3barops Admin 152to215[1] | Separation Of Powers | United States Government

152

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
I. Historical and Constitutional Considerations

A.

Development of Administrative Law as a distinct field of public law

1. Factors Responsible for the Emergence of Administrative Agencies a. Growing complexities of modern life b. Multiplication of number of subjects needing government regulation c. Increased difficulty of administering laws. 2. Doctrine of “Separation of Powers” and the Constitutional Position of Administrative Agencies: • The Doctrine of Separation of Powers, though not mentioned anywhere by such name in the 1987 Constitution, can be inferred from its provisions. The heart of the doctrine is the principle that the basic powers of the government must be kept separate from each other, each power being under the principal control of a branch of government. The legislative power is granted to the Congress, the executive power to the President and the judicial power to the Judiciary. • It has been argued that the functions given to and exercised by Administrative Agencies violates the separation of powers since there is a seeming “merger of powers” between supposedly distinct branches of government. However, our Supreme Court has yet to declare the invalidity of a law creating an administrative agency based on such an argument.

• •

The President as Chief Executive exercises control over agencies and offices which perform

rule-making or adjudicatory functions. If the agency is created by Congress, consider the law that created it. If the law is silent as

to the control which the President may exercise, the President can only supervise, i.e., to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed. • The three branches of government lack (1) time, (2) expertise, and (3) organizational The Administrative Agency supports the aptitude for governmental supervision. Thus, there is a need for a body which would act as a catching mechanism, otherwise the three branches would collapse. trichotomy of powers. A. Definition of Terms – Administrative Law and Administrative Agency; Types of Agencies 1. Administrative Law

branch of public law dealing with the doctrines and principles governing the powers

and procedures of administrative agencies, especially including judicial review of administrative action (Prof. Kenneth Culp Davis) 2. Administrative Agency

any governmental authority, other than a court or legislative body, which affects the

rights of private parties, through rule-making and adjudication (Davis)

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

153
• any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to licensing functions; government corp.’s with respect to functions regulating private right, privilege, occupation or business; and officials in the exercise of disciplinary powers as provided by law (Sec. 2, Book VII, Admin Code of 1987) 3. Powers of an Administrative Agency a. b. c. d. e. 4. rule-making adjudicatory licensing price/rate-fixing implementing or executory

Types of Agencies 1. • 2. • 3. • 4. • 5. • Government grant of gratuity, special privilege Phil. Veterans Admin., GSIS, SSS, Public Atty.’s Office, etc. Carrying out of governmental functions BIR, Customs, Immigration, Land Registration Authority, etc. Service for public benefit Philpost, PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA, etc. Regulation of businesses affecting public interest Insurance Commission, LTFRB, NTC, HLURB, etc. Adjustment of individual controversies because of a crucial significant policy involved NLRC, SEC, DAR, COA, etc.

a. Classified according to PURPOSE

b.
CREATION 1. 1987 Constitution Civil Service Commission, (Art. IX, Sec B) Commission on Elections, (Art. IX, Sec C) Commission on Audit, (Art IX, Sec B) Commission on Human Rights, (Art. XIII, Sec. 17) Commission on Appointments, (Art. VI, Sec. 18) Senate Electoral Tribunal, (Art VI, Sec. 17)

Classified according to the ORGANIC LAW OF

• • • • • • • • •

House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, (Art. VI, Sec. 17) Judicial and Bar Council, (Art. VIII, Sec. 8) Office of the Ombudsman, (Art. IX, Sec. 5)

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

154 • • • • • •
National Economic and Development Authority, (Art. XII, Sec. 20) An agency on Cooperatives, (Art. XII, Sec. 15) An independent Central Monetary Authority, (Art XII, Sec. 20) National Language Commission, (Art. XIV, Sec. 9) National Police Commission, (Art. XVI, Sec. 6) Consultative Body on Indigenous Cultural Communities, (Art. XVI, Sec. 12)

2.Congressional Statute (regulatory agency) • National Labor Relations Commission • Social Security Commission • Commission on Immigration and Deportation • Securities and Exchange Commission • Philippine Patent Office • Professional Regulation Commission • Games and Amusement Board • Board of Energy • Insurance Commission • Dangerous Drugs Board 3. c. Classified according to HIERARCHY: 1. 2. 3. Office of the President and Cabinet • • CSC, COMELEC, COA Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, Office of the Special Prosecutor, Central Monetary Independent Constitutional Commissions Other Constitutional Bodies Authority, Economic and Planning Agency, Commission on Human Rights, National Language Commission, National Police Commission, Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities 4. Regulatory Commission • 5. SEC, NLRC, Office of the Insurance Commissioner, Land Transportation Commission, Bureau of Customs, CID, BIR Public Corporation • UP, NPC, MWSS, NDC, DBP Executive Order (fact-finding agency)

B. Advantages of Administrative Regulation 2) Regulation by government opens a way for action to be taken in the public interest to prevent future harm when there would be no assurance that any action would be taken if the initiative were left wholly to interested individuals.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

155
3) 4) 5) It provides for action that will be based on technical knowledge, which would not be available, if it were taken through the ordinary courts of law. It ensures that the action taken will have regard for the interests of the general public in a way not possible if it were only the outcome of a controversy between private parties to a suit. It permits the rules for the prevention of socially hurtful conduct to be flexible rules based on discretion, and thus make possible the introduction of order in fields not advantageously permitting the application of rules of a rigid permanent character. (Dickinson) B. Cases: • Manila Electric Co. vs, Pasay Transport, (1932) The SC should strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The Sc and its members should not nor cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any task, or to assume any duty pertaining to or connected with administering judicial functions. A board of arbitrators is not a court in any proper sense of the term, and possesses none of the jurisdiction granted by the Organic Act to the SC. • Noblejas vs. Teehankee, (1968)

The legislature could not have intended for the Land Registration Commissioner and other similarly ranked officials to hold same rank as a judge of the CFI, because it would place upon the SC the duty of investigating and disciplining these officials, who are performing executive functions and thus under the supervision and control of the President. Even if there were such a grant to Noblejas, it would be unconstitutional, being violative of the separation of powers. If SC received the power to supervise and control executive officials, it would diminish power of president to exercise control over them. • Garcia v. Macaraig, (1971)

SC frowned upon a CFI judge who, after his appointment, continued to perform his duties as Chief of the Technical Staff of the Department of Justice and member of the Board of Pardons and Parole.

In re: Manzano, (1988)

SC denied the request of Judge Manzano to be part of a special committee created by EO 856 for ensuring speedy disposition of indigent detainees’ cases. Committee had the power to Receive complaints regarding offenses committed by apprehending officers and jail officials, and recommend revision of any law considered prejudicial to speedy administration of justice. Members of SC and inferior courts of justice shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Administrative functions are being performed when the acts in question “ involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations top better carry out legislative policy or such as are designated to any agency by the organic law of its existence. “

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

156
II. Control of Administrative Action

A.
1. a. 1.

Administrative agencies and the executive power of the President Legislative control Powers of the Legislative creation and abolition • Congress can create, divide, merge, modify, or even abolish agencies. Power to abolish is not effective because admin agencies are needed.


2. •

appropriation Congress has budgetary power. In actual life, no appreciable effect because annual

appropriation usually gets Congressional approval, otherwise, public suffers. 3. investigatory • regulation. 4. • • 5. • prescription of legislative standards Ineffective because the standards should be flexible and those who make the The standards must be effective and sufficient. prescription of minimum procedural requirements There must be a shift towards having administrative standards instead to allow the Effective only as an aid in legislation and cannot serve the need for constant

standards lack the expertise.

agencies enough flexibility.

b.
1. •

Congressional Oversight Committee (as per Macalintal v COMELEC) scrutiny ex: budgetary hearings – allows economy and efficiency of government investigation • 3. • in aid of legislation; in accordance with rules set by Congress supervision legislative veto operations 2.

2.

Executive Control

Art. VII, sec.1, Const.: The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. Art. VII, sec. 17: The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. • Power of appointment; power of control over all offices in the Executive branch and sworn duty

to preserve and defend the Constitution and execute the laws (which entitles the President to influence the conduct of administrative bodies if in his view they violate the constitution).

The President controls administrative agencies except when such agencies are created by the

legislature. One must check the enabling laws regarding Congress’ intention regarding this. If the law is silent, the President cannot exercise control but merely supervision.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

157
3. • • Judicial Control Power of judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies. Radical view - courts should review not only agency conclusions of law but even its

determinations of fact and policy

Traditional/Accepted view - Courts defer to the expertise and experience of

agencies. Courts are confined to seeing to it that agencies stay within the limits of their power or to checking arbitrariness in the admin process. Judicial review is allowed on questions of law and jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact and policy. 4. a. Ombudsman Powers 1. 2. • • b. 1. 2. 3. 4. c. Investigatory Prosecution Own initiative From a complaint Necessary characteristics Political independence Accessibility and expedition Grant of investigatory power Absence of revisory jurisdiction Jurisdiction The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an exercise of judgment or

discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested especially when the matter involves basically technical matters coming under the special technical knowledge and training of the agency or officer (Concerned Officials of the MWSS v Vasquez (1995))


impeachment.

All elective and appointive officials, including cabinet members,

GOCC’s and local government are within its jurisdiction except those who may be removed only by

The office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and

prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or connected with, or arise from, the performance of his official duty. It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official. The Ombudsman may review, revise, direct, reverse or modify a decision of a prosecutor deputized or designated to be under the Ombudsman’s control and supervision (Lastimosa v Vasquez (1995))

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

158
 Note: The Ombudsman has absolutely no revisory powers. Do not make the mistake (as I did) of treating Lastimosa as an exception to the rule laid down in Concerned Officials because in the former, the delegated prosecutor acts as the Ombudsman’s agent, and therefore, all actions/decisions made by the prosecutor are deemed as action/decisions of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman has the right to change his action/decision. Seen in this light, clearly, the


(2001))

The Ombudsman may not initiate a criminal or administrative

complaint against a judge because only the SC can do that (Fuentes v Office of the Ombudsman


(2005))

The decision or order that emanates from the Ombudsman after it has

conducted its investigation is not merely advisory but binding and mandatory (Ledesma v CA

The pendency of an action is not a prerequisite for the Ombudsman to

start its own investigation (BIR v Ombudsman (2002)) III. Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies

A.

Legislative Function 1. Non-delegation doctrine Potestas delegate non delegare potest - what has been delegated cannot be delegated

a.
(1965)) 1.

Requisites for a valid delegation (Pelaez v Auditor General

The law must be complete in itself, in that it must set forth a policy to be executed

2. •
(a)

The law must fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or

determinable, to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. The standard may be express or implied (Edu v Ericta (1970)) or even embodied in other statutes on the same matter and not necessarily in the

(b) (c)

same law being challenged (Chiongbian v Orbes (1995)) A sufficient standard is one which agency to apply it; and (a) defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public

(b) •

indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected (Santiago v COMELEC (1997) and ABAKADA Guro Party List v Ermita (2005)) The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to

Congress the necessary flexibility and practicality which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards, while leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

159
policy as declared by the legislative to apply. Refining Co v Ryan (1935)). b. Valid delegation (People v Vera (1937)) 1. Fix tariffs, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage fees 2.Emergency powers 3.Delegation to the people-at-large 4.Delegation to local authorities 5.Delegation to administrative agencies There is a distinction between (a) delegation of (Panama power to make the law and (b) conferring authority/discretion as to its execution.

c.

What cannot be delegated 1. Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v Auditor General (1965))

Note: Although the creation of municipalities is purely a legislative matter, Chiongbian v Orbos says that the merging of administrative regions is an administrative matter.

2. Defining a crime (US v Ang Tang Ho (1922)) 3. Designation of a particular act as a crime (People v Maceren)
2. Permissible Delegation a. Ascertainment of fact

A statute may give to non-judicial officers the power to declare the existence of facts which call

into operation its provisions and may grant to Commissioners and their subordinate officers power to ascertain and determine appropriate facts as a basis of procedure in the enforcement of laws. Such determination of existence of facts, whether judicial or quasi-judicial is merely incidental to the exercise of power granted by law to clear navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions. (Lovina v Moreno (1963)) b. Filling in of details • A statute which leaves to the Executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latter’s expertise is a recognized delegation of legislative power.

Act No. 2380 provides in detail for the inspection, grading and bailing of hemp and by

whom and how it should be done, and creates the Fiber Board with the power and authority to devise ways and means for its execution. The legislature, from necessity and as a means of enforcement and execution, could not inspect, grade and bale the hemp. Delegating such power is important to carry out the intent of the law. (Alegre v Collector of Customs (1920)) c. Administrative Rule-Making

1.

