commander-in-Chief powers of
President?
NO. Control powers.
Not part of AFP. Mere civilian agency of the govt.
Special Oversight Committee unconstitutional encroachment upon
President’s power of control?
NO. Ad hoc or transitory body. Established and tasked solely with
planning and overseeing the immediate transfer, merger and/or
absorption into the DILG of the involved agencies.
No executive dept, bureau or office is placed under the control or
authority of the President.
Governing procedure for appeals to the OP?
AO No. 18: A decision or order issued by a dept or agency need not
be appealed to the OP when there is a special law that provides for a
different mode of appeal.
Recognizes exception to the remedy of appeal to OP. RA 7394
expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from decisions of the
DTI Sec by filing a petition for certiorari with the proper court.
Proper court?
Court of Appeals.
Appeal to OP should be allowed otherwise power of President to
 Sec’s Resolution. Liability for product defects never
raised by Moran. PGA Cars only the seller. Product
never proven to be unfit/inadequate. Lapse of 10
months before complaint.
Moran raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the
OP, not being the proper court referred to in RA 7394
(petition for certiorari filed with the proper court).
14 Mondano v. Silvosa (1955) Mondano (Mainit, Surigao mayor) accused of rape
and concubinage @ the Presidential Complaints and
Action Committee (PCAC). Assistant Exec Sec
indorsed complaint to Gov Silvosa for immediate
investigation, appropriate action and report.
Gov Silvosa issued AO 8 suspending Mondano from
office. Provl Board proceeded to hear charges v
Mondano.
15 Phil. Gamefowl Commission v. IAC Acusar, operator of lone cockpit in Bogo, Cebu,
(1986) ordered to relocate. Failed to comply w requirement
then considered cockpit phased out by PC. Petitioned
to compel mayor to issue permit to operate, but was
declared by court to have waived his right to a
renewal due to failure to relocate.
Sevilla granted a license to operate by Mayor
Martinez of Bogo with subsequent approval of PC.
Acusar sued to revoke Sevilla’s license. PGC issued
mayor’s permit for Acusar and revoked Sevilla’s.
review acts of dept secretaries rendered illusory by remedial law?
NO.
Executive control is not absolute. May be effectively limited by
1. the Consti,
2. law, or
3. judicial decisions.
Appeals are remedial in nature hence constitutionally subject to this
Court’s rulemaking power.
Executive depts of the Govt of the PH created and organized before
the approval of the Consti continued to exist as authorized by law until
the Congress shall provide otherwise.
Sec 10(1), ART VII vests the President with the (GR) power of control
of all exec depts, bureaus, or offices, but not of all (E) local govts over
which he has been granted only the power of general supervision as
may be provided by law.
Supervision meaning in admin law?
Overseeing or the power/authority of an officer to see that subordinate
officers perform their duties. If the SO fail or neglect to fulfill them, the
officer may take such action or step as provided by law to make them
perform their duties.
Control meaning?
Power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a SO had
done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment
of the officer for that of the SO.
Nature of power under Sec 79(c) of Admin Code?
Congress expressly lodged the provincial supervision over municipal
officials in the provincial governor who is authorized to receive and
investigate complaints made under oath against municipal officers for
neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other form of
maladministration of office, and conviction by final judgment of any
crime involving moral turpitude.
Power to issue licenses for the operation of cockpits?
LGC.
It is the municipal mayor with the authorization of the SB that has the
primary power to issue licenses for the operation of ordinary cockpits
and regulate such, subject only to the guidelines laid down by the
PGC. PGC’s power to license is limited only to international derbies.
PGC’s power over ordinary cockpits?
Review (reconsideration or reexamination for purposes of correction)
and supervision (Mondano v. Silvosa)
Power of supervision allows supervisor to annul acts of subordinate?
NO, only power of control may do so.
Can only see to it that subordinate performs his duties in accordance
 w law. Power of review is exercised to determine whether it is
necessary to correct the acts of the subordinate. If such correction is
necessary, it must be done by the authority exercising control over the
subordinate or through the instrumentality of the courts of justice,
unless the subordinate motu proprio corrects himself after his error is
called to his attention by the official exercising the power of
supervision.

b. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

16 Angeles v. Gaite (2009) MC No. 58 invalid regulation bc it diminishes President’s power of
control and bestows upon Sec of Justice almost unfettered power?
NO.
President’s act of delegating authority to Sec of Justice is within
purview of the doctrine of qualified political agency.
Recognizes the establishment of a single executive. All exec and
admin orgs are adjuncts of the Exec Dept, heads of the various exec
depts are assistants and agents of the Chief Exec, and, except in
cases where the Chief Exec is required by the Consti or law to act in
person on the exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious exec and admin functions of the Chief
Exec are performed by and through the exec depts, and the acts of
Secretaries of such depts, performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief
Exec presumptively the acts of the Chief Exec.

Heads of exec depts occupy political positions and hold office in an

advisory capacity and should be of the President’s bosom confidence
(Jefferson). Subject to the direction of the President (Atty-General
Cushing). Without minimizing the importance of heads of various
depts, their personality is in reality but the projection of that of the
President. Each head of a department is, and must be, the President’s
alter ego in the matters of that dept where the Pres is required by law
to exercise authority.

Acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and

promulgated in the regular course of business are, unless disapprove
or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the
Chief Executive.

Limits of President’s power to delegate?

 Suspend writ of habeas corpus
 Proclaim martial law
 Pardoning power
By no means exclusive, but there must be a showing that the
executive power in question is of similar gravitas and exceptional
import.

Power to review SoJ’s decision dealing w preliminary investigation of

cases cannot be delegated?
NO. Unduly hamper President’s effectivity in running the govt.
President has not fully abdicated his power of control. Allows an
 appeal if imposable penalty is RP or higher.

2. By the Legislative Department

ART VI, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.
Sec. 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide,
appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.
17 Macalintal v. COMELEC RA 9189 provisions creating the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee with the power to review, revise, amend and approve the
IRR promulgated by COMELEC unconstitutional?
YES. Stricken out.
Violative of Sec 1, ART IX-A Consti establishing independency of
ConComms.

Legislative power under ART VI Consti is circumscribed by other

constitutional provisions e.g. Sec 1 ART IX-A ordaining ConComms as
independent. Whatever may be the nature of the functions of the
COMELEC, the fact is that the framers of Consti wanted it to be
independent from the other departments of the Government.
COMELEC allowed considerable latitude in devising means and
methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for
which it was created—free, orderly and honest elections.

Meaning of Sec 19, RA 8189 empowering COMELEC to issue

necessary IRR?
Usual procedure in drafting IRR.
Legislature grants an admin agency the authority to craft IRR, in
recognition of the administrative expertise of that agency in its
particular field of operation.

Once a law is enacted and approved, the legislative function is

deemed accomplished and complete.

When may legislative function spring back to Congress relative to the

same law?
When Congress deems it proper to review, revise, and amend the IRR

RA 9189 provision empowering COMELEC to order the proclamation

of winning candidates insofar as it affects canvass of votes and
proclamation of winning candidates for Pres and VP unconstitutional?
YES.
Violative of Sec 4(4), ART VII Consti giving Congress duty to canvass
votes and proclaim winning candidates for pres and VP.
Provisions of the Consti as the fundamental law of the land should be
read as part of RA 9189.

18 ABAKADA Guro v. Purisima (2008)

3. By the Judicial Department
ART VIII, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
[MEMORIZE] Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Civil Code
Art. 7.
Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.
4. By the Ombudsman
ART XI, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants
of the action taken and the result thereof.
Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient.
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety
in the performance of duties.
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or
transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.
(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance
of high standards of ethics and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law.
D. Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies
1. In General
19 Calalang v. Williams (1940)
20 Matienzo v. Abellera (1988) Taxicab operators (R) filed petitions for legalization of BoT had power to legalize clandestine and unlawful taxicab ops under
their unauthorized excess taxicab units with Board of PD 101?
Transportation (BoT) citing PD 101 to eradicate YES.
harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine operators, Sec 4 declares when period of moratorium suspending the relentless
by replacing or allowing them to become legitimate drive to eliminate illegal operators shall end. Nothing in Sec 4
and responsible operators. BoT was vested with suggests expiration of such powers 6 months after promulgation.
power to grant special permits of limited term. Merely provides for the withdrawal of the State’s waiver of its right to
Provisional authority to operate granted to applicants. punish said colorum operators for their illegal acts.

Petitioners argue that BoT had no power, at the time
petitions were filed (1977), to legitimize clandestine
operations as such power had been limited to a
period of 6 months from and after the promulgation of
PD 101 (1973).
In determining whether a board or commission has a certain power,
the authority given should be liberally construed in the light of the
purposes for which it was created, and that which is incidentally
necessary to a full implementation of the legislative intent should be
upheld as being germane to the law. Necessarily, where the end is
required, the appropriate means are deemed given.

a. Express and implied

21 Villegas v. Subido (1969) As Mayor, Villegas by virtue of statutory grant of CSC Comm has power to direct Mayor to replace police station
 authority to immediate control over executive
functions of the different departments, picked 3 police
officials (Barbers, Paralejas, and Lazaro) station
commanders of 3 Manila police precincts. CSC
Comm Subido disputed such designation on the
ground of lack for each of them an Inspector First
Class Police Detective Major eligibility. RTC ruled in
favor of Villegas on the ground that it was unable to
locate any legal provision to warrant CSC Comm’s
exercise of power.
Subido exercised directive that 3 POs be replaced as
their continued employment was illegal, not
possessing eligibility of an inspector first class. Mayor
Villegas disregarded such due to lack of any provision
of law requiring such eligibility. Subido invoked Civil
Service Act of 1959 contemplating positions in the
competitive or classified service as provided for in an
appropriation or budget measure to which an
appointment is required. Furthermore, assignment not
allowable bc there was at that time eligibles to the
position of inspector first class who could be so
designated.
22 Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Task Force Camarin Dumpsite filed a complaint with
CA (1994) LLDA to stop Caloocan City Gov’t operation of open
garbage dumpsite due to its harmful effects on
residents’ health and possibility of pollution of water
content of surrounding area. Maintained an open
dumpsite without securing an ECC from DENR’s
EMB.
LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order from dumping
any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at
the Camarin dumpsite. Another Alias Cease and
Desist Order issued prohibiting the entry of all
garbage dump trucks into the area.
b. Discretionary and ministerial
23 Cariño v. Capulong (1993) AMA Davao sent a letter of intent to operate as an
educational institution to Region IX-DECS Regl
Director Nava. Directed AMA to stop enrollment and
desist from operating without prior authorization
pursuant to BP 232 IRR wc provides that the filing of
the application shall be at least 1 year before the
commanders?
NO.
Absence of any law wc prescribes that precinct commanders be police
majors.
It is the City Mayor that could so designate the other petitioners to
assume the position of state commanders. That power is his, and his
alone. He is not required by law to share it with Commissioner, who
must justify by the valid conferment of authority the action taken by
him in requiring that the City Mayor replace the other petitioners.
Power is not to be presumed, it must be shown.
Role of CSC Commissioner?
Inquire as to the eligibility of the person thus chosen to fill up a vacant
position. If he were, Commissioner must attest. Merely a check to
assure the compliance with civil service laws.
Justification for directive of CSC Commisioner?
Alleged power to insist on a specific eligibility.
It would be stultification of well-settled principles of public law if from
the vagueness of a statute, competence to act could be predicated. If
such a purpose were within the contemplation of Congress, an
appropriate form of words could have been utilized. The absence of
such language negates its existence.
LLDA has power & authority to issue Cease and Desist order?
YES.
By its express terms, RA 4850, amended by PD 813 and EO 927 (s.
1983), authorizes LLDA to make, alter, or modify order requiring the
discontinuance or pollution. Explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make
whatever order may be necessary exercise of its jurisdiction.
LLDA was not expressly conferred power to issue an ex-parte cease
and desist order in a language similar to the express grant to the
defunct National Pollution Control Commission. However, it would be
a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion that there is a denial of
power to issue the order in question when such is bestowed by EO
927 (s. 1983).
While it is a fundamental rule that an admin agency has only such
powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled
rule that an admin agency has also such powers as are necessarily
implied in the exercise of its express powers.
AMA’s filing of petition for mandamus to approve their application
correct?
NO.
Mandamus will lie only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial
duty but not a discretionary function.
 opening of classes, and the Educational Act of 1992
wc prohibits the operation of unauthorized
schools/courses.
After starting to hold regular classes, filed a formal
application to operate. Regl Director Nava reiterated
earlier directive with a warning that failure to comply
would constrain DECS to invoke the Memorandum
Agreement with Defense Dept to stop unlawful
operation of school.
DECS Secretary denied AMA’s application. RTC
Makati compelled DECS to approve AMA’s
application for permit to operate retroactive to the
commencement of the school year and to enjoin the
closure and/or padlocking of AMA Davao School.
24 Ocampo v. Enriquez (2016) Sec of Natl Defense Lorenzana issued a
Memorandum re: interment of Marcos at the LNMB to
undertake all the necessary planning and
preparations to facilitate the coordination of all
agencies concerned specially the provisions for
ceremonial and security requirements.
Discretionary duty: that which by nature requires the exercise of
judgment
Ministerial duty
 one which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the
exercise of discretion in its performance
 one which an officer/tribunal performs in a given state of
facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own
judgment
If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right
to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is
ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the
exercise of official discretion nor judgment.
Nature of granting permit?
Discretionary duty/function.
Had to be exercised in accordance with the law and its IRR.
To apply the standard that the LNMB is reserved only for “the decent
and the brave” or “hero” would be violative of public policy as it will put
into question the validity of the burial for each and ever mortal remains
resting therein, and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers
since the allocation of plots at the LNMB is based on the grant of
authority to the President under existing laws and regulations.
The presidential power of control over the Exec Branch is a self-
executing provision of the Constitution and does not require statutory
implementation, nor may its exercise be limited, much less withdrawn
by legislature… As the incumbent President, [Duterte] is free to
amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered into by his
predecessors, and to determine policies which he considers, based on
informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in
carrying out his mandate.
Under the Admin Code, President has the power to reserve for public
use and for specific public purposes any of the lands of the public
domain and that the reserved land shall remain subject to the specific
public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or
proclamation.
Sole authority in determining who are entitled and disqualified to be
interred at the LNMB?
AFP Regulations G 161-375.
Issued by the AFP Chief of Staff acting under the direction of the
Secretary of National Defense, who is the alter ego of the president.
An administrative regulation adopted pursuant to law has the force
and effect of law and, until set aside, is binding upon executive and
administrative agencies, including the President as chief executor of

c. Errors in the exercise of powers
25 CIR v. CTA (1994) Citybank filed claim for refund with BIR. In order to
interrupt the running of prescriptive period, filed a
Case remanded to CTA for further petition claiming refund of its income overpayments
proceedings. with the CTA.
CIR could not present any evidence by reason of the
repeated failure of the Tax Credit/Refund Division of
the BIR to transmit the records of the case +
investigation report to the SolGen despite repeated
requests. Constrained to submit the case without
presenting any evidence. Motion to suspend
proceedings denied. Order for refund issued.
26 Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco 2 days before RA 7654 took effect, RMC 37-93
(2007) reclassified Champion, Hope, and More as locally
manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand
subject to the 55% ad valorem tax (previous: 20-
45%).
BIR Deputy Commissioner Deoferio, Jr. sent via fax a
copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune but it was addressed
to no one in particular. Received by ordinary mail a
certified xerox copy of RMC 37-93. RMC 37-93 held
fallen short of the requirements for a valid admin
issuance.
Fortune filed for damages against Chato in her private
capacity on the ground of Art 32, CC for violation of
consti right against deprivation of property without due
process of law and right to equal protection of laws.
Chato contended that she issued RMC in the
performance of her official function and w/in scope of
her authority. Acted merely as an agent of the
Republic and therefore Republic responsible for her
acts.
2. Determinative/Investigatory
27 Cariño v. CHR (1991) Manila Public School Teachers Assoc (MPSTA) and
Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) held mass
concerted actions at the DECS premises without
disrupting classes as last call for govt to negotiate
granting of demands.
the laws.
BIR, represented by CIR, denied its day in court by reason of
mistakes/negligence of its officials?
YES.
Several postponements sought by SolGen due to unavailability of
necessary records.
The Govt is not bound by the errors committed by its agents. In the
performance of its governmental fxns, the State cannot be estopped
by the neglect of its agent and officers. Although the Govt may
generally be estopped through the affirmative acts of public officers
acting w/in their authority, the neglect or omission of public duties as
exemplified in this case will not and should not produce that effect.
The errors of certain admin officers should never be allowed to
jeopardize the Govt’s position, if justified, stands to be prejudiced just
because of bureaucratic lethargy.
May a public officer be validly sued in his/her private capacity for acts
done in connection with the discharge of the functions of his/her
office?
Public office is not liable for damages w/c a person may suffer arising
from just performance of his official duties and w/in scope of his
assigned tasks. An officer who acts w/in his authority to administer the
affairs of the office w/c he/she heads is not liable for damages that
may have been caused to another, as it would virtually be a charge
against the Republic, w/c is not amenable to judgment for monetary
claims w/o its consent.
When public officer by law not immune from damages in his/her
personal capacity?
For acts done in BF w/c, being outside the scope of his authority, are
no longer protected by the mantle for immunity of official actions.
 where there is BF, malice, or gross negligence; civil liability
(Sec 38, Book I, Admin Code)
 where the subordinate public officer’s act is characterized by
willfulness or negligence; civil liability (Sec 39, Book I, Admin
Code)
 in/directly violates constitutional rights of another, even if his
acts were not so tainted with malice or BF (Art 32, CC)
CHR has the power to hear and resolve Striking Teachers case?
NO.
CHR’s adjudicative power is only to investigate i.e. receive evidence
and make findings of fact as regards claimed HR violations involving
civil and political rights. Fact finding not adjudication. Cannot be
likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-

28 DOH v. Camposano (2005)
Ad Hoc Investigating Committee’s
authority sustained.
Orders of Health Secretary set aside
being violative of administrative due
process. Remanded to DoH.
Sec of Educ served an order to return to work in 24
hrs or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing
DECS to initiate such proceedings for those who did
not comply and to hire their replacements.
DOH NCR employees administratively charged of for
grave misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of RA
3019 re: anomalous purchase of capsules and
bottles.
Exec Sec Torres issued AO 298 creating an ad hoc
committee to investigate the admin case filed against
the DOH-NCR employees. Said AO indorsed to the
Presidential Commission Against Graft and
Corruption.
PCAGC took over investigation from DOH. Found
respondents guilty.
judicial agency/official.
To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Nowhere included or
intimated is the notion of settling, deciding, or resolving a controversy
involved in the facts inquired into by the application of the law to the
facts established by inquiry.
Fact finding as adjudication?
Faculty of receiving evidence and making factual functions in a
controversy must be accompanied by authority of applying the law to
those factual conclusions to the end that controversy may be decided
or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject so
appeals/modes of review as may be provided by law.
Ad Hoc Investigating Committee’s investigation valid?
YES.
President’s power of control pursuant to obligation to ensure all exec
officials and employees faithfully comply w the law. With AO 298 as
mandate, legality of the investigation is sustained. Validity is not
affected by the fact that investigating team and PCAGC had same
composition, or that the former used the offices and facilities of the
latter in conducting the inquiry.
Sec of Health’s delegation of power to investigate to PCAGC valid?
YES.
As a matter of admin procedure, a department secretary may utilize
other officials to investigate and report facts from which a decision
may be based.
Neither PCAGC nor the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee had the
power to impose any admin sanctions directly. Authority was limited to
conducting investigations and preparing findings and
recommendations. Power to impose sanctions belonged to the
disciplining authority, who had to observe due process prior to
imposing penalties.
Due process in admin proceedings requires compliance w the
following cardinal principles:
1. right to hearing, includes right to present case and submit
supporting evidence
2. tribunal must consider evidence presented
3. decision must have some basis to support itself
4. substantial evidence
5. decision rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing,
or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected
6. in arriving at a decision, tribunal must have acted in its
own consideration of the law and the facts of the
controversy and must not have simply accepted the
views of a subordinate
7. decision rendered in such a manner that R would know the
reasons for it and various issues involved
3. Quasi-Legislative/Rulemaking
a. In General
29 Ople v. Torres, supra Pres Ramos issued AO 308 adopting a national
computerized identification reference system among
the key basic services and social security providers
and creation of IACC to draw up the implementing
guidelines and oversee the implementation of the
System.
30 Smart Communications v. NTC (2003) NTC issued MC No. 13-6-2000 promulgating RR on
the billing of telecommunications services, including
Petition GRANTED. Case REMANDED. sale and use of prepaid cards and unit of billing for
cellular mobile telephone service.
Action for declaration of nullity of said NTC MC filed.
Petitioners allege that NTC has no jurisdiction to
regulate sale of consumer goods since such
jurisdiction belongs to DTI under the Consumer Act.
Petitioners averred that Circular contravened CC
provisions on sales and violated consti prohibition
against deprivation of property w/o due process of
law.
31 Edu v. Ericta (1970) Assailed the constitutionality of the Reflector Law.
Sought to nullify AO 2 issued by Land Transportation
Petition GRANTED. Commissioner as an undue exercise of legislative
AO 308 involves subject appropriate to be covered by an
administrative order?
NO.
Administrative order
- ordinance issued by the President wc relates to specific
aspects in the admin operation of government
- in harmony w the law and should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy
AO 308 implements legislative policy of Admin Code?
NO. See # 8.
Admin Code
 general law
 incorporates in a unified document the major structural,
functional and procedural principles of governance
 embodies changes in admin structures and procedures
designed to serve the people
Does NTC have jurisdiction to regulate? Pursuant to what power was
MC No. 13-6-2000 of the NTC issued?
YES. Quasi-legislative or rule-making powers.
Admin agencies possess
1. quasi-legislative/rule-making powers
- power to make rules and regulations wc results in delegated
legislation that is w/in the confines of the granting statute and
the doctrine of non-delegabiity and separability of powers
2. quasi-judicial/administrative adjudicatory powers
Requisites for rules and regulations promulgated by admin agencies
to have the effect of law and be valid?
 Within scope of statutory authority granted by legislature to
admin agency
 Germane to objects and purposes of the law
 Not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards
prescribed by law
 Conform to and consistent with provisions of enabling statute
Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what RR
may be promulgated, and what fields are subject to regulation by
admin agency.
In case of conflict bw statute and AO, statute must prevail.
Reflector Law constitutional, and AO No. 2 valid?
YES.
AO No. 2 merely reproduced provision on reflectors as set forth in
 power.
AO 2 provided for further requirement as to how such
reflectors are to be placed, installed, pasted or
painted.
32 People v. Maceren (1977) Complaint filed against Buenaventura et al for electro
fishing, but citing Sec 11 of Fisheries Law wc
penalizes use of obnoxious or poisonous substance.
RTC dismissed complaint since the law does not
clearly and expressly prohibit electro fishing.
Fisheries AO No. 84-1 restricted the ban against
electro fishing to fresh water fisheries (changed from
the phrase “in any portion of the Philippine waters”).
Reflector Law.
GR: Congress may not delegate legislative power to 2 other branches
of the government.
E: Local governments over local affairs
What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Consti to make
laws, alter, and repeal them.
The test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and
provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine
W/N there is an undue delegation of legislative power, inquiry must be
directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted.
Standard?
Legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down
fundamental policy.
 defines legislative policy
 marks its limits
 maps out its boundaries, and
 specifies the public agency to apply it
Either express or implied from the policy and purpose of the act
considered as a whole. (Reflector Law: public safety)
While the making of laws is a non-delegable activity that corresponds
exclusively to Congress, the Congress may constitutionally delegate
authority to promulgate RR to implement a given legislation and
effectuate its policies, for the reason that legislature often finds it
impracticable to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and
complex situation that may be met in carrying the law in effect. What is
required is:
1. germane to the objects and purposes of the law
2. not in contradiction with it, but conform to the standards the
law prescribes
What is delegated?
Authority to fix the details in the execution of enforcement of a
policy set out in the law itself as long as the law authorizing
delegation furnishes a reasonable standard wc sufficiently marks the
field w/in wc the Administrator is to act so that it may be known
whether he has kept w/in it in compliance w the legislative will.
AO 2 penalizing electro fishing strictly in accordance with Fisheries
Law?
NO. Law itself does not expressly punish electro fishing.
Mere executive regulation is not legally adequate to penalize electro
fishing. To declare what shall constitute a crime and how it shall be
punished is a power vested exclusively in the legislature, and may not
be delegated to any other body or agency.
The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an exec official the power to

