P. 1
Admin Reviewer

Admin Reviewer

|Views: 7|Likes:
law
law

More info:

Published by: Chelsey Arabelle Perez on Aug 03, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/03/2013

pdf

text

original

Page 1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
• 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.

Page 2
• • 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.

5.

Regulation of private businesses and individuals. • SEC, etc.

6.

Adjustment of individual controversies because of a strong social policy involved. • ECC, NLRC, SEC, DAR, COA, etc.

7.

Government as private party. • GSIS, etc.

b.

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]

Page 3
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

Thus if there is a conflict between the circular issued by the agency and an EO issued by the president. 1. Congressional Oversight Committee [Macalintal v COMELEC] 1. 3 limitations under the 1987 Constitution: In aid of legislation. the President cannot exercise control but merely supervision. • The President controls administrative agencies except when such agencies are created by the legislature. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. bureaus. 5. VII. • Pprescription of legislative standards. • Traditional/Accepted view: Judicial review is allowed on questions of law and jurisdiction. merge. Sec. 17. Art. budgetary hearings – Allows economy and efficiency of government operations. 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). Sec. Administrative agencies and the executive power of the President 3. Control of Administrative Action A. • • Judicial Control Power of judicial review over decisions of administrative agencies. Its duty is to enforce the law. 3. One must check the enabling laws regarding the particular legislative intent. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. • Appropriation. and c) Persons appearing therein afforded their rights. Ombudsman Powers: Investigatory. 2. a. Radical view: Courts should review not only agency’s conclusions of law but even its determinations of fact and policy. Art. • a) b) Eastern Shipping Lines v CA • E. Sec. Art. power of control over all offices in the Executive branch. 1987 Consti. Conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure. no appreciable effect because annual appropriation usually gets Congressional approval. VII. divide. but not on questions of fact and policy. and offices. 4. • Prescription of minimum procedural requirements. Legislative veto: Congress has “right” to approve/disapprove any regulation before it takes effect. 4. b. Based on the power of appropriation. Courts are confined to seeing to it that agencies stay within the limits of their power or to checking arbitrariness in the administrative process. Congress has budgetary power. or even abolish agencies. 22. Creation and abolition. • • Congress can create. • Effective only as an aid in legislation and cannot serve the need for constant regulation. Congressional investigation. a. In actual life. 1987 Constitution: Department heads may be ordered to appear on any matter pertaining to their departments. • Power of appointment. VI.Page 4 • (1998) An administrative agency has no discretion WON to implement a law. Legislative 1. Executive control Legislative control Powers of the • 2. 1987 Consti. Power to abolish is not effective because administrative agencies are needed. otherwise. Ineffective because the standards should be flexible and those who make the standards lack the expertise. • The standards must be effective and sufficient. Courts defer to the expertise and experience of agencies in their areas of specialization. Legislative supervision. 2. 1. modify. If the law is silent.1. • • Scrutiny. Investigatory. 3. the latter prevails. There must be a shift towards having administrative standards instead to allow the agencies enough flexibility. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. II. . public suffers.g.

it must set forth the policy to be executed. [Concerned Officials of the MWSS v Vasquez (1995)] • All elective and appointive officials. 1. or unverified complaint. except those who may be removed only by impeachment. GOCC’s and local government are within its jurisdiction. or arise from. • • 3. the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable. b. therefore. 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. 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. 13(3). direct. the performance of his official duty. The Ombudsman must indorse the case to the SC for appropriate action. The Ombudsman may not initiate a criminal or administrative complaint against a judge. 3. the delegated prosecutor acts as the Ombudsman’s agent. reverse or modify a decision of a prosecutor deputized or designated to be under the Ombudsman’s control and supervision. 2) a. and direct and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to implement the penalty imposed. office or agency. The Requisites for a valid delegation: [Pelaez v Auditor General Potestas delegata non delegare potest. XI. [Lastimosa v Vasquez (1995)]  Note: The Ombudsman has absolutely no revisory powers. It can do so even on a verbal. Rather. the Ombudsman has the right to change his action/decision. or connected with. • The office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person. 4. – What has been delegated cannot be delegated. [Fuentes v Office of the Ombudsman (2001)] Under Sec. c. The Ombudsman may review. unsigned. Non-delegation doctrine A. any act or omission of any public officer or employee. (1965)] 1) The law must be complete in itself. Absence of revisory jurisdiction. Authority to inquire and obtain information. 1987 Constitution. 4. It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official. improper or inefficient. Seen in this light. Art. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. Public assistance functions. Accessibility and expedition / independence. Own initiative. all actions/decisions made by the prosecutor are deemed as action/decisions of the • standard may be: (a) Express. to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. • Prosecutorial. 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. From a complaint. the “recommendation” that emanates from the Ombudsman after it has conducted its investigation is not merely advisory but binding and mandatory. 2.Page 5 2. [BIR v Ombudsman (2002)] . unjust. [Ledesma v CA (2005)] The pendency of an action is not a prerequisite for the Ombudsman to start its own investigation. Necessary characteristics: Political independence. 1. Legislative function III. The law must fix a standard. Grant of investigatory power. revise. The Ombudsman has the authority to determine the administrative liability of a public official or employee. including cabinet members. Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies • • • Ombudsman.

Creation of municipalities. J. Discretion is not unconfined and vagrant. supplant or modify the law. [Olsen v Aldanese (1922)] Must not amend the law or must not be inconsistent with the law. [Chiongbian v Orbos (1995)] • ient standard: One which (a) Defines legislative policy. Fix tariffs. 2. from necessity and as a means of enforcement and execution. upon discovering them. The Constitution has never been regarded as Suffic 2. Delegation to the people-at-large. 1. [Syman v Jacinto (1953)] Must not define a criminal act. 4. Chiongbian v Orbos says that the merging of administrative regions is an administrative matter. Delegation to local authorities. [US v Ang Tang Ho (1922). 3. [People v Maceren Limits on rule-making matter. are merely incidental to the exercise of power granted by law to clear navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions. Defining a crime. import and export quotas. 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. 1. Valid delegation: [People v Vera (1937)] 1. have to delegate such power. [Lovina v Moreno (1963)] Filling in of details. expand. 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. power:  Cardozo. do anything he pleases. [Alegre v Collector of Customs (1920)] c. The legislature. • 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. It is canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing. [GMCR v Bell Telecom (1997)] b) a) Must be authorized by law. Permissible delegation a. Delegation to administrative agencies. They are validly conferable upon executive officials provided the party affected is given the opportunity to be heard. and (b) Indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. [Toledo v CSC (1991)] e) Must not restrict.Page 6 (b) (c) Implied. [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. tonnage and wharfage fees. Emergency powers. • 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. c. power to promulgate rules may be legitimately exercised only for carrying the provisions of the law into effect. marks its limits. [Edu v Ericta (1970)] or Embodied in other statutes on the same matter and not necessarily in the same law being challenged. [Panama Refining v Ryan (1935)] • b. There is a distinction between (a) delegation of power to make the law and (b) conferring authority/discretion as to its execution. Such functions. 2. diminish. maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. whether judicial or quasi-judicial. dissent: There has been no grant to the Executive of any roving commission to inquire into evils and then. People v Maceren] What cannot be delegated . 5. [Santiago v COMELEC (1997). Administrative rule-making. b. Ascertainment of fact.

General rule: Publication is indispensable especially if the rule is general in character. regulating only personnel of agency). expensive or otherwise inexpedient. DoJ). such being an abdication of responsibility by the latter. safety. • 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. grave abuse or lack of jurisdiction clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of the law. not 15 days from date of filing with the UP Law Center. 4. to a mere constituent unit (e. – (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. Sec. 2. the rulemaking authority legislatively vested in the head of an executive department (e. 6. 5. Civil Code (as amended by EO 200.g. – 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. [China Banking v Member of the Board of Trustees. – In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book.g. (Ass’n of Phil. • Circulars which prescribe a penalty for its Art. (b) In case of imminent danger to public health. a law. – 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. Omission of Some Rules. 1987 Admin Code. 1987 Admin Code. [People v Que Po Lay (1954)] Publication in OG or newspaper of general circulation is indispensable in every . [Republic v Express Telecomm (2002)]  Exceptions: (a) Different date is fixed by law or specified in the rule.Page 7 f) Action of the administrative agency to be set aside if there is an error of law. requiring the adjustment of various other contending policies. [Echegaray v Secretary of Justice (1998)] 2. Sec. unless it is otherwise provided. (b) Internal regulations (i. regulation or circular must be published and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its penalties. Bureau of Corrections). • Sec. Before the public may be bound by its contents. but copies of that rule shall be made available on application in the agency which adopted it. [Maxima Realty v Parkway Real Estate (2004)] i) May not unilaterally impose a new legislative policy. 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. the basic law prevails. [Ople v Torres (1998)] j) May not dismantle a regulatory system that was set up by law. and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and how copies thereof may be obtained. (c) Letters of instructions issued by administrative superior to subordinates. Effectivity. Home Development Mutual Fund (1999)] h) If there is discrepancy between the basic law and an administrative rule. June 8. safety and welfare. • violation should be published before becoming effective for the people to be officially informed. the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. or specified in the ruling in cases of imminent danger to public health. and welfare.  Exceptions: (a) Interpretative rules. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them. 1987 Admin Code. Publication and Recording. rules and regulations cannot go beyond the law’s terms and provisions. Publication and effectivity. [Land Bank v CA (1995)] g) The basic law should prevail as embodiment of the legislative purpose. 1987). each rule shall become effective 15 days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law. especially its penal provisions.e. Coconut Desiccators v PHILCOA (1998) ) k) May not delegate.

[People v Maceren (1977)] 4. [Corona v United Harbor Pilots Ass’n of the Phils. • If a rule is penal in character. regulations enacted. • 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. (People v Que Po Lay (1954)] • The law itself must so declare the act as punishable. and to • • • • courts as the controlling factor. or (b) the rules are in effect merely legal opinions. The law should also define or fix the penalty for the violation. • Administrative rules and regulations cannot amend or modify or expand the law by including. Such wrong interpretation cannot place the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same. and the questions to be resolved involve the use of discretion committed to the rule-making body. before its adoption there must be a hearing under the Administrative Code. will not be disturbed except for cogent and persuasive reasons and clear conviction of error. the administrative agency should make known its official position.Page 8 case for the effectivity of administrative rules and regulations. pursuant to the broad rule-making power under a statute conferring a privilege to be exercised "under regulations precaused" by an administrative agency. no notice or prior hearing is required. Still. pursuant to law is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text. but generally it is given great weight. There is no constitutional requirement for a hearing in the promulgation of a general regulation by an administrative body. When laws are susceptible of two or more interpretations. The administrative construction or interpretation is not controlling as to the proper construction of a statute. [Tanada v Tuvera] 3. or involve an unlawful use of legislative or judicial power. 1987 Admin Code. the rule must be published before it takes effect. Interpretative rules. But the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual 15day period be shortened or extended. • Administrative interpretations are appropriate aids toward eliminating construction and uncertainty in doubtful cases. This necessity for and power of construction and interpretation does not change the character of a ministerial duty. prohibiting or punishing certain acts which the law does not even define as a criminal act. it is the courts that finally determine what the law . • 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. an administrative agency must accord those directly affected a chance to be heard before its issuance. A vested right cannot spring from a wrong construction of law [Hilado v Collector (1956)]. the class to be affected is large. has a very persuasive influence and may actually be regarded by the Sec. Interpretative rules may be found erroneous by the successor of the promulgating administrative official. Where (a) the rule is procedural. 6. (1997) ] There is a distinction between administrative rules in the nature of subordinate legislation and those which are merely interpretative rules. They may also interpret their own rules which have the force and effect of law. [Phil. Penal regulations • which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. – (2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which. Bank of Communications v CIR (1999)] Administrative interpretation at best merely advisory. When an administrative rule substantially adds to or increases the burden of those concerned. or (c) the rules are substantive. Omission of Some Rules. The former is designed to implement a law by providing its details. • The domain of penal statues is exclusive to the legislature and cannot be delegated.

Generally. classification or schedules thereof. 9. Due process means that the body observed the proper procedure in passing rules. need publication. kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law of regulation to be observed and followed by any person. Adjudication is retrospective in character. as far as practicable. a new policy. 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. So long as the court finds that the legislative rules are within the power of the administrative agency to pass. and substitute its own view of what is correct to the administrative body. need not be published. 1987 Admin Code. as seen in the primary law. The court may review their correctness of the interpretation of the law given by the administrative body. merely clarify the meaning of a preexisting law by inferring its implications. [KMU v Garcia (1994)] • In fixing the rate. create a new law. Fixing of rates. the rules on contested cases shall be observed. On principle. tolls. 2(3). (b) must be within the scope and purview of the law. The latter may propose new rates. with the force and effect of law. 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. But if the rate is applicable only to an individual. • The power to fix rates cannot be delegated to a common carrier or other public service. or lack of jurisdiction.Page 9 means. viz. Due process involves whether the parties were afforded the opportunity to be notified and heard before the issuance of the ruling. but these will not be effective without the approval of the administrative agency. flexibility and technical know-how better met by administrative agencies. the present valuation of all the property of a public utility. (3) In cases of opposition. [Philcomsat v Alcuaz (1989)]  Note. As to time Rule-making is prospective in character. knowledge and means necessary to handle the matter efficiently. [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. d. The court cannot question the wisdom or correctness of the policy contained in the rules. including individual or joint rates. “Rate” means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms. Public Participation. or abuse of power. the power to fix rates is a quasi-legislative function. court can only invalidate the same but not substitute its decision or interpretation or give its own set of rules. then the rules bind the court. then the function becomes quasi-judicial. regardless if the rate-fixing function is legislative or quasijudicial. – (1) If not otherwise required by law. as well as communication. 1987 Admin Code. Legislative Rules promulgated pursuant to its quasilegislative / rulemaking functions. for it only governs future acts. Interpretative Rules passed pursuant to its quasi-judicial capacity. publish or circulate notices of filing the petition. that the Administrative Code now does not differentiate legislative from quasi-judicial rate-fixing: notice and hearing is required for both. proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. As to application Legislative rules are of general application been issued on authority of law. an agency shall. the property is deemed taken and condemned by the public at the time of Sec. 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. • • Sec. for it investigates acts already done and then applies the law on the facts. Notice and hearing necessary if the rate to be fixed applies to only one entity (quasi-judicial). (2) In the fixing of rates. 9 (2) of the Admin Code implies that all rules with respect to fixing of rates must be accompanied with notice and hearing. wages and prices . Need for dispatch. Quasi-legislative The procedure is that normally observed in the making of rules. If it is not within the scope of the administrative agency. or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the legislative enactment. [Victorias v Social Security Commission (1962) ] • Action of the administrative agency will be set aside if there was error of law. (c) must be reasonable. The distinction is not idle: Sec. however. mileage.

Decision. limitation. the procedural safeguards akin to those in courts must be observed. . or safety require otherwise. a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. 1987 Admin Code. denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing. modification or conditioning or a license. a certified copy thereof may be accepted. it must follow the procedure adopted by legislative bodies. and a full consideration of evidence) are recorded the greatest respect Sec. Sec. a modified judicial procedure is required. (3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidence. When dispensing government largess. A license permit is a special privilege. renewal. • What is not inherent. the existing license shall not expire until the application shall have been finally determined by the agency. in the public interest. (4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. Compromise and Arbitration. Unless otherwise provided by law. papers. comprise and arbitration.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. or the Sec. Judicial Function Investigation and adjudication: Sec. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. When performing its rule-making function. “License” includes the whole or any party of any agency permit. 13. it needs to observe due process. denial. The agency shall decide each case within 30 days following its submission. 1987 Admin Code. 2(11). 17. or to them. statutory exemption or other form of permission. and therefore requires an explicit grant from law. if proper. it can be dispensed with. Rules of Evidence. • Administrative agencies have the power to conduct investigations and hearings. and make findings and recommendations thereon. Sec. every agency shall. registration.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. amendment. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record.g. approval. the agency may. 1987 Admin Code. 10. 11. annulment. revocation. . renewal. 1987 Admin Code. 18. or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege. The parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed. Thus. 15. documents and other pertinent data. in case of disobedience. license to practice a profession. membership. Licensing Function the original is in the official custody of a public officer. It is not vested. revoked or annulled without notice and hearing. Upon request. – (1) When the grant. i. [Gonzalo Sy Trading v Central Bank (1976) ] • Notice and hearing in licensing is only required if it is a contested case.Page 10 of the property. . agreed settlement or default. permanent or absolute. The notice shall be served at least 5 days before the date of the hearing and shall state the date. The findings of facts by administrative bodies which observed procedural safeguards (e. 14.In any contested case. • Just as there is no uniform procedure for all agencies. Sec. invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. • No expiry date does not mean the license is perpetual. . Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. suspended. 1. which shall suspend the running of the said period. “Licensing” includes agency process involving the grant. [Ynchausti v Public Utility Commissioner (1922)] e.(1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice and hearing. notice and hearing parties. .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. . Licensing Procedure. B. (3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings. is their adjudicative power. 2(10). since these largesses (pensions. Subpoena. 12. 1987 Admin Code. but is always revocable. since these are inherent in their functions as administrative agencies. upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance. clearance. suspension. so also the procedure depends on the function that the agency is performing. the power to decide controversies involving rights and obligations of 3rd persons appearing before them. If by courts. (2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws. – To expedite administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations. the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the copy with the original. if the original is not readily available. has been perfected. rules and regulations or when public security. – Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature. encourage amicable settlement. health. Sec. Sec. no license may be withdrawn. certificate. (2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues.e. If not precluded by law. When performing its licensing function. Sec. Non-expiration of License. social benefits. charter. the provisions concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as practicable. when it is performing its adjudicative function. passport. Otherwise. (2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts. withdrawal. Finality of Order. as in the issuance of driver’s licenses. time and place of the hearing. Sec. basis services) are new forms of property. if any. One motion for reconsideration may be filed. informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation.

III. documents and other pertinent data. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.D. papers. Demand not too indefinite. which involve the application of the law to the facts. If there is no express grant. 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. 1987 Admin Code. Unless otherwise provided by law. • The power to declare contempt cannot be used in the discharge of ministerial functions. Information reasonably relevant. upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing or general relevance. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge. the agency may. 1987 Consti. [Evangelista v Jarencio (1975)] Not all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to cite for contempt. as the power must be expressly granted in the agency’s charter (ex. [Tolentino v Inciong (1979)] 3. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. the agency must invoke the aid of the RTC. it is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose. WON probably cause is shown. 3. CBAA). and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and whatever purpose shall not be violated. papers. Sec. If the matter is properly within its cognizance. IV. and effects. in accordance with the pertinent provisions of. Subpoena. the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books. papers. not rights. Sec. 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. The government itself is merely an agency through which the will of the State is expressed and enforced. and no necessary to give it force and effectiveness should be deemed implied. SEC. houses. 902 – A. In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction. not to prove a pending charge but Art. PD 902-A creating the SEC). [Catura v CIR (1971)] • A public official exercises power. 2. most other administrative agencies only have the power of investigation and not of adjudication. after examination under oath or affirmation by the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. – In any contested case. Sec. Warrants of arrest. 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. administrative searches Art. Rationale: Power to adjudicate will be rendered inutile if there is no power to issue subpoena. houses. even if the administrative agency’s charter is silent as to such power. 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.Page 11 power to pass upon legal questions. Except in the case of agencies with specific grant of adjudicative power (NLRC. and penalties prescribed by. 13. unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights. both direct and indirect. As such there is no presumption that they are empowered to act. and even before the issuance of a complaint. Its officers are likewise agents entrusted with the responsibility of discharging its functions. • All agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to issue subpoena. Test for valid enforcement of subpoena: (a) (b) (c) Within the authority of the agency. the SEC shall possess the following powers: a) To punish for contempt of the Commission. declare contempt Power to issue subpoena and agencies to assure the effective administration of a statute. 6. Rationale: Power to punish for contempt is inherently judicial. It is not necessary that a specific charge or complaint for a violation of law be pending. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. P. the Rules of Court. the means Sec. invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. . papers. in case of disobedience. 1973 Consti. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence. • Subpoenas may be enforced WON adjudication is involved.

as the Constitution provides that only judges can do so to determine probable cause. Deportation proceedings are administrative in nature. 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. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. the power granted to the latter does not extend to the power to arrest. conflicts with paragraph 3. when one could be arrested by the military on mere suspicion by the strength of the warrant of arrest. 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. 1. solely for the purpose of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued. [Harvey v Defensor-Santiago (1988)] The arrest and detention of Lucien by the CID preparatory to the deportation proceedings is illegal. determined by a judge. [Salazar v Achacoso (1990)]  Exception: deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens following a final order of deportation. The essential requisite of probable cause is absent. although the CID can order arrests for the purpose of the deportation proceedings. [Lucien Tran Van Nghia v Liwag (1989)] . Sec. What is essential however is that (1) there be a specific charge against the alien. the curtailment of liberty is warranted. official functions requiring exercise of discretion and judgment may not be so delegated. The Mission Order was issued on the basis of sworn complaints of a single individual. But even assuming that the arrest was at first illegal. They cannot issue warrants for purposes of investigation. However. supervening events have rendered this petition for habeas corpus moot and academic. The requirement of probable cause. Art. (2) there be a fair hearing conducted. • 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. to determine whether under specific circumstances. the particular circumstances place doubt on the propriety of the arrest. Here. and particularly describing the place to be searched. This is to give more responsibility to the judge who will issue the warrant of arrest and be accountable for it. it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary court proceedings. Only a judge may issue warrants. • Both provisions are express guarantees against unwarranted violations of the privacy and security of persons and their properties. • The CFI has no jurisdiction to restrain deportation proceedings as they are within the jurisdiction of the Immigration authorities under the Immigration Act. ASSO or PDA issued by the Ministry of National Defense or Generals in their respective regions. Thus. • 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. • (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 exercise of such power demands the exercise of discretion by the one exercising the same. • Administrative agencies cannot issue warrants of arrest. which states that the power to determine probable cause for warrants of arrest is limited to judges.Page 12 search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge. III of the 1935 Constitution. does not extend to deportation proceedings. or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. and are not penal. 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. but merely preventive. And while ministerial duties may be delegated. [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. [Vivo v Montesa (1968)] The deportation charges were in accordance with the Philippine Immigration Act and the Revised Administrative Code. and the persons or things to be seized. Immigration authorities can issue warrants of arrest against undesirable aliens only if such issuance is pursuant to a final order of deportation. the issuance of the warrants of arrest by the Commissioner. and (3) the charge be substantiated by competent evidence. Warrants of arrest issued solely for the purpose of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued are therefore null and void.

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. • Art. regulations. Agency expressly authorized to impose penalty. if not clearly stated in the statute. [See v Seattle] 4. 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. The Qua Chee Gan doctrine prevails. Limitations on administrative subpoenas of corporate books and documents: (a) (b) Limited in scope. . If every time the agency wishes to impose a civil penalty for violations it had to resort to courts of justice in protracted litigations. Not only is Salazar a later case. only judges may issue search warrants and warrants of arrest. 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. is null and void for being unconstitutional. only a judge may issue search or arrest warrants. the Harvey and Lucien cases prove to be anomalies. following a final order of deportation. for the purpose of the same. or requirements. Vivo v. it could not serve its purpose as an administrative body. Subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field. • Imposition of criminal penalties. 38 of the Labor Code allowing the Secretary of Labor the power to issue warrants of arrest is unconstitutional for under the Constitution. • A warrant of arrest issued by a commissioner to be valid must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation. following Qua Chee Gan.2. [US v Barrias (1908)] • A fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i. (d) (e) (f) Subpoena must designate the needed documents. Test for valid imposition: Subject matter must be within authority of Congress to legislate. and (2) the exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens. Art. recourse will have to be made to the ordinary courts. Subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of reasonableness of demand prior to suffering penalties for refusal to comply. as supported by Salazar. It is th (c) Specific directives so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome. [Oceanic Steam Navigation v Stranahan (1908)] • Where the statute does not authorize executive officials themselves to impose the penalty. is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. 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. [Civil Aeronautics Board v Phil. 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. while Harvey was decided by a division. III of the Constitution. Montesa is not a precedent because the arrest warrant was given to carry out a final decision of deportation.e. whom the President or the Commissioner may order arrested. [Camara v Municipal Court (1967)] • A warrant must first be secured. [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. [Salazar v Achacoso (1990)]  Note: Following (2). it was also decided en banc. 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.  Consider these two cases as a glitch. A warrant of arrest issued by the commissioner for purposes of investigation only.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. penalties: • • (a) (b) (c) Agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties. The SC reaffirms the following principles: (1) Under Sec. Relevant in purpose. Penalty to be imposed must be administrative or civil in character. Warrants are a necessary and tolerable limitation on the right to enter upon and inspect places of business.

[Burstyn v Wilson (1952)] IV. 4. In Adjudication of cases 1. 3. Interest of law and order. i. Judicial determination of sufficiency of standards 1. his right to cross-examine is violated. there must be a chance to seek reconsideration. [International Hardwood v Pangil (1940) ] What is moral. • 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. 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. [CSC v Lucas (1999)] Presence of a party at a trial is not always the essence of due process. 4. 2. [Ocampo v Office of the Ombudsman (2000)]. • The law.e. Decision must be supported by evidence. as applied to administrative proceedings. [Cervantes v Auditor-General (1952)] Maintain monetary stability. Right to a hearing. wage or rate-fixing (see related areas in this reviewer) B. an opportunity to seek reconsideration [De la Cruz v Abille (2001)] or an opportunity to explain one’s side [Pilipinas Loan v SEC (2001)]. 5. Hearing may occur after the deprivation. [People v Rosenthal & Osmeña (1939)] Justice. he is entitled to have the direct examination stricken off the record. economy or efficiency. educational or amusing. promote rising level of production & real income. 8. because the latter is only preventive in nature. 2. In Rule-Making: Price. more than a mere scintilla. as in emergency cases [Goss v Lopez (1975)]. • Includes the right of a part to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. [Busuego v CA (1999)]. • Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties. in prescribing a process of appeal to a higher level. Cardinal Primary Rights: [Ang Tibay v CIR (1950)] 1. equity and substantial merits of the case. 2. contemplates that the reviewing officer is a person different from the one who issued the appealed decision. [Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)] Public interest. 5. [Mutual Film Corp v Industrial Commission (1914) ] Adequate and efficient instruction. WON to hold an adversarial trial is discretionary and parties cannot demand it as a matter of right. Decision rendered in such a manner as to let the parties know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered. can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. All that the law requires is the element of fairness. Otherwise. [Vinta Maritime v NLRC (1978)]. No notice is necessary for suspension.Page 14 C. [PACU v Secretary (1955)] Reasonableness as an implied standard in every law. even if other minds equally reasonable would opine otherwise. it is rendered meaningless. • Does due process always entail notice and hearing prior to the deprivation of a right? No. [UP Board of Regents v CA (1999)] The right to substantive and procedural due process is applicable in administrative proceedings. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. Evidence must be substantial. the review becomes a farce. 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)] . Administrative Procedure A. 7. Independent consideration of judge. • • • • • • 7. [Wisconsin v Whitman (1928)] To promote simplicity. 6. Rules of Procedure Due Process a. [People v Joliffe (1959)] • What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient standard. If without his fault. such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 6. one may also be heard through pleadings. in which case. [Casimiro v Tandog (2005)]. The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witness is a fundamental right which is part of due process.

not merely conclusions of law. which shall suspend the running of the said period. negative. (a) (b) When not required: Urgent reasons. Sec. not an interlocutory character. — Every agency shall publish and make available for public inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of contested cases. Risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest and probable value of safeguards. c. 1987 Admin Code. However. [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. and the imputation of a violation and imposition of a corresponding fine despite the absence of due notice and hearing. — 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.Page 15 • Evidence on record must be fully disclosed to the parties. hearing: 1. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record. [Pefianco v Moral (2000)] • Mere consultations and conferences may not be valid substitutes for observance of notice and hearing. 15. but he may still invoke the right when the question calls for an answer which incriminates him of an offense other than that charged. unless law provides otherwise. [People v Ayson] b. whether affirmative. Sec. [Globe Telecom v NTC (2004)]. [Taxicab Operators of Manila v Board of Transportation ] In the valid exercise of police power. [Matthews v Eldridge] • Due process is violated when there is failure to sufficiently explain the reason for the decision rendered. if he voluntarily takes the witness stand. rate fixing. The agency shall decide each case within thirty days following its submission. [Pollution Adjudication Board v CA (1991)] Form and . has been perfected. including licensing. promulgation of judgment (e) (d) (c) If it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse. One motion for reconsideration may be filed. [Equitable Banking v NLRC (1997)] (b) When it affects a person’s status and liberty. 16. Discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact. 14. of an agency in any matter. [Suntay v People (1957)] • • • Decision should state the facts. [Ang Tibay v CIR] Government agency decision must state the facts and the legal basis. and granting of rights and privileges. Sec. Finality of order. 2(8). [De Bisschop v Galang] When rules to govern future conduct of persons or enterprises. lack of support therefor in substantial evidence. of proper. Decision. ”Decision” means the whole or any part of the final disposition. 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. [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. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. [Commissioner of Immigration v Fernandez] 2. • The right against self-incrimination may be invoked by the respondent at the time he is called by the complainant as a witness. or injunctive in form. he can be cross examined. — 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. (a) When required: When the law specifically requires notice and hearing. issues and the law on which the decision was based. if any. or to them. (c) Public interest vis-à-vis government costs. [Equitable Banking v NLRC (1997)] • Three factors determining constitutional sufficiency of administrative procedures: (a) (b) Private interest that will be affected.

See Villanos v Subido. [(Galang v CA (1961)] The matters that are material in an administrative case are not necessarily relevant in the criminal case. [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. [Indias v Phil Iron Mines (1957)] • If a power to decide is granted to a specific authority. the decision of the BSI prevails and becomes final after the lapse of 1 year from the rendition of the decision. Different standards apply. excuses. in the case of a reversal. as jurisdiction is created and conferred by law. his relief lies in the proper administrative or civil action prescribed by law (NLRC).  Note: Can there be an acquittal in a criminal case and a conviction in the administrative case? YES. The difference in the proceeding (one administrative. . [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. The operative date of the Board’s action is that when the decision was voted and adopted by them as a Board. the decision rendered by the tribunal is void. 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. Notwithstanding the fact that findings in criminal cases must be beyond reasonable doubt. The jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative agency depends on the terms of the enabling statute delegating powers to it. [Police Commission v Lood (1980)]  Note: Can there be a conviction in a criminal case and an acquittal in the administrative case? YES. This date can be ascertained from the minutes of the proceedings had before the Board. Absent a reversal. 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. but merely physical incompatibility. Conviction does not ex proprio vigore justify automatic suspension. [Villanos v Subido (1971)] Acquittal in the criminal case does not carry with it relief from administrative liability. [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. notice thereof may be sent even after the lapse of 1 year. the evidence and law involved. • Jurisdiction Administrative agencies may only exercise such powers as are explicitly or by necessary implication conferred on them by law. regardless of the date when the decision in extenso was prepared. [Realty Exchange v Sendino (1994)] 3. the other criminal) is not legal incompatibility. A decision by the latter requires a judicious review and deliberation as a body of the proceedings. It can delegate the power to hear but not the power to decide. the formulation of findings of fact and conclusions of law. 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. • • • 4. it can’t abdicate from this responsibility by delegating the duty to decide the case. However.Page 16 findings and conclusions. See PNR v Domingo. The trial court has no jurisdiction to order reinstatement since • Refer to the enabling statute creating the agency especially the powers and jurisdictions. These two proceedings are independent of each other involving different causes of action and therefore can proceed simultaneously. • 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. Without jurisdiction. written and signed. Due process should be upheld. It must personally decide such. There are defenses. 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.

and take judicial notice of certain other matters. while others argue that if the criminal case results in an acquittal due to absolute lack of evidence. then the administrative case must also result in an acquittal. as well as the procedure followed and sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings. 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. • 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. However. So long as the requirements of due process are observed. Quantum of Evidence: Only substantial evidence is required to support a decision. the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. except itself from technical rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall promote the objectives. [Borja v Moreno]. but this does • • • • (c) (b) • not mean that they can disregard certain due process requirements. Some say that it is not to be considered as good law. take appropriate 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. or decisions.Page 17 the judgment in a criminal case is limited to acquittal or conviction with necessary penalties. orders. They may also make their inquiry into facts at issue. • Pervasive principle: Technical rules of evidence and procedure do not strictly apply to administrative proceedings. Considering the difference in the quantum of evidence. in at least three areas: (a) Admissibility: Generally. administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules regarding admission of evidence of ordinary courts of justice. upon COMELEC’s recommendation. in any particular manner. In the absence thereof. In the broad interest of justice. [Rizal Light v Municipality of Rizal]. [Maceda v ERB (1991)] When findings of fact of administrative agencies are not conclusive upon the courts: . [Tan v COMELEC (1994)] • The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action. [Phil. administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules of admissibility. But if the issue can be resolved through ocular inspection. Such a relaxed procedure is especially true in administrative bodies. However. Parties are still entitled to hearing. • Should a public official or employee be found guilty of violation of election laws or failure to comply with COMELEC instructions. Rationale: to allow administrative agencies to act with speed and flexibility. [Mirales v Go (2001)] 5. there is no prohibition. 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. evidence received at an administrative investigation conducted with manifest disregard of due process may not justify the conclusion based thereon. The court is not required to examine proof de novo. the corresponding proper authority shall. 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. apply the general rules on procedure. However. as it is only an auxiliary remedy. it is the executive department to which the charged official or employee belongs which has ultimate authority to impose the recommended disciplinary action. the administrative body may. Movie Pictures Workers Assoc v Premier Productions (1953)] Administrative agencies may act on their own and use methods which may best constitute substantial evidence. and vice versa. The rules of evidence in administrative agencies are more relaxed than in judicial tribunals. Whether or not the Consigna doctrine should be seen as an exemption is still a gray area. Ocular inspection is not equivalent to a trial or presentation of evidence. Notably. • Rules of Evidence Apply the specific rules of the administrative agency. [Estate of Buan v Pambusco (1956)] The SC is not required to examine proof de novo. This respects the general administrative authoriy of the government department concerned over its own personnel.

[Ortua v Singson (1934)] c. 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. but also those involving the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. [Bantolino v Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. (c) problem involved:  Right (should be protected by law) v Privilege (can be unilaterally withdrawn). tribunal or quasijudicial agency. The SC will intervene only in what ought to be the rare instance when the standard appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied. • of evidence. When the findings are not based on a thorough examination of the parties’ contending claims but merely on their position papers. then it is a question of law. Litis pendentia can happen. e. Intention of Congress prevails: If it wanted judicial review to be available. [United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union v V. [PAL v Confessor (1994)]  Reconcile with Bantolino case: decisions based on position papers allowed as expressly permitted by the law. Under Sec. and to the best of his knowledge. Nature of  A generalization as to when judicial review is available is hazardous.Page 18 a. [Zita Ngo Burca v Republic] Finality of If the question is on the substantiality T b. When the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. If yes. Here are factors  Laguesma]. • to consider: (a) If what is involved is question of constitutionality. arbitrariness. policymaking is not judicial business. taking into consideration not only the cases where forum shopping can happen. (d) the administrative decision. it is. [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. res judicata does not apply in administrative adjudication relative to citizenship. (b) History of the statute involved. The doctrine of res judicata. partiality or hostile attitude. no such other action or claim is pending therein…”  Res judicata applies to adversary administrative proceedings. it is not reviewable. • Can the doctrines of forum shopping. 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.  Question of Discretion: When discretion is granted by law. (2) with the active participation of the Sol-Gen. other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of the evidence. imposition or mistake. 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.  Question of Policy: Traditionally. it would have said so.  Question of Law v Question of Fact. [Manahan v People (1988)] d. 5. may be applied to administrative agencies performing quasi-legislative functions. litis pendentia and res judicata apply to administrative agencies?  YES. and (3) The finding on the citizenship issue is affirmed by the SC. judicial review is available. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. When the decision was rendered in consequence of fraud. although a judicial concept. because they are quasi-judicial in nature. (2003)] . [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. the exercise of such is generally to be disturbed by the court. 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. There is no trial through position papers where the adversarial process would ensure a better presentation and appreciation of the evidence. However. • Exception: When there is grave abuse of discretion – capriciousness. otherwise.

 Exceptions: administrative proceedings may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the board or official: 2. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative Decisions • When a court reviews an agency’s construction. 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. unjust decision. Goodrich v WCC (1988)]. imposition or mistake. The defendant could either be a private party. rules and regulations. [Sotto v Ruiz (1921)] • General rule: Courts refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of administrative functions. It thus had no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration. the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute. (d) Administrative body or officer has gone beyond its/his statutory authority. [Antique Sawmill v Zayco (1966)] • The Courts will not interfere with the decision of the an administrative officer. [San Miguel Corp v Secretary of Labor (1975)] When judicial review is valid despite finality of administrative decisions: (a) Decision is wrong. it deals first with the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. generally. Exercised unconstitutional powers. Whether the plaintiff is the proper plaintiff. judicial review is needed to offer these considerations. that is. [Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)] • When no one seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration.F. (h) Grave abuse of discretion. fraud or collusion.Page 19  Nor does res judicata apply where the administrative decision gives an award that is less than what the law provides. no problem. (c) Decision is not based upon any reasonable interpretation of law. The court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguous expressed intent of Congress. (g) Lack of jurisdiction. [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. (f) Decision vitiated by fraud. (e) Administrative agency exercised unconstitutional powers. the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. imposition or mistake. (b) Manifestly arbitrary. and its existence derogates the judicial prerogative lodged in the courts by the Constitution. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. or with grave abuse of discretion. and (c) not based upon any reasonable interpretation of the law. a. 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. But when it is silent. Even administrative decisions must end sometime. unless the Court is of the clear opinion that such decision is (a) wrong. If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the issue. capricious. Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction. error of law. [B. or d. Has gone beyond his statutory authority. grave abuse of discretion. B. (i) Decision violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of law. Thus. as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies. b. or because it is corrupt. 3. whether the plaintiff has standing. or the very administrative agency before whom the right is being applied. [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. Whether the defendant is the proper defendant. arbitrary or capricious. The decision is vitiated by fraud. If intent of Congress is clear. There is no problem when the statute itself expressly grants or prohibits judicial review. Availability of Judicial Review • • c. the Office of the President lost jurisdiction to reopen the case. A. . If not. failure to comply with the reglementary period has the effect or rendering final the judgment of the court. Non quieta movere: What was already terminated cannot be disturbed. Clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty. Whether the enabling statute permits judicial review. more so modify its decision. (b) manifestly arbitrary and unjust. judicial review is available. Since an administrative agency has a narrower view of the case. 1.

or interfere in. [Pascual v Provincial Board (1959)] a. Information Technology Found’n v COMELEC (2004)] Resort to exhaustion will only be oppressive and patently unreasonable. 6. c. g. b. [Pascual v Provincial Board (1959)] Administrative remedy not exclusive but merely cumulative or concurrent to a judicial remedy. c. [Castro v Secretary (2001)] Steps to be taken are merely matters of form. Premature invocation of court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. [Paat. C. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Paat] • Note: Undersecretary is held to have acted on behalf (as alter ego) of the Secretary. Whether the timing for the filing of the case is proper. since administrative agencies are usually given the rank equal to or higher than the RTC. failure to abide by the doctrine affects petitioner’s cause of action. convenience. the Uniform Appeals Act should be applicable. Whether the case is ripe for adjudication. No other plain. [Nazareno v CA] • Exceptions: • b. • The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function. j. Judicial review is available. The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction. Whether the forum is the proper forum. General Rule: Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy could be effected. 5. Cipriano v Marcelino (1972)] Where the administrative remedy is only permissive or voluntary and not a prerequisite to the institution of judicial proceedings. Recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies would have first been exhausted. 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)]. 3. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies c. but in its absence. 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. speedy. [Garcia v CA (2001)] 4. 1. 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. 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. unless revoked by the latter. [Pascual] d. as well as the period required by the statute or rules for the filing of appeals. It is very seldom that the forum is in the RTC. then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s juridical power can be invoked. b. [Paat v CA (1997)] Where the law expressly provides for exhaustion via an appeal to the . [Cipriano. f. [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). [Paat v CA (1997)] k.Page 20 4. Legal reason: The law prescribes a procedure. Exceptions a. He is said to have invoked the intervention of the court prematurely. the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated. Purely legal questions. [Smart Communications v NTC (2003)] 2. Reasons of comity: Expedient courtesy. Validity and urgency of judicial action or intervention. When the doctrine applies a. h. b. his case is said to be not ripe for judicial review yet. e. [Estrada v CA (2004). i. [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. a controversy the jurisdiction over which is lodged initially with an administrative body of special competence. The doctrine does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve. [Smart v NTC (2003)] Administrative agency is in estoppel. [Paat. Paat] When it involves the rule-making or quasilegislative functions of an administrative agency. Rationale a. [Lopez v City of Manila (1999] c. Although this is not a jurisdictional requirement. When a person has not exhausted all the administrative remedies available to him. The period for filing the case must also be considered in view of the statue of limitations.

