You are on page 1of 21

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:

Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
Government of the Republic of the Philippines
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (GRP) refers to the corporate government entity
through which the functions of the government are
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW refers to branch of public law exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are
which fixes the organization of government, determines the included those arms through which such political
competence of administrative bodies who execute the law, and authority is made effective whether they be provincial,
indicates to the individual the rights made available to him if municipal or other form local government
there is such violation. National Government refers to the central
government consisting of the 3 branches or department
Administrative Body Judicial Body of the government
As to the nature of the function being performed
Wide array of activities Only one function judicial National Coconut Corporation is a corporate personality
As to how rules are applied and separate and distinct from the GRP
Wider Discretion in the Utmost observance of the UP is a separate entity from the GRP
exercise of its powers Rules of Court
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
Where the law has given expertise to an agency on a
Administrative Law Constitutional Law
certain matter/area, whatever issues or controversies arising
As to its nature
therefrom should not be brought before the court but rather
Carries into effect the plan of General plan of the
before the administrative tribunal vested with such expertise.
governmental organization governmental organization
As to what it stresses
BOC vs. DELA ROSA (May 31, 1991)
Stresses on the duties of the Stresses on the rights of
HELD: The Bureau of Immigration (BOI) has the exclusive
government citizens
authority to hear and try cases involving alleged aliens, and
in the process, determine also their citizenship. The BOI is
Exception to the PRINCIPLE of SEPARATION OF
not of equal rank as the RTC, hence its decisions may be
POWERS:
appealable to, and may be reviewed through a special civil
Authority is given to administrative bodies to promulgate rules.
action for certiorari by the RTC. The doctrine of primary
The nature of this promulgation is an exercise of a quasi-
jurisdiction of BOI over deportation proceedings is not
legislative function.
without exception. Judicial intervention should be granted
In order to avoid unwarranted delegation, a law is enacted by
only in cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial
the legislative to provide for safeguards against
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is
arbitrariness, capriciousness in the exercise of duties by
correct.
administrative authorities.
Such law must be complete - complete in its terms when the
powers are completely defined and the manner of the QUALITRANS vs. ROYAL CLASS (Nov. 22, 1989)
exercise of such powers is provided. FACTS: The grant of a certificate of public conveniences
(CPC) was the subject of a MFR before the NTC. Royal Class
filed a petition for declaratory relief before the NTC, which
TYPES of ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
action is ordinarily cognizable by the regular courts.
1. Perform a business function of the government
HELD: Applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
(BIR, CSC)
NTC has the power to look into the controversy
2. Perform a business service which is not an
notwithstanding the fact that it is a petition for declaratory
indispensable function of the government but is
relief. What is important is not the nomenclature or the name
deemed to assist the public (LRT, PNR, NFA, NHA)
attached by the parties to their pleadings, but what the
3. Regulate the activities of individuals (SEC, NTC)
petition alleges.
4. Exercise of police power (Bureau of Patents, PRC)
5. Adjudicate individual rights in the concept of social
justice (NLRC, POEA) Illustrations of administrative agencies vested with
6. Grant privileges (GSIS, SSS, PAO) powers to determine technical issues by reason by
7. Make the government a private party (COA) the express grant of law:

CENTRAL BANK VS. CA, ABLAZA (April 22, 1975) SOLID HOMES vs. PAYAWAL (August 29, 1989)
FACTS: A construction of an office was awarded to Ablaza by FACTS: Solid Homes failed to deliver the Certificate of Title
Central Bank. No formal contract was executed but the work to Payawal after she paid the price for the house she bought.
commenced. However, after one month, Central Bank The case was brought before the RTC. Solid Homes
terminated the construction. Trial court ruled in favor of contended that NHA has jurisdiction.
Ablaza. HELD: RTC has no jurisdiction. NHA has the exclusive
National Government cannot dispense funds without the jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties under a
requisite certification of availability. In this case, there was contract to sell a subdivision lot.
none. Hence, Central Bank contends that there was no NHA exclusive jurisdiction as provided under PD 1344:
perfected contract of sale due to the absence of such requisite. 1) Unsound real estate business practices;
HELD: The Central Bank is an entity separate and distinct 1) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed
from the National Government. "National Government" by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the
refers only to the central government, consisting of the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
legislative, executive and judicial departments of the 1) Cases involving specific performance of contractual
government, as distinguished from local governments and and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
other governmental entities and is not synonymous, therefore, condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer,
with the terms The Government of the Republic of the broker or salesman.
Philippines" or "Philippine Government", which are the NB: In 1981, NHAs jurisdiction over such matter was
expressions broad enough to include not only the central transferred to Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.
government but also the provincial and municipal governments, But in 1986, it was eventually transferred to HLURB
chartered cities and other government-controlled corporations
or agencies, like the Central Bank.
Hence, there was a perfected contract of sale in which
Central Bank is liable.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
CT TORRES, INC. vs. HIBIONADA (Nov. 9, 1990) BAR QUESTION: Can the CHR exercise Quasi-Judicial
HELD: RTC has no jurisdiction. The complaint for specific function?
performance with damages filed with the RTC for failure to ANSWER: NO, since this power was not conferred to the
deliver the Certificate of Title comes under the jurisdiction of CHR. Authority to conduct investigation does not mean that
HLURB. HLURB is competent to award damages although this such tribunal also has quasi-judicial powers.
is essentially a judicial power exercisable ordinarily only by the
courts. HLURB must interpret and apply contract and award CARIO vs. CHR (Dec. 2, 1991)
damages whenever appropriate. FACTS: The teachers who participated in a mass action
were either dismissed or suspended. While the appeal is
HLC CONST vs. EMILY HOMES (Sept. 23, 2003) pending before the Supreme Court, the teachers also filed a
HELD: It is the HLURB, not the trial court which has case before the CHR, which issued a subpoena to DECS Sec.
jurisdiction over respondents complaint regarding the use of Cario
substandard materials in the construction of their houses. HELD: CHR has no power to adjudicate. The function of
receiving evidence and ascertaining there from the facts of a
controversy is not a judicial function. Such was withheld by
MARINA PROPERTIES vs. CA (Aug. 14, 1998)
the Constitution from CHR.
FACTS: Carlos Construction was the principal contractor as to
the construction of a condo of Marina. He was allowed to buy
one unit as an incentive. Marina refused payment from Carlos EASTERN TELECOM vs. INTL COMM (July 23, 2004)
Construction as to the condo it bought. Carlos filed damages FACTS: Respondent applied for and was given by the NTC a
before the RTC and an action for specific performance before Provisional Authority (PA) to install, operate and provide local
the HLURB. exchange service. Eastern Telecom was as also granted by
HELD: There is no forum shopping since there are two NTC a PA.
separate causes of action. Collection for a sum of money is Respondent was then given a PA in Manila and Navotas,
different from breach of a contract to sell and purchase. 2 areas already covered by petitioner. The issue being
contended is whether or not NTC has quasi-judicial authority
such that DOTC cannot intrude upon it.
ARRANZA vs. BF HOMES (June 19, 2000) HELD: The power of the NTC in granting or denying a
HELD: The HLURB and not the SEC has jurisdiction over a provisional authority to operate a local exchange carrier
complaint filed by subdivision homeowners against a service is a quasi-judicial function, a sphere in which the
subdivision developer under receivership for specific DOTC cannot intrude upon. The DOTC circular, which directs
performance regarding basic homeowners' needs such as NTC to authorize only one franchised Local Exchange Carrier
water, security and open spaces. (LEC) to provide LEC service within such areas, is only one of
The fact that respondent is under receivership does not the factors. Prior consultation was substantially complied.
divest the HLURB of that jurisdiction since a corporation is not
dissolved even if it is under receivership.
NTCs authority refers to violations of the terms and
HLURB has jurisdiction since the principal action is not
conditions of the certificate of public convenience. If there is
pecuniary in nature. The primary action is the enforcement of
damage resulting from breach of delivery of a common
the contract.
carrier, it is within the jurisdiction of the court and not within
NB: This case was prior to RA 8799 (May 30, 2000), which
the jurisdiction of NTC.
provides that RTC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate matters
involving the subdivision, homeowners on one hand and the
PCGG vs. JUDGE PEA (April 12, 1988)
developer on the other.
FACTS: PCGG issued freeze order to two export apparel
companies who filed an injunction before RTC to restrain
Two kinds of powers of Administrative Bodies:
PCGG. RTC issued a TRO to prevent PCGG from
Rule-making power (Quasi-Legislative)
implementing said order.
Power to adjudicate (Quasi-Judicial)
HELD: RTC cannot restrain PCGG. PCGG exercises quasi-
judicial power thus, it is deemed a co-equal body of RTC.
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER is the power of the administrative
Co-equal bodies do not have power over each other. This is
agency or officer to investigate facts or ascertain the existence
also consistent with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
of facts and to make a conclusion from such findings of facts.
1. Discretion of the
administrative tribunal in gathering and ascertaining PADUA vs. RANADA (Oct. 14, 2002)
evidence. FACTS: The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) issued a resolution
2. Determining the facts of authorizing provisional toll rate adjustments at the Metro
the case on the basis of the evidence gathered. Manila Skyway.
3. Application of the law itself HELD: The TRB may grant and issue ex-parte to any
on the facts so gathered. petitioner, without need of notice, publication or hearing,
provisional authority to collect the increase in rates.
The authority An administrative agency may be empowered to approve
given to an agency to gather and evaluate evidence is not provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates
a quasi-judicial function. of public utilities without a hearing. Provisional rates are by
Example: NBI since the third step is not present their nature temporary and subject to adjustment in
CHR since it is limited to fact-finding conformity with the definitive rates approved after final
hearing.
The remedy of the petitioner is file a petition for review
UP Board of Regents vs. CA (Aug. 31, 1999)
of the adjusted toll rates.
FACTS: UP awarded a doctorate degree to an Indian national.
Under PD 1112, the decision of TRB is appealable to the
It was later found that she has plagiarized her thesis thus the
Office of the President within 10 days from date of
Board of Regents withdrew the degree. She contended that the
promulgation of such order granting this provisional toll
Board was already estopped.
rates.
HELD: The degree can be withdrawn. The power to confer
includes the power to withdraw. There was due process
because she was given the right to be heard a formal hearing FORUM SHOPPING
is not required. The test is the existence of the elements of litis
pendencia or res judicata

Res Judicata
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
It is not only identity of the parties but also identity of must at all times be in conformity and within the scope and
the rights being asserted founded on the same facts powers as provided by the statute to the administrative
agency.
In this case, there can be no estoppel on the part of the
State where the administrative agency acting on behalf of
When is res judicata not applicable the State has made an error.
1. Where the two cases do not place identical causes of
action and issues although the actions so filed are FEDERACION vs. QUISUMBING (Jan. 26, 1988)
based on the same essential facts FACTS: Education Secretary Quisimbing issued an order
2. Where the agency does not possess a quasi-judicial phasing out Spanish subject as part of the curriculum and
power imposing the Arabic subject in an optional basis. The
Federacion contended that the order is arbitrary and
MONTEMAYOR vs. BUNDALIAN (July 1, 2003) violative of due process.
FACTS: Bundalian accused Montemayor of accumulating HELD: The issuance of the order is a valid exercise of a
unexplained wealth. A complaint was indorsed to the Philippine quasi-legislative power. It was made applicable to all
Commission against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) for similarly situated. There was no violation of due process.
investigation. A similar case was also filed before the
Ombudsman which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Bar Question:
HELD: The earlier dismissal of the case does not render the
OPLE vs. TORRES (July 23, 1998)
administrative case before the PCAGC as moot and academic.
FACTS: Administrative Order 308 entitled "Adoption of a
As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be
National Computerized Identification Reference System" was
heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due
issued by President Ramos.
process are sufficiently met. Petitioner voluntarily submitted to
HELD: A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not
the jurisdiction of PCAGC by participating in the proceedings
appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. An
before it. The decision of the Ombudsman does not operate as
administrative order is an ordinance issued by the
res judicata in the PCAGC case. The doctrine of res
President which relates to specific aspects in the
judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
administrative operation of government. It must be in
proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative
harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of
powers. As the PCAGCs investigation of petitioner was
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.
administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no
The SC rejects the argument that A.O. No. 308
application in this case. The case before the Ombudsman is
implements the legislative policy of the Administrative Code
criminal in nature while the case before PCAGC is
of 1987. The Code is a general law and incorporates in a
administrative in nature.
unified document the major structural, functional and
procedural principles of governance. The establishment of a
NBI does not have power to adjudicate national computerized identification reference system
PAO does not have power to adjudicate requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state
Ombudsman has quasi-judicial function since it can policies, the primacy of national security, the extent of
adjudicate with finality the issue of the administrative case privacy against dossier-gathering by the government, and
but not the criminal case choices of policies. It deals with a subject that should be
covered by a law.
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER This calls for the adoption, implementation of national
state policies which should be thoroughly discussed in the
Requirements for the administrative bodies legislature. So this is unconstitutional. There must be a law
promulgation of rules and regulations to be valid: before the same is adopted.
1. The rules must be germane to the objects
and purposes of the law;
Bar Question:
2. The rules and regulations must conform to
the general standards that the law has prescribed; and PHIL CONSUMERS vs. SEC of EDUC (Aug. 31, 1987)
3. The rules must relate solely to carrying out FACTS: Petitioner contended that DECS has no power to
in effect the general provisions of law increase school fees and questioned that such order
constitutes a denial of substantive and procedural due
3 Kinds of laws which may be promulgated by the process.
administrative tribunal in the exercise of their quasi- HELD: The order was valid exercise of quasi-legislative
legislative power: power because it applies to all thus prior hearing not needed.
1. Rules and regulations in order to fill in the details of DECS is vested with the power to regulate the educational
the law, which must not be contrary to the law itself. system in the country. In the absence of a statute stating
2. Rules in order to interpret the law otherwise, this power included the power to prescribe school
3. Rules promulgated in order to determine a state of fees.
facts upon which the enforcement of a law is made to
depend Characteristic of Quasi-Legislative Power
Applies to all persons similarly situated
Requisites for valid delegation
Completeness test the law is complete in itself Characteristic of Quasi-Judicial Power
Sufficient Standard test the must fix a standard, the Applies to a particular person or agency and thus,
limits of which are sufficiently determinate or the requirements of due process must always be
determinable, to which the delegate must conform in observed in accordance with the Ang Tibay
the performance of his functions doctrine