33 Republic v. Drugmakers Laboratories RA 3720 created FDA.
(2014)
DOH Secretary Bengzon issued AO 67 requiring drug
manufacturers to register certain drug and medicine
products with FDA before they may release the same
to the market for sale. Satisfactory
bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) test needed for
manufacturer to secure CPR for these products. Put
on hold bc there was no local facility capable of
conducting the same.
Circular No. 1 resumed FDA’s implementation of the
BA/BE testing reqt w establishment of BA/BE testing
facilities in the country. Circular No. 8 provided add’l
implementation details concerning BA/BE testing req’t
on drug products.
Drugmakers’ Labs manufacture and trade Refam. Not
bioequivalent with the reference drug. No more
further revalidations granted. Filed case for prohibition
and annulment of Circulars alleging that DOH, and
not FDA, was granted the authority to issue and
implement rules concerning RA 3720.
declare what acts should constitute an offense. It can authorize the
issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for
in the law itself.
Admin agents are clothed with rule-making powers because the
lawmaking body finds its impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate
and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be
encountered in enforcing the law. What is required is that the
regulation be:
1. germane to the defects and purposes of the law
2. conform to the standards the law prescribes
Nature of the grant of rule-making power to admin agencies?
Relaxation of the principle of separation of powers. Exception to the
non-delegation of legislative powers. Calculated to promote the public
interest necessary bc of the growing complexity of modern life,
multiplication of subjects of governmental regulations, and
increased difficulty of administering the law.
Must be in harmony with provisions of law, and should be for the sole
purpose of carrying into effect is general provisions. Law itself cannot
be extended. An admin agency cannot amend an act of Congress.
Rule-making power limited to?
Details for regulating the mode/proceeding to carry into effect the law
as it has been enacted. Cannot be extended to amending/expanding
statutory reqts or to embrace matters not covered by statute.
FDA may validly issue and implement Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997?
YES.
Reiterates importance of the BA/BE testing requirement originally
provided for in AO 67.
Nature of AO 67?
Admin regulation (LR) issued by Sec of Health in consonance with
express authority granted to him by RA 3720 to implement statutory
mandate that all drugs and devices should be registered with the FDA
prior to their manufacture and sale.
Circulars partake of admin RR and comply with reqts of the law for its
issuance?
NO.
Only purpose is for the FDA to administer and supervise
implementation of provisions of AO 67. Do not
1. implement primary legislation by providing details thereof
2. interpret, clarify, or explain existing statutory regulations
under wc FDA operates
3. ascertain existence of certain facts or things upon wc
enforcement of RA 3720 depends
When may admin agencies exercise QL powers?
If there exists a law wc delegates these powers to them. Rules

34 ASTEC v. ERC (2012) RA 7832 imposed a cap on the recoverable rate of
system loss that may be charged by rural electric
coops to their consumers. IRR required every REC to
file with ERB an app for approval of an amended
Purchase Power Adjustment (PPA) Clause
incorporating the cap on the recoverable rate of
system loss to be included in its schedule of rates.
Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA)
abolished ERB, and created the ERC.
Petitioners assail validity of ERC Orders directing
refund of over-recoveries for having been issued
pursuant to ineffective and invalid policy guidelines for
lack of publication and non-submission to the UP Law
Center.
promulgated must be within the confines of the granting statue and
must involve no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the
authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of the policy
set out in the law itself, so as to conform with the doctrine of
separation of powers and, as an adjunct, to the doctrine of non-
delegability of legislative power.
Classifications of admin regulations:
1. legislative rules
- nature of subordinate legislation
- designed to implement a primary legislation by providing
details thereof
- implement existing law, imposing general, extra-statutory
obligations pursuant to authority properly delegated by
Congress and effect a change in existing law or policy w/c
affects individual rights and obligations
2. interpretative rules
- interpret, clarify or explain existing statutory regulations
under wc admin body operates
- purpose: merely construe statue being administered and
purport to do no more than interpret statute
- refer to no single person or party in particular but concern
all those belonging to the same class w/c may be covered by
said rules
3. contingent rules
- issued by admin authority based on existence of certain
facts or things upon wc enforcement of the law depends
GR: Procedural due process demands that admin RR be published in
order to be effective.
E:
1. interpretative regulation
- needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no
real consequence
- adds nothing to the law nor affects substantial rights of any
person
2. regulation internal in nature
- seeks to regulate only personnel of admin agency and not
general public
3. letter of instruction issued by admin agency concerning
rules or guidelines to be followed by subordinates
Nature of ERC policy guidelines on treatment of discounts extended
by power suppliers?
Interpretative regulations.
Merely interpret RA 7832 and its IRR on the computation of the cost of
purchased power. Did not modify, amend or supplant the IRR.
Required to be filed with UP Law Center in order to be effective?
NO.
GR: Every rule adopted by an agency is required to be filed with the
UP Law Center to be effective. (Sec 4 Chap 2 Book VII, Admin Code)

35 Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. CA (1998) RA 309 consolidated all laws re: horse racing, but
silent on the allocation of breakages. Practice was to
use breakages for anti-bookies drive and other sales
promotions activities of horse racing clubs.
MJCI and PRCI were granted franchises to operate
and maintain race tracks for horse racing. RAs 6631-2
allowed to hold horse races, with bets, on Sat, Sun,
and official holidays of the year, except Holy Thurs
and Fri, June 12, Election day, and Rizal Day, and on
those official holidays where the law expressly
provides that no horse races are to be held.
PD 420 created PHILRACOM giving it exclusive
jurisdiction and control over every aspect of the
conduct of horse racing. Authorized the holding of
races on Wednesdays.
EOs 88 and 89 allocated proceeds of breakages to
beneficiaries. President provided that disposition of
breakages rightfully belong to PHILRACOM in
accordance with the distribution scheme prescribed in
said EOs.
36 ABAKADA Guro v. Ermita (2005) Petitioners contend that provisions of RA 9337,
amending provisions of the NIRC, give the President
the stand-by authority to raise VAT rate from 10% to
12% when a certain condition is met. Not within
purview of Sec 28(2) of ART VI of the Consti. Also
argue that the law effectively nullified the President’s
power of control, wc includes authority to set aside
and nullify the acts of her subordinates like the Sec of
Finance, by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the
President upon recommendation of the Sec of
Finance.
E:
1. interpretative regulations
2. regulations merely internal in nature (Board of Trustees of
GSIS v. Velasco)
Rightful beneficiaries of breakages derived from mid-week races?
PHILRACOM.
Franchise laws: privileges conferred by the govt on corps to do that wc
does not belong to the citizens of the country generally by common
right.
Franchise springs from Ks bw sovereign power and private corp for
purposes of individual advantage + public benefit. Thus, partakes of a
double nature and character. In so far as it affects or concerns the
public, it is public juris and subject to governmental control.
Legislature may prescribe the conditions and terms upon which it may
be held, and the duty of grantee to the public exercising it.
No law can be viewed in a condition of isolation or as the beginning of
a new legal system. A supplemental law becomes an addition to the
existing statutes, or a section thereof; and its effect is not to change in
any way the provisions of the latter but merely to extend the operation
thereof, or give additional power to enforce its provisions, as the case
may be. In enacting a particular statute, legislators are presumed to
have taken full cognizance of the existing laws on the same subject or
those relating thereto.
Undue delegation of legislative power to tax?
Principle of separation of powers
 each of the three great branches of govt has exclusive
cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own
constitutionally allocated sphere
 corollary doctrine  principle of non-delegation of powers
Principle of non-delegation of powers (potestas delegate non delegari
potest)
 “what has been delegated, cannot be delegated”
 such as delegated power constitutes not only a right but a
duty to be performed by the delegate through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the
intervening mind of another
 Powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are
those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively,
legislative.
Purely legislative power
 Can never be delegated
 Described as the authority to make a complete law complete
 as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall
be applicable and to determine the expediency of its
enactment

Recognized limitations or exceptions to delegation of legislative

powers:
1. delegation of tariff powers to President (Sec 28(2) ART VI)
2. delegation of emergency powers to President (Sec 23(2)
ART VI)
3. delegation to people at large
4. delegation to local governments
5. delegation to administrative bodies

Requisites for a valid delegation of legislative powers

1. complete in itself - setting forth policy to be executed carried
out, or implemented by the delegate
2. fixes a standard – limits of which are sufficiently determinate
and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions

Sufficient standard
- defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its
boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it
- indicates the circumstances under w/c legislative command
is to be effected

The legislature may delegate a power not legislative wc it may

rightfully exercise. The power to ascertain facts is such a power wc
may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative in
ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the
taking into effect of a law. That is a mental process common to all
branches of the government.

37 SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion Nature of NEDA JV Guidelines?

(2015) Rules.
b. Doctrine of Delegation of Legislative Powers
38 Pangansinan Transportation, supra
39 Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA (1988)
MC No. 2 violative of principle of DLP?
NO.
Has sufficient standard as to POEA’s power in requiring the model
contract. Protecting the rights of OFWs to fair and equitable
employment practices.

What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may
be enforced, not what the law shall be. Ascertainment of the latter
subject is a prerogative of the legislature. Cannot be abdicated or
surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.

2 Tests to Determine W/N Valid DLP?

1. Completeness
- law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate
the only thing he will have to do is enforce it
2. Sufficient standard
- adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot

GR: Delegation of LP
E: Non-delegation

Reason?
1. increasing complexity of task of govt
2. growing inability of legislature to cope directly w myriad
problems demanding its attention

Power of subordinate legislation?

Entrust to admin agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the
general provisions of the statute

Admin bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute
by “filling in” the details wc the Congress may not have the opportunity
or competence to provide. Effected by their promulgation of what are
known as supplementary regulations. Have the force and effect of
law.

Sufficient standards accepted by Court?

 Public interest
 Justice and equity
 Public convenience and welfare
 Simplicity, economy, and efficiency
 Sense and experience of men
 National security

40 KMU v. Garcia (1994) Authority given to provincial bus operators to set fare range above
authorized existing fare UDLP?
 YES.
Nowhere under Public Service Act are the regulatory bodies (i.e. PSC
and LTFRB) authorized to delegate power of fixing rates of public
services to a common carrier, a transport operator, or other public
service.

What has been delegated cannot be delegated. Such a delegated

power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the
delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not
through the intervening mind of another.

c. Requisites and Limits of Permissible Delegation

41 People v. Maceren, supra
42 Eastern Shipping Lines, supra
43 Cervantes v. Auditor General (1952) EO 93 void for being an illegal DLP to executive branch?
NO.
RA 51 in authorizing President to make reforms and changes in
GOCCs lays down standard and policy that has a purpose to meet
exigencies attendant upon establishment of free and independent govt
of the PHL and to promote simplicity, economy, and efficiency in their
operations.

So long as the legislature lays down a policy and a standard is

established by the statute, there is no undue delegation.

44 Pelaez v. Auditor General (1965) Sec 68 of Admin Code valid DLP?

NO.
No policy to be carried our or implemented by the President. Neither a
standard sufficiently precise to avoid evil effects.

Whereas power to fix common boundary may partake of an

administrative nature, the authority to create municipal corporations is
essentially legislative in nature. Strictly a legislative function. Municipal
corporations are purely creatures of statutes.

Requisites for valid DLP?

1. complete in itself – set forth therein policy to be executed,
carried out or implemented by delegate (effect if absent:
delegate would make or formulate such policy, wc is the
essence of the law)
2. fix a standard – limits of wc are sufficiently determinate or
determinable (effect if absent: no means to determine, with
reasonable certainty, whether delegate has acted within or
beyond scope of his authority)

45 Balbuena v. Secretary (1960) RA 1265 void for being UDLP?

NO.
That the Legislature did not specify details of the flag ceremony is no
objection to the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the
laying down of standards and policy that will limit the discretion of the
regulatory agency.
 To require the statute to establish in detail the manner of exercise of
the delegated power would be to destroy the administrative flexibility
that delegation intended to achieve.

