Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Remedies in Administrative Cases
Remedies in Administrative Cases
Law regulating the powers, procedures, and acts of public administration. It applies to all public officials and public agencies. As distinguished from legislative and judicial authority,
administrative authority entails the power to issue rules and regulations based on statutes, grant licenses and permits to facilitate the conduct of government business, initiate
investigations of and provide remedies for complaints or problems, and issue orders directing parties to conform to governing statutes or rules. An administrative-law judge is a
government official with quasi-judicial powers, including the authority to conduct hearings, make findings of fact, and recommend resolution of disputes concerning the agency's actions.
ANS: In administrative proceedings, due process simply means an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the order complained of; it cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict
jurisprudential sense. A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the preliminary findings and recommendations; he is entitled only to a reasonable opportunity
to be heard, and to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence. (Vealasquez v. CA, G.R. No. 150732, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 357). Note that it is the administrative
order, not the preliminary report, which is the basis of any further remedies the losing party in an administrative case may pursue. (Viva Footwear Mfg. Corp. v. SEC, et al., G.R. No.
163235, April 27, 2005).
The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which
administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to
dispose of the same after due deliberation.
Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which
is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations,
are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative
act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount
involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo
warranto proceedings. Exceptions (c) and (e) are applicable to the present case. (Rep., et al. v. Lacap, et al., G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007).
The underlying principles of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the
matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and speedier solutions
to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts for reasons of law,
comity, and convenience will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to
act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum. (Berdin, et al. v. Hon. Eufracio Mascarinas, et al., G.R. No. 135928, July 6, 2007, Tinga, J).
It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have
availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer
concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the courts judicial power can be sought. The
premature invocation of a courts intervention is fatal to ones cause of action as aptly explained by the Supreme Court in the case of University of the Philippines v. Catungal, Jr., et al.,
(G.R. No. 121863, May 5, 1997), to wit:
The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the
matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and more speedy
solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts for
reasons of law, comity, and convenience will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an
opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.
The rule in administrative law is that parties requesting judicial action must first exhaust their remedies in the executive branch. This is premised not only on practical considerations but
also on the comity existing between different departments of the government, which comity requires the court to stay their hands until the administrative processes have been completed.
(Madrinan vs. Sinco, 110 Phil. 160) Further, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, recourse through court action, as a general rule, cannot prosper until all the
remedies have been exhausted at the administrative level, (Pacana vs. Consunji, 108 SCRA 631[1981]; Pestaas et al. v. Dyogi, et al., 81 SCRA 574 [1978]; Antonio v. Tanco, 65 SCRA
448 [1975]).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
A party cannot, without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, seek court intervention by filing an action for replevin for the grant of relief during the pendency of
an administrative proceedings.
I. INTRODUCTION
Weight of Evidence: - The balance of evidence and in whose favor it tilts. This refers to the indication of the greater evidence between the parties . This depends on the judicial evaluation
within the guidelines provided by the rules and by jurisprudence.
Sufficiency of Evidence- refers to the adequacy of evidence. Such evidence in character, weight, or amount, as will legally justify the judicial action demanded or prayed by the parties.
This refers to the question as to whether the evidence amounts or meets the required quantum needed to arrive at a decision in a civil, criminal, or administrative case; or to prove
matters of defense or mitigation or to overcome a prima facie case or a presumption
1. That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty. If the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with
the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
B. Civil Cases: Preponderance of Evidence. This means that he weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the other
V. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURT by trial court generally accorded respect by appellate courts as the former have first hand contact with the evidence and
were able to observe the witness as they testified.
In matters concerning the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of trial courts unless they neglected, ignored or misappreciated material and
substantial facts, which could materially affect the results of the case.
VI. EVIDENCE ON MOTION When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective
parties, but the court may direct that the matter be wholly or partially on oral testimony or depositions.
A. This refers to collateral issues or motions based on facts not appearing on record such as (i) proof of service by publication (ii) relief from order of default (iii) Taking of depositions
(iv) motion for new trial (v) relief from judgment (vi) issuance of writ of preliminary injunction
Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on
its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed
without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days
after the prosecution rests its
case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose
the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
AFTER THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS OF THE ACCUSED?
WHAT ARE THE WAYS BY WHICH A CASE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION?
1. The court may dismiss the case on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the right to be heard
2. Upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court
THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE. THE COURT THINKS THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED. WHAT DOES IT NEED TO DO IN CASE IT
WISHES TO DISMISS THE CASE?
The court may dismiss the case on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the right to be heard
WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE PROSECUTION WOULD BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE COURT DISMISSES THE CASE?
The prosecution is given the chance to explain itself of circumstances that may have lead to its failure to adduce enough evidence to support its case
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITH LEAVE OF COURT?
The effect of its filing is that if the court grants the demurrer, the case will be dismissed
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may still adduce evidence on his behalf
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT?
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence which was filed without leave of court, the accused is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and submits the
case for judgment on basis of the evidence of the prosecution
This is because demurrer to evidence is not a matter of right but is discretionary on the court
Permission of the court has to be obtained before it is filed, otherwise the accused loses certain rights
THE ACCUSED FILED A DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT. THE DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE IS DENIED. IS THERE ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT?
No
The general rule is that filing of a demurrer of evidence without leave of court, which is subsequently denied, is a waiver of presentation of evidence
Nonetheless, if the demurrer of evidence is filed before the prosecution rests its case, there would be no waiver to present evidence. As the prosecution hasnt
finished presenting its
evidence, there is still insufficiency of evidence.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THE DEMURRER IS GRANTED AND THE ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED?
The accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment not only granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil liability of the
accused to the private offended party, said judgment on its civil case would be a nullity for violation of the rights of the accused to due process.