This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
• I. Historical and Constitutional Considerations A. Development of Administrative Law as a distinct field of public law 1. Factors Responsible for the Emergence of Administrative Agencies a. Growing complexities of modern life; b. Multiplication of number of subjects needing government regulation; and c. Increased difficulty of administering laws. [Laurel, J. in Pangasinan Transportation v Public Service Commission (1940)] 2. Doctrine of “Separation of Powers” and the constitutional position of Administrative Agencies • The Doctrine of Separation of Powers, though not mentioned anywhere by such name in the 1987 Constitution, can be inferred from its provisions. The heart of the doctrine is that the basic powers of the government must be kept separate from each other, each power being under the principal control of a branch of government. The legislative power is granted to the Congress, the executive power to the President, and the judicial power to the Judiciary. • The President as Chief Executive exercises control over agencies and offices which perform rule-making or adjudicatory functions. • If the agency is created by Congress, consider the law that created it. If the law is silent as to the control which the President may exercise, the President can only supervise, i.e., to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed. • The 3 branches of government lack (1) time, (2) expertise, and (3) organizational aptitude for effective and continuing regulation of new developments in society [Stone]. Thus, there is a need for a body which would act as a “catchbasin,” otherwise the 3 branches would collapse. The Administrative Agency supports the trichotomy of powers. A. Definition of Terms 1. Administrative Law • Meaning: Branch of public law dealing with the doctrines and principles governing the powers and procedures of administrative agencies, especially including judicial review • • •
of administrative action. [Prof. Kenneth Culp Davis] Meaning: Branch of public law which fixes the organization and determines the competence of administrative authorities and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his rights. [Nachura] Kinds of Administrative Law: a. b. Statutes setting up administrative authorities. Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities promulgated pursuant to the purposes for which they were created. c. Determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities made in settlement of controversies arising in their particular fields. d. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities. Administration: a. Meaning: Understood in 2 different senses:
As a function: The execution, in nonjudicial matters, of the law or will of the State as expressed by competent authority.
As an organization: That group or
aggregate of persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being. b. c. Distinguished from government: Kinds:
Internal: Legal side of public
administration (e.g. matters concerning personnel; fiscal and planning activities).
External: Deals with problems of
government regulations (e.g. regulation of professions, industries or businesses). 2. Administrative Agency • Meaning: Any governmental organ or authority, other than a court or legislative body, which affects the rights of private parties, through rule-making and adjudication. [Davis; Nachura] A body or agency is administrative where its function is primarily regulatory, even if it conducts hearings and determines controversies to carry out its regulatory duty. On its rule-making authority, it is administrative when it does not have discretion to determine what the law shall be but merely prescribes details for the enforcement of the law.
• • Any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to licensing functions; government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right, privilege, occupation or business; and officials in the exercise of disciplinary powers as provided by law. [Sec. 2, Book VII, Admin Code of 1987] 3. Powers of an Administrative Agency a. or rule-making power. b. adjudicatory power. c. powers [Nachura] • • • 4. Licensing. Price/rate-fixing. Implementing or executing. Determinative 2. Legislative enactment / Congressional Statute (regulatory agency). • • • • • • • • • • 3. Executive Order (fact-finding agency) / Authority of law. c. As to hierarchy: 1. 2. Independent Constitutional Commissions. • 3. Other Constitutional Bodies. • Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, Office of the Special Prosecutor, Central Monetary Authority, Economic and Planning Agency, Commission on Human Rights, National Language Commission, National Police Commission, Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities. 4. Regulatory Commission. • SEC, NLRC, Office of the Insurance Commissioner, Land Transportation Commission, Bureau of Customs, CID, BIR. CSC, COMELEC, COA. Office of the President and Cabinet. National Labor Relations Commission. Social Security Commission. Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Securities and Exchange Commission. Philippine Patent Office. Professional Regulation Commission. Games and Amusement Board. Board of Energy. Insurance Commission. Dangerous Drugs Board. Quasi-judicial or Quasi-legislative • • • • • • • • • Senate Electoral Tribunal. [Art. VI, Sec. 17] House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. [Art. VI, Sec. 17] Judicial and Bar Council. [Art. VIII, Sec. 8] Office of the Ombudsman. [Art. IX, Sec. 5] National Economic and Development Authority. [Art. XII, Sec. 20] An agency on Cooperatives. [Art. XII, Sec. 15] An independent Central Monetary Authority. [Art XII, Sec. 20] National Language Commission. [Art. XIV, Sec. 9] National Police Commission. [Art. XVI, Sec. 6] Consultative Body on Indigenous Cultural Communities. [Art. XVI, Sec. 12]
Types of Administrative Agencies a. As to purpose: 1. Government grant or gratuity, special privilege. • 2. Bureau of Lands, Phil. Veterans Admin., GSIS, SSS, PAO, etc. Carrying out the actual business of government. • 3. BIR, Customs, Immigration, Land Registration Authority, etc. Service for public benefit. • 4. Philpost, PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA, etc.
Regulation of businesses affected with public interest. • Insurance Commission, LTFRB, NTC, HLURB, etc.
Regulation of private businesses and individuals. • SEC, etc.
Adjustment of individual controversies because of a strong social policy involved. • ECC, NLRC, SEC, DAR, COA, etc.
Government as private party. • GSIS, etc.
As to the organic law of creation: 1. 1987 Constitutional provision. • • • • • Civil Service Commission. [Art. IX-B] Commission on Elections. [Art. IX-C] Commission on Audit. [Art. IX-B] Commission on Human Rights. [Art. XIII, Sec. 17] Commission on Appointments. [Art. VI, Sec. 18]
5. Public Corporation. • 5. UP, NPC, MWSS, NDC, DBP. • Transport (1932) The SC should strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations a) Supplementary / detailed legislation: To “fix the details” in the execution and enforcement of a legislative policy (e.g. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code). conferred on it by the Organic Act. The SC and its members should not nor cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any task, or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with administering judicial functions. A board of arbitrators is not a court in any proper sense of the term, and possesses none of the jurisdiction granted by the Organic Act to the SC. b) Interpretative legislation: To construe or interpret the provisions of a statute to be enforced; binding on all concerned until changed. They have the effect of law and are entitled to great respect, having in their favor the presumption of legality [Gonzalez v Land Bank]. c) The erroneous application of the law by public officers does not bar a subsequent correct application [Manila Jockey Club v CA (1998)] (e.g. BIR Circulars, CB Circulars). d) Contingent legislation: Made by an administrative authority on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends. [Cruz v Youngberg] 6. a. Advantages of Administrative Regulation Regulation by government opens a way for action to be taken in the public interest to prevent future harm when there would be no assurance that any action would be taken if the initiative were left wholly to interested individuals. b. It provides for action that will be based on technical knowledge, which would not be available, if it were taken through the ordinary courts of law. c. It ensures that the action taken will have regard for the interests of the general public in a way not possible if it were only the outcome of a controversy between private parties to a suit. d. It permits the rules for the prevention of socially hurtful conduct to be flexible rules based on discretion, and thus make possible the introduction of order in fields not advantageously permitting the application of rules of a rigid permanent character. [Dickinson] B. Cases • • • • (1968) The legislature could not have intended for the Land Registration Commissioner and other similarly ranked officials to hold same rank as a judge of the CFI, because it would place upon the SC the duty of investigating and disciplining these officials, who are performing executive functions and thus under the supervision and control of the President. It would be unconstitutional, being violative of the separation of powers, and would diminish the control of the Chief Executive over executive officials. Garcia v. Macaraig (1971) The line between what a judge may and may not do in working with other offices under the other departments must always be jealously observed, lest the principle of separation of powers be eroded. No judge of even the lowest court should place himself in a position where his actuations would be subject to review and prior approval and, worse still, review, before they can have any legal effect, by any authority other than the CA or the SC. In re: Manzano (1988) Members of SC and inferior courts of justice shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Administrative functions “involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare, and the promulgation of rules and regulations top better carry out legislative policy or such as are designated to any agency by the organic law of its existence.” RTC judges should render assistance to said agencies only when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties. Puyat v De Guzman An indirect appearance as counsel by an Assemblyman before an administrative body circumvents the Constitutional prohibition. A contrary rule would permit an Assemblyman to influence an administrative body just by acquiring minimal participation in the “interest” of the client and then “intervening” in the proceedings. • Exporters v Torres Both LOIs and EOs are presidential issuances; one may repeal or otherwise alter, modify or amend the other, depending on which comes later. Phil. Ass’n of Service Noblejas vs. Teehankee Manila Electric Co. v Pasay
Legislative 1. and sworn duty to preserve and defend the Constitution and execute the laws (which entitles the President to influence the conduct of administrative bodies if in his view they violate the Constitution). Power to abolish is not effective because administrative agencies are needed.1. II. power of control over all offices in the Executive branch. • The standards must be effective and sufficient. the President cannot exercise control but merely supervision. • a) b) Eastern Shipping Lines v CA • E. . Based on the power of appropriation. Its duty is to enforce the law. 4. Administrative agencies and the executive power of the President 3. Sec. a. Sec. Art. • Effective only as an aid in legislation and cannot serve the need for constant regulation. VI. Courts defer to the expertise and experience of agencies in their areas of specialization. no appreciable effect because annual appropriation usually gets Congressional approval. or even abolish agencies. 1. Ineffective because the standards should be flexible and those who make the standards lack the expertise. budgetary hearings – Allows economy and efficiency of government operations. the latter prevails. merge. • • Congress can create. 1987 Consti. b. and c) Persons appearing therein afforded their rights. VII. 2. 1987 Consti. • Prescription of minimum procedural requirements. • • Judicial Control Power of judicial review over decisions of administrative agencies. 3. Thus if there is a conflict between the circular issued by the agency and an EO issued by the president. Congressional Oversight Committee [Macalintal v COMELEC] 1. divide. Conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure. Congressional investigation. Creation and abolition. 5. Radical view: Courts should review not only agency’s conclusions of law but even its determinations of fact and policy. modify. • The President controls administrative agencies except when such agencies are created by the legislature.Page 4 • (1998) An administrative agency has no discretion WON to implement a law.g. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. public suffers. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. Legislative supervision. Investigatory. • Traditional/Accepted view: Judicial review is allowed on questions of law and jurisdiction. Art. 17. Courts are confined to seeing to it that agencies stay within the limits of their power or to checking arbitrariness in the administrative process. otherwise. If the law is silent. Ombudsman Powers: Investigatory. 1. • Appropriation. a. 3 limitations under the 1987 Constitution: In aid of legislation. • Pprescription of legislative standards. There must be a shift towards having administrative standards instead to allow the agencies enough flexibility. Executive control Legislative control Powers of the • 2. and offices. Sec. bureaus. 1987 Constitution: Department heads may be ordered to appear on any matter pertaining to their departments. 2. 22. but not on questions of fact and policy. • • Scrutiny. Control of Administrative Action A. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. In actual life. Legislative veto: Congress has “right” to approve/disapprove any regulation before it takes effect. One must check the enabling laws regarding the particular legislative intent. Congress has budgetary power. Art. • Power of appointment. VII. 3. 4.
The Ombudsman may not initiate a criminal or administrative complaint against a judge. Authority to inquire and obtain information. Grant of investigatory power. 1. [BIR v Ombudsman (2002)] . office or agency. The law must fix a standard. Necessary characteristics: Political independence. 13(3). Non-delegation doctrine A. and direct and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to implement the penalty imposed. 2. GOCC’s and local government are within its jurisdiction. unjust. Art. XI. 1. therefore. Public assistance functions. 1987 Constitution. • The office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person. The Ombudsman has the authority to determine the administrative liability of a public official or employee. all actions/decisions made by the prosecutor are deemed as action/decisions of the • standard may be: (a) Express. – What has been delegated cannot be delegated. [Lastimosa v Vasquez (1995)] Note: The Ombudsman has absolutely no revisory powers. or unverified complaint. Rather. the delegated prosecutor acts as the Ombudsman’s agent. the performance of his official duty. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official. [Fuentes v Office of the Ombudsman (2001)] Under Sec. • • 3. the “recommendation” that emanates from the Ombudsman after it has conducted its investigation is not merely advisory but binding and mandatory. The Requisites for a valid delegation: [Pelaez v Auditor General Potestas delegata non delegare potest. The Ombudsman may review. Legislative function III. except those who may be removed only by impeachment. This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to. or connected with. including cabinet members. 3. Own initiative. Absence of revisory jurisdiction. No other entity or official of the Government has the competence to review a judicial order or decision and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint. the Ombudsman has the right to change his action/decision. [Concerned Officials of the MWSS v Vasquez (1995)] • All elective and appointive officials. it must set forth the policy to be executed.Page 5 2. • Prosecutorial. or arise from. improper or inefficient. It can do so even on a verbal. 2) a. revise. The Ombudsman must indorse the case to the SC for appropriate action. the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable. (1965)] 1) The law must be complete in itself. Jurisdiction: The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested especially when the matter involves basically technical matters coming under the special technical knowledge and training of the agency or officer. unsigned. 4. Seen in this light. c. 4. Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies • • • Ombudsman. to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. b. any act or omission of any public officer or employee. direct. reverse or modify a decision of a prosecutor deputized or designated to be under the Ombudsman’s control and supervision. Accessibility and expedition / independence. [Ledesma v CA (2005)] The pendency of an action is not a prerequisite for the Ombudsman to start its own investigation. From a complaint.
