legislative, etc.
However, this does not endanger the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
REVIEWER
Dean Salvador Carlota
Second Semester, AY 2012-2013
Ganyan ang kahalagahan ng batas bawat kataga ay
mahalaga. Kaya dapat lagi kayong cutting edge dapat
nakakasugat! (Carlota, 2012)
I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS1
A. DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
AS A DISTINCT FIELD OF PUBLIC LAW (Jamie)
1. Factors why administrative laws have emerged in
the government
a. Lack of time - The trichotomy can no longer
cope with the complexities of modern society.
There were so many problems that the
government is unable to respond to these.
The solution the trichotomy came up with is
to create administrative agencies to provide
for delegation of authority
b. Lack of expertise Due to the complexities of
modern society, new and highly technical or
very specific problems have emerged that
require expertise or specialization for its
solution.
c. Lack of organizational aptitude for effective
and continuing regulation of new
developments in society The trichotomy is
too unwieldy to be able to concentrate on
specialized areas. This fostered an
environment for administrative agency
proliferation rather than stagnation/decline
2. The doctrine of separation of powers and the
constitutional position of administrative agencies
Doctrine of separation of powers delves into the
concept of the three branches of government do not
encroach on the powers of each other. With the
creation of administrative agencies, it has been
observed that there is no absolute separation between
these entities and the trichotomy because
administrative agencies have a hybrid of powers and
functions. Some of them are quasi-judicial, quasi-
1 technical rules of procedure and evidence followed in
Please pardon any error (grammatical, spelling, doctrinal
etc) that you may find in the Reviewer. Also, please secure
the permission of the authors before sharing to others.
Thanks and enjoy! -Ed
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
separation of powers that the trichotomy possesses
Again, due to the complexities of modern life, these
administrative agencies have served as the catch basin
for the residual powers of the trichotomy. According to
some scholars, without the agencies, the system will
collapse, and there would be chaos, confusion and
anarchy
B. DEFINITION OF TERMS ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY; TYPES
OF AGENCIES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW the law concerning the
powers and procedures of administrative agencies
including specially the law governing judicial review of
administrative actions
Powers correspond to executive, legislative and
judicial
Procedures are those that are adjudication, licensing,
rule making
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY any governmental
authority other than the court and other than a
legislative body, which affects the rights of private
parties through either adjudication or rule making
(Davis)
Administrative agencies can assume many labels such
as commission, board, authority, office. Therefore it is
not always labeled as an agency.
Types of administrative agency:
a. Statutory agencies created by law
b. Constitutional agencies created by the
Constitution. Since they are created by the
Congress, they are considered as independent
and can only be abolished or modified
through a constitutional amendment
Public officials in these administrative agencies are
provided with protective devices such as security of
tenure, impeachment as method of removal, fiscal
autonomy, prohibited from holding other office
standards
Administrative procedure as a mode of control
There are certain factors to be considered in
prescribing rules:
(a) Admin agencies are not bound by the same
regular courts; (b) Agencies are created to deal with
specific problems.
Page 1 of 56
Basic principle when it comes to the power of
administrative agencies to prescribe rules:
The legislature should only provide minimum
procedural guidelines and general principles
to be observed by all agencies in the
performance of their rule making and
adjudicative functions.
Ratio: This will assure sufficient room for the
agencies to come up with supplementary
rules that may be needed from time to time,
while at the same time, it will provide
adequate protection to the individuals
constitutional right to due process.
Judicial review of administrative decision making:
The purpose of judicial review is to keep the
admin agency within its jurisdiction and
protect substantial rights of parties affected
by its decisions. It is part of the system of
checks and balances which restricts the
separation of powers and forestall arbitrary
and unjust adjudications.
Judicial review is the most effective form of
control because it provides an immediate
relief to complainant
If you will apply judicial review of the rules or
decisions made by administrative agencies,
we will see that it becomes a channel for
those complainants who feel that
administrative rules have affected their
constitutional rights. However, the court
chooses not to interfere unless there has been
a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
administrative agency
C. CASES
Pangasinan Transportation Co v. PSC
Pursuant to Sec 1 of Commonwealth Act, PSC can issue
a "certificate of public convenience," or "certificate of
convenience and public necessity" to operators of
buses and trucks. However, the conditions were that
government may acquire the vehicle and the certificate
will be for a limited period only.
Held: CONSTITUTIONAL because all that has been
delegated to the PSC is an administrative function,
involving the use discretion, to carry out the will of the
National Assembly having in view, in addition, the
promotion of "public interests in a proper and suitable
manner." In general, In fact the conditions can be
found in the constitution re: just compensation for
acquisition of public vehicles and the period was
limited. Moreover, Congress may delegate
administrative functions such as the use of discretion
to carry out the will of Congress. The ratio behind
Congress now being allowed to delegate is due to the
growing complexities of modern life wherein
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Manila Electric Company v. Pasay Transportation
Company
Pursuant to Act No 1466, Sec 11 states that whenever
any franchise or right of way is granted to any other
person or corporation (such as MERALCO) the terms
and compensation shall be fixed by the members of
the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators,
the decision of a majority of whom shall be final.
Held: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Supreme Court and
its members should not and cannot be required to
exercise any power or to perform any trust or to
assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with
the administering of judicial functions. Just think, if
anyone brings the case and it reaches the SC, the
justices who will review the case were the ones who
prescribed those terms and compensation.
Noblejas v. Teehankee
Pursuant to RA 1151 which states that he is "entitled
to the same compensation, emoluments and privileges
as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance",
Noblejas should be investigated by the SC like a CFI
Judge.
Held: NO. There is no inherent power in the Executive
or Legislature to charge the judiciary with
administrative functions such as control and
supervision of administrative agencies except when
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial
duties. Control and supervision of administrative
agencies fall under the control and supervision of the
President.
Garcia v. Macaraig
Garcia was appointed as a judge but never assumed
office as judge so he accepted the job under the DOJ
Secretary.
Held: FROWNED UPON. According to the concurring
opinion: detailing justices has pernicious effects on the
independence and undermine interest of judiciary.
In Re: Rodolfo Manzano
Judge Manzano wrote to the SC if he can accept
appointment as a member of the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Committee on Justice (E.O. 326) that
perform administrative functions
Held: DISAPPROVED. Under the Constitution, the
members of the SC and other Courts established by law
shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions (Art. VIII
(12)).
Puyat v. De Guzman
Page 2 of 56

Justice Estaislao A. Fernandez, then a member of the
interim Batasang Pambansa, orally entered his
appearance as counsel in a case on corporate elections.
Pursuant to Section 11m Art 8 of the 1973
Constitution, No member of the Batasang Pambansa
shall appear as counsel before any court without
appellate jurisdictionor before any administrative
body.
Held: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No member of the
Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any
administrative body via Section 11, Article VIII of the
Constitution.
This is elementary! Only Pepe and Pilar. If after this,
tinanong ka sa Bar at di mo nasagot, what should you
do? Go to the nearest Meralco post and hang yourself!
(Carlota, 2013)
II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Notes: The different ways how administrative powers
may be checked
A. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND THE
EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
Art. 7, Section 1. Executive Power
The executive power shall be vested in the President
of the Philippines.
Art. 7, Section 17. Control over admin agencies The
President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed.
Class notes on Art 7, Sec 17: Last sentence is part of the
powers of the executive; according to Sir, take time to
reflect on how Art 7, Sec 17 can be connected to the
definition of administrative agencies
Executive power: To promulgate or execute laws
The two ways in which the President exercises his
disciplinary powers:
a. Control: Power to alter, modify or overturn
the judgment of the subordinates [in other
words, how to substitute]
See to it that subordinates are doing their jobs
Limited to executive departments, bureaus,
offices
This is the greater power
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
b. Supervision: Ensure that laws are faithfully
executed
More encompassing than control no
qualification
Can the President control ALL admin agencies? It
depends on whether the enabling statute has given
power of review to the President
Under Sec. 17, Art 7, the President has control
over agencies created by statutes
o Power of legislature over agencies
must be subordinate to Sec. 17,
unless the law expressly says
otherwise
If the law is silent as to who is silent, then
there is a presumption that the Congress did
not intend for the President to have control
over the administrative agency
Constitutional agencies (i.e. Comelec and CoA)
are not controlled by the President because
they are independent constitutional creations
o Note: go back to definition of
constitutional agencies in Part I
B. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT POWER
It is a tool for controlling/checking the
exercise of power/acts of administrative
agencies
Seeing to it that the agencies follow legislative
intention
Part of Congress prerogative in delegating
powers of Congress to agencies
Scrutiny, investigation, legislative supervision
This is to show that the Congress is being
proactive
What is the purpose of oversight?
a. To monitor the laws created by
administrative agencies
b. To look at the application by an
administrative agency of a statute
Macalintal v. Comelec (Dissenting/Concurring
Opinion of Puno)
The power of oversight embraces all activities
undertaken by congress to enhance its
understanding of and influence over the
implementation of legislation it has enacted
Oversight concerns post-enactment measures
undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor
bureaucratic compliance with program objectives;
(b) to determine whether agencies are properly
administered; (c) to eliminate executive waste and
dishonesty; (d) to prevent executive usurpation of
legislative authority; and (e) to assess executive
conformity with the congressional perception of
public interest.
Page 3 of 56
 Categories of congressional oversight functions:
a. Scrutiny primary purpose is to determine
economy and efficiency of the operation of
government activities. Based primarily on the
power of appropriation and power of
confirmation
b. Investigation recognized under Sec 21, Art.
6 of 1987 Constitution
a. This power has to be in aid of
legislation and in accordance with
duly published rules of procedure
c. Supervision connotes a continuing and
informed awareness regarding executive
operations in a given administrative area.
Exercised thru the veto power.
C. ARTICLE: LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL
CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION-
MAKING (CARLOTA)
Class note: The Ombudsman goes hand in hand with
judicial review in order to become a wide and
powerful range of control mechanisms of
administrative agencies
Legislative control over Admin agencies:
1. Power of creation, appropriation and
investigation)
a. Creation congress creates rather than
abolishes as society becomes more
complex. State is compelled to create
admin agencies to deal with problems
brought by social and economic change.
a. Also carries with it the power to
abolish as it is similar to the
power to create.
b. In reality, this power to abolish
is an empty threat because
without administrative agencies,
the trichotomy will not be able
to function properly for they do
not have the time, specialization
and appropriate organization
structure
b. Appropriation Congress has the power
to withhold funds for the agencies but at
the end of the day it is reluctant in
wielding such power because is
recognizes that is it does, it will affect
public interest.
c. Investigation limited tool to provide as
effective regular control of improper
exercise of admin power.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
2. Non-delegation doctrine and the requirement
of legislative standards which is ancillary to
the principle of separation of powers
The more specific the standards are, the
greater are the chances of confining
administrative discretion within proper
limits. If the standards are too broad or
vague, the administrator is virtually left
to his own devices, thereby allowing him
to exercise discretion in the performance
of his functions.
o This also refers to the
unbridled/unfettered discretion
that could lead to grave abuse of
discretion
A review of the cases decided by the SC
shows that in many instances of
delegation, the legislature is unable to
provide definite of specific standards.
o The power to make laws should
be exercised/performed by
Congress
Congress does not
abdicate its
responsibility by
delegating this power
to administrative
agencies
o Dean Carlota opines that the
legislation of the Administrative
Code of 1987 has led to a better
lay down of what standards
should be recognized. The
Admin Code statutorily
recognizes the minimum
standards that administrative
agencies should follow when
promulgating rules, etc. In fact,
administrative agencies through
this Code may make their own
house rules which uniquely
conform to and are required in
their specific area of concern.
Administrative procedure as a mode of
control
o This is the most promising
checking mechanism
o There are certain factors to be
considered in prescribing rules:
(a) admin agencies are not
bound by the same technical
rules of procedure and evidence
followed in regular courts; (b)
agencies are created to deal with
specific problems.
o Even if it is possible, which is
not, to impose uniform rules of
procedure in all levels of all
Page 4 of 56
 agency operations, such a move
is clearly unsound
The effect of this is to
curb abuses
o Legislature should only provide
minimum procedural guidelines
and general principles to be
observed by all agencies in the
performance of their rule
making and adjudicative
functions. This will assure
sufficient room for the agencies
to come up with supplementary
rules that may be needed from
time to time, while at the same
time, it will provide adequate
protection to the individuals
constitutional right to due
process.
Judicial review of Admin decision making:
The purpose of judicial review is to keep the
administrative agency within its jurisdiction
and protect substantial rights of parties
affected by its decisions. It is part of the
system of checks and balances which restricts
the separation of powers and forestall
arbitrary and unjust adjudications.
Judicial review is the most effective form of control
provides immediate relief to complainant
Part of police power
Channel for adversely affected parties to
vindicate constitutional rights
Judicial review is limited or restrained:
For policy choices: court does not interfere
with agencies
Discretion: no interference
UNLESS there is grave abuse of discretion
D. ARTICLE: THE OMBUDSMAN: ITS
EFFECTIVITY AND VISIBILITY AMIDST
BUREAUCRATIC ABUSE AND IRREGULARITY
(CARLOTA)
Essential characteristics of an Ombudsman:
a. Political independence fiscal autonomy,
prohibition to practice profession,
removable only by impeachment, can
appoint all officers and employees of his
office
- He should promote the cause of
good governance
- He is the protector of the people
therefore given broad
investigatory powers
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
b. Accessibility and expedition within the
reach of ordinary citizens; as opposed to
the courts which are not easily within
reach of poor
- This is why the Ombudsman
should have as many officer as
possible
c. Investigatory power the Ombudsman
not only has the power to investigate but
also the power to prosecute on his own
initiative or upon complaint by any
person, any act or omission of any public
officer or employee, office or agency,
when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient
d. Absence of revisory jurisdiction
Ombudsman cannot modify or overturn
decisions of admin agencies performing
rule making or adjudicative functions. He
may not exercise the function for an
appellate or reviewing court It is not an
appellate tribunal
Is the Ombudsman institution workable in the
Philippines? NO
The perception that the Ombudsmans role as
Protector of the People has not been
satisfactorily performed can be reversed by
adopting measures designed to correct
perceived shortcomings.
E. CASES
Concerned Officials of MWSS v. Vasquez
The ombudsman assumed jurisdiction over the
complaint of illegal bidding in the MWSS even if
apparently it is outside his jurisdiction under the
Ombudsman Act.
Held: NO JURISDICTION. The Ombudsman Act makes
says that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
encompasses 'all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance,
and nonfeasance that have been committed by any
officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof,
during his tenure of office. He also has no veto or
revisory power over an exercise of judgment or
discretion by an administrative agency or its officer
upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully
vested.
Note: The powers, functions and duties of the
Ombudsman have generally been categorized into:
Investigatory Power; Prosecutory Power; Public
Assistance Functions; Authority to Inquire and Obtain
Information; and Function to Adopt, Institute and
Implement; the issue in controversy is technical in
nature which means that it requires the specialization
of agencies so the agencies should handle it
Page 5 of 56
 Lastimoza v. Vasquez
An administrative complaint was filed against the
Municipal Mayor for immoral acts, abuse of authority
and grave misconduct.
Held: Ombudsman has the power to investigate and
prosecute crimes committed by public officials even if
they are not related to his public office.
BIR v. Office of the Ombudsman
Ombudsman investigated anomalous tax refunds of a
company.
Held: The Ombudsman can validly exercise its power
to investigate even when there exist an appropriate
case. The power to investigate and to prosecute all
officers granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary
and unqualified; the 1987 Constitution provides that it
shall have the power to investigate encompasses all
kinds of acts and omissions committed by any public
official
Class notes: The Ombudsman may even investigate the
president and then submit his/her report to Congress
to be studied as grounds for impeachment
Office of the Ombudsman v. ENOC
Employees of office of the southern cultural
communities were charged with 11 counts of
malversation through falsification. It was investigated
by the ombudsman. It was claimed by the accused that
the ombudsman has no authority to prosecute graft
cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
HELD: The office of the Ombudsman has powers to
prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the
regular courts.
Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman Mindanao
A judge, was charged by the Ombudsman before the
Sandiganbayan.
HELD: INVALID. The ombudsman may not initiate or
investigate a criminal or administrative complaint
against a judge and must indorse the case to the
supreme court, for appropriate action. Article VIII,
Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the
supreme court administrative supervision over all
courts and court personnel, from the presiding justice
of the court of appeals to the lowest municipal trial
court clerk
Ledesma v. CA
The fact finding and intelligence bureau (FIIB) of the
Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation
on anomalies regarding visa transactions. These
reports were used by the FIIB to file a case against the
public officials involved.
Held: VALID. The Ombudsmans administrative
investigations results are not merely advisory but has
a binding effect upon the officer to which the decision
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
is directed to. Under Section 13(3) of Article XI of the
constitution, the ombudsman has the power to
recommend the sanction which is binding. This means
that when the Ombudsman recommends the action
to be taken against an erring officer/employee, the
implementation of the action should be complied with
or, simply, is mandatory.
Estarija v. Ranada
Respondent was adjudged guilty of dishonesty by the
ombudsman and was thereafter dismissed.
Held: INVALID. The powers/reports of the
Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. In fact,
the Ombudsman is given the authority to enforce its
decisions thru dismissals because the intention of the
constitution, and consequently, the congress thru the
Ombudsman Act, is to give the Ombudsman powers
that are not only persuasive or recommendatory in
character.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing
A principal and an officer clerk were administratively
charged before the Office of the Ombudsman for
allegedly collecting unauthorized fees, failing to remit
authorized fees, and to account for public funds. It was
contended that DECS has jurisdiction over the case and
not the Ombudsman.
HELD: INVALID CONTENTION. The law gives the
Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority
over erring officials.
This could be asked in the bar! The bar can be about the
rule, or the exceptions, or it can be about anything!
(Carlota, 2013)
III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
A. LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS (cielo)
1. Non-delegation doctrine
Potestas delegata non delegare potest. What has
been delegated cannot be delegated.
Requisites for a valid delegation:
1. The law must be complete in itself; it must
set forth the policy to be executed.
2. The law must fix a standard, the limits of
which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable, to which the delegate must
conform in the performance of his functions
CASES:
Page 6 of 56
 Compania General de Tobaco v. Board of Public
Utility Commission
Power delegated: Pursuant to Act No. 2307, the Board
of Public Utility can require every public utility to
furnish annual detail report of finances and operations
Held: INVALID delegation. The law is very general and
comprehensive as to the kind and content of the
reports. The Legislature should have specified the
policy and rules that the Board will follow. The
standard requirement was strictly interpreted.
U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho
Power delegated: Based on Act No. 2868, the Governor
General is authorized to prescribe the standard price
of rice for any cause. Violation of the price ceiling
would result to criminal liability
Held: INVALID delegation. Decision is left to the
governor generals discretion and the law does not
specify the conditions under which the price can be
increased. There is also strict interpretation of
standard. Note also that power to define a criminal act
is essentially legislative and cannot be delegated
People v. Vera
Power delegated: Based on Act 4221 or the Probation
Law, the provincial boards can determine whether
funds should be appropriated for the salary of a
probation officer
Held: INVALID delegation. The provincial boards have
the full discretion to determine whether the probation
law, a general legislation, can apply to their
jurisdiction.
Note also the exceptions to non-delegation
doctrine:
a. Local legislation
b. Delegation of emergency powers in times of
national emergency
c. Permissible delegation (with ascertainment of
facts only)
Pelaez v. Auditor General
Power delegated: Based on Section 68 of the old
Revised Admin Code, the President issed Eos to create
33 municipalities
Held: INVALID Delegation. The power to create
municipal corporations is essentially legislative in
nature. The power to fix such common boundary, in
order to avoid or settle conflicts of jurisdiction, may
partake of an administrative nature, the authority to
create municipal corporations is a power of Congress.
Note that this case enunciates the Test for
valid delegation:
a. The law must be complete in itself and sets
forth the policy
b. The law fixes the standard and limits
Edu v. Ericta
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Power delegated: Based on the Reflector Law, Land
Transportation Commissioner issued Administrative
Order 2 requiring the use of early warning device by
vehicles
Held: VALID Delegation. There is a standard here,
albeit implied, which makes the delegation valid. The
policy of the state to ensure public safety is the
objective of the law.
Agustin v. Edu
Power delegated: Based on the Marcos-issued Letter of
Instruction 229, the Land Transpo Commissioner
imposed the Early Warning Device as a registration
requirement for vehicles
Held: VALID delegation. Public safety is also upheld as
a valid standard, even if not expressed in the law.
Sir also noted that Vienna Convention on
Road Safety and Signs, to which the Philippines is a
signatory, must also be followed considering the
doctrine of incorporation.
Free Telephone Workers Union
Power delegated: Based on BP 130, amending Article
264 of the Labor Code, the Ministry of Labor can
assume jurisdiction and/or certify strikes for
voluntary arbitration to the NLRC
Held: VALID delegation. Although the power to assume
jurisdiction was originally given to the President, by
virtue of the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
(Villena v. Exec. Sec.), the Minister is the alter ego of
the President, hence, he can exercise his power.
Philcomsat v. Alcuaz
Power delegated: Based on EO 546, NTC ordered
Philcomsat to impose a reduced rated
Held: VALID delegation. There is an implied standard
here, that is public safety and interest, that empowers
NTC to reduce rates being charged by telecom
companies. BUT! NTC lost the case on due process
grounds for failure to give Philcomsat notice and
hearing.
Sir discussed the Vigan Electric case: two
types of rate fixing: quasi legislative and quasi judicial.
If it applies to all, that is quasi legislative. But if it calls
for the determination of certain facts and applies only
to one specific entity, it is quasi-judicial and the body
affected is entitled to notice and hearing
Chiongbian v. Orbos
Power delegated: Based on RA 6734, the President
merged territories in administrative regions
Held: VALID delegation. The power delegated to the
President is administrative. Administrative regions are
not political subdivisions but mere groupings of
contiguous provinces for administrative purposes, not
for political representation. The standard is found in
another law: RA 5435 Promote simplicity, economy,
efficiency in the government.
Page 7 of 56

Santiago v. Comelec
Power delegated: Comelec claims that RA 6735 gives it
the power to formulate rules in conducting initiatives
to amend the constitution. It issued Resolution 2300 to
give way to the Delfin petition
Held: INVALID delegation. The law is not sufficient to
enable the constitutional provision on initiatives,
hence, the Comelec has no power.
The recognized exceptions to the rule of non
delegation are as follows:
a. Delegation of tariff powers to the President
under Section 28(2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
b. Delegation of emergency powers to the
President under Section 23(2) of Article VI of
the Constitution;
c. Delegation to the people at large;
d. Delegation to local governments; and
e. Delegation to administrative bodies.
J. Puno, concurring and dissenting:
1.) There is sufficient standard expressed in
the law
2.) Law should be upheld on the argument
that substantive right to initiative trumps non-
delegation argument; intent of framers
3.) Liberal policy of the courts in deciding
delegation of powers to admin bodies - courts will
bend backwards to find a standard
Panama Refining v. Ryan
Power delegated: Sec 9c of the NIRA authorized the
President to prohibit transportation of hot oil (those in
excess of state quota). The President issued EOs to
implement this provision
Held: INVALID delegation. The law does not provide
sufficient standards or policy but left the decision to
the discretion of the President.
Cardozo dissent: there is sufficient policy in the law
like the conservation of the environment, elimination
of unfair competition and fullest utilization of
production capacity.
Abakada Guro Party List v. Executive Secretary
Power delegated: RA 9337 gave the President stand-
by authority to increase the VAT rate on account of the
recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of
Finance
Held: VALID delegation. What is involved here is
merely ascertainment if the factual conditions exist to
enable the President to raise the tax rates. It will be
ministerial on the part of the Executive and not
discretionary.
Review Center Association v. Ermita
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Power delegated: The President issued EO 566 which
authorized the CHED to supervise the establishment of
review centers. CHED subsequently issued a
Memorandum implementing the EO.
Held: INVALID exercise of rule-making power. The law
creating CHED, RA 7722, does not authorize it to
regulate review center which is not an institution of
higher education or degree-granting program.
A.F.A Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.
Power delegated: Sec 3 of NIRA allows trade
associations of industries to recommend to the
President Codes of Fair Competition that can be
applied to their industries. In this case, the Live
Poultry Code was adopted in New York.
Held: INVALID delegation. There are no standards or
policy in the law that allows private entities to make
the recommendation. Says Cardozo, this is delegation
running riot.
FEA v. Algonquin
Power delegated: Based on Sec 232 of the Trade
Expansion Act, the President, upon recommendation of
the Secretary of Treasury, allows the President to take
such action as he deems necessary to adjust the
importation the article if their quantities threaten to
impair national security. The President adjusted
petroleum imports and imposed license fees
Held: VALID delegation. The use of a license system to
control the quantities of articles may be allowed under
the law.
White v. Roughton
Facts: Roughton determined eligibility of welfare
recepients based on his and his staffs unwritten
personal standards.
Held: INVALID delegation standard must be fair and
consistent and based on written standards and
regulations.
2. Permissible Delegation
a. Ascertainment of fact
Panama Refining, supra
Lovina v. Moreno
F: Residents of Macabebe petitioned Moreno, Secretary
of Public Works to remove the obstructions imposed
by the Lovina spouses at Sapang Bulati creek. By the
power RA 2056 gave to Moreno, he found the river to
be navigable and that the obstructions are public
nuisance which should be removed.
H: VALID delegation to Moreno. RA 2056 validly
delegated the judicial power to the Secretary to
remove unauthorized obstructions. It requires only
ascertainment of facts and apply the law which is what
the Secretary did in this case.
Page 8 of 56

b. Filing in of details
Alegre v. Collector of Customs
Power delegated: Act 2380 requires a certificate from
the Fiber Standardization Board before an abaca
exporter (like Alegre) would be allowed to export. The
Administrative Code provides for grading, inspection
and certification standards.
Held: VALID delegation. The law provides for specific
standards that the admin agency should observe in
issuing the certificate.
c. Administrative Rule Making
Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987
Section 1. Scope. - This Book shall be applicable to all
agencies as defined in the next succeeding section,
except the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional
Commissions, military establishments in all matters
relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the
Board of Pardons and Parole, and state universities
and colleges.
Section 2. Definitions. - As used in this Book:
(1) "Agency" includes any department,
bureau, office, commission, authority or
officer of the National Government
authorized by law or executive order to
make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or
privileges, and adjudicate cases; research
institutions with respect to licensing
functions; government corporations with
respect to functions regulating private right,
privileges, occupation or business; and
officials in the exercise of disciplinary
power as provided by law.
(2) "Rule" means any agency statement of
general applicability that implements or
interprets a law, fixes and describes the
procedures in, or practice requirements of,
an agency, including its regulations. The
term includes memoranda or statements
concerning the internal administration or
management of an agency not affecting the
rights of, or procedure available to, the
public.
(3) "Rate" means any charge to the public
for a service open to all and upon the same
terms, including individual or joint rates,
tolls, classifications, or schedules thereof, as
well as commutation, mileage, kilometerage
and other special rates which shall be
imposed by law or regulation to be
observed and followed by any person.
(4) "Rule making" means an agency process
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
for the formulation, amendment, or repeal
of a rule.
(5) "Contested case" means any proceeding,
including licensing, in which the legal rights,
duties or privileges asserted by specific
parties as required by the Constitution or by
law are to be determined after hearing.
(6) "Person" includes an individual,
partnership, corporation, association, public
or private organization of any character
other than an agency.
(7) "Party" includes a person or agency
named or admitted as a party, or properly
seeking and entitled as of right to be
admitted as a party, in any agency
proceeding; but nothing herein shall be
construed to prevent an agency from
admitting any person or agency as a party
for limited purposes.
(8) "Decision" means the whole or any part
of the final disposition, not of an
interlocutory character, whether
affirmative, negative, or injunctive in form,
of an agency in any matter, including
licensing, rate fixing and granting of rights
and privileges.
(9) "Adjudication" means an agency process
for the formulation of a final order.
(10) "License" includes the whole or any
part of any agency permit, certificate,
passport, clearance, approval, registration,
charter, membership, statutory exemption
or other form of permission, or regulation of
the exercise of a right or privilege.
(11) "Licensing" includes agency process
involving the grant, renewal, denial,
revocation, suspension, annulment,
withdrawal, limitation, amendment,
modification or conditioning of a license.
(12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part
of a prohibition, limitation or other
condition affecting the liberty of any person;
the withholding of relief; the imposition of
penalty or fine; the destruction, taking,
seizure or withholding of property; the
assessment of damages, reimbursement,
restitution, compensation, cost, charges or
fees; the revocation or suspension of
license; or the taking of other compulsory or
restrictive action.
(13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of
any grant of money, assistance, license,
authority, privilege, exemption, exception,
or remedy; recognition of any claim, right,
immunity, privilege, exemption or
exception; or taking of any action upon the
application or petition of any person.
(14) "Agency proceeding" means any
Page 9 of 56
 agency process with respect to rule-making,
adjudication and licensing.
1. "Agency action" includes the whole
or part of every agency rule, order,
license, sanction, relief or its
equivalent or denial thereof.
CHAPTER 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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 basis of any sanction
against any party or persons.
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his
equivalent functionary, shall carry out the
requirements of this section under pain of
disciplinary action.
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be
kept by the issuing agency and shall be open
to public inspection.
Section 4. Effectivity. - In addition to other rule-
making requirements provided by law not
inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become
effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as
above provided unless a different date is fixed by
law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent
danger to public health, safety and welfare, the
existence of which must be expressed in a statement
accompanying the rule. The agency shall take
appropriate measures to make emergency rules
known to persons who may be affected by them.
Section 5. Publication and Recording. - The
University of the Philippines Law Center shall:
(1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth
the text of rules filed with it during the
preceding quarter; and
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all
rules thus published and remaining in
effect, together with a complete index and
appropriate tables.
Section 6. Omission of Some Rules. -
(1) The University of the Philippines Law
Center may omit from the bulletin or the
codification any rule if its publication would
be unduly cumbersome, expensive or
otherwise inexpedient, but copies of that
rule shall be made available on application
to the agency which adopted it, and the
bulletin shall contain a notice stating the
general subject matter of the omitted rule
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
and new copies thereof may be obtained.
(2) Every rule establishing an offense or
defining an act which, pursuant to law, is
punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty
shall in all cases be published in full text.
Section 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules.
- The University of the Philippines Law Center shall
furnish one (1) free copy each of every issue of the
bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to
the Office of the President, Congress, all appellate
courts and the National Library. The bulletin and the
codified rules shall be made available free of charge
to such public officers or agencies as the Congress
may select, and to other persons at a price sufficient
to cover publication and mailing or distribution
costs.
Section 8. Judicial Notice. - The court shall take
judicial notice of the certified copy of each rule duly
filed or as published in the bulletin or the codified
rules.
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.
(1) Limits of Rule Making Power
Olsen v Aldanese (1922)
Law: Act 2613 empowers the Collector of Internal
Revenue to establish rules for the classification of
tobacco for domestic sale or export
Rule: CIR issued Admin Order 35 which, among others,
requires that tobacco must come from Cagayan,
Isabela and Nueva Viscaya
Held: INVALID provision. There is nothing in the law
that requires that tobacco must only come from those
provinces. CIR exceeded its authority.
Syman v Jacinto (1953)
Law: Administrative Code provisions, particularly Sec
1393, only requires assessment cases to be subject to
Commissioners review even if not appealed.
Page 10 of 56
Rule: BOC issued a Memorandum Order which states
that seizure cases, whether appealed or no, are subject
to the review of the Commissioner of Customs.
Held: INVALID rule. A rule should not amend or revise
the law.
People v Maceren (1977)
Law: Fisheries Law (this is the old one) only punishes
the use of toxic or obnoxious substances in fishing.
Rule: Fisheries Admin Order 84-01 was issued by the
Secretary of the DENR which also penalized electro
fishing.
Held: INVALID rule. Defining a crime is essentially
legislative, admin agencies are not allowed to punish
an act as a crime if not defined by law.
Toledo v CSC (1991)
Law: RA 2260, as amended by PD 807, authorized the
Civil Service Commission to prescribe or amend rules
and regulations governing the civil service.
Rule: Sec 22 of Rule III of the CSC Rules on Personnel
Action prohibits the appointment of persons beyond
57 years old.
Held: INVALID rule. The rule should be germane to the
purpose of the law. Age limit of public servants is not
contemplated by the law.
GMCR v Bell Telecom (1997)
Law: EO 41 (Cory still had legislative powers) allowed
for a one-time tax amnesty for unpaid taxes.
Rule: CIR issued Revenue Memorandum 4-84 stating
that the amnesty applies only after the EO was
promulgated.
Held: INVALID rule. Admin rules should carry out, not
supplant or modify the law. The law here is specific
about the exceptions, tax liabilities before the EO was
issued was not among those excluded.
Land Bank v CA (1995)
Law: Section 16e of RA 6557 requires that payment to
the landowners as just compensation for their land
under the Agrarian Reform should be made in cash or
bonds.
Rule: DAR issued Admin Order 9 that allowed that
payment be earmarked or use of trust accounts instead
of cash deposits as payment to the land oweners.
Held: INVALID rule. The rule violates the clear
mandate of the law under the policy of the state that
landowners not only be given payment, but prompt
payment.
GMRC Inc. v. Bell Telecom (1997)
Law: EO 546 was issued by Pres. Marcos to create the
National Telecommunications Commission, a collegial
body composed of three commissioners.
Rule: The Chair of the NTC issued resolutions to the
effect that the decision of the Chairperson will bind
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Held: INVALID rule. The law created NTC as a collegial
body requiring majority vote out of the three
members.
Assn of Phil. Coconut Desiccators v PHILCOA
(1998)
Law: PD 1468 gave the PCA the authority to adopt a
general program for the development of the coconut
industry.
Rule: PCA issued Resolution 018-93 which allowed
operation of DCN plants even in congested areas
(previously prohibited) as part of PCAs thrust to
deregulate the coconut industry.
Held: INVALID rule. An admin rule cannot dismantle
the regulatory scheme imposed by the law to an
agency.
Ople v Torres (1998)
Law: Administrative Code of 1987 gives the President
the power to enforce rules for the efficient functioning
of administrative agencies.
Rule: Ramos issued Admin Order 308 that adopts a
national computerized ID system.
Held: INVALID rule. The adoption of the ID system
creates rights and imposes duties on the people. It also
raises issues on basic civil rights of the people, like
privacy, resolution of which can also be achieved thru
legislation by Congress.
Phil. Bank of Communications v. CIR (1999)
Law: Sec 230 of the NIRC provides for 2-year
prescriptive period for the filing of claims from
erroneously collected taxes.
Rule: CIR issued RMC 7-85 which allows for a 10-year
prescriptive period in filing tax refund claims.
Held: INVALID rule.
China Banking v Member of the Board of Trustees,
Home Development Mutual Fund (1999)
Law: Section 19 of PD 1752, as amended, allows
employers to avail of exemption from HDMFs housing
and retirement program if the employer offers for a
superior housing AND/OR retirement plan over that
offered by PAGIBIG.
Rule: HDMF Circular 124-B was issued which requires
that for a waiver to be allowed, the employer must
have superior retirement AND housing plans.
Held: INVALID rule. The admin agency is not given the
power to interpret the requirement which the law
allows to be used interchangeably.
Maxima Realty v Parkway Real Estate (2004)
Law: PD 1344 provides that NHA decisions will be final
and executor 15 days from receipt by the party.
Rule: Sec 27 of the HLURB Rules of Procedure provides
for 30 days period to appeal NHA decisions to the
Office of the President before they become final and
executory.
Page 11 of 56
Held: INVALID rule. The special law should govern
based on AO 18 that unless a special law is applicable,
then the appeal to the OP will be within 30 days.
Lokin Jr v. COMELEC (2010)
Law: Sec 8 of RA 7941 states that alteration of the
order of nominees will only be allowed if the nominee
dies, become incapacitated or he withdraws his
nomination.
Rule: Sec 13 of Resolution 7804 allows the partlist to
withdraw the nomination.
Held: INVALID rule. Even a constitutional
commissions rule making power is limited by the law.
(2) Publication and Effectivity (Jamie)
People v. Que Po Lay
Statute: Circular No. 20 was allegedly not published in
the Official Gazette therefore said circular had no force
and effect
Held: YES. Circulars and regulations especially like the
Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank in question which
prescribes a penalty for its violation should be
published before becoming effective. Absence a special
provision and because it prescribes a penalty therefore
should be published before becoming effective, we
look at the fifteen days following publication for its
date of effectivity.
Phil. Blooming Mills v. SSS
Statute/s: Section 4(a) of Republic Act 1161; Original
SSS provision - If an alien is temporarily employed,
employers will be entitled to a rebate of a
proportionate amount of their contributions once they
leave the Phils; Amended SSS provision requirement
of 2 years of employment of aliens
Held: AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE AND BINDING. The
amendment was to take effect upon approval of the
President and not upon publication. According to this
case, publication of laws in the OG is material for the
purpose of determining their effectivity, only if the
statutes themselves do not so provide. The delayed
publication of the amended rules in the Official Gazette
did not affect the date of their effectivity. These rules
and regulations were promulgated to provide
guidelines to be observed in the enforcement of the
law. These are just general principles and not the
implementation of the law.
Class notes: The word unless in Art 2 of the Civil
Code covers the requirement of publication.
Tanada v. Tuvera
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the
publication in the Official Gazette of various
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation and administrative orders.
Held: MANDAMUS GRANTED. All unpublished
presidential issuances that are of general application
will have no binding force and effect until published.
Art 2 should be construed that the phrase unless
otherwise provided qualifies the fact of date of
effectivity, or days of publication, and not whether or
not publication is an option.
Important textbookish notes:
What should be publishes?
o All laws except interpretative and
internal rules
Note from Sir: Tanada v. Tuvera goes hand in hand
with the concept of filing in the ONAR
Phil. Association of Service Exporters Inc. v. Torres
Statutes: Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1991
- providing guidelines on the Government processing
and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong
Kong and the accreditation of Hong Kong recruitment
agencies intending to hire Filipino domestic helpers;
and POEA Administrator also issued Memorandum
Circular No. 37, Series of 1991, on the processing of
employment contracts of domestic workers for Hong
Kong. This was allegedly not published and filed with
ONAR.
Held: NOT LEGALLY VALID. Circulars issued by the
admin agency are not legally invalid, defective and
unenforceable for lack of power publication and filing
in the Office of the National Administrative Register as
required in Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the
Labor Code and Sections 3(1) and 4, Chapter 2, Book
VII of the Administrative Code of 1987.
De Jesus v. COA
Statute: DBM circular discontinuing without
qualification all allowances and fringe benefits granted
on top of basic salary.
Held: INVALID. Circular has no legal force and effect
because of absence of publication Administrative rules
and regulations must also be published if their purpose
is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a
valid delegation. This is not a mere interpretative or
internal regulation. It tends to deprive government
workers of their allowances and additional
compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul
together.
Republic Represented by NTC v. Express Telecom
and Bayan Telecom
Statute: Rule 15, Section 3 of its 1978 Rules of Practice
and Procedure: Upon the filing of an application,
complaint or petition or at any stage thereafter, the
Board may grant on motion of the pleader or on its
own initiative, the relief prayed for,....
Page 12 of 56
This was only filed with ONAR and not published.
Held: INVALID. Administrative rules and regulations
must be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.
The only exceptions are interpretative regulations,
those merely internal in nature, or those so-called
letters of instructions issued by administrative
superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in the performance of
their duties. Has to be both published in OG or
newspaper of general circulation and filed with ONAR,
because the Administrative Code does not say that
filing with the ONAR is what makes it effective.
Class note: This case reaffirms Tanada.
Nasecore v. ERC
MERALCO wanted to increase its rates, but instead of
being published, it only went through public
consultation.
Held: INVALID. Publication is a condition sine qua non
for effectivity. Consultation does not comply with the
publication requirement because publication is
mandatory.
GMA7 v. MTRCB
GMA Network was suspended for not getting a permit
from the MTRCB. The suspension was pursuant to
Memorandum Circular 98-17
Held: INVALID SUSPENSION. Administrative issuances
which are not published or filed with the ONAR are
ineffective and may not be enforced.
(3) Penal Regulations
People v. Que Po Lay, supra
As a general rule, circulars and regulations which
prescribe penalties for their violation should be
published before effecivity because of the principle
that before a public is bound by the contents of a law,
regulation, or circular, it must first be published so that
they may be officially informed of its contents and
penalties.
People v. Maceren, supra
Held: Rules and regulations may identify acts which
can be penalized, only if they are penalized by the
statute the R&R emanates from. It is good to remember
that "to declare what shall constitute a crime and how
it shall be punished is a power vested exclusively in the
legislature, and it may not be delegated to any other
body or agency". A penal statute is strictly construed.
While an administrative agency has the right to make
rules and regulations to carry into effect a law already
enacted, that power should not be confused with the
power to enact a criminal statute.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
(4) Interpretative Rules
Interpretative rules are merely advisory in nature as
the true interpreter of rules, statutes and laws is the
Court.
Emilio Hilado v. CIR and CTA
Statute: General Circual No. V-123 by the Sec of
Finance - revoked and declared void General Circular
No. V-123 and declaring that losses of property which
occurred during the period of World War II from fires,
storms, shipwreck are deductible in the year of actual
loss or destruction of said property.
Held: VALID REVOCATION. General Circular No. V-123
was issued as an implementation or interpretative
regulation of Sec 30 of the National Internal Revenue
Code which prescribed that losses sustained are
allowable as deduction only within the corresponding
taxable year. Because it is an interpretation, it is
considered as an opinion of the agency on how a
rule/law should be implemented which makes it not
binding on the courts because the court is the final
interpreter of the law. Lastly, interpretations of the
statute that have been erroneous becomes a nullity.
Victorias v. Social Security Commission
Statute: Circular No. 22 of the following tenor - all
Employers in computing the premiums due the
System, will take into consideration and include in the
Employee's remuneration all bonuses and overtime
pay, as well as the cash value of other media of
remuneration. All these will comprise the Employee's
remuneration or earnings, upon which the 3-1/2% and
2-1/2% contributions will be based, up to a maximum
of P500 for any one month.
Held: It is an interpretative rule. Circular No. 22 in
question was issued by the Social Security
Commission, in view of the amendment of the
provisions of the Social Security Law defining the term
"compensation" where bonuses, allowances, and
overtime pay given in addition to the regular or base
pay were included. A rule that is supposed to advice
the people of amendments of the law does not require
presidential approval and publication in the OG for its
effectivity.
Peralta v. Civil Service Commission
Statute: Resolution No. 90-497 - an employee who has
no more leave credit in his favor is not entitled to the
payment of salary on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays
unless such non-working days occur within the period
of service actually rendered.
Held: INVALID. RA 2625 specifically provides that
government employees are entitled to 15 days
vacation leave of absence with full pay and 15 days
sick leave with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays and Holidays in both cases. They cannot be or
are not considered absent on non-working days; they
cannot and should not be deprived of their salary
Page 13 of 56
corresponding to said non-working days just because
they were absent without pay on the day immediately
prior to, or after said non-working days.
Administrative interpretation of the law is not
necessarily binding upon the courts. Here, the agency
is just interpreting a pre-existing law and is just
advisory because the SC is the interpreter of laws.
Note from Sir: The purpose of the bill is to exclude
from the computation of the leave those days
(Saturdays, Sundays as well as Holidays) because
actually the employee is entitled not to go to office
during those days. And it is unfair and unjust to him
that those days should be counted in the computation
of leaves. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire
debemus. The law does not provide for a distinction
between those who have accumulated leave credits
and those who have exhausted their leave credits in
order to enjoy such right.
(5) Examples of Rule-making in Various
Agencies
Note: The main issue the held is answering WON the
rule promulgated/amended rule promulgated is valid.
Director of Forestry v. Munoz
Piadeco had a private woodland which it had
registered with the Bureau of Forestry; this was
cancelled by Acting Director of Forestry Apolonio
Rivera because Piadeco had been cutting the trees in
two Watershed Reservations which was expressly
prohibited.
Law: Sec 1829 of the RAC. Sec 1817 of the RAC
empowers the Bureau of Forestry, with the approval of
the department head, to issue regulations deemed
expedient or necessary to secure the protection and
conservation of the public forests
Rule promulgated: AO 12-1, par c, Sec 5 recognized
titles by administrative titles, judicial titles and titles
from Spanish sovereignty as kinds of titles of
woodland that may be registered by the Bureau of
Registry.
Amended rule promulgated: AO 12-2 omitted titles
from Spanish sovereignty from the list.
Held: VALID because germane to the purpose of the
law. The purpose of the law is that lots should be
registered so the government can monitor it as the
government wants to preserve forests. This is the most
minimum requirement that must be observed in rule-
making by administrative agencies.
Notes:
The rule promulgated is the one being
questioned
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
What should be focused on according to Sir:
Why should a mere rule exclude a category of
title which under the law is allowable to be
registered?
Is this not amending the law?
Sirs critique of the case:
The reason why the Court ruled this way is
probably because Piadecos title is most likely
bogus.
However, what happens now to Piadeco if his
title was really real?
o The rule seems to collide with the
law
o It therefore has the pernicious effect
of denial of equal protection of the
laws to the holders of Spanish titles
which under the law can be
registered
o The given purpose of the law is not
germane. If Spanish titles cannot be
registered, owners of these
woodlands will go underground and
they will no longer be monitored
therefore contravenes the purpose of
the law.
Court could have just said outright that the
title was not genuine and you do not register
something that is fake. Therefore arriving at
the same conclusion of the Court without
doing violence to the well-settled rule that the
rule cannot amend the law.
Compare this case to previous cases where
the rule changed the law (eg. Changing of
prescriptive period).
o This case pertains to substantive
laws which have been impaired
Annie Sand v. Abad Santos Educational Institution
Rule promulgated: Art VIII, Rule 69, Sec 5 of the rules
and regulation which provides for the periodic
inspection of nursing schools because this cannot have
a retroactive effect on schools and colleges already
duly accredited by the Bureau of Private Schools.
Law:
Sec 9 RA 877expressly empowers in Sec 9 thereof the
petitioner Board, subject to the approval of the
President, to promulgate such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of such
Act.
Sec 3 of RA 877 specifically empowers petitioner
board to inspect nursing colleges and schools and
vests it with authority to issue, suspend, revoke, or
reissue certificates of registration for practice of
nursing.
Page 14 of 56
Held: VALID because germane to the purpose of the
law. The rule will be applied retroactively because the
Law empowered the Board of Examiners to merely
apply the minimum standards required as per the Law.
American Tobacco v. Director of Patents
Law:
RA 165 Sec 3 Dir of Patents is empowered to obtain
assistance of technical, scientific or other qualified
officers or employees of other depts., etc. when
deemed necessary.
Ra 165 Sec 78 Dir of Patents is empowered to
promulgate R&R not inconsistent with the law for
conduct of business in the Patent Office
Rule promulgated: Rule 168 of the Rules of Practice in
Trade-mark cases provides that the Director of Patents
shall have original jurisdiction over inter partes
proceedings.
Amended rule promulgated: Hearing of inter partes
cases has been delegated to the hearing of inter partes
cases to other officers and hearing officers.
Petitioners case was delegated to a hearing officer.
Held: VALID. The rule that requires an administrative
officer to exercise his own judgment and discretion
does not preclude him from utilizing, as a matter of
practical administrative procedure, the aid of
subordinates to investigate and report to him the facts,
on the basis of which the officer makes his decision.
the ultimate decision on the merits of all the issues and
questions involved is left to the Director of Patents.
The hearing officers will just make preliminary rulings
on questions raised at the hearings; the decision will
be made by the Director personally. The power to hear
may be delegated to hearing officers through a valid
rule but not the power to decide unless stipulated by
law the law does not say so. Hearing officers may not
be delegated the power to decide because this will
violate due process as the power to decide requires
personal judgment which is non-transferrable when
the law expressly disallows it (Angtibay v. CIR).
Note: You cannot abdicate your power/responsibility
by delegating it
Rabor v. CSC
Rabor was being asked to retire. He had only been in
government for 13 years so he could not avail of the
retirement plan which required minimum employment
of 15 years.
Law: Sec 11(b) of PD No. 1146 - the authority to grant
the extension (re: retirement) was a discretionary one
vested in the head of agency concerned.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Rule:
CSC Circular No. 27, par 1 - Request for extension is
only for one year
Memorandum Circular No. 65 - retention of employees
65 yo and above will be only upon meritotirous
reasons and not to exceed 6 months
Held: VALID. All that may be reasonably demanded in
checking won a rule is valid is a showing that the
delegated legislation consisting of administrative
regulations are germane to the general purposes
projected by the governing or enabling statue. No
more need for abstract and high standards. The
limitation of permissible extensions of service has a
reasonable relationship or is germane to the
provisions of the present Civil Service Law. There are
physiological and psychological processes associated
with ageing in human beings which are related to the
efficiency and quality of service that may be expected
from individuals.
Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA
Law: Sec 4(a) of EO No. 797 provides that the
Governing Board of the POEA shall promulgate
necessary rules and regulations to govern the exercise
of the adjudicatory functions of the POEA.
Rule: Governing Resolution No. 01 and Memorandum
Circular No. 05 provided for rates affecting death and
workmens compensation of Filipino seamen working
in ocean-going vessels as promulgated by the POEA.
Held: VALID. POEA has authority to promulgate both
statutes. Specialization in legislation has become
necessary. This is called the power of subordinate
legislation. With this power, administrative bodies
may implement the broad policies laid down in a
statute by filling in the details which the Congress
may not have the opportunity or competence to
provide.
Realty Exchange Venture v. Sendino
Sendino filed a complaint for Specific Performance
against REVI with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication
and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
Law:
EO 85 Sec 3 the final organization of judicial entities
shall be subject to the subsequent enactments of the
President
EO 90 created HLURB
EO 648 transferred all fxns of NHA to HLURB
Rule promulgated: Sec 1 of PD 957 provides that the
NHA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of
Page 15 of 56
subdivision lot or condominium unit against the
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
Held: VALID. The absence of any provision, express or
implied, in E.O. 90, repealing those quasi-judicial
powers inherited by the HSRC from the National
Housing Authority, furthermore militates against
petitioners' position on the question. Unless
expressly/impliedly prohibited by statute, the rule-
making authority granted to an administrative agency
is sufficient for the administrative agency to
promulgate rule/s that will help it function effectively.
If we will not allow them to break into divisions,
quorums will be hard to get in order to hear the case.
Sirs critique: Is not the fact that the enabling statute
created the commission of 9 without expressly saying
in the law that they can meet in divisions, is that not to
imply that they cannot break into divisions. If this is
not to you an implied prohibition, what then is an
implied prohibition?
GSIS v. Board of Commissioners
Only 3 members (instead of the nine man Board of
Commissioners) entertained the appeal. Is this
contrary to Secs 5 and 6 of EO 648?
Law: Sec 5 of EO No. 648 mandates the HLURB Board
of Commissioners to adopt rules of procedure for the
conduct of its business and perform such functions
necessary for the effective discharge thereof. Such
grant of power has been held to be an adequate source
of authority to delegate a particular function, unless,
by express provision of the Act or by implication, it has
been withheld.
Rule promulgated: Allowed the HLURB to break into
divisions
Held: VALID. The HLURB Board of Commissioners has
the power to adopt rules of procedure for the conduct
of its business. Such grant of power has been held to be
an adequate source of authority to delegate a
particular function, unless, by express provision of the
Act or by implication, it has been withheld. MR should
be settled at the level of divisions.
Note: Realty Exchange Ventures case was decided in
1994; this case was decided in 2010 stare decisis.
Soriano v. Laguardia
Soriano's show was under preventive suspension after
he made some foul remarks against INC show host
Michael Sandoval.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Law: Section 3(d) of PD No. 1986 (Creating the
MTRCB) - supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or
cancel permits for the x x x exhibition, and/or
television broadcast of all motion pictures, television
programs and publicity materials, to the end that no
such pictures, programs and materials as are
determined by the BOARD to be objectionable in
accordance with par (c) hereof shall be x x x exhibited
and/or broadcast by television.
Rule promulgated: Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986
and Sec 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure.
Held: VALID. When a general grant of power is
conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power
necessary for the exercise of the one or the
performance of the other is also conferred. When the
statute does not specify the particular method to be
followed or used by a government agency in the
exercise of the power vested in it by law, said agency
has the authority to adopt any reasonable method to
carry out its function. Concept of implied authority
something that arises by necessity from an express
power. The express power given to the Board is that
found in the Law, makes it absurd to say that MTRCB
cannot preemptively suspend the program. The IRR
merely fleshed out these provisions of law granting
these general powers over subjects of regulation.
Note: On the suspension of Soriano, the power of the
Board is only as to the program and not the people. To
suspend Soriano would be illegal ultra vires.
Dagan v. Phil. Racing Commission
Law:
Sec 8 of PD No. 8 Philracom has the exclusive
jurisdiction over and control of the horse-racing
industry
Administrative Order No. 5 It is unlawful for any
person, firm or corporation to ship, drive, or transport
horses from any locality or place except when
accompanied by a certificate issued by the authority of
the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI).
Rule: Directive from Philracom that all stables and
horse-clubs have to subject horses to a blood test for
EIA (disease)
Held: VALID. The Philracom directive and the
subsequent guidelines addressed to MJCI and PRCI
meet all the prescribed requisites of a valid
administrative issuance which are: (1) Its
promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
(2) It must be promulgated in accordance with the
prescribed procedure; (3) It must be within the scope
if the authority given by the legislature; and (4) It must
be reasonable. A delegation is valid only if the law (a)
Page 16 of 56
 person.
Basis Quasi- Quasi-judicial
legislative
CASES:
As to The procedure is The procedure
procedural that normally must observe the
Panay Autobus v. Phil Railway Co (1933)
standards observed in the requirements of
Held: The Public Service Commission was not
making of rules. due process in the 7
authorized by law to delegate to a public utility
cardinal rules.
company, like the Philippine Railway Co., the power to
alter its freight rates. While a public utility may
As to time Rule-making is Adjudication is
propose new rates, such is subject to the PUCs
prospective in retrospective in
approval.
character, for it character, for it
only governs investigates acts
Vigan Electric Co v. PSC (1964)
future acts. already done and
See table supra (comparison)
then applies the
law on the facts.
Philcomsat v Alcuaz (1989)
Held: Notice and hearing necessary if the rate to be
As to Legislative rules Adjudicative fixed applies to only one entity (quasi-judicial).
application are of general rulings apply only Note, however, that the Administrative Code now does
application to parties not differentiate legislative from quasi-judicial rate-
fixing: notice and hearing is required for both.
is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to
be executed, carried out, or implemented by the KMU v Garcia (1994)
delegate; and (b) fixes a standard- the limits of which Held: The power to fix rates cannot be delegated to a
are sufficiently determinate and determinable- to common carrier or other public service. The latter may
which the delegate must conform in the performance propose new rates, but these will not be effective
of his functions. PD No. 420 passes the tests of without the approval of the administrative agency.
completeness and standards sufficiency. There is no
delegation of power to speak of between Philracom, as Ynchausti v Public Utility Commissioner (1922)
the delegator and MJCI and PRCI as delegates. The Held: In fixing the rate, the present valuation of all the
Philracom directive is merely instructive in character. property of a public utility, viz, not only of the assets
Philracom has every right to issue directives to MJCI used by the public but also of the fixed assets must be
and PRCI with respect to the conduct of horse racing, made on that basis so a fair return of investment can
with or without implementing guidelines. be had. On principle, the property is deemed taken
and condemned by the public at the time of filing the
petition, and the rate should go up and down with the
d. Fixing of rates, wages, prices (cielo) physical valuation of the property.
Section 9. Public Participation. (1) If not otherwise Manila International Airport Authority v. Airspan
required by law, an agency shall, as far as Corp. (2004)
practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed Held: While under the original Charter of the MIAA, it
rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to was given authority to adjust its fees, charges, and
submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. rates, E.O. 903 limited such authority to a mere
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall recommendatory power. The power to increase its
be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been fees, charges, or rates is vested solely in the DOTC
published in a newspaper of general circulation at Secretary. Also in this case, failure to follow Admin
least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. Code procedure in increasing rates, through notice and
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases hearing, makes the new rates invalid.
shall be observed.

Section 2 (3) Rate means any charge to the public
for a service open to all and upon the same terms,
including individual or joint rates, tolls,
classifications, or schedules thereof, as well as
commutation, mileage, kilometerage and other
special rates which shall be imposed by law or
regulation to be observed and followed by any
e. Licensing Function
Section 17. Licensing Procedure. (1) When the
grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is
required to be preceded by notice and hearing, the
provisions concerning contested cases shall apply
insofar as practicable.

ADMIN LAW - Carlota

Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan Page 17 of 56
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent
laws, rules and regulations or when public security,
health, or safety require otherwise, no license may be
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without
notice and hearing.
Section 18. Non-expiration of License. Where the
licensee has made timely and sufficient application
for the renewal of a license with reference to any
activity of a continuing nature, the existing license
shall not expire until the application shall have been
finally determined by the agency,
Sec. 2(10), 1987 Admin Code. License includes
the whole or any party of any agency permit,
certificate, passport, clearance, approval,
registration, charter, membership, statutory
exemption or other form of permission, or regulation
of the exercise of a right or privilege.
Sec. 2(11), 1987 Admin Code. Licensing includes
agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial,
revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal,
limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning
or a license.
Gonzalo Sy Trading v Central Bank (1976)
Held: No expiry date does not mean the license is
perpetual. A license permit is a special privilege, a
permission or authority to do what is within its terms.
It is not vested, permanent or absolute, but is always
revocable.
Notice and hearing in licensing is only
required if it is a contested case. Otherwise, it can be
dispensed with, as in the issuance of drivers licenses.
B. JUDICIAL FUNCTION
BOOK VII, CHAPTER 3
Adjudication
Sec. 10. Compromise and Arbitration. To expedite
administrative proceedings involving conflicting
rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations,
every agency shall, in the public interest, encourage
amicable settlement, comprise and arbitration.
Sec. 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases.
(1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled
to notice and hearing. The notice shall be served at
least five (5) days before the date of the hearing and
shall state the date, time and place of the hearing.
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present
evidence and argument on all issues. If not precluded
by law, informal disposition may be made of any
contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement or
default.
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
proceedings.
Sec. 12. Rules of Evidence. In a contested case:
(1) The agency may admit and give probative value
to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably
prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the
form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not
readily available. Upon request, the parties shall be
given opportunity to compare the copy with the
original. If the original is in the official custody of a
public officer, a certified copy thereof may be
accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine
witnesses presented against him and to submit
rebuttal evidence.
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially
cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical
or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge.
The parties shall be notified and afforded an
opportunity to contest the facts so noticed.
Sec. 13. Subpoena. In any contested case, the
agency shall have the power to require the
attendance of witnesses or the production of books,
papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon
request of any party before or during the hearing
upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise
provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial
Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case
being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or
refusal as contempt.
Sec. 14. Decision. Every decision rendered by the
agency in a contested case shall be in writing and
shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based. The agency shall decide each
case within thirty (30) days following its submission.
The parties shall be notified of the decision
personally or by registered mail addressed to their
counsel of record, if any, or to them.
Sec. 15. Finality of Order. The decision of the
agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15)
days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party
adversely affected unless within that period an
administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper,
has been perfected. One motion for reconsideration
may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the
said period.
a. Power to Issue subpoena, declare
contempt
(1) General Statutory Provision, Sec. 13,
supra
Page 18 of 56
 (2) Special Statutory Grant
Example:
xxx Sec. 6. In order to effectively exercise such
jurisdiction, the Commission shall possess the
following powers
(a) To issue preliminary or permanent injunctions,
whether prohibitory or mandatory, in all cases in
which it has jurisdiction, and in which cases the
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court shall
apply;
(b) To punish for contempt of the Commission, both
direct and indirect, in accordance with the pertinent
provisions of, and penalties prescribed by, the Rules
of Court; xxx
Evangelista v. Jarencio
F: PARGO is an admin agency tasked to investigate
public officials acts. Evangelista, a PARGO official,
issued a subpoena to Manalastas, a public official, to
appear and testify before the PARGO. M filed a Petition
for Prohibition with a prayer for WPI before the CFI.
H: PARGO, as an AA, has authority to issue a subpoena
ad testificandum to aid its power to investigate even if
no formal charge has yet been filed.
Teehankee: This is a fishing expedition.
Sir: Can you invoke RASI here? Not unless the nature of
the administrative proceeding is criminal in nature
(like in that Cabal case in Consti2). In this case there is
no charge yet, what he can do is to appear but raise
RASI if asked specific incriminating questions
compromise.
(for some reason, nagkwento na si Sir re St. Francis
square and porn dvds that you can buy there! At sabi
nya: Even if something arouses you, it doesnt mean
its obscene!)
Guevarra v. COMELEC
H: It does not follow that if an agency is granted the
power to cite in contempt, it can indiscriminately issue
contempt citations. The power to cite in contempt is
inherently judicial, so it can only be exercised in
connection with an exercise of the judicial or quasi-
judicial powers of an agency.
Catura v. CIR
F: Members of a union sued their officers before the
CIR for alleged illegal disbursement of funds. Said
officers went to regular courts to question the CIRs
order (subpoena duces tecum) for the submission to
the CIR of the unions books of accounts.
H: CIR has power to order the submit said books in aid
of its investigation against the union officials.
Tolentino v. Inciong
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
F: Members of a union brought a case before the CIR
(Inciong) against Tolentino (union President) for his
failure to order a union election. Tolentino then filed a
petition for prohibition in the CFI, which Judge Delos
Angeles took cognizance. Inciong issued two citations
for contempt against Tolentino and Delos Angeles.
H: Inciong has no power to cite a CFI judge for
contempt. Although, CIR has the power to cite in
contempt parties who fail to comply with its orders,
that does not include a CFI judge. What should have
been done is that a motion to dismiss be filed on the
civil case for lack of jurisdiction, if it really has no
jurisdiction.
Contempt power cannot be issued to cover the
case of a party to a controversy who took the
necessary steps to avail himself of a judicial remedy.
Most certainly, it cannot be issued as against a judge
who took cognizance of a case.
b. Warrant of arrest, Administrative searches
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.
1973 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3
Section 3. The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and whatever purpose shall not be violated,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined
by the judge, or such other responsible officer as
maybe authorized by law, after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board
F: Q was arrested by the Deportation Board pending
investigation for alleged economic sabotage (hording
dollars without permit).
H: Can a WoA (warrant of arrest) be issued pending
investigation? The case is under the 1935 constitution
(same with the 1987) that only a judge an issue a WoA,
so decision is still valid today. The judge only, not an
admin agency can issue a WoA pending investigation.
Page 19 of 56
 There are two Eos here (from quirino and
roxas) providing for the rules pending investigation of
undesirable aliens. But the SC upheld that of Roxass: a
WoA cannot be issued and the remedy to ensure the
aliens appearance is to require a bond from the alien.
The ponencia stated that even if the Pres is
authorized to issue a WOA for purposes of
investigation, that will be against the Consti only the
judge can issue
Value of the case:
GR: Only a judge can issue WoA
XPN: WoA can be issued administratively in order to
carry out a final deportation order
High profile leading landmark case!!! READ in
the ORIGINAL!!
Vivo v. Montesa
F: WoA issued against Chinese citizens for alleged
misrepresentation for admission in the PHL issued by
the COmissioner of Immigration
H: JBL reaffirmed Qua Chee Gan: only a judge can issue
a WoA if the purpose is for investigation (but with
exception)
Santos v. Commissioner
F: Chinese illegal entry
H: Even the decision was promulgated after the 1973
constitution, the controversy happened under the
1935 consti so Qua Chee Gan was reaffirmed
Harvey v. Defensor
Disturbed the jurisprudence earlier
F: This case involved pedophiles arrested by CID as
undesirable aliens. Mission orders (WoA) were issued
to arrest the aliens on the basis of probable cause
determined by commissioner after surveillance for
three months.
H: The WoA issued are supported by probable cause
(Sir: thru photos of young boys in their bday suit ). The
SC justified that there is a pending proceeding anyway.
The SC made a distinction this is not criminal but
administrative (i.e. deportation).
Sir: There is a dubious justification: the CID
determined the probable cause. The case insists to be
consistent with Qua Chee Gan but it was not. Even if
there is an investigation (such as in this case), the
warrant cannot be issued as held in Qua Chee Gan until
a final deportation order.
Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag
F: A Frenchman was arrested by CID agents and police
charged by landlord as an undesirable alien (not
paying rents). He promised to invest in the PHL but
was merely tutoring here.
H: Issuance of WoA was illegal because there was no
probable cause here (unlike in Harvey). Case is moot
because Lucien was released and there is a deportation
charge against him (same with Harvey ruling).
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Sir: Sought to clarify Harvey (to settle with old cases
like Qua Chee Gan) but instead paid homage to it.
Salazar v. Achacoso
F: S was charged before the POEA for illegal
recruitment. POEA administrator issued a closure and
seizure order against S. Her studio was searched and
some of her possessions confiscated.
H: Search and seizure illegal. POEAs legal basis, Article
38 of the Labor Code (which states that the SOLE and
his/her legal representative can issue Search
Warrants, was declared unconstitutional. The GR is
that only a judge can issue WoA and SW. The only
exception is with regard to deportation of aliens where
the President, as head of state, is also authorized.
Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa
F: After 28 years from Gatchalians entry to the PHL,
the BOC issued a warrant of arrest to investigate his
citizenship. The WoA was allegedly based on a warrant
of exclusion issued a year after his entry (so issued 27
years ago). Gatchalian claims that this exclusion order
was already reversed by the BOC so no arrest warrant
can be issued anymore.
H: The SC held that the WoA was a violation of the Qua
Chee Gan doctrine that an arrest order can only be
issued to implement a final deportation order. Also, the
exclusion order has prescribed so a WoA cannot be
issued.
Dissent (Feliciano): The exclusion order has not yet
prescribed, hence, the arrest warrant to execute is
imprescriptible. The dissenting group also reaffirmed
the Qua Chee Gan doctrine.
Sir: Both the majority and the dissent affirmed Qua
Chee Gan that a WoA can only be issued after a final
deportation order, although not as clear as Achacoso
did.
Camara v. Municipal Court
F: The inspector asked permission from C to inspect
his house pursuant to the citys Housing Code. C
refused without a search warrant. After several
attempts on the inspectors part, C still refused. C was
subsequently charged for violating the Housing Code,
he was later convicted.
H: Although administrative inspections are usually
allowed, if a resident refuses the search, the inspector
is bound to procure a search warrant. For the warrant
procedure, a probable cause that a law or ordinance
has been violated is not required (as in criminal cases)
but only that the inspection is reasonable.
Dissent: The inspection in this case is not reasonable. It
is impractical for the inspectors to procure search
warrants every time a resident refuses.
Sir: This is a divided court (5/4). You view the case as a
form of BALANCING: on the one hand is the state
Page 20 of 56
interest for health and safety while on the other, the
citizens right to privacy very difficult balancing act!
Dee: Can this be applied to copyright infringement
cases? Sir: The state interest of health and safety is no
longer applicable so that is a different issue. This is
only in the context of inspection programs.
See v. Seattle
F: (This is decided with Camara). The inspection to
implement the Fire Code involved here is that of Sees
LOCKED commercial warehouse. He refused.
H: The requirement of a reasonable search also applies
to business establishment like in this case. Searches
are presumptively reasonable if without probable
cause. (same dissent with Camara)
Sir: Note that the warehouse is LOCKED and not open
to public. What if the establishment is open to public?
Roe: The right to privacy is not the same as in a locked
establishment it assumed a public character and the
state can use police power against the privacy rights.
Sirs example: OZONE disco!
c. Imposition of Fines and Penalties
Oceanic Steam v. Stranaham
F: Fines were collected from vessels if they refuse to
subject their crew and passengers to medical exams to
ensure that they dont have a loathsome contagious
disease.
H: Fine valid. This is not to penalize the refusal but
only to enforce the regulation.
Test: for valid imposition of fines and penalties of
administrative agencies
1.) subject matter should be within the power of
Congress to legislate on/ control of Congress (In this
case, the subject is immigration)
2.) penalty is not criminal in nature, that is, it is
administrative (it is administrative when it is merely
intended to vindicate the policy of Congress, and is not
intended for punishment in the concept of fine or jail
time)
3.) agency expressly authorized to impose fines and
penalties
Sir: all the elements are satisfied!
Civil Aeronautics Board v. PAL (1975)
F: PAL made a flagstop in Baguio to pick up passengers
without informing CAB beforehand. CAB imposed a
5,000 fine (later reduced to 2, 500).
H: CAB was expressly authorized to impose civil fines
fines in accordance with its supervisory power over
airlines. But there was no bad faith on PALs part so
fine was reduced to 100.
Sir: Oceanics approach not used but if you apply the
test, the same result (Congress is concerned with air
transportation; there is a law authorizing CAB; and the
fine is civil only not criminal).
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Scotys Department Store v. Micaller
F: M was a saleslady in Scotys. But she was
subsequently dismissed because of her membership in
a union. She was interrogated and was even charged
criminally by her former employers. She filed a ULP
case before the CIR. CIR adjudged Scotys guilty and
imposed a P100 penalty.
H: The penalty if illegal. The law (RA 875) provides
that the court can impose penalty, but that court
pertains to a regular court, not CIR. CIR cannot impose
the penalty which is criminal in nature when it uses a
different quantum of evidence (i.e. substantial
evidence) from that which is required of criminal cases
(i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt).
US v. Barrias
F: B did not use a steam engine when moving his
lighter/ motor craft while traversing the Pasig River.
He was charged and faces possible penalty from the
circular of the Insular Collector.
H: While the circular is valid pursuant to the law which
authorized the Collector to regulate harbors, the
imposition of penalty is invalid. It is a misdemeanor
and authority to declare acts as constituting
misdemeanor is lodged exclusively to Congress.
(IMPORTANT) The ethical basis of the non-delegation
doctrine: Such a delegated power constitutes not only
a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by
the instrumentality of his own judgment acting
immediately upon the matter of legislation and not
through the intervening mind of another.
RCPI v. Board of Communications
F: D and I sued RCPI due to their late receipt of the
telegram sent by their families. They alleged that they
suffered damages (they were supposedly going to
attend funerals). Board of Com fined RCPI.
H: Board of Com is not authorized to fine RCPI because
its function only involves fixing of rates and issuance of
Certificate of Public Convenience.
Perez v. LPG Refillers Association
F: BP 33 penalized overprizing, hording, underfilling of
LPG. DOE issued a circular adding some punishable
acts and changing the schedule of penalty.
H: The circular is valid it merely specified the acts and
the penalty. For an admin regulation to have the force
of a penal law, it must (1) be a crime defined by a law
and (2) the penalty must have been provided by the
law (both are satisfied in this case).
Public Hearing Committee of LLDA v. SM Prime
Holdings
F: LLDA inspected the wastewater of SM Manila and
found that it did not conform to their standards. It
imposed a fine on SM and such will accrue daily until
corrective measures were undertaken. Despite their
immediate compliance, LLDA ordered them to pay 50k.
Page 21 of 56
H: The law authorized LLDA to settle pollution cases
but no provision expressly allows it to impose fines.
But the Court said that the intendment of the law is to
grant LLDA with other powers which are implied but
are necessary or essential for the full implementation
of its purposes.
Sir: The case is subject to criticismthe authority to
impose fine is not express but only implied.
Oyie: Wouldnt this lead to abuse? Sir: Possible, but the
agency can also argue that they are constrained to
impose penalty, otherwise, they will be useless.
C. JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY
OF STANDARDS (Jamie)
The attitude of the Court in dealing with
sufficiency of standards is one of liberality
rather than strict construction/conservative
attitude
The following enumeration of standards are
broad yet the Courts refuse to strike them
down as unconstitutional
1. INTEREST OF LAW AND ORDER
Rubi v. Provincial Bd of Mindanao
Facts: Mindoro Provincial Board approved a resolution
to relocate all Mangyans to Tigbao as per Sec 2145 of
Old Admin Code.
Held: VALID DELEGATION because interest of law and
order is a sufficient standard. Reason behind the
resolution was to preserve law and order in Mindoro,
and encourage development of resources in the island.
Sir: Court approached this case in a very conservative
way/literal attitude to decide such a controversial case
2. PUBLIC INTEREST
People v. Rosenthal and Osmena
Facts: Rosenthal and Osmena were charged and found
guilty of violating Act 2581 Blue Sky Law because they
were unlicensed sellers of shares of stocks and selling
high priced stocks.
Held: VALID DELEGATION because public interest is a
sufficient standard. The statute with regard to the
grant of licenses is to protect the public from
speculative schemes and fly-by-night sellers. In the
interest of the public, the Secretary could cancel the
licenses.
Sir: Court approached this case with a very
liberal attitude
3. JUSTICE, EQUITY AND SUBSTANTIAL MERITS OF
THE CASE
International Hardwood and Veneer Co. v. Pangil
Federation
Facts: There was an industrial dispute between
Hardwood and its employees regarding wage rates so
the Sec of Labor through the CIR determined the
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
minimum wage for them as per Sec 4 CA 103 which
allows compulsory arbitration to solve industrial
disputes.
Held: VALID DELEGATION because justice, equity and
substantial merits of the case is a sufficient standard.
In the hearing, investigation and determination of any
question or controversy and in exercising any duties
and power under the law (in this case, fixing of
minimum wage), the CIR shall act according to justice
and equity and substantial merits of the case (Sec 20
CA 143).
Sir: Court approached this case with a very liberal
attitude
- Court looked through the law to find a
standard which was Sec 20 CA 143
- Anytime you talk about justice and equity,
that virtually gives you no specific guidance if
youre the administrative authority as this
varies per person and with regard to the
circumstances surrounding the facts. Yet, the
court said this is a sufficient standard.
- This makes you wonder why the Court has
been adopting the liberally approach
- Reason: To adopt a strict attitude would be
an obstacle to legislative intention of
Congress to delegate
- Go back to Justice Laurels reasons for the
creation of administrative agencies suich as
lack of time, organization, and specialization
4. WHAT IS MORAL, EDUCATIONAL OR AMUSING
Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission
Facts: Mutual Film Corp. was asked by the Board of
censors to submit for approval the film it wanted to
place on exhibit.
Held: VALID DELEGATION because the standard of
using the sense and experience of the community
should be used as useful guides in determining what is
educational, moral or amusing. This is where the
standard derives its sustainability to become a
sufficient standard.
Sir: Q: What Constitutional standard comes into your
head when reading this case?
A: Appealing to prurient/lude interest of the person
which is related to the concept of obscenity
Guide Q: What made the standard of what is
educational, moral or amusing different from the
standard of obscenity? (Same as HELD) The standard
in the case derived its sustainability from the sense
and experience of the community which was used as a
guide for the standard.
5. WHAT IS SACRILEGIOUS
Joseph Burstyn Inc. v. Wisconsin
Facts: The Miracles license (a movie) was being
revoked by the censorship board for being offensive to
religious feelings
Page 22 of 56
Held: INVALID DELEGATION. To use sacrilegious as a
standard is not sufficient because it there is no sense
and experience of a national community where one can
draw a consensus or some reasonable idea of what is
sacrilegious. The sensor will be left with his own
device to catch a judgment regarding the material
being sacrilegious depending on his background and
beliefs. If so, this will not be fair to the religious
institutions which are not that dominant and thus this
standard becomes discriminatory.
Sir: Compare with previous case of Mutual Film Corp.
6. ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT INSTITUTION
PACU v. Secretary
Facts: ACT 2706 made it obligatory for Sec of Public
Instruction to inspect private schools and colleges to
make sure they maintain a general standard of
efficiency of instruction which calls for issuing of
permits to institutions who pass the inspection
Held: VALID DELEGATION because the standard the
Sec of Educ to use adequate and efficient instruction is
sufficient. Also, there is reliance on the educational
experience and training of the employees of DepEd to
ascertain and formulate minimum requirements of
adequate instruction as the basis of government
recognition of any private school.
7. REASONABLENESS AS AN IMPLIED STANDARD
Wisconsin Inspection Bureau v. Whitman
Facts: Chapter 203 of the Wisconsin Statutes (Rate-
fixing law) provides that rules and regulations have to
be dis/approved by the Commissioner of Insurance
(CI) first. Consequently, the Rating Act of 1917 was
scrutinized by the CI to determine won these are
unreasonable or discriminatory.
Held: VALID DELEGATION because the standard of
usage of reasonableness in determining which R&R is
approved is implied in all laws. Congress wants a
uniformity of rules and regulations regarding rate-
fixing. The CI does this by acting within boundaries of
reason in determining what R&R will meet the general
purpose already laid down by Congress.
Sir:
Further discussion of why reasonableness is accepted
as a standard in this set of facts the insurance
industry
- What will happen if you argue that the
Congress has specifically delegated the
authority of the administrative agent
considering the characteristic of the industry
being regulated
- The flexibility in practice necessary in the
insurance business world will be destroyed if
there are strict qualifications to be followed.
- The insurance industry is not a very static
field or area of activity. The conditions
change. The facts change. The flow or influx of
new developments is continuous. The market
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
conditions will change. There are so many
variables are at work. Therefore if you come
up with very strict guidelines, when those
changes come out those guideline swill
become obsolete and Congress will end up
having to amend the law which is a long and
tedious process. Commissioner should have
flexibility to act according to the conditions
prevailing at that time.
8. TO PROMOTE SIMPLICITY, ECONOMY OR
EFFICIENCY
Cervantes v. Auditor General
Facts: The quarter allowance granted to one of
NAFCO's employees was not approved because it was
against the charter of NAFCO for being beyond its
budget. RA 51 authorizes the Pres of the Phils to make
changes and reforms in GOCCs for the purpose of
promoting simplicity, economy and efficiency in their
operations. EO 93 creates a Council that advises the
Pres what policies are necessary to be implemented.
Held: VALID DELEGATION. RA 51 lays down
reorganization guidelines. When it comes to
reorganization statutes/R&R, the standard is WON it
promotes simplicity, economy and efficiency in GOCC
operations.
9. MAINTAIN MONETARY STABILITY, PROMOTE
RISING LEVEL OF PRODUCTION AND REAL INCOME
People v. Jolliffe
Facts: Jolliffe violated Circular 21 of the Central Bank
as he tried to export gold without a license.
Held: VALID DELEGATION because Secs 2 and 74 or
RA 265 conferred upon the Monetary Board and the
President the power to take constructive measures in
relation to the objectives of RA 265 which is to
promote a rising level of production, employment and
real income in the Philippines. These are sufficient
standards to vest in the delegated authority the
character of administrative details in the enforcement
of the law.
What is due process ano ang prosesong SAPAT. What
is substantial evidence? Yung may substance, hindi
balewalang ebidensya. You make the concepts
graspable, not cerebral! (Carlota, 2013)
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
A board term which encompasses procedure
in rule-making (eg. Publication, effectivity,
fixing of rates, public participation, licensing,
etc.)
And also encompasses procedure in
adjudication (eg. Rules on contested cases,
notice, hearing, cross-exam, MFR, etc.)
Page 23 of 56
 Take note SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: such
amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion (MEMORIZE)
A. BOOK VII, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE,
SEC 1-26, ADMIN CODE OF 1987
B. IN RULE-MAKING, PRICE, WAGE OR RATE
FIXING
C. IN ADJUDICATION CASES
1. Rules of Procedure
2. Due Process
Note the importance of procedural DP (Due
Process)
Statutory guidelines would be Book 7 of the
RAC and that provided by jurisprudence
(almost similar that they complement each
other)
Points to remember
o While agencies perform adjudicative
functions or what literature calls
quasi-judicial functions, the fact still
remains that they are not regular
courts of justice. From that reality
emerges the rule that since they are
not regular courts of justice, the
strict/highly technical rules on
evidence and procedure one may
find in the ROC are not to be rigidly
applied in quasi-judicial proceedings.
To apply such will defeat the
purpose of creation of admin
agencies which is to act with speed
and flexibility as they should not be
moving like snails which regular
courts have been likened to.
(PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION
WHY ROC DOES NOT APPLY TO
QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF
AAS)
That is why quantum of
evidence is lower only
substantial evidence for
quasi-judicial AAs
o AAs may not be handcuffed BUT they
are covered by the constitutional
right to DP in particular, procedural
DP.
The fact that you are just an
AA will not excuse you from
observing strictly the
requirements of procedural
DP. But then again you have
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
to realize the nuance
between regular courts DP
and quasi-judicial DP
Note: the concept of DP in
Administrative Law keeps
on evolving.
Guide Q: What is the process that will
maximize fairness in a given case?
a. Cardinal Primary Rights
Ang Tibay v. CIR
Facts: Union was appealing their case. CIR used the
primary rights for DP.
Held: Enumeration of the cardinal primary rights of DP
in administrative proceedings (MEMORIZE!)
1. Right to a hearing
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence
presented
3. Decision must be supported by evidence
4. Evidence must be substantial (Relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.)
5. Transparency: evidence to be considered
must be those presented at the hearing or
on record
6. Cir must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts You
cannot allow hearing officers to decide
cases (american tobacco)
7. Decision must be rendered such that the
parties know the issues involved and
reasons for the decision
Sir: Do not equate preponderance evidence with
substantial evidence. Preponderance requires the
judge to weigh evidence of both parties. Preponderant
is necessarily substantial.
When you talk about substantial evidence, it is possible
that both sides will have substantial evidence (Banco
Filipino case). Substantial need not to be
preponderant.
Important note: In administrative law, when it comes
to judicial review, the findings of facts of agencies if
supported by substantial evidence will be considered
binding by the reviewing board
The invocation of procedural DP by petitioner maybe
anyone of these 7 cardinal primary rights
If there is a violation of any of these elements, that is
enough for the aggrieved party to go to Court and
invoke his/her constitutional right to DP
Asprec v. Itchon
Facts: Asprec was found guilty of violating the Code of
Ethics for Surveyors so his certificate registration as
private land surveyor was revoked. Asprec claims he
was not accorded DP (Due Process) as he and his
counsel did not attend the hearing despite being
notified.
Page 24 of 56
Held: ACCORDED DP because DP only calls for parties
to be given notice of the trial and an opportunity to be
heard. It is up to the adverse party if he/she wants to
show up. The opportunity to be heard can be complied
with in many ways for as long as the proceedings is
characterized with fairness. It is to be determined on a
case-to-case basis what is to be characterized as fair in
varying circumstances. Administrative agencies
exercising quasi-judicial powers are free from the
rigidity of certain procedural requirements.
Sir: Philex Frankfurters DP from the POV of a layman
DP is embodying the idea of fairplay
Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. NLRC
Facts: Basconcilo filed a case against Vinta for being
illegally dismissed. POEA Administrator asked the
parties to just submit their position papers and
supporting documents. No trial was held. It was ruled
the Basconcilo was illegally dismissed.
Held: ACCORDED DP because when the parties were
asked to submit position papers this already satisfied
DP because DP does not necessarily mean a verbal
hearing but only an opportunity to be heard. To hold a
trial is discretionary on the administrative authority
and is not a matter of right. Administrative agencies
exercising quasi-judicial powers are free from the
rigidity of certain procedural requirements.
Sir: Just require position papers having in mind the
speedy disposition of labor disputes. If the aggrieved
party feels that the decision is erroneous, there are
remedies that can be availed of.
Bachrach Motor Co. v. CIR
Facts: In a CIR case to oust a driver, the lone witness
after conducting his direct testimony, never appeared
for cross-examination. CIR dismissed the case and his
testimony was stricken off the record.
Held: ACCORDED DP because all parties have the right
to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a
judicial litigation before administrative tribunals with
quasi-judicial powers. Testimonies can only be taken
into account when complete direct and cross-
examinations are necessary.
UP Board of Regents v. CA
Facts: Defendant was found to have committed
plagiarism in her dissertation. UP admin formed
committees that conducted numerous investigations
wherein her side was heard. UP withdrew her degree,
she claims she was only allowed to be heard after this
point.
Held: ACCORDED DP because DP is satisfied once the
party is given opportunity to explain ones side of a
controversy or a chance to seek reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. No trial or oral hearing
is needed in the context of disciplinary in an institution
of higher learning due to academic freedom. Defendant
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
submitted written explanations, attended
meetings/investigations, etc.
Zambales Chromite Mining Co. v. CA
Facts: Dir. Gozon decided a case as Dir. of Mines. He
was appointed Sec. of Agri and Natural Resources
wherein he decided the same case on appeal.
Held: DENIED DP because the decision of a
subordinate officer should be reviewed by a superior
officer who is a different person else there will be no
different view or real review of the case. Gozon should
have inhibited himself.
Rivera v. CSC
Facts: Rivera was found guilty by his company. On
appeal to the MPSB, he was only found guilty of acts
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On appeal
to the CSC he was found guilty of Grave Misconduct.
Gatminde was both part of MSPB and CSC boards
which ruled on Rivera's case.
Held: DENIED DP because the decision of a
subordinate officer should be reviewed by a superior
officer who is a different person else there will be no
different view or real review of the case. Gatminde
should have inhibited herself.
American inter-Fashion Corp. v. Office of the
President
Facts: Glorious filed a MFR for having been found
guilty of dollar-salting and misdeclaration of
importations. This was denied so he filed an appeal to
the Office of the Pres which ruled that there was a
denial of DP because the evidence used to rule on his
case was not disclosed so case was remanded to GTEB
Held: DENIED DP because not disclosing evidence used
to rule on a case violates the cardinal rights of DP as
enumerated in Ang Tibay
Pefianco v. Moral
Facts: Moral was found guilty by DECS. Moral asked for
the DECS Investigation Committee Report but was
twice denied. She filed a mandamus that it be released.
Held: If there is an investigating committee appointed
by the disciplinary authority, that committee report
cannot be mandated to furnish a copy thereof. As a
matter of right, Moral cannot demand for a copy of the
committee report because at that stage it was not a
decision of the disciplinary authority but just
communication between the two committees. It is only
upon a decision when it is mandatory to release a copy
which should clearly and distinctly state the reasons
for the decision.
NAPOLCOM, National Appellate Board and
PNP V. Police Chief Inspector Leonardo
Bernabe
Page 25 of 56
Facts: Policeman was investigated by NAPOLCOM and
there was a summary dismissal hearing which was
concluded in policemans dismissal.
Held: ACCORDED DP because policeman was accorded
DP despite holding no hearing/trial as DP in quasi-
judicial agencies is sufficient as he had submitted his
affidavits, memorandum, availed of all the appeals
within the administrative process even elevating the
case to the CA. These facts show that during the
investigation process, he was given opportunity to
present his side.
Montemayor v. Bundalian
Facts: Montemayor was charged with unexplained
wealth and was being investigated by the PGAC.
Montemayor was not given opportunity to examine the
complainant.
Held: ACCORDED DP because his active participation
in every step of the investigation effectively removed
any badge of procedural deficiency, if there was any,
and satisfied the due process requirement.; he filed
written documents on his behalf (counter-affidavit,
submitted documentary evidence), attended the
hearings, moved for a reconsideration of the
Administrative Order issued by the President and
eventually filed his appeal before the CA. The fact that
the complaint was unverified is of no matter as
complaint involving graft and corruption may come in
any manner. There was also substantial evidence
against him
Sir: Reiteration of the rule - In administrative
proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence
are not strictly applied. Administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict
judicial sense for it is enough that the party is given the
chance to be heard before the case against him is
decided.
Shoppes Manila v. NLRC
Facts: LA rendered a decision that Shoppes Manila
illegally dismissed their employees. Shoppes Manila
requested for a formal hearing be conducted, but this
was denied.
Held: ACCORDED DP because Shoppes Manila did not
have a vested right to a formal hearing simply and
merely because LA Tumanong granted its motion and
set the case for hearing as Rules of procedure of NLRC
only make holding of a hearing discretionary upon the
NLRC. It is entirely within the LAs authority to decide
a labor case before him, based on the position papers
and supporting documents of the parties, without a
trial or formal hearing.
Sir: Note The two-notice rule in Civil Law which has
been adopted in Labor Law
One must be notified of the specific charges or cause
regarding the complaint which will enable you to
prepare your defense
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
One must be notified of the reason for
dismissal
Autencio v. Manara
Facts: Autencio was found guilty for misconduct for
allowing irregularities in the books of accounts; there
was insufficient evidence for the charge of dishonesty.
Autencio filed an answer and affdiavits to support her
position. She also appealed to the CA.
Held: ACCORDED DP as the findings of fact of an
administrative agency must be respected, so long as
they are supported by substantial evidence.
Samalio v. CA
Facts: Samalio was found guilty with robbery and
violation of Immigration Law. Samalio had chosen a
formal investigation, filed an answer and submitted
affidavits. He appealed to Guingona, CSC and CA who
denied it.
Held: ACCORDED DP. The testimony of the Chinese
national in the BID case was also admitted in the
Sandiganbayan because the Chinese national was no
longer in the country. Since both cases in the BID and
Sandiganbayan have the same sets of facts, the same
testimony can be used as substantial evidence to pin
Samalio. Here, the prior testimony rule was applied
because (1) witness is dead or unable to testify
unable to testify because abroad; (2) testimony given in
a case of same facts, same parties involved or atleast
had same interests; (3) same subject matter but
different cause of action in BID it was misconduct and
in SB it was robbery, still same subject matter; (4) same
issue; (5) adverse party was able to cross-examine the
witness in the previous case. These were all complied
with. The technical rules of evidence will not strictly
apply to administrative proceedings, this case is an
exception as technical rules of evidence may be
applied in a suppletory manner in the disposition of an
administrative case.
Medina v. COA
Facts: Medina was charged in the Ombudsman.
Held: ACCORDED DP because Rules of Procedure in the
Office of the Ombudsman of AO17 gives the
Ombudsman authority to dispense with hearing as
opposed to the CSC wherein a formal investigation and
hearing is required.
Sir: It is important to note the difference of rules of
procedure with regard to the CSC wherein there is no
due process without a formal investigation and
hearing
How to determine if a party was deprived of DP
If the law applicable to the case already
provides for the procedure to be observed
(eg. Evidentiary hearing requirement), this is
already the DP requirement that has to be
observed
Page 26 of 56
 If the law is silent, then this is where you
apply what youve learned in jurisprudence
that DP may be satisfied even without
evidentiary hearing if the parties were given
an opportunity to be heard (eg. Position
papers, memoranda, motion for
reconsideration, etc)
Domingo v. Rayala
Facts: At the level of the committee investigating it,
Office of the President and CA so there was substantial
evidence.
Held: Only second offense would be tantamount to
dismissal.
A.Z. Arnaiz Inc. v. OP
Facts: In a case adjudicated by DAR, there was no trial
only submission of pleadings and documentary
evidence.
Held: ACCORDED DP as per the CARP Law. Petitioner
was given all the opportunity to prove and establish its
claim that the subject properties were excluded from
the coverage of the CARP. Petitioner actively
participated in the proceedings by submitting various
pleadings and documentary evidence, and filed
motions for reconsideration in every unfavorable
outcome of its actions in all tiers of the administrative
and judicial process
Ganapao v. CSC
Facts: NAPOLCOM issued a summary hearing on
Barien's complaint charging Rimando Gannapao with
Grave Misconduct and Moonlighting.
Held: ACCORDED DP as he had an opportunity to
defend himself. He was adequately apprised of the
charges filed against him and he submitted his answer
to the complaint while the case was still under a pre-
charge investigation. When the Office of Legal Service
conducted a summary hearing, petitioner was again
duly notified of the proceedings. Based on the records,
Gannapao appeared for hearing without counsel after
the subpoena was served.
Goss v. Lopez
Facts: Students were suspended without a hearing.
Held: DENIED DP because students facing suspension
and the consequent interference with a protected
property interest must be given some kind of notice
and afforded some kind of hearing. Parties whose
rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in
order that they may enjoy that right they must first be
notified. Due process requires, in connection with a
suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given
oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if
he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the
authorities have and an opportunity to present his side
of the story.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Sir: Just because high school students are the ones
involved does not mean they are not protected by the
mantle of due process
You may not conduct a formal investigation
since this is a minor disciplinary case, however the
students need an opportunity to be hears
Matthews v. Eldridge
Facts: The agency took out Eldriges disabled benefits
without a hearing and only made their assessment
using medical examinations and reports.
Held: ACCORDED DP because it does not require
evidentiary hearing. The essence of due process is the
requirement that "a person in jeopardy of serious loss
[be given] notice of the case against him and
opportunity to meet it. All that is necessary is that the
procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be
made, to "the capacities and circumstances of those
who are to be heard," to insure that they are given a
meaningful opportunity to present their case.
b. Notice and Hearing (cielo)
(1) When Required
National Development v. Collector (1963)
F: A TV set was confiscated from NDCs vessel which
was unmanifested and in violation of the Customs Law.
In a notice to NDC, they claimed that it was a personal
property which need not be manifested. Further, NDC
requested that in case their explanation is not
accepted, that NDC be called for an investigation. But
they were fined by the Collector without hearing.
H: NDC was deprived of due process. NDC should have
given a chance to prove that the TV was not a cargo, as
they also requested.
Bautista v. Workmens Compensation Commission
F: Bautista was denied sick and disability benefits by
WCC after allegedly failing to attend the hearings.
H: B was denied due process. He was entitled to a
reasonable notice, but the notice in this case was
served several days late. WCCs bias for the employer
was also questioned by the court.
Equitable Banking Corp. v. NLRC
F: Sadac was a VP for Legal Dept of EPCI bank. After his
subordinates filed a complaint against him for being
abusive, the bank conducted several consultations and
subsequently terminated him pursuant to their
attorney-client relationship. The bank allegedly lost
confidence on Sadac.
H: S was deprived of due process. He was not a
retained lawyer but actually a in-house counsel, an
employee, of the company. As an employee, his
termination should satisfy both substantive (just
cause) and procedural (notice and hearing) due
process.
Page 27 of 56
Sir: Food for thought The Bank could have raised that
NLRC has no jurisdiction because this is an intra-
corporate dispute involving an officer of the
corporation (VP of Legal), jurisdiction was vested with
SEC during that time.
Uy v. COA
F: Gov. Paredes terminated some capitol employees.
They were later reinstated, with payment of
backwages. COA later on issued a decision that Gov. P
should pay the backwages because the dismissal was
done in bad faith.
H: P was denied due process. He is entitled to notice
and hearing in the proceedings before the COA. In any
case, there is no proof that the dismissal was in bad
faith.
(2) When Not Required
Suntay v. People
F: Suntay was accused of seduction. But before he was
formally charged, his passport was approved and he
was able to leave for the US. The court ordered DFA to
bring him back to the PHL for prosecution. His
passport was cancelled. S claimed that there should
have been a hearing.
H: No hearing required. The reason for cancellation
here is valid i.e. pending criminal charge (sir: the
undisputed fact!)) and the DFA is authorized to cancel
the passport so notice and hearing would be
unnecessary. It seems also that Suntay left the country
to evade prosecution.
Sir: If the admin action is based on an undisputed fact,
it would be senseless to hold a notice and hearing
procedure to prove that undisputed fact.
Bisschop v. Galang
F: Bs application for the extension of his stay in the
Philippines was denied due to his alleged gambling
activities and non-payment of taxes.
H: No notice and hearing required here. The
Immigration issue is purely executive in nature and is
not a matter of right.
Sir: When certain practices (i.e. request for extension)
are vested with the executive, notice and hearing are
not required. In any case, in the case of deportation he
should be given notice and hearing.
Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA
F: PAB issued an ex parte cease and desist order to
enjoin Solar from emitting wastewater to the Tullahan
river. The CA reversed the order and required that a
hearing be conducted first.
H: No hearing required here. The law allows PAB to
issue ex parte cease and desist orders especially
because great and irreparable injury will result if the
company is not immediately enjoined.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Sir: BESIDES, after the order is issued, Solar can make
a manifestation for a formal investigation this is a
HAPPY compromise! Lesson: There may be instances
when an agency is authorized to issue a cease and
desist order during emergency situations.
c. Form of and Promulgation of
Judgment
Indias v. Phil Iron Mines
F: Decision issued by the CIR adopted the
recommendations and findings of the Hearing
Examiner (CIR states that it made a careful perusal of
the record).
H: Valid decision. CIR merely adopted the examiners
findings, it will be useless to repeat it all.
Sir: Substantial compliance even if no strict discussion
of facts and law.
Serrano v. PSC
F: Application of Serrano in PSC to operate taxicabs
was summarily dismissed without stating whether the
dismissal was for failure to prosecute or failure to
qualify.
H: Invalid decision. Although PSC is not covered by
rigid rules of technical procedure, it still has to lay
basis for its decisions.
Solid Homes v. Laserna
F: HLURB directed the execution of the contract to sell
by S to Laserna. Upon appeal to the Office of the
President, the HLURB decision was affirmed in toto
and adopted by reference.
H: Valid decision. The SC said that the constitutional
rule on stating the facts and law of the decision need
not be strictly applied, however, due process principles
are already to be applied i.e. procedural due process.
In this case, the HLURB decision is attached to the OP
decision.
Sir: dockets of the President are also clogged, so this
practice (attaching) has been allowed.
Department of Health v. Camposano
F: OP issued a decision dismissing one of the
respondents then remanded the case to DOH for
proper action. DOH dismissed the other respondents
citing the OP decision.
H: Invalid decision. The OP decision is different as its
dismissal applies only to one of the respondents. DOH
should have conducted another investigation against
the other respondents.
American Tobacco, supra
H: Delegation to a hearing officer is allowed but
decision must be made by the head of the agency.
Albert v. Gangan
Page 28 of 56
H: COA disallowed the grant of a loan to NHFMC for the
Amako project due to alleged fraud. COA also held
Albert, head of NHFMC, liable.
F: Invalid decision. No reason given by COA as to why
Albert should be held liable.
Sir: Note also issues here re command responsibility of
a head of AA. This is a good ruling in public officer law
which provides a protective mantle to them who are
not negligent this is off topic. Clear violation of Ang
Tibay.
Arocha v. Vivo
F: Facts are in relation to the entry of the Gatchalians
to the Philippines.
H: As to the issue of whether the review of the
commissioners is antedated to comply with the one-
year prescriptive period to review the BSI decision?
No, it is not antedated, but there were merely clerical
corrections.
As to the practice of commissioners of merely noting
the decisions without discussion? The Court said thtat
this is not a valid decision because there should first be
deliberation among the commissioners.
Neria v. Commissioner of Immigration
H: Affirmed Arocha ruling (this is penned by Castro
who changed his mind in the next case)
Go Yu Tak Wai v. Vivo
(NB: Please read the original dahil mahalaga ito lalo na
yung dissent. Thanks.)
H: Affirmed Neria that the reckoning point of the one-
year prescriptive period for review is the date of
deliberation of the BSI decision and not the date of
promulgation.
Dissent (Teehankee): Reckoning point for the
prescriptive period should be the date of promulgation
for uniformity. Where there has been no appeal and
BOC conducts a review motu proprio of which the
applicant is likely unaware, both public policy and due
process demand that where no adverse decision is
promulgated within the one-year period, the decision
of BSI shall have become final. Otherwise, such one-
year period would be an elastic period and would have
no meaning because the parties can just expand it for
their purposes.
Sichangco v. Board of Commissioners of
Immigration
H: notice can come even after the one year period.
- Arocha rule still upheld: the decision in extenso will
retroact to the date of voting
- All that the Immigration Law requires is that the
decision of reversal of the Board of Commissioners be
promulgated within one year from the rendition of the
decision of the Board of Special Inquiry. Notice of said
decision of reversal may be sent even after the one-
year period has elapsed
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
3. Jurisdiction
- Note that if you file the case in the wrong forum, you
will be (as the saying goes) barking at the wrong tree.
The consequence is dismissal of the case. Also, take
note that the contest of jurisdiction is usually between
a regular court and an admin agencies, there may be
instances when the dispute is between the admin
agencies.
- Look also at the provision and amendments of the
law to see if jurisdiction is granted to the agency.
Determine also from the enabling law whether the
jurisdiction is exclusive or concurrent.
Go Tek v. Deportation Board
F: G was charged for possession of fake dollar checks.
During the pendency of the criminal case, the
prosecutor recommended that he be deported as an
undesirable alien. G contests because the there is a
pending criminal case against him.
H: The President has power to deport G regardless of a
lack of conviction in the criminal case. The President
may, by order after investigation, can order the
deportation.
Guy v. Ignacio
F: Sisters Guy were charged as undesirable aliens
before the Board so that they may be deported. They
sought intervention with the RTC and showed their
identification cards issued by the Board itself that they
are Filipinos.
H: There is substantial evidence in this case to allow
court intervention despite the undergoing proceedings
in the Board. The rationale is that the person sought to
be deported is entitled to live in peace.
Sir: General Rule: The claim of citizenship will not
divest the Board of jurisdiction to try the case. If you
lose the case, the next step is judicial intervention.
The exception is that if there is a substantial evidence
or conclusive evidence to prove your citizenship as
Filipino, the regular courts can intervene despite
pendency of the Board proceedings. But this is not
automatic, this is based on the discretion of the court.
Conditions of Chua Hiong:
1. The person has substantial or absolute
evidence
2. If he has the substantial evidence, it now rests
to the sound discretion of the court while the
case is pending
3. The case before the Board will suspend the
issue of citizenship (If the court ruled against
the alleged alien, the deportation proceeding
will continue)
Go v. Ramos
Page 29 of 56
F: Deportation proceedings against Go with evidence
that the entry in the birth certificate states that he is
actually a Chinese.
H: There is no substantial evidence for court
intervention during the pendency of the Board
proceedings.
Sir: Possible evidence for Chua Hiong doctrine:
1. Birth certificate
2. Proof that you have been allowed to vote
3. Proof of appointed/ elected as a government
official
4. Proof of ownership of lands
5. Authentic passport
Vera v. Cuevas
F: Filled milk controversy re lack of inscription in the
cans (that the milk is not suitable for infants). CIR and
the Fair Trade Board were contesting the jurisdiction
over the case.
H: Department of Health (i.e. Bureau of Food and
Drugs) has jurisdiction in this case because this is
related to health and not to taxation.
Dela Fuente v. De Veyra
F: A vessel containing smuggled cigarettes was seized.
The owner filed a case before the RTC to recover the
property from the Collector of Customs (seizure and
forfeiture proceeding). RTC assumed jurisdiction
because the Collector has no jurisdiction because the
seizure beyond the territorial limits.
H: The jurisdiction of the Collector is exclusive. If the
owner contends the territory/ international law issue,
it should have been raised before the Collector as a
defense.
Carino v. CHR
F: CHR assumed jurisdiction over a case of striking
teachers. DECS already ordered the teachers to return
to work but the teachers refused so they were later
dismissed. Despite this ruling, the CHR still take
cognizance on the case.
H: CHR merely has investigative and not adjudicatory
powers.
Simon Jr v. CHR
F: CHR assumed jurisdiction over the case of vendors
whose stalls were demolished by the city government
of QC. CHR issued an Order to Desist against the QC
officials.
H: CHR has no jurisdiction. The issuance of the Order
to Desist is nullified because it is not a quasi-judicial
agency. This does not involve civil and political rights
while this case involves business rights.
Sir: CHR = Paper Tiger!!! CHR can only investigate but
not adjudicate!
LLDA v. CA
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
F: LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order against the
city of Caloocan to close down a dumpsite which reeks
polluted water to Marilao River. Caloocan claims that it
has jurisdiction over the dump site.
H: There is a provision of law that LLDA can issue an
order in connection with pollution issues especially in
the Laguna Lake region. This is even if there is no
explicit wording re a cease and desist order.
Union Bank v. HLURB
F: The developer of the Europa Condos mortgaged the
property without the consent of the owner of the unit.
Developer contends that the law on HLURB is not
applicable because it occurs after the HLURB law was
enacted.
H: The applicable law is PD 957 which granted
jurisdiction over the case before the NHA. The NHA
jurisdiction was later transferred to the exclusive
jurisdiction of HLURB because this case involves a real
estate transaction i.e. sale of subdivision lots,
condominium units and real estate practices.
Sir: There is no issue on primary jurisdiction
(doctrine) if the jurisdiction is exclusive. This doctrine
is only applicable if there is a dispute re the
jurisdiction of agencies, or an agency and a regular
court.
Osea v. Ambrosio
F: O bought a house and lot unit from A. A month later,
there were cracks in the unit. O filed a case before the
Office of the Building Official of QC then a case for
damages before the RTC.
H: HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction in this case and
can also grant damages in relation to the case.
Mateo v. CA, Sta. Maria
F: MOWAD (Water district) employees filed a
complaint against the GM. GM was subsequently
dismissed. He filed a petition for Quo Warranto before
the RTC.
H: MOWAD is a quasi-public corporation created by
special law, PD 198. Appeal on the dismissal should be
brought to the CSC not to regular courts.
Sir: If it is an illegal dismissal case in the public sector,
file in the CSC (cf NLRC jurisdiction).
Q: X is an employee of a GOCC. He claims that he was
illegally dismissed. X wants to know where he would
file his illegal dismissal case?
Katz: It depends. If the GOCC has an original charter or
created by law, file with the CSC. If created under the
Corporation Code, without original charter, file with
the NLRC. (In any event, it is not with the RTC.)
cutting edge! (NB )
PAL v. CAB
F: Grand Air applied for a Temporary Operating Permit
with CAB. PAL opposed this because Grand Air has no
legislative franchise. CAB granted the application.
Page 30 of 56
H: CAB has jurisdiction in this case. A legislative
franchise is not required for issuance of temporary
operating permit.
Erstingcol v. CA
F: E was fined after allegedly violating the rules of
Urdaneta Village Association Inc. She filed a case
before the RTC to nullify said rules.
H: HLURB has jurisdiction on homeowners association
(even if considered an intra-corporate dispute within
the association as E is deemed a stockholder). Initially,
this kind of case is within SECs jurisdiction which was
transferred to HGIC then to HLURB. Although the
complaint on its face is for declaration of nullity which
is within RTCs jurisdiction, it is actually between a
homeowners assoc and a member thereof.
Sir: Jurisdiction issue can be raised anytime.
Deltaventures v. Cabato
F: NLRC issued a writ of execution on properties of D
in relation to a labor case to which D was not a party. D
filed a case for recovery in the RTC.
H: It falls under NLRC jurisdiction because this is an
incident of a labor case.
Sir: NLRC and RTC have concurrent (or co-equal siguro
ang ibig sabihin ni sir?) jurisdiction so RTC cannot
invalidate its order.
Arranza v. BF Homes
F: BF was under receivership after filing a petition for
rehabilitation in SEC. Subsequently, members of the BF
association files with the HLURB a class suit for BF to
provide their basic needs.
H: The jurisdiction of the two agencies are not in
conflict. There are two different cases. But the BF
homeowners correctly filed the case with the HLURB,
this is irrespective with the SEC case. In case this is a
monetary claim of CREDITORS, this should fall under
SEC jurisdiction, this case is one of specific
performance.
CDA v. Dolefil Cooperative
F: Members of Dolefile filed a complaint in CDA against
their officers for illegal disbursement of funds. CDA
freezed their account then ordered a suspension and a
new election.
H: CDA has no jurisdiction in this case. It was only
granted an administrative function and not quasi-
judicial.
De Jesus v. COA
F: COA ordered a disallowance for benefits received by
the officers of Catbalogan Water District. The officers
claim that the benefits are valid based on a LWUA
(another agency) resolution. Officers also allege that
DBM, not COA, has jurisdiction in the case.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
H: COA has jurisdiction to conduct an audit. LWUAs
reso contravenes the special law that created CWD
which prohibits these benefits.
Sir: Compared with COA Chairpersons recent order for
disallowance against PCSO.
CSC v. Alfonso
F: Teachers filed a complaint against the HR Director of
PUP for abuse of authority. Theu directly filed the case
with the CSC. A claimed that it is PUP Board of Regents
which had jurisdiction.
H: CSC has concurrent jurisdiction with the PUP BOR
(cf with exclusive jurisdiction of other agencies like
HLURB, Bureau of Customs etc.).
Sir: CSC itself may not conduct the investigation itself,
it can create a task force or order the PUP BOR itself.
Shell v. Jalos
F: Shell built a pipeline for natural gas from Palawan to
Batangas. Fishermen filed a class suit for damages with
the RTC.
H: The Pollution Adjudication Board has jurisdiction
because this will require technical expertise regarding
pollutants etc.
Sir: Where is the pollutant here?? Maybe the pipes will
traverse the path of the fishes.
Machado v. Gatdula
F: G filed a case in COSLAP for Ms alleged interference
of their right of way. COSLAP ruled for G.
H: COSLAP has no jurisdiction. This involves a dispute
over private property this is a civil case which should
have been filed in the RTC. (see elements of COSLAP
jurisdiction, infra)
Vda de Herrera v. Bernardo
F: B filed a case against H for alleged interference and
disturbance in their land with the COSLAP.
H: COSLAP has no jurisdiction. The following elements
for COSLAP to assume jurisdiction are not present in
this case:
a. The dispute between the parties is critical and
explosive in nature
b. It involves a large number of parties
c. There is a presence or emergence of social
tension or unrest
4. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
arising from the same (Jamie)
2 causes of action arising out of the same set
of facts wherein 2 cases ensure (1)
administrative case and (2) criminal case,
however the quantum of evidence for each is
different
Galang v. CA
Page 31 of 56
Facts: Tee Hook Chun was charged with an
administrative case for violating the Phil Immigration
Act Sec 29 (a).
He was also charged with a criminal case for violating
Sec 45(e).
WON Tee Hook Chun, for being charged with a
criminal case, may no longer be punished with
exclusion which is the necessary penalty of the first
case since he has to wait for the rendition of a
judgment in the first case and completion of the
service of penalty imposed on him if found guilty of the
criminal charge.
Held: NO. The two proceedings do not nullify one
another since their conflict is only physical. If he is
convicted in both cases, the penalties will be served
successively and there will be no renunciation of either
of the penalties. This means that if he is guilty of the
criminal case, but the penalty does not include
exclusion, he may still be penalized with exclusion if
found guilty in the first case. The power of exclusion
under section 29(a) (17) is not set aside, waived or lost
upon institution of the criminal case. The
administrative proceeding for deportation shall be
"independent of the criminal action" for violation of
said section 45. The acquittal of the accused in said
criminal action would not bar his deportation under
the same provision, by the Commissioner of
Immigration.
CO San v. Director of Patents
Facts: Bio was issued two patents.
Co San filed an administrative case to nullify the
patents which was dismissed.
Co San filed a case in the regular courts for unfair
competition where the CA acquitted Bio.
Co San claims that Director of Patents is bound in the
cancellation proceedings by the findings arrived at by
the Court of Appeals in the Criminal case against
petitioner.
Held: Director of Patents is not bound by the findings
of the CA in the unfair competition case. In the
cancellation proceedings the question refers to the
validity of the design patents while in the criminal case
the inquiry is whether Co San unfairly competed
against the luggage of Co San protected by design
patent No. 7. The two cases fall under different
jurisdictions. The failure of the trial court, in a civil
suit, to admit in evidence a former judgment of
acquittal in a criminal action against the defendant is
not error. A judgment of acquittal in a criminal action
for fraudulent registration of a trademark in violation
of Section 18 of Act No. 666, cannot be invoked as res
judicata in a civil action based on unfair and malicious
competition on the ground that the facts of the latter
are different and have not been passed upon in the
judgment rendered in the former case.
Villanes v. Subido
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Facts: Two teachers filed a criminal case against
Subido for libel and was found guilty.
They also filed an administrative case against Subido
and she was found guilty.
Should admin case take precedence from the criminal
case where Subido was found guilty that admin case
should be decided in the same manner?
Held: CA decision is not enough basis for the Dep Ed to
decide on the administrative case. The CA decision was
never presented, even informally, as evidence during
the investigation. A condemnatory decision in a
criminal case, even if final, by itself alone, cannot serve
as basis for a decision in an administrative case
involving the same facts, for the simple reason that
matters that are material in the administrative case are
not necessarily relevant in the criminal case. So,
notwithstanding that findings in criminal cases must
be beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot be conclusive
for administrative purposes. There are defenses,
excuses and attenuating circumstances of value in
administrative proceedings which are not admissible
in the trial of the criminal cases.
Sir: If the ordinary courts dismiss the criminal case, it
does not necessarily mean that the administrative case
will also be dismissed
PNR v. Domingo
Facts: Mafe was charged with qualified theft where he
was acquitted. Mafe filed a motion for amendment of
the decision alleging that Mafe had already been
dismissed from PNR w/ prejudice to reinstatement per
PNRs board of directors resolution because of the
crime for which he was acquitted. Mafe, was held
guilty in the administrative case against him. However,
the court handling the criminal case ruled on the wage
of Mafe.
Held: Court handling the criminal case has no power to
do so. Generally, acquittal in the criminal case does not
carry with it relief from administrative liability. The
administrative case may generally proceed against a
respondent independently of a criminal action for the
same act or omission and requires only a
preponderance of evidence to establish administrative
guilt as against proof beyond reasonable doubt of the
criminal charge, as in the analogous cases provided by
Art. 33 of the Civil Code. Neither the Revised Penal
Code nor the Rules of Court on criminal procedure
vests a court w/c acquitted a defendant of a criminal
charge the power to grant salary to the defendant
during his suspension. The latter should be resolved in
an appropriate proceedings whether civil or
administrative
Sir: Consigna ruling One was found innocent for
absolute lack of evidence. If conviction carries with it
dismissal, acquittal under these circumstances should
carry with it reinstatement.
This is the deviant ruling because there was
finding that there was an absolute lack of evidence.
Page 32 of 56
Otherwise, the Dallion ruling holds that criminal courts
cannot rule on salaries of the defendant.
Tan v. COMELEC
Facts: Tan was a prosecutor in Davao who was
designated by COMELEC as Vice Chair of the City Bd of
Canvassers of Davao. Alterado field an electroral
protest in HRET which was dismissed. A criminal case
for Falsification of Public Documents and Violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed
against Tan in the Ombudsman. An administrative case
was filed against Tan for Misconduct, Neglect of Duty,
Gross Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the Service
which was instituted with the COMELEC.
Held: Alterado did not resort to forum shopping. The
investigation then being conducted by the Ombudsman
on the criminal case for falsification and violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, on the one
hand, and the inquiry into the administrative charges
by the COMELEC, on the other hand, are entirely
independent proceedings. Neither would the results in
one conclude the other. Thus, an absolution from a
criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative
prosecution or vice versa.
Sir: Additional issue - All the COMELEC can do is
recommend to the Sec of Justice who will consider
what the imposition of the appropriate disciplinary
penalty is
Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman
Facts: NIACONSULT filed an administrative case before
Ocampo for serious misconduct and/or fraud or willful
breach of trust and was discharged from service. A
criminal case was filed against Ocampo for estafa and
falsification which was dismissed. Ocampo claims that
the admin case can no longer stand on its own as the
case was already dismissed.
Held: The dismissal of the criminal case will not
foreclose administrative action filed against petitioner
or give him a clean bill of health in all respects. The
Regional Trial Court, in dismissing the criminal
complaint, was simply saying that the prosecution was
unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt, a condition sine qua non for
conviction. The lack or absence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any
evidence whatsoever for there is another class of
evidence which, though insufficient to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in civil cases;
this is preponderance of evidence. There is the
"substantial evidence" rule in administrative
proceedings which merely requires such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. Considering the
difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the
procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in
criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
and conclusions in one should not necessarily be
binding on the other.
Miralles v. Go
Facts: An administrative complaint was filed before the
Office of the Hearing Officer of NAPOLCOM against
petitioner Manuel Miralles for Grave Misconduct
where he was found guilty. A criminal case for
homicide was filed against him but he was acquitted.
Miralles claims that his dismissal in the criminal case
was conclusive of his innocence.
Held: NO. An administrative proceeding is different
from a criminal case and may proceed independently
thereof. Indeed, the quantum of proof in the latter is
different, such that the verdict in one need not
necessarily be the same as in the other. It should be
emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case
will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the
administrative case. Conversely, respondents acquittal
does not necessarily exculpate him administratively. In
the same vein, the trial courts finding of civil liability
against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a
similar finding in the administrative action before this
Court. Neither will a favorable disposition in the civil
action absolve the administrative liability of the
lawyer. The basic premise is that criminal and civil
cases are altogether different from administrative
matters, such that the disposition in the first two will
not inevitably govern the third and vice versa.
Ferrer, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
Facts: An admin and criminal complaint against Sec
3(e) RA 3019 was filed against Ferrer in the SB. Admin
case was dismissed. Ferrer claims that the
Sandiganbayan should have dismissed the criminal
case filed against him, since the alleged wrongful acts
complained of in the case are the same as those alleged
in the administrative case against him which have
been dismissed.
Held: NO. One act can give rise to administrative and
criminal liability. The criminal case against petitioner,
already filed and pending with the Sandiganbayan,
may proceed despite the dismissal of the
administrative case arising out of the same acts. The
same rule applies even to those cases that have yet to
be filed in court. If the SB would wait for the decision
of the criminal case, it would lessen the jurisdiction of
the SB and toll the proceedings, and they have
different causes of action and quantum of evidence.
Absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an
administrative prosecution, or vice versa. The basis of
administrative liability differs from criminal liability.
The purpose of administrative proceedings is mainly
to protect the public service, based on the time-
honored principle that a public office is a public trust.
On the other hand, the purpose of the criminal
prosecution is the punishment of crime. One of the
Page 33 of 56
grounds for the dismissal of the administrative case
against petitioners is the fact that they were re-elected
to office. The re-election of a public official
extinguishes only the administrative, but not the
criminal, liability incurred by him during his previous
term of office. Administrative liability is separate and
distinct from penal and civil liabilities. The court is
duty-bound to exercise its independent judgment. t is
not ousted of its jurisdiction by the ruling in the
administrative proceeding. It is axiomatic that when
the court obtains jurisdiction over a case, it continues
to retain it until the case is terminated.
Sir:
Exception: Larin case There was a criminal case in
the SB where he was found guilty. It was elevated to
the SC, the SC ruled that defendant did not commit any
illegal or irregular act. The administrative case then
pending was dismissed because it had no leg to stand
on anymore.
As applied in this case Larin does not apply. The
administrative case was filed independently of the
criminal case. The administrative case was not filed on
the basis of a criminal conviction, as in fact, the
administrative case was dismissed without regard for
the results of the criminal case.
5. Rules of Evidence
Points to remember: Agencies are created with
dispatch not like courts therefore they should be free
from technical rules of procedure. They should have
the freedom to adopt the procedure that will help them
to collate evidence in order to decide the facts
judiciously and fairly without sacrificing procedural
DP or an opportunity to be heard.
Sometimes an agency will also make use of
technical rules of procedure if it is necessary to resolve
the case judiciously or fairly.
So do not leave the door completely closed
when it comes to the option of the agency to apply
rules of procedure to cases from time to time in a
suppletory way
Acuzar v. Jorolan
Facts: Jorolan filed Administrative Case No. 2000-01
against Acuzar before the PLEB for Grave Misconduct
where he was found guilty. A criminal case against
Acuzar before the Municipal Trial Court of New Corella
for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act
No. 7610, otherwise known as the Child Abuse Act.
Acuzar claims that what he filed was a violation of law
therefore PLEB can only act on the admin case once he
is found guilty for a violation of law.
Held: NO. The respondents affidavit-complaint against
petitioner would show that petitioner was charged
with grave misconduct for engaging in an illicit affair
with respondents minor daughter, he being a married
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
man, and not for violation of law, as petitioner would
like to convince this Court. Misconduct generally
means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct,
motivated by premeditated, obstinate or intentional
purpose. It usually refers to transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, where no
discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it
does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal
intention but implies wrongful intention and not to
mere error of judgment. On the other hand, violation
of law presupposes final conviction in court of any
crime or offense penalized under the Revised Penal
Code or any special law or ordinance. Criminal and
administrative cases are separate and distinct from
each other. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is needed whereas in administrative
proceedings, only substantial evidence is required.
Verily, administrative cases may proceed
independently of criminal proceedings. The PLEB,
being the administrative disciplinary body tasked to
hear complaints against erring members of the PNP,
has jurisdiction over the case.
While there is flexibility, there is also a limit
Estate of Buan v. Pambusco
Facts: Buan applied for certificates of public
convenience to extend its services. After hearing the
parties and their evidence, the Commission ordered its
agents to conduct an on the spot survey of the
passenger traffic along those lines. The Commission
used all of these information as basis to deny the
application.
Held: A survey may be conducted in order to verify the
truth between conflicting claims and but not to
supplant actual trial.
Rizal Light Co. v. Mun. Of Rizal
Facts: The Commission investigated the electric plant
and installations of Rizal Light for non-compliance
with regulations of the Commission and violations of
conditions of its certificate of public convenience. The
report said that indeed Rizal light was guilty. Rizal
Light now claims that the evidence-consisting of
inspection reports upon which the Commission based
its decision is insufficient and untrustworthy in that
(1) the authors of said reports had not been put to test
by way of cross-examination; (2) the reports constitute
only one side of the picture as petitioner was not able
to present evidence in its defense
Held: The Commission based its decision on the
inspection reports submitted by its engineers who
conducted the inspection of petitioner's electric
service upon orders of the Commission.Said inspection
reports specify in detail the deficiencies incurred, and
violations committed, by the petitioner resulting in the
inadequacy of its service. These reports, are not mere
documentary proofs presented for the consideration of
Page 34 of 56
the Commission, but are the results of the
Commission's own observations and investigations
which it can rightfully take into consideration.
Petitioner should not complain because it had waived
not only its right to cross-examine but also its right to
present evidence.
Borja v. Moreno
Facts: An admin case was filed against Borja et al for
demolition of dams and dikes along Macabee river.
Department of Public Works and Communications
ordered an investigation which found Borja guilty.
Borja claims that the investigation constituted a
usurpation of judicial power and hence beyond the
jurisdiction of respondent Secretary and it was
conducted with GAD and in violation of due process.
Held: YES. Yonzon, upon a mere oral notice, conducted
an ocular inspection of the questioned stream without
giving appellee Borja sufficient time to prepare
therefor. Yonzon did not limit himself to inspecting the
premises but proceeded to conduct a hearing by
questioning the witnesses who had testified the day
before. Yonzon clearly abused his discretion in riding
roughshod over appellee's right to a fair hearing for
conducting an ocular inspection motu proprio and
interrogating witnesses during the same. This was
considered a violation of DP.
Maceda v. ERB
Facts: Maceda wants to nullify the provisional increase
of ERB in price of oil. Maceda wanted to cross-examien
witnesses but ERB ruled that witnesses will put down
in affidavits first and that Maceda will only have the
right to cross-examine after all evidence has been
presented.
Held: The order of testimony both with respect to the
examination of the particular witness and to the
general course of the trial is within the discretion of
the ERB court and the exercise of this discretion in
permitting to be introduced out of the order
prescribed by the rules is not improper as per Sec 2
Rule 1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for the
ERB. This relaxed procedure is especially true in
administrative bodies such as the ERB, which in
matters of rate-fixing, is considered as exercising
quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial, function. As such
administrative agency, it is not bound by the strict or
technical rules of evidence governing court
proceedings.
Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottles Phils. Inc.
Facts: 62 employees' complaint for illegal dismissal
was dismissed OTG that during trial, some of the
petitioners (Romero, Espina, and Bantolino) were not
cross-examined. Petitioners argue that the CA should
not have given weight to respondents claim of failure
to cross-examine them.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Held: The argument that the affidavit is hearsay
because the affiants were not presented for cross-
examination is not persuasive because the rules of
evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings
before administrative bodies like the NLRC where
decisions may be reached on the basis of position
papers only. Art. 221 of the Labor Code, the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. LA
and the NLRC are authorized to adopt reasonable
means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and
objectively and without regard to technicalities of law
and procedure, all in the interest of due process.
Administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by
the technical niceties of law and procedure and the
rules obtaining in courts of law.
CSC v. Colangco
Facts: CSC conducted an investigation and found out
the someone took the teacher's exam for Colangco.
Colangco claims that the pieces of evidence against him
were inadmissible as they were unauthenticated
photocopies of the PBET application form, picture seat
plan and PDS.
Held: NO, they are admissible. The CSC correctly
appreciated the photocopies of PBET application form,
picture seat plan and PDS (though not duly
authenticated) in determining whether there was
sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against
the respondent. Respondent never objected to the
veracity of their contents. He merely disputed their
admissibility on the ground that they were not
authenticated. The CSC carefully evaluated the
allegations against respondent and thoroughly
examined and weighed the evidence submitted for its
consideration. Administrative rules of procedure are
construed liberally to promote their objective and to
assist parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of their respective claims and defenses.
Do not be lost with the guiding star of Judicial Review!
(Carlota, 2013)
V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS
The exercise of administrative powers can
lead to GAD therefore there is this constant
need to see to it that the AAs do not abuse
their powers and that they stay within the
scope of their authority intra vires. The only
way to do this effectively is through judicial
review.
The most effective check and balance/control
mechanism when dealing with AAs is judicial
review
Page 35 of 56
 A. FACTORS AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
Switchmens Union Of North America v. National
Mediation Board
Facts: The Board directed an election in a yard,
designating all yardmen as participants. The
organization that lost filed a complaint challenging the
Board's authority to determine as to participants in the
election. Is there judicial review of the decisions of the
Board?
Held: No. There can be judicial review of the decisions
of administrative agencies only if authorized by the
Congress. Where no judicial review was provided by
Congress, the Supreme Court has often refused to
furnish one even where questions of law might be
involved such as in this case. Where Congress has not
expressly authorized judicial review, the following
become highly relevant in determining whether
judicial may nonetheless be supplied:
(1) The type of problem involved and
(2) The history of the statute in question. The
dispute was to reach its last terminal point when the
administrative finding was made. There was to be no
dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of
law.
Sir: FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS:
(1) The nature of the subject matter
and legislative intent is a
FACTOR that would provide
guidance if judicial intervention
is proper or not.
(2) The nature of the controversy is
about a union recognition for
purposes of collective
bargaining.
(3) The nature of the subject matter
in this case lends itself for quick
resolution such as mediation.
Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council Inc
Facts: Congress already gave AAs the power to define
statutory source. Can the judiciary still intervene?
Held: A court may not construe or interpret a statutory
provision when the Congress expressly delegated the
agency to interpret a specific provision of a statute. If
Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill,
there is an express delegation of authority to the
agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute
by regulation. In such a case, a court may not
substitute its own construction of a statutory provision
or a reasonable interpretation made by the
administrator or agency.
Sir: This is an interpretation that accommodates
industry
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS: Agency interpretation of a term or action
is a policy choice and the court should not intervene in
this.
General rule: If the agency interpretation is not
outrightly unreasonable and the ultimate analysis of
the policy choice the Congress does not expressly
prohibit it from doing so, then the judiciary should
adopt an attitude of restraint in reversing such policy
choice of the AA.
Exception: Unless the policy choice is inextricably
linked to questions of law.
Ratio: Policy choice is not judicial business. Making
policy choices should be left with the AAs.
Fortich v. Corona
Facts: LGUs reclassified units, but OP decision held that
it was not subject to approval of DAR. OP Decision was
declared by the same office as final and executory for
having filed MR beyond the 15-day reglementary
period, yet OP still opened the case wherein the land
was divided between the industrial development of the
landowners and farmers.
Held: No. Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18,
dated February 12, 1987, which mandates that
"decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the
President shall, except as otherwise provided for by
special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15)
days from receipt of a copy thereof . . ., unless a motion
for reconsideration thereof is filed within such period."
There is nothing wrong with referring the decision to
the departments concerned for the preparation of the
motion for reconsideration, but in doing so, the DAR
must not disregard the reglementary period fixed by
law, rule or regulation. The rules relating to
reglementary period should not be made subservient
to the internal office procedure of an administrative
body.
Sir: FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
If an administrative decision has already becomes final
and executory, judicial review is impossible no
longer available
Antique Sawmill, Inc, v, Zayco
Facts: A public bidding was conducted for the award of
a forest area which was divided equally between Zayco
and Antique Sawmills, Inc. Zayco filed MR outside the
30-day reglementary period. Despite this, Zayco still
appealed this to OP and OP still issued a decision that
the forest area be awarded only to Zayco. Antique
Sawmill claims that the decision of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources has become final
and the OP had no jurisdiction to issue that decision
after the 30-day reglementary period had lapsed.
Held: NO. Compliance with the period provided by law
for the perfection of an appeal is not merely
Page 36 of 56
mandatory by also a jurisdictional requirement. Such
failure has the effect of rendering final the judgment of
the court, and the certification of the record on appeal
thereafter cannot restore the jurisdiction which has
been lost. A regulation adopted pursuant to law has the
force and effect of law. Administrative regulations be
given the same force as rules of court in order to
maintain the regularity of administrative proceedings.
Proceedings already terminated should not be altered
at every step. Judgment of courts should become final
at some definite date fixed by law. The very object for
which courts were instituted was to put an end to
controversy.
Sir: FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: If an administrative
decision has already becomes final and executory,
judicial review is impossible no longer available
Sotto v. Ruiz
Facts: The question of law involved in this case is WON
the publication was libellous.
Held: The decision whether or not this is libellous is to
be determined by the Court as it involves an
interpretation of the law therefore there is judicial
review. No it was not libelous. The propriety of a
periodical distributing copies of a confidential
telegram sent by one official to another may well be
questioned. But to do so is not libelous per se. Even the
squib following the copy of the telegram is no more
than attempted humor and would not be taken
seriously by the reading public.
Sir: FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: If it involves a question
of law, judicial review is available.
Ratio: Because the judiciary is the final interpreter of
the law and not the AA.
Uy v. Palomar
Facts: The question of law is WON the Grand Christmas
Bonus Draw is gambling.
Held: The decision whether or not it is gambling is to
be determined by the Court as it involves an
interpretation of the law therefore there is judicial
review. The Postal Law contains no provision for
judicial review of the decision of the Postmaster
General, but it does not mean that judicial review is not
available. For as long as there is a question of law, it
will be subject to judicial review. No it is not gambling
because there was no consideration.
Sir: FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: If it involves a question
of law, judicial review is available.
Ratio: Because the judiciary is the final interpreter of
the law and not the AA.
Manuel v. Villena
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Facts: Manuel sought annulment of the decision of said
public officials rejecting his application for a Tree Farm
Permit
Held: Administrative proceedings may be reviewed by
the courts upon a showing that "the board or official
has gone beyond his statutory authority, exercised
unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily
and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of
discretion" or that the decision is vitiated by fraud,
imposition or mistake. This did not occur in this case.
Sir: FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: If the matter is one
entrusted to the decision of the AA and there was no
grave abuse of discretion then there is no judicial
review needed.
San Miguel Corp. v. Sec of Labor
Facts: Yanglay was dismissed by his company for
illegal trafficking of medicines. LA and NLRC held
Yanglay was illegally dismissed. The company filed MR.
Yanglay claims that CA has no jurisdiction over the
case as judicial review is not provided for in
Presidential Decree No. 21.
Held: No. It is generally understood that as to
administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or
legislative power there is an underlying power in the
courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on
questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right
of review is given by statute. The purpose of judicial
review is to keep the administrative agency within its
jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties
affected by its decisions. It is part of the system of
checks and balances which restricts the separation of
powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust
adjudications. Judicial review is proper in case of lack
of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law,
fraud or collusion. Yanglay should not have been
dismissed as he should have only been penalized with
appropriate disciplinary action.
Sir: FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: Even though the law is
silent, there will still be judicial review in case of lack
of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law,
fraud or collusion.
UCPB v. E. Guanzon
Facts: EGI loaned from UCPB and defaulted. EGI filed
with the BSP an administrative complaint for
violations of Sec. 368 and 379 of RA 6753 (Article IV of
the New Central Bank Act) in relation to RA 8791
(General Banking Law of 2000) and for the
commission of irregularities and conducting business
in an unsafe or unsound manner. DISMISSED. An
appeal in the CA remanded the case. WON CA has
appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the
BSP/Monetary Board
Page 37 of 56
Held: Yes. There is nothing in RA No. 7653 or in RA No.
8791 which explicitly allows an appeal of the decisions
of the BSP Monetary Board to the CA. However, this
shall not mean that said decisions are beyond judicial
review. The CA has appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, orders, resolutions or awards of the BSP
Monetary Board on administrative complaints against
banks and quasi-banks, which the former acquires
through the filing by the aggrieved party of a Petition
for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Sir: FACTOR AFFECTING FINALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: CA has jurisdiction over
decision of quasi-judicial agencies.
B. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES (cielo)
- This is a very basic principle in administrative law.
This is relevant in determining whether judicial
intervention is necessary.
- what is the purpose of this doctrine? This has both
practical and legal reasons. Practical: agency can
correct its own error. You are spared of unnecessary
waste and expense. Legal reason: when the law
prescribes certain levels of administrative
appeal/remedy, that is a requirement of the law that
must be complied with. There is also the principle of
comity (i.e. expedient courtesy) as a cogent reason
behind the doctrine. Also, this will facilitate unclogging
of the dockets of the courts.
- what will be the effect of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies?
Dismissal of complaint (MTD for failure to state cause
of action - premature)
NB: judge cannot motu proprio dismiss on this ground.
If the other party does not file MTD, court will go on
with the complaint. This is NOT jurisdictional. It is an
affirmative defense which can be waived by the other
party.
- this rule has many exceptions. It is mandatory that
you remember all of the exceptions provided by
jurisprudence. Note the framework if GR, the rule was
applied, if XPN, then there is an exception applicable
Pascual v. Provincial Board - XPN
F: P was charged for an offense allegedly committed in
a previous term. He went to CFI for Prohibition
because he cannot be charged for an offense
committed in his previous term.
H: The rule (exhaustion) cannot be applied.
GR: Where the law has delineated the procedure by
which administrative appeal or remedy could be
effected, the same should be followed before recourse
to judicial action can be initiated
XPN: The question in dispute is purely a legal one, and
nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
done. In this case, the legal question is whether he can
be held liable for an offense committed in the previous
term.
NB: also popular for the Condonation doctrine in the
law on public officers
Alzate v. Aldana XPN
F: The principal wanted to recover his salary increase
but pending appeal to the Bureau of Public Schools, he
went to CFI for Mandamus.
H: This case is under an exception so rule is not
applied:
XPN: urgency of the action; when exhaustion of
administrative remedies would amount to nullification
of the claim. The rule will not be applied if application
would amount to a nullificiation of the claim because,
for example time is of the essence. In this case, the
funds will revert to the national treasury.
Cipriano v. Marcelino XPN
F: C resigned as record clerk and she seeks to recover
P949 equivalent to commutation of her leaves. C went
to CFI for Mandamus.
H: This is under an exception:
XPN: Party need not exhaust administrative remedies
if to require him to do so would be patently oppressive
or unreasonable. Going all the way to the President, he
would spend more than what she is seeking. This is not
a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
Corpus v. Cuaderno XPN
F: C was deemed resigned even if no sufficient
evidence was found on the charge against him. He filed
a Quo warranto petition in the CFI.
H: This is under an excpetion:
XPN: When the administrative remedy available is
merely permissive, then the party can seek judicial
relief right away (also apply generalia specialibus non
derogate). In this case, the permissive remedy is an
appeal to the Civil Service Commission from the
Monetary Board.
De Lara v. Cloribel XPN
F: PE logging corporation filed a Petition for Injuntion
in CFI while its case against De Lara in the DENR re a
logging concession was pending.
H: The rule does not apply.
XPN: the rule is inapplicable if it should appear that an
irreparable damage and injury will be suffered by a
party if he should await, before taking court action, the
final action of the administrative official concerned on
the matter. In this case, De Lara is continuously
obtaining logs from the concession pending appeal to
DENR.
- party need not exhaust administrative remedies if by
doing so he will suffer irreparable damage or injury
Page 38 of 56

Paredes v. CA - GR
F: P filed a Petition for Prohibition in the RTC re the
increased fees proposed by the Bureau of Patents.
H: The GR applies.
GR: Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure
for administrative review, and provides a system of
administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts,
for reasons of law, comity and convenience, will not
entertain a case unless the available administrative
remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
authorities have been given opportunity to act and
correct the errors committed in the administrative
forum.
In this case, since the challenged
administrative orders have not yet been submitted to
the Cabinet for its consideration and approval, this
Court finds it untimely to discuss and resolve the
merits of the questions of whether or not the rate
increases and charges are just and reasonable... Courts
should be reluctant to interfere with administrative
action prior to its completion or finality, the reason
being that absence of a final order or decision, the
power of the administrative agency concerned has not
been fully exercised and there can be no irreparable
harm.
Sir: remember this case, because later on SC will say
that the doctrine applies only to quasi-judicial
functions of administrative agencies. But here, what is
involved is rule-making, a quasi-legislative function.
Strictly speaking, the applicable doctrine is "ripeness",
not exhaustion. Ripeness pertains to policy or rule
making. THIS COULD BE ASKED IN THE BAR. Suspend
your curiosities!
Quasha v. SEC XPN
F: Q was contesting the conversion of the Manila Polo
Club and the sale of proprietary shares for only 12,500.
Instead of going to SEC en banc, after the decision of
the SEC, it filed a case in the CFI for Injunction.
H: The GR does not apply.
XPN: When the administrative remedy provided is not
a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
- In view of the limited time, and considering the
issuance of the order denying injunctive relief only at
the height of the Christmas holidays, petitioner
properly filed directly with the Court without going
through the prescribed procedure of filing before the
SEC en banc within the 30-day reglementary period
since such recourse would not be a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.
- another case where time is of the essence.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan XPN
F: Private respondents filed a petition in the SC (which
was forwarded to the Sandiganbayan) against the
sequestration orders issued by the PCGG.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
XPN: when there is estoppel on the part of the party
invoking the doctrine
- PCGG is already barred by laches in filing its MTD
seven years after the institution of the petition, when
all that is left for it to do is to make a formal offer of
evidence. There is an exception to this exception, the
Ocampo case, filed the MTD just after the Answer was
filed.
Paat v. CA GR
F: A truck was confiscated by DENR. While the appeal
on the case was pending, the owner filed a replevin
suit in the CFI.
H: GR was applied. If a remedy within the
administrative machinery can still be resorted to by
giving the administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within
his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted
first before courts judicial power can be sought.
- Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies:
(1) when there is a violation of due process,
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question,
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned
(5) when there is irreparable injury, - De Lara v.
Cloribel
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary
whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the
implied and assumed approval of the latter,
(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable, - Cipriano v.
Marcelino
(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim -
Alzate v. Aldana
(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land
case proceedings
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy, and
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial intervention
Lopez v. City of Manila GR
F: L filed before CFI a declaration of nullity of an
Ordinance where his real property is assessed and
increased up to 580%.
H: GR applies. Where the law provides for the
remedies against the action of an administrative board,
body, or officer, relief to courts can be sought only
after exhausting all remedies provided. The reason
rests upon the presumption that the administrative
body, if given the chance to correct its mistake or
error, may amend its decision on a given matter and
decide it properly.
Page 39 of 56
 Therefore, where a remedy is available within
the administrative machinery, this should be resorted
to before resort can be made to the courts, not only to
give the administrative agency the opportunity to
decide the matter by itself correctly, but also to
prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts.
This rule, however, admits certain exceptions (see lists
supra).
Remedies he should have availed of before
going to court :
1.) The taxpayer may question the constitutionality or
legality of tax ordinance on appeal within thirty (30)
days from effectivity thereof, to the Secretary of
Justice. The petitioner after finding that his assessment
is unjust, confiscatory, or excessive, must have brought
the case before the Secretary of Justice for
question of legality or constitutionality of the city
ordinance.
2.) Under Section 226 of R.A. 7160, an owner of real
property who in not satisfied with the assessment of
his property may, within sixty (60) days from notice of
assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment
Appeals.
3.) Should the taxpayers question the excessiveness of
the amount of tax, he must first pay the amount due, in
accordance with Section 252 of R.A. 7160. Then, he
must request the annotation of the phrase "paid under
protest" and accordingly appeal to the Board of
Assessment Appeals by filing a petition under oath
together with copies of the tax declarations and
affidavits or documents to support his appeal.
Garcia v. CA GR
F: G was dismissed by PCA due to a charge of
irregularity committed by him. Instead of appealing to
the CSC, he filed a petition for Injunction in the RTC
which the RTC granted.
H: GR applied. Remedy he bypassed: appeal the
resolution of the PCA to the CSC.
- No violation of right to due process because he was
given opportunity to be heard.
Sir: This case is about the gold mine called Buko Juice!
But back to the case, the rule is that failure to exhaust
admin remedies is not jurisdictional, if no MTD is filed,
the court will go on, it is passive so it will only rule on
the issue brought to its attention. What you should do
is to immediately file a MTD, otherwise, the court will
deem failure to file as a waiver.
Dep't. of Agrarian Reform v. Apex Investment
XPN
F: As lands were subject to compulsory acquisition by
DAR municipal office. After appeal to the Provincial
office (PARO), the case was only forwarded to DAR
after a year. When he learned that his titles had been
cancelled. He filed a petition for certiorari in the CA.
H: The rule does not apply.
XPN: urgency of judicial intervention
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
- Among others, it is disregarded where, as in this case,
(a) there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention; and (b) the administrative action
is patently illegal and amounts to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
- DAR started distributing the lands of respondent, and
Register of Deeds started canceling its titles. Under
these circumstances, there is no need for him to wait
for the resolution of its Protest in the DAR because
DAR would, in the meantime, distribute its land
Smart Communications v. NTC XPN
F: NTC issued memoranda re billing and sale of goods.
Petitioners filed for a writ of injunction to enjoin NTC
from implementing said memo because it was DTIs
function to regulate sale of cellphones etc.
H: The rule was not applied.
XPN: In cases involving rule-making or quasi-
legislative powers of an administrative agency
- In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a
rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency,
a party need not exhaust administrative remedies
before going to court. This principle applies only
where the act of the administrative agency concerned
was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function,
and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-
making or quasi-legislative power.
- But see Paredes v. CA (which involved rate-fixing
subject to approval of the Cabinet or quasi-legislative
power), where the doctrine was applied. But Sir said
the settled rule is here in smart, doctrine of exhaustion
is applicable only in quasi-judicial proceedings. The
proper objection in rate fixing is the doctrine of
"ripeness."
Estrada v. CA GR
F: Petitioners filed a Petition for Injunction and
Damages in the RTC against the Private Respondents
awarded a contract for development and operation of
a cement plant which will allegedly cause pollution and
nuisance.
H: The rule was applied. Petitioners should have went
to the PAB under the DENR, which has jurisdiction and
power to issue the remedies they were seeking
(injunction)
Regino v. Pangasinan College of Science and
Technology XPN
F: R was required to pay for dance tickets. Because of
his meager means and membership in a religious
denomination prohibiting them from joining dances
(siguro Jehovahs Witness), he protested but the
teachers would not allow him to take the exam. He file
an action for damages.
H: XPN is that this is a purely legal question. DEAR
does not even apply because the case is one for
damages, exclusively within the jurisdiction of regular
Page 40 of 56
courts, and not for administrative relief in overturning
the policy of PCST (which should be brought to CHED)
Flores v. Sanggunian - GR
F: F was accused of malversation before the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The Sanggunian
recommended to Gov. Lapid that Flores be penalized.
Before the Lapid could respond, F filed a case before
the CA for certiorari and mandamus. H: F should have
waited for the decision of the Governor of Pampanga
or the decision of the Sanggunian could be appealed to
the OP.
CSC v. DBM XPN
F: CSC went to SC for Mandamus for failure of DBM to
release its funds.
H: The rule does not apply.
XPN: There was no obligation on the part of CSC to first
go to the DBM for an opinion re: definition of "fiscal
autonomy" before going to court. Moreover, the
question posed is a pure question of law, which you
can bring to the court immediately.
Obisca v. Basallote - GR
H: CSC decision became final and executory because he
did not file an MR within the prescribed period.
C. PRIMARY JURISDICTION OR
PRELIMINARY RESORT
- courts tend to use primary jurisdiction and exclusive
jurisdiction (on the basis of expertise) in the same
vein. Sir disagrees. He emphasized that DOPJ
developed as a guide to the judge when to yield
jurisdiction when the matter involves administrative
expertise which you do not have. This is the purpose
of the doctrine. If it is applied in this manner, then it is
DOPJ in play. But application by some other manner,
e.g. cases which requires preliminary determination by
administrative agencies (I.e. Philippine Veterans case),
is another rule altogether other than doctrine of
primary jurisdiction. Sir seems to say that evenif the
courts are confused in its application, you shouldn't
muddle the concept.
Texas Pacific Railway v. Abilene Cotton
F: A was using the services of the railway company for
the shipment of its cotton oil. A filed a case before the
court questioning the reasonableness of the rate.
- requirements for applicability of the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction:
1.) There is a concurrence of jurisdiction between a
court and the agency
Sir: primary jurisdiction = exclusive jurisdiction.
Technically speaking, doctrine of primary jurisdiction
is a guide to the judge when to yield his jurisdiction to
the agency, hence it presupposes concurrence. It should
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
not even find application in case there is an exclusive
jurisdiction.
2.) The issue to be resolved requires the expertise of
the agency, which the judge does not possess
Ratio: To secure uniformity of rulings (uniformity of
rulings is desired)
Sir: The function of the doctrine is to serve as a guide
to the judge. From the POV of the petitioner, you have
two choices, either AA or court. If you go to AA, no
problem. But if you go to the court, the judge should
be guided by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Also
consider the policy of uniformity of ruling, hence,
requiring the court to yield jurisdiction to an
administrative agency.
Phil. Global Communication v. Relova
F: PGC wanted to start a station in Cebu so PGC applied
before the NTC. Respondents filed a petition for
declaratory relief regarding the coverage of the
franchise of PGC. PGCs MTD on the petition was
dismissed so PGC filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the SC.
H: Petitions of PGC dismissed. The regular court has
jurisdiction. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not
find application, hence, the TC judge should not yield
jurisdiction. This is because what is involved is a
purely legal question involving the question of
whether or not there is such a right to establish
branches on the part of the petitioner as granted by its
legislative franchise. There is an absence of clarity on
the right of petitioner under the statute. Absent such
clarity as to the scope and coverage of its franchise a
legal question arises which is more appropriate for the
judiciary than for an administrative agency to resolve.
Sir: the second requirement (re expertise) is absent. It
is really a question of law, which does not need agency
expertise but instead is within the jurisdiction of
regular courts. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
calls for application when there is such competence to
act on the part of an administrative body.
Vidal v. RTC of Negros
F: Public school teachers who staged a demonstration
were charged administratively. They, in turn, filed a
case for prohibition and damages against the DECS
officials conducting the investigation.
H: Doctrine of primary jurisdiction invoked;
proceedings in RTC were not dismissed but suspended
pending determination of the administrative case.
While no prejudicial question strictly arises
where one is a civil case and the other is an
administrative proceeding, in the interest of good
order, it behooves the court to suspend its action on
the cases before it pending the final outcome of the
administrative proceedings. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto
itself the authority to resolve a controversy the
Page 41 of 56
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence.
Sir: concurrence of jurisdiction is missing here,
because it involves two different causes of action (one
is the admin charge in relation to the strike, the other
is against the officials). So invoking the doctrine is
wrong.
The SC treated the admin case like a
prejudicial question before the court can take
cognizance of the civil case.
Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA
F: I applied for a coal-operating contract but the
Bureau of Energy Development recommended that a
MOA be entered with MMIC. But I later wanted to
rescind the MOA between M.
H: The SC applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
BED has technical expertise to resolve the matter. Note
that if the case is such that its determination requires
the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the
proper administrative bodies because technical
matters or intricate questions of facts are involved,
then relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the
courts even though the matter is within the proper
jurisdiction of a court. This is the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction.
Sir: On the issue of suspension, we must have a
broader perspective because it would appear that if
the court suspended the case, will it go over the
technical facts of the case? Then whats the point of
yielding? It would not be an original jurisdiction but
would only touch upon questions of law or other
matters that had been decided by the AA in its
expertise.
Conrad and Company v. CA
F: There are two cases: A petition for cancellation of
patents before BPTT and a criminal case for unfair
competition before the regular court.
H: Like in Vidad, the court should suspend before the
AA case is resolved. The RTC judge said that for good
cause shown, it may suspend the proceedings.
But Sir said there is no prejudicial question, so it
should not be suspended. This is another case of a
practical rather than legal approach undertaken by the
court. Sir explained that it is desirable, but not entirely
legal. The problem is that the courts drag into the
discussion the DOPJ, which is not entirely correct.
In DOPJ, it is a condition sine qua non for the
operation of the doctrine that there be concurrent
jurisdiction between a court and an administrative
agency. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction which,
simply expressed, merely behooves regular courts, in
controversies involving specialized disputes, to defer
to the findings of resolutions of administrative
tribunals on certain technical matters. It is unlabeled
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
the act of suspending the judicial proceeding pending
admin act, for good cause shown. What is that good
cause? Equitable considerations that the result of
admin case may affect the civil case or the parties may
kiss and make up. But the court should not have used
the term doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
Philippine Veterans Bank v. CA
F: P filed a case for just compensation in the RTC in
relation to DARs compulsory acquisition of its lands
for agrarian reform.
H: Doctrine of primary jurisdiction is "applied." The SC
harmonized the two conflicting provisions in the same
law by dragging into the picture DOPJ. DARAB makes a
preliminary administrative determination of just
compensation. But if the landowner is unsatisfied, he
can go to the RTC.
Sir: what is worst is the court said the action brought
before RTC is tried in its original jurisdiction. The
problem is with poor legislative draftsmanship
because both provisions used the term original and
exclusive. You cannot escape the fact that what the
courts jurisdiction is not original but only review or
appeal. The SC instead harmonized the conflict by
stating that the proceeding in the DARAB is only a
preliminary matter.
Robert: Why is the court confused in applying DOPJ
even if seems so clear-cut? Sir: Hahaha. Why do you
think? You ask them because I cannot speak for them.
We might be developing our own doctrine deviating
from the original, haha. Seriously though, the court
might be using the term in loose manner, based on the
term primary. But technically, it is a doctrine
developed to GUIDE the judge when to YIELD
jurisdiction when there is CONCURRENCE in
jurisdiction when the issue is technical that an AA can
better resolve it.
D. STANDING TO CHALLENGE
Sir: simplest solution is when the law itself provides
for who can bring the suit
Kilosbayan v. Morato - question of standing applicable
only when the case involves a constitutional question.
Exception to question of standing: transcendental
importance doctrine, where the SC waives all
questions of standing if it determines that the case
involves a matter of transcendental importance.
Ursal v. CTA
F: The city assessor appealed to the CTA after the Cebu
Board of Assessment appeals reversed his decision.
H: No standing to sue. The law explicitly requires that
appeal should be made by adversely affected party. He
was not adversely affected.
Acting Collector of Customs v. CTA
Page 42 of 56
F: Acting collector appealed to the CTA the decision of
the Commissioner re forfeiture of Pageant magazines.
H: CTA has jurisdiction only over tax cases, not
forfeiture cases. As to standing, only those who can go
to CTA are persons, corporations, associations
adversely affected by the ruling. ACC has no standing
to sue because he is not an injured party, and he is in
effect questioning the ruling of his superior (the
Commissioner of Customs).
Sir: This will give you an idea of the state of morality in
the 50s. But were not really interested in the Kinsey
Report! (really sir?)
Lozada v. Comelec
F: L, as taxpayer and voter, wants to compel the
Comelec to conduct a special election pursuant to the
1973 Constitution to fill vancancies.
H: As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the petition,
for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money is
being illegally spent. In fact, it alleges non-
performance of an allegedly ministerial duty. He also
do not have a standing as a voter because he did not
suffer a direct injury.
Oposa v. Factoran
H: This is a class suit based on R3, Sec.12 of the ROC:
complaint of general and common interest to parties
so numerous, it is impractical to join them all in one
suit. The number of petitioners here is sufficiently
numerous and representative of the interests of all the
parties affected. Hence, class suit is allowed.
- Not only is a class suit in representation of other
parties allowed, it also allowed the representation of
generations yet to be born on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility.
Joya v. PCGG
F: Petitioners, as artists, interested in preserving the
ill-gotten wealth (paintings) to be auctioned in New
York.
H: They have no legal standing to sue. Not only are the
artworks not public property, hence there is no COA to
enjoin its sale, its sale would also not be prejudicial to
them because they are not the owners of the property.
Taxpayers' suit also disallowed. Taxpayers' suit can
prosper only if the governmental acts being
questioned involve disbursement of public funds upon
the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an
officer of the state for the purpose of administering an
unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of
such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of a
taxpayer.
Magic wand: Transcendental importance
Kilosbayan v. Guingona
F: K (Salonga group) challenged the award of the
operation of facility for PCSOs online lottery system.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
H: Following the ruling in De Guia, legal standing is
equated to a procedural rule. Hence, transcendental
importance was sufficient to confer standing.
Note Felicianos dissent: The issue on locus standi
should not be dismissed using merely transcendental
importance. Determination of standing must be based
on a standard:
a. The character of funds/ assets is of major
importance
b. This is a clear case of constitutional/statutory
prohibition
c. Lack of any other party with more specific or
direct interest
d. Wide range of impact of the issue
Kilosbayan v. Morato
F: A new case based on a new contract entered into
between PCSO and the Malaysian firm (continuation of
the Guingona case). K claimed that this contract was
also unconstitutional.
H: On the issue of standing supposedly decided by the
Court in Guingona, the Court reconsidered. Court said
that legal standing is not merely procedural, but a
fundamental requirement of judicial review stemming
from the need for an actual case or controversy. It
elevated locus standi from the clutches of
transcendental importance doctrine, and limited its
application in constitutional cases.
Court said issue of legal standing is not
applicable in this case, because it does not involve a
constitutional issue. It involves only the question of
validity of a lease coneact. Hence, the test should be
real party in interest in civil cases. K, not the real
parties in interest, not being party of the contract
between PCSO and the PGC
Sir: Cf with Guingona where the SC used the magic
wand of transcendental importance, in this case, the
Court avers that this is merely about real parties in
interest in a civil case. And you have to remember that
PCSO is a public agency whose public funds go into the
governments coffers, and yet, the SC treated this as an
ordinary civil case.
Domingo v. Carale
F: Retired officials of the COA challenged the
restructuring program to be implemented by COA.
Their standing was allegedly based on their continuing
interest for the commission.
H: No locus standi. Petitioners do not have a material,
personal, substantial interest in the case such that they
stand to suffer or be adversely affected by the
reorganization.
Association of Data Processing Service v. Camp
(landmark)
F: A contests the resolution of the Comptroller Agency
that allows the national banks to provide data
Page 43 of 56
processing services in competition with A. Lower court
ruled that A has no standing.
H: SC reversed. This does not involve a constitutional
issue but if the resolution is consistent with the
banking law. Standing to sue is different from the
determination of the existence of legal interest. The
latter is a question that goes into the merits of the case,
appropriately resolved by trial, while the former is a
question of jurisdiction that must be understood
within the framework of an actual case or controversy.
SC discarded the purely legal interest test of standing
in the past. According to it, when resolving a standing
issue, court should not go into the merits (the
existence of a legal interest, which must be determined
according to the allegations of the pleading). The
question of standing has to be resolved by using the
"injury in fact test."
Court: The "legal interest" test goes to the
merits. The question of standing is different. It
concerns, apart from the "case" or "controversy" test,
the question whether the interest sought to be
protected by the complainant is arguably within the
zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the
statute or constitutional guarantee in question. note
that both the constitutional and statutory issues are
covered!!!
Sir: Cf with Kilosbayan v. Morato, where SC held that
standing is a proper question to be considered only
when constitutional questions are involved I think
THIS IS NOT CORRECT, not correct... Data Processing
did not involve a constitutional question, but it is here
from which the prevalent "injury in fact" test
originated. As long as a governmental action is being
questioned, you can use locus standi principle! But if
this is only a private action, then use Mendozas
approach in Morato. I think Justice Mendoza is merely
testing the waters kung anong maging reaction of the
public, unfortunately parang ako lang nag-react eh!
(ikaw na talaga sir! )
Law on standing in Data Process Servers:
- Previously, question of standing was resolved using
the "legal interest test," that is, the existence of legal
right arising from law, contract, or some other
recognized legal source. Court emphasized that this
determination goes into the merits, whicin should not
be considered when resolving the question of standing
only.
- For standing to be had, petitioner must prove to the
court that the agency action complained of injures you
in fact, and you have to show to the court that injury.
This injury need not be economic only, it can be
aesthetic (Sierra Club). But the existence of standing
does not necessarily mean that your case is
meritorious.
- Zone of interests test: This interest sought to be
protected by the petitioner is arguably within the zone
of interests protected by the constitution or statute.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Two tests are involved:
1. Injury in fact - are they going to suffer an
injury (in this case, yes financial losses)
2. Zone of interest if arguably within the zone
of interest protected by consti or law (in this
case, yes because the data processing services
are not actually consistent with their banking
functions)
Sir: emphasized his critique of Kilosbayan using Data
Processing. He is of the opinion that the limitation of
standing in constitutional issues only is incorrect,
because standing developed in the context of judicial
review cases which did not necessarily involve
constitutional questions. Do not peek into the merits of
the case when resolving locus standi issue. The
perspective is that, either first, while the court agree
that you have standing, you may lose at the trial on
merits. Second scenario, you may won both on
standing nor trial on merits. Third scenario, you lose
on standing even without the court going on the merits
of the case.
Sierra Club v. Morton
F: S challenges the planned construction of a highway
cutting across a national forest that will lead to a
Disney ski resort.
H: No standing because the pleading did not specify
how the members of the Sierra club will be injured in
fact by the development so it did not satisfy the injury
in fact test. It is not sufficient to allege the existence of
an injury. It is still a fundamental requirement that the
petitioner seeking review must himself have suffered
an injury. In other words, the pleading must allege
specific facts showing to the court actual injury
suffered by the petitioner as a result of the
adinistrative action complained of. But the "injury in
fact" test requires more than an injury to a cognizable
interest. It requires that the party seeking review be
himself among the injured.
Sir: If you are the lawyer, allege in the pleading how
the members will be directly injured e.g. bird watching
activities will be affected.
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Club
F: Respondents are organizations of low-income
individuals challenging the resolution of the Secretary
of Treasury giving favorable tax treatment on hospitals
which do not grant services to indigents.
H: No standing because petitioners failed to allege how
the administrative action complained of will cause
specific injury to their members in relation to a
relevant statute. Federal plaintiffs must allege some
threatened or actual injury resulting from the
putatively illegal action before a federal court may
assume jurisdiction.". More importantly, he injury
alleged and the relief prayed for is, in a sense,
speculative.
Page 44 of 56
- Sir: bottom-line is that they were not able to establish
injury in fact and their position is actually speculative.
This case highlights the flip side of the coin. If the so-
called injury of the petitioner is merely sepcuflatie or
conjectural, it does not satisfy the injury in fact test.
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
F: Respondents are contesting the Bureau of Land
Managements land withdrawal review program.
H: No standing because what is being questioned is not
a final agency action. What is being questioned here
is not a final agency action as defined jurisprudentially,
but rather a series of actions by the BLM in compliance
with a statute evidencing a general, broad policy
consideration.
Sir: Until there is a concrete program and the plaintiff
will be able to show injury to the members, then
plaintiff may be granted standing.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
F: Respondents challenge the orders to implement the
Endangered Species Act in relation to crocodiles in the
Nile river, tigers in Bengali etc.
H: No standing because the injury in fact test was not
met. Over the years, our cases have established that
the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing
contains three elements: first, the plaintiff must have
suffered an "injury in fact" -- an invasion of a legally-
protected interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized (Sierra Club), and
(b) "actual or imminent, not conjectural' or
hypothetical."
Second, there must be a causal connection between the
injury and the conduct complained of (Simon v. Eastern
Kentucky).
Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely
"speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a
favorable decision."
They were not able to prove injury
redressibility. Their allegation of injury is speculative.
Sierra Club is cited as authority for the proposition that
it has to be more than a cognizable interest, but an
injury which the plaintiff himself suffers. The court
also was not persuaded by the several theories of
standing propounded by the respondents. As to
redressibility, the respondents failed to prove that
granting the remedy prayed for would redress the
injury alleged. Despite the respondents radical
proposition re use of nexus etc, the Court ruled against
them.
E. RIPENESS
Note that Exhaustion doctrine applies only to exercise
of quasi-judicial functions or adjudicative functions. If
the question involved is the exercise of quasi-
legislative or policy/rule-making powers of an
administrative agency, the proper doctrine to be used
is "ripeness." If you are using exhaustion, it means that
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
you are party in an admin case and then you go to
court for review, the question will
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
F: This involves the Everytime Rule use the
established name of the drug every time the
manufacturing company uses the proprietary name.
This involves a pre-enforcement controversy which
the court determined is ripe for judicial adjudication.
The injunctive relief prayed for is a discretionary
remedy that can be issued only in the context of a
controversy that is ripe for judicial determination.
H: The ripeness doctrines basic rationale is to prevent
the courts, through avoidance of premature
adjudication, from:
a. entangling themselves in abstract
disagreements over administrative policies,
and also
b. to protect the agencies from premature
judicial interference until an administrative
decision has been formalized and its effects
felt in a concrete way by the challenging
parties (triple highlight daw!)
The problem is best seen in a twofold aspect: both
were complied with
a.) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (is
it a legal issue?) yes, w/n the commission exceeded
its authority in issuing the resolution
b.) the hardship to the parties of withholding court
consideration (if court review is withheld, will the
petitioners suffer hardships?) yes, financial losses
and they will be exposed to penal sanctions
NALCP v. Shultz
F: Petitioner is an organization composed of owners of
coin-operated laundry machines. They seek
clarification of a law regarding exemption from
coverage of the minimum wage and overtime rules.
H: The case is ripe for adjudication.
A person seeking judicial review of an agency
action which has adversely affected or aggrieved him
will not be frustrated unless there is persuasive reason
to believe that judicial review of the agency action was
not the purpose or intention of the legislature or that
full discretion on the matter was granted to the admin
agency.
General Ripeness Considerations
a.) WON there is a congressional intent negative to
judicial review (in this case, there is no such intention)
b.) The possibility of the courts entangling themselves
in abstract disagreement over administrative policies
due to premature adjudication
c.) The fitness of issues for judicial determination and
hardship to the parties of withholding court
consideration (yes, because the petitioner members
Page 45 of 56
will suffer financial losses and possible face civil and
criminal sanctions)
VI. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Requirements for Judicial Review:
1. The AA exercises quasi-judicial function
2. There is grave abuse of jurisdiction
3. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law
A. PROVISIONS
1987 Constitution, Article IX - A
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of
its submission for decision or resolution. A case or
matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief,
or memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law,
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission
may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
BP 129, Section 9. Jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgements of
Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
final judgements, resolutions, orders or
awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-
judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards
or commission, including the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Social Security
Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, Except those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,
the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph
and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph
od Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The court of Appeals shall have the power to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues raised in cases falling within its original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
and conduct new trials or Appeals must be
continuous and must be completed within three (3)
months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7902.)
EO 292, Section 25. Judicial Review.
(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial
review in accordance with this chapter and
applicable laws.
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an
agency decision may seek judicial review.
(3) The action for judicial review may be brought
against the agency, or its officers, and all
indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the
Rules of Court.
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be
perfected by filing with the agency within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of
appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for
review of the order. Copies of the petition shall be
served upon the agency and all parties of record. The
petition shall contain a concise statement of the
issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the
review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of
the order appealed from, together with copies of
such material portions of the records as are referred
to therein and other supporting papers. The petition
shall be under oath and shall how, by stating the
specific material dates, that it was filed within the
period fixed in this chapter.
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final
administrative decision. One (1) motion for
reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is
denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during
the remaining period for appeal reckoned from
receipt of the resolution of denial. If the decision is
reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution to
perfect his appeal.
(6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court
Page 46 of 56
specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in any
court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with
the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court.
(7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record
taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency
when supported by substantial evidence shall be
final except when specifically provided otherwise by
law.
B. CERTIORARI (Jamie)
St. Martins Funeral Home v. NLRC
Facts: An employee was illegally dismissed.
Held: NLRC decisions are appealed to the CA under
Rule 65. The special civil action of certiorari is and still
is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of
the NLRC. The special civil action of certiorari is
within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court
and the Court of Appeals.
Sir: Rule 65 is available in CA as per the hierarchy of
courts doctrine
Police Commission v. Bello
Facts: An administrative complaint was filed against
Ferrer and Bonifacio before the Police Commission.
The two filed a PFC claiming that Police Commission
had no jurisdiction to render a decision in the
administrative case and that the Police Commission
committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
them from the service
Held: There is grave abuse of discretion justifying the
issuance of the writ of certiorari when there is such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrarily or despotic manner by
reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility
amounting to an evasion of positive duty, or to virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in
contemplation of law. Trial court has jurisdiction to try
the case because of the allegation of GAD amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. While it has been shown
that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing
the writs of preliminary mandatory injunction, it has
not likewise been shown in the present petition nor
has it been alleged therein that the entire
proceedings in the court below are without or in
excess of the lower court's jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion.
Purefoods Corporation v. NLRC
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Facts: Respondents were dismissed. Petitioner
contends that respondent commission committed a
grave abuse of discretion in totally reversing the
findings of facts of the labor arbiter.
Held: Certiorari was not proper in this case.
(1) The party may seasonably avail of the special civil
action for certiorari, where the tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial functions has acted without
or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion, and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings, as the law
requires, of such tribunal, board or officer
(2) Certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law against the acts of respondent.
In the present case, the plain and adequate remedy
expressly provided by law was a motion for
reconsideration. The party had an available remedy to
him MR, therefore he shouldnt have gone up to SC
for certiorari just yet. Party didnt avail of MR
therefore certiorari petition will not prosper.
Azores v. SEC
Facts: Party was assailing his membership and fees
due of him in a gentlemans club.
Held: Certiorari was not proper in this case. The
alleged errors of the SEC En Banc assigned by
petitioner are mere errors of judgment, further appeal
should be taken to the Court of Appeals as the SC in
petitions for certiorari only try issues regarding
certiorari.
Villaruel v. NLRC
Held: In a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, does not include a correction of its
evaluation of the evidence but is confined to issues of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Neither does
the mere variance in the evidentiary assessment of the
NLRC and that of the labor arbiter warrant another full
review of the facts.
The NLRCs factual findings if supported by
substantial evidence, is entitled to great respect and
even finality, unless petitioner is able to show that it
simply and arbitrarily disregarded evidence before it
or had misapprehended evidence to such an extent as
to compel a contrary conclusion if such evidence had
been properly appreciated. Grave abuse of discretion is
committed when the judgment is rendered in a
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner.
An abuse of discretion does not necessarily follow just
Page 47 of 56
because there is a reversal by the NLRC of the decision
of the labor arbiter, such as the case at bench.
CIR v. General Foods (cielo)
F: GF is claiming for a tax deduction from media
advertisement.
H: The SC respects the finding of quasi-judicial
agencies, in this case of the CTA (although note that
CTA is now part of the judiciary). The element of grave
abuse of discretion is not missing here. The CTA
affirmed the ruling of the CIR that this is a capital
expense not an ordinary/necessary expense.
Sir: The certiorari remedy shall not be given due
course if there is another remedy available to the
parties. In answering, cite the all the requirements.
Cruz v. Gangan
F: Cruz, an employee of TESDA, lost her cellphone. COA
ruled that she is negligent and should still pay for the
cellphone issued by the government.
H: COA committed GAD in ruling that extraordinary
diligence is necessary, only ordinary diligence is
needed which Cruz was found to have exercised.
Hadji-Sirad v. CSC
F: H was accused of having somebody else take the
CESO exam for him. CSC dismissed him from his
employment in COA. H filed a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 before the CA.
H: The plain and speedy remedy is Rule 43 appeal from
CSC to CA so certiorari is not available.
Sir: Note the instances when R65 will not lie: if there is
MR, Rule 43, or exhaustion of admin remedy will apply.
C. PROHIBITION
Cf with Certiorari:
1. both need GAD amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
2. no other speedy, plain and adequate remedy
(de kahon requirement with certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus)
Differences:
1. as to the functions: in certiorari the function
is to set aside while prohibition is to put a
stop to a proceeding (or prevent it from
starting)
- if there is nothing to stop anymore, then
prohibition will not be available
2. as to scope: prohibition covers both
ministerial and discretionary functions;
certiorari applies only to
adjudicative/discretionary functions
Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board
F: C went to the court for prohibition against the
proceeding in the Deportation Board because of the
jurisdictional fact of alienage.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
H:Judicial review allowed.
GR: claim of citizenship does not deprive the
Deportation Board of their jurisdiction
Chua Hiong XPN: if there is absolute evidence of
citizenship or at the very least substantial, evidence
that the person is a Filipino citizen, he can directly go
to court (by prohibition or habeas corpus] to litigate
the question of citizenship to vindicate his right not to
be subject to such [harassment]. But taking
cognizance of such petition rests on the sound
discretion of the court
Evidence of citizenship:
a. Filipino mother even if the father is an alien
(and the parents are not married)
b. Exercise of right to vote, hold a public office
(either elective or appointive)
c. Passport
d. Ownership of land
e. Testimonies of other government officials
that you avail various privileges
f. Other documentary evidence like your birth
certificate
Co v. Deportation Board
H: Chua Hiong was invoked and affirmed.
Sir: Ngayon, meron pa ba kayong talahib sa
prohibition? (kelangan talaga sir talahib??)
D. MANDAMUS
Requirements for Mandamus:
1. Directed against a tribunal exercising
ministerial duty (not discretionary)
2. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy
Note: There is no timeframe in bringing the
mandamus, just a reasonable/seasonable time (3
months?)
Framework: Is the power invoked ministerial or
discretionary?
Sir: Why does the courts use mandamus will not lie?
Hindi ko maintindihan, bakit daw hindi hihiga ang
mandamus?? Dapat mandamus will not stand up. Kung
ayaw mo ng Freudian, gamitin mo mandamus will not
prosper.
Blanco v. Board of Medical Examiners
F: An irregularity/leakage was being investigated so
the passers were not allowed to take the oath.
H: NOT ministerial duty of PRC.
Sir: Ang cheating sa Pilipinas is a national pastime. But
remember that cheating is the antithesis of the concept
of justice, and justice is what you are here for.
PRC v. De Guzman (432 SCRA 505)
F: Leakage incident in the Fatima school of medicine.
Pending investigation of NBI, the Board of Examiners
refuse to let the passers take the Hippocratic oath
Page 48 of 56
H: NOT ministerial.
Ng Goc Liu v. Sec of Foreign Affairs
F: DFA refuses to release the visa of Ns son despite the
approval by the Immigration commissioner. N filed an
action for mandamus against DFA.
H: NOT ministerial. Issuance of the visa is not
ministerial, DFA should first evaluate whether the
person will not be a threat to public safety.
Policarpio v. Philippine Veterans Board
F: P was claiming for her pension as wife of the soldier.
Pending the investigation of the Board, the secretary
already issued the treasury warrants.
H: NOT ministerial. The Board has still not acted so it
will not be compelled to issue or what to decide, it can
only be invoked insofar as to require the agency to act
(if being delayed). Then even if the AA acts and there is
GAD then certiorari.
Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission
F: Tan was claiming for backpay benefits for her
husband who was recognized to be a member of
guerilla forces (by the USAFFE).
H: Ministerial. The fact of being a guerilla was already
established so the Commission no longer has to
exercise any discretion.
Province of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission
F: P filed a case of mandamus to compel the
Commission to release equipments which according to
P was non-revenue producing.
H: SC differentiated between specific performance and
mandamus. Mandamus: imperative duty of the agency.
In specific performance: available to the contracting
party who believe that the other renege on its
obligation. This case involves the latter this is a
contractual controversy appropriate for specific
performance.
Meralco v. Savellano
H: The function to determine Ms tax deficiency is NOT
ministerial.
E. DECLARATORY RELIEF
Requirements for the invocation of declaratory relief:
1. The party has an interest to a law, a written
instrument or a will
legal interest not mere interest
2. File the case before you breach the law (see
De Borja v. Villadolid)
National Dental Supply v. Meer
F: NDS files a declaratory relief for the use of gold
alloys in dentistry w/n they should be taxed under
the Internal Revenue Code.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
H: If you believe the CIR committed an error, you pay
under protest then file an action. You cannot enjoin the
collection of taxes of the state thru injunction or
declaratory relief.
Mirando v. Wellington Ty
F: The issue is w/n Mirando respected the title of
Wellington over the property which the latter bought
from the government.
H: The requirements are not complied with. Elements:
a. there must be a justifiable controversy;
b. the controversy must be between persons
whose interests are adverse;
c. the party seeking declaratory relief must have
a legal interest in the controversy; and
d. the issue involved must be ripe for judicial
determination
Sir: This case also affirms the indefeasibility and
imprescriptibility of a TORRENS title.
F. HABEAS CORPUS
Mejoff v. Director of Prisons
F/H: M, a Russian spy, was to be deported but no ship
wants to accept him. He entered the PHL legally but he
had to be deported because he was a spy. In the
meantime he was in jail so he filed for a writ of habeas
corpus. His first petition was denied because the court
needed a reasonable time to hear his case. His second
petition was granted after several years of
investigation of his case but subject to condition:
reasonable surveillance.
G. INJUNCTION AS PROVISIONAL REMEDY
- It is in the beginning an ancillary remedy
for the preservation of rights, but once
the principal action, but once the
principal action is decided then: (1) you
can lose the injunction case and the
principal action will be decided on the
merits
- Here, the court reviews evidence on hand
to determine WON the agencys action
was proper. If not, then court will issue
TRO or WPI
Collector v. Reyes
F: CIR issued a warrant of distraint and levy against
Reyes for his tax deficiency. The 3-year prescriptive
period limiting the government to collect has already
lapsed.
H: CTA can issue an injunctive order even without the
filing of a bond when what is being sought to enjoined
Page 49 of 56
is patently illegal. Here, the levy on distraint is illegal
because the prescriptive period has already lapsed.
Pineda v. Lantin (Jamie)
Facts: CFI issued an injunction against the SEC from
proceedings with its trials on the legitimacy of a
corporation
Held: Injunction cannot be issued by CFI against the
SEC because they are courts of co-equal rank. He has to
get the injunction from the CA.
Lemi v. Valencia
Facts: Lemi was running a radio station. Lemis radio
transmitter was seized because it was not authorized.
Lemi filed a writ of mandamus with PMI.
Held: PMI should be issued because Lemi will suffer
great injury therefore the transmitter should be
returned to him. Generally, PMI should only be issued
in extreme emergency cases and where petitioners
right is clear and there are conditions of inconvenience
in his favour and continuous effect of injury. Because
PMI compels one of them to perform a positive act and
not just to preserve the status quo.
Sir: Preliminary mandatory injunction to do
something
The attitude of the courts should be one of
care in issuing PMI unlike the general impression that
so many courts now issue TROs
Honda v. San Diego
Facts: Hahn and Honda were both claiming that they
held the patent to Honda. The case was brought to the
Patent Office. CFI issued an injunction to enjoin the
Patent Office.
Held: Injunction cannot be issued by CFI against the
SEC because they are courts of co-equal rank. He has to
get the injunction from the CA.
Sir: CF Pineda v. Lantin same doctrine
o Prohibition remedy to set aside
proceedings already started
o TRO has limited lifespan
o It is in the beginning an ancillary
remedy for the rpeservation of
rights, but once the principal action
Nocnoc v. Vera
Facts: A WPI was issued to enjoin Workmans
Compensation Commission.
Held: CFI has no authority to issue injunction against
this agency because it is a court of general description
only like civil law and criminal law. This doesnt mean
that the law creating the WCC granted it exclusive
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
original jurisdiction over workmans compensation
cases.
With all due respect to his memory (OKeefes), medyo
katangahan yung ginawa nya. (Carlota, 2013) Sorry
nauubusan na ako ng quotes, haha
VII. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Three major issues in judicial review
1. Availability is judicial review available?
- Is administrative action still possible?
Doctrines: If intention of Congress is to withhold
judicial intervention and final resolution of the case
should be at the level of the agency; no locus standi
means judicial review isnt available for you;
exhaustion of administrative remedies unless your
case is part of the exceptions; ripeness when it comes
to rule-making functions of the agency
2. Mode of review
Certiorari; prohibition; mandamus; statutory relief;
habeas corpus; injunction; provisional remedies
3. Scope of review extent of judicial review
Substantial evidence rule findings of facts of agencies
if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole the rule is that the findings of
facts are no longer reviewable by the courts unless the
law provides otherwise
A. THE LAW-FACT DISTINCTIONS
Dauan v. Sec
Facts: Two parties were in dispute as to the owner of
the homestead patent.
Held: Under the Public Land Law, within a five year
period you cannot alienate or sell it. From a series of
facts, you can draw a conclusion.
Reyes vda. De Santiago v. Reyes
Facts: The victim was instructed to operate his jeep
only in Manila, but his dead body and his jeep was
found in Tayabas. Is his wife entitled to workmans
compensation in a sense that he was killed why
working?
Held: The respondent employer has not provided any
contrary proof, and Santiago when he was last seen
doing his regular work of driving.
Page 50 of 56
 Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Pepeto
Facts: Husband was part of a ship who boarded in
Surigao but could no longer be found. Is wife entitled
to workmans compensation?
Held: The mere failure to controvert the statement that
Demetrio Pepito is believed to be "dead" or "deceased"
because he "was lost" or was "reported missing", does
not import an admission that the man is actually dead,
but that he was just lost or missing. Aboitiz Shipping's
non-controversion of the fact that Demetrio Pepito is
lost or missing is an admission of that fact, but not of
the fact of actual death, which is a conclusion of law.
B. QUESTION OF LAW
Ortua v. Vicente Singson Encarnacion
Facts: Ortuas application for land was denied because
Ortua wasnt a Filipino citizen he is a Chinese citizen.
Held: Question of law WON Ortua is Chinese? Ortua is
Chinese.
Sir: Not a model for substantial evidence rule
There is no discussion of substantial evidence rule
Here, Malcolm said SOME evidence as opposed to
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence isnt just
some evidence.
Mejia v. Mapa
Facts: Parties were disputing over a parcel of lot. It was
shown that parties entered into contracts of sale of the
land.
Held: Question of law WON the land without dispute
was part of the forest zone when the contract was
entered into. It was therefore the contracts entered
into by the parties was void.
Sir: Here, they adopted the equitable approach to
resolve the question of law by saying that this was a
contract entered into in good faith at that time and one
party cannot take advantage of anyone of the parties
Japanese War Notes Claimants v. Sec
Facts: Corp advertised to the public that when you
surrender Japanese War Notes, they were going to be
redeemed for a fee.
Held: Question of law - Is the corp authorized to do
that? The court looked at the articles and by-laws of
the corporation which showed that the corp was not
entitled to solicit from the public and that they could
only redeem war notes of their members.
Ysmael v. CIR
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Facts: Employer-employee dispute on selection of the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent among the
salesmen.
Held: Question of law are the salesmen employees of
Ysmael? Court employed the control test wherein it
involves control and supervision of the employees. The
salesmen are not employees of Ysmael.
Oleary v. Brown Pacivic-maxon Inc.
Facts: John Valak died when he rescued two men who
were drowning while he was just outside the
recreational center provided by the employer. Is his
mother entitled to a claim?
Held: Question of law - WON the accident arose out of
Valak's employment. Yes.
Sir: ZONE OF SPECIAL DANGER TEST if the
obligations or conditions of employment create a zone
of special danger out of which the injury arose, such is
deemed as arising out of employment, and therefore,
compensable
OKeefe v. Smith Associates
Facts: Ecker drowned during a Saturday outing while
boating on a South Korean lake. At the time of his
death, he was employed at a defense base.
Held: Question of law WON the death arose out of
and in the course of employment. Still within the zone
of special danger.
Sir: Sir feels that it is too broad.
C. QUESTION OF FACT
Black and white
Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union
Facts: Employees of a fishing boat were dismissed
because they were part of a union. Employer claims
they were fired because of pilferage.
Held: This is a question of fact WON they stole the
fish. Yes. Facts clearly show that it was not because of
the union activities. There were discrepancies in the
testimonies of the members of the fishing boat who
said that they were part of the union. There was
substantial evidence to show this.
Sir: CF Suarnaba v. WCC and MERALCO V. NLRC.
Suarnaba v. WCC
Facts: Ireneo died and his wife Rosita filed a claim
however WCC ruled that the claim was compensable
but the proof that Rosita was the widow of Ireneo was
insufficient (the certification of the Assistant Parish
Priest of the Parish of Sta. Barbara Iloilo City presented
by Rosita did not prove filiation but only the
Page 51 of 56
solemnization of the marriage sacrament) and barred
her from receiving the benefits thus the sum of money
was awarded to the employer.
Held: Question of fact - WON Ireneo and Rosita were
legally married. Yes. The quantum of proof needed
since this was an admin proceeding was substantial
evidence. WCC was in effect at err insisting on the
presentation of conclusive evidence of marriage since
this is violative of the rule that for claims under the
Act, only substantial evidence is necessary.
Sir: CF MERALCO V. NLRC
Acting Commission of Customs v. Manila Electric
Company
Facts: Acting Commissioner of Customs ruled that the
Manila Electric Company was not exempt from the
payment of the special import tax under RA1394 for
shipment to it of insulating oil. CTA reversed and
ordered refund.
Held: Question of fact - WON insulating oils come
within the meaning of the term insulators, thus
expressly exempted from special import tax. YES. The
Court cannot disturb findings of fact made by the CTA
because only errors of law, and not rulings on the
weight of the evidence, are reviewable by the SC.
Sir: The basis for accdg respect to the findings of facts
of AAs is because of the expertise it possesses
This becomes more pronounced when the
findings of facts becomes more technical in nature
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v.
Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines
Facts: Banco Filipino (BF) was placed under
conservatorship of Gilberto Teodoro who then
sublitted a report to the Monetary Board (MB) on the
conservatorship. Subsequently, Special Assistant to the
Governor and Head, SES Dept of the Central Bank (CB),
Ramon Tiaoqui submitted a report finding BF
insolvent and illiquid. Based on these reports, MB
issued resolutions finding BF insolvent and appointed
a receiver and thereafter placed it under liquidation.
Held: Question of fact - WON the report is sufficient to
hold BF insolvent. NO. MB based its resolution on the
Teodoro and Tiaoqui Reports whose examination was
not yet complete. Where the decision is merely based
upon pieces of documentary evidence that are not
sufficiently substantial and probative for the purpose
and conclusion they are presented, the standard of
fairness mandated in the due process clause is not met.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Dissenting: The appropriate formula of determining
insolvency is capability to pay when assets fall due
Sir:
It is possible that both sides may be
supported by substantial evidence unlike when the
quantum of evidence is preponderant or requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the latter two, only
one side will prevail.
Sir believes the dissenting opinion should
prevail. Note that what is adequate to you may not be
adequate to me. Therefore it is possible that both sides
may be appreciated in different ways.
Importance of substantial evidence rule the
SC will no longer review questions of facts as has been
held by the AAs if questions of fact in the level of the
AA has been decided using the substantial evidence
rule
PAL, Inc. v. Confessor
Facts: PALEA upon expiration of the CBA wanted to
renegotiate with PAL. SOLE assumed jurisdiction and
SOLE ordered a wage increase.
Held: WON SOLE properly examined financial status of
PAL. NO because there was no trial and it was not
based on any exmination. SC finds no basis on the
evidence adduced before SOLE.
MERALCO v. NLRC
Facts: It was found that Masaya, an EE of MERALCO,
set up an illegal connection of electricity for Sanchez.
After a formal investigation, LA and NLRC held he was
innocent using the quantum of evidence which is proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
Held: The NLRC erred in ruling that the quantum of
proof required to dismiss Masaya is proof beyond
reasonable doubt because accdg to them this was
qualified theft. However, in administrative or quasi-
judicial proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
not required as basis for a judgment of the legality of
an employer's dismissal of an employee, nor even
preponderance of evidence, substantial evidence being
sufficient. The evidence sufficient to prove the
commission of Masaya of acts of dishonesty against his
employer which merits his dismissal.
Lameyra v. Pangilinan
Facts: Lameyra was a janitor/messenger who received
a letter from the newly elected mayor that he was
being dropped from the rolls of EEs because Personal
Page 52 of 56
Officer certified that he was not logging in. CSC
affirmed his dismissal.
Held: Question of fact - WON Lameyra was AWOL. No,
he was reporting to the Vice Mayor. The SC is not
convinced that the certification of the Personnel
Officer constitutes substantial evidence. Vice Mayor
Fernandez was one of the affiants and he enjoys the
presumption of regularity in the performance of his
duties as a public official. Findings of fact of an
administrative agency must be respected and the
Court should not be tasked to weigh once more the
evidence submitted before the administrative body, it
is axiomatic that such findings of fact should be
supported by substantial evidence.
German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC
Facts: De Lara was employed by German Marine and
Lubeca Marine Mgt. He got sick while aboard the
company's vessel. He was confined in Manila Doctors
hospital. After being discharged, De Lara demanded
payment of his disability benefits and his unpaid
sickness wages. After a year, he was told by the
company that no other benefits were forthcoming.
Held: Question of fact WON there was still a balance
of sickness wages. Yes. The SC agrees with the finding
by the LA undisturbed by the NLRC and the CA that a
balance of $1,137 was still due to the EE as sickness
wages and that the quitclaim was insufficient to prove
payment. Supreme Court has always accorded respect
and finality to the findings of fact of the NLRC,
particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor
Arbiter, when supported by substantial evidence
Velasquez v. Hernandez
Facts: An admin case was filed against Velasquez. CSC
dismissed her. This was reversed because a case of
direct bribery was filed against her in the Ombudsman.
Held: WON she is guilty for soliciting, accepting, and
receiving sums of money, in exchange for transfer or
promotion of complainant teachers. The cases before
the CSC and the Ombudsman are distinct. A finding of
guilt in an administrative case would have to be
sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial
evidence that the respondent has committed the acts
stated in the complaint or formal charge.
Ombudsmans withdrawal of the criminal case, does
not foreclose an administrative action because they
require different quanta of proof.
CSC v. Cayobit
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
Facts: Cayobit was an EE of NHA who was found to
have falsified her service card. Cayobit was charged
with dishonesty and misconduct. CSC found her guilty.
However, CA reversed this and held that there was no
substantial evidence to support the CSC decision and
nullified the same.
Held: Question of fact - WON he used fake and spurious
documents for his service card. YES. The masterlist of
eligible employees were used and cross referenced
with the certification that Cayobit submitted. The
standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where
there is reasonable ground to believe that the
respondent is responsible for the misconduct, even if
the evidence might not be overwhelming because the
masterlist is an official record. An official record and
the entries made therein whose duty it is to enter such
data perform their duties regularly in accordance with
law
Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos
Facts: Florentina Santos was charged of falsifying the
formers own daily time record because her entries did
not match that of the security guards and for being an
owner/incorporator and President of Golden Child
Montessori. She was found guilty by the Office of the
Ombudsman. CA reversed the Ombudsman and said
that the decision was not supported by substantial
evidence.
Held: Questions of fact WON she falsified her time
records. WON she committed pilferage. WON she was
oppressive to her co-teachers and rude to the parents
of the students. The evidence on record constitutes
more than substantial evidence to establish
administrative guilt of the respondent.
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRC
Facts: An employee was dismissed by petitioner
Universal Camera. The evidence as to the reason of the
dismissal was conflicting. NLRBs Examiner
recommended dismissal of the labor case, but NLRB
held that he be reinstated. CA granted the enforcement
of the NLRB order holding that the Boards findings of
fact were supported by substantial evidence.
Held: Courts must now assume more responsibility for
the reasonableness and fairness of Labor Board
decisions. A reviewing court is not barred from setting
aside a Board decision when evidence supporting that
decision is not substantial, viewed in the light of the
entire record, including the body of evidence contrary
to the Board's view.
Sir: CF Sec 25 par 7 of Admin Code
Page 53 of 56

D. QUESTIONS OF DISCRETION
If the AA are vested with discretionary power
by law, the rule is that the judiciary will not
usually intervene in the exercise of this sound
discretion
o Exception: GAD = Grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. PSC
Facts: Eastern Bus is applying for issuance of plates in
the LTC. Batangas Bus claims that any order of this sort
from the LTC is beyond the jurisdiction of the PSC,
since the Court had earlier ruled in an earlier case that
PSC cant hear the case pending resolution in an
arbitration proceeding in CFI Laguna and the Court
itself earlier issued a TRO to that effect.
Held: NO GAD. PSC has jurisdiction to issue the Order.
Where the matter would involve the public interest or
public aspect it is the Public Service Commission that
has jurisdiction.
Manila Trading v. Zulueta
Facts: Filomeno Remollo was suspended for breach of
duty. He was found guilty of the same by the CIR.
However, the CIR still ordered his reinstatement and
considered the time he was suspended as sufficient
punishment.
Held: GAD. CIR has no right to order the readmission
because dismissal was based on just cause. The right of
an employer to freely select or discharge his
employees, is subject to regulation by the State, but an
employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with
the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty
of misfeasance or malfeasance, and whose continuance
in the service of the latter is patently inimical to his
interest.
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Suerte-
POITAF v. NORIEL
Facts: FFW filed a petition for certification election.
Granted by the Med Arbiter. Director Noriel granted
this.
Held: NO GAD. Director Noriel is possessed of
discretionary power whether or not a certification
election should be held. In such a case, there is no such
30% requirement. The matter of 30% requirement,
and the evidences showing figures of signatories and
total number of employees being offered by both sides,
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
is essentially factual in character, and the
determination thereof by Director Noriel is entitled
respect. Such 30% requirement of all the employees
in the bargaining unit is relevant only when it becomes
mandatory for Director Noriel to conduct a
certification election according to Art. 285 of the Labor
Code.
FFW v. Noriel
Facts: FFW filed a petition for certification election.
Denied by Med Arbiter. Noriel reversed for the
reception of evidence regarding the 30% requirement
of FFWs petition. Since the FFW attained 30%, the
Med-Arbiter called for certification election. However,
Noriel then recognized the agreement between
management and respondent union ALU for the first
year of the supplemental contract therefore no more
certification election.
Held: GAD in not ordering the certification election.
Art. 285 of the Labor Code is clear. Once it has been
verified that the petition for certification election has
the support of at least 30% of the employees in the
bargaining unit, it must be granted. It becomes
mandatory for BLR Director Noriel to order such
certification election precisely to ascertain which labor
organization should be the exclusive bargaining
representative.
PLDT v. NTC
Facts: NTC granted Eastern Telecom a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct,
maintain, operate an International Gateway Facility
(IGF). PLDT contends that an IGF is inherently part of a
telephone system. And since Eastern does not have a
franchise to establish a telephone system, it cannot
also be given CPCN.
Held: NO GAD. NTC, as the governmental agency
charged with passing upon applications for Certificates
of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) in the
field of telecommunications, is authorized to
determine what the specific operating and technical
requirements of public convenience and necessity
are in the field of telecommunications. Courts should
not intervene in that administrative process, save upon
a very clear showing of serious violation of law or of
fraud, personal malice or wanton oppression
Page 54 of 56
Weve went through this from north, south, east, west,
side by side. Dapat alam nyo na ito! Kung hindi pa
rin(hingang malalim then fade to black)
(Carlota, 2012)
VIII. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION
A. RES JUDICATA; FINALITY OF
JUDGMENT (cielo)
Ipekdijian Merchandising v. CTA
1st case: BTA affirmed CIR that I is liable to pay
compensation tax. I appealed to BTA which affirmed
CIR. Upon appeal to CTA, CTA dismissed because of
failure to appeal either to CFI or to CTA within 30 days.
2nd: CTA denied claim for refund of I from its payment
of compensation tax.
H: There is res judicata. Elements:
a. Former judgment is final
b. The decision is rendered by a court having
competent jurisdiction of the subject matter
and the parties
c. It must be judgment on themerits
d. There must be between the parties:
(1) Identity of parties
(2) Identity of subject matter
(3) Identity of Cause of action
Even if BTAs decision is administrative in nature,
when it was not brought to CFI or timely elevated to
CTA, BTAs decision was judicially confirmed thru RA
1125.
Nasipit Lumber v. NLRC
1st case: DOLE Regl Office approved NALCOs
application for clearance to dismiss its security guard,
Collado, who was accused of pilferage.
2nd case: In an illegal dismissal case filed by Collado,
the LA ruled in Cs favor and ordered his
reinstatement.
H: No Res Judicata. This doctrine applies only to
judicial or quasi judicial, not exercise of administrative,
powers. The application for clearance is merely
administrative and may push through with or without
the opposition of the employee. The way through
which a dismissed employee can be heard is thru an
illegal dismissal case.
Dulay v. Minister of Natural Resources
1st case: Two DANR cases: one is with respect to a
fishpond application while the other is a free patent
application on the same property. The dispute is
between Dico (private respondent) and Quibete
(Dulays predecessor-in-interest). Both cases reached
the Office of the President who ruled for Quibete.
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
2nd case: Dico filed a petition in DANR to reopen the
case (re fishpond) on the ground of newly-discovered
evidence. DANR gave due course. Dulay protests.
Held: There is Res Judicata. The DANR cases which
reached the OP were not appealed to the courts, hence,
they become final and executory. The cases are in the
exercise of DANRs quasi-judicial power.
Phil. American General Insurance v. CA
BG of the case: Philamgen is the insurer of Davao
Union. D engaged the services of M/V Crazy Horse
(owned by Transpacific Towage) to deliver
construction materials to CamSur. The materials were
not immediately unloaded until a typhoon lashed at
the port causing the ship to partially sink. There was
also a widespread looting causing the remaining
materials to be lost. Philamgen paid D, now P claims
that T should be held liable.
1st case: A case in the Board of Marine Inquiry
determined the liability of the captain and the crew.
2nd case: P demanded reimbursement from T.
Held: No res judicata. The causes of action in the two
cases were different. (In any case, the court ruled that
T was not liable.)
Meralco v. Phil. Consumers Foundation
1st case: PCFI filed a Petition for Specific Performance
before the Board of Energy against Meralco. PD551
reduced the franchise tax to be paid by Meralco. PCFI
claims that the consumers should be entitled to the
savings resulting from this lowering of franchise tax.
BOE ruled against PCFI.
2nd case: PCFI and one Edgardo Isip filed a Petition for
Declaratory Relief before the RTC against Meralco
raising the question of who should be entitled to the
savings of Meralco.
Held: There is Res Judicata (see elements supra). The
SC already informed the ruling of the BOE. BOE has
jurisdiction to hear the first case and it has already
ruled on the merits.
Heirs of Maximo Derla v. Heirs of Catalina Derla v.
De Hipolito
1st case: In 1991, Executive Secretary Drilon ruled
approved the fishpond application of Catalina.
Petitioners MR was denied. Titles were issued in
Catalinas name.
2nd case: In 1997, petitioners filed a complaint for
Annulment and Cancellation of OCTs of the subject
area.
Held: There is Res Judicata. Despite the previous
rulings that res judicata applies only to judicial or
quasi judicial proceedings and not to exercise of
administrative powers, the court ruled that if an admin
Page 55 of 56
proceeding take on an adversary character, the
doctrine of res judicata will apply. In this case, the
fishpond application, while admin in character, was
adversarial in nature because it was contested by
Maximo.
Facura v. CA
1st case: A complaint for violation of RA 3019 was filed
by Facura against De Jesus and Parungao before the
Ombudsman. When the Sandiganbayan refused to
dismiss the case, De Jesus went up to the SC which
ruled that there was no reasonable ground to believe
that criminal intent was present when De Jesus made
the appointment papers.
2nd case: Facura filed an Admin case on the ground of
dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and grave
misconduct.
Held: There is Res Judicata i.e. Conclusiveness of
judgment (remember Civpro). The admin case and the
determination of probable cause require the same
quantum of evidence substantial evidence. The SC
already found that De Jesus did not falsify the
appointment papers, hence, this is binding as to the
falsification charge. In any case, the SC also found De
Jesus was not guilty on the other charges.
B. WRIT OF EXECUTION; MANDAMUS
Apolega v. Hizon
F: H filed a notice of claim before the DOLE Regl Office
against his employer A for injury he sustained in the
course of employment. He died due to the injury so his
heirs filed a claim for death benefits. Workmens
Compensation Commission ruled that he is entitled to
the award and the case was remanded to RO for
execution. RO issued a writ of execution based on RA
4119. A challenges the constitutionality of RA 4110
alleging that RO has no authority to issue a writ of
execution.
H: RO has power to issue a writ of execution and this
grant of power does not contravene the constitution.
The RA transferred the power to enforce final award
from the regular courts to WCC and DOLE. The
Congress may validly legislate the transfer of power to
enforce awards.
Vda de Corpuz v. Commanding General
F: Petitioner, heir of a deceased member of the Army,
was awarded 6k death benefit (under Act 3428). But
respondent deducted from the award the amount of
gratuity pay based on RA 610. Petitioner filed a
Petition for Mandamus to compel respondent to pay
the full death benefits.
H: Writ of Mandamus lies because petitioner is entitled
to the whole 6k award. The gratuity pay given under
RA 610 is peculiar to members of the Armed forces
ADMIN LAW - Carlota
Cielo Marjorie A. Goo | Jamie Katrina F. Chan
and is distinct from the award for loss earnings under
Act 3428. RA 610 is given in appreciation of
employees past services while the latter is a social
legislation awarded to the family in case of disability or
death of the employee.
Ambrosio v. Salvador
F: 39 taxi drivers filed a case in NLRC against Extraco
Taxi due to illegal deductions on their salary. NLRC
ruled in their favor and issued a writ of execution
against the property of Lim Pa, supposedly the owner
of Extraco. Lim Pa filed an injunction complaint in CFI.
CFI issued a TRO.
H: CFI cannot enjoin NLRC which is of same rank as the
CFI. Lim Pa is not bound by the judgment because he
was not given an opportunity to beheard as he was not
impleaded.
Merano v. Tutaaan
F: In a case, NLRC ruled in favor of Merano and
ordered his reinstatement. But due to Ms illness, he
can no longer be reinstated so NLRC ruled that he be
given his separation pay. But even before the NLRCs
resolution, M filed in the CFI a petition for mandamus
to require SMC and the LA to execute the judgment.
H: CFI has no jurisdiction to interfere with NLRCs
decision especially because they are of the same rank.
Moreover, if M wants to execute the LA decision, the
remedy is to call the NLRCs attention either for NLRC
to review the LA or to compel the latter to execute its
decision.
GSIS v. CSC
F: GSIS dismissed 6 employees. The Merit System
Board and the CSC ruled that they were illegally
dismissed and ordered the payment of back salaries.
The heirs of some employees filed a motion for
execution from CSC which the CSC granted.
H: CSC has authority to execute its decisions. The
authority to decide cases will be inutile unless
accompanied by authority to see to it that its decision
is carried out.
Clavano v. HLURB
F: Clavano and Sps. Tenazas entered into a Contract to
Sell. Alleging that there was default, C wanted to
rescind the contract. T filed a case against C before the
HLURB to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale upon
payment of the purchase price. HLURB ruled in Ts
favor. Subsequently, HLURB issued orders directing C
to pay T for expenses incurred by it for the transfer of
the title over the property.
H: Orders were void. An execution order should
conform with the dispositive portion of the decision,
otherwise, the order is void. Nowhere in the decision is
C required to pay for the notarization of the deed etc.
Page 56 of 56