ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Soriano v Secretary of Finance and CIR, GR No. 184450, January 24, 2017

ISSUE:
Whether or not Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008, in declaring that “a minimum wage
earner who receives other benefits in excess of the statutory limit of P30,000 is no
longer entitled to the exemption provided by RA 9504”, are consistent with the law?

RULING:
NO. An administrative agency may not enlarge, alter or restrict a provision of law. It
cannot add to the requirements provided by law. To do so constitutes lawmaking, which
is generally reserved for Congress.

Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 add a requirement not found in the law by effectively
declaring that an MWE who receives other benefits in excess of the statutory limit of
P30,000 is no longer entitled to the exemption provided by RA 9504. RA 9504 has given
definite criteria for what constitutes an MWE, and RR 10-2008 cannot change this.
Thus, Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 are declared null and void.

Purisima and Henares v Philippine Tobacco Institute,

GR No. 210251, April 17, 2017

ISSUE:
Is Section 11 of Revenue Regulation No. 17-2012 issued on authority of RA 10351,
otherwise known as the Sin Tax Reform Law of 2012?

RULING:
NO. Administrative rules and regulations enacted by administrative bodies to implement
the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to
great weight and respect. However, these implementations of the law must not override,
supplant, or modify the law but must remain consistent with the law they intend to
implement. It is only Congress which has the power to repeal or amend the law.

In the case, a reading of Section 11 of RR 17-2012 reveals that they are not simply
regulations to implement RA 10351. They are amendatory provisions which require
cigarette manufacturers to be liable to pay for more tax than the law, RA 10351, allows.
The BIR, in issuing these revenue regulations, created an additional tax liability for
packaging combinations smaller than 20 cigarette sticks. In so doing, the BIR amended
the law, an act beyond the power of the BIR to do.
Quezon City PTCA v Department of Education, GR No. 188720, February 23, 2016

ISSUE:
For its non-publication and in the absence of public consultations, was the issuance of
DepEd Order No. 54 violative of petitioner’s right to due process?

RULING:
NO. Notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where
the administrative body acts in the exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative
functions; but where a public administrative 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.

In the case, petitioner’s claim that no consultations were held is belied by the DepEd’s
detailed recollection of the actions it took before the adoption of the assailed Order.

As regards publication, all that is required for the validity of rules promulgated by
administrative agencies is the filing of three certified copies with the University of the
Philippines Law Center. Within 15 days of filing, administrative rules become effective.

SPCMB Law Offices v CA and AMLC, GR No. 216914, December 6, 2016

ISSUE:
Is the Anti-Money Laundering Council an administrative body with quasi-judicial
powers?

RULING:
NO. The AMLC does not exercise judicial functions and its power is limited to
investigating facts and making findings in respect thereto. The Court laid down the test
of determining whether an administrative 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 the parties before it. Hence, if the only
purpose for investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted before it based on the 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.

Nowhere from the text of the AMLA nor its IRR can we glean that the AMLC exercises
quasi-judicial functions. The AMLC is simply an investigatory body – investigating
possible money laundering offenses and initially determining whether there is probable
cause to charge any person with a money laundering offense, resulting in the filing of a
complaint with the DOJ or the Ombudsman.
ISSUE:
Is Section 11 of the AMLA, authorizing a bank inquiry court order, violative of SPCMB's
constitutional right to procedural [administrative] due process?

RULING:
NO. Section 11 of the AMLA specifically provides for an ex parte application for an order
authorizing inquiry or examination into bank deposits or investments. Procedural due
process is essentially the opportunity to be heard. In the case, at the investigation stage
by the AMLC into possible money laundering offenses, SPCMB demands that it have
notice and hearing of AMLC's investigation into its bank accounts.

However, the 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 quasi-
judicial powers. The AMLC’s findings are merely recommendatory, still subject to the
DOJ’s or the Ombudsman’s actions for purposes of finding the existence of probable
cause. Hence, Section 11 of the AMLA cannot be said to violate SPCMB's constitutional
right to procedural due process.

Mangune v Ermita, GR No. 182604, September 27, 2016

ISSUE:
Whether or not the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies?

RULING:
NO. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies provides that a party must
first avail himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or
her before he or she is allowed to seek the intervention of the court. The premature
invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one's cause of action. However, the
doctrine admits of exceptions, one of which is when the issue involved is purely a legal
question.

As the issue in the case involves the legality of EO No. 567, a purely legal question, the
filing of the petition without exhausting administrative remedies is justified.

ISSUE:
Whether or not EO No. 567 is constitutional?

RULING:
YES. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when
they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. Thus, to be valid, an administrative
issuance, such as an executive order, must comply with the following requisites:
(1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
(2) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
(3) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature; and
(4) It must be reasonable.
EO No. 567, devolving the administration and supervision of Taguig-Pateros District
Hospital from the Department of Health to the City of Taguig, satisfies all of the above
requisites.

ISAAA vs. Greenpeace, GR No. 209271, December 8, 2015

ISSUE:
What is “hot tubbing” and how does the method of “hot tub” hearing work?

RULING:
"Hot tubbing" is the colloquial term for concurrent expert evidence, a method used for
giving evidence in civil cases in Australia. In a "hot tub" hearing, the judge can hear all
the experts discussing the same issue at the same time to explain each of their points in
a discussion with a professional colleague. The objective is to achieve greater efficiency
and expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-examination and increased emphasis on
professional dialogue, and swifter identification of the critical areas of disagreement
between the experts.

ISSUE:
Were the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies
violated in this case?

RULING:
NO. The case falls under one of the many accepted exceptions of the doctrines of
primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies: when there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

Clearly, the provisions of DAO 08-2002 do not provide a speedy, or adequate remedy
for the respondents to determine the questions of unique national and local importance
raised that pertain to laws and rules for environmental protection, thus they were
justified in coming to this Court.

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that genetically modified food is an intensely
debated global issue, and despite the entry of genetically modified organism (GMO)
crops into the Philippines in the last decade, it is only now that such controversy
involving alleged damage or threat to human health and the environment from GMOs
has reached the courts.

ALFI v Garin, GR No. 217872, April 26, 2017

ISSUE:
Were the certification proceedings conducted by the FDA in the exercise of its
"regulatory powers" and, therefore, beyond judicial review?
RULING:
NO. The Court holds that it has the power to review all acts and decisions where there
is a commission of grave abuse of discretion. No less than the Constitution decrees that
the Court must exercise its duty to ensure that no grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction is committed by any branch or instrumentality of the
Government. Such is committed when there is a violation of the constitutional mandate
that "no person is deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law." The
Court's power cannot be curtailed by the FDA's invocation of its regulatory power.

Somboonsakdikul v Orlane, S.A., GR No. 188996, February 1, 2017

ISSUE:
As in this case, should the courts of justice respect the findings of fact of the Intellectual
Property Office – an administrative agency?

RULING:
NO. While it is an established rule in administrative law that the courts of justice should
respect the findings of fact of administrative agencies, the courts may not be bound by
such findings of fact when there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such
evidence is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial; and when there is a clear
showing that the administrative agency acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion or in a capricious and whimsical manner, such that its action may amount to
an excess or lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, when there is a showing that the findings or
conclusions, drawn from the same pieces of evidence, were arrived at arbitrarily or in
disregard of the evidence on record, they may be reviewed by the courts.

Such is the case. Finding that LOLANE is not a colorable imitation of ORLANE due to
distinct visual and aural differences using the dominancy test, the Court rules that the
mark LOLANE is entitled to registration.