You are on page 1of 16


minimum requirement
I. Introduction
II. Control of Administrative Action Factors which gave rise to admin. agencies
III. Powers and Functions of Administrative 1) growing complexity of modern life - as
Agencies society gets more complex, there are more
things to regulate
IV. Administrative Procedure
2) the multiplication of the subject of
VI. Judicial Review of Administrative governmental regulation
3) the increased difficulty of administering the
VII. Modes of Judicial Review law
VIII. Extent of Judicial Review
IX. Enforcement of Agency Action Constitutional status of admin. agencies
PART I. the admin. agency does not strictly belong to
INTRODUCTION one branch.
The agency does not constitute a 4th branch
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - that branch of public of government because the constitutional
law dealing with the doctrines and principles scheme (separation of powers) only allows 3
governing the powers and procedures of branches of government.
administrative agencies including especially
judicial review of administrative action. Role of Admin. Agencies
Residual Powers
An ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY is any the powers given to the three branches spill
governmental authority other than a court or over because of the 3 shortfalls. There is a
legislative body performing rule-making or need for a body which would act as a
adjudicatory functions. catching mechanism, otherwise, the three
branches would collapse. The AA supports
the trichotomy of powers.
AGENCY includes:
any department, bureau, office, commission,
authority or officer of the National How do these agencies come into being?
Government authorized by law or executive a) by statute
order to make rules, issue licenses, grant b) by the constitution
rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases;
c) by Executive orders - usually fact-finding
government corporations with respect to agencies
function regulating private right, privilege, or
occupation or business;
officials in the exercise of disciplinary power
as provided by law.
(Sec. 2 (1), Book VII, Admin Code of 1987) 1. can be modified 1. perform more
by congress sensitive functions
2. may be altered 2. underscoring the
Powers of an administrative agency
or abolished independence of
a) rule-making the agency thus,
b) adjudicatory insulate it from
c) licensing (permits) political pressure
d) price/rate-fixing
e) implementing/executory The Chief Executive exercises CONTROL
over agencies and offices which perform
rule-making / adjudicatory functions.
If the agency is created by Congress - a) Abolition
consider the law that created it. If the law is isnt effective because the admin. agencies
silent as to the control which the President are needed.
may exercise, the President can only
b) Appropriation
SUPERVISE, i.e., to see to it that the laws
are faithfully executed. isnt effective since appropriations are
always given. If no appropriation is given,
the public would suffer.
Why are administrative agencies necessary?
c) Investigatory
Administrative agencies are necessary due
effective only as an aid in legislation and
to the inadequacies of the executive-
cannot serve the need for constant
legislative-judicial trichotomy.
The 3 great branches of government lack:
d) Prescription of legislative standards
(1) time; (2) expertise; and (3) organizational
aptitude for governmental supervision. ineffective because the standards should be
flexible and those who make the standards
lack the expertise. The standards must be
The doctrine of separation of powers: EFFECTIVE, SUFFICIENT.
To prevent absolutism. Most of the time, Congress is not definite
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, because of (a) varying conditions and (b)
The Supreme Court cannot assume the differences in the need for regulation
administrative function of supervisory control
over executive officials.
e) Prescription of minimum procedural
In Noblejas v. Teehankee (1963), the requirements
Supreme Court struck down Noblejas claim
There should be a shift to Administrative
that the Commissioner of Land Registration,
standards which allows the agencies to
being entitled to the same compensation,
come up with the standards themselves.
emoluments & privileges as a CFI judge,
can only be investigated and suspended in This can be effected in these ways :
the same manner, and not by the Secretary 1) modify the doctrine
of Justice.) 2) procedural due process
Members of the Supreme Court cannot sit
as a board of arbitrators. (Manila Electric
Congress can prescribe minimum
Co. v. Pasay Transpo, 1932)
procedural requirements which have a
A judge cannot become a member of a general applicability to all agencies. But
provincial committee on justice which even with this, there are sill problems,
performs administrative functions. (In Re: namely;
Rodolfo U. Manzano (1988)
1) Agencies are not bound by the technical
rules of procedure
PART II. 2) agencies need flexibility to act
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION These minimum procedural requirements
may be found in Book 7 of the Admin. Code
CONTROL of 1987.
the power to change, modify, alter decisions
of subordinates Substantial evidence - such relevant evidence
SUPERVISION which a reasonable mind will accept as
power to oversee adequate to support a conclusion

A. Legislative Control B. Executive Control

Executive power is vested in the President
(Art. VII, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution)
Ways of exercising control by Congress
RULE: The President shall have control of power to make law. This is a corollary to the
all the executive departments, bureaus and doctrine of Separation of Powers.
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be the later attitude of the SC is more liberal
faithfully executed. (Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987 and is in favor of sustaining the validity of
Constitution) the delegation.
EXCEPTIONS: In the case of agencies Courts have realized the necessity of
created by the legislature (e.g. NLRC, BIR, delegation of powers - broad or vague
LTFRB), one must check the enabling law standards are sufficient
regarding Congress intention regarding this.
If the law is silent, the President cannot
1. Policies - limits, boundaries, complete in
exercise control but merely supervision.
itself, leaves nothing to the discretion; may
However, in cases involving agencies under be in another statute (Chiongbian v. Orbos)
the executive branch, the President has
2. Standards - express or implied (Edu v.
Ericta); written administrative standards
(White v. Roughton)
C. Judicial Control
Judicial review of administrative actions What are the matters that Congress cannot
D. Ombudsman delegate?
Investigates and prosecutes Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v. Auditor-
All elective and appointive officials, including General)
cabinet members, GOCCs and local Imposition of criminal penalties (US v.
government are within his jurisdiction. Barrias)
Those who may be removed only by Designation of a particular act as a crime
impeachment are not within his jurisdiction (People v. Maceren)
The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an Creation of standards on the part of the
exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency
agency or officer upon whom that judgment
or discretion is lawfully vested, esp. where
Requisites for a valid delegation (Pelaez v.
the matter involves basically technical
Auditor General)
matters coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of the agency / a) the law must be complete in itself; must set
officer. (Concerned Officials of MWSS v. forth a policy to be executed
Vasquez (1995), where the Ombudsman b) must fix a standard, the limits of which are
was held to have interfered with a bid-and- sufficiently determinate or determinable, to
award contract.) which the delegate must conform in the
The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to performance of his functions.
initiate an investigation into the alleged
delay in the disposition of a judicial case. It The standard may be express or implied
is the Supreme Court which has (Edu v. Ericta)
administrative supervision over all courts
The standard does not have to be found in
and the personnel thereof. (Dolalas v. Office
the law being challenged. It may be
of the Ombudsman, 1996)
embodied in other statutes on the same
subject matter as that of the challenged
PART III. legislation. [Chongbian v. Orbos (1995).
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF Here, the challenged law was the ARMM
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES Organic Act. The standard was found in the
Reorganization Act.]

A. Legislative Functions
Examples of sufficient standards include:
1. Non-Delegation Doctrine
Assumption by Labor Minister over strikes
theoretically puts a check on the legislature
affecting national interest (Free Telephone
from abdicating its duty by delegating its
Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and b. Filling in of details (Alegre v. Collector of
Employment, 1981) Customs)
Reorganization of administrative regions in
ARMM (Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995) 3. Administrative Rule making
Standard may be implied from other laws,
Administrative rule-making or subordinate
e.g. RA 5435 (simplicity, economy,
Valid as long as germane, consistent,
Fixing of rates by National
implements the law
Telecommunications Commission
(Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 1989) The standards Normative and prescriptive in character
used were public safety, public interest, has the force and effect of law; affects
reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates substantive rights
(case to case basis) must not go beyond the standards
WON rate-fixing is legislative or quasi- prescribed by the law.
judicial General in application

Legislative Quasi-judicial INNOVATIONS IN BOOK VII

No notice and Notice and 1) date of effectivity : 15 days after filing with UP
hearing required hearing Law Center
unless the law required
- publication - submit to UP Law Center
requires To be able to
a) Quarter bulletin
evidence and b) up-to-date codification
prove the EO 200 allowed publication I na newspaper
possible of general circulation
adverse Art. 2 NCC - 15 days after publication in the
effects on its OG
Adm. Code - 15 days after filing

2) Public Participation (Sec. 9)

