Pre-Bar Review

Administrative Law
By DO Rodolfo M. Elman
Ateneo de Davao Law School

Syllabus for 2015 Bar Exam in

Administrative Law

General Principles/Terms
Administrative Agencies
(Definition; Manner of Creation; Kinds)
Powers of Administrative Agencies
a. Quasi-Legislative (Rule Making)
1) Kinds of Admin Rules & Regulations
2) Requisites for Validity
b. Quasi-Judicial (Adjudicatory)
1) Administrative Due Process
2) Administrative Appeal and Review
3) Administrative Res Judicata

c. Fact-Finding, Investigative, Licensing and

Rate-Fixing Powers
Judicial Recourse and Review
a. Doctrine of Primary Administrative
Jurisdiction
b. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
c. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative
Action

Illustration of an easy MCQ

Which of the following is not a doctrine in
Administrative Law:
a) Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
b) Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
c) Doctrine of Dependent Relevant
Revocation
d) Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts

 Types of administrative bodies: (BQ)

~those offering some gratuity or privilege
~those seeking to carry on certain business of
government
~those performing business service for the public
~those seeking to regulate business affected w/public
interest
~those seeking under police power to regulate private
business & individuals.
~to adjust individual controversies xxx

Admin Terms/Concepts
Republic of the Philippines (or GRP) as
distinguished from National Government
Issue: Whether CB is part of National
Government. CB is a government
instrumentality created as an autonomous
body under RA 265 as amended to
administer the monetary and banking sytem
(CB vs. Ablaza)
Are GOCCs embraced in term GRP? (BQ)

MCQ: Which of the following is not

included in the definition of GRP/RP?
a) Autonomous regions
b) Local government units
c) State universities and colleges
d) Governnment-owned and controlled
corporations performing proprietary
functions

Instrumentality as defined in EO 292

any agency of the National Gov't not integrated w/in
the department framework, vested with special
functions or jurisdiction by law & enjoying operational
autonomy
Status of the Manila International Airport Authority:
not a GOCC but instrumentality of National Gov't
vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently
its govtal functions. When the law vests in the
instrumentality corporate powers, it remains a govt
instrumentality exercising govtal powers (eminent
domain xxx) but also corporate powers under Corp.
Law.

 Following Sec. 2 of EO 292, the National Power

Corporation is an instrumentality of govt; VM
Rambuyong cannot appear as counsel before any
court in civil case vs. LGU or instrumentality [NPC]
Sec. 90 LGC (Rep vs. Rambuyong, 632 SCRA 66).
NPC is government instrumentality tasked to
undertake development of hydroelectric generation of
power & production of electricity from other sources
xxx to improve quality of life of people pursuant to the
State policy in Art. ll Sec. 9 Const. (Maceda vs.
Macaraig, 197 SCRA 771).

 Status of Iron and Steel Authority: a nonincorporated agency or instrumentality of

the GRP under PD 272 and EO 555. When
its statutory term expires, the powers,
duties & functions as assets & liabilities of
that agency revert back to and reassumed
by the GRP. Expiration of ISA term did not
justify dismissal of of eminent domain
proceeding (ISA vs. CA, 249 SCRA 539).

MCQ
An agency of the government refers to any of the
various units of the government, including a
department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or
GOCC, or a local government unit. Given the
foregoing definition, which of the following is not an
agency of the government?
a) DPWH
b) Land Transportation Office
c) Philippine Ports Authority
d) Land Bank of the Philippines

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

courts cannot & will not determine a controversy
involving a question w/in the jurisdiction of an
admin tribunal, especially where the question
demands the exercise of sound admin discretion
requiring special knowledge
it applies whenever enforcement of a claim
requires resolution of an issue within the special
competence of administrative body
2 reasons for the doctrine

~DENR is responsible for enforcement of forestry

laws; forest products in custodia legis of the CENRO
cannot be subject of replevin before the court (Sagip
Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga, 19 June 2008).
~Authority of Bureau of Immigration to decide
deportation case vs. an alleged alien and in the
process determine citizenship issue raised by the
deportee. Mere claim of citizenship will not divest the
Board of its jurisdiction.
(Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, 598 SCRA 268)

 What is the exception to the primary jurisdiction

of the Bureau of Immigration over deportation
cases and where judicial intervention is
allowed?
*when the court itself believes that there is
substantial evidence supporting the deportees
claim of citizenship & there are reasons to
believe that the claim is correct; or when the
evidence submitted by the deportee is
conclusive of his citizenship.

Commision on the Settlement of Land

Problems (COSLAP) [EO 561]
Authority of COSLAP to resolve land disputes is
limited only to those involving public lands or
those covered by specific license from the
government, i.e. pasture lease agreements,
timber concessions or reservation grants.
No jurisdiction over Gatdulas complaint for right
of way, the property being private. Lack of
jurisdiction cannot be cured by parties
participation (Machado vs. Gatdula & COSLAP,
02/16/10)

 The rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where

the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory functions. This is an essential
requirement for this doctrine to apply. Here,
petitioners have not shown that CHED possesses
any such power to investigate facts or ascertain
existence of facts, hold hearing & draw
conclusions. Sec. 8 of RA 7722 (Higher Education
Act of 1994) does not contain any express grant to
CHED of quasi-judicial power (UST vs. Sanchez,
626 SCRA 127).

 The doctrine applies only whenever it is the court

and the administrative agency which have
concurrent jurisdiction. The doctrine is inapplicable
where there is concurrence of jurisdiction between
two disciplining authorities over a case.
Example of concurrence between two
administrative disciplinary bodies
*Laxina vs. OMB, 471 SCRA 544 (doctrine of
primary jurisdiction is not applicable in this case).

HLURB (PD 957/PD 1344)

Claims/cases over which the HLURB has exclusive
jurisdiction (Sec.1, PD 1344)
specific performance w/damages for delivery of title (CT
Torres vs. Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268)
reimbursement of expenses incurred by homeowners in
repairing their defective housing units constructed by the
developer (HLC Const. vs. Emily Homes Homeowners,
411 SCRA 504)
HLURB has authority to impose administrative fines but
not criminal penalties (Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 321)
HLURB is competent to award damages.

HLURB
declare void a mortgage of lot done in violation of PD 957
and annul a foreclosure sale (Home Bankers vs. CA, 547
SCRA 167)
mere allegation of relationship bet. subd. owner and lot
buyer does not vest automatic jurisdiction in HLURB.
Decisive element is the nature of the action as enumerated
in Sec. 1, PD 1344 (Cadimas vs. Carrion, 567 SCRA 103)
HLURB and not SEC has jurisdiction over complaint vs.
developer (under receivership) for specific performance
regarding homeowners needs (Arranza vs. BF Homes,
333 SCRA 800).

Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799)

Amended PD 902-A and transferred jurisdiction of
SEC over intra-corporate cases to the courts. (Ex.
Petitions for rehabilitation filed by corporations,
associations & partnerships)
A criminal charge for violation of the code is a
specialized dispute that should first be looked into
by the SEC and if it finds probable cause, it should
refer to the DOJ for PI. Failure to comply w/this
requirement justifies dismissal by DOJ of complaint
(SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp., 567 SCRA
365). Note: Investigation by SEC interrupts
prescription period.

Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112)

Remedy of the interested expressway
user who finds the toll rate adjustments to
be onerous, oppressive and exorbitant: file
a petition for review of the adjusted toll
rates w/TRB whose decision is appealable
to the Office of the President.
(Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 664)

 TRB is w/sufficient power to grant a qualified person or

entity w/ authority to construct, maintain & operate a toll
facility & issue the corresponding toll operating permit or
Toll Operation Certificate (TOC).
Distinction bet. fixing of initial toll rates and fixing of
periodic/interim or subsequent toll rates: The hearing
required under PD 1894 refers to notice & hearing for the
approval or denial of petitions for toll rate adjustments or
the subsequent toll rates, not to the fixing of initial toll rates
w/c is w/o necessity of hearing unless a challenge on the
initial toll rates fixed ensues that public hearings are
required (Francisco vs. TRB, 633 SCRA 470).

Quasi-Judicial Power
express empowerment by law; merely
incidental and in aid of main function
the action or discretion of admin. officers to
investigate facts and draw conclusions from
them as basis for their official action
involves: a) taking and evaluating evidence;
b) determining facts based upon the
evidence presented; and c) rendering an
order or decision supported by the facts
proved.

Cases

Action of POEA to grant, deny, suspend,or revoke

license of any private placement agency (Sanado vs.
CA, 356 SCRA 546)
A PI is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and DOJ is not a
quasi-judicial agency when it reviews findings of the
prosecutor re presence of probable cause (Balangauan
vs. CA, 562 CRA 186).
Board empowered to withdraw conferment of degree
founded on fraud (UP Board of Regents vs. CA, 313
SCRA 404).
CHR has power to investigate all forms of human rights
violations involving civil & political rights. Fact-finding is
not adjudication (2001 BQ Carino vs. CHR, 204 SCRA
483).

 Power of NTC to issue CPCN for installation,

operation & maintenance of communication
facilities & services and determine the area of
operation of applicants for telecommunication
services (Eastern Telecom vs. Intl
Communication Corp., 435 SCRA 55). The grant
by NTC to ICC to operate in areas covered by
petitioner is not a grave abuse of discretion. NTC
took into account ICCs technical & financial
capabilities and policy of healthy competition.

 No quasi-judicial powers have been vested

in the PTC as it cannot adjudicate rights of
persons who come before it. Quasi-judicial
powers involve the power to hear and
determine questions of fact to w/c the
legislative policy is to apply and to decide in
accordance with the standards laid down by
law itself in enforcing and administering the
same law (Biraogo vs. PTC, 637 SCRA 78).

MCQ: A determination or decision of an

administrative agency can normally be enforced
only pursuant to the provisions of law. In the
absence of such statutory provision,
a) the agency will simply petition the court to
issue writ of execution.

b) it is implied that the agency can promulgate

the rules for enforcing its order.
c) a party favored by the agencys order may
file a case in court for recognition and
enforcement.
d) the order cannot be enforced and is merely
advisory or recommendatory. *

Forum Shopping
It exists when, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion (other than by appeal or
certiorari) in another, or when he institutes
two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause, on the
gamble that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition.

Rule vs. Forum Shopping

applies to quasi-judicial proceedings.
test of violation: a) where the elements of litis
pendenti are present; or b)where final judgment
in one case will amount to res judicata in the
other.
requirement to file certificate of non-forum
shopping, although not jurisdictional, is
mandatory; if not complied, summary dismissal
is warranted.
certification signed by counsel alone is
defective, unless clothed with special authority.

Cases
General rule: certificate must be signed by all
plaintiffs in a case; exception: they have common
interest or filed the case as a collective, raising only
one common cause of action or defense (HLC vs.
Emily Homes Homeowners Assn., 411 SCRA 504)
Rule is not applicable to agency not exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial function (Cabarrus vs.
Bernas, 279 SCRA 388) or the cases do not raise
identical causes of action (Velasquez vs.
Hernandez, 437 SCRA 358)
No forum shopping since CHED is w/o quasijudicial power and cannot make any disposition of
the case (UST vs. Sanchez, 626 SCRA 127)

 In administrative cases involving the concurrent

jurisdiction of two or more disciplining
authorities, the body in which the complaint is
filed first, and which takes cognizance of the
case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of
other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
When complainants first filed the complaint in
OMB, jurisdiction was already vested on the
OMB & could no longer be transferred to the SB
by virtue of a subsequent complaint by the same
complainants (Ombudsman vs. Rodriguez,
625 SCRA 299)

Quasi-Legislative Power
A relaxation of principle of separation
Requirements for validity of rules (germane; conform to standards;
relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of law)
If issued in excess of rule making authority, no binding effect upon the
courts; treated as mere administrative interpretations of the law
Mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively invalidate
provisions of law, where a reasonable construction may be given.
Statute authorizing Pres. to suspend operation of law upon happening
of act or event the ascertainment of which is left to the Pres. is not an
undue delegation.

Cases
Rev. Memo Circular 7-85 (change of prescriptive period
of 2 yrs. to 10 yrs. on claims of excess quarterly income
tax payments) inconsistent with the NIRC; no vested
rights arising from wrong construction of law (Philbank vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 302 SCRA 241).
AO 308 providing for adoption of a national computerized
identification reference system is unconstitutional. Its
establishment requires a delicate adjustment of various
contending state policies, the primacy of national security
etc. It deals w/a subject that should be covered by law
(Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141).

 LBC of DBM setting a maximum limit to the

additional allowances to be given by LGU
to national government officials
(P1000/P700) is invalid because it goes
beyond the law. Sec. 458 of LGC allows the
grant when the finances of the LGU allow.
It does not authorize setting a definite
maximum limit to the additional allowances
(Dadole vs. COA, 393 SCRA 272).

 PRC resolution prohibiting attendance in accountancy

review classes is not valid. It violates examinees right
to liberty & the academic freedom of schools
(Lupangco vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848).
MECS Order phasing out Spanish is not a violation of
right to due process of those affected (Confederacion
National vs. Quisumbing, 26 January 1988).
Board of Examiners for Nursing regulation for period
inspection is valid (Sand vs. Abad Santos Educational
Inst., 18 July 1980).

 Revenue issuance empowering the BIR

Commissioner to update classification of cigarette
brands every 2 years is not valid. Nowhere in NIRC
is such authority granted to BIR (British American
Tobacco vs. Camacho, 562 SCRA 519).
HDMF BOT (1995) Amendments to IRR providing
both provident/retirement and housing benefits is not
valid as it amended RA 7742 (Romulo & Mabanta vs.
HDMF, 333 SCRA 777).
Creation of new AFP Anti-Graft Board thru PCGG
issuance is not in accord with EO 1 (Republic vs.
Migrino, 189 SCRA 300).

 While GSIS has authority to create a financial

scheme, it is limited only to those availing of early
retirement due to reorganization in GSIS but are not
yet qualified for either optional or compulsory
retirement. The Retirement Financial Plan (RFP)
adopted by GSIS Board is void as it is not an early
retirement scheme but is a form of reward for an
employees loyalty and lengthy service in order to
help him enjoy the remaining years of his life. The
RFP is a supplementary retirement plan prohibited by
the Teves Retirement Law (GSIS vs. COA, 10/19/11).