Limits on rule-making power

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

160 a. b.
(Syman v Jacinto (1953)) must be authorized by law (Olsen v Aldanese (1922)) must not amend the law or must not be inconsistent with the law

c. d.

must not define a criminal act (People v Maceren (1977)) must be germane to the purpose of the law which it was meant to

implement; power to promulgate rules may be legitimately exercised only for carrying the provisions of the law into effect (Toledo v CSC (1991))

e. f.

must not restrict, expand, diminish, supplant or modify the law

(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v CA (1995); GMCR v Bell Telecom (1997)) action of the administrative agency to be set aside if there is an

error of law, grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of the law (Land Bank v CA (1995))

g.

the basic law should prevail as embodiment of the legislative

purpose; rules and regulations cannot go beyond the law’s terms and provisions (China Banking v Member of the Board of Trustees, Home Development Mutual Fund (1999))

h. i.
2.

discrepancy between basic law and administrative rules  basic

law prevails (Maxima Realty v Parkway Real Estate (2004); Land Bank v CA (1995)) must not impose a right and a duty (Ople v Torres (1998))

Publication and effectivity

Art. 2 Civil Code as amended by EO 200, June 8, 1987. – Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. Admin Code, Sec 4. Effectivity – In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the ruling 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: (b) (c) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published and remaining during the preceding quarter; and in effect together with a complete index and appropriate tables. Admin Code, 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

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

161
on application in the agency which adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and how copies thereof may be obtained.

When are administrative rules and regulations effectiveRead the publication and

effectivity rules of the Admin Code in relation to the Civil Code: effectivity should be 15 days after publication not 15 days from date of filing with the UP Law Center (Republic v Express Telecomm (2002)). • Exceptions: (a) different date is fixed by law or specified in the rule (b) in case of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare • • Publication is indispensable especially if the rule is general in character. Exceptions:

(a) interpretative rules (b) internal regulations (regulating only personnel of agency) (c) letters of instructions issued by administrative superior to subordinates

Circulars which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be

published before becoming effective for the people to be officially informed. Before the public may be bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must be published and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its penalties. (People v Que Po Lay (1954))

Publication in OG or newspaper of general circulation is required

for the effectivity of administrative rules and regulations (Tanada v Tuvera)

3.

Penal regulations

Admin Code, Sec 6. Omission of Some Rules – (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.


If a rule is penal in character, it is required that the rule is published before it takes effect

(People v Que Po Lay (1954)) The law itself must so declare the act as punishable. Penal statues – exclusive domain of the legislature and cannot be delegated Administrative rules and regulations cannot amend or modify or expand the law by

• •

including, prohibiting or punishing certain acts which the law does not even define as a criminal act (People v Maceren (1977))

4.

Interpretative rules Administrative agencies in the discharge of their duties are necessarily called upon to construe and

apply the provisions of the law under which they function. This necessity for and power of construction and interpretation does not change the character of a ministerial duty, or involve an unlawful use of

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

162
legislative or judicial power. They may also interpret their own rules which have the force and effect of law. • Administrative interpretations are appropriate aids toward eliminating construction and uncertainty in doubtful cases. When laws are susceptible of two or more interpretations, the administrative agency should make known its official position.

Construction and interpretation by an administrative agency of the law under which it acts provide a

practical guide as to how the agency will seek to apply the law, and an experienced and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. The fact that an interpretation has been made by regulation or otherwise does not preclude a subsequent different but correct interpretation by the agency.

The administrative construction or interpretation does not and cannot control the decision as to the

proper construction of a statute but generally or in particular circumstances it is given great weight and has a very persuasive influence and may actually be regarded by the courts as the controlling factor. With regard to regulations enacted pursuant to the broad rule-making power existing under a statute conferring a privilege to be exercised "under regulations pre-caused" by an administrative agency, they will not be disturbed except for cogent and persuasive reasons and clear conviction of error. Though such interpretations are given deference, they are not binding on the courts or successors.

• • •

Interpretative Rule can be found erroneous by the successor. A vested right cannot spring from a

wrong construction of law (Hillado v Collector (1956)) Administrative interpretation merely advisory (Victorias v Social Security Commission (1962)) Action of the administrative agency will be set aside if there was error of law, or abuse of power, or

lack of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the legislative enactment (Peralta v CSC (1992)) Legislative Rules promulgated pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making functions create a new law, a new policy, with the force and effect of law need publication So long as the court finds that the legislative rules are within the power of the administrative agency to pass, as seen in the primary law, then the rules bind the court. The court cannot question the wisdom or correctness of the policy contained in the rules. Interpretative Rules passed pursuant to its quasi-judicial capacity merely clarify the meaning of a preexisting law by inferring its implications do not have to be published The court may review their correctness of the interpretation of the law given by the administrative body, and substitute its own view of what is correct to the administrative body. If it is not within the scope of the administrative agency, court can only invalidate the same but not substitute its decision or interpretation or give its own set of rules. • General requirements: (a) must have been issued on authority of law; (b) must be within the scope and purview of the law; (c) must be reasonable

5.
agencies

Examples

of

rule-making

in

various

Sec 1817 of the RAC empowers the

Bureau of Forestry, with the approval of the department head, to issue regulations necessary to protect and conserve public forests in such a manner as to insure the continued supply of valuable timber and other forest products for the future and regulating the use and occupancy of the forests and forest reserves, to the same end. FAO 12-2 is an administrative regulation germane to the objects and purposes of the law which was

Due process involves Due process in this case whether the parties means that [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] the body were afforded the observed the proper [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] opportunity to be procedure in passing [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] notified and heard rules. [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law] before the issuance of the ruling.

163
recommended by the Director of Forestry and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conforms to the standards the law prescribes. (Director of Forestry v Muñoz)

Abad Santos Educational Institution seek the nullity of the rules and

regulations issued by the Board of Examiners for Nurses, particularly the provisions on the periodic inspection of nursing schools and non-admission to the nurses' examination of graduates of substandard nursing schools. The Philippine Nursing Act expressly empowers the Board of Examiners, "subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines, to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act." Section 3 specifically empowers the Board to inspect nursing colleges and schools and vests with it the authority "to issue, suspend, revoke, or reissue certificates of registration for the practice of nursing." supervisory and regulatory functions granted it by the law. Institution (1974)) This is in the performance of the (Sand v Abad Santos Educational

The authority to issue regulation (prescribing a standard to be adopted by

foreign and domestic shipping companies in hiring Fil-seamen) is clearly provided in Sec 4 (a) of EO707.xxxthe governing board of adm shall promulgate rules and regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the POEA. The Congress may constitutionally delegate the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to the administrative agency to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies for the reason that the legislature finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. opportunity or competence to provide. Administrative bodies may implement the policies laid down in a statute by "filling in" the details which Congress may not have the This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as All that is required is that the supplementary regulations which have the force and effect of law.

regulation shall be germane to the objects and purposes of law and not in contradiction, but in conformity with the standards prescribed by law. (The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc v POEA (1995))

The HLURB maintained adjudicatory powers of its predecessor agency.

There is nothing in the EO which denies the HLURB the authority to delegate adjudicatory functions to a division. (Realty Exchange Venture Corp v Sendino (1994)) d. Fixing of rates, wages and prices

Admin Code, 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 two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In cases of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. Sec 2 (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, classification or schedules thereof, as well as communication,

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

164
mileage, kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law of regulation to be observed and followed by any person. • Function delegated to administrative agencies because the legislature does not have the

time, knowledge and means necessary to handle the matter efficiently. Need for dispatch, flexibility and technical know-how better met by administrative agencies. • Generally, the power to fix rates is a quasi-legislative function. But if the rate is applicable only to an individual, then the function becomes quasi-judicial. The distinction is not idle:

Basis As to procedural standards

Quasi-legislative The procedure is that normally observed in the making of rules.

Quasi-judicial The procedure must observe the requirements of due process in the 7 cardinal rules.

As to time

Rule-making is prospective in character, for it only governs future acts.

Adjudication is retrospective in character, for it investigates acts already done and then applies the law on the facts.

As to application

Legislative application

rules

are

of

general

Adjudicative rulings apply only to parties

• •

Sec 9 (2) implies that all rules with respect to fixing of rates must be accompanied

with notice and hearing, regardless if the rate-fixing function is legislative or quasi-judicial. Notice and hearing necessary if the rate to be fixed applies to only one entity (quasi-

judicial) (Vigan v PSC (1964); Philcomsat v Alcuaz (1989))  Note however, that the Admin Code now does not differentiate legislative from quasi-judicial ratefixing, in that notice and hearing is required for both

• •

The power to fix rates, being a delegated power, cannot be delegated further (Panay

Autobus v Philippine Railway (1933); KMU v Garcua (1994)) In fixing the rate, the present valuation of all the property of a public utility, viz, not only

of the assets used by the public but also of the fixed assets must be made that basis so a fair return of investment can be had (Ynchausti v Public Utility Commissioner (1922))


empowered

Pursuant to Eos 546 and 196, the National Telecommunications Commission is to determine and prescribe rates pertinent to the operation of public service

communications which necessarily include the power to promulgate rules and regulations in connection therewith. Under Sec. 15(g) of EO 546, NTC should be guided by the requirements of public safety,

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

165
public interest and reasonable feasibility of maintaining effective competition of private entities on communications and broadcasting facilities. Likewise, under Section 6(d) thereof, which provides for the creation of the Ministry of Transportation and Communication with control and supervision over NTC, it is specifically provided that the national economic viability of the entire network or components of the communication systems contemplated therein should be maintained at reasonable rates. (Philcomsat) e. Licensing Function

Admin Code, 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. Sec 2 (10) “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. (11) “Licensing” includes agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning or a license.

Even if without an expiry date, a permit cannot last beyond the life of the basic authority

under which it was issued. No expiry date does not mean the license is perpetual. A license permit is a special privilege, a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. It is not vested, permanent or absolute, but is always revocable. (Gonzalo Sy Trading v Central Bank (1976)

Is notice and hearing indispensable? No. Notice and hearing in licensing is only required

if it is a contested case. Otherwise, it can be dispensed with, as in the issuance of driver’s licenses. B. 1. Judicial Function Investigation and adjudication

Admin Code, 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. 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 five (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:

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

166
(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 thirty (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 fifteen (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.

Just as there is no uniform procedure for all agencies, so also the procedure depends on the Thus, when it is performing its adjudicative function, the When performing its rule-making

function that the agency is performing.

procedural safeguards akin to those in courts must be observed.

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.


agencies. courts.

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 The findings of facts by administrative bodies which observed procedural safeguards (like notice and hearing parties, and a full consideration of evidence) are accorded the greatest respect by

What is not inherent, and therefore requires an explicit grant from law, is their

adjudicative power, i.e. the power to decide controversies involving rights and obligations of 3rd persons appearing before them, or the power to pass upon legal questions, which involve the application of the law to the facts. Except in the case of agencies with specific grant of adjudicative power (NLRC, SEC, CBAA), most other administrative agencies only have the power of investigation and not of adjudication.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

167
Kind of Proceedings Nature of Proceedings Rules of Procedure Inquisitorial Liberally applied Administrative Judicial Adversarial Follow technical rules in the Rules of Court Decision includes matters brought as issue by the parties

Nature and Extent of Decision

Decision limited to matters of general concern

Parties

The agency itself may be a party to the proceedings before it

The parties are only the private litigates

2.

Power to issue subpoena, declare contempt

Admin Code, 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 or 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. P.D. 902 – A, Sec 6. In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction, the SEC shall possess the ff powers: a) To punish for contempt of the Commission, both direct and indirect, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of, and penalties prescribed by, the Rules of Court. xx xx xx e) To issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witnesses to appear in any proceedings of the Commission and in appropriate cases order search and seizure or cause the search and seizure of all documents, papers, files and records as well as books of accounts of any entity or person under investigation as may be necessary for the proper disposition of cases before it.

All agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to issue subpoena, even if the

administrative agency’s charter is silent as to such power. Rationale: power to adjudicate will be rendered inutile if there is no power to issue subpoena. • (a) (b) Test for valid enforcement of subpoena: within the authority of the agency demand not too indefinite information is reasonably relevant (Evangelista v Jarencio (1975)) Not all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to cite for contempt, as the

(c) •

power must be expressly granted in the agency’s charter (ex. PD 902-A creating the SEC). If there is no express grant, the agency must invoke the aid of the RTC. Rationale: power to punish for contempt is inherently judicial.

The power to declare contempt cannot be used in the discharge of ministerial functions, but

only in relation to quasi-judicial functions. (Guevarra v COMELEC (1958))

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

168 •
The power to order the petitioner to present the financial documents in the hearing (to decide the suit by the labor organization on charges of the unauthorized disbursement of union funds during his tenure) was well w/in the authority of the CIR. The power to investigate requires an inquiry into existing facts and conditions. The documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to W/N there was a failure to comply with the mandates of the law. It is not for the SC to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative agencies to assure the effective administration of a statute. The matter was properly within its cognizance and the means necessary to give it force and effectiveness should be deemed implied unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights of petitioners entitled to priority. (Catura v CIR (1971))

A public official exercises power, not rights. The government itself is merely an agency

through which the will of the State is expressed and enforced. Its officers are likewise agents entrusted with the responsibility of discharging its functions. As such there is no presumption that they are empowered to act. There must be a delegation of such authority, either express or implied. In the absence of a valid grant, they are devoid of power. What they do suffers from a fatal infirmity. Neither the high dignity of the office nor the righteousness of the motive then is an acceptable substitute. The proper step for the NLRC Chair is to seek a dismissal of the case before the court precisely on the ground that the matter did not fall within the domain of the powers conferred on it. The citation for contempt was an affront to reason as well as a disregard of wellsettled rules. It must be conceded that departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. (Tolentino v Inciong (1979)) 3. Warrants of arrest, administrative searches

Art. III, Sec. 2 1987 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation by the complainant and 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 Constitution: 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 maybe 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 what had happened during Martial Law, wherein one could be arrested by the military on mere suspicion by the strength of the warrant of arrest, ASSO and PDA issued by the Ministry of National Defense or Generals in their respective regions.

The phrase “shall not be violated” in 1973 was changed to “shall be inviolable” in 1987,

putting the phrase in positive.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

169 •
The word “shall” was added to “warrant of arrest shall issue” and finally the subsequent phrase was reworded in this wise: “to be determined personally” by the judge. 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 issue warrants of arrest.

Under the 1987 Constitution,

only a judge may issue warrants. (Salazar v Achacoso (1990))  exception: in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens following a final order of deportation. • (a) Two ways of deporting: Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37 of CA618 President after due investigation pursuant to Sec 69 of Admin Code  no grounds

(b) •
to arrest.

needed; has sole discretion under international law While it is clear that the President’s power of investigation may be delegated and the

Deportation Board is his authorized agent, the power granted to the latter does not extend to the power The exercise of the power to order the arrest of an individual demands the exercise of discretion by the one exercising the same, to determine whether under specific circumstances, the curtailment of liberty is warranted. And authorities are to the effect that while ministerial duties may be delegated, official functions requiring exercise of discretion and judgment may not be so delegated. EO 398 insofar as it empowers the Board to issue warrants of arrest upon formal charges against an alien, and to fix bonds and prescribe conditions for the temporary release of said aliens, is held to be illegal. 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 Section 28 and 37 of 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, Section 1 of Article III of the 1935 Constitution, which states that the power to determine 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. therefore null and void (Vivo v Montesa (1968)). Warrants of arrest issued solely for the purpose of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued are

Note: The deportation charges were in accordance with the Philippine Immigration 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 after a determination of the existence of a ground for deportation by the Board of Commissioners. Deportation proceedings are administrative in

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

170
nature, and are not penal, but merely preventive. Thus, it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary court 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) that the charge be substantiated by competent evidence. (Harvey v Defensor-Santiago (1988))

Note: The arrest and detention of Lucien by the CID preparatory to the deportation

proceedings is illegal, but the CID can order arrest for the purpose of the deportation proceedings. The SC had ruled that the requirement of probable cause to be determined by the judge does not extend to deportation proceedings. What is essential is that these should be a specific charge versus the alien intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearing be conducted with the assistance of counsel, if desired, and that the charge be substantiated by competent evidence. However, the particular circumstances places doubt on the propriety of the arrest. The Mission Order was issued on the basis of sworn complaints of a single individual. The essential requisite of probable cause is absent. (Lucien Tran Van Nghia v Liwanag (1989))  These two cases contradict the Qua Chee Gan doctrine because both allowed arrest by Commissioner upon determination of existence of a ground to deport.  Consider these two cases as a glitch. division. The Qua Chee Gan doctrine prevails, as supported by Salazar. Not only is Salazar a later case, it was also decided en banc, while Harvey was decided by a

Art 38 of the Labor Code allowing the Sec of Labor the power to issue warrants of arrest is

unconstitutional for under the Constitution, only a judge may issue search or arrest warrants. The case of Vivo v. Montesa is not a precedent because the arrest warrant was given to carry out a final decision of deportation. The SC reaffirms the following principles: (1) Under Art. III Sec. 2 of the Consti, only judges may issue search warrants and warrants of arrest, and (2) the exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of the same. (1990))  Note: Following (2), the Harvey and Lucien cases prove to be anomalies. (Salazar v Achacoso

A warrant of arrest issued by a commissioner to be valid must be for the sole purpose of

executing a final order of deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the commissioner for purposes of investigation only, is null and void for being unconstitutional, following Qua Chee Gan. Commissioners v Dela Rosa (1991)) (Board of

The Fourth Amendment bars warrantless non-emergency inspection of residential and

commercial premises by city health officials. Administrative searches of the kind at issue here are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the 4th Amendment. It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the constitution only when he is suspected of criminal behavior. (Camara v Municipal Court (1967))

A warrant must first be secured.

There is no justification for relaxing 4th Amendment

safeguards where the official inspection is intended for the enforcement of laws prescribing minimum physical standards for commercial premises. Warrants are a necessary and tolerable limitation on the

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

171
right to enter upon and inspect places of business. In relation to this, the US SC cited limitations in administrative subpoenas of corporate books and documents: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) limited in scope relevant in purpose specific directives so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome subpoena must designate the needed documents subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of reasonableness of demand prior to

suffering penalties for refusal to comply. The particular agency’s demand for access will be measured against a flexible standard of reasonableness that takes into account the public need for effective enforcement of regulations. (See v Seattle) 4. • • (a) (b) Imposition of fines and penalties Agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties. Test for valid imposition: subject matter must be within authority of Congress to legislate penalty to be imposed must be administrative or civil in character agency expressly authorized to impose penalty (Oceanic Steam Navigation v

(c)

Stranahan (1908)) Where the statute does not authorize executive officials themselves to impose the penalty, recourse will have to be made to the ordinary courts.

The CIR cannot fine petitioners for ULP. The Industrial Peace Act provides that violations of Court refers to ordinary courts and not

the act shall be punished in the discretion of the court.

quasi-judicial agencies such as the CIR. Imposition of criminal penalties, if not clearly stated in the statute, is a judicial and not an administrative function. (Scoty’s Department Store v Micaller (1956))

• •

The fixing of penalties for criminal offenses is the exercise of legislative power which cannot

be delegated to a subordinate authority (US v Barrias (1908)) The Board cannot impose a fine due to breach of contract caused by the negligence of RCPI

in not sending telegram on time. The power to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience does not carry with it the power of supervision over matters not related with the issuance of such. Regular courts have jurisdiction over breach of contract arising from negligence. Communications (1977)) C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards (RCPI v Board of

1. 2. 3.
Pangil (1940))

interest of law and order (Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)) public interest (People v Rosenthal & Osmeña (1939)) justice, equity and substantial merits of the case (International Hardwood v

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

172 4.
(1914)) what is moral, educational or amusing (Mutual Film Corp v Industrial Comm

5. 6. 7.
(1952))

adequate and efficient instruction (PACU v Secretary (1955)) reasonableness as an implied standard (Wisconsin v Whitman (1928)) to promote simplicity, economy or efficiency (Cervantes v Auditor-General

8. •

maintain monetary stability, promote rising level of production & real income

(People v Joliffe (1959)) What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient standard (Burstyn v Wilson (1952))

IV. Administrative Procedure

A.
1. 2.

In Rule-Making: Price, wage or rate-fixing (see related areas in this reviewer)

B. In Adjudication of cases Rules of Procedure Due Process

a.
1. Right to a hearing • 2. 4.

Cardinal Primary Rights (Ang Tibay v CIR (1950))

includes the right of a part to present his own case and submit evidence in support

thereof The tribunal must consider the evidence presented 3. Decision must be supported by evidence Evidence must be substantial • 5. more than a mere scintilla; it means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected • 6. 7. only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them Independent consideration of judge • must not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision Render decision in such a manner as to let the parties know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered

Does due process always entail notice and hearing prior to the deprivation of a right?  NO. Hearing may occur after the deprivation, as in emergency cases (Goss v Lopez (1975)), in which case, there must be a chance to seek reconsideration (UP Board of Regents v CA (1999); NAPOLCOM v Police Chief Inspector Bernabe (2000))

Presence of a party at a trial is not always the essence of due process. All that the law

requires is that the parties be given notice of trial and an opportunity to be heard. (Asperec v Itchon (1966))

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

173
• •
Trial-type hearing not required as long as there is opportunity to be heard. (Vinta Maritime v NLRC (1978)) The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witness is a fundamental right If without his fault, his right to cross-examine is violated, he is

which is part of due process.

entitled to have the direct examination stricken out. (Bachrach Motors v CIR (1978))

The law, in prescribing a process of appeal to a higher level, contemplates that the (Zambales Chromite v CA (1979);

reviewing officer is a person different from the one who issued the appealed decision. Otherwise, the review becomes a farce; it is rendered meaningless. Rivera v CSC (1995))

• •

Evidence on record must be fully disclosed to the parties (American Inter-Fashion v

Office of the President (1991)) Respondents in administrative cases are not entitled to be informed of findings of

investigative committees but only of the decision of the administrative body (Pefianco v Moral (2000))


• (a) (b)

Mere consultations and conferences may not be valid substitutes for observance of notice Three factors determining constitutional sufficiency of administrative procedures: private interest that will be affected risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest and probable value of safeguards public interest vis-à-vis government costs (Matthews v Eldridge)

and hearing (Equitable Banking v NLRC (1997))

(c)
b. 1.

Notice and Hearing When required

(a) (b)
Fernandez)

when the law specifically requires notice and hearing (Bautista v WCC (1979);

Equitable Banking v NLRC (1997) when it affects a person’s status and liberty (Commissioner of Immigration v

2. (a)

When not required urgent reasons discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact

(b) (c) (d) (e)
(1991))

(Suntay v People (1957)) if it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse (De

Bisschop v Galang) when rules to govern future conduct of persons or enterprises, unless law

provides otherwise (Taxicab Operators of Manila v Board of Transportation) in the valid exercise of police power (Pollution Adjudication Board v CA

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

174
c. Form and Promulgation of Judgment Sec. 2 (8) ”Decision” means the whole or any part of the final disposition, not 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. Sec. 14 Decision — Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency shall decide each case within thirty 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 be final and executory after the receipt of copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, of 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 — Every agency shall publish and make

available for public inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of contested cases. 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.

• • •

Decision should state the facts, issues and the law on which the decision was based (Ang Tibay v

CIR) Government agency decision must state the facts and the legal basis, not merely conclusions of law.

(Albert v Gangan (2001)) It is not necessary that the order to make its own discussion of the evidence and the findings of fact The rule is otherwise when the court disagrees with the findings of the

if the court is satisfied with the report of the examiner which already contains the discussions of the findings and conclusions. Iron Mines (1957)) examiner in which case the court must specify and discuss the reasons for their dissent. (Indias v Phil

If a power to decide is granted to a specific authority, it can’t abdicate from this responsibility by

delegating the duty to decide the case. It must personally decide such. It can delegate the power to hear but not the power to decide (American Tobacco v Director of Patents (1975))

The date of the promulgation of the judgment is the date when the Board voted and resolved to

admit the alien. This date can be ascertained from the minutes of the proceedings had before the Board. The operative date of the Board’s action is that when the decision was voted and adopted by them as a Board, regardless of the date when the decision of the date when the decision in extenso was prepared, written and signed. (Neria v Commissioner of Immigration (1968))

The operative date of the Commissioner’s action is that when the resolution of the exclusion was

voted and adopted by them as a board, regardless of the date when the decision in extenso must relate back to the day when the resolution to exclude was adopted. (Go Yu Tak Wai v Vivo (1977))

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

175

Within a period of one year from promulgation, the decision of the BSI can be reversed by the Board of Commissioners acting motu proprio on review in the absence of an appeal. Absent a reversal, the decision of the BSI prevails and becomes final after the lapse of 1 year from the rendition of the decision. (Sichangco v Board of Commissioners of Immigration (1979))

The Board’s act of dividing itself into divisions of three is valid because under EO 648 the Board can

adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business and perform such functions necessary for the effective accomplishment of its functions. The power to delegate a particular function can be implied form the power of administrative agencies to issue rules and regulations necessary to carry out its functions. (Realty Exchange v Sendino (1994))

3. •

Jurisdiction Administrative agencies may only exercise such powers as are explicitly or by necessary implication conferred on them by law. The jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative agency depends on the terms of the enabling statute delegating powers to it. Without jurisdiction, the decision rendered by the tribunal is void. • • Refer to the enabling statute creating the agency especially the powers and jurisdictions, as Examples of jurisdiction of different administrative agencies: jurisdiction is created and conferred by law.

a.

Director of Patents: The Director can look at the contract and

interpret it if it concerns the assignment of an invention, but he does not have jurisdiction over the enforcement of an alleged contract of sale involving said invention (Feliciano v Director of Patents (1953))

b.

Board of Power & Waterworks: Contractual relations between The Board only

landlord and tenant are cognizable by regular courts of general jurisdiction. franchise.

concerns itself with contracts involving public service or sale of electricity without permit or Under PD485, jurisdiction, supervision and control over public service related to electric light, power and waterworks utilities are vested in the BPWW. BPWW, being a regulatory board cannot acquire jurisdiction over contractual relations between petitioner and her tenants, which is totally unrelated to public service or sale of electricity. (Syquia v Board of Power & Waterworks (1976))

c.

Deportation Board:

The absolute and unqualified power to

deport aliens lodged upon the Chief Executive gives her/him full discretion to determine whether an alien’s continued presence in a country is so undesirable as to affect national security and welfare. He may deport aliens even in the absence of express law, when he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility. The Deportation Board being a fact-finding body could only make recommendations, subject to the approval of the President. Since the deportation order is not dependent on prior conviction, the Board has jurisdiction to investigate despite not having been convicted yet and even if such ground is not under Sec 37 of the Immigration Law (Go Tek v Deportation Board (1977))

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

176
d. e.
BIR Commissioner: The Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over cases which do not involved tax provisions (Vera v Cuevas (1979)) Collector of Customs: The absolute and unqualified power to

deport aliens lodged upon the Chief Executive gives her/him full discretion to determine whether an alien’s continued presence in a country is so undesirable as to affect national security and welfare. He may deport aliens even in the absence of express law, when he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility. The Deportation Board being a fact-finding body could only make recommendations, subject to the approval of the President. (Dela Fuente v De Veyra (1983))

f.

