Admin Law Midterms Reviewer (Final)

Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
 Br oa d d ef i n it i on of a d m inis tra t i ve la w- I t r ef ers to
a ll la ws t ha t r e gu l at e or c o ntr o l th e a dm in is t rat i v e
* SP E CI C/C O UR S E D EN IT ION : “ It m ean s th at p art of p u b l ic org a n i za t io n of th e ex ec u t i ve , l e gis l at i v e a n d
la w wh i ch go v ern s th e o rgan iza tion , f u n c tion s a n d j ud ic i al bra nc hes of g o v ernm e nt . T h e e nt ir e
p roc ed u r e s o f ad m in i st r ati v e a g en c ie s o f g o ve rn m en t to go v er nm ent is v as t an d h ug e. C o ns id er :
wh i ch q u a si - le gi s lat i v e p ow e rs an d q u a si -ju d i ci al p o w er s ar e
gran ted , an d th e ext en t an d man n er to wh ich s u ch a ge n c ie s 1. T he O f f ic e of t h e Pr es i de n t has 22 s ec re tar i e s
are su b j ec t to co n tro l b y th e co u rt s. ” ( ME MO RI ZE ) rep res e nt i ng t h e 2 2 de par tm en ts of t h e ex ec ut i v e, 9
ot h er ex ec u t i ves s uc h as th e pr es i de nt i a l l eg a l ad v is er
an d p o l it ic al ad v is er, 9 at t ac h e d ag e nc ies l i k e th e
M MD A, Pr es i d e nt i al C om m is s i on o n Vis i t in g Forc es
D EN IT IO N OF AN A DM IN IS TR A TI V E AG EN CY - An A gre em en t a nd O f f ic e of t h e Pr es id e nt i al A d v is er f or t h e
ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy i s a b od y of go v e rn me n t c rea te d b y pe ac e pr oc es s an d 3 2 ot h er ex ec u t i ve of f ic es l ik e t he
th e l eg i sla tu r e an d ch ar ged with th e su p er v i sio n an d P hi l i p pi n e S p orts C om m is s io n.
re gu l ati on o f a p ar ti cu la r ar ea of c on c er n .
2. T he DO J h as 10 at tac he d a g enc i es to it n am e l y th e N BI ,
B ure a u of Im m igra t io n a n d De p ort at i o n, B ur e au of
Corr ec ti o ns , Par o l e a n d Pr o ba t io ns A dm in is tr at i on ,
For e xa mp l e, th e In su ra n ce C o m mi s si on wh i ch r egu lat e s th e PC G G , P AO , O f f ic e of A lt er na t i ve D is p ut e R e s o lu t io n,
in su ran c e b u s in e s s, th e E n er gy R egu lato ry Boa r d wh ich O G CC , O S G an d L a nd R eg is tra t i on Au th or i t y.
re gu l at e s th e p o w e r an d en er gy b u s in e ss an d th e H ou sin g
an d Lan d Us e R egu lat or y Boa rd wh i ch r egu lat e s th e h ou si n g 3. T he DO F h as 9 a tt ac h ed ag e nc i es s uc h as t he BI R,
b u s in es s . Th e s e a gen ci e s ex e rc is e s o me s i gn i can t B ure a u of C us tom s , B ure a u of T re as ur y a n d I ns ur a nc e
Com m is s io n.
co mb in ati on o f ex e cu t i v e, le gi s lat i v e an d ju d i ci a l p o w er s.
4. T he De p artm en t of T ra ns p or ta t io n a n d Com m un ic at i o n
has 20 a tt ac he d a g enc i es s uc h as th e LT O , L T FRB,
➢ Br oad and n ar row d e nit i on of adm in ist r ati v e L aw - M AR IN A , C AA P , M RT , P h i l ip p i ne C o as t G u ar d, T ol l
Re g ul a tor y B o ar d, LR T A a n d M an i l a In t ern a ti o na l Ai rp or t
 A dm in is tr at i v e L a w is par t of or b e lo n gs to t he A ut ho ri t y.
f ie l d of p u b lic la w. P u b lic la w is d ef i n e d as t ha t
bra nc h of l a w wh ic h g o ver ns re l at i o ns b et we en
go v er nm ent an d i ts s u bj ec ts . It i nc l ud es
c ons t it ut i o na l l a w, c r i m ina l l a w an d i nt er n at i on a l
l a w. CR E AT IO N O F A DM INI S T RA TI V E AG E NCI E S ( HO W AN D W H Y)
- Th e la w wh i ch cr eat ed ad m in i s tra ti v e a g en c i es , th e ru le s
1
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
an d r eg u la tion s p ro mu lg ated b y th e m, an d th e b od y o f
d ec i si on s th a t th ey h a ve fr o m ti m e to t i me r en d er ed in th e
ad ju d i cat ion o f c as e s b r ou gh t b e fo r e th e m n ow con st itu t e 2. PO W ER S AN D F UNC T IO NS OF A DM IN I STR A TI V E
th e b u lk of ad mi n i st rat i v e l a w. AG EN CI E S/ S O URC E T H E RE O F
A. E xp r e s s an d I mp l i ed Po we r s - th e ju ri s d i cti o n an d p o w er s
D OC TRI N E O F Q UA LI F I E D PO L IT IC A L AG EN CY
of a d min is tra ti v e a g en c i e s a re m ea s u r ed an d l i m it ed b y t h e
CA RP IO V S. E XE CU T IVE S E CRE T AR Y Con st itu t ion or la w cr ea tin g th e m or g ran t in g th ei r p o w er s,
to th o s e con f er re d e xp r e s sly or b y n e c e s sary or fa ir
THE PRE SI DE N T HA S CO N T RO L P OWE RS O VE R T HE E XE C U TI VE imp li cat ion . It mu st b e l ib e ral ly con st ru ed to e n ab l e th e m t o
BR AN CH OF T HE GO VE R N ME N T; — It i s a fu n d a m en ta lly d i sch a rg e th eir a s si gn ed d u ti e s i n a cco rd an c e wi th th e
acc ep ted p r in c ip l e in Co n st itu t ion a l La w th a t th e P r es id en t le gi s lat i ve p u rp o se
h as con tro l o f a ll e x ecu t iv e d ep art m en t s, b u r ea u s, an d
of fi c e s. A s th e Pr e sid en t can n ot b e e xp e ct ed to ex e rc i se h i s
con t rol p o w er s a ll at t h e sa m e t i me an d in p er s on , h e wi ll
* Con st itu t ion – cr e at es a n d e mp ow e r s an
h av e to d el e gat e so m e of t h e m to h i s Cab i n e t m e mb er s, wh o
ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy t h rou g h a p ro vi s ion
in tu rn an d b y h i s au th o rity , con tro l th e b u r eau s an d oth e r
of fi c e s u n d er th eir r e sp ec ti v e ju ri sd ic tion s in th e ex e cu ti v e
d ep a rt m en t.
* Statu t es u n d er wh ic h ad min i st ra ti v e ag en cy cla i m s t o
· D ep a rt m en t s e cr eta ri e s a r e al te r eg o s or a s si s tan t s o f t h e act – so u r ce an d p o we r s of an ad m in i st rat i v e a g en c i e s
p re s id en t a n d th ei r a ct s ar e p r e su m ed t o b e th e act s of th e
Pr e sid en t, u n l e s s d i sap p ro ve d , r ep u d iat e s, or re p rob at ed b y
h im .
B. INHE RE N T P OWE RS – An ad m in i s tra ti v e a g en cy h as
N O IN HE RE N T PO WE R S, alth ou gh i mp l i ed p o w er s may
so m et i me s b e s p ok en o f as in h er en t.
S EP AR A TI ON O F PO W E R S
PAN T RAN C O V . P S C - > T h e th e ory o f th e se p ara t ion o f

p ow e r s i s d e si gn ed b y it s o ri gin ato rs to s e cu r e a cti on an d at
th e s am e ti m e t o f or e st all o ve r a ct ion wh ich n e ce s sa ri ly
3. SC O P E O F P OW E RS / EXT EN T OF P O W ER S
re su lt s fro m u n d u e con c en t rat ion o f p o we r s, an d th e r eb y
ob tain e f ci en cy an d p r e v en t d e sp oti s m.
2
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
A. A s to Natu re :
 In v es t i g at i v e or a d v is o r y ( ex ec ut i v e or A. Ju ri sd i ct ion li m it ed – Ju ri sd ict ion an d p o w e r s ar e

adm i n is tr at i v e) m ea su r ed an d li mi t ed b y th e co n s tit u ti on o r la w cr eat in g
th e m. Ju r is d i cti on o f ad min i st rati v e of c er s an d ag en c i e s i s
 Q u as i- l e g is l a ti v e or r u l e m ak in g sp ec ia l an d li m it ed .
 Q u as i- j u d ic i a l, de te r m ina t i ve or a dj u d ic a to r y po we rs
B. Po w er s wi th in th ei r j u ri sd i ct ion b oar d - Ad m i n i stra ti v e

b od i e s p o s s e s s on ly su c h p o we r s an d au th ori ty con f err ed to
th e m b y th e con st itu t io n or sp e ci cal ly gran te d t o th e m b y
B. A s to D e gr e e o f su b j e cti v e ch o ic e : th e ir en ab li n g st atu t e s an d th o s e t h at may n e n ec e s sa ri ly
imp li ed in th e e x er ci s e t h er eo f or in c id en ta l t o t h e
attai n m en t o f th e ir p u r p os e s.
 Dis c r e ti o n ar y - p o wer or r i g ht c o nf err e d up o n th em

b y l a w of ac ti n g of c i a l l y u n d er c e rt a in c irc um s ta nc es ,
ac c or d i ng t o t he dic t at es of t h e ir o wn j u dgm e nt a n d C. Po w er s su b je ct to t h e Con s titu tion , ap p li cab l e l a w, o r
c ons c i e nc e , a nd n o t c on tr ol l e d b y t he j u d gm en t or ad m in i s trat i v e r e gu la tio n – p r e su mp ti on o f con s titu t ion a li ty
c ons c i e nc e of o th er s . an d l eg al ity t o wh i ch st atu t e s an d ad min i str ati v e
re gu l ati on s ar e en tit l ed u n til su ch s tatu e or re g u lat ion i s
rep ea l ed o r a m en d ed , o r u n t il s et as id e in an ap p rop r iat e
 M in is ter i a l – p er f or m e d i n r es po ns e to a du t y wh i c h ca s e b y a co mp et en t c o u rt, an d u l ti mat e ly b y t h e Su p r e m e
has be e n pos i t i ve l y im pos e d b y l a w an d i ts Cou rt. Ad mi n i st rat iv e ag en c i e s h a v e n o in h e re n t p ow e r s,
perf orm anc e r eq u ir ed at a t im e an d i n a m an ner or th e ir p o we r s c an n ot b e as su m ed n or can su ch p ow er s b e
up o n c o nd i ti o ns s p ec i c a ll y d es i gn a te d, t h e d ut y t o con f err ed b y c ou rt .D en i tion of Ad m in i st rat i ve L aw : I t i s th e
perf orm un d er th e c o n d it i ons s p ec i ed n o t b ei ng p art o f p u b l ic in t er n at io n al l a w wh i ch go v ern s t h e
de p en d en t u po n t h e of c er ’s j ud gm en t or d is c ret i on . orga n iz ati on , fu n cti on s an d p ro c ed u r e s of ad mi n i stra ti v e
ag en c i e s o f th e go v ern m en t to wh i ch q u a si - le g is lat i v e
p ow e rs ar e d e le gat ed a n d q u a si -j u d i cia l p o w e rs ar e g ran t ed
an d th e ext en t an d m an n er to wh ich s u ch ag en c ie s ar e
su b j e ct t o con t rol b y c o u rt s.
4. NA T UR E OF P O W ER S
3
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Read: M a kat i S t oc k Ex c hange vs . S E C , 1 4 S CR A 62 0 - S ta tute s sta tu t e, a n d th o s e n e c e s sa rily i mp li ed in th e ex er ci s e th e re o f.
c onfe r ri ng po we r s o n ad m in ag enc ie s m u st b e li bera ll y Ac cord in gly, th e l ic en s e of Mak ati St oc k E x ch an ge i s ap p ro v ed
c onst ru ed to enab le the m to d isc ha rge t hei r a s s igned duti es in wi th ou t s u ch con d it ion aga in st d o u b l e li st in g .
ac c ord anc e wi th th e le g is lat ive pu rpo se.
Ca s e #1 : M A K AT I ST O CK EX C HA NG E , INC . , p et it i on er , v s.
Cas e # 2: R UNO M AT I EN ZO , G O DO FR E DO E S P IR IT U,
S EC UR IT I E S AN D EX CH A NG E C OM M I SS I ON a n d M AN IL A S TO C K
DIO S CO R RO F R AN C O , AN D L A S U ERT E
EX C HA NG E , r e sp o n d e n t s. [G .R . No . L- 2 30 04 . Ju n e 3 0, 1 96 5] - > T R AN S P O RT AT IO N CO R PO R AT IO N AN D L A SU E RT E
NO , th e S E C d o e s n o t h av e th e au th o r it y to p r om u l ga te th e T R AN S P O RT AT IO N CO R PO R AT IO N, p etit ion er s , v s. H O N .
r u le in q u es tio n . It i s fu n d am en t a l th a t an ad m i n is tr at i ve o fc er LEO PO LDO M . AB E LLE R A, ACT ING CH AI RM AN O F T HE
h as on l y su ch p o wer s a s ar e e xp r es s l y gr an t ed to h i m b y th e BO AR D HO N. L EO PO LDO M . AB E L LE R A, ACT I NG
CH AI RM AN O F T HE BO AR D O F T R AN S P O RT AT IO N, HO N.
sta tu te , an d th o se n ece ss ar i l y im p l ied in th e e x er ci se th er eo f .
G O DO F R EDO Q . AS UN CIO N, M EM BE R O F
T R AN S P O RT AT IO N , HO N . G O D O FR E DO Q . AS U N CIO N,
1. T e st fo r d et er m in in g th e e xi st en c e o f au th or i ty ― Th e M EM BER O F T H E B O AR D O F T R AN S P O RT AT IO N,
co m mi s si on cit e s n o p r o vi s ion of la w e xp r e s sly s u p p ort in g it s ART URO D EL A C RU Z, M S O F T H E B O ARD O F
ru l e a gai n st d ou b l e l i st i n g. It su gg e st s t h at th e p ow e r i s T R AN S P O RT AT IO N , ART URO D EL A C RU Z, M S
T R AN S P O RT AT IO N CO . , I NC ., N EW F AM ILI A
n ec e s sa ry for th e ex e cu tion of th e fu n c tio n s ve st ed in i t. It T R AN S P O RT AT IO N CO . , T R AN S P O RT AT I O N CO ., IN C. ,
argu e s t h at sa id ru l e wa s ap p ro v ed b y th e De p ar tm en t H ead NEW F AM I LI A T R AN S PO RT AT IO N CO ., R O B ERT O
b e for e th e war an d it i s n ot in co n f li ct w ith t h e p ro vi s ion s o f M O J AR E S , ET AL . R O B ERT O M O J AR E S , ET AL .,
th e S ecu ri ti e s A ct . Th e a p p ro va l o f th e D ep a rt m en t, b y i ts e lf , re sp ond ent s [ G . R. No . L- 4 58 3 9 Jun e 1 , 1 98 8] - > Y e s , th e
BO T hav e t he pow e r, at t he ti me th e pet it i ons w er e l ed, t o
ad d s n o w ei gh t in j u d i ci al l it iga tion . Th e t e st i s n ot wh eth er th e
leg iti miz e c la nd est in e o pe r ati on s u nde r P D no . 1 0 1.
Act f orb id s Co m mi s si on fro m i mp o s in g a p r oh ib i tion b u t
1) E x er ci s e o f t h e p o w er n ot su b j e ct t o th e all e g ed t i m e l i mita tio n .
wh eth er it e mp ow e r s th e Co m mi s s ion t o p r oh ib i t. It i s n ot
"A r ead i n g of S e cti on ! s h ow s a g ran t o f p o w er t o th e r e sp on d en t
fou n d in s e c. 28 (o f th e Se cu rit ie s A ct ), wh i ch i s en t it led
Boa rd to i s su e p ro vi s ion al p er m it s a s a st ep t ow ard s th e
"Po w e rs ( of th e Co m mi s si on ) w ith R e sp ec t to E x ch an ge s an d
le ga liz atio n o f col oru m taxi cab op era tor s w ith o u t th e a ll eg ed ti m e
Se cu rit ie s . " A cc ord in g t o m an y cou r t p r e ce d en t s, t h e g en er al
li mi tat ion . T h e r e i s n oth in g in Se ct ion 4 t o su g g e st t h e e xp i rat ion
p ow e r to " re gu l at e " wh i ch th e Co m m is s ion h a s ( Se c. 3 3) d o e s
of su ch p ow e r s si x ( 6 ) m on th s a ft er p ro mu lg ati o n of th e D e cr e e.
n ot i mp ly au th or ity to p roh ib it . "
Rath er , it m e re ly p ro vi d e s for th e wit h d ra w al o f th e St at e' s w ai v er
2. Co m mi s s ion w ith ou t p ow e r to i mp o s e p roh i b itio n ―T h e of it s r ig h t t o p u n is h sai d co loru m op era tor s fo r th e ir il l ega l a ct s .
Co m mi s s ion p o ss e s s e s n o p o w er t o i mp o se th e c on d it ion of th e In oth er word s, th e c it e d s e cti on d ec lar e s wh en th e p e ri od o f
ru l e wh i ch re s u lt s in d i s cri m in at ion an d v iol ati o n of mo rato riu m su s p en d in g th e r el en t le s s d ri v e to e li min at e i ll e gal
con st itu t ion a l r ig h t s. It is fu n d a m en ta l th at an ad m in i s trat i v e op e rato r s sh a ll en d .
of ce r h a s s u ch p o we r s a s a r e exp r e s s ly g ran t ed to h i m b y
4
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Cl ea rly, th er e i s n o i mp ed i m en t to th e B oard ' s ex er ci s e of ju d i cia l fu n c tio n s, th e la tte r i s th e p o w er an d au th or ity t o
ju ri sd ic tion u n d er it s b r oad p o w er s u n d er t h e P u b li c Se r vi c e A ct to ad ju d i cat e u p on t h e ri g h ts an d o b li ga tion s b e fo re it. Th e p o w er
is su e c ert ic at ed o f p u b l i c c on v en i en ce to ach ie v e th e a vo w ed to in v e st ig at e c on si st s o n ly o f i n ve s ti gat in g th e fa ct s an d
p u rp o s e o f PD N o. 10 1 mak in g n d i n g s a n d r e co m m en d at ion s th e r eto . I n ad min
p roc e ed in g s, r e sp on d en t h a s th e op ti on o f en ga gin g th e
It i s a se ttl ed p r in c ip l e of d et e rm in in g wh et h e r a b oa r d or s er v ic e s o f cou n s e l or n ot.
co m mi s si on h a s a ce rta i n p o we r, th e au th o ri ty g iv en s h ou l d b e
lib era lly co n stru ed in t h e l ig h t o f t h e p u rp o se s f or wh i ch it wa s 4) As d i st in gu is h ed fr o m ju d ic ia l fu n c tio n s – It s p ow e r i s
cr eat ed an d th at wh ich i s in c id en ta lly n e c e s sary to a fu l l li mi ted to in v e sti gat in g th e fa ct s an d mak in g n d in g s an d
imp l e me n tat ion of th e l eg i sla ti v e in t en t sh ou ld b e u p h e ld a s b e in g re co m m en d at ion s .
ge r man e t o th e la w. N e ce s sa ri ly , t oo, wh er e th e en d i s r eq u ir ed ,
th e ap p r op ri at e m ean s are d ee m ed gi v en . An a ge n cy can on ly co m p el att en d a n c e an d p r e s en c e o f
wi tn es s e s an d p u n i sh fo r co n t em p t in c a se o f n o n - co mp l ian c e i f
su ch p o w er s h a v e b e en con f err ed u p on it. In ad min
p roc e ed in g s, t ech n ic al r u le s o f p r oc ed u re an d e vi d en c e a re n ot
A. In ve st i gat or y p o wer s – Th i s i s on e o f th e d i st in ct i v e req u ir ed .
fu n cti on s wh i ch s et ad m in i st rat i ve ag en ci e s a p a rt fro m th e
cou r t, th i s p o w er i s con f err ed on p rac ti cal ly a ll ad m in i s trat i v e
ag en c i e s.
1. Scop e: a) in sp ec tion of re co rd s an d p r e mi s e s ; b )
in ve s ti gat ion o f th e ac ti vi ti e s o f p e r son s o r en ti ti es co m in g Ca se #3 : PAB L O C A T UR A an d LUZ S A LV A D OR , p e titi o n er s,
u n d e r it s ju r i sd i ct ion ; c ) or s ecu rin g, re q u i rin g t h e d i sc lo su r e of v s. T H E CO UR T OF IN D U ST RI A L R E LA T ION S an d CE L E ST IN O
in f or mat ion b y m ean s o f r e cor d s , r ep o rt s, st at e m en t s, TAB A NI AG , et al . , r e sp o n d en t s . [ G. R. N o. L- 2 73 92 . Jan u a ry 30,
19 71 ] - > Y E S, th e r esp o n d en t Cou r t c an r eq u ir e a lab or
te st i mon y of w itn e s s e s an d p ro d u c tion o f d o cu m en t s.
or gan i zat ion ’ s d ocu m en ts r e l ated t o its n an c es b e d e li v er ed a n d
2) As so le p ow er s gr an t ed – ac t me r ely a s in v e s tig ator y or d ep os ited w ith it at th e h ear in g to con d u ct su c h in ve st i gat ion
ad v i sory b od ie s, th a t i s, th ey e xi st sol e ly to s e c u re an d p ro vi d e wit h ou t th e o fc ia l s o f s u ch l ab or or g an i za tio n b ein g h ear d p r ior to
in f or mat ion or ma ke r ec om m en d a tio n s . it s is su an ce. Th e p o w er to in v e st ig at e, to b e ra t ion a l at th e v ery
le as t, r eq u ir e s a n in q u ir y in to e xi st in g f ac ts an d con d iti on s.
3) As a id t o oth er p o we r s – In it s gath e rin g, o rg an iz in g an d
an alyz in g ev id en ce, it n ow b e co m e s a u s e fu l ai d or t ool in th e Se c. 1 7 o f th e In d u st ria l Pe ac e Ac t stat e s th at m e mb er s
ag en cy’ s p er for m an c e o f i t s ru l e- m akin g o r q u a si - ju d i cia l sh a ll b e en tit l ed to in sp ec t th e rep ort s o f al l n a n cia l t ran sa ct ion s
fu n cti on s ( e g., L TF R B r e Ub er, G rab Ca r, E RC r e p ri ce as p ro v id ed in th e c on st itu t ion an d b y -l aw s o f t h e o rg an iz ati on ;
th at fu n d s of th e o rgan i zati on sh a ll n ot b e ap p l i ed fo r an y p u rp o s e ;
man ip u l ati on o f p o we r p rod u ce r s , et c. ). A s d i s t in gu i sh ed fro m
an d th a t r ec ord s of th e n an c ial act i vi ti e s o f a l e git i mat e lab o r
5
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
orga n iz ati on sh a ll b e op en in sp ect ion b y an y of c ial or m e mb er of a. T he s ta tu t e is c om pl e t e i n i ts e lf , s e tt i ng f or t h th e p o l ic y
th e lab o r o rg an iz ati on . to b e ex ec ut ed b y th e ag e nc y.
Th e Cou rt ju s t ex er ci s ed it s sta tu to ry p o w er o f i n v e st iga tion b. T he s ta tu t e x es a s t an dar d a n d x es t he b o un dar i es of

to in v e st ig at e an d to a s su r e co mp lia n c e, on th e p art of p etit ion e rs , th e a ge nc y’ s a ut h or it y.
wi th th e in t ern al lab o r orga n iz ati on p r oc ed u re s . A ll t h at t h e
ch al l en g ed ord er d id w a s t o r eq u ir e p et iti on er s of t h e lab or to A val id ru l e o r r e gu l ati o n d u ly p ro mu lga ted b y a n
"d el i ve r an d d ep o si t" w i th r e sp on d en t C ou rt al l of it s d o cu m en t s ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy h as th e f or c e an d e f fe ct of la w an d i s
re lat ed t o i t s n an c e s at th e h e arin g.
b in d in g o n th e a g en cy a n d al l th o s e d ea li n g w it h th e ag en cy.
Th er e for e, th er e sh o u ld b e n o q u e st ion ab ou t t h e
cor re ctn e s s o f th e or d e r h er e in ch al l en g ed . It ca n n ot b e sa id th at An ad m in i st rat i ve ag en c y may mak e on ly r u l e s a n d r egu lat ion s
su ch a r eq u i re m en t i s b ey on d th e sta tu to ry p o w er con f er re d . Th e wi th in th e l i mit s o f th e p ow e r s g ran t ed to it b y th e la w
d ocu m en t s re q u i red to b e p rod u c ed c on sti tu t e s e vi d en c e o f t h e cr eat in g it an d in c a se o f con fl ict b et we en th e b as ic la w a n d th e
mo st s ol id ch ar act e r a s to wh eth er or n ot th e re wa s a fai lu r e to ru l e o r r e gu la tion , th e f or me r p r e va il s . R u l e p ro mu l ga tion o f
co mp ly w ith th e man d a t e s o f th e la w. ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n c ie s can n o t o v er rid e, su p p la n t, mod i fy or
am en d th e la w b u t mu st re m ain con s i st en t w ith th e la w t h ey
B . Ru le - m ak in g p o wer s in t en d t o c arry ou t .
1. Ba si c p rin cip l e s -L e gi sl ati v e an d i n t erp r eta ti v e ru l e s - Th e p o w e r to cr ea te n e w

an d ad d iti on al p ro v i si on s th at h a ve th e ef f e ct o f la w i s
-D oc tri n e o f se p ara tio n of p o we r s le gi s lat i ve w h i le in t e rp r eta ti v e ru l e s in te rp r et e xi st in g la w s an d
p ro vid e gu i d e lin e s to th e l a w th a t th ey in t erp r e t (r en d e rin g o f
-D oc tri n e o f n on -d el e ga tion of p o w er s an op i n ion , stat e m en t o f p o li cy ). Th e d i st in c ti on i s i mp or tan t
b ec au s e d u e p r oc e s s g e n er all y ap p ly to l eg i sl ati v e ru lin g s.
-D oc tri n e o f n on -d el e ga tion n ot ab s olu te
Le gi s lat i ve ru l e s m ay r e q u ir e n o ti c e an d h e ari n g i f t h e la w so
-N e ed for d e l ega tio n req u ir e s a n d th e ru l e a d d s a b u rd en to t h e go v e rn ed .
Pu b l ica tion i s a l so r eq u i red f or le gi s lat i v e ru lin g s ex c ep t if th ey
Ru l e ma kin g p o w er s i mp ly me an s th e p o we r to mak e ru l e s a n d are in t e rn al r eg u lat ion s .
re gu l ati on s n ec e s sa ry to car ry ou t i ts f u n ct ion s an d to
imp l e me n t th e la w it i s en t ru st ed to e n f or ce . I t is al so ca ll ed
ad m in i s trat i v e l e gi sl ati o n , d e l ega te d l e gi sl ati on , ord i n an c e
1.) Ef fe ct o f va l id r u le s o r r egu l at ion s
mak in g an d q u a si - le gi s l ation . Th e st atu to ry gr an t o f r u l e -
mak in g p o w er to ad m in i st rat i ve ag en ci e s i s a va lid ex c ep t ion on a. Th e ru l e s an d r egu lat ion s mu st h a ve b ee n i s s u ed o n th e
n on -d e l ega tion o f l e gi s l ati v e p o w er p ro v id ed 2 con d iti on s ar e au th or ity of la w
p re s en t n a m ely :
6
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
b . Th ey mu st n ot b e con trary to la w an d th e Con st itu t ion (c ) W h e r e ad mi n i st rat i v e b od i e s ex er ci s e re gu la tory o r q u a s i -
le gi s lat i ve p o w er, lay in g d ow n ru l es an d r egu lat i on s, e v en
c. Th ey mu st b e p ro m u l gat ed in a cc ord an c e wi t h th e p r e sc rib ed sp ec ic ord e r s to b e ob s e rv ed b y p er son s s u b j ec t th e re to, t h e
p roc ed u r e d oct rin e o f r e s ju d ica ta is n ot ap p l ic ab l e. Su ch r u le s an d
re gu l ati on s, o r or d e r s m ay b e a m en d ed , mod i ed , or re v ok ed to
d . Th ey mu st b e re a son a b le , f ai r an d n ot d i sc ri m in ato ry
con for m to t h e r eq u i r e m en t s o f th e la w or th e d e man d s of
e. Th ey mu s t b e wi th in t h e p o w e r s g ran t ed to it b y la w p u b li c i n t er e st. Bu t e ve n th ou gh an ad min i str at iv e ag en cy i s n ot
b ou n d b y th e ru le o f r e s ju d i cata , it i s b ou n d t o re co gn iz e th e
va lid ity o f a ru l e o f con d u ct p r es cr ib ed b y it, a n d n ot t o r ep ea l
it s o wn en a ct m en t w ith ret roa ct i ve e f f ec t.
2.) A m en d m en t/Rep ea l o f a d m i n i str at iv e r u le s an d r e gu lat ion s
(d ) In t h e ca s e o f p ro c e d u ral ru l e s, it i s o ft en e xp ed it iou s fo r an
- > A n ad mi n i st rat i ve ag en c y or d in a ri ly h a s th e au th or ity to
ag en cy to ign or e a c ert a in ru l e in a p a rti cu lar ca s e an d ad op t
ch an ge , al te r, a m en d , o r co rr e ct th e ru l e s a n d r egu lat ion s d u ly
th e re in a d i f fe r en t p ro c ed u r e th an th at con te m p lat ed b y th e
p ro mu l gat ed b y i t. Th e f act th at an ad m in i st rat i v e ru l e h a s b e en
ag en cy’ s ru le .
am en d ed d o es n ot n e c e s sa rily me an th at th e ea rli er ru le wa s
u n re a son ab l e. Sin c e i t i s d i sc re tion ary w ith su c h an a ge n cy > o f cou r se, th e p a rti e s may v olu n tar ily w ai v e c omp lia n c e w ith
wh eth er it w il l ta ke su c h act ion , th e ex er ci s e of su ch d i sc re tion p roc ed u ra l ru le s , an d su ch wai v e r may b e fou n d ed on a ct s a s
in th e p u b li c in t er e st i s n ot su b j e ct t o ju d ic ial c on tro l. w el l a s u p on v erb al d e cl arat ion s.
(a) In ord er to b e va lid , a ch an g e i n a re gu lat ion mu st b e mad e > si m ila rly , d i s re ga rd o f m in u ti a e o f p r oc ed u ral n ic et ie s w il l b e
in a cco rd an c e wit h stat u tory p ro ce d u ra l r eq u ir e m en t s , su ch a s tol era te d , wh er e it cl ea rly ap p e ar s n o p r eju d i ce re su lt ed .
req u ir e m en t s w ith re sp ec t to n ot ic e a n d h ear in g a s w el l a s w ith
re sp e ct t o th e vo te n e c e s sary to ma ke a ch an ge . > so too, i f i t c an b e sh o wn t h at a p ar ti cu l ar ru l e wa s
e stab li sh ed s ol ely f or t h e a g en cy’ s sol e con v en i en c e, it m ay b e
(b ) A s a g en er al p rac ti c e, an ad mi n i st rat iv e ru l e sh ou ld n ot b e wa i ve d b y th e ag en cy
am en d ed s o a s t o ef f ec t a r etr oa cti v e ch an g e, a n d th e r igh ts o f
a p e r son a cq u ir ed b e fo r e th e am en d m en t o f a r u le h a v e b e en > a t th e op p o sit e e xtr e m e, i t i s cl e ar th at a n a gen cy w il l n ot b e
h el d d et er mi n ab l e u n d e r th e p r o vi s ion s o f su ch ru l e p r io r to p er m itt ed to ad op t a sp ec ia l ru le o f p r oc ed u re f or th e p u rp o s e
su ch a m en d m en t . Ho w e v er, wh e re an a d m in is tr ati v e r e gu la tio n of a f f ec tin g th e ou t co m e o f a p ar ti cu l ar ca s e, o r ( w ith a
wh i ch p u rp o rt s t o in te r p re t a st atu t e b u t i s ou t of h ar mon y con sc iou s d e s ir e t o ward s th e en d ) w il lfu lly to ig n or e a ru l e in a
th e re w ith i s a m en d ed s o a s to co rr e ctly ap p ly s u ch sta tu t e, p arti cu lar ca s e. Bu t in c as e s wh er e th e r ec ord c le arly
su ch a m en d m en t h a s b e en h el d n ot su b j ec t to t h e ob j ect ion of e stab li sh e s t h at d i sr e ga rd o f an ag en cy’ s p roc e d u ral ru l e s cou ld
b ei n g re tro act i v e, sin c e it i s, in fa ct, th e r st co rr ec t ap p li cat ion n ot h a v e p re ju d i c ed an y p arty to th e p ro c ee d in g , th e d ep ar tu r e
of t h e la w . fro m p r e sc rib ed p ro c ed u re s i s n o t fata l.
7
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
-c o mp l ian ce w ith d u e p r oc e s s (n oti c e an d h ear i n g) for a p a rt icu lar s ch o ol y ear ), n o p r e v iou s n oti c e or h ea rin g i s
req u ir ed .
-n o r etr oac ti v ity
(c ) W h e r e ru le s ap p ly to n am ed or sp e ci ed p art i e s – wh er e su ch
-n o t b ou n d b y th e d oc tr in e o f r e s ju d i cata ru l e s an d /o r ra te s ap p l y ex cl u s i v ely to a p ar ti cu lar p arty an d
are p r ed ica te d u p on a n d in g of f ac t ( e g b a s ed u p on a rep ort
su b m itt ed b y th e Co m mi s si on on Au d it ), wh i ch f act i s d en i ed b y
3.) Req u ir em en t s o f No tic e, h ear in g an d p u b l ic at ion sa id p a rty, th e ag en cy i n ma kin g su ch n d in g o f fa ct, p er f or m s a
fu n cti on p a rtak in g o f a q u as i -ju d ic ial ch ara ct er th e v ali d
(a) Gen e ral ly, p rio r n o ti ce an d h ea rin g a r e n ot e s s en ti al to th e ex er ci s e of w h i ch d e ma n d s a p r e v iou s n o ti c e an d h ea rin g t o
va lid ity o f ru l e s an d r e g u lat ion s p ro mu l gat ed to go v ern fu tu r e sat i s fy th e req u ir e m en t of d u e p ro c e ss .
con d u ct. Qu a s i l e gi s lat i v e p o w er i s ex e rc i sed b y ad min is tra ti v e
ag en c i e s th r ou g h th e p r omu lg ati on o f r u l e s wi t h in th e con n e s (d ) Wh er e re q u i re m en t s p re s cr ib ed b y la w – u n d er th e
of t h e g ran t in g s tatu e a n d th e d o ctr in e o f n on - d el e gat ion of Ad min i stra ti v e Cod e of 19 87, n ot ic e s o f p rop o s ed r u l e s mu st b e
ce rta in p o w e rs f lo w in g f ro m th e s ep a rat ion o f t h e th r ee gi v en wh en re q u ir ed b y la w; oth er w i se , su ch n o tic e s sh a ll b e
b ran c h e s o f th e go v ern m en t. Pr io r n ot ic e an d h ear in g o f e v ery cir cu lat ed a s f ar a s p ra c tic ab l e t o a f ford in t e re s ted p art i e s th e
af f ect ed p ar ty i s n ot re q u ir ed s in c e t h e r e i s n o d et er m in at ion op p ort u n ity to su b m it t h ei r vi e w s p rio r t o th e a d op ti on o f an y
of p a st e v en t s o r fac t s t h at h a v e t o b e e stab li sh ed o r ru l e. Bu t an y ru l e wh ich xe s rat e s sh al l n ot b e v alid u n l e s s th e
as c erta in ed . p rop o s ed rat e s sh a ll h a v e b e en p u b li sh ed an d h ear in g s
con d u ct ed w ith th e ru l e s o n c on t e st ed ca s es to b e ob s e r ve d in
(b ) Wh er e ru l e s d o n ot ap p ly t o n a m ed or sp e ci ed p a rt ie s – ca s e o f op p o sit ion .
wh er e a f u n ct ion , l eg i sl ati v e in n atu r e, r ath er t h an a ju d i cia l
fu n cti on , i s d e l eg at ed t o an ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy, th e (e ) Wh er e ru l e s h a v e t h e for c e an d e f f ec t o f l a w – is s u an c e s b y
le gi s latu re n ee d n ot r eq u ir e a n oti c e o r h ear in g as a an ad min i str ati v e ag en c y to en for c e o r i mp le m e n t an ex i sti n g
p re re q u i s it e to th e a ct of t h e ad min i str ati v e ag en c y, sin c e th e la w h a v e th e f orc e an d e ff e ct o f la w.
le gi s latu re c ou ld it s el f h av e p e rf or m ed th at a ct wi th ou t n ot ic e
(f ) Wh er e r e gu la tio n s m er el y in te rp r et ati v e a n d in t ern al in
an d h ear in g p ar ti cu la rly wh er e th e ru le s ar e o f a g en era l
n atu r e – in t erp re tat i ve re gu l ati on s an d th o s e m er el y in te rn a l in
ap p li cat ion , or p ro c ed u r al in n atu r e, o r ar e n o mo re th an
n atu r e, t h at i s, r e gu l ati n g on ly th e p e r son n el o f th e
ad m in i s trat i v e in te rp r et ation s . Th u s, it h as b ee n h e ld th at wh en
ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy a n d n ot t h e p u b l ic , n ee d n ot b e
th e ru l e s, e v en wh en th ey i n vol v e th e x in g of ra te s, ar e m ean t
p u b li sh ed . N eit h e r i s p u b li cat ion req u ir ed o f so - cal l ed l et te r s o f
to ap p ly to al l en t erp ri s e s o f a g i ven kin d th rou gh ou t th e
in stru ct ion s is su ed b y a d mi n i st rat i ve s u p eri or s con ce rn in g t h e
Ph il ip p in es ( e g DE C S O r d er p r e sc rib in g th e ma xi mu m s ch o o l
ru l e s o r gu id el in e s to b e fo llo w ed b y th ei r su b o r d in at e s in th e
f ee s th at m ay b e ch ar g e d b y al l p ri vat e s ch o ol s in th e cou n t ry
p er fo r man ce o f th ei r d u ti es .
8
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Ca s e # 4: KI LU S AN G M AY O U NO L AB O R wit h s uc h a p ro cedu re a nd a l lo w just on e p art y , an in te rest ed pa rty
CE NT E R, p et i t io n er , v s . HO N . J E SU S B . G ARC I A, JR ., th e at th at , t o de te rm ine what the r ate shou l d b e w i ll un de rm ine the
L AN D T R AN S P O RT AT IO N FR AN C H I SI NG AND R EG UL AT O RY ri ght o f th e ot her pa rt i es to due pr oc ess . Th e p u rp o s e o f a h ear in g
BO AR D , and th e P RO VI NC I AL BU S O P ER AT O RS is p r ec is e ly to d et er m in e wh a t a ju st an d rea s on ab le rat e i s .
AS S O C I AT IO N O F T H E P HI LI P PI N E S, r es p o nd e nts . [G .R . No . Di s card in g su ch p r oc e d u ral a n d con s titu tio n al ri gh t is c ert ain ly
11 5 38 1 D ec e mb er 2 3 , 1 9 94] - > No , t h e a ut hor it y g iv en b y in i mi ca l to ou r fu n d a m e n tal la w an d to p u b l ic in ter e st .
LT FRB and D O T C t o PB O AP t o in c re a se /d ec r e as e t he f ar e
w it hout app li c at io n w it h LT FRB an d w itho ut h ea r ing a nd Aga in , u n d er th e Se ct io n 16 ( a) o f Pu b li c S er v ic e A ct, th er e mu st b e
app rov al i s n ot v al id .
p rop er n ot ic e an d h ea ri n g in th e xi n g o f rat e s, t o arri v e at a ju s t an d
Se ct ion 16 ( c) of th e Pu b li c S e r vi ce A ct, a s a me n d ed , r ead s : S ec. 1 6. rea s on ab le r at e ac c ep ta b le t o b oth th e p u b l ic u til ity an d th e p u b l ic .
Pr o ce ed in g s o f th e Co m m i ss io n , u p o n n o t ice an d h ear in g. — The
Co m m i ss ion sha ll ha ve po we r, u po n p ro pe r no tic e a n d he a ring in
ac c o rd anc e wit h the ru l es a n d p ro vi s io n s o f thi s Ac t, subjec t hea rin g C. Ad j u d i cator y p ower s
in ac c o rdanc e w ith th e r ule s a n d p ro vi sio ns o f th is Ac t, subjec t to the
lim itat ion s an d exc ept i o ns m ent io ned a n d sa vi ng p rov i sion s to th e Oth er wi s e kn o wn a s q u a si - ju d i cia l fu n cti on , it i s a t er m wh ich
lim itat ion s an d exc ept i o ns m ent io ned a n d sa vi ng p rov i sion s to th e ap p li e s to th e act ion s, d is cr et ion , e t., of p u b l ic ad m in i s trat i v e
c o ntr a ry : of ce r s o r b od i es th a t ar e r eq u ir ed to in ve s ti gat e fa ct s, a s c ert ain
xxx th e e xi st en c e o f fa ct s, h old h ea rin g s an d d ra w c on cl u s ion s f ro m
(c ) To x a n d d e t er min e in d i vid u al o r joi n t ra te s, t oll s, ch ar g e s,
th e m as a b a s i s for th ei r of ci al a ct ion an d to e x e rci s e d i sc r eti on
cla s s ica tio n s , or sch ed u le s th er e of, a s w el l a s c om mu t ati on ,
mi l eag e ki lo m etr ag e, an d oth er sp e ci al rat e s w h ich sh al l b e of j u d i cia l n a tu r e. A go v ern m en t ag en cy p er fo r m s ad ju d i cat ory
imp o s ed , ob s er v ed , an d fo ll ow ed th er ea ft er b y an y p u b li c fu n cti on s wh en i t r en d e rs d e ci s ion s or a w ard s t h at d et er m in e
s er v ic e : Pr o v id ed , T h at t h e Co m m i s sion may, in i ts d i s cr et ion , th e ri gh t s of ad v er sa ria l p art ie s w h i ch h a v e t h e sa m e b in d in g
ap p ro v e r at e s p r op o s ed b y p u b l ic s e r vi ce s p ro v is ion ally an d e ff e ct a s a ju d g m en t of a cou rt of la w t h at e v en th e cou rt s of
wi th ou t n e c e s sity of an y h ea rin g; but it s ha l l c al l a hea r ing ju s ti ce h a v e to r e sp ect .
ther eon w ith in t hi rt y d ays t her ea fte r , up on p u bl i cat ion and
not ic e to the co nce rn s o per at ing in the te rr it or y a ff ec ted … a. Ex t e nt /L im it a ti o n ( p p. 23 1- 2 35 , De Le o n)
Gi v en th e c o mp l ex ity of th e n atu re o f th e fu n ct ion o f rat e -x in g an d D ep en d s l ar ge ly on e n a b lin g a ct a n d th e gran t of p o we r mu st

it s f ar -r ea ch i n g e ff e ct s on m il lio n s o f co m mu te rs, go v er n m en t mu st b e fou n d in th e la w it s el f.
n ot r el in q u i sh th i s i mp o rtan t fu n cti on in fa vo r of th os e wh o wo u ld
b en et an d p r ot f ro m t h e in d u s try . N ei the r s hou ld the req ui si te 1) A s t at ut e p as s e d b y C on gr es s m us t b e c l e ar i n i ts t erm s
not ic e a nd hea r ing be d one awa y w ith . The peo ple , r ep rese nted b y wh e n c l ot h in g a dm in is tra t i ve b o d ies wi th qu a s i- j u d ic i al
rep utab le oppo si to rs , dese rve t o be g iv en f u l l opp ort un it y to be
f unc t i o ns , a n d s uc h c o nf erm en t c an n ot b e im p li e d f rom
hea rd in the i r op pos it io n to a ny fa re i nc re ase .
a m ere gra nt of p o wer to a bo d y or a g enc y.
Th e p r e s en t a d m in i s tra ti ve p ro c ed u r e, a lr ead y mi rro r s an o rd erly
2) T he de l e ga t io n b y C o n gres s t o ex ec ut i v e or
an d s ati s fa cto ry a rran g e m en t for all p ar ti e s in vo l ve d . To do aw ay
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc i e s of f u nc ti o ns of j u d ic i a l, or a t
9
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
l eas t q uas i- j ud ic i a l f u n c ti o ns wh ic h ar e i nc id en t al t o t he sepa ra tion o f p ow er s o f g ove rn ment al so ope r ates to re st ric t the
ex erc is e b y s uc h a g en c i es of t h eir exe rc i se o f j udic ial func tion s to admi ni st rat iv e agenc ie s. S inc e the
ex ec u ti v e /a dm in is tr a t i v e p o wer s is n o t a v i o l at i on of t he legi sl atu re c annot ex erc i se jud ic ia l func tio ns, it c e r tain l y i s
doc tr in e of s e par a ti o n of p o wer s . prec lu d e d f rom dele ga ting t he exe rc i se o f j udic ia l func t ion s to
admin is t rat ive agenc i es o r o fc e r s.
Whi le the leg is latu r e i s powe r le ss to c on fe r pu r ely o r st r ic tl y ju dic ial

Ca se #5 : B I L L M IL L ER , p eti tio n er -ap p el le e , v s . AT AN A CI O A . powe r s, f unc t ion s, a nd dutie s to a n a dmi ni st rat ive agenc y, it, b y n o
M AR D O , an d M AN U EL G ONZ A LE S , r e sp on d en ts - ap p e ll an t s. mean s, fol lo w s th at it m a y n o t pe rfo r m func t i ons w hic h a re in t hei r
G.R . No . L -1 51 38 [ Ju l y 3 1, 1 96 1] - > Y E S, th e Reo r gan i zat ion P lan natu re, ju dic ial, a n d po s se ss a n d e xe rc i se qu as i -j udic ia l po we r s. It i s
N o . 20 - A , in s of ar a s co n fer s ju d ic i a l p o w er to t h e Re g ion a l O fce s rec og nize d tha t s ome j udic ia l po we r s m a y b e c onfe r red u p o n a nd
over ca ses oth er th an t h ese f al l in g u n d er th e Wor km en 's exe rc i sed b y a dmi ni st rat ive a genc i es w itho ut vio l ating c on stit utio nal
Co m p en sat ion o n Law , i n va l id an d o f n o ef fec t. Th e " fu n ct i on s" p o we r s inhi bit ing the "d elegat ion " o f j udic ial po we r.
re f er red to in R. A. N o. 1 24 1 wh i ch cou ld th u s b e cr eat ed , ob v iou sly
re f er m er e ly to ad min i st rati v e, n ot ju d i ci al fu n ct ion s. Fo r th e Howe ve r, the jud ic ia l po we r w hic h ma y b e e xe rc i se s b y
Go v ern m en t Su r v ey an d R eor gan izat ion Co m m i s si on wa s cr ea ted to admin is t rat ive agenc ie s is a re st r ic ted one, li mite d to what i s
car ry ou t th e r eo rg an i za tion of th e E x e cu t iv e B r an ch of th e inc ide nta l a n d r ea sona bly nec e ss a ry to th e prop er a n d efc ient
N ation al G o ve rn m en t w h ich p la in ly d id n ot in c l u d e t h e c re ati on o f admin is t rat ion o f the stat ute s tha t a re c om mitte d to the m fo r
cou r t s. admin is t rat ion.
It may b e con c ed ed th at th e l e gi sl atu r e may con f er on ad mi n i st rat iv e O f c o ur se, a rb it ra r y po we r s o r unc o nt rol led di sc ret ion m a y no t b e
b oard s or b od ie s q u a s i -ju d ic ia l p o w er s in v ol vi n g th e e x er ci s e o f c onfe r red u pon adm in is t rat ive agenc i es e ithe r in the exe rc ise o f ru le -
ju d g m en t an d d i sc re ti on , as in c id en t to t h e p er for m an c e o f making o r adj utic ato ry f unc tion s .
ad m in i s trat i v e fu n ct ion s . Bu t in so d o in g, th e l e gi sl atu r e mu st s tat e
it s in t en t ion in exp r es s t er m s th at wou ld l ea v e n o d ou b t , a s e v en ---
su ch q u as i -ju d ic ial p r er ogat i v e s mu st b e li m it e d , i f th ey ar e t o b e
va lid , on ly t o th o se i n cid en t al to or in co n n e cti on w ith th e
p er fo r man ce o f j u ri sd ic tion o v er a mat te r ex cl u s iv e ly v e st ed in th e Ca s e #6 : PH IL E X M INING CO R PO R AT IO N , pe t it i on er , vs . L UZ
cou r t s. M . Z AL D I VI A a nd T HE S E CR ET ARY O F AG RI CULT U RE AN D
N AT UR AL R E SO UR C E S, r es p o nd e nts . [G .R . N o. L- 29 6 69
If a st atu t e it s el f a ctu a l ly p a s s ed b y th e Con gr e s s mu st b e c l ear in Feb ru a r y 2 9 , 1 97 2]
it s t er m s wh e n cl oth in g ad min i str ati v e b od i e s wit h q u a si -j u d i cia l Th e m in i n g c on tr ov er s y i nv o lv es c o n trac t ua l re la t io ns b et w ee n
fu n cti on s, th en c ert ain l y su ch con f er m en t c an n ot b e i mp li ed fro m a th e l i ti g an ts - > NO , th e Di r ect or of M ine s d oe s n ot h av e
m er e gran t o f p o w er to a b od y su ch a s th e Go v ern m en t Su r vey an d jur i sdi ct ion ov e r th e cont rov ert ed i s su es .
Re or gan i zat ion Co m mi s s ion to cr e at e " fu n ct ion s " in con n e ct ion wi th
(1) Is s u e i n vo l v es pur e q ues t io n of l a w - - - - “ T h e s o l e is s ue
th e r eor gan izat ion of th e E x e cu t i ve B ran ch o f th e Go v ern m en t.
ra is e d b y P h il ex is a pur e q ues t io n of la w. T here is n o
RA TI O: Re st r ic tio n o n gran t o f ju dic ial po we r. T he doc t r ine o f qu es ti o ns of f ac t no r m att ers r eq u ir in g t ec h n o lo g ic a l
k no wle d ge an d ex p e ri enc e. T h e is s u e is o n e to be
10
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
res e r ve d in c onf or m in g wi t h le g a l r u l es a n d s t an d ards (4) Q u es t i on pres e nt e d i n Ph i l ex M i ni n g ’s a d ve rs e c l a im is
go v er n in g t he po we r of a n a g en t, wi th le g a l r u les an d j ud ic i al in na t ure .
s ta n dar ds g o v er ni n g t he po we r of a n a g en t, an d t h e l a w’s
res tr ic t io ns u po n t h e l a tt er ’s r i gh t t o ac t f or h is o wn
ex c lus i v e b en e t wh i l e th e a ge nc y i s i n f orc e . D ec is i o n of
Pow er s o f ad m in istr at i v e a gen c ie s
s uc h q ues t io ns in v o l v e s t h e i n ter pr et at i o n a n d a p pl ic at i o n
of th e l a ws a nd n or m s of j us t ic e es t ab l is he d b y s oc i et y ▪ Ex pres s an d Im pl i ed P o wers – t he j uris d ic t i o n
an d c o ns t i tu tes e s s e nt i a ll y a n ex erc is e of t he j u d ic i a l an d p o wers of a dm in is tra t i ve a g e nc i es ar e
po we r wh ic h u n der t he Co ns t i tu t io n is ex c l us i ve l y m eas ur ed a n d l im it ed b y th e C ons t it ut i o n or l a w
a ll oc at e d t o t he S up r em e C o ur t a nd s uc h c our ts as t he c rea t in g t h em or gra n t i ng t h eir po we rs , t o th os e
Le g is la t ure m a y e s t a bl is h, a n d o ne t h at m in i n g of c i a ls ar e c onf erre d ex pr es s l y or b y n ec es s ar y o r f a ir
i l l- e q u ip p ed t o d ea l wi th . im pl ic at i on . It m us t b e l i b era l l y c o ns tr u e d t o
en a b le t h em to d is c ha rge t h e ir as s ig n ed du t i es i n
(2) J ud ic i a l po wer n o t c on f er r e d up o n D ir ec tor o f Mi n es . - - - -
ac c or d a nc e wi th t h e l e g is l a ti v e p ur pos e .
“W e s ee n ot h i ng in S e c . 6 1 a nd 73 of t h e M i n i ng La w t ha t
i nd ic at es a l eg is l at i v e i nt en t to c o nf er r e a l j u d ic i a l p o wer ✓ Co ns t i tu t io n – c r ea tes an d em po we rs an
up o n t h e D ir ec t or of M i nes . T he v er y t erm s of Sec . 7 3 i n adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y thr o ug h a pr o v is io n ’
req u ir i ng th at th e a d v er s e c l a im m us t s t at e i n f u l l de ta i l
th e na tu re , bo u nd ar i e s an d ex t e nt of t he a d vers e c l a im ✓ St a tu tes un d er wh ic h adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y
s ho w th at t h e c o nf l ic t s to b e d ec i d ed b y re as o n of s uc h c l aim s t o ac t – s o urc e an d p o wers of a n
ad v ers e c la im r ef er p r im ar i l y to q u es t i ons of f ac t. T h e adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y
c on tr o vers i es t o b e s u bm it te d a n d res o l v ed b y t he
Dir ec tor of M i nes u n de r t he s ec t io ns r ef er , th eref ore , o nl y ▪ In h ere nt P o wers – A n adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y has
to t h e o v er la p p in g c l a im s , a nd a dm in is tr at i v e m at ter s no in h er en t p o wers , it has im pl i ed p o wers
i nc i d en t al t h er et o” . i ns t ea d .
(3) A d vers e c la im n ot wi t h in t h e ex ec u t i ve or a dm in is tr a ti v e
au t hor i t y of t h e m in i n g d ir ec t or to r es o l v e. - - - - ‘ P h il ex
M in i n g ’s ad v er s e c l a im is n ot on e gr ou n de d o n B. Sc op e of A dm in is tr a ti v e A ge nc i es
o ver l a pp i n g of c l a im s nor is it a m in i ng c o nf l i c t aris i n g ou t
▪ As t o Na tu re :
of m in in g l oc at i ons bu t on e or i g in at i n g f rom t he a l l eg e d
duc i ar y or c o ntr ac t u a l r el a ti o ns h i p b e t wee n Ph i l ex a n d ✓ In v es t i g at i v e or A d v is or y
Sc ho l e y a n d h is tr a ns f er e es , Za l d i v ia an d Yr as t or za . As
s uc h , t he ad v er s e c l a im is n o t wi t h in th e ex ec u ti v e o r ❖ Ex ec u t i ve
adm i n is tr at i v e a ut hor i t y o f t h e m i ni n g d irec t or to s o l v e,
bu t i n t ha t of t h e c o ur t s . ❖ A dm in is tr at i v e
11
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
✓ Q u as i- l e g is l a ti v e ✓ A id t o o th er p o wers – ga t her i n g, or g an i zi n g
an d a n al yzi n g e v id e nc es
✓ Ru l e m ak in g
✓ Dis t in g u is h e d f rom j u d ic ia l p o wers –
✓ Q u as i- j u d ic i a l i n ves t ig at i n g th e f ac ts a n d m ak in g n di n gs
an d rec om m enda t io ns
✓ De ter m i na t i ve
✓ A dj u d ic a t or y
▪ Q u as i- l e g is l a ti v e (R u l e - m ak ing )
▪ As t o De gr ee of S u bj e c ti v e C ho ic e:
✓ De n it i on – ag e nc y pr o c es s f or f orm ul a t in g,
✓ Dis c r e ti o n ar y – d ic t at e s of th e ir o wn
am end i n g, a l ter i n g, re v is in g , or r e pe a l i ng
j ud gm en t an d c o ns c ie nc e
r u les , r e gu l at i o ns a nd pr ior is s u a nc es
✓ M in is ter i a l – i n r es p on s e to a du t y wh ic h wh ic h ar e i nc o ns is t e nt .
has be e n pos i t i ve l y im pos e d b y l a w an d i ts
✓ Na tur e – p o wer t o m ak e r u les an d
per f or m anc e is r e qu ir e d at a t im e a nd in a
reg u l at i ons wh ic h ar e nec es s ar y to c arr y
m anne r or u po n c o n di t i ons s p ec ic al l y
ou t i ts f u nc ti o ns a nd t o im pl em en t th e l a w
des i g na te d .
it is e ntr us t e d to e nf or c e.
C. Na tur e of P o wer s
✓ Nec es s it y – k no wn al s o as a dm in is tr a ti v e
▪ In v es t i g at i v e or A d v is or y ( ex ec u t i ve or l eg is l at i on , d e le g at ed l eg is l at i on ,
adm i n is tr at i v e) ord i n anc e m ak ing a n d qu as i- l eg is l at i on ,
bec a us e t h e p er vas i v e l e g is l a ti v e p o wer of
✓ Sc op e – i ns p ec t i on of rec o rds a n d m ak in g r u les an d re g u l at i ons wer e
pr em is es ; in v es t i g at i o n of t h e ac t i v i ti es of c onf erre d u p on a dm in i s tra t i ve a g e nc i es .
per s o ns or e nt i t ies c o m ing u n der its No w, a n a dm in is tra t i v e b od y m a y
j ur is d ic t i o n; s ec ur i ng , req u ir i ng t h e im pl em ent bro a d p ol ic i es l a id d o wn in a
d is c l os ur e of inf or m at i on b y m ea ns of s ta tu t e b y l l in g i n o n l y d et a i ls wh ic h t he
r ec o r ds , r e por ts , s t a te m ents , t es t im on y of l eg is l at ur e m a y n e i th e r h a v e tim e n or
wi t nes s es , an d pr o duc ti o n of doc um en ts . c om pet e nc e t o pr o v id e , pro v i d ed t h at t h ere
ex is ts a la w wh ic h d e l eg a tes t h is p o wer t o
✓ S ol e p o wer s g r a nt e d – ac ts m ere l y as th em .
i n ves t ig at or y or ad v is o r y b o di es . T h e y
ex is t s o l e l y to s ec ur e an d pr o v i de ✓ Co n di t io ns – s t at u tor y gra n t of r ul e- m ak in g
i nf or m at io n or m ak e re c om m end at i o ns . po we r to a dm in is tr at i v e a ge nc ies is a v a l i d
12
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
ex c e p ti o n o n no n- d el e ga t io n of l eg is l at i v e ❖ W ithi n th e p o wers gr a nt e d to it b y
po we r , pr o v i de d t hes e t wo c o n d it i ons wer e law
c om pl i ed wi th :
❖ Mus t b e r e as o n ab l e, f a ir an d n o t
o T he s ta tu t e is c om pl e t e i n i ts e lf , d is c rim i na t or y
s et t in g f or t h th e p o l ic y t o b e
ex ec u te d b y t he ag e nc y.
o St a tu te x es a s ta n d ard , m ap p in g o ut ▪ Q u as i- j u d ic i a l ( D et erm i na t i ve o r A dj u d ic a t or y)
th e b ou n da r i es of th e ag e nc y’ s
✓ It i n v o l ves s p ec ic p art i es – d ec is i o n
au t hor i t y to wh ic h it m us t c o nf orm .
or d et erm in at i o n b y a d m inis tra t i ve
✓ B in d i ng f or c e a nd ef f ec t – A va l i d r u le or ag e nc ies of t he r ig h ts , d ut i es a nd
r eg u l at i on du l y pr om ul ga t ed b y a n ob l i ga t io ns of s p ec ic i nd i v i du a ls a n d
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y has t h e f orc e a n d pers o ns . Ap p l ies t o t h e ac t i o ns ,
ef f ec t of l a w a n d is b i nd i n g on t h e a ge nc y d is c re t io n of p ub l ic a d m inis tr a t i ve
an d a l l t hos e d ea l i n g wi t h th e a ge nc y. of c ers or b o d ies .
✓ Pr os p ec ti v e /R e tr o ac t i v e a pp l ic at i on ✓ In v o l ve j u d ic ia l f u nc t i o n ex erc is e d
b y a p ers o n o t her t h an a j u d ge – t h e
o G e ner a l r u l e: A s t a tu t e o per at es term s “ q u as i - j u d ic ia l” an d
pr os p ec t i v e l y a nd n o t retr o ac t i v e l y. “ adj u d ic a tor y” are s yn on ym ous or
c orr el a ti v e , bu t n ot a l l
o Ex c ep t io n: U n l es s th er e is a s t at u te de t erm in at i ons b y a n adm i n is tr at i v e
ex pr es s l y m a nif es t i ng or b y ag e nc y ar e j ud ic i a l i n na t ure o r
nec es s ar y im pl ic at i o n th e l e gis l at i v e qu as i- j ud ic i al .
i nt en t t o th e c o ntr ar y.
✓ In v o l ve ex erc is e if j ud i c i al po we r
✓ Re q uis i tes f or va l i d it y of a dm in is tra t i ve c on v e n ie nt l y s t yl e d “ q uas i- j u dic i a l”
r u les a n d r e gu l at i o ns : – It is t h e p o wer of an
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y to h e ar a nd
❖ Is s u e d on au th or i t y of l a w
de t erm in e, or t o as c er ta i n f ac ts a nd
❖ Mus t n ot b e c o nt rar y t o l a w or t h e dec i d e b y th e a p pl ic a ti on of ru l es to
Co ns t i tu t io n th e as c ert a i ne d f ac ts . Inc l us i ve in
th is p o wer is en a b li n g th em to
❖ Pr om ul ga t ed in ac c or d anc e wit h t he i nt erp re t a nd a p p l y n ot o n l y th e
pr es c r i b ed pr oc e du re im pl em ent i n g r u les an d r e gu l at i o ns
13
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
pr om u lg a te d b y t hem bu t a ls o th e A. Re q uis i tes f or t h e v a li d d el e ga t io n of
l a ws e ntr us te d t o th e ir l eg is l at i v e po we rs :
adm i n is tr at i on . T h e us e of t erm s
s uc h as “ qu as i- j ud ic i a l ” or “ j u d ic i al ✓ W hat c a n b e de l e ga te d is t he dis c r e t io n t o
i n na t ur e” is s im pl y a c on v e n ie n t de t erm in e ho w t he la w m a y b e e nf orc ed a n d no t
wa y of a ppr o v i ng t h e e x erc is e of a wh at t h e l a w s h a l l b e.
j ud ic i al po we r b y a n a dm in is tr a ti v e
o Com pl e te n es s T es t - t he c om pl et en es s of
ag e nc y, a ls o, t h es e t e rm s are us ed
th e s t at ut e m ak in g t he d e le g at i on
to d es i gn at e t he c har a c ter of
par t ic u l ar pr oc ee d i ngs or p o wers o S uf c i en t S ta n da rds T e s t - t he pres e nc e of
an d i ts ex er c is es . a s uf c i e nt s t an d ar d
2. S ep ar at ion of P ow er s /D el eg at i on of L eg is l ativ e P o wer of S ub or d in at e Le g is la t io n

Pow e r t o Ad m ini st r at iv e Ag e n ci e s/ Sub or di nat e
Leg is l atio n ✓ W ith t he pro l if er at i o n of s p ec i al i ze d ac t i v it i e s a n d
th e ir at t en d an t p ec u l i a r pr o b lem s , t h e n at i on a l
Doc tr in e of S ep ar at i o n – a f u nd am en ta l pr i nc i pl e i n o ur l eg is l at ur e has f o un d i t m ore a n d m ore nec e s s ar y
s ys tem of go v er nm en t, o bt a i ne d n ot t hr ou g h ex pr es s to e n trus t to adm i nis tr at i v e a ge nc ies t h e a ut hor i t y
pro v is i o n bu t b y ac tu a l d i v is io n i n o ur C ons t it ut i on . to is s u e r u l es to c arr y ou t t he g e ne ra l pr o v is i ons
A l loc at es t h e go v er nm en t al po we r s of : l eg is l at i v e of t h e s t a tu t e.
po we rs to t h e l eg is l at i v e br anc h, ex ec u ti v e p o wers t o
th e ex ec u t i ve br a nc h a nd j u d ic ia l p o wers t o t he j u d ic ia r y
bra nc h. Mos t im por ta n tl y, th e p o wers as s i g n ed t o o n e
de p artm en t s h ou l d n ot b e ex er c is e d b y e i th e r of th e B. Re as ons f or i nc r eas i n g tre n d to wa rds
ot h er de p ar tm e nts , an d th a t no de p artm en t o ug h t to s ub or d in a te le g is la t io n :
pos s es s , d ir ec t l y or i n d ir ec t l y, a n o v err u li n g i nf l ue nc e or
o G ro wi n g c om pl ex it i es of m ode rn
c on tr ol o ver t h e ot h er s .
go v er nm ent
✓ Ef f ec t t o A dm in is t r a t i v e A ge nc i es – D oes n o t
o T he m ul t ip l ic at i on of s ubj ec ts of
prec l u de a c er t a in de g r ee of a dm ix t ur e of t h e
go v er nm ent a l re g ul a ti on
thr e e po we r s of go v er nm ent in a dm in is tr at i v e
ag e nc ies . o Inc r e as e d d if c u l t y of a dm in is t er i ng t h e l a w
14
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
❖ Com pl e te n es s of t h e L a w - A n ot her ac c e p te d t es t t o General issued the proclamation. The act or proclamation does not say anything
de t erm in e wh et h er or no t t her e is a v a li d d e l eg a ti o n of about the different grades or qualities of rice, and the defendant is charged with
l eg is l at i v e po we r . the sale" of one Janet of rice at the price of eighty centavos (P0.80) which is a price
greater than fixed by Executive Order No. 53."
✓ A s t at ut e m us t be c om p le te in its e lf s o t h at b y
ap pr o pr i a te j u d ic ia l r e v i e w a n d c on tr o l, a n y The Legislature does not specify or dene what is "an extraordinary rise." That is also
ac t i on t ak en pur s u an t to d e l eg at e d a ut ho ri t y m a y left to the discretion of the Governor-General. The Act also says that the Governor-
be k ep t wi t h in t h e de n ed l im its of t h e a ut hor i t y
General, "with the consent of the Council of State," is authorized to issue and
c onf er r e d .
promulgate "temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the
✓ A s t at ut e m a y b e c o ns i der e d c om pl et e wh e n th e: purposes of this Act." It does not specify or de􀁈ne what is a temporary rule or an
emergency measure, or how long such temporary rules or emergency measures
o S ubj ec t shall remain in force and effect, or when they shall take effect. That is to say the
Legislature itself has no in any manner specified or defined any basis for the order,
o Ma n ne r
but has left it to the sole judgment and discretion of the Governor-General to say
o Ex t e nt of i ts o per a ti o n wh ic h is s ta te d i n i t what is or what is not "a cause," and what is or what is not "an extraordinary rise in
the price of rice," and as to what a temporary rule or an emergency measure for the
o De l eg a te wi l l o n l y enf orc e it wh en it carrying out the purpose of the Act Under this state of facts, if the law is valid and
r eac h es h im the Governor-General issues a proclamation fixing the minimum price at which rice
should be sold, any dealer who, with or without notice, sells rice at a higher price, is
✓ T es t of C om pl et e nes s : W heth er th e pr o v is io n is
a criminal. There may not have been any cause, and the price may not have been
s uf c i en t l y d en i te a n d c er t a in t o e n ab l e o ne t o
k no w h is r i g hts a n d o b l ig a ti o ns extraordinary, and there may not have been an emergency, but, if the Governor-
General found the existence of such facts and issued a proclamation, and rice is sold
Doc tr in e of Cas es : T h e l a w, to be c om p le t e, m us t at any higher price, the seller commits a crime.
des c r i b e wh a t j ob is to b e d on e , wh o s h ou l d do it a n d
wh at is th e s c o p e of t h e a ut hor i t y. When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the proclamation of the
Governor-General which constitutes the crime. Without that proclamation, it was
no crime to sell rice at any price. In other words, the Legislature left it to the sole
discretion of the Governor-General to say what was and what was not "any cause"
Case#1: THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANG TANG HO, defendant-
for enforcing the act, and what was and what was not "an extraordinary rise in the
appellant. G.R. No. 17122 February 27, 1922 -> NO. The Legislature did not specify
price of palay, rice or corn," and under certain undefined conditions to x the price at
or dene what was "any cause," or what was "an extraordinary rise in the price of
which rice should be sold, without regard to grade or quality, also to say whether a
rice, palay or corn." Neither did it specify or dene the conditions upon which the
proclamation should be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the law should be
proclamation should be issued. In the absence of the proclamation no crime was
enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should be suspended.
committed. The alleged sale was made a crime, if at all, because the Governor-
15
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
The Constitution is something solid, permanent and substantial. Its stability protects approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, for being contrary
the life, liberty and property rights of the rich and the poor alike, and that to the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. Such administrative order,
protection ought not to change with the wind or any emergency condition. The which took effect on April 17, 1970, has a provision on reflectors in effect
fundamental question involved in this case is the right of the people of the reproducing what was set forth in the Act.
Philippine Islands to be and live under a republican form of government. We make
the board statement that no state or nation, living under a republican form of It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of powers that
government, under the terms and conditions specified in Act No. 2868, has ever Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two other branches of the
enacted a law delegating the power to any one, to fix the price at which rice should government, subject to the exception that local governments may over local affairs
be sold. That power can never be delegated under a republican form of participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the
government. In the fixing of the price at which the defendant should sell his rice, Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the
the law was not dealing with government property. It was dealing with private completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands
property and private rights, which are sacred under the Constitution. If this law of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of
should be sustained, upon the same principle and for the same reason, the legislative power the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the
Legislature could authorize the Governor-General to fix the price of every product measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes
or commodity in the Philippine Islands, and empower him to make it a crime to sell what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. It
any product at any other or different price. bears repeating that the Reflector Law construed together with the Land
Transportation Code. Republic Act No. 4136, of which it is an amendment, leaves no
doubt as to the stress and emphasis on public safety which is the prime
consideration in statutes of this character. There is likewise a categorical
Case#2: EDU V. ERICTA G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970 -> Yes. Reflector Law is affirmation Of the power of petitioner as Land Transportation Commissioner to
enacted under the police power in order to promote public safety and order. Justice promulgate rules and regulations to give life to and translate into actuality such
Laurel identified police power with state authority to enact legislation that may fundamental purpose. His power is clear. There has been no abuse. His
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. Administrative Order No. 2 can easily survive the attack, far-from-formidable,
Persons and property could thus "be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens
launched against it by respondent Galo.
in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state." The
police power is thus a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely
defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing
upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend Pe rtin en t p r o vi si on s o f RE P UB L IC A CT No. 7 92 5 - AN A CT T O
thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct PR OM OT E AN D G OV ER N T H E D EV E L OPM E NT O F P HI LI P PIN E
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to insure T EL E COM M U NI CA T IO NS AN D T H E D EL IV E RY O F P UB L IC
communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare. T EL E COM M U NI CA T IO NS S ER VI C ES
The same lack of success marks the effort of respondent Galo to impugn the validity AR TI CL E I I - P O LI CY A ND OB J EC TI V E S
of Administrative Order No. 2 issued by petitioner in his official capacity, duly
16
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Sect ion 4 . Dec l ar at io n o f N at io n a l Po l ic y. - Te le com m u n icat ion s i s tech n ica l an d co m m er c i al cr i ter ia as m ea su r e s to en s u r e a f a ir
ess en t ia l to th e eco n o m ic d ev el o p m en t , in t egr i ty an d secu r it y o f r ate o f r e tu r n an d a s a too l to en su r e econ om i c an d soc ia l
th e Ph i l ip p in e s , an d a s su ch sh a l l b e d e ve lop ed an d ad m in i ster ed d eve lop m en t;
as t o s a fe gu ar d , e n r i ch an d s tr en gth th e ec on o m ic , cu ltu r a l , so ci a l
an d p o l it ica l fab r ic o f t h e Ph i l ip p in e s. Th e gr o wth an d (e) Pu b li c te le com m u n ic at i on s ser vi ces sh a ll b e p r ov id ed b y
d eve lop m en t o f te leco m m u n ic at io n s s er v ic e s sh a l l b e p u r su ed in p r i vat e en t er p r i se s. Th e p r i v ate sec tor sh a l l b e th e e n g in e o f r ap id
acco r d an ce wi th th e f o l lo w in g p o l ic ie s: an d e ff ic i en t gr ow th in th e te le com m u n ic at ion s in d u s tr y ;
(a) A fu n d am en t al o b j ect i v e o f go v er n m en t i s to d eve lop an d (f) A h e a lth y com p et it i ve e n v ir on m en t sh a ll b e fos ter ed , o n e

m ain ta in a vi ab le , e f f ic i en t, r e li ab le an d u n i ver sa l in w h i ch te le com m u n ic at ion s car r ier s ar e fr ee to m ak e b u sin es s
tel ecom m u n ic at ion in fr astr u ctu r e u s in g th e b e st a v ai l ab le an d d eci s ion s an d to in ter ac t w ith on e an o th er in p r ov id in g
af fo r d ab l e te ch n o lo gi es , a s a vi ta l to o l to n at io n b u i ld in g an d tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice s, w ith th e en d i n v i ew o f en c ou r a g in g
d eve lop m en t; th eir f in an c ia l v iab i l it y wh i le m a in t a in in g a ffor d ab l e r a tes ;
(b ) Th e e xp an s io n o f th e t e leco m m u n ica tio n s n etw or k sh a ll (g) A fa ir an d r e ason ab le in ter con n ec ti on o f fac i l it i es o f

g iv e p r ior it y to im p r o v i n g an d e xten d in g b as ic ser vi ces to ar ea s au th or ize d p u b li c n et w or k op er ator s an d o th er p r ov id er s o f
n o t y et ser ved . F or th is p u r p o se , go ver n m en t s h al l p r o m ote a fa ir , tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice s is n ece ss ar y in or d er to a ch ie ve a
ef fi c ien t an d r e sp o n si v e m ar k et to st im u l ate t h e gr o wth an d v iab le , e f f ic ien t , r el i ab l e an d u n i ver sa l t e le com m u n ic at ion s
d eve lop m en t o f th e t el eco m m u n ica t io n s f ac il it ie s an d ser v ic es , ser vi ces ;
wit h em p h as i s o n th e a cces s ib il it y b y p er son s t o b as ic ser v ic es in
u n ser ved an d u n d er ser v ed ar e as at a ffo r d ab le r ate s; (h ) Th e go ver n m en t sh a l l g i ve a ll th e as s ist an c e an d
en cou r a gem en t t o Ph i l i p p in e in ter n a tio n a l c ar r ier s in or d er to
(c) Th e r ad i o fr eq u en c y sp ectr u m is a sc ar ce p u b l i c r esou r ce est ab l i sh in ter con n ec ti on w ith oth er cou n tr i es so as to p r o v id e
th at sh a l l b e ad m in is ter ed in th e p u b l ic in ter e s t an d in accor d an ce acce ss to in ter n at ion al com m u n icat ion s h i gh w a ys o n a
wit h i n ter n at ion a l a gr e em en t s an d co n ven t ion s to wh ich th e com p et it i ve b as i s;
Ph il ip p in e s i s a p ar t y a n d gr an ted to th e b e st q u al i f ied . Th e
go ver n m e n t sh a l l a l lo c a te th e sp e ctr u m to s er v ice p r ov id er s wh o (i) For e f fi ci en c y , p r ac ti ca b i li ty , an d c on v en ien ce , b u t w ith
wi l l u se it ef f ic ien t l y an d ef fec ti v el y to m e et p u b l ic d e m an d for d u e r e gar d to th e ob s er van ce o f d u e p r oce ss at al l ti m es ,
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice an d m ay a va i l o f n ew an d co st r egu la ti on o f te le com m u n ic at ion s en t it ie s sh a l l r e l y p r in c ip a l l y o n
ef fect i ve tech n o lo g ie s i n th e u se o f m eth o d s f o r it s u t i l iz at ion ; an ad m in i str at i ve p r oce ss th at i s stab le , tr an sp ar en t an d fa ir ,
g iv in g d u e em p h as i s to tech n ica l , le g al , econ o m ic an d f in an c i al
(d ) Rate s a n d tar i f f ch ar g es sh a l l b e f a ir , ju st an d r easo n ab le con s id er at ion s ;
an d f or th is p u r p o s e , th e r e gu l ato r y b o d y sh al l d eve lop tar i ff
str u ctu r es b as ed o n so c io ec o n o m ic fac to r s an d o n f in an ci a l ,
17
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(j) No s in g le fr an c h i se sh al l a u th o r ize an en t it y to en g a ge in (a) Ad op t an ad m in istr at i v e p r oce ss wh ich wou ld f aci l it ate th e
b o th te lec om m u n ica ti o n s an d b r o ad c a st in g , e i th er th r ou gh th e en tr y o f q u a l if i ed s er v i ce p r o vid er s an d ad op t a p r i ci n g p o li cy
air wa ve s o r b y c ab le; wh ic h wou ld g en er a te s u ff ic i en t r et u r n s to en c ou r ag e th em to
p r ov id e b as ic te leco m m u n ic at ion s ser v ice s in u n ser ved an d
(k) Own er sh ip o f p u b l ic t e l eco m m u n ica t ion s en t it i es to a s u n d er ser ved ar e as ;
wid e a n u m b er o f p e o p l e a s p o s s ib le , p r e fer ab l y to i ts cu st om er s ,
in o r d er to en cou r a ge e ff ic i en c y an d p u b l ic ac c ou n tab i li ty an d to (b ) En su r e q u al i ty , sa fe ty , r el iab i l it y , s ecu r it y , com p at ib i l it y
tap p er son a l s av in g s sh al l b e en co u r a ged ; an d in ter -op er ab i li ty o f tel ecom m u n i cat ion s fa ci l it ie s an d ser v ice s
in con for m it y w ith stan d ar d s an d sp ec i f icat ion s s et b y
(l) Th e d e v elo p m en t o f a d o m est ic te leco m m u n ica tion s in ter n at ion al r ad io an d tel ecom m u n ic at ion s or g an i zat ion s t o
m an u f actu r in g in d u str y to m ee t th e n eed s o f t h e Ph i l ip p in e s an d wh ic h th e Ph i l ip p in es i s a s i gn ator y;
to ta ke ad v an t ag e o f e x p o r t o p p o r tu n it ie s sh a l l b e p r om ot ed
wit h ou t p r e ve n t in g , d et er r in g o r h am p er in g th e go al o f fu l l (c) M an d at e a f a ir an d r ea s on ab le in ter con n ec tion o f fac i l it ie s
u n i ver sa l ser vi ce; an d o f a u th or ize d p u b li c n e twor k op er at or s an d ot h er p r ov id er s o f
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice s th r ou gh ap p r op r ia te m od a l it ie s o f
(m ) Hu m an r e so u r ce s sk i ll s an d ca p ab i li ti es m u s t b e h ar n e ss ed in ter con n ec tio n an d at a r ea son ab l e an d f a ir le ve l o f ch ar ges ,
an d im p r o ved to su st ai n th e gr o w th an d th e d eve lop m en t o f wh ic h m a ke p r o v is ion f or th e cr o ss su b s id y to u n p r of ita b l e loca l
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s u n d er a fa st c h an g in g te le com m u n icat ion s exch an ge ser vi ce ar ea s so a s to p r om ot e te lep h on e d en si ty an d
en v ir on m e n t. p r ov id e t h e m o st ext en si ve ac ces s to b a s ic te l e com m u n icat ion s
ser vi ces a va i la b l e at a f f or d ab l e r a tes to th e p u b l ic;
(d ) Fos ter fa ir an d e f fi ci en t m ar ke t con d u c t th r ou g h , b u t n o t

l im ited to, th e p r otect i on o f te lecom m u n icat io n s en t it i es fr om
u n fa ir tr ad e p r act ic es o f oth er car r ier s;
AR TI CL E I II - A DM INI S T RA TI ON (e) Pr om ot e con su m er s w el far e b y f ac i li tat in g acce ss to

Sect ion 5 . R esp on s ib il it ie s o f th e Na tio n a l Te le com m u n icat ion s tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice s wh o se in fr a str u ct u r e an d n etwor k
Co m m is s ion . - Th e Na ti o n al T el eco m m u n ic at io n s Co m m i s si on m u st b e gear ed to war d s th e n eed s o f in d iv id u a l a n d b u s in es s
(Co m m i ss ion ) sh al l b e t h e p r in cip a l ad m in i str a tor o f th is Ac t an d u ser s ;
as su ch sh a l l t ak e th e n eces sar y m ea su r e s to i m p lem en t th e
p o l ic ie s an d ob j ect i ve s set fo r th in th is Ac t. Ac cor d in g l y, i n (f) Pr ote ct con su m er s ag a i n st m i su se o f a te lecom m u n ic at ion s
ad d i ti on to it s e x is tin g fu n ct io n s , th e Co m m i ss i on sh a l l b e en ti ty ' s m on op ol y o r q u as i -m on op o l i st ic p o wer s b y, b u t n o t
r esp o n si b l e f or th e fo l l o win g :L awp h i l &1 5 9; l im ited to, th e in ve st i g at ion o f com p l ai n ts an d ex act in g
com p l i an ce w ith ser vi ce sta n d ar d s fr om s u ch en tit y; an d
18
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(g) In th e ex er c is e o f its r e gu lat o r y p o wer s , con tin u e to

im p o se su ch fe es an d c h ar g es as m a y b e n ec es sar y to co ver
r easo n ab le cost s an d e x p en se s fo r th e r e gu lat i on an d su p er v is ion
❖ S uf f ic i e nc y i n S ta n dar ds - T h er e m us t b e a n ad e qu a te
o f th e op er at ion s o f te l eco m m u n ica t io n s en t it i es. gu i d el i n es or l im it at i o ns i n th e l a w to m ap o ut t h e
bo u nd ar i es of t h e d el e ga t e au t hor i t y a nd pr e v en t t he
Sect ion 6 . R esp on s ib il it ie s o f an d L im it at io n s t o De p ar tm en t de l e ga t io n f r om run n i n g r i ot .
Po w er s . - T h e Dep ar tm e n t o f Tr an sp o r tat io n an d Com m u n ic at ion s
(De p ar tm en t) sh a l l n o t exer c i se an y p o w er wh i ch w il l ten d t o ✓ De p en d en t u po n c er ta i n c o ns i d er at i ons - th e
in flu en ce o r e ff ect a r e v iew o r a m o d if ic at ion o f th e Com m i s si on ' s s uf f ic i e nc y of a pa rt ic u lar s t a nd ar d or l im it
q u as i -ju d i ci a l fu n ct io n s . go v er n in g t he au th or i t y a n d d is c re t io n of th e
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y i n ef f ec t in g t he po l ic y of
In co or d in at ion w it h th e Co m m i ss io n , h o we ver , th e Dep ar tm en t th e l e gis l at ur e gr e at l y de p en ds u p on t h e n at ure
sh a l l , in ac cor d an ce w it h th e p o l ic ie s en u n c i ate d in t h i s Act , b e of t h e po we r ex erc is e d a n d th e n at ur e of t h e ri gh t
res tr ic te d b y s uc h p o wer. I t a ls o de p en ds u p on
r esp o n si b l e f or :
wh et h er or n ot pro p er reg u l at i on or c on tr o l
req u ir es th e ves t in g of s uc h d is c r et i on .
(a) th e d e ve lop m en t a n d m ain ten an ce o f a lon g- te r m str ate g ic
n at io n a l d ev el op m en t p lan fo r te leco m m u n ica ti on s to ser ve a s a ✓ De ta i l ed s t a nd ar d n ot req u ir ed - t he nec es s it i es
gu id e t o th e in d u str y a n d p o ten t i a l in ve sto r s a s we l l as to th e of m ode rn le g is la t io n de a l in g wit h c om p lex
Co m m is s ion ; ec o n om ic an d s oc i al p rob l em s h a ve le d t o j u d ic i a l
ap pr o v al of br o ad s t a n dar ds f or a dm in is tr a ti v e
(b ) th e coor d in at io n o f r e s ear ch an d d e ve lop m en t act i vi ti es in ac t i on . D et a il e d s ta n d ards are no t r e qu ir e d,
go ver n m e n t w ith th e w o r k o f o th er in st itu t ion s in th e f ie ld o f es p ec i al l y i n r eg u la t or y e n a c tm en ts u nd er t h e
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s; po l ic y p o wer . T h e l e gi s l at ure is n ot re q u ire d t o
pro v i d e s uc h a s ta n da rd as c o nf ers t he le as t
(c) th e r ep r e sen t at io n an d p r o m o ti o n o f Ph i l ip p in e in t er es ts in am oun t of d is c re t io n . I n m an y s it ua t i ons , d et a il e d
in ter n at ion al b od ies , a n d th e n e go ti at io n o f t h e n at ion ' s r igh ts s ta n dar ds i n pr ec is e a nd un v ar yi n g f orm s wo u ld
an d o b l ig at ion s in in ter n at io n a l t e leco m m u n i ca tion s m atter s; an d be wh o ll y u nr e a lis t ic a nd m ore ar b itr ar y t h an a
ge n er al in d ef i n it e o ne .
(d ) th e op er at io n o f a n at i o n al co n su l tat i ve for u m to f ac i l itat e
✓ Ex am pl es of s t a nd ar ds h e ld s uf f ic i e nt - th e
in ter act ion am on g st th e te leco m m u n icat io n s i n d u str ie s, u s er f ol l o wi ng le g is la t i ve s pec if ic a t io ns ar e am on g
gr o u p s, ac ad em ic an d r ese ar ch in s ti tu t io n s in t h e a ir in g an d th os e wh ic h h a ve b e e n h el d t o s ta t e a s uf f ic i en t l y
r eso lu t ion o f im p o r tan t i ssu e s in t h e f ie ld o f co m m u n ic at ion s. def in i te s t a nd ar d f or a dm in is tr a ti v e ac t io n i n
s pec if ic f i e l ds : “ n ec es s it y” , “ n ec es s ar y o r
19
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
ex p e d ie nt ” , “ a p pr o pr i a te” , “ r e as o n a bl e ” , “ j us t a n d the Administrative Code does not constitute undue delegation. By a vote of five to
reas o n ab l e ” , “ f a ir a n d eq u it a b le ” , “ s uf f ic ie n t ” , four, the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of this section of the
“ ex c es s i v e pr of i ts ” , “ u nd u l y c om pl ic at e d Administrative Code. Under the doctrine of necessity, who else was in a better
c orp or at e s tr uc t ur es a nd in e qu i ta b l e d is tr i bu ti o ns position to determine whether or not to execute the law but the provincial
of vo t in g p o wer ” , “ f it” , or “ u nf i t” , “ s u i ta b l e ” , governor. It is optional for the provincial governor to execute the law as
“ uns u it a b le ” , “ c om pe t e nc y, a b i l it y, i nt eg ri t y” , circumstances may arise. It is necessary to give discretion to the provincial
i l lum i na t in g wh ic h o i l i s “ s af e , p ur e, a n d af f ords a
governor. The Legislature may make decisions of executive departments of
s at is f ac tor y l i g h t, ” “ wo r th y c a us e” , “ dec e nc y an d
subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain
go o d or der ” , “ s u bs t a nt i al” , “ u n des ir a bl e
acts, final on questions of fact.
res id e nts ” , “ u nd es ir ab l e b us i n es s pr ac t ic es ” ,
“ un pr of es s i on a l c o nd u c t ” , “ m is c o nd uc t ” , II. No, the Manguianes are not being deprived of their liberty. Among other things,
“ of f ens i v e b ec a us e of i nj ur i ous an d o bn ox i ou s
the term ―non-Christian‖ should not be given a literal meaning or a religious
no is e, v ib r a t io ns s m ok e, g as , an d o th er f ac t o rs ” ,
signification, but that it was intended to relate to degrees of civilization. The term
“ i nj ur i ous s ubs ta nc es ” , “ da n ge r to p e ac e or
―non-Christian‖ it was said, refers not to religious belief, but in a way to
s af et y” , “ p u bl ic in te r es t ” , “ p u b lic c on v e ni e nc e or
geographical area, and more directly to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low
nec es s it y” , “ a c le ar a n d pr es e nt da n ger ” , a n d
“ im m in en t a n d gr a ve da n ge r of a s ubs ta n ti v e grade of civilization. In this case, the Manguianes were being reconcentrated in the
e v il . ” reservation to promote peace and to arrest their seminomadic lifestyle. This will
ultimately settle them down where they can adapt to the changing times. The
✓ P ers o n a l j ud gm en t of t he ag e nc y as s ta n da rd - Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro was
th e p er s o n a l j ud gm en t of th e a g enc y, wh er e neither discriminatory nor class legislation, and stated among other things: ―. . .
unr es tr a i n ed , is n ot a s ta n dar d or a s uf f ic i e n t one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the
s ta n dar d. E v en wh er e br o a d s ta n d ards a re la i d degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their
do wn , s uc h s t an d ar ds ar e no t s uf f ic ie n t if t h e own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due
s ta tu t e ex pr es s l y a d ds “ i n t he op i n io n” of th e process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of due process of
ag e nc y, or ex pr es s l y c onf ers po l ic y- m ak in g p o wer
law and equal protection of the laws, there exists a law; the law seems to be
up o n th e a g enc y.
reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
Doc tr in e of Cas es : T h e l a w m us t s et o r es t a b lis h prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.
gu i d el i n es o n t h e b ou n dar i es a n d l im ita t i ons reg ar d in g
th e a ut h or it y d e le g at e d.
Case #2: PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC.,
petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF TEXTBOOKS,
Case #1: RUBI, ET AL. (manguianes), plaintiffs, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF respondents. [G.R. No. L-5279. October 31, 1955] -> NO, petitioner’s contention
MINDORO, defendant. [G.R. No. L-14078 / March 7, 1919] -> I. No, Section 2145 of that the standards on the Secretary of Education unlimited power and discretion to
20
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
prescribe rules and standards enclosed in Sections 1 and 6 of Act No. 2706 is sufficient as legislative standards justifying delegation of authority to regulate. (See
extremely vague, indefinite and uncertain thus constituting an unlawful delegation Tañada and Fernando, Constitution of thePhilippines, p. 793, citing Philippine
of legislative power is incorrect. The best answer is that despite such alleged cases.)
vagueness the Secretary of Education has fixed standards to ensure adequate and
efficient instruction, as shown by the memoranda fixing or revising curricula, the On this phase of the litigation we conclude that there has been no undue
school calendars, entrance and final examinations, admission and accreditation of delegation of legislative power. In this connection, and to support their position
students etc.; and the system of private education has, in general, been that the law and the Secretary of Education have transcended the governmental
satisfactorily in operation for 37 years which only shows that the Legislature did and power of supervision and regulation, the petitioners appended a list of circulars and
could, validly rely upon the educational experience and training of those in charge memoranda issued by the said Department. However they failed to indicate which
of the Department of Education to ascertain and formulate minimum requirements of such official documents was constitutionally objectionable for being "capricious,"
of adequate instruction as the basis of government recognition of any private or pain "nuisance"; and it is one of our decisional practices that unless a
school. constitutional point is specifically raised, insisted upon and adequately argued, the
court will not consider it. (Santiago vs. Far Eastern, 73 Phil., 408.)
At any rate, petitioners do not show how these standards have injured any of them
or interfered with their operation. Wherefore, no reason exists for them to assail We are told that such list will give an idea of how the statute has placed in the
the validity of the power nor the exercise of the power by the Secretary of hands of the Secretary of Education complete control of the various activities of
Education. True, the petitioners assert that, the Secretary has issued rules and private schools, and why the statute should be struck down as unconstitutional. It is
regulations "whimsical and capricious" and that such discretionary power has clear in our opinion that the statute does not in express terms give the Secretary
produced arrogant inspectors who "bully heads and teachers of private schools." complete control. It gives him powers to inspect private schools, to regulate their
Nevertheless, their remedy is to challenge those regulations specifically, and/or to activities, to give them official permits to operate under certain conditions, and to
ring those inspectors to book, in proper administrative or judicial proceedings—not revoke such permits for cause. This does not amount to complete control. If any of
to invalidate the law. For it needs no argument, to show that abuse by the officials such Department circulars or memoranda issued by the Secretary go beyond the
entrusted with the execution of a statute does not per se demonstrate the bounds of regulation and seeks to establish complete control, it would surely be
unconstitutionality of such statute. invalid. Conceivably some of them are of this nature, but besides not having before
us the text of such circulars, the petitioners have omitted to specify. In any event
Anyway, we find the defendants' position to be sufficiently sustained by the with the recent approval of Republic Act No. 1124 creating the National Board of
decision in Alegra vs. Collector of Customs, 53 Phil., 394 upon holding the statute Education, opportunity for administrative correction of the supposed anomalies or
that authorized the Director of Agriculture to "designate standards for the encroachments is amply afforded herein petitioners. A more expeditious and
commercial grades of abaca, maguey and sisal" against vigorous attacks on the perhaps more technically competent forum exists, wherein to discuss the necessity,
ground of invalid delegation of legislative power. convenience or relevancy of the measures criticized by them. (See also Republic Act
No. 176.)
Indeed "adequate and efficient instruction" should be considered sufficient, in the
same way as "public welfare" "necessary in the interest of law and order" "public If however the statutes in question actually give the Secretary control over private
interest" and "justice and equity and substantial merits of the case" have been held schools, the question arises whether the power of supervision and regulation
21
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
granted to the State by section 5 Article XIV was meant to include control of private
educational institutions. It is enough to point out that local educators and writers
think the Constitution provides for control of Education by the State. (See Case #4: THE INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD AND VENEER COMPANY vs. THE
Tolentino, Government of the Philippine Constitution, Vol. II, p. 615; Benitez, PANGIL FEDERATION OF LABOR. 1940 -> YES, the CIR has the power to determine
Philippine Social Life and Progress, p. 335.) minimum wages for an individual employer in connection with an industrial dispute
under provisions of Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 103, and such grant of power is
The Constitution (it) "provides for state control of all educational institutions" even constitutional. SEPARATION OF POWERS; DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS;
as it enumerates certain fundamental objectives of all education to wit, the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. — Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103
development of moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and prescribes that in the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or
vocational efficiency, and instruction in the duties of citizenship. (Malcolm & Laurel, controversy and in exercising any duties and power under this Act, the COURT
Philippine Constitutional Law, 1936.) SHALL ACT according to JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUBSTANTIAL MERITS OF THE
CASE, without regard to technicalities or legal forms. ** The National Assembly,
The Solicitor General cities many authorities to show that the power to regulate under Sec. 20 of the CA No. 103 has also furnished a sufficient standard by which
means power to control, and quotes from the proceedings of the the court will be guided in exercising its discretion in the determination of any
question or controversy before it. The requisites for such delegation therefore
Constitutional Convention to prove that State control of private education was
were complied with, namely: a.) The completeness of the statute making the
intended by the organic law. It is significant to note that the Constitution grants
delegation; and b.) The PRESENCE OF SUFFICIENT STANDARDS Such discretionary
power to supervise and to regulate. Which may mean greater power than mere
power which is in judicial character being conferred to the CIR does not infringe
regulation.
upon the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. It is recognized in administrative law
that such doctrine does not preclude a certain degree of admixture of the three
powers of the government to administrative agency. The non-delegation of powers
Case #3: GIL BALBUNA,, ET AL., petitioners and appellants,, vs. THE HON.. is not absolute. Exceptions are circumstances which are brought by the
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, respondents and appellees. -> NO, the Department complexities in our government. Example is that there are matters which really
Order is not an undue delaegation of legislative power. The Department Order requires specialized knowledge and expertise which is possessed by administrative
constitute an adequate standard, to wit, simplicity and dignity of the flag agencies. STANDARDS ____ EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; POWER OF COURT OF
ceremony and the singing of the National Anthem — specially when INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO DETERMINE MINIMUM WAGES; COMMONWEALTH ACT
contrasted with other standards heretofore upheld by the Courts: "public NO. 103. Petitioner’s view was without merit. Petitioner gave only a narrow
interest" "public welfare" "interest of law and order" ; justice and equity construction under Section 5 of CA No. 103. The Court of Industrial Relations was
and the substantial merits of the case" or "adequate and efcient instruction" granted the plenary powers to ―settle all questions, matters, controversies, or
That the Legislature did not specify the details of the flag ceremony is no disputes arising between, and /or affecting employees and employers.‖ The
objection to the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the Commonwealth Act should receive a construction that will lead to its very objective
laying down of standards and policy that will limit the discretion of the regulatory namely, which is to create an instrumentality through which intervention of the
agency. government could be made effective in order to prevent non-pacific methods in the
determinations of industrial or agricultural disputes. — The Court of Industrial
22
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Relations has the power to determine minimum wages for an individual employee complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental
in connection with an industrial dispute which said court might take cognizance of regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a
under the provisions of section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, and such grant of constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the
power is constitutional. — Under section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the courts.‖
Court of Industrial Relations is empowered to "take cognizance for purposes of
prevention, arbitration, decision, and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural
dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lock-out, arising from differences as
Case #5: EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS
regards wages, shares or compensation, dismissals, lay-offs, or suspensions of
EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, (POEA), MINISTER OF LABOR AND
employees or laborers, tenants or farm-laborers, hours of labor, or conditions of
EMPLOYMENT, HEARING OFFICER ABDUL KASAR and KATHLEEN D. SACO -> No,
tenancy or employment, between employers and employees or laborers and
Memorandum Circular No. 2 does not violate of the principle of non-delegation of
between landlords and tenants or farm- laborers." -Under section 1, the court has
legislative power. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative
"jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle
regulation.The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in
all questions, matters, controversies, or disputes arising between, and/or affecting
requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard
employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers,
guiding the delegate in the exercise of the said authority. That standard is
and regulate the relations between them, subject to the provisions of this Act (as
discoverable in the executive order itself which, in creating the Philippine Overseas
amended by Com. Act No. 254); -and by section 13, it is provided that "in making
Employment Administration, mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino
an award, order or decision, under the provisions of section four of this Act, the
workers to "fair and equitable employment practices." The authority to issue the
court shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made by the
said regulation is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 797,
parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order
reading as follows: "...The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), as
or decision any matter or determination which may be deemed necessary or
hereunder provided, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern
expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial
the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the Administration (POEA)… It is true
or agricultural dispute." ___ “The theory of the separation of powers is designed by
that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be
its originators to secure action and at the same time to forestall overreaction which
delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may
necessarily results from undue concentration of powers, and thereby obtain
be enforced, not what the law shall be. There are two accepted tests to determine
efficiency and prevent despotism. Thereby, the "rule of law" was established which
whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness
narrows the range of governmental action and makes it subject to control by
test and (2) the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be
certain legal devices... One thing, however, is apparent in the development of the
complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that
principle of separation of powers and that is that the maxim of delegatus non
when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it. Under
potestdelegari / ―no delegated powers can be further delegated‖ — or
the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the
delegatapotestas non potestdelegari/ ―one to whom power is delegated cannot
law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the
himself further delegate that power", has been made to adapt itself to the
delegation from
complexities of modern governments, giving rise to the adoption, within certain
limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation"... Accordingly, with the growing
23
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in
authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject
legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. The principle of non- to approval by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly
delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the Government. affected. ✓People’s Initiative and Referendum * Section 32 - The Congress shall, as
The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the
inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or
attention. To many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local
legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor, signed by at least ten
efficacious, not to say, specific solutions.These solutions may, however, be per centrum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative
expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters
assigned to them. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their thereof. ✓Autonomous Regions * Section 18 - The creation of the autonomous
attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more region shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the
necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only
out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the "power of subordinate provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favourably in such plebiscite shall be
legislation." The petition is DISMISSED. ❖Permissible delegation of legislative included in the autonomous region. * Section 20 - Within its territorial jurisdiction
power under the Constitution ✓To the President * Section 23(2) - In times of war and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act
or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorise the President, for of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner (1) Administrative organisations;
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
adjournment thereof. *Section 28(2) - The Congress may, by law, authorise the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations as it may (3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program (4) Personal, family and property relations;
of the Government. ✓To Local Government Units * Section 3 - The Congress shall
(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;
enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of (6) Economic, social, and tourism development;
decentralisation with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum. *
Section 5 - Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own (7) Education policies;
sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, subject to such guidelines
and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of (8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage
local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local
(9) Such other matters as may be authorised by law for the promotion of the
governments. * Section 10 - No province, city, municipality, or Barangay may be
general welfare of the people of the region.
24
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
In administrative proceedings, the function and power of administrative
agency principally concerned here is the adjudicatory or determinative
powers.
Case #6: PRIMITIVO LOVINA, and NELLY MONTILLA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. HON.
FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works and Communications, and (1) Agency acts both in legislative and judicial capacity -> In a single
BENJAMIN YONZON, defendants-appellants. G.R. No. L-17821 November 29, determination, an administrative agency may act in both a legislative and
1963 -> NO, RA 2056 is not unconstitutional and it does not vests undue delegation judicial capacity. Although it is still important to distinguish “rule-making” and
of judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The “adjudication” by administrative agencies, since in some areas there are
objections of the appellees to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 2056, not
important procedural differences in these functions.
only as an undue delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works but
also for being unreasonable and arbitrary, are not tenable. It will be noted that the
(2) Fundamental procedural requirements to be observed -> Duty imposed
Act (R.A. 2056) merely empowers the Secretary to remove unauthorized
upon an administrative agency which requires a quasi-judicial proceeding as
obstructions or encroachments upon public streams, constructions that no private
a requisite of action - duty which carries with it fundamental procedural
person was anyway entitled to make, because the bed of navigable streams is
public property, and ownership thereof is not acquirable by adverse possession. It requirements to the end that arbitrary action be excluded. It is widely different
is true that the exercise of the Secretary's power under the Act necessarily involves from ordinary executive action.
the determination of some questions of fact, such as the existence of the stream
and its previous navigable character; but these functions, whether judicial or quasi- (3) Proceeding terminates when appeal has been taken -> The
judicial, are merely incidental to the exercise of the power granted by law to clear administrative proceeding is at end when an appeal has been taken to court,
navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions or encroachments, and authorities and it is merged in the decree of the court when the agency has procured a
are clear that they are, validly conferable upon executive officials provided the judicial decree enforcing its order.
party affected is given opportunity to be heard, as is expressly required by Republic
Act No. 2056, section 2.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS
2. Administrative proceedings - According to the Administrative (1) Adversary in nature -> Every proceeding is adversary in substance if it
Code of 1987 -> an agency process with respect to rule-making, may result in an order in favour of one person against another, and the
adjudication and licensing. proceeding is nonetheless an adversary one because the primary purpose of
the agency is to protect the public interests. (Example: case of proceedings
before the National Labor Relations Commission, revocation of a license
GENERALLY upon an order to show cause)
25
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(2) Quasi-judicial or judicial in nature -> Proceedings before administrative to collateral attack. A void judgment is no judgment at all. It can never
bodies partake of the nature of judicial proceedings if it involves the (a) taking become final and executory; hence, an appeal is out of the question.
and evaluation of evidence; (b) determination of facts based upon the
evidence presented, and (c) rendering an order or decision supported by the (2) Scope -> An administrative tribunal has only such jurisdiction and power
as are expressly or by necessary implications conferred upon it by law. Thus,
facts proved.
all controversies or matters relating to the subject matter pertaining to its
specialisation are deemed to be included within its jurisdiction since “split
(3) Civil, not criminal, in nature -> Proceeding has been held civil rather than
jurisdiction is not favoured.” An administrative agency may have jurisdiction
criminal even though the charge before the agency is based upon a violation
over a case before it, but where it acts in a spirit of hostility and unfairness in
of the penal law. However, in such cases, fairness may require the the examination of a party’s witnesses, thereby depriving him of a full and fair
observance of the salutary purposes behind certain rules of criminal hearing, its decision will be set aside for it has rendered itself incapacitated to
procedure. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and consider and weigh the evidence impartially.
fundamental procedural principles such as the right to due process in
investigations and hearings. (Example: departmental trials or proceedings for (3) Source -> Administrative agencies, acting in their quasi-judicial capacity,
the discipline of police officers, license revocation, quarantine proceedings, are tribunals of limited and special jurisdiction, that is to hear and determine
and deportation proceedings) a class of cases within their peculiar competence and expertise. Their
jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the validity and the terms of the
(4) Not an action at law -> An adjudicatory proceeding before an statutes reposing power in them, and they cannot confer jurisdiction on
administrative agency is not an action at law; nor is it a litigation between themselves. Where the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal is established
by the Constitution, a statute attempting to enlarge such jurisdiction is
private parties. Under some statutes, an administrative proceeding is not a
unconstitutional.
private one but is a public one looking to public ends. Some administrative
proceedings are neither preventive nor compensatory, but are preventive and
(4) Conduct; waiver; estoppel -> An administrative agency cannot enlarge its
remedial to implement a public policy.
own jurisdiction nor can jurisdiction be conferred upon the agency by parties
before it. Accordingly, it is held that deviations from an agency’s statutorily
established sphere of action cannot be upheld because it is based upon
JURISDICTION agreement, contract, consent of the parties; nor can they be made effective
• It is a power and authority given by law to hear and decide a case. It by waiver or estoppel. It is elementary, however, that the active participation
consists of two elements - jurisdiction over the subject matter and of a party in a case pending against him before a court or quasi-judicial body,
jurisdiction over the person. is tantamount to a recognition of that court’s or body’s jurisdiction and a
willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from
(1) Necessity -> Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations later on impugning its jurisdiction.
of administrative agencies. Without jurisdiction, their acts are void and open
26
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(5) Determination of existence -> When a particular statute authorises an Doctrine of primary jurisdiction -> if the case is such that its determination
administrative agency to act in a particular situation, it necessarily confers requires the expertise, specialised skills and knowledge of the proper
upon such agency authority to determine whether the situation is such as to administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of
authorise the agency to act - that is, to determine the coverage of the statute facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative
- and this question need not, and in fact cannot, be initially decided by a proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the
court. However, an administrative agency’s determination as to its jurisdiction matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.
is not conclusive upon the courts.
(6) Failure to exercise power -> While failure of an agency for a long time to Case #1: LA UNION LABOR UNION vs . PHILIPPINE TOBACCO FLUE-
use an important power indicates a practical construction that the power CURING & REDRYING CORPORATION -> YES, the assailed decision was
does not exist, a failure to exercise jurisdiction does not result in its loss. The rendered without authority. The Wage Administration Service is not
principle is applicable where an agency has declined in certain cases to empowered to render a decision binding on the parties in cases involving
assume jurisdiction which it possesses. claims for wages, underpayment, etc., unless the parties enter into a written
agreement to submit their dispute or differences to the WAS for arbitration,
(7) Expiration or repeal of statute -> Expiration of a statute may be held not pursuant to Section 9, Article 7 (c), Chapter 3 of the Code of Rules and
to deprive an administrative agency of jurisdiction to enforce the statute as to Procedure promulgated on January 20, 1953 by the Secretary of Labor, to
liabilities incurred while the statute was in force, where a general saving implement the provisions of the Minimum Wage Law. The ordinary function
statute continues such liabilities. Where there is no saving clause, repeal of a of the
statute while proceedings are pending and prior to the filing of an order, may Wage Administration Service is to hear complaints or claims for
remove any support in law for such order. wages; and conciliate the parties if possible, and if they are willing to
submit the case for arbitration, to have said parties enter into a written
(8) Jurisdiction of courts -> Administrative agencies are creatures of law, and agreement that they submit the case for arbitration and decision, and
they have no general powers but only such as have been conferred upon that they would abide by the result of said arbitration, otherwise, all
them by law. that the WAS could do if it found the claim for wages meritorious, is to
file the corresponding complaint in a competent court. The agreement
(a) Where the law confines in an administrative office the power to determine
of the parties before the Industrial Court and the stipulation of the
particular questions or matters upon the facts presented, the jurisdiction of
proviso did not fully authorized the WAS thru its agent to render a
such office shall prevail over the courts.
decision. We consider that stipulation to be insufficient to confer
(b) It may occur that the courts have jurisdiction to take cognisance of a
power and jurisdiction on the WAS to decide the case. The law and
particular case although it involves a matter that demands the special the Code of Rules and Procedure issued by the Secretary of Labor
competence of administrative agencies because the matter is also judicial in require a written agreement signed by the parties to submit to
character. arbitration and to abide by the result of the decision flowing from said
arbitration. Furthermore Tobacco Corporation was not able to present
evidence and later to appeal from this co-called decision of the Labor
27
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Attorney because he was in a hurry and the Corporation was under liberty, or property. The liberality of procedure in administrative actions is still
the impression that the Attorney was merely conducting an subject to limitations by the fundamental requirement of this constitutional
investigation. guarantee.
(2) Essence -> The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the
Case #2: DOLORITO M. FELICIANO and MAXIMO B. TAPINIO, basic requirement of notice and real opportunity to be heard. As applied to
applicants- appellees. MELITON D. ALBAÑA, petitioner-appellant, vs. administrative proceedings, it simply means an opportunity to explain one’s
THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, respondent-appellee. G.R. No. L- side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
4572 -> NO, the Director of Patents has no jurisdiction over the case. complained of, and to submit any evidence a person may have in support of
Assignments of patents and inventions covered thereby may be his defense.
recorded in books and records kept for the purpose in the Patent
(a) For as long as the parties were afforded fair and reasonable opportunity
Office if presented in due form. But where a person other than the
to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their arguments before
inventor files a motion with the Director of Patents praying that the
judgment was rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.
applicant-inventor be compelled to sign the contract executed by a
(b) Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.
co-applicant-inventor and both applicant-inventors to acknowledge it
before a notary public and then to have both documents recorded in Administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict
the Patent Office and in the office of the registrar of deeds, the judicial sense for it is enough that a party is given the chance to be heard
Director of Patents has no power and authority to compel the before the case against him is decided.
applicant-inventors to do what the movant is asking them to perform. (c) One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and
What the movant asks the Director of Patents to do for him is perhaps many times more creditably and practicable than oral agreement,
essentially a judicial function which would require the determination of through pleadings. There is no violation of procedural due process even if no
finding by a court of competent jurisdiction as to whether there was a formal or trial-type hearing was conducted, where the party was notified of
meeting of the minds of the contracting parties before it could compel the charge against him and given a chance to defend himself or explain his
any of them to perform what the movant prays the court to order him side of controversy. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for an
to do. administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers,
affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of
witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.
2. Rules on Adjudication under the Administrative Code (d) What is frowned upon or repugnant to due process is the denial of the
opportunity to be heard. Hence, a party cannot complain denial of due
Administrative Due Process process on the ground that he was not given the chance to cross-examine
the adverse party and his witnesses where he had been afforded every
(1) Nature -> The right to due process is not merely statutory. It is a opportunity to present his side, or that he was not allowed to present
constitutional right. It applies to, and must be observed in judicial as well as additional evidence before a quasi-judicial official where said party, in the
administrative proceedings to every case which may deprive a person of life,
28
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
appeal before said official, had already submitted voluminous supporting affected. In the present case, the provisional approval by the Board of
documents. PAL’s proposed DTS-35 does not violate the requisites of administrative due
process. Admittedly, after PAL’s proposal to introduce new night flights had
(3) Requisites: been referred to a hearing examiner for economic justification, PAL
(a) The right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the submitted a so-called consolidated schedule of flights, DTS-35, that
proceedings that may affect a person’s legal right. included the same night flights involved in Case 1414, and this was allowed
(b) The night to reasonable opportunity to appear personally or with the by Resolution No. 139 (68). Also, the provisional authorization of DTS-35
assistance of counsel and defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and does not violate the requisite hearing and investigation of the new flight
relevant evidence in his favour, by testimony or otherwise, and to controvert schedules, and consequently, it did not deprive Air Manila of its right to be
the evidence of the other party. heard. In allowing the operation or effectivity of PAL’s consolidated flight
(c) The right to a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction, so constituted as schedule, it was precisely prescribed that ―all schedules under the DTS-35
to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality. for which no previous approval has been granted by the Board, are hereby
(d) The right to a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial referred to a hearing examiner for reception of evidence on its economic
evidence presented at the hearing or at least ascertained in the records, or justification. Such hearings were actually conducted by the hearing examiner
disclosed or made known to the parties affected. The rule is that a decision and a report on the result thereof was submitted to the Board. And the
rendered without due process is void ab initio, and may be attacked at Board, considering the said report, passed Resolution no. 190 (68)
anytime directly or collaterally by means of a separate action or proceeding approving the 3 or 4 frequencies of the 7 new flights. There is no proof, not
where it is invoked. even allegation, that in all those bearings, Air Manila was not notified
or given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of its opposition.
It may be true that the temporary approval of DTS-35 resulted in the
Case #1: AIR MANILA vs. HON. MARCELO S. BALATBAT -> Whether or immediate operation of the opposed flights before the existence of
not the Civil Aeronautics Board acted without jurisdiction when it issued economic justification therefor has been finally determined. But this fact
Resolution No. 139 (68): Administrative proceedings are not exempt from alone would not work against the validity of the provisional authorization thus
the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedural principles, such issued. For, under the law, the Civil Aeronautics Board is not only
as the due process requirements in investigations and trials. And this empowered to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity; it
administrative due process is recognized to include (a) the right to notice, can also issue, deny, revise, alter, modify, cancel suspend or revoke, in
be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may whole or in part, any temporary operating permit, upon petition or
affect a person’s legal rights; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and complaint of another or even at its own initiative. It may be also pointed out
defend his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor, (c) that the new schedule objected to by Air Manila will affect its services in six
a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of routes, but, the schedule of flights provisionally approved in Resolution No.
139(68) was subsequently readjusted by the Board in order to conform with
honesty and impartiality, and one of competent Jurisdiction; and (d) a finding
its established policy on separation time between flights. It is evident from
or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented
the foregoing facts that not only has the resolution subject of the present
at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties
petition been modified, but its effectivity had been fixed up to 30
29
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
September 1968. There being no proof that the situation existing stating that it could no longer act on the petitioner's Motion to Dismiss since
when Resolution No. 139 (68) was issued still persists, the issue herein the case had been forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman. Thus, no
presented apparently has become moot and academic. practical relief can be granted to the petitioner by resolving the present
petition since the proceedings before the CHR the initiation of an
investigation through the issuance of the assailed Show Cause Order had
been terminated. The petition likewise fails for plain lack of merit. The OSG
correctly argued that the respondents, in their official capacities as
Chairperson and Members of the CHR, did not engage in judicial or quasi-
judicial functions; they did not adjudicate the rights and obligations of the
contending parties but simply undertook to initiate the investigation of the
allegations against the petitioner. The inquiry was not a quasi-judicial
proceeding, where offenses were charged, parties were heard and
penalties were imposed. It was at most, an exercise of fact-finding
Case #2: CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING v. LORETTA ANN investigation, which is entirely distinct and different from the concept of
P.ROSALES + [ GR No. 209283, Mar 11, 2015 ] -> NO, Quisumbing's adjudication. The power to initiate an investigation and to refer the matter
contention that she was denied due process is incorrect. The petition to the Office of the Ombudsman is within the power of the CHR as an entity
also fails with respect to the petitioner's claim of denial of due process. There with its own distinct personality and is recognized by no less than the
can be no denial of due process where a party was afforded an opportunity Constitution. Thus, the CHR did not commit any grave abuse of discretion
to present his case. In the present case, the petitioner was given ample in its actions. In sum, we find that the petition for certiorari and prohibition
opportunity to air her side on the allegations against her after being should be dismissed for mootness and for lack of merit.
sufficiently apprised of the allegations against her; she was afforded the
chance to submit her written explanation. Unfortunately, the petitioner failed (4) Right to counsel -> While investigations conducted by an administrative
to avail of that right, and chose to directly seek the intervention of this Court. body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, a party in an
These circumstances, by themselves, point the prematurity of the petition.
administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel irrespective of
Jurisprudence tells us that the essence of due process in administrative the nature of the charges and of the respondents capacity to represent
proceedings is the chance to explain one's side, or seek a reconsideration himself. No duty rests on such body to furnish the person investigated with
of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the counsel. The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations
opportunity to be heard before any definitive action is taken, the demands because the inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are
of due process are sufficiently met. facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and
employees with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
We stress, at the outset, that the subsequent referral of the case to the
The right, while desirable is not indispensable to due process unless required
Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate prosecutorial action rendered
the issues raised in the present petition moot and academic insofar as the by the Constitution or the law. An administrative body is thus under no duty
CHR is concerned. Records disclose that the CHR, through Chairperson to provide a person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an
Rosales and Commissioners Dela Cruz and Mamauag, issued an Order
30
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
absolute requirement. This is especially true in military academy disciplinary action, while the respondent Commission took cognizance of the compl
proceeding. aint and by
telegram required Villa to submit a locational clearance, said responden
(5) Effect of denial of due process -> Constitutes grave abuse of discretion t did not then or at any time before issuance of the order and writ of
and may result in the invalidation of the administrative proceedings and the execution
order or determination entered against a party. A decision is void for lack of complained of bother to put her on notice, formally or otherwise, of
due process if as a result a party is deprived of an opportunity to be heard. A Veneracion's complaint. It was therefore wholly natural for Villa to assume,
void decision may be assailed or impugned at any time either directly or as it is apparent she did, that no formal adversarial inquiry was underway
collaterally by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in and that the telegram was what it purported to be on its face: a routinary
any action or proceeding where it is invoked. request, issued motu
proprio/ on his own impulse, to submit proof of compliance with locatio
Case: ANITA VILLA vs. MANUEL LAZARO, as Presidential Assistant for
nal
Legal Affairs, Office of the President, and the HUMAN SETTLEM
requirements. And such assumption was doubtless fortified by petit
ENTS REGULATORY COMMISSION. 1990 |-> Yes, the petitioner is denied
ioner's knowledge that she already had in her favor a judgment on the
of due
subject against which her opponent had taken no recourse by appeal or
process. These facts present a picture of official incompetence or
otherwise. Neither is there any serious dispute about what transpired
gross negligence and abdication of duty, if not of active bias and partiality,
thereafter, about the
that is
fact that in response to that first and the subsequent demands
most reprehensible. The result has been to subvert and put to naught
sent by Commissioner Dizon, Villa not once but thrice furnished the
the judgment rendered in a suit regularly tried and decided by a court of
Commission by
justice, to deprive one party of rights confirmed and secured thereby and to
registered mail with copies, variously, of official documents certifying to
accord
her compliance with the pertinent locational, zoning and land use
her adversary, in a different forum, the relief he had sought and been
requirements and plans. None of these documents appears to have made
denied in said case. Dr. Veneracion had resorted to the proscribed practice
any impression on Commissioner Dizon, whose show-cause order of
of forum-shopping when,
April 28, 1982 and order of June 29, 1982 imposing a P10K fine on p
following adverse judgment of the CFI in his suit to enjoin the constru
etitioner made no mention of them whatsoever. Not even Villa's submission
ction of
of said documents a fourth time to support her motion for reconsideration of a
Villa's funeral parlor, he had, instead of appealing that judgment, lodge
writ
d a
of execution could move Commissioner Dizon to stop acting as if said
complaint with the respondent Commission on substantially the same g
documents did not exist at all. True, only copies had been submitted, but
round litigated in the
ordinary prudence and fairness dictated at least some inquiry into their
31
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
authenticity, and this would not have posed any great difficulty considering and trials. And this administrative process is recognized to include: (a)
their purportedly official the
origins. There was absolutely no excuse for initiating what is held RIGHT TO NOTICE, be it actual or constructive, of the institution OF
out as an THE PROCEEDINGS that may affect a person’s legal right;
administrative proceeding against Villa without informing her of the com (b) REASONABLE
plaint which initiated the case; for conducting that inquiry in the most informal OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND DEFEND HIS RIGHTS, INTRO
manner DUCE
by means only of communications requiring submission of certain docu WITNESSES AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE in his favor; (c) a TRIBUNA
ments, which left the impression that compliance was all that was expected L SO CONSTITUTED as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and
of her and with which directives she promptly and religiously complied; impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction; and (d) a FINDING OR
assuming that one of the documents thus successively submitted had been DECISION BY THAT
received, but given the fact TRIBUNAL SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED
that on at least two occasions, their transmission had been preceded at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties
by affected. -- And it being clear that some,
telegrams announcing that they would follow by mail, for failing to call at least, of those essential elements did not
Villa's attention to their non- obtain or were not present in the proceedings complained of, any judg
receipt or to make any other attempt to trace their whereabouts; for ment rendered, or order issued, therein was null and void, could never
ruling against Villa on the spurious premise that she has failed become final and could be attacked in any appropriate proceeding. Also, an
to submit the documents required; and for maintaining to the very end earlier judgment on the merits by a competent court cannot be negated
pretense of lack of compliance even after by a result of administrative proceedings. What the record shows is th
being presented with a fourth set of documents and the decision in the at the petitioner responded promptly to orders and communications sent to
court case upholding her right to operate her funeral parlor in its questioned her. At any rate, this court will not permit the result of an administrative
location. Whether born of ineptitude, negligence, bias or malice, su proceeding riddled with serious defects already pointed out to negate an
ch lapses are indefensible. Petitioner is plainly the victim of either gross earlier judgment on the merits on the same matter regularly rendered by
ignorance or negligence or abuse of power, or a combination of both. All of competent court.
the foregoing translate to a DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS against which the
defense of failure to take timely appeal will not avail. ——
— Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain
3. Applicability of rules governing judicial proceedings
basic and fundamental
procedural principles, such as the due process requirements in investig
(1) Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily -> the differences in origin and
ations
function of courts and of administrative agencies preclude the wholesale
32
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
transportation to administrative proceedings of the rules of procedure, trial, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court -> Sec. 24. Proof of official record.
and review which have evolved from the history and experience of courts. - The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of section 19,
The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
proceedings before an administrative body with quasi-judicial powers only in thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
the absence of different and valid statutory or administrative proceedings record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
prescribing the ground rules for the investigation, hearing and adjudication of Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the officer in
cases before it. which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-
(2) Strict legal rules not applicable -> Usually, the procedure of administrative consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
agencies is not as formal and strict as that of the court, and the regularity of Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
such proceedings is not to be tested by the strict legal rules which prevail in the authenticated by the seal of his office.
courts of law.
(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative
(a) The atmosphere of administrative tribunals may be one of agencies are, as a rule, unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of
expeditiousness, expertness, or liberally conceived remedies. procedure applicable to courts in the adjudication of cases, administrative
agencies, the same as courts, must act within, and cannot exceed, their
(b) All the strict rules of evidence governing judicial controversies do not
jurisdiction, nor entirely dispense with the basic rules on proving allegations.
need to be observed; only such as are fundamental and essential like the
right of cross-examination. Hearsay evidence may even be admitted,
provided the party interested is given the opportunity to explain or rebut it.
Documents which cannot eb admitted in a judicial proceeding where the • An administrative agency’s exemption from strict legal rules of
Rules of Court are strictly observed may be accepted. procedure does not empower it to act arbitrarily, and even a statutory
exemption from rules of procedure cannot authorise exemption from
(c) Conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies have consistently the due process guarantee in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
required some proof of authentication or reliability as a condition for powers. Thus, it has no power to make conclusions of fact before
admission of documents. An official document from a foreign government hearing all the parties concerned. The right to notice and hearing is
can be admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body essential to due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, will
invalidate administrative proceedings.
even without observing the rules on presenting official documents of a
• Due process, however, in an administrative context does not require
foreign government as provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. The
where the opposing parties have a copy of said document, and they can
constitutional mandate is deemed fully satisfied where the parties are
easily verify its authenticity and accuracy.
33
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the such proceedings is not to be tested by the strict legal rules which prevail in
controversy at hand. courts of law.
(a) The atmosphere of administrative tribunals may be one of

expeditiousness, expertness, or liberally conceived remedies.
(b) All the strict rules of evidence governing judicial controversies do not
need to be observed; only such as are fundamental and essential like the
right of cross-examination. Hearsay evidence may even be admitted,
provided the party interested is given the opportunity to explain or rebut it.
Documents which cannot eb admitted in a judicial proceeding where the
Rules of Court are strictly observed may be accepted.
(c) Conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies have consistently

required some proof of authentication or reliability as a condition for
admission of documents. An official document from a foreign government
can be admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body
even without observing the rules on presenting official documents of a
foreign government as provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
3. Applicability of rules governing judicial proceedings
where the opposing parties have a copy of said document, and they can
(1) Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily -> the differences in origin and easily verify its authenticity and accuracy.
function of courts and of administrative agencies preclude the wholesale
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court -> Sec. 24. Proof of official record.
transportation to administrative proceedings of the rules of procedure, trial,
- The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of section 19,
and review which have evolved from the history and experience of courts.
when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
proceedings before an administrative body with quasi-judicial powers only in
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
the absence of different and valid statutory or administrative proceedings
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the officer in
prescribing the ground rules for the investigation, hearing and adjudication of
which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made
cases before it.
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-
(2) Strict legal rules not applicable -> Usually, the procedure of administrative consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
agencies is not as formal and strict as that of the court, and the regularity of
34
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
the authenticated by the seal of his office.
(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative

Case: CONSOLACION BAUTISTA, in representation of deceased
agencies are, as a rule, unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of
ANDRES BAUTISTA, vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
procedure applicable to courts in the adjudication of cases, administrative COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS -> Yes the
agencies, the same as courts, must act within, and cannot exceed, their petitioner was deprived of due process. Failure of the counsel of claimant
jurisdiction, nor entirely dispense with the basic rules on proving allegations. to appear on the scheduled hearings is excusable because he either
received the notice of hearing by ordinary mail several days after the
scheduled date or he was not notified of the said hearings. Furthermore,
the WCC record does not show that indeed counsel for claimant received
• An administrative agency’s exemption from strict legal rules of notice of hearing prior to the aforesaid scheduled date of hearing.
procedure does not empower it to act arbitrarily, and even a statutory
exemption from rules of procedure cannot authorise exemption from The Court ruled that the respondent Commission gravely abused its
the due process guarantee in the exercise of its quasi-judicial discretion in ignoring and in not passing upon the issue of denial of due
powers. Thus, it has no power to make conclusions of fact before process squarely presented by claimant's counsel. The very rules of the
hearing all the parties concerned. The right to notice and hearing is Commission require the giving of reasonable notice of hearing to each
party interested by service upon him personally or by registered mail of a
essential to due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, will
copy thereof at his last known post office address or if he is represented
invalidate administrative proceedings.
by a counsel, through the latter, so as to ensure observance and protection
• Due process, however, in an administrative context does not require
of an interested party's right to a hearing.
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. The
Patent therefore is the failure of the hearing officer to observe these rules.
constitutional mandate is deemed fully satisfied where the parties are Under
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the the circumstances, claimant was clearly deprived of his day in court.
controversy at hand. Consequently, the dismissal of the claim premised on claimant and his
counsel's "repeated non-appearance" at the aforestated hearings cannot
stand.
ON JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
It is the contention of the petitioner that the evidence on record is already

sufficient as a basis for the rendition of a decision on the merits; and prays
that the claim be now resolved on the basis thereof.
35
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, We agree with petitioner. does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases or
WE have previously ruled that on the basis of the pleadings before Us,
preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. A statute may specially provide
despite a technical or procedural lapse in the hearing below, We can
for a greater or a lesser degree of proof than simple preponderance.
decide a compensation claim and terminate the matter here and now. WE
reasoned out that, the law being in claimant's favor, humane reasons
Findings of facts of administrative agencies must be respected as long as
aimed at promoting justice and the general welfare of the workingman,
justify the rendition of a decision on the merits. The niceties and they are supported by substantial evidence even if they are not
refinements of technical rules on procedure must give way to effect overwhelming or preponderant as in civil cases. Substantial evidence, as has
substantial justice to the claimant. been stated before, is more than a mere scintilla, it means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
It must be clarified that although Andres applied for retirement on August conclusion even if other equally reasonable minds conceivably opine
16, 1973 on the ground of disability and stopped working on that date, he
otherwise and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is a contrary
apparently resumed working when his retirement application was not
evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the court in determining
acted upon and thereafter again filed and/or reiterated his application for
retirement. These account for his conflicting claims as to the exact date wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief,
when he filed his application for retirement and stopped working for cannot substitute its own judgment or criteria for that of the administrative
respondent employer. At any rate, those conflicting dates cannot prejudice agency.
this compensation claim as it is clear that claimant's illness supervened in
the course of employment and his disability took place before the • substantial evidence vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt
compulsory age of retirement. • substantial evidence vs. preponderance of evidence
The absence of an x-ray report cannot prejudice claimant's right to

compensation. For We have already ruled that an x-ray report/result is not Case #1: RICARDO S. SANTOS, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON.
an indispensable prerequisite to compensation; and that said x-ray finding MARIANO NABLE, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellees. [G.R.
need not be attached to the Physician's Report, because it can be logically No. L-12073. May 23, 1961.] -> YES, the petitioner must be given
inferred from the said report that a previous x-ray examination was made.
an opportunity to prove by secondary evidence. Upon the other hand
Otherwise, the physician could not have arrived at his diagnosis.
— as far as the record discloses — when the first reinvestigation was
made, appellant's books were not returned to him in order that he
may use them to prove the inaccuracy of some of the findings of
agent Cosare, and the reinvestigation consisted merely in Cosare
going over the books again by himself. When during the hearing
4. Quantum of proof required in administrative cases
before the Conference Staff, the Bureau of Internal Revenue could
not produce appellant's books when such production was
The degree of proof required by which a case must be established before an
demanded, the latter was virtually deprived of the opportunity to
administrative tribunal is not satisfied by proof creating an equipoise, but it
prove his case with the best possible evidence — his own books. It
36
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
is true — as appellee says in his brief — that a taxpayer who substantial evidence the same are binding upon the Supreme
contests the correctness of an assessment has the burden of proving Court and the latter is not required to examine the proof de
his contention. This, appellant was willing to do but, as already novo and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance
stated, he was deprived of the best means of doing it with the loss of of evidence really justified the decision appealed from. The
his books. His only error, perhaps, was in not producing secondary Commision sent 2 checkers to inspect the situation to aid in the
evidence of their contents during the hearing before the Conference determination of whether additional service is needed by the public.
Staff. The Commission was able to conclude that there was indeed no
need for additional services. Absent proof that the Commission
In view of the circumstances disclosed by the record, we believe that, in abused its discretion/powers, Court respects Commission judgment.
equity, appellant should be given a last opportunity to prove — even
with secondary evidence —
Case #3: GLENIA UY, for and in behalf of her minors,* REYNALDO,
TAXATION; ASSESSMENT QUESTIONED; TAXPAYER'S BOOKS LOST MARIA ELENA (MARILEN), and CONCHITA, all surnamed UY,
BY B.I.R. AGENT; TAXPAYER MUST BE GIVEN AN petitioners, vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE CONTENTION BY SECONDARY and LUCY PEREZ, respondents. [G.R. No. L-43389 April 28,
EVIDENCE. — Where a taxpayer questions the correctness of an 1980] -> NO, Perez's contention that the Uys failed to support its
assessment against him and is apparently not acting in bad faith or claim of employment with documentary evidence but only through
merely attempting to delay payment, but is deprived of the best oral testimonies of witnesses is incorrect. Again, the SC cannot
means of proving his contention because his books of account were agree with Perez for "an employee is any person in the service of
lost by the B.I.R. agent who examined them, said taxpayer must be another under a contract for hire, express or implied, oral or written
given an opportunity to prove, by secondary evidence that the (Sunripe Coconut Products Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
assessment is incorrect. & Sunrise Coconut Workers' Union [CLO], L-2009, April 30, 1949,
XIV L.J. 472; citing Medermott's Case, 283 Mass. 74; Werner vs.
Case #2: ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN, petitioner, vs. Industrial Comm., 212 Wis. 76; Emphasis supplied). Moreover, it is
PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY AND LA MALLORCA COMPANY, true that the existence of employer-employee relationship is often
respondents. GR L-7996-99 -> No, the Public Service Commission difficult of determination because it was purposely made so by
have not erred in denying the application of Buan for additional lines. employers bent on evading liability under the Workmen's
The law, in investing the Public Service Commission with power Compensation and Nationalization Laws.
of supervision and control over public transportation has also
clothed it with broad discretion in the exercise of that power. In the case at bar, records disclosed that deceased Ki Lam Uy was employed
With that discretion Supreme Court is not supposed to interfere as "machine operator," "overseer" or "cashier" of Perez. The
except in case of clear abuse. Where the findings of the Public respondent Commission failed to give due weight to the police report
Service Commission are obviously supported by more than of Patrolman Amador Profetana, which Identified the deceased as
37
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
"the overseer of Lucy Perez," the private respondent who resides in the deceased and the cash he had was hardly sufficient to buy five
Ormoc City. Patrolman Profetana, who investigated the killing made (5) sacks of palay, but in spite of that, the deceased Ki Lam Uy alias
an initial spot report stating among other things "(t)hat at about Vicente Uy refused to surrender the same to the robbers as the
1900H [7:00 P.M.] 27 September 1974 an incident took place in the same was in his possession, so he was killed by the assailants
house of a certain Lucy Perez at Sitio Agay- ayan Bo. Tugbong, (robbers). There is no quarrel as to the admissibility of said police
Kananga, Leyte per verbal report of the rice mill caretaker thereat report as Section 1 (d), Rule 16 of the Workmen's Compensation
received at the Police Headquarters on the same evening of 27 Sept. Commission Rules specifically affirms the admissibility of reports of
1974 at around 203OH [8:30 P.M.]. government agencies covering material facts. Additionally, Section
5318.01, Labor Manual impliedly supports the admissibility of police
A combined PC-Police Team was sent to conduct an on-the-spot reports. It reads: The cooperation of the following government
investigation and it as found out that a certain Vicente Uy (alias Ki agencies or officials may be sought in developing evidence to
Lam Uy), 67 years, married, Chinese citizen under ACR# and an establish claims:
overseer of Lucy Perez with residence at Ormoc City was killed
inside his dwelling after having been hacked several times on a. The Bureau of Mines & Bureau of Health ... b. The Bureau of Customs ...
different parts of his body that resulted in his immediate death. A c. The Weather Bureau ...
portion of the decision of the Hearing Officer, who found the
existence of employer-employee relationship between the deceased d. Provincial, City or Municipal Officials — When appropriate, the aid of these
and private respondent, is hereunder quoted: The said witness officials may be requested in securing copies of police reports,
(Patrolman Amador Profetana) further testified that the deceased, Ki locating claimant's or employers' whereabouts, or in making
Lam Uy, was in charge of the management of the farm of Lucy payments of compensation to claimants (Fernandez & Quiazon,
Perez, as well as the rice mill, the buying and selling palay and other Labor Standards & Welfare Legislation 689 [1964]).
activities in connection with the business of the respondent, Lucy
Perez; that the respondent, Lucy Perez, was engaged in buying xxx xxx xxx
palay and milling said palay in her rice mill at Bo. Tugbong, The findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commission that an
Kananga, Leyte and selling the milled palay at Ormoc City; that employment relation existed was upheld as supported by substantial
because of the activities of the deceased, he considered the evidence. In a police investigation conducted on the very day of the
deceased as an overseer of the respondent, Lucy Perez, that he accident, two workers of the petitioners declared in the course of the
found from his investigation that the cause for which the chinaman Ki investigation that the deceased was their co-worker. Considering that
Lam Uy alias Vicente Uy was murdered it as because of the demand these statements were made at a time when connivance was most
of the robbers for money from him as the deceased was the one remote, because the question of
handling the money of the respondent in buying palay, and as such, compensation had not yet arisen, these must be accepted as truthful,
he was entrusted with the same; that he further found out that at the although subsequently these workers tried to repudiate their own
time of the robbery there was no sufficient cash in the possession of
38
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
declarations (Fernandez & Quiason, supra, Appendix, citing the case presence of the counsel of both parties. The testimony of those
of Jueco vs. Flores, interrogated was taken down and the counsel of both parties were
L-19325, Feb. 28, 1964, 10 SCRA 304, 307; Emphasis supplied). allowed to cross-examine them. Judge Roldan also proceeded to
examine some of the records of respondent company among them
The initial spot report (Annexes "L" & "M") made by the police officer in the the time cards of some workers which showed that while the workers
case at bar as to surrounding circumstances of the killing of Ki Lam reported for work, when their presence was checked they were found
Uy merits belief as it was likewise made at a time when connivance to be no longer in the premises. And on the strength of the findings
between the persons investigated was most remote and the question made by Judge Roldan in this ocular inspection he reached the
of compensability under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not conclusion that the petition for layoff was justified because there was
yet in their minds. It may not be amiss to state further that nothing no more work for the laborers to do in connection with the different
appears in the record that would sufficiently overcome the jobs given to them.
presumption that official duty had been performed. Henceforth, there
being no showing that the police officer in the present case The record before the court on this matter is not clear and for such reason it
maliciously or recklessly conducted the investigation and prepared has no way of determining the truth of both claims.
the police report, the police report must be given more probative
weight than the bias testimonies of private respondent's witnesses. - The stenographic notes taken during the ocular inspection have not
The ruling of respondent Commission was in effect not in furtherance been elevated for the reason undoubtedly that this is a petition for
of the presumption of moral sense of responsibility of police officers review and the only issue before the court is one of law.
and the presumption of regularity of acts of military officers contrary
to Our ruling in the case of People vs. Dela Cruz (L-1745, May 23, - The only guide that the court finds is the order itself of the court of
1950; 5 Martin, Rules of Court 480 [1974]). While as a rule, matters origin which contains a reference to the evidence that it has
of credibility and weight to be assigned to a particular item of considered for the layoff of the workers. – NOV 8 Order
evidence are primarily for the Commission, the same is true only - Although the CIR, in the determination of any question or controversy, may
where the findings of the Commission are supported by substantial, adopt, its own rules of procedure and may act according to justice
credible and competent evidence. and equity without regard to technicalities, and for that matter is
not bound by any technical rules of evidence, this broad grant of
Case #4: PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE power should not be interpreted to mean that it can ignore or
MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, respondent. [G.R. disregard the fundamental requirements of due process in the
No. L-7338. May 31, 1955] -> NO, the Court of Industrial Relations trials and investigations of cases brought before it for
authorize the layoff of workers on the basis of an ocular inspection determination. As aptly pointed out by this court,there are certain
without receiving full evidence to determine the cause of motive of cardinal primary rights which the CIR must respect in the trial of
such layoff. In the course of the ocular inspection Judge Roldan every labor case. One of them is the right to a hearing which
proceeded to interrogate the workers he found in the place in the
39
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
includes the right of the party interested to present his own case Case #5: FORTUNATO F. HALILI, petitioner, vs . JORGE R. FLORO,
and submit evidence in support thereof. respondent. [G.R. No. L-3465. October 25, 1951.] -> No. (1)
- An ocular inspection of the establishment or premises involved is proper if Oppositor waived his preference. — "Halili should have applied to
the court finds it necessary, but such is authorized only to help the the Commission for that purpose before the respondent had
court in clearing a doubt, reaching a conclusion, or finding the presented this application and made the requisite preparations for
truth. But it is not the main trial nor should it exclude the increasing his carrying capacity. The oppositor has waived his
presentation of other evidence which the parties may deem preference, if he had any, in supplying deficiency."
necessary to establish their case. It is merely an auxiliary remedy
the law affords the parties or the court to reach an enlightened (2) No showing that PSC decision contrary to law or rendered without
determination of the case. jurisdiction.
- Considering the merits of the controversy before us, we are of the opinion — "Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, known as the Public Service
that the required due process has not been followed. The court a Act, provides, among other things, that the Supreme Court has
quo merely acted on the strength of the ocular inspection it jurisdiction to modify or set aside an order, ruling, or decision of the
conducted in the premises of the respondent company. The Public Service Commission 'when it clearly appears that there was
petition for layoff was predicated on the lack of work and of the no evidence, before the Commission to support reasonably such
further fact that the company was incurring financial losses. These order, ruling, or decision, or that the same is contrary to law, or that it
allegations cannot be established by a mere inspection of the was without the jurisdiction of the Commission.' It is not pretended
place of labor specially when such inspection was conducted at that the decision under review is contrary to law or that it was without
the request of the interested party. jurisdiction of the Commission."
As counsel for petitioner says, such inspection could at best witness "the (3) Factual findings supported by ample evidence binding upon the courts. —
superficial fact of cessation of work but it could not be determinative "After a review of the evidence presented in connection with the
of the larger and more fundamental issue of lack of work due to lack arguments of the parties regarding the conclusions of fact reached
of funds". This fundamental issue cannot be determined without by the Commission, We find that there is ample evidence to support
looking into the financial situation of the respondent company. In the decision in question with very cogent reasons. We are not at
fact, this matter is now being looked into by the court a quo in liberty to substitute our own findings for those of the Commission
connection with the fourteen demands of the labor union, but before reasonably supported by the evidence even if We had some
finishing its inquiry it decided to grant the layoff pending final plausible ground to make the modification, which in the present case
determination of the main case. This action is in our opinion We do not have.”
premature and has worked injustice to the laborers.
40
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
5. Administrative res judicata (b) A particular administrative body is authorised to hear and decide appeals
from, and review the determinations of, certain other administrative bodies or
The doctrine of res judicata -> Provides that a final judgment on the merits officers.
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of
the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent (2) Types and kinds:
action involving the same demand, claim, or cause of action. The doctrine
operates only upon the parties and prevents them, on account of a prior (a) That which inheres in the relation of administrative superior to
determination, from litigating a controversy or issue which, except for the administrative subordinate where determinations are made at lower levels of
prior determination, could have been litigated in the subsequent proceeding. the same agency or department;
It, thus, forbids the reopening if a matter once determined by competent
(b) That embraced in statutes which provide for a determination to be made
authority acting within its jurisdiction.
by a particular officer or body subject to appeal, review, or redetermination by
As to determinations in the field of administrative law -> it is said that the rule another officer or body in the same agency or in the same administrative
of res judicata is applicable to determinations in the field of administrative law system;
as well as to courts whenever consistent with the purposes of the tribunal,
(c) That in which the statute makes or attempts to make a court a part of the
board, or officer. Such departures from the rule as there may be in
administrative law appear to spring from the peculiar necessities of the administrative scheme by providing in terms or effect that the court, on
review of the action of an administrative agency, shall exercise powers of
particular case or the nature of the precise power being exercised, rather
such extent that they differ from ordinary judicial functions and involve a trial
than from any general distinction between courts and administrative
tribunals. Even administrative proceedings must end sometime just as public de novo of matters of fact or discretion and application of the independent
judgment of the court;
policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies.
(d) That in which the statute provides that an order made by a division of a
Commission or Board has the same force and effect as if made by the
Commission subject to a rehearing by the full Commission, for the
6. Administrative appeals and review “rehearing” is practically an appeal to another administrative tribunal;
(1) Hierarchy of authorities -> in many administrative systems, there is a (e) That in which the statute provides for an appeal to an officer on an
hierarchy of authorities so that by express provision of statute or otherwise: intermediate level with subsequent appeal to the head of the department or
agency;
(a) A review may be had within the administrative system itself of the action
of lower administrative authorities by their superiors (f) That embraced in statutes which provide for appeal at the highest level,
namely, the President.
41
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(3) Partly entitled to appeal and review -> In order to be entitled to appeal standards of purity, quality and fitness for consumption. There is no such
and review by an appellate administrative body of the determination of a provision in the Act No. 2613. It does not provide the basis for a standard or
subordinate or another administrative body, a party must have been affected how and in what manner it shall be ascertained.
or aggrieved by it, and must so prove.
2. Judicial Review of or Reliefs against Administrative Actions

Case: WALTER OLSEN VS. ALDANESE AND TRINIDAD March 29, 1922 1) Policy of the courts in general
-> NO. Note Clause A and Clause B of Section 6 of Act No. 2613. * The
power of the Collector of Internal Revenue to make rules and regulations is > Non-interference unless there is a clear showing of whimsical
confined to the making of rules and regulations for the classification, marking, exercise of judgment or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
and packing of tobacco, and that such power is further limited to the making jurisdiction
of such rules for the classification, marking and packing of tobacco as may
be necessary to secure leaf tobacco of good quality and its handling under General rule: It is the policy of the courts not to interfere with the actions of
sanitary conditions. * This power is further limited to the end that leaf tobacco government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under
be not mixed, packed and marked as of the same quality when it is not of the their special knowledge and training or specific field of specific expertise,
same class and origin. * The Legislature has not defined what shall be the considering that by their nature and functions they are in the best position to
standard or the type of leaf or manufactured tobacco which may be exported know the limits of their powers under prevailing circumstances or situations.
to the US, or even specified how or upon what basis the Collector of Internal This is applicable in the grant of licenses, permits, leases, or the approval,
Revenue should fix or determine the standard. All of that power is delegated rejection, or revocation of applications therefor, subjected to well-settled
to the Collector of Internal Revenue. * Moreover, neither the Collector of exceptions, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus do not lie against the
Internal Revenue nor the Legislature itself has any power to discriminate in legislative and executive branches or the members thereof acting in the
favor of one province against the other. The purpose of the Legislature was exercise of their official functions, basically in consideration of the respect
that a proper standard of the quality of tobacco should be fixed and defined, due from the judiciary to said departments of co-equal and coordinate ranks
and that all of those who produce tobacco of the same standard should have under the principle of separation of powers.
equal rights and opportunities. It was never intended that a standard should
be fixed which would limit the manufacture of cigars for export to certain Exception: Unless there is a clear showing of capricious or whimsical
provinces of the island. That would amount to discrimination and class exercise of judgment or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
legislation which even the Legislature has no power to enact.* The excess of jurisdiction.
defendants rely on the case of Buttfield vs. Stranahan (the tea case). That
case, however, is not on all fours with the present case in that in the tea
case, a board was created, composed of tea experts who shall prepare and 2) Right to judicial review
submit the standard samples of tea, and that upon the recommendation of
the said board, the Secretary of Treasury shall fix and establish uniform
42
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
-> It has reference both to the power and right of the court to grant the judicial review. The courts have been established to prevent executive or
review sought and the right in the person who invokes the power of the court. administrative officials from exceeding their jurisdiction or taking arbitrary and
unreasonable action and no special provision of law is necessary to confer
> Right granted by statute or where review a matter of right under the upon the courts, authority already possessed by them under the Constitution.
Constitution -> The legislative practice has ordinarily been to provide
judicial review for administrative adjudications, whether required by Case: THE SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and FRANCISCO ANDRES,
constitutional commands or not. petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GREGORIO YANGLAY, JR.,
(a) Where judicial review is provided in the statute, the right if appeal to the respondents. G.R. No. L-39195 May 16, 1975 -> YES, Supreme Court has
courts is to be determined by looking at the statute, the valid regulations the jurisdiction to review the decisions of NLRC and
promulgated pursuant to it, and proven administrative practice throwing light
upon their meaning. Secretary of Labor. That contention is a flagrant error. "It is generally
understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or
(b) As a rule: where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the
certain administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that such acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no
bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of role and right of review is given by statute”
stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter. It is well-settled that
Regional Trial Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity "The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its
or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted in the Bureau of jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions"
Customs even through petitions of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. (73
C.J.S. 507, Sec. 165). It is part of the system of checks and balances which
> Where right of review not provided by statute -> There is no inherent restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust
right to judicial review of the action of an administrative agency. adjudications.
(a) Appeal is of a statutory origin; it is not a requirement of due process. The Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of
fact, however, that a statute does not provide for judicial relief or review does discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion.
not mean that there is no power or right of relief or review in a proper case
under the general powers and jurisdiction of the courts.
(b) In many situations, the Constitution is held to require judicial review even The courts may declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority
though a statute does not, and even though the statute attempts to preclude to be illegal
43
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(1) because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of (b) By reason of their special knowledge, expertise, and experience, gained
the law or (2) because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious. Taking into from the handling of specific matters falling under their respective
account the circumstances of the case, particularly Yanglay's initial attitude jurisdictions and which are addressed to their sound discretion, the courts
of confessing that his error was dictated by necessity and his promise not to ordinarily accord great weight and respect, even finality, to factual findings (ie
repeat the same mistake, we are of the opinion that his dismissal was a veracity or falsehood of alleged facts) of administrative tribunals. The wide
drastic punishment. He should be reinstated but without back wages latitude given to administrative agencies in the evaluation of evidence and in
because the company acted in good faith in dismissing him (Findlay Millar the exercise of their adjudicative functions includes the authority to take
Timber Company vs. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union, L-18217 and L- judicial notice of facts within their special competence. Occasionally,
18222, September 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 226). He has been sufficiently however, courts may delve in such matters for compelling reasons as where
penalized by the loss of his wages from July 19, 1972 up to this time. such findings are not supported by substantial evidence or are vitiated by
fraud, mistake, illegality, imposition or collusion; or where grave abuse of
discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest; or where a gross
misappreciation of evidence can be shown; or where there is a conflict in the
3) Conclusiveness of administrative findings
factual findings as to compel a contrary conclusion. As a corollary, the
Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they
> Factual findings supported by substantial evidence -> In reviewing
are not assigned as errors in the appeal, if it finds that their consideration is
administrative decisions, the reviewing court cannot re-examine or weigh
necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case.
once more the factual basis and sufficiency of the evidence submitted before
the administrative body and substitute its own judgment for that of said body
Case: THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION and the HON. LOURDES
or to receive additional evidence that was not submitted to the administrative
R. QUISUMBING, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of
agency concerned.
Education, Culture and Sports and Chairman, Board of Medical
Education, petitioners, vs. Hon. DANIEL P. ALFONSO, Presiding Judge
(a) A litany of cases has consistently held that substantial evidence is all that
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Fourth Judicial region, Antipolo,
is needed to support an administrative finding of fact. The general rule is that,
Rizal, and the PHILIPPINE MUSLIM- CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF
courts will not disturb on appeal the factual findings of administrative
MEDICINE FOUNDATION, INC., respondents -> No less than five surveys
agencies acting within the parameters of their own competence so long as
were conducted to determine the school's compliance with the minimum
such findings are supported by substantial evidence (particularly when
standards established for a medical college. The members of the evaluating
passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals which is normally the final
team came from the different sectors in the fields of education and medicine,
arbiter of questions of facts), albeit such evidence may not be overwhelming
and their judgment in this particular area is certainly better than that of the
or merely preponderant, or negatively stated, it is sufficient that findings of
respondent Judge whose sole and only visit to the school could hardly have
fact are not shown to be unsupported by evidence. This is known as the
given him much more to go on than a brief look at the physical plant and
substantial evidence rule.
44
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
facilities and into the conduct of the classes and other school activities. The • Order or decision - > statutes relating to judicial review of action of
respondent College knew that the recommendation for its closure was made an administrative agency commonly provide for review of “orders”,
as early as 1986, that the recommendation was reiterated and reaffirmed “any order”, “final orders”, “final agency action”, or final decisions”.
four times thereafter until it was finally approved and acted upon by the
Secretary, whose action was confirmed by the Office of the President. Said
(a) Particular order or determination may be held not subject to review
respondent was given notice in 1988, that in consequence of all these, the
because it does not constitute an “order” or “decision” or because it does not
time for its definite closure had been unalterably set at 1989, a notice which meet other requirements specifically laid down in the statute providing for
was accompanied by assurances of assistance in the relocation of its review. Thus, review may be denied as to mere pronouncement or
students and in its rehabilitation as a school for other courses. Given these recommendation not acted upon.
facts, and it being a matter of law that the Secretary of Education, Culture
and Sports exercises the power to enjoin compliance with the requirements (b) The mere informality of a decision does not prevent its review if it is
laid down for medical schools and to mete out sanctions where he finds that otherwise final. Thus, a letter may constitute an appealable order or
violations thereof have been committed, it was a grave abuse of discretion determination. “Findings” may constitute reviewable “order” where further
for the respondent judge to issue the questioned injunction and thereby proceedings have been ordered discontinued.
thwart official action, in the premises correctly taken, allowing the College to
operate without the requisite government permit. A single ocular inspection,
did not, in the circumstances, warrant overturning the findings of more • Threatened or pending action -> Judicial relief or review is often
qualified inspectors about the true state of the College. denied for lack of finality where action of the administrative agency is
only anticipated, even though threatened, or where the action is still
pending without final disposition.
> Only administrative actions which have attained finality are subject to Several different grounds are stated by the courts in denying relief or review
judicial review -> Courts are reluctant to interfere with action of an in such situations. Thus, it is said that:
administrative agency prior to its completion or finality, the reason being that (a) Jurisdiction lies in the administrative agency rather than in the courts;
absent a final order or decision, power has not been fully and finally (b) An administrative officer to whom public duties are confided by law is not
exercised, and there can usually be no irreparable harm. It is only after subject to the control of the courts in the exercise of the judgment and
judicial review is no longer premature that a court may ascertain in proper discretion which the law reposes in him as part of his official functions;
cases whether the administrative action or findings are not in violation of law, (c) Determinations by subordinate officials, acting under the instruction of
or are free from fraud or imposition or find substantial support from the their official superiors, are, in the nature of things, under the control of and
evidence. subject to review by their official superiors;
(d) The courts will not render a decree in advance of the agency’s action and
thereby render such action nugatory;
45
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(e) It is not for a court to stop an administrative officer from performing his administrative appellate tribunal reversing and remanding a case to
statutory duty for fear he will perform it wrongly, particularly where the statute the hearing officer to take further testimony. But certiorari is available
is not unconstitutional on its face, that to interfere with action which is simply against administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions,
“threatened” would render a statute unworkable and unenforceable and whether the order is interlocutory or not where the due process was
would unduly hamper the discharge by the administrative agencies of their not followed.
responsibility; or
(f) Prior to final administrative determination, the party seeking relief has not 4) Division of functions between courts and administrative agencies
suffered a present injury.
-> it inevitably creates problems of determining which tribunal may take initial
• Action requiring approval by superior -> An order required to be action and at what stage of administrative action an aggrieved party may go
submitted to a superior for approval is not final for purposes of to court. These problems are governed by three main doctrines:
review. However, the fact that in some circumstances the grant of
relief might have to be submitted for approval does not detract from (a) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction -> is not concerned with judicial review
the finality of an order denying relief. but determines in some circumstances whether initial actions should be
• Pendency of rehearing or administrative appeal -> The pendency of taken by a court or by an administrative agency.
an application for a rehearing or recommendation filed within the
time prescribed by law or regulations deprives the original order of (b) The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies -> is designed
finality. However, a statute may provide otherwise. primarily to control the timing of judicial relief from adjudicative action of an
• Rules and regulations -> Regulations of an administrative agency agency. It is customarily applied to adjudication and not to rule-making.
are addressed to and set a standard of conduct for all to whom their
terms apply. (c) The doctrine of ripeness for review -> in essence, it is the same as that of
• Purely administrative matters -> It is a well-recognised principle that exhaustion of administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making
purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be
and to administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making and to
interfered with by the courts.
administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making and to
• Preliminary, procedural and interlocutory determinations -> The
administrative action which is embodied neither in rules or regulations nor in
universal rule is that appeal to the courts will not lie from an
adjudication or final orders.
interlocutory order unless such order affects the merits. Examples:
(a) orders directing an investigation and inquiry, appointing a
conservator or conciliator, providing for a hearing and requiring
corporations under investigation to appear and present certain data;
(b) denial of a motion to change place of hearing; (c) denial of
1. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
application for a stay; (d) approval or disapproval of a compromise
agreement; (e) denial of application for rehearing; (f) an order of an
46
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
-> is not concerned with judicial review but determines in some *> Application involves exercise of judicial discretion -> The doctrine of
circumstances whether initial actions should be taken by a court or by an primary jurisdiction is not an inflexible mandate. It is predicated on an attitude
administrative agency. of judicial self-restraint, and its application involves the exercise of a judicial
discretion. Whether or not the requirement of prior resort should be imposed
> Concept -> This principle has been also referred to as the doctrine of prior is said to depend on the court’s determination whether Congress intended
resort, or exclusive administrative jurisdiction, or preliminary resort. The term the issues to be left to the administrative agency for initial determination.
“primary jurisdiction” is the most common in recent treatment of the subject. It When an affirmative indication of legislative intent does not clearly appear,
usually refers to cases involving specialised disputes which are referred to an the courts are on the whole, free to determine on the basis of policy
administrative agency of special competence to resolve the same. considerations the need (or desirability) of prior resort to administrative
determinations
> Application -> The doctrine applies only where the administrative agency
*> Issues involve question of law -> Be that as it may, prior resort to an
exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Strictly speaking, the
agency should be limited to questions of fact and questions requiring the
objective of the doctrine is to guide a court in determining whether it should
skills of administrative specialists. Question of law may appropriately be
refrain or not from exercising its jurisdiction over a matter or question even if
determined in the first instance by courts, because uniformity may be
it may well be within its proper jurisdiction where relief may be obtained in
secured through review by a single Supreme Court, and that unifying
administrative proceeding. Under the doctrine, "courts cannot and will not influence will involve neither factual determination nor the exercise of
determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction specialised judgment. There is no danger of by-passing administrative action.
of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the Purely legal questions will ultimately have to be decided by courts of justice;
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, hence they are within the competence and jurisdiction of the courts and not
experience and services of the tribunal to determine technical and intricate an administrative agency.
matters of facts and where a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with
the purposes of the regulatory statute administered. (c) Where concurrent jurisdiction conferred -> The doctrine is clearly
applicable whenever courts and administrative agencies have concurrent
(a) Where elements of administrative discretion important considerations -> jurisdiction.
Courts are in agreement that prior resort should be required where the
reasons mentioned justify its application. Thus, prior resort would be required
where elements of administrative discretion are often important
considerations, such as in cases involving issuance and revocation of Case #1: VICENTE VILLAFLOR, substituted by his heirs, petitioner,
licenses and the enforcement of licensing rules. vs OF APPEALS and NASIPIT LUMBER CO., INC. vs. COURT .
COURT OF APPEALS and NASIPIT LUMBER CO., INC., respondents.
(b) Where reasons for doctrine inapplicable -> May prior resort be required -> Yes, the findings of Bureau of Lands which was affirmed by the Secretary
even in cases where the reasons on which the rule is based are of Natural Resources can be relied by the appellate court. The findings of
inapplicable?
47
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
fact of an administrative agency, such as the Bureau of Lands and the IEI would be in line with the integrated national program for coal-
Minister of Natural Resources, must be respected as long as they are development and with the objective of rationalizing the country's over-all
supported by substantial evidence, even, if such evidence might not be coal-supply-demand balance, IEI's cause of action was not merely the
overwhelming or even preponderant. By reason of the special rescission of a contract but the reversion or return to it of the operation of the
coal blocks. These are matters properly falling within the domain of the
knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters
BED.BED is tasked with the function of establishing a comprehensive and
falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass
integrated national program for the exploration, exploitation, and
judgment thereon; thus, their findings of fact in that regard are
development and extraction of fossil fuels, such as the country's coal
generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts. The
resources; adopting a coal development program; regulating all activities
rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application relative thereto; and undertaking by itself or through service contracts
in this case, since the questions on the identity of the land in dispute such exploitation and development, all in the interest of an
and the factual qualification of private respondent as an awardee of a effective and coordinated.
sales application require a technical determination by the Bureau of
Lands as the administrative agency with the expertise to determine
such matters. Because these issues preclude prior judicial determination,
it behooves the courts to stand aside even when they apparently have
statutory power to proceed, in recognition of the primary jurisdiction of
Case #3: NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. and NESTLE WATERS
the administrative agency. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly HIDDEN SPRINGS & PERRIER, INC.) vs .
applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve UNIWIDE SALES, INC., UNIWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., NAIC RESOURCES
a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, UNIWIDE SALES REALTY AND
administrative body of special competence. RESOURCES CLUB, INC., FIRST PARAGON CORPORATION, and
UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC. -> NO. The Court takes
judicial notice of the fact that from the time of the filing in the Court of the
Case #2: INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., vs. THE HON. COURT OF instant petition, supervening events have unfolded substantially the factual
APPEALS, MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, THE backdrop of this rehabilitation case. In light of supervening events that have
HON. GERONIMO VELASCO, in his capacity as Minister of Energy AND emerged from the time the SEC approved the SARP on 23 December 2002
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK [G.R. No. 88550. April 18, 1990.] -> HELD: and from the time the present petition was filed on 3 November 2006, any
YES BED HAS JURISDICTION. While the action filed by IEI sought the determination by this Court as to whether the SARP should be revoked and
rescission of what appears to be an ordinary civil contract cognizable by a the rehabilitation proceedings terminated, would be premature. Undeniably,
civil court, the fact is that the MOA sought to be rescinded is derived from a supervening events have substantially changed the factual backdrop of this
coal-operating contract and is inextricably tied up with the right to case. The Court thus defers to the competence and expertise of the
develop coal-bearing lands and the determination of whether or not the SEC to determine whether, given the supervening events in this case,
reversion of the coal operating contract over the subject coal blocks to
48
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
the SARP is no longer capable of implementation and whether the -> is designed primarily to control the timing of judicial relief from adjudicative
rehabilitation case should be terminated as a consequence. action of an agency. It is customarily applied to adjudication and not to rule-
making.
> Concept -> It requires that where a remedy within an administrative

Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts will not agency is provided by law or available against the action of an administrative
determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the
board, body, or officer, and can still be resorted to by giving the said agency
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
every opportunity to decide correctly a given matter that comes within its
experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical
jurisdiction, relief must be first sought by availing and exhausting this remedy
and intricate matters of fact. In other words, if a case is such that its
before bringing an action in or elevating it to the courts of justice for review.
determination requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of
an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an
(a) The thrust of the doctrine is to allow first the administrative agency to
administrative proceeding before resort to the court is had even if the matter
carry out its functions and discharge its responsibilities within the specialised
may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction. The objective of the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it areas of its competence as a pre-condition before resort can be made to the
should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative courts.
agency has determined some question or some aspect of some
question arising in the proceeding before the court. It is not for the Court to (b) The premature invocation of a court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause
intrude, at this stage of the rehabilitation proceedings, into the primary of action. Absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the complaint is
administrative jurisdiction of the SEC on a matter requiring its technical susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. The doctrine which is
expertise. Pending a decision of the SEC on SEC En Banc Case No. 12-09- based on sound public policy and practical grounds (like the doctrine of
183 and SEC En Banc Case No. 01-10-193, which both seek to resolve the primary jurisdiction) is, however, flexible depending on the peculiarity and
issue of whether the rehabilitation proceedings in this case should be uniqueness of the factual settings of a case. It admits of certain exceptions.
terminated, the Court is constrained to dismiss the petition for prematurity.
> Application
(a) As a prerequisite of judicial review -> In some instances, the statute