PBCOM vs. CIR (Jan. 28, 199) REPUBLIC vs. MIGRIO (Aug. 30, 1990)
FACTS: BIR changed the prescriptive period from 2 years to FACTS: PCGG chair Jovito Salonga created an Anti-Graft
10 years in the matter of filing a claim for refund on excess of Board to investigate the unexplained wealth of AFP
income tax payment. personnel. He ordered the investigation of Lt. Col. Tecson
HELD: The rule issued by the BIR Commissioner violates the who argued that PCGG has no jurisdiction over him since
law. It arrogates unto itself the power to legislate. The rule there was no allegation of his association with Marcos.
must be germane to the object and purposes of the law and
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
HELD: PCGG has no jurisdiction since its authority is only consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only
limited to investigating the alleged ill-gotten wealth involving Congress can repeal or amend the law.
the Marcoses and their cronies.
Nothing in this case would indicate that Tecson is a crony
of the Marcoses. There was no such allegation that he had CIR vs. CA, CTA, FORTUNE TOBACCO (Aug. 29, 1996)
connection with the Marcoses. FACTS: Fortune Tobacco changed the names to Hope
Luxury and Premium More thereby removing the said brands
LUPANGCO vs. CA (April 29, 1988) from the foreign brand category. BIR head Chato issued a
FACTS: PRC ordered that candidates for the CPA board exams regulation re-classifying the brand of cigarette belonging to
are not allowed to participate in any review classes or receive the Fortune Tobacco Champion, More, Hope from local
materials within 3 days prior to the examination day. to foreign.
HELD: The order of PRC violated the rights of the students as HELD: The order issued by the BIR violated due process.
wells as the right to academic freedom of the school. The The order was issued in the guise of quasi-legislative power
issuance of a quasi-legislative rule must be reasonable. but actually it was an exercise of quasi-judicial power
because the order was made applicable only to Fortune
In the exercise of its quasi-legislative power, the order Tobacco.
executed by the administrative tribunal must not be arbitrary or This issuance should have been in the exercise of a
oppressive. It must be reasonable, apart from the fact that it quasi-judicial function thus the need for public hearings. But
must always be consistent with what the law mandates. there were no public hearings conducted in this case.

DADOLE vs. COA (Dec. 3, 2002) FISCAL AUTONOMY


FACTS: Monthly allowances of RTC and MTC judges of Entails freedom from outside control and
Mandaue City were increased. Mandaue City Auditor limitations, other than those provided by law. It is
disallowed such increase since DBM issued a circular wherein the freedom to allocate and utilize funds granted by
monthly allowances of judges should not exceed P 1,000 in law, in accordance with law, and pursuant to the
cities and provinces and P 700 in municipalities. wisdom and dispatch its needs may require from
HELD: Section 458 of RA 7160 allows the grant of additional time to time.
allowances to judges when the finances of the city government
allow. The said provision does not authorize setting a Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG)
maximum limit to the additional allowances granted to judges. Agencies of government that had been given
Said circular is already amending the law, which is RA authority under the Constitution or by law to have
7160. DBM has no authority to issue this order. full freedom in the matter of the allocation and
utilization of their sources, including the authority to
Bar Question: (similar except it was medical schools) make a reclassification or abrogating and creation of
SANZ vs. ABAD SANTOS positions
FACTS: The board of examiners for nursing issued an order But this must be consistent or within the
requiring a periodic inspection of nursing schools and prohibits parameters of the guidelines imposed under the
the graduates of those schools which do not comply with the Unified Position Classification and Compensation
minimum standards to take the board exams. System (UCCS) as administered by DBM
HELD: This is an exercise of a quasi-legislative power. Such Budgets of these agencies cannot be reduced
order applies to all enterprises similarly situated. This is a
reasonable exercise. There was no violation of due process. Who are the members of CFAG
COMELEC
COA
CONTE vs. CA (Nov. 4, 1996)
CSC
FACTS: SSS retirees availed of RA 660 and SSS Resolution
The Judiciary
No. 56. The SSS board promulgated said resolution providing
Office of the Ombudsman
for a supplementary retirement pension plan for a retiring
employee. COA disallowed said claims, saying it violates RA
4968 (Teves Retirement Law) which bars the creation of BENGZON vs. DRILON (April 15, 1992)
insurance or retirement plan other than the GSIS government FACTS: The Supreme Court granted readjustment of
law. monthly pensions of 4 Justices. Congress included in the
HELD: Resolution 56 contravenes the Teves Retirement Law. General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1992 certain
This is an act arrogating unto itself the power belonging solely appropriations for the Judiciary for the payment of the
to Congress. SSS had no authority to maintain and implement adjusted pension rates of the retired justices. Such was
such retirement plan, particularly in the face statutory vetoed by the President.
prohibition. HELD: The attempt to use the veto power to set aside a
resolution of the Supreme Court and to deprive the retirees
of benefits given them by RA 1797 trenche upon the
ROMULO vs. HDMF (June 19, 2000) constitutional grant of fiscal autonomy to the Judiciary.
FACTS: A plan which provides for both provident/retirement
and housing benefits is exempted from the PAG-IBIG Fund
Coverage. In 1995, petitioner law firm was exempted. CHR Employees Assoc vs. CHR (Nov. 25, 2004)
Thereafter, HDMF issued a resolution providing that for a FACTS: CHR is a member of CFAG. CHR adopted a
company to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of Fund reclassification scheme wherein it collapsed vacant positions
Coverage, it must have a plan providing for both to provide additional funds. DBM denied the request.
retirement/provident and housing benefits superior to those HELD: Article IX of the Constitution states in no uncertain
provided under the PAG-IBIG Fund. Waiver filed by petitioner terms that only the CSC, COMELEC, and the COA shall be
was disapproved by HDMF. tagged as Constitutional Commissions with the appurtenant
HELD: The HDMF Board Resolution is not valid. Said right to fiscal autonomy. CHR is not among the class of
resolution effectively amended Section 19 of PD 1752 which Constitutional Commissions.
merely requires as a pre-condition for exemption from The fact that CHR is a member of CFAG does not ipso
coverage the existence of either a superior facto clothe it with fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy is a
provident/retirement plan or a superior housing plan, and not constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by membership.
the concurrence of both plans. Administrative issuances must
not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain CSC vs. DBM (July 22, 2005)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
FACTS: In the General Appropriations Act of 2002, the DBM Rules and regulations cannot take effect without
was supposed to release P 285 M, the budget allotted by the publication
law to the CSC for that year. There was still a balance of P
5.8M which DBM refused to release to CSC since there was
revenue shortfall.
HELD: Revenue shortfall is not a valid justification for the
non- release of the budget allotted to that agency. Funds for Article 2 - New Civil Code of the Philippines
agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy should be automatically and Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the
regularly released. Agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy should completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette,
be given priority. or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines,
unless it is otherwise provided.
Exception to the rule when there can be non-full release
of funds is when the total revenues cannot cover the total TAADA vs. TUVERA (April 24, 1985)
budget allocation of such agencies enjoying fiscal HELD: The publication of presidential issuances "of a public
autonomy. (But this is quite an impossible situation ) nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due
process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be
POWER TO SUBPOENA bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically
informed of its contents. But if the rule is simply for the
Basic principle is that administrative agencies do not internal guidance of public officers and employees not of
have the inherent power to require the attendance general application, then even if such rule is not published,
of witnesses, unlike the court. these are binding on the public officers and employees.
There must be a law granting this power to subpoena
Executive Order 292, Book 7, Chapter 3, Section 13 grants Purpose of Publication
such power for agencies performing quasi-judicial To inform the public of the contents of the rules and
functions regulations so issued before their substantive rights are
Where the law gives authority to receive evidence, this affected.
necessarily includes the authority to summon witnesses to
testify before the agency. The power to issue subpoena Publication requirement applies only where the issuance
necessarily follows from the authority given under the law is of general application and thus, intended for the
to gather evidence or take in testimony, otherwise the public at large
power would be a futile exercise.
Where there is authority under the law for the receipt of An administrative circular issued by POEA, in the
evidence, this includes the authority to require the absence of such compliance with the requirement,
production of records and other relevant documents. cannot be given effectivity.
In the case of administrative tribunal, there must be an
express conferment of this power to punish for contempt When publication not required
because the power to punish for contempt is inherently 1. Interpretative rules and regulations
judicial. 2. Where the rules and regulations regulate only the
The penalty must also be stated. staff or the personnel of the administrative office
If the law does not provide for the imposition of a penalty 3. Rules and regulations which are in the nature of
for disobeying the orders, the remedy is to apply before letters of instructions (LOI), which means they are
the court to punish such act as contempt of court merely guidelines to be followed by the personnel
Administrative agencies cannot issue warrants of arrest
But immigration authorities can issue warrant of arrest GSIS vs. COA (Jan. 22, 1999)
pursuant to a final order of deportation FACTS: Executive Order 79 providing for reversion of
inactive status of a reserve officer was enacted on December
Administrative subpoena vs. Judicial Subpoena 2, 1986. Brig. Asuncion died on November 16, 1987. EO 79
Administrative subpoena is issued if the purpose is to was implemented by the Board of Trustees of GSIS on
gather or discover evidence on the basis of which there December 11, 1987. GSIS approved his compulsory
will be an institution of the appropriate case before the insurance coverage but was disallowed by COA.
appropriate body HELD: EO 79 was effective at the time of death of Brig.
Judicial subpoena is issued if the purpose is to prove in Asuncion. Such EO was published on December 22, 1986
evidence the charge and thus, effective 15 days thereafter, which is January 7,
1987. Brig. Asuncion was already compulsorily covered as a
POWER TO INTERPRET THE LAW member of GSIS at the time of his death.
Administrative agencies are given the competence to
interpret the law they are asked to implement. Otherwise,
PITC vs. COA (June 25, 1999)
the administrative agency will be rendered powerless
FACTS: The PITC Board approved a car plan program for its
However, such interpretation is not binding upon the court.
qualified officers. On July 1, 1989, RA 6758 took effect
The final arbiter of what the law is is not the administrative
which provided that other additional compensation being
tribunal but the court. The interpretation made by the
received by incumbents as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into
administrative agency is merely persuasive
the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.
To implement RA 6758, DBM issued DBM-CCC No. 10. The
Ministerial power vs. Discretionary power
payment for expenses for such car plan was disallowed by
Ministerial power is when the administrative tribunal is
COA.
required to perform in a certain manner as required by
HELD: DBM-CCC No. 10 has no force and effect due to the
law. His duty is imperative and he is not authorized in fact
absence of publication. Subsequent publication thereof
to exercise judgment. This can be compelled by
would not cure the defect. Publication is required as a
mandamus.
condition precedent to the effectivity of a law.
Discretionary power is when the administrative agency
is given the authority to do any act, but not required to
perform such act because the doing of such act depends DE JESUS vs. COA (Aug. 12, 1989)
on his discretion. This cannot be compelled by mandamus. FACTS: DBM issued DBM-CCC No. 10 discontinuing all
allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary.
PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
HELD: Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of 2. Due notice and hearing must be complied with
general circulation in the Philippines is required since DBM-CCC (opportunity to be heard);
No. 10 is in the nature of an administrative circular the purpose 3. Procedure must be consistent with fair play
of which is to enforce or implement an existing law. 4. There must be opportunity for the court to
determine whether or not the applicable rules on
evidence were observed by the administrative
tribunal.
Registration of Rules
Where there is authority given to an administrative tribunal
to impose sanctions as provided by law, under EO 292, 1. The need to have an impartial tribunal
there must be a filing and registration of these rules with If a tribunal issues a resolution on the basis of the
the National Administrative Register or with the UP Law findings after the conduct of an ocular inspection,
Center there is no compliance with the first requirement
Q: What is the effect if such rules issued which impose because an ocular inspection is not main trial.
sanctions was not filed and registered with the National
Administrative Register? Magna Carta Law
A: Such rules imposing penalty cannot be executed in the Under Section 9 of the Magna Carta Law, there
absence of this registration must be an investigating committee composed of the
Division School Superintendent as the chair, and the
supervisor of the division as member together with a
REPUBLIC vs. EXPRESS TELECOM (Jan. 15, 2002)
representative of the teachers association, whether
FACTS: In 1993, there were no more available frequencies
local, provincial or national.
and thus, Bayantels application to operate a Cellular Mobile
If there is no representative from the public school
Telephone System was archived. In 2000, NTC revived
Bayantels application and granted provisional authority to teachers association, proceedings are nullified.
operate applying its 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Extelcom contends that NTC should have applied its Revised Q: What if the complainant is the Division School
Rules filed the National Administrative Register on February Superintendent?
1993. A: Members composing the committee should be left to the
HELD: The 1993 Rules have not yet been published, and thus, Secretary of Education
the 1978 Rules were applied by NTC. The 1993 Revised Rules
have not taken effect at the time of the grant of the provisional Exception to the Magna Carta Law: estoppel by laches
authority. There is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987
which implies that the filing of the rules with the UP Law Center EMIN vs. DE LEON (Feb. 27, 2002)
is the operative act that gives the rules force and effect. FACTS: In 1991, certificates of eligibility of teachers were
doubtful of authenticity as signatures were clearly forged.
DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS Petitioner was the one who gave the certificates for a fee.
He was found guilty of grave misconduct by the CSC.
Procedural Due Process vs. Substantial Due Process HELD: Magna Carta Law is applicable to this case.
Procedural Due Process pertains to the method, However, at this late hour, the proceedings conducted by the
CSC can no longer be nullified. Under the principle of
the manner by which the law is enforced or implemented
estoppel by laches, petitioner is now barred from impugning
Substantive Due Process refers to the law itself
the CSCs jurisdiction over his case since he participated
and not merely to the procedures to how the law is
actively in the proceedings. Due process was nevertheless
implemented. This means that the law itself must be fair,
observed in this case.
reasonable and just.