[Syman v Jacinto (1953)] Must not define a criminal act. [Panama Refining v Ryan (1935)] • b. whether judicial or quasi-judicial. Fix tariffs.Page 6 (b) (c) Implied. [Toledo v CSC (1991)] e) Must not restrict. [Alegre v Collector of Customs (1920)] c. power: Cardozo. import and export quotas. Chiongbian v Orbos says that the merging of administrative regions is an administrative matter. Emergency powers. Delegation to the people-at-large. power to promulgate rules may be legitimately exercised only for carrying the provisions of the law into effect. Such functions. from necessity and as a means of enforcement and execution. Ascertainment of fact. expand. Discretion is not unconfined and vagrant. There is a distinction between (a) delegation of power to make the law and (b) conferring authority/discretion as to its execution. [GMCR v Bell Telecom (1997)] b) a) Must be authorized by law. while leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the legislative to apply. b. upon discovering them. • A statute which leaves to the Executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latter’s expertise is a recognized delegation of legislative power. are merely incidental to the exercise of power granted by law to clear navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions. diminish. J. [Chiongbian v Orbos (1995)] • ient standard: One which (a) Defines legislative policy. 1. Creation of municipalities. 2. Permissible delegation a. Delegation to administrative agencies. [Edu v Ericta (1970)] or Embodied in other statutes on the same matter and not necessarily in the same law being challenged. They are validly conferable upon executive officials provided the party affected is given the opportunity to be heard. marks its limits. maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. The legislature. [Pelaez v Auditor General (1965)] • Note: Although the creation of municipalities is purely a legislative d) c) (1977)] Must be germane to the purpose of the law which it was meant to implement. do anything he pleases. 5. • A statute may give to non-judicial officers the power to declare the existence of facts which call into operation its provisions and may grant them and their subordinate officers power to ascertain and determine appropriate facts as a basis of procedure in the enforcement of laws. The Constitution has never been regarded as Suffic 2. People v Maceren] What cannot be delegated . Delegation to local authorities. [US v Ang Tang Ho (1922). supplant or modify the law. Administrative rule-making. 3. Valid delegation: [People v Vera (1937)] 1. 4. c. [Lovina v Moreno (1963)] Filling in of details. [Olsen v Aldanese (1922)] Must not amend the law or must not be inconsistent with the law. 1. Defining a crime. and (b) Indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. have to delegate such power. dissent: There has been no grant to the Executive of any roving commission to inquire into evils and then. [People v Maceren Limits on rule-making matter. 2. tonnage and wharfage fees. It is canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing. [Santiago v COMELEC (1997). ABAKADA Guro List v Ermita (2005)] • denying to Congress the necessary flexibility and practicality which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards.
and (2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published and remaining in effect together with a complete index and appropriate tables. Coconut Desiccators v PHILCOA (1998) ) k) May not delegate. June 8.g. (Ass’n of Phil. – (1) The University of the Philippines Law Center may omit from the bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication would be unduly cumbersome. such being an abdication of responsibility by the latter. [Republic v Express Telecomm (2002)] Exceptions: (a) Different date is fixed by law or specified in the rule. or specified in the ruling in cases of imminent danger to public health. to a mere constituent unit (e. [Land Bank v CA (1995)] g) The basic law should prevail as embodiment of the legislative purpose. [People v Que Po Lay (1954)] Publication in OG or newspaper of general circulation is indispensable in every . 2. requiring the adjustment of various other contending policies. a law. and welfare. and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and how copies thereof may be obtained. – Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them. General rule: Publication is indispensable especially if the rule is general in character. Civil Code (as amended by EO 200. • Sec.e. • General rule: Administrative rules and regulations are subject to the publication and effectivity rules of the Admin Code in relation to the Civil Code: Effectivity is 15 days after publication. regulating only personnel of agency). Sec. 1987 Admin Code. Publication and effectivity. • Circulars which prescribe a penalty for its Art. rules and regulations cannot go beyond the law’s terms and provisions. regulation or circular must be published and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its penalties. Omission of Some Rules. Home Development Mutual Fund (1999)] h) If there is discrepancy between the basic law and an administrative rule. [Echegaray v Secretary of Justice (1998)] 2. each rule shall become effective 15 days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law. Publication and Recording. 6. the basic law prevails. not 15 days from date of filing with the UP Law Center. 4. but copies of that rule shall be made available on application in the agency which adopted it. Effectivity. [Maxima Realty v Parkway Real Estate (2004)] i) May not unilaterally impose a new legislative policy. Before the public may be bound by its contents. Exceptions: (a) Interpretative rules.Page 7 f) Action of the administrative agency to be set aside if there is an error of law. Sec. (b) Internal regulations (i.g. (b) In case of imminent danger to public health. grave abuse or lack of jurisdiction clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of the law. unless it is otherwise provided. [Ople v Torres (1998)] j) May not dismantle a regulatory system that was set up by law. expensive or otherwise inexpedient. the rulemaking authority legislatively vested in the head of an executive department (e. DoJ). safety and welfare. – The University of the Philippines Law Center shall: (1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it during the preceding quarter. 1987). [China Banking v Member of the Board of Trustees. (c) Letters of instructions issued by administrative superior to subordinates. the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. – In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book. safety. 1987 Admin Code. especially its penal provisions. Bureau of Corrections). 5. • violation should be published before becoming effective for the people to be officially informed. 1987 Admin Code.
the administrative agency should make known its official position. or (c) the rules are substantive. or (b) the rules are in effect merely legal opinions. [Phil. regulations enacted. prohibiting or punishing certain acts which the law does not even define as a criminal act. The former is designed to implement a law by providing its details. Interpretative rules may be found erroneous by the successor of the promulgating administrative official. [Corona v United Harbor Pilots Ass’n of the Phils. 1987 Admin Code. [Tanada v Tuvera] 3. (1997) ] There is a distinction between administrative rules in the nature of subordinate legislation and those which are merely interpretative rules. The law should also define or fix the penalty for the violation. an administrative agency must accord those directly affected a chance to be heard before its issuance. • If a rule is penal in character. Bank of Communications v CIR (1999)] Administrative interpretation at best merely advisory. This necessity for and power of construction and interpretation does not change the character of a ministerial duty. Penal regulations • which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. When laws are susceptible of two or more interpretations. When an administrative rule substantially adds to or increases the burden of those concerned. or involve an unlawful use of legislative or judicial power. There is no constitutional requirement for a hearing in the promulgation of a general regulation by an administrative body. Still. Such wrong interpretation cannot place the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same. The administrative construction or interpretation is not controlling as to the proper construction of a statute. before its adoption there must be a hearing under the Administrative Code. pursuant to the broad rule-making power under a statute conferring a privilege to be exercised "under regulations precaused" by an administrative agency. and the questions to be resolved involve the use of discretion committed to the rule-making body. but generally it is given great weight. the class to be affected is large. (People v Que Po Lay (1954)] • The law itself must so declare the act as punishable. A vested right cannot spring from a wrong construction of law [Hilado v Collector (1956)]. will not be disturbed except for cogent and persuasive reasons and clear conviction of error. pursuant to law is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text. Where (a) the rule is procedural. Omission of Some Rules. • The domain of penal statues is exclusive to the legislature and cannot be delegated. • Administrative interpretations are appropriate aids toward eliminating construction and uncertainty in doubtful cases. • Administrative agencies in the discharge of their duties are necessarily called upon to construe and apply the provisions of the law under which they function. • Construction and interpretation by an administrative agency of the law under which it acts provide a practical guide as to how the agency will seek to apply the law. • Administrative rules and regulations cannot amend or modify or expand the law by including. But the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual 15day period be shortened or extended. the rule must be published before it takes effect. They may also interpret their own rules which have the force and effect of law. – (2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which.Page 8 case for the effectivity of administrative rules and regulations. no notice or prior hearing is required. has a very persuasive influence and may actually be regarded by the Sec. and to • • • • courts as the controlling factor. [People v Maceren (1977)] 4. it is the courts that finally determine what the law . Interpretative rules. 6.
(c) must be reasonable. Fixing of rates. 1987 Admin Code. Due process involves whether the parties were afforded the opportunity to be notified and heard before the issuance of the ruling. and substitute its own view of what is correct to the administrative body. however. the property is deemed taken and condemned by the public at the time of Sec. publish or circulate notices of filing the petition. d. the rules on contested cases shall be observed. or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the legislative enactment. merely clarify the meaning of a preexisting law by inferring its implications. as seen in the primary law. The distinction is not idle: Sec. as well as communication. [Peralta v CSC (1992)] • Basis As to procedural standards General requirements: (a) must have Quasi-judicial The procedure must observe the requirements of due process in the 7 cardinal rules. (3) In cases of opposition. kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law of regulation to be observed and followed by any person. a new policy. [KMU v Garcia (1994)] • In fixing the rate. Due process means that the body observed the proper procedure in passing rules. then the function becomes quasi-judicial. that the Administrative Code now does not differentiate legislative from quasi-judicial rate-fixing: notice and hearing is required for both. (2) In the fixing of rates. So long as the court finds that the legislative rules are within the power of the administrative agency to pass. not only of the assets used by the public but also of the fixed assets must be made on that basis so a fair return of investment can be had. classification or schedules thereof. The latter may propose new rates. 1987 Admin Code. Legislative Rules promulgated pursuant to its quasilegislative / rulemaking functions. [Victorias v Social Security Commission (1962) ] • Action of the administrative agency will be set aside if there was error of law. As to time Rule-making is prospective in character. Notice and hearing necessary if the rate to be fixed applies to only one entity (quasi-judicial). Need for dispatch. “Rate” means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms. • • Sec. tolls. and the rate should go up and down with the physical valuation Adjudicative rulings apply only to parties • • Function delegated to administrative agencies because the legislature does not have the time. no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon. 9 (2) of the Admin Code implies that all rules with respect to fixing of rates must be accompanied with notice and hearing. for it investigates acts already done and then applies the law on the facts. create a new law. or lack of jurisdiction. Interpretative Rules passed pursuant to its quasi-judicial capacity. regardless if the rate-fixing function is legislative or quasijudicial. need publication. viz. 2(3). As to application Legislative rules are of general application been issued on authority of law. If it is not within the scope of the administrative agency. including individual or joint rates. Quasi-legislative The procedure is that normally observed in the making of rules. the power to fix rates is a quasi-legislative function. the present valuation of all the property of a public utility. Adjudication is retrospective in character. proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. wages and prices . flexibility and technical know-how better met by administrative agencies.Page 9 means. Public Participation. On principle. an agency shall. (b) must be within the scope and purview of the law. or abuse of power. – (1) If not otherwise required by law. but these will not be effective without the approval of the administrative agency. mileage. then the rules bind the court. need not be published. for it only governs future acts. The court cannot question the wisdom or correctness of the policy contained in the rules. with the force and effect of law. The court may review their correctness of the interpretation of the law given by the administrative body. court can only invalidate the same but not substitute its decision or interpretation or give its own set of rules. knowledge and means necessary to handle the matter efficiently. But if the rate is applicable only to an individual. Generally. • The power to fix rates cannot be delegated to a common carrier or other public service. as far as practicable. [Philcomsat v Alcuaz (1989)] Note. 9.
15. Upon request. withdrawal. . no license may be withdrawn. Otherwise. informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation. Sec. suspension. revocation. a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. Sec. (2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws. the provisions concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as practicable. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record. rules and regulations or when public security. health. license to practice a profession. certificate. B. encourage amicable settlement. When dispensing government largess. the procedural safeguards akin to those in courts must be observed. (2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts. When performing its licensing function. 14. and a full consideration of evidence) are recorded the greatest respect Sec. Subpoena. revoked or annulled without notice and hearing. annulment. it needs to observe due process. a certified copy thereof may be accepted. it can be dispensed with. suspended. i. 1987 Admin Code. the power to decide controversies involving rights and obligations of 3rd persons appearing before them. 1987 Admin Code. The findings of facts by administrative bodies which observed procedural safeguards (e. denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing. Sec. If by courts. The agency shall decide each case within 30 days following its submission. charter. and therefore requires an explicit grant from law. Sec. notice and hearing parties. passport. so also the procedure depends on the function that the agency is performing. Finality of Order. 12. comprise and arbitration. basis services) are new forms of property. – (1) When the grant. Decision. . since these are inherent in their functions as administrative agencies. Sec. 1. or the Sec. since these largesses (pensions. – To expedite administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations. membership. but is always revocable. which shall suspend the running of the said period. 1987 Admin Code. Rules of Evidence. “Licensing” includes agency process involving the grant. amendment. • No expiry date does not mean the license is perpetual. When performing its rule-making function. if any.The decision of the agency shall become final and executory 15 days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review. – Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature. Thus. 1987 Admin Code. it must follow the procedure adopted by legislative bodies. the agency may.Page 10 of the property. . Unless otherwise provided by law. (3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidence. or to them. 1987 Admin Code. documents and other pertinent data. time and place of the hearing. in the public interest. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. . 2(11). has been perfected. modification or conditioning or a license. as in the issuance of driver’s licenses. Licensing Function the original is in the official custody of a public officer. 13. The parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed. is their adjudicative power. Sec. 10. every agency shall. (2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues. or safety require otherwise. registration. if proper. 17. renewal. Judicial Function Investigation and adjudication: Sec. if the original is not readily available.In any contested case. 2(10). • Administrative agencies have the power to conduct investigations and hearings. A license permit is a special privilege. a modified judicial procedure is required.g. and make findings and recommendations thereon. One motion for reconsideration may be filed. 18. Non-expiration of License. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance. the existing license shall not expire until the application shall have been finally determined by the agency. limitation. in case of disobedience. approval. [Ynchausti v Public Utility Commissioner (1922)] e. . the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the copy with the original. renewal. agreed settlement or default.(1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice and hearing. clearance. denial. [Gonzalo Sy Trading v Central Bank (1976) ] • Notice and hearing in licensing is only required if it is a contested case. invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. when it is performing its adjudicative function. • Just as there is no uniform procedure for all agencies. It is not vested. Sec. . statutory exemption or other form of permission. 11. Compromise and Arbitration. social benefits. “License” includes the whole or any party of any agency permit. If not precluded by law. permanent or absolute. (4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege.In a contested case: (1) The agency may admit and give probative value to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. Licensing Procedure. The notice shall be served at least 5 days before the date of the hearing and shall state the date. (3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings. papers.Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books.e. • What is not inherent.
