You are on page 1of 6

Tapa Tips Admin Law

1. Requisites of Administrative Regulation (ASAR)


(a) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
(b) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;
(c) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
(d) It must be reasonable.
First Requisite: Promulgation Must Be Authorized by the Legislature
Authority to promulgate the regulation is usually conferred by the Charter itself of
the administrative body or by the law it is supposed to enforce.
When Congress authorizes promulgation of administrative rules and regulations
to implement given legislation, all that is required is that the regulation be not in
contravention with it, but to conform to the standards that the law prescribes.
Second Requisite: Regulation Must Be Within the Scope of the Authority Given
by the Legislature
Assuming a valid authorization, it is still necessary that the regulation
promulgated must not be ultra vires or beyond the authority conferred.
Third Requisite: Regulation Must Be Promulgated in Accordance with the
Prescribed Procedure
As in the enactment of laws, the promulgation of administrative regulations of
general application does not require previous notice and hearing, the only
exception being where the legislature itself requires it . In the absence of such a
requirement, the administrative body can promulgate the regulation in its
exclusive discretion.
But where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy between
specific parties, it is considered an administrative adjudication and so will require
notice and hearing.
As for publication, the applicable rule is now found in Executive Order No. 200
which provides that 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.

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating
only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be
published.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to
inform the public of the contents of the law.
The Supreme Court, it would seem, requires publication of the administrative
regulation only if it is of general application and penal in nature.
Fourth Requisite: Regulation Must Be Reasonable
Like statutes, administrative regulations promulgated thereunder must not be
unreasonable or arbitrary as to violate due process.
2. What is Doctrine of exhaustion of Administrative remedy?
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, an administrative
decision must first be appealed to the administrative superior up to the highest level
before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review.
3. What is the quantum of evidence required in administrative cases? In administrative
cases against lawyers?
The quantum of evidence required in administrative cases is substantial evidence
or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a
whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence
which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief compared to the presented
contrary evidence. This is because disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or
a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers.
4. What is quasi-judicial power? Is DOJ a quasi-judicial ageny? What is the remedy in
case of denial(not sure if accurate ang word, kasi kung denial crimpro na to. Iba na ang
remedy) of preliminary investigation?
Quasi-judicial power is the power of the administrative agency to determine
questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the
standards laid down by the law itself.

Settled is the rule that DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency. In Balangauan vs CA,
the Court held that a quasi-judicial agency performs adjudicatory functions such that its
awards, determine the rights of parties, and their decisions have the same effect as
judgments of a court. Such is not the case when a public prosecutor conducts a
preliminary investigation to determine probable cause to file an Information against a
person charged with a criminal offense, or when the Secretary of Justice is reviewing
the formers order or resolutions. The DOJ is not a quasi-judicial body
In case of denial of preliminary investigation the proper remedy is petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Memorandum Circular No. 58 of the
Office of the President bars an appeal from the decisions/orders/resolutions of the
Secretary of Justice on preliminary investigations of criminal cases viaa petition for
review, except for those involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
Therefore, a party aggrieved by the DOJs resolution - affirming or reversing the
finding of the investigating prosecutor in a preliminary investigation involving an
offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death - cannot appeal to the
Office of the President and is left without any plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of the law. This leaves a certiorari petition as the only
remedial avenue left.
5. Question is about the validity of a circular requiring any person intending to practice
before the Patent Office to first pass an examination to be given to it on patent laws and
jurisprudence and its own rules of practice.
The circular is not valid.
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, to be valid the rules must not violate
fundamental rights or encroach upon constitutional prerogatives, like the rule-making
power of the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the
exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in the
Philippines and any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law
anywhere and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in
the Philippines. Here, the circular issued clearly encroaches upon the constitutional
prerogative of the Supreme Court with regard to the practice of law.
Therefore, the assailed circular is not valid for encroaching upon the
constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court with regard to the practice of law.
6. Validity of a regulation phasing out Buses more than 10 years old.
The assailed regulation is valid.