 Mere absence of implementing rules cannot

invalidate law. That Full Disclosure Rules was
promulgated by SEC only on 07/24/96 while
Revised Securities Act was approved on
02/23/82 does not render ineffective the law
where it contains sufficient standards and an
unmistakable intent and where a reasonable
construction may be given. To rule otherwise
would empower admin bodies to defeat the
legislative will by delaying the implementing
rules (SEC vs. Interport Corp., 567 SCRA
354).

 EO 420 directing all govt agencies to adopt a

unified multi-purpose ID system does not usurp
legislative power. Two ways to achieve unified ID
system, intended to reduce cost and ensure greater
convenience: 1) Heads of govt entities can enter
into MOA to adopt a uniform ID format. This is
purely admin matter; and 2) President, pursuant to
her power of control, can direct thru exec. or admin
order the govt entities under Exec. Dept to adopt
uniform ID format (KMU vs. Director General, 487
SCRA 623).

 Following the leakage in 2006 nursing exam, Pres.

GMA replaced the members of Board of Nursing
and issued EO 566 w/c authorized the CHED to
supervise the operation of all review centers. Said
EO is invalid & a usurpation of legislative function.
The mandate of CHED under RA 7722 extends only
to public/private institutions of higher learning &
degree-granting
programs
in
post-secondary
educational institutions, but not over review centers.
A review center is not an institution of higher learning
(Review Center vs. Exec. Sec., 583 SCRA 428).

Fiscal Autonomy
entails freedom from outside control and
limitations, other than those provided by law; a
guarantee of full flexibility to allocate & utilize
their resources. It recognizes the power to levy,
assess and collect fees, fix compensation rates
not exceeding the highest rates authorized by
law and allocate and disburse such sums as
may be provided by law; formulate and
implement their organizational structure and
compensation of their personnel.

 While the agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy

are authorized to formulate and implement
the organizational structure of their respective
offices and determine the compensation of
their personnel, such authority is not absolute
and must be exercised within the parameters
of the Unified Position Classification and
Compensation System (UPCCS) under RA
6758.

Cases
Upgrading/creation of FMO and PAO in CHR. CHR is
not in the genus of offices accorded fiscal autonomy
by constitutional or legislative fiat. Fiscal autonomy is
a constitutional grant and not a tag obtainable by
membership. CHR cannot lawfully implement an
upgrading and reclassification of positions w/o DBM
approval because DBM has sole power to administer
the UPCCS (CHREA vs. CHR, 444 SCRA 300).
CHR has privilege of having its approved annual
appropriations released automatically and regularly,
but not fiscal autonomy in its extensive/broad sense
(CHREA vs. CHR, 496 SCRA 227).

 CSC petition for mandamus to release P5.8M

withheld amount (FY 02) re: no report, no
release DBM policy and alleged revenue
shortfall. SC ruling: DBM withholding is
unconstitutional.
Funds
should
be
automatically and regularly released w/o
any condition imposed. When there is
revenue shortfall, priority in releases should
be given to CFAG over all other agencies,
unless total revenue collections are insufficient
to cover total appropriations of agencies with
fiscal autonomy (CSC vs. DBM, 7/22/05).,,
re:clarifying 481 scra 1

Gsis vs heirs of caballero , 10/04/10

In re coa computation 676 scra 579
undergusrantees of fiscal autonomy, sc decide
the trms and condition and restrictions of the
grant of privilegex or benefitd to court
personnel or ofgicisls

 DBM is w/o authority to downgrade SC positions &

salary grades of Chief Judicial Staff Officer (SG
25) and Supervising Judicial Staff Officer (SG 23).
DBM encroached upon SCs fiscal autonomy and
supervision of court personnel. The DBM authority
to review SC plantilla/compensation extends only
to calling SC attention on alleged erroneous
application of budgetary laws & rules. Only then
may SC amend or modify its resolution as its
discretion may dictate (Re: Clarifying &
Strengthening of the Organizational Structure &
Admin Set-up of PHILJA, 481 SCRA 1).

MCQ Example
Which of the following public official can
exercise the Doctrine of Augmentation?
a) Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan
b) CSC Chairman
c) Solicitor General
d) Chairman of the Commission on Human
Rights

Which of the following violates the judiciarys

fiscal autonomy?
a. An item in 2011 General Appropriations Act allowing P13.5B to
the judiciary, the same as last years allocation but 50% less
than the SC proposal; valid
b. A letter of the DBM Secretary to the Chief of the Budget Office
of the SC requesting for data on the Judiciary Discretionary
Funds from 2005 up to the present; * violated the giscak auto.
Cant be looked upon the dbm
c. The President veto of an item in 2011 GAA allocating P900M as
a supplemental fund for retired members of the judiciary; it is
just a proposal which is primarywithin the power of the pres
d. A COA circular requiring all government offices to submit postprocurement report at the end of each fiscal year. Valid voz vo

Power to issue subpoena

Admin agencies have no inherent power to require

attendance of witnesses.
Sec. 13 & 37, Ch. 3, Bk. Vll, EO 292: admin bodies
have power in any contested case to require
attendance of witnesses, or take or receive
evidence xxx. Authority to take testimony includes
power to administer oath, summon witnesses and
require production of documents by a subpoena
duces tecum.
Disobedience to subpoena or refusal to be sworn in
may be punished as contempt.

 administrative subpoena distinguished

from judicial subpoena
When may a subpoena be enforced?
~if the inquiry is within the authority of the
agency, the demand is not too indefinite
and the information is reasonably relevant
(Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99)

Power to punish contempt

should be clearly defined and granted by law and
its penalty determined. In the absence of law,
admin agency may invoke the aid of RTC.
limited to making effective the power to elicit
testimony and it cannot be exercised in furtherance
of administrative functions; this limitation derives
from its nature being inherently judicial & need for
preservation of order in judicial proceedings.
OMB has power to punish for contempt in
accordance with Rules of Court (Lastimosa vs.
Vasquez, 06 April 1995).

Implementing Rules or
Interpretative Policies
Admin bodies have authority to interpret
meaning of the law.
not binding upon courts but have force/ effect
of law and entitled to great respect.
reasons for sustaining decision of
administrative bodies: on basis of separation
of powers and their knowledgeability and
expertise.
Abrogation or repeal of previous acts or
rulings of predecessor in office.

 Requisites for validity of administrative

rules and regulations
*must be issued under authority of law; must
be within the scope & purview of the law;
must be reasonable; & must be published.
Art. 2, Civil Code (as amended by EO 200)
What need to be published?
*issuances of general applicability as their
purpose is to enforce existing laws.

 To be effective, administrative rules and regulations

must be published in full if their purpose is to enforce
implement existing law pursuant to a valid
delegation. IRR of RA 9335 (Attrition Act rewards
xxx for BIR & BOC) were published on May 30, 2006
in a newspaper of general circulation & became
effective 15 days thereafter. Until and unless the
contrary is shown, the IRR are presumed valid and
effective even without the approval of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee (Abakada Guro
Party List vs. Purisima, 562 SCRA 260).

 The SEC violated due process when it denied the

public prior knowledge of SEC 1990 Circular
removing the filing fee ceilings provided for in SEC
1986 Circular. The 1990 SEC Circular was not yet
effective during the time PICOP filed its request in
2002 to extend its corporate existence as the SEC
filed said Circular w/ UP Law Center only in 2004.
The OP and the CA were correct in declaring that
the applicable filing fee payable by PICOP is P100T
as computed under the 1986 Circular, instead of
P12M SEC assessment under the 1990 Circular
(SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 453) .