. not rights. in case of disobedience. Unless otherwise provided by law. and even before the issuance of a complaint. 2. papers. Warrants of arrest. 13. Test for valid enforcement of subpoena: (a) (b) (c) Within the authority of the agency. Sec. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction. houses. Rationale: Power to adjudicate will be rendered inutile if there is no power to issue subpoena. III. the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books. unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights. SEC. – In any contested case. in accordance with the pertinent provisions of. the SEC shall possess the following powers: a) To punish for contempt of the Commission. both direct and indirect. documents and other pertinent data. and penalties prescribed by. the agency must invoke the aid of the RTC. Sec. papers. and no necessary to give it force and effectiveness should be deemed implied. P. 902 – A. the Rules of Court. invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. Subpoena. 1987 Consti. the agency may. Rationale: Power to punish for contempt is inherently judicial. WON probably cause is shown. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge. it is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose. Its officers are likewise agents entrusted with the responsibility of discharging its functions. declare contempt Power to issue subpoena and agencies to assure the effective administration of a statute. [Evangelista v Jarencio (1975)] Not all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to cite for contempt. The government itself is merely an agency through which the will of the State is expressed and enforced. as the power must be expressly granted in the agency’s charter (ex. PD 902-A creating the SEC). most other administrative agencies only have the power of investigation and not of adjudication.Page 11 power to pass upon legal questions. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. files and records as well as books of accounts of any entity or person under investigation as may be necessary for the proper disposition of cases before it. CBAA). If there is no express grant. and effects. which involve the application of the law to the facts. upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing or general relevance. papers. Information reasonably relevant. 6. • The power to declare contempt cannot be used in the discharge of ministerial functions. even if the administrative agency’s charter is silent as to such power. As such there is no presumption that they are empowered to act. It is not necessary that a specific charge or complaint for a violation of law be pending. Sec. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and whatever purpose shall not be violated. If the matter is properly within its cognizance.D. against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. administrative searches Art. after examination under oath or affirmation by the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. papers. 1973 Consti. 3. not to prove a pending charge but Art. but only in relation to quasi-judicial functions [Guevarra v COMELEC (1958)] • It is not for the SC to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative 2. [Tolentino v Inciong (1979)] 3. Kind of Proceedings Nature of Proceedings Rules of Procedure Nature and Extent of Decision Parties Administrative Inquisitorial Liberally applied Decision limited to matters of general concern The agency itself may be a party to the proceedings before it Judicial Adversarial Follow technical rules in the Rules of Court Decision includes matters brought as issue by the parties The parties are only the private litigates • upon which to make one if justified. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence. houses. 1987 Admin Code. [Catura v CIR (1971)] • A public official exercises power. IV. • All agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to issue subpoena. Except in the case of agencies with specific grant of adjudicative power (NLRC. Demand not too indefinite. xxx e) To issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witnesses to appear in any proceedings of the Commission and in appropriate cases order search and seizure or cause the search and seizure of all documents. • Subpoenas may be enforced WON adjudication is involved. the means Sec.
supervening events have rendered this petition for habeas corpus moot and academic. and the persons or things to be seized. although the CID can order arrests for the purpose of the deportation proceedings. but merely preventive. The exercise of such power demands the exercise of discretion by the one exercising the same. when one could be arrested by the military on mere suspicion by the strength of the warrant of arrest. • The word “shall” was added to “warrant of arrest shall issue” and finally the subsequent phrase was reworded in this wise: “to be determined personally” by the judge. They cannot issue warrants for purposes of investigation. as the Constitution provides that only judges can do so to determine probable cause. Notice and bonds are sufficient to ensure that the subject will appear at the hearing without prejudice to more drastic measures in case of recalcitrant respondents. the curtailment of liberty is warranted. The essential requisite of probable cause is absent. and are not penal. Here. [Vivo v Montesa (1968)] The deportation charges were in accordance with the Philippine Immigration Act and the Revised Administrative Code. • Administrative agencies cannot issue warrants of arrest. and particularly describing the place to be searched. [Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board (1963) ] • • Note: The Constitution does not distinguish between warrants in a criminal case and administrative warrants in administrative proceedings. has sole discretion under international law • While it is clear that the President’s power of investigation may be delegated and the Deportation Board is his authorized agent. What is essential however is that (1) there be a specific charge against the alien. solely for the purpose of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued. • 0 The phrase “or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law” in the 1973 Constitution was deleted to forestall human rights abuses as during Martial Law. And while ministerial duties may be delegated. it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary court proceedings. or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. determined by a judge. • (a) Two ways of deporting: Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37 of CA618 (b) President after due investigation pursuant to Sec 69 of Admin Code no grounds needed. The Mission Order was issued on the basis of sworn complaints of a single individual. which empowers the Commissioner to arrest aliens upon a warrant issued by him and deported upon warrant issued by the same after a determination of the existence of a ground for deportation by the Board of Commissioners. Sec. However. The requirement of probable cause. the particular circumstances place doubt on the propriety of the arrest. Deportation proceedings are administrative in nature. 1. (2) there be a fair hearing conducted. Only a judge may issue warrants. the issuance of the warrants of arrest by the Commissioner. ASSO or PDA issued by the Ministry of National Defense or Generals in their respective regions. the power granted to the latter does not extend to the power to arrest. Warrants of arrest issued solely for the purpose of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued are therefore null and void. But even assuming that the arrest was at first illegal. • Both provisions are express guarantees against unwarranted violations of the privacy and security of persons and their properties. [Salazar v Achacoso (1990)] Exception: deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens following a final order of deportation. does not extend to deportation proceedings. official functions requiring exercise of discretion and judgment may not be so delegated. conflicts with paragraph 3. to determine whether under specific circumstances. • The CFI has no jurisdiction to restrain deportation proceedings as they are within the jurisdiction of the Immigration authorities under the Immigration Act. [Harvey v Defensor-Santiago (1988)] The arrest and detention of Lucien by the CID preparatory to the deportation proceedings is illegal. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. which states that the power to determine probable cause for warrants of arrest is limited to judges. Art. III of the 1935 Constitution. Thus. Immigration authorities can issue warrants of arrest against undesirable aliens only if such issuance is pursuant to a final order of deportation. [Lucien Tran Van Nghia v Liwag (1989)] .Page 12 search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge. and (3) the charge be substantiated by competent evidence. This is to give more responsibility to the judge who will issue the warrant of arrest and be accountable for it.
• Art. whom the President or the Commissioner may order arrested. If every time the agency wishes to impose a civil penalty for violations it had to resort to courts of justice in protracted litigations. It is th (c) Specific directives so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome. Vivo v. as supported by Salazar. There is no justification for relaxing 4th Amendment safeguards where the official inspection is intended for the enforcement of laws prescribing minimum physical standards for commercial premises. The particular agency’s demand for access will be measured against a flexible standard of reasonableness that takes into account the public need for effective enforcement of regulations. Relevant in purpose. only judges may issue search warrants and warrants of arrest. Not only is Salazar a later case. for the purpose of the same. penalties: • • (a) (b) (c) Agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties. following a final order of deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the commissioner for purposes of investigation only. Montesa is not a precedent because the arrest warrant was given to carry out a final decision of deportation. [Salazar v Achacoso (1990)] Note: Following (2). regulations. Warrants likely should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there is a citizen complaint or other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry. if not clearly stated in the statute.e. or requirements. Warrants are a necessary and tolerable limitation on the right to enter upon and inspect places of business. . (d) (e) (f) Subpoena must designate the needed documents. Art. [Civil Aeronautics Board v Phil. • A warrant of arrest issued by a commissioner to be valid must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation. The Qua Chee Gan doctrine prevails. Subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field.2. is a judicial and not an administrative function [Scoty’s Department Store v Micaller (1956)] • The fixing of penalties for criminal offenses is an exercise of legislative power which cannot be delegated by the Legislature. Consider these two cases as a glitch. Airlines (1975)] Imposition of fines and surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the constitution only when he is suspected of criminal behavior. it was also decided en banc. and (2) the exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens.Page 13 These two cases contradict the Qua Chee Gan doctrine because both allowed arrest by Commissioner upon determination of existence of a ground to deport. Agency expressly authorized to impose penalty. following Qua Chee Gan. it could not serve its purpose as an administrative body. 38 of the Labor Code allowing the Secretary of Labor the power to issue warrants of arrest is unconstitutional for under the Constitution. recourse will have to be made to the ordinary courts. Test for valid imposition: Subject matter must be within authority of Congress to legislate. [US v Barrias (1908)] • A fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i. is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. [See v Seattle] 4. • Imposition of criminal penalties. [Camara v Municipal Court (1967)] • A warrant must first be secured. Subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of reasonableness of demand prior to suffering penalties for refusal to comply. only a judge may issue search or arrest warrants. Limitations on administrative subpoenas of corporate books and documents: (a) (b) Limited in scope. the Harvey and Lucien cases prove to be anomalies. while Harvey was decided by a division. Penalty to be imposed must be administrative or civil in character. III of the Constitution. The SC reaffirms the following principles: (1) Under Sec. is null and void for being unconstitutional. [Board of Commissioners v Dela Rosa (1991)] • Warrantless non-emergency inspection of residential and commercial premises by city health officials are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the 4 Amendment. [Oceanic Steam Navigation v Stranahan (1908)] • Where the statute does not authorize executive officials themselves to impose the penalty. not in the nature of a criminal penalty) that is exacted not so much as a penalty for the violation of administrative rules but for the need to stress desistance from wanton disregard of existing rules.
more than a mere scintilla. his right to cross-examine is violated. i. [Wisconsin v Whitman (1928)] To promote simplicity. All that the law requires is the element of fairness. 8. the review becomes a farce. as applied to administrative proceedings. as in emergency cases [Goss v Lopez (1975)].Page 14 C. 5. Interest of law and order. [Busuego v CA (1999)]. Administrative Procedure A. 2. 5. Independent consideration of judge. 4. one may also be heard through pleadings. [Cervantes v Auditor-General (1952)] Maintain monetary stability. [Vinta Maritime v NLRC (1978)]. [International Hardwood v Pangil (1940) ] What is moral. can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. 6. [Casimiro v Tandog (2005)]. Evidence must be substantial. economy or efficiency. because the latter is only preventive in nature. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. [Bachrach Motors v CIR (1978)] . Right to a hearing. contemplates that the reviewing officer is a person different from the one who issued the appealed decision. [Mutual Film Corp v Industrial Commission (1914) ] Adequate and efficient instruction. • Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties. wage or rate-fixing (see related areas in this reviewer) B. Judicial determination of sufficiency of standards 1. he is entitled to have the direct examination stricken off the record. • Does due process always entail notice and hearing prior to the deprivation of a right? No. • The law. Hearing may occur after the deprivation. 2. Decision rendered in such a manner as to let the parties know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered. The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witness is a fundamental right which is part of due process. Rules of Procedure Due Process a. educational or amusing. 6. such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In Adjudication of cases 1. [Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)] Public interest. it is rendered meaningless. promote rising level of production & real income. 2. that the parties be given notice of trial and an opportunity to be heard [Asprec v Itchon (1966)] or. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in the strict judicial sense. 3. in prescribing a process of appeal to a higher level.e. [UP Board of Regents v CA (1999)] The right to substantive and procedural due process is applicable in administrative proceedings. In Rule-Making: Price. [Burstyn v Wilson (1952)] IV. [People v Joliffe (1959)] • What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient standard. equity and substantial merits of the case. 4. [People v Rosenthal & Osmeña (1939)] Justice. If without his fault. WON to hold an adversarial trial is discretionary and parties cannot demand it as a matter of right. there must be a chance to seek reconsideration. [Ocampo v Office of the Ombudsman (2000)]. 7. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. • Includes the right of a part to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Otherwise. even if other minds equally reasonable would opine otherwise. 3. Decision must be supported by evidence. [PACU v Secretary (1955)] Reasonableness as an implied standard in every law. in which case. [CSC v Lucas (1999)] Presence of a party at a trial is not always the essence of due process. Cardinal Primary Rights: [Ang Tibay v CIR (1950)] 1. an opportunity to seek reconsideration [De la Cruz v Abille (2001)] or an opportunity to explain one’s side [Pilipinas Loan v SEC (2001)]. • • • • • • 7. No notice is necessary for suspension. • Must not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. [Rivera v CSC (1995)] “To be heard” does not mean only verbal arguments only in court.
