TABLE OF CONTENTS Procedure

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS is the

I. Introduction minimum requirement
II. Control of Administrative Action
III. Powers and Functions of Administrative Factors which gave rise to admin. agencies
Agencies 1) growing complexity of modern life - as
IV. Administrative Procedure society gets more complex, there are more
things to regulate
VI. Judicial Review of Administrative
Decision 2) the multiplication of the subject of
governmental regulation
VII. Modes of Judicial Review
3) the increased difficulty of administering the
VIII. Extent of Judicial Review law
IX. Enforcement of Agency Action
PART I. Constitutional status of admin. agencies
INTRODUCTION
the admin. agency does not strictly belong to
one branch.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - that branch of public The agency does not constitute a 4th branch
law dealing with the doctrines and principles of government because the constitutional
governing the powers and procedures of scheme (separation of powers) only allows 3
administrative agencies including especially branches of government.
judicial review of administrative action.
Role of Admin. Agencies
An ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY is any
Residual Powers
governmental authority other than a court or
legislative body performing rule-making or the powers given to the three branches spill
adjudicatory functions. over because of the 3 shortfalls. There is a
need for a body which would act as a
catching mechanism, otherwise, the three
AGENCY includes: branches would collapse. The AA supports
any department, bureau, office, commission, the trichotomy of powers.
authority or officer of the National
Government authorized by law or executive How do these agencies come into being?
order to make rules, issue licenses, grant
rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; a) by statute
b) by the constitution
government corporations with respect to
function regulating private right, privilege, or c) by Executive orders - usually fact-finding
occupation or business; agencies
officials in the exercise of disciplinary power
as provided by law. CREATED CREATED BY THE
(Sec. 2 (1), Book VII, Admin Code of 1987) BY CONGRESS CONSTITUTION
1. can be modified 1. perform more
Powers of an administrative agency by congress sensitive functions
a) rule-making 2. may be altered 2. underscoring the
or abolished independence of
b) adjudicatory
the agency thus,
c) licensing (permits) insulate it from
d) price/rate-fixing political pressure
e) implementing/executory
 The Chief Executive exercises CONTROL
over agencies and offices which perform
rule-making / adjudicatory functions.
If the agency is created by Congress -
consider the law that created it. If the law is
silent as to the control which the President
may exercise, the President can only
SUPERVISE, i.e., to see to it that the laws
are faithfully executed.
Why are administrative agencies necessary?
Administrative agencies are necessary due
to the inadequacies of the executive-
legislative-judicial trichotomy.
The 3 great branches of government lack:
(1) time; (2) expertise; and (3) organizational
aptitude for governmental supervision.
The doctrine of separation of powers:
To prevent absolutism.
Under the doctrine of separation of powers,
The Supreme Court cannot assume the
administrative function of supervisory control
over executive officials.
In Noblejas v. Teehankee (1963), the
Supreme Court struck down Noblejas claim
that the Commissioner of Land Registration,
being entitled to the same compensation,
emoluments & privileges as a CFI judge,
can only be investigated and suspended in
the same manner, and not by the Secretary
of Justice.)
Members of the Supreme Court cannot sit
as a board of arbitrators. (Manila Electric
Co. v. Pasay Transpo, 1932)
A judge cannot become a member of a
provincial committee on justice which
performs administrative functions. (In Re:
Rodolfo U. Manzano (1988)
PART II.
CONTROL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CONTROL
the power to change, modify, alter decisions
of subordinates
SUPERVISION
power to oversee
A. Legislative Control
Ways of exercising control by Congress
a) Abolition
isnt effective because the admin. agencies
are needed.
b) Appropriation
isnt effective since appropriations are
always given. If no appropriation is given,
the public would suffer.
c) Investigatory
effective only as an aid in legislation and
cannot serve the need for constant
regulation
d) Prescription of legislative standards
ineffective because the standards should be
flexible and those who make the standards
lack the expertise. The standards must be
EFFECTIVE, SUFFICIENT.
Most of the time, Congress is not definite
because of (a) varying conditions and (b)
differences in the need for regulation
e) Prescription of minimum procedural
requirements
There should be a shift to Administrative
standards which allows the agencies to
come up with the standards themselves.
This can be effected in these ways :
1) modify the doctrine
2) procedural due process
Congress can prescribe minimum
procedural requirements which have a
general applicability to all agencies. But
even with this, there are sill problems,
namely;
1) Agencies are not bound by the technical
rules of procedure
2) agencies need flexibility to act
These minimum procedural requirements
may be found in Book 7 of the Admin. Code
of 1987.
Substantial evidence - such relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind will accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
B. Executive Control
Executive power is vested in the President
(Art. VII, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution)
RULE: The President shall have control of
all the executive departments, bureaus and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be
faithfully executed. (Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987
Constitution)
EXCEPTIONS: In the case of agencies
created by the legislature (e.g. NLRC, BIR,
LTFRB), one must check the enabling law
regarding Congress intention regarding this.
If the law is silent, the President cannot
exercise control but merely supervision.
However, in cases involving agencies under
the executive branch, the President has
control.
C. Judicial Control
Judicial review of administrative actions
D. Ombudsman
Investigates and prosecutes
All elective and appointive officials, including
cabinet members, GOCCs and local
government are within his jurisdiction.
Those who may be removed only by
impeachment are not within his jurisdiction
The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an
exercise of judgment or discretion by an
agency or officer upon whom that judgment
or discretion is lawfully vested, esp. where
the matter involves basically technical
matters coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of the agency /
officer. (Concerned Officials of MWSS v.
Vasquez (1995), where the Ombudsman
was held to have interfered with a bid-and-
award contract.)
The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to
initiate an investigation into the alleged
delay in the disposition of a judicial case. It
is the Supreme Court which has
administrative supervision over all courts
and the personnel thereof. (Dolalas v.
Office of the Ombudsman, 1996)
PART III.
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
A. Legislative Functions
1. Non-Delegation Doctrine
theoretically puts a check on the legislature
from abdicating its duty by delegating its
power to make law. This is a corollary to the
doctrine of Separation of Powers.
the later attitude of the SC is more liberal
and is in favor of sustaining the validity of
the delegation.
Courts have realized the necessity of
delegation of powers - broad or vague
standards are sufficient
1. Policies - limits, boundaries, complete in
itself, leaves nothing to the discretion; may
be in another statute (Chiongbian v. Orbos)
2. Standards - express or implied (Edu v.
Ericta); written administrative standards
(White v. Roughton)
What are the matters that Congress cannot
delegate?
Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v. Auditor-
General)
Imposition of criminal penalties (US v.
Barrias)
Designation of a particular act as a crime
(People v. Maceren)
Creation of standards on the part of the
agency
Requisites for a valid delegation (Pelaez v.
Auditor General)
a) the law must be complete in itself; must set
forth a policy to be executed
b) 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.
The standard may be express or implied
(Edu v. Ericta)
The standard does not have to be found in
the law being challenged. It may be
embodied in other statutes on the same
 subject matter as that of the challenged In Santiago v. COMELEC, RA 6735 is
legislation. [Chongbian v. Orbos (1995). incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
Here, the challenged law was the ARMM essential terms and conditions insofar as
Organic Act. The standard was found in the initiative on amendments to the
Reorganization Act.] Constitution is concerned. COMELEC
resolution is void as there are no
standards at all, no legislative policy.
Examples of sufficient standards include:
In Panama Refining Co. v, Ryan, for subordinate
Assumption by Labor Minister over strikes rules to be valid, such must be within
affecting national interest (Free Telephone prescribed limits of the statute creating or
Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and granting such authority.
Employment, 1981)
In A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., the
Reorganization of administrative regions in
legislature cannot make a sweeping
ARMM (Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995)
delegation of legislative power.
Standard may be implied from other laws,
e.g. RA 5435 (simplicity, economy,
efficiency) 2. Permissible Delegation
Fixing of rates by National The Legislature must establish the standard;
Telecommunications Commission AAs only to make subordinate rules
(Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 1989) The standards
used were public safety, public interest,
a. Ascertainment of fact (Lovina v. Moreno)
reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates
(case to case basis) b. Filling in of details (Alegre v. Collector of
Customs)
WON rate-fixing is legislative or quasi-
judicial
3. Administrative Rule making
Legislative Quasi-judicial Administrative rule-making or subordinate
legislation
No notice and Notice and
hearing required hearing Valid as long as germane, consistent,
unless the law required implements the law
requires To be able to Normative and prescriptive in character
present has the force and effect of law; affects
evidence and substantive rights
prove the must not go beyond the standards
possible prescribed by the law.
adverse
effects on its General in application
financial
viability INNOVATIONS IN BOOK VII
1) date of effectivity : 15 days after filing with
UP Law Center
- publication - submit to UP Law Center
a) Quarter bulletin
b) up-to-date codification
EO 200 allowed publication I na newspaper
of general circulation
Art. 2 NCC - 15 days after publication in the
OG
Adm. Code - 15 days after filing

2) Public Participation (Sec. 9)

 publish proposed rules and afford interested
parties the opportunity to submit views.
What is sad is the law uses the phrase, As
far as practicable makes it look like its not
mandatory. Can be an excuse.
Publication and effectivity
Public Participation
To make a determination of facts/evidence
1) formal - trial type procedure
2) informal - more desirable and more
effective
- public hearings, presentation of
papers and memo, resolutions,
workshops, conferences, seminars,
dialogues)
Rate Fixing - even more specific
2 weeks before rate fixing, 1st hearing is
MANDATORY
refers to ALL RATES
Two ideas involving rate-fixing
1) proposed rate is published
2) must have public hearing
Problem with not following requirements
- aggrieved party can always can go to
court
- the rate can be voided
Rule-making
- an agency process for the formulation,
amendment or repeal of rule.
Limits on rule-making power:
a. authorized by law (Olsen v. Aldanese)
Penal Regulations
b. must not amend the law (Syman v.
Jacinto)
c. must not define a criminal act (People v.