Cases
EO 79 providing for compulsory membership in
GSIS of qualified reserve AFP officers like Gen.
Asuncion is effective 15 days after its publication in
OG on 12/22/86 (GSIS vs. COA, 301 SCRA 736).
DBM Circular disallowing payment of allowances &
other compensation to government officers is of no
force & effect due to absence of publication in OG
or newspaper xxx. That it was reissued &
submitted for publication in OG does not cure the
defect and retroact to date of disallowance (Phil.
International Trading vs. COA, 309 SCRA 177).
Publication is a condition precedent.

 Facts: The COMELEC & DOJ created a Joint Comm.

& a Fact Finding Comm. to investigate election fraud
during the 2004/ 2007 elections. The Comm.
Conducted PI vs. Mike Arroyo, GMA & Abalos. They
argued that the PI was not valid because the Rules of
Procedure were not published HELD: Even if the
Rules of Procedure were ineffective for lack of
publication, the proceedings were not null & void
because the PI was conducted pursuant to Rule 112
of the Rules on Crim. Procedure & the 1993 Comelec
Rules of Procedure (Arroyo vs. DOJ, 681 SCRA 181).

 POEA Circular not filed with the National

Administrative Register cannot be used as basis for
imposition of administrative sanctions and is
ineffective and may not be enforced; a requisite under
Secs. 3 & 4, Bk Vll, EO 292 (Philsa International
Placement Corp. vs. Labor Secretary, 356 SCRA
174). That it is addressed to specific group, i.e.
private employment agencies, does not exclude it
from publication requirement.
Rules imposing a penalty as authorized by the law
itself must be filed & registered w/ UP Law Center
(Secs. 3 & 4, Bk. Vll, EO 292).

 The 1978 NTC Rules ought to apply in the

grant of provisional authority to BayanTel
despite filing of 1993 Revised Rules with UP
Law Center. The 1993 NTC RR should have
been published in OG or newspaper of general
circulation before it can take effect. Filing of the
1993 NTC RR w/ U.P. Law Center is not the
operative act that gives the RR force & effect.
The National Admin Register is merely a
bulletin of codified rules (Republic vs.
Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 317).

 OMB-DOJ Joint Circular 95-01 is merely internal bet. the

DOJ & the OMB, outlining the authority & responsibilities
among prosecutors in conduct of PI. Said circular does not
regulate the conduct of persons or the public in general, nor
does it contain any penal provision or prescribe a mandatory
act. Hence, it need not be published (Honasan vs. DOJ Panel,
4/13/04). Note: superseded by OMB-DOJ MOA dated 3/29/12
What need not be published?
*Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature,
i.e regulating only the personnel of the agency and not the
public.
*LOIs issued by administrative superiors concerning rules to be
followed by subordinates

 RA 3531 authorizes SEC to collect filing fees

for amendments extending corporate
existence. SEC Circular # 1 imposing a filing
fee of 1/10 of 1% of AC plus 20% thereof [or
the amount of P1,212,200.00 on GMA] for
amendments extending corporate existence is
not a mere interpretation or an internal rule. It
needs to be published as it implements
mandate of RA 3531 and it affects public (SEC
vs. GMA Network, 575 SCRA 113).

 Resolution No. 372 was about the new GSIS

salary structure, Resolution No. 306 was about
the authority to pay the 2002 Christmas
package, and Resolution No. 197 was about the
GSIS merit selection and promotion plan.
Clearly, the assailed resolutions pertained only
to the internal rules meant to regulate GSIS
personnel. There was no need for publication
or filing of these resolutions with the UP Law
Center (BOT of GSIS vs. Velasco, 02/02/11).

Requirements of Administrative
Due Process
1. Impartial tribunal
*Sec. 9 (Fabella vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256)
2. Due notice & hearing or opportunity to be heard
*Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143
*Alcala vs. School Principal Villar, 11/18/03
*Jurisdiction is a matter of law & once acquired, is not lost upon
the instance of the parties
(OMB vs. Estandarte, 521 SCRA 155)
3. Procedure consistent w/essentials of fair play
4. Proceedings conducted to give opportunity for court to determine
whether the applicable rule of law and procedure were
observed.

 CSC has no original jurisdiction over an admin case

vs. a public school teacher as jurisdiction is lodged
with the Investigating Committee under Sec. 9 of RA
4670. Still, the SC affirmed dismissal from service of
petitioner for dishonesty (for faking CS eligibilities of
certain teachers for a fee) as he was sufficiently
afforded due process by CSC. He answered the
charges & participated in hearings. He is barred
under principle of estoppel by laches to impugn
CSC jurisdiction (Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA
143).

 School Principal Villar is barred under principle

of estoppel by laches from assailing the
jurisdiction of OMB since his right to procedural
due process was properly observed. Not only
did he file his CA and MR from decision
dismissing him for dishonesty, he also
participated in hearings conducted by OMBVIS & was given the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses vs. him (Alcala vs. Villar,
11/18/03).

Note: OMB Act (RA 6770) recognizes the existence of

some proper disciplinary authorities such as
Investigating Committee of DepEd under RA 4670. Sec.
23 of RA 6770 directs that OMB may refer certain
complaints to the proper disciplinary authority for
institution of appropriate admin proceedings vs. erring
public officers. Thus, the administrative disciplinary
authority of the OMB over a public school teacher is not
exclusive but concurrent (OMB vs. Medrano, 569 SCRA
749). OIC Principal Medrano who was dismissed for
sexual harassment is now barred from assailing OMB
juris. in an MR.

Nature of Sec. 9, RA 4670

Sec. 9 of RA 4670 does not confer
exclusive disciplinary authority to the
DepEd over public school teachers nor
does it prescribe an exclusive procedure
in administrative investigation involving
them. Section 9 refers only to specific
procedure to be followed by DepEd in
administrative investigation (Ombudsman
vs. Masing, 542 SCRA 253).

Due Process in Admin Proceedings

What it includes: 1) right to actual or
constructive notice to the institution of
proceedings; 2) real opportunity to be
heard personally or with counsel & to
present evidence; 3) impartial tribunal
vested with competent jurisdiction; and 4)
finding by said tribunal w/c is supported by
substantial evidenceknown to parties
affected.

Case on admin due process

Petitioners were not denied due process by the
fact that CSC acted as investigator,
complainant, prosecutor and judge. CSC is
mandated to hear & decide admin cases
instituted by it or instituted before it directly or
on appeal. CSC is still impartial judge so long
as its decision was based on substantial
findings (Cruz vs. CSC, 370 SCRA 650). [Mun.
Treas. Zenaida Paitum took CS Prof. Exam on
behalf of Cruz].

Distinction between Sec. 12 and Sec.

47 of EO 292
Sec. 12 refers to CSC authority to institute
directly and motu proprio admin cases of
dishonesty & falsification, intended to
administer CS system & protect its integrity by
removing from list of eligibles those who
falsified their qualifications; Sec. 47 refers to the
ordinary disciplinary proceedings intended to
discipline a bona fide member of the system
(CSC vs. Albao, 472 SCRA 548). [EA Albao
stated in PDS he passed Elec. Engr. Exam].

Cases on Admin Due Process

Decision of Gozon as Director of Mines being
reviewed on appeal by him as Secretary (Zambales
Mining vs. CA, 94 SCRA 261)
Labor Arbiter Aquino promoted to Commissioner of
NLRC which reviewed his decision (Singson vs.
NLRC, 274 SCRA 358)
NTC order reviving the archived application of
BayanTel, w/o notice to Extelcom, does not violate
due process. Extelcom still has opportunity to be
heard during full-blown adversarial hearings (Republic
vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 319).

Procedural vs. substantive due process

Procedural due process refers to the method or
manner by w/c the law is enforced, while substantive
due process requires that the law itself not merely
the procedures by which the law is enforced is fair,
reasonable and just.
As applied to tenurial protection accorded to a civil
servant, procedural due process requires that the
dismissal be effected only after notice & hearing,
while substantive due process requires, among
others, that the dismissal be for legal cause (Lacson
vs. PAGC, 30 May 2011).

 While GSIS Act gives Gen. Mgr. the authority to

discipline GSIS personnel, this must be in accord w/CS
rules. Under CSC Unified Rules, upon receipt of
complaint sufficient in form & substance, disciplining
authority shall require person to submit CA or comment
under oath. The PI must be done prior to issuance of
formal charge. The filing by petitioner of formal
charges vs. respondents without complying with
mandated PI or giving them opportunity to comment
violated their right to due process. Formal charges
are void & may be assailed anytime (Garcia vs. Attys.
Molina & Velasco, 627 SCRA 541).

 A basic requirement of due process is that a person

must be duly informed of the charges vs. him & he
cannot be convicted of an offense with which he
was not charged (CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560).
Petitioner was not denied due process when on her
filing an MR from the decision reprimanding her,
she was given opportunity to be heard on the
witnesses affidavits belatedly furnished her by
directing her to file any pleading (Ruivivar vs.
Ombudsman, 565 SCRA 325).

 The complaint under EO 292 and CSC on

administrative cases both refer to the actual
charge to which a person complained of is
required to answer and indicate whether or not
he elects a formal investigation should his
answer be deemed not satisfactory. The
unverified complaint filed vs. Gaoiran w/ CHED
is not the complaint w/in purview of EO 292. It
merely triggered a FFI (Gaoiran vs. Alcala &
Castillejo, 444 SCRA 420).

 Due process in an administrative context does

not require trial-type proceedings similar to those
in courts (UP Board of Regents vs. CA, 313
SCRA 404). So long as a party is afforded fair &
reasonable opportunity, the requirement of due
process is complied with.
Service of summons or order on OSG;
Deputized special attorney has no legal authority
to decide whether an appeal should be made
(NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 707).

MCQ Illustration
The law provides that an admin complaint must be verified &
filed w/the proper govt office. Will failure to conform w/
verification requirement cause the dismissal of the complaint?
a) Yes. It is not only a formal but a jurisdictional requirement.
b) Yes. It will determine the truthfulness & genuineness of the
allegations.
c) No. Lack of verification is not fatal but only a formal defect.*
d) No. Technical rules of procedure are not applicable in
administrative cases.

 Due process clause does not encompass

right to be assisted by counsel. Counsels
assistance in admin proceedings is not an
absolute requirement, regardless of nature
of charge & respondents capacity to
represent himself. No duty rests on admin
body to furnish the person investigated
with counsel (DAR RD Lumiqued vs.
Exevea, 282 SCRA 125).

 Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing of the

complaint is not lost by cessation in office
of respondent during pendency of case.
The body retains its jurisdiction either to
pronounce respondent official innocent of
the charges or declare him guilty thereof
(Perez vs. Abiera, 62 SCRA 302).

 Where a party appears by counsel in an action in

court or admin body, all notices required to be
given must be served to the counsel and not the
client (Lincoln Gerard Inc. vs. NLRC, 07/23/90).
Negligence of counsel binds the client (Maquilan
vs. Maquilan, 524 SCRA 166), the only exception
is when the negligence of counsel is so gross,
reckless and inexcusable that the client is
deprived of his day in court (Razon vs. People,
525 SCRA 284).

 Instances of admin determination where

notice and hearing are not necessary.
1.Summary abatement of nuisance per se
2.Cancellation of passport by DFA
3.Summary proceedings of distraint & levy of
property of delinquent taxpayer
4.Preventive suspension
5.Grant of provisional authority for increased
rates, or to engage in particular line of business.

 Approval in TRB resolution of provisional rates of public

utilities w/o hearing & by TRB Directors who did not
attend personally the hearing (Padua vs. Ranada, 390
SCRA 666)
Disciplining authoritys prerogative requires prior
independent consideration of law and facts, and not
simply rely on dispositive portion of PCAGC resolution;
must contain factual finding and legal assessment (DOH
Sec. vs. Camposano, 457 SCRA 440).
Decision prepared by a SP Member is not decision of SP
for lack of signatures of required majority; must conform
with Sec. 66 of LGC (Malinao vs. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616)

MCQ: Which of the following has no

Right vs. self-incrimination

Available in all kinds of proceedings
Available only to natural persons and not
to a juridical person.
Reason for exclusion of juridical persons
from the no self-incrimination rule: need
for administrative bodies tasked by
legislature to ensure compliance with law
and public policy.

 The right vs. self-incrimination is not selfexecutory or automatically operational, it must

be claimed at the appropriate time, or else it
may be deemed waived (Nacu vs. CSC, 635
SCRA 766). PEZA employee Nacu (who was
charged with dishonesty & grave misconduct for
illegally collecting fees) did not invoke her right
vs. self-incrimination at the time she was asked
to provide samples of her signature. She is
therefore deemed to have waived such right.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
Before a party can be allowed to seek judicial
intervention, he is required to exhaust all
means of administrative redress available
under the law.
3 reasons for the doctrine
*give admin body the chance to act and
correct errors
* prevent unnecessary & premature resort to
courts
* doctrine of separation of powers
Effect of failure to observe doctrine

Distinction bet. Doctrine of Primary

Jurisdiction & Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies (BQ)

Both deal with the proper relationships between

courts and administrative bodies.
Exhaustion applies where the claim is originally
cognizable in the first instance by the
administrative body alone, while primary
jurisdiction applies where the case is within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the court &
administrative agency but the case requires
determination of some technical or factual
matter xxx.

Cases
Applicable only to acts in the performance of a
quasi-judicial, not rule-making, function; issue
of validity of IRR issued by National
Government Center Administration Committee
that is it not in accord w/RA 9207 is w/in
court jurisdiction (Holy Spirit Homeowners
Assn. vs.Defensor, 497 SCRA 582).
MR must first be filed conformably w/Sec. 14,
Rule Vll of NLRC Rules before special civil
action for certiorari may be availed of
(Sunshine Transport vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 51).

 Sec. 8 of PD 705 as amended states that

(1) all actions and decisions of the BFD (now LMB)
Director are subject to review by the DENR
Secretary;
(2) the decisions of the DENR Secretary are
appealable to the President; and
(3) courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR
Secretary except through a special civil action for
certiorari or prohibition (Task Force Sagip
Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga, 06/19/08).