46 BOC Employees Association v. Teves RA 9335 and IRR UDLP?

(2011) NO.
Policy—to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of
BIR and BOC.
Parameters—provision stating that allocation, distribution and release
of district award shall be prescribed by rules and regulations of the
Revenue Performance and Evaluation Board

47 US v. Ang Tang Ho (1922) Act 2868 delegated LP to the Governor-General?

NO. EO 53 unconstitutional for giving the Governor General the right
to fix price of rice and making crime to sell rice at a higher price.

Distinction bw power to say what law shall be and power to adopt

rules and regulations/investigate and determine facts?
Power to make the law necessarily involves discretion as to what it
shall be, and conferring an authority/discretion to be exercised under
and in pursuance of the law

Conferred by legislature?
Authority and discretion to be exercised in the execution of law.
Neither make or unmake single provision of law. Merely charged with
administration of the law, and w no other power.

Lacking in the Act?

Fails to provide standard policy, so that it could be put in use as a
uniform policy required to take place of all others

A law must be complete, in all its terms and provisions, when it leaves
the legislative branch of the govt, and nothing must be left to the
judgment of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the
legislature, so that, in form and substance, it is a law in all its details in
presenti, but wc may be left to take effect in futuro, if necessary, upon
the ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event.

Where an act is clothed with all forms of law, and is complete in and of
itself, it may be provided that it shall become operative only upon
some certain act or event, or, in like manner, that its operation shall be
suspended. Legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it
can make a law to delegate power to determine some fact or state of
things upon wc the law makes, or intends to make, its own action to
depend.

48 Tatad v. Secretary (1997)

49 Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix CMO 23-2003 valid?
(2012) NO. Failure to observe requirements of notice, hearing, and
publication.
 Interpretative rules are designed to provide guidelines in the law wc
the admin agency is in charge of enforcing.

In considering a legislative rule, a court is free to make three inquiries

(1) whether rule is within delegated authority of admin agency;
(2) whether it is reasonable;
(3) whether it was issued pursuant to proper procedure
But the court is not free to substitute its judgment as to the desirability
or wisdom of the rule for the legislative body (delegation of
administrative judgment) has committed those question to admin
judgments and not judicial judgments. In the case of an interpretative
rule, the inquiry is not into the validity but into the correctness or
proprietary of the rule. As a matter of power a court, when confronted
with an interpretative rule, is free to
(1) give the force of law to the rule;
(2) go to the opposite extreme and substitute its judgment; or
(3) give some intermediate degree of authoritative weight to the
interpretative rule

Rules and regulations, which are the product of a delegated power to

create new and addl legal provisions that have the effect of law,
should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the
legislature to the administrative agency. Required that regulation be
germane to the objects and purposes of law, and that it be not in
contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by
law.

50 International Service v. Greenpeace DA Order’s constitutionality correctly ruled upon?

(2015) NO. Merely collaterally challenged.
Respondents prayed for its amendment to define/incorporate an
independent, transparent, and comprehensive scientific and socio-
economic risk assessment, public information, consultation, and
participation, and providing for their effective implementation, in
accord with international safety standards.

Constitutionality of a statute cannot be collaterally attacked as

constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally.
The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions
and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid,
absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary, in deference
to the doctrine of separation of powers. The measure had first been
carefully studied by the executive department and found to be in
accord with the Constitution before it was finally enacted and
approved.

51 Ocampo, supra
52 DOH v. Philip Morris (2015) Primary jurisdiction to regulate sales promotion activities of tobacco
products?
IAC-Tobacco.
RA 9211 created and expressly gave IAC-Tobacco exclusive authority
 to implement its provisions in accordance w State policy whereby use,
sale, and ads of tobacco products shall be regulated in order to
promote a healthful environment and protect the citizens from the
hazards of tobacco smoke.

With this regulatory power conferred, DOH and BFAD have been
effectively and impliedly divested of any authority to act upon
applications for tobacco sales promotional permit, including PMPMIs.

Effect of DOJ Opinion harmonizing conflicting provisions of RA 7394

and RA 9211?
Merely persuasive, not necessarily controlling.

d. Administrative Procedure in Rule-Making

53 Hypermix, supra
54 PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz (1989) Violates procedural due process bc issued motu proprio w/o notice to
PHILCOMSAT and w/o benefit of hearing?
YES.

When admin agency concerned establishes a rate, its act must both
be non-confiscatory and must have been established in the manner
prescribed by legislature; otherwise, in the absence of a fixed
standard, delegation of power becomes unconstitutional. In case of
delegation of rate-fixing power, the only standard wc legislature is
req’d to prescribe for the guidance of the admin authority is that the
rate be reasonable and just. Even in the absence of an express
requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied.

If the nature of admin agency is essentially legislative, requirements of

notice and hearing are not necessary. Validity of a rule of future action
wc affects a group, if vested rights of liberty/property are not involved,
is not determined according to the same rules wc apply in the case of
the direct application of a policy to a specific individual.

Notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of admin action
where the admin body acts in the exercise of executive,
administrative, or legislative functions; but where a public admin body
acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are particular and
immediate rather than general and prospective, the person whose
rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice
and hearing.

55 GMA Network v. COMELEC (2014) Reso No 9615 defective?

YES, for failing to conduct prior hearing.

While it is true that COMELEC is an independent office and not a

mere admin agency under the Executive Dept, rules wc apply to the
latter must also be deemed to similarly apply to the former, not as a
matter of admin convenience but as a dictate of due process.

When an admin rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability

 needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real
consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed.
When, upon the other hand, the admin rule goes beyond merely
providing for the means that can facilitate or render at least
cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to
or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to
accord at least to 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.

In relation to its substantive component, any governmental rule or

regulation must be reasonable in its operations and its impositions.
Any restrictions, as well as sanctions, must be reasonably related to
the purpose or objective of the government in a manner that would
now work unnecessary and unjustifiable burdens on the citizenry.

56 Board of Trustees v. Velasco (2011) Resolutions assailed are
1. new GSIS salary structure
2. authority to pay the 2002 Christmas Package
3. GSIS merit selection and promotion plan
Assailed Resolutions needed to be filed with UP Law Center?
NO, pertained only to internal rules meant to regulate GSIS personnel.
Not all rules and regulations adopted by every govt agency are to be
filed with the UP Law Center. Only those of general or of permanent
character.

UP Law Center’s guidelines for receiving and publication of RR:

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is,
regulating only the personnel of the admin agency and not the public
NEED NOT be filed with the UP Law Center.

57 ASTEC v. ERC, supra

58 People v. Que Po Lay (1954) CA 638 and Act 2930 enumerated and made a list of Circ. No. 20 need be published?
what should be published in the OG for the guidance YES.
of diff branches of the Govt issuing same, and of the Being issued for the implementation of the law authorizing its issuance
Bureau of Printing. and prescribing a penalty for its violation.

Beofore the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal

provisions, a law, regulation, or circular must first be published and the
people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its
penalties.

Que Po Lay violated Circ. No. 20?

NO.
Not binding at the time he was found to have failed to sell the foreign
exchange in his possession thereof.

Penal provision had no legal effect and bound no one until its
publication in the OG.
 59 Cawad v. Abad (2015)
4. QUASI-JUDICIAL/ADJUDICATORY
a. In General
60 Santiago v. Bautista (1970) Teodoro Santiago, a grade 6 pupil, was adjudged 3rd
honor. 2 days before his graduation, Ted and his
parents sought the invalidation of the ranking of the
honor students. Filed a Certiorari case against the
principal and teachers who composed the committee
on rating honors. Respondents filed a MTD claiming
that the action was improper, and even assuming it
was proper, the question has become academic (bc
the graduation already proceeded). Argued no
GADALEJ on the part of the teachers since the
Committee on Ratings is not a tribunal, nor board,
exercising judicial functions, under Rule 65, certiorari
is a remedy against judicial function.
61 Subido v. CA (2016) “Inspect Binay Accounts” article published in Manila
Times. Another article published that reported CA
issued a Resolution granting ex-parte application of
AMLC to examine bank accounts of Subido Pagente
Committee on Rating of Students for Honors exercised QJ/J
authority?
NO.
No applicable law covers function of the committee.
Before a tribunal board, or officer may exercise J/QJ acts, necessary
that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or
property under wc adverse claims to such rights are made, and
controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before tribunal, board, or
officer w power and authority to determine what that law is and
thereupon adjudicate respective rights of contending parties.
Judicial action?
Adjudication upon rights of parties who in general appear or are
brought before tribunal by notice or process, and upon whose claims
some decision or judgment is rendered. Implies impartiality,
disinterestedness, a weighing of adverse claims, and is inconsistent w
discretion on the one hand or w dictation on the other.
Judicial function?
To determine what the law is, and what the legal rights of the parties
are, with respect to a matter in controversy and whenever a officer is
clothed w that authority, and undertakes to determine those questions
It is the nature of the act to be performed that determines w/n it is the
discharge of a J/QJ function. Not essential that proceedings should be
strictly and technically judicial, in the sense in wc that word is used
when applied to courts of justice, but is sufficient if they are quasi-
judicial. Enough if officers act judicially in making their decisions,
whatever may be their public character.
Judicial power does not necessarily include the power to hear and
determine a matter that is not in the nature of a suit or action bw
parties.
Test to determine whether tribunal or board exercises judicial
functions
(1) specific controversy involving rights of persons brought
before a tribunal for hearing and determination
(2) tribunal must have power and authority to pronounce
judgment and render a decision
(3) tribunal must pertain to that branch of the sovereign wc
belongs to the judiciary (or at least not the legislative nor
executive)
Test of determining whether an admin body is exercising judicial
functions or merely investigatory functions?
Adjudication signifies the exercise of power and authority to adjudicate
upon the rights and obligations of parties before it.
 Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law.
62 Lupangco v. CA (1988) PRC issued Resolution No. 105 as parts of its
"Additional Instructions to Examiness," to all those
applying for admission to take the accountancy
licensure examinations: No examinee shall attend any
review class, briefing, conference or the like
conducted by, or shall receive any hand-out, review
material, or any tip from any school, college or
university, or any review center or the like or any
reviewer, lecturer, instructor official or employee of
any of the aforementioned or similars institutions
during the three days immediately proceeding every
examination day including examination day. Any
examinee violating this instruction shall be subject to
sanctions.
Reviewees preparing to take the licensure
examinations in accountancy filed on their own behalf
of all others similarly situated like them with RTC
Manila a complaint for injunction with a prayer with
the issuance of a writ of a preliminary injunction
against respondent PRC to restrain the latter from
enforcing the above-mentioned resolution and to
declare the same unconstitutional.
63 CIR v. CA (1986) Pursuant to RA 7654 imposing 55% tax, RMC 37-93
issued by the BIR classified Champion, Hope, and
More cigarettes as locally manufactured cigarettes
bearing a foreign brand to have them covered by said
RA 7654.
CIR believes RMC was a mere interpretative ruling,
thus no publication needed in order to be binding.
If the only purpose for investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted
before it based on facts and circumstances presented to it, and if the
agency is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the
parties, then there is an absence of judicial discretion and judgment.
AMLA an admin body wc exercises QJ powers?
NO. Investigatory functions only.
Nowhere from the text of the law nor its IRR can we glean that AMLC
exercises QJ functions whether the actual PI is done simply at its
behest or conducted by the DOJ and the OMB.
AMLC’s investigation of money laundering offenses and its
determination of possible money laundering offenses, specifically its
inquiry into certain bank accounts allowed by court order, does not
transform it into an investigative body exercising QJ powers.
PRC issuance a QJ function?
NO.
Quasi-judicial: action, discretion, etc., of public admin officers or
bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts,
hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature
Quasi-judicial adjudication: determination of rights, privileges and
duties resulting in a decision or order wc applies to a specific situation;
does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability issued by
the admin body to implement its purely admin policies and functions
Even acts of the OP may be reviewed by the RTC.
The objection to a judicial review of a Presidential act arises from a
failure to recognize the most important principle in our system of govt
i.e. separation of powers. The legality of his acts are under judicial
review, not because Executive is inferior to the courts, but bc the law
is above the Chief Exec himself, and the courts seek only to interpret,
apply or supplement it.
RMC unconstitutional?
YES.
Applicable only to HMC cigarettes, thus lacking uniformity of taxation.
Also adjudicatory in nature and violative of due process following Ang
Tibay doctrine.
Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power
 Power of admin agency to adjudicate the rights of persons
before it
 Power to hear and determine questions of fact to wc the

64 Sañado v. CA (2001) PHL Fisheries Commission granted Sañado an
Ordinary Fishpond Permit covering an area of 50 has.
Executed contract w Nepomuceno where latter
agreed to develop 30 ha. Parties modified agreement
by excluding area of 10 ha. already cultivated and
fully developed. Also provided contract is renewable
on terms acceptable to both of them.
Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
recommended to Ministry of Natural Resources the
conversion of Sañado’s fishpond permit into a 25-year
fishpond loan agreement wc covered a reduced area
of 26.745 ha. Fishpond Lease Agreement issued.
legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance w
the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and
administering the same law
 Performs in a judicial manner an act wc is essentially of an
executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in
such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the
performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted
to it
 Required to investigate facts or ascertain 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
 Due process observed
J. BELOSILLO
When an administrative proceeding is QJ in character, notice and fair
open hearing are essential to the validity of the proceeding.
Cardinal primary rights wc must be respected in admin proceedings
(1) right to a hearing, wc includes right of party interested or
affected to present his own case and submit evidence in
support thereof
(2) tribunal must consider evidence presented
(3) decision must have something to support itself
(4) evidence must be substantial
(5) decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to
the parties affected
(6) tribunal or any of its judges 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) tribunal should in all controversial questions render its
decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding
may know the various issues involved and the reasons for
the decision rendered
Legal effect of OP’s decision in relation to civil case?
Official act; exercise of QJ power.
Falls under matters relative to exec dept wc courts are mandatorily
tasked to take judicial notice of.
Action of an admin agency in granting or denying, or in suspending or
revoking a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public
convenience and necessity is administrative or quasi-judicial. Not
purely administrative but quasi-judicial/adjudicatory since it is
dependent upon the ascertainment of facts by the admin agency,
upon wc a decision is to be made and rights and liabilities are
determined.
Judicial notice must be taken of organization of Exec Dept, its
 Filed complaint against Nepomuceno for recovery of
possession and damages, alleging failure to deliver
share of net harvest. While case pending, Minister of
Agriculture and Food canceled FLA, forfeiting improvs
thereon in favor of govt. Order reconsidered to extent
that Nepomuceno was given priority to apply for the
area and that his improvs thereon were not
considered forfeited in favot of govt.
principal officers, elected or appointed, such as the President, his
powers and duties.
Policy of the courts re: factual findings is not to interfere w actions of
the exec branch on administrative matters addressed to the sound
discretion of govt agencies. Specially applicable in grant of licenses,
permits, and leases, or the approval, rejection, or revocation of
applications therefor.

Elevated to OP but appeal was dismissed. RTC in

favor of Sañado.

b. Incidental Powers
SECTION 13. Subpoena.—In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and
other pertinent data, upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.
65 Evangelista v. Jarencio (1975) Pursuant to his special powers and duties under PARGO enjoys authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact-
Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code, the finding investigations?
President of the Philippines created the Presidential YES.
Agency on Reforms and Government Operations EO 4 fixes no distinction when and in what function should the
(PARGO) under Executive Order No. 4. subpoena power be exercised.

For a realistic performance of these functions, the
President vested in the Agency all the powers of an
investigating committee under Sections 71 and 580 of
the Revised Administrative Code, including the power
to summon witnesses by subpoena or subpoena
duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or
evidence relevant to the investigation.
Admin agency may be authorized to make investigation, not only in
proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature, but also in proceedings
whose sole purpose is to obtain info upon wc future action of a
legislative or judicial nature may be taken and may require attendance
of witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature. May
conduct general inquiries into evils calling for correction, and to report
findings to appropriate bodies and make recommendations for actions.

Usec Evangelista issued to Manalastas, then Acting
City Public Service Officer of Manila, a subpoena ad
testificandum commanding him to be and appear as
witness at the Office of PARGO then and there to
declare and testify in a certain investigation pending
therein.
Admin agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of
investigation, w/n adjudication is involved, and w/n probable cause is
shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. Not necessary
that a specific charge or complaint of violation of law be pending or
that order be made pursuant to one. Enough that investigation be for a
lawfully authorized purpose.

Admin agency has power of inquisition wc is not dependent upon

case/controversy in order to get evidence, but can investigate merely
on suspicion that law is being violated or even just bc it wants
assurance that it is not. When investigative and accusatory duties are
delegated by statute to an admin body, it may take steps to inform
itself as to whether there is probable violation of law.

When subpoena meets req’ts for enforcement?

If inquiry is:
(1) within authority of agency
(2) demand is not too indefinite
(3) information is reasonably relevant
66 Qua Che Gan v. Deportation Board
(1963)
EO 398 given powers ILLEGAL
Order of Arrest null and void
67 Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago (1988)
 Prosecutor Galang charged Chua Chee
Gan and others before deportation
board
 Purchased US dollars 130k wo
necessary license from centralbank
 Remitted by pet to HK
 Attempted to bribe central bank officer
and capt charak to evade prosecution
 Warrant of arrest issued  filed surety
bond
 MTD filed said not legal ground to
deportation and deportation board has
no jurisdiction to entertain charges
 Motion denied
 DB said they as AUTHORIZED AGENT
of President has jurisdiction over the
charges filed and auth to order arrest
Court upheld validity of delegation by president
in power to conduct investigations, sustained db
to issue WOA and fix bonds
WoA issued by Deportation Board. Filed a surety and
cash bond thereby provisionally setting them at
liberty. Filed joint MTD for the reason that the same is
no legal ground for deportation of aliens, and
Deportation Board has no jurisdiction to entertain
such charges; DENIED.
American nationals Harvey and Sherman, and Dutch
citizen Elshout are all residing at Pagsanjan, Laguna.
Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago issued
Mission Orders to the Commission of Immigration and
Deportation (CID) to apprehend petitioners at their
residences.
The “Operation Report” read that Andrew Harvey was
found together with two young boys. Richard
Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his
room. While Van Den Elshout in the “after Mission
Report” read that two children of ages 14 and 16 has
been under his care and subjects confirmed being
live-in for some time now.
Seized during the petitioner’s apprehension were rolls
of photo negatives and photos of suspected child
prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as
boys and girls engaged in sex. Posters and other
May President’s power of investigation be delegated?
YES according to Sec. 69 of Admin Code.
Deportation Board has been conducting investigation as authorized
agent of the President.
Extent of President’s power to conduct investigation?
Power to arrest only upon issuance of order of deportation
President Quirino, under EO 398, issued the Deportation Board was
authorized motu proprio or upon filing of formal charges by Special
Prosec of Board, to issue warrant for arrest of the alien complained of
and to hold him under detention during investigation, unless he files a
bond for provisional release in such amount and under such
conditions as may be prescribed by Chairman of Board.
To carry out the order of deportation, President obviously has the
power to order arrest of the deportee. But during investigation, it is not
indispensable that the alien be arrested.
Discretion of whether WoA shall issue or not is personal to the one
upon whom the authority devolves. Authorities are to the effect that
while ministerial duties may be delegated, official functions requiring
the exercise of discretion and judgment may not be so delegated.
Implied grant of power, considering that no express authority was
granted by the law on the matter under discussion that would serve as
curtailment/limitation on the fundamental right of a person, must be
viewed w caution, if we are to give meaning to guarantee contained in
Consti.
Delegation of implied power must be rejected as inimical to the
liberties of the people. Guarantees of human rights and freedom can
not be made to rest precariously on such a shaky foundation.
Validly arrested?
YES.
Step preliminary to possible deportation after deportation proceedings
commenced against them. Probable cause shown to exist even before
WoAs issued.
Under 1935 Consti, arrest of an individual may be ordered by any
authority other than a judge if the purpose is merely to determine
existence of probable cause, leading to an administrative
investigation.
What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the
alien intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearing be
conducted w the assistance of counsel, if desired, and that the charge
be substantiated by competent evidence.
Deportation proceedings are administrative in character. An order of
deportation is never construed as punishment. Preventive, not penal
process. Need not be conducted strictly in accordance w ordinary

68 Salazar v. Achacoso (1990)
Issue re: validity of the power of the
Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of
arrest and seizure under Article 38 of
the Labor Code, prohibiting illegal
recruitment.
69 Public Hearing Committee v. SM Prime
Holdings (2010)
literature advertising the child prostitutes were also Court proceedings.
found.
Right to bail may be invoked?
Only the three petitioners have chosen to face NO.
deportation. Deportation proceedings do not partake of nature of criminal action.
Warrants of Arrest were issued by respondent against
petitioners for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of
the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code. The Board of Special Inquiry
III commenced trial against petitioners. Petitioners
filed a Petition for Bail which the CID denied.
Tesoro filed with the POEA a complaint against Sec. of Labor or POEA may issue warrants of search and seizure?
Salazar. Having ascertained that the Salazar had no NO thus Art 38, Labor Code is unconstitutional.
license to operate a recruitment agency, public
respondent Administrator Achacoso issued his Under the Constitution (Art III, Sec 2), t is only a judge who may issue
challenged CLOSURE AND SEIZURE ORDER. warrants of search and seizure. Neither may it be done by a mere
prosecuting body. Authorities must go through judicial process.
POEA brought a team to the premises of Salazar to
implement the order. There it was found that Power of President to order arrest of aliens for deportation is
petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio. exceptional. Power to order arrests cannot be made to extend other
Before entering the place, the team served said cases
Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora
Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the
premises. Mrs. Flora Salazar informed the team that
Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with Moreman
Development (Phil.). However, when required to show
credentials, she was unable to produce any. Inside
the studio, the team chanced upon twelve talent
performers — practicing a dance number and saw
about twenty more waiting outside, The team
confiscated assorted costumes which were duly
receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and
witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar.
A few days after, Salazar filed a letter with the POEA
demanding the return of the confiscated properties.
They alleged lack of hearing and due process, and
that since the house the POEA raided was a private
residence, it was robbery.
On February 2, 1988, the petitioner filed this suit for
prohibition. Although the acts sought to be barred are
already fait accompli, thereby making prohibition too
late, we consider the petition as one for certiorari in
view of the grave public interest involved.
 LLDA inspected SM City Manila branch re: SM barred from assailing LLDA’s authority to impose fines?
wastewater collected. They found that SM failed YES.
to conform to effluent standards for inland water Impliedly admitted LLDA’s authority by asking for reconsideration of
 LLDA orders legal, has power to impose
fines in the exercise of its function as
regulatory and quasi-judicila body with
respect to pollution cases in the Laguna
lake region
EO 927 provide LLDA has power to
make orders , to specify conditions , and
exercise powers necessary
RA 4860 shows power of llda to impose
fines, as in sec 4a – LLDA is entitled to
compensation for damages resulting
from failure to meet standards
imposed in accordance with law.
 Resampling requested by SMs pollution control
officer, said they took measure to enable sewage
treatment plant to meet the standards required
 SM required to pay fine of 50k
 Waiver for fines asked by SM
 LLDA denied order
 LLDA denied reconsideration
 CA set aside orders –
o as admin agency’s power must be
expressly granted and may not be
implied
o LLDA charter Ra 4859 did not expressly
grant any power or authority to expose
fines for violations of effluent standards
set by law
 Hence this petition
fine imposed by LLDA.
LLDA has power to impose fines?
YES.
Express power to make, alter or modify orders requiring
discontinuance of pollution specifying conditions and time within wc
such discontinuance must be accomplished. Given authority to
exercise such powers and perform such other functions as may be
necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities under EO 927.
The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) has power to impose
fines in the exercise of its function as a regulatory and quasi-judicial
body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake
region. Adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the
Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), except where a special law, such
as the LLDA Charter, provides for another forum. Although the PAB
assumed the powers and functions of the National Pollution Control
Commission with respect to adjudication of pollution cases, this does
not preclude the LLDA from assuming jurisdiction of pollution cases
within its area of responsibility and to impose fines as penalty.

EO 927 intends to clothe LLDA not only w express powers but also
those wc are implied or incidental but nonetheless necessary or
essential for the full and proper implementation of its purpose and
functions.

Orders issued by LLDA are not illegal nor issued in excess of

jurisdiction

SM estopped from questioning power of LLDA to impose fines

since they actively participate during hearing without impugning
LLDAs power.

c. Administrative Procedure in Adjudication of Cases

CHAPTER 3
Adjudication
SECTION 10. Compromise and Arbitration.—To expedite administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations, every agency shall, in
the public interest, encourage amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration.

SECTION 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases.—(1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice and hearing. The notice shall be served at least five (5)
days before the date of the hearing and shall state the date, time and place of the hearing.
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues. If not precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by
stipulation, agreed settlement or default.
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings.

SECTION 12. Rules of Evidence.—In a contested case:

(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available. Upon request, the parties shall be given opportunity to compare
the copy with the original. If the original is in the official custody of a public officer, a certified copy thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidence.
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The parties shall be notified
and afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed.

SECTION 13. Subpoena.—In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and
other pertinent data, upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.

SECTION 14. Decision.—Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based. The agency shall decide each case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to
their counsel of record, if any, or to them.

SECTION 15. Finality of Order.—The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected
unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of
the said period.

SECTION 16. Publication and Compilation of Decisions.—(1) Every agency shall publish and make available for public inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of
contested cases.
(2) It shall be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his equivalent functionary to prepare a register or compilation of those decisions or final orders for use by the public.
i. Administrative Due Process
Civil Code
Art. 704.
Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without
committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and
(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.
CHAPTER 9
Accountability and Responsibility for Government Funds and Property

SECTION 51. Primary and Secondary Responsibility.—

(1) The head of any agency of the Government is immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his agency;
(2) Persons entrusted with the possession or custody of the funds or property under the agency head shall be immediately responsible to him, without prejudice to the liability of
either party to the Government.
ART III, 1987 Constitution
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
70 Ang Tibay v. CIR (1950) Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a CIR
leather company which supplies the Philippine Army. the function of the Court of Industrial Relations, as will appear from
Motion for new trial by NLU granted , Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It
case remanded to CIR : “the record is lay off of a number of his employees. However, the not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the
barren and does not satisfy the thirst for National Labor Union, Inc. (NLU) questioned the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its
a factual basis upon which to predicate, validity of said lay off as it averred that the said functions in the determination of disputes between employers and
in a national way, a conclusion of law.” employees laid off were members of NLU while no employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and
members of the rival labor union (National Worker’s expensive.
Brotherhood) were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is a
company dominated union and Toribio was merely Fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials
busting NLU. and investigations of an administrative character
The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said
The case reached the Court of Industrial Relations to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not
(CIR) where Toribio and NWB won. Eventually, NLU mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or
went to the Supreme Court invoking its right for a new disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process
trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are
Supreme Court agreed with NLU. The Solicitor
General, arguing for the CIR, filed a motion for
reconsideration.
primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this
character:
(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the
right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and
submit evidence in support thereof. In the language of Chief Hughes,
in Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law. ed. 1129,
"the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the
rudimentary requirements of fair play.
(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case
and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he
asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (Chief
Justice Hughes in Morgan v. U.S. 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80 law.
ed. 1288.) In the language of this court in Edwards vs. McCoy, 22
Phil., 598, "the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding
duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is
conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is
presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration."
(3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to
decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded,
namely, that of having something to support it is a nullity, a place
when directly attached." (Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This principle
emanates from the more fundamental is contrary to the vesting of
unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon
power.
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or
conclusion (City of Manila vs. Agustin, G.R. No. 45844, promulgated
November 29, 1937, XXXVI O. G. 1335), but the evidence must be
"substantial." (Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co. v.
national labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 147, 57 S. Ct. 648, 650,
81 Law. ed. 965.) It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Appalachian
Electric Power v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985,
989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97
F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) . . . The statute provides
that "the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall
not be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions
is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules
so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed
incompetent inn judicial proceedings would not invalidate the
administrative order. (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194
U.S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate Commerce
Commission v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93 33 S.
Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; United States v. Abilene and Southern
Ry. Co. S. Ct. 220, 225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a
desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go far as to
justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative
force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute
substantial evidence. (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)"
(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. (Interstate Commence Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227
U.S. 88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed. 431.) Only by confining the
administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the
latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against
them. It should not, however, detract from their duty actively to see
that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized
legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts
material and relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be
appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in
any given case, but their report and decision are only advisory.
(Section 9, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) The Court of Industrial
Relations may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute or any matter
under its consideration or advisement to a local board of inquiry, a
provincial fiscal. a justice of the peace or any public official in any part
of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, and
may delegate to such board or public official such powers and
functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations may deem
necessary, but such delegation shall not affect the exercise of the
Court itself of any of its powers. (Section 10, ibid.)
(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. It may be that the volume of work
is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all
controversies coming before them. In the United States the difficulty is
solved with the enactment of statutory authority authorizing examiners
or other subordinates to render final decision, with the right to appeal
to board or commission, but in our case there is no such statutory
authority.
(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 decision rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable
from the authority conferred upon it.

71 UP Board of Regents v. CA (1999) Keywords: Dissertation, Plagiarism, ad hoc committee

to investigate, Univ Council / BOR agreed to withdraw
her doctorate degree, MANDAMUS to restore her
degree in RTC – denied, CA - granted

Private respondent Ms. Arokiaswamy William

Margaret Celine a citizen of India enrolled doctoral
program in UP CSSP Diliman QC. She is ready for
oral defense with selected panel members Drs. E.
Arsenio Manuel, Serafin Quiason, Sri Skandarajah,
Noel Teodoro, and Isagani Medina, the last included
as the dean’s representative. Even though Dr. Medina
noticed that there were portions of her dissertation
that was lifted from different sources without proper
acknowledgement, she was still allowed to continue to
with her oral defense. Four (4) out five (5) give her a
passing mark with condition to incorporate the
suggestion made by the panel members. Dr. Medina
did not sign the approval form. Dr. Teodoro also noted
that a revision should be submitted. On March 24,
1993, The CSSP College Faculty Assembly approved
her graduation pending the final revised copies of her
dissertation. Private respondent submitted the
supposedly final revised copies although petitioners
maintained that suggestions were not incorporated.
She left a copy for Dr. Teodoro and Dr. Medina and
did not wait for their approval relying to the Dean Paz
remarks during previous meeting that a majority vote
was sufficient for her to pass. The supposedly revised
copies were later disapproved by Dr. Teodoro and Dr.
Medina. Private respondent was disappointed with the
administration.

She charge Dr. Diokno and Medina with maliciously

working for the disapproval of her dissertation and
further warned Dean Paz against encouraging
perfidious act against her. Dean Paz attempts to
exclude the private respondent in the graduating list in
a letter addressed to the Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs (Dr. Milagros Ibe), pending for
clarification of her charges against panel members
and accusations relating to her dissertation.
Unfortunately the letter did not reach on time and the
respondent was allowed to graduate. Dean Paz wrote
a letter that she would not be granted an academic
clearance unless she substantiated the accusations.
In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, Dr. Medina
formally charged private respondent with plagiarism
and recommended for the withdrawal of her doctorate
degree.

Dean Paz formed an ad-hoc committee (Ventura

Committee) to investigate and recommend to
Chancellor Dr. Roman to withdraw her doctorate
degree. Private respondent was informed of the
charges in a letter. Ventura Committee finds at 90
instances or portions of thesis lifted from other
sources with no proper acknowledgement. After it was
unanimously approved and endorsed from the CSSP
and Univ. Council the recommendation for withdrawal
was endorsed to Board of Regents who deferred its
actions to study further for legal implications. Private
respondent was provided with a copy of findings and
in return she also submitted her written explanation.
Another meeting was scheduled to discuss her
answer.
Zafaralla Committee was also created and
 recommends private respondent for withdrawal of her
degree after establishing the facts the there were
massive lifting from published sources and the private
respondent also admits herself of being guilty of
plagiarism.

On the basis of the report and recommendation of

the University Council, the Board of Regents send a
letter to inform private respondent that it was resolved
by majority to withdraw your doctorates degree. On
August 10, 1995, private respondent then filed a
petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction and damages to
RTC QC. She alleged that petitioners had unlawfully
withdrawn her degree without justification and without
affording her procedural due process. She prayed that
petitioners be ordered to restore her degree and to
pay her P500, 000.00 as moral and exemplary
damages and P1, 500,000.00 as compensation for
lost earnings. RTC dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s
decision and ordered to restore her doctorates
degree.

72 Acuzar v. Jorolan (2010)  Admin case filed by Jorolan against SPO1
Acuzar for grave misconduct - latter had illicit
PLEB has jurisdiction relationship with Jorolan’s minor daughter
 Crim case also filed under 7610
 Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) in
Davao del Norte found pet guilty of grave
misconduct and ordered dismissal of SPO1
Acuzar from service
 Cert filed by petitioner in RTC Tagum
o PLEB no Jurisdiction: Prior conviction
needed under PLEB Rules of Procedure
before BOARD may act on admin case
 Acuzar ordered dismissed from PNP
 RTC annulled decision of PLEB – no hearing
 CA reversed RTC, hence this petition by SP01
Acuzar
Denial of Due Process? NO, Due process in an administrative context
does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of
justice
PLEB has jurisdiction? YES
The settled rule is that criminal and administrative cases are separate
and distinct from each other.13In criminal cases, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is needed whereas in administrative proceedings,
only substantial evidence is required. Verily, administrative cases may
proceed independently of criminal proceedings. 14 The PLEB, being the
administrative disciplinary body tasked to hear complaints against
erring members of the PNP, has jurisdiction over the case.
Procedural, Proper remedy of certiorari? NO
Under RA 6975 PLEB decisions appealable to Regional Appellate
Board. Also, the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies requires that before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, it is a precondition that he should have
availed of the means of administrative processes afforded to him

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN ADMIN PROCEEDINGS:

In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been

recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or
constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a