[Albert v Gangan (2001)] It is not necessary that the court make its own discussion of the evidence and findings of fact if the court is satisfied with the report of the examiner which already contains the discussions of the Notice and Sec. of an agency in any matter. [Matthews v Eldridge] • Due process is violated when there is failure to sufficiently explain the reason for the decision rendered. [Pefianco v Moral (2000)] • Mere consultations and conferences may not be valid substitutes for observance of notice and hearing. It shall be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his equivalent functionary to prepare a register or compilation of those decisions or final orders for use by the public. if any. • The right against self-incrimination may be invoked by the respondent at the time he is called by the complainant as a witness. [Pollution Adjudication Board v CA (1991)] Form and . and the imputation of a violation and imposition of a corresponding fine despite the absence of due notice and hearing. if he voluntarily takes the witness stand. — The decision of the agency shall be final and executory after the receipt of copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review. 16. [Equitable Banking v NLRC (1997)] (b) When it affects a person’s status and liberty. but he may still invoke the right when the question calls for an answer which incriminates him of an offense other than that charged. 14. Sec. which shall suspend the running of the said period. lack of support therefor in substantial evidence. he can be cross examined. has been perfected. negative. (a) (b) When not required: Urgent reasons. whether affirmative. [Equitable Banking v NLRC (1997)] • Three factors determining constitutional sufficiency of administrative procedures: (a) (b) Private interest that will be affected. or injunctive in form. rate fixing. The agency shall decide each case within thirty days following its submission. — Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly the facts and the law on which it is based. [Suntay v People (1957)] • • • Decision should state the facts. hearing: 1. 2(8). [Ang Tibay v CIR] Government agency decision must state the facts and the legal basis. One motion for reconsideration may be filed. — Every agency shall publish and make available for public inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of contested cases. (c) Public interest vis-à-vis government costs. 1987 Admin Code. or to them. Sec. [People v Ayson] b. [American Inter-Fashion v Office of the President (1991)] • Respondents in administrative cases are not entitled to be informed of findings of investigative committees but only of the decision of the administrative body. Finality of order. 15. promulgation of judgment (e) (d) (c) If it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse. Risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest and probable value of safeguards. Discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact. (a) When required: When the law specifically requires notice and hearing. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record. [Commissioner of Immigration v Fernandez] 2. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. issues and the law on which the decision was based. [Taxicab Operators of Manila v Board of Transportation ] In the valid exercise of police power. ”Decision” means the whole or any part of the final disposition. of proper.Page 15 • Evidence on record must be fully disclosed to the parties. [Globe Telecom v NTC (2004)]. including licensing. unless law provides otherwise. c. and granting of rights and privileges. However. [De Bisschop v Galang] When rules to govern future conduct of persons or enterprises. not an interlocutory character. Sec. Decision. not merely conclusions of law.
as jurisdiction is created and conferred by law.Page 16 findings and conclusions. the decision of the BSI prevails and becomes final after the lapse of 1 year from the rendition of the decision. written and signed. • Administrative and judicial proceedings arising from the same facts The practice in the Philippines has been to allow an administrative proceeding and a judicial proceeding to take place at the same time so long as the 2 actions are independent of each other. However. [Villanos v Subido (1971)] Acquittal in the criminal case does not carry with it relief from administrative liability. notice thereof may be sent even after the lapse of 1 year. [Realty Exchange v Sendino (1994)] 3. See PNR v Domingo. and attenuating circumstances of value in admin proceedings that are not admissible in trial of the criminal case which can have a blunting effect on the conviction. the decision rendered by the tribunal is void. Notwithstanding the fact that findings in criminal cases must be beyond reasonable doubt. [Police Commission v Lood (1980)] Note: Can there be a conviction in a criminal case and an acquittal in the administrative case? YES. It must personally decide such. [(Galang v CA (1961)] The matters that are material in an administrative case are not necessarily relevant in the criminal case. • Jurisdiction Administrative agencies may only exercise such powers as are explicitly or by necessary implication conferred on them by law. The difference in the proceeding (one administrative. The trial court has no jurisdiction to order reinstatement since • Refer to the enabling statute creating the agency especially the powers and jurisdictions. the other criminal) is not legal incompatibility. The case of PNR also states that while the accused acquitted of the crime imputed against him may claim payment of back salaries during his suspension or reinstatement in case of dismissal. There are defenses. These two proceedings are independent of each other involving different causes of action and therefore can proceed simultaneously. Conviction does not ex proprio vigore justify automatic suspension. but merely physical incompatibility. Note: Can there be an acquittal in a criminal case and a conviction in the administrative case? YES. the evidence and law involved. Due process should be upheld. This date can be ascertained from the minutes of the proceedings had before the Board. Without jurisdiction. [Indias v Phil Iron Mines (1957)] • If a power to decide is granted to a specific authority. It can delegate the power to hear but not the power to decide. the formulation of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Different standards apply. his relief lies in the proper administrative or civil action prescribed by law (NLRC). it can’t abdicate from this responsibility by delegating the duty to decide the case. The rule is otherwise when the court disagrees with the findings of the examiner in which case the court must specify and discuss the reasons for their dissent. Absent a reversal. The administrative case may generally proceed independently of a criminal action for the same act or omission and requires only a preponderance of evidence to establish administrative guilt as against proof beyond reasonable doubt of the criminal charge. A decision by the latter requires a judicious review and deliberation as a body of the proceedings. [American Tobacco v Director of Patents (1975)] • The date of the promulgation of the judgment is the date when the Board voted and resolved to admit the alien. excuses. [Sichangco v Board of Commissioners of Immigration (1979)] • The power to delegate a particular function can be implied form the power of administrative agencies to issue rules and regulations necessary to carry out its functions. they cannot be conclusive for administrative purposes. • • • 4. See Villanos v Subido. in the case of a reversal. [Neria v Commissioner of Immigration (1968)] • The word “noted” on the decision does not constitute an exercise of the Board of Commissioners’ power of review. . The jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative agency depends on the terms of the enabling statute delegating powers to it. regardless of the date when the decision in extenso was prepared. The operative date of the Board’s action is that when the decision was voted and adopted by them as a Board.
the administrative body may. • The order of testimony is within the discretion of the court and the exercise of this discretion in permitting witnesses to be introduced out of the order prescribed by the rules is not improper. upon COMELEC’s recommendation. In the absence thereof. or decisions. Considering the difference in the quantum of evidence. [Rizal Light v Municipality of Rizal]. and take judicial notice of certain other matters. Such a relaxed procedure is especially true in administrative bodies. there is no prohibition. it is the executive department to which the charged official or employee belongs which has ultimate authority to impose the recommended disciplinary action. evidence received at an administrative investigation conducted with manifest disregard of due process may not justify the conclusion based thereon. But if the issue can be resolved through ocular inspection. [Tan v COMELEC (1994)] • The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action. [Ocampo v Office of the Ombudsman (2000)] • The criminal and civil cases are altogether different from the administrative matters such that disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third. Whether or not the Consigna doctrine should be seen as an exemption is still a gray area. • Rules of Evidence Apply the specific rules of the administrative agency. [Phil. administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules of admissibility. So long as the requirements of due process are observed. in any particular manner. orders. take appropriate action. the corresponding proper authority shall. while others argue that if the criminal case results in an acquittal due to absolute lack of evidence. the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. Some say that it is not to be considered as good law. However. [Estate of Buan v Pambusco (1956)] The SC is not required to examine proof de novo. Parties are still entitled to hearing. as well as the procedure followed and sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings. The rules of evidence in administrative agencies are more relaxed than in judicial tribunals. Movie Pictures Workers Assoc v Premier Productions (1953)] Administrative agencies may act on their own and use methods which may best constitute substantial evidence. apply the general rules on procedure. Judicial Notice: Administrative bodies may take into account not only such evidence as may be presented by the parties in the determination of the case. [Mirales v Go (2001)] 5.Page 17 the judgment in a criminal case is limited to acquittal or conviction with necessary penalties. The court is not required to examine proof de novo. but this does • • • • (c) (b) • not mean that they can disregard certain due process requirements. However. except itself from technical rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall promote the objectives. The only function of the SC is to determine WON there is evidence before the administrative agency upon which its decision might be reasonably based. as it is only an auxiliary remedy. • Pervasive principle: Technical rules of evidence and procedure do not strictly apply to administrative proceedings. administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules regarding admission of evidence of ordinary courts of justice. • Should a public official or employee be found guilty of violation of election laws or failure to comply with COMELEC instructions. Ocular inspection is not equivalent to a trial or presentation of evidence. In the broad interest of justice. then the administrative case must also result in an acquittal. Quantum of Evidence: Only substantial evidence is required to support a decision. Notably. They may also make their inquiry into facts at issue. However. this case also discusses the doctrine laid down in Consigna where reinstatement was granted by the trial court because the acquittal was for absolute lack of evidence and a concomitant finding that the dismissal was unfair. [Borja v Moreno]. and vice versa. Rationale: to allow administrative agencies to act with speed and flexibility. This respects the general administrative authoriy of the government department concerned over its own personnel. [Maceda v ERB (1991)] When findings of fact of administrative agencies are not conclusive upon the courts: . in at least three areas: (a) Admissibility: Generally.
When the decision was rendered in consequence of fraud. policymaking is not judicial business. Under Sec. [Gonzales v Victory Labor Union (1969)] • he Court is the final interpreter of law: It depends on whether or not the finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence. taking into consideration not only the cases where forum shopping can happen. the certification against forum shopping shall state that the party “has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court. litis pendentia and res judicata apply to administrative agencies? YES. Litis pendentia can happen. it is not reviewable. When the decision was rendered by an almost evenly divided court and the division was precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence. otherwise. (d) the administrative decision. it is. 5. tribunal or quasijudicial agency. [PAL v Confessor (1994)] Reconcile with Bantolino case: decisions based on position papers allowed as expressly permitted by the law. The SC will intervene only in what ought to be the rare instance when the standard appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied. Here are factors Laguesma]. [United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union v V. (2) with the active participation of the Sol-Gen. although a judicial concept. (b) History of the statute involved. no such other action or claim is pending therein…” Res judicata applies to adversary administrative proceedings. imposition or mistake. then it is a question of law. Question of Policy: Traditionally. Nature of A generalization as to when judicial review is available is hazardous. Question of Discretion: When discretion is granted by law. • Exception: When there is grave abuse of discretion – capriciousness. partiality or hostile attitude. the exercise of such is generally to be disturbed by the court. but also those involving the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of the evidence. because they are quasi-judicial in nature. [Zita Ngo Burca v Republic] Finality of If the question is on the substantiality T b. [Bantolino v Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. res judicata does not apply in administrative adjudication relative to citizenship. e. [Manahan v People (1988)] d. When the findings are not based on a thorough examination of the parties’ contending claims but merely on their position papers. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions • Judicial review is an effective mechanism to check acts which are arbitrary or beyond the authority given to any agency by its enabling statute. (c) problem involved: Right (should be protected by law) v Privilege (can be unilaterally withdrawn). judicial review is available. arbitrariness. and to the best of his knowledge. Question of Law v Question of Fact. unless the following conditions all obtain: (1) The question of citizenship is resolved by a court or administrative body as a material issue in the controversy after a full-blown hearing. it would have said so.Page 18 a. Intention of Congress prevails: If it wanted judicial review to be available. The doctrine of res judicata. There is no trial through position papers where the adversarial process would ensure a better presentation and appreciation of the evidence. may be applied to administrative agencies performing quasi-legislative functions. However. and (3) The finding on the citizenship issue is affirmed by the SC. [Universal Camera v NLRC (1951) ] • Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only. (2003)] . • of evidence. [Ortua v Singson (1934)] c. • Can the doctrines of forum shopping. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. If yes. • to consider: (a) If what is involved is question of constitutionality. When the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
[Sotto v Ruiz (1921)] • General rule: Courts refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of administrative functions. B. as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies. A. b. or because it is corrupt. [San Miguel Corp v Secretary of Labor (1975)] When judicial review is valid despite finality of administrative decisions: (a) Decision is wrong.F. Whether the defendant is the proper defendant. [Fortich v Corona (1998)] • Compliance with the period provided by law for the perfection of an appeal is not merely mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement. Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction. it deals first with the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. (b) manifestly arbitrary and unjust. Thus. the Office of the President lost jurisdiction to reopen the case. and its existence derogates the judicial prerogative lodged in the courts by the Constitution. judicial review is available. unless the Court is of the clear opinion that such decision is (a) wrong. generally. The defendant could either be a private party. the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute. (c) Decision is not based upon any reasonable interpretation of law. or d. judicial review is needed to offer these considerations. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. error of law. [B. Has gone beyond his statutory authority. fraud or collusion. or with grave abuse of discretion. The decision is vitiated by fraud. There is no problem when the statute itself expressly grants or prohibits judicial review. Clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty. that is. the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. (f) Decision vitiated by fraud. . The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments of a court or quasi-judicial body reach a point of finality set by the law. Since an administrative agency has a narrower view of the case. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative Decisions • When a court reviews an agency’s construction. Exceptions: administrative proceedings may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the board or official: 2. It thus had no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration. [Antique Sawmill v Zayco (1966)] • The Courts will not interfere with the decision of the an administrative officer. If not. imposition or mistake. (h) Grave abuse of discretion. The court may also declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority to be illegal because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of law. arbitrary or capricious. Goodrich v WCC (1988)]. If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the issue. imposition or mistake. grave abuse of discretion.Page 19 Nor does res judicata apply where the administrative decision gives an award that is less than what the law provides. Whether the plaintiff is the proper plaintiff. [Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)] • When no one seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration. Whether the enabling statute permits judicial review. Availability of Judicial Review • • c. whether the plaintiff has standing. unjust decision. Non quieta movere: What was already terminated cannot be disturbed. (b) Manifestly arbitrary. more so modify its decision. (i) Decision violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of law. no problem. The court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguous expressed intent of Congress. [Manuel v Villena (1971)] There is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. (g) Lack of jurisdiction. 1. capricious. failure to comply with the reglementary period has the effect or rendering final the judgment of the court. Exercised unconstitutional powers. Even administrative decisions must end sometime. rules and regulations. 3. If intent of Congress is clear. But when it is silent. (e) Administrative agency exercised unconstitutional powers. a. or the very administrative agency before whom the right is being applied. (d) Administrative body or officer has gone beyond its/his statutory authority. and (c) not based upon any reasonable interpretation of the law.
Legal reason: The law prescribes a procedure. the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated. The doctrine does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve. Whether the timing for the filing of the case is proper. He is said to have invoked the intervention of the court prematurely. Rationale a. Exceptions a. Although this is not a jurisdictional requirement. [Castro v Secretary (2001)] Steps to be taken are merely matters of form.Page 20 4. 1. [Estrada v CA (2004). • The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function. Whether the case is ripe for adjudication. Purely legal questions. since administrative agencies are usually given the rank equal to or higher than the RTC. Paat] When it involves the rule-making or quasilegislative functions of an administrative agency. the Uniform Appeals Act should be applicable. [Garcia v CA (2001)] 4. Practical reason: To give the agency a chance to correct its own errors [Bernardo v Abalos (2001)] and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts [Lopez v City of Manila (1999)]. [Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996) ] Doctrine of qualified political agency: The act of the department head is presumptively the act of the President (as his alter ego). c. then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s juridical power can be invoked. b. The regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the validity or constitutionality of an administrative rule or regulation issued in the performance of quasi-legislative functions. The forum is usually provided for in the enacting statute. Judicial review is available. When the doctrine applies a. b. No other plain. When a person has not exhausted all the administrative remedies available to him. Paat] • Note: Undersecretary is held to have acted on behalf (as alter ego) of the Secretary. [Lopez v City of Manila (1999] c. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies c. Recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies would have first been exhausted. The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction. Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulations of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. f. unless revoked by the latter. [Pascual v Provincial Board (1959)] Administrative remedy not exclusive but merely cumulative or concurrent to a judicial remedy. convenience. 6. g. [Nazareno v CA] • Exceptions: • b. Whether the forum is the proper forum. [Pascual v Provincial Board (1959)] a. j. c. or interfere in. C. [Paat v CA (1997)] k. 5. [Paat. [Smart Communications v NTC (2003)] 2. [Paat v CA (1997)] Where the law expressly provides for exhaustion via an appeal to the . as well as the period required by the statute or rules for the filing of appeals. The period for filing the case must also be considered in view of the statue of limitations. 3. b. [Paat. [Corpuz v Cuaderno (1962)] Application of the doctrine will only cause great and irreparable damage which cannot be prevented except by taking the appropriate court action. e. Reasons of comity: Expedient courtesy. [Pascual] d. If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a mater that comes within his jurisdiction. Cipriano v Marcelino (1972)] Where the administrative remedy is only permissive or voluntary and not a prerequisite to the institution of judicial proceedings. It is very seldom that the forum is in the RTC. i. h. [Cipriano. [Smart v NTC (2003)] Administrative agency is in estoppel. failure to abide by the doctrine affects petitioner’s cause of action. General Rule: Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy could be effected. Premature invocation of court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. Information Technology Found’n v COMELEC (2004)] Resort to exhaustion will only be oppressive and patently unreasonable. speedy. but in its absence. Validity and urgency of judicial action or intervention. a controversy the jurisdiction over which is lodged initially with an administrative body of special competence. his case is said to be not ripe for judicial review yet.
and does not amount to ouster of the court. It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case. Resort to administrative remedy will amount to a nullification of a claim. [Republic v Sandiganbayan] Administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. [ Texas & Pacific Railway v Abilene (1907)] • It is the recent jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases that demand the special competence of administrative agencies. if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter. If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction. or correct any previous error committed in its forum [Caballes v Sison (2004)] 3.Page 21 President. When the issue involved is clearly a factual question that does not require specialized skills and knowledge for resolution to justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction. Pagara v CA] n. The only effect of non-compliance is it will deprive complainant of a cause of action. No administrative review provided by law. The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function. Subject of controversy is private land in land case proceedings. Coconut Authority] l. the court should suspend its action on the case before it pending the final outcome of the administrative proceedings. [ Phil Global Communications v Relova (1980) ] c. Remedy: Failure to observe doctrine does not affect jurisdiction of the court. General rule: Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which requires the expertise of administrative agencies and the legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in the rulings. r. if the determination of the case requires the expertise. which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. [Texas] When the issue is not within the competence of the administrative body to act on. for while no prejudicial question arises in civil proceedings. under a regulatory scheme. It can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency. [Samahang Magbubukid v CA (1999)] 5. 2. this is in the interest of good order. c. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction. [Industrial Enterprises v CA (1990)] It is presumed that an administrative agency. t. [Industrial] • If jurisdiction over a controversy is initially lodged with an administrative body of special where the appeal to the Office of the President was not acted upon despite follow-ups. [Estrada] In quo warranto proceedings. and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which. then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. [Estrada] Issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies rendered moot. d. [Paat. have been placed within the special competence of an administrative • body”. and in the meantime. However. It is a question of the court yielding to the agency Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary competence. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction “applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts. [DAR v Apex Investment (2003). [Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)] D. s. Resort 1. Exceptions a. [Garcia] Law expressly provides for a different review procedure. The administrative body and the regular court have concurrent and original jurisdiction. specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved. b. [Ass’n of Phil. Paat] q. [Paat] m. The legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in rulings. which is a ground to dismiss. o. But if not invoked at the proper time. The question to be resolved requires expertise of administrative agency. [Conrad v CA (1995)] 4. [Tan v Director of Forestry] • because of the latter’s expertise. Blatant violation of due process. [Paat] p. the assailed administrative resolution continued to be put in effect. Coconut Desiccators v Phil. [Viadad v RTC (1993)] . When the doctrine applies a. would decide the same correctly. Effect • Application of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the case but only its suspension until after the matters within the competence of the administrative agency are threshed out and determined. b. this ground is deemed waived.
voters. Competitors: administrative A competitor which has legal a standing to challenge the official action of an agency favors competing entity. concrete/particularized and actual/imminent. The party must have personal and substantial interest. A party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his behalf. Standing to Challenge 1. Members of Congress Class suit: The subject matter of a class suit should interest. not conjectural/hypothetical. [Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare (1976). i. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. . [Philippine Veterans Bank v CA (2000) ] E. [ Occena v COMELEC] b. 2. Meaning: Legal standing means a personal and • 3. When standing not given . the administrative action has standing to seek judicial intervention. or will sustain. not merely a specialized interest. [Joya v PCGG (1993)] The issue of standing is a procedural technicality which may be waived if the to issue the is of transcendental importance public [Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)] One who is directly affected by.Except: taxpayers. as substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged [Joya v PCGG (1993). legislators. [Lujan] Injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. and whose interest is immediate and substantial in. [Lozada] c. When standing given • Only the proper party whose legal rights have been adversely affected by. such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.e. The court’s jurisdiction in such a case is not any less original and exclusive as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)] • The technical rules on standing comes from the general doctrine of separation of powers as there is a need for an actual case or controversy before judicial review becomes available. Taxpayers: A taxpayer’s suit is generally allowed to restrain the government from spending public funds for a purpose alleged to be illegal.Page 22 • While primary jurisdiction to determine preliminary matters is vested in an administrative agency. and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. d. [Oposa v Factoran (1993)] Consumers: Consumers can challenge the validity of administrative actions in areas affecting their interests. while the latter is a concept in procedural law which concerns both the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. Voters: A voter who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained. [Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992)] Interest sought to be protected is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question [Assoc of Data Processing] Causal connection between the injury and the action complained of: Injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant.e. Philippine law on standing v American law on standing Philippine law American law Challenged action caused injury in fact. [Lozada v COMELEC (1983)] A taxpayer’s suit is not allowed to compel the spending of public funds. economic or otherwise. be one and and full of the common plaintiffs of all and general be to should enough Interest is: • Personal. [KMU v Garcia (1994)] • Kinds: a. f. what is alleged is personal stake. numerous ensure e. • • Petitioner himself be among the injured. Lujan] 4. • Substantial Direct injury representative protection concerned interests. [Assoc of Data Processing v Camp (1970)] i. and who stands to suffer a legal injury or wrong from. • Standing as opposed to real party-in-interest: the former is a constitutional law concept which only concerns the petitioner. the controversy has the standing to sue. “Interest” from is material interest. class suits. [Sierra Club v Morton (1972)] distinguished mere incidental interest.
legislative. habeas corpus. To prevent courts. or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. [Kilosbayan v Morato (1995)] protects substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. Judicial review available/appropriate. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or F. • If statutory methods for judicial review are available. where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasilegislative function. [ Smart v NTC (2003)] 2. 8 of the 1987 Constitution. Sec 7. which provides that the judicial power includes the power of the courts of justice to determine WON there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any government agency or instrumentality. v Labor Secretary (1975) ] The Constitution uses the word may. When doctrine applied a.1. G. 2nd paragraph of Sec. association. Classes of methods of obtaining judicial review: (1) Statutory v Non-statutory: • • Statutory methods are available pursuant to specific statutory provisions. grave abuse of discretion. in thru avoidance of over premature themselves b. they are ordinarily exclusive. 1987 Consti. Non-statutory methods are those taken when there is no express statute granting review. and relief is obtained by means of the common law remedies or by the prerogative writs of certiorari. Thus. Finality of the administrative body’s decision. standing is an issue issues are involved.” when Moreover. constitutional • • Except when the Constitution requires or allows it. Administrative agency exercising its rulemaking or quasi-legislative function The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where and the not administrative rule-making or agency quasi• There is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial power on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by the statute. is “whether he is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment. only a person. or the ‘party’ entitled to the avails of the suit. (2) Direct v Collateral: agreement administrative policies. any decision. meaning review is not mandatory but only discretionary. the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. However. However. b. Two-fold test for a controversy to be ripe [Abbot] a. the law may provide that a determination made by an administrative agency shall be final and irreviewable. mandamus. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law. quo warranto or prohibition. fraud or collusion. [Ursal v CTA (1957)] • The question in standing is “whether such parties have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Fitness of the issue for judicial decision. judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses. abstract from entangling • • [Abbot Laboratories v Gardner matter brought before it within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. [San Miguel Corp. clearly means that judicial review of administrative decisions cannot be denied the courts when there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion. adjudication. c. Judicial review is proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading. there is no violation of due process. b. or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Ripeness 1. Mootness VI. Art. In such a case.Page 23 • Under RA 1125.” The question as to real party-in-interest. error of law. administrative agency Judicial review keeps the within its jurisdiction and exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Hardship to the parties of withholding such court action. and the use of non-statutory methods will not likely be permitted. 3. brief. arbitrary or capricious. order. Art IX-A. Purpose (1967)] a. or in case the administrative decision is corrupt. on the other hand. To protect agencies from judicial interference until a decision has been formalized and its effect is felt in a concrete way or the imminence of the effect is demonstrable. Modes of Judicial Review . or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Sec. free from fraud or imposition. . Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. certiorari. Judicial Review. together with copies of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting papers. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within 15 days from receipt of the final administrative decision. receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction. How: File petition for review. Sec 25. its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC through the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission. decisions. (2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek judicial review. – (1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws. habeas corpus. including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. grave abuse of discretion. by stating the specific material dates. Jurisdiction. the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law. if such is listed in the law or if its charter so indicates. including the Securities and Exchange Commission. boards or commissions. except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution. Admin Code. in the absence thereof. the provisions of this Act. 9). If the motion is denied. resolutions. in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provision on venue of the Rules of Court. and supported by evidence. (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by statute or. and judgments. prohibition. Rules of Court): Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction over awards. 442. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency. It is merely an ascertainment of WON the findings of the administrative agency are consistent with law. instrumentalities. .Page 24 • Direct attacks are those which attempt to question in subsequent proceedings the • Within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the decision. (4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal. the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. and all indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court. and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from. or its officers. Excludes the NLRC by virtue of BP 129 (as amended by RA 7902). as amended. and of subparagraph (1) of the 3rd paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the 4th paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. • Collateral attack is when administrative action is proceeding where the primary objective is the grant of a relief other than the setting aside of the judgment. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within 3 months. (7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings. and auxiliary writs or processes.The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. and quo warranto. whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. etc. • When to appeal: • Authority of the CA to review decision of quasi-judicial agencies is exclusive. • • Grants the CA with exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of 19 administrative agencies. in the absence thereof. It the decision is reversed on reconsideration. judgments. relief from in a • Where to file: In the court specified by the statute or. orders or awards of Regional and quasi-judicial agencies. unless extended by the Chief Justice. • SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 (Rule 43. • Who may seek judicial review: Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision. the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. (2) (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for Exclusive Trial appellate Courts jurisdiction over all final annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts. BP 129. that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. Sec 9 (as amended by RA 7902. the Social Security Commission. The petition shall be under oath and shall show. One motion for reconsideration may be allowed. although an attack on the judgment may be incidentally involved. final orders of resolutions of or authorized by any quasijudicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review. • Judicial review is not trial de novo. sought administrative action for lack of jurisdiction. If it is not listed. and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order.
