You are on page 1of 44

Administrative Law Review General Principles

2002 Edition

The lectures of

Atty. Rodolfo M. Elman, CESO III

MDA, The Australian National University
LLB, Ateneo de Davao University
AB Econ., Ateneo de Manila University


Jason John Joyce

Nuj Dumbrigue
Janis Dumama
Sheila Resabal
Jade Jamora
Cam-cam Basa
Tommy Veloso
Darry Gallego
Vanessa Bello
Genie Salvaña
Kenneth Lim

2002 Edition
(August 27 – September 10, 2002)

Published by:

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

And so, there was this bar question:

Q: What are the types of administrative
LAW bodies or agencies?
A: The following:
W e now go to Administrative Law.
First, the definition: 1.) Administrative agencies created for
the business of the government. E.g.
Q: Define administrative law. the BIR for the collection of taxes;
A: Administrative law is a branch of
public law which fixes the organization of the 2.) Administrative agencies created to
government and determines the competence of perform business services for the
administrative authorities who execute the law people, e.g. Philippine Postal
and makes available to the individual the relief Authority engaged in postal services;
against the administrative action.
3.) Administrative agencies created to
Q: What is the purpose of administrative regulate businesses affected with
law? public interest. E.g. power and light
A: The purpose of administrative law is facilities; telecommunications (NTC);
basically the protection of private rights. Thus,
the subject matter of administrative law is the 4.) Administrative agencies created to
nature and mode of powers exercised by regulate the affairs of man in the
administrative bodies and officers. It has for exercise by the State of police power.
its basic functions the effective and efficient E.g. SEC;
operation of the government machinery.
5.) Administrative agencies created to
Q: What is the origin of administrative answer for the social mandate imposed
law? under the Constitution. Thus, we have
A: The origin of administrative law is in administrative bodies clothed with
legislation and precedes from the increased quasi-judicial power such as the
functions of individuals because of NLRC;
complexities of modern society thus, a new
venture the so-called fourth branch of the 6.) Administrative agencies created to
government. provide for some kind of grant or
gratuity. E.g. GSIS, SSS; and lastly,
Q: Why the so-called fourth branch of the
government of the government? 7.) Administrative agencies in the same
A: Basically because there are category with the private individual.
administrative bodies created by statutes (ha??!)
which are given powers by the Legislature,
classified as quasi-legislative and quasi- So these are the basic classes of
judicial powers. administrative bodies of the government.
The reason here is because of the
multiplication of the activities of man in the “Government Of The Republic Of The
outset. There were but few activities that have Philippines” vs. “National Government”
to be regulated by the State. But subsequently,
the State through legislature and courts found Administrative law deals with the
it necessary to create agencies in order to de- organization of the government. Thus, you
clog court dockets. The State found it unable have the concept of GRP (Government of the
to keep up with the various activities of Republic of the Philippines. This term is NOT
individuals. Thus, the so-called venture into synonymous with the term “National
the 4th branch of the government which is Government.”
actually a delegation of legislature power to
the administrative bodies. Q: Distinguish “Government of the
Republic of the Philippines” (GRP) from
The general rule here is that, there should “National Government.”
be no delegation of legislative powers. But A: The GRP or Republic of the
you have administrative agencies created Philippines refers to the corporate
basically to answer the pressing problems of governmental entity through which the
modern society. functions of government are exercised
throughout the Philippine Islands, including,

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

save as the contrary appears from the context, there was none aside from the fact that
the various arms through which political no formal contract was entered into.
authority is made effective in said Islands,
whether pertaining to the central Government ISSUE: Whether or not the Central
or to the provincial or municipal branches or Bank of the Philippines falls within the
other form of local government. (Section 2, concept of the “National Government.”
Administrative Code)
Whereas, the “National Government” HELD: The Central Bank is an
refers to the central government consisting the entity separate and distinct from the
three branches or department of the National Government.