FABELLA vs. CA (Nov. 28, 1997) ALCALA vs. VILLAR (November 18, 2003)
FACTS: In 1990, DECS Sec. Cario issued to a return-to-work FACTS: Ombudsman issued a resolution finding
order to public school teacher who participated in strikes. The respondent, who is a public school teacher, guilty of
proceedings were questioned on the ground that there was dishonesty and dismissing him from service.
non-compliance under the Magna Carta Act RA 4673. The HELD: Respondent was afforded due process. Respondent
Magna Carta Act provides that DECS has the sole original in this case should be barred under the principle of estoppel
jurisdiction over administrative cases filed against public school by laches.
teachers. The trial court found that the committee tasked to
investigate the charges filed against petitioners was illegally CRUZ, PAITIM vs. CSC (Nov. 27, 2001)
constituted. FACTS: Paitim took the CSC exam in behalf of Cruz. They
HELD: Private respondents were denied due process of law. were found guilty of dishonesty. They argued that they were
In administrative proceedings, due process has deprived of their right to due process because the CSC was
been recognized to include the following: the complainant, the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at the
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the same time.
institution of proceedings which may affect a respondents legal HELD: They were not denied due process. The fact that
rights; the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not mean that
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the it could not be an impartial judge. As an administrative
assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in body, its decision was based on substantial findings. So long
ones favor, and to defend ones rights; as there is impartiality in the conduct of proceedings, even if
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so the matter of gathering evidence and becoming the
constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a complainant is given to the same division, it does not follow
reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and that there is already a violation of due process.
(4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by
substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence
hearing or contained in the records or made known to the that a reasonable mind will deem adequate to support a
parties affected. conclusion.
Complaint may be initiated by individual (aggrieved
Requirements of due process in administrative party) or the agency.
proceedings: CSC may initiate the complaint
1. There must be an impartial tribunal;
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
Formal complaint, subscribed and sworn under FACTS: Gaoiran contended that the letter-complaint was
oath, can become the basis of a formal investigation not under oath and that he was not informed of the
Unverified complaint is a complaint that is not complaint before, during and after the preliminary fact-
subscribed and sworn under oath. It cannot be the basis finding investigation.
of a formal investigation but it may be the basis of the HELD: While the letter-complaint was not concededly
conduct of a fact finding investigation so as to gather verified, appended thereto were the verified criminal
evidence to support the unverified complaint. complaints that he filed against the petitioner, as well as the
Exception: If the complaint is initiated by the sworn statements of his witnesses. These documents could
authority itself, there is no need for the compliance with very well be considered as constituting the complaint against
the requirement of verification. the petitioner. The letter-complaint did not, by itself,
commence the administrative proceedings but merely
2. The need to be notified and the opportunity to be triggered a fact-finding investigation by the CHED.
heard
CSC vs. LUCAS (Jan. 21, 1999)
The right to a hearing not only includes the right to FACTS: The Board of Personnel Inquiry found Lucas guilty
present evidence, but also a reasonable opportunity to of simple misconduct. However, CSC found him guilty of
know the claims of the opposing party grave misconduct. Lucas came to know of the modification
of the charge when he received the resolution dismissing him
REPUBLIC vs. EXPRESS TELECOM (Jan. 15, 2002) from service.
HELD: There was no violation of due process because the HELD: A basic requirement of due process is that a person
opposing party will be given all the opportunity to oppose the must be duly informed of the charges against him and that a
application on the merits in the course of the proceedings and person can not be convicted of a crime with which he was
not simply on the basis of such a motion for revival. Notice to not charged. A person can only be sanctioned of the charge
the opposing party as to the motion of revival is not required filed. He cannot be penalized of a charge for which he was
since the filing of the motion for the revival is not already a not duly informed.
decision on the merits
Q: Is a formal hearing absolutely necessary in administrative
PNCC vs. REPUBLIC (Aug. 20, 1990) cases?
HELD: The maintenance fees to be collected from the A: No, it is not absolutely necessary. Administrative
motorists using the expressway do not require a public hearing authorities are given a wide latitude of discretion so long as
before the Toll Regulatory Board pursuant to PD 1112. A there is observance of the fundamental procedural and
public hearing is mandatory only in cases of petitions for substantial due process.
increases in toll rates.
In administrative proceedings, parties may agree to
Q: Would a public hearing be required for a petition for waiver of proceedings
decrease in toll rates is applied? If allowed by law, the administrative tribunal may
A: There is no public hearing required since the public will not proceed not on the basis of a formal hearing but on the
be adversely affected. basis of position papers

3. The procedure must be consistent with the LINCOLN GERALD, INC. vs. NLRC (July 23, 1990)
essentials of fair play HELD: There was no denial of due process; notices are sent
to counsel of record, not to the client. Notice to the counsel
4. The proceedings shall be conducted in such manner is notice to the client. Petitioners former counsel did notf
to give opportunity to the court whether the withdraw its appearance. Negligence of its counsel does not
applicable rule of law and procedure was in fact constitute a denial of due process.
observed
NAPOCOR vs. NLRC (May 29, 1997)
CIR vs. CA, CTA, FORTUNE (Aug. 29, 1996) FACTS: The Solicitor General was NAPOCORs lawyer.
HELD: The BIR, in issuing the circular, legislated under its NLRCs decision was sent to the special attorney designated
quasi-legislative authority and applying it only to a specified by the Office of the Solicitor General.
type or form. Due observance of the requirements of notice, HELD: The lawyer designated as "special attorney-OSG" is a
hearing and publication should not have been ignored. mere representative of the OSG. The OSG continues to be
the principal counsel for the NAPOCOR, and as such, the
ZAMBALES CHROMITE vs. CA (Nov. 7, 1979) Solicitor General is the party entitled to be furnished copies
FACTS: Gozon, Director of Mines, dismissed the case filed by of orders, notices and decisions. Since service of said
the petitioners. While the appeal was pending, Gozon was decision was never made on the OSG, the period to appeal
appointed Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. He the decision to the NLRC did not commence to run.
dismissed the appeal.
HELD: Gozon acted with grave abuse of discretion in PHIL PORTS vs. SARGASSO (July 30, 2004)
reviewing his decision. The reviewing officer must perforce be FACTS: Petitioner averred that the decision of the trial court
other than the officer whose decision is under review. was served on its Legal Services Department and not on the
Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) as its
SINGSON vs. NLRC, PAL (June 19, 1997) lead counsel. The petitioner argued that since the OGCC was
FACTS: Singson filed a complaint against PAL for illegal not served with a copy of the trial courts decision, the period
dismissal. Labor Arbiter Aquino declared the dismissal as to perfect its appeal therefrom never commenced.
illegal. The 2nd Division of NLRC, with Aquino as presiding HELD: Petitioner was represented in the trial court by the
commissioner, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. OGCC in collaboration with its Legal Services Department.
HELD: The officer who reviews a case on appeal should not An SPA was executed appointing the OGCC and its Legal
be the same person whose decision is subject of review. Services Department, through any of their lawyers, as its
Resolution of NLRC is void for the Division that handed it down counsel. Hence, the copies of the orders and decision of the
was not composed of 3 impartial commissioners. trial court may be served on the petitioner, either through its
Legal Services Department or through the OGCC.
GAOIRAN vs. ALCALA (Nov. 26, 2004) Nevertheless, the Court gave due course to the said petition
as it decided to relax the strict application of the rules of
procedure in the exercise of its legal jurisdiction.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
must be a statement of the case, of the findings and
ALBA vs. NITORREDA (March 13, 1996) conclusions of the administrative tribunals. In the
FACTS: There was an allegation that Asst. Regional Director absence thereof, there is a violation of due process.
Alba was partial to an owner of a school, of which a complaint
was filed against. He was suspended for 30 days but Exceptions to the requirement of due notice &
contended that he was denied due process because his right to hearing:
appeal was denied. 1. The removal of an acting officer
HELD: Under the OMB Act, where the penalty imposed is 2. The issuance of a preventive suspension
suspension not exceeding 30 days or a fine not to exceed 1 3. By provision of law
month salary, the decision shall become final and executory. (ex. under taxation levying of a property of a
There is no violation of due process because the law has made delinquent taxpayer
such imposition of penalty as final and executory. Right to 4. Cancellation of a passport
appeal is granted by law and thus, may be withdrawn by the 5. The law itself authorizes the administrative
law itself. tribunal to grant provisional increase of rates

Q: Is the right to counsel part of due process during the


administrative investigation? PADUA vs. RANADA (Oct. 14, 2002)
A: No, the right to due process does not include the right to HELD: Even if the directors who signed the resolution were
be assisted by counsel. not present during the public hearing, there was no violation
of due process. The conduct of public hearings may be
In administrative proceedings, what is being delegated to subordinate officers.
determined is not the criminal liability of the respondent,
but rather so as to warrant an administrative or MALINAO vs. REYES (March 29, 1996)
disciplinary measure FACTS: The administrative investigation against the
The matter of being assisted by counsel is an option municipal mayor was delegated to a committee by the
given to the respondent and in no way is the Sanggunian. The report was signed only by the chairman of
administrative tribunal obliged to provide the respondent a the committee. The Sanggunian voted to suspend the
counsel. municipal mayor.
HELD: Suspension was not valid. There was no decision
LUMIQUED vs. EXEVEA (Nov. 18, 1997) signed by the members of the Sanggunian. Section 66 of
FACTS: DAR Regional Director Lumiqued was found guilty of the LGC requires that the decision be made in writing,
Malversation. On his 2nd MFR, he argued that he was denied stating clearly and distinctly the factual findings and the
due process since he was not represented by counsel during reasons for such conclusion reached.
the hearing.
HELD: There was no denial of due process. The due process RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
clause does not encompass the right to be assisted by counsel This right is available in proceedings not only in civil
during an administrative investigation. but likewise in administrative and criminal proceedings
This right is only applicable to natural persons
Q: Is jurisdiction lost when after the filing of the case the Thus, an administrative agency may require an
respondent is no longer in public service? organization to furnish it with records of books although
A: Jurisdiction is acquired by the tribunal by the filing of such these may incriminate such organization
complaint before it. If subsequent to the filing, the
respondent public officer ceases to be connected to the DOCTRINE OF
public office during the pendency of the case, this does not EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
mean the automatic dismissal of the administrative case. This doctrine provides that before a party may be
allowed to seek judicial recourse, there must be
Cardinal primary rights in administrative proceedings: exhaustion of administrative remedies
This doctrine only applies if the law itself provides
ANG TIBAY vs. CIR (1940) for rules and guidelines for the exhaustion of
There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected administrative remedies
even in proceedings of this character: If the law itself only gives the administrative body
(1) The right to a hearing to exercise discretion, this does not impose upon the
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented party to exhaust all administrative remedies
(3) There must be something to support its decision This doctrine must be timely invoked by the party
(4) Such evidence must be substantial
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented Reasons for the application for this doctrine:
at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed 1. For the administrative body to be given the
to the parties affected. chance to correct or rectify whatever error or errors
(6) The tribunal must act on its or his own independent having committed by it in the discharge of its functions.
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy 2. To help in declogging the court dockets
(7) The tribunal must render its decision in such a manner that 3. The law itself gives competence or
the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues expertise to Administrative tribunals to carry out the
involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. mandate to them by law.