In Santiago v. COMELEC, RA 6735 is
incomplete, inadequate or wanting in publish proposed rules and afford interested
essential terms and conditions insofar as parties the opportunity to submit views.
initiative on amendments to the Constitution What is sad is the law uses the phrase, As
is concerned. COMELEC resolution is void far as practicable makes it look like its not
as there are no standards at all, no mandatory. Can be an excuse.
legislative policy.
In Panama Refining Co. v, Ryan, for Public Participation
subordinate rules to be valid, such must be
To make a determination of facts/evidence
within prescribed limits of the statute
creating or granting such authority. 1) formal - trial type procedure
In A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., the 2) informal - more desirable and more
legislature cannot make a sweeping effective
delegation of legislative power. - public hearings, presentation of
papers and memo, resolutions,
workshops, conferences, seminars,
2. Permissible Delegation
The Legislature must establish the standard;
AAs only to make subordinate rules
Rate Fixing - even more specific
2 weeks before rate fixing, 1st hearing is
a. Ascertainment of fact (Lovina v. Moreno)
refers to ALL RATES
Tanada ruling: Publication in O.G. or
Two ideas involving rate-fixing newspaper of general circulation is required
for effectivity of administrative rules and
1) proposed rate is published
2) must have public hearing
What need not be published:
1. interpretative regulations
Problem with not following requirements
2. internal regulations ( regulating only
- aggrieved party can always can go to personnel of agency
3. letters of instructions issued by
- the rate can be voided administrative superior to their
Rule-making subordinates
- an agency process for the formulation,
amendment or repeal of rule. In the Admin Code of 1987: Filing of copy of
regulations is sufficient for effectivity
Limits on rule-making power:
a. authorized by law (Olsen v. Aldanese) Penal Regulations
b. must not amend the law (Syman v. must be published in full text (Sec. 6 (2),
Jacinto) Book 7, Admin Code)
c. must not define a criminal act (People v. If a rule is penal in character, it is required
Maceren) that the rule is published before it takes
d. must be germane to the purpose of the effect. (People v. Que Po Lay)
law which it was meant to implement the law itself must so declare the act as
(Toledo v. CSC) punishable
e. must not restrict, expand, diminish law penal statutes exclusive domain of the
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. legislature, cannot be delegated
CA; Land Bank v. CA; GMCR v. Bell In People v. Maceren, it was held that
Telecoms) "Administrative rules and regulations cannot
f. action of the AA to be set aside if there amend or modify or expand the law by
is an error of law, a grave abuse of including, prohibiting or punishing certain
power or lack of jurisdiction or grave acts which the law does not even define as
abuse of discretion clearly conflicting a criminal act."
with either the letter or the spirit of the
law (Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA)
Interpretative rules
interprets the law enacted by the legislative
Publication and effectivity
does not and cannot control decisions as to
Every agency to file with the UP Law Center the proper construction of the statute; not
three (3) certified copies of every rule binding but generally or in particular
adopted by it. (Bk. VII, Sec. 3) circumstances it is given great weight and
Date of effectivity of rule: 15 days from the has a very persuasive influence on the Court
date of filing (Bk. VII, Sec. 4) Interpretative Rule can be found erroneous
EXCEPTIONS: by the successor (Hilado v. Collector of
1. different date is fixed by law or Internal Revenue)
specified in the rule Administrative interpretation merely advisory
2. in cases of imminent danger to (Victorias v. SSC)
public health, safety and welfare, Wrong construction of the law cannot give
Publication is indispensable rise to a vested right. (Hilado v. CIR)
Publication essential especially if general in Action of the AA will be set aside if there was
character error of law, or abuse of power, or lack of
jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion
Rule on publication of administrative
issuances different from the Taada ruling
clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of provides
a legislative enactment. (Peralta v. CSC) otherwise
The power to hear a case can be delegated,
but not the power to decide. (American PSC not authorized to delegate power to fix
Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, 1975) rates to a common carrier or other public
service. Power to fix rates, being a
The power to decide can be delegated delegated power cannot be delegated
provided that the power to delegate such further (Panay Autobus v. Philippine
function was not withheld expressly or Railway)
impliedly. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino, Rate-fixing must be exercised by the agency
1994, where the issue was whether the directly. The power to fix rates, which is a
HLURB could split itself into divisions when delegated power, cannot be delegated
hearing cases instead of meeting en banc.) further (KMU v. Garcia)
NOTE: Is it not implied from the fact that the
Board was constituted as a collegial body Principle on rate fixing and requirement of
that they were meant to decide as a collegial notice and hearing
body? (Hence an implied prohibition on the
delegation of quasi-judicial functions.) if the rate to be fixed applies to all utilities in
general --- LEGISLATIVE in character
Notice and hearing may be dispensed with
Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices unless the law requires otherwise.
A rate is any charge to the public for a If the rate to be fixed applies to one entity --
service open to all and upon the same QUASI-JUDICIAL in character notice and
terms, including individual or joint rates, hearing required.
tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as (Vigan Electric v. PSC; Philcomsat v. Alcuaz)
well as communication, mileage,
kilometreage and other special rates which
shall be imposed by law or regulation to be Licensing Function
observed and followed by any person. (Sec. Licensing includes agency process involving
2 (3), Book VII, Admin Code) grant, renewal, denial, revocation,
AA to publish or circulate notices of suspension, annulment, withdrawal,
proposed rules and afford interested parties limitation, amendment, modification or
the opportunity to submit their views prior to conditioning of a license. (GR-DR-SAM-C)
the adoption of any rule. (Bk. VII Sec 9(1)) License includes the whole or any part of
To be valid, proposed rates must be any agency permit, certificate, passport,
published in a newspaper of general clearance, approval, registration, charter,
circulation at least 2 weeks before the first membership, statutory exemption or other
hearing thereon (Bk. VII, Sec 9(2)). form of permission, or regulation of the
Function delegated to AAs because the exercise of a right or privilege. (PCPC-
legislature has not the time, the knowledge ARCM-SPR)
nor the means necessary to handle the When the grant, renewal, denial or
matter efficiently. cancellation of a license is required to be
Need for dispatch, for flexibility and for preceded by notice and hearing, it cannot be
technical know-how better met by AAs. withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled
without notice and hearing (Sec 17(1), Bk,
Legislative Quasi-judicial no license may be withdrawn, suspended,
revoked or annulled without notice and
Extent of Rate applies to Rate directed hearing (Sec 17(2), Bk VII)
applicabi all only at 1 entity EXCEPTIONS:
-lity 1. in cases of willful violation of
Notice & May be Absolutely pertinent laws, rules and regulations
hearing dispensed with necessary
unless the law
2. when public security, health or No. In Salazar v. Achacoso, it was held that
safety require otherwise under the 1987 Constitution only a judge
Where the licensee has made timely and may issue search or arrest warrants.
sufficient application for the renewal of a EXCEPTION: in cases of deportation of
license, the existing license shall not expire illegal and undesirable aliens following a
until the application shall have been finally FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION, for the
determined by the agency. (Sec. 18, Bk, VII) purpose of deportation
A license is always revocable. (Gonzalo Sy
Trading) In Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, the
two ways of deporting are through the:
B. Judicial Functions a.) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37
of CA 618
b.) President after due investigation pursuant to
1. Power to issue subpoena and declare
Sec 69 of Revised Administrative Code.
- but no grounds needed has sole
discretion under international law
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions
have the power to issue subpoena?
Can immigration authorities issue warrants of
Yes. As long as in exercise of quasi-
arrest against undesirable aliens?
judicial even if charter is silent. Power is
vested in the AA in the Admin Code (see YES, but only if issuance is pursuant to a
Sec 13 Bk VII) final order of deportation. Immigration
authorities cannot issue warrants for
Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:
purposes of investigation, as the
1. w/in authority of the agency ( expressly Constitution provides that only judges can
authorized by law ) issue warrants to determine probable cause.
2. demand is not too indefinite subpoena (Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 1963)
duces tecum Note that the Constitution does not
3. info is reasonably relevant distinguish between warrants in a criminal
case and administrative warrants in
(Evangelista v. Jarencio)
administrative proceedings.

rationale: power to adjudicate will be

3. Imposition of fines and penalties
rendered inutile if cant subpoena
Do agencies have the power to impose fines
and penalties?
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions
Yes. In the case of Oceanic Steam
have the power to cite for contempt?
Navigation v. Stranahan, the Court laid down
No. Power must be expressly granted in the the tests for the validity of imposition of fines
agencys charter (ex. PD 902-A creating the
Test for validity of imposition:
1. subject matter is within the control of
If no law, must invoke the aid of RTC
Rationale: power to punish for contempt
2. penalty is administrative or civil and not
inherently judicial
criminal which would involve deprrvation of
The power to cite for contempt can only be property
used in connection with judicial and quasi-
3. power must be expressly conferred to an
judicial functions and with ministerial
administrative agency; power cannot be
functions. (Guevara v. COMELEC)
exercised by implication

2. Warrants of Arrest, Administrative

The fixing of penalties for criminal offense is
the exercise of legislative power which
Can administrative agencies issue warrants of cannot be delegated to a subordinate
arrest? authority. (U.S. v. Barrios)
7. Decision must reveal relevant issues
C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of
Standards absence of one of these 7 rights is sufficient
a reiteration of the non-delegation doctrine to question the proceeding
attitude of the courts is liberal in sustaining Presence of a party at a trial is not always
the standards even if such are broad the essence of due process. All that the law
The ff. have been held to be sufficient requires is that the parties be given notice of
standards: trial, an opportunity to be heard. (Asprec v.
The right of a party to confront and cross-
1. Interest of law and order (Rubi v. Provincial
examine opposing witnesses is a
Board of Mindoro, 1919)
fundamental right which is part of due
2. Public interest (People v. Rosenthal, 1939) process. If without his fault, his right to
3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the cross- examine is violated, he is entitled to
case (International Hardwood v. Pangil have the direct examination stricken out.
Federation, 1940) (Bachrach Motors v. CIR)
4. What is moral, educational or amusing The law, in prescribing a process of appeal
(Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission, to a higher level, contemplates that the
1914) reviewing officer is a person different from
5. Adequate and efficient instruction (PACU v. the one who issued the appealed decision.
Secretary, 1955) Otherwise, the review becomes a farce; it is
rendered meaningless. (Zambales
6. Sound and reasonable discretion (implied Chromitev. CA; Anzaldo v. Clave; Rivera v.
standard) (Wisconsin Inspection Bureau v. CSC)
Whitman, 1928)
Evidence on record must be fully disclosed
7. Promotion of simplicity, economy or to the parties. (American Inter-Fashion
efficiency (Cervantes v. Auditor-General, Corporation v. Office of the President)
In Matthews v. Eldridge, the U.S. Supreme
8. Maintenance of monetary stability, Court enumerated the 3 factors determining
promotion of rising level of production and constitutional sufficiency of administrative
real income (People v. Joliffe, 1959) procedures:
1. private interest that will be affected
What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient 2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest
standard. (Burstyn v. Wilson, 1952) and probable value of safeguards
3. public interest vis--vis government costs
No Notice and hearing requirement in case
A. Rules of Procedure of a mere conference (Equitable v. NLRC)
B. Due Process Power to hear may be delegated but not the
power to decide (American Tobacco Co. v.
1. Cardinal Primary Rights Director of Patents)
As held in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the seven cardinal
primary rights are: When required
1. Right to a hearing a. When law specifically requires notice
2. Right to have the evidence considered and hearing (Halili v. PSC; Bautista v.
WCC; Equitable Banking Corp v. NLRC)
3. Decision must be supported by evidence
b. When it affects a persons status and
4. Substantial evidence liberty (Commissioner of Immigration v.
5. Transparency of records Fernandez)
6. Independent consideration of the judge
If administrative action is based on an decide the case. It must personally decide
undisputed fact and not a quasi-judicial such. It can delegate the power to hear but
function, notice and hearing may be not the power to decide. (American Tobacco
dispensed with. v. Director of Patents)
The Boards act of dividing itself into
When not required divisions of three is valid because under EO
648 the Board can adopt rules of procedure
urgent reasons
for the conduct of its business and perform
when discretion is exercised by an officer such functions necessary for the effective
vested with it upon an undisputed fact accomplishment of its functions. The power
(Suntay v. People) to delegate a particular function can be
if it involves the exercise of discretion and implied from the power of AA to issue rules
there is no grave abuse of discretion (De and regulations necessary to carry out its
Bisschop v. Galang) functions. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino)
when rules to govern future conduct of
persons or enterprises, unless law provides C. Jurisdiction
otherwise (Taxicab Operators of Manila v.
Refer to the enabling statute creating the
Board Of Transportation)
agency, especially its powers and
in the valid exercise of police power jurisdiction
(Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA)
Jurisdiction is created and conferred by law
Pendency of a criminal case will not divest
3. Form and Promulgation of Judgment the Deportation Board of its jurisdiction over
Decision should state: undesirable aliens in a deportation
1. facts proceeding. (Go Tek v. Deportation Board)
2. issues The Collector of Customs constitutes a
competent tribunal when sitting in forfeiture
3. law proceedings. (Dela Fuente v. De Veyra)
(Ang Tibay vs CIR) CHR can only investigate violations of civil-
political rights. It cannot try and decide
Normally, this will be followed by the agency cases as ordinary courts of justice, or even
to the letter. However, there are times when quasi-judicial bodies do. (Cario v. CHR)
there is substantial compliance (therefore CHR cannot issue cease and desist order
not violative of due process) since the CHR can only investigate. The
It is not necessary that the order make its power to issue cease and desist order is
own discussion of the evidence and the reserved for quasi-judicial & judicial powers
findings of fact if the court is satisfied with (Simon, Jr. v. CHR)
the report of the examiner which already The Bureau of Immigration has the primary
contains the discussions of the findings and jurisdiction or exclusive authority to try and
conclusions. The rule is otherwise when the hear cases against an alleged alien.
court disagrees with the findings of the Judicial intervention should be granted only
examiner in which case the court must in cases where claim of citizenship is so
specify and discuss the reasons for their substantial that there are reasonable
dissent. (Indias v. Phil. Iron Mines) grounds to believe that the claim is correct.
The requirement that all decisions should (Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa)
contain a statement of facts and the law on The HLURB has jurisdiction over specific
which it is based is only applicable to performance, annulment of mortgage and all
decisions of courts of record, not to quasi- other matters which pertain to sound real
judicial agencies. However, the due process estate practice. (Union Bank v. HLURB)
clause applies with regards to procedural The CAB is authorized by RA 776 to issue
due process. (Valladolid v. Inchiong) temporary operating permit or CPCN. (PAL
If a power to decide is granted to a specific v. CAB)
authority, it cant abdicate from this
responsibility by delegating the duty to
be reasonably be based. (Rizal Light Co. v.
Municipality of Rizal)
D. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings AAs not bound by the strict or technical rules
Arising from the same facts of evidence governing court proceedings. In
the broad interest of justice, the ERB may, in
any particular manner, except itself from
The difference in the proceeding (one these rules and apply such suitable
administrative, the other criminal) is not legal procedure as shall promote the objectives of
incompatibility but merely physical the order. (Maceda v. ERB)
incompatibility. These 2 proceedings are
independent of each other involving different
causes of action and therefore can proceed PART V.
Matters that are material in administrative DECISIONS
case are not necessarily relevant in criminal
case. There are excuses, defenses and A. Factors Affecting Finality of
attenuating circumstances which are Administrative Decisions
relevant in an administrative proceeding
1. Question of constitutionality
which are not admissible in trial in crim
cases. (Villanos v. Sabido) 2. history of statute
The trial court had no jurisdiction to order 3. nature of problem (question of law or fact)
reinstatement since the judgment in a 4. finality of decision (non quieta movere)
criminal case is limited to acquittal or
conviction with accessory penalties. Only
Silence of Congress should not be
the NLRC could have ordered reinstatement
interpreted as indicating a legislative intent
with back wages. (PNR v. Domingo)
to preclude judicial review. (Uy v. Palomar)
The criminal case for falsification is entirely
distinct from the administrative proceedings
conducted by the COMELEC against the GEN RULE: Courts refuse to interfere with
petitioner although both arose from the proceedings undertaken by AA
same set of facts. The dismissal of the EXCEPTIONS:
criminal complaint against Tan is not a bar to (1) AA has gone beyond statutory
the administrative proceeding. (Tan v. authority
(2) AA exercised unconstitutionall
E. Rules of Evidence (3) AA clearly acted arbitrarily and
AAs not bound by technical rules of without regard to his duty
evidence but due process must be observed (4) Grave abuse of discretion
RATIO: to allow AA to act with speed and (5) Decision vitiated by fraud,
flexibility imposition or mistake
What is the pervasive principle? (Manuel v. Villena)
Technical rules of evidence and procedure
do not strictly apply to administrative
proceeding, but this does not mean they can B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
disregard certain due process requirements. Where law has delineated a procedure by
which administrative appeal or remedy could
be effected, the same should be followed
AAs may act on its own and use methods before recourse to judicial action can be
which may best constitute substantial initiated
evidence. (Estate of Buan v. Pambusco)
The SC not required to examine the proof de
novo. The only function of the SC is to 1. legal : law prescribes a procedure
determine WON there is evidence before the 2. practical : to give agency a chance to
Commission upon which its decision might correct its own error
3. for reasons of comity and convenience (iv) where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts of justice.
The Rep. v. SB case falls under (I) and
1. purely legal question (Pascual v. Prov.
2. patently illegal act - lack of jurisdiction
C. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary
3. time is of the essence and will result into
nullification of claim (Quasha v. Sec;
Alzate v. Aldana) doctrine applies when there is concurrence
of jurisdiction (regular court and AA)
4. would be oppressive and unreasonable
(Cipriano v. Marcelino) Courts will not intervene if the question to be
resolved is one which requires the expertise
5. remedy only persuasive (Corpuz v.
of the AA and the legislative intent on the
matter is to have uniformity in ruling
6. estoppel by laches (Republic (PCGG) v.
1. not within competence of the AA
7. irreparable damage and injury will be
suffered by the party (De Lara v. 2. issue does not require technical
Clorivel) expertise of AA
8. private land in land case proceedings
9. not a plain, speedy, adequate remedy Criteria for the application of the Doctrine as
laid down in the Texas and Pacific v. Abilene
10. doctrine of qualified political agency -
alter ego
(1) there is concurrent jurisdiction
11. blatant violation of due process
(2) the agency has the necessary expertise to
competently rule on the issues (technical
In the case of Republic (PCGG) v. SB, the expertise is crucial to resolution)
Court held that failure to observe the
(3) In line with the legislative intent /objectives
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
of the law (e.g. uniform rates)
remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of
the Court. The only effect of non-compliance
with this rule is that it will deprive the If case requires expertise, specialized skills
complainant of a cause of action, which is a and knowledge of AA because technical
ground for a motion to dismiss. If not matters or intricate questions of fact are
invoked at the proper time, this ground is involved, then relief must first be obtained in
deemed waived and the court can take an administrative proceeding before a
cognizance of the case and try it. In this remedy will be supplied by the courts even
case, seven years is hardly within "the though the matter is within the proper
proper time". jurisdiction of the court. Application of the
The rule on non-exhaustion of administrative doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the
remedies, being based on sound public case but only its SUSPENSION till after the
policy and considerations, has matters within the competence of the AA are
EXCEPTIONS: threshed out and determined. (Industrial
Enterprises v. CA)
(i) where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine;
(ii) where the challenged administrative act D. Standing to Challenge
is patently illegal amounting to lack of
(iii) where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant; and
LEGAL STANDING means a personal and the result of the independent action of some
substantial interest in the case such that the third party not before the court.
party has sustained or will sustain direct (3) it must be likely as opposed to merely
injury as a result of the govt. act that is speculative, that the injury will be
being challenged. (Joya v. PCGG; :Lozada redressed by a favorable decision.
v. Comelec; Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife)

Types of Standing:
E. Ripeness
1. provided by law
2. taxpayers' suit
Purpose of the doctrine of ripeness
3. class suit (according to Abbott Laboratories v.
4. suit as members of the Congress Gardner):
1. to prevent courts, thru avoidance of
If the law specifies in an exclusive manner premature adjudication, from entangling
as to who may appeal those who are not themselves in abstract disagreements over
included have no personality to sue. (Ursal v administrative policies
VTA; Acting Collector v. CTA) 2. to protect agencies from judicial interference
One having no right or interest to protect until decision has been formalized and effect
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as felt in a concrete way or the imminence of
party-plaintiff in an action. (Joya v. PCGG) the effect is demonstrable
The issue of standing is a procedural 2-fold test (must concur):
technicality which may be waived if the issue (1) fitness of the issue for judicial decision
of is of transcendental importance to the (question of law, not policy-making)
public. (Kilosbayan v. Guingona) (2) hardship to the parties of withholding such
The Court differentiated concepts of court action
standing and real party-in-interest and
held that Kilosbayan is not a real party in
General ripeness consideration tests
interest because it was not a party to the
according to National Automatic Laundry
contract. (Kilosbayan v. Morato)
and Cleaning Council v. Shultz:
1. WON there is congressional intent
Tests of standing as laid down in Assn of negativing judicial review
Data Processing Service Organization v.
2. Possibility of courts entangling themselves
in abstract disagreement over administrative
1) Test of injury in fact (economic injury) policies due to premature adjudication
2) Whether or not arguably in the zone of 3. Fitness of issue for judicial determination
interest sought to be protected by the statute and hardship to parties of withholding
Three elements of the constitutional
minimum requirements of standing:
(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in
fact an invasion of a legally-protected
interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical Judicial Review
(2) there must be a causal connection between WON it is available is the threshold issue
the injury and the conduct complained of If not available - end of litigation
the injury has to be fairly traceable to the If available - determine the specific
challenged action of the defendant, and not mode of review which must be invoked
Excludes the NLRC
A. Provisions of Law Mentions only one constitutional body: CSC
Listing not exclusive - ejusdem generis
Art. 9A, Sec 7, Constitution: SC retains the special civil action for
Decisions of the COA, COMELEC, and CSC certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion
may be brought to the SC on CERTIORARI amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
within 30 days from receipt of copy of decision As to AAs exercising quasi-judicial functions,
The constitution uses the word may, there is an underlying power in the courts to
meaning review is not mandatory by only scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions
discretionary. of law and jurisdiction even though no right
of review is given by the statute. (Meralco
Securities v. CBAA)
BP 129
Authority of CA to review decisions of quasi-
B. Certiorari
judicial agencies is EXCLUSIVE (if such is
listed in law or if its charter so indicates) Two Kinds of Certiorari
If it is not listed, its decisions can be 1. Simple or Ordinary (Rule 45) - errors of
reviewed by the RTC through the special judgment; questions of law
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 2. Special Civil Action (Rule 65) - errors of
Book VII, Section 25, Administrative Code of - SC has original jurisdiction, concurrent
1987 with the RTC
Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial Purpose: to nullify or set aside the
review in accordance with this chapter and proceedings
applicable laws. (par. 1) Requisites:
WHO MAY SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW: 1. a) Lack of jurisdiction or
Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by b) grave abuse of discretion amounting to
an agency decision. (par.2) lack or excess of jurisdiction
WHEN TO APPEAL: 2. There is no other plain, speedy, adequate
Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a remedy
copy (par. 4) 3. Agency or tribunal is performing judicial or
HOW: quasi-judicial functions
File petition for review (par.4)
WHERE TO FILE: C. Prohibition
In the court specified by statute or, in the Requisites:
absence thereof, in any court of competent 1. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions discretion
on venue of the Rules of Court. (par. 6) 2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
3. Agency or tribunal is performing quasi-
Petition for Review - question of fact and law judicial and ministerial functions
Must comply with 4. The act to be enjoined is yet to be
The time period performed
Docket fees Purpose
Notice To stop or prohibit proceedings from
going on
If proceedings are already finished - do
SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95
not use prohibition as by then it would
(Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Procedure) be moot and academic
Grants CA with exclusive jurisdiction to
review decisions of 19 AAs.
Unlike certiorari, prohibition is more 1. existence of a justiciable controversy -
expansive as it caters to quasi-judicial and capable of determination
purely ministerial duties 2. between persons whose interests are
D. Mandamus adverse
Requisites: 3. party seeking declaratory relief must
1. Prove clear and controlling right - not have a legal interest in the controversy
questionable and not subject to dispute 4. issue is ripe for adjudication
2. Duty of the person to whom mandamus
is directed is MINISTERIAL, not Citizenship cannot be declared in an action
discretionary for declaratory relief. (Azajar v. Ardalles)
3. No plain, speedy, adequate remedy DR must precede breach so as to avoid
under the ordinary course of law multiplicity of suits. (De Borja v. Villadolid)
Is it possible to ask for a writ of mandamus DR not available to a taxpayer who
against an agency exercising discretionary questions his tax liability. (National Dental
powers? Supply v. Meer)
Yes, when the writ of mandamus is in
order to compel the agency to exercise
F. Habeas Corpus
or use its discretion but it will not
prescribe the action to be taken by the In what cases will habeas corpus pertinent
board/officer (Policarpio v. Phil Veterans in administrative cases?
Board) Deportation cases
If there is a capricious exercise of such It is a plain, speedy, adequate remedy to
discretion, the remedy is CERTIORARI secure release of persons under custody
Success of petition depends on the legality
1. to control or review the exercise of discretion WHC would still issue even if the person is
of a public officer (Blanco v. Board of already released if the release is conditional
Examiners) such as when there is surveillance, there is
limitation in the place where he can go, etc.
2. to compel issuance of visa (Ng Gioc Liu v.
Secretary of Foreign Affairs) Detention is legal if it is reasonable (Mejoff v.
Director of Prisons)
3. to enforce contractual obligations (Province
of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission) Bail renders a WHC moot and academic as
the bail bond gives him liberty. (Co v.
4. where there is no clear legal right as the
Deporation Board; Lucien Tran Van Nghia v.
source of the "right" is not authorized (Cruz
Liwag) Note though that in Crim Pro we
v. CA)
were taught that WHC may still issue
5. to compel tax assessment not due (Meralco despite the granting of bail when there is still
Securities v. Savellano) effective detention.

E. Declaratory Relief G. Injunction as a Provisional Remedy

Function: Purpose:
1. interested under a deed, will, contract or 1. To prevent the commission of certain acts
written instrument affected by any complained of
2. Commission or continuance of act
2. to determine any question of complained of would probably work injustice
construction or validity arising from and to him
for a declaration of his rights, duties
3. Defendant is doing, threatens or about to do
an act in violation of petitioner's rights which
can only be availed of before the breach may render the judgment ineffectve

Requisites of Declaratory Relief

If the plaintiff wins the main case, injunction
becomes permanent, if he does not, B. Question of Law
injunction is dissolved
Examples are issue of constitutionality,
Ancillary remedy to principal action while validity of agency action, and correctness of
main action is pending the interpretation of law
To preserve rights while main action is Other examples:
1. question of citizenship (Ortua v. Vicente
Who issues the injunction Singson)
Superior court to an inferior court 2. WON there was a landlord- tenant
The SEC and the RTC are co-equal (Pineda relationship (Mejia v. Mapa)
v. Lantin; Phil Pacific Fishing Co. v. Luna) 3. Questions arising from proper
interpretation of the Articles of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction Incorporation (Japanese War Notes
Claimants v. SEC)
Commands an act to be done for the
purpose of restoring a pre-existing right and 4. Existence of an ER-EE relationship
to prevent damage (Ysmael v. CIR)
Would be issued if:
1. right is clear C. Question of Fact
2. considerations of relative inconvenience GEN RULE: findings of fact of AA, if
strongly in favor of petitioner supported by substantial evidence, is
conclusive on the courts
3. there appears to be a willful invasion of
petitioner's right and the injury is a EXCEPTIONS:
continuing one 1. not supported by evidence presented
4. PMI will not create a new relation 2. not supported by substantial evidence
between the parties EXAMPLES:
1. WON thing exists
H. Suit for Damages as an Indirect Method 2. WON event took place
Even if damage ensues because of acts in 3. Which of 2 conflicting versions is correct
excess of authority, damages will not be
awarded if such act was (1) done in good
faith and (2) with color of title. (Philippine SC may not accept AAs findings of fact
Racing Club v. Bonifacio) when the decision was rendered by an
almost evenly divided court and that the
decision was precisely on the facts as borne
PART VII. out by the evidence. (Gonzales v. Victory
When there is grave abuse of discretion
A. Law - fact distinction amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is a
justification for the courts to set aside the
Important because of substantial evidence
administrative determination reached.
rule (i.e., AA decision, if supported by
(Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board)
substantial evidence, will not be reviewed by
the court) Sir Carlota says there is substantial
evidence when there is a semblance of
Questions of Law - always reviewable
reasonableness in your conclusion
Question of Fact - reviewable only when not
Substantial evidence does not require you to
supported by substantial evidence (findings
be sure but merely REASONABLE
of fact, if supported by substantial evidence,
is conclusive on the court) Court must review the ENTIRE records.
Substantial evidence must be taken as a
A conclusion drawn from series of facts is a
whole - should not be selective in reviewing
question of law which may be reviewed
the case. (Universal Camera Corporation v.
(Dauan v. Secretary)
D. Questions of Discretion WRITS OF EXECUTION
If there is GAD, subject to certiorari GENERAL RULE:
GAD - Capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, Agencies performing quasi-judicial functions
despotic have the implied power to issue writs of


ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise

If the law is silent, presume that the agency

How are agency actions going to be has the power to enforce its decisions
enforced? emanating from its quasi-judicial powers.
Examine the pertinent provisions of the (Apolega v. Hizon)
enabling statute If the writ of execution is refused to be
Examples: issue permits, fix wages, implemented, the proper remedy is
summary actions without notice and hearing, MANDAMUS because by virtue of the writ of
ex parte order to cease and desist execution, the duty has become ministerial.
(Vda. de Corpuz v. the Commanding
RES JUDICATA General of the Philippine Army)
Does res judicata apply to administrative CFI and the NLRC are co-equal such that an
agencies? order even if not directed against the NLRC
when it's effect would be to freeze it's
Yes, if it is exercising it's QUASI-JUDICIAL executory decision should be nullified.
FUNCTIONS (Ipekdjian Merchandising v. (Ambrosio v. Salvador)
The authority to decide cases (quasi-judicial
Res judicata is a judicial concept. powers) should normally and logically begin
It does not apply if the exercise is purely to include the grant of authority to enforce
administrative and execute the judgment it thus renders,
Res judicata may not be invoked in purely unless the law otherwise provides. (GSIS v.
administrative proceedings. (Nasipit Lumber CA)
v. NLRC)
Decisions and orders of AAs rendered
pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority
have, upon their finality, the force and effect
of a final judgment within the purview of the
doctrine of res judicata. (Dulay v. Minister of
Natural Resources)

Requisites of res judicata:

1. previous final judgment
2. rendered by court with jurisdiction
3. must be a judgment on the merits
4. identity of parties, subject matter and
cause of action