BACANI vs. NACOCO Incorporated and Non-Incorporated

Government Authorities
FACTS: There was a civil case
involving the National Coconut Q: What are examples of government
Corporation (NACOCO) as defendant. authorities?
NACOCO requested for copies of A: NHA (National Housing Authority);
stenographic notes and there was PPA (Philippine Port Authority); ISA (Iron
payment for the notes. The Commission and Steel Authority)
On Audit (COA) disallowed such
payment. So an action was filed by
stenographer Bacani to enjoin the IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY
reimbursement of such fees paid to vs. CA
them. 249 SCRA 539

ISSUE: Whether or not the FACTS: The Iron And Steel

NACOCO falls within the scope of Authority (ISA) has the basic function
GRP in order to be exempt from such of promoting and developing the iron
fees because under Rule 130 of the and steel industries in the Philippines. It
Rules of Court, the government should was created for a term of five (5) years
be exempt from payment of such fees. from 1973 to 1978. Its statutory term
was extended up to 1988.
HELD: NO. NACOCO has a In 1983, the ISA instituted
corporate personality separate and expropriation proceedings covering the
distinct from the GRP. It is not within properties of Maria Kristina Fertilizers.
the scope of GRP. Thus, it is not exempt But while the case was pending, the
under Rule 131. statutory term of ISA expired in 1988.
A motion to dismiss the expropriation
proceeding was filed on the ground that
CENTRAL BANK vs. CA, under the Rules of Court, only
ABLAZA authorized entities may be parties in
civil cases and thus, it is no longer have
FACTS: There was an award given corporate personality.
by the Central Bank (CB) to ABLAZA, Notwithstanding the position of
a construction firm for the latter to ISA, the trial court dismissed the case.
construct the CB office in La Union. The decision was affirmed by the CA
There was no formal contract executed. and was elevated to the SC.
But nevertheless, the work commenced.
One month after the commencement ISSUE: Whether or not there can be
of the construction, the CB terminated substitution by the plaintiff – from ISA
such agreement to construct. An action to GRP.
was instituted. The trial court ruled in
favor of Ablaza and ordered the CB to HELD: If the authority was
pay damages. incorporated, then it has a personality
Note that under the old separate and distinct from the principal.
Administrative Code, Section 607 in Therefore, there is no substitution.
relation to Section 68, provides that the But not so in this case because ISA
National Government cannot dispense is a non-incorporated authority. Upon
fund without the requisite certification its expiration of its statutory term, then
of availability of funds. In this case, all its functions, responsibilities and
duties including assets and liabilities are

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

reverted back to or reassumed by the Royal Class with a prayer for the
principal which is the GRP. issuance of a writ of mandatory
So the SC reversed the decision of the The Royal Class on the other hand,
lower courts. It allowed the substitution of filed a petition for declaratory relief
parties for the GRP to proceed with the before the NTC which action is
expropriation proceeding. ordinarily cognizable by the regular