Commission of Human Rights:

CHR was not meant to be

another court of quasi-judicial agency. It may engage in fact-finding but not adjudication. IT can only investigate violations of civil-political rights, and it cannot try and decide cases as ordinary courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies (Cariño v CHR (1991)). CHR is purely a fact-finding agency and has not adjudicatory powers. Its jurisdiction is limited to politically related crimes. It can cite for contempt but cannot issue cease and desist orders. (Simon, Jr. v CHR (1994))

g.

Laguna Lake Development Authority:

LLDA is a specialized

administrative agency and is specifically mandated by its enabling law (RA 4850) to carry out and make effective the declared policy of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and surrounding provinces. Jurisdiction under its charter was validly invoked. (LLDA v CA (1994))

h.

HLURB:

The HLURB has jurisdiction over specific performance,

annulment of mortgage and all other matters which pertain to sound real estate practice (Union Bank v HLURB (1992)). The HLURB also has jurisdiction over specific performance of contractual obligations against condominium owners (AMA Computer College v Factoran (2002)). The HLURB has jurisdiction over specific performance cases involving subdivision Being placed under receivership does not divest the HLURB of its owners and homeowners.

jurisdiction (Jesus Lim Arranza v BF Homes (2000))

i.

Civil Service Commission: Employees of government-owned or

controlled corporations with original charter, such as the quasi-public corporation concerned in this case (MOWAD), fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. RTC has no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law. (Mateo v CA (1995))

j.

Civil Aeronautics Board: Congress has delegated upon the CAB

the power to issue temporary operating permits of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. (PAL v CAB (1997))

k.

Energy Regulatory Board: The ERB is basically a price- or rate-

fixing agency. The non-price regulatory jurisdiction, powers, and functions of the ERB have been transferred by EO 172 to the Department of Energy (ERB v CA (1999)). The complaint does not charge any violation of either the Currency Exchange Rate Adjustment or the Power Cost Adjustment. The RTC is a court of general jurisdiction and the ERB is only empowered to

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

177
regulate and fix the power rates to be charged b electric companies. This power does not carry with it the power to determine WON petitioner is guilty of overcharging customers for consumption of electric power. (Cagayan Electric v Collera (2000)

l. m.

HIGC:

Jurisdiction

over

intra-corporate

disputes

involving

homeowners has been transferred from the SEC to the HIGC. NLRC: The RTC has no jurisdiction over the labor case and various

incidents arising from it. Jurisdiction to try and adjudicate these cases belongs exclusively to the proper labor official concerned under the Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to sanction a split jurisdiction, which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice. (Delta Ventures v Cabato (2000))

n.
and bonuses of GOCCs.

Commission on Audit: The COA has jurisdiction over allowances It can examine and audit disbursement of public funds that are

patently beyond what the law allows (De Jesus v COA (2003))

o.

Cooperative Development Authority: The CDA has not quasi-

judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes, as the most it can do is mediate and conciliate such disputes (CDA v Dolefil Agragrian Beneficiaries (2002)) 4. • Administrative and Judicial Proceedings Arising from the same Facts The practice in the Philippines has been to allow an administrative proceeding and a judicial

proceeding to take place at the same time so long as the 2 actions are independent of each other.

The difference in the proceeding (one administrative, the other criminal) is not legal

incompatibility, but merely physical incompatibility. These two proceedings are independent of each other involving different causes of action and therefore can proceed simultaneously (Galang v CA (1961))

The Director of Patents is not bound by the CA’s acquittal of Co San for unfair competition

in the hearing for cancellation of patents. The two proceedings involve different issues – one refers to the validity of the design patents issued and the other whether Co San unfairly competed against respondent’s patented design. (Co San v Dir of Patents (1961))

Villanos’ libel conviction should not automatically lead to her dismissal. The matters that are

material in the administrative case are not necessarily relevant in the criminal case. Notwithstanding the fact that findings in criminal cases must be beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot be conclusive for administrative purposes. There are defenses, excuses, and attenuating circumstances of value in admin proceedings that are not admissible in trial of the criminal case which can have a blunting effect on the conviction. Due process should be upheld. Conviction does not ex proprio vigore justify automatic suspension. (Villanos v Subido (1971))

Acquittal in the criminal case does not carry with it relief from administrative liability. The

administrative case may generally proceed independently of a criminal action for the same act or omission and requires only a preponderance of evidence to establish administrative guilt as against proof beyond reasonable doubt of the criminal charge. Commission v Lood (1980)) (PNR v Domingo (1971); The Police

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

178
 Note: Can there be a conviction in a criminal case and an acquittal in the administrative case? Yes. See Villanos v Subido.  Note: Can there be an acquittal in a criminal case and a conviction in the administrative case? Yes. See PNR v Domingo. The case of PNR also states that while the accused acquitted of the crime imputed against him may claim payment of back salaries during his suspension or reinstatement in case of dismissal, his relief lies in the proper administrative or civil action prescribed by law (NLRC). The trial court has no jurisdiction to order reinstatement since the judgment in a criminal case is limited to acquittal or conviction with necessary penalties. However, this case also discusses the doctrine laid down in Consigna where reinstatement was granted by the trial court because the acquittal was for absolute lack of evidence and a concomitant finding that the dismissal was unfair. Whether or not the Consigna doctrine should be seen as an exemption is still a gray area. Some say that it is not to be considered as good law, while others argue that if the criminal case results in an acquittal due to absolute lack of evidence, then the administrative case must also result in an acquittal.

• •

An absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution. (Tan v

COMELEC (1994)) The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose adminisitrative action. The RTC was Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of

simply saying that the prosecution was unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, there is the substantial evidence rule. evidence, as well as the procedure followed and sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. (Ocampo v Office of the Ombudsman (2000))


(2001)) 5. •

The criminal and civil cases are altogether different from the administrative matters such (Mirales v Go

that disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third, and vice versa.

Rules of Evidence Apply the specific rules of the administrative agency. In the absence thereof, apply the general rules on procedure. However, administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules regarding admission of evidence of ordinary courts of justice. So long as the requirements of due process are observed. Rationale: to allow administrative agencies to act with speed and flexibility.

Pervasive principle: Technical rules of evidence and procedure do not strictly apply to

administrative proceedings, but this does not mean that they can disregard certain due process requirements. • (a) (b) The rules of evidence in administrative agencies are more relaxed than in judicial Admissibility: Generally, administrative agencies are not bound by the Judicial Notice: Administrative bodies may take into account not only such tribunals, in at least three areas: technical rules of admissibility evidence as may be presented by the parties in the determination of the case. They may also make their inquiry into facts at issue, and take judicial notice of certain other matters.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

179
(c) decision. Quantum of Evidence: Only substantial evidence is required to support a

Ocular inspection is not equivalent to a trial or presentation of evidence, as it is only

an auxiliary remedy. Parties are still entitled to hearing. But if the issue can be resolved through ocular inspection, there is no prohibition. (Philippine Movie Pictures Workers Assoc v Premier Production (1953))

Administrative agencies may act on it own and use methods which may best constitute The court is not required to examine proof de novo. (Estate of Buan v

substantial evidence. Pambusco (1956)) •

As a rule, if there is substantial evidence to support the findings of an admin official in

matters within his competence, that is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”, the courts are bound to look no further, not even to consider contrary evidence of a preponderant nature. The SC is not required to examine proof de novo. The only function of the SC is to determine whether or not there is evidence before the Commission upon which its decision might be reasonably based. conclusion based thereon. However, evidence received at an administrative investigation conducted with manifest disregard of due process may not justify the

The order of testimony is within the discretion of the court and the exercise of this

discretion in permitting witnesses be introduced out of the order prescribed by the rules is not improper. Such a relaxed procedure is especially true in administrative bodies, such as the ERB, which in matters of rate or price fixing is considered as exercising a quasi-legislative, not a quasijudicial function. As such, it is not bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence governing court proceedings. However, in the broad interest of justice, the Board may, in any particular manner, except itself from these rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall promote the objectives of the order. (Maceda v ERB (1991))  But when are findings of fact of administrative agencies not conclusive upon the courts?

a.

When the decision was rendered by an almost

evenly divided court and the division was precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence (Gonzales v Victory Labor Union (1969))

b.

When the decision was rendered in consequence

of fraud, imposition or mistake, other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of the evidence (Ortua v Singson (1934))

c.
evidence (Manahan v People (1988))

When the decision is not supported by substantial

d.

When the findings are not based on a thorough

examination of the parties’ contending claims but merely on their positions papers. There is no trial through position papers where the adversarial process would ensure a better presentation and appreciation of the evidence. (PAL v Confessor (1994))  reconcile with Bantolino: decisions based on position papers allowed as expressly permitted by the law

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

180
e.
The SC will intervene only in what ought to be the rare instance when the standard appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied (Universal Camera v NLRC (1951))

Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies

where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only (like that in the NLRC). (Bantolino v Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils (2003)) V. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions • • to consider: (a) If what is involved is question of constitutionality, judicial review is available. Judicial review is an effective mechanism to check acts which are arbitrary or beyond A generalization as to when judicial review is available is hazardous. Here are factors the authority given to any agency by its enabling statute.

(b) (c)
  Question of Law v Question of Fact • reviewable; otherwise, it is. • then it is a question of law. 

History of the statute involved. Intention of Congress

prevails because if it wanted judicial review to be available, it would have said so. Nature of problem involved: Right (should be protected by law) v Privilege (can be unilaterally withdrawn)

The Court is the final interpreter of law: It depends

on whether or not the finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence. If yes, it is not If the question is on the substantiality of evidence,

Question of Discretion: When discretion is granted by law, the exercise of such is generally to be disturbed by the court. • Exception: When there is grave abuse of discretion – capriciousness, arbitrariness, partiality or hostile attitude.

 (d)

Question of Policy: Traditionally, policymaking is not judicial business. Finality of the administrative decision • Can the doctrines of forum shopping, litis pendentia and res judicata apply to administrative agencies?

Yes. Under Rule 7 Sec 5 of the Rules of Court, the certification against

forum shopping shall state that the party “has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein…”

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

181
 Litis pendentia can happen, taking into consideration not only the cases The doctrine of res judicata, although a judicial concept, applied to where forum shopping can happen, but also those involving the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.  administrative agencies performing quasi-legislative functions. A. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative Decisions

Where Congress has not expressly authorized judicial review, the type of problem

involved and the history of the statute in question become highly relevant in determining whether judicial review may be supplied. In the Railway Labor Act, Congress intended to go no further in its use of adjudication and litigation than the express provision of the Act. The fact that the certification of the NMB is conclusive is of course no ground for judicial review. Congress has long delegated to executive officers and agencies the determination of complicated questions of fact and law. And where no judicial review was provided by Congress, the SC has often refused to furnish one even when questions of law might be involved. (Switchmen’s Union v National Mediation Board (1943))

When a court reviews an agency’s construction of a statute it administers, it deals first

the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If intent of Congress is clear, no problem. The court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguous expressed intent of Congress. If court determines Congress has not, court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute. If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. (Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984))

When no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration, the Office of the Having lost its

President had lost jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its decision.

jurisdiction, it has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration. The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. (Fortich v Corona (1998))

The second motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, thus rendering the

decision of the Secretary of Agriculture final. Compliance with the period provided by law for the perfection of an appeal is not merely mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement. Thus, failure to comply with the reglementary period has the effect or rendering final the judgment of the court. Even administrative decisions must end sometime, as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies. Non quieta movere: What was already terminated cannot be disturbed. (Antique Sawmill v Zayco (1966))

The Courts will not interfere with the decision of the Director of Posts unless the Court

is of the clear opinion that such decision is (a) wrong, (b) manifestly arbitrary and unjust, and (c) not based upon any reasonable interpretation of the law (Sotto v Ruiz (1921))  Note: Use of mail is a privilege. Even if the law is silent, it does not mean that judicial review is available.