There must be notice and opportunity to be heard Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (EAR)
The decision must be based upon substantial evidence vs. Primary Jurisdiction (PJ)
A decision which is based on evidence not disclosed Both pertain to the relationships between the Courts
to the parties is not a valid decision and Administrative Tribunals
The matter of gathering, evaluating and investigating Both principles do not apply where the issue
may be delegated to a subordinate officer as long as the involved is a pure question of law
disciplining authority does not simply rely on this reports As to where originally cognizable
but he must independently assess all the evidences EAR: pertains to cases originally
gathered cognizable by the administrative tribunal in the first
Parties must know the factual findings of the instance alone
administrative tribunal and the reasons therefore. There
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
PJ: applies to cases originally Whatever decision the head of the Department
cognizable by the courts but because of the power promulgates is the decision also of the President unless
given by law to administrative bodies to discover facts the president himself revokes he same.
they so specialize, courts refuse to take cognizance of If no such provision of law allowing an appeal from
the case the department secretary to the President, applying this
As to jurisdiction principle, then there is no need to appeal to the Office of
EAR: the Administrative Tribunal the President. Thus an action may be filed to the Court
has exclusive original jurisdiction contesting the decision of the Department Secretary.
PJ: the courts and the
administrative tribunal has concurrent jurisdiction AURILLO vs. RABI (Nov. 26, 2000)
As to effect FACTS: Public Prosecutor recommended that the case
EAR: prevents judicial interference against Rabi be dismissed for lack of probable cause.
for such cannot be had until all administrative Regional State Prosecutor Aurillo assumed jurisdiction over
remedies have been exhausted the case. Rabi filed with the RTC a petition for prohibiton
PJ: suspension of the judicial contending that a regional state prosecutor was vested only
proceedings, if such is instituted, to pave the way for with administrative supervision over the city prosecutor and
administrative proceeding had no power to motu proprio review, revise, or modify the
resolution of the city prosecutor on the latters conduct of a
preliminary or inquest investigation of a criminal complaint
Application of Doctrine of EAR filed directly therewith. Aurillo alleged that the petition was
Remedy of aggrieved party is to file a motion for premature as Rabi failed to exhaust all administrative
reconsideration if there is a requirement that such must be remedies from the Secretary of Justice before filing the
filed first. Otherwise, no need to file the same petition.
If MFR is still adverse to the party, appeal shall be HELD: One exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of
taken to the superior officer, not before the courts administrative remedies is when the disputed act is
If the decision of the superior officer, the Dept. Sec. performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
for example, it is the CSC which has appellate jurisdiction Aurillo acted without authority and with grave abuse of
over administrative disciplinary cases (CSC vs. LUCAS) discretion; hence, his actuations were a nullity.
If this doctrine is not followed and the case is directly
filed before the courts, the effect would be the dismissal of CORSIGA vs. DEFENSOR (Oct. 28, 2002)
the case on the ground of prematurity FACTS: Ortizo was aggrieved by his reassignment in the
It is not only important that a case is initiated in the National Irrigation Administration. He filed a complaint for
right tribunal but it must be pursued to its finality having in prohibition before the RTC.
mind the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative HELD: CSC has jurisdiction over all employees of
Remedies government, including GOCCs with original charters. NIA is
a GOCC with original charter. The trial court does not have
DELTAVENTURES vs. CABATO (March 9, 2000) jurisdiction over personnel actions. Ortizo should have
FACTS: Deltaventures filed a complaint for injunction and complained first to the NIA Administrator, then, appealed to
damages with the RTC asserting owernship over a property CSC.
order to be levied by NLRC with regard to an illegal dismissal
case. Cases involving personnel action, and this involves
HELD: The action was really in the nature of a labor case reassignment, transfer, demotion, affecting civil service
incident which should warrant the exhaustion of administrative employees are within the competence of the CSC and
remedies. The body which has the authority to take the court does not have the primary jurisdiction
cognizance of the same issue is the NLRC because this is an
incident arising from the labor case and applying the doctrine
LAGUNA CATV vs. MARAAN (Nov. 19, 2002)
of primary jurisdiction - where the law has made a remedy, the
FACTS: Instead of appealing to the Secretary of Labor,
aggrieved individual must avail of such remedy.
Laguna CATV filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for
The RTC is a co-equal body of NLRC and therefore it has
extension of time to file a petition for review.
no jurisdiction to issue a restraining order to prevent the NLRC
HELD: An order issued by the duly authorized
from executing its decision.
representative of the Secretary of Labor may be appealed to
the latter. Petitioner should have first appealed to the
LLARENA vs. LACSON (May 30, 1960) Secretary of Labor instead of filing with the CA a motion for
FACTS: Llarena was dismissed since he was found to be the extension of time to file a petition for review. The contention
culprit as to a missing piano. Llarena contested the decision. that an appeal to the Secretary of Labor would be futile as it
The law at that time provided that the action must be taken will surely be disapproved, is purely conjectural and
before the Office of the President but Llarena did not comply definitely misplaced.
with this requirement and his defense was that he was
uneducated. POWER OF SUPERVISION and POWER OF CONTROL
HELD: Lack of education is not a defense. There must still be
compliance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative Power of Control:
remedies. - direct that an act performed by a
subordinate officer be undone or redone
Under the Mining Law, appeal must be taken to the - the Chief Executive herself may perform
Secretary of DENR since it has the power of supervision the act if these acts are not in accordance with
and control over the bureaus, in this case the Geological what is provided by the law
Bureau, under it. If still not satisfied, the aggrieved may - power to alter, modify or even affirm
appeal to the Office of the President within a period of 5 actions taken by the subordinate officers
days. - power to promulgate rules
But if no such rule is provided, the Doctrine of - only extends to the executive branch of
Qualified Political Agency is applied. the government
Power of Supervision:
- power of oversight; overseeing that the
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY acts performed by the subordinate officers are in
(ALTER EGO PRINCIPLE) faithful compliance with the law
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
- limited to the LGUs or local executives
- President is only empowered to oversee that CALO vs. FUERTES (June 29, 1962)
the functions being performed by the local chief FACTS: The Director of Lands dismissed Calos claim
executives are in accordance with the law but no against a homestead application. He appealed to the
power to issue rules not interfere in the affairs of the Secretary and then to the President. However, he withdrew
LGU it before the President could act upon it. Calo then filed a
- carries with it the power to discipline and the petition for prohibition with the CFI.
power to discipline includes the power to investigate HELD: The withdrawal was fatal because it was the last act
and impose the proper sanctions if warranted required of him in compliance with the doctrine of
- delegation of the power to investigate is not exhaustion of administrative remedies. The withdrawal of
a violation of the rule against undue delegation of the appeal taken to the President of the Philippines is
power because the power to discipline is till vested tantamount to not appealing at all thereto.
with the President NB: SC already made a reversal of such decision. In
- The power of supervision extends to the Liga subsequent cases, there is no need to go to the Office of the
President if the order emanates from Department Secretary.
NATL LIGA vs. PAREDES (Sept. 27, 2004)
FACTS: DILG was appointed as the Interim Caretaker to 2. Matter is purely legal
manage and administer the affairs of the Liga, until such time An administrative tribunal cannot decide with finality
that the new set of National Liga Officers shall have been duly a legal issue. The final arbiter of a legal issue is the
elected and assumed office. It issued several orders including court.
nullifying the Liga elections in Caloocan.
HELD: These acts of the DILG went beyond the sphere
of general supervision and constituted direct interference with CUEVAS, ZAMORA, DEMAISIP vs. BACAL (Dec. 6,
the political affairs, not only of the Liga, but more importantly, 2000)
of the barangay as an institution. Clearly, what the DILG FACTS: Bacal was previously appointed as Chief Public
wielded was the power of control which even the President Attorney of PAO. In 1998, Demaisip was appointed by Pres.
does not have. Like the government units, the Liga ng mga Estrada as Chief Public Defender.
Barangay is not subject to control by the Chief Executive or his HELD: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
alter ego. remedies does not apply when the question raised is purely
legal. The question as to the security of tenure is a legal
Executive secretary exercises not issue. The case must be lodged before the courts.
only power of supervision but also of control
CASTRO vs. GLORIA (Aug. 20, 2001)
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES vs. PROVINCE OF QUEZON FACTS: DECS found Castro guilty of immoral conduct and
(Oct 11, 2001) was dismissed. Casto filed a petition for mandamus with the
FACTS: There was a conflict of boundaries between the two RTC contending that this was his first offense, and thus,
provinces. The Province of Quezon claimed that the survey suspension and not dismissal from the service is the correct
conducted by the Technical team of DENR is not a valid survey penalty.
in the absence of the authority to conduct a survey signed by HELD: Where the case involves only legal questions, the
the Office of the President. litigant need not exhaust all administrative remedies.
HELD: The authority of the team emanated from the Special
Order No. 1170 duly issued by the DENR Secretary, the alter
MENDOZA vs. LAXINA (July 14, 2003)
ego of the President. Being an alter ego, the acts of the DENR
HELD: The issue of whether or not the decision of the
Secretary are presumed to be the acts of the President, unless
Sangguniang Panlungsod in disciplinary cases is appealable
expressly repudiated by the latter.
to the Office of the President, as well as the propriety of
taking an oath of office anew by respondent Barangay
Exceptions to the Doctrine of EAR: Captain Laxina, are questions of law.
1. Application of the Doctrine of Qualified Political
Decisions of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan in
Agency or the Alter Ego Doctrine
administrative cases involving elective officials of
The actions of the department heads under the
the municipalities are appealable to the Office of the
executive branch are considered to be the actions of the
President
president unless disapproved or revoked by the President
herself. There is presumption of regularity of actions.
Exception to the exception: This is not applicable if REGINO vs. PANGASINAN COLLEGES (Nov. 18, 2004)
the Constitution or the law itself requires that the act be FACTS: Region was not allowed to take the final exams, and
personally performed by the president. thus, failed to graduate, because she failed to buy
tickets for their fund raising project. Regino filed a
complaint directly to the court for damages against the
DIMAISIP vs. CA
school.
FACTS: Dimaisip was awarded with a fish pond by the
HELD: The doctrine has no bearing in this case since she
Director of Fish and Games Administration. But such decision
her claim is for damages and CHED does not have the
was set aside by the Department Secretary and the fish pond
authority to award damages. The exhaustion of
was awarded to Buenaflor. Dimaisip filed an action before the
administrative remedies is applicable when there is
court.
competence on the part of the administrative body to
HELD: This an exception to the rule on exhaustion of
act upon the matter complained of. The exhaustion
administrative remedies because the decision was made by the
doctrine admits of exceptions, one of which arises when
Department Secretary, who is an alter ego of the President.
the issue is purely legal and well within the jurisdiction
of the trial court.
QUISIMBING vs. GUMBAN (February 5, 1991)
FACTS: Yap defied the order of the DECS Secretary of her Question of Fact vs. Question of Law
transfer to another public school district. She filed a petition Question of Fact: the issue involves the examination
for prohibition with the RTC.
of probative value of evidence to ascertain the truth or
HELD: There was no need for exhaustion of administrative
falsity of the allegations
remedies because the act complained of was one made by the
Question of Law: the issue is what should be the law
Department Secretary as the alter ego of the President.
that ought to be applied on a certain given state of facts
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001

3. When the issue is what law or statute to apply REVIEW POWERS OF THE COURTS
(JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
NAPOCOR vs. PRESIDING JUDGE (Oct. 16, 1990) DECISIONS)
FACTS: The Province of Misamis Oriental filed a complaint In the review of administrative decisions, the
with the RTC against NAPOCOR. NAPOCOR invoked PD 242 findings of facts of administrative bodies must not only
which provides that disputes between agencies of the be accorded respect but even finality as long as the
government including GOCCs shall be administratively settled findings are supported by substantial evidence and the
or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice. Respondents relied matter is within the competence and/or jurisdiction of
on PD 464 which provides collection of real property taxes may the administrative tribunal or officer
be enforced by civil action. It is not within the competence of the court to
HELD: Collection of the tax may be enforced by civil action. weigh conflicting evidence or testimonies submitted by
PD 464, a special law, prevails over PD 242, which is a general the parties because that role is given to the
law. Respondent court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative tribunal
civil case. Courts do not have the power of supervision over
the exercise and discretion by the administrative
4. If the application of this doctrine will only cause tribunal
grave or irreparable damage or injury to the parties The court is not allowed to substitute its own
If logging operations continue despite the fact that the judgment for that of the administrative officer because
issue is still pending with the DENR, there may be an the administrative tribunal possesses the skills and
immediate recourse to the court to avoid irreparable expertise necessary to determine matters of evidence,
damage. factual issues or technical matters
If it involves the interpretation of contracts such as
5. Where the application of this doctrine would only a contract of lease, it is within the competence of courts
result in the nullification of the claim being and not of the administrative tribunals
asserted If what is violated is the terms and conditions of a
Example is as to questioning a de facto officer in Certificate of Public Convenience granted in a franchise
which the action must be filed within a period of 1 year. If by a government agency, it is within the power of the
11 months have passed without a decision being rendered, administrative tribunal
resort may be made before the court, otherwise, it would
result to nullification Exceptions to the rule that factual findings must be
given finality:
6. Where the amount is too insignificant and there is 1. The procedure conducted by the
delay by the administrative tribunal administrative officer is irregular, or improper
2. There is collusion or fraud
7. Application of estoppel 3. When there has been error committed
The administrative official asserted that the recourse 4. There is disregard of the rules that would
is before the court and not before his office. The indicate the lack of observance of due process
administrative official cannot anymore invoke this doctrine 5. Utter disregard of the evidence that would
because of the application of estoppel. cause prejudice to the parties
6. Where the administrative tribunal has
8. If there is no timely invocation of this doctrine exercised such function in a whimsical, capricious or
arbitrary manner
9. If the application of this doctrine would result to 7. Where the law itself authorizes a review of
denial of due process such decision

SINGSON vs. NLRC (June 19, 1997) If there is a disregard of facts by


HELD: No need to apply the Doctrine of Exhaustion of the administrative tribunal, this would warrant a review
Administrative Remedies where the Labor Arbiter who made even of factual findings of administrative tribunal
the decision is the same person who will review it on appeal
since he was promoted to being a Commissioner. Otherwise, it FABIAN vs. AGUSTIN (Feb. 14, 2003)
would result to denial of due process. FACTS: The Ombudsman Investigation Officer found
Agustin guilty of grave misconduct as well as immoral
conduct and recommended his dismissal. Ombudsman
ZAMBALES CHROMITE vs. CA (Nov. 7, 1979)
Desierto approved said finding modifying that the offense is
HELD: The reviewing officer must perforce be other than the
only misconduct and suspension for 1 year. Desierto
officer whose decision is under review. The Doctrine of
inhibited and Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero dismissed the
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies need not be applied.
complaint.
HELD: The SC found it necessary to look into the factual
SABELLO vs. DECS (Dec. 26, 1989) evidence of the case and disregard the rule on the finality of
HELD: The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and factual findings of administrative tribunals because of the
the application of the exceptions is not a fast and rigid rule. conflicting findings that is present in the case.
Taking into consideration that the petition was filed by a non-
lawyer, who claims that poverty denied him the services of a
Courts cannot accept evidence not presented previously
lawyer, the SC set aside the requirement of exhaustion of
in the administrative trial because the function of the
administrative remedies.
court is limited to finding out if there is substantial
NB: Compare with Llarena vs. Lacson
evidence, whether or not the procedure is complied with
or whether or not there is observance of due process
10. If the land in question is private and not in a manner of ascertaining the technical or
If the subject matter is public land, there must be factual matters of the case.
exhaustion of administrative remedies. But if it is a private But the superior body which makes the review of the
land, only the civil court has the competence to try the findings of the subordinate may still require the parties
issue. to present additional evidence

11. Failure of the government official from whom relief


is sought to act promptly and expeditiously
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
The superior official can validly order the conduct of new investigation conducted by the PCGG in order that
proceedings and acquire additional evidence but this there is conviction of this unlawful getting of wealth
power is discretionary. How about immunity from civil suits? There is no
Where there is a question that is purely legal, this would clear provision in EO 14-A but Article 2028 of the
not prevent the court from reviewing the decision of the Civil as to amicable settlements may be applied
administrative tribunal - Ex: Section 70 of the Ombudsman Act where the
Ombudman may grant immunity from criminal
Instances when court may review administrative prosecution to any person whose testimony is
decisions: necessary for the successful investigation and
1. Issue involves the constitutionality or legality of law, prosecution of cases against the offender subject to
treaty, ordinance or administrative order conditions, among them:
2. Issue involves jurisdiction of the administrative agency 1. That the testimony of the person is essential or
3. Findings of facts are necessary in order to determine the vital to the prosecution;
findings of law 2. Such information is not yet in possession of the
4. Where there is an error of law committed by the government;
administrative officer 3. He must be the least guilty.

Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts GATCHALIAN vs. NALDOZA (Sept. 29, 1999)
Where the finding of fact is intimately related to or FACTS: Petitioner filed a disbarment case against Atty.
dependent upon the question of law, then the court in Naldoza. Naldoza was acquitted in the criminal case for
order to ascertain the more important issue which is estafa but was held civilly liable. Naldoza contended that
the question of law, may examine or inquire the disbarment case must be dismissed on the ground that he
factual setting in order to determine the question of had already been acquitted in the criminal case.
law. HELD: The SC in disbarment proceedings is acting in an
Example: whether a person is a tenant and has a entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in
claim not only to possess but also to cultivate the land trying criminal cases. In a criminal case, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is necessary. In an administrative case for
SANADO vs. CA (April 17, 2001) disbarment or suspension, clearly preponderant evidence is
FACTS: Sanado was granted a Fishpond Permit was cancelled all that is required. A criminal prosecution will not constitute
thereafter. He elevated the matter to the Office of the a prejudicial question in the administrative proceedings. A
President but his appeal was dismissed. finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result
HELD: The action of an administrative agency in granting or in a finding of liability in the administrative case.
denying, or in suspending or revoking, a license, permit, Respondents acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
franchise, or certificate or public convenience and necessity is administratively. The trial courts finding of civil liability
administrative or quasi-judicial. If petitioner disagrees with the against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar
decision of the Office of the President, he should have elevated finding in the administrative action before this Court.
the matter by petition for review before the CA. The appeal
must be with the CA unless the law itself provides that the There is no provision in law which provides for
appeal must be taken directly to the SC. prescription of administrative cases

MATUGUINA (MIWP) vs. CA (Oct. 24, 1996) FLORIA vs. SUNGA (Nov. 14, 2001)
FACTS: A Provisional Timber License was issued to Milagros. FACTS: A complaint was filed against Floria for immorality
Milagros is the majority stockholder of MIWP but disposed of and falsification of birth certificates. Floria contended that
her shares later. It was contended that there was for 25 years, complainant was silent which constitutes
encroachment upon a timber area. MIWP filed a complaint laches.
before the RTC for damages. HELD: Administrative offenses do not prescribe. The fact
HELD: The issue of whether or not petitioner MIWP is an alter that the illicit relationship between Floria and Abadilla has
ego of Milagros Matuguina is one of fact, and which should ceased will only mitigate her culpability. On the charge for
have been threshed out in said administrative proceedings, and falsification, which constitutes the administrative offense of
not in the prohibition proceedings in the trial court. dishonesty, Floria is liable.

Responsibility of the Prosecutor OCAMPO vs. OMBUDSMAN (Jan. 18, 2000)


To determine whether there is a prima facie case, and FACTS: An administrative case was filed against petitioner
he cannot be compelled by mandamus. Mandamus will before the Ombudsman for serious misconduct and/or fraud
only prosper if the exercise of the power by the officer or willful breach of trust for failure to remit training fees.
is ministerial, not if it involves the exercise of Petitioner contended that the criminal complaint for estafa
discretion. and falsification filed against him was already dismissed by
the RTC.
Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari) and HELD: The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose
Rule 65 (Special Civil Action for Certiorari) administrative action filed against petitioner. Considering the
Rule 45: Only questions of law may be raised difference in the quantum of evidence, the findings and
Rule 65: Question raised is whether or not the tribunal conclusions in one proceeding should not necessarily be
or officer acted without or in excess of binding on the other.
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
Where decision is final and executory
CSC Law and EO 292 declare that the decision is
THREE-FOLD RESPONSIBILITY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER final and executory in administrative cases where
Criminal, Administrative and Civil the penalty is:
The grant of immunity in criminal and civil cases is by - fine not exceeding 30 days salary
express conferment of law. Administrative authorities do - one month suspension
not have the power to grant immunity in criminal and civil - reprimand
suits to offenders. In all other instances, appeal may be taken
- Ex: EO 14-A where PCGG is authorized to grant Where a decision in administrative has a finding of
immunity from criminal prosecution to a person who non-liability of if the finding is sanction not to
provides valuable information or who testifies in the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
exceed these limitations, the law declares that such -oOo-
decision is final and executory
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
CSC vs. DACOYCOY (April 29, 1999)
FACTS: Dacoycoy was found guilty of nepotism and CSC Basis for the creation of the PNP:
imposed a penalty of dismissal upon him. He filed with the CA Article 16, Section 6 of the Constitution which
a special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction. provides for the establishment and the maintenance
CA reversed the decision of CSC. by the state of one police force which shall be
HELD: It is the CSC who should appeal the decision of the CA national in scope and civilian in character.
to the SC since it is the party who was adversely affected by NAPOLCOM shall have administrative supervision
such decision. It is not the complainant since he is merely a over the affairs of the police. The local chief
witness and neither the respondent because precisely there has executive shall have authority over the police as
been a declaration of his innocence. may be provided by law

PAREDES vs. CSC (Dec. 4, 1990) The present Constitution makes it clear that there is now
HELD: In Philippine Civil Service Law, there can be no appeal a separation between the AFP and the PNP
from such decision exonerating the respondent where the No element of the PNP shall be military and any position
decision originally imposes no sanction. in the PNP shall not be occupied by any active officer of
NB: Compare with CSC vs. Dacoycoy where it was on appeal the AFP
where respondent was exonerated. Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the
AFP acts as the protector of the people and the state

BQ: What is the relationship of the Dept of National Defense


through the AFP and the DILG through the PNP?
A: Section 12, RA 6975 (Reorganization of the PNP)
Sec. 37 of CSC Law in relation to Sec. 39
provides that the DILG has the principal or primary role
The aggrieved party in an administrative case has the
of preserving internal security. The AFP has the
right to appeal an adverse decision if the law itself
principal role of preserving external security.
gives him such right by reason of Sec. 39 authorizing
Exception: An instance where the AFP would play the
an appeal as remedy to be availed of by the party
role of preserving internal security if there are serious
adversely affected by the decision.
threats to the national security and public order. A
Sec. 37 speaks of the appellate jurisdiction of the
situation wherein the insurgents (Abu Sayaff, MILF,
commission in those instances where appeal may be
NPA) may have gained a considerable foothold. In this
taken from the decision of the agency. The decision of
situation, PNP plays a supporting role.
department is appealed to the CSC

DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS AND CONDONATION MANALO vs. SISTOZA (Aug. 11, 1999)
FACTS: Pres Aquino appointed respondents to PNP
This doctrine provides that public officials cannot be Superintendents and Directors without the approval of
subject to disciplinary action for administrative misconduct Commission on Appointments (CA). Manalo argued that PNP
during a prior term is akin to AFP where appointment to colonel and naval
But this should not prevent the state from continuing captain requires confirmation.
with the criminal proceedings HELD: CA confirmation is not needed. PNP is separate and
distinct from the AFP.
Bar Question:
AGUINALDO vs. SANTOS (Aug. 21, 1992) BQ: Section 26 in relation to Section 31 of RA 6975 (PNP
FACTS: Pending the administrative case, Aguinaldo ran and Law) is unconstitutional since it provides that the
was elected for governor. appointment of the Chief Superintendent and senior
HELD: Applying the doctrine of forgiveness and condonation, superintendent of the PNP which must have the concurrence
Gov. Aguinaldo could not be held administratively liable for a of the Commission on Appointments (CA). Article 7, Section
prior act committed. The previous term is distinct from the 16 of the Constitution excludes the senior positions of the
succeeding term. PNP from requirement that such appointment must have
concurrence of the CA.
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
Mode of Appeal in the PNP
People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) has
The order or decision of the administrative tribunal
jurisdiction to hear citizen's complaints and of
shall, upon finality of such decision, has the force and
course those complaints filed before that body
effect of a final decision just like in court cases
where the penalty imposable is forfeiture of salaries
The parties are no longer allowed to reopen the
or suspension of more that 30 days or dismissal
issues once it has already been determined and in fact the
from the service
decision has already become final. Such decision is
Decision of the PLEB is appealable within 10 days to
conclusive upon the parties and their privies, on the same
the Regional Appellate Board (RAB)
cause of action arising from the same facts.
NAPOLCOM has appellate machineries - Regional
Appellate Board (RAB) and National Appellate Board
Doctrine of res judicata not applicable in the following
(NAB)
instances:
RAB has the appellate jurisdiction over decisions
1. Where it involves the issue of citizenship
rendered not only by the PLEB but also by the
2. Where there are supervening events that
Regional Director of the PNP
make it imperative in order to serve justice
Decision of the chief of the PNP is appealable to the
3. Where the application of this doctrine would
NAB within 10 days from receipt of such decision
mean sacrificing justice for technicality
NAB/RAB must decide a period of 60 days
4. Where there has been waiver of this doctrine
timeframe
5. When there was capriciousness or
If no such decision by the NAB or RAB within such
arbitrariness in the exercise of the discretion.
period, the decision shall be final and executory but
6. When there was summary dismissal
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
without prejudice to an appeal to the Secretary of the In the case of province, the choice is smaller
DILG because the list submitted consists only of 3 names,
Decision of the DILG secretary may be appealed the not 5. And the governor chooses among the 3.
the CSC
ALUNAN vs. ASUNCION (Jan. 28, 2000)
PLEB/ FACTS: Pursuant to the resolution issued by then Sec.
Regl Director -------> RAB ----------> Sec of DILG -------> CSC Alunan, the members of the Criminal Investigation Service
of PNP 10 days 60 days
(CIS) were deprived of their police powers.
Chief -------> RAB ----------> Sec of DILG -------> CSC HELD: The questioned resolution implements RA 6975. The
of PNP 10 days 60 days intention of the law is to make the PNP wholly a civilian in
character and not a unit of the AFP. If follows therefore that
CABADA vs. ALUNAN (Feb. 22, 1996) members of the PNP must be wholly uniformed officers of
FACTS: RAB affirmed the decision of the Regional Director the PNP. If no case therefore shall there be authorized non-
finding petitioners guilty of grave misconduct. Petitioners filed uniform personnel with police powers. The basis of the claim
with the Secretary of the DILG and Chairman of the for the CIS members was RA 5750, which provides police
NAPOLCOM their Appeal and Petition for Review. powers for them. RA 6975 repealed RA 5750.
HELD: The appeal is defective because the appeal should not
be taken before the NAPOLCOM which already exercises -oOo-
appellate authority through the NAB and RAB. the proper body
should be the Secretary of the DILG. Cabadas appeal was OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG)
addressed to the Honorable Secretary of the DILG as
Chairman and Presiding Officer of the NAPOLCOM. Law applied to OSG is PD 478, which are also found
in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987
Section 46 of the RA 7975 Lawyer of the government, its instrumentalities,
If a member of the PNP is criminally charged, the agencies and officials in any proceeding or investigation
offense must be investigated by the regular courts which requires the services of a lawyer
(MTC, RTC, and Sandiganbayan [as to high-ranking OSG may take a position contrary to the stand of
officers]). It must be lodged first before the another office
prosecutors office for the finding of probable cause.
If such probable cause is found, a criminal complaint ORBOS vs. CSC (Sept. 12, 1990)
is to be filed in the regular courts. FACTS: Appointments made by Orbos in the DOTC were
Courts Martial is applied to the members of the AFP questioned. CSC ordered the cancellation of the
and not anymore applicable to the PNP appointment. CSC does not have that power since
appointment is upon the sound discretion of the appointing
Section 42 of the Civil Service Law authority. DOTC was represented by the OSG and was
Preventive suspension of a public officer must be for a questioned by the CSC.
fixed period and must not exceed 90 days HELD: It is the duty of the Solicitor General to make known
Exception: Section 47 of RA 7975 provides for the to the Court what position best upholds the position of the
indefinite suspension of member of PNP if he is government. The Solicitor General should not abdicate this
charged with a grave offense punishable by 6 years duty. If ever such decision taken by the Solicitor General is
and 1 day or more different from that of another administrative agency or
officer, then the latter may represent itself through an in-
HIMAGAN vs. PEOPLE (Oct. 7, 1994) house counsel.
FACTS: Himagan was implicated in a murder and attempted
murder case. The trial court issued an order suspending General rule: GOCCs must be represented by the
petitioner until the termination of the case. Office of the Government Corporate Council (OGCC)
HELD: Suspension from office of the member of the PNP EO 292 recognizes the power of the OSG to
charged with grave offense where the penalty is 6 years and 1 deputize other government lawyers as their deputies
day or more shall last until the termination of the case. The
suspension cannot be lifted before the termination of the case. NAPOCOR vs. NLRC (May 29, 1997)
PNP members are treated differently since they carry weapons HELD: The lawyer designated as "special attorney-OSG" is a
and the badge of the law which can be used to harass or mere representative of the OSG. The OSG continues to be
intimidate witnesses against them. the principal counsel for the NAPOCOR, and as such, the
Solicitor General is the party entitled to be furnished copies
Section 51 of the RA 7975 of orders, notices and decisions. Since service of said
The power of the mayor over members of the PNP is decision was never made on the OSG, the period to appeal
one of operational control and supervision the decision to the NLRC did not commence to run.
Operational control means the power to direct and to
oversee and inspect police units to deploy REPUBLIC vs. DESIERTO (Sept. 23, 2002)
This cannot be exercised within 30 days prior and 30 HELD: The Court allowed the petition for certiorari under
days after the election Rule 65 filed by the Republic through the PCGG (not the
OSG) assailing the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the graft
ANDAYA vs. RTC complaint against Cojuangco et al. involving the acquisition
FACTS: The mayor did not choose from the list of 5 nominees of oil mills using coco levy funds. Although the OSG should
for Chief of Police submitted by the Regional Director. The have filed the petition, substantial justice would be better
nominees are taken from a pool of eligible officers as so served if petition is entertained. The unauthorized filing was
screened by the Seniors Officers Promotion and Selection ratified and the defect was cured when the OSG signed as
Board. co-counsel for the Republic in the consolidated reply.
HELD: The Regional Police Director has the prerogative to
name the five eligibles for the position of Chief of Police Exceptions (OSG is prohibited from representing the
without interference from local executives. The mayor has only public official):
a limited power of selecting one from among the list and he 1. Where public official is charged criminally
cannot require to include the name of any officer, no matter 2. where public official is sued civilly arising from the
how qualified, in the list of five to be submitted to the mayor . commission of a felony
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
URBANO vs. CHAVEZ (March 19, 1990) the dismissal of the complaint.
GO vs. CHAVEZ (March 19, 1990)
FACTS: A criminal case was instituted against DILG Sec. Power of investigation of the Ombudsman
Santos for violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The OMB has the power to investigate any type of
Go filed a complaint for damages against Chavez for alleged complaint, even if it is unverified
defamatory imputations. OSG appeared in behalf of the public Under CSC Law and EO 292, there is a need for the
officials concerned. complaint to be verified unless the same is initiated
HELD: A public official who is sued in a criminal case is by the disciplining authority
actually sued in his personal capacity inasmuch as his principal, The form of complaint does not subscribe to any
the State, can never be the author of a wrongful act, much less need for verification for the purpose of the conduct
commit a crime. The OSG is not authorized to represent a of investigation. The Constitution and law does not
public official at any stage of a criminal case or in a civil suit for require a formal complaint
damages arising from a felony.
DIAZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (March 8, 1993)
-oOo- FACTS: The Senate dismissed all the charges against PCGG
and Diaz. With the approval of the OMB, Parentela found
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (OMB) probable cause to conduct a preliminary investigation against
the petitioner.
Created under Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution HELD: The testimony given at any fact finding investigation
Its powers are provided under Section 12, Article XI of and charges raised in a pleading before the court constitute
the Constitution a sufficient basis for the conduct of an investigation of the
It has the power, function and duty to act promptly on OMB.
complaints filed against public officials
Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution provides that ALMONTE vs. VASQUEZ (May 23, 1995)
the OMB is tasked to investigate any act or omission of any FACTS: Subpoenas were issued by the OMB in connection
public official when such act appears to be improper or with his investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that
illegal or any act of malfeasance, misfeasance and funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the
nonfeasance committed by those in public service Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) had
been illegally disbursed. Petitioners alleged that they cannot
LAUREL vs. DESIERTO (April 12, 2002) produce documents relating to personal services and salary
FACTS: Petitioner now assails the jurisdiction of the OMB on vouchers of EIIB employees on the plea that such documents
the ground that he is not a public officer. are classified.
HELD: The delegation to the individual as some of the HELD: The Constitution expressly enjoins the OMB to act on
sovereign functions of government is the most important any complaint filed "in any form or manner" concerning
characteristic in determining whether a position is a public official acts or omissions, even though, as in this case, the
officer or not. The National Centennial Commission performs complaint is unsigned and unverified.
sovereign functions. Salary is a mere incident and forms no
part of the office.
DELOSO vs. DOMINGO (Nov. 21, 1990)
FACTS: Deloso claimed in the preliminary investigation by
The OMB has the duty to act promptly on cases the OMB, that the crime of multiple murder allegedly
committed by him was not office-related, and therefore, the
TATAD vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (March 21, 1988) OMB has no authority to conduct the preliminary
FACTS: Tatad contended that the prosecutions long delay in investigation against his person.
the filing of cases with the Sandiganbayan deprived him of his HELD: The authority of the OMB covers all kinds of
constitutional right to due process and the right to a speedy offenses, all misfeasances, malfeasances and non-feasances
disposition of the cases against him committed by public officers and employees. It covers even
HELD: The long delay in the termination of the preliminary offenses not committed in relation to the duties of a public
investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case is violative officers.
of the constitutional right of the accused to due process. A
delay of close to 3 years can not be deemed reasonable or
UY vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (March 20, 2001)
justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case
FACTS: A motion for clarification was filed by the OMB as to
at bar. The informations in the various criminal cases filed
the resolution of the SC dated February 22, 2000 that the
should be dismissed.
prosecutory power of the OMB only extends to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the OMB has no
ANGCHANGCO vs. OMBUDSMAN (Feb. 13, 1977) authority to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of
FACTS: A complaint for graft, estafa/malversation and regular courts.
misconduct was filed against petitioner. After more than 6 HELD: The OMB is clothed with authority to conduct
years, the criminal complaints remain unresolved. preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases
HELD: The inordinate delay of more than 6 years by the OMB involving public officers and employees, not only those within
in resolving the criminal complaints against petitioner to be the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within the
violative of his constitutionally guaranteed right to due process jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. The SC now went
and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him, thus back to its earlier ruling in the Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan
warranting the dismissal of said criminal cases. case

ROQUE, MABANGLO vs. OMBUDSMAN (May 12, 1999) Section 15 of RA 6770 confers plenary powers to
FACTS: After the initial Orders finding the cases proper for the OMB to investigate and prosecute any act or
preliminary investigation were issued on June 1991 and the omission of a public official when such act appears to be
subsequent submission of their counter-affidavits, until the improper, unjust, illegal or inefficient
present or more than 6 years, no resolution has been issued by Section 11 of RA 6770 authorizes the Office of the
the OMB and no case has been filed with the appropriate court Special Prosecutor to try cases before the
against the petitioners. Sandiganbayan and this would likewise mean authority
HELD: The failure of the OMB to resolve a complaint that has to investigate and prosecute cases before the regular
been pending for six years is clearly violative of this mandate courts
and the public officials rights. The aggrieved party is entitled to
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
There is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the HELD: It is only the SC which can look into the issue on
OMB and similarly representative agencies of government, whether or not the order issued by the judge is illegal or
such as the DOJ, over cases filed in regular courts (MTC, unjust, or whether or not it is within the scope of the judges
RTC) involving low-ranking officers. High-ranking officers official duties.
are within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
If the charges filed before the regular courts has Before any criminal or civil action may prosper
nothing to do with the official functions of the public against a judge for violations of Art. 204 and 205 RPC
officer, there is no need for the prior authority from the may be entertained by the OMB, there must be a final
OMB and authoritative judicial declaration that indeed the
decision rendered by the judge is unjust
ORCULLO vs. GERVACIO (Sept. 14, 1999) The OMB has the power to dismiss outright a
FACTS: An employee of Councilor Orcullo filed a graft case criminal case without the conduct of preliminary
before the OMB against Orcullo for unpaid compensation. investigation. It has discretion to determine whether
Orcullo questioned the authority of Gervacio. the evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause
HELD: Section 15 of RA 6770 does not vest the OMB with and to dismiss if the evidence is not sufficient
authority to order a public official to pay a money claim of an Such power cannot be impugned by the court
aggrieved party. As a money claim against petitioner because this would involve a factual finding
personally, the claim is within the jurisdiction of a court of
proper jurisdiction (depending on the amount of the claim). DUTERTE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (April 27, 1998)
FACTS: OMB-Mindanao requested COAs Special Audit
SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU (Nov. 9, 1993) Team to submit affidavits. Duterte et. al., were not given
FACTS: Rape and homicide cases were filed against Sanchez. copies of these affidavits. They were only asked to file a
Sanchez questioned the authority of the DOJ prosecutors comment on the civil case and COA Report.
conducting the preliminary investigation on the ground that it is HELD: There was no due process. When Duterte et. al.,
only the OMB which has the power to conduct preliminary were asked to file a comment on a COA Audit Report, they
investigation against a public officer. were already being subjected to preliminary investigation
HELD: The authority of the OMB is one of shared and without being informed that they were already made
concurrent jurisdiction with other investigating body of the respondents. Also, they were not furnished a single affidavit
government such as the DOJ. Take note that this was not in of any person charging them of any offense. One of the
connection of his official functions. compelling reasons for the dismissal of the case against
them is the fact that no undue injury was caused to the city
OMB may take over the investigation of any case at any government because even before the adverse finding of the
stage when the act or omission of the public officer is COA came out, the city government rescinded the contract.
office related So the cancellation of the contract negated alleged bad faith.

Jurisdiction of the OMBUDSMAN GARCIA vs. PRIMO (Feb. 5, 2003)


Administrative and criminal proceedings against public FACTS: Cebu Mayor was charged with graft with regard to
officers a contract he entered with an asphalt distributor. The basis
All appointive and elective officers are subject to the was an audit report of the COA and they were directed to
jurisdiction of the OMB. file their pleading. Garcia questioned this order and cited
Exceptions: Where the respondent is a member of the the Duterte ruling.
judiciary, a member of Congress or an impeachable officer HELD: Due process was complied with. The Duterte ruling
does not apply because apart from this audit report of COA,
MACEDA vs. VASQUEZ ( April 22, 1993) the auditors executed an affidavit complaint under oath
FACTS: A criminal action was initiated by the OMB against implicating as respondent Mayor Garcia. More than that
Judge Maceda for falsification of his certificate of service. there was a fact finding investigation conducted by the OMB
HELD: OMB has no jurisdiction. it is only the SC that can of Visayas, prosecutor Tagaan. Even if Tagaan resigned, he
oversee the judges and court personnels compliance with all may still be called upon testify. And he is not the real
laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if complainant. The real complainant is the State represented
they commit any violation thereof. by COA and the OMB.

DOLALAS vs. OMBUDSMAN (Dec. 24, 1996) GARCIA vs. MOJICA (Sept. 10, 1999)
HELD: The OMB has no jurisdiction to initiate an investigation FACTS: OMB ordered the preventive suspension of Mayor
into the alleged undue delay by the judge in the disposition of Garcia involving the anomalous purchase of asphalt. Garcia
the criminal case, which involves the determination of whether, claims that he could no longer be placed under preventive
in resolving the alarms and scandals case, petitioner-judge suspension because of his re-election citing the case of
acted in accordance with the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such is AGUINALDO.
clearly administrative in nature over which the SC has HELD: While petitioner can no longer be held
administrative control and supervision. administratively liable for signing the contract with F. E.
Zuellig, however, this should not prejudice the filing of any
CAOIBES vs. OMBUDSMAN (July 19, 2001) case other than administrative against petitioner. The OMB
FACTS: This involves the issue who has the right to an office can still issue preventive suspension order even if the act in
table between two judges. question happened during a previous term.
HELD: The OMB is duty bound to have all cases against There is no violation of due process even if an order of
judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the preventive suspension is issued prior to the holding of a
Supreme Court for determination as to whether and preliminary investigation because preventive suspension is
administrative aspect is involved therein. not a penalty.

Bar Question: If there is an absence of a verified complaint, the


OMB cannot proceed with a formal investigation
FUENTES vs. OMBUDSMAN (Oct. 23, 2001)
The OMB must conduct a fact finding committee for
FACTS: Order of Judge Fuentes was questioned before the
the purpose of initiating the verified complaint but not
OMB alleging that there were anomalies in the issuance thereof
for the purpose of conducting a formal inquiry because
and in the service of the writ of execution.
this would violate the respondent's constitutional right
of confrontation-- to confront his accusers
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
If simply on the basis of an anonymous complaint a as placed under preventive suspension and he is
public officer is required to file his counter affidavit, this is entitled to the payment of compensation and other
a violation of due process benefits due him during such period of preventive
suspension which was imposed originally as a
YABUT vs. OMBUDSMAN (June 17, 1994) penalty
FACTS: This case arose because of a traffic incident. Pending NB: Lapid and Liggayu rulings providing that
investigation, the OMB issued a preventive suspension order suspension pending appeal cannot be executed
placing Yabut under suspension for 90 days. OMB meted the have been abandoned by AO-17 published on Nov.
penalty of 90-day suspension. Yabut contended that the 82 3, 2003. It provides that an appeal shall not stop
days served by him should be credited. the decision from being executory
HELD: The nature of the preventive suspension is merely a Basis of AO-17 is the Constitution which recognizes
preliminary step in the administrative adjudication precisely to the power of the OMB to promulgate its own rules
protect and insure the veracity and security of vital records. of procedure. Sec. 18 of RA 6770 also provides for
The period of preventive suspension cannot be credited to the same power.
whatever penalty that may be meted out.
Appeal from a decision of the Ombudsman
Bar Question: For administrative cases, the appeal should be
BUENASEDA vs. FLAVIER (Sept. 21, 1993) taken to the CA within 10 days from receipt of the
FACTS: Dr. Buenaseda of the Hospital of the National Center adverse decision of the OMB, as provided under Rule 43
for Mental Health and some employees were accused of graft of the Rules of Court
practices. OMB issued a preventive suspension order. For criminal cases, a MFR is filed with the OMB
Respondents contended that there was yet no formal hearing within 5 days from receipt of the decision. The appeal,
conducted on the matter and so, the issuance of the thereafter, should be taken before the SC under Rule 65
preventive suspension order violated due process. which means it should be based on grave abuse of
HELD: By nature, a preventive suspension order is not a discretion
penalty. Therefore, there was no violation of due process. The
issuance of the preventive suspension order is not by reason of MORONG WATER vs. OMBUDSMAN (March 17, 2000)
disciplinary action taken by the administrative body. The HELD: Any appeal or application for remedy against a
power of the OMB covers not only employees within its office decision or finding of the OMB may only be entertained by
but also other offices of the government. the Sc on a pure question of law. Findings of fact of the
OMB, when supported by substantial evidence, are
Preventive Suspension: conclusive.
OMB: maximum of 6 months
Civil Service Law: maximum of 90 days
LGC (for elective officials): maximum of 60 days

CASTILLO-CO vs. BARBERS (June 16, 1998) FABIAN vs. DESIERTO (Sept. 16, 1998)
FACTS: Gov. Castillo-Co was charged with graft practices. HELD: Appeals from decisions of the OMB in administrative
Preventive suspension was decreed on him. It was raised that disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under Rule 43
under the LGC, the maximum preventive suspension is only 60 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The SC declared
days. unconstitutional Section 27 of RA 6770 which provided that
HELD: Administrative proceedings taken by the OMB decisions of the OMB may be appealed to the SC by way of
pursuant to its provisions under the OMB Law ought to be petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
followed. In other words, the OMB can mete out the Court. Such provision was violative of Section 30, Article VI
maximum preventive suspension of six (6) months. Preventive of the Constitution, as it expanded the jurisdiction of the
suspension was merely a preliminary step in an administrative Supreme Court without its advice and consent.
investigation.
ESTRADA vs. DESIERTO
Section 27 of RA 6770 provides that suspension FACTS: Estrada filed a complaint against the BIR Deputy
exceeding more than one month but not more than one Commissioner on the ground that she usurped the functions
year, or even dismissal from the service, in all these of the commissioner by her issuance of constructive restraint
instances, the decision of the OMB can be subject of an against the Citibank deposit of Estrada.
appeal. HELD: There was no usurpation of functions because there
was this authority given to the deputy commissioner by the
ALBA vs. NITORREDA (March 13, 1996) President herself. So she acted with color of authority
HELD: Under the OMB Act, where the penalty imposed in the coming from GMA.
administrative proceeding is suspension not exceeding 30 days
or a fine not to exceed one month salary, the decision shall Authority of the Ombudsman to look into bank
become final and executory. there is no violation of due deposits of public officers:
process because the law has made such imposition of penalty
as final and executory. Right to appeal is granted by law and BANCO FILIPINO vs. PURISIMA
thus, may be withdrawn by the law itself. HELD: The SC upheld the validity of the issuance by the
Tanodbayan of such order for for the production of bank
Effect of filing appeal: records of a BIR employee, who was charged for violation of
General Rule: The filing of an appeal in RA 3019.
administrative law will stay the decision
ExceptionS: If the law itself, the Constitution or the MARQUEZ vs. DESIERTO (June 23, 2001)
implementing rules as allowed by law allow the FACTS: OMB ordered the bank manager of Unionbank to
execution of decision pending appeal produce the bank records or accounts of Lagdameo in
CSC Law and EO 292, as applied to appointive public connection with the fact-finding investigation conducted by
officers, provide that the decision is executory despite the OMB pertaining to alleged violation of the anti-graft and
appeal. This is an exception of the rule. corrupt practices act.
Section 68 of the LGC provides that the appeal shall HELD: SC ruled that the OMB has no power to look into
not stay the decision. In the event that the party such bank deposits. In the case at bar, there is yet no
who appeals wins the appeal, he shall be considered
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
pending litigation before any court of competent authority. the HELD: COA does not have the sole and exclusive power to
cases brought before the Office of the Ombudsman were only examine and audit government banks. The Central Bank
in the fact-finding stage, not in the formal investigation of (BSP) has concurrent jurisdiction to examine and audit, or
cases against the public officer. cause the examination and audit, of government banks. Still,
Before an in camera inspection may be allowed: the COA's audit prevails over that of the Central Bank (BSP)
1. there must be a pending case before a court of competent since the COA is the constitutionally mandated auditor of
jurisdiction government bank. But Central Bank (BSP) is devoid of
2. the account must be clearly identified, authority to allow or disallow expenditures of government
3. the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending banks since this function belongs exclusively to the COA.
case before the court of competent jurisdiction This power is given exclusively to the COA under the
4. The bank personnel and the account holder must be constitution.
notified to be present during the inspection, and
5. such inspection may cover only the account identified in CIR vs. COA (218 SCRA 204)
the pending case. HELD: Upon the recommendation of the BIR, the
Department of Finance may grant an informers reward
Reconciling Banco Filipino and Marquez cases pursuant to the provision of the NIRC. This informers
If what is being issued by the OMB is in connection of the reward may be the subject of the auditorial scrutiny of the
conduct of fact-finding investigation-- this violates RA 1405 COA and the COA may disallow such grant of informers
(Secrecy of Deposits Act) because the OMB here is trying reward. However, courts may determine whether the
to get information to be used against the public officer. disallowance made by the COA of the grant of informers
Exceptions to the Secrecy of Deposits Act: reward is proper or not.
1. There is a pending litigation and court orders the
production of such documents; CAGATIN vs. COA
2. When the disclosure of such records of bank accounts is HELD: If there has been a decision rendered by the CSC as
upon authority of the bank depositor. to the propriety of the payment of backwages to employees
3. Where the bank itself conducts an audit of its own and such decision has become final, the finality precludes
accounts to determine whether there has been commission the COA from setting aside or disallowing the payment of
of bank frauds. The Central Bank has the authority to look backwages to the employees concerned, in relation to the
into bank deposits because it is authorized under the law. concept of res judicata.
4. In impeachment cases
NHA vs. COA (226 SCRA 65)
If there has been a formal case lodged and that case
FACTS: One of the conditions to extend to the loan
identified the specific account, there may be a proper
contract between the NHA and a German entity is the
disclosure, and on the basis of the order issued by the
extension of the services contract of the German consultant.
court.
COA disallowed such renewal.
HELD: COA has the power to look into any disbursement
COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA)
and to disallow such disbursement if the same is irregular,
COA is an independent constitutional office tasked to
unnecessary, extravagant, excessive or unconscionable. the
examine, audit and settle accounts of government
renewal of the services agreement in favor of the German
pertaining to receipts and revenues of government as well
consultant was found by the COA as unnecessary expense
as the disbursement of public funds and property
on the part of the government.
AGUINALDO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
HELD: Despite the allowance made by COA of the RODRIGO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Feb. 18, 1999)
disbursement of funds, it will not prevent the OMB from HELD: Authority of OMB to investigate is separate and
investigating the same matter because audit made by COA is distinct from the power of the COA to examine and audit
different from the investigation to be conducted by the OMB, accounts and transactions of the government. It will not
which is the determination on whether or not there was bar the OMB from proceeding with its own investigation to
violation of the law. determine the liability of the same public officers even if
they are cleared by COA.
Basic responsibilities of COA
1. The COA has the responsibility and power to CRUZ vs. COA
examine and audit all accounts pertaining to the revenue HELD: COA made a determination that those employees of
and receipts of government as well as the disbursements the Sugar Regulatory Administration who were hired after
or expenditures or uses of public funds and property October 31, 1989, should not be allowed to receive the
2. COA has the authority to promulgate rules and Social Amelioration benefits. But there was absolutely no
regulations and to prevent and disallow unnecessary, basis for COA to make such distinction because the law as
irregular, excessive expenditures of public funds or well as the circular in the interpretation of the law did not
property impose any such factor of alienation as to the period of
employment by the SRA employees.
Extent of jurisdiction of COA
authority of COA covers all offices, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
agencies, instrumentalities of government, including water GOVERNANCE (PCGG)
districts Laws creating PCGG are provided under EOs 1, 2, 14,
COA does not have the authority to look 14-A
into private institutions, except if that private institution is PCGG is merely a conservator of the assets and
receiving or enjoying some kind of subsidy from the properties placed under its custody
government PCGG can never perform acts of ownership or dominion
PNB is no longer subject to COA audit, over whatever property or asset they may have
except in so far as the subsidy of government in that bank sequestered
is concerned PCGG cannot vote upon sequestered shares of stock nor
The power to examine and audit of COA elect the members of the board of the corporation being
is not exclusive sequestered
EO 1 mandates the PCGG to recover ill-gotten
DBP vs. COA (Jan. 16, 2002) wealth accumulated by the Marcoses, their immediate
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
families, relatives, subordinates, associates and cronies,
whether such properties found in the Philippines or BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP)
abroad. PCGG has the power to take over or place under
its control any property or office within its authority. BSP, through the Monetary Board, has the
EO 2 empowers the PCGG to freeze all assets and authority, under the so called rule "close now and hear
properties in the Philippines and prohibit any person from later policy", to take over a bank and thus order that
transferring or concealing such property alleged to be ill- such bank be placed under receivership
gotten There is no violation for such closure because this is
E.O. 14 and E.O. 14-A mandate the PCGG to file and in accord with public interest - the need to protect the
prosecute all cases before the Sandiganbayan which has stockholders, the creditors and the public at large
the exclusive jurisdiction to try and hear cases of the This is consistent with the states police power
PCGG. And likewise, Section 5 of E.O. 14 as amended, Prior notice and hearing not required for such
empowers the PCGG to grant immunity from criminal closure but subject to the following requisites:
prosecution of any person who testifies. 1. Conduct of examination by the
examinations department of the BSP
BASECO vs. PCGG (May 27, 1987) 2. On the basis of such examination, a report
HELD: Since the PCGG is not the owner of the sequestered be submitted to the Monetary Board
assets, it is not allowed to vote sequestered shares of stocks or 3. Such report shows prima facie finding that
even elect members of the board of directors concerned. continuance in business of such bank would involve
Exceptions to this rule: probable lost to the creditors/depositors
1. Takeover of a business belonging to the government but is The bank is allowed to sue the Monetary Board
already in the private hands within 10 days from the date of closure
2. Where the capitalization of the business comes from public
fund DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR)
NB: This ruling is reiterated in Republic vs. Cocofed (372
SCRA 463) and Republic vs. Sandiganbayan 402 SCRA General rule: DAR has the original jurisdiction over
85) all cases involving the application of agrarian laws
Section 50 of RA 6657 (Agrarian Law) confers to the
REPUBLIC vs. COCOFED DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
HELD: COCOFED, as well as its leaders and officers are under agrarian reform matters, and exclusive original
the jurisdiction of PCGG because of the public nature of the jurisdiction over matters involving the implementation of
coconut levy funds. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
DAR, in the exercise of its exclusive original
PCGG has the power under Section 5 of EO 14 to grant
jurisdiction, performs its mandate through agencies
immunity from criminal prosecution as well as immunity
1.) DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform
from civil suit applying the provisions of the Civil Code
Adjudication Board);
At present, the period for the PCGG to sequester has
2.) RARAB (Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication
already lapsed
Board); and
PCGG has authority to recover only those assets alleged to
3.) PARAB (Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication
be ill-gotten or unlawfully acquired prior to February 25,
Board)
1986. After such date, the OMB has now the power to run
after this public officers or grafters who amassed or
accumulated ill-gotten wealth

REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (July 12, 1996) Instances where the DAR does not have original
FACTS: There was a sequestration order issued by a jurisdiction:
representative of the PCGG, Atty. Ramirez. He issued a 1. Petition for determining just compensation
sequestration order over the assets and properties of Dio 2. The case involves a criminal act arising
Island Resort in Leyte allegedly owned by the Romualdezes. from a violation of the provisions of the RA 6657
HELD: Upon authority of at least 2 commissioners of PCGG, a (Agrarian Law)
writ of sequestration may be issued by a representative of the Agrarian dispute refers any
PCGG. In this case, the writ of sequestration is null and void controversy that relates to tenurial arrangement
since the issuance made by the representative of the PCGG did Tenurial arrangement not only
not conform to the rules implementing the law. No ratification includes tenancy but also leasehold, stewardship or
by the PCGG can cure the defect. other kind of arrangement between the land owner and
the possessor, the cultivator of the land which is
REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (407 SCRA 13) devoted to agriculture, any matter or controversy
HELD: Where there is no jurisdiction to waive, as the PCGG pertaining to the terms and conditions of the transfer of
cannot exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers never ownership from the land owner to the tiller, farm
granted to it, Major General Ramas could not be deemed to worker, or any beneficiary of the agrarian reform
have waived any defect in the filing by the PCGG of the Home lot is included in the term
forfeiture petition by filing an answer with counterclaim. agrarian dispute
Ramas position as Commanding General of the Philippine Army Tenancy relationship is not simply
does not suffice to make him a subordinate of Marcos. It is extinguished by the expiration of the period provided in
precisely a prima facie showing that the ill-gotten wealth was the leasehold contract, or even by the disposition, sale
accumulated by a "subordinate of Marcos that vests or transfer of legal possession of the landholding
jurisdiction on PCGG. Failing in this, the PCGG should have
recommended the instant case to the Ombudsman. Determination of Just Compensation under CARP:
1. Section 50
ARGANA vs. REPUBLIC (443 SCRA 184) administrative and preliminary in nature
HELD: There is no law that requires that pleadings filed by applies where there is the taking of such property
the PCGG be approved by the Commission en banc. So the under the agrarian reform program, and the offer to
pleadings and/or motions that may be filed before the court be paid by the government is rejected
need not be approved by the Commission en banc or the not similar to the proceeding before the court
Office of the President. the proceeding in court is not a continuation of the
admininstrative process before the DARAB
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
Steps: he cash-strapped Government. It provided funds for social
a. Offer given to the land owner impact projects and subjected gambling to close scrutiny,
b. Land Bank makes an appraisal of regulation, supervision and control of the government.
such property Public welfare lies at the bottom of the enacted of the PD
c. Offer is given by DAR to the 1869.
landowners
d. If acceptable, no need for court DELMAR vs. PAGCOR (346 SCRA 435)
proceedings FACTS: PAGCOR entered into an agreement with private
e. If rejected, landowner may state his companies to operate jai-alai. The legality of such
objection and DAR may make a determination again agreement was questioned on the ground that PAGCOR does
f. A summary proceeding is conducted not have any authority to enter into such kind of agreement.
for preliminary determination by DARAB, RARAB or HELD: The charter (PD 1869) of PAGCOR does not give it a
PARAB franchise to operate and manage jai-alai. The nature of a
g. If landowner is still not satisfied, the franchise is a special privilege conferred by the State. There
landowner may file a petition with the RTC 15 days was no clear authority given to PAGCOR for the operation of
from receipt of decision jai-alai. The business of PAGCOR is to establish, maintain
and operate gambilng casinos in any part of the country, and
PHIL. VETERANS BANK (PVB) vs. CA (322 SCRA 140) this does not include jai alai activities.
FACTS: PVB filed the petition for the determination of just The matter of giving franchise to operate jai-alai was
compensation beyond the 15-day period as required. not intended for PAGCOR but to a different corporation (Phil
HELD: The petition must be filed within the 15-day period Jai-alai and Amusement Corp) pursuant to PD 810 of
from the receipt of the notice of the DAR in the summary October 16, 1975. PAGCOR is engaged in business affected
administrative proceeding conducted. The 15-day period to file with public interest. A legislative franchise to operate jai-alai
the petition for just compensation is mandatory. is imbued with public interest and involves the exercise of
police power.
2. Section 57
judicial in nature JAWORSKI vs. PAGCOR (419 SCRA 317)
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the court to FACTS: Jaworski questioned the authority of PAGCOR to
determine just compensation should there be allow the Sports and Games Entertainment Corp. to operate
disagreement internet gambling.
HELD: PAGCOR exceed its authority since when PAGCOR
LAGUNA ESTATE vs. CA (335 SCRA 38) was created, there was no such thing as internet. And
FACTS: Parcels of agricultural land in Laguna were placed gambling at that time was solely done through real stakes.
under CARP. But the only passageway to these parcels of land The law never envisioned the grant of authority to operate
is only through the privately-owned road of Laguna Estate. online gambling to Pagcor for it to grant to another. Again,
DAR argued that it has the authority to hear and decide the same reason of the franchise.
issue of granting an easement.
HELD: DARAB has no power to grant to the beneficiaries a LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO) and
right of way (easement) over a private property. For the LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND
DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB)
tenancy relationship between the parties in the first place. In
this case, no such relationship exists. LTO and LTFRB are under the supervision of DOTC
LTO has the duty to register vehicles and licensing
Requirements of existence of tenancy relationship: of drivers
1. Parties are tenant and landowner LTFRB is tasked for the regulation of public utility
2. Subject matter of controversy is an agricultural land for-hire vehicles and the grant of franchises or
3. Consent given by the landowner to occupation, possession, certificates of public convenience
cultivation of the so called tenant LGUs regulate the operation of tricycles-for-hire
4. Distribution of proceeds or sharing of harvests between and grant of franchises for the operation thereof,
tenant and land owner subject to the guidelines issued by DOTC

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION


(PAGCOR)

Two-fold nature of PAGCOR


1. Governmental agency mandated to regulate and
centralize all forms of gambling as authorized by law,
or mind existing franchise
2. Proprietary in character

Gambling is not illegal because nowhere can


you find it under our laws, not even under the Constitution
that gambling is prohibited
Morality of gambling is not a judicial issue
Under the Constitution, positions in PAGCOR
previously exempted from the Civil Service Law are not
anymore exempted

BASCO vs. PAGCOR (May 14, 1991)


HELD: PAGCOR was created by virtue of PD 1067, as
amended by PD 1869, to regulate and centralize all games
authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law. It is
allowed to establish, operate and maintain gambling casinos on
lands and water within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines. It is a reliable source of much needed revenue fort
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001

Excellence is not a destination. Its the journey.


Its not about what we do but how we do it