Cases

Increase in water rates by water district after conduct

of public hearing, subject to review and approval by
LWUA. Where the rates presented in the hearing are
not the same rates approved by LWUA, this matter
shall be resolved by the NWRB. The NWRB Decision
may be appealed to O.P. (Merida Water Dist. vs.
Bacarro, 567 SCRA 204).
Third party claim by Ongpin for recovery of possession
& injunction before the court is an action questioning
the validity of levy in the labor case vs. Green
Mountain Farm. It is an incident of labor case &
beyond jurisdiction of the RTC. The RTC is a co-equal
body of the NLRC (Deltaventures Resources vs.
Cabato, 327 SCRA 522).

 OSP is merely a component of OMB and may only

act under the supervision & control of OMB
(Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 717).
The review as an act of supervision & control by
DOJ Secretary over fiscals finds basis in this
doctrine. He may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or
modify their rulings.
RSP has administrative supervision, not control,
over CPs and PPs. In taking over the PI, Aurillo
nullified the reso of the Inquest Pros. as approved
by CP and deprived Rabi of his right to file MR and
if denied to appeal to DOJ Sec. (RSP Aurillo vs.
Rabi, 392 SCRA 604).

 Protests regarding CARP implementation

are under exclusive jurisdiction of DAR
Secretary. The petition for certiorari by
Polo Coconut before CA asserting that the
PARO gravely abused his discretion in
placing Polo estate under the CARP will
not prosper until all remedies under
DARAB Rules have been exhausted (DAR
vs. PCPI, 564 SCRA 80).

 Appeal the reassignment order of RM to NIA

Administrator and to CSC. Remedy is not a
complaint for prohibition & injunction before the
court (Corsiga vs. Defensor & Ortizo, 391 SCRA
274).
Appeal the monetary award (in exercise of visitorial
& enforcement powers under Art. 128 of Labor
Code) of the DOLE Reg. Director to the Labor
Secretary (Laguna CATV vs. RD Maraan, 392
SCRA 226)
Submission of dispute to Lupon ng Tagapamayapa
for conciliation or amicable settlement under Sec.
408 LGC (Berba vs. Pablo, 474 SCRA 686)

 In Prov. of Siquijor vs. COA (12/04/09), the SC

dismissed petitioners petition for certiorari to nullify
the decision of COA Region Vll as affirmed by
COA Legal Office disallowing the grant of P20T
Xmas bonus, for failure to exhaust admin remedies.
Petitioner having failed to pursue an appeal w/ the
Commission Proper under COA Rules of Procedure,
the disallowance as ruled by COA LAO-Local has
become final & executory. Remedy of certiorari may
be availed of only if there is no appeal xxx

MCQ: Admin remedies should be

exhausted before resorting to court if:
a) A student was dismissed outright from school
for showing pornographic photos;
b) the validity of a circular of the PRC providing for
the closure of a nursing school if only 10% of its
graduates passed the nursing examinations;
c) a civil service employee is questioning the
validity of his transfer;*
d) Direct award by DPWH of an infrastructure
project to a contractor without public bidding.

MCQ: The Bureau of Animal Industry under the DA

and the Phil. Racing Commission under the OP
claim to be entitled to the share of horseracing
revenues that by law are allocated to the National

Cases where a prior MR is not

necessary
a. the order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal
has no jurisdiction;
b. there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of
the question & any further delay would prejudice
the interests of Government or of the petitioner;
c. deprivation of due process & there is urgency for
relief;
d. issue is purely legal;
e. public interest is involved.

MCQ: Which statement is not correct?

a) Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is a ground to dismiss
the case for lack of cause of action;
b) Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies as a
ground to dismiss the case may not be waived;*
c) Failure to observe the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction is a ground to dismiss the case
based on jurisdictional ground;
d) All of the above

Exceptions to the doctrine of

exhaustion of admin remedies
Whether respondents transfer to lower position
of RD PAO, w/c was made without her consent,
amounts to a removal without cause is a legal
issue (Demaisip vs. Bacal, 12/06/2000)
Whether the memo of the ARMM Governor
ordering the reinstatement of petitioner who was
already declared AWOL and dropped from the
rolls was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a legal
question (Arimao vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 75)

 the order transferring Dist. Supevisor Yap to Malapatan

District came from the department secretary under the alter
ego doctrine (Quisumbing vs. Gumban, 193 SCRA 523).
Where the doctrine of qualified political agency applies
(Binamira vs. Garucho).
the land in question is private
Circumstances indicate urgency of judicial action
Unreasonable delay of official action xxx
there is nothing left to be done or there is no plain,
adequate and remedy except court action (Sta. Maria vs.
Lopez, 31 SCRA 639)

 whether or not petitioners dismissal from the

service is the proper penalty for first offense of
disgraceful & immoral conduct is question of law
(Castro vs. Gloria, 363 SCRA 423)
poverty denied petitioner the services of a lawyer
(Sabello vs. DECS, 12/26/89)
prayer is for damages & not a reversal of PCST
policies or demand to be allowed to take exams
(Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and
Technology, 443 SCRA 56)

Doctrine of Qualified Political

Agency
In the absence of a constitutional proviso or
statute to the contrary, official acts of a dept
secretary are deemed acts of the President
unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter.
Except where the Const. or law requires that he
acts in person, multifarious functions are
performed by dept heads.
Recognizes the existence of a single executive,
all executive organizations are adjuncts of Exec.
Department and the heads of these departments
are agents of the Chief Executive.

 Authority of Exec. Secretary to reverse Decision

of Director which has been affirmed by the
Department Secretary.
Doctrine is not applicable to the Office of the
Ombudsman (Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, 503
SCRA 254).
Special Order issued by DENR Secretary for
delineation of boundary & resolution of territorial
conflict is presumed the act of the President
(Province of Camarines Norte vs. Province of
Quezon & Mun. of Calauag, 367 SCRA 91).

 Department Secretaries as members of NPB cannot delegate

their duties, like power to vote & approve board resolutions.
Their personal judgment must be exercised. NPB
Resolution terminating NPC employees on 1/31/03 is void
(NPC Drivers & Mechanics Assn. vs. NPC, 503 SCRA 138).
But he is not precluded from utilizing aid of subordinates as
long as he makes final decision thru his personal judgment.
Under Sec. 17, Art. Vll of Constitution, the President has
control of all executive departments xxx. DENR Secretarys
Order transferring Regional Office from Cotabato City to
Koronadal City is valid (DENR Sec. vs. DENR Employees,
409 SCRA 359).

Presidential Power of Control

Presidents power over executive branch of government,
including all executive officers from Cabinet Sec. to lowliest
clerk.
Power to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate had done
Reorganization of DOH under EO 102 of Pres. Estrada: not a
usurpation of legislative power. EO 292 also gives continuing
authority to Pres. to reorganize administrative structure of
O.P. to achieve simplicity, economy & efficiency (Tondo
Medical Center Employees Assn. vs. CA, 527 SCRA 748).

 The President has the power to reorganize

the offices and agencies in the executive
department in line with his constitutionally
granted power of control and by virtue of a
valid delegation of the legislative power to
reorganize executive offices under existing
statutes (Banda vs. Ermita, 618 SCRA
448).

 President can exercise executive power motu proprio

and can supplant decision or act of the subordinate with
his own. When the President ordered the development of
housing project (Smokey Mountain) with reclamation
work, making the DENR part of the implementing
committee, the required authorization of DENR to
reclaim land is deemed satisfied. The ultimate power
over alienable and disposable public lands is reposed in
the President and not the DENR Secretary. To still
require DENR authorization on Smokey Mountain would
be a derogation of Pres.s powers as head of Exec.
Branch (Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA 241).

 Distinguishing power of control from power of

supervision: the latter is the power of mere oversight
over LGUs; checking whether LGU or its officers
perform their duties as provided by law and whether
the rules are followed. He cannot lay down the rules
for the doing of the act. If rules are not observed,
the superior may order the work done or redone to
conform to prescribed rules but he cannot prescribe
his own manner for the doing of the act.
(Bito-onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732)

 The creation of the Phil. Truth Commission (PTC) is not

justified by the Pres.s power of control. The power of
control (to alter, modify or nullify) is different from power
to create public offices the former is inherent in the
Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a valid
delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to
faithfully execute the laws. PTCs creation is justified
under Sec. 17, Art. Vll imposing on President the duty to
ensure that laws are faithfully executed (Biraogo vs.
PTC, 637 SCRA 78). Note: PTC is not borne out of
restructuring of the O.P. since PTC is not part of the O.P.
structure prior to EO No. 1.

MCQ: Which agency is under the

general supervision of the President?
a) The Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) under the DND
b) The Philippine National Police (PNP)
under the DILG
c) The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office (PCSO)
d) The Autonomous Region for Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM)

Review of Admin Decisions

General rule: Factual findings are not subject to
judicial review & must be accorded not only utmost
respect but finality as long as decisions are supported
xxx
Exceptions:
~misappreciation of facts; not supported by substantial
evidence; when so warranted, there may be judicial
review; findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or
collusion; procedure is irregular; palpable or serious
errors have been committed; grave abuse of
discretion, arbitrarines or capriciousness is manifest

Cases
Factual finding of DARAB w/c relied on
certification by MARO that petitioner is a tenant
is not conclusive on courts. Tenacy is not purely
a factual relationship but also a legal relationship
(Bautista vs. Araneta, 326 SCRA 234).
Classification of public land is a function of the
Director of LMB and his decision when approved
by DENR Sec. as to question of fact is
conclusive & not subject to judicial review (Rep.
vs. Imperial, 303 SCRA 127)

 Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper

grounds in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Such petition will prosper only if there is a showing
of grave abuse of discretion or an act w/o or in
excess of jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal.
All errors or decisions of administrative bodies
involving questions of law are subject to judicial
review under Sec. 5 (2e), Art. Vlll of Constitution.
Mixed questions of facts and law are subject to
judicial review (Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts)

Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts

When a finding of fact is so intimately
involved and dependent upon a question of
law, the court will, in order to resolve the
question of law, examine the factual setting
including the evidence adduced. The more
important issue, which is law, assimilates
the facts.
Ex. Tenancy involves both factual and legal
questions.

 The PEA decision to dismiss petitioners from the

service, upon recommendation of PAGC as approved
by the President after due proceedings, should have
been appealed to the CSC under EO 292. From
CSC, it can be elevated to the CA via a petition for
review under Rule 43. From there, it can be appealed
to the SC thru a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 (Lacson vs. PEA, PAGC, 30 May 2011).
Here, petitioners chose the wrong remedy by
appealing their dismissal by the PEA to the CA
instead of CSC. As their dismissal has become final &
executory, S.C. no longer has power to review & act.

 Difference bet. Rule 45 (Petition for Review

on Certiorari) and Rule 65 petition (Petition
for Certiorari): A Rule 65 petition is an original
action that dwells on jurisdictional errors of
whether a lower tribunal acted without or in
excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion. A Rule 45 petition is a mode of
appeal which centers on the review on the merits
of a judgment, final order or award rendered by a
lower court involving purely questions of law.

Immunities
Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and civil
immunities to persons unless the law
explicitly confers such power.
PCGG may grant criminal (under EO 14A)
and civil (under Art. 2028 CC) immunities
Apply Art 2028, Civil Code: amicable
settlement in civil cases applicable to PCGG
cases
OMB under Sec. 17 of RA 6770

Three-fold Responsibility
Remedies may be invoked separately, alternately,
simultaneously or successively
Rule: Administrative cases are independent from
criminal cases
Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final
administrative determination. Example In
prosecution of ULP under Labor Code, no criminal
prosecution for ULP can be filed w/o a final
judgment in a previous administrative proceeding.

 The dismissal by the CP of petitioners criminal

complaint vs. Fil-Estate for violation of PD 957 in
failing to construct & deliver to petitioner the condo
unit on the view that an administrative finding of
violation must first be obtained before resort to
criminal prosecution is wrong. Nothing in PD 957
expressly requires prior administrative finding.
Where the law is silent on this matter, the
fundamental rule that the administrative case is
independent from criminal action fully applies (Chua
vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 232).

 Hierarchy of evidentiary values: Proof of guilt beyond

reasonable doubt is the highest level, followed by clear &
convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence and
substantial evidence, in that order (ERB vs. CA, 357 SCRA
30).
A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question
even if the same facts are attendant in the admin proceedings
(Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406)
Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria vs. Sunga ,
368 SCRA 551)
Sec. 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but the discretion
given to the OMB.

 Desistance will not automatically result to dismissal of

admin case. Complainant is a mere witness xxxThe
aim in administrative proceedings is not the
punishment of officer but improvement of public service
& the preservation of publics faith and confidence.
Rule on anonymous complaints
Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation
Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer seeking
elective office (Omb vs. Maricar Torres, 566 SCRA
365)

Aggrieved Party who may appeal

the administrative decision
Sec.39(a), PD 807: Appeals, where allowable,
shall be made by the party adversely affected by
the decision x x x.
The CSC as the party adversely affected by the
CA ruling, which seriously prejudices the civil
service system, may appeal the CA decision to
the S.C. (CSC vs. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426).
A party may elevate a decision of CSC before
the CA thru petition for review under Rule 43 of
Revised Rules of Court.

PNP

Sec. 6, Art. XVl Const.: The State shall establish & maintain
one police force xxx
Authority of the local chief executive is one of operational
supervision and control, i.e. power to direct the employment
& deployment of PNP elements to ensure public safety and
effective maintenance of peace & order, except 30 days
immediately preceding & following any election (Sec.62,RA
8551)
Relationship bet. PNP and AFP: PNP shall, thru info gathering
& performance of its ordinary police functions, support the
AFP on matters involving the suppression of insurgency (and
other serious threats to national security), except where the
President calls on the PNP to support the AFP in combat
operations.

 Criminal cases involving PNP members are w/in

exclusive jurisdiction of regular courts. [Note:
Courts-martial as applied to AFP members are
not courts within Phil. judicial system. They
pertain to the executive department & are
instrumentalities of the executive power.]
The local chief executive has the limited power
of selecting one from among the list of five
eligibles (three in province) to be appointed chief
of police of the city (Andaya vs. RTC, 319 SCRA
696).

OSG (PD 478; Admin Code)

Gen. Rule: OSG is the lawyer of government, any
of its agencies and officials in any litigation xxx
~Actions in the name of the RP or its
instrumentality, if not initiated by the Solicitor
General, will be summarily dismissed.
Exceptions:
1. When the government office is adversely
affected by contrary stand of OSG (Orbos vs.
CSC, 12 Sept. 1990)
2. Solicitor General deputizes legal officers xxx
(Sec. 35, Ch. 123. Bk lV, EO 292)

 Gen. Rule: Solicitor General can represent a

public official in all civil, criminal and special
proceedings when such proceedings arise from
the latters acts in his official capacity.
Exception: Such official or agent is being charged
criminally or being sued civilly for damages
arising from a felony. The state can never be the
author of a wrongful act or be made liable for any
pecuniary liability a public official may be held to
account in a civil case for damages.

Ombudsman Constitutional
Mandate
As protector of the people, OMB has the
power, function and duty to act promptly
on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials and to investigate
any act or omission of any public official
when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

Need for Prompt Action

Delay of 3 years in conduct of PI violates rights of
accused to due process & speedy disposition of
cases (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70)
Right to speedy disposition extends to all parties
in all cases, including civil and administrative.
That he was charged by FFIB in 1997, while act
occurred in 1992 & decision suspending him for 6
mos. for neglect of duty was issued in 1999 is not
necessarily a violation of his right (Ombudsman
vs. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135).

Cases on OMB Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of OMB encompasses all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance xxx (Deloso vs.
Domingo, 191 SCRA 545)
OMB authority is shared or concurrent w/similarly
authorized agencies. In exercise of its primary
jurisdiction, it may take over investigation of cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan at any stage
xxx (Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 637)
Money claim is not within OMB jurisdiction
(Orcullo vs. Gervacio, 314 SCRA 452)

OMB-DOJ MOA dated 03/29/12

The OMB and the prosecution offices of
the DOJ shall have concurrent jurisdiction
over complaints for crimes involving public
officers and employees falling outside the
exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan: provided that the office
where such a complaint is filed for PI shall
acquire jurisdiction over the complaint to
the exclusion of the other.

Subpoena Power of OMB

Request any govt agency for assistance &
information in discharge of its duties, & to
examine pertinent records [Sec.15(5)]
Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena
duces tecum, and take testimony in any
investigation or inquiry, including the power to
examine and have access to bank accounts and
records [Sec. 15(8), RA 6770].
OMB order for inspection of Union Bank
documents is an invasion of privacy violative of
RA 1405 (Marquez vs. Desierto, 359 SCRA 773).

Who are not subject to OMB

Disciplinary Authority?
Impeachable Officials (Sec. 2, Art. X1)
* In re: Raul M. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771
Members of Congress (Sec. 16 par.3, Art. Vl)
Judiciary (admin supervision Sec. 6, Art.Vlll)
* Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 46
* Fuentes vs. Ombudsman, 368 SCRA 36
* Judge Garcia vs. Miro, 582 SCRA 127
(2009) [Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide]

Cases on Preventive Suspension

Period of preventive suspension cannot be credited to
whatever penalty that may be meted out (Yabut
vs.OMB, 233 SCRA 311)
The OMB order for preventive suspension was validly
issued even without a full-blown hearing & formal
presentation of evidence by the parties (Buenaseda
vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 646)
Power to preventively suspend is granted only to the
Ombudsman & Deputy Ombudsmen. Those
occupying the same rank do not necessarily have the
same powers (OMB vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 718)

Finality and Execution of Decision

Decision is final, executory and unappealable
if respondent is acquitted, or penalty is
reprimand, suspension of not more than one
month, or fine equivalent to one month salary.
*The right to appeal is not a natural right nor
part of due process (Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254
SCRA 753)
All other cases, appeal to the Court of
Appeals on verified petition for review within
15 days under Rule 43.

 A CA petition for review under Rule 43 is not allowed

in an exoneration situation under RA 6770 and the
Ombudsman Rules. The remedy from OMB decision
exonerating respondent in the admin case vs. him,
despite the CSC finding that the reassignment order
issued by Reyes was in bad faith & constitutes
constructive dismissal, is a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. Nonetheless, SC here applied liberality and
treated the CA petition of respondents under Rule 43
as having the effect of a Rule 65 petition. (LWUA
Admtr. Reyes vs. Belisario, 596 SCRA 31)

Effect of Appeal on Decision

An appeal shall not stop the decision from being
executory. In case penalty is suspension or
removal and respondent wins the appeal, he
shall be considered as being under preventive
suspension and he shall be paid the salary
(OMB Administrative Order No. 17 dated
09/07/03).
A decision of the Ombudsman shall be executed
as a matter of course. Failure or refusal to
comply with the OMB Order shall be a ground
for disciplinary action.

Case
The decision of the OMB (1-yr. suspension anent
resp. City Treasurers shortages) is immediately
executory pending appeal & may not be stayed
by the filing of the appeal or issuance of an
injunctive writ. The proviso in the OMB Rules of
Procedure (AO 17) that a decision is immediately
executory is a special rule that prevails over
the proviso of the Rules of Court (Sec. 12 Rule
43) which provides for the stay of the decision
pending appeal (OMB vs. Samaniego, 10/15/10).

Cases on Preliminary Investigation

Ombudsman cannot be compelled to issue an order
for production of documents if in his judgment such
are not necessary to establish the guilt or innocence
of accused (Mamburao vs. OMB, 344 SCRA 818).
A COA Audit Report is not equivalent to the affidavit
required under AO 7 (Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan,
289 SCRA 721)
The Prosecutor who conducted the investigation is
only a nominal complainant. Real complainant is the
state (Garcia vs. Primo, 397 SCRA 41)

Effect on OMB re COAs Non-Finding of

Liability
COAs approval of a government officials
disbursements only relates to the administrative
aspect of the matter of his accountability but it
does not foreclose the Ombudsmans authority
to investigate and determine whether there
is a crime to be prosecuted for which such
official is answerable. While COA may regard
the official to have substantially complied with
its accounting rules, this fact is not sufficient to
dismiss the criminal case. (Aguinaldo vs.
Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121)

 The fact that petitioners accounts and

vouchers had passed in audit is no ground
to enjoin the fiscal from conducting PI to
determine their criminal liability for
malversation. A finding of probable cause
does not derive its veracity from the COA
findings but from the OMBs independent
determination (Dimayuga vs. OMB, 20
July 2006).

 The Rules of Procedure of OMB (Sec. 7 Rule ll)

sanction the immediate filing of an information in
the proper court upon finding of probable cause,
even during the pendency of a MR.
The mere filing of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 does not by itself merit a suspension of the
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan, unless a
TRO or writ of preliminary injunction has been
issued against the Sandiganbayan (Ramiscal, Jr.
vs. Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA 506).

Court of Appeals; No Authority Over

OMB Resolutions in Criminal
Cases.
The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives
and decisions of the OMB in administrative
disciplinary cases only it cannot review the
orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in
criminal or non-administrative cases. Since the
CA has no jurisdiction over decisions of the
Ombudsman in criminal cases, its ruling
directing the withdrawal of the criminal case
filed by the Ombudsman before the RTC
against respondent POEA employee Fung is
void (Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321).

 The Ombudsman is without authority to initiate

forfeiture proceedings for recovery of ill-gotten
or unexplained wealth amassed prior to 2/25/86.
However, the Ombudsman has authority to
investigate cases for forfeiture or recovery of
such ill-gotten wealth amassed even before said
date pursuant to his general investigatory power
under Sec. 15(1) of RA 6770
(Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 625 SCRA 13)

End
Good Luck!