Doctrine Of Primary Jurisdiction ISSUE: Whether or not the NTC

has jurisdiction over petitions for
Now, let’s go to the concept of primary declaratory relief and the power to
jurisdiction. This has been asked several times award to damages.
in the bar.
HELD: Applying the doctrine of
Under the concept of primary jurisdiction, primary jurisdiction, the NTC has the
the court cannot and will not take cognizance power to look into the controversy
of a controversy involving a question requiring notwithstanding the fact that it is a
the technical expertise or skills of an petition for declaratory relief. What is
administrative body or officer. Even if such important is not the nomenclature or the
an action is filed in court, but which would name attached by the parties to their
require expertise or skills of an administrative pleadings, but what the petition alleges.
officer, courts will defer the matter to the Actually, the petition although
authority of the administrative agency. named as “petition for declaratory
relief,” is a petition to declare the rights
For example is the Bureau Of given by the NTC to the Royal Class.
Immigration (BOI). You have the case of The NTC has the power to modify,
BOC vs. DELA ROSA (May 31, 1991). The revise or set aside the CPC by applying
Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
authority to hear and try cases involving Moreover, the NTC as well as most
alleged aliens. This is a power given to it by of the administrative bodies are now
law. The court will not and is not empowered empowered to award damages pursuant
to look into this question: whether or not a to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
person is an alleged alien. This is within the
competence of the BOI.
So in situations requiring the expertise of
Of course there is an exception to this administrative agencies then it is the same who
rule. Where there is a claim that an individual has the power to decide controversy. The
is indeed a Filipino citizen and there is presumption here is that, because of the
substantial evidence and reasonable basis to competence and skills of the administrative
believe in that claim. In such situation, the officer or body, he is adept in ascertaining
BOI will defer the case to the authority of the technical matters needed.
court in far as the issue of citizenship is
concerned because the issue of citizenship You know, because of this increasing
falls, not within the competence of the reliance on the expertise and training of the
administrative agency, but within the administrative agencies, the old view that only
jurisdiction of the regular court. the courts which has the power to award
damages is already obsolete. There are now
hundreds of administrative bodies and most of
ROYAL CLASS vs. them are given powers to award damages.
Q: What are the reasons for the application
FACTS: The NTC granted a of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?
certificate of public convenience (CPC) A: The following are the reasons:
to the Royal Class Limousine over the
objection of another party to operate a 1.) to enable the administrative body to
tourist car service within the old NAIA make a decision correctly; even if
from that point to any point outside. there is an error, the law allows the
The grant of CPC was the subject of administrative officer to rectify
a motion for reconsideration before the whatever error has been committed;
NTC. Qualitrans filed an action for and
damages before the court against the

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

2.) for expediency – the need to de-clog owner, developer, dealer,

court dockets. broker or salesman; and
3.) Cases involving specific
performance of contractual and
Q: How do you determine whether or not statutory obligations filed by
an agency or body is judicial or buyers of subdivision lot or
administrative? condominium unit against the
A: If the principal function of the body is owner, developer, dealer,
regulatory in nature although in the process of broker or salesman.
this principal regulatory function it is allowed
by law to adjudicate controversy and this latter
function is merely an incident to its primary There are two (2) basic powers of
function, it is an administrative body. administrative bodies:
Otherwise, if the principal purpose in 1.) quasi-judicial power; and
creating such body is to adjudicate and decide 2.) quasi-legislative power.
given rights, then it is a matter within the
ambit of the court. Quasi-Legislative Power

You have the case of SOLID HOMES vs. We mentioned earlier that this quasi-
PAYAWAL (177 SCRA 73 [1989]). The issue legislative power is a delegation of power
here involves the rights of the parties under a from Legislature to the administrative body for
contract to sell. Generally, this is under the the latter to perform powers usually exercised
provisions of the Civil Code but because of a by the State. The usual criticism is that, this is
law, the determination of the rights of the an undue delegation of power. But actually,
parties under a contract to sell subdivision lot this is an exception of the rule on non-
now belongs to an administrative agency delegation.
which is the National Housing Authority
(NHA). As a rule in order to avoid such criticism
of undue delegation, the law must be complete
But pursuant to E.O 846 [1981], the as to its term in conferring the powers to the
powers and function of the NHA were given to administrative agency. So there must be a
the Human Rights Settlement Regulatory sufficient details provided already in the
Commission (HRSRC). But in 1986, E.O. 90 statute.
transferred the powers and functions of the
HRSRC to the Housing and Land Use But of course, the Congress cannot define
Regulatory Board (HLURB). the details precisely. The matter of filling up
the details may be left to the administrative
You have also the case of CT TORRES vs. agency through rules and regulations. And so,
HIBIONADA (191 SCRA 269) which was the basis here is to come out with reasonable
asked in the 2002 Bar exams: standards which will guide the administrative
officer. Quasi-legislative power simply means
CT TORRES, INC. vs. rule-making power. So there are three (3) basic
HIBIONADA elements for a valid issuance of rules and
191 SCRA 269 regulations:

FACTS: An action to exact specific 1.) the rules and regulation must be
performance from the seller of the germane to the objects and purpose of
subdivision lot to transfer title to the the statute;
property bought by the buyer. 2.) it must conform to the standards of the
HELD: The case should be filed statute; and
before the HLURB, not before the 3.) it must relate solely to carrying out
court. into effect the general provisions of
Q: What are the matters within the the law.
exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB?
A: The following:
1.) Unsound real estate business Quasi-Judicial Power
2.) Claims involving refund and The administrative body’s quasi-judicial
any other claims filed by power refers to the power of the administrative
subdivision lot or condominium agency or officer to investigate facts or
unit buyer against the project ascertain existence of facts and to make a
conclusion from such findings of facts.

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

minimum standards imposed by the

The rule here is, there must be a board. The order was questioned.
conferment by the law of this quasi-judicial
power. In the absence of the provision giving ISSUE: What kind of power is
the quasi-judicial power to the administrative being performed here by the
body, then it is only performing a quasi- administrative body?
legislative power. But almost all
administrative agency are clothed with both HELD: It is an exercise of quasi-
powers – quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative legislative power. Is there here a
powers. violation of due process in that there
was no prior hearing conducted?
In the case of In the first place, was the issuance
of the order valid? It applies to all
LUPANGCO vs. CA enterprises similarly situated – all
nursing schools. This is a reasonable
FACTS: This case pertains to the exercise. In fact, it is an exercise of
issuance of the PRC (Professional police power by the State – regulatory
Regulatory Commission) of an order in nature. So there was no violation of
requiring that the candidates for CPA due process.
board exams are not allowed to
participate in any review classes or But where the issuance is made applicable
receive materials within 3-day period to a particular enterprise only, then definitely
prior to the examination day. The order this rule violates due process because it is no
was questioned by the students. longer an exercise of quasi-legislative power
but more on the exercise of quasi-judicial
ISSUE: What kind of power power (adjudicatory) which requires prior
performed in this case by the PRC in notice and hearing.
issuing such order?


performed quasi-legislative power. But PROFESSORS vs. QUISUMBING
the issuance of a quasi-legislative rule
must be reasonable. It must not be FACTS: There was a time that
arbitrary. But in this case, the issuance Spanish subject was a required and
of order by the PRC violated the rights compulsory subject in the 70’s and 80’s.
not only of the students but also the It is a good subject…really! [si senyor!]
right to academic freedom of the school Now, there was an order issued by
– how to prepare their students to pass then DECS Secretary Quisumbing
the CPA exam is within the ambit of directing the abolition of the Spanish
this right to academic freedom. subject as part of the curriculum and
In the same manner, it is the right of imposing the Arabic subject in an
liberty of the students to take whatever optional basis.
measures they deemed proper in order Now, the Confederation of Spanish
that they successfully hurdle the CPA Professors in the Philippines questioned
board exams. the order of Quisumbing as arbitrary
and violative of due process.
In other words, the rule issued by the What kind of power is exercised
administrative agency must not be arbitrary. It here?
must be reasonable and consistent with the
objective of the law. It is precisely to carry out HELD: The issuance of the order is
the object and purpose of the statute creating a valid exercise of quasi-legislative
the administrative agency. power. The order applies to all
enterprises of the same character. So
there can be no violation of due process

FACTS: The board of examiners

for nursing issued an order requiring a REPUBLIC vs. MIGRINO
periodic inspection of nursing schools
and prohibits the graduates of those FACTS: This involves the
schools which do not comply with the investigation by the new AFP Anti-
Graft Board created by then chairman of