Although the Postal Law contains no provision for judicial review of the decision of the

Postmaster General, courts will interfere with the decision of the Postmaster General if it clearly

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

182
appears that the decision is wrong. The acts of all officers of the post office must be justified by some law, and in case an official violates the law to the injury if an individual, the courts generally have jurisdiction to grant relief. (Uy v Palomar (1969)) • The approval or rejection of an application for Tree Farm Permit is within the Courts, as a rule, refuse to interfere with proceedings jurisdiction of the Director of Forestry.

undertaken by 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. b. c. d.
or mistake. (Manuel v Villena (1971))

has gone beyond his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers, or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his

duty, or with grave abuse of discretion, or that the decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition

As to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power, there is an

underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion. The court may also declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority to be illegal because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of law, or because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious. (San Miguel Corp v Secretary of Labor (1975)) • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Summary of when judicial review is valid despite finality of administrative decisions: when the decision is wrong manifestly arbitrary, capricious, unjust not based upon any reasonable interpretation of law the board or administrative officer has gone beyond his statutory authority the agency exercised unconstitutional powers decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake lack of jurisdiction grave abuse of discretion decision violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of law

B. Availability of Judicial Review 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 prerogative lodged in the courts by the Constitution, judicial review is needed to offer these considerations.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

183
2.
plaintiff has standing 3. • Whether the defendant is the proper defendant. The defendant could either be a private party, or the very administrative agency before whom the right is being applied. 4. • Whether the forum is the proper forum. The forum is usually provided for in the enacting statute, but in its absence, the Uniform Appeals Act should be applicable. It is very seldom that the forum is in the RTC, since administrative agencies are usually given the rank equal to or higher than the RTC. 5. • appeals. Whether the timing for the filing of the case is proper. The period for filing the case must also be considered in view of the statue of limitations, as well as the period required by the statute or rules for the filing of Whether the plaintiff is the proper plaintiff, that is, whether the

6.

Whether the case is ripe for adjudication. When a person has not exhausted all the administrative remedies He is said to have Although this is not a jurisdictional

available to him, his case is said to be not ripe for judicial review yet. invoked the intervention of the court prematurely.

requirement, failure to abide by the doctrine affects petitioner’s cause of action. C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 1. a. b. c. 2. a. b. c. Reasons Legal reason: The law prescribes a procedure. Practical reason: To give the agency a chance to correct its own Reasons of comity: Expedient courtesy, convenience When the doctrine applies The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function Judicial review is available The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction

errors and save the trouble of going to court.

3.

General Rule:

Where the law has delineated the procedure by which

administrative appeal or remedy could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated. (Pascual v Provincial Board (1959))

a.

Controversy was pending before the Secretary of the DENR when

it was forwarded to him. Spouses clearly recognized the presence of an administrative forum of

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

184
which they seek to avail. By appealing to him, they acknowledge the existence of an adequate and plain remedy. They cannot now seek the court’s intervention. If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a mater that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s juridical power can be invoked. Premature invocation of court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. (Paat v CA (1997))

b.

The rule is well-settled that courts will not interfere in matters

which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulations of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. Furthermore, the crux of petitioner's cause of action is the determination of whether or not the tax is excessive, oppressive or confiscatory. This issue is essentially a question of fact and thereby, precludes this Court from reviewing the same. (Lopez v City of Manila (1999)

c.

The records would show that petitioner filed the petition for

certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with the trial court even while the administrative investigation was yet ongoing. Petitioner's immediate recourse to the trial court was premature and precipitate. From the decision of the PCA Board, once rendered, an administrative remedy of appeal to the Civil Service Commission would still be available to him. Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies would have first been exhausted. The doctrine does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve, or interfere in, a controversy the jurisdiction over which is lodged initially with an administrative body, like the PCA Board and its Investigation Committee, of special competence. (Garcia v CA (2001)) 4. Exceptions:

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

purely legal question (Pascual v Provincial Board (1959);

Dauan v Secretary (1959)) steps to be taken are merely matters of form (Pascual) administrative remedy not exclusive but merely cumulative or

concurrent to a judicial remedy (Pascual) validity and urgency of judicial action or intervention (Alzate v

Aldana (1960); Paat v CA (1997)) not a plain, speedy, adequate remedy, (Quasha v SEC (1978);

Cipriano v Marcelino (1972); Paat) resort to exhaustion will only be oppressive and patently

unreasonable (Paat; Cipriano) where the administrative remedy is only permissive or voluntary

and not a prerequisite to the institution of judicial proceedings (Corpuz v Cuaderno (1962)) application of the doctrine will only cause great and irreparable

damage which cannot otherwise be prevented except by taking the opportune appropriate court action (De Lara v Clorivel (1965); Cipriano; Paat)

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

185
i. j.
(1996)) when it involves the rule-making or quasi-legislative functions of an administrative agency (Smart v NTC (2003)) administrative agency is in estoppel (Republic v Sandiganbayan

k.

when the doctrine of qualified political agency applies: act of

department head is presumptively the act of the President (as his alter-ego) unless revoked by the latter, and where the law provides for appeal to the President, then appeal is the remedy (Pestañas v Dyogi (1978); Estrada v CA (2004); Paat)

l. m. n.
excess of jurisdiction (Paat)

subject is private land in land case proceedings (Paat) blatant violation of due process (Paat) administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or

o. p. q.
(Estrada)

resort to administrative remedy will amount to a nullification of a

claim (DAR v Apex Investment (2003); Paat) no administrative review provided by law (Estrada) issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies rendered moot

r. 5.

in quo warranto proceedings (Corpus; Garcia)

Remedy: Failure to observe doctrine does not affect jurisdiction of the court. The

only effect of non-compliance is it will deprive complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it. (Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)) D. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort 1. a. and original jurisdiction b. agency c. d. The legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in rulings The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function General rule: Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which The question to be resolved requires expertise of administrative When the doctrine applies The administrative body and the regular court have concurrent

2.

requires the expertise of administrative agencies and the legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in the rulings. It can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency. It is a question of the court yielding to the agency because of the latter’s expertise, and does not amount to ouster of the court. (Texas & Pacific Railway v Abilene (1907))

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

186

In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies. It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view" (Industrial Enterprises v CA (1990))

3.

Exceptions

a. b. c.

if the agency has exclusive jurisdiction (Texas) when the issue is not within the competence of the administrative

body to act on (Phil Global Communications v Relova (1980)) While an application for the administrative cancellation of a

registered trademark on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended, otherwise known as the Trademark Law, falls under the exclusive cognizance of BPTTT (Sec. 19, Trade-Mark Law), an action, however, for infringement or unfair competition, as well as the remedy of injunction and relief for damages, is explicitly and unquestionably within the competence and jurisdiction of ordinary courts (Conrad v CA (1995)) 4. Effect

Application of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the case but only its

suspension until after the matters within the competence of the administrative agency are threshed out and determined. (Industrial)

While no prejudicial question strictly arises where one is a civil proceeding, in the interest of

good order, it behooves the court to suspend its action on the cases before it pending the final outcome of the administrative proceedings. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Viadad v RTC (1993))

In order to harmonize the conflicting provisions on jurisdiction over the determination of

just compensation in the CARL, the Court held that primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the CARP, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts. The RTC’s jurisdiction in such a case is not any less original and exclusive as the judicial

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

187
proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. (Philippine Veterans Bank v CA (2000)) E. Standing to Challenge

1.

Meaning: Legal standing means a personal and substantial interest in the case

such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged (Joya v PCGG (1993); Lozada v COMELEC (1983); Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)) • • The technical rules on standing comes from the general doctrine of separation of powers as Standing as opposed to real party-in-interest: the former is a constitutional law concept there is a need for an actual case or controversy before judicial review becomes available. which only concerns the petitioner, while the latter is a concept in procedural law which concerns both the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. 2. Philippine law Philippine law on standing v American law on standing American law test of injury in fact or economic injury (Assoc of Data Processing v Camp (1970)) which is concrete/particularized and actual/imminent and not conjectural/hypothetical (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992)) whether or not the interest sought to be protected is arguably in the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question (Assoc of Data Processing) causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court (Lujan) redressability through a favorable decision (Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare (1976); Lujan) personal stake alleged and not merely a specialized interest (Sierra Club v Morton (1972))

interest is: • personal - except taxpayers, voters, legislators and class suits • substantial

direct injury

3. •

When standing given Only the proper party whose legal rights have been adversely affected by and who stands to suffer a legal injury or wrong from the administrative action has standing to seek judicial intervention.

The party must have personal and substantial interest. “Interest” is material interest, an

interest in the issue an to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere incidental interest. (Joya v PCGG (1993))

• •

The issue of standing is a procedural technicality which may be waived if the issue is of

transcendental importance to the public (Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)) One who is directly affected by and whose interest is immediate and substantial in the

controversy has the standing to sue. The rule therefore requires that a party must show a personal

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

188
stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his behalf. Petitioner, whose members had suffered and continues to suffer grave and irreparable injury and damage from the implementation of the questioned memoranda, circulars and/or orders, has shown that it has a clear legal right that was violated and continues to be violated with the enforcement of the challenged memoranda, circulars and/or orders. (KMU v Garcia (1994)) • Kinds:

a.

Taxpayers: A taxpayer’s suit is generally allowed to restrain the

government from spending public funds for a purpose alleged to be illegal. It is only when an act complained of, which involves the illegal expenditure of public money that taxpayer suit may be allowed. (Lozada v COMELEC (1983))  a taxpayer’s suit is not allowed to compel the spending of public funds, such as an action which seeks to compel the COMELEC to hold a new plebiscite to ratify the 1973 Constitution (Occena v COMELEC)

b.

Voters: As a voter, he who impugns the validity of a statute must The complained inaction of COMELEC would adversely

have a personal and substantial interest in the case that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. c. affect only the “generalized interest” of all citizens. (Lozada) Members of Congress Class suit: The subject matter of the complaint is of common and

d.

general interest to all citizens of the Philippines. Petitioners’ personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of “intergenerational responsibility” insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. (1993)) (Oposa v Factoran

e.

Consumers: Consumers can challenge validity of administrative

actions in areas affecting their interests. When the DTI increases the price of cement, or when the FDA gives ingredient requirement for corned beef, a consumer who stands to be adversely affected has standing.

f.

Competitors: A competitor has legal standing to challenge the

official action of an administrative agency which favors a competing entity. Thus, when BOT grants a license to another applicant, the one affected has standing to challenge the decision in court. 4. When standing not given

Under RA 1125, only a person, association, or corporation adversely affected by a decision

or ruling of the Collector may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. The mere fact that the City Assessor’s decision was overruled did not inflict any material damage upon him or his office. (Ursal v CTA (1957))

The previous ruling sustaining petitioner’s intervention may itself be considered a departure

from settled rulings on “real parties-in-interest” because no constitutional issues were actually

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

189
involved. Standing was not even an issue then. The ruling in the first case cannot be regarded as the “law of the case.” The parties are the same but the cases are not. The question in standing is “whether such parties have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” The question as to real party-in-interest, on the other hand, is “whether he is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or the ‘party’ entitled to the avails of the suit.” Petitioners’ standing is not even an issue in this case since no constitutional issues are involved, as this case involves questions of contract law. (Kilosbayan v Morato (1995))

F.

Ripeness 1. a. b. c. legislative function  When rate increases and charges (note: rule-making function) have not been submitted to the Cabinet for approval, judicial review is premature. (Paredes v CA (1996))  The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function, and not rule-making or quasi-legislative. However, where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. (Smart v NTC (2003))  Note: Some views say that this doctrine is applicable only to rule-making functions while some say to adjudicatory functions. My take on the issue is that it applies to both (read notes under Declaratory Relief where the issue involving a deed, will, contract or other written instruments or a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance or any governmental action, must be ripe for adjudication). However, caution must be taken as not to confuse this doctrine with exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary jurisdiction. When doctrine applied Finality of the administrative body’s decision Judicial review available/appropriate Administrative agency exercising its rule-making or quasi-

2.
a. b. demonstrable

Purpose (Abbot Laboratories v Gardner (1967)) To prevent courts, thru avoidance of premature adjudication, from To protect agencies from judicial interference until a decision has

entangling themselves in abstract agreement over administrative policies been formalized and its effect is felt in a concrete way or the imminence of the effect is

3.
a.

Two-fold test for a controversy to be ripe (Abbot) Fitness of the issue for judicial decision

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

190
b. G. Mootness VI. Modes of Judicial Review 1987 Consti Art IX A. Sec 7: Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. Hardship to the parties of withholding such court action

The Constitution uses the word may, meaning review is not mandatory but only discretionary.

Admin Code, 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 fifteen (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. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative decision. One (1) 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 fifteen (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. • • Who may seek judicial review

 any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision When to appeal

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

191
 within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the decision • • How

 file petition for review Where to file

 in the court specified by the statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provision on venue of the Rules of Court

BP 129, Sec 9 as amended by RA 7902, Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1) (2) (3) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice."

Authority of the CA to review decision of quasi-judicial agencies is exclusive, if such is listed in

the law or if its charter so indicates. If it is not listed, its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC through the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. •  agencies   excludes the NLRC mentions only one constitutional body – the Civil Service Commission listing not exclusive – ejusdem generic SC retains the special civil action for certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 (Rule 43, Rules of Court): grants the CA with exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of 19 administrative


amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction A. Certiorari 1. a. Court Kinds Simple or ordinary, Rule 45: Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

192
 Note, however, that in the case of administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions, the proper mode of appeal is through Rule 43, Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals.

Rule 45: considered as a “gatekeeper provision”, as it is applicable only when questions Review under this rule is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial

of law are raised. (Rule 45, Sec. 6)

discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefore

b.

Special civil action, Rule 65: Petition for Certiorari

Rule 65, Sec 1. Petition for certiorari. -- When any tribunal, board or officer exercising 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 third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

193
2. a. Rule 43 CA has jurisdiction Based on question of law, 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) Requisites (Rule 65) lack of Rule 45 SC has jurisdiction c. Rule 65 The SC, CA and RTC concurrent jurisdiction have adminis

trative agency performing a quasi-judicial

Based only on questions of law (Sec 1)

Based on question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion

This rule applies to appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA, the Sandiganbayan, the RTC or other courts (Sec 1)

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)

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)

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)

Within 60 days

Judgment is stayed

Order is not stayed unless preliminary injunction is issued

a

Parties are the original parties and the court or agency is not impleaded as petitioner or respondent (Sec 6)

Parties are the original parties who thus become appellant and appellee

Parties are aggrieved party (petitioner) against the administrative agency and the prevailing parties (respondents)

The court jurisdiction

exercises

appellate

The court exercises jurisdiction

appellate

Court exercises original jurisdiction

jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting jurisdiction b. no plain, adequate or speedy remedy 4. to lack or excess of

function

3.
or nullify proceedings

Purpose:

to set aside

When not applicable

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

194
a.
of jurisdiction or v grave NLRC A abuse of • St. Martin Funeral Homes petition for certiorari inquires into errors discretion, and not errors of judgment. (Purefoods Corp (1989); Azores v SEC (1996)) v NLRC (1998) There is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by The statute. The remedy of a party is to file a motion for reconsideration level, then at of the a administrative avail

b.

petition essentially raises a factual issue. The jurisdiction of this court to review a decision or resolution of the NLRC, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, of its does not include of a the correction evaluation

special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. In the case of NLRC decisions, the intent of the legislature was to make a special civil action for certiorari as the proper vehicle for review. Thus, all references in the law to “appeals” from the NLRC to the SC must be interpreted to mean petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. All such petitions must initially be filed in the CA following the hierarchy of courts.

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, (1998)) whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner. (Villaruel v NLRC

c.

It

has • (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 Police Commission v Bello

been a long-standing policy and practice of the Court to respect the conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the Court of Tax Appeals, a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases. The CTA, by the nature of its functions, to the is dedicated and It has exclusively study

consideration of tax problems.

necessarily developed an expertise on the subject. We extend due consideration to its opinion unless there is an abuse or improvident exercise of authority. Since there is none in the case at bar, the Court adheres to the findings of the CTA. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v General Foods (2003)) 5. Cases

(1989) The unquestioned rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari will lie only if there is no

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

195
appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the acts of respondent. Here, motion for reconsideration was the more adequate and speedy remedy. It is settled to the the point only of being elementary that question • Industrial Meralco v Central Securities Board of

Assessment Appeals (1982) Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, board or officer exercising functions judicial whereby or the quasi-judicial record of a

involved in certiorari is jurisdiction, either the want or excess thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the same is so grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined, or to act at all, in It contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction. must emphatically be reiterated, since so often is it overlooked, that the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The reason for the rule is simple. When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original civil action of certiorari.

particular case is ordered to be elevated for review and correction in matters of law. As to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial power, there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by the statute. jurisdiction Judicial and review protects keeps within the its administrative agency

substantial

rights of parties affected by its decisions. Judicial review is proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion, or in case the administrative decision is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious. • Granting Cruz v Gangan (2003) that the presence or the

absence of negligence is a factual matter, the consistent ruling of this Court is that findings they of fact of an administrative by substantial agency must be respected, so long as are supported evidence. But lacking support, the factual finding of the COA on the existence of negligence cannot stand on its own and is therefore not binding on the Court. While we commend the Commission on Audit for its diligence in safeguarding State properties, we nonetheless hold that a government employee who has not been proven to be culpable or negligent should not be held accountable for the

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

196
loss of a cellular phone, which was stolen from her while she was riding on the LRT. • De Leon v Heirs of or non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. 1. a. jurisdiction discretion b. no plain, adequate and speedy remedy  Petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies, as prohibition is available only when there are no other plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law (Cabedo v Director of Lands (1961)) c. performs quasi-judicial ministerial functions agency and/or or grave Requisites lack abuse of of

Gregorio Reyes (1987) The writ of certiorari is available in this case. If all administrative decisions were conclusive upon us in any event, there would have been no reason at all to offer this extraordinary remedy to litigants who otherwise would have been deprived of this only and last resort to the courts of justice. This remedy applies to administrative decisions up to the highest level and includes the decision at bar even if rendered "by authority of the President." The sacramental phrase does not remove these decisions from the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court or inhibit us from reversing them when warranted by a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion. B. Prohibition Rule 65, Sec 2. Petition for prohibition. – When the proceeding of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other 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 commanding the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification

2. 

Purpose:

to prohibit

or stop a proceeding preventive remedy –

not for acts already performed; If fait accompli, prohibition can no longer be filed

exception:

prohibition can restrain an act which is already a fait accompli if such act is patently illegal and unconstitutional, and it creates a mischief and dangerous precedent whereby those in the corridors of power speedily could and avoid judicial completing intervention and review by merely stealthily the commission of an illegality (Tan v COMELEC (1986))

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

197
3. When not applicable claim of citizenship will not divest it of its jurisdiction. Exception is when there is substantial or conclusive proof to support the claim of citizenship, in which case the court, Prohibiti using its sound discretion, may allow intervention. The effect of granting the writ of prohibition is to suspend the administrative proceeding pending

a.
functions (Ruperto v

Prohibiti Torres

on does not lie against legislative (Unreported))

b.

on is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done, and not intended for an to act provide a remedy (1994)) already

accomplished.

(Simon, Jr. v CHR

the resolution of the issue of the citizenship in the judicial proceeding.

c.

Prohibiti • (1977) When the evidence submitted is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. proceeding, Question of alienage suspending the Judicial Co v Deportation Board

on is granted only in cases where no other remedy is available which is sufficient to afford redress. That the petitioners have another and complete remedy at law either by appeal or otherwise, is generally a sufficient reason for dismissing the writ. (Paredes v CA (1996)) 4. • Cases Chua Hiong v Deportation Board (1955) It is neither expedient nor wise that the right to a judicial determination should be allowed in all cases, it should be granted only in cases when the courts themselves believe that there so is substantial that evidence there are supporting the claim of citizenship, substantial reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. The remedy should be allowed only in the sound discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding. General Board rule has is that Deportation to original jurisdiction C.

should be decided first in a judicial administrative proceedings.

determination is allowable in cases when the courts themselves believe that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. The question is whether on the test prescribed as to the quantum of evidence required to justify judicial intervention before the termination of the deportation proceedings, the judgment reached by the lower court may be termed as suffering from the corrosion of substantial legal error. Mandamus

resolve the issue of citizenship. Mere

Rule 65, Sec 3. Petition for mandamus. – When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

198
an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. The petitioner shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. 1. a. is ministerial  exception: mandamus will lie against a discretionary duty when the official or agency refuses to exercise the duty itself  Discretion means the power or right conferred upon the office by law of acting officially under certain circumstances according to the dictates of his judgment and conscience and not controlled by the judgment of conscience of others. (Meralco v Savellano (1982))  A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. (Samson v Barrios; Lemi v Valencia (1968); Meralco)  Duty to ascertain facts is discretionary. Duty to act after the facts have been ascertained is ministerial. (Tan v 3. When not applicable Requisites public officer or agency has a positive duty that Veterans (1959)) b. petitioner is clear and controlling  Mandamus can be availed of only by the party who has a direct legal interest in the right sought to be enforced.  exception: If the question is one of public right and the object of mandamus is to procure the performance of a public duty, it is sufficient to show that the petitioner is a citizen even if he has not special interest in the result. (Benitez v Paredes; Tañada v Tuvera (1985)) c. no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy  Mandamus is premature if there are administrative remedies available to the petitioner. (Perez v City Mayor of Cabanatuan (1961))  exception: Where the case involves only legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust all administrative remedies before such judicial relief can be sought. (Español v The Chairman of the PVA (1985)) right of Backpay Commission

2.

Purpose: to compel a

party to perform an act arising out of a positive duty enjoined by law

a.

The writ

of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer. exercise Where the law imposes reference to any upon a public officer the right and duty to judgment, matter to which he is called upon to act, it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. If the law

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

199
imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. (Blanco (1924))  exceptions: when mandamus lies to compel duties performance of discretionary v Board of Examiners ordered manner, to act in a particular where has a been especially right

constitutional (1987))

violated. (Kant Wong v PCGG

f.
Mandamus will not lie to compel the PRC to Oath administer and the Hippocratic register

a.
There is grave abuse of discretion where the actuations are tantamount to a willful refusal to perform a duty specifically required by law.

respondents as physicians should doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory, then the privilege will not issue. For said privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right, which may be demanded if denied. Thus, and without a definite showing that the aforesaid requirements conditions have been satisfactorily met, the courts may not grant the writ of mandamus to secure said privilege legislative without will. thwarting (PRC v the De

b.
Where such discretion of the court can be legally exercised in only one way and it refuses to act, mandamus will lie to compel the court to exercise it. (People v Orias; Nable) Tuvera-Luna Inc. v

c.
To prevent a failure of justice or irreparable injury where there is a clear legal right and there is an absence of any adequate remedy, a where there is no appeal or such remedy of appeal is inadequate. (People; Tuvera)

Guzman (2004))

b.

Manda

mus will not lie to compel the issuance of a visa. Issuance of a visa is not a mater of course since it involves the exercise of discretion on the part of the consular officer as to the question if the entry of the applicant would be contrary to public safety. (Ng Gioc Liu v Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1950))

d.
To prevent an abuse of discretion or to correct an arbitrary action which does not amount to exercise of discretion. (People; Tuvera)

c.

Manda

mus does not lie to review or control the action/decision of a pension board or other boards or officers having authority over pension matters where the (a) action or decision is one resting in the discretion of the board or officer, or (b) where it involves the construction of the

e.
Where there has been grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority, in which case the respondent can be

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

200
law and the application of the facts thereto. Mandamus will lie only to compel the board or officer to take some action when it refuses to BUT will not attempt to prescribe the action to be taken and thereby control the discretion or judgment of the board or officer. (Policarpio (1956)) v Phil Veterans Board  Note, however, that his has been changed by the Revised Rules of Court: Rule 65, Sec 4. When and where petition filed. – The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from the notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court Appeals. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (As amended, A.M. No. 0002-03-SC, September 1, 2000) 5. • Cases Tan v Veterans Backpay Commission (1959) Duty to ascertain facts is discretionary. Duty to act after the facts have been 4. When and where filed ascertained is ministerial. • PRC v De Guzman (2004)

d.

Manda

mus does not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct. Mandamus issues if plaintiff has a clear legal right to the thing cases. demanded Proper but not in is doubtful specific remedy

performance. (Province of Pangasinan v Reparations Commission (1977); Quioge v Del Rosario; NAMARCO v Cloribel (1968))

e.

While

mandamus lies to compel a court to give due course to the appeal which it has erroneously dismissed, mandamus will not lie to compel a court to dismiss the appeal as the remedy is to assign such failure to dismiss as an error in the course of the appeal. (Lapisan v Alfonso)

Although Rule 65 does not For mandamus to prosper, there must be a showing that the officer, board, or official concerned, has a clear legal duty, not involving discretion. Moreover, there must be statutory of of the authority act, duty for and has the the been performance performance refused. the

specify any period for the filing of a petition for certiorari and mandamus, it must, nevertheless, be filed within a reasonable time. In certiorari cases, the definitive rule now is that such reasonable time is within three months from the commission of the complained act. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases (Cruz v CA (1996))

The function of mandamus is

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

201
not to establish a right but to enforce one that has been established by law. If no legal right has been violated, there can be no application of a legal remedy, and the writ of mandamus is a legal remedy for a legal right. There must be a welldefined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded. D. Declaratory Relief Rule 63, Sec 1. Who may file petition. – Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or hose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule. a. subject matter must be a deed, will, contract or written instrument and his rights are affected by law

b.
the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction (Santos v Aquino)

c.
filed before the breach v or violation Mirasol; thereof (Teodoro

Reparations Commission v Northern Lines (1970))

d.
there must be an actual justiciable with v controversy adverse between interests persons (Mirando

Wellington (1978); Edades v Edades)

e.
must have legal interest (Mirando)

f.
must be ripe for adjudication (Mirando), where all administrative remedies have been exhausted (Tolentino v Board of Accountancy)

Note:

An

action

for

declaratory relief must be brought in the RTC. It is not among the actions within the original jurisdiction of the SC even if only questions of law are involved. (Remotigue v Osmeña (1967); (1981)). Rural Bank of of Olongapo v Commissioner Land Registration

g.
adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding (1962)) (Ollada v Central Bank

However, if the petition has far-

reaching implications and it raises questions that should be resolved, it may be treated as one for prohibition (De la Llana v Alba (1982)) or for mandamus (Alliance of Government Workers v Minister of Labor and Employment (1983); In Re Saturnino Bermudez (1986)) 1. Requisites

2.
Purpose: to determine construction, validity and declaration of rights thereunder • while the Note: Prof. Avena says that (1) determination of any

question of validity or construction and (2) declaration of rights apply to statutes, executive orders, etc., validity/construction does not apply to

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

202
cases involving deeds, will, contracts or other written instruments. 3. When not applied E. Habeas Corpus Rule 102, Sec 1. To what habeas corpus extends. – Except as otherwise expressly provided by 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 rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.

a.
declaration of citizenship. Ardalles (1955))

Declaratory (Azajar v

relief does not lie in securing a judicial

1.

Nature: The great writ

b.
law took place. (1949))

Petitioner (De Borja v Villadolid

of liberty is intended as a speedy remedy to secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty. A person detained upon the orders of an agency may test the validity of his detention through the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which is a constitutionally guaranteed right. 2. a. illegal confinement or detention b. illegal restraint of liberty c. the person entitled thereto rightful custody of any person is withheld from Requisites there is there is

filed declaratory relief after the breach of

c.

DR does not

lie when a taxpayer questions his liability. Proper procedure is for the tax to be paid first and to sue for its recovery afterwards. (National Dental Supply v Meer (1951))

d.
of land. were

Petitioners They enjoyed no rights which Therefore declaratory

never acquired any interest in the parcels violated.

relief is not available. (Mirando)

e.

Declaratory

relief may be refused where the same would not terminate the uncertainty of controversy.

3.

Purpose:

secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty and test the validity of detention as ordered by an agency 4. • (1951) The writ of habeas corpus will issue when: Cases Mejoff v Director of Prisons

f.
issues rather than a

Where construction

the of

relief sought would be determinative of definite stated rights, status and other relations commonly expressed in written instruments, the case is not one of declaratory judgment since this remedy is available only if it is limited only to a declaration of rights trial and or not a determination, Amores (1991)) judicial

a.
an alien has been detained by the DOJ for an unreasonably long period of time after it has become apparent that the deportation order cannot be effectuated; and

investigation of issues. (Kawasaki v

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

203
b.
that no criminal charges have been formally made or a judicial order issued for his detention. In such (b) case, the order of deportation which was not executed is functus officio and the alien I being held without authority of law. • (1977) Bail renders a writ of habeas corpus moot and academic, as the bail bond gives him liberty.  Note, however, that in Criminal Procedure, a writ of habeas corpus may still issue despite the granting of bail when there is still effective detetion. Co v Deportation Board F. Injunction as provisional remedy Rule 58, Sec 1. Preliminary injunction defined; 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 court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular acts or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. released if such release is conditional, such as when there is surveillance, limitation in the place where he can go, etc. Records show that formal deportation proceedings have been initiated. The restraint (if any) on the person of the petitioner has therefore become legal.

1.
• Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag (1989) The arrest was illegal because it was executed on the strength of a mission order issued by the Commissioner of Immigration based on a sworn complaint of a sing individual. certain The events essential have requisite of probable cause is absent. However, supervened to render the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic: (a) Petitioner is no longer under The release of a 3. confinement. 2.

Nature:

An

ancillary

remedy provided to preserve the petitioner’s rights while main action is pending Purpose:

a.
prevent the commission of certain acts complained of; or

b.
order the continued performance of some act for the purpose of preventing further injury. Requisites:

a.
is entitled to relief demanded b.

plaintiff commis

detained person, whether permanent or temporary renders the petition for the writ of habeas corpus moot and academic, unless there are restraints attached freedom.  Note, however, that a writ of habeas corpus will still issue even if the person is already which precludes his

sion or continuance of an act complained of would probably work injustice to him c. defenda nt, is doing, threatens or about to do act in violation of petitioner’s rights which may render the judgment ineffective.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

204
d.
injuncti there is willful invasion of the petitioner’s right, and the injury is a continuing one; and 2) effect of the writ is to re-establish the pre-existing relation. • bodies, 4. a. Types Prelimin G. Suit for damages (indirect method) • Parties aggrieved by some agency action may be able to obtain judicial review in an action for damages brought Restrain officials. against the agency or its Whether or not the action will ary Mandatory Injunction – plaintiff wants to compel defendant to do something b. defendant from doing something c. ing Order – life span of 20 days after which, hearing is then held to decide propriety of the injunction d. injunction becomes Perman permanent ent Injunction – If plaintiff wins the case, (otherwise, the writ is dissolved) 5. • Cases Collector vs. Reyes (1957) cannot be issued in tax As an exception to the general rule that injunction collection, CTA is authorized to restrain the Collector from proceeding with its collection, if the collection of the tax is prejudicial to the interest of the government and of the taxpayer. Prelimin ary Injunction – to prevent or stop Pineda v Lantin (1962) and therefore, the writ of on can only be issued by superior to an inferior body; if co-equals, the injunction cannot prosper (Philippine Pacific Fishing Co. vs. Luna (1982); Honda v San Diego (1966); Nocnoc v Vera (1979)) The SEC and the RTC are co-equal preliminary injunction cannot issue.

prosper will depend on the determination of such other questions such as state immunity from suit and the applicable statutes.

The CA reversed the CFI decision

holding officers of the Commission of Races liable for damages which the PRC suffered on that race. A quasi-judicial officer is usually given immunity from liability to persons who may be injured as a result of an erroneous or mistaken decision of provided and that in the good acts faith. complained of were done under the color authority (Philippine Racing Club v Bonifacio (1960))

VII.
• Lemi vs. Valencia (1966) When the law requires hearing before denial of the application to operate, the seizure of the radio equipment of a radio station is illegal. Thus the preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the return of the confiscated transmitter is proper. The right to the writ is clear when: 1)

Extent of Judicial Review • Generally, laws creating

administrative agencies and providing for judicial review may indicate the scope of that review. both as Whether the courts may as of administrative inquire into questions of law, of fact or of well

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

205
discretion will depend on the enabling act. • 1. The following are the general rules: Questions 2. and 3. of Law are always substantial or credible proof are binding upon the SC. convinced If the reviewing court is substantial evidence that

supports the agency’s ruling, the court may confirm findings. should review. Otherwise, it (Donato v. Philippine

reviewable by the courts; Findings of fact, if based on binding on the courts. substantial evidence, are conclusive (Substantial Evidence Rule); If the decision of a case is on is the part of the with discretionary decision 4.

Marine Officer Association (1959))


whether

Where the matter is a simple

process of ascertaining from the records the application has been But granted, such is a question of fact.

agency, courts can review if the attended capriciousness; and Questions of jurisdiction are always reviewable as they go into the question of authority to decide. A. The Law-Fact Distinction • There is no clear-cut line which can be drawn to separate questions of law from questions of fact. There may be cases where the issues raised may easily be classified under one or the other, but some cases may involve mixed questions of law and fact. • The problem with these shady areas is that they are usually dependent on the predilection of the judge reviewing the case. If he is hell-bent on reviewing it, he’ll treat it as a question of law; otherwise, he’ll waive it off as a question of fact. As a reviewing judge though, he must ascertain is whether the by agency’s decision act. supported substantial

since in this case the records of the Bureau of Lands had been destroyed, and that circumstantial evidence had to be introduced, it is a rule now that the conclusion review. becomes drawn from the facts is question of law, which the courts may From a set of facts, one can reviewable. (Dauan v draw conclusion of law, which in turn Secretary (1959))

In a case involving workmen’s

compensation, that the deceased was found dead beyond his route prescribed by the Public Service commission is a question of fact. But whether such overcome the presumption of law that “ordinary course of business had been followed” is a question of law reviewable by the court. (Reyes Vda. De Santiago v Reyes (1960))


an

Non-controversion of a claim for

workmen’s compensation simply means admission of facts and not an admission of a legal conclusion. Hence, where the ER did not controvert a claim that an EE was lost or reported missing, while the ER’s vessel was navigating, such non-controversion is just an admission of the fact that the EE was missing but not an admission that he is

evidence for him to do the waiving-off

The findings of fact of the CIR as

to whether Morales was an employee and not a mere servant are binding upon the SC. The said findings supported by

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

206
dead, which is purely a conclusion of law reviewable by the SC. (Aboitiz v Pepito (1966)) B. Question of Law • As a general rule, questions of law are subject to judicial review, since the courts are generally more competent to resolve these issues considering the less • specialized A party action nature of their an his jurisdiction. challenging may direct administrative 1. statute 2. the courts. (1934)) (Ortua v Vicente Singson

The

Ortua

doctrine

that

a

decision rendered by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary is not subject to judicial review does not apply to decision of the Director which have been reversed by the Secretary. When the conclusion from the drawn facts by found the is Secretary

erroneous or not warranted by law, these are questions of law that are reserved to the court’s determination. Conclusions drawn from facts are questions of law which are reviewable. (Mejia vs. Mapa (1954)) the agency of and the

attach against the: constitutionality of the creating the

granting its powers, or validity agency action if this transcend the limit established by law, or 3. against the correctness of its interpretation and application of the law

The law in question provides no

prohibition for the fishing acts committed by the accused. The assailed conditional clause supplies a defect of law by extending the intent and application of the enabling statute. constitutes not only Judicial review is an excess of proper where the act of the Secretary

A

decision

rendered

by

the

Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, upon a question of fact is conclusive and not subject to review by the courts, in the absence of a showing that such decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition or mistake, other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of evidence. However, it is also not disputed that it was Congress’ intent to reserve to the courts the right to review the Director’s decisions, specifically relating to a question of law. Any action of the Director which is based on a misconstruction of law can therefore be corrected and is not conclusive upon

regulatory power conferred upon him, but also an exercise of legislative power which he does not have. Santos (1936)) (People v

A

perusal reveals

of

the it

Articles does

of not

petitioner

that

authorize the corporation to engage in the business of registering and accepting war notes for deposit and collecting fees for such services. Such interpretation of said Articles of Incorporation which involves a question of law is reviewable by the courts. (Japanese War Notes Claimants vs. SEC (1957))

The conclusion drawn from the

facts found by the CIR than an ER-EE relationship exist is a question of law

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

207
which may be reviewed by the court on certiorari. The issue of WON an ER-EE relationship exists is a question of law. (Ysmael v CIR (1960))  not Note: there There is an alternative view is an employer-employee saying that the question of whether or relationship is a mixed question of fact and law. Why? Because the Court has to examine the facts vis-à-vis the four-fold test. • Finality is attached to findings of fact of some agencies when these findings are supported by substantial evidence. This is but a recognition of the expertise of the agency as to questions in matter which have been entrusted to them for regulation or decision. But the courts have the power to review the findings of fact when the evidence on record is not substantial, and whether or not such Findings of fact in proceedings they are unsupported by is substantial is for the court to say.


unless whole.

for compensation are to be accepted substantial evidence on the record as a It is not a question of who has more evidence. It is possible for a case to be supported by substantial evidence on both sides. any side may v (O’Leary (1951)) If it is a finding of fact, be respected/upheld. Brown-Pacific-Maxon

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 that the division was the precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence. SC went over substantiality of the evidence here and found others which controverted employee’s ULP claims. In such a situation as in the above case, the Court, in order to determine the substantiality of the evidence, must consider evidence not only in its quantitative but also in its qualitative aspects. For to be substantial, evidence must first of all be credible. (Gonzales v Victory Labor Union (1969))

Inferences

drawn

by

the

Commissioner are to be accepted unless they are irrational or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. (1965)) (O’Keefe v Smith Associates

C.

Question of Fact • A question of fact exists if the 1. 2. 3. versions correct whether a certain issue involved is: thing exists, or whether an event has which of a of the two is taken place, or happening

The decision of the WCC saying

that the widow was not able to substantiate her allegation that she was lawfully married to the decedent because the marriage certificate was not presented is contrary to the evidence on record and issued with grave abuse of discretion. quasi-judicial determine any body, it question As a could without

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

208
regard to technicalities. Instead it and findings of fact. But when there is this grave case abuse where in of the sec. discretion examination 29 of the amounting to lack of jurisdiction as in contemplated disregarded this rule and chose to enmesh itself in a web of technicality over a single piece of evidence by demanding the original of the marriage certificate. such as the Preponderance certification,

Central Bank Act as a mandatory requirement before the closure and receivership of pet-appellant bank as not completely and fully complied with, then there is a justification for the courts to set aside the and administrative (Banco Mortgage Filipino Bank determination. Savings v. Monetary

of evidence adduced was enough, priest’s testimony of disbursing officer that she gets the salary in the past, affidavit of person stating that they were living together. The general rule is that because of the expertise that the administrative agency has, their findings of facts which are supported by substantial evidence are accorded by the courts with conclusiveness, as long as there was no grave abuse of discretion. (Suarnaba v WCC (1978))

Board, Central Bank (1991))

There

is

grave

abuse to lack

of of

discretion

amounting

jurisdiction, where respondent board, tribunal or officer exercising judicial functions exercised its judgment in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner, also when a party’s contention appears clearly tenable or broader interest of justice or public policy so require or when there is failure to consider evidence. Here, while it is true that findings of fact of the Secretary of Labor are entitled to respect, SC is inclined to review such findings since what is involved here is the fundamental issue of survival of a the company. Besides, of the the Secretary’s findings are not based on thorough examination parties’ contending claims but merely

The court is bound by the finding

of fact of the CTA that insulating oil comes within the meaning of the term “insulator”, exempted from tax, under MERALCO’s franchise because the CTA is dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems. findings of SC is bound CTA by the only the since

questions of law may be open for determination. Only errors of law and not rulings on the weight of the evidence are reviewable by the SC. (Acting Commissioner of Customs vs. MERALCO (1977))

It

is

well-recognized

principle

on their respective position papers; there better was no process trial would wherein ensure and (PAL v. adversarial

that administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. This is generally true with respect to acts involving the exercise of judgment or discretion

representation

presentation of evidence. Confessor (1994))