Maceren)
d. must be germane to the purpose of the
law which it was meant to implement
(Toledo v. CSC)
e. must not restrict, expand, diminish law
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
CA; Land Bank v. CA; GMCR v. Bell
Telecoms)
f. action of the AA to be set aside if there
is an error of law, a grave abuse of
power or lack of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion clearly conflicting
with either the letter or the spirit of the
law (Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA)
Every agency to file with the UP Law Center
three (3) certified copies of every rule
adopted by it. (Bk. VII, Sec. 3)
Date of effectivity of rule: 15 days from the
date of filing (Bk. VII, Sec. 4)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. different date is fixed by law or
specified in the rule
2. in cases of imminent danger to
public health, safety and welfare,
Publication is indispensable
Publication essential especially if general in
character
Rule on publication of administrative
issuances different from the Taada ruling
Tanada ruling: Publication in O.G. or
newspaper of general circulation is required
for effectivity of administrative rules and
regulations.
What need not be published:
1. interpretative regulations
2. internal regulations ( regulating only
personnel of agency
3. letters of instructions issued by
administrative superior to their
subordinates
In the Admin Code of 1987: Filing of copy of
regulations is sufficient for effectivity
must be published in full text (Sec. 6 (2),
Book 7, Admin Code)
If a rule is penal in character, it is required
that the rule is published before it takes
effect. (People v. Que Po Lay)
the law itself must so declare the act as
punishable
penal statutes exclusive domain of the
legislature, cannot be delegated
In People v. Maceren, it was held that
"Administrative rules and regulations cannot
 amend or modify or expand the law by
including, prohibiting or punishing certain
acts which the law does not even define as
a criminal act."
Interpretative rules
interprets the law enacted by the legislative
does not and cannot control decisions as to
the proper construction of the statute; not
binding but generally or in particular
circumstances it is given great weight and
has a very persuasive influence on the Court
Interpretative Rule can be found erroneous by
the successor (Hilado v. Collector of
Internal Revenue)
Administrative interpretation merely advisory
(Victorias v. SSC)
Wrong construction of the law cannot give
rise to a vested right. (Hilado v. CIR)
Action of the AA will be set aside if there
was error of law, or abuse of power, or lack
of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion
clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of
a legislative enactment. (Peralta v. CSC)
The power to hear a case can be delegated,
but not the power to decide. (American
Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, 1975)
The power to decide can be delegated
provided that the power to delegate such
function was not withheld expressly or
impliedly. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino,
1994, where the issue was whether the
HLURB could split itself into divisions when
hearing cases instead of meeting en banc.)
NOTE: Is it not implied from the fact that the
Board was constituted as a collegial body
that they were meant to decide as a collegial
body? (Hence an implied prohibition on the
delegation of quasi-judicial functions.)
Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices
A rate is any charge to the public for a
service open to all and upon the same
terms, including individual or joint rates,
tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as
well as communication, mileage,
kilometreage and other special rates which
shall be imposed by law or regulation to be
observed and followed by any person. (Sec.
2 (3), Book VII, Admin Code)
AA to publish or circulate notices of
proposed rules and afford interested parties
the opportunity to submit their views prior to
the adoption of any rule. (Bk. VII Sec 9(1))
To be valid, proposed rates must be
published in a newspaper of general
circulation at least 2 weeks before the first
hearing thereon (Bk. VII, Sec 9(2)).
Function delegated to AAs because the
legislature has not the time, the knowledge
nor the means necessary to handle the
matter efficiently.
Need for dispatch, for flexibility and for
technical know-how better met by AAs.
Legislative Quasi-judicial
Extent of Rate applies to Rate directed
applicabi all only at 1 entity
-lity
Notice & May be Absolutely
hearing dispensed with necessary
unless the law
provides
otherwise
PSC not authorized to delegate power to fix
rates to a common carrier or other public
service. Power to fix rates, being a
delegated power cannot be delegated
further (Panay Autobus v. Philippine
Railway)
Rate-fixing must be exercised by the agency
directly. The power to fix rates, which is a
delegated power, cannot be delegated
further (KMU v. Garcia)
Principle on rate fixing and requirement of
notice and hearing
if the rate to be fixed applies to all utilities in
general --- LEGISLATIVE in character
Notice and hearing may be dispensed with
unless the law requires otherwise.
If the rate to be fixed applies to one entity --
QUASI-JUDICIAL in character notice and
hearing required.
(Vigan Electric v. PSC; Philcomsat v. Alcuaz)

Licensing Function
Licensing includes agency process involving
grant, renewal, denial, revocation,
suspension, annulment, withdrawal,
limitation, amendment, modification or
conditioning of a license. (GR-DR-SAM-
C)
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. (PCPC-
ARCM-SPR)
When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation
of a license is required to be preceded by
notice and hearing, it cannot be
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or
annulled without notice and hearing (Sec
17(1), Bk, VII)
no license may be withdrawn, suspended,
revoked or annulled without notice and
hearing (Sec 17(2), Bk VII)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. in cases of willful violation of
pertinent laws, rules and regulations
2. when public security, health or
safety require otherwise
Where the licensee has made timely and
sufficient application for the renewal of a
license, the existing license shall not expire
until the application shall have been finally
determined by the agency. (Sec. 18, Bk, VII)
A license is always revocable. (Gonzalo Sy
Trading)
B. Judicial Functions
1. Power to issue subpoena and declare
contempt
Subpoena
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions
have the power to issue subpoena?
Yes. As long as in exercise of quasi-
judicial even if charter is silent. Power is
vested in the AA in the Admin Code (see
Sec 13 Bk VII)
Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:
1. w/in authority of the agency ( expressly
authorized by law )
2. demand is not too indefinite subpoena
duces tecum
3. info is reasonably relevant
(Evangelista v. Jarencio)
rationale: power to adjudicate will be
rendered inutile if cant subpoena
Contempt
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions
have the power to cite for contempt?
No. Power must be expressly granted in the
agencys charter (ex. PD 902-A creating the
SEC)
If no law, must invoke the aid of RTC
Rationale: power to punish for contempt
inherently judicial
The power to cite for contempt can only be
used in connection with judicial and quasi-
judicial functions and with ministerial
functions. (Guevara v. COMELEC)
2. Warrants of Arrest, Administrative
Searches
Can administrative agencies issue warrants of
arrest?
No. In Salazar v. Achacoso, it was held that
under the 1987 Constitution only a judge
may issue search or arrest warrants.
EXCEPTION: in cases of deportation of
illegal and undesirable aliens following a
FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION, for the
purpose of deportation
In Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, the
two ways of deporting are through the:
a.) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37
of CA 618
b.) President after due investigation pursuant to
Sec 69 of Revised Administrative Code.
- but no grounds needed has sole
discretion under international law
Can immigration authorities issue warrants of
arrest against undesirable aliens?
YES, but only if issuance is pursuant to a
final order of deportation. Immigration
authorities cannot issue warrants for
purposes of investigation, as the
Constitution provides that only judges can
 issue warrants to determine probable cause.
(Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 1963)
Note that the Constitution does not
distinguish between warrants in a criminal
case and administrative warrants in
administrative proceedings.
3. Imposition of fines and penalties
Do agencies have the power to impose fines
and penalties?
Yes. In the case of Oceanic Steam
Navigation v. Stranahan, the Court
laid down the tests for the validity of
imposition of fines
Test for validity of imposition:
1. subject matter is within the control of
Congress
2. penalty is administrative or civil and
not criminal which would involve
deprrvation of property
3. power must be expressly conferred
to an administrative agency; power
cannot be exercised by implication
The fixing of penalties for criminal
offense is the exercise of legislative
power which cannot be delegated to
a subordinate authority. (U.S. v.
Barrios)
C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of
Standards
a reiteration of the non-delegation
doctrine
attitude of the courts is liberal in
sustaining the standards even if
such are broad
The ff. have been held to be
sufficient standards:
1. Interest of law and order (Rubi v.
Provincial Board of Mindoro, 1919)
2. Public interest (People v. Rosenthal,
1939)
3. Justice, equity and substantial
merits of the case (International
Hardwood v. Pangil Federation,
1940)
4. What is moral, educational or
amusing (Mutual Film Corp. v.
Industrial Commission, 1914)
5. Adequate and efficient instruction
(PACU v. Secretary, 1955)
6. Sound and reasonable discretion
(implied standard) (Wisconsin
Inspection Bureau v. Whitman,
1928)
7. Promotion of simplicity, economy or
efficiency (Cervantes v. Auditor-
General, 1952)
8. Maintenance of monetary stability,
promotion of rising level of
production and real income (People
v. Joliffe, 1959)
What is sacrilegious is not a
sufficient standard. (Burstyn v.
Wilson, 1952)
PART IV.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
A. Rules of Procedure
B. Due Process
1. Cardinal Primary Rights
As held in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the seven cardinal
primary rights are:
1. Right to a hearing
2. Right to have the evidence
considered
3. Decision must be supported by
evidence
4. Substantial evidence
5. Transparency of records
6. Independent consideration of the
judge
7. Decision must reveal relevant
issues
absence of one of these 7 rights is
sufficient to question the proceeding
Presence of a party at a trial is not
always the essence of due process.
All that the law requires is that the
parties be given notice of trial, an
 opportunity to be heard. (Asprec v.
Itchon)
The right of a party to confront and
cross-examine opposing witnesses
is a fundamental right which is part
of due process. If without his fault,
his right to cross- examine is
violated, he is entitled to have the
direct examination stricken out.
(Bachrach Motors v. CIR)
The law, in prescribing a process of
When not required
appeal to a higher level,
contemplates that the reviewing
officer is a person different from the
one who issued the appealed
decision. Otherwise, the review
becomes a farce; it is rendered
meaningless. (Zambales Chromitev.
CA; Anzaldo v. Clave; Rivera v.
CSC)
Evidence on record must be fully
disclosed to the parties. (American
Inter-Fashion Corporation v. Office
of the President)
In Matthews v. Eldridge, the U.S.
Supreme Court enumerated the 3
factors determining constitutional
sufficiency of administrative
procedures:
1. private interest that will be affected
2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such
interest and probable value of
safeguards
3. public interest vis--vis government
costs
(Ang Tibay vs CIR)
2. Notice and Hearing
No Notice and hearing requirement
in case of a mere conference
(Equitable v. NLRC)
Power to hear may be delegated but
not the power to decide (American
Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents)
When required
a. When law specifically requires
notice and hearing (Halili v.
PSC; Bautista v. WCC;
Equitable Banking Corp v.
NLRC)
b. When it affects a persons
status and liberty
(Commissioner of Immigration v.
Fernandez)
If administrative action is based on
an undisputed fact and not a quasi-
judicial function, notice and hearing
may be dispensed with.
urgent reasons
when discretion is exercised by an
officer vested with it upon an
undisputed fact (Suntay v. People)
if it involves the exercise of
discretion and there is no grave
abuse of discretion (De Bisschop v.
Galang)
when rules to govern future conduct
of persons or enterprises, unless
law provides otherwise (Taxicab
Operators of Manila v. Board Of
Transportation)
in the valid exercise of police power
(Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA)
3. Form and Promulgation of
Judgment
Decision should state:
1. facts
2. issues
3. law
Normally, this will be followed by the
agency to the letter. However, there
are times when there is substantial
compliance (therefore not violative
of due process)
It is not necessary that the order
make its own discussion of the
evidence and the findings of fact if
the court is satisfied with the report
of the examiner which already
contains the discussions of the
findings and conclusions. The rule
is otherwise when the court
disagrees with the findings of the
examiner in which case the court
 must specify and discuss the
reasons for their dissent. (Indias v.
Phil. Iron Mines)
The requirement that all decisions
should contain a statement of facts
and the law on which it is based is
only applicable to decisions of
courts of record, not to quasi-judicial
agencies. However, the due process
clause applies with regards to
procedural due process. (Valladolid
v. Inchiong)
If a power to decide is granted to a
specific authority, it cant abdicate
from this responsibility by delegating
the duty to decide the case. It must
personally decide such. It can
delegate the power to hear but not
the power to decide. (American
Tobacco v. Director of Patents)
The Boards act of dividing itself into
divisions of three is valid because
under EO 648 the Board can adopt
rules of procedure for the conduct of
its business and perform such
functions necessary for the effective
accomplishment of its functions. The
power to delegate a particular
function can be implied from the
power of AA to issue rules and
regulations necessary to carry out
its functions. (Realty Exchange v.
Sendino)
C. Jurisdiction
Refer to the enabling statute
creating the agency, especially its
powers and jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is created and conferred
by law
Pendency of a criminal case will not
divest the Deportation Board of its
jurisdiction over undesirable aliens
in a deportation proceeding. (Go
Tek v. Deportation Board)
The Collector of Customs
constitutes a competent tribunal
when sitting in forfeiture
proceedings. (Dela Fuente v. De
Veyra)
CHR can only investigate violations
of civil-political rights. It cannot try
and decide cases as ordinary courts
of justice, or even quasi-judicial
bodies do. (Cario v. CHR)
CHR cannot issue cease and desist
order since the CHR can only
investigate. The power to issue
cease and desist order is reserved
for quasi-judicial & judicial powers
(Simon, Jr. v. CHR)
The Bureau of Immigration has the
primary jurisdiction or exclusive
authority to try and hear cases
against an alleged alien. Judicial
intervention should be granted only
in cases where claim of citizenship
is so substantial that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that
the claim is correct. (Board of
Commissioners v. Dela Rosa)
The HLURB has jurisdiction over
specific performance, annulment of
mortgage and all other matters
which pertain to sound real estate
practice. (Union Bank v. HLURB)
The CAB is authorized by RA 776 to
issue temporary operating permit or
CPCN. (PAL v. CAB)
D. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
Arising from the same facts
The difference in the proceeding
(one administrative, the other
criminal) is not legal incompatibility
but merely physical incompatibility.
These 2 proceedings are
independent of each other involving
different causes of action and
therefore can proceed
simultaneously. (Galang v. CA)
Matters that are material in
administrative case are not
necessarily relevant in criminal
case. There are excuses, defenses
and attenuating circumstances
which are relevant in an
administrative proceeding which are
not admissible in trial in crim cases.
(Villanos v. Sabido)
The trial court had no jurisdiction to
order reinstatement since the
 judgment in a criminal case is
limited to acquittal or conviction with
accessory penalties. Only the NLRC
could have ordered reinstatement
with back wages. (PNR v.
Domingo)
The criminal case for falsification is
entirely distinct from the
administrative proceedings
conducted by the COMELEC
against the petitioner although both
arose from the same set of facts.
The dismissal of the criminal
complaint against Tan is not a bar to
the administrative proceeding. (Tan
v. COMELEC)
E. Rules of Evidence
AAs not bound by technical rules of
evidence but due process must be observed
RATIO: to allow AA to act with speed and
flexibility
What is the pervasive principle?
Technical rules of evidence and procedure
do not strictly apply to administrative
proceeding, but this does not mean they can
disregard certain due process requirements.
AAs may act on its own and use
methods which may best constitute
substantial evidence. (Estate of
Buan v. Pambusco)
The SC not required to examine the
proof de novo. The only function of
the SC is to determine WON there is
evidence before the Commission
upon which its decision might be
reasonably be based. (Rizal Light
Co. v. Municipality of Rizal)
AAs not bound by the strict or
technical rules of evidence
governing court proceedings. In the
broad interest of justice, the ERB
may, in any particular manner,
except itself from these rules and
apply such suitable procedure as
shall promote the objectives of the
order. (Maceda v. ERB)
PART V.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS
A. Factors Affecting Finality of
Administrative Decisions
1. Question of constitutionality
2. history of statute
3. nature of problem (question of law or fact)
4. finality of decision (non quieta movere)
Silence of Congress should not be
interpreted as indicating a legislative
intent to preclude judicial review.
(Uy v. Palomar)
GEN RULE: Courts refuse to interfere with
proceedings undertaken by AA
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) AA has gone beyond statutory
authority
(2) AA exercised unconstitutionall
powers
(3) AA clearly acted arbitrarily and
without regard to his duty
(4) Grave abuse of discretion
(5) Decision vitiated by fraud,
imposition or mistake
(Manuel v. Villena)
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Where law has delineated a procedure by which
administrative appeal or remedy could
be effected, the same should be
followed before recourse to judicial
action can be initiated
REASONS:
1. legal : law prescribes a procedure
2. practical : to give agency a chance to
correct its own error
3. for reasons of comity and convenience
EXCEPTIONS TO RULE
1. purely legal question (Pascual v. Prov.
Bd.)
2. patently illegal act - lack of jurisdiction
3. time is of the essence and will result into
nullification of claim (Quasha v. Sec;
Alzate v. Aldana)
4. would be oppressive and unreasonable
(Cipriano v. Marcelino)
 5. remedy only persuasive (Corpuz v.
Cuaderno)
6. estoppel by laches (Republic (PCGG) v.
SB)
7. irreparable damage and injury will be
suffered by the party (De Lara v.
Clorivel)
8. private land in land case proceedings
9. not a plain, speedy, adequate remedy
10. doctrine of qualified political agency -
alter ego
11. blatant violation of due process
In the case of Republic (PCGG) v.
SB, the Court held that failure to
observe the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies does not
affect the jurisdiction of the Court.
The only effect of non-compliance
with this rule is that it will deprive the
complainant of a cause of action,
which is a ground for a motion to
dismiss. If not invoked at the proper
time, this ground is deemed waived
and the court can take cognizance
of the case and try it. In this case,
seven years is hardly within "the
proper time".
The rule on non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies, being
based on sound public policy and
considerations, has EXCEPTIONS:
(i) where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine;
(ii) where the challenged administrative act
is patently illegal amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(iii) where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant; and
(iv) where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts of justice.
The Rep. v. SB case falls under (I) and
(ii).
C. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary
Resort
doctrine applies when there is concurrence
of jurisdiction (regular court and AA)
Courts will not intervene if the question to be
resolved is one which requires the expertise
of the AA and the legislative intent on the
matter is to have uniformity in ruling
EXCEPTIONS:
1. not within competence of the AA
2. issue does not require technical
expertise of AA
Criteria for the application of the Doctrine as
laid down in the Texas and Pacific v. Abilene
Case:
(1) there is concurrent jurisdiction
(2) the agency has the necessary expertise to
competently rule on the issues (technical
expertise is crucial to resolution)
(3) In line with the legislative intent /objectives
of the law (e.g. uniform rates)
If case requires expertise,
specialized skills and knowledge of
AA because technical matters or
intricate questions of fact 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 the court. Application
of the doctrine does not call for the
dismissal of the case but only its
SUSPENSION till after the matters
within the competence of the AA are
threshed out and determined.
(Industrial Enterprises v. CA)
D. Standing to Challenge
 LEGAL STANDING means a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the
party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the govt. act that is
being challenged. (Joya v. PCGG; :Lozada
v. Comelec; Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
Types of Standing:
1. provided by law
2. taxpayers' suit
3. class suit
4. suit as members of the Congress
If the law specifies in an exclusive manner
as to who may appeal those who are not
included have no personality to sue. (Ursal v
VTA; Acting Collector v. CTA)
One having no right or interest to protect
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as
party-plaintiff in an action. (Joya v. PCGG)
The issue of standing is a procedural
technicality which may be waived if the issue
of is of transcendental importance to the
public. (Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
The Court differentiated concepts of
standing and real party-in-interest and
held that Kilosbayan is not a real party in
interest because it was not a party to the
contract. (Kilosbayan v. Morato)
Tests of standing as laid down in Assn of
Data Processing Service Organization v.
Camp
1) Test of injury in fact (economic injury)
2) Whether or not arguably in the zone of
interest sought to be protected by the statute
Three elements of the constitutional
minimum requirements of standing:
(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in
fact an invasion of a legally-protected
interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical
(2) there must be a causal connection between
the injury and the conduct complained of
the injury has to be fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not
the result of the independent action of some
third party not before the court.
(3) it must be likely as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife)
E. Ripeness
Purpose of the doctrine of ripeness
(according to Abbott Laboratories v.
Gardner):
1. to prevent courts, thru avoidance of
premature adjudication, from entangling
themselves in abstract disagreements over
administrative policies
2. to protect agencies from judicial interference
until decision has been formalized and
effect felt in a concrete way or the
imminence of the effect is demonstrable
2-fold test (must concur):
(1) fitness of the issue for judicial decision
(question of law, not policy-making)
(2) hardship to the parties of withholding such
court action
General ripeness consideration tests
according to National Automatic Laundry
and Cleaning Council v. Shultz:
1. WON there is congressional intent
negativing judicial review
2. Possibility of courts entangling themselves
in abstract disagreement over administrative
policies due to premature adjudication
3. Fitness of issue for judicial determination
and hardship to parties of withholding
consideration
PART VI.
MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial Review
WON it is available is the threshold issue
If not available - end of litigation
If available - determine the
specific mode of review which must be
invoked

A. Provisions of Law
Art. 9A, Sec 7, Constitution:
Decisions of the COA, COMELEC, and CSC
may be brought to the SC on CERTIORARI
within 30 days from receipt of copy of decision
The constitution uses the word may,
meaning review is not mandatory by only
discretionary.
BP 129
Authority of CA to review decisions of quasi-
judicial agencies is EXCLUSIVE (if such is
listed in law or if its charter so indicates)
If it is not listed, its decisions can be
reviewed by the RTC through the special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
Book VII, Section 25, Administrative Code of
1987
Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial
review in accordance with this chapter and
applicable laws. (par. 1)
WHO MAY SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by
an agency decision. (par.2)
WHEN TO APPEAL:
Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a
copy (par. 4)
HOW:
File petition for review (par.4)
WHERE TO FILE:
In the court 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. (par. 6)
Petition for Review - question of fact and law
Must comply with
The time period
Docket fees
Notice
SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95
(Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Procedure)
Grants CA with exclusive jurisdiction to
review decisions of 19 AAs.
Excludes the NLRC
Mentions only one constitutional body: CSC
Listing not exclusive - ejusdem generis
SC retains the special civil action for
certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
As to AAs exercising quasi-judicial functions,
there is an underlying power in the courts to
scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions
of law and jurisdiction even though no right
of review is given by the statute. (Meralco
Securities v. CBAA)
B. Certiorari
Two Kinds of Certiorari
1. Simple or Ordinary (Rule 45) - errors of
judgment; questions of law
2. Special Civil Action (Rule 65) - errors of
jurisdiction;
- SC has original jurisdiction, concurrent
with the RTC
Purpose: to nullify or set aside the
proceedings
Requisites:
1. a) Lack of jurisdiction or
b) grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction
2. There is no other plain, speedy, adequate
remedy
3. Agency or tribunal is performing judicial or
quasi-judicial functions
C. Prohibition
Requisites:
1. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion
2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
3. Agency or tribunal is performing quasi-
judicial and ministerial functions
4. The act to be enjoined is yet to be
performed
Purpose
To stop or prohibit proceedings
from going on
 If proceedings are already
finished - do not use prohibition as by
then it would be moot and academic
Unlike certiorari, prohibition is more
expansive as it caters to quasi-judicial and
purely ministerial duties
D. Mandamus
Requisites:
1. Prove clear and controlling right - not
questionable and not subject to dispute
2. Duty of the person to whom mandamus
is directed is MINISTERIAL, not
discretionary
3. No plain, speedy, adequate remedy
under the ordinary course of law
Is it possible to ask for a writ of mandamus
against an agency exercising discretionary
powers?
Yes, when the writ of
mandamus is in order to compel the
agency to exercise or use its discretion
but it will not prescribe the action to be
taken by the board/officer (Policarpio v.
Phil Veterans Board)
If there is a capricious exercise
of such discretion, the remedy is
CERTIORARI
WHEN IS MANDAMUS NOT PROPER:
to control or review the exercise of discretion of
a public officer (Blanco v. Board of
Examiners)
1. to compel issuance of visa (Ng Gioc Liu v.
Secretary of Foreign Affairs)
2. to enforce contractual obligations (Province
of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission)
3. where there is no clear legal right as the
source of the "right" is not authorized (Cruz
v. CA)
4. to compel tax assessment not due (Meralco
Securities v. Savellano)
E. Declaratory Relief
Function:
1. interested under a deed, will, contract or
written instrument affected by any
statute
2. to determine any question of
construction or validity arising from and
for a declaration of his rights, duties
thereunder
can only be availed of before the breach
Requisites of Declaratory Relief
1. existence of a justiciable controversy -
capable of determination
2. between persons whose interests are
adverse
3. party seeking declaratory relief must
have a legal interest in the controversy
4. issue is ripe for adjudication
Citizenship cannot be declared in an action
for declaratory relief. (Azajar v. Ardalles)
DR must precede breach so as to avoid
multiplicity of suits. (De Borja v. Villadolid)
DR not available to a taxpayer who
questions his tax liability. (National Dental
Supply v. Meer)
F. Habeas Corpus
In what cases will habeas corpus pertinent
in administrative cases?
Deportation cases
It is a plain, speedy, adequate remedy to
secure release of persons under custody
Success of petition depends on the legality
of the detention
WHC would still issue even if the person is
already released if the release is conditional
such as when there is surveillance, there is
limitation in the place where he can go, etc.
Detention is legal if it is reasonable (Mejoff
v. Director of Prisons)
Bail renders a WHC moot and academic as
the bail bond gives him liberty. (Co v.
Deporation Board; Lucien Tran Van Nghia v.
Liwag) Note though that in Crim Pro we
were taught that WHC may still issue
despite the granting of bail when there is still
effective detention.
G. Injunction as a Provisional Remedy
Purpose:
1. To prevent the commission of certain acts
complained of
2. Commission or continuance of act
complained of would probably work injustice
to him
3. Defendant is doing, threatens or about to do
an act in violation of petitioner's rights which
may render the judgment ineffectve
If the plaintiff wins the main case, injunction
becomes permanent, if he does not,
injunction is dissolved
Ancillary remedy to principal action while
main action is pending
To preserve rights while main action is
pending
Who issues the injunction
Superior court to an inferior court
The SEC and the RTC are co-equal (Pineda
v. Lantin; Phil Pacific Fishing Co. v. Luna)
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
Commands an act to be done for the
purpose of restoring a pre-existing right and
to prevent damage
Would be issued if:
1. right is clear
2. considerations of relative inconvenience
strongly in favor of petitioner
3. there appears to be a willful invasion of
petitioner's right and the injury is a
continuing one
4. PMI will not create a new relation
between the parties
H. Suit for Damages as an Indirect Method
Even if damage ensues because of acts in
excess of authority, damages will not be
awarded if such act was (1) done in good
faith and (2) with color of title. (Philippine
Racing Club v. Bonifacio)
PART VII.
EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
A. Law - fact distinction
Important because of substantial evidence
rule (i.e., AA decision, if supported by
substantial evidence, will not be reviewed by
the court)
Questions of Law - always reviewable
Question of Fact - reviewable only when not
supported by substantial evidence (findings
of fact, if supported by substantial evidence,
is conclusive on the court)
A conclusion drawn from series of facts is a
question of law which may be reviewed
(Dauan v. Secretary)
B. Question of Law
Examples are issue of constitutionality,
validity of agency action, and correctness of
the interpretation of law
Other examples:
1. question of citizenship (Ortua v. Vicente
Singson)
2. WON there was a landlord- tenant
relationship (Mejia v. Mapa)
3. Questions arising from proper
interpretation of the Articles of
Incorporation (Japanese War Notes
Claimants v. SEC)
4. Existence of an ER-EE relationship
(Ysmael v. CIR)
C. Question of Fact
GEN RULE: findings of fact of AA, if
supported by substantial evidence, is
conclusive on the courts
EXCEPTIONS:
1. not supported by evidence presented
2. not supported by substantial evidence
EXAMPLES:
1. WON thing exists
2. WON event took place
3. Which of 2 conflicting versions is correct
SC may not accept AAs findings of fact
when the decision was rendered by an
almost evenly divided court and that the
decision was precisely on the facts as borne
out by the evidence. (Gonzales v. Victory
Labor Union)
When there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is a
justification for the courts to set aside the
administrative determination reached.
(Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board)
 Sir Carlota says there is substantial
evidence when there is a semblance of
reasonableness in your conclusion
Substantial evidence does not require you to
be sure but merely REASONABLE
Court must review the ENTIRE records.
Substantial evidence must be taken as a
whole - should not be selective in reviewing
the case. (Universal Camera Corporation v.
NLRB)
D. Questions of Discretion
If there is GAD, subject to certiorari
GAD - Capricious, whimsical, arbitrary,
despotic
PART VIII.
ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION
How are agency actions going to
enforced?
Examine the pertinent provisions of the
enabling statute
Examples: issue permits, fix wages,
summary actions without notice and hearing,
ex parte order to cease and desist
RES JUDICATA
Does res judicata apply to administrative
agencies?
Yes, if it is exercising it's QUASI-JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS (Ipekdjian Merchandising v.
CTA)
Res judicata is a judicial concept.
It does not apply if the exercise is purely
administrative
Res judicata may not be invoked in purely
administrative proceedings. (Nasipit Lumber
v. NLRC)
Decisions and orders of AAs rendered
pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority
have, upon their finality, the force and effect
of a final judgment within the purview of the
doctrine of res judicata. (Dulay v. Minister of
Natural Resources)
Requisites of res judicata:
1. previous final judgment
2. rendered by court with jurisdiction
3. must be a judgment on the merits
4. identity of parties, subject matter and
cause of action
WRITS OF EXECUTION
GENERAL RULE:
Agencies performing quasi-judicial functions
have the implied power to issue writs of
execution.
EXCEPTION:
If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise
If the law is silent, presume that the agency
has the power to enforce its decisions
emanating from its quasi-judicial powers.
(Apolega v. Hizon)
If the writ of execution is refused to be
be implemented, the proper remedy is
MANDAMUS because by virtue of the writ of
execution, the duty has become ministerial.
(Vda. de Corpuz v. the Commanding
General of the Philippine Army)
CFI and the NLRC are co-equal such that an
order even if not directed against the NLRC
when it's effect would be to freeze it's
executory decision should be nullified.
(Ambrosio v. Salvador)
The authority to decide cases (quasi-judicial
powers) should normally and logically begin
to include the grant of authority to enforce
and execute the judgment it thus renders,
unless the law otherwise provides. (GSIS v.
CA)