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

PCGG Salonga. One of the official acts then it is no longer a valid exercise of quasi-
of Salonga was to create the AFP Anti- legislative power. You have the case of
Graft Board with the power to FORTUNE TOBACCO years ago during the
investigate alleged ill-gotten wealth of time of Liwaywasy Chato, then head of the
the members of the AFP, whether active BIR.
or retired.
E.O.s 1,2,14 and 14-A created the FORTUNE TOBACCO vs. BIR
PCGG. The law on PCGG principally
authorizes the PCGG to investigate and FACTS: Then BIR head Chato
recover ill-gotten wealth of the issued a regulation re-classifying the
Marcoses, their relatives, associates and brand of cigarette belonging to the
cronies. Fortune Tobacco – Champion, More,
Hope – from local to foreign. Thus,
ISSUE: Is the issuance made by there was a big reduction. Actually, the
Salonga as PCGG chairman consistent first re-classification was made by the
with the law creating the PCGG? predecessor of Chato. But during her
time, she changed such classification
HELD: NO. The issuance of the from local to foreign in order for the
order creating the Anti-Graft Board as government to derive more revenues.
applied to the members of the AFP no This was questioned by the Fortune
longer has relation to the law because Tobacco because there was no public
the law intends only the PCGG to look hearing conducted.
into the alleged ill-gotten wealth
involving the Marcoses and their HELD: The order issued by the
cronies. BIR violated due process – there was a
And if the respondent before the violation of property rights of Fortune
PCGG is facing a charge which has Tobacco. The order was issued in the
nothing to do with alleged association guise of quasi-legislative power but
with the Marcoses, then it does not fall actually it was an exercise of quasi-
within the ambit of the law creating the judicial power because the order was
PCGG. made applicable only to Fortune
If an administrative body is
PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS exercising a quasi-judicial power, there
FOUNDATION vs. DECS is a need to conduct hearing consistent
with the due process clause.
FACTS: This involves the issuance
of an order by the DECS Secretary on
the basis of a fact-finding report by a Of course, the quasi-legislative power is
committee authorizing an increase in subject to the observance of due process. You
tuition fees to be collected by the have the case of
private schools which is 15% to 20%
increase. UP BOARD REGENTS vs. CA
The Philippine Consumers 313 SCRA 404
Foundation questioned the issuance of
the order on the ground that it is HELD: The action taken by the UP
unreasonable and violative of due Board of Regents in withdrawing a
process. degree conferred on the basis of fraud or
error is said to be within the power of
HELD: It is a valid exercise of the administrative agency because the
quasi-legislative power because it pursuit of the University of academic
applies to all. There was also no excellence is in reality an act of self-
unreasonableness because in fact the defense to preserve any serious threats
DECS upon petition, ordered the to the integrity of the University.
reduction of such ceiling(?) and was
reduced to 10-15%. This is within the So there is here a wide leeway and
power of DECS authority to issue rules discretion given to the administrative agency.
and regulations even the matter of In this case, the UP Board of Regents
grants of increases in tuition fees. consistent with its constitutional grant of
academic freedom.
But let us say, if the purpose of increasing
a rate is applied only to a particular enterprise, PHIL. BANK OF COMM. vs. CIR

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

302 SCRA 241

HELD: Resolution 56 contravenes
FACTS: The BIR Commissioner the Teves Retirement Law. Therefore,
issued a Memorandum Circular 7-85 this is an act arrogating unto itself power
which changed the prescriptive period as solely belonging to Congress. Thus, this
provided under the Internal Revenue rule is inconsistent R.A 4968 which
Code it was only a prescriptive period of specifically bars the creation of
two years but pursuant to its rule- insurance or retirement plan other than
making power the BIR Commissioner the GSIS government law for GSIS
changed such prescriptive period from government employees.
two to ten years in the matter of filing a
claim for refund on excess income tax In the case of NASIPIT LUMBER vs.
payment. NWPC (289 SCRA 670), we have here another
issuance where the Labor Code grants the
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled power to the NWPC (National Wages and
that this rule issued by the BIR Productivity Commission) to prescribe rules
Commissioner violates the law. It and regulations for determining the
arrogates unto itself the power to appropriate wages in the country. Whatever
legislate. One requirement for a valid guidelines issued by a subordinate
issuance of rules and regulations by administrative agency such as the RTWPB
administrative agencies is that, the rule (Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity
must be germane to the object and Board) should be with the approval of the
purposes of the law and must at all times NWPC. In other words, rules and regulations
be in conformity and within the scope issued by the RTWPB which are contrary to
and powers as provided by the statute to those promulgated by NWPC are ineffectual,
the administrative agency. void and cannot be the source of rights and
So in this case, there can be no privileges.
estoppel on the part of the State where
the administrative agency acting on
behalf of the State has made an error. Publication Requirement

