Admin Jen Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER
From Atty. Elman’s PPT, LA’s transcription and JECYlanan digests

Administrative Law -NTC, LTFRB, Insurance Commission, ERB, HLURB, Bureau of
- is a branch of public law which fixes the organization of Mines and Geo-sciences
government, determines the competence of administrative (4) ) Administrative agencies created to regulate private
authorities who execute the law and indicates to individual businesses and individuals under police power.
the remedies for violation of his rights. -SEC, Dangerous Drug Board, CID, PRC
-is a system of legal principles which settles the conflicting (5) Administrative agencies that adjudicate and decide
claims of the executive and administrative authorities on one industrial controversies.
hand and of the individual or private right on the other. -NLRC, POEA
-it deals which powers and procedures of administrative (6) Administrative agencies that grant privileges.
agencies, including judicial review. -GSIS, SSS, PAO, Phil. Veterans Administration
(7) Administrative agencies making the government a private
Scope of Administrative Law party.
-All portions of public law concerning executive and - COA, SSS adjudication Office
administrative officials.
Republic of the Philippines or GRP
Purpose of administrative Law -refers to the corporate government entity through which the
-The protection of private rights. Its subject matter is the functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of
nature and mode of exercise of administrative power and the sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through
system of relief against administrative actions. which such political authority is made effective whether they
be provincial, municipal or other form local government.
Function of Administrative Law
-To make the government machinery work well and in an National Government
orderly manner. -refers to the central government consisting of the 3 branches
or department of the government.
Origin of Administrative Law -refers to the entire machinery of the central government,
- In legislation and preceds from the increased functions of composed of the executive, legislative and judicial
individuals because of complexities of modern society. Thus, a departments as distinguished from the different forms of local
new venture so called fourth branch of the government. governments.
NOTE: The National Government does not include the
Why is it coined as the fourth branch of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. However, the
government? Government of the Republic of the Philippines includes the
- Basically because there are administrative bodies created by National Government.
statues which are given powers by the Legislature, classified
as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers. Is Central Bank part of the National Government?
The reason for this is the multiplication of the activities of man CENTRAL BANK VS. CA, ABLAZA
in the outset. There were but few activities that have to be (April 22, 1975)
regulated by the State. But subsequently, the State through FACTS: A construction of an office was awarded to Ablaza by
the legislature and the courts found it necessary to create Central Bank. No formal contract was executed but the work
agencies in order to de-clog court dockets. The State found it commenced. However, after one month, Central Bank
unable to keep up with the various activities of individuals. terminated the construction. Trial court ruled in favor of
Thus, there was a so-called venture into the fourth branch of Ablaza.
the government which is actually a delegation of legislative National Government cannot dispense funds without
power to the administrative bodies. the requisite certification of availability. In this case, there
Administrative Body Judicial Body was none. Hence, Central Bank contends that there was no
perfected contract of sale due to the absence of such
General distinction: requisite.
HELD: The Central Bank is an entity separate and distinct
Its function is primarily primary duty is to decide from the National Government. The Central Bank is indeed a
regulatory even if it conducts legal rights between private government instrumentality but it was created as an
hearings and determines parties affecting their autonomous body under RA 265, “ to administer the monetary
controversies to carry out its property or liberty. and banking system of the republic
regulatory power. It does not depend on the National Government for the
As to the nature of the function being performed financing of its operations. It is the national government that
Wide array of activities; It Only one function – judicial occasionally resorts to it for the needed budgetary
embraces all the laws that accommodations.
provides the structure of the The Central Bank is an entity separate and distinct from the
government. National Government. "National Government" refers only to
As to how rules are applied the central government, consisting of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the government, as
Wider Discretion in the Utmost observance of the distinguished from local governments and other governmental
exercise of its powers Rules of Court entities and is not synonymous, therefore, with the terms The
Government of the Republic of the Philippines" or "Philippine
Government", which are the expressions broad enough to
include not only the central government but also the
Types of Administrative Bodies provincial and municipal governments, chartered cities and
(1) Administrative agencies created to carry on governmental other government-controlled corporations or agencies, like the
functions. Central Bank.
-BIR, BoC, CSC, LRA Hence, there was a perfected contract of sale in
(2) ) Administrative agencies created to perform business which Central Bank is liable.
services for the public.
-Phil. Postal Authority, PNR, NFA, NHA Is the National Coconut Co within the term GRP?
(3) ) Administrative agencies created to regulate businesses BACANI VS NACOCO
affected with public interest.
“The desire to excel and the courage to pursue it”
 jst  1
FACTS: There was a civil case involving NACOCO as before any court wherein any office, agency or instrumentality
defendant. NACOCO requested for copies of stenographic of the government is an adverse party. NPC contented that
notes and there was payment for such notes. The COA being a government-owned and controlled corporation, it is
disallowed such payment. So an action was filed by the embraced within the term instrumentality.
stenographers to reimburse them of such fees paid to them. HELD: Yes, Section 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987 is
HELD: NACOCO has a corporate personality separate and clear and unambiguous. It categorically provides that the term
distinct from the GRP. It is not within the scope of GRP. Thus, it “instrumentality” includes GOCCs. NPC is a GOCCS. Thus, NPC
is not exempt from payment for stenographic notes. is clearly an instrumentality of the government.
GRP do not include government entities which are given MACEDA VS MACARAIG
a corporate personality and distinct from the government and HELD: NPC is a government instrumentality tasked to
which are governed by the Corporation Law. Their powers, undertake development of hydroelectric generation of power
duties, and liabilities have to be determined by the light of and production of electricity from other sources XXX to
that law and of their corporate charters. They, like NACOCO, improve quality of life of people pursuant to the State policy in
do not therefore come within the exemption clause in Section Article 2, Section 9 of the Constitution.
16 of the Rules of Court. ISA VS CA
Are GOCCS included in the Government of the Republic FACTS: The Iron and Steel Authority has the basic function of
of the Philippines? promoting and developing the iron and steel industries. It was
-Yes, if such GOCC performs sovereign tasks. The Government created for a term of 5 years from 1973 to 1978. Its statutory
of the Republic of the Philippines refers only to that term was extended up to 1988. In 1983, it instituted
government entity through which the functions of the expropriation proceedings covering the properties of Maria
government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and Kristina Fertilizers but while the case was pending, the
in this are included those arms through which political statutory term of ISA expired.
authority is made effective whether they be provincial , ISSUE: WON there can be substitution by the plaintiff from
municipal, or other form of local government. These are what ISA to GRP.
we call municipal corporations. They do not include HELD: If the authority was incorporated, then it has a
government entities which are given a corporate personality personality separate and distinct from the principal.
separate and distinct from the government and which are Therefore, no substitution. In this case, however, ISA is a non-
governed by the Corporation Law. incorporated authority. Upon the expiration of its statutory
term, all its functions, responsibilities and duties including
Is the University of the Philippines a part of the GRP? assets and liabilities are reverted back to or reassumed by the
-The University of the Philippines has a separate identity from principal which is GRP.
the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. NOTE: For incorporated agencies, GRP will not be able to
substitute them because they have an independent
Is ARMM a part of the Government of the Republic of personality.
the Philippines?
-Yes, because it becomes a manifestation of political authority Incorporated agencies of the government NOT included
—An instrument where the sovereign powers of the in the term GRP:
government are exercised. (1) National Power Corporation
(2) Philippine Ports Authority
Instrumentality as defined in EO 292 (3) Philippine National Railways
-Any agency of the National Government not integrated within (4) Public Estates Authority
the department framework, vested with special functions or (5) National Housing Authority
jurisdiction by law and enjoying operational autonomy, usually (6) Philippine National Oil Company
through a charter.
-When the law vests in a government instrumentality Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a -Courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving
corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal,
organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a especially where the question demands the exercise of sound
government instrumentality exercising not only governmental administrative discretion requiring special knowledge of an
but also corporate powers administrative body or officer. Even if such an action is filed in
MIAA VS CA court, but which would require expertise or skills of an
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the lands used by the administrative officer, the courts will defer the matter to the
MIAA are exempt from real estate taxes imposed by the Local authority of the administrative agency.
Government Code. The first reason for this is that MIAA is not -It applies when enforcement of a claim requires the
a GOCC but rather an instrumentality of the National resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have
Government and therefore exempt from Government taxation been placed within the special competence of an
under Section133 of the Local Government Code. MIAA is a administrative body.
government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to
perform efficiently its governmental functions. Purpose of the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
A government instrumentality like MIAA falls under Section (1) To give the administrative agency the opportunity to
133 (o) of the Local Government Code, which states: decide the controversy by itself correctly and so as to enable
Section 133. Common limitations on the Taxing powers of the said administrative tribunal to correct its error
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not (2) To prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts so
extend to the levy of the following:XXX as to de-clog court dockets.
(o) Taxes, fee or charge of any kind on the National
Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and local SAGIP KALIKASAN VS PADERANGA
government units. FACTS: Allegedly, MV General Ricarte of NMC shipped
REPUBLIC VS RAMBUYONG container vans containing illegal forest products from
FACTS: Alfredo Chu filed a case for collection of sum of Cagayan de Oro to Cebu. Gen. Dagudag issued a seizure
money against NPC. He was represented by Atty. Rambuyong receipt to NMC container Lines. IN a complaint filed before
who is the incumbent vice-mayor of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. Judge Paderanga by a Roger Edma. The judge issued a writ or
NPC files a motion for inhibition of Atty. Rambuyong arguing replevin ordering the Sherrif to tale possession of the forest
that sangunian members are prohibited to appear as counsel products.
 jst  2
ISSUE: WON Judge Paderanga violated the doctrine of by the parties’ participation in the proceedings. The
primary jurisdiction. Machado’s can question its jurisdiction at anytime, even
HELD: Yes. Under the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, courts during appeal or after final judgment.
cannot take cognizance of cases pending before UST VS SANCHEZ
administrative agencies of special competence. The DENR is FACTS: Sanchez filed a complaint for damagesaainst the UST
the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws. anf its board of directors before the RTC for their unjustified
The DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial refusal to release his transcript of records. Petitioner claims
intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its that the CHED has primary jurisdiction to resolve matters
jurisdiction. The assumption by the trial court, therefore, of pertaining to school controversies, and the filing of the instant
the replevin suit filed by private respondent constitutes an case was premature.
unjustified encroachment into the domain of administrative HELD: Rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where
agency’s prerogative. administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory
GO VS RAMOS functions. Thus, an essential requisite for this doctrine to
FACTS: Ramos initiated a deportation proceeding against Go apply is the actual existence of quasi-judicial power. However,