Sec 1. Special civil action. and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. the proper mode of appeal is through Rule 43 (Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the CA). • Where the law provides for an appeal from the decisions of administrative bodies to the SC or to the CA. Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari) Rule 65. 6) b. that in the case of administrative agencies performing quasi- judicial functions. nor any plain.Page 25 • • • Mentions only one constitutional body – the Civil Service Commission. it means that such bodies are co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature and. speedy. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Sec. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment. and adequate . this rule is not a matter of right. Listing is not exclusive since it provides “among these agencies” – ejusdem generis. Certiorari 1. applicable questions of law are raised. Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the SC) Note. Note that there are cases which held that review by the RTC of certain administrative agencies (Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Laguna Lake Development Authority. [ Philippine Sinter v Cagayan Electric (2002)] This doctrine of noninterference by trial courts with co-equal administrative bodies is intended to ensure judicial stability in the administration of justice whereby the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. Petition for certiorari. logically. Kinds a. B. remedy in the ordinary course of law. and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3. Simple or ordinary. SC retains the special civil action for certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Rule 46. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction. and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefore (Rule 45. but of sound judicial discretion. beyond the control of the latter. order or resolution subject thereof. board or officer. and there is not appeal. Rule 45: Considered it is as a “gatekeeper only when Review under provision”. and court martials) is valid. modified or vacated by any court of equal rank. When any tribunal. however.
Parties are aggrieved party (petitioner) against the administrative agency and the prevailing parties (respondents). Based only on questions of law. whimsical. the RTC or other courts. [Republic v CA] Petition shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution. or from the date of its last publication. for justifiable reasons. the CA may grant an additional period of 15 days. and in no case shall it exceed 15 days. (Sec 12) Parties are the original parties and the court or agency is not impleaded as petitioner or respondent. Rule 45 SC has jurisdiction. No further extension may be granted except for the most compelling reason. judgment or final order or resolution. Requisites (Rule 65) Rule 43 CA has jurisdiction. the authority. [Villaruel v NLRC (1998)] c. b. the SC may. Based on question of law. and not errors of judgment. (Sec 4) Award. CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction. It has been a long-standing policy and practice of the Court to respect the conclusions of quasijudicial agencies. Judgment is stayed. Parties are the original parties who thus become appellant and appellee. . Administrative agency performing a quasi-judicial function. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. unless there is an [Commissioner Revenue General Foods (2003)] 5. When not applicable a. [Purefoods Corp v NLRC (1989). (Sec 6) The court exercises appellate jurisdiction. (Sec 1) This rule applies to appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA. (Sec 3) This rules applies to appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions (Sec 1). or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. of fact or mixed question of law and fact. c. the Sandiganbayan. Order is not stayed unless a preliminary injunction is issued. grant an extension of 30 days. 4. No plain. Upon proper motion & payment of docket fees and before the expiration of the reglementary period. Azores v SEC (1996)] Review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not include a correction of or grave abuse of discretion. adequate or speedy remedy. (Sec 2) Appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the award. judgment. 3. But this does not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code.Page 152 2. b. a. Martin Funeral Homes v NLRC (1998) Court adheres to their findings. final order or resolution not stayed unless the CA directs otherwise. Purpose: To set aside or nullify proceedings. and not for judgments. evaluation of the Grave abuse of evidence but is confined to issues of jurisdiction discretion is committed when the judgment is rendered in a capricious. (Sec 1) Rule 65 The SC. abuse or improvident of exercise Internal of Thus. arbitrary or despotic manner. or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. (Sec 2) Within 60 days. v Cases • St. The court exercises appellate jurisdiction. A petition for certiorari inquires into errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Court exercises original jurisdiction. Based on question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. On motion with payment of docket fees before the expiration of the reglementary period. This rule applies only to an order or act of an officer or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. They are highly specialized bodies that have necessarily developed an expertise on their specific subjects.
whether exercising judicial. De Leon v Heirs of Gregorio Reyes (1987) If all administrative decisions were conclusive upon the Court in any event. there would have been no reason at all to offer the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to litigants who otherwise would have been deprived of this only and last resort to the courts of justice. either the want or excess thereof. Cruz v Gangan (2003) Findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected. an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. No plain. and it must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty. • Purefoods Corp v NLRC (1989) The rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain. there is grave abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of the writ of certiorari when there is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion. corporation. The remedy of a party is to file a motion for reconsideration at the administrative level. Sec 2: Petition for prohibition. as prohibition is available only when there are no other plain. Thus." That sacramental phrase does not remove a decision from the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court or inhibit us from reversing them when warranted by a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion. prejudice or personal hostility. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. Prohibition • • court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original civil action of certiorari. or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the action or matter specified therein. then avail of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. that the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. This cannot be allowed. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction. so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. since so often is it overlooked. or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. Rule 46. and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the same is so grave. adequate and speedy remedy. are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction. b.Page 153 There is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. and there is no appeal or any other plain. The only question involved in certiorari is Rule 65. officer or person. Petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies. board. an error of judgment that the C. prejudice or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty. speedy. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion. The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof. When a court exercises its jurisdiction. This remedy applies to administrative decisions up to the highest level and includes even a decision rendered "by authority of the President. the factual finding cannot stand on its own and is therefore not binding on the Court. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the acts of respondent. Consequently. If it did. • Police Commission v Bello (1971) While findings of facts of administrative bodies are entitled to great weight and should not generally be disturbed. The reason for the rule is simple. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is ordered to be elevated for review and correction in matters of law. in contemplation of law. . or to act at all in contemplation of law. It must emphatically be reiterated. or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3. all references in the law to “appeals” from the NLRC to the SC must be interpreted to mean petitions for • certiorari under Rule 65. Meralco Securities Industrial v Central Board of Assessment Appeals (1982) Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court. but lacking such support. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. All such petitions must initially be filed in the CA following the hierarchy of courts. In the case of NLRC decisions. as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction. Requisites a. 1. the intent of the legislature was to make a special civil action for certiorari as the proper vehicle for review. or to act at all. – When the proceeding of any tribunal. quasijudicial or ministerial functions. speedy and adequate remedies in the jurisdiction. every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment.
Requisites a. [Simon. 2. When not applicable a. and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. complete That there is another and at law is generally a remedy 1. Mere claim of citizenship will not divest it of its jurisdiction. using its sound discretion. Discretion means the power or right conferred 4. v CHR [Ruperto v Torres Rule 65. based on to the quantum of evidence deportation required justify the judicial judgment intervention before the termination of the proceedings. suspending the administrative proceedings. Exception: prohibition can restrain an act which is already a fait accompli if such act is patently illegal and unconstitutional. Petition for mandamus. A preventive remedy – thus. in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority. immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court. Public officer or agency has a positive duty that is ministerial. Duty to act after the facts have been ascertained is ministerial. Prohibition does not lie against legislative functions. alienage should be decided first in a judicial proceeding. Cases • Chua Hiong v Deportation Board (1955) General rule is that the Deportation Board has original jurisdiction to resolve the issue of citizenship. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. in which case the court. in a prescribed manner. upon the office by law of acting officially under certain circumstances according to the dictates of his judgment and conscience and not controlled by the judgment of conscience of others. Purpose: To prohibit or stop a proceeding. Sec 3. without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety [Meralco] Duty to ascertain facts is discretionary. If fait accompli. [Meralco v Savellano (1982)] A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts. The effect of granting the writ of prohibition is to suspend the administrative proceeding pending the resolution of the issue of the citizenship in the judicial proceeding. Mandamus can be availed of only by the party who has a direct legal interest in the right sought to be enforced. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent. Exception: If the question is one of public right and the object of mandamus is to procure the performance of a public duty. his right to should promptly enjoin Question the of immediate review should be recognized and deportation proceedings. Prohibition is granted only where no other remedy. is available to afford redress. reached by the lower court may be termed as suffering from the corrosion of substantial legal error. [Tan v Veterans Backpay Commission (1959)] Right of petitioner is clear and controlling. may allow intervention. (Unreported)] b. Exception is when there is substantial or conclusive proof to support the claim of citizenship. Rule 46. Prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done. to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner. [Cabedo v Director of Lands (1961)] c. The question is whether. prohibition can no longer be filed. or station. and not intended to provide a remedy for an act already accomplished. board. The petitioner shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3. or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled. Judicial determination is . and there is no other plain. – When any tribunal. the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. corporation. D. trust. [Paredes v CA (1996)] respondent deportation proceedings conclusive of the courts his citizenship. Agency performs quasi-judicial and/or ministerial functions.Page 154 ordinary course of law. not for acts already performed. it is sufficient to show that the petitioner is a citizen even if he has or impropriety of the act done. • Co v Deportation Board (1977) When the evidence in submitted by a is b. officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. Jr. and it creates a mischief and dangerous precedent whereby those in the corridors of power could avoid judicial intervention and review by merely speedily and stealthily completing the commission of an illegality [Tan v COMELEC (1986)] 3. sufficient reason for dismissing the writ. Mandamus allowable when the courts themselves believe that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. Exception: Mandamus will lie against a discretionary duty when the official or agency refuses to exercise the duty itself. (1994)] c. which is sufficient.
[ Tañada v Tuvera (1985)] c. Sec 4. such reasonable time is within 3 months from the commission of the complained act. in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. When not applicable a. Rule 65. Purpose: To compel a party to perform an act arising out of a positive duty enjoined by law. [People v Orias] c. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases. right especially has been where a constitutional violated. Issuance of a visa is not a mater of course since it involves the exercise of discretion on the part of the consular officer as to the question if the entry of the applicant would be contrary to public safety. [Kant Wong v PCGG (1987)] f. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. September 1. 4. [Orias] where there is no appeal. [Cruz v CA (1996)] • New rule: remedies available b. or palpable excess of authority. reference to any matter to which he is called upon to act. Where such discretion of the court can be legally exercised in only one way and it refuses to act. Where there has been grave abuse of discretion. In certiorari cases. Where the law imposes upon a public e. it must. manifest injustice. the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court Appeals. To prevent a failure of justice or irreparable injury where there is a clear legal right and there is an absence of any adequate remedy. unless otherwise provided by law or these rules. or when such remedy of appeal is inadequate. If it involves the acts or omissions of quasi-judicial agency. Mandamus is premature if there to are the administrative (1961)] Exception: Where the case involves only legal questions. [Lapisan v Alfonso] petitioner. whether such motion is required or not. officer or person. the litigant need not exhaust all c. it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. b. [Perez v City Mayor of Cabanatuan a. board. To prevent an abuse of discretion or to correct an arbitrary action which does not amount to exercise of discretion. When and where filed • Old rule: Although Rule 65 does not specify any period for the filing of a petition for certiorari and mandamus. [Ng Gioc Liu v Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1950)] Mandamus will lie only to compel the board or officer to take some action when it refuses to BUT will not attempt to prescribe the action to be taken and thereby control the discretion or judgment of the board or officer. officer the right and duty to exercise judgment. of mandamus to secure said privilege. order or resolution. In these cases. in which case the respondent can be ordered to act in a particular manner. to decide how or when If the law imposes a the duty shall be duty upon a public officer. There is grave abuse of discretion where the actuations are tantamount to a willful refusal to perform a duty specifically required by law. or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction. the proper remedy is specific performance. [PRC v De Guzman (2004)] Mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance of a visa. mandamus will not lie to compel a court to dismiss the appeal as the remedy is to assign such failure to dismiss as an error in the course of the appeal. and gives him the right performed. the latter being demandable if denied. the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. – The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from the notice of the judgment. administrative remedies before mandamus can be sought. [Español v The Chairman of the PVA (1985)] 2. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. No. nevertheless. 3. The writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer. [ Policarpio v Phil Veterans Board (1956)] Mandamus does not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct. speedy and adequate remedy. The courts may not grant the writ . d. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed. Cases d. [Orias] e. (As amended by A. Revised Rules of Court: When and where petition filed. if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation. [Blanco v Board of Examiners (1924)] Exceptions: When mandamus lies to compel performance of discretionary duties. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or. be filed within a reasonable time.M. [Province of Pangasinan v Reparations Commission (1977) ] While mandamus lies to compel a court to give due course to the appeal which it has erroneously dismissed. mandamus will lie to compel the court to exercise it. such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. 2000) 5. 00-02-03-SC.Page 155 not special interest in the result. No other plain. Privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right.