The fourth requisite of a valid regulation is that it must be reasonable and not
arbitrary as to violate due process. In Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v. Board of
Transportation when a regulation phasing out taxicabs more than six years old as an
invalid exercise of the police power, the Court declared the regulation reasonable,
holding that its purpose was to promote the convenience and comfort and protect the
safety of the passengers. Here, the purpose of the regulation is similar, if not the same.
Therefore, the assailed regulation is valid for being a reasonable exercise of
police power.
7. Why is the decision of the CSC appealable to CA and not SC?
Under the Constitution, 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.
Pursuant to this provision Congress enacted R.A. 7902 amending Sec. 9 of B.P. Blg.
129, eliminating such recourse to the Supreme Court and transferring the revising
power to the Court of Appeals over all adjudications of the Civil Service Commission.
And as a consequence, the Supreme Court issued a Revised Administrative Circular
No. 1-95 implementing the foregoing amendment and including the CSC among the
quasi-judicial agencies whose awards, judgments and final orders or resolutions should
be elevated to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review under Rule 43.
8. A was sued by B Incorporated under BP 22 in the MTC. A filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground of failure to refer to brgy conciliation.
a) MTC denied motion to dismiss, A filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the
RTC. If you are the RTC judge rule on the petition.
If the question is to rule on the petition:
I will dismiss the petition and sustain the dismissal by the MTC.
The Local Government Code enumerates the cases where barangay conciliation
is not necessary. One of which is when one of the parties is a juridical entity. Here, the
complainant is B Incorporated, a juridical entity. Therefore, there is no need for
barangay conciliation and the order of the MTC to dismiss the case is correct.
If the question is whether or not the remedy is proper:
The remedy of A is not proper.
Jurisprudence dictates that as a general rule, the ordinary procedure is that after
the denial of a Motion to Dismiss, the defendant should file an Answer, go to trial and, if
the decision is adverse, appeal the case and assign as one of the errors the denial of

the dismissal. The exception is when the court in denying the Motion to Dismiss acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in which case certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be availed of. And since the order denying the
Motion to Dismiss is an interlocutory order and as provided for by Sec. 1, Rule 45 of the
ROC, the proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65. Here, the there is no showing that
the MTC in denying the Motion to Dismiss, did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction
nor with grave abuse of discretion.
Therefore, the remedy of A in filing a petition for certiorari Under Rule 65 is not
proper.
b) MTC granted the motion, B Incorporated field Rule 65 to the RTC, decide.
Answer would be the same. Baligtarin nyo lang yung sustained. Dapat reversed if
granted. Pero as to remedy is proper or not answer is the same.
8. Differentiate certiorari in Rule 45 and Rule 65.
The following are the difference between certiorari in Rule 45 and Rule 65:
a. As to nature:
In Rule 45, it is a mode of appeal while in Rule 65, it is a special civil action.
b. As to question raised:
In Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised while in Rule 65, the petition
raises the issue as to whether the lower court acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
c. As to subject of review/appeal:
Rule 45 involves review of the judgment, award or final order on the merits.
While Rule 65 may be directed against interlocutory orders of the court prior
to appeal from the judgment or where there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy or adequate remedy.
d. As to period to file:
Rule 45 must be made within the reglementary period for appeal. While in
Rule 65 it must be filed within 60 days from the notice of the judgment, order
or resolution sought to be assailed.
e. As to effect of filing:
Rule 45 stays the judgment, award or order appealed from. While Rule 65
does not stay the challenged proceeding unless a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order is issued.
f. As to requirement of filing motion for reconsideration:
In Rule 45, prior filing of a motion for reconsideration is not required. While in
65, it is a condition precedent, subject to certain exceptions.
g. As to power exercised:

In Rule 45, the appellate court is in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
and power of review. While in Rule 65, the court exercises original jurisdiction.
h. As to where can be filed:
Rule 45 can filed only with the Supreme Court. While Rule 65 can be filed
either in the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.
9. What is the remedy available in administrative cases from the ombudsman?
As held by the Court in Fabian v. Desierto, appeals from the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are now covered by Rule 43. Section
27 of Republic Act No. 6770 was declared unconstitutional for consequently violating
the proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution that No law shall be passed
increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence.