You are on page 1of 8



When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely
interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative interpretation of the law is at best advisory, for it
is the courts that finally determine what the law means. It has also been held that interpretative
regulations need not be published.

Javellana vs. DILG

As a matter of policy, this Court accords great respect to the decisions and/or actions of administrative
authorities not only because of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed
knowledgeability and expertise in the enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their
Notice and Hearing or Publication

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CA, CTA, Fortune Tobacco

An administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare
issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When,
upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can
facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases
the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a
chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and
effect of law.

Commissioner of Customs vs. Hypermix Feeds

Accordingly, in considering a legislative rule a court is free to make three inquiries: (i) whether the rule is
within the delegated authority of the administrative agency; (ii) whether it is reasonable; and (iii)
whether it was issued pursuant to proper procedure. But the court is not free to substitute its
judgment as to the desirability or wisdom of the rule for the legislative body, by its delegation of
administrative judgment, has committed those questions to administrative judgments and not to judicial
judgments. In the case of an interpretative rule, the inquiry is not into the validity but into the correctness
or propriety of the rule. As a matter of power a court, when confronted with an interpretative rule, is free
to (i) give the force of law to the rule; (ii) go to the opposite extreme and substitute its judgment;
or (iii) give some intermediate degree of authoritative weight to the interpretative rule.

Considering that the questioned regulation would affect the substantive rights of respondent as
explained above, it therefore follows that petitioners should have applied the pertinent provisions of Book
VII, Chapter 2 of the Revised Administrative Code, to wit:

Section 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3)
certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are
not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the bases of any sanction against
any party of persons.

Section 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as
practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to
submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been
published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed.
There is a distinction between an administrative rule or regulation and an administrative interpretation of a
law whose enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body. When an administrative agency
promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law,
while when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing
law. Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority
conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute, and
compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in the law. A rule is binding on
the courts so long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its scope is within the
statutory authority granted by the legislature, On the other hand, administrative interpretation of the law is
at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.


The general rule is that construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the task of
interpreting or applying the same is entitled to great weight and respect. The Court, however, is not bound
to apply said rule where such executive interpretation, is clearly erroneous, or when there is no
ambiguity in the law interpreted, or when the language of the words used is clear and plain, as in the case
at bar. Besides, administrative interpretations are at best advisory for it is the Court that finally determines
what the law means. Hence, the interpretation given by the labor agencies in the instant case which went
as far as supplementing what is otherwise not stated in the law cannot bind this Court.

SGMC REALTY CORP. vs. Office of the President

Administrative rule or regulation, in order to be valid, must not contradict but conform to the
provisions of the enabling law.
For it is axiomatic that administrative rules derive their validity from the statute that they are intended to
implement. Any rule which is not consistent with statute itself is null and void.

Prospective or retroactive operation

An administrative rule interpretive of a statute, and not declarative of certain rights and
corresponding obligations, is given retroactive effect as of the date of the effectivity of the statute.

Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative of any
personal rights because no vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom.


The Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree 851 is even more emphatic
in declaring that earnings and other remunerations which are not part of the basic salary shall not be
included in the computation of the 13th-month pay.


Considering that the Bureau of Customs is the office charged with implementing and enforcing the
provisions of our Tariff and Customs Code, the construction placed by it thereon should be given
controlling weight.
In applying the doctrine or principle of respect for administrative or practical construction,
the courts often refer to several factors which may be regarded as bases of the principle, as factors
leading the courts to give the principle controlling weight in particular instances, or as independent rules
in themselves. These factors are the respect due the governmental agencies charged with administration,
their competence, expertness, experience, and informed judgment and the fact that they frequently are
the drafters of the law they interpret; that the agency is the one on which the legislature must rely to
advise it as to the practical working out of the statute, and practical application of the statute presents the
agency with unique opportunity and experiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or
improvements in the statute.


The CHR has the power to investigate but not to adjudicate alleged human right violation.

Investigate means to examine, inquire, explore.

Adjudicate to resolve, rule, settle, decide.

Megaworld Globus Asia vs. DSM Construction

Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but
finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.


Arbitral decision accord respect and finality by the Court
Exemption to the rule :
1. on the ground of promissory estoppels
2. And involving a legal issue and not a factual finding.


Quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative
officers or bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings,
and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of a
judicial nature. To expound thereon, quasi-judicial adjudication would mean a determination of rights,
privileges and duties resulting in a decision or order which applies to a specific situation . This does not
cover rules and regulations of general applicability issued by the administrative body to implement its
purely administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105 which was adopted by the respondent
PRC as a measure to preserve the integrity of licensure examinations.
JURISDICTION - the competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or decide a certain
CHIN vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition.
AZARCON vs. Sandiganbayan
The court has no jurisdiction over the person of Azarcon.

SANTIAGO vs. Alikpala

First requirement of procedural due process, namely, the existence of the court or tribunal clothed
with judicial, or quasi-judicial, power to hear and determine the matter before it.
There is the express admission in the statement of facts that respondents, as a court-martial, were not
convened to try petitioner but someone else, the action taken against petitioner being induced solely by a
desire to avoid the effects of prescription; it would follow then that the absence of a competent court or
tribunal is most marked and undeniable. Such a denial of due process is therefore fatal to its assumed
authority to try petitioner.
NDC vs. Collector of Customs
Even in admin proceeding due process must be observed.
We find this action proper for it really appears that petitioner Rocha was not given an opportunity to prove
that the television set complained of is not a cargo that needs to be manifested as required by Section
2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Under said section, in order that an imported article or
merchandise may be considered a cargo that should be manifested it is first necessary that it be so
established for the reason that there are other effects that a vessel may carry that are excluded from the
requirement of the law, among which are the personal effects of the members of the crew. The fact that
the set in question was claimed by the customs authorities not to be within the exception does not
automatically make the vessel liable. It is still necessary that the vessel, its owner or operator, be given a
chance to show otherwise. This is precisely what petitioner Rocha has requested in his letter. Not only
was he denied this chance, but respondent collector immediately imposed upon the vessel the huge fine
of P5,000.00. This is a denial of the elementary rule of due process.

In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to
actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondents legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and
evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and
so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well
as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted
for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.
In the present case, the various committees formed by DECS to hear the administrative charges against
private respondents did not include a representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial
or national teachers organization as required by Section 9 of RA 4670. Accordingly, these
committees were deemed to have no competent jurisdiction. Thus, all proceedings undertaken by
them were necessarily void. They could not provide any basis for the suspension or dismissal of
private respondents. The inclusion of a representative of a teachers organization in these committees
was indispensable to ensure an impartial tribunal. It was this requirement that would have given
substance and meaning to the right to be heard. Indeed, in any proceeding, the essence of
procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to
be heard.

LUPO vs. Administrative Action Board

The requirements of due process in administrative proceedings and these are:
(1) the right to a hearing which includes, the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) the decision must have something to support itself,
(4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence means such evidence as a reasonable
mind must accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
(5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the
law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) the board or body should in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.


No denial of due process.
"Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal
which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, and property in its most comprehensive
sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every
material fact which bears on the question of the light in the matter involved."
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The presence of a party is not always the
cornerstone of due process. In the case at bar, any defect was cured by the filing of a motion for

KANLAON Construction vs. NLRC

Gen. Rule : Only lawyers are allowed to appear before the labor arbiter
Non-lawyer member of the organization
Non-lawyer representing himself as party to the case
Member of the legal aid duly recognized by IBP or DOJ
Engineer Estacio can appear however his appearance on behalf of Kanlaon required written proof
of authorization. Absent this authority whatever statement and declaration made before the
arbiter is not binding to the petitioner.

First LEPANTO vs. CA

Clearly, Circular 1-91 effectively repealed or superseded Article 82 of E.O. 226 insofar as the manner and
method of enforcing the right to appeal from decisions of the BOI are concerned. Appeals from decisions
of the BOI, which by statute was previously allowed to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, should
now be brought to the Court of Appeals.

Manuel vs. Villena

Technical rule of procedure are not strictly enforced and due process of law in the strict judicial sense is
not indispensable. It is sufficient that substantive due process requirement of fairness and
reasonableness be observed.


Judge Basilla vs. Becamon

Applying the principle of res judicata or bar by prior judgment, the present administrative case becomes
The Court held that applied the principle of res judicata or bar by prior judgment. Under the said doctrine,
a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been
finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for
the same cause. It provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies; and constitutes an absolute bar to
subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action. Res judicata is based on the
ground that the party to be affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the same
matter in the former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it
again. This principle frees the parties from undergoing all over again the rigors of unnecessary suits and
repetitious trials. At the same time, it prevents the clogging of court dockets. Equally important, res
judicata stabilizes rights and promotes the rule of law.

NHA vs. Almeida

In fine, it should be remembered that quasi-judicial powers will always be subject to true judicial power
that which is held by the courts. Quasi-judicial power is defined as that power of adjudication of an
administrative agency for the "formulation of a final order." This function applies to the actions, discretion
and similar acts of public administrative officers or bodies who are required to investigate facts, or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. However, administrative agencies are not
considered courts, in their strict sense. The doctrine of separation of powers reposes the three great
powers into its three (3) branchesthe legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Each department is
co-equal and coordinate, and supreme in its own sphere. Accordingly, the executive department may not,
by its own fiat, impose the judgment of one of its agencies, upon the judiciary. Indeed, under the
expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is empowered to "determine whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government."
Abelita vs. Doria

While the present case and the administrative case are based on the same essential facts and
circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply.
There is no identity of causes of action in the cases. While identity of causes of action is not required in
the application of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment, it is required that there
must always be identity of parties in the first and second cases.

For res judicata to apply, the following requisites must be present:

(a) the former judgment or order must be final;
(b) it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration
of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case;
(c) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; and
(d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter,
and of cause of action; this requisite is satisfied if the two actions are substantially between the
same parties.


SEC retains jurisdiction to investigate
Section 53 of the Securities Regulations Code clearly provides that criminal complaints for violations of
rules and regulations enforced or administered by the SEC shall be referred to the Department of Justice
(DOJ) for preliminary investigation, while the SEC nevertheless retains limited investigatory powers.
Additionally, the SEC may still impose the appropriate administrative sanctions under Section 54 of the
aforementioned law.

SEC vs. GMA Network, Inc.

Rate-fixing is a legislative function which concededly has been delegated to the SEC by R.A. No. 3531
and other pertinent laws. The due process clause, however, permits the courts to determine whether
the regulation issued by the SEC is reasonable and within the bounds of its rate-fixing authority
and to strike it down when it arbitrarily infringes on a persons right to property.

VIGAN ELECTRIC CO. vs. Public Service Commission

Partakes of the nature of a quasi-judicial function and that having been issued without previous
notice and hearing said order is clearly violative of the due process clause, and, hence, null and

QJ notice and hearing requirement.


Bagonghasa vs. DAR

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which
jurisdiction was initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction
over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. The Office of the DAR
Secretary is in a better position to resolve the particular issue of non-issuance of a notice of coverage.

Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts will not determine a controversy where the
issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact.
In other words, if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training,
and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding
before resort to the court is had even if the matter may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction.
The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it
should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some
question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.

EXEMPTION to Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction


The doctrine of primary jurisdiction would ordinarily preclude us from resolving the matter, which calls for
a ruling to be first made by the Board. It is the latter that is vested by law with exclusive and original
jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising under RA 8291, as well as other matters related thereto.
However, both the GSIS and respondents have extensively discussed the merits of the case in their
respective pleadings and did not confine their arguments to the issue of jurisdiction. Respondents, in
fact, submit that we should resolve the main issue on the ground that it is a purely legal question.
Respondents further state that a remand of the case to the Board would merely result in unnecessary
delay and needless expense for the parties.


There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said question at best could be resolved
only tentatively by the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with them but
with the courts of justice.

Geraldine Gaw Guy vs. The Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of immigration

Judicial intervention, however, should be granted in cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct in deportation proceeding.



The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The
thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and
discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. The rationale
for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of
controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the
system of administrative redress has been completed.


The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that, for reasons of law, comity and
convenience, where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a
system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts will not entertain a case unless the
available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given
an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum. In Orosa v. Roa, the
Court ruled that if an appeal or remedy obtains or is available within the administrative machinery, this
should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts. While the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is subject to certain exceptions, these are not present in this case.


Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules.
There are many accepted exceptions, such as:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,
(l) in quo warranto proceedings. Exceptions (c) and (e) are applicable to the present case.


Petitioner is not asking for the reversal of the policies of PCST. Neither is she demanding it to allow her to
take her final examinations; she was already enrolled in another educational institution. A reversal of the
acts complained of would not adequately redress her grievances; under the circumstances, the
consequences of respondents' acts could no longer be undone or rectified.
Second, exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable when there is competence on the part of the
administrative body to act upon the matter complained of. Administrative agencies are not courts; they
are neither part of the judicial system, nor are they deemed judicial tribunals. Specifically, the CHED does
not have the power to award damages. Hence, petitioner could not have commenced her case before the

Third, the exhaustion doctrine admits of exceptions, one of which arises when the issue is purely legal
and well within the jurisdiction of the trial court. Petitioner's action for damages inevitably calls for the
application and the interpretation of the Civil Code, a function that falls within the jurisdiction of the courts.