before the Bureau of Deportation and Immigration. In a petitioners have not shown that the CHED possesses any such
resolution, Associate Commissioner dismissed the complaint. power to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts,
However, the Board of Commissioners reversed said hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. Indeed,
dismissal. Go filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with Section 8 of RA 7722 certainly does not contain any express
application of injunctive reliefs before the RTC. In essence, grant to the CHED of judicial or quasi-judicial power. Here, RTC
they challenged the jurisdiction of the Board to continue with has jurisdiction over Sanchez’ complaint for damages against
the deportation proceedings. UST. He did not violate the rule against Forum Shopping when
HELD: There can be no question that the board has the he sought recourse with both CHED and RTC.
authority to hear and determine the deportation case against
a deportee and in the process determine also the question of Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board or HLURB (PD
citizenship raised by him. However, this Court laid down the 957/PD 1344)
exception to the primary jurisdiction enjoyed by the -Section 1, PD 1344: NHA’s exclusive jurisdiction:
deportation board. When the evidence submitted by a (1) Unsound real estate business practices;
deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to (2) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by
immediate review should also be recognized and the courts subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project
shall promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
(3) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and
What is the exception to the primary jurisdiction of the statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
Bureau of Immigration over deportation cases and condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer,
when judicial intervention is allowed? broker or salesman.
-When the court itself believes that there is substantial CT TORRES, INC. vs. HIBIONADA
evidence supporting the deportee’s claim of citizenship; or FACTS: Petitioner sold a subdivision lot on installments to
when the evidence submitted by the deportee is conclusive of private respondent. The payment had been completed and as
his citizenship. such he demanded the delivery of the certificate of title to the
NOTE: Citizenship proceedings are sui generis, in that, unlike subject land. When demand was futile, he filed a complaint
other cases, res judicata does not generally obtain. against them for specific performance and damages in the
RTC.
RULE: The doctrine applies only whenever it is the court and HELD: RTC has no jurisdiction. The complaint for specific
the administrative agency which have concurrent jurisdiction. performance with damages filed with the RTC for failure to
The doctrine is inapplicable where there is concurrence of deliver the Certificate of Title comes under the jurisdiction of
jurisdiction between two disciplining authorities over a case, HLURB. HLURB is competent to award damages although this
the regular courts not being involved. is essentially a judicial power exercisable ordinarily only by
the courts. HLURB must interpret and apply contract and
Commision on the Settlement of Land Problems award damages whenever appropriate.
(COSLAP) HLC CONST vs. EMILY HOMES
-created by EO 561. FACTS: Respondent Emily homes Subdivision Homeowners
-Authority of COSLAP to resolve land disputes is limited only to Association and the 150 individual members filed a civil action
those involving public lands or those covered by specific for breach of contract, damages and attorney’s fees with the
license from the government, i.e. pasture lease agreements, RTC because the petitioner used substandard materials in the
timber concessions or reservation grants. construction of their houses.
MACHADO VS GATDULA AND COSLAP HELD: It is the HLURB, not the trial court which has
FACTS: The dispute involves two adjoining lots of Machado jurisdiction over respondents’ complaint regarding the use of
and Gatdula. Gatdula wrote a leter to COSLAP requesting substandard materials in the construction of their houses.
assistance because Machado allegedly blocked the right of CHUA VS ANG
way to his property. COSLAP issued a resolution directing FACTS: Petitioner buyers and respondent developers
Machado to reopen the right of way in favor of Gatdula. executed a Contract to Sell a condo unit. Despite the lapse of
ISSUE: WON COSLAP has jurisdiction over the dispute. 3 years, Developers failed to construct and deliver the
HELD: No. The terms of the law clearly do not vest on the contracted condo unit to petitioner. Petitioner filed a
COSLAP the general power to assume jurisdiction over any complaint before the Office of the prosecutor of Pasig,
land dispute or problem. Thus, under EO 561, the instances accusing the private respondents, as officers and directors of
when the COSLAP may resolve land disputes are limited only violating PD 957.
to those involving public lands or those covered by specific ISSUE: WON the HLURB has jurisdiction to entertain criminal
license from the government, such as pasture lease complaints lodged with the city prosecutor.
agreements, timber concessions, or reservation grants. HELD: No. Significantly, nothing in PD 957 vests the HLURB
Moreover, the issues raised in the present case primarily with jurisdiction to impose the Section 39 criminal penalties.
involve the application of the Civil Code provisions on Property What the Decree provides is the authority of the HLURB to
and Easement of Right of Way. IN this case, COSLAP assumed impose administrative fines under Section38, as implemented
jurisdiction and even issued writs of execution and demolition by the Rules Implementing the Subdivision and Condominium
against the Machados. Its lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured Buyer’s Protective Decree. The implementing rules, for their
 jst  3
part, clarify that the implementation and payment of HELD: There is no forum shopping since there are two
administrative fines shall not preclude criminal prosecution of separate causes of action. Collection for a sum of money is
the offender under Section39 of the Decree. Thus, the different from breach of a contract to sell and purchase.
implementing rules themselves expressly acknowledge that
two separate remedies with differing consequences may be Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799)
sought under the decree, specifically, the administrative -RA 8799 amended PD 902-A and transferred jurisdiction of
remedy and the criminal prosecution. SEC over intra-corporate or partnership cases to the courts.
NOTE: HLURB is competent to award damages. SEC VS INTERPORT RESOURCES
HOME BANKERS VS CA ISSUE: WON SEC has statutory authority to initiate and file a
HELD: Under Section 18 of PD 957, it is provided that no criminal suit against respondent corporation and its directors.
mortgage on any unit or lot shall be made by the owner or HELD: Yes, under Section 45 of the Revised Securities Act, the
developer without prior written approval of the National Securities and Exchange Commission has the authority to
Housing Authority. Such approval shal not e granted unless it make such investigations as it deem necessary to determine
is shown that the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be used whether any person has violated or is about to violate or is
for the development of the condominium or subdivision about to violate any provisions of this act. After a finding that
project and effective measures have been provided to ensure a person has violated the Revised Securities Act, the SEC may
such utilization. refer the case to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and
Notwithstanding that petitioner became the owner of the prosecution.
subject lots by being the highest bidder in the extrajudicial It is imperative that the criminal prosecution be initiated
foreclosure sale, it must be remembered that it was first a before the SEC, the administrative agency with the special
mortgagee of the same. Since the lot was mortgage in competence. The prosecution of offenses punishable under
violation of Section 18 of PD 957, HLURB has jurisdiction to the Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulation Code
declare the mortgage void insofar as private respondents are is initiated by the filing of a complaint with the SEC or by an
concerned and to annul the foreclosure sale. investigation conducted by the SEC motu proprio. Only after a
CADIMAS VS CARRION finding of probable cause is made by the SEC can the DOJ
FACTS: Petitioner and respondent entered in a contract to sell instigate a preliminary investigation. Thus, the investigation
whereby the former sold a townhouse unit to the latter, that was commenced by the SEC in 1995, soon after it
According to the petitioner, Respondent had violated par. 8 of discovered questionable acts of the respondent, effectively
said contract when she transferred ownership of the property interrupted the prescriptive period. Given the nature and
to respondent Hugo. Allegedly, petitioner asked respondent purpose of the investigation conducted by the SEC, which is
Carrion in writing to explain the alleged violation but the latter equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the
ignored petitioner’s letter. Respondent Hugo argued that the DOJ in criminal cases, such investigation would surely
HLURB has jurisdiction over the complaint because the interrupt the prescriptive period.
ultimately, the sole issue to be resolved was whether
petitioner, as the owner and developer of the subdivision on Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112)
which the subject property stood, was guilty of committing -Toll regulatory Board (TRB) is with sufficient power to grant a
unsound real estate business practice. qualified person or entity with authority to construct, maintain
HELD: Not every controversy involving a subdivision or and operate a toll facility and to issue the corresponding toll
condominium unit falls under the competence of the HLURB. operating permit or Toll Operation Certificate (TOC)
The mere allegation of relationship between the parties does PADUA vs. RANADA (Oct. 14, 2002)
not automatically vest jurisdiction in the HLURB. For an action FACTS: The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) issued a resolution
to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB, the authorizing provisional toll rate adjustments at the Metro
decisive element is the nature of the action as enumerated in Manila Skyway.
Section 1 of PD 1344. The complaint must sufficiently describe HELD: The TRB may grant and issue ex-parte to any
the lot as a subdivision lot and sold by the defendant in his petitioner, without need of notice, publication or hearing,
capacity as a subdivision developer to fall within the purview provisional authority to collect the increase in rates.
of PD 1344. Here, petitioner sought the cancellation of the An administrative agency may be empowered to approve
contract and the recovery of the possession and ownership of provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates of
the townhouse. Clearly, the complaint is within the jurisdiction public utilities without a hearing. Provisional rates are by their
of the RTC. nature temporary and subject to adjustment in conformity
ARRANZA vs. BF HOMES with the definitive rates approved after final hearing.
HELD: The HLURB and not the SEC has jurisdiction over a The remedy of the petitioner is file a petition for review of the
complaint filed by subdivision homeowners against a adjusted toll rates.
subdivision developer under receivership for specific Under PD 1112, the decision of TRB is appealable to the Office
performance regarding basic homeowners' needs such as of the President within 10 days from date of promulgation of
water, security and open spaces. such order granting this provisional toll rates.
The fact that respondent is under receivership does not divest FRANCISCO VS TRB
the HLURB of that jurisdiction since a corporation is not FACTS: On March 31, 1977, President Marcos issued PD 1112,
dissolved even if it is under receivership. authorizing the establishment of toll facilities on public
HLURB has jurisdiction since the principal action is not improvements. The same decree created the Toll Regulatory
pecuniary in nature. The primary action is the enforcement of Board and invested it under Section 3 (a) (d) and (e) with the
the contract. power to enter, for the Republic, into contracts for
NB: This case was prior to RA 8799 (May 30, 2000), which construction, maintenance and operation of tollways, grant
provides that RTC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate matters authority to operate a toll facility, issue therefore the
involving the subdivision, homeowners on one hand and the necessary Toll Operation Certificate and fix initial toll rates
developer on the other. and from time to time adjust the same after due notice and
MARINA PROPERTIES vs. CA hearing.
FACTS: Carlos Construction was the principal contractor as to ISSUE: WON hearing is necessary for initial toll rates.
the construction of a condo of Marina. He was allowed to buy HELD: No. prefatorily, a clear distinction must be made
one unit as an incentive. Marina refused payment from Carlos between the statutory prescription on the fixing of initial toll
Construction as to the condo it bought. Carlos filed damages rates, on one hand, and of periodic/interim or subsequent toll
before the RTC and an action for specific performance before rates, on the other. First, the hearing required under the said
the HLURB. provision refers to notice and hearing for the approval or
 jst  4
denial of petitions for toll rate adjustments—or the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgment of the
subsequent toll rates, not to the fixing of initial toll rates. By RTC and quasi-judicial bodies, EO14 specifically provides in
express legal provision, the TRB is authorized to approve the Section2 that the PCGG shall file all such cases, whether civil
initial toll rates without the necessity of a hearing. It is only or criminal, with the Sandiganbayan which shall have
when a challenge on the initial toll rates fixed ensues that exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof. Necessarily, those
public hearings are required. who wish to question or challenge the commission’s acts or
orders in such cases must seek recourse in the same court,
Administrative Bodies have two kinds of functions: the Sandigangbayan, which is vested with exclusive and
(1) Quasi-legislative which is really the main power of original jurisdiction. The SB’s decisions and final orders are in
administrative tribunal; this is also referred to as the rule- turn subject to review on certiorari exclusively by this Court.
making power of the administrative bodies. SANADO vs. CA (April 17, 2001)
(2) Quasi-judicial powers which is also known as the power to FACTS: Sanado was granted a Fishpond Permit was cancelled
adjudicate of the power of the administrative to interpret and thereafter. He elevated the matter to the Office of the
apply not only the law but also the rules and regulations that President but his appeal was dismissed.
the administrative body has promulgated. HELD: The reasons given by the Office of the President in
dismissing petitioner’s appeal are quite clear. Transferring or
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER subletting the fishpond granted to a licensee without the
-refers to the power of the administrative agency or officer to consent or approval of the administrative body concerned, as
investigate facts or ascertain existence of facts and to make a well as the failure to develop the area required by the
conclusion from such findings of facts. The exercise of this fisheries rules are definitely solid and logical grounds for the
power is only incidental to its main function which is the cancellation of one’s license. The action of an administrative
enforcement of the law. agency in granting or denying, or in suspending or revoking, a
-In the absence of provision giving the quasi-judicial power to license, permit, franchise, or certificate or public convenience
the administrative body, then it is only performing a quasi- and necessity is administrative or quasi-judicial. The act is
legislative power. But almost all administrative agencies are not purely administrative but quasi-judicial or adjudicatory
clothed with both powers—quasi-legislative and quasi judicial since it is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts by the
powers. administrative agency, upon which a decision is to be made
and rights and liabilities determined.
Nature of quasi-judicial power EASTERN TELECOM vs. INT’L COMM (July 23, 2004)
-It empowers the administrative tribunal to gather and FACTS: Respondent applied for and was given by the NTC a
evaluate evidences. But more than that, the administrative Provisional Authority (PA) to install, operate and provide local
tribunal is given the power or task to apply the law to settle exchange service. Eastern Telecom was as also granted by
the controversy conclusively and with finality because in the NTC a PA.
absence of this authority, if the power given to the body is Respondent was then given a PA in Manila and Navotas, 2
merely to gather and evaluate evidence, then it is not a quasi- areas already covered by petitioner. The issue being
judicial body. contended is whether or not NTC committed grave abuse of
NOTE: NBI and CHR not quasi-judicial entities. They only have discretion when it grated provisional Authority to respondent
fact finding capacities. Their findings of evidences are merely ICC.
referred to some other some other government agency. The HELD: The grant by NTC is not a grave abuse of discretion.
case is different for the LTFRB which has the power to NTC took into account ICC’s technical and financial capabilities
determine whether an applicant deserves to be given a permit and policy of healthy competition. The power of the NTC to
 grant a provisional authority has long been settled. As the
regulatory agency of the national government with jurisdiction
IMPORTANT NOTE: The grant of quasi-judicial power should over all telecommunication entities, it is clothed with authority
not only be conferred but should instead be only incidental to and given ample discretion to grant a provisional permit or
the administrative agency’s main task of implementing the authority. The court will not interfere with these findings of the
law in the specific fields of its expertise. Otherwise, the NTC, as these are matters that are addressed to its sound
agency becomes a specialized court of justice under the discretion, being the government agency entrusted with the
judicial branch. regulation of activities coming under its special and technical
forte. Moreover, the exercise of administrative discretion is a
Quasi-judicial proceeding involves: policy decision and a matter that can best be discharged by
(1) Taking and evaluating evidence the government agency concerned, and not by the courts.
(2) Determining facts based upon the evidence presented SPOUSES BALANGAUAN VS CA
(3) Rendering an order or decision supported by the facts FACTS:A complaint for Estafa was filed against Balangauan a
proved premier customer services representative of respondent bank,
HSBC who is in charge of Dwayne York’s account, a premier
The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power client. Assistant prosecutor found no probable cause to hold
requires compliance of two conditions: the petitioners liable to stand trial for the criminal complaint
(1) The administrative body must properly acquire jurisdiction. of Estafa and/or qualified Estafa. Respondent’s motion for
(2) Due process must be observed in the conduct of the reconsideration was likewise denied with finality by the DOJ.
proceedings. The CA however reversed the resolution of the DOJ.
HELD: A quasi-judicial agency performs adjudicatory
Jurisprudence functions such that its award, determine the rights of right,
PCGG VS PENA and their decisions have the same effect as judgments of a
FACTS: There was a freeze order issued by the PCGG over the court. Such is not the case when a public prosecutor conducts
assets and records of two government firms. This freeze order a preliminary investigation to determine probable cause to file
was contested before the RTC. Based on a complaint, the RTC an information against the person charged with a criminal
issued a restraining order. offense, or when the Secretary of Justice is reviewing the
HELD: The Supreme Court held that RTC and the CA for that former’s order or resolutions. In this cases, since the DOJ is
matter have no jurisdiction over the PCGG. PCGG exercise not a quasi-judicial body, Section 14, Article VIII of the
quasi-judicial functions, the commission us a co-equal body Constitution finds no application. Be that as it may, the DOJ
with the RTC; and co-equal bodies have no power to control rectified the shortness of its first resolution by issuing a
the other. However, although under BP 129, the CA has
 jst  5
lengthier one when it resolved respondent HSBC’s motion for -A party is not permitted to pursue simultaneously remedies in
reconsideration. two different forums Where forum-shopping is deemed to
UP Board of Regents vs. CA exist, the summary dismissal of both actions is warranted.
FACTS: UP awarded a doctorate degree to an Indian national.
It was later found that she has plagiarized her thesis thus the Test to determine whether a party has violated the rule
Board of Regents withdrew the degree. She contended that against forum shopping:
the Board was already estopped. (1) Where the elements of litis pendentia are present, or
HELD: Under the UP charter, the Board of Regents is the (2) Where the final judgment in one case will amount to res
highest governing body of the University of the Philippines. It judicata in the other.
has the power to confer degrees upon the recommendation of NOTE: The requirement to file certificate of non-forum
the University Council. It follows that if the conferment of a shopping, although not jurisdictional, is mandatory; if not
degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is complied, summary dismissal is warranted.
also empowered, subject to the observance of due process, to Furthermore, a certificate of non-forum shopping signed by
withdraw what was granted without violating a student’s right. the counsel alone is defective; unless clothed with special
An institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if it authority.
discovers that an academic degree it has conferred is not
rightfully deserved. Nothing can be more objectionable than What instances shall the rules against forum shopping
bestowing a university’s highest academic degree upon an not apply?
individual who has obtained the same through fraud or deceit. -Forum shopping is not applicable if one case is administrative
Indeed, in administrative proceedings, the essence of due and the other case is criminal in nature.
process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side of a -There is also no violation of the rules against forum shopping
controversy or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action where an administrative case has been filed pertaining to the
or ruling complained of. A party who has availed of the administrative liability of a public officer and the same arty
opportunity to present his position cannot tenably claim to files another for damages arising from the same set of facts
have been denied due process. Due process in an because there are two different causes of action.
administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings -There is also no violation is a case is filed with the court and
similar to those in the courts of justice. another with an administrative tribunal which does not
CARIÑO vs. CHR exercise quasi-judicial power.
FACTS: The teachers who participated in a mass action were HLC CONST vs. EMILY HOMES
either dismissed or suspended. While the appeal is pending FACTS: Respondent Emily homes Subdivision Homeowners
before the Supreme Court, the teachers also filed a case Association and the 150 individual members filed a civil action
before the CHR, which issued a subpoena to DECS Sec. for breach of contract, damages and attorney’s fees with the
Cariño. RTC because the petitioner used substandard materials in the
HELD: The Court declares the CHR to have no such power to construction of their houses. The respondents’ defective
try and decide cases; and that it was not meant by the certification against forum-shopping which was signed only by
fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency the president of EHSHA and not by all its members.
in this country, or duplicate much less take the functions of HELD: The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum
the latter. shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the
The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way signature of only one of them is insufficient. (The exception) In
of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive cases however where it is highly impractical to require all the
evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human plaintiffs to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping, it is
rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact sufficient, in order nt to defeat the ends of justice, for one of
finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the the plaintiffs, acting as representative, to sign the certificate
judicial function of the court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial provided that the plaintiffs share a common interest in the
agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and subject matter of the case or filed the case collectively raising
ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a only one common cause of action or defense.
judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, OMB VS VALERA
the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual FACTS: The Special Prosecutor denied Valera’s Motion for
conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the Reconsideration. Even before his Motion for reconsideration
authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to was acted upon, Valera already filed with the CA wherein he
the end that the controversy may be decided or determined sought to nullify the order of preventive suspension. The CA
authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such appeals ordered to set aside the order of preventive suspension on the
or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, ground that the Special prosecutor is not authorized by law to
to repeat, the CHR does not have. sign and issue preventive suspension orders since he is
BIRAOGO VS PTC neither the ombudsman nor one of the Deputy Ombudsman.
HELD: The investigative function of the Philippine Truth HELD: Considering the finding that petitioner Special
Commission will not supplant nor threaten the independence Prosecutor had no authority to issue the March 17, 2004
of the Office of the Ombudsman. If at all, it will complement preventive suspension order, the resolution of the issue of
the functions of the Ombudsman and the DOJ. As correctly WON the evidence of respondent Valera’s guilt is strong to
pointed out by the OSG, the function of the PTC is merely to warrant his preventive suspension need not be passed upon
recommend prosecution, which is just a consequence of its this point. Anent respondent’s alleged non-compliance with
fact-finding investigation. Fact-finding is not adjudication and the rule on non-forum shopping when he filed the petition for
it cannot be likened to the judicial function of the court of certiorari with the CA, suffice it to state that the CA correctly
justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. overlooked this procedural lapse. The merits of respondent’s
case are special circumstances or compelling reasons which
Forum Shopping justified the CA’s relaxing the rule requiring certification on
-is the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has non-forum shopping.
been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (other than MONTEMAYOR vs. BUNDALIAN
by appeal or certiorari), or of instituting two or more actions FACTS: Bundalian accused Montemayor of accumulating
or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the unexplained wealth. A complaint was indorsed to the
supposition that one or the other would make a favorable Philippine Commission against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC)
disposition. for investigation. A similar case was also filed before the

 jst  6
Ombudsman which was dismissed for insufficiency of matter of filling in the details of legislation may be delegated
evidence. to the administrative tribunal because of the complexity of the
HELD: The earlier dismissal of the case does not render the world, the legislature cannot be expected to anticipate all of
administrative case before the PCAGC as moot and academic. the demands created by the multifarious and expanded
As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard activity of individuals and enterprises.
before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are
sufficiently met. Petitioner voluntarily submitted to the Requirements for the administrative bodies’
jurisdiction of PCAGC by participating in the proceedings promulgation of rules and regulations to be valid:
before it. The decision of the Ombudsman does not operate (1)The rules must be germane to the objects and purposes of
as res judicata in the PCAGC case. The doctrine of res the law;
judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, (2)The rules and regulations must conform to the general
not to the exercise of administrative powers. As the PCAGC’s standards that the law has prescribed; and
investigation of petitioner was administrative in nature, the (3)The rules must relate solely to carrying out in effect the
doctrine of res judicata finds no application in this case. The general provisions of law
case before the Ombudsman is criminal in nature while the
case before PCAGC is administrative in nature. 3 Kinds of laws which may be promulgated by the
CABARRUS VS BERNAS administrative tribunal in the exercise of their quasi-
FACTS: Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed an administrative legislative power:
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for (1)Rules and regulations in order to fill in the details of the
alleged violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and law, which must not be contrary to the law itself.
Code of Professional Responsibility. Jose Antonio Bernas avers (2)Rules in order to interpret the law
that he has not committed forum shopping because the (3)Rules promulgated in order to determine a state of facts
criminal action is not an action that involves the same issue upon which the enforcement of a law is made to depend
as those in a civil action and both suits can exist without
constituting forum shopping so long as the civil aspect has not Requisites for valid delegation
been prosecuted in the criminal case. He emphasized that (1) Completeness test – the law is complete in itself; must set
forum shopping only exists when identical reliefs are issued forth a policy to be executed
by the same parties in multiple fora. (2) Sufficient Standard test – the must fix a standard, the
HELD: Rule is not applicable to agency not exercising judicial limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable, to
or quasi-judicial function. In this case, there is no forum which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
shopping to speak of. Atty. Bernas, as counsel of Mr. Pascual, functions
Jr., merely requested the assistance of the NBI to investigate
the alleged fraud and forgery committed by Mr. Jesus Completeness test
Cabarrus. The filing of a civil case for reconveyance and -To avoid an undue delegation of legislative power to
damages before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City does not administrative authorities, the law itself authorizing the
preclude respondent to institute a criminal action. The rule promulgation of the rules and regulation must be complete in
allows the filing of a civil case independently with the criminal all its terms and provisions so as not to leave the judgment or
case without violating the circulars on forum shopping. discretion to determine what the law shall be to the
VELASQUEZ VS HERNANDEZ administrative bodies.
FACTS: The assistant Schools Division Superintendent of the -A law is stated to be complete when the (1) subject, (2)
DECS-CAR sent a letter to petitioner Velaszuez, informing him manner, and (3) extent of its operation are stated in it.
of the alleged infractions committed by Respondent -TEST: Whether its provisions are sufficiently definite and
Hernandez, such as solociting, acceptin, and receiving sums certain to enable one to know his rights and obligations under
of money, in exchange for transfer or promotion of the law.
complainant teachers.
The committee issued an investigation Report recommending Sufficient Standard Test
the filing of administrative and criminal complaints against -If the law is incomplete, the law must offer a sufficient
respondents. standard to specify the limits of the delegate’s authority,
HELD: The rule on forum shopping would find no proper announce the legislative policy, and specify the conditions
application since the two cases although based on the same under which it is to be implemented.
essential facts and circumstances do not raise identical -The standard is usually embodied in the law itself and this
causes of action and issues. serves as a guide to indicate the extent and the limit of the
OMBUDSMAN VS RODRIGUEZ discretion of the administrative authorities that they may
HELD: In administrative cases involving the concurrent exercise under the statute.
jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body in
which the complaint is filed first, and which takes cognizance Requisites for the validity of an administrative
of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other regulation:
tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction. When (1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature
complainants first filed the complaint in the ombudsman, (2) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the
jurisdiction was already vested on the ombudsman and could legislature
no longer be transferred to the SB by virtue of a subsequent (3) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed
complaint by the same complainants. procedure
(4) It must be reasonable
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER (5) It must be applicable to all
-There must be a law creating this administrative tribunal and (6)It must be published (except for matters which are in
granting it with the authority to promulgate rules and nature)
regulations, this is the principal power of administrative NOTE: If issued in excess of the rule making authority, no
tribunal in order for it to be effective in performing their duties binding effect upon the courts; treated as a mere
it cannot be said that if they will be able to perform effectively administrative interpretation of the law.
its authority under the law it is not given the power to NOTE FUTHER: Mere absence of implementing rules cannot
promulgate rules and regulations precisely because it is quite effectively invalidate provisions of law, where reasonable
improbable if not impossible for legislature to anticipate any construction may be given.
kind of concern which is administrative in nature. So the
 jst  7
NOTE EVEN FURTHER  A law authorizing the President to SANZ vs. ABAD SANTOS
suspend the effects of a certain law upon the happening of an FACTS: The board of examiners for nursing issued an order
act and the ascertainment of the same be invested in the requiring a periodic inspection of nursing schools and
President is valid. The President is merely complying with prohibits the graduates of those schools which do not comply
what the law provides. with the minimum standards to take the board exams.
PBCOM vs. CIR HELD: This is an exercise of a quasi-legislative power. Such
FACTS: BIR changed the prescriptive period from 2 years to order applies to all enterprises similarly situated. This is a
10 years in the matter of filing a claim for refund on excess of reasonable exercise. There was no violation of due process.
income tax payment. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO VS CAMACHO
HELD: The rule issued by the BIR Commissioner violates the FACTS: Revenue issuance empowering the BIR to reclassify
law. It arrogates unto itself the power to legislate. The rule cigarette brands.
must be germane to the object and purposes of the law and HELD: It is clear that the revenue regulations unjustifiably
must at all times be in conformity and within the scope and emasculate the operation of Section 145 of the National
powers as provided by the statute to the administrative Internal Revenue Commission (NIRC) because they authorize
agency. the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to update tax
In this case, there can be no estoppel on the part of classification of new brands every two years or earlier subject
the State where the administrative agency acting on behalf of only to its issuance of the appropriate revenue regulations,
the State has made an error. when nowhere in Section 145 is such authority granted to the
OPLE vs. TORRES Bureau.
FACTS: Administrative Order 308 entitled "Adoption of a Unless expressly granted to the BIR, the power to reclassify
National Computerized Identification Reference System" was cigarette brands remains a prerogative of the legislature
issued by President Ramos. which cannot be usurped by the former.
HELD: A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate ROMULO vs. HDMF
to be covered by an administrative order. An administrative FACTS: A plan which provides for both provident/retirement
order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to and housing benefits is exempted from the PAG-IBIG Fund
specific aspects in the administrative operation of Coverage. In 1995, petitioner law firm was exempted.
government. It must be in harmony with the law and should Thereafter, HDMF issued a resolution providing that for a
be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying company to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of Fund
out the legislative policy. Coverage, it must have a plan providing for both
The SC rejects the argument that A.O. No. 308 retirement/provident and housing benefits superior to those
implements the legislative policy of the Administrative Code provided under the PAG-IBIG Fund. Waiver filed by petitioner
of 1987. The Code is a general law and incorporates in a was disapproved by HDMF.
unified document the major structural, functional and HELD: The HDMF Board Resolution is not valid. Said
procedural principles of governance. The establishment of a resolution effectively amended Section 19 of PD 1752 which
national computerized identification reference system merely requires as a pre-condition for exemption from
requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state coverage the existence of either a superior
policies, the primacy of national security, the extent of privacy provident/retirement plan or a superior housing plan, and not
against dossier-gathering by the government, and choices of the concurrence of both plans. Administrative issuances must
policies. It deals with a subject that should be covered by a not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain
law. consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only
This calls for the adoption, implementation of Congress can repeal or amend the law.
national state policies which should be thoroughly discussed REPUBLIC VS MIGRINO
in the legislature. So this is unconstitutional. There must be a FACTS: The PCGG created The New Armed Forces of the
law before the same is adopted. Philippines Anti-Graft Board to investigate the unexplained
DADOLE vs. COA wealth and corrupt practices of the AFP personnel both retires
FACTS: Monthly allowances of RTC and MTC judges of and in active service.
Mandaue City were increased. Mandaue City Auditor HELD: The PCGG cannot do more than what it was
disallowed such increase since DBM issued a circular wherein empowered to do. Its powers are limited. Its task is limited to
monthly allowances of judges should not exceed P 1,000 in the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their
cities and provinces and P 700 in municipalities. relatives and cronies. The PCGG cannot, though an order of its
HELD: Section 458 of RA 7160 allows the grant of additional chairman, grant itself additional powers which are not
allowances to judges when the finances of the city contemplated in its enabling law, such are the formation of
government allow. The said provision does not authorize the New Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-Graft Boards.
setting a maximum limit to the additional allowances granted CONTE vs. CA
to judges. FACTS: SSS retirees availed of RA 660 and SSS Resolution
Said circular is already amending the law, which is RA No. 56. The SSS board promulgated said resolution providing
7160. DBM has no authority to issue this order. for a supplementary retirement pension plan for a retiring
LUPANGCO vs. CA employee. COA disallowed said claims, saying it violates RA
FACTS: PRC ordered that candidates for the CPA board 4968 (Teves Retirement Law) which bars the creation of
exams are not allowed to participate in any review classes or insurance or retirement plan other than the GSIS government
receive materials within 3 days prior to the examination day. law.
HELD: The order of PRC violated the rights of the students as HELD: It is doctrinal that in case of conflict between a statute
wells as the right to academic freedom of the school. The and an administrative order, the former must prevail. A rule
issuance of a quasi-legislative rule must be reasonable. or regulation must conform to and be consistent with the
FEDERACION vs. QUISUMBING provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or
FACTS: Education Secretary Quisimbing issued an order regulation to be valid. The rule-making power of a public
phasing out Spanish subject as part of the curriculum and administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which it
imposing the Arabic subject in an optional basis. The may not use either to abridge the authority given it by the
Federacion contended that the order is arbitrary and violative Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond
of due process. the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions
HELD: The issuance of the order is a valid exercise of a control with respect to what rules and regulations may be
quasi-legislative power. It was made applicable to all similarly promulgated by such a body, as well as with respect to what
situated. There was no violation of due process. fields are subject to regulation by it. It may not make rules
 jst  8
and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of FACTS: EO 420 was issued by President Gloria Macapagal-
the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is Arroyo which requires all government agencies and GOCC’s to
administering or which created it, or which are in derogation streamline and harmonize their Identification Systems,a nd
of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute. Though well-settled is authorizing for such purpose the Director-General, National
the rule that retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor Economic and Development Authority to implement the same,
of the retiree, nevertheless, there is really nothing to interpret and for other purposes.
in either RA 4968 or Res. 56, and correspondingly, the HELD: There is also no dispute that these government
absence of any doubt as to the ultra-vires nature and illegality entities can individually adopt the ID format as specified in
of the disputed resolution constrains us to rule against Section 3 of EO 420. Such an act is certainly within the
petitioners. Resolution 56 contravenes the Teves Retirement authority of the heads or governing boards of the government
Law. This is an act arrogating unto itself the power belonging entities that are already authorized under existing laws to
solely to Congress. SSS had no authority to maintain and issue IDs. A unified ID system for all these government
implement such retirement plan, particularly in the face entities can be achieved in either of two ways. First, the heads
statutory prohibition. of these existing government entities can enter into a
NOTE: The Teves Retirement Law (RA 4968) bars the creation memorandum of agreement making their systems uniform. If
of any insurance or retirement plan—other than the GSIS—for the government entities can individually adopt a format for
government employees to prevent the undue and iniquitous their own ID pursuant to their regular functions under existing
proliferation of such plans. laws, they can also adopt by mutual agreement a uniform ID
GSIS VS COA format, especially if the uniform format will result in
FACTS: RA No. 8291 otherwise known as “ The Government substantial savings, greater efficiency, and optimum
Service Insurance System Act of 1997” was enacted and compatibility. This is purely an administrative matter, and
approved. The GSIS Board of Trustees, upon recommendation does not involve the exercise of legislative power. Second, the
of the Management-Employee Relations Committee President may by executive or administrative order direct the
(MERCOM) approved Board Resolution No. 326 wherein they government entities under the Executive department to adopt
adopted the GSIS Employees Loyalty Incentive Plan (ELIP). a uniform ID data collection and format. Section 17, Article VII
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners/appellants GSIS and GSIS of the 1987 Constitution provides that the "President shall
Board of Trustees have the power and authority to design and have control of all executive departments, bureaus and
adopt the questioned GSIS Retirement Financial Plan. offices." The same Section also mandates the President to
HELD: While GSIS has authority to create a financial scheme, "ensure that the laws be faithfully executed."
it is limited only to those availing of early retirement due to REVIEW CENTER VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
reorganization in GSIS but are not yet qualified for either FACTS: President GMA ordered for a re-examination and
optional or compulsory retirement. The retirement Financial issued EO 566 which authorized the CHED to supervise the
Plan adopted by the GSIS board is void as it is not an early establishment and operation of all review centers and similar
retirement scheme but is a form of reward for an employee’s entities in the Philippines. CHED Chairman Puno approved
loyalty and lengthy service in order to help him enjoy the CHED Memorandum Order No. 49 series of 2006
remaining years of his life. The RFP is a supplementary (Implementing Rules and Regulations)
retirement plan prohibited by the Teves Retirement Law. HELD: Said EO is invalid and a usurpation of legislative
SEC VS INTERPORT CORP function. The scopes of EO 566 and the RIRR clearly expand
FACTS: Board of Directors of IRC approved a Memorandum of the CHED’s coverage under RA 7722. The CHED’s coverage
Agreement with Ganda Holdings Berhad (GHB). Under the under RA 7722 is limited to public and private institutions of
Memorandum of Agreement, IRC acquired 100% or the entire higher education and degree-granting programs in all public
capital stock of Ganda Energy Holdings, Inc. (GEHI), which and private post-secondary educational institutions.
would own and operate a 102 megawatt (MW) gas turbine
power-generating barge. The SEC averred that it received FISCAL AUTONOMY
reports that IRC failed to make timely public disclosures of its -Entails freedom from outside control and limitations, other
negotiations with GHB and that some of its directors, than those provided by law. It is the freedom to allocate and
respondents herein, heavily traded IRC shares utilizing this utilize funds granted by law, in accordance with law, and
material insider information. SEC Chairman issued an Order pursuant to the wisdom and dispatch its needs may require
finding that IRC violated the Rules on Disclosure of Material from time to time.
Facts, in connection with the Old Securities Act of 1936, when -Recognizes the power the levy, assess and collect fees, fix
it failed to make timely disclosure of its negotiations with compensation rates not exceeding the highest rates
GHB. In addition, the SEC pronounced that some of the authorized by law and allocate and disburse such sums as
officers and directors of IRC entered into transactions may be provided by law or prescribe by them in the discharge
involving IRC shares in violation of Section 30, in relation to of their functions.
Section 36, of the Revised Securities Act. -Formulate and implement their organizational structure and
ISSUE: Sec. 8, 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act do not compensation of their personnel.
require the enactment of implementing rules to them binding -It’s a constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by
and effective. membership.
HELD: In the absence of any constitutional or statutory
infirmity, which may concern Sections 30 and 36 of the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG)
Revised Securities Act, this Court upholds these provisions as -Agencies of government that had been given authority under
legal and binding. It is well settled that every law has in its the Constitution or by law to have full freedom in the matter
favor the presumption of validity. Unless and until a specific of the allocation and utilization of their sources, including the
provision of the law is declared invalid and unconstitutional, authority to make a reclassification or abrogating and creation
the same is valid and binding for all intents and purposes. The of positions
mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively But this must be consistent or within the parameters of the
invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable construction guidelines imposed under the Unified Position Classification
that will support the law may be given. That Full disclosure and Compensation System (UCCS) as administered by DBM
Rules was promulgated by SEC only on July 24, 1996 while Budgets of these agencies cannot be reduced
Revised Securities Act was approved on February 23, 1982
does not render ineffective the law where a reasonable Who are the members of CFAG
construction may be given. (1) COMELEC
KMU VS DIRECTOR GENERAL (2) COA
 jst  9
(3) CSC autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of
(4) The Judiciary the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court,
(5) Office of the Ombudsman of the independence and separation of powers upon which the
CHREA VS CHR (2004) entire fabric of our constitutional system is based. In the
FACTS: CHR is a member of CFAG. CHR adopted a interest of comity and cooperation, the Supreme Court,
reclassification scheme wherein it collapsed vacant positions Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman have so far
to provide additional funds. DBM denied the request. limited their objections to constant reminders. We now agree
HELD: Being a member of the fiscal autonomy group does not with the petitioners that this grant of autonomy should cease
vest the agency with the authority to reclassify, upgrade, and to be a meaningless provision. Clearly then, in downgrading
create positions without approval of the DBM. While the the positions and salary grades of SC Chief Judicial Staff
members of the Group are authorized to formulate and Officer and SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer in the PHILJA,
implement the organizational structures of their respective the DBM overstepped its authority and encroached upon the
offices and determine the compensation of their personnel, Court’s fiscal autonomy and supervision of court personnel as
such authority is not absolute and must be exercised within enshrined in the Constitution; in fine, a violation of the
the parameters of the Unified Position Classification and Constitution itself.
Compensation System established under RA 6758 more
popularly known as the Compensation Standardization Law. POWER TO SUBPOENA
Thus, CHR cannot lawfully implement an upgrading and -Basic principle is that administrative agencies do not have
reclassification of positions without DBM’s imprimatur. The the inherent power to require the attendance of witnesses,
upgrading of FMO and PAO in CHR was not authorized by any unlike the court. There must be a law granting this power to
law. subpoena
CHREA VS CHR -Executive Order 292, Book 7, Chapter 3, Section 13 grants
HELD: As already settled in the assailed Decision of this such power for agencies performing quasi-judicial functions
Court, the creation of respondent may be constitutionally -Where the law gives authority to receive evidence, this
mandated, but it is not, in the strict sense, a constitutional necessarily includes the authority to summon witnesses to
commission. Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, plainly testify before the agency. The power to issue subpoena
entitled "Constitutional Commissions," identifies only the Civil necessarily follows from the authority given under the law to
Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the gather evidence or take in testimony, otherwise the power
Commission on Audit. The mandate for the creation of the would be a futile exercise.
respondent is found in Section 17 of Article XIII of the 1987 Where there is authority under the law for the receipt of
Constitution on Human Rights, which reads that – evidence, this includes the authority to require the production
Sec. 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office of records and other relevant documents.
called the Commission on Human Rights. Thus, the
respondent cannot invoke provisions under Article IX of the Administrative subpoena vs. Judicial Subpoena
1987 Constitution on constitutional commissions for its (1) Administrative subpoena is issued if the purpose is to
benefit. It must be able to present constitutional and/or gather or discover evidence on the basis of which there will be
statutory basis particularly pertaining to it to support its claim an institution of the appropriate case before the appropriate
of fiscal autonomy. body
NOTE: CHR has a certain degree of fiscal autonomy thru the (2) Judicial subpoena is issued if the purpose is to prove in
privilege of having it approved annual appropriations released evidence the charge
automatically and regularly, but not fiscal autonomy in its EVANGELISTA VS JARENCIO
extensive sense like using their appropriations to effect ISSUE: Whether or not the Agency, acting thru its officials,
changes in their organizational structure and their savings for enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact-
certain official purposes. finding investigations.
CSC vs. DBM HELD: Investigations are useful for all administrative
FACTS: In the General Appropriations Act of 2002, the DBM functions, not only for rule making, adjudication, and
was supposed to release P 285 M, the budget allotted by the licensing, but also for prosecuting, for supervising and
law to the CSC for that year. There was still a balance of P directing, for determining general policy, for recommending,
5.8M which DBM refused to release to CSC since there was legislation, and for purposes no more specific than
revenue shortfall. illuminating obscure areas to find out what if anything should
HELD: Constitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal autonomy be done. An administrative agency may be authorized to
only to the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions of which make investigations, not only in proceedings of a legislative or
petitioner is one, and the Ombudsman. To hold that petitioner judicial nature, but also in proceedings whose sole purpose is
may be subjected to withholding or reduction of funds in the to obtain information upon which future action of a legislative
event of a revenue shortfall would, to that extent, place or judicial nature may be taken 9 and may require the
petitioner and the other entities vested with fiscal autonomy attendance of witnesses in proceedings of a purely
on equal footing with all others which are not granted the investigatory nature. It may conduct general inquiries into
same autonomy, thereby reducing to naught the distinction evils calling for correction, and to report findings to
established by the Constitution. The agencies which the appropriate bodies and make recommendations for actions.
Constitution has vested with fiscal autonomy should thus be administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the
given priority in the release of their approved appropriations course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is
over all other agencies not similarly vested when there is a involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and
revenue shortfall. even before the issuance of a complaint. It is not necessary,
as in the case of a warrant, that a specific charge or complaint
RE: CLARIFYING AND STRENGTHENING THE of violation of law be pending or that the order be made
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE pursuant to one. It is enough that the investigation be for a
SET UP OF PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY lawfully authorized purpose. The purpose of the subpoena is
HELD: The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the to discover evidence, not to prove a pending charge, but upon
Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility which to make one if the discovered evidence so justifies. Its
needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The obligation cannot rest on a trial of the value of testimony
imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the sought; it is enough that the proposed investigation be for a
independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the lawfully authorized purpose, and that the proposed witness be
funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal claimed to have information that might shed some helpful
 jst  10
light. Because judicial power is reluctant if not unable to application does not require previous notice and hearing. The
summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues on only exception is, where the legislature itself requires it and
litigations it does not follow that an administrative agency mandates that the regulation be based on certain facts as
charged with seeing that the laws are enforced may not have determined at an appropriate investigation.
and exercise powers of original inquiry. The administrative (4) REASONABLE—it must not be unreasonable and arbitrary
agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent as to violate due process. They must show a reasonable
upon a case or controversy in order to get evidence, but can relation to the purposes for which they are authorized to be
investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated issued.
or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. When (5) PUBLICATION—it must be published in full or it is no
investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute publication at all.
to an administrative body, it, too may take steps to inform
itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law. In Article 2 - New Civil Code of the Philippines
sum, it may be stated that a subpoena meets the Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion
requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is (1) within the of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a
authority of the agency; (2) the demand is not too indefinite; newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is
and (3) the information is reasonably relevant. otherwise provided.
TAÑADA vs. TUVERA
CONTEMPT HELD: The publication of presidential issuances "of a public
-It should be clearly defines and granted by law and its nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due
penalty determined. process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound
-EO 292 states that unless otherwise provided by law, the by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of
agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of RTC to its contents. But if the rule is simply for the internal guidance
punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. of public officers and employees not of general application,
-It is limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony then even if such rule is not published, these are binding on
and it cannot be exercised in furtherance of administrative the public officers and employees.
functions; this limitation derives from its nature being
inherently judicial and the need to preserve order in judicial Purpose of Publication
proceedings. -To inform the public of the contents of the rules and
LASTIMOSA VS VASQUEZ regulations so issued before their substantive rights are
FACTS: Petitioner Gloria G. Lastimosa is First Assistant affected.
Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu. Because she and the Provincial -Publication requirement applies only where the issuance is of
Prosecutor refused, or at any rate failed, to file a criminal general application and thus, intended for the public at large
charge as ordered by the Ombudsman, an administrative -An administrative circular issued by POEA, in the absence of
complaint for grave misconduct, insubordination, gross such compliance with the requirement, cannot be given
neglect of duty and maliciously refraining from prosecuting effectivity.
crime was filed against her and the Provincial Prosecutor and
a charge for indirect contempt was brought against them, When publication not required
both in the Office of the Ombudsman. In the meantime the (1) Interpretative rules and regulations
two were placed under preventive suspension. (2) Where the rules and regulations regulate only the staff or
HELD: Section 15 (g) of the Ombudsman Act gives the Office the personnel of the administrative office
of the Ombudsman the power to punish for contempt, in (3) Rules and regulations which are in the nature of letters of
accordance with the Rules of Court and under the same instructions (LOI), which means they are merely guidelines to
procedure and with the same penalties provided therein. be followed by the personnel
There is no merit in the argument that petitioner and SEC VS PICOP
Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar cannot be held liable for FACTS: PICOP filed an application before SEC for the
contempt because their refusal arose out of an administrative, extension of its corporate existence for another fifty years.
rather than judicial proceeding, proceeding before the Office The SEC, however, informed PICOP of the appropriate filing
of the Ombudsman. As petitioner herself says in another fee of 12 million. PICOP posited that the 1986 circular should
context, the preliminary investigation of a case, of which the prevail.
filing of an information is quasi-judicial in character. HELD: There is an evident violation of the due process
requirement. It is admitted that the SEC failed to satisfy the
Implementing Rules or Interpretative Policies requirements for promulgation when it filed the required
-Administrative bodies have authority to interpret at first copies of the said regulation at the UP Law Center only 14
instance the laws they are to execute. years after it was supposed to have taken effect.
-Interpretations are not binding upon courts but to have The SEC violated the due process clause in so far as it denied
force/effect of law and entitled to great respect. the public prior notice of the regulations that were supposed
-General policy is to sustain the decision of administrative to govern them. The SEC cannot wield the provisions of the
bodies on basis of separation of powers and their presumed 1990 Circular against PICOP and expect its outright
knowledgeability and expertise. compliance. The circular was not yet effective during the time
-Abrogation of previous acts or ruling of predecessor in office. PICOP filed its request to extend its corporate existence in
2002. In fact, it was only discovered in 2004.
Requisites for validity of administrative rules and GSIS vs. COA
regulations FACTS: Executive Order 79 providing for reversion of inactive
(1) AUTHORIZED—its promulgation must be authorized by the status of a reserve officer was enacted on December 2, 1986.
legislature. It is usually conferred by the charter itself of the Brig. Asuncion died on November 16, 1987. EO 79 was
administrative body or by the law it is supposed to enforce. implemented by the Board of Trustees of GSIS on December
(2) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY—it must be within the scope of the 11, 1987. GSIS approved his compulsory insurance coverage
authority given by the legislature. The regulation promulgated but was disallowed by COA.
must not be ultra vires or beyond the limits of the authority HELD: EO 79 was effective at the time of death of Brig.
conferred. Asuncion. Such EO was published on December 22, 1986 and
(3) ACCORDING TO THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE—it must be thus, effective 15 days thereafter, which is January 7, 1987.
promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Brig. Asuncion was already compulsorily covered as a member
Promulgation of administrative regulations of general of GSIS at the time of his death.
 jst  11
PITC vs. COA the DOJ and of the Office of the Ombudsman in the conduct of
FACTS: The PITC Board approved a car plan program for its preliminary investigation. OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001
qualified officers. On July 1, 1989, RA 6758 took effect which DOES NOT regulate the conduct of persons or the public, in
provided that other additional compensation being received general.
by incumbents as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the REPUBLIC vs. EXPRESS TELECOM
standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized. To FACTS: In 1993, there were no more available frequencies
implement RA 6758, DBM issued DBM-CCC No. 10. The and thus, Bayantel’s application to operate a Cellular Mobile
payment for expenses for such car plan was disallowed by Telephone System was archived. In 2000, NTC revived
COA. Bayantel’s application and granted provisional authority to
HELD: DBM-CCC No. 10 has no force and effect due to the operate applying its 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure.
absence of publication. Subsequent publication thereof would Extelcom contends that NTC should have applied its Revised
not cure the defect. Publication is required as a condition Rules filed the National Administrative Register on February
precedent to the effectivity of a law. 1993.
PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT CORPORATION VS HELD: The 1993 Rules have not yet been published, and
LABOR SECRETARY thus, the 1978 Rules were applied by NTC. The 1993 Revised
FACTS: Petitioner insists that it cannot be held liable for Rules have not taken effect at the time of the grant of the
illegal exaction as POEA Memo Circular No. 11 Series of 1983, provisional authority. There is nothing in the Administrative
which enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected Code of 1987 which implies that the filing of the rules with the
from applicants, is void for lack of publication. UP Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules force
HELD: POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 and effect.
must likewise be declared ineffective as the same was never SEC VS GMA NETWORK
published or filed with the National Administrative Register. FACTS: The SEC issued Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of
POEA Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1983 provides for 1994, imposing new fees and charges and deleting the
the applicable schedule of placement and documentation fees maximum filing fee set forth in SEC Circular No. 1, Series of
for private employment agencies or authority holders. Under 1986, such that the fee for the filing of articles of
the said Order, the maximum amount which may be collected incorporation became 1/10 of 1% of the authorized capital
from prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2,500.00. It is stock plus 20% thereof but not less than P500.00.
thus clear that the administrative circular under consideration HELD: The questioned memorandum circular is invalid as it
is one of those issuances which should be published for its does not appear from the records that it has been published in
effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.
existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Considering that Executive Order No. 200, which repealed Art. 2 of the Civil
POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not as Code, provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days
yet been published or filed with the National Administrative following the completion of their publication either in the
Register, the same is ineffective and may not be enforced. Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a specified Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided." No. 3531 and
group, namely private employment agencies or authority indubitably regulates and affects the public at large. It cannot,
holders, does not take it away from the ambit of our ruling in therefore, be considered a mere internal rule or regulation,
Tañada vs. Tuvera. In the case of Phil. Association of Service nor an interpretation of the law, but a rule which must be
Exporters vs. Torres, the administrative circulars questioned declared ineffective as it was neither published nor filed with
therein were addressed to an even smaller group, namely the Office of the National Administrative Register.
Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the
recruitment of workers for Hong Kong, and still the Court ruled Procedural Due Process vs. Substantial Due Process
therein that, for lack of proper publication, the said circulars (1) Procedural Due Process pertains to the method, the
may not be enforced or implemented. manner by which the law is enforced or implemented
(2) Substantive Due Process refers to the law itself and not
Section 3 and 4, book VII of EO 292 merely to the procedures to how the law is implemented. This
-Rules and regulation imposing a penalty as authorized by the means that the law itself must be fair, reasonable and just.
law itself must be filed and registered with the UP Law Center.
HONASAN VS DOJ PANEL Due process in administrative adjudication
FACTS: The lower court finds the petition of Honasan II -Does not mean that there must be a formal trial type
without merit as regards to the jurisdiction of the said case. It investigation as that conducted in the courts of justice. In fact,
was provide that the authority of respondent DOJ Panel is the administrative agencies are not strictly bound to observe
based not on the assailed OMB-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 but on the rigid technicalities as applied in courts. Trial adjudication
the provisions of the 1987 Administrative Code under Chapter may be dispensed with. Administrative bodies are given a
I, Title III, Book IV, governing the DOJ. Petitioner claims that it wide range of discretion so as long as there is observance of
is the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to the fundamental procedural and substantive due process.
conduct the preliminary investigation under paragraph (1), -Essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard or seek
Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which confers a reconsideration of the ruling complained of.
upon the Office of the Ombudsman the power to investigate
on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or Requirements of due process in administrative
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, proceedings:
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, (1) There must be an impartial tribunal;
improper, or inefficient. (2) Due notice and hearing must be complied with
HELD: Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in (opportunity to be heard);
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the (3) Procedure must be consistent with fair play
administrative agency and not the public, need not be (4)There must be opportunity for the court to determine
published. Neither is publication required of the so-called whether or not the applicable rules on evidence were
letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors observed by the administrative tribunal.
concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties. Impartial tribunal
OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 is merely an internal -Under Section 9 of the Magna Carta Law, there must be an
circular between the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman, investigating committee composed of the Division School
outlining authority and responsibilities among prosecutors of Superintendent as the chair, and the supervisor of the division
 jst  12
as member together with a representative of the teachers National High School. Respondent, on the other hand, was
association, whether local, provincial or national. Myra's 52-year-old Mathematics teacher.
-If there is no representative from the public school teacher’s HELD: While the OMB has concurrent administrative
association, proceedings are nullified. disciplinary authority with the DECS over public school
Q: What if the complainant is the Division School teachers, Section 23 of RA 6770 provides that the OMB may
Superintendent? refer a complaint to the proper disciplinary authority. Under
A: Members composing the committee should be left to the the circumstances obtained therein, it is more prudent for the
Secretary of Education petitioner to have referred the complaint to DECS as it is in a
-Exception to the Magna Carta Law: estoppel by laches better position to serve the interest of justice. Respondent is a
FABELLA VS TRIBUNAL public school teacher and covered by RA 4670.
HELD: The various committees formed by DECS to hear the OMB VS MASING
administrative charges did not include a representative of the HELD: The SC ruled that Fabella, however, does not apply to
local or, in its absence, any existing provincial and national the cases at bar. The public schoolteachers in Fabella were
teacher’s organization. These committees were deemed to charged with violations of civil service laws, rules and
have no competent jurisdiction and all proceedings regulations in administrative proceedings initiated by the
undertaken were necessarily void. None of the teachers DECS Secretary. In the case at bar, respondents Masing and
appointed by the DECS as members of its investigating Tayactac were administratively charged in letter-complaints
committee was ever designated or authorized by a teachers’ duly filed before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao.
organization as its representative in the said committee. The charges were for violations of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise
EMIN vs. DE LEON known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
FACTS: In 1991, certificates of eligibility of teachers were Public Officials and Employees, collecting unauthorized fees,
doubtful of authenticity as signatures were clearly forged. failure to remit authorized fees, failure to account for public
Petitioner was the one who gave the certificates for a fee. He funds, oppression, serious misconduct, discourtesy in the
was found guilty of grave misconduct by the CSC. conduct of official duties, and physical or mental incapacity or
HELD: Magna Carta Law is applicable to this case. However, disability due to immoral or vicious habits. In short, the acts
at this late hour, the proceedings conducted by the CSC can and omissions complained of relate to respondents’ conduct
no longer be nullified. Under the principle of estoppel by as public official and employee, if not to outright graft and
laches, petitioner is now barred from impugning the CSC’s corruption.
jurisdiction over his case since he participated actively in the Further, the SC ruled that the authority of the Office of the
proceedings. Due process was nevertheless observed in this Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations is
case. beyond cavil. As the principal and primary complaints and
ALCALA vs. VILLAR action center against erring public officers and employees, it
FACTS: Ombudsman issued a resolution finding respondent, is mandated by no less than Section 13(1), Article XI of the
who is a public school teacher, guilty of dishonesty and Constitution. In conjunction therewith, Section 19 of R.A. No.
dismissing him from service. 6770 grants to the Ombudsman the authority to act on all
HELD: Respondent was afforded due process. Respondent in administrative complaints It is erroneous, therefore, for
this case should be barred under the principle of estoppel by respondents to contend that R.A. No. 4670 confers an
laches. exclusive disciplinary authority on the DECS over public
OMB VS MEDRANO school teachers and prescribes an exclusive procedure in
HELD: When an administrative charge is initiated against a administrative investigations involving them.
public school teacher, however, Section 9 of the Magna Carta PADUA VS RANADA
for Public School Teachers specifically provides that the same HELD: We have ruled in a number of cases that an
shall be heard initially by an investigating committee administrative agency may be empowered to approve
composed of the school superintendent of the division, as provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates of
chairman, a representative of the local or, in its absence, any public utilities without a hearing. The reason is easily
existing provincial or national teachers’ organization, and a discerned from the fact that provisional rates are by their
supervisor of the division, as members. Significantly, The nature temporary and subject to adjustment in conformity
Ombudsman Act of 1989 recognizes the existence of some with the definitive rates approved after final hearing.
"proper disciplinary authorit[ies]," such as the investigating Furthermore, even if the directors who signed the resolution
committee of the DepEd mentioned in Section 9 of the Magna were not present during the public hearing, there was no
Carta for Public School Teachers. Thus, Section 23 of The violation of due process. The conduct of public hearings may
Ombudsman Act of 1989 directs that the petitioner "may refer be delegated to subordinate officers.
certain complaints to the proper disciplinary authority for the DOH SECRETARY VS CAMPOSANO
institution of appropriate administrative proceedings against FACTS: A complaint was filed before the DOH resident
erring public officers or employees." In light of this, the Court Ombudsman against the respondents arising out of an alleged
holds that the administrative disciplinary authority of the anomalous purchase by DOH-NCR of 1,500 bottles of Ferrous
Ombudsman over a public school teacher is not an exclusive Sulfate 250 mg. with Vitamin B Complex and Folic Acid
power but is concurrent with the proper committee of the capsules. The Secretary of Health filed a formal charge
DepEd. While petitioner should have desisted from hearing against the respondents and their co-respondents for Grave
the administrative complaint against respondent and referred Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Violation of RA 3019 as
it to the proper DepEd committee, given that it had already recommended by the Ombudsman. An ad-hoc committee to
concluded the proceedings and had rendered a decision investigate the case was created through an Administrative
thereon, respondent is now barred from assailing petitioner’s Order issued by then Executive Secretary Torres. The said AO
acts under the principle of estoppel. was indorsed to the Presidential Commission Against Graft
OMB VS DELIJERO and Corruption. After the investigation, the PCAGC it issued a
FACTS: Respondent Pedro Delijero, Jr., was a public school resolution finding the respondents guilty as charged. The
teacher at the Burauen Comprehensive National High School, resolution further recommended to the President that the
Burauen, Leyte and was administratively charged for Grave penalty of dismissal from the government service be imposed.
Misconduct. The complainant, Cleofas P. dela Cruz, was the President Ramos also found the respondents guilty and
mother of the alleged victim Myra dela Cruz (Myra). At the recommended the case to the DOH Secretary for appropriate
time of the incident, Myra was only 12 years old and a first action. The DOH Secretary subsequently ordered the dismissal
year high school student at the Burauen Comprehensive of the respondents.

 jst  13
HELD: The SC held that, the Chief Executive’s power to create proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide member of the
the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. With system, for acts or omissions that constitute violations of the
AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the investigation is law or the rules of the service.
sustained. Such validity is not affected by the fact that the Therefore petitioner is vested with the power to institute motu
investigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition, proprio the administrative proceedings against respondent for
or that the former used the offices and facilities of the latter in alleged falsification of eligibility committed by respondent in
conducting the inquiry. connection with his appointment to a permanent position in
On the matter of administrative procedure, the SC held that the Office of the Vice President.
the department secretary may utilize other officials to ZAMBALES MINIG VS CA
investigate and report the facts from which a decision may be HELD: We hold that Secretary Gozon acted with grave abuse
based. In the case at bar, the secretary effectively delegated of discretion in reviewing his decision as Director of Mines.
the power to investigate to the PCAGC. The palpably flagrant anomaly of a Secretary of Agriculture
Neither the PCAGC under EO 151 nor the Ad Hoc Investigating and Natural Resources reviewing his own decision as Director
Committee created under AO 298 had the power to impose of Mines is a mockery of administrative justice. In order that
any administrative sanctions directly. The power to impose the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not
sanctions belonged to the disciplining authority, who had to turn out to be a farce the reviewing officer must perforce be
observe due process prior to imposing penalties. other than the officer whose decision is under review;
MALINAO vs. REYES otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be
FACTS: The administrative investigation against the no real review of the case. The decision of the reviewing
municipal mayor was delegated to a committee by the officer would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the
Sanggunian. The report was signed only by the chairman of same view since being human, he would not admit that he
the committee. The Sanggunian voted to suspend the was mistaken in his first view of the case.
municipal mayor. SINGSON vs. NLRC, PAL
HELD: Suspension was not valid. There was no decision FACTS: Singson filed a complaint against PAL for illegal
signed by the members of the Sanggunian. Section 66 of the dismissal. Labor Arbiter Aquino declared the dismissal as
LGC requires that the decision be made in writing, stating illegal. The 2nd Division of NLRC, with Aquino as presiding
clearly and distinctly the factual findings and the reasons for commissioner, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
such conclusion reached. HELD: The officer who reviews a case on appeal should not
GARCIA VS MOLINA be the same person whose decision is subject of review.
HELD: President and General Manager of GSIS, is vested the Resolution of NLRC is void for the Division that handed it down
authority and responsibility to remove, suspend or otherwise was not composed of 3 impartial commissioners.
discipline GSIS personnel for cause. TEJANO VS DESIERTO
However, despite the authority conferred on him by law, such HELD: Ombudsman Desierto, in this case, committed grave
power is not without limitations for it must be exercised in abuse of discretion. Petitioner attributes partiality on the part
accordance with Civil Service rules. of Ombudsman Desierto for having participated in the
We, therefore, conclude that respondents were denied due reinvestigation of the instant case despite the fact that he
process of law. Not even the fact that the charges against earlier participated in the initial preliminary investigation of
them are serious and evidence of their guilt is – in the opinion the same when he was a Special Prosecutor by concurring in
of their superior – strong can compensate for the procedural the recommendation for the filing of the information before
shortcut undertaken by petitioner which is evident in the the Sandiganbayan. Having participated in the initial
record of this case. The filing by petitioner of formal charges preliminary investigation of the instant case and having
against the respondents without complying with the recommended the filing of an appropriate information, it
mandated preliminary investigation or at least give the behooved Ombudsman Desierto to recuse himself from
respondents the opportunity to comment violated the latter's participating in the review of the same during the
right to due process. Hence, the formal charges are void ab reinvestigation. He should have delegated the review to his
initio and may be assailed directly or indirectly at anytime. Deputies pursuant to Section 15 of Rep. Act No. 6770.
CRUZ, PAITIM vs. CSC REPUBLIC VS EXPRESS TELECOM
FACTS: Paitim took the CSC exam in behalf of Cruz. They HELD: There was no violation of due process because the
were found guilty of dishonesty. They argued that they were opposing party will be given all the opportunity to oppose the
deprived of their right to due process because the CSC was application on the merits in the course of the proceedings and
the complainant, the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at the same not simply on the basis of such a motion for revival. Notice to
time. the opposing party as to the motion of revival is not required
HELD: They were not denied due process. The fact that the since the filing of the motion for the revival is not already a
complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not mean that it decision on the merits.
could not be an impartial judge. As an administrative body, CSC vs. LUCAS
its decision was based on substantial findings. So long as FACTS: The Board of Personnel Inquiry found Lucas guilty of
there is impartiality in the conduct of proceedings, even if the simple misconduct. However, CSC found him guilty of grave
matter of gathering evidence and becoming the complainant misconduct. Lucas came to know of the modification of the
is given to the same division, it does not follow that there is charge when he received the resolution dismissing him from
already a violation of due process. service.
CSC VS ALBAO HELD: A basic requirement of due process is that a person
ISSUE: Whether the CSC has original jurisdiction to institute must be duly informed of the charges against him and that a
the administrative case against respondent. person cannot be convicted of a crime with which he was not
HELD: The Commission shall have power to hear and decide charged. A person can only be sanctioned of the charge filed.
administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly He cannot be penalized of a charge for which he was not duly
or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review informed.
decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies LACSON VS PAGC
attached to it. . . . HELD: Petitioners argue that they were denied due process
This is an integral part of its duty, authority and power to because their order of dismissal was not accompanied by any
administer the civil service system and protect its integrity, as justification from the PEA Board of Directors who merely relied
provided in Article IX-B, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, by on the findings of PAGC. Petitioners cannot claim that their
removing from its list of eligible those who falsified their dismissal was unattended by the requisite due process
qualifications. This is to be distinguished from ordinary because they were given the opportunity to be heard in the
 jst  14
course of PAGC’s investigation. The tenurial protection HELD: There was no denial of due process; notices are sent
accorded to a civil servant is a guaranty of both procedural to counsel of record, not to the client. Where a party appears
and substantive due process. Procedural due process requires by counsel in an action in a court or administrative body, all
that the dismissal, when warranted, be effected only after notices required to be given must be served to the counsel,
notice and hearing. On the other hand, substantive due not the client. Notice to the counsel is notice to the client.
process requires, among others, that the dismissal be for legal Petitioner’s former counsel did not withdraw its appearance.
cause, which must relate to and effect the administration of Negligence of its counsel does not constitute a denial of due
the office of which the concerned employee is a member of process.
and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature PHIL PORTS vs. SARGASSO
directly affecting the rights and interests of the public. FACTS: Petitioner averred that the decision of the trial court
Petitioners actively participated in the proceedings before was served on its Legal Services Department and not on the
PAGC where they were afforded the opportunity to explain Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) as its
their actions through their memoranda. The essence of due lead counsel. The petitioner argued that since the OGCC was
process is the right to be heard and this evidently was not served with a copy of the trial court’s decision, the period
afforded to them. Thus, petitioners’ assertion that their to perfect its appeal therefrom never commenced.
dismissal was unattended by the requisite due process cannot HELD: Petitioner was represented in the trial court by the
be sustained OGCC in collaboration with its Legal Services Department. An
RUIVIVAR VS OMB SPA was executed appointing the OGCC and its Legal Services
HELD:Petitioner was given the opportunity by public Department, through any of their lawyers, as its counsel.
respondent to rebut the affidavits submitted by private Hence, the copies of the orders and decision of the trial court
respondent. . . and had a speedy and adequate administrative may be served on the petitioner, either through its Legal
remedy but she failed to avail thereof for reasons only known Services Department or through the OGCC. Nevertheless, the
to her. Undoubtedly, the respondent herein has been Court gave due course to the said petition as it decided to
furnished by this Office with copies of the affidavits, which she relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the
claims she has not received. Furthermore, the respondent has exercise of its legal jurisdiction.
been given the opportunity to present her side relative NOTE: Notice to any one of the several counsels on record is
thereto, however, she chose not to submit countervailing notice to all and such notice starts at the time running for
evidence or argument. The respondent, therefore (sic), cannot appeal despite that the other counsel on record has not
claim denial of due process for purposes of assailing the received a copy of the decision.
Decision issued in the present case. ALBA vs. NITORREDA
FACTS: There was an allegation that Asst. Regional Director
Alba was partial to an owner of a school, of which a complaint
GAOIRAN vs. ALCALA was filed against. He was suspended for 30 days but
FACTS: Gaoiran contended that the letter-complaint was not contended that he was denied due process because his right
under oath and that he was not informed of the complaint to appeal was denied.
before, during and after the preliminary fact-finding HELD: Under the OMB Act, where the penalty imposed is
investigation. suspension not exceeding 30 days or a fine not to exceed 1
HELD: While the letter-complaint was not concededly month salary, the decision shall become final and executory.
verified, appended thereto were the verified criminal There is no violation of due process because the law has
complaints that he filed against the petitioner, as well as the made such imposition of penalty as final and executory. Right
sworn statements of his witnesses. These documents could to appeal is granted by law and thus, may be withdrawn by
very well be considered as constituting the complaint against the law itself.
the petitioner. The letter-complaint did not, by itself, NOTE: The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due
commence the administrative proceedings but merely process; it is merely a statutory privilege, exercisable only in
triggered a fact-finding investigation by the CHED. the manner and in accordance with law.
NOTE: Unverified complaint filed with CHED is not the AMPONG VS CSC
compliant with the purview of EO 292. It merely commences HELD: In police custodial investigations, the assistance of
Fact-finding investigation. The formal charge of the CHED counsel is necessary in order for an extra-judicial confession
Legal Office against Gaoiran constituted the complaint. to be made admissible in evidence against the accused in a
CONCERNED MWSS OFFICIALS VS VASQUEZ criminal complaint. If assistance was waived, the waiver
HELD: The absence of due process is an opportunity to be should have been made with the assistance of counsel.
heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation But while a party’s right to the assistance of counsel is sacred
but also, and perhaps even many times more creditably and in proceedings criminal in nature, there is no such
practicable than oral argument, through pleadings. In requirement in administrative proceedings. In Lumiqued v.
administrative proceedings, moreover, technical rules of Exevea, this Court ruled that a party in an administrative
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. Moreover, the
administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due administrative body is under no duty to provide the person
process in its strict judicial sense with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute
UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS CA requirement.
HELD: Due process in administrative context does not require Petitioner’s admission was given freely. There was no
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts. compulsion, threat or intimidation. As found by the CSC,
NPC vs. NLRC petitioner’s admission was substantial enough to support a
FACTS: The Solicitor General was NAPOCOR’s lawyer. NLRC’s finding of guilt.
decision was sent to the special attorney designated by the
Office of the Solicitor General. IMPORTANT NOTE: A party in an administrative inquiry may or
HELD: The lawyer designated as "special attorney-OSG" is a may not be assisted by counsel, regardless of nature or
mere representative of the OSG. The OSG continues to be the charges and of respondent’s capacity to represent himself,
principal counsel for the NAPOCOR, and as such, the Solicitor and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person
General is the party entitled to be furnished copies of orders, investigated with counse.
notices and decisions. Since service of said decision was LUMIQUED vs. EXEVEA
never made on the OSG, the period to appeal the decision to FACTS: DAR Regional Director Lumiqued was found guilty of
the NLRC did not commence to run. Malversation. On his 2nd MFR, he argued that he was denied
LINCOLN GERALD, INC. vs. NLRC
 jst  15
due process since he was not represented by counsel during
the hearing.
HELD: There was no denial of due process. The due process
clause does not encompass the right to be assisted by counsel
during an administrative investigation. Respondent has option
of engaging the services of counsel or not. Right to counsel is
not imperative because administrative inquiry is conducted
merely to determine whether the facts merit disciplinary
measures against erring public officers, with the purpose of
maintaining the dignity of the government service.
Negligence of counsel
-Negligence of counsel binds the client. The only exception is
when negligence of counsel is gross, reckless and inexcusable
that the client is deprived of his day in court.
PEREZ VS ABIERA
HELD: Jurisdiction acquired at the time of filing is not lost be
cessation in office of respondent during pendency of his
administrative case. The body retains its jurisdiction either to
pronounce him innocent of the charges or declare him guilty
thereof.
Cardinal Primary rights in Administrative Proceedings

(1) The right to a hearing
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(3) There must be something to support its decision
(4) Such evidence must be substantial
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented
at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected.
(6) The tribunal must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy
(7) The tribunal must render its decision in such a manner
that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.
Instances of administrative determination where notice

and hearing are not necessary
(1) Summary abatement of nuisance per se
(2) Cancellation of passport by DFA
(3) Summary proceedings of distraint and levy of property of
delinquent taxpayer
(4) Preventive suspension
(5) Grant of provisional authority for increased rates, ot to
engage in particular line of business.
PADUA vs. RANADA
HELD: Even if the directors who signed the resolution were
not present during the public hearing, there was no violation
of due process. The conduct of public hearings may be
delegated to subordinate officers.

 jst  16

Admin Jen Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admin Jen Notes

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 Jen Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER

From Atty. Elman’s PPT, LA’s transcription and JECYlanan digests

“The desire to excel and the courage to pursue it”

“The desire to excel and the courage to pursue it”

Cardinal Primary rights in Administrative Proceedings

Instances of administrative determination where notice

“The desire to excel and the courage to pursue it”

You might also like