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

209

In administrative or quasidesignated as it is in this case. The NLRC and CA concurred with the labor arbiter on the issue that respondent employee is still entitled to a balance of the sickness wages. The SC has always accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact of the NLRC, particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, when supported by substantial evidence. WON petitioners actually paid the balance of the sickness wages to private respondent is a factual question. In the absence of proof that the labor arbiter or the NLRC had gravely abused their discretion, the Court shall deem it conclusive and cannot be compelled to overturn this particular factual finding. (German Marine Agencies v NLRC (2001)) judicial proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence is not required as a basis for a judgment of the legality of an ER’s dismissal of the EE, substantial evidence being sufficient. The Labor Code provides that the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively w/o regard to the technicalities (Meralco of v. law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. (1991)) NLRC


fact

While it is settled that findings of of an administrative agency

must be respected, it is axiomatic that such findings of facts should be supported by substantial evidence. (Lameyra v Paniglinan (2000)). If there is failure to present the quantum of proof necessary to prove the charge in case, the that subject is, of of with fact the administrative look at the v

Administrative by

proceedings the

are

governed

“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. As defined, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is different from the quantum of proof required in criminal proceedings which necessitates a finding of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Ombudsman, in ordering the withdrawal of the criminal complaints against respondent was simply saying that there is no evidence sufficient to

substantial evidence, the Court can questions Office (Tapiador

Ombudsman (2002))

The contention of the petitioner-

employer that the physician must not only be company-designated but also accredited with the POEA does not find support in the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Said contract only provides that the physician must be company-

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

210
establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is a condition sine qua non for conviction. Ergo, the dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action against respondent. In the instant substantial. It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. substantial believe if the The standard of is satisfied is be evidence the

case, this Court is of the view that the sworn complaints of the twenty remaining complainants coupled with their positive testimonies below, complies of proof more with required in the than the in proceedings adequately standard

where there is reasonable ground to that respondent might (Civil not responsible for the misconduct, even evidence overwhelming. Service

Commission v Cayobit (2003))

administrative cases. The desistance executed by three 3 out of the 23 original complainants is of no moment since administrative actions cannot be made to depend upon the will of every complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. administrative All told, the Court case has been holds that respondent’s guilt in the sufficiently established and pursuant to existing Civil Service Rules and Regulations, her dismissal from the service is warranted. (Velasquez v Hernandez (2004))

An examiner’s report is much a

part is as much a part of the record. Although the statutes suggests that the Board should not be influenced by the examiner’s opportunity to observe the witnesses he hears and sees and the Board does not. Nothing suggests that the receiving courts should not give to the examiner’s report such probative force as it intrinsically commands. It is even more important to consider hearing examiner’s (Universal report because v of his actual contact with the witnesses. Camera NLRC (1951))

The

evidence

presented

by

petitioner is substantial to support a finding that respondent is guilty of the offense charged against her. The established facts lead us to accept the conclusion of that she indeed and, in D. Question of Discretion 1. Discretionary acts v Ministerial acts procured and used a fake or spurious certificate eligibility accordance with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991, committed misconduct. dishonesty and grave It bears stressing that

in administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

211
Discretionary Discretion may be defined, when applied to public functionaries, as the power or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially under certain circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience and not controlled by the judgment of others. Discretion is the power to make a choice among permissive actions or policies. The very essence of discretionary power is that the person or persons exercising it may choose which of several courses of action should be followed. Ministerial A ministerial act has been defined as one performed in response to a duty which has been positively imposed by law and its performance required at a time and in a manner or upon conditions specifically designated, the duty to perform under the conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer’s judgment or discretion. questions of wisdom, propriety or expediency are for the agency and not for the courts. Court will not substitute The its

discretion or judgment for that of the administrative agency, but will determine the lawfulness of its action. administrative The ruling of an agency, on

questions of law, while not as conclusive as its findings of facts, is nevertheless persuasive and given much weight especially if the agency is one of special competence and experience.

Ministerial duty is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion, it is a simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law.

3.
interfere.

General rule: In the exercise

of discretion lawfully given, the court will not


Recognition review of of of ad2. judicial agency. of

Rationale: the expertise of the

2.
Judicial discretion •

Judicial review v

administrative

Exception:

If

Substitution

discretion was exercised in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, abusive, partial, and hostile manner. 4. • (1957) The erroneous appreciation of the significance of the computing facts laid before the Commission does not mean that it had abused its discretion. Well established is the rule that the SC will not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission and that its orders should be reversed only if it is not reasonably supported by evidence or it was rendered against the law, or issued w/o jurisdiction. Cases Laguna Tayabas v PSC

discretion for administrative discretion A court ordinarily may not or will not review or disturb an administrative limits of the agency’s powers in and the been or

discretion which is within the jurisdiction such conferred, has

absence of a clear showing that discretion exercised arbitrarily,

unreasonably, or unlawfully, or in bad faith, etc. policy or reviewable unreasonableness, of evidentiary Questions of discretion only are for departure support, and

from statutory standards, or lack

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

212
telecommunications, • Manila Trading v Zulueta (1940) The CIR may not order reinstatement of worker because although selection on employees is subject to regulation by the state by virtue of police power, an employer cannot be legally compelled to re-employ a person guilty of malfeasance or misfeasance at work. • (1977) There was no improvident arbitrary exercise of authority when Noriel ordered the certification election after the lapse of the 60-day period provided by law. Petitioner ignored that Noriel possesses discretionary power. Whether or not a certification electon should be held when the 30% requirement is not met is essentially a question of fact, thus the determination of Noriel is entitled to respect. • Federation of Free Kapisanan v Noriel is authorized to determine what the specific operating and technical requirements of "public convenience and necessity" are in the field of telecommunications, subject of course to relevant limitations established by legislative enactments, if any. The NTC is also authorized to examine and assess the legal, technical and financial qualifications of an applicant for a CPCN and in doing so exercises the special capabilities and skills and institutional experience it has accumulated. Courts should not intervene in that administrative process, save upon a very clear showing of serious violation of law or of fraud, personal malice or wanton oppression. technical competence Courts have none of the economic which or financial specialized and

administrative agencies have at their disposal, and in particular must be wary of intervening in matters which are at their core technical and economic in nature but disguised, more or less artfully, in the habiliments of a "question of legal interpretation."

Workers v Noriel (1978) Once it has been verified that the petition for certification election has the support of at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit, it must be granted. It becomes mandatory on Noriel’s part to order the election to ascertain which labor organization should be the exclusive bargaining representative. • governmental of Public PLDT v NTC (1995) agency charged and with

VIII.

Enforcement of Agency Action

Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment

1.
Judicata

Res

a. involves a final decision b. identity of parties, subject matter
and cause of action between the first and second case.

It is important to recall that NTC, as the passing upon applications for Certificates Convenience in the Necessity of (CPCNs) field

c.

applies to decisions of

administrative agencies if such decisions are in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

213 
of Res judicata does not The principle of res judicata may not be invoked application because in for they purely clearance are administrative to terminate, and proceedings such as the approval of the non-litigious apply if it is in the exercise purely administrative functions.

summary in nature, with regard to legal

2.
• Ipekdijan CTA (1963)

Cases Merchandising v

technicalities obtaining in courts of law. This pronouncement is consistent with the dictum that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of purely administrative functions. and summary only in to nature. courts and Dismissal res (administrative proceedings) is non-litigious Hence, and judicata does not apply. applies exercising functions. • Dulay v Minister of Natural judicial Res judicata agencies quasi-judicial

To say that the doctrine applies exclusively would be to to court decisions unreasonably

circumscribe the scope thereof. The more equitable attitude is to allow extension of the defense to decisions of bodies upon whom judicial conferred, decisions requisites. 1) 2) powers so meet have long the The as been their

doctrine’s essential

requisites of res judicata are: the former judgment must be final it must have been rendered by a court having over 3) 4) it the must jurisdiction subject be a

Resources (1993) It is well settled in our jurisprudence that decisions and order of administrative bodies rendered pursuant to their quasijudicial authority have, upon their finality, the force and effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata, which forbids the reopening of matters to once judicially determined acts by of competent authorities. Res judicata applies judicial and quasi-judicial executive and administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction. This case is said to show an example of administrative decision emanating from

matter and the parties judgement on the merits, and there must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. Cause of action is not made different by merely changing the form of action. Res judicata still applies even if you vary the form but it is essentially the same case. • (1989) Nasipit Lumber Co. v NLRC

exercise of quasi-judicial function. • Philamgen vs CA (1993)

Res judicata does not apply to courts where prior decision was done by the Board of Marine Inquiry. One of the requisites of res judicata is that there

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

214
must be identity of subject matters and causes of action between the 1 prior case may bar that
st

The general rule is that agencies

and 2 in

nd

performing quasi-judicial functions have the implied power to issue writs of execution.

case in order that the judgment in the the subsequent case. The cause of action in the marine protest was to enforce the administrative liability of the shipmaster and officers. On the other hand, the cause of action at bar is to enforce civil liability of the common carrier. • Manila Electric Co. v Phil


enabling otherwise

exception: law expressly

If

the

provides


power to

If

the

law its

is

silent,

presume that the agency has the enforce from its decisions emanating quasi-judicial

Consumers Foundation (2002) The issue - whether or not Meralco is duly authorized to retain the savings resulting from the reduction of the franchise tax under P.D. No. 551 as long as its rate of return falls below the 12 % allowable rate recognized in this • jurisdiction – has long been settled in a BOE decision, which was also upheld by this Court. It was a final order by a body (BOE) with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties therein. judgment on the merits. It was a Further, the

powers (Apolega v Hizon 91968))


normally

The authority to decide and logically begin to

cases (quasi-judicial power) should include the grant of authority to enforce and execute the judgment it renders, unless the law otherwise provides (GSIS v CSC (1991)) The legislative of may aid the enforcement administrative Also, direct are

determination by providing a penalty for failure to comply therewith. power and contempt and positive sanctions (grant of subpoena powers) afforded by provisions for administrative or judicial processes to compel obedience or prevent violation of the determination. • Administrative functions: Enforce decision Promulgate rules Issue or withhold license Dole out or withhold enforcement on public

parties, subject matter and cause of action are identical. Thus, relitigation of the same issue in a new civil case cannot be sanctioned under the principle of res judicata. Respondent RTC, and for this matter, all lower courts, ought to be reminded that a final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. error should be Although judicial through determinations are not infallible, judicial corrected appeals, not through repeated suits on the same claim. B. Writ of Execution; Mandamus

Adjudicative function Rule-making function Executive function Dispensing government largess • Administrative Focusing

includes:  opinion   Revocation Suspension

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

215
  Refusal to renew license Refusal to grant execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the order pro tanto has no validity. (Clavano v HLURB (2002)) -ENDAPPENDIX BOOK VII Exclusion and ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Chapter 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS enforcement of of personal Internal Sec. 1. Scope. - This Book shall be applicable to all agencies as defined in the next succeeding section, except the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, military establishments in all matters relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the Board of Pardons and Parole, and state universities and colleges. Sec. 2. Definitions. - As used in this Book: of ill(1) "Agency" includes any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to licensing functions; government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right, 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

clearance paper to ships  benefits  property  deportation  Imposition and collection Summary • Distraint of fines and penalties  without need for adjudication: property or levy on real property (Commissioner Revenue) • • Abatement of nuisance Sequestration (Secretary of Health) gotten wealth (PCGG) Imposing conditions seizure and sale or destruction of Withholding or denying


final v

If officials refuse to implement a and The executory judgment, the

remedy is mandamus. (Vda. De Corpuz Commanding General, Philippine Army (1978))

The NLRC and the CFI (now the

RTC) are co-equal, such that the latter cannot issue a writ of mandamus against the former. judgment of The CFI has not jurisdiction the NLRC (Merano v to intervene with the execution of a final Tutaan (1982)). Neither can the CFI

issue a writ of injunction against the NLRC, as injunction can only be issued against an inferior court (Ambrosio v Salvador (1978))

Execution must conform to that

ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision; where the order of

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

216
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, registration, passport, charter, clearance, approval, Chapter 2 RULES AND REGULATIONS Sec. 3. Filing. - (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (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 three (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, of this shall section carry under out pain the of requirements (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, recognition exemption, of any exception, claim, or remedy; immunity, right,

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.

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.

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 rulemaking requirements provided by law not

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

217
inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall 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 Recording. 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 two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested Chapter 3 ADJUDICATION Sec. 10. Compromise administrative and Arbitration. To expedite proceedings involving cases shall be observed. become effective fifteen (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 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 one (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,

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 five (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:

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

218
(1) The agency may admit and give probative value 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 crossexamine 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 thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the decision them. Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to 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 to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their (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, no health, license or may safety be require otherwise, 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. withdrawn,

suspended, revoked or annulled without notice

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

219
shall be perfected within fifteen (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 of the resolution of denial. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the aggrieved party shall have fifteen (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 fifteen (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 fifteen (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. relied The petition upon for the shall contain review, and a concise shall be statement of the issues involved and the grounds 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. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative decision. One (1) 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 fifteen (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

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

220
the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law. Sec. 26. Transmittal of Record. - Within fifteen (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.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful