Page 1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW • Meaning: Branch of public law

dealing with the doctrines and principles

I. Historical and Constitutional governing the powers and procedures of

Considerations administrative agencies, especially including

judicial review of administrative action. [Prof.
Kenneth Culp Davis]
A. Development of Administrative Law
as a distinct field of public law • Meaning: Branch of public law which
fixes the organization and determines the

1. Factors Responsible for the competence of administrative authorities and

Emergence of Administrative Agencies indicates to the individual remedies for the

a. Growing complexities of modern life; violation of his rights. [Nachura]

b. Multiplication of number of subjects needing • Kinds of Administrative Law:

government regulation; and a. Statutes setting up administrative

c. Increased difficulty of administering laws. authorities.
[Laurel, J. in Pangasinan Transportation v
b. Rules, regulations, or orders of such
Public Service Commission (1940)]
administrative authorities promulgated
pursuant to the purposes for which they
2. Doctrine of “Separation of were created.
Powers” and the constitutional position of
c. Determinations, decisions, and orders of
Administrative Agencies
such administrative authorities made in
• The Doctrine of Separation of Powers, though settlement of controversies arising in
not mentioned anywhere by such name in the their particular fields.
1987 Constitution, can be inferred from its d. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing
provisions. The heart of the doctrine is that with the creation, operation, and effect of
the basic powers of the government must be determinations and regulations of such
kept separate from each other, each power administrative authorities.
being under the principal control of a branch
• Administration:
of government. The legislative power is
granted to the Congress, the executive power a. Meaning: Understood in 2 different
to the President, and the judicial power to the senses:
Judiciary.  As a function: The execution, in non-

• The President as Chief Executive judicial matters, of the law or will of the

exercises control over agencies and offices State as expressed by competent

which perform rule-making or adjudicatory authority.

functions.  As an organization: That group or

aggregate of persons in whose hands the
• If the agency is created by Congress,
reins of government are for the time
consider the law that created it. If the law is
being.
silent as to the control which the President
may exercise, the President can only
b. Distinguished from government:

supervise, i.e., to see to it that the laws are c. Kinds:

faithfully executed.  Internal: Legal side of public
administration (e.g. matters concerning
• The 3 branches of government lack (1)
personnel; fiscal and planning activities).
time, (2) expertise, and (3) organizational
 External: Deals with problems of
aptitude for effective and continuing
government regulations (e.g. regulation
regulation of new developments in society
of professions, industries or businesses).
[Stone]. Thus, there is a need for a body
which would act as a “catchbasin,” otherwise
2. Administrative Agency
the 3 branches would collapse. The
Administrative Agency supports the • Meaning: Any governmental organ
trichotomy of powers. or authority, other than a court or legislative
body, which affects the rights of private
A. Definition of Terms parties, through rule-making and
adjudication. [Davis; Nachura]
1. Administrative Law
 Page 2

• A body or agency is administrative 6. Adjustment of individual

where its function is primarily regulatory, controversies because of a strong social
even if it conducts hearings and determines policy involved.
controversies to carry out its regulatory duty. • ECC, NLRC, SEC, DAR, COA, etc.
On its rule-making authority, it is
administrative when it does not have
7. Government as private party.

discretion to determine what the law shall be • GSIS, etc.

but merely prescribes details for the b. As to the organic law of creation:
enforcement of the law. 1. 1987 Constitutional provision.

• Any department, bureau, office, • Civil Service Commission. [Art.

commission, authority or officer of the IX-B]
National Government authorized by law or • Commission on Elections. [Art.
executive order to make rules, issue licenses, IX-C]
grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate
• Commission on Audit. [Art. IX-B]
cases; research institutions with respect to
licensing functions; government corporations • Commission on Human Rights.
with respect to functions regulating private [Art. XIII, Sec. 17]
right, privilege, occupation or business; and
• Commission on Appointments.
officials in the exercise of disciplinary powers
[Art. VI, Sec. 18]
as provided by law. [Sec. 2, Book VII, Admin
Code of 1987]
• Senate Electoral Tribunal. [Art.
VI, Sec. 17]

3. Powers of an Administrative Agency • House of Representatives

a. Quasi-legislative Electoral Tribunal. [Art. VI, Sec. 17]

or rule-making power. • Judicial and Bar Council. [Art. VIII,

b. Quasi-judicial or Sec. 8]

adjudicatory power. • Office of the Ombudsman. [Art.

c. Determinative IX, Sec. 5]
powers [Nachura] • National Economic and
• Licensing. Development Authority. [Art. XII, Sec. 20]
• Price/rate-fixing.
• An agency on Cooperatives. [Art.
• Implementing or executing.
XII, Sec. 15]

• An independent Central
4. Types of Administrative Agencies
Monetary Authority. [Art XII, Sec. 20]
a. As to purpose:
• National Language Commission.
1. Government grant or gratuity, special
[Art. XIV, Sec. 9]
privilege.
• National Police Commission. [Art.
• Bureau of Lands, Phil. Veterans
XVI, Sec. 6]
Admin., GSIS, SSS, PAO, etc.
• Consultative Body on Indigenous
2. Carrying out the actual business of
Cultural Communities. [Art. XVI, Sec. 12]
government.
• BIR, Customs, Immigration, Land
2.
Legislative enactment / Congressional Statute
Registration Authority, etc.
(regulatory agency).
3. Service for public benefit.
• National Labor Relations
• Philpost, PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA,
Commission.
etc.

4. Regulation of businesses affected

• Social Security Commission.

with public interest. • Commission on Immigration and

• Insurance Commission, LTFRB, Deportation.
NTC, HLURB, etc.
• Securities and Exchange
5. Regulation of private businesses and Commission.
individuals.
• Philippine Patent Office.
• SEC, etc.
 Page 3
on the existence of certain facts or things upon
• Professional Regulation
which the enforcement of the law depends. [Cruz
Commission.
v Youngberg]
• Games and Amusement Board.

• Board of Energy. 6. Advantages of Administrative Regulation

a. Regulation by government opens a
• Insurance Commission.
way for action to be taken in the public interest to
• Dangerous Drugs Board. prevent future harm when there would be no
assurance that any action would be taken if the
3.
initiative were left wholly to interested individuals.
Executive Order (fact-finding agency) /
b. It provides for action that will be
Authority of law.
based on technical knowledge, which would not
c. As to hierarchy:
be available, if it were taken through the ordinary
1. Office of the President and Cabinet.
courts of law.
2. c. It ensures that the action taken will
Independent Constitutional Commissions. have regard for the interests of the general public
• CSC, COMELEC, COA. in a way not possible if it were only the outcome
of a controversy between private parties to a suit.
3.
Other Constitutional Bodies.
d. It permits the rules for the prevention
of socially hurtful conduct to be flexible rules
• Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman,
based on discretion, and thus make possible the
Office of the Special Prosecutor, Central
introduction of order in fields not advantageously
Monetary Authority, Economic and
permitting the application of rules of a rigid
Planning Agency, Commission on Human
permanent character. [Dickinson]
Rights, National Language Commission,
National Police Commission, Commission
B. Cases
on Indigenous Cultural Communities.

4.
Regulatory Commission.

• SEC, NLRC, Office of the

Insurance Commissioner, Land
Transportation Commission, Bureau of
Customs, CID, BIR.

5.
Public Corporation.

• UP, NPC, MWSS, NDC, DBP.

5. 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).

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]. 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).

c) Contingent
legislation: Made by an administrative authority
 Page 4
• Manila Electric Co. v Pasay Both LOIs and EOs are presidential issuances; one
Transport (1932) may repeal or otherwise alter, modify or amend the
The SC should strictly confine its own sphere of other, depending on which comes later.
influence to the powers expressly or by implication • Eastern Shipping Lines v CA
conferred on it by the Organic Act. The SC and its (1998)
members should not nor cannot be required to An administrative agency has no discretion WON to
exercise any power or to perform any task, or to implement a law. Its duty is to enforce the law. Thus
assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with if there is a conflict between the circular issued by the
administering judicial functions. A board of arbitrators agency and an EO issued by the president, the latter
is not a court in any proper sense of the term, and prevails.
possesses none of the jurisdiction granted by the
Organic Act to the SC. II. Control of Administrative Action
• Noblejas vs. Teehankee
(1968) A. Administrative agencies and the
The legislature could not have intended for the Land executive power of the President
Registration Commissioner and other similarly ranked
officials to hold same rank as a judge of the CFI, 1. Legislative control
because it would place upon the SC the duty of a. Powers of the
investigating and disciplining these officials, who are Legislative
performing executive functions and thus under the 1. Creation and abolition.
supervision and control of the President. It would be • Congress can create, divide,
unconstitutional, being violative of the separation of merge, modify, or even abolish
powers, and would diminish the control of the Chief agencies.
Executive over executive officials. • Power to abolish is not effective
• Garcia v. Macaraig (1971) because administrative agencies are
needed.
The line between what a judge may and may not do in
2. Appropriation.
working with other offices under the other
departments must always be jealously observed, lest • Congress has budgetary power.
the principle of separation of powers be eroded. No In actual life, no appreciable effect
judge of even the lowest court should place himself in because annual appropriation usually

a position where his actuations would be subject to gets Congressional approval,

review and prior approval and, worse still, review, otherwise, public suffers.

before they can have any legal effect, by any

3. Investigatory.

authority other than the CA or the SC. • Effective only as an aid in

• In re: Manzano (1988) legislation and cannot serve the need

Members of SC and inferior courts of justice shall not for constant regulation.

be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial 4. Pprescription of legislative standards.

or administrative functions. Administrative functions • Ineffective because the
“involve the regulation and control over the conduct standards should be flexible and
and affairs of individuals for their own welfare, and the those who make the standards lack
promulgation of rules and regulations top better carry the expertise.
out legislative policy or such as are designated to any
• The standards must be effective
agency by the organic law of its existence.” RTC
and sufficient.
judges should render assistance to said agencies only
5. Prescription of minimum procedural
when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to
requirements.
the fulfillment of their judicial duties.
• There must be a shift towards
• Puyat v De Guzman
having administrative standards
An indirect appearance as counsel by an
instead to allow the agencies enough
Assemblyman before an administrative body
flexibility.
circumvents the Constitutional prohibition. A contrary
b. Congressional Oversight Committee
rule would permit an Assemblyman to influence an
[Macalintal v COMELEC]
administrative body just by acquiring minimal
participation in the “interest” of the client and then 1. Scrutiny.

“intervening” in the proceedings. • Based on the power of

• Phil. Ass’n of Service appropriation.
Exporters v Torres

• Sec. 22, Art. VI,
Constitution: Department heads may
be ordered to appear on any matter
pertaining to their departments.
• E.g. budgetary hearings –
Allows economy and efficiency of
government operations.
Page 5
and jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact
1987
and policy. Courts defer to the expertise and
experience of agencies in their areas of
specialization. Courts are confined to seeing
to it that agencies stay within the limits of
their power or to checking arbitrariness in the
administrative process.

2. Congressional investigation. 4. Ombudsman

• 3 limitations under the 1987 a. Powers:

Constitution: 1. Investigatory.
a) In aid of legislation; 2. Prosecutorial.

b) Conducted in • Own initiative.

accordance with duly published
• From a complaint.
rules of procedure; and

c) Persons appearing 3. Public assistance functions.

therein afforded their rights. 4. Authority to inquire and obtain

3. Legislative supervision. information.

• Legislative veto: Congress has

b. Necessary characteristics:

“right” to approve/disapprove any 1. Political independence.

regulation before it takes effect. 2. Accessibility and expedition /

independence.

2. Executive control 3. Grant of investigatory power.

4. Absence of revisory jurisdiction.

Art. VII, Sec.1, 1987 Consti. The executive power
shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. c. Jurisdiction:

Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987 Consti. The President shall • The Ombudsman
have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws may not veto or revise an exercise of
be faithfully executed. judgment or discretion by an agency or
officer upon whom that judgment or
• Power of appointment, power of discretion is lawfully vested especially
control over all offices in the Executive when the matter involves basically
branch, and sworn duty to preserve and technical matters coming under the
defend the Constitution and execute the laws special technical knowledge and training
(which entitles the President to influence the of the agency or officer. [Concerned
conduct of administrative bodies if in his view Officials of the MWSS v Vasquez
they violate the Constitution). (1995)]

• The President controls • All elective and

administrative agencies except when such appointive officials, including cabinet
agencies are created by the legislature. One members, GOCC’s and local government
must check the enabling laws regarding the are within its jurisdiction, except those
particular legislative intent. If the law is who may be removed only by
silent, the President cannot exercise control impeachment.
but merely supervision.
• The office of the
Ombudsman has the power to investigate
3. Judicial Control
and prosecute on its own or on complaint
• Power of judicial review over by any person, any act or omission of any
decisions of administrative agencies. public officer or employee, office or

• Radical view: Courts should agency, when such act or omission

review not only agency’s conclusions of law
but even its determinations of fact and policy.
• Traditional/Accepted
Judicial review is allowed on questions of law
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient. This power has been held to
include the investigation and prosecution
view:
of any crime committed by a public
official regardless of whether the acts or
 Page 6
omissions complained of are related to,
or connected with, or arise from, the Potestas delegata non delegare potest. – What
performance of his official duty. It is has been delegated cannot be delegated.
enough that the act or omission was
committed by a public official. The
a. Requisites for a
Ombudsman may review, revise, direct,
valid delegation: [Pelaez v Auditor General
reverse or modify a decision of a
(1965)]
prosecutor deputized or designated to be
under the Ombudsman’s control and
1) The law must be complete in

supervision. [Lastimosa v Vasquez itself; it must set forth the policy to be

(1995)] executed.

 Note: The Ombudsman has absolutely 2) The law must fix a standard, the
no revisory powers. Rather, the limits of which are sufficiently
delegated prosecutor acts as the determinate or determinable, to which
Ombudsman’s agent; therefore, all the delegate must conform in the
actions/decisions made by the prosecutor performance of his functions.
are deemed as action/decisions of the • The
Ombudsman. Seen in this light, the standard may be:
Ombudsman has the right to change his
(a) Express;
action/decision.
(b) Implied; [Edu v Ericta
• The Ombudsman
(1970)] or
may not initiate a criminal or
administrative complaint against a judge. (c) Embodied in other statutes

The Ombudsman must indorse the case on the same matter and not

to the SC for appropriate action. No other necessarily in the same law being

entity or official of the Government has challenged. [Chiongbian v Orbos

the competence to review a judicial order (1995)]

or decision and pronounce it erroneous so • Suffici

as to lay the basis for a criminal or ent standard: One which
administrative complaint. [Fuentes v
(a) Defines legislative policy,
Office of the Ombudsman (2001)]
marks its limits, maps out its
• Under Sec. 13(3), boundaries and specifies the public
Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, the agency to apply it; and
“recommendation” that emanates from
(b) Indicates the
the Ombudsman after it has conducted
circumstances under which the
its investigation is not merely advisory
legislative command is to be
but binding and mandatory. The
effected. [Santiago v COMELEC
Ombudsman has the authority to
(1997); ABAKADA Guro List v
determine the administrative liability of a
Ermita (2005)]
public official or employee, and direct and
compel the head of the office or agency
• The
Constitution has never been regarded as
concerned to implement the penalty
denying to Congress the necessary
imposed. [Ledesma v CA (2005)]
flexibility and practicality which will
• The pendency of an
enable it to perform its function in laying
action is not a prerequisite for the
down policies and establishing standards,
Ombudsman to start its own
while leaving to selected
investigation. It can do so even on a
instrumentalities the making of
verbal, unsigned, or unverified complaint.
subordinate rules within prescribed limits
[BIR v Ombudsman (2002)]
and the determination of facts to which
the policy as declared by the legislative
III. Powers and Functions of Administrative
to apply. There is a distinction between
Agencies
(a) delegation of power to make the law
and (b) conferring authority/discretion as
A. Legislative function to its execution. [Panama Refining v
Ryan (1935)]
1. Non-delegation doctrine
 Page 7
 Cardozo, J. dissent: There has been no • The legislature, from necessity and
grant to the Executive of any roving as a means of enforcement and
commission to inquire into evils and execution, have to delegate such power.
then, upon discovering them, do anything [Alegre v Collector of Customs
he pleases. Discretion is not (1920)]
unconfined and vagrant. It is
c. Administrative rule-making.
canalized within banks that keep it
from overflowing. 1. Limits on rule-making

b. Valid delegation: power:

[People v Vera (1937)] a) Must be

1. Fix tariffs, import and export quotas, authorized by law. [Olsen v
tonnage and wharfage fees. Aldanese (1922)]
2. Emergency powers. b) Must not amend

3. Delegation to the people-at-large. the law or must not be inconsistent

with the law. [Syman v Jacinto
4. Delegation to local authorities.
(1953)]
5. Delegation to administrative c) Must not define a
agencies. criminal act. [People v Maceren
c. What cannot be delegated (1977)]
1. Creation of municipalities.
d) Must be germane
[Pelaez v Auditor General (1965)]
to the purpose of the law which it
• Note: Although the creation of was meant to implement; power to
municipalities is purely a legislative promulgate rules may be legitimately
matter, Chiongbian v Orbos says exercised only for carrying the
that the merging of administrative provisions of the law into effect.
regions is an administrative matter. [Toledo v CSC (1991)]
2. Defining a crime. e) Must not restrict,
[US v Ang Tang Ho (1922); People v expand, diminish, supplant or modify
Maceren] the law. [GMCR v Bell Telecom
(1997)]
2. Permissible delegation
f) Action of the
a. Ascertainment of fact. administrative agency to be set aside
• A statute may give to non-judicial if there is an error of law, grave
officers the power to declare the abuse or lack of jurisdiction clearly
existence of facts which call into conflicting with either the letter or
operation its provisions and may grant the spirit of the law. [Land Bank v
them and their subordinate officers power CA (1995)]
to ascertain and determine appropriate g) The basic law
facts as a basis of procedure in the should prevail as embodiment of the
enforcement of laws. Such functions, legislative purpose; rules and
whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are regulations cannot go beyond the
merely incidental to the exercise of law’s terms and provisions. [China
power granted by law to clear navigable Banking v Member of the Board
streams of unauthorized obstructions. of Trustees, Home Development
They are validly conferable upon Mutual Fund (1999)]
executive officials provided the party
h) If there is
affected is given the opportunity to be
discrepancy between the basic law
heard. [Lovina v Moreno (1963)]
and an administrative rule, the basic
b. Filling in of details. law prevails. [Maxima Realty v
• A statute which leaves to the Parkway Real Estate (2004)]
Executive the power to fill in the technical i) May not
details in view of the latter’s expertise is unilaterally impose a new legislative
a recognized delegation of legislative policy, requiring the adjustment of
power. various other contending policies.
[Ople v Torres (1998)]
 Page 8

j) May not dismantle publication and effectivity rules of

a regulatory system that was set up the Admin Code in relation to the

by law. (Ass’n of Phil. Coconut Civil Code: Effectivity is 15 days after

Desiccators v PHILCOA (1998)) publication, not 15 days from date of

filing with the UP Law Center.
k) May not delegate,
[Republic v Express Telecomm
to a mere constituent unit (e.g.
(2002)]
Bureau of Corrections), the
 Exceptions:
rulemaking authority legislatively
(a) Different date is fixed by law or
vested in the head of an executive
specified in the rule.
department (e.g. DoJ), such being an
(b) In case of imminent danger to
abdication of responsibility by the
public health, safety and welfare.
latter. [Echegaray v Secretary of
Justice (1998)] • General rule: Publication is
indispensable especially if the rule is
2. Publication and effectivity.
general in character.
 Exceptions:
Art. 2, Civil Code (as amended by EO 200, June
(a) Interpretative rules.
8, 1987). –
(b) Internal regulations (i.e.
Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the
regulating only personnel of
completion of their publication either in the Official
agency).
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in
(c) Letters of instructions issued by
the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
administrative superior to
subordinates.
Sec. 4, 1987 Admin Code. Effectivity. – In
addition to other rule-making requirements • Circulars
provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, which prescribe a penalty for its
each rule shall become effective 15 days from the violation should be published before
date of filing as above provided unless a different becoming effective for the people to
date is fixed by law, or specified in the ruling in be officially informed. Before the
cases of imminent danger to public health, safety, public may be bound by its contents,
and welfare, the existence of which must be
especially its penal provisions, a law,
expressed in a statement accompanying the rule.
regulation or circular must be
The agency shall take appropriate measures to
published and the people officially
make emergency rules known to persons who may
and specifically informed of said
be affected by them.
contents and its penalties. [People v
Que Po Lay (1954)]
Sec. 5, 1987 Admin Code. Publication and
Recording. – The University of the Philippines Law • Publication in
Center shall: OG or newspaper of general
(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting forth the text circulation is indispensable in every
of rules filed with it during the preceding quarter; case for the effectivity of
and administrative rules and regulations.
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus
But the legislature may in its
published and remaining in effect together with a
discretion provide that the usual 15-
complete index and appropriate tables.
day period be shortened or extended.
[Tanada v Tuvera]
Sec. 6, 1987 Admin Code. Omission of Some
3. Penal regulations
Rules. – (1) The University of the Philippines Law
Center may omit from the bulletin or the
codification any rule if its publication would be Sec. 6, 1987 Admin Code. Omission of Some
unduly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise Rules. – (2) Every rule establishing an offense or
inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made defining an act which, pursuant to law is punishable
available on application in the agency which as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases
adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice be published in full text.
stating the general subject matter of the omitted
rule and how copies thereof may be obtained.
• If a rule is penal in character, the
rule must be published before it
• General rule: Administrative rules takes effect. (People v Que Po Lay
and regulations are subject to the (1954)]
 Page 9
administrative agency, will not be
• The law itself must so declare the
disturbed except for cogent and
act as punishable. The law should
persuasive reasons and clear
also define or fix the penalty for the
conviction of error.
violation.

• The domain of penal statues is

• There is no constitutional
requirement for a hearing in the
exclusive to the legislature and
promulgation of a general regulation
cannot be delegated.
by an administrative body. Where (a)
• Administrative rules and
the rule is procedural, or (b) the rules
regulations cannot amend or modify
are in effect merely legal opinions, or
or expand the law by including,
(c) the rules are substantive, the
prohibiting or punishing certain acts
class to be affected is large, and the
which the law does not even define
questions to be resolved involve the
as a criminal act. [People v
use of discretion committed to the
Maceren (1977)]
rule-making body, no notice or prior
4. Interpretative rules.
hearing is required. [Corona v
• Administrative agencies in the
United Harbor Pilots Ass’n of the
discharge of their duties are
Phils. (1997)]
necessarily called upon to construe
• There is a distinction between
and apply the provisions of the law
administrative rules in the nature of
under which they function. This
subordinate legislation and those
necessity for and power of
which are merely interpretative rules.
construction and interpretation does
The former is designed to implement
not change the character of a
a law by providing its details; before
ministerial duty, or involve an
its adoption there must be a hearing
unlawful use of legislative or judicial
under the Administrative Code.
power. They may also interpret their
When an administrative rule
own rules which have the force and
substantially adds to or increases the
effect of law.
burden of those concerned, an
• Administrative interpretations
administrative agency must accord
are appropriate aids toward
those directly affected a chance to be
eliminating construction and
heard before its issuance.
uncertainty in doubtful cases. When
laws are susceptible of two or more • Interpretative rules may be found
interpretations, the administrative erroneous by the successor of the
agency should make known its promulgating administrative official.
official position. A vested right cannot spring from a
wrong construction of law [Hilado v
• Construction and interpretation
Collector (1956)]. Such wrong
by an administrative agency of the
interpretation cannot place the
law under which it acts provide a
Government in estoppel to correct or
practical guide as to how the agency
overrule the same. [Phil. Bank of
will seek to apply the law, and to
Communications v CIR (1999)]
which courts and litigants may
properly resort for guidance. • Administrative interpretation at
best merely advisory; it is the courts
• The administrative construction
that finally determine what the law
or interpretation is not controlling as
means. [Victorias v Social
to the proper construction of a
Security Commission (1962)]
statute, but generally it is given great
weight, has a very persuasive • Action of the administrative

influence and may actually be agency will be set aside if there was
regarded by the courts as the error of law, or abuse of power, or
controlling factor. Still, regulations lack of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of
enacted, pursuant to the broad rule- discretion clearly conflicting with the
making power under a statute letter and spirit of the legislative
conferring a privilege to be exercised enactment. [Peralta v CSC (1992)]
"under regulations pre-caused" by an
 Page 10

• General requirements: (a) must (3) In cases of opposition, the rules on contested
cases shall be observed.
have been issued on authority of law;
(b) must be within the scope and
Sec. 2(3), 1987 Admin Code. “Rate” means any
Basis Quasi-legislative Quasi-judicial charge to the public for a service open to all and upon
the same terms, including individual or joint rates,
tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as
As to The procedure is The procedure must communication, mileage, kilometrage and other
special rates which shall be imposed by law of
procedural that normally observe the regulation to be observed and followed by any person.
standards observed in the requirements of due
making of rules. process in the 7 • Function delegated to administrative
cardinal rules. agencies because the legislature does not
As to time Rule-making is Adjudication is have the time, knowledge and means
prospective in retrospective in necessary to handle the matter
character, for it character, for it efficiently. Need for dispatch, flexibility
only governs investigates acts
and technical know-how better met by
future acts. already done and
administrative agencies.
then applies the law
• Generally, the power to fix rates is a
on the facts.
quasi-legislative function. But if the rate
As to Legislative rules Adjudicative rulings
is applicable only to an individual, then
application are of general apply only to parties
the function becomes quasi-judicial. The
application
purview of the law; (c) must be distinction is not idle:

reasonable.

• Sec. 9 (2) of the Admin Code implies

Legislative Rules Interpretative Rules
promulgated pursuant passed pursuant to its that all rules with respect to fixing of
to its quasi- quasi-judicial capacity. rates must be accompanied with
legislative / rule-
making functions. notice and hearing, regardless if the
create a new law, a merely clarify the rate-fixing function is legislative or quasi-
new policy, with the meaning of a pre-
force and effect of existing law by inferring judicial.
law. its implications.
need publication. need not be published.
• Notice and hearing necessary if the
So long as the court The court may review rate to be fixed applies to only one entity
finds that the their correctness of the
(quasi-judicial). [Philcomsat v Alcuaz
legislative rules are interpretation of the law
within the power of given by the (1989)]
the administrative administrative body, and
agency to pass, as substitute its own view  Note, however, that the Administrative
seen in the primary of what is correct to the Code now does not differentiate
law, then the rules administrative body. If
bind the court. The it is not within the scope legislative from quasi-judicial rate-fixing:
court cannot question of the administrative notice and hearing is required for both.
the wisdom or agency, court can only
correctness of the invalidate the same but • The power to fix rates cannot be
policy contained in the not substitute its
delegated to a common carrier or other
rules. decision or
interpretation or give its public service. The latter may propose
own set of rules.
new rates, but these will not be effective
Due process involves Due process means that
whether the parties the body observed the without the approval of the
were afforded the proper procedure in
administrative agency. [KMU v Garcia
opportunity to be passing rules.
notified and heard (1994)]
before the issuance of
the ruling. • In fixing the rate, the present valuation
of all the property of a public utility, viz,
d. Fixing of rates, wages and prices
not only of the assets used by the public
but also of the fixed assets must be made
Sec. 9, 1987 Admin Code. Public Participation. – on that basis so a fair return of
(1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, investment can be had. On principle, the
as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of
proposed rules and afford interested parties the property is deemed taken and
opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption condemned by the public at the time of
of any rule.
filing the petition, and the rate should go
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be up and down with the physical valuation
valid unless the proposed rates shall have been
published in a newspaper of general circulation at of the property. [Ynchausti v Public
least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon. Utility Commissioner (1922)]

e. Licensing Function
Sec. 17, 1987 Admin Code. Licensing Procedure.
– (1) When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation
of a license is required to be preceded by notice and
hearing, the provisions concerning contested cases
shall apply insofar as practicable.
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent
laws, rules and regulations or when public security,
health, or safety require otherwise, no license may be
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without
notice and hearing.
Sec. 18, 1987 Admin Code. Non-expiration of
License. – 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
existing license shall not expire until the application
shall have been finally determined by the agency.
Sec. 2(10), 1987 Admin Code. “License” includes
the whole or any party of any agency permit,
certificate, passport, clearance, approval, registration,
charter, membership, statutory exemption or other
form of permission, or regulation of the exercise of a
right or privilege.
Sec. 2(11), 1987 Admin Code. “Licensing” includes
agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial,
revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal,
limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning or
a license.
• No expiry date does not mean the
license is perpetual. A license permit is a
special privilege, a permission
authority to do what is within its terms. It
is not vested, permanent or absolute, but
is always revocable. [Gonzalo
Trading v Central Bank (1976)]
• Notice and hearing in licensing is only
required if it is a contested
Otherwise, it can be dispensed with, as in
the issuance of driver’s licenses.
B. Judicial Function
1. Investigation and adjudication:
Sec. 10, 1987 Admin Code. Compromise and
Arbitration. – To expedite administrative
proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and
obviate expensive litigations, every agency shall, in
the public interest, encourage amicable settlement,
comprise and arbitration.
Sec. 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases.
- (1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled
to notice and hearing. The notice shall be served at
least 5 days before the date of the hearing and shall
state the date, time and place of the hearing.
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present
evidence and argument on all issues. If not precluded
by law, informal disposition may be made of any
contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement or
default.
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its
proceedings.
Sec. 12. Rules of Evidence. - 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.
Page 11
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the
form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily
available. Upon request, the parties shall be given
opportunity to compare the copy with the original. If
the original is in the official custody of a public officer,
a certified copy thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine
witnesses presented against him and to submit
rebuttal evidence.
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially
cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical
or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The
parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity
to contest the facts so noticed.
Sec. 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case, the
agency shall have the power to require the
attendance of witnesses or the production of books,
papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon
request of any party before or during the hearing
upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise
provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial
Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case
being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or
refusal as contempt.
Sec. 14. Decision. - 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 decide each
case within 30 days following its submission. The
parties shall be notified of the decision personally or
by registered mail addressed to their counsel of
record, if any, or to them.
Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the
agency shall become final and executory 15 days
after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party
or adversely affected unless within that period an
administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has
been perfected. One motion for reconsideration may
be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said
period.
Sy
• Just as there is no uniform procedure for
case. all agencies, so also the procedure depends
on the function that the agency is performing.
Thus, when it is performing its adjudicative
function, the procedural safeguards akin to
those in courts must be observed. When
performing its rule-making function, it
must follow the procedure adopted by
legislative bodies. When performing its
licensing function, a modified judicial
procedure is required. When dispensing
government largess, it needs to observe
due process, since these largesses (pensions,
license to practice a profession, social
benefits, basis services) are new forms of
property.
• Administrative agencies have the power
to conduct investigations and hearings, and
make findings and recommendations thereon,
since these are inherent in their functions as
administrative agencies. The findings of facts
by administrative bodies which observed
procedural safeguards (e.g. notice and
hearing parties, and a full consideration of
evidence) are recorded the greatest respect
by courts.
 Page 12
is shown, and even before the issuance of a
• What is not inherent, and therefore
complaint. It is not necessary that a specific
requires an explicit grant from law, is their
charge or complaint for a violation of law be
adjudicative power, i.e. the power to decide
pending; it is enough that the investigation be
controversies involving rights and obligations
for a lawfully authorized purpose. The
of 3rd persons appearing before them, or the
purpose of the subpoena is to discover
power to pass upon legal questions, which
evidence, not to prove a pending charge but
involve the application of the law to the facts.
upon which to make one if justified. Test for
Except in the case of agencies with specific
valid enforcement of subpoena:
grant of adjudicative power (NLRC, SEC,
CBAA), most other administrative agencies (a) Within the authority of the agency.
only have the power of investigation and not
(b) Demand not too indefinite.
of adjudication.
(c) Information reasonably relevant.
[Evangelista v Jarencio (1975)]
Kind of Administrativ Judicial
Proceedings e
Nature of Inquisitorial Adversarial
• Not all agencies with quasi-judicial
Proceedings functions have the power to cite for
Rules of Liberally Follow technical contempt, as the power must be expressly
Procedure applied rules in the
Rules of Court granted in the agency’s charter (ex. PD 902-A
Nature and Decision limited Decision creating the SEC). If there is no express
Extent of to matters of includes matters
Decision general concern brought as issue grant, the agency must invoke the aid of the
by the parties RTC. Rationale: Power to punish for contempt
Parties The agency The parties are
itself may be a only the private is inherently judicial.
party to the litigates
proceedings • The power to declare contempt cannot be
before it used in the discharge of ministerial functions,
but only in relation to quasi-judicial functions
2. Power to issue subpoena and [Guevarra v COMELEC (1958)]
declare contempt
• It is not for the SC to whittle down the
authority conferred on administrative
Sec. 13, 1987 Admin Code. Subpoena. – In any
contested case, the agency shall have the power to agencies to assure the effective
require the attendance of witnesses or the production administration of a statute. If the matter is
of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data,
upon request of any party before or during the properly within its cognizance, the means
hearing upon showing or general relevance. Unless necessary to give it force and effectiveness
otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial should be deemed implied, unless the power
Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to
being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy
or refusal as contempt. trench upon private rights. [Catura v CIR
(1971)]
Sec. 6, P.D. 902 – A. In order to effectively exercise • A public official exercises power, not
such jurisdiction, the SEC shall possess the following
powers: rights. The government itself is merely an
a) To punish for contempt of the Commission, both agency through which the will of the State is
direct and indirect, in accordance with the pertinent
provisions of, and penalties prescribed by, the Rules expressed and enforced. Its officers are
of Court. likewise agents entrusted with the
xxx
e) To issue subpoena duces tecum and summon responsibility of discharging its functions. As
witnesses to appear in any proceedings of the such there is no presumption that they are
Commission and in appropriate cases order search
and seizure or cause the search and seizure of all empowered to act. [Tolentino v Inciong
documents, papers, files and records as well as books (1979)]
of accounts of any entity or person under
investigation as may be necessary for the proper
disposition of cases before it. 3. Warrants of arrest,
administrative searches
• All agencies with quasi-judicial functions
have the power to issue subpoena, even if the Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Consti. The right of the
administrative agency’s charter is silent as to people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable
such power. Rationale: Power to adjudicate searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
will be rendered inutile if there is no power to any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
issue subpoena. upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge, after examination
• Subpoenas may be enforced WON
under oath or affirmation by the complainant and
adjudication is involved, WON probably cause the witnesses he may produce, and particularly

describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Art. IV, Sec. 3, 1973 Consti. The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and
whatever purpose shall not be violated, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined
by the judge, or such other responsible
officer as may be authorized by law, after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
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,
when one could be arrested by the military on
mere suspicion by the strength of the warrant
of arrest, ASSO or PDA issued by the Ministry
of National Defense or Generals in their
respective regions.
• The word “shall” was added to “warrant
of arrest shall issue” and
subsequent phrase was reworded in this wise:
“to be determined personally” by the judge.
This is to give more responsibility to the judge
who will issue the warrant of arrest and be
accountable for it.
• Both provisions are express guarantees
against unwarranted violations of the privacy
and security of persons and their properties.
• Administrative agencies cannot
warrants of arrest. Only a judge may issue
warrants. [Salazar v Achacoso (1990)]
 Exception: deportation of
undesirable aliens following a final order of
deportation.
• Two ways of deporting:
(a) Commissioner of
under Sec 37 of CA618
(b) President after due investigation
pursuant to Sec 69 of Admin Code  no
grounds needed; has sole
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,
the power granted to the latter does not
extend to the power to arrest. The exercise
of such power demands the exercise of
discretion by the one exercising the same, to
determine whether under
circumstances, the curtailment of liberty is
warranted. And while ministerial duties may
be delegated, official functions
Page 13
exercise of discretion and judgment may not
be so delegated. Immigration authorities can
issue warrants of arrest against undesirable
aliens only if such issuance is pursuant to a
final order of deportation. They cannot issue
warrants for purposes of investigation, as the
Constitution provides that only judges can do
so to determine probable cause. [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.
• The CFI has no jurisdiction to restrain
deportation proceedings as they are within
the jurisdiction of the Immigration authorities
under the Immigration Act. However, the
issuance of the warrants of arrest by the
Commissioner, solely for the purpose of
investigation and before a final order of
deportation is issued, conflicts with paragraph
3, Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1935 Constitution,
which states that the power to determine
finally the
probable cause for warrants of arrest is
limited to judges. 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. Warrants of arrest issued solely
for the purpose of investigation and before a
final order of deportation is issued are
therefore null and void. [Vivo v Montesa
issue (1968)]
• The deportation charges were in
accordance with the Philippine Immigration
illegal and
Act and the Revised Administrative Code,
which empowers the Commissioner to arrest
aliens upon a warrant issued by him and
deported upon warrant issued by the same
Immigration after a determination of the existence of a
ground for deportation by the Board of
Commissioners. Deportation proceedings are
administrative in nature, and are not penal,
discretion but merely preventive. Thus, it need not be
conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary
court proceedings. The requirement of
probable cause, determined by a judge, does
not extend to deportation proceedings. What
is essential however is that (1) there be a
specific charge against the alien, (2) there be
a fair hearing conducted, and (3) the charge
be substantiated by competent evidence.
[Harvey v Defensor-Santiago (1988)]
specific
• The arrest and detention of Lucien by the
CID preparatory to the deportation
requiring proceedings is illegal, although the CID can
 Page 14
order arrests for the purpose of the securing immediate entry. [Camara v Municipal
deportation proceedings. Here, the particular Court (1967)]
circumstances place doubt on the propriety of
• A warrant must first be secured. There is
the arrest. The Mission Order was issued on
no justification for relaxing 4th Amendment
the basis of sworn complaints of a single
safeguards where the official inspection is
individual. The essential requisite of probable
intended for the enforcement of laws prescribing
cause is absent. But even assuming that the
minimum physical standards for commercial
arrest was at first illegal, supervening events
premises. Warrants are a necessary and tolerable
have rendered this petition for habeas corpus
limitation on the right to enter upon and inspect
moot and academic. [Lucien Tran Van
places of business. Limitations on administrative
Nghia v Liwag (1989)]
subpoenas of corporate books and documents:
 These two cases contradict the Qua Chee Gan
(a) Limited in scope.
doctrine because both allowed arrest by
Commissioner upon determination of existence of (b) Relevant in purpose.
a ground to deport. (c) Specific directives so that
 Consider these two cases as a glitch. The Qua compliance will not be unreasonably
Chee Gan doctrine prevails, as supported by burdensome.
Salazar. Not only is Salazar a later case, it was
(d) Subpoena must designate the
also decided en banc, while Harvey was decided
needed documents.
by a division.
(e) Subpoena may not be made and
• Art, 38 of the Labor Code allowing the
enforced in the field.
Secretary of Labor the power to issue warrants of
arrest is unconstitutional for under the
(f) Subpoenaed party may obtain

Constitution, only a judge may issue search or judicial review of reasonableness of demand

arrest warrants. Vivo v. Montesa is not a prior to suffering penalties for refusal to

precedent because the arrest warrant was given comply.

to carry out a final decision of deportation. The SC The particular agency’s demand for access will be

reaffirms the following principles: (1) Under Sec.2, measured against a flexible standard of

Art. III of the Constitution, only judges may issue reasonableness that takes into account the public

search warrants and warrants of arrest; and (2) need for effective enforcement of regulations.

the exception is in cases of deportation of illegal [See v Seattle]

and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the

Commissioner may order arrested, following a 4. Imposition of fines and
final order of deportation, for the purpose of the penalties:
same. [Salazar v Achacoso (1990)] • Agencies have the power to impose fines
 Note: Following (2), the Harvey and Lucien and penalties.
cases prove to be anomalies. • Test for valid imposition:

• A warrant of arrest issued by a (a) Subject matter must be within

commissioner to be valid must be for the sole authority of Congress to legislate.
purpose of executing a final order of deportation. (b) Penalty to be imposed must be
A warrant of arrest issued by the commissioner administrative or civil in character.
for purposes of investigation only, is null and void
(c) Agency expressly authorized to
for being unconstitutional, following Qua Chee
impose penalty. [Oceanic Steam
Gan. [Board of Commissioners v Dela Rosa
Navigation v Stranahan (1908)]
(1991)]
• Where the statute does not authorize
• Warrantless non-emergency inspection of
executive officials themselves to impose the
residential and commercial premises by city penalty, recourse will have to be made to the
health officials are significant intrusions upon the ordinary courts.
interests protected by the 4th Amendment. It is
• Imposition of criminal penalties, if not
surely anomalous to say that the individual and
clearly stated in the statute, is a judicial and
his private property are fully protected by the
not an administrative function [Scoty’s
constitution only when he is suspected of criminal
Department Store v Micaller (1956)]
behavior. Warrants likely should normally be
sought only after entry is refused unless there is a • The fixing of penalties for criminal
citizen complaint or other satisfactory reason for offenses is an exercise of legislative power
 Page 15
which cannot be delegated by the Legislature. 2. Due Process
[US v Barrias (1908)] a. Cardinal Primary

• A fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i.e. Rights:

not in the nature of a criminal penalty) that is [Ang Tibay v CIR (1950)]

exacted not so much as a penalty for the 1. Right to a hearing.

violation of administrative rules but for the • Includes the right of a part to
need to stress desistance from wanton present his own case and submit
disregard of existing rules, regulations, or evidence in support thereof.
requirements, is an administrative penalty 2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
which administrative officers are empowered presented.
to impose without criminal prosecution. If 3. Decision must be supported by evidence.
every time the agency wishes to impose a 4. Evidence must be substantial; i.e. more
civil penalty for violations it had to resort to than a mere scintilla, such relevant
courts of justice in protracted litigations, it evidence as a reasonable mind might
could not serve its purpose as an accept as adequate to support a
administrative body. [Civil Aeronautics conclusion, even if other minds equally
Board v Phil. Airlines (1975)] reasonable would opine otherwise.
5. Decision must be rendered on the

C. Judicial determination of sufficiency evidence presented at the hearing or at

of standards least contained in the record and

disclosed to the parties affected.

1. Interest of law and order. • Only by confining the

administrative tribunal to the
[Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
evidence disclosed to the parties, can
2. Public interest. [People v
the latter be protected in their right
Rosenthal & Osmeña (1939)]
to know and meet the case against
3. Justice, equity and substantial them.
merits of the case. [International Hardwood v 6. Independent consideration of judge.
Pangil (1940)]
• Must not simply accept the views
4. What is moral, educational or of a subordinate in arriving at a
amusing. [Mutual Film Corp v Industrial decision.
Commission (1914)] 7. Decision rendered in such a manner as to
5. Adequate and efficient let the parties know the various issues

instruction. [PACU v Secretary (1955)] involved and the reasons for the decision
rendered.
6. Reasonableness as an implied
standard in every law. [Wisconsin v Whitman • Does due process always entail

(1928)] notice and hearing prior to the

deprivation of a right? No. Hearing
7. To promote simplicity,
may occur after the deprivation, as
economy or efficiency. [Cervantes v Auditor-
in emergency cases [Goss v Lopez
General (1952)]
(1975)], in which case, there must
8. Maintain monetary stability, be a chance to seek reconsideration.
promote rising level of production & real income. [UP Board of Regents v CA
[People v Joliffe (1959)] (1999)]
• What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient • The right to substantive and procedural
standard. [Burstyn v Wilson (1952)] due process is applicable in
administrative proceedings. [CSC v
IV. Administrative Procedure Lucas (1999)]

• Presence of a party at a trial is not always

A. In Rule-Making: Price, wage or rate-
the essence of due process. All that the
fixing (see related areas in this reviewer)
law requires is the element of fairness;
that the parties be given notice of trial
B. In Adjudication of cases
and an opportunity to be heard
[Asprec v Itchon (1966)] or, as applied
1. Rules of Procedure
to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to seek reconsideration
 Page 16
[De la Cruz v Abille (2001)] or an • Due process is violated when there is
opportunity to explain one’s side failure to sufficiently explain the reason
[Pilipinas Loan v SEC (2001)]. for the decision rendered; lack of support
• The law, in prescribing a process of therefor in substantial evidence; and the
appeal to a higher level, contemplates imputation of a violation and imposition
that the reviewing officer is a person of a corresponding fine despite the
different from the one who issued the absence of due notice and hearing.
appealed decision. Otherwise, the review [Globe Telecom v NTC (2004)].
becomes a farce; it is rendered • The right against self-incrimination may
meaningless. [Rivera v CSC (1995)] be invoked by the respondent at the time
• “To be heard” does not mean only verbal he is called by the complainant as a
arguments only in court; one may also be witness. However, if he voluntarily takes
heard through pleadings. [Casimiro v the witness stand, he can be cross
Tandog (2005)]. WON to hold an examined; but he may still invoke the
adversarial trial is discretionary and right when the question calls for an
parties cannot demand it as a matter of answer which incriminates him of an
right. [Vinta Maritime v NLRC (1978)]. offense other than that charged. [People

• Administrative due process cannot be v Ayson]

fully equated to due process in the strict b. Notice and

judicial sense. [Ocampo v Office of the hearing:
Ombudsman (2000)]. 1. When required:
• No notice is necessary for suspension, (a) When the law specifically
because the latter is only preventive in requires notice and hearing.
nature. [Busuego v CA (1999)]. [Equitable Banking v NLRC
• The right of a party to confront and cross- (1997)]
examine opposing witness is a (b) When it affects a person’s status
fundamental right which is part of due and liberty. [Commissioner of
process. If without his fault, his right to Immigration v Fernandez]
cross-examine is violated, he is entitled 2. When not required:
to have the direct examination stricken (a) Urgent reasons.
off the record. [Bachrach Motors v CIR
(b) Discretion is exercised
(1978)]
by an officer vested with it upon an
• Evidence on record must be fully undisputed fact. [Suntay v People
disclosed to the parties. [American (1957)]
Inter-Fashion v Office of the
(c) If it involves the exercise
President (1991)]
of discretion and there is no grave
• Respondents in administrative cases are abuse. [De Bisschop v Galang]
not entitled to be informed of findings of
(d) When rules to govern
investigative committees but only of the
future conduct of persons or
decision of the administrative body.
enterprises, unless law provides
[Pefianco v Moral (2000)]
otherwise. [Taxicab Operators of
• Mere consultations and conferences may Manila v Board of
not be valid substitutes for observance of Transportation]
notice and hearing. [Equitable Banking (e) In the valid exercise of
v NLRC (1997)] police power. [Pollution
• Three factors determining constitutional Adjudication Board v CA (1991)]
sufficiency of administrative procedures:
c. Form and
(a) Private interest that will be promulgation of judgment
affected.
(b) Risk of erroneous deprivation of Sec. 2(8), 1987 Admin Code. ”Decision” means the
such interest and probable value of whole or any part of the final disposition, not an
safeguards. interlocutory character, whether affirmative, negative,
(c) Public interest vis-à-vis or injunctive in form, of an agency in any matter,
government costs. [Matthews v including licensing, rate fixing, and granting of rights
Eldridge] and privileges.
 Page 17
This date can be ascertained from the
Sec. 14. Decision. — Every decision rendered by the minutes of the proceedings had before
agency in a contested case shall be in writing and the Board. The operative date of the
shall state clearly the facts and the law on which it is Board’s action is that when the decision
based. The agency shall decide each case within was voted and adopted by them as a
thirty days following its submission. The parties shall Board, regardless of the date when the
be notified of the decision personally or by registered decision in extenso was prepared, written
mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to and signed. [Neria v Commissioner of
them. Immigration (1968)]

• The word “noted” on the decision

Sec. 15. Finality of order. — The decision of the does not constitute an exercise of the
agency shall be final and executory after the receipt Board of Commissioners’ power of review.
of copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless A decision by the latter requires a
within that period an administrative appeal or judicial judicious review and deliberation as a
review, of proper, has been perfected. One motion for body of the proceedings, the evidence
reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the and law involved, the formulation of
running of the said period. findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Absent a reversal, the decision of the BSI
Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of prevails and becomes final after the lapse
Decisions. — Every agency shall publish and make of 1 year from the rendition of the
available for public inspection all decisions or final decision. However, in the case of a
orders in the adjudication of contested cases. It shall reversal, notice thereof may be sent even
be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his after the lapse of 1 year. [Sichangco v
equivalent functionary to prepare a register or Board of Commissioners of
compilation of those decisions or final orders for use Immigration (1979)]
by the public. • The power to delegate a
particular function can be implied form
• Decision should state the facts, the power of administrative agencies to
issues and the law on which the decision issue rules and regulations necessary to
was based. [Ang Tibay v CIR] carry out its functions. [Realty

• Government agency decision Exchange v Sendino (1994)]

must state the facts and the legal basis,

not merely conclusions of law. [Albert v 3. Jurisdiction

Gangan (2001)] • Administrative agencies may only

exercise such powers as are explicitly or by
• It is not necessary that the court
necessary implication conferred on them by
make its own discussion of the evidence
law. The jurisdiction over the subject matter
and findings of fact if the court is satisfied
of an administrative agency depends on the
with the report of the examiner which
terms of the enabling statute delegating
already contains the discussions of the
powers to it. Without jurisdiction, the
findings and conclusions. The rule is
decision rendered by the tribunal is void.
otherwise when the court disagrees with
the findings of the examiner in which • Refer to the enabling statute creating the

case the court must specify and discuss agency especially the powers and

the reasons for their dissent. [Indias v jurisdictions, as jurisdiction is created and

Phil Iron Mines (1957)] conferred by law.

• If a power to decide is granted to

a specific authority, it can’t abdicate from
4. Administrative and judicial
proceedings arising from the same facts
this responsibility by delegating the duty
to decide the case. It must personally • The practice in the Philippines has been

decide such. It can delegate the power to to allow an administrative proceeding and a

hear but not the power to decide. judicial proceeding to take place at the same

[American Tobacco v Director of time so long as the 2 actions are independent

Patents (1975)] of each other.

• The date of the promulgation of • The difference in the proceeding (one

the judgment is the date when the Board administrative, the other criminal) is not legal

voted and resolved to admit the alien. incompatibility, but merely physical
 Page 18
incompatibility. These two proceedings are evidence, then the administrative case must
independent of each other involving different also result in an acquittal.
causes of action and therefore can proceed • Should a public official or employee be
simultaneously. [(Galang v CA (1961)] found guilty of violation of election laws or
• The matters that are material in an failure to comply with COMELEC instructions,
administrative case are not necessarily orders, or decisions, the corresponding proper
relevant in the criminal case. Notwithstanding authority shall, upon COMELEC’s
the fact that findings in criminal cases must recommendation, take appropriate action.
be beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot be Notably, it is the executive department to
conclusive for administrative purposes. There which the charged official or employee
are defenses, excuses, and attenuating belongs which has ultimate authority to
circumstances of value in admin proceedings impose the recommended disciplinary action.
that are not admissible in trial of the criminal This respects the general administrative
case which can have a blunting effect on the authoriy of the government department
conviction. Due process should be upheld. concerned over its own personnel. [Tan v
Conviction does not ex proprio vigore justify COMELEC (1994)]
automatic suspension. [Villanos v Subido • The dismissal of the criminal case will not
(1971)] foreclose administrative action. Considering
• Acquittal in the criminal case does not the difference in the quantum of evidence, as
carry with it relief from administrative well as the procedure followed and sanctions
liability. Different standards apply. The imposed in criminal and administrative
administrative case may generally proceed proceedings, the findings and conclusions in
independently of a criminal action for the one should not necessarily be binding on the
same act or omission and requires only a other. [Ocampo v Office of the
preponderance of evidence to establish Ombudsman (2000)]
administrative guilt as against proof beyond • The criminal and civil cases are
reasonable doubt of the criminal charge. altogether different from the administrative
[Police Commission v Lood (1980)] matters such that disposition in the first two
 Note: Can there be a conviction in a will not inevitably govern the third, and vice
criminal case and an acquittal in the versa. [Mirales v Go (2001)]
administrative case? YES. See Villanos v
Subido. 5. Rules of Evidence
 Note: Can there be an acquittal in a • Apply the specific rules of the
criminal case and a conviction in the administrative agency. In the absence
administrative case? YES. See PNR v thereof, apply the general rules on procedure.
Domingo. The case of PNR also states that However, administrative agencies are not
while the accused acquitted of the crime bound by the technical rules regarding
imputed against him may claim payment of admission of evidence of ordinary courts of
back salaries during his suspension or justice. So long as the requirements of due
reinstatement in case of dismissal, his relief process are observed. Rationale: to allow
lies in the proper administrative or civil action administrative agencies to act with speed and
prescribed by law (NLRC). The trial court has flexibility.
no jurisdiction to order reinstatement since • Pervasive principle: Technical rules of
the judgment in a criminal case is limited to evidence and procedure do not strictly apply
acquittal or conviction with necessary to administrative proceedings, but this does
penalties. However, this case also discusses not mean that they can disregard certain due
the doctrine laid down in Consigna where process requirements.
reinstatement was granted by the trial court
• The rules of evidence in
because the acquittal was for absolute lack of
administrative agencies are more relaxed
evidence and a concomitant finding that the
than in judicial tribunals, in at least three
dismissal was unfair. Whether or not the
areas:
Consigna doctrine should be seen as an
(a) Admissibility: Generally,
exemption is still a gray area. Some say that
administrative agencies are not bound by
it is not to be considered as good law, while
the technical rules of admissibility.
others argue that if the criminal case results
in an acquittal due to absolute lack of (b) Judicial Notice:
Administrative bodies may take into
 Page 19
account not only such evidence as may b.
be presented by the parties in the When the decision was rendered in
determination of the case. They may consequence of fraud, imposition or
also make their inquiry into facts at issue, mistake, other than error of judgment in
and take judicial notice of certain other estimating the value or effect of the
matters. evidence. [Ortua v Singson (1934)]
(c) Quantum of Evidence: Only c.
substantial evidence is required to When the decision is not supported by
support a decision. substantial evidence. [Manahan v
People (1988)]
• Ocular inspection is not equivalent
to a trial or presentation of evidence, as it is d.
only an auxiliary remedy. Parties are still When the findings are not based on a

entitled to hearing. But if the issue can be thorough examination of the parties’

resolved through ocular inspection, there is contending claims but merely on their

no prohibition. [Phil. Movie Pictures position papers. There is no trial through

Workers Assoc v Premier Productions position papers where the adversarial

(1953)] process would ensure a better

presentation and appreciation of the
• Administrative agencies may act on
evidence. [PAL v Confessor (1994)]
their own and use methods which may best
 Reconcile with Bantolino case:
constitute substantial evidence. The court is
decisions based on position papers
not required to examine proof de novo.
allowed as expressly permitted by the
[Estate of Buan v Pambusco (1956)]
law.
• The SC is not required to examine e.
proof de novo. The only function of the SC is The SC will intervene only in what ought
to determine WON there is evidence before to be the rare instance when the
the administrative agency upon which its standard appears to have been
decision might be reasonably based. [Rizal misapprehended or grossly misapplied.
Light v Municipality of Rizal]. However, [Universal Camera v NLRC (1951)]
evidence received at an administrative
• Rules of evidence are not strictly
investigation conducted with manifest
observed in proceedings before
disregard of due process may not justify the
administrative bodies where decisions may be
conclusion based thereon. [Borja v Moreno].
reached on the basis of position papers only.
• The order of testimony is within the [Bantolino v Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.
discretion of the court and the exercise of this (2003)]
discretion in permitting witnesses to be
introduced out of the order prescribed by the V. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
rules is not improper. Such a relaxed
procedure is especially true in administrative • Judicial review is an effective
bodies. In the broad interest of justice, the mechanism to check acts which are arbitrary or
administrative body may, in any particular beyond the authority given to any agency by its
manner, except itself from technical rules and enabling statute.
apply such suitable procedure as shall • A generalization as to when judicial
promote the objectives. [Maceda v ERB review is available is hazardous. Here are factors
(1991)] to consider:

• When findings of fact of (a) If what is involved is question of

constitutionality, judicial review is
administrative agencies are not conclusive
available.
upon the courts:
a. (b) History of

When the decision was rendered by an the statute involved. Intention of Congress

almost evenly divided court and the prevails: If it wanted judicial review to be

division was precisely on the facts as available, it would have said so.

borne out by the evidence. [Gonzales v (c) Nature of

Victory Labor Union (1969)] problem involved:
 Right (should be protected by law) v
Privilege (can be unilaterally withdrawn).
 Page 20
 Question of Law v Question of Fact. with the active participation of the Sol-Gen;

• T and (3) The finding on the citizenship issue is

he Court is the final interpreter of affirmed by the SC. [Zita Ngo Burca v

law: It depends on whether or not Republic]

the finding of fact is supported by  Nor does res judicata
substantial evidence. If yes, it is not apply where the administrative decision gives
reviewable; otherwise, it is. an award that is less than what the law
• If provides. [B.F. Goodrich v WCC (1988)].
the question is on the substantiality
of evidence, then it is a question of A. Factors Affecting Finality of
law. Administrative Decisions
 Question of Discretion: When discretion is
granted by law, the exercise of such is • When a court reviews an agency’s
generally to be disturbed by the court. construction, it deals first with the question
• Exception: When there is grave whether Congress has directly spoken to the
abuse of discretion – capriciousness, precise question at issue. If intent of Congress is
arbitrariness, partiality or hostile clear, no problem. The court as well as the agency
attitude. must give effect to the unambiguous expressed

 Question of Policy: Traditionally, intent of Congress. If not, the court does not

policymaking is not judicial business. simply impose its own construction on the statute.
If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect
(d) Finality of
to the issue, the question for the court is whether
the administrative decision.
the agency’s answer is based on a permissible
• Can the doctrines of forum shopping,
construction of the statute. [Chevron v Natural
litis pendentia and res judicata apply to
Resources Defense Council (1984)]
administrative agencies?
• When no one seasonably filed a
 YES. Under Sec. 5, Rule
motion for reconsideration, the Office of the
7 of the Rules of Court, the certification
President lost jurisdiction to reopen the case,
against forum shopping shall state that the
more so modify its decision. It thus had no more
party “has not theretofore commenced any
authority to entertain the second motion for
action or filed any claim involving the same
reconsideration. The orderly administration of
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
justice requires that the judgments of a court or
agency, and to the best of his knowledge, no
quasi-judicial body reach a point of finality set by
such other action or claim is pending
the law, rules and regulations. [Fortich v
therein…”
Corona (1998)]
 Res judicata applies to • Compliance with the period provided
adversary administrative proceedings, by law for the perfection of an appeal is not
because they are quasi-judicial in nature. merely mandatory but also a jurisdictional
[United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union v requirement. Thus, failure to comply with the
Laguesma]. reglementary period has the effect or rendering
 Litis pendentia can final the judgment of the court. Even
happen, taking into consideration not only the administrative decisions must end sometime, as
cases where forum shopping can happen, but fully as public policy demands that finality be
also those involving the doctrine of primary written on judicial controversies. Non quieta
jurisdiction. movere: What was already terminated cannot

 The doctrine of res be disturbed. [Antique Sawmill v Zayco

judicata, although a judicial concept, may be (1966)]

applied to administrative agencies performing • The Courts will not interfere with the
quasi-legislative functions. decision of the an administrative officer, unless
the Court is of the clear opinion that such decision
 However, res judicata
is (a) wrong, (b) manifestly arbitrary and unjust,
does not apply in administrative adjudication
and (c) not based upon any reasonable
relative to citizenship, unless the following
interpretation of the law. [Sotto v Ruiz (1921)]
conditions all obtain: (1) The question of
citizenship is resolved by a court or • General rule: Courts refuse to

administrative body as a material issue in the interfere with proceedings undertaken by

controversy after a full-blown hearing; (2)


administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of
administrative functions.
 Exceptions: administrative proceedings may be
reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the
board or official:
a.
Has gone beyond his statutory authority;
Page 21
1. Whether the
enabling statute permits judicial review. There is
no problem when the statute itself expressly
grants or prohibits judicial review. But when it is
silent, generally, judicial review is available. Since
an administrative agency has a narrower view of
the case, and its existence derogates the judicial

b. prerogative lodged in the courts by the

Exercised unconstitutional powers; Constitution, judicial review is needed to offer

c. these considerations.

Clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to 2. Whether the plaintiff

his duty, or with grave abuse of discretion; or is the proper plaintiff, that is, whether the plaintiff

d. has standing.

The decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or 3. Whether the

mistake. [Manuel v Villena (1971)] defendant is the proper defendant. The

defendant could either be a private party, or the
• There is an underlying power in the
very administrative agency before whom the right
courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative
is being applied.
agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative
power on questions of law and jurisdiction even 4. Whether the forum

though no right of review is given by statute. The is the proper forum. The forum is usually

purpose of judicial review is to keep the provided for in the enacting statute, but in its

administrative agency within its jurisdiction and absence, the Uniform Appeals Act should be

protect substantial rights of parties affected by its applicable. It is very seldom that the forum is in

decisions. Judicial review is proper in case of lack the RTC, since administrative agencies are usually

of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of given the rank equal to or higher than the RTC.

law, fraud or collusion. The court may also 5. Whether the timing
declare an action or resolution of an for the filing of the case is proper. The period for
administrative authority to be illegal because it filing the case must also be considered in view of
violates or fails to comply with some mandatory the statue of limitations, as well as the period
provision of law, or because it is corrupt, arbitrary required by the statute or rules for the filing of
or capricious. [San Miguel Corp v Secretary of appeals.
Labor (1975)] 6. Whether the case is

• When judicial review is valid despite ripe for adjudication. When a person has not

finality of administrative decisions: exhausted all the administrative remedies

(a) Decision is wrong. available to him, his case is said to be not ripe for
judicial review yet. He is said to have invoked the
(b) Manifestly arbitrary,
intervention of the court prematurely. Although
capricious, unjust decision.
this is not a jurisdictional requirement, failure to
(c) Decision is not based upon
abide by the doctrine affects petitioner’s cause of
any reasonable interpretation of law.
action.
(d) Administrative body or
officer has gone beyond its/his statutory
C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
authority.
(e) Administrative agency 1. When the doctrine applies
exercised unconstitutional powers.
a. The
(f) Decision vitiated by fraud, administrative agency is performing a quasi-
imposition or mistake. judicial function.
(g) Lack of jurisdiction. b. Judicial review is
(h) Grave abuse of discretion. available.
(i) Decision violates or fails to c. The court acts in
comply with some mandatory provision of its appellate jurisdiction.
law. • The regular courts have jurisdiction to
pass upon the validity or constitutionality of
B. Availability of Judicial Review an administrative rule or regulation issued in
the performance of quasi-legislative
 Page 22
functions. [Smart Communications v NTC d. Validity and
(2003)] urgency of judicial action or intervention.
[Paat v CA (1997)]
2. Rationale e. No other plain,
a. Legal reason: speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary
The law prescribes a procedure. course of the law. [Paat; Information
b. Practical reason: Technology Found’n v COMELEC (2004)]
To give the agency a chance to correct its f. Resort to
own errors [Bernardo v Abalos (2001)] and exhaustion will only be oppressive and
prevent unnecessary and premature resort to patently unreasonable. [Paat; Cipriano v
the courts [Lopez v City of Manila (1999)]. Marcelino (1972)]
c. Reasons of g. Where the
comity: Expedient courtesy, convenience. administrative remedy is only permissive or
voluntary and not a prerequisite to the
3. General Rule: Where the law institution of judicial proceedings. [Corpuz v
has delineated the procedure by which Cuaderno (1962)]
administrative appeal or remedy could be h. Application of
effected, the same should be followed before the doctrine will only cause great and
recourse to judicial action can be initiated. irreparable damage which cannot be
[Pascual v Provincial Board (1959)] prevented except by taking the appropriate
a. If a remedy court action. [Cipriano; Paat]
within the administrative machinery can still i. When it involves
be resorted to by giving the administrative the rule-making or quasi-legislative functions
officer concerned every opportunity to decide of an administrative agency. [Smart v NTC
on a mater that comes within his jurisdiction, (2003)]
then such remedy should be exhausted first j. Administrative
before the court’s juridical power can be agency is in estoppel. [Republic v
invoked. Premature invocation of court’s Sandiganbayan (1996)]
intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. k. Doctrine of
[Paat v CA (1997)] qualified political agency: The act of the
b. Courts will not department head is presumptively the act of
interfere in matters which are addressed to the President (as his alter ego), unless
the sound discretion of government agencies revoked by the latter. [Estrada v CA (2004);
entrusted with the regulations of activities Paat]
coming under the special technical knowledge
• Note: Undersecretary is held to have
and training of such agencies. [Lopez v City
acted on behalf (as alter ego) of the
of Manila (1999]
Secretary. [Nazareno v CA]
c. Recourse • Exceptions:
through court action cannot prosper until • Where the law expressly provides for
after all such administrative remedies would exhaustion via an appeal to the
have first been exhausted. The doctrine does President. [Tan v Director of
not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the Forestry]
authority to resolve, or interfere in, a
• where the appeal to the Office of the
controversy the jurisdiction over which is
President was not acted upon despite
lodged initially with an administrative body of
follow-ups, and in the meantime, the
special competence. [Garcia v CA (2001)]
assailed administrative resolution
continued to be put in effect. [Ass’n
4. Exceptions
of Phil. Coconut Desiccators v
a. Purely legal Phil. Coconut Authority]
questions. [Castro v Secretary (2001)]
l. Subject of
b. Steps to be controversy is private land in land case
taken are merely matters of form. [Pascual v proceedings. [Paat]
Provincial Board (1959)]
m. Blatant violation
c. Administrative of due process. [Paat; Pagara v CA]
remedy not exclusive but merely cumulative
or concurrent to a judicial remedy. [Pascual]
 Page 23
n. Where there is amount to ouster of the court. [Texas & Pacific
unreasonable delay or official inaction. Railway v Abilene (1907)]
[Republic v Sandiganbayan] • It is the recent jurisprudential trend to
o. Administrative apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in
action is patently illegal amounting to lack or many cases that demand the special
excess of jurisdiction. [Paat] competence of administrative agencies. It

p. Resort to may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to

administrative remedy will amount to a take cognizance of a particular case, which

nullification of a claim. [DAR v Apex means that the matter involved is also judicial

Investment (2003); Paat] in character. However, if the determination of

q. No the case requires the expertise, specialized

administrative review provided by law. skills and knowledge of the proper

[Estrada] administrative bodies because technical

matters or intricate questions of facts are
r. Issue of non-
involved, then relief must first be obtained in
exhaustion of administrative remedies
an administrative proceeding before a
rendered moot. [Estrada]
remedy will be supplied by the courts even
s. In quo warranto
though the matter is within the proper
proceedings. [Garcia]
jurisdiction of a court. The doctrine of primary
t. Law expressly
jurisdiction “applies where a claim is originally
provides for a different review procedure.
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play
[Samahang Magbubukid v CA (1999)]
whenever enforcement of the claim requires
the resolution of issues which, under a
5. Remedy: Failure to observe
regulatory scheme, have been placed within
doctrine does not affect jurisdiction of the court.
the special competence of an administrative
The only effect of non-compliance is it will deprive
body”. [Industrial Enterprises v CA
complainant of a cause of action, which is a
(1990)]
ground to dismiss. But if not invoked at the
• It is presumed that an administrative
proper time, this ground is deemed waived.
agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass
[Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)]
upon a matter, would decide the same
correctly, or correct any previous error
D. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary
committed in its forum [Caballes v Sison
Resort
(2004)]

1. When the doctrine applies

3. Exceptions
a. The
a. If the agency
administrative body and the regular court
has exclusive jurisdiction. [Texas]
have concurrent and original jurisdiction.
b. The question to
b. When the issue
is not within the competence of the administrative
be resolved requires expertise of
body to act on. [Phil Global Communications v
administrative agency.
Relova (1980)]
c. The legislative
intent on the matter is to have uniformity in c. When the issue

rulings. involved is clearly a factual question that does not

d. The require specialized skills and knowledge for

administrative agency is performing a quasi- resolution to justify the exercise of primary

judicial function. jurisdiction. [Conrad v CA (1995)]

4. Effect
2. General rule: Courts will not
intervene if the question to be resolved is one • Application of the doctrine does not call

which requires the expertise of administrative for the dismissal of the case but only its

agencies and the legislative intent on the matter suspension until after the matters within the

is to have uniformity in the rulings. It can only competence of the administrative agency are

occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction threshed out and determined. [Industrial]

between the court and the administrative agency. • If jurisdiction over a controversy is
It is a question of the court yielding to the agency initially lodged with an administrative body of
because of the latter’s expertise, and does not special competence, the court should suspend its
 Page 24
action on the case before it pending the final
Causal connection
outcome of the administrative proceedings; for between the injury and
the action complained of:
while no prejudicial question arises in civil
Injury is fairly traceable to
proceedings, this is in the interest of good order. the challenged action of
the defendant, and not the
[Viadad v RTC (1993)]
result of the independent
• While primary jurisdiction to determine action of some third party
not before the court.
preliminary matters is vested in an administrative [Lujan]
agency, such determination is subject to
Injury is likely to be
Direct injury
challenge in the courts. The court’s jurisdiction redressed by a favorable
decision. [Simon v
in such a case is not any less original and
Eastern Kentucky
exclusive as the judicial proceedings are not a Welfare (1976); Lujan]
continuation of the administrative determination. Petitioner himself be
[Philippine Veterans Bank v CA (2000)] among the injured; i.e.
what is alleged is personal
stake, not merely a
E. Standing to Challenge specialized interest.
[Sierra Club v Morton
(1972)]
1. Meaning: Legal standing
means a personal and substantial interest in the 3. When standing given
case such that the party has sustained or will
• Only the proper party whose legal rights
sustain direct injury as a result of the
have been adversely affected by, and who stands
governmental act that is being challenged [Joya v
to suffer a legal injury or wrong from, the
PCGG (1993); Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)]
administrative action has standing to seek judicial
• The technical rules on standing comes intervention.
from the general doctrine of separation of
• The party must have personal and
powers as there is a need for an actual case
substantial interest. “Interest” is material
or controversy before judicial review becomes
interest, as distinguished from mere incidental
available.
interest. [Joya v PCGG (1993)]
• Standing as opposed to real party-in-
• The issue of standing is a procedural
interest: the former is a constitutional law
technicality which may be waived if the issue is of
concept which only concerns the petitioner,
transcendental importance to the public
while the latter is a concept in procedural law
[Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)]
which concerns both the petitioner/plaintiff
and the respondent/defendant.
• One who is directly affected by, and
whose interest is immediate and substantial in,
the controversy has the standing to sue. A party
2. Philippine law on standing v
must show a personal stake in the outcome of the
American law on standing
case or an injury to himself that can be redressed
by a favorable decision so as to warrant an
Philippine law American law
invocation of the court's jurisdiction and to justify
Challenged action caused
injury in fact, economic or the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his
otherwise; [Assoc of behalf. [KMU v Garcia (1994)]
Data Processing v
Camp (1970)] i.e. • Kinds:
Interest is: concrete/particularized
and actual/imminent, not a. Taxpayers: A
• Personal,
conjectural/hypothetical. taxpayer’s suit is generally allowed to restrain
- Except:
[Lujan v Defenders of
taxpayers; the government from spending public funds
Wildlife (1992)]
voters;
legislators; for a purpose alleged to be illegal. [Lozada v
class suits. Interest sought to be
COMELEC (1983)]
• Substantial protected is arguably
within the zone of  A taxpayer’s suit is not allowed to compel
interests protected by the
the spending of public funds. [Occena v
statute or constitutional
guarantee in question COMELEC]
[Assoc of Data
Processing] b. 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, or will
sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement. [Lozada]
 Page 25
c. Members of agency in the performance of its quasi-
Congress legislative function, the regular courts have
d. Class suit: The jurisdiction to pass upon the same. [Smart v
subject matter of a class suit should be one of NTC (2003)]
common and general interest, and the
plaintiffs should be numerous and 2. Purpose [Abbot Laboratories
representative enough to ensure full v Gardner (1967)]
protection of all concerned interests. [Oposa a. To prevent
v Factoran (1993)] courts, thru avoidance of premature
e. Consumers: adjudication, from entangling themselves in
Consumers can challenge the validity of abstract agreement over administrative
administrative actions in areas affecting their policies.
interests. b. To protect

f. Competitors: A agencies from judicial interference until a

competitor has legal standing to challenge decision has been formalized and its effect is

the official action of an administrative agency felt in a concrete way or the imminence of the

which favors a competing entity. effect is demonstrable.

4. When standing not given 3. Two-fold test for a controversy

• Under RA 1125, only a person, to be ripe [Abbot]

association, or corporation adversely affected a. Fitness of the

by a decision or ruling of the Collector may issue for judicial decision.

appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. [Ursal v b. Hardship to the

CTA (1957)] parties of withholding such court action.

• The question in standing is “whether such

G. Mootness
parties have alleged such a personal stake in
the outcome of the controversy as to assure
VI. Modes of Judicial Review
that concrete adverseness which sharpens
the presentation of issues upon which the
• Except when the
court so largely depends for illumination of
Constitution requires or allows it, judicial review may
difficult constitutional questions.” The
be granted or withheld as Congress chooses. Thus,
question as to real party-in-interest, on the
the law may provide that a determination made by an
other hand, is “whether he is the party who
administrative agency shall be final and irreviewable.
would be benefited or injured by the
In such a case, there is no violation of due process.
judgment, or the ‘party’ entitled to the avails
of the suit.” Moreover, standing is an issue • However, 2nd paragraph
when constitutional issues are involved. of Sec.1, Art. 8 of the 1987 Constitution, which
[Kilosbayan v Morato (1995)] provides that the judicial power includes the power of
the courts of justice to determine WON there has been
F. Ripeness a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any government
1. When doctrine applied agency or instrumentality, clearly means that judicial
a. Finality of the review of administrative decisions cannot be denied
administrative body’s decision. the courts when there is an allegation of grave abuse

b. Judicial review of discretion.

available/appropriate.
c. Administrative 1987 Consti, Art IX-A, Sec 7. Each Commission shall
agency exercising its rule-making or quasi- decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or
legislative function matter brought before it within 60 days from the date of
 The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter
only where the administrative agency is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the
exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required
function, and not rule-making or quasi- by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission
legislative. However, where what is assailed itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by
is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission
regulation issued by the administrative may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
 Page 26
aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against
thereof. the agency, or its officers, and all indispensable and
necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court.

• There is an underlying power in the (4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by

courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative filing with the agency within 15 days from receipt of a

agencies exercising quasi-judicial power on questions copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing

of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the

is given by the statute. Judicial review keeps the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of

administrative agency within its jurisdiction and record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of

protects substantial rights of parties affected by its the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the

decisions. Judicial review is proper in cases of lack of review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the

jurisdiction, error of law, grave abuse of discretion, order appealed from, together with copies of such material

fraud or collusion, or in case the administrative portions of the records as are referred to therein and other

decision is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious. [San supporting papers. The petition shall be under oath and

Miguel Corp. v Labor Secretary (1975)] shall show, by stating the specific material dates, that it
was filed within the period fixed in this chapter.
• The Constitution uses the word may,
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected within 15
meaning review is not mandatory but only
days from receipt of the final administrative decision. One
discretionary.
motion for reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion
• Classes of methods of obtaining judicial
is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the
review:
remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the
(1) Statutory v Non-statutory:
resolution of denial. It the decision is reversed on
• Statutory methods are available pursuant
reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15 days from
to specific statutory provisions.
receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal.
• Non-statutory methods are those taken
(6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court
when there is no express statute granting
specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in any
review, and relief is obtained by means of the
court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the
common law remedies or by the prerogative
provisions on venue of the Rules of Court.
writs of certiorari, mandamus, habeas corpus,
(7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken
quo warranto or prohibition.
as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency when
• If statutory methods for judicial review
supported by substantial evidence shall be final except
are available, they are ordinarily exclusive,
when specifically provided otherwise by law.
and the use of non-statutory methods will not
likely be permitted.
• Who may seek judicial review:
(2) Direct v Collateral:
 Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an
• Direct attacks are those which attempt to
agency decision.
question in subsequent proceedings the
• When to appeal:
administrative action for lack of jurisdiction,
 Within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the
grave abuse of discretion, etc.
decision.
• Collateral attack is when relief from
• How:
administrative action is sought in a
 File petition for review.
proceeding where the primary objective is the
• Where to file:
grant of a relief other than the setting aside
of the judgment, although an attack on the  In the court specified by the statute or, in the

judgment may be incidentally involved. absence thereof, in any court of competent

jurisdiction in accordance with the provision on venue
• Judicial review is not trial de novo. It is
of the Rules of Court.
merely an ascertainment of WON the findings of the
administrative agency are consistent with law, free
from fraud or imposition, and supported by evidence. BP 129, Sec 9 (as amended by RA 7902, Sec. 9).
Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
Admin Code, Sec 25. Judicial Review. –
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto,
(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in
and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
accordance with this chapter and applicable laws.
its appellate jurisdiction;
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
agency decision may seek judicial review.
annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and
 Page 27
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of be opened, modified or vacated by any court of equal
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, rank.
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the  Note that there are cases which held that review by
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security the RTC of certain administrative agencies
Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission (Commission on Immigration and Deportation, Laguna
and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling Lake Development Authority, and court martials) is
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in valid.
accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as B. Certiorari
amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph
(1) of the 3rd paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the 4th 1. Kinds
paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. a. Simple or
ordinary, Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the SC)
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases  Note, however, that in the case of
and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any administrative agencies performing quasi-
and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in judicial functions, the proper mode of appeal
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, is through Rule 43 (Appeals from the Court of
including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to
further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of the CA).
Appeals must be continuous and must be completed  Rule 45: Considered as a
within 3 months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. “gatekeeper provision”, it is applicable only
when questions of law are raised. Review
• Authority of the CA to review decision of under this rule is not a matter of right, but of
quasi-judicial agencies is exclusive, if such is listed in sound judicial discretion, and will be granted
the law or if its charter so indicates. If it is not listed, only when there are special and important
its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC through the reasons therefore (Rule 45, Sec. 6)
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. b. Special civil

• SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 action, Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari)

(Rule 43, Rules of Court):

 Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that the Court of Appeals shall
appellate jurisdiction over awards, judgments, final
orders of resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-
judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions.
• Grants the CA with exclusive jurisdiction to
review decisions of 19 administrative agencies.
• Excludes the NLRC by virtue of BP 129 (as
amended by RA 7902).
• Mentions only one constitutional body – the
Civil Service Commission.
• Listing is not exclusive since it provides
“among these agencies” – ejusdem generis.
• SC retains the special civil action for certiorari
if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Rule 65, Sec 1. Petition for certiorari. -
When any tribunal, board or officer exercising
have judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is not
appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer,
and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified
true copy of the judgment, order or resolution
subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and
a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule
46.

• Where the law provides for an appeal from

the decisions of administrative bodies to the SC or to
the CA, it means that such bodies are co-equal with
the RTC in terms of rank and stature and, logically,
beyond the control of the latter. [Philippine Sinter v
Cagayan Electric (2002)] This doctrine of non-
interference by trial courts with co-equal
administrative bodies is intended to ensure judicial
stability in the administration of justice whereby the
 Page 152
2. Requisites (Rule 65) b. Review under

Rule 43 Rule 45 Rule 65

CA has jurisdiction.
Based on question of law, of fact or
mixed question of law and fact. (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). But this does not apply to
judgments or final orders issued
under the Labor Code. (Sec 2)
Appeal shall be taken within 15 days
from notice of the award, judgment
or final order or resolution, or from
the date of its last publication, or of
the denial of the motion for new trial
or reconsideration. Upon proper
motion & payment of docket fees
and before the expiration of the
reglementary period, the CA may
grant an additional period of 15
days. No further extension may be
granted except for the most
compelling reason, and in no case
shall it exceed 15 days. (Sec 4)
Award, judgment, final order or
resolution not stayed unless the CA
directs otherwise. (Sec 12)
Parties are the original parties and
the court or agency is not impleaded
as petitioner or respondent. (Sec 6)
The court exercises appellate
jurisdiction.
a.
jurisdiction or grave abuse
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
b.
adequate or speedy remedy.
c.
agency performing a quasi-judicial function.
SC has jurisdiction.
Based only on questions of law.
(Sec 1)
This rule applies to appeals from
judgments or final orders or
resolutions of the CA, the
Sandiganbayan, the RTC or
other courts. (Sec 1)
Petition shall be filed within 15
days from notice of the
judgment or final order or
resolution, or of the denial of the
motion for new trial or
reconsideration. On motion with
payment of docket fees before
the expiration of the
reglementary period, the SC
may, for justifiable reasons,
grant an extension of 30 days.
(Sec 2)
Judgment is stayed.
Parties are the original parties
who thus become appellant and
appellee.
The court exercises appellate
jurisdiction.
Lack of
of discretion
No plain,
Administrative
The SC, CA and RTC have
concurrent jurisdiction.
Based on question of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion.
This rule applies only to an order or
act of an officer or board exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions,
and not for judgments. [Republic
v CA]
Within 60 days.
Order is not stayed unless a
preliminary injunction is issued.
Parties are aggrieved party
(petitioner) against the
administrative agency and the
prevailing parties (respondents).
Court exercises original
jurisdiction.
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not include a
correction of evaluation of the evidence but is
confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is
committed when the judgment is rendered in a
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic
manner. [Villaruel v NLRC (1998)]

3. Purpose: To set aside or nullify

proceedings.

4. When not applicable

a. A petition for
certiorari inquires into errors of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion, and not errors of
judgment. [Purefoods Corp v NLRC (1989);
Azores v SEC (1996)]
 Page 153
• Police Commission v Bello (1971)
While findings of facts of administrative bodies
are entitled to great weight and should not
generally be disturbed, 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, prejudice or personal hostility
amounting to an evasion of positive duty, or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to
act at all in contemplation of law.
• 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,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law against the acts of respondent.
c. It has been a The only question involved in certiorari is
long-standing policy and practice of the Court to jurisdiction, either the want or excess thereof, and
respect the conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies. abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the
They are highly specialized bodies that have extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the
necessarily developed an expertise on their same is so grave, as when the power is exercised
specific subjects. Thus, the Court adheres to their in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
findings, unless there is an abuse or improvident passion, prejudice or personal hostility, and it
exercise of authority. [Commissioner of must be so patent and so gross as to amount to
Internal Revenue v General Foods (2003)] an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined, or to act at all, in
contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to
5. Cases having acted without jurisdiction. It must
• St. Martin Funeral Homes v NLRC emphatically be reiterated, since so often is it
(1998) overlooked, that the special civil action for
There is an underlying power of the courts to certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction
scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions of law of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
and jurisdiction even though no right of review is judgment. The reason for the rule is simple. When
given by statute. The remedy of a party is to file a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error
a motion for reconsideration at the administrative committed while so engaged does not deprive it
level, then avail of a special civil action for of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error
certiorari under Rule 65. In the case of NLRC is committed. If it did, every error committed by a
decisions, the intent of the legislature was to court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every
make a special civil action for certiorari as the erroneous judgment would be a void judgment.
proper vehicle for review. Thus, all references in This cannot be allowed. The administration of
the law to “appeals” from the NLRC to the SC justice would not survive such a rule.
must be interpreted to mean petitions for Consequently, an error of judgment that the court
certiorari under Rule 65. All such petitions must may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is
initially be filed in the CA following the hierarchy not correctible through the original civil action of
of courts. certiorari.
 Page 154
• Meralco Securities Industrial v 1. Requisites
Central Board of Assessment Appeals (1982) a. Lack of
Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court to an jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
inferior court, board or officer exercising judicial b. No plain,
or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a adequate and speedy remedy.
particular case is ordered to be elevated for  Petitioner must first exhaust all
review and correction in matters of law. administrative remedies, as prohibition is
• Cruz v Gangan (2003) available only when there are no other plain,
Findings of fact of an administrative agency must speedy and adequate remedies in the

be respected, so long as they are supported by ordinary course of law. [Cabedo v Director
substantial evidence; but lacking such support, of Lands (1961)]

the factual finding cannot stand on its own and is c. Agency

therefore not binding on the Court. performs quasi-judicial and/or ministerial
• De Leon v Heirs of Gregorio functions.
Reyes (1987)
If all administrative decisions were conclusive 2. Purpose: To prohibit or stop a
upon the Court in any event, there would have proceeding.
been no reason at all to offer the extraordinary  A preventive remedy – thus,
remedy of certiorari to litigants who otherwise not for acts already performed. If fait
would have been deprived of this only and last accompli, prohibition can no longer be filed.
resort to the courts of justice. This remedy applies
 Exception: prohibition can
to administrative decisions up to the highest level
restrain an act which is already a fait
and includes even a decision rendered "by
accompli if such act is patently illegal and
authority of the President." That sacramental
unconstitutional, and it creates a mischief and
phrase does not remove a decision from the
dangerous precedent whereby those in the
certiorari jurisdiction of the Court or inhibit us
corridors of power could avoid judicial
from reversing them when warranted by a clear
intervention and review by merely speedily
showing of a grave abuse of discretion.
and stealthily completing the commission of
an illegality [Tan v COMELEC (1986)]
C. Prohibition

3. When not applicable

Rule 65, Sec 2: Petition for prohibition. – When
the proceeding of any tribunal, corporation, board,
a. Prohibition does
officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi- not lie against legislative functions. [Ruperto
judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in
v Torres (Unreported)]
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his b. Prohibition is a
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified act about to be done, and not intended to
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered provide a remedy for an act already
commanding the respondent to desist from further accomplished. [Simon, Jr. v CHR (1994)]
proceeding in the action or matter specified therein,
or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law c. Prohibition is
and justice may require. granted only where no other remedy, which is
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a sufficient, is available to afford redress. That
certified true copy of the judgment or order subject there is another and complete remedy at law
thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn is generally a sufficient reason for dismissing
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the the writ. [Paredes v CA (1996)]
3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

4. Cases
 Page 155
• Chua Hiong v Deportation Board petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
(1955)
General rule is that the Deportation Board has The petitioner shall also contain a sworn certification
of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd
original jurisdiction to resolve the issue of
paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
citizenship. Mere claim of citizenship will not
divest it of its jurisdiction. Exception is when 1. Requisites
there is substantial or conclusive proof to a. Public officer or
support the claim of citizenship, in which case agency has a positive duty that is ministerial.
the court, using its sound discretion, may  Exception: Mandamus will lie against a
allow intervention. discretionary duty when the official or agency
The effect of granting the writ of prohibition is refuses to exercise the duty itself.
to suspend the administrative proceeding  Discretion means the power or right conferred
pending the resolution of the issue of the upon the office by law of acting officially under
citizenship in the judicial proceeding. certain circumstances according to the dictates of
• Co v Deportation Board (1977) his judgment and conscience and not controlled
When the evidence submitted by a by the judgment of conscience of others.
respondent in deportation proceedings is [Meralco v Savellano (1982)]
conclusive of his citizenship, his right to  A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an
immediate review should be recognized and officer or tribunal performs in a given state of
the courts should promptly enjoin the facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the
deportation proceedings. Question of mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or
alienage should be decided first in a judicial the exercise of his own judgment upon the
proceeding, suspending the administrative propriety or impropriety of the act done.
proceedings. Judicial determination is [Meralco]
allowable when the courts themselves believe  Duty to ascertain facts is discretionary. Duty to
that there are reasonable grounds for the act after the facts have been ascertained is
belief that the claim is correct. The question ministerial. [Tan v Veterans Backpay
is whether, based on the quantum of Commission (1959)]
evidence required to justify judicial b. Right of
intervention before the termination of the petitioner is clear and controlling.
deportation proceedings, the judgment  Mandamus can be availed of only by the party
reached by the lower court may be termed as who has a direct legal interest in the right sought
suffering from the corrosion of substantial to be enforced.
legal error.  Exception: If the question is one of public right
and the object of mandamus is to procure the
D. Mandamus performance of a public duty, it is sufficient to
show that the petitioner is a citizen even if he has
Rule 65, Sec 3. Petition for mandamus. – When not special interest in the result. [Tañada v
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
Tuvera (1985)]
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an c. No other plain,
office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another
speedy and adequate remedy.
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which such other is entitled, and there is no other  Mandamus is premature if there are
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
administrative remedies available to the
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts petitioner. [Perez v City Mayor of Cabanatuan
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
(1961)]
commanding the respondent, immediately or at some
other time to be specified by the court, to do the act  Exception: Where the case involves only legal
required to be done to protect the rights of the
questions, the litigant need not exhaust all
petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the
 Page 156
administrative remedies before mandamus can be excess of authority, in which case the
sought. [Español v The Chairman of the PVA respondent can be ordered to act in a
(1985)] particular manner, especially where a
constitutional right has been violated.
2. Purpose: To compel a party to [Kant Wong v PCGG (1987)]
perform an act arising out of a positive duty enjoined f.
by law. Privilege is distinguishable from a matter of
right, the latter being demandable if
3. When not applicable denied. The courts may not grant the writ
a. The writ of of mandamus to secure said privilege.
mandamus will not issue to control or review the [PRC v De Guzman (2004)]
exercise of discretion of a public officer. Where b. Mandamus will
the law imposes upon a public officer the right not lie to compel the issuance of a visa. Issuance
and duty to exercise judgment, reference to any of a visa is not a mater of course since it involves
matter to which he is called upon to act, it is his the exercise of discretion on the part of the
judgment that is to be exercised and not that of consular officer as to the question if the entry of
the court. If the law imposes a duty upon a public the applicant would be contrary to public safety.
officer, and gives him the right to decide how or [Ng Gioc Liu v Secretary of Foreign Affairs
when the duty shall be performed, such duty is (1950)]
discretionary and not ministerial. [Blanco v c. Mandamus will
Board of Examiners (1924)] lie only to compel the board or officer to take
 Exceptions: When mandamus lies to compel some action when it refuses to BUT will not
performance of discretionary duties. attempt to prescribe the action to be taken and
a. thereby control the discretion or judgment of the
There is grave abuse of discretion where board or officer. [Policarpio v Phil Veterans
the actuations are tantamount to a willful Board (1956)]
refusal to perform a duty specifically d. Mandamus does
required by law. not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual
b. obligations or to compel a course of conduct. In
Where such discretion of the court can be these cases, the proper remedy is specific
legally exercised in only one way and it performance. [Province of Pangasinan v
refuses to act, mandamus will lie to compel Reparations Commission (1977)]
the court to exercise it. [People v Orias] e. While
c. mandamus lies to compel a court to give due
To prevent a failure of justice or irreparable course to the appeal which it has erroneously
injury where there is a clear legal right and dismissed, mandamus will not lie to compel a
there is an absence of any adequate court to dismiss the appeal as the remedy is to
remedy; where there is no appeal; or when assign such failure to dismiss as an error in the
such remedy of appeal is inadequate. course of the appeal. [Lapisan v Alfonso]
[Orias]
d. 4. When and where filed
To prevent an abuse of discretion or to • Old rule: Although Rule 65 does not
correct an arbitrary action which does not specify any period for the filing of a petition for
amount to exercise of discretion. [Orias] certiorari and mandamus, it must, nevertheless,
e. be filed within a reasonable time. In certiorari
Where there has been grave abuse of cases, such reasonable time is within 3 months
discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable from the commission of the complained act. The
 Page 157
same rule should apply to mandamus cases. question of construction or validity arising and for a
[Cruz v CA (1996)] declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.

• New rule: An action for the reformation of an instrument, to

quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article
Rule 65, Sec 4, Revised Rules of Court: 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this
When and where petition filed. – The petition Rule.
shall be filed not later than 60 days from the
notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In
case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is
• Note: An action for declaratory relief
timely filed, whether such motion is required or must be brought in the RTC. It is not among the
not, the 60-day period shall be counted from
actions within the original jurisdiction of the SC even if
notice of the denial of said motion.
only questions of law are involved. [Remotigue v
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court
Osmeña (1967); Rural Bank of Olongapo v
or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower
court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, Commissioner of Land Registration (1981)].
in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction
However, if the petition has far-reaching implications
over the territorial area as defined by the
Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court and it raises questions that should be resolved, it may
of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its
be treated as one for prohibition [De la Llana v Alba
appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it
is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it (1982)] or for mandamus. [Alliance of Government
involves the acts or omissions of quasi-judicial
Workers v Minister of Labor and Employment
agency, unless otherwise provided by law or
these rules, the petition shall be filed in and (1983)]
cognizable only by the Court Appeals.

No extension of time to file the petition shall be 1.

granted except for compelling reason and in no
Requisites
case exceeding 15 days. (As amended by A.M.
No. 00-02-03-SC, September 1, 2000) a.
Subject matter must be a deed, will, contract or
5. Cases written instrument in which petitioner is legally
• PRC v De Guzman (2004) interested, or law or governmental regulation
For mandamus to prosper, there must be a which affects his rights.
showing that the officer, board, or official b.
concerned has a clear legal duty not involving The terms of the written instrument are, or the
discretion. Moreover, there must be statutory validity of the law or regulation is, doubtful and
authority for the performance of the act, and the requires judicial construction. [Santos v Aquino]
performance of the duty has been refused. The
c.
function of mandamus is not to establish a right
Petition is filed before breach or violation of the
but to enforce one that has been established by
instrument or regulation. [Reparations
law. If no legal right has been violated, there can
Commission v Northern Lines (1970)]
be no application of a legal remedy, and the writ
d.
of mandamus is a legal remedy for a legal right.
There must be an actual justiciable controversy
There must be a well-defined, clear and certain
between persons with adverse interests.
legal right to the thing demanded.
[Mirando v Wellington (1978)]
e.
E. Declaratory Relief
Petitioner must have legal interest in the
controversy. [Mirando]
Rule 63, Sec 1. Who may file petition. – Any
person interested under a deed, will, contract or other f.
written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a Contro4ersy must be ripe for adjudication
statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or
any other governmental regulation may, before [Mirando], where all administrative remedies
breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the have been exhausted. [Tolentino v Board of
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any
Accountancy]
 Page 158
g. F. Habeas Corpus
Adequate relief is not available through other
means or other forms of action or proceeding. Rule 102, Sec 1. To what habeas corpus
extends. – Except as otherwise expressly provided by
[Ollada v Central Bank (1962)]
law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all case
of illegal confinement or detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the
2. rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
Purpose: To determine the construction, validity and person entitled thereto.
declaration of rights thereunder.
• Note: Prof. Avena says that while the
1. Nature: The great writ of
liberty is intended as a speedy remedy to secure the
(1) determination of any question of validity or
release of a person deprived of his liberty. A person
construction and (2) declaration of rights apply to
detained upon the orders of an agency may test the
statutes, executive orders, etc.,
validity of his detention through the privilege of the
validity/construction does not apply to cases
writ of habeas corpus, which is a constitutionally
involving deeds, will, contracts or other written
guaranteed right.
instruments.

2. Requisites
3.
a. There is illegal
When not applied
confinement or detention.
a. In securing a judicial
b. There is illegal
declaration of citizenship. [(Azajar v Ardalles
restraint of liberty.
(1955)]
c. Rightful custody
b. Where petition for
of any person is withheld from the person entitled
declaratory relief is filed after the breach of law
thereto.
took place. [De Borja v Villadolid (1949)]
c. Where a taxpayer
3. Purpose: Secure the
questions his liability; the proper procedure is for
release of a person deprived of his liberty, and test
the tax to be paid first and to sue for its recovery
the validity of detention as ordered by an agency.
afterwards. [National Dental Supply v Meer
(1951)]
4. Cases
d. Where petitioner
• Mejoff v Director of Prisons (1951)
never acquired any interest in the object of the
The writ of habeas corpus will issue when:
controversy, and enjoyed no rights which were
a.
violated. [Mirando]
An alien has been detained by the DOJ for an
e. Where declaratory
unreasonably long period of time after it has
relief would not terminate the uncertainty of
become apparent that the deportation order
controversy.
cannot be effectuated; and
f. Where the relief
b.
sought would be determinative of issues rather
No criminal charges have been formally made
than a construction of definite stated rights,
or a judicial order issued for his detention. In
status and other relations commonly expressed in
such case, the order of deportation which was
written instruments – since this remedy is
not executed is functus officio and the alien is
available only if it is limited to a declaration of
being held without authority of law.
rights, and not to a determination, trial or judicial
• Co v Deportation Board (1977)
investigation of issues. [Kawasaki v Amores
Bail renders a writ of habeas corpus moot and
(1991)]
academic, as the bail bond gives petitioner
liberty.
 Page 159
 Note, however, that in Criminal Procedure, a
writ of habeas corpus may still issue despite 4. Types
the granting of bail when there is still a. Preliminary
effective detention. Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff wants to compel
• Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag defendant to do something.
(1989) b. Preliminary
The release of a detained person, whether Injunction – To prevent or stop defendant from
permanent or temporary, renders a petition for doing something
the writ of habeas corpus moot and academic, c. Restraining
unless there are restraints attached which Order – Life span of 20 days, after which hearing
precludes his freedom. is then held to decide propriety of the injunction.
d. Permanent
G. Injunction as provisional remedy Injunction – If plaintiff wins the case, injunction
becomes permanent (otherwise, the writ is

Rule 58, Sec 1. Preliminary injunction defined; dissolved).

classes. – A preliminary injunction is an order
granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior
to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a 5. Cases
court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular • Collector vs. Reyes (1957)
act or acts. It may also require the performance of a
particular acts or acts, in which case it shall be known The general rule is that injunction cannot be
as a preliminary mandatory injunction. issued in tax collection. An exception is that if the
collection of the tax is prejudicial to the interest of
1. Nature: An ancillary remedy
the government and of the taxpayer, CTA is
provided to preserve the petitioner’s rights while main
authorized to restrain the Collector from
action is pending.
proceeding with its collection.
• Lemi vs. Valencia (1966)
2. Purpose:
The right to the writ is clear when: 1) there is
a.
willful invasion of the petitioner’s right, and the
Prevent the commission of certain acts
injury is a continuing one; and 2) effect of the writ
complained of; or
is to re-establish the pre-existing relation.
b.
Order the continued performance of some act for H. Suit for damages (indirect method)
the purpose of preventing further injury.
• Parties aggrieved by some agency action
may be able to obtain judicial review in an action
3. Requisites:
for damages brought against the agency or its
a. Plaintiff is officials. Whether or not the action will prosper
entitled to relief demanded. will depend on the determination of such other
b. Commission or questions such as state immunity from suit and
continuance of an act complained of would the applicable statutes.
probably work injustice to him.
• A quasi-judicial officer is usually given
c. Defendant, is
immunity from liability to persons who may be
doing, threatens or about to do an act in violation
injured as a result of an erroneous or mistaken
of petitioner’s rights which may render the
decision, provided that the acts complained of
judgment ineffective.
were done under the color of authority and in
d. Injunction can good faith. [Philippine Racing Club v
only be issued by superior to an inferior body; if Bonifacio (1960)]
co-equals, the injunction cannot prosper. [Honda
v San Diego (1966)]
 Page 160
VII. Extent of Judicial Review the court may confirm findings. Otherwise, it
should review. [Donato v. Philippine Marine
• Generally, laws creating administrative Officer Association (1959)]
agencies and providing for judicial review may
• The conclusion drawn from facts is a
indicate the scope of that review. Whether the
question of law, which the courts may review.
courts may inquire into questions of law, of fact or
[Dauan v Secretary (1959)]
of both as well as of administrative discretion will
depend on the enabling act.
• Whether a question of fact overcomes a
presumption of law, is a question of law
• General rules:
reviewable by the court. [Reyes Vda. De
1. Questions of law are always reviewable
Santiago v Reyes (1960)]
by the courts;
2. Substantial Evidence Rule: Findings of • Non-controversion of a claim for
fact, if based on substantial evidence, are workmen’s compensation simply means an
conclusive and binding on the courts; admission of facts and not an admission of a legal
3. If the decision of a case is discretionary conclusion. [Aboitiz v Pepito (1966)]
on the part of the agency, courts can review if
the decision is attended with capriciousness; B. Question of Law
and • General rule: Questions of law are subject
4. Questions of jurisdiction are always to judicial review, since the courts are generally
reviewable as they go into the question of more competent to resolve these issues
authority to decide. considering the less specialized nature of their
jurisdiction.
A. The Law-Fact Distinction • A party challenging an administrative
• There is no clear-cut line that separates action may direct his attack against the:
questions of law from questions of fact. There 1. Constitutionality of the statute
may be cases where the issues raised may easily creating the agency and granting its powers;
be classified under one or the other, but some 2. Validity of the agency action if
cases may involve mixed questions of law and this transcend the limit established by law; or
fact. 3. Correctness of the agency’s
• The problem with these shady areas is interpretation and application of the law.
that they are usually dependent on the • An administrative official’s action which is
predilection of the judge reviewing the case. If he based on a misconstruction of law can be
is inclined to review it, he will treat it as a corrected and is not conclusive upon the courts.
question of law; otherwise, he will waive it off as a [Ortua v Singson (1934)]
question of fact. As a reviewing judge though, he • When the conclusion drawn by an
must ascertain whether the agency’s decision is administrative official from the facts found is
supported by substantial evidence for him to do erroneous or not warranted by law, it is a question
the waiving-off act. of law reserved to the court’s determination.
• Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of [Mejia vs. Mapa (1954)]
Facts: Where what purports to be a finding upon a • Judicial review is proper where the act of
question of fact is so involved with and dependent the administrative official constitutes not only an
upon a question of law as to be in substance and excess of regulatory power conferred upon him,
effect a decision on the latter, the court will, in but also an exercise of legislative power which he
order to decide the legal question, examine the does not have. [People v Santos (1936)]
entire record including the evidence if necessary. • The interpretation of articles of
• If the reviewing court is convinced that incorporation, which involves a question of law, is
substantial evidence supports the agency’s ruling,

reviewable by the courts. [Japanese War Notes
Claimants vs. SEC (1957)]
• The issue of WON an ER-EE relationship
exists is a question of law. [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, because the court has to
examine the facts vis-à-vis the four-fold test.
Page 161
• 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. In such a situation the court, in
order to determine the substantiality of the
evidence, must consider evidence not only in
its quantitative but also in its qualitative

• Inferences and findings of fact of aspects. For, to be substantial, evidence must

administrative agencies are to be accepted, first of all be credible. [Gonzales v Victory

unless they are irrational or unsupported by Labor Union (1969)]

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. • A quasi-judicial body can determine any
[O’Leary v Brown-Pacific-Maxon (1951)] question without regard to technicalities.
General rule: Because of the expertise which
C. Question of Fact an administrative agency has, its findings of
• A question of fact exists if the issue facts which are supported by substantial
involved is: evidence are accorded by the courts with
1. WON a certain thing exists; conclusiveness, as long as there was no grave
2. WON an event has taken place; abuse of discretion. [Suarnaba v WCC
or (1978)]
3. Which of the two versions of • Only errors of law, and not rulings on the
the happening of an event is correct. weight of the evidence, are reviewable by the
• Finality is attached to findings of fact of courts. [Acting Commissioner of Customs
some agencies when these findings are vs. MERALCO (1977)]
supported by substantial evidence. This is • Administrative and discretionary
but a recognition of the expertise of the functions may not be interfered with by the
agency as to questions in matters which have courts. This is generally true with respect to
been entrusted to them for regulation or acts involving the exercise of judgment or
decision. But the courts have the power to discretion and findings of fact. But when there
review the findings of fact when the evidence is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
on record is not substantial, and whether or of jurisdiction, there is a justification for the
not such is substantial is for the court to say. courts to set aside the administrative
• It is not for the reviewing court to weigh determination. [Banco Filipino v Central
the conflicting evidence, determine the Bank (1991)]
credibility of witnesses, or otherwise • The court is inclined to review the
substitute its judgment for that of the findings of fact of an administrative official if
administrative agency on the sufficiency of they are not based on a thorough
evidence. The court recognizes that the trial examination of the parties’ contending
court or administrative body, as a trier of claims, wherein the adversarial process would
facts, is in a better position to assess the ensure a better presentation and appreciation
demeanor of the witnesses and the credibility of evidence. [PAL v. Confessor (1994)]
of their testimonies as they were within its
proximal view during the hearing or
investigation. [Mollaneda v Umacob
(2001)]
 Page 162
• In administrative or quasi-judicial When applied to public A ministerial act has
functionaries, been defined as one
proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt discretion may be performed in response
or preponderance of evidence is not required defined as the power or to a duty which has
right conferred upon been positively imposed
as a basis for a judgment, substantial them by law to act by law and its
evidence being sufficient. [Meralco v. NLRC officially under certain performance required
circumstances, at a time and in a
(1991)] according to the manner or upon
dictates of their own conditions specifically
• In administrative proceedings, the
judgment and designated, the duty to
complainant has the burden of proving, by conscience and not perform under the
controlled by the conditions specified not
substantial evidence, the allegations in the
judgment of others. being dependent upon
complaint. Substantial evidence does not the officer’s judgment
or discretion.
necessarily import preponderance of
evidence as in an ordinary civil case. Rather,
Discretion is the power Ministerial duty is one in
it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable to make a choice respect to which
among permissive nothing is left to
mind might accept as adequate to support a
actions or policies. The discretion. It is a simple,
conclusion, even if other minds equally very essence of definite duty arising
discretionary power is under conditions
reasonable might conceivably opine
that the person or admitted or proved to
otherwise. [Tapiador v Office of the persons exercising it exist, and imposed by
may choose which of law.
Ombudsman (2002)]
several courses of
• Administrative proceedings are governed action should be
followed.
by the substantial evidence rule. 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. This is
different from the quantum of proof required
in criminal proceedings which necessitates a
finding of guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Ergo, the dismissal of the
criminal case will not foreclose administrative
2. Judicial review of administrative
action against respondent. [Velasquez v
discretion v Substitution of judicial discretion for
Hernandez (2004)]
administrative discretion
• The substantial evidence standard is not
• Questions of policy or discretion are
modified in any way when officials of an
reviewable only for unreasonableness,
administrative agency disagree in their
departure from statutory standards, or
findings. [Universal Camera v NLRC
lack of evidentiary support; and questions
(1951)]
of wisdom, propriety or expediency are
for the agency and not for the courts.
D. Question of Discretion
The court will not substitute its discretion
or judgment for that of the administrative
1. Discretionary acts v Ministerial acts
agency, but will determine the lawfulness
Discretionary Ministerial
of its action. The ruling of an
administrative agency, on questions of
law, while not as conclusive as its
findings of facts, is nevertheless
persuasive and given much weight
 Page 163
especially if the agency is one of special • Ipekdijan Merchandising v CTA
competence and experience. (1963)
To say that the doctrine applies
3. General rule: In the exercise of exclusively to court decisions would be to
discretion lawfully given, the court will not interfere. unreasonably circumscribe the scope

 Rationale: Recognition of the thereof. The more equitable attitude is to

expertise of the agency. allow extension of the defense to

decisions of bodies upon whom judicial
 Exception: If discretion was
powers have been conferred, so long as
exercised in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary,
their decisions meet the doctrine’s
abusive, partial, and hostile manner.
requisites. The essential requisites of res
judicata are:
4. Cases
1) The former judgment must be
• Laguna Tayabas v PSC (1957)
final;
The erroneous appreciation of the significance of
2) It must have been rendered by
the facts before the administrative agency does
a court having jurisdiction over the
not mean that the administrative agency had
subject matter and the parties;
abused its discretion.
3) It must be a judgment on the
• PLDT v NTC (1995)
merits; and
Courts should not intervene in that administrative
4) There must be identity of
process, save upon a very clear showing of
parties, subject matter and cause of
serious violation of law or of fraud, personal
action.
malice or wanton oppression. Courts have none
• Dulay v Minister of Natural
of the technical and economic or financial
Resources (1993)
competence which specialized administrative
Decisions and orders of administrative
agencies have at their disposal, and in particular
bodies rendered pursuant to their quasi-
must be wary of intervening in matters which are
judicial authority have, upon their finality,
at their core technical and economic in nature but
the force and effect of a final judgment
disguised, more or less artfully, in the habiliments
within the purview of the doctrine of res
of a "question of legal interpretation."
judicata, which forbids the reopening of
matters once judicially determined by
VIII. Enforcement of Agency Action
competent authorities.
• MERALCO v Phil Consumers
A. Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment
Foundation (2002)
For purposes of res juridicata, a judgment
1. When it applies is on the merits when it determines the

• The doctrine of res judicata applies rights and liabilities of the parties based

only to judicial or quasi-judicial on the disclosed facts, irrespective of

proceedings and not to the exercise of formal, technical or dilatory objections.

purely administrative functions. Moreover, res juridicata is not defeated

Administrative proceedings are non- by a minor difference of parties, as it

litigious and summary in nature; hence, does not require absolute but only

res judicata does not apply. [Nasipit substantial identity of parties. With

Lumber Co. v NLRC (1989)] respect to identity of causes of action,

this requisite is present whenever parties
are litigating for the same thing and for
2. Cases
the same contentions.
 Page 164
 Summary enforcement without
B. Writ of Execution; Mandamus need for adjudication:
• General rule: Administrative agencies • Distraint of personal property or
performing quasi-judicial functions have the levy on real property (Commissioner of
implied power to issue writs of execution. Internal Revenue);
 Exception: If the enabling law • Abatement of nuisance
expressly provides otherwise. (Secretary of Health); and
 If the law is silent, presume that • Sequestration of ill-gotten wealth
the agency has the power to enforce its (PCGG);
decisions emanating from its quasi-judicial • If officials refuse to implement a final and
powers. [Apolega v Hizon (1968)] executory judgment, the remedy is mandamus.
 The authority to decide cases [Vda. De Corpuz v The Commanding General
(quasi-judicial power) should normally and of the Philippine Army (1978)]
logically begin to include the grant of • Execution must conform to that ordained
authority to enforce and execute the or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision.
judgment it renders, unless the law otherwise Where the order of execution is not in harmony
provides. [GSIS v CSC (1991)] with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life,
• The legislature may aid the enforcement the order pro tanto has no validity. [Clavano v
of administrative determination by providing a HLURB (2002)]
penalty for failure to comply therewith. Also,
direct and positive sanctions (grant of subpoena -END-
power and contempt powers) are afforded by
provisions for administrative or judicial processes APPENDIX
to compel obedience or prevent violation of the BOOK VII: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
determination.
• Administrative functions: Chapter 1
• Administrative enforcement includes: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Adjudicative Enforce decision. Sec. 1. Scope. - This Book shall be applicable to all
function agencies as defined in the next succeeding section,
Rule-making Promulgate rules.
function except the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional
Executive function Issue or withhold license. Commissions, military establishments in all matters
Dispensing Dole out or withhold. relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the Board
government largess
of Pardons and Parole, and state universities and colleges.
 Focusing on public opinion; Sec. 2. Definitions. - As used in this Book:
 Revocation;
 Suspension;
 Refusal to renew license;
 Refusal to grant clearance paper
to ships;
 Withholding or denying benefits;
 Imposing conditions seizure and (1) "Agency" includes any department, bureau, office,
sale or destruction of property; commission, authority or officer of the National
 Exclusion and deportation; Government authorized by law or executive order to make
 Imposition and collection of fines rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and
and penalties; and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to
licensing functions; government corporations with respect

to functions regulating private right, privileges, occupation
or business; and officials in the exercise of disciplinary
power as provided by law.
(2) "Rule" means any agency statement of general
applicability that implements or interprets a law, fixes and
describes the procedures in, or practice requirements of,
an agency, including its regulations. The term includes
memoranda or statements concerning the internal
administration or management of an agency not affecting
the rights of, or procedure available to, the public.
(3) "Rate" means any charge to the public for a service
open to all and upon the same terms, including individual
or joint rates, tolls, classifications, or schedules thereof, as
well as commutation, mileage, kilometerage and other
special rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation
to be observed and followed by any person.
(4) "Rule making" means an agency process for the
formulation, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
(5) "Contested case" means any proceeding, including
licensing, in which the legal rights, duties or privileges
asserted by specific parties as required by the Constitution
or by law are to be determined after hearing.
(6) "Person" includes an individual, partnership,
corporation, association, public or private organization of
any character other than an agency.
(7) "Party" includes a person or agency named or
admitted as a party, or properly seeking and entitled as of
right to be admitted as a party, in any agency proceeding;
but nothing herein shall be construed to prevent an
agency from admitting any person or agency as a party
for limited purposes.
(8) "Decision" means the whole or any part of the final
disposition, not of an interlocutory character, whether
affirmative, negative, or injunctive in form, of an agency in
any matter, including licensing, rate fixing and granting of
rights and privileges.
(9) "Adjudication" means an agency process for the
formulation of a final order.
(10) "License" includes the whole or any part of any
agency permit, certificate, passport, clearance, approval,
registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or
other form of permission, or regulation of the exercise of a
right or privilege.
(11) "Licensing" includes agency process involving the
grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment,
withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification or
conditioning of a license.
Page 165
(12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part of a
prohibition, limitation or other condition affecting the
liberty of any person; the withholding of relief; the
imposition of penalty or fine; the destruction, taking,
seizure or withholding of property; the assessment of
damages, reimbursement, restitution, compensation, cost,
charges or fees; the revocation or suspension of license;
or the taking of other compulsory or restrictive action.
(13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of any grant of
money, assistance, license, authority, privilege,
exemption, exception, or remedy; recognition of any
claim, right, immunity, privilege, exemption or exception;
or taking of any action upon the application or petition of
any person.
(14) "Agency proceeding" means any agency process
with respect to rule-making, adjudication and licensing.
(15) "Agency action" includes the whole or part of every
agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief or its
equivalent or denial thereof.
Chapter 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Sec. 3. Filing. - (1) Every agency shall file with the
University of the Philippines Law Center 3 certified copies
of every rule adopted by it. 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.
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent
functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this
section under pain of disciplinary action.
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the
issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection.
Sec. 4. Effectivity. - In addition to other rule-making
requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this
Book, each rule shall become effective 15 days from the
date of filing as above provided unless a different date is
fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent
danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence
of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying
the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to
make emergency rules known to persons who may be
affected by them.
Sec. 5. Publication and Recording. - 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; 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.
Sec. 6. Omission of Some Rules. - (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, expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but
copies of that rule shall be made available on application
to the agency which adopted it, and the bulletin shall
contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the
omitted rule and new copies thereof may be obtained.
(2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act
which, pursuant to law, is punishable as a crime or subject
to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text.
Sec. 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. - 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, Congress, all appellate courts and the National
Library. The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made
available free of charge to such public officers or agencies
as the Congress may select, and to other persons at a
price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or
distribution costs.
Sec. 8. Judicial Notice. - 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.
Sec. 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise required
by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or
circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested
parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the
adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, 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.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases
shall be observed.
Chapter 3
ADJUDICATION
Sec. 10. Compromise and Arbitration. - To expedite
administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or
claims and obviate expensive litigations, every agency
shall, in the public interest, encourage amicable
settlement, comprise and arbitration.
Page 166
Sec. 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. - (1) In
any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice
and hearing. The notice shall be served at least 5 days
before the date of the hearing and shall state the date,
time and place of the hearing.
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present
evidence and argument on all issues. If not precluded by
law, informal disposition may be made of any contested
case by stipulation, agreed settlement or default.
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its
proceedings.
Sec. 12. Rules of Evidence. - 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.
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form
of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily
available. Upon request, the parties shall be given
opportunity to compare the copy with the original. If the
original is in the official custody of a public officer, a
certified copy thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine
witnesses presented against him and to submit rebuttal
evidence.
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable
facts and of generally cognizable technical or scientific
facts within its specialized knowledge. The parties shall be
notified and afforded an opportunity to contest the facts
so noticed.
Sec. 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case, the agency
shall have the power to require the attendance of
witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents
and other pertinent data, upon request of any party before
or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in
case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial
Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being
heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as
contempt.
Sec. 14. Decision. - 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 decide each case within 30 days
following its submission. The parties shall be notified of
the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to
their counsel of record, if any, or to them.

Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - 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, if proper, has been perfected. One motion for
reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the
running of the said period.
Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. - (1)
Every agency shall publish and make available for public
inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication
of contested cases.
(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.
Sec. 17. Licensing Procedure. - (1) When the grant,
renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required to
be preceded by notice and hearing, the provisions
concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as
practicable.
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws,
rules and regulations or when public security, health, or
safety require otherwise, no license may be withdrawn,
suspended, revoked or annulled without notice and
hearing.
Sec. 18. Non-expiration of License. - 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 existing license shall not expire until the
application shall have been finally determined by the
agency.
Chapter 4
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IN CONTESTED CASES
Sec. 19. Appeal. - Unless otherwise provided by law or
executive order, an appeal form a final decision of the
agency may be taken to the Department head.
Sec. 20. Perfection of Administrative Appeals. - (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, by
filing with the agency which adjudicated the case a notice
of appeal, serving copies thereof upon the prevailing party
and the appellate agency, and paying the required fees.
(2) If a motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant
shall have the right to perfect his appeal during the
remainder of the period for appeal, reckoned from receipt
Page 167
of the resolution of denial. If the decision is reversed on
reconsideration, the aggrieved party shall have 15 days
from receipt of the resolution of reversal within which to
perfect his appeal.
(3) The agency shall, upon perfection of the appeal,
transmit the records of the case to the appellate agency.
Sec. 21. Effect of Appeal. - The appeal shall stay the
decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by law,
or the appellate agency directs execution pending appeal,
as it may deem just, considering the nature and
circumstance of the case.
Sec. 22. Action on Appeal. - The appellate agency shall
review the records of the proceedings and may, on its own
initiative or upon motion, receive additional evidence.
Sec. 23. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency. - In any
contested case, the decision of the appellate agency shall
become final and executory 15 days after the receipt by
the parties of a copy thereof.
Sec. 24. Hearing Officers. - (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.
(2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the performance
of prosecuting functions in any contested case or any
factually related case.
Sec. 25. Judicial Review. - (1) Agency decisions shall be
subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter
and applicable laws.
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an
agency decision may seek judicial review.
(3) The action for judicial review may be brought
against the agency, or its officers, and all indispensable
and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court.
(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, and with the reviewing
court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the
petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of
record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of
the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the
review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the
order appealed from, together with copies of such material
portions of the records as are referred to therein and other
supporting papers. The petition shall be under oath and
shall show, by stating the specific material dates, that it
was filed within the period fixed in this chapter.
 Page 168
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative
decision. One motion for reconsideration may be allowed.
If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his
appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned
from receipt of the resolution of denial. It the decision is
reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15
days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal.
(6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court
specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in any
court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the
provisions on venue of the Rules of Court.
(7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record
taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency when
supported by substantial evidence shall be final except
when specifically provided otherwise by law.
Sec. 26. Transmittal of Record. - Within 15 days from the
service of the petition for review, the agency shall
transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the
entire records of the proceeding under review. The record
to be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all
parties to the proceedings. The court may require or
permit subsequent correction or additions to the record.