73 Ganappao v. CSC (2011) In April 1995, UWTC started operating MMTCs buses.
At about the same time, petitioner was allegedly
Pet for review denied. employed by Atty. Gironella, the general manager
No viol of due process. appointed by the Board of Directors of UWTC, as his
Proper penalty imposed. personal bodyguard.
Respondents further alleged that upon orders of Atty.
Gironella, the buses regularly driven by them were
confiscated by a group led by petitioner.Armed with
deadly weapons petitioner and his group intimidated
and harassed respondents. Barien, et al. thus prayed
for the preventive suspension of petitioner, the
confiscation of his firearm and his termination.
The complaint passed an investigation with The
Inspector General, Internal Affairs Office (TIG-IAO) of
the PNP. In his answer, petitioner denied the
allegations of the complaint and averred that it was
his twin brother, Reynaldo Gannapao, who worked as
messenger at UWTC.In a memorandum, it was
recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
Subsequently,National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) Memorandum was issued, and a
summary hearing on the complaint was conducted.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint. The same
was denied.
PNP Chief Sarmiento rendered his Decision finding
petitioner guilty as charged and suspending him for
three months from the police service without pay.
Petitioners MR was likewise denied, thus, he elevated
the case to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate
Board.His appeal, however, was dismissed.
respondent’s legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally
or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence
in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights; (3) a tribunal vested with
competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person
charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as
impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by
substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or
contained in the records or made known to the parties affected
1. Whether petitioner was denied due process? NO
Essence of due process as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. In the application
of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is
not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be
heard.22 As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his
interests in due course, he was not denied due process
(2) whether the CA correctly affirmed the CSC decision modifying the
penalty of petitioner from three months suspension to dismissal from
the service? YES
Violation is classified as a grave offense. Under the circumstances,
the Court cannot consider in his favor his fourteen (14) years in the
police service and his being a first time offender. The CSC thus
correctly imposed on him the maximum penalty of dismissal. Pursuant
to Section 6 of Memorandum Circular No. 93-024, the penalty of
dismissal, which results in the separation of the respondent from the
service, shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification from
reemployment in the police service.
 Aggrieved, petitioner brought his case to the DILG but
his appeal was denied.
Petitioner then appealed to the CSC, it was dismissed
but the penalty of suspension was increased to
dismissal from service.
Petitioner thus filed with the CA a Petition for Review
but it was later on denied because petitioner cannot
claim denial of due process since he was given ample
opportunity to present his side.
CA denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
74 Nacion v. COA (2015)  Atty. Janet Nacion, assigned by COA to MWSS
as State auditor
 Admin charge against her by COA Chair Pulido –
It is settled that the factual findings of Tan
administrative bodies are controlling  Nacion admitted she availed of MWSS housing in
when supported by such substantial 2003 , but she thought she could avail of it since
evidence. there was no prohibition upon COA personnel.
 There was a RESO wc prohibited COA
employees from availing beenfits from agencies
under their credit jurisdiction in July 2004
 Nacion also admitted she took out a MWSS
Loan- Car Loan
 Nacion denied receiving bonuses and beenfits
from MWSS
 Her receipt of benefits proven by documentary
evidence
 She offered to pay the full loan back, and to give
up right to the loot
 CA: Nacion guilty
75 DOH v. Camposano, supra  Anomalous purchase of ferrous sulfate from
Lumar Pharma Co
Orders by Health Sec. violative of admin  Admin charge against Camposano Perez and
due process. Agustin
 Exec Sec Torres issued AO 298 to create adhoc
committee to investigate the admin case
 PCGAC took over investigation from DOH
 Resolution issued by PCGAC finding resp guilty
 AO 390 issued by Pres Ramos dismissing Dir
Majarais from service
 Appeal by respondents
SC: authority of PCGAC upheld
ORDERS of HEALTH SEC annulled as violative of
COA GAD in fining Nacion guilty of grave misconduct? NO
COA also did not act beyond its jurisdiction when her case was
considered by the FAIO investigating team, notwithstanding the fact
that the office order which commanded an inquiry upon MWSS
personnel merely referred to alleged unauthorized receipt of bonuses
and benefits from the agency by Atty. Norberto Cabibihan (Atty.
Cabibihan) and his staff.
In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence that is necessary to
declare a person administratively liable is mere substantial evidence.
Due process violation? NO violation.
OSG correct that the constitution of a separate fact-finding team
specifically for Nacion’s case was not necessary for the satisfaction of
such right.
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is the
opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of, and to submit any evidence he may
have in support of his defense. The demands of due process are
sufficiently met when the parties are given the opportunity to be heard
before judgment is rendered.
PCGAC has jurisdiction to investigate anomalous transactions?
YES
EO151 authorizes PCGAC to investigate anomalous transactions.
BUT respo not investigated under EO151, authorized under AO 298
(creation of the adhoc committee).
Pres can create Ad hoc investigating committee.
Sec of Health Decision Valid? NO
Health secretary has competence and authority to decide BUT actual
exercise of disciplinifn authoritys prerogative requires a PRIOR
INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION of the law and facts. Failure to
comply with requirement results in an invalid decision. Here, secretary
relied on dispositive portion of committee’s resolution. Did not follow
requirements with principles, specifically (6), that the tribunal
must have acted on its own consideration of the law and must

76 Lumiqued v. Exenea (1997)
Thus, the right to counsel is not
imperative in administrative
investigations because such
inquiries are conducted merely to
determine whether there are facts
that merit disciplinary measures
against erring public officers and
employees, with the purpose of
maintaining the dignity of
government service.
77 Ombudsman v. Reyes (2011)
No Need to weigh evidence in
reviewing admin decisions:
Exception; in case there is possible
miscarriage of justice (Dadulo v CA)
While it is not the function of the Court
to analyze and weigh the parties'
evidence all over again, an exception
thereto lies as when there is serious
ground to believe that a possible
admin due process
 Arsenio Lumiqued was the Regional Director of
DAR-CAR. He was charged by Jeannette
Zamudio, the Regional Cashier, for dishonesty
due to questionable gas expenses under his
office.
 It was alleged that he was falsifying gas receipts
for reimbursements and that he had an
unliquidated cash advance worth P116,000.00.
 Zamudio also complained that she was unjustly
removed by Lumiqued two weeks after she filed
the two complaints.
 The issue was referred to the DOJ. Committee
hearings on the complaints were conducted on
July 3 and 10, 1992, but Lumiqued was not
assisted by counsel.
 On the second hearing date, he moved for its
resetting to July 17, 1992, to enable him to
employ the services of counsel.
 The committee granted the motion, but neither
Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the date
he himself had chosen, so the committee
deemed the case submitted for resolution.
o Beyond repeatedly reminding him
that he could avail himself of
counsel and as often receiving the
reply that he is confident of his
ability to defend himself, the
investigating committee could not
do more.
 The Investigating Committee recommended the
dismissal of Lumiqued. DOJ Sec Drilon adopted
the recommendation. Fidel Ramos issued AO 52
dismissing Lumiqued.
 Lumiqued appealed averring that his right to due
process was violated as well as his right to
security of tenure.
 Reyes and Pealoza worked for LTO in Camiguin
 Acero executed affidavit against respondents
saying that they asked for money when he
applied for a drivers license. He gave 1000, no
receipt given by the LTO officers.
 Acero allegedly failed the exam, still granted
temp license – money paid was to add scores to
the flunkers’ exam results
 Reyes found guilty of grave misconduct, Pealoza
guilty of simple misconduct
 CA reversed judgment of OMB Mindanao
not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate
While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at
times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under
existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be
assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of
the respondents capacity to represent himself and no duty rests on
such a body to furnish the person being investigated with
counsel.[28] In an administrative proceeding such as the one that
transpired below, a respondent (such as Lumiqued) has the option of
engaging the services of counsel or not. This is clear from the
provisions of Section 32, Article VII of Republic Act No.
2260[29] (otherwise known as the Civil Service Act) and Section 39,
paragraph 2, Rule XIV (on discipline) of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292[30] (otherwise known
as the Administrative Code of 1987). Excerpts from the transcript of
stenographic notes of the hearings attended by Lumiqued[31] clearly
show that he was confident of his capacity and so opted to represent
himself. Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative
investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to
determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures
against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of
maintaining the dignity of government service.
Consequently, the adoption by Secretary Drilon and the OP of the
committees recommendation of dismissal may not in any way be
deemed tainted with arbitrariness amounting to grave abuse of
discretion. Government officials are presumed to perform their
functions with regularity. Strong evidence is not necessary to rebut
that presumption,[51] which petitioners have not successfully disputed
in the instant case.
whether the charge of grave misconduct against Reyes was
sufficiently proven by substantial evidence?
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 mandates that the findings of fact
by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by
substantial evidence
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate
violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To
constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should
relate to or be connected with the performance of official
 miscarriage of justice would thereby
result.
78 Pollution Board v. CA (1991)
CA decision set aside.
Board order and writ of execution
reinstated.
No violation of due process by board.
Cease and desist by board allowed
under PD 984
 OMB filed MR – still denied
Respondent, Solar Textile Finishing Corporation is
involved in bleaching, rinsing and dyeing textiles with
untreated wastewater which were being discharged
directly into a canal leading to the adjacent Tullahan-
Tinejeros River.
On September 22, 1988, petitioner
Pollution Adjudication Board issued an ex parte
Order based on 2 findings made on Solar Textile
Finishing Corportion’s plant,
directing Solar immediately to cease and desist from
utilizing its wastewater pollution source installations
as they were clearly inviolation of Section 8 of
Presidential Decree No. 984 (Pollution Control Law)
and Section 103 of its Implementing Rules and
Regulations and the 1982 Effluent Regulations.
Solar then filed a motion for reconsideration which
was granted by the Pollution Adjudication Board for a
temporary operation.
However, Solar went to the RTC for certiorari and
preliminary injunction against the Board but the same
was dismissed.
CA: reversed order. Remanded case
functions and duties of a public officer.
In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate
the law or flagrant disregard of established rule must be
manifest. Corruption as an element of grave misconduct
consists in the act of an official who unlawfully or wrongfully
uses his station or character to procure some benefit for
himself, contrary to the rights of other.
No Need to weigh evidence in reviewing admin
decisions: Exception; in case there is possible
miscarriage of justice (Dadulo v CA)
While it is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh
the parties' evidence all over again, an exception thereto lies
as when there is serious ground to believe that a possible
miscarriage of justice would thereby result.
Doctrine of Due Process in Admin Proceedings
In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving
reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer
the accusations against him constitute the minimum
requirements of due process. The essence of due process is
simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of
Denied due process by the Board? NO
It is enough if the Board finds that the wastes discharged do exceed
"the allowable standards set by the [NPCC]
Where, however, the effluents or discharges have not yet been the
subject matter of allowable standards set by the Commission, then the
Board may act on an ex parte basis when it finds at least prima
facie proof that the wastewater or material involved presents an
"immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare or to animal or
plant life."
Section 7(a) of P.D. No. 984 authorized petitioner Board to issue ex
parte cease and desist orders under the following circumstances:
P.D. 984, Section 7, paragraph (a), provides:
(a) Public Hearing. . . . Provided, That whenever the
Commission finds prima facie evidence that the discharged
sewage or wastes are of immediate threat to life, public
health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life, or exceeds
the allowable standards set by the Commission, the