So there are requirements for a valid

Note that the issuance by the issuance of rules apart from the fact that the
administrative agency of rules and regulations, rules issued must always be consistent and
whatever construction made by such within the scope of the authority granted by
administrative officer although the rule is it statute.
should be given respect if not finality, but if
the same is grounded on plain error therefore, If such a rule is of general application,
there can be no finality. In fact, this issuance then it follows that there must also be
can be the subject of judicial review because it compliance with the publication requirement.
is only the court which has the final authority But if the rule is simply for the internal
to rule on the issue on the matter of proper guidance of public officers and employees not
construction and interpretation of law as made of general application, then even if such rule is
by the agency through the issuance of rules not published, these are binding on the public
and regulations. officers and employees.

CONTE vs. COURT OF But if the intention is to have a rule of

APPEALS general application binding on the public, then
264 SCRA 20 there is the requirement for publication.

FACTS: There was this Teves There is also the requirement under the
Retirement Law prescribing the Sections 2 and 3, Book 7 of the Revised
provision on retirement and other Administrative Code (EO 292) that such a rule
insurance benefit given to government of general application, more so where it
employees other than that granted under provides for penalties, the same must be filed
the GSIS act. And so the board of the and registered with the UP register.
SSS issued Resolution 56 granting
financial package for retiring employees Q: What then is the effect of the non-
of the SSS. SSS employees Conte et al registration?
availing not only of the retirement A: Such a rule which does not comply
benefit under existing GSIS law but also with this requirement cannot be made effective
under the Resolution 56 of the SSS. on the public because the public have the right

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

to know the contents before they are made to acting capacity is deprived or
be bound under the provisions of such rules separated from such position;
and regulations. They must have knowledge 4.) in the case of a preventive suspension
and knowledge is made through the of a public officer because of the
requirement of publication. nature of preventive suspension which
is not a legal sanction but merely a
Of course, if the rules and regulations preliminary measure;
promulgated by the administrative agencies 5.) the apprehension of the offender
provide for penalties, necessarily the law before filing of the case; and lastly,
which is the source of the power of the 6.) cancellation of passport of an
administrative agency, must authorize the individual. Why? This is a mere
imposition of penalties pursuant to the rule- privilege.
making power of the administrative agency.

If the law itself does not sanction A party may be declared in default in
imposition of penalty therefore, the issuance of administrative proceeding. So if there is a
rules providing for penal sanctions cannot be directive but the party respondent did not file
made effective because precisely the source of the answer within the prescribe period, the
power of the administrative officer or agency administrative officer may consider such party
comes from the statute. in default. And thus, the complainant may then
proceed with the presentation of his evidence
Q: When do the rules of the administrative ex parte, unless there is waiver likewise of
agency take effect? such presentation and that pleading be made
A: Note that the rules and regulations are clearly on the basis on such submission of a
in the nature of laws and thus, Article 2 of the position paper.
Civil Code applies – No law shall take effect
after 15 days following the completion of their
publication in the official gazette. So, the Administrative Due Process
provision of the Civil Code likewise applies in
the matter of determining the effectivity of In proceedings before administrative
rules and regulations of general character and agencies, the policy is for Congress to
made binding to the public. authorize the administrative body to
promulgate rules and regulations in order to
Q: Rules and regulation were published have an effective implementation of the law
completely on December 22, 1986, when did under which the administrative agency is
such rules take effect? mandated to comply. So the rules of procedure
A: Such a rule and regulations take effect promulgated by the administrative agencies
on January 7 which is after 15 days following must be liberally construed. And the reason
their publication in the official gazette. here is in order to have a more effective and
efficient administration and implementation of
So there is also the need for prior notice to the objects and purposes of the statute.
the public in order that public may be bound
by the action taken by the administrative So in the first instance, it is within the
officer. So where the auction sale of power of the administrative agency or officer
delinquent property took place on a date to interpret whatever rules and regulations
different from that stated in the notice, there is promulgated by it. Of course, this may be the
here denial of due process. There must be subject of judicial review such as where there
notice again, should there be a resetting of is abuse of power by the administrative officer
such auction, given to adverse party and the in promulgating rules and regulations.
So you have the requirements of due
BAR QUESTION: What are the instances process that must be followed:
when requirement of prior notice and hearing
can be dispensed with? 1.) One is that, the trier of facts must be
A: The following are the instances: an impartial tribunal duly constituted
and created to ascertain the rights of
1.) in the restraint of delinquent property; the parties;
2.) in the grant of preliminary attachment; 2.) The procedure followed must be
3.) in the removal of an acting officer. consistent with the principle of fair
The fact of possession of public office play or fair trial;
is temporary in character. So there is 3.) The procedure followed in the conduct
no denial of due process should an of administrative investigation must be