ordinance.Page 156 • PRC v De Guzman (2004) For mandamus to prosper. [Santos v Aquino] c. b. – Any person interested under a deed. There is illegal confinement or detention. • Note: Prof. [Kawasaki v Amores (1991)] F. [ National Dental Supply v Meer (1951)] d. the proper procedure is for the tax to be paid first and to sue for its recovery afterwards. Where petitioner never acquired any interest in the object of the controversy. validity and declaration of rights thereunder. or whose rights are affected by a statute. Where the relief sought would be determinative of issues rather than a construction of definite stated rights. there must be statutory authority for the performance of the act. if the petition has far-reaching implications and it raises questions that should be resolved. Avena says that while the (1) function of mandamus is not to establish a right but to enforce one that has been established by law. [Remotigue v Osmeña (1967). There is illegal restraint of liberty. where all administrative remedies 1. However. ripe adjudication [Mirando v Wellington (1978) ] have be legal controversy. or law or governmental regulation which affects his rights. To what habeas corpus extends. the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all case of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty. Nature: The great writ of liberty is intended as a speedy remedy to secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty. Purpose: To determine the construction. [Mirando] e. will. [Tolentino v Board of Accountancy] Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding. Petitioner persons must with adverse interest for interests. to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom. – Except as otherwise expressly provided by law. and enjoyed no rights which were violated. Rule 63. bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising and for a declaration of his rights or duties. or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code. will. An action for the reformation of an instrument. there must be a showing that the officer. or official g. validity/construction does not apply to cases involving deeds. Where declaratory relief would not terminate the uncertainty of controversy. contracts or other written instruments. which is a constitutionally guaranteed right. in the 2. [ Reparations Commission v Northern Lines (1970)] There must be an actual justiciable controversy between e. [Mirando] Contro4ersy must [Mirando]. A person detained upon the orders of an agency may test the validity of his detention through the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. may be brought under this Rule. If no legal right has been violated. etc. before breach or violation thereof. status and other relations commonly expressed in written instruments – since this remedy is available only if it is limited to a declaration of rights. E. b. thereunder.. Who may file petition. Subject matter must be a deed. will. There must be a well-defined. and not to a determination. Declaratory Relief 3. concerned has a clear legal duty not involving discretion. trial or judicial investigation of issues. or the validity of the law or regulation is. Petition is filed before breach or violation of the instrument d. The terms of the written instrument are. contract or other written instrument. executive orders. [Ollada v Central Bank (1962)] determination of any question of validity or construction and (2) declaration of rights apply to statutes. f. Habeas Corpus Rule 102. there can be no application of a legal remedy. Rural Bank of Olongapo v Commissioner of Land Registration (1981)]. . Where a taxpayer questions his liability. Requisites a. contract or written instrument in which petitioner is legally interested. Moreover. • Note: An action for declaratory relief must be brought in the RTC. clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded. It is not among the actions within the When not applied have been exhausted. Villadolid (1949)] [ De Borja v c. The 2. [Alliance of Government Workers v Minister of Labor and Employment (1983) ] 1. or any other governmental regulation may. board. it may be treated as one for prohibition [De la Llana v Alba (1982) ] or for mandamus. a. executive order or regulation. f. or regulation. [(Azajar v Ardalles (1955)] b. original jurisdiction of the SC even if only questions of law are involved. doubtful and requires judicial construction. Sec 1. Requisites a. and the performance of the duty has been refused. Sec 1. and the writ of mandamus is a legal remedy for a legal right. In securing a judicial declaration of citizenship. Where petition for declaratory relief is filed after the breach of law took place.
Purpose: Extent of Judicial Review Generally. Purpose: Secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty. In such case. unless there are restraints attached which precludes his freedom. as the bail bond gives petitioner liberty. and test the validity of detention as ordered by an agency. CTA is authorized • to restrain the Collector from proceeding with its collection. the writ is dissolved). 4. injunction becomes permanent (otherwise. Preliminary Injunction – To prevent or stop defendant from doing something Restraining Order – Life span of 20 days. d. An alien has been detained by the DOJ for an unreasonably long period of time after it has become apparent that the deportation order cannot be effectuated. Order the continued performance of some act for the purpose of preventing further injury. c. Rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. after which hearing is then held to decide propriety of the injunction. Permanent Injunction – If plaintiff wins the case. Plaintiff is entitled to relief demanded. permanent or temporary. Lemi vs. Commission or continuance of an act complained of would probably work injustice to him. a. Injunction as provisional remedy officials. • A quasi-judicial officer is usually given immunity from liability to persons who may be injured as a result of an erroneous or mistaken decision. 5. of fact or of both as well as of administrative discretion will depend on 3. Reyes (1957) The general rule is that injunction cannot be issued in tax collection. that in Criminal Procedure. provided that the acts complained of were done under the color of authority and in good faith. laws creating administrative agencies and providing for judicial review may indicate the scope of that review. – A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. 1. b. Sec 1. threatens or about to do an act in violation of petitioner’s rights which may render the judgment ineffective. [Honda v San Diego (1966)] Types a. Cases • Mejoff v Director of Prisons (1951) The writ of habeas corpus will issue when: 4. if co-equals. Note. Cases • Collector vs. or b. a writ of habeas corpus may still issue despite the granting of bail when there is still effective detention. H. [Philippine Racing Club v Bonifacio (1960)] a. requiring a party or a court. Liwag (1989) The release of a detained person. Defendant. No criminal charges have been formally made or a judicial order issued for his detention. the injunction cannot prosper. Whether the courts may inquire into questions of law. VII. 3. Injunction can only be issued by superior to an inferior body. General rules: Questions of law are always reviewable by the courts. Preliminary injunction defined. questions such as state immunity from suit and the applicable statutes. and 2) effect of the writ is to re-establish the pre-existing relation. Whether or not the action will prosper will depend on the determination of such other Rule 58. the order of deportation which was not executed is functus officio and the alien is being held without authority of law. d. and b. • 1. in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. • Co v Deportation Board (1977) Bail renders a writ of habeas corpus moot and academic. Prevent the commission of certain acts • complained of. . agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. whether injury is a continuing one. the enabling act. however. c.Page 157 c. 2. Valencia (1966) The right to the writ is clear when: 1) there is willful invasion of the petitioner’s right. classes. It may also require the performance of a particular acts or acts. renders a petition for the writ of habeas corpus moot and academic. b. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff wants to compel defendant to do something. is doing. Suit for damages (indirect method) • Parties aggrieved by some agency action may be able to obtain judicial review in an action for damages brought against the agency or its G. Requisites: a. An exception is that if the collection of the tax is prejudicial to the interest of the government and of the taxpayer. and the • Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Nature: An ancillary remedy provided to preserve the petitioner’s rights while main action is pending.
the court may confirm findings. he must whether the agency’s decision is ascertain supported by substantial evidence for him to do the waiving-off act. If the decision of a case is discretionary on the part of the agency. which involves a question of law. Question of Law • General rule: Questions of law are subject to judicial review. examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary. Santiago v Reyes (1960)] Non-controversion claim compensation simply means an admission of facts and not an admission of a legal conclusion. courts can review if the decision is attended with capriciousness. or Which of the two versions of the happening of an event is correct. This is but a recognition of the expertise of the agency as to questions in matters which have been entrusted to them for regulation or decision. should review. Substantial Evidence Rule: Findings of fact. The Law-Fact Distinction • There is no clear-cut line that separates questions of law from questions of fact. [Ysmael v CIR (1960)] Note: There is an alternative view saying that the question of WON there is an EER is a mixed question of fact and law. it is a question of law reserved to the court’s determination. if based on substantial evidence. Secretary (1959)] • Whether a question of by law. Validity of the agency action if this transcend the limit established by law. • Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts: Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a question of law as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter. in order to decide the legal question. [Aboitiz v Pepito (1966)] agency on the sufficiency of evidence. The recognizes that . question [Reyes for WON a certain thing exists. Finality is attached to findings of fact of some agencies when these findings are supported workmen’s by substantial evidence. But the courts have the power to review the B. because the court has to examine the facts vis-à-vis the four-fold test. is reviewable by the courts. but some cases may involve mixed questions of law and fact. and 4. he will treat it as a question of law. (1954)] • Judicial review is proper where the act of the administrative official constitutes not only an excess of regulatory power conferred upon him. 3. determine the credibility of witnesses. An administrative official’s action which is based on a misconstruction of law can be corrected and is not conclusive upon the courts. As a reviewing judge though. 1. [ Ortua v Singson (1934)] When the conclusion drawn by an administrative official from the facts found is erroneous or not warranted by law. or Correctness of the agency’s and application of the law. If he is inclined to review it. the of Otherwise. otherwise. the court will. he will waive it off as a question of fact. of is fact a overcomes of 3. • If the reviewing court is convinced substantial evidence supports the agency’s ruling. 2. SEC (1957)] The issue of WON an ER-EE relationship exists is a question of law. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence.Page 158 2. which the courts may review. and whether or not such is substantial is for the court to say. [People v Santos (1936)] • The interpretation of articles of incorporation. a Vda. are conclusive and binding on the courts. There may be • 3. • Inferences and findings of fact of administrative agencies are to be accepted. WON an event has taken place. but also an exercise of legislative power which he does not have. since the courts are generally more competent to resolve these issues • considering the less specialized nature of their jurisdiction. it [Donato v. Pacific-Maxon (1951)] C. • Officer Association (1959)] The conclusion drawn from facts is a question of law. • [Japanese War Notes Claimants vs. • A party challenging an administrative action may direct his attack against the: findings of fact when the evidence on record is not substantial. • A. Mapa interpretation cases where the issues raised may easily be classified under one or the other. Questions of jurisdiction are always reviewable as they go into the question of authority to decide. • The problem with these shady areas is that they are usually dependent on the predilection of the judge reviewing the case. Constitutionality of the statute creating the agency and granting its powers. unless they are irrational or unsupported by substantial evidence that on the record as a whole. Philippine Marine presumption reviewable • court. Question of Fact • [ Dauan v a law De • A question of fact exists if the issue involved is: 1. for or otherwise that of the the substitute its judgment court administrative trial court or [ O’Leary v Brown[Mejia vs. 2.
even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. (1951)] agency disagree in their [Universal Camera v NLRC General rule: Because of the expertise which an administrative agency has. as long as there was no grave abuse of discretion. Ergo. Ministerial duty is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion. The very essence of discretionary power is that the person or persons exercising it may choose which of several courses of action should be followed. and imposed by law. discretion may be defined as the power or right conferred upon them by law to act officially under certain circumstances. in order to determine the substantiality of the evidence. Ministerial A ministerial act has been defined as one performed in response to a duty which has been positively imposed by law and its performance required at a time and in a manner or upon conditions specifically designated. [Acting Commissioner of Customs vs. the duty to perform under the conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer’s judgment or discretion. WCC (1978)] • Only errors of law. according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience and not controlled by the judgment of others. are reviewable by the courts. In such a situation the court. as a trier of facts. definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist. quantum guilt of of the This is different from the proof required beyond in criminal proceedings which necessitates a finding of accused reasonable doubt. [PAL v. by substantial evidence. [Tapiador v Office of the Ombudsman (2002)] Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule. [Mollaneda v Umacob (2001)] • One circumstance where the court may not accept the agency’s findings of fact is when the decision rendered by an almost evenly divided court and the division was precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence. must consider evidence not only in its quantitative but also in its qualitative aspects. wherein the adversarial process would ensure a better presentation and appreciation of evidence. Discretionary acts v Ministerial acts Discretionary When applied to public functionaries. its findings of facts which are supported by substantial evidence are accorded by the courts with conclusiveness. and not rulings on the weight of the evidence. MERALCO (1977)] • Administrative and discretionary functions [Suarnaba v may not be interfered with by the courts. is in a better position to assess the demeanor of the witnesses and the credibility of their testimonies as they were within its proximal view during the hearing or investigation. Rather. [ Meralco v. Question of Discretion 1. [Gonzales v Victory Labor Union (1969)] • A quasi-judicial body can determine any question without regard to technicalities. to be substantial.Page 159 administrative body. NLRC (1991)] • In administrative proceedings. it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. there is a justification for the courts to set aside the administrative Central determination. evidence must first of all be credible. substantial evidence being sufficient. But when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Confessor (1994)] • In administrative or quasi-judicial [Banco Filipino v D. the Discretion is the power to make a choice among permissive actions or policies. complainant has the burden of proving. • • as in an ordinary civil case. For. proceedings. proof beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence is not required as a basis for a judgment. [Velasquez v Hernandez (2004)] The substantial evidence standard is not modified in any way when officials of an administrative findings. the allegations in the complaint. Bank (1991)] • The court is inclined to review the findings of fact of an administrative official if they are not based on a thorough examination of the parties’ contending claims. A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. It is a simple. Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of evidence Judicial review of administrative discretion v Substitution of judicial discretion for administrative discretion . This is generally true with respect to acts involving the exercise of judgment or discretion and findings of fact. the dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action against respondent.