79 American Tobacco v. Dir. Of Patents
(1975)
Petition by ACT dismissed.
While the power to decide resides solely
in the administrative agency vested by
law, this does not preclude a delegation
of the power to hold a hearing on the
basis of which the decision of the
administrative agency will be made.
80 Solid Homes v. Laserna (2008)
SHI petition denied.
Sec 14 Art VIII of Consti need not
apply to decisions in admin
Petitioner Board claims that under P.D. No. 984,
Section 7(a), it has legal authority to issue
ex parte orders to suspend the operations
of an establishment when there is prima facie
evidence that such establishment is discharging
effluents or wastewater, the pollution
level of which exceeds the maximum permissible
standards set by the NPCC (now, the Board). Solar,
on the other hand, contends
that under the Board's own rules and regulations, an
ex parte
order may issue only if the effluents discharged pose
an "immediate
threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to
animal and plant life" and argued that there were no
findings that Solar's
wastewater discharged posed such a threat
 The American Tobacco Company (ACT) was a
party to a trademark case pending before
the Philippine Patent Office.
 ATC challenged the validity of Rule 168 of the
“Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine
Patent Office in Trademark Cases” as amended,
authorizing the Director of Patents to designate
any ranking official of said office to hear “inter
partes” proceedings.
o Said that amendment of RULE void
because director must personally
hear and decide inter partes cases
 ATC argued that the same set of Rules provides
that “all judgments determining the merits of the
case shall be personally and directly prepared by
the Director and signed by him” hence it is
improper for the director to designate a lower
ranking official as hearing officers to hear the
case; that it is clear that under the Rules, the
Director must personally hear the case otherwise,
there will be a violation of due process.
 Laserna and Cajipe (RESP) entered in K to Sell
with Solid Homes (SHI)
 Lot located in LGV QC, 600 sqm
 They paid 90% and demanded Deed and TCT
but SHI didn’t comply w their demands
Commissioner may issue an ex-parte order directing the
discontinuance of the same or the temporary suspension or
cessation of operation of the establishment or person
generating such sewage or wastes without the necessity of a
prior public hearing. The said ex-parte order shall be
immediately executory and shall remain in force until said
establishment or person prevents or abates the said pollution
within the allowable standards or modified or nullified by a
competent court. (Emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, the ex parte cease and desist Order was issued
not by a local government official but by the Pollution Adjudication
Board, the very agency of the Government charged with the task of
determining whether the effluents of a particular industrial
establishment comply with or violate applicable anti-pollution statutory
and regulatory provisions.
It has been held that power-conferred upon an administrative agency
to which the administration of a statute is entrusted to issue such
regulations and orders as may be deemed necessary or proper in
order to carry out its purposes and provisions maybe an adequate
source of authority to delegate a particular function, unless by express
provisions of the Act or by implication it has been withheld. 4 There is
no provision either in Republic Act No. 165 or 166 negativing the
existence of such authority, so far as the designation of hearing
examiners is concerned. Nor can the absence of such authority be
fairly inferred from contemporaneous and consistent Executive
interpretation of the Act.
The nature of the power and authority entrusted to The Director
of Patents
The nature of the power and authority entrusted to The Director of
Patents suggests that the aforecited laws (Republic Act No. 166, in
relation to Republic Act No. 165) should be construed so as to give
the aforesaid official the administrative flexibility necessary for the
prompt and expeditious discharge of his duties in the administration of
said laws. As such officer, he is required, among others, to determine
the question of priority in patent interference proceedings
No Violation of Due Process
WHETHER OR NOT THE [HONORABLE] COURT OF APPEALS
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WHICH MERELY ADOPTS BY
REFERENCE THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE
 proceedings
The rights of parties in administrative
proceedings are not violated as long as
the constitutional requirement of due
process has been satisfied.
Cardinal rights of parties in
administrative proceedings, as follows:
1) The right to a hearing, which includes
the right to present one’s case and
submit evidence in support thereof.
2) The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented.
3) The decision must have something to
support itself.
4) The evidence must be substantial.
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.
6) The tribunal or body or any of its
judges 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 board or body should, in all
controversial question, render its
decision in such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reason
for the decision rendered
ii. Judgment
 RESP Filed complaint for delivery of title and
execution of deed with damages with HLURB
 HLURB denied prayer for issuance by REP. BUT
ordered SHI to deliver Deed os Sale and TCT the
moment full purchase price is paid
 Petitioner Appealed
 HLURB Arbiter ordered SHI to execute deed and
deliver TCT, cease and desist from charging fees
from RESP
 SHI appealed to OP; OP affirmed HLURB
decision
 Appeal to CA – Dismissed SHI petition
SC: This Court rules that the said Decision of the
Office of the President fully complied with both
administrative due process and Section 14, Article VIII
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Sec 14 Article VIII:
"No decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and
law on which it is based."
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE [HLURB], IS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION
THAT THE DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACTS AND LAW TO ARRIVE AT A DECISION? NO
The constitutional mandate that, "no decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it is based,"22 does not preclude the validity of
"memorandum decisions," which adopt by reference the findings of
fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior
tribunals
Court adopted Romero v CA
For judicial convenience and expediency, therefore, We hereby adopt,
by way of reference, the findings of facts and conclusions of the court
a quo spread in its decision, as integral part of this Our decision
Sec 14 Art VIII of Consti need not apply to decisions in admin
proceedings
It must be stated that Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
need not apply to decisions rendered in administrative proceedings,
as in the case a bar. Said section applies only to decisions rendered in
judicial proceedings. In fact, Article VIII is titled "Judiciary," and all of
its provisions have particular concern only with respect to the judicial
branch of government. Certainly, it would be error to hold or even
imply that decisions of executive departments or administrative
agencies are oblige to meet the requirements under Section 14,
Article VIII.
On the 5th Requirement
There is no requirement in Ang Tibay that the decision must express
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. For as
long as the administrative decision is grounded on evidence, and
expressed in a manner that sufficiently informs the parties of the
factual and legal bases of the decision, the due process
requirement is satisfied.
STANDARDS IN PEMSKUL
Even assuming arguendo that the constitutional provision invoked by
petitioner applies in the instant case, the decision of the OP satisfied
the standards set forth in the case of Permskul.
81 Realty Exchange v. Sendino (1994)
SC: Petition by REALTY DISMISSED.
In general, the quantum of judicial or
quasi-judicial powers which an
administrative agency may exercise is
defined in the agency's enabling act.
In fine, the HLURB-OAALA acted within
the scope of its authority in ordering
petitioners to comply and continue with
the sale of the house and lot subject of
the contract between the original
parties.
82 Marcelo v. Bungubung (2008)
No Substantial evidence by
complainant. Proper dismissal of case
against Bungubung
Guidelines relative to the conduct of
judicial review of decisions rendered by
administrative agencies in the exercise
of their quasi-judicial power
In admin cases; complainant has
burden of proving substantial
evidence
Sendino entered into reservation agreement w realty
exchange venture inc for 120 sqm lot in sucat
Paid reservation fee and full dp
Advised by revi to change her co maker
Sendino allegedly did not comply
REVI cancelled K
Sendino filed SPEC PERFORMACE with OAALA –
HLURB to comply and continue sale of lot, pay
damages, pay attys fee, exemp damages
HLURB decided for Sendino
Appeal by REVI
 Bungubung officer of Port District office Manila
and Chairman of Ports District Security Bids and
Awards Committee
 Complaint filed by Doromal – pres of security
agency
o Said they asked for balato after the com
won the bid
o Demanded 10k and 2k
o 40k a month ordered by bungubung,
asked for pajero in 2001
o was not able to deliver
o Bid awarded to star special wathcman
detective agency instead of Doromal’s
co
 Bungubung found liable for grave misconduct by
OMB Marcelo; Dismissed Bungubung
 MR by Bungubung denied
 CA petition fro review – Reversed decision
 Doromal executed motion to withdraw complaint
HLURB has quasi judicial fxns even without express greant by EO 90
creating it?
 It is settled that rules of procedure are as a matter of course
construed liberally in proceedings before administrative bodies.
 Since petitioners participated in the administrative proceedings
without objecting to or raising the procedural infirmity, they were
certainly estopped from raising it on appeal before the Office of
the President and before this Court.
 HLURB properly exercised its jurisdiction over the case filed by
the petitioners with its adjudicative body, the OAALA, in ordering
petitioners to comply with their obligations arising from the
Reservation Agreement. (under PD 1344, EO 648 transferred
powers to HSRC predecessor of HLURB)
 Recognizing the HLURB as the successor agency of the HSRC's
powers and functions, it therefore follows that the transfer of such
functions from the NHA to the HRSC effected by Section 8 of
E.O. 648, series of 1981, thereby resulted in the acquisition by
the HLURB of adjudicatory powers which included the power to
"(h)ear and decide cases of unsound real estate business
practices . . . and cases of specific performance.
WON evidence was substantial? NO. Doromals evidence not
substantive. Only narrated soliciation. CSEPA bluebook presented
recorded balato as representation expenses and evidently self serving
only doromal and one other person prepared such – can easily be
manufacture
Substantial evidence and laid down guidelines relative to the conduct
of judicial review of decisions rendered by administrative agencies in
the exercise of their quasi-judicial power, viz:
x x x Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of
evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even
if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine
otherwise. Second, in reviewing administrative decisions of
the executive branch of the government, the findings of facts
made therein are to be respected so long as they are
supported by substantial evidence. Hence, it is not for the
reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine
the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its
judgment for that of the administrative agency with respect to
the sufficiency of evidence. Third, administrative decisions in
matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside
on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law.
These principles negate the
power of the reviewing court to re-examine the sufficiency of
the evidence in an administrative case as if originally

83 Santos-Concio v. DOJ (2008)  Ultra stampede
 DOJ issued orders re: investigation of Ultra
Petition denied. stampede case
 DILG created inter agency fact finding team to
investigate
 Team Submitted report to DOJ
 Evaluating panel concluded no sufficient basis to
proceed with conduct of PI
o No complaint filed by any victim or rel
o Victims did not allege who was
responsible
 NBI conducted report and submitted to DOJ
 Due to NBI report, preliminary investigation
ordered
 Pet filed cert and prohib with CA
iii. Administrative Appeal and Review
84 Rivera v. CSC (1995)  CSC resolution in LBP vs George Rivera
 Rivera manager of LBP
 Rivera charged with dishonesty. Receiving gifts,
instituted therein, and do not authorize the court to receive
additional evidence that was not submitted to the
administrative agency concerned.
In admin cases; complainant has burden of proving substantial
evidence
As stated above, the fundamental rule in administrative proceedings is
that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Section 27 of the
Ombudsman Act is unequivocal: Findings of fact by the Office of the
Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive.
Conversely, therefore, when the findings of fact by the Ombudsman
are not adequately supported by substantial evidence, they shall not
be binding upon the courts. Such is the case in the present Petition.
RE: Due Process. No violation
The fact that no formal hearing took place is not sufficient ground to
say that due process was not afforded Bungubung. It is well-settled
that in administrative proceedings, including those before the
Ombudsman, cases may be submitted for resolution on the basis of
affidavits and pleadings.
DOJ has power to conduct crim investigation AND prelim
investigation? (power to conduct both in the same case)
Not arbitrary.
The measures taken by the Evaluating Panel do not partake of a
criminal investigation, they having been done in aid of evaluation in
order to relate the incidents to their proper context. Petitioners own
video footage of the ocular inspection discloses this purpose.
Evaluation for purposes of determining whether there is sufficient
basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation entails
not only reading the report or documents in isolation, but also deems
to include resorting to reasonably necessary means such as ocular
inspection and physical evidence examination. For, ultimately, any
conclusion on such sufficiency or insufficiency needs to rest on some
basis or justification.
EP was actually dissolved upon rendering its report
GAD by Investigating panel?
Speculator fears according to SC
Presumption of regularity
CSC GAD? YES
 Since Thelma Gaminde participated as Board Chair of MSPB
also participiated in LBP MR as CSC commissioner
 graft, pursuit of private business vocation or
profession wo permission
o Asked for commission for a loan
application by WYNNER
 Charges filed. Rivera placed under preventive
suspension
 Found guilty of grave misconduct/ violated RA
3019: forced resig wo benefits and gratuities
 Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) modified
judgment: 1 year suspension
 LBP MR of MSPB decision
 CSC: LBP decision upheld, Dismissed appeal of
Rivera
SC: Set aside. Case remanded sans participation of
GAMINDE
85 Solid Homes v. Laserna, supra
 In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer
might not turn out to be a farce, then reviewing officer must
perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review
otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no
real review of the case. The decision of the reviewing officer
would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view
since being human, he would not admit that he was mistaken in
his first view of the case.
 Gaminde should have inhibited.
CSC  MSPB  CA  SC
 This Court found in Romero v. Court of Appeals28 that the Court
of Appeals substantially complied with its constitutional duty when
it adopted in its Decision the findings and disposition of the Court
of Agrarian Relations in this wise:
o "We have, therefore, carefully reviewed the evidence
and made a re-assessment of the same, and We are
persuaded, nay compelled, to affirm the correctness of
the trial court’s factual findings and the soundness of its
conclusion. For judicial convenience and expediency,
therefore, We hereby adopt, by way of reference, the
findings of facts and conclusions of the court a quo
spread in its decision, as integral part of this Our
decision." (Underscoring supplied)
 At bar, the Office of the President apparently considered the
Decision of HLURB as correct and sufficient, and said so in its
own Decision. The brevity of the assailed Decision was not the
product of willing concealment of its factual and legal bases. Such
bases, the assailed Decision noted, were already contained in the
HLURB decision, and the parties adversely affected need only
refer to the HLURB Decision in order to be able to interpose an
informed appeal or action for certiorari under Rule 65.
 As the Court of Appeals ratiocinated in its Decision dated 21 July
2004, "the facts narrated and the laws concluded in the Decision
of the HLURB Board of Commissioners should be considered as
written in the Decision of the Office of the President. It was still
easy for the parties to determine the facts and the laws on which
the decision were based. Moreover, through the attached
decision, the parties could still identify the issues that could be
appealed to the proper tribunal."
 The Office of the President did not violate petitioner’s right to due
process when it rendered its one-page Decision. In the case at
bar, it is safe to conclude that all the parties, including petitioner,
were well-informed as to how the Decision of the Office of the
President was arrived at, as well as the facts, the laws and the
 issues involved therein because the Office of the President
attached to and made an integral part of its Decision the Decision
of the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which it adopted by
reference. If it were otherwise, the petitioner would not have been
able to lodge an appeal before the Court of Appeals and make a
presentation of its arguments before said court without knowing
the facts and the issues involved in its case.

86 Angeles v. Gaite, supra