[Republic v Sandiganbayan] Administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. But if not invoked at the proper time. [Estrada] Issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies rendered moot. for while no prejudicial question arises in civil proceedings. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction. When the doctrine applies a. However. Remedy: Failure to observe doctrine does not affect jurisdiction of the court. [Industrial Enterprises v CA (1990)] It is presumed that an administrative agency. the assailed administrative resolution continued to be put in effect. The legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in rulings. [Texas] When the issue is not within the competence of the administrative body to act on. The only effect of non-compliance is it will deprive complainant of a cause of action. [Viadad v RTC (1993)] . Coconut Authority] l. The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function. 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. [Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)] D. The administrative body and the regular court have concurrent and original jurisdiction. 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. would decide the same correctly. [Samahang Magbubukid v CA (1999)] 5. [Estrada] In quo warranto proceedings. or correct any previous error committed in its forum [Caballes v Sison (2004)] 3. and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which. have been placed within the special competence of an administrative • body”. if the determination of the case requires the expertise. Subject of controversy is private land in land case proceedings. b. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction “applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts. Paat] q. 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. [Paat] p. this is in the interest of good order. Exceptions a. o. [ 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. Resort 1. under a regulatory scheme. 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. 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. and in the meantime. [DAR v Apex Investment (2003). which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. It can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency. r. 2. [Ass’n of Phil. Blatant violation of due process. [Garcia] Law expressly provides for a different review procedure. c. If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction. b. Coconut Desiccators v Phil. which is a ground to dismiss. s. [Paat. Resort to administrative remedy will amount to a nullification of a claim. [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. [Conrad v CA (1995)] 4. Pagara v CA] n.Page 21 President. [Paat] m. The question to be resolved requires expertise of administrative agency. t. this ground is deemed waived. No administrative review provided by law. and does not amount to ouster of the court. if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter. specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved. d. [Tan v Director of Forestry] • because of the latter’s expertise. It is a question of the court yielding to the agency Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary competence. It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case.

The party must have personal and substantial interest. Members of Congress Class suit: The subject matter of a class suit should interest. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Meaning: Legal standing means a personal and • 3. and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. [ Occena v COMELEC] b. numerous ensure e.Page 22 • While primary jurisdiction to determine preliminary matters is vested in an administrative agency. When standing not given . Taxpayers: A taxpayer’s suit is generally allowed to restrain the government from spending public funds for a purpose alleged to be illegal. [Lujan] Injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. [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. Competitors: administrative A competitor which has legal a standing to challenge the official action of an agency favors competing entity.e. [Lozada] c. not merely a specialized interest.Except: taxpayers. f. “Interest” from is material interest.e. and who stands to suffer a legal injury or wrong from. 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). . When standing given • Only the proper party whose legal rights have been adversely affected by. Lujan] 4. 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. what is alleged is personal stake. [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. [Sierra Club v Morton (1972)] distinguished mere incidental interest. d. • Substantial Direct injury representative protection concerned interests. such determination is subject to challenge in the courts. 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. not conjectural/hypothetical. concrete/particularized and actual/imminent. the administrative action has standing to seek judicial intervention. • Standing as opposed to real party-in-interest: the former is a constitutional law concept which only concerns the petitioner. [Philippine Veterans Bank v CA (2000) ] E. and whose interest is immediate and substantial in. legislators. • • Petitioner himself be among the injured. 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. be one and and full of the common plaintiffs of all and general be to should enough Interest is: • Personal. the controversy has the standing to sue. voters. economic or otherwise. 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. [KMU v Garcia (1994)] • Kinds: a. i. or will sustain. class suits. [Assoc of Data Processing v Camp (1970)] i. [Oposa v Factoran (1993)] Consumers: Consumers can challenge the validity of administrative actions in areas affecting their interests. 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. Standing to Challenge 1. [Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare (1976). 2.

abstract from entangling • • [Abbot Laboratories v Gardner matter brought before it within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. G. error of law. 3. order. meaning review is not mandatory but only discretionary. Judicial review available/appropriate. Art. Judicial review is proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction. any decision. or in case the administrative decision is corrupt. However. [Kilosbayan v Morato (1995)] protects substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. Mootness VI. 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. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or F. or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Modes of Judicial Review . the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. [San Miguel Corp.Page 23 • Under RA 1125. Art IX-A. When doctrine applied a. is “whether he is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment. 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. quo warranto or prohibition. 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. they are ordinarily exclusive. brief. 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. and relief is obtained by means of the common law remedies or by the prerogative writs of certiorari. Non-statutory methods are those taken when there is no express statute granting review. Hardship to the parties of withholding such court action.” when Moreover. Finality of the administrative body’s decision. judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses. Fitness of the issue for judicial decision. Classes of methods of obtaining judicial review: (1) Statutory v Non-statutory: • • Statutory methods are available pursuant to specific statutory provisions. In such a case. Thus. association. grave abuse of discretion. fraud or collusion. standing is an issue issues are involved. only a person. b. Two-fold test for a controversy to be ripe [Abbot] a. b. Purpose (1967)] a. 2nd paragraph of Sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution. clearly means that judicial review of administrative decisions cannot be denied the courts when there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion. or the ‘party’ entitled to the avails of the suit. and the use of non-statutory methods will not likely be permitted. 1987 Consti. habeas corpus. constitutional • • Except when the Constitution requires or allows it.” The question as to real party-in-interest. administrative agency Judicial review keeps the within its jurisdiction and exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. [ Smart v NTC (2003)] 2. adjudication. To prevent courts. • If statutory methods for judicial review are available. 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. Sec 7. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law.1. arbitrary or capricious. the law may provide that a determination made by an administrative agency shall be final and irreviewable. However. c. [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. mandamus. 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. on the other hand. Ripeness 1. in thru avoidance of over premature themselves b. or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. (2) Direct v Collateral: agreement administrative policies. legislative. v Labor Secretary (1975) ] The Constitution uses the word may.

• When to appeal: • Authority of the CA to review decision of quasi-judicial agencies is exclusive. (7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. • Who may seek judicial review:  Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision. prohibition. including the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is merely an ascertainment of WON the findings of the administrative agency are consistent with law. instrumentalities. • Judicial review is not trial de novo. except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution. decisions. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within 15 days from receipt of the final administrative decision. Admin Code. whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. and all indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. 442. the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. unless extended by the Chief Justice. the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law. the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. (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. boards or commissions. It the decision is reversed on reconsideration. and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. and auxiliary writs or processes. (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by statute or. and judgments. How:  File petition for review. although an attack on the judgment may be incidentally involved. grave abuse of discretion. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review. If the motion is denied. BP 129. Sec 25. • • Grants the CA with exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of 19 administrative agencies. the Social Security Commission. in the absence thereof. etc. orders or awards of Regional and quasi-judicial agencies. final orders of resolutions of or authorized by any quasijudicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. habeas corpus. and supported by evidence. 9). that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. resolutions. (2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek judicial review.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. Jurisdiction. Judicial Review. Rules of Court):  Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction over awards. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency. Excludes the NLRC by virtue of BP 129 (as amended by RA 7902). – (1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws. The petition shall be under oath and shall show. • 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.The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. relief from in a • Where to file:  In the court specified by the statute or. in the absence thereof. in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. sought administrative action for lack of jurisdiction. free from fraud or imposition. in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provision on venue of the Rules of Court. as amended. . judgments. If it is not listed. together with copies of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting papers. if such is listed in the law or if its charter so indicates. by stating the specific material dates. its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC through the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. certiorari. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within 3 months. the provisions of this Act. . or its officers. Sec. One motion for reconsideration may be allowed. (2) (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for Exclusive Trial appellate Courts jurisdiction over all final annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts. Sec 9 (as amended by RA 7902. • SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 (Rule 43. and of subparagraph (1) of the 3rd paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the 4th paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. and quo warranto. and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from. the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission.

Sec 1. modified or vacated by any court of equal rank. When any tribunal. applicable questions of law are raised. • Where the law provides for an appeal from the decisions of administrative bodies to the SC or to the CA. logically. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment. copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. board or officer. Listing is not exclusive since it provides “among these agencies” – ejusdem generis.  Note that there are cases which held that review by the RTC of certain administrative agencies (Commission on Immigration and Deportation. but of sound judicial discretion. and adequate . Simple or ordinary. this rule is not a matter of right. speedy. and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3. Petition for certiorari. however. nor any plain. Certiorari 1. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction. 6) b. Special civil action. Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the SC)  Note. B. Laguna Lake Development Authority. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal. it means that such bodies are co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature and. [ 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. and court martials) is valid. Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari) Rule 65. SC retains the special civil action for certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. remedy in the ordinary course of law. and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefore (Rule 45.Page 25 • • • Mentions only one constitutional body – the Civil Service Commission. the proper mode of appeal is through Rule 43 (Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the CA). and there is not appeal. beyond the control of the latter. Sec. Kinds a. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. order or resolution subject thereof. that in the case of administrative agencies performing quasi- judicial functions.  Rule 45: Considered it is as a “gatekeeper only when Review under provision”. Rule 46.

the Sandiganbayan. or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. Administrative agency performing a quasi-judicial function. b. the CA may grant an additional period of 15 days. b. (Sec 1) Rule 65 The SC. [Villaruel v NLRC (1998)] c. the authority. It has been a long-standing policy and practice of the Court to respect the conclusions of quasijudicial agencies. Rule 45 SC has jurisdiction. arbitrary or despotic manner. Purpose: To set aside or nullify proceedings. They are highly specialized bodies that have necessarily developed an expertise on their specific subjects. and not for judgments. (Sec 2) Within 60 days. judgment or final order or resolution. Parties are the original parties who thus become appellant and appellee.Page 152 2. Parties are aggrieved party (petitioner) against the administrative agency and the prevailing parties (respondents). abuse or improvident of exercise Internal of Thus. (Sec 2) Appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the award. and not errors of judgment. final order or resolution not stayed unless the CA directs otherwise. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Martin Funeral Homes v NLRC (1998) Court adheres to their findings. grant an extension of 30 days. (Sec 6) The court exercises appellate jurisdiction. or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. and in no case shall it exceed 15 days. a. But this does not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code. unless there is an [Commissioner Revenue General Foods (2003)] 5. Order is not stayed unless a preliminary injunction is issued. judgment. When not applicable a. Upon proper motion & payment of docket fees and before the expiration of the reglementary period. Based only on questions of law. . the SC may. Based on question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. On motion with payment of docket fees before the expiration of the reglementary period. 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. c. Requisites (Rule 65) Rule 43 CA has jurisdiction. (Sec 4) Award. No further extension may be granted except for the most compelling reason. v Cases • St. 4. The court exercises appellate jurisdiction. A petition for certiorari inquires into errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Azores v SEC (1996)] Review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not include a correction of or grave abuse of discretion. (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). (Sec 12) Parties are the original parties and the court or agency is not impleaded as petitioner or respondent. or from the date of its last publication. Court exercises original jurisdiction. whimsical. CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction. 3. No plain. [Republic v CA] Petition shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution. the RTC or other courts. This rule applies only to an order or act of an officer or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Judgment is stayed. (Sec 1) This rule applies to appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA. [Purefoods Corp v NLRC (1989). adequate or speedy remedy. for justifiable reasons. of fact or mixed question of law and fact. Based on question of law.

speedy and adequate remedies in the jurisdiction. prejudice or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty. The remedy of a party is to file a motion for reconsideration at the administrative level. corporation. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. and it must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty. copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. b. prejudice or personal hostility. that the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. since so often is it overlooked. Meralco Securities Industrial v Central Board of Assessment Appeals (1982) Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court. or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined. • 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.  Petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies. the intent of the legislature was to make a special civil action for certiorari as the proper vehicle for review. 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. This remedy applies to administrative decisions up to the highest level and includes even a decision rendered "by authority of the President. or to act at all in contemplation of law. the factual finding cannot stand on its own and is therefore not binding on the Court. All such petitions must initially be filed in the CA following the hierarchy of courts. and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the same is so grave. or to act at all. De Leon v Heirs of Gregorio Reyes (1987) If all administrative decisions were conclusive upon the Court in any event. either the want or excess thereof. an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. Rule 46. . in contemplation of law. board. The reason for the rule is simple. then avail of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65." 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. but lacking such support. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. an error of judgment that the C. whether exercising judicial. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction. Thus. The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the acts of respondent. and there is no appeal or any other plain. It must emphatically be reiterated. In the case of NLRC decisions. quasijudicial or ministerial functions. every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. Consequently. as prohibition is available only when there are no other plain. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. • Police Commission v Bello (1971) While findings of facts of administrative bodies are entitled to great weight and should not generally be disturbed. Sec 2: Petition for prohibition. so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. all references in the law to “appeals” from the NLRC to the SC must be interpreted to mean petitions for • certiorari under Rule 65. officer or person. 1. The only question involved in certiorari is Rule 65. When a court exercises its jurisdiction. Cruz v Gangan (2003) Findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected. 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. If it did. 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. as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion. speedy. No plain. Requisites a. or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3. adequate and speedy remedy. Prohibition • • court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original civil action of certiorari. 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. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. This cannot be allowed.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. as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction. – When the proceeding of any tribunal. or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction.

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. based on to the quantum of evidence deportation required justify the judicial judgment intervention before the termination of the proceedings. complete That there is another and at law is generally a remedy 1. Exception is when there is substantial or conclusive proof to support the claim of citizenship. without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety [Meralco]  Duty to ascertain facts is discretionary. and not intended to provide a remedy for an act already accomplished. – When any tribunal. 2. his right to should promptly enjoin Question the of immediate review should be recognized and deportation proceedings. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  Exception: If the question is one of public right and the object of mandamus is to procure the performance of a public duty. board. and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. • Co v Deportation Board (1977) When the evidence in submitted by a is b. Purpose: To prohibit or stop a proceeding. immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court. The question is whether. (Unreported)] b. (1994)] c.  Exception: prohibition can restrain an act which is already a fait accompli if such act is patently illegal and unconstitutional. [Cabedo v Director of Lands (1961)] c. 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. Duty to act after the facts have been ascertained is ministerial.  Discretion means the power or right conferred 4. the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. or station. [Tan v Veterans Backpay Commission (1959)] Right of petitioner is clear and controlling. Prohibition is granted only where no other remedy. in which case the court. [Simon. which is sufficient. may allow intervention. reached by the lower court may be termed as suffering from the corrosion of substantial legal error. Jr. Requisites a. trust. v CHR [Ruperto v Torres Rule 65. or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled. The petitioner shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3.  Exception: Mandamus will lie against a discretionary duty when the official or agency refuses to exercise the duty itself. Judicial determination is . Rule 46. Sec 3. suspending the administrative proceedings. Cases • Chua Hiong v Deportation Board (1955) General rule is that the Deportation Board has original jurisdiction to resolve the issue of citizenship. sufficient reason for dismissing the writ. 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.  A preventive remedy – thus. When not applicable a. in a prescribed manner. Mere claim of citizenship will not divest it of its jurisdiction. Public officer or agency has a positive duty that is ministerial. D. Prohibition does not lie against legislative functions. corporation. Agency performs quasi-judicial and/or ministerial functions. If fait accompli. it is sufficient to show that the petitioner is a citizen even if he has or impropriety of the act done. [Meralco v Savellano (1982)]  A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts. not for acts already performed. in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority. officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. using its sound discretion. alienage should be decided first in a judicial proceeding.Page 154 ordinary course of law. Petition for mandamus. is available to afford redress. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent. prohibition can no longer be filed. to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner. Prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done. [Paredes v CA (1996)] respondent deportation proceedings conclusive of the courts his citizenship. Mandamus allowable when the courts themselves believe that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. and there is no other plain.

it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. There is grave abuse of discretion where the actuations are tantamount to a willful refusal to perform a duty specifically required by law. [ Tañada v Tuvera (1985)] c. whether such motion is required or not. speedy and adequate remedy. the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court Appeals. board. 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. When not applicable a. [Español v The Chairman of the PVA (1985)] 2. Where the law imposes upon a public e.M. administrative remedies before mandamus can be sought. Revised Rules of Court: When and where petition filed. No other plain. [Blanco v Board of Examiners (1924)]  Exceptions: When mandamus lies to compel performance of discretionary duties. [Kant Wong v PCGG (1987)] f. [PRC v De Guzman (2004)] Mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance of a visa. or palpable excess of authority. the proper remedy is specific performance. Where there has been grave abuse of discretion. 3. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. [People v Orias] c. [Perez v City Mayor of Cabanatuan a. unless otherwise provided by law or these rules. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or. or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction. [Cruz v CA (1996)] • New rule: remedies available b. reference to any matter to which he is called upon to act. [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. in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. of mandamus to secure said privilege. 00-02-03-SC. No. 4. To prevent an abuse of discretion or to correct an arbitrary action which does not amount to exercise of discretion. officer or person. (As amended by A. Privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right. if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation. order or resolution. and gives him the right performed. right especially has been where a constitutional violated. [Orias] where there is no appeal. d. 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. [Lapisan v Alfonso] petitioner. be filed within a reasonable time. The writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer. September 1. nevertheless. [Orias] e. manifest injustice. Purpose: To compel a party to perform an act arising out of a positive duty enjoined by law. 2000) 5. Cases d. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. The courts may not grant the writ . 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. Sec 4. If it involves the acts or omissions of quasi-judicial agency.Page 155 not special interest in the result. the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. mandamus will lie to compel the court to exercise it. such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. When and where filed • Old rule: Although Rule 65 does not specify any period for the filing of a petition for certiorari and mandamus. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed.  Mandamus is premature if there to are the administrative (1961)]  Exception: Where the case involves only legal questions. b. it must. In certiorari cases. officer the right and duty to exercise judgment. [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. such reasonable time is within 3 months from the commission of the complained act. Where such discretion of the court can be legally exercised in only one way and it refuses to act. to decide how or when If the law imposes a the duty shall be duty upon 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. In these cases. – The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from the notice of the judgment. Rule 65. the litigant need not exhaust all c. or when such remedy of appeal is inadequate. in which case the respondent can be ordered to act in a particular manner. the latter being demandable if denied.

f. E. or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. or official g. doubtful and requires judicial construction. [Remotigue v Osmeña (1967). f. concerned has a clear legal duty not involving discretion. and not to a determination. Who may file petition. 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. [Kawasaki v Amores (1991)] F. thereunder. [Santos v Aquino] c. Subject matter must be a deed. validity/construction does not apply to cases involving deeds. the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all case of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty. a. [Tolentino v Board of Accountancy] Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding. contracts or other written instruments. or any other governmental regulation may. and the performance of the duty has been refused. there can be no application of a legal remedy. clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded. contract or other written instrument. or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code. Sec 1. to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom. b. Habeas Corpus Rule 102. and enjoyed no rights which were violated. [ National Dental Supply v Meer (1951)] d. Purpose: To determine the construction. or law or governmental regulation which affects his rights. Where a taxpayer questions his liability. will. ordinance. However. Where petitioner never acquired any interest in the object of the controversy. if the petition has far-reaching implications and it raises questions that should be resolved. There is illegal confinement or detention. ripe adjudication [Mirando v Wellington (1978) ] have be legal controversy. or regulation. [Mirando] e. will. Where the relief sought would be determinative of issues rather than a construction of definite stated rights. executive orders. or whose rights are affected by a statute. – Any person interested under a deed. Where declaratory relief would not terminate the uncertainty of controversy. Requisites a. before breach or violation thereof. [ Reparations Commission v Northern Lines (1970)] There must be an actual justiciable controversy between e. [Ollada v Central Bank (1962)] determination of any question of validity or construction and (2) declaration of rights apply to statutes. there must be statutory authority for the performance of the act. it may be treated as one for prohibition [De la Llana v Alba (1982) ] or for mandamus. If no legal right has been violated. Where petition for declaratory relief is filed after the breach of law took place. The 2. Petitioner persons must with adverse interest for interests. status and other relations commonly expressed in written instruments – since this remedy is available only if it is limited to a declaration of rights. 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. [(Azajar v Ardalles (1955)] b. the proper procedure is for the tax to be paid first and to sue for its recovery afterwards. Villadolid (1949)] [ De Borja v c.Page 156 • PRC v De Guzman (2004) For mandamus to prosper. There is illegal restraint of liberty. b. In securing a judicial declaration of citizenship. there must be a showing that the officer. in the 2. There must be a well-defined. and the writ of mandamus is a legal remedy for a legal right. Nature: The great writ of liberty is intended as a speedy remedy to secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty. Rural Bank of Olongapo v Commissioner of Land Registration (1981)]. Declaratory Relief 3. which is a constitutionally guaranteed right. [Alliance of Government Workers v Minister of Labor and Employment (1983) ] 1. or the validity of the law or regulation is. The terms of the written instrument are. Petition is filed before breach or violation of the instrument d. Sec 1. An action for the reformation of an instrument.. where all administrative remedies 1. contract or written instrument in which petitioner is legally interested. may be brought under this Rule. – Except as otherwise expressly provided by law. will. trial or judicial investigation of issues. • Note: Prof. Requisites a. [Mirando] Contro4ersy must [Mirando]. Rule 63. board. To what habeas corpus extends. • Note: An action for declaratory relief must be brought in the RTC. validity and declaration of rights thereunder. etc. . executive order or regulation. It is not among the actions within the When not applied have been exhausted. original jurisdiction of the SC even if only questions of law are involved. Moreover. 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.

Purpose: Extent of Judicial Review Generally. the enabling act. Preliminary injunction defined. c. An exception is that if the collection of the tax is prejudicial to the interest of the government and of the taxpayer. Defendant. questions such as state immunity from suit and the applicable statutes. the writ is dissolved). H. It may also require the performance of a particular acts or acts. Injunction can only be issued by superior to an inferior body. Cases • Collector vs. Lemi vs. laws creating administrative agencies and providing for judicial review may indicate the scope of that review. No criminal charges have been formally made or a judicial order issued for his detention. 3. . or b. classes. Reyes (1957) The general rule is that injunction cannot be issued in tax collection. [Philippine Racing Club v Bonifacio (1960)] a. Requisites: a. Nature: An ancillary remedy provided to preserve the petitioner’s rights while main action is pending. – A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. Valencia (1966) The right to the writ is clear when: 1) there is willful invasion of the petitioner’s right. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff wants to compel defendant to do something. b. the order of deportation which was not executed is functus officio and the alien is being held without authority of law. and test the validity of detention as ordered by an agency. a. a writ of habeas corpus may still issue despite the granting of bail when there is still effective detention. permanent or temporary. Whether or not the action will prosper will depend on the determination of such other Rule 58. renders a petition for the writ of habeas corpus moot and academic. Preliminary Injunction – To prevent or stop defendant from doing something Restraining Order – Life span of 20 days. Sec 1. 4. is doing. however. Whether the courts may inquire into questions of law.  Note. Rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. 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. after which hearing is then held to decide propriety of the injunction. and b. requiring a party or a court. the injunction cannot prosper. Liwag (1989) The release of a detained person. General rules: Questions of law are always reviewable by the courts. d. injunction becomes permanent (otherwise. 5. unless there are restraints attached which precludes his freedom. if co-equals. 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. in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. 2. whether injury is a continuing one. Injunction as provisional remedy officials. • 1. as the bail bond gives petitioner liberty. Permanent Injunction – If plaintiff wins the case. provided that the acts complained of were done under the color of authority and in good faith.Page 157 c. threatens or about to do an act in violation of petitioner’s rights which may render the judgment ineffective. c. Purpose: Secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty. Cases • Mejoff v Director of Prisons (1951) The writ of habeas corpus will issue when: 4. b. 1. agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. Commission or continuance of an act complained of would probably work injustice to him. and the • Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. • Co v Deportation Board (1977) Bail renders a writ of habeas corpus moot and academic. VII. of fact or of both as well as of administrative discretion will depend on 3. In such case. Plaintiff is entitled to relief demanded. d. Order the continued performance of some act for the purpose of preventing further injury. • 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. CTA is authorized • to restrain the Collector from proceeding with its collection. that in Criminal Procedure. [Honda v San Diego (1966)] Types a. and 2) effect of the writ is to re-establish the pre-existing relation. Prevent the commission of certain acts • complained of.

(1954)] • Judicial review is proper where the act of the administrative official constitutes not only an excess of regulatory power conferred upon him. Santiago v Reyes (1960)] Non-controversion claim compensation simply means an admission of facts and not an admission of a legal conclusion. But the courts have the power to review the B. courts can review if the decision is attended with capriciousness. question [Reyes for WON a certain thing exists. [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. WON an event has taken place. • Officer Association (1959)] The conclusion drawn from facts is a question of law. but also an exercise of legislative power which he does not have. Constitutionality of the statute creating the agency and granting its powers. are conclusive and binding on the courts. for or otherwise that of the the substitute its judgment court administrative trial court or [ O’Leary v Brown[Mejia vs. which involves a question of law. 2. • If the reviewing court is convinced substantial evidence supports the agency’s ruling. • 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. and whether or not such is substantial is for the court to say. Question of Law • General rule: Questions of law are subject to judicial review. If the decision of a case is discretionary on the part of the agency. SEC (1957)] The issue of WON an ER-EE relationship exists is a question of law. Questions of jurisdiction are always reviewable as they go into the question of authority to decide. it is a question of law reserved to the court’s determination. the of Otherwise. which the courts may review. 1. An administrative official’s action which is based on a misconstruction of law can be corrected and is not conclusive upon the courts. otherwise. determine the credibility of witnesses. in order to decide the legal question. and 4. [People v Santos (1936)] • The interpretation of articles of incorporation. or Which of the two versions of the happening of an event is correct. he will waive it off as a question of fact. • [Japanese War Notes Claimants vs. Philippine Marine presumption reviewable • court. of is fact a overcomes of 3. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence. The Law-Fact Distinction • There is no clear-cut line that separates questions of law from questions of fact. since the courts are generally more competent to resolve these issues • considering the less specialized nature of their jurisdiction. [ Ortua v Singson (1934)] When the conclusion drawn by an administrative official from the facts found is erroneous or not warranted by law. Question of Fact • [ Dauan v a law De • A question of fact exists if the issue involved is: 1.Page 158 2. if based on substantial evidence. If he is inclined to review it. should review. or Correctness of the agency’s and application of the law. Secretary (1959)] • Whether a question of by law. Substantial Evidence Rule: Findings of fact. because the court has to examine the facts vis-à-vis the four-fold test. Validity of the agency action if this transcend the limit established by law. • A party challenging an administrative action may direct his attack against the: findings of fact when the evidence on record is not substantial. the court may confirm findings. is reviewable by the courts. he must whether the agency’s decision is ascertain supported by substantial evidence for him to do the waiving-off act. [Aboitiz v Pepito (1966)] agency on the sufficiency of evidence. Pacific-Maxon (1951)] C. unless they are irrational or unsupported by substantial evidence that on the record as a whole. There may be • 3. 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. examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary. but some cases may involve mixed questions of law and fact. Mapa interpretation cases where the issues raised may easily be classified under one or the other. The recognizes that . Finality is attached to findings of fact of some agencies when these findings are supported workmen’s by substantial evidence. As a reviewing judge though. 3. the court will. it [Donato v. he will treat it as a question of law. • The problem with these shady areas is that they are usually dependent on the predilection of the judge reviewing the case. 2. • Inferences and findings of fact of administrative agencies are to be accepted. • A. a Vda.

(1951)] agency disagree in their [Universal Camera v NLRC General rule: Because of the expertise which an administrative agency has. substantial evidence being sufficient. 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. as a trier of facts. Rather. there is a justification for the courts to set aside the administrative Central determination. discretion may be defined as the power or right conferred upon them by law to act officially under certain circumstances. 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. by substantial evidence. quantum guilt of of the This is different from the proof required beyond in criminal proceedings which necessitates a finding of accused reasonable doubt. wherein the adversarial process would ensure a better presentation and appreciation of evidence. proceedings. Ministerial duty is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion. in order to determine the substantiality of the evidence. must consider evidence not only in its quantitative but also in its qualitative aspects. For. it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. the dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action against respondent. the Discretion is the power to make a choice among permissive actions or policies. • • as in an ordinary civil case. Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of evidence Judicial review of administrative discretion v Substitution of judicial discretion for administrative discretion . Discretionary acts v Ministerial acts Discretionary When applied to public functionaries. complainant has the burden of proving. to be substantial. Confessor (1994)] • In administrative or quasi-judicial [Banco Filipino v D. [ Meralco v. Ergo. 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. [PAL v. [Acting Commissioner of Customs vs. evidence must first of all be credible. 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. Question of Discretion 1. It is a simple. and not rulings on the weight of the evidence. are reviewable by the courts. In such a situation the court. even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist.Page 159 administrative body. [Tapiador v Office of the Ombudsman (2002)] Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule. as long as there was no grave abuse of discretion. [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. proof beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence is not required as a basis for a judgment. its findings of facts which are supported by substantial evidence are accorded by the courts with conclusiveness. according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience and not controlled by the judgment of others. NLRC (1991)] • In administrative proceedings. the duty to perform under the conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer’s judgment or discretion. [Gonzales v Victory Labor Union (1969)] • A quasi-judicial body can determine any question without regard to technicalities. WCC (1978)] • Only errors of law. the allegations in the complaint. and imposed by law. But when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. This is generally true with respect to acts involving the exercise of judgment or discretion and findings of fact. [Velasquez v Hernandez (2004)] The substantial evidence standard is not modified in any way when officials of an administrative findings. MERALCO (1977)] • Administrative and discretionary functions [Suarnaba v may not be interfered with by the courts. 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.

" VIII. The ruling of an administrative agency. partial. on questions of law. Finality of Judgment juridicata is not defeated by a minor difference of parties. res judicata does not apply. 1. • PLDT v NTC (1995) Courts should not intervene in that administrative process. agencies have at their disposal. Dulay v Minister of Natural must be identity of parties. Lumber Co. but will determine the lawfulness of its action. Moreover. are nonB. so long as their decisions meet the doctrine’s requisites. 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. 2) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. v NLRC (1989)] [ Nasipit 2. abusive. while not as conclusive as its findings of facts. and in particular must be wary of intervening in matters which are at their core technical and economic in nature but disguised. 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. Mandamus • General rule: Administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions have the implied power to issue writs of execution. as it does not require identity absolute of but only With substantial respect to parties. A. when a it judgment merits determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts.  Exception: If discretion was exercised in a • capricious. The more equitable attitude is to extension defense decisions of bodies upon whom judicial powers have been conferred. hence. The essential requisites of res judicata are: 1) final. save upon a very clear showing of serious violation of law or of fraud. General rule: In the exercise of discretion lawfully given. 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. The support. Resources (1993) Decisions and orders of administrative bodies rendered pursuant to their quasijudicial judgment reopening MERALCO authority within of have. Enforcement of Agency Action Res Judicata. presume that the agency has the power to enforce its decisions emanating from its quasi-judicial powers.  Rationale: agency. personal malice or wanton oppression. 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. departure from statutory standards. the upon of their the finality. 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. 3. technical or res objections. Consumers Foundation (2002) For purposes is of on res the juridicata. wisdom. or lack of evidentiary of courts. 4. irrespective dilatory of formal. the court will not interfere. Cases [Apolega v Hizon (1968)] . proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative proceedings Administrative litigious and summary in nature.  Exception: If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise. the force and effect of a final purview once doctrine of res judicata. this requisite is present whenever parties are litigating for the same thing and for the same contentions. more or less artfully. and There action. in the habiliments of a "question of legal interpretation.  If the law is silent. identity of causes of action. arbitrary. whimsical. which forbids the matters v Phil judicially determined by competent authorities. is nevertheless persuasive and given much weight especially if the agency is one of special competence and experience. Writ of Execution. and hostile manner.

(5) "Contested case" means any proceeding. government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right. duties or privileges asserted (6) by specific parties an as required by the Constitution or by law are to be determined after hearing. occupation or business. whether affirmative. Withholding or denying benefits. Where the order of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life. research institutions with respect to licensing functions. suspension. or procedure available to. and  enforcement adjudication: Distraint of personal property or levy on real property (Commissioner of Internal Revenue). grant rights or privileges. (3) "Rate" means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms. 2. Sec. Revocation. including licensing. approval. [Vda. Dole out or withhold. The term includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration or management of an agency not affecting the rights of. Definitions. or injunctive in form. kilometerage and other sale or special rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation to be observed and followed by any person. the remedy is mandamus. including without licensing. corporation. (11) "Licensing" includes agency process involving the grant. charter. authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules. tolls. Imposition Summary • and collection penalties. membership. fixes and describes the procedures in. • • Administrative functions: Administrative enforcement includes: Enforce decision. in which the legal rights. the order pro tanto has no validity. and officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law. Also.This Book shall be applicable to all agencies as defined in the next succeeding section. denial. or schedules thereof. (4) "Rule making" means an agency process for the of fines need and for formulation. and Sequestration (PCGG).As used in this Book: (1) "Agency" includes any department. Scope. and state universities and colleges. Suspension. [ Clavano v HLURB (2002)] BOOK VII: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Chapter 1 . of an agency in any matter. public or private organization of of nuisance (Secretary of any character other than an agency. [GSIS v CSC (1991)] The legislature may aid the enforcement of administrative determination by providing a penalty for failure to comply therewith. the Board of Pardons and Parole. or practice requirements of. negative. (7) "Party" includes a person or agency named or of ill-gotten wealth admitted as a party. (2) "Rule" means any agency statement of general applicability that implements or interprets a law. passport. or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party.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. . and adjudicate cases. Refusal to grant clearance paper to ships. registration. amendment. an agency. 1. partnership. revocation. (8) "Decision" means the whole or any part of the final disposition. the in Constitutional all matters Commissions. 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. (10) "License" includes the whole or any part of any -ENDAPPENDIX agency permit. except the Congress. renewal. certificate. as well as commutation. or repeal of a rule. association. office. clearance. . "Person" includes individual. Issue or withhold license. the Judiciary. military establishments relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel. Adjudicative function Rule-making function Executive function Dispensing government largess        Focusing on public opinion. issue licenses. but nothing herein shall be construed to prevent an agency from admitting any person or agency as a party for limited purposes. mileage. the public. including its regulations. commission. in any agency proceeding. unless the law • otherwise provides. rate fixing and granting of rights and privileges. bureau. statutory exemption or other form of permission. Imposing conditions seizure and destruction of property. If officials refuse to implement a final and executory judgment. classifications.   Exclusion and deportation. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. privileges. 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. (9) "Adjudication" means an agency process for the formulation of a final order. Promulgate rules. Refusal to renew license. • • • Abatement Health). or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege. including individual or joint rates. not of an interlocutory character.

the withholding of relief. charges or fees. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. Sec. 12. license. 3. cost. . (3) In case of opposition. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them. (2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts. reimbursement.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. seizure or withholding of property.(1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice and hearing. (12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part of a prohibition. order. 7. Rules of Evidence. Judicial Notice. or remedy. Sec. publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested Chapter 2 RULES AND REGULATIONS Sec. 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. the assessment of damages. if the original is not readily available. contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new copies thereof may be obtained. exception. shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. withdrawal. Filing. If not precluded by law. 6. the revocation or suspension of license. amendment. 11. Sec. 9. and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs. . together with a complete index and appropriate tables. and the bulletin shall Chapter 3 ADJUDICATION Sec. the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the copy with the original.Page 162 annulment. each rule shall become effective 15 days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law. 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. immunity. 5.(1) If not otherwise required by law. Sec. (15) "Agency action" includes the whole or part of every agency rule. exemption or exception. assistance. limitation. Compromise and Arbitration. expensive or otherwise inexpedient. restitution. . informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation. or the taking of other compulsory or restrictive action. . pursuant to law. The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of charge to such public officers or agencies as the Congress may select.(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center 3 certified copies of every rule adopted by it. 4.In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book. modification or conditioning of a license. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. . The notice shall be served at least 5 days before the date of the hearing and shall state the date. encourage amicable settlement. Publication and Recording. . authority. (2) In the fixing of rates. right. 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. and (2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published and remaining in effect. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. a certified copy thereof may be accepted. If the original is in the official custody of a public officer. compensation. comprise and arbitration. every agency shall.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. . Effectivity. (2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which. an agency shall. exemption. Sec. (3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings. Omission of Some Rules. the rules on contested cases shall be observed. Public Participation. taking. (2) The records officer of the agency. parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. Sec. Congress. .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. 8. but copies of that rule shall be made available on application to the agency which adopted it. or his equivalent functionary.To expedite administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations. the destruction. time and place of the hearing. . Upon request. privilege. safety and welfare. relief or its equivalent or denial thereof. the imposition of penalty or fine. in the public interest. . (13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of any grant of money. recognition of any claim. all appellate courts and the National Library. is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text. . privilege. limitation or other condition affecting the liberty of any person. agreed settlement or default.(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. license. (14) "Agency proceeding" means any agency process with respect to rule-making. or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health. adjudication and licensing. 10. as far as practicable. Sec. sanction. the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. or taking of any action upon the application or petition of any person. (2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues.

22. Action on Appeal. 24.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. health. in case of disobedience. Sec.(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. Judicial Review. and all indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court. . Sec. Appeal. 17. Sec. by filing with the agency which adjudicated the case a notice of appeal. The parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed. as it may deem just. Perfection of Administrative Appeals. reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. 20.(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. invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books. Hearing Officers. (2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws. together with copies of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting papers. . upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance.Page 163 (3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidence. renewal. the decision of the appellate agency shall become final and executory 15 days after the receipt by the parties of a copy thereof. 18. . denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing. Effect of Appeal.(1) When the grant. The petition shall be under oath and shall show. (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. 21. considering the nature and circumstance of the case. rules and regulations or when public security. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency. if proper. and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from. . 19. Decision.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 agency shall decide each case within 30 days following its submission. (4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge.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 movant shall have the right to perfect his appeal during the remainder of the period for appeal. One motion for reconsideration may be filed. 16. or to them. which shall suspend the running of the said period. Sec. an appeal form a final decision of the agency may be taken to the Department head. upon perfection of the appeal. (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. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record. documents and other pertinent data. (3) The agency shall. (2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek judicial review. 14. Chapter 4 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IN CONTESTED CASES contested cases shall apply insofar as Sec. revoked or annulled without notice and hearing.In any contested case. 23. the aggrieved party shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution of reversal within which to perfect his appeal. the provisions concerning practicable. and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. receive additional evidence. . serving copies thereof upon the prevailing party and the appellate agency. suspended. Non-expiration of License.In any contested case. . Sec. or its officers. 13. Sec. Sec. . the agency may. the existing license shall not expire until the application shall have been finally determined by the agency. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency. Unless otherwise provided by law. . Licensing Procedure. has been perfected. . (2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the performance of prosecuting functions in any contested case or any factually related case. if any. . no license may be withdrawn. . papers. or safety require otherwise. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. and paying the required fees. 25. (2) If a motion for reconsideration is denied. 15. . . . The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. Finality of Order. Subpoena. or the appellate agency directs execution pending appeal.The appeal shall stay the decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by law. by stating the specific material Sec.(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws.Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order. transmit the records of the case to the appellate agency. on its own initiative or upon motion.The appellate agency shall review the records of the proceedings and may. Sec. Sec. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review.(1) Every agency shall publish and make available for public inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of contested cases. Sec. Sec.

. (7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by statute or. The record to be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties to the proceedings. It the decision is reversed on reconsideration. the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. The court may require or permit subsequent correction or additions to the record. the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. One motion for reconsideration may be allowed. Sec. Transmittal of Record. that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. in the absence thereof.Within 15 days from the service of the petition for review.Page 164 dates. in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the entire records of the proceeding under review. 26. . If the motion is denied. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative decision.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->