propriety court will and or not questions for the • Ipekdijan (1963) To say that the doctrine the applies scope to exclusively to court decisions would be to unreasonably allow circumscribe of the thereof. The ruling of an administrative agency. which forbids the matters v Phil judicially determined by competent authorities. Cases [Apolega v Hizon (1968)] . v NLRC (1989)] [ Nasipit 2. Exception: If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise. • PLDT v NTC (1995) Courts should not intervene in that administrative process. agencies have at their disposal. When it applies • only purely The doctrine of res judicata applies to judicial or quasi-judicial functions.Page 160 • Questions of policy or discretion are reviewable only for unreasonableness. Resources (1993) Decisions and orders of administrative bodies rendered pursuant to their quasijudicial judgment reopening MERALCO authority within of have. while not as conclusive as its findings of facts. If the law is silent. partial. wisdom. arbitrary. as it does not require identity absolute of but only With substantial respect to parties. or lack of evidentiary of courts. when a it judgment merits determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts." VIII. 3. but will determine the lawfulness of its action. Exception: If discretion was exercised in a • capricious. are nonB. proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative proceedings Administrative litigious and summary in nature. 4. and There action. identity of causes of action. personal malice or wanton oppression. presume that the agency has the power to enforce its decisions emanating from its quasi-judicial powers. The support. technical or res objections. Courts have none of the technical which and economic or financial competence specialized administrative • Recognition of the expertise of the 4) 3) It must be a judgment on the merits. on questions of law. 2) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. the upon of their the finality. save upon a very clear showing of serious violation of law or of fraud. abusive. the court will not interfere. hence. more or less artfully. Writ of Execution. 1. Rationale: agency. General rule: In the exercise of discretion lawfully given. A. Cases • Laguna Tayabas v PSC (1957) The erroneous appreciation of the significance of the facts before the administrative agency does not mean that the administrative agency had abused its discretion. The more equitable attitude is to extension defense decisions of bodies upon whom judicial powers have been conferred. in the habiliments of a "question of legal interpretation. Consumers Foundation (2002) For purposes is of on res the juridicata. The essential requisites of res judicata are: 1) final. Moreover. so long as their decisions meet the doctrine’s requisites. Mandamus • General rule: Administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions have the implied power to issue writs of execution. Finality of Judgment juridicata is not defeated by a minor difference of parties. Enforcement of Agency Action Res Judicata. Lumber Co. departure from statutory standards. Dulay v Minister of Natural must be identity of parties. is nevertheless persuasive and given much weight especially if the agency is one of special competence and experience. res judicata does not apply. irrespective dilatory of formal. this requisite is present whenever parties are litigating for the same thing and for the same contentions. whimsical. subject matter and cause of The former judgment must be Merchandising v CTA expediency are for the agency and not substitute its discretion or judgment for that of the administrative agency. and in particular must be wary of intervening in matters which are at their core technical and economic in nature but disguised. the force and effect of a final purview once doctrine of res judicata. and hostile manner.
the Board of Pardons and Parole. 2. tolls. except the Congress. negative. (4) "Rule making" means an agency process for the of fines need and for formulation. and enforcement adjudication: Distraint of personal property or levy on real property (Commissioner of Internal Revenue). Sec. but nothing herein shall be construed to prevent an agency from admitting any person or agency as a party for limited purposes. Imposition Summary • and collection penalties. denial. . of an agency in any matter. (8) "Decision" means the whole or any part of the final disposition. "Person" includes individual. Refusal to grant clearance paper to ships. Imposing conditions seizure and destruction of property. • • Administrative functions: Administrative enforcement includes: Enforce decision. duties or privileges asserted (6) by specific parties an as required by the Constitution or by law are to be determined after hearing. Scope. Definitions. Withholding or denying benefits. clearance. or schedules thereof. not of an interlocutory character. the remedy is mandamus. authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules. mileage. [GSIS v CSC (1991)] The legislature may aid the enforcement of administrative determination by providing a penalty for failure to comply therewith. statutory exemption or other form of permission. bureau. or procedure available to. and state universities and colleges. corporation. amendment. Refusal to renew license. [ Clavano v HLURB (2002)] BOOK VII: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Chapter 1 . (10) "License" includes the whole or any part of any -ENDAPPENDIX agency permit. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege. military establishments relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel. membership. and Sequestration (PCGG). De Corpuz v The Commanding General of the Philippine Army (1978)] • Execution must conform to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision. (7) "Party" includes a person or agency named or of ill-gotten wealth admitted as a party. • • • Abatement Health). Exclusion and deportation.As used in this Book: (1) "Agency" includes any department.This Book shall be applicable to all agencies as defined in the next succeeding section. Also. association. (3) "Rate" means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms. charter. the Judiciary. grant rights or privileges. or repeal of a rule. Issue or withhold license. an agency. in which the legal rights. (2) "Rule" means any agency statement of general applicability that implements or interprets a law. or practice requirements of. and officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law. Adjudicative function Rule-making function Executive function Dispensing government largess Focusing on public opinion. . (5) "Contested case" means any proceeding. Where the order of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life. the public. Dole out or withhold. occupation or business. The term includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration or management of an agency not affecting the rights of. the in Constitutional all matters Commissions. certificate. registration. government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right. the order pro tanto has no validity. renewal. revocation.Page 161 The authority to decide cases (quasi-judicial power) should normally and logically begin to include the grant of authority to enforce and execute the judgment it renders. unless the law • otherwise provides. or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party. including individual or joint rates. public or private organization of of nuisance (Secretary of any character other than an agency. Promulgate rules. direct and positive sanctions (grant of subpoena power and contempt powers) are afforded by provisions for administrative or judicial processes to compel obedience or prevent violation of the determination. issue licenses. (11) "Licensing" includes agency process involving the grant. fixes and describes the procedures in. including its regulations. suspension. kilometerage and other sale or special rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation to be observed and followed by any person. research institutions with respect to licensing functions. Revocation. partnership. rate fixing and granting of rights and privileges. Suspension. commission. office. classifications. or injunctive in form. and adjudicate cases. (9) "Adjudication" means an agency process for the formulation of a final order. passport. 1. including licensing. [Vda. approval. in any agency proceeding. whether affirmative. as well as commutation. including without licensing. privileges. If officials refuse to implement a final and executory judgment.
Sec. parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. taking.In a contested case: (1) The agency may admit and give probative value to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. privilege. (12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part of a prohibition. (2) The records officer of the agency. (2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts. . charges or fees. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within 3 months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or persons. Sec.The University of the Philippines Law Center shall furnish 1 free copy each of every issue of the bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to the Office of the President. adjudication and licensing. Sec. Filing. If the original is in the official custody of a public officer. contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new copies thereof may be obtained. (14) "Agency proceeding" means any agency process with respect to rule-making. or the taking of other compulsory or restrictive action. the withholding of relief. license. Sec. 12.To expedite administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations. . reimbursement.(1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice and hearing. order. license. privilege. the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the copy with the original. limitation or other condition affecting the liberty of any person. a certified copy thereof may be accepted.(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center 3 certified copies of every rule adopted by it. (15) "Agency action" includes the whole or part of every agency rule. (13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of any grant of money. The notice shall be served at least 5 days before the date of the hearing and shall state the date. Rules of Evidence. 4. modification or conditioning of a license. every agency shall. Upon request. compensation. or taking of any action upon the application or petition of any person. restitution. (3) In case of opposition. and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs. Compromise and Arbitration. amendment. Effectivity. or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health. each rule shall become effective 15 days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law. (2) In the fixing of rates. time and place of the hearing. exception. 5. pursuant to law. all appellate courts and the National Library. authority. 10.(1) The University of the Philippines Law Center may omit from the bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication would be unduly cumbersome. but copies of that rule shall be made available on application to the agency which adopted it. as far as practicable. seizure or withholding of property. informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation. . publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested Chapter 2 RULES AND REGULATIONS Sec.The University of the Philippines Law Center shall: (1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it during the preceding quarter. or his equivalent functionary. agreed settlement or default. 11. no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon. the assessment of damages.(1) If not otherwise required by law. limitation. safety and welfare. exemption or exception. . and (2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published and remaining in effect. comprise and arbitration.The court shall take judicial notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or the codified rules. the imposition of penalty or fine. Sec. The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of charge to such public officers or agencies as the Congress may select. an agency shall. right. 8. if the original is not readily available.In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book. assistance. . . immunity. 6.Page 162 annulment. in the public interest. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. encourage amicable settlement. cost. shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. 9. . relief or its equivalent or denial thereof. the revocation or suspension of license. (2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues. If not precluded by law. recognition of any claim. together with a complete index and appropriate tables. 3. . . Omission of Some Rules. the rules on contested cases shall be observed. . (3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings. sanction. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. Sec. Judicial Notice. withdrawal. or remedy. Public Participation. Sec. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them. is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text. . the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. exemption. Congress. expensive or otherwise inexpedient. Sec. (2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which. and the bulletin shall Chapter 3 ADJUDICATION Sec. Publication and Recording. the destruction. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. 7.
Sec. One motion for reconsideration may be filed. renewal.The decision of the agency shall become final and executory 15 days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review. rules and regulations or when public security. 14. 20. which shall suspend the running of the said period. documents and other pertinent data.The appellate agency shall review the records of the proceedings and may.In any contested case. 17. Non-expiration of License. . or the appellate agency directs execution pending appeal. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency. Sec. 19. (4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal. if proper. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency.In any contested case. has been perfected. considering the nature and circumstance of the case. . 21. if any.(1) When the grant. . . and all indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court. . Appeal. together with copies of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting papers. the agency may. Effect of Appeal.(1) Each agency shall have such number of qualified and competent members of the base as hearing officers as may be necessary for the hearing and adjudication of contested cases. and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from.(1) Every agency shall publish and make available for public inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of contested cases. . transmit the records of the case to the appellate agency. (2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the performance of prosecuting functions in any contested case or any factually related case. Sec. . suspended. Sec.Page 163 (3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidence. in case of disobedience. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. upon perfection of the appeal. (2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws. by filing with the agency which adjudicated the case a notice of appeal. serving copies thereof upon the prevailing party and the appellate agency.Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature. The petition shall be under oath and shall show. the aggrieved party shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution of reversal within which to perfect his appeal. 25.Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. the provisions concerning practicable. 16.The appeal shall stay the decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by law. . 18. Decision. . the decision of the appellate agency shall become final and executory 15 days after the receipt by the parties of a copy thereof. invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. Sec. the existing license shall not expire until the application shall have been finally determined by the agency. The agency shall decide each case within 30 days following its submission. on its own initiative or upon motion. Unless otherwise provided by law. as it may deem just. revoked or annulled without notice and hearing. an appeal form a final decision of the agency may be taken to the Department head. Sec. Sec. the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books. Perfection of Administrative Appeals. 23. Chapter 4 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IN CONTESTED CASES contested cases shall apply insofar as Sec. Licensing Procedure.(1) Administrative appeals under this Chapter shall be perfected within 15 days after receipt of a copy of the decision complained of by the party adversely affected. (4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. Hearing Officers. . (2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek judicial review. Sec. . 24. 22. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration. papers. Subpoena. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record. Sec. receive additional evidence. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review. upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance. The parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed. (2) If a motion for reconsideration is denied. by stating the specific material Sec. no license may be withdrawn. Finality of Order. . 13. (3) The agency shall. or its officers. Judicial Review. (2) It shall be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his equivalent functionary to prepare a register or compilation of those decisions or final orders for use by the public. 15. denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing.(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws. Action on Appeal. Sec. the movant shall have the right to perfect his appeal during the remainder of the period for appeal. Sec. health. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. or safety require otherwise. . and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order.Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order. and paying the required fees. or to them. .
One motion for reconsideration may be allowed. that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. 26. The record to be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties to the proceedings. (7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by statute or. Transmittal of Record. in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. in the absence thereof. . . Sec. the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the entire records of the proceeding under review.Within 15 days from the service of the petition for review. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law.Page 164 dates. It the decision is reversed on reconsideration. The court may require or permit subsequent correction or additions to the record. If the motion is denied. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative decision. the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.