makes the exhaustion of the remedies a pre-condition of the right to seek the
intervention of the courts. The principal application is to compel parties to an
administrative proceedings to take full advantage of all the means of
2. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies administrative processes afforded them. It serves to prevent private litigants
from ousting administrative bodies from the exercise of adjudications
properly committed to them. The classic example of failure to exhaust
49
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
administrative remedies is a failure to appeal from an administrative decision dismiss. Failure to invoke it at the proper time operates as a waiver of the
to a higher administrative authority or tribunal within the administrative objection as a ground for a motion to dismiss and the court may then
system; and even the filing of an appeal does not exhaust the remedy where proceed with the case and try it as if the doctrine had been observed. Thus,
there is failure to await the determination thereon before seeking the aid of the only effect of non-compliance with the doctrine is to render the action
the courts. In like manner, only judicial review of decisions of administrative premature, ie. the claimed cause of action not ripe for judicial determination
bodies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function (ie, adjudicative, and for that reason a party has no cause of action to ventilate in court.
not rule-making or legislative power) is subject to exhaustion doctrine. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case is susceptible
of dismissal for lack of cause of action.
(b) As affecting one’s cause of action -> The authorities are not in accord as
to whether the application of the doctrine lies in the discretion of the court or > Exceptions -> The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, like
goes to its jurisdiction and does not permit the exercise of discretion. the corollary doctrine of primary jurisidiction, does not preclude in all cases a
party from seeking judicial relief. The rule is not a hard and fast one but a
*> some cases have held that the requirement may be waived by the parties relative one. It is subject to limitations and exceptions provided by law or
and the proceedings entertained by the court, and that the court in some required by public interest. Its observance has been dispensed with or
situations may, in its own discretion, relax the rule. relaxed or disregarded, among others, in the situations mentioned below:
*> other cases have held that, where the rule applies, the court lacks (a) Where by the terms of the statute authorising an administrative remedy,
jurisdiction to act and may not relax the rule in its discretion. This is such remedy is permissive warranting the conclusion that the legislature
particularly true where the statute in terms vests exclusive jurisdiction in the intended to allow the judicial remedy even though administrative remedy has
administrative agency, and in view of the rule that a right of appeal is purely not been exhausted, or where the administrative remedy is not exclusive but
statutory and is dependent upon compliance with the terms of the statute merely cumulative or concurrent to a judicial remedy, or there is grave doubt
authorising review. as to the availability of the administrative remedy.
*> in our jurisdiction, it has been held that failure of a party to exhaust the (b) Where the issue involves not a question of fact, but one of pure law and
procedure of administrative remedies provided by law therefor affects his nothing of an administrative nature is to be done or can be done particularly
cause of action, not the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. where the controverted act is patently illegal, arbitrary and oppressive (eg
Hence, such failure is a ground for dismissal of the action for lack of a cause violated petitioner’s constitutional right to security of tenure) or clearly devoid
of action which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court for the dismissal of any colour of authority, or has been performed without or in excess of
of a complaint. jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion.
*> exhaustion must be raised at the earliest time possible, even before filing (c) Where the issue raised is the constitutionality of the statute under which
the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim by a motion to the administrative acts, or providing the administrative remedy, of itself, as
50
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
distinguished from a possible exercise of administrative power under the thereby leading the petitioner in the case of Tan vs Veterans Backpay
statute. But the doctrine is not prevented from operation solely by the fact Commission (105 Phil. 377, 1959) to conclude that only a final judicial ruling
that the party applying for judicial relief urges a violation of rights secured by in her favour would be accepted by the Commission, the rule of exhaustion
the Constitution and the holding of the administrative hearing would result in does not apply.
irreparable damage in the absence of a sufficient showing of inadequacy of
(f) If it should appear that an irreparable damage or injury will be suffered by
prescribed administrative relief and threatened or impending irreparable
a party unless resort to the court is immediately made. A preliminary
injury. injunction will usually be granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing
an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause
irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full
• Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or
hearing can be be had on the merits. The invocation of the urgency of judicial
regulation issued by the administrative body in the exercise of its
intervention in such case would be in keeping with the court’s broad
quasi-legislative power, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass
discretion in granting injunctions.
upon the same, but an act performed by it pursuant to its quasi-
judicial function is subject to the exhaustion doctrine.
(g) In special circumstances where there is no other plain, speedy, or
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, where the order
terminating the services of the appellee as Chief of Police was immediately
(d) Where questions involved are essentially judicial. Thus in Bueno vs
executed and another was appointed to the position on the same day, an
Paterno (9 SCRA 794, 1963) although the boundary dispute between the two
appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service, even if available, was ruled not
concessionaires of adjacent forest lands was still pending investigation in the
an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Furthermore, appeal to
Bureau of Forestry, yet in view of showing of violence or riotous acts that
the Commissioner is not prerequisite to, nor a bar to the institution of quo
would necessitate the immediate interference of the courts and the questions
warrants proceedings so that to require the appellee in the cases of
involved pertained to the contractual relations between the parties, it was
Laganapan vs Asedillo; Palma-Fernandez vs Dela Paz (160 SCRA 751,
held that the principle was not applicable because considerations of the
1988) to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the action (which
public order must transcend the mere administrative issue of conflict of
prescribes in one year and an administrative appeal does not interrupt the
boundaries.
running of the period could easily result in grave injustice of barring him
(e) Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine or forever from bringing the matter to the courts of justice for judicial
where the administrative body is in estoppel to invoke the doctrine. Thus, determination.
where the respondent Commission, in its resolution, declared that the
(h) Where respondent officer acted in utter disregard of due process as
opinions of the Secretary of Justice (to which it refused to abide) were
where one had been dismissed without any administrative charges having
“advisory in nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office
filed nor any investigation conducted, or where the Collector of Customs
seeking the opinion and the aggrieved party has the court for recourse,”
imposed a fine without first giving the petitioner opportunity to be heard.
51
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(i) Where insistence on its observance would result in the nullification of the treasurer’s office claiming a salary and computation pay equivalent to the
claim being asserted, as where the period within which to bring the case to small account of P949, to pursue his administrative appeal all the way to the
court (ie quo warranto) is limited by law, said period not being interrupted by President of the Philippines would not only be oppressive, but patently
the filing of any administrative remedy. Also, where petitioner in the case of unreasonable for by the time her appeal shall have been decided by the
Savoy vs Tantuico Jr. (50 SCRA 455, 1973) failed to get the relief sought President the amount of much more than P949 would all in likelihood have
after filing formal protests with the Commissioner of Civil Service against been spent.
their dismissal and in the meantime, the period of one year from the date of
removal within which a judicial action of this nature should be commenced (m) When no administrative review (ie by the President or the Executive
was fast running out, it was held that the petitioners had substantially Secretary) is provided as a condition precedent to the taking of an action in
complied with the rule before applying for judicial relief. court, a party, without awaiting the action of the President to which he
elevated the case or without first bringing his case to the Executive Secretary
(j) When there is long-continued and unreasonable delay or official inaction for review, may seek judicial relief.
that will unretrievably prejudice the complainant. In Gonzales vs Aldana (107
Phil. 754, 1960), the petitioners wrote to the Commissioner of Civil Service (n) In land cases, where the land subject of litigation is not part of the public
and to the Secretary of Education. They failed to obtain the relief sought, and domain. The legal provisions giving the government the exclusive authority to
instead the Director of Public Schools threatened to replace them. It was held seek cancellation of a title issued in conformity with a homestead patent and
that they had already given an opportunity to these high officials to act on a reversion of “land to the public domain are, in the very nature of things,
their petition for relief which practically was equivalent to an exhaustion of the confined in their application to lands of the public domain which have been
administrative remedies provided by law. In Camus vs Civil Service Board of granted in pursuance of the Public Lands Act. The doctrine is not applicable
Appeals (2 SCRA 370, 1961), two letters sent by the petitioner to the even to private lands acquired by the government by purchase for resale to
President seeking reinstatement was held to constitute a substantial individuals.
compliance with the requirement.
(o) On the other hand, the application of the principle of the exhaustion of
(k) When there are special reasons or circumstances demanding immediate administrative remedies with reference to public lands as a condition
judicial intervention, in the case of Alzate vs Aldana (105 Phil. 298, 1960), as precedent to the filing of a judicial action is confined to controversies arising
where the account claimed by the petitioner and which respondent had out of the disposition or alienation of public lands, or to the determination of
committed to pay would be reverted to the general funds of the government if the respective rights of rival claimants to public lands, and not to possessory
he waited for the final decision on his petition for reconsideration and actions involving public lands which are limited to the determination of who
whatever action may thereafter be taken by the respondent even if has the actual physical possession or occupation of the land in question.
favourable to the petitioner would be of no avail. Pending final adjudication of ownership by the Bureau of Lands, the courts
have jurisdiction to determine in the meantime the right of the possession
(l) Where the amount involved is relatively small so that to require exhaustion over the land.
would be oppressive and unreasonable. In the case of Cipriano vs Marcelino
(43 SCRA 291, 1972), it was held that to require a clerk in the municipal
52
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
(p) Where the respondent is a Department of Secretary whose acts, as an defendant. The civil action for damages may proceed notwithstanding the
alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, pendency of the administrative action.
unless actually disapproved by him, particularly where they are declared as
“final and unappealable. “ In the absence of a constitutional or statutory (s) Where a strong public interest is involved, the doctrine may be dispensed
provision to the contrary, the official acts of the Department Secretary “when with the judicial action validly resorted to immediately.
performed and promulgated in the regular course of business” are deemed or
are presumptively the acts of the President unless disapproved or reprobated (t) Other cases -> said principle may also be disregarded as where the
by the latter. This is the doctrine of qualified political agency under which the controverted act is patently illegal; or was performed without or one excess of
action of a department secretary, as the alter ego of the President, is jurisdiction; where the controverted act violate due process; where the
deemed to be that of the latter; and therefore, the failure to appeal to the protestant has no other recourse, or when to require exhaustion of
Office of the President cannot be considered a violation of the exhaustion administrative remedies would be unreasonable; where the issue of non-
rule. exhaustion has been rendered moot and academic; where a government
corporation had an affirmative statutory duty to disclose to the public the
(q) Where the administrative officer has not rendered any decision, or made terms and conditions of the sale of its lands and was even in breach of this
any final finding of any sort, the rule of prior exhaustion of administrative legal duty; where nothing of an administrative is to be or can be done, such
remedies does not apply. The principle rests upon the assumption that the as where the issue does not require technical knowledge and experience out
administrative body, board, or officer, if given the chance to correct its/his one that involves the interpretation and application of the law; in quo
mistakes or errors, may amend his/her decision on a given matter. It follows, warrants proceeding; where the petitioners raising the issues have voluntarily
therefore, that there has some sort of a decision, order, or act, more or less submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court, and where there are
final in character, that is ripe for review and properly the subject of an appeal circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
to a higher administrative body or officer, for a principle to operate.
(r) Where plaintiff in the civil action for damages has no administrative
remedy available to him, he is not required to exhaust administrative Case #1: CATIPON vs JAPSON -> The Court denies the Petition, Macario
remedies before filing his complaint, although the same incident complained violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and he should
of in the administrative case filed by the defendant (who was allegedly be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Our
humiliated by the plaintiff) against the plaintiff is the subject of the action for fundamental law, particularly Sections 2 (1) and 3 of Article DC-B, state that
damages filed by the plaintiff. As in the case of Escuerte vs Court of Appeals – Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
(193 SCRA 541, 1991), the cause of action in the administrative case is instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-
different from that of the civil case for damages. While the complainant in the owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Section 3. The Civil
former may be a private person, it is the government that is the aggrieved
Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government,
party and no award for damages may be granted in favour of private
shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale,
persons. In the civil actin for damages, the trial court’s concern is whether or
efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the
not damages, personal to the plaintiff, were caused by the acts of the
53
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all appealed to the Commission Proper within a period of fifteen days from
human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and receipt thereof. ―Commission Proper‖ refers to the Civil Service
institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It Commission-Central Office. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its remedies requires that ―before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of
personnel programs. Thus, ―the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of
the Government, has jurisdiction over disputes involving the removal and administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy
separation of all employees of government branches, within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the
administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including government-owned or comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted
controlled corporations with original charters. Simply put, it is the sole arbiter first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. The premature
of controversies relating to the civil service. In line with the above invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action.
provisions of the Constitution and its mandate as the central personnel The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical
agency of government and sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser
service, the CSC adopted Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999 (MC expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.
19), or the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience,
Service, which the CA cited as the basis for its pronouncement. Section 4 will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has
thereof provides: Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. — been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency
The Civil Service Commission shall hear and decide administrative cases concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.
instituted by, or brought before it, directly or on appeal, including contested Indeed, the administrative agency concerned – in this case the Commission
appointments, and shall review decisions and actions of its offices and of the Proper – is in the ―best position to correct any previous error committed in
agencies attached to it. Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or its forum. The CA is further justified in refusing to take cognizance of the
by law, the Civil Service Commission shall have the final authority to pass petition for review, as ―[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant
upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and employees a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the
in the civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special
efficiency of such officers and employees. As pointed out by the CA, competence.‖7 When petitioner’s recourse lies in an appeal to the
pursuant to Section 5(A)(1) of MC 19, the Civil Service Commission Proper, Commission Proper in accordance with the procedure prescribed in MC 19,
or Commission Proper, shall have jurisdiction over decisions of Civil Service the CA may not be faulted for refusing to acknowledge petitioner before it.
Regional Offices brought before it on petition for review. And under Section We likewise affirm the CA’s pronouncement that petitioner was negligent in
43, ―decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities, filling up his CSPE application form and in failing to verify beforehand the
municipalities and other instrumentalities imposing a penalty exceeding thirty specific requirements for the CSPE examination. Petitioner’s claim of good
days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, may be faith and absence of deliberate intent or wilful desire to defy or disregard the
54
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
rules relative to the CSPE is not a defense as to exonerate him from the the best interest of the service; the absence of a willful or deliberate intent to
charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; under our falsify or make dishonest entries in his application is immaterial, for conduct
legal system, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service ―may or may not be
therewith.8 Moreover, petitioner – as mere applicant for acceptance into the characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard
professional service through the CSPE – cannot expect to be served on a established rules.
silver platter; the obligation to know what is required for the examination falls
on him, and not the CSC or his colleagues in office. As aptly ruled by the
appellate court: The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the
Case #2: [G.R. No. 139302.October 28, 2002] EDUARDO P. CORSIGA,
best interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public officer as
Former Deputy Administrator, National Irrigation
long as the questioned act or conduct taints the image and integrity of the
Administration,petitioner, vs. HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Presiding
office; and the act need not be related to or connected with the public
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Iloilo City, and ROMEO P.
officer’s official functions. Under our civil service laws, there is no concrete
ORTIZO,respondents -> NO, Civil Case No. 22462 is not an exception to
description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best
the general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and thus, Ortizo
interest of the service, but the following acts or omissions have been treated
has no a cause of action. Being an NIA employee covered by the Civil
as such: misappropriation of public funds; abandonment of office; failure to
Service Law, in our view, private respondent should have first complained to
report back to work without prior notice; failure to safekeep public records
the NIA Administrator, and if necessary, then appeal to the Civil Service
and property; making false entries in public documents; falsification of court
Commission. As ruled in Abe-Abe vs. Manta, 90 SCRA 524 (1979), if a
orders; a judge’s act of brandishing a gun, and threatening the complainants
litigant goes to court without first pursuing his administrative remedies, his
during a traffic altercation; a court interpreter’s participation in the execution
action is premature, and he has no cause of action to ventilate in court.
of a document conveying complainant’s property which resulted in a quarrel
Hence, petitioner asserts that private respondent's case is not ripe for judicial
in the latter’s family; selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program
determination. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence of grave abuse of
exemption cards to his officemates during office hours; a CA employee’s
discretion on petitioners part. This is a mere allegation which private
forging of receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations; a Government
respondent failed to substantiate. Official functions are presumed to be
Service Insurance System (GSIS) employee’s act of repeatedly changing his
regular unless proven otherwise. However, under Omnibus Rules
IP address, which caused network problems within his office and allowed him
Implementing the Civil Service Law, a recourse is available to him by way of
to gain access to the entire GSIS network, thus putting the system in a
appeal which could be brought to the agency head, with further recourse, if
vulnerable state of security;11 a public prosecutor’s act of signing a motion
needed, to the Civil Service Commission. Worth noting, the possibility of an
to dismiss that was not prepared by him, but by a judge;12 and a teacher’s
administrative charge was only speculative on the part of private respondent,
act of directly selling a book to her students in violation of the Code of Ethics
who could avail of administrative remedies already cited. Ortizo failed to
for Professional Teachers.13 In petitioner’s case, his act of making false
reckon with the fact that the issue in Civil Case No. 22462 was not purely a
entries in his CSPE application undoubtedly constitutes conduct prejudicial to
55
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
question of law. Most importantly, the Court of Appeals, in our view, “civil action”, petitioner to a court of original jurisdiction. Where the right to
committed reversible error in finding that the trial court did not err nor gravely appeal is granted by statue, one who seeks to avail of it must comply with the
abused its discretion for taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462. statute or rule in effete of when that right arose.
DISPOSITION: Petition was granted, setting aside the decision of the CA.
1. Appeal -> Appeal to the courts was taken within reglementary period
of 30 days counted not from the receipt of the decision but from the
denial of the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
5. Statutory methods of review

-> it may be divided into three groups: Case: THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF MINES AND MINLAWI MINING
(a) Where remedy itself governed by statute -> Statutory methods in the ASSOCIATION vs. THE HON. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST
broad sense of the term are afforded where the remedy itself is governed by INSTANCE OF MANILA, Branch IX and LOUIS W. HORA. 1955 -> Yes,
statutory provisions, although the express terms of such statute relating to the time during which the motion for reconsideration was pending be
administrative agencies make no provision that this remedy shall be available deducted from the 30-day period for taking the decision to court.
for the review of agency action. Illustration: declaratory judgment, which is
purely a creation of statute; APPEAL AND ERROR; DECISION OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
TO A COURT OF JUSTICE FOR REVIEW; RULE IN ORDINARY CIVIL
(b) Where proceedings in court required by statute for enforcement of
CASES APPLICABLE. — Pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of Republic
administrative decision -> A statutory method of review is afforded where a
Act 739 an appeal may be had against the decision of the Secretary of
statute governing the action of a particular administrative agency does not
Agriculture and Natural Resources to court of justice. That an appeal is
permit the enforcing of an administrative decision except by proceedings in a
meant may be inferred from the use of the words "decision" and of the clause
court to be instituted by the prevailing party or the administrative agency
itself, and these proceedings are designed for judicial review of the agency "may be taken to a court it means that it will be taken thereto by way of an
action; appeal for review. The law also significantly provides that the decisions shall
be taken to the court as in ordinary civil cases, in another words, the appeal
(c) Where direct judicial review afforded by legislation providing generally for may be taken in the same manner as appeals are made in the courts of
such a review -> Statutory methods of review in a narrower sense, justice in ordinary civil actions defined in section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of
sometimes called “direct review proceedings”, are afforded by legislation Court. TIME DURING WHICH MOTION HAS BEEN PENDING TO BE
providing generally for review of action of administrative agency and DEDUCTED FROM PERIOD FOR APPEAL. — Appeal may be taken by
prescribing the manner and extent of such review, whether by way of appeal, serving upon the adverse party and filing with the trial court within thirty days
injunction, declaratory judgment, or simply by a provision for “suit”, “action”, from notice of order or judgment a notice of appeals, an appeal bond, and a
56
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
record on appeal. The time during which a motion to set aside has been income tax return said to be false, fraudulent or erroneous had been filed,
pending shall be deducted. REASON FOR ADOPTING -- The right to may no longer be effected by means of administrative methods but only
appeal from a decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources through judicial proceedings. In the light of the aforementioned ruling, were
is a statutory right; it can be invoked only in accordance with the manner We to consider as valid and in order the disputed warrant dated February 17,
which the Legislature has provided for the purpose. The considered opinion 1953, placing the properties of the taxpayer under constructive destraint and
of the members of the Court is that the Legislature has adopted the principle levy, the collection of the taxes for 1949, 1950 and 1951 by extra-judicial
contained in the Rules as to the manner of perfecting appeals in ordinary civil methods would be proper and the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals as
actions for the purpose of uniformity and to prevent the confusion that may far as it concerns this later period would be erroneous, although summary
be caused to litigants and lawyers by an appeal different from that applicable administrative means would no longer be the proper recourse for the
in courts of justice. => For the foregoing consideration, the petition should collection of taxes corresponding to 1948 and the years previous to that as 3
be granted. The order denying the dismissal of the action in the CFI is hereby years, 11 months and 22 days has already elapsed from the time the income
reversed and the complaint in said court filed by the respondents herein tax return for that year was filed. Syllabus: 1. TAXATION; COLLECTION OF
ordered dismissed. With costs against the respondent Louis W. Hora. 2. INCOME TAX AFTER THE THREE YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD, HOW
CERTIORARI -> The Supreme Court passed upon not only the legal issues EFFECTIVE. — The collection of income taxes, after the lapse of three years
involved, but also the findings of facts upon which the decision of the Court of from the date the income tax return said to be false, fraudulent or erroneous
Tax Appeals is based. had been field, may no longer be effected by means of administrative
methods but only through judicial proceedings. 2. ID.; INJUNCTION TO
RESTRAIN COLLECTION; AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO ISSUE. —
While Section of the National Internal Revenue Code precludes the use of
injunction to restrain the collection of taxes, however, Section 11 of Republic
2. Certiorari -> The Supreme Court passed upon not only the legal Act No. 1125 allows the Tax Court to issue said writ of injunction subject to
issues involved, but also the findings of facts upon which the certain limitations, provided the taxpayer either deposits the amounts claimed
decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is based. or files a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the court.
Republic Act No. 1125, being of later enactment, is deemed to have modified
said Section 305 of the National Internal Revenue Code. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.;
Case: THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. FILING OF BOND WHEN REQUIRED. — The requirement of a bond before
MATIAS H. AZNAR and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. -> a writ of injunction could be issued by the Tax Court applies only to cases
ISSUE: Whether the Collector of Internal Revenue could enforce collection of where the means sought to be employed for the enforcement of the
the alleged deficiency income taxes of Matias H. Aznar through the summary collection of the tax are by themselves legal and not where same were
methods of distraint and levy? RULING: Supreme Court said that the declared null and void, as where the summary methods of distraint and levy
collection of income taxes, after the lapse of three years from the date the would be utilized in the collection of deficiency income taxes, after the 3-year
57
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
prescriptive period as provided by Section 51-d of the Internal Revenue Code
has already elapsed. 4. COURT OF TAX APPEALS; REMEDY OF
PERSONS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY RULING OF THE COURT;
POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW QUESTIONS OF FACT.
— Any party adversely affected by any ruling, order or decision of the Court
of Tax Appeals has by law two ways of elevating his case to the Supreme
Court, i.e., firstly, filing in the Court a quo a notice of appeal and with this
Court a petition for review within 30 days from the date he receives notice of
said ruling, order or decision adverse to him (Sec. 18, Rep. Act 1125), and
second, by causing such ruling, order or decision of the Court of Tax Appeals
likewise reviewed upon a writ of certiorari in proper cases(Sec. 19, R.A. No.
1125). In the first case, this Court could go over the evidence on record and
pass upon the questions of fact. In the second case, this Court could only
pass upon issues involving questions of law. However, when the interest of
justice so demands, petitions for review may be considered as petition for a
writ of certiorari and vice-versa, and if this Court has the power to consider
the evidence to determine the facts in cases of review, there is no plausible
reason for depriving this Court of such power in petitions for certiorari
specially because in the latter cases the petitioner oftenly charges the
respondent Court with the commission of grave abuse of discretion the
determination of which usually depends on the facts and circumstances of
the points in controversy.
58

Admin Law Midterms Reviewer (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admin Law Midterms Reviewer (Final)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admin Law Midterms Reviewer (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrative Law

PAN T RAN C O V . P S C - > T h e th e ory o f th e se p ara t ion o f

 In v es t i g at i v e or a d v is o r y ( ex ec ut i v e or A. Ju ri sd i ct ion li m it ed – Ju ri sd ict ion an d p o w e r s ar e

B. Po w er s wi th in th ei r j u ri sd i ct ion b oar d - Ad m i n i stra ti v e

 Dis c r e ti o n ar y - p o wer or r i g ht c o nf err e d up o n th em

Th e Cou rt ju s t ex er ci s ed it s sta tu to ry p o w er o f i n v e st iga tion b. T he s ta tu t e x es a s t an dar d a n d x es t he b o un dar i es of

1. Ba si c p rin cip l e s -L e gi sl ati v e an d i n t erp r eta ti v e ru l e s - Th e p o w e r to cr ea te n e w

Gi v en th e c o mp l ex ity of th e n atu re o f th e fu n ct ion o f rat e -x in g an d D ep en d s l ar ge ly on e n a b lin g a ct a n d th e gran t of p o we r mu st

Whi le the leg is latu r e i s powe r le ss to c on fe r pu r ely o r st r ic tl y ju dic ial

2. S ep ar at ion of P ow er s /D el eg at i on of L eg is l ativ e P o wer of S ub or d in at e Le g is la t io n

(a) A fu n d am en t al o b j ect i v e o f go v er n m en t i s to d eve lop an d (f) A h e a lth y com p et it i ve e n v ir on m en t sh a ll b e fos ter ed , o n e

(b ) Th e e xp an s io n o f th e t e leco m m u n ica tio n s n etw or k sh a ll (g) A fa ir an d r e ason ab le in ter con n ec ti on o f fac i l it i es o f

(d ) Fos ter fa ir an d e f fi ci en t m ar ke t con d u c t th r ou g h , b u t n o t

AR TI CL E I II - A DM INI S T RA TI ON (e) Pr om ot e con su m er s w el far e b y f ac i li tat in g acce ss to

(g) In th e ex er c is e o f its r e gu lat o r y p o wer s , con tin u e to

(a) The atmosphere of administrative tribunals may be one of

(c) Conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies have consistently

(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative

It is the contention of the petitioner that the evidence on record is already

The absence of an x-ray report cannot prejudice claimant's right to

2. Judicial Review of or Reliefs against Administrative Actions

> Concept -> It requires that where a remedy within an administrative

(a) As a prerequisite of judicial review -> In some instances, the statute

5. Statutory methods of review

You might also like