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

one where the court will have the such evidence that a reasonable mind deems
opportunity to determine whether the sufficient to form a conclusion for the finding
rule of law and procedure were in fact by the administrative agency. This is more
followed by the Administrative than mere scintilla of evidence;
4.) Due notice and hearing or opportunity [6] Of course the requirement that the
to be heard. administrative officer or agency must decide
the issues and not simply rely on the findings
made by subordinate officers.
Cardinal Primary Rights In
Administrative Proceedings Q: May this right to conduct a hearing be
You have also the cardinal rights of A: There is a distinction between the right
persons appearing before administrative to decide and the right to hear or to
agencies, the time tested cardinal principles investigate. In the latter situation, the duly
enshrined in the ANGTIBAY case. authorized officer may delegate the task of
investigating the issue to a subordinate officer
Q: What are these cardinal rights? and who, on the basis of such authority, may
A: The following: come out with his recommendations for
approval of the superior officer. The superior
1. The right to a hearing; officer is the person duly authorized to decide
2. The tribunal must consider the the controversy.
evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to So there is here no violation of due
support itself; process where the investigation is conducted
4. The evidence on which the decision is not by the officer duly authorized to render a
based must be substantial; decision but one who is a subordinate of that
5. The decision must be rendered on the duly authorized officer, because the matter of
evidence presented at the hearing, or conducting investigations may be delegated by
at least contained in the record the superior to a subordinate.
disclosed to the parties affected;
6. The board or its judges must act on its But there is a violation of due process
or their own independent where on the basis of a complaint, an ocular
consideration of the law and the facts inspection is conducted in the premises of the
of the controversy, and not simply company which is subject of the complaint and
accept the views of the subordinate in on the basis of the ocular inspection and
arriving at decision; and interrogation of the witnesses, the laborers
7. The decision must be rendered in such thereat, the administrative agency makes a
a manner that the parties can know the decision.
various issues involved the reason for
the decision rendered. Is the decision valid? A decision based
simply on ocular inspection and interrogation
of laborers is not the decision contemplated by
Discussions: law as to fall under the concept of observance
of due process, because ocular inspection is
[1] The right to a hearing simply means not the main trial. There is the requirement for
the right to present evidence on his behalf and the conduct of a formal investigation.
also the right to know the allegations of the
other party and the opportunity to controvert There is also a violation of due process
these findings; where the public officer respondent is
adjudged guilty of an offense of which he was
[2] [3] One other right is that, the evidence not charged. In the case of
submitted by the respondent must be
considered otherwise it would be an exercise CSC vs. LUCAS
in futility where the administrative officer or 301 SCRA 560
agency does not take into consideration the
pleadings submitted by the respondents in FACTS: The Department of
administrative investigation; Agriculture Secretary, after hearing,
rendered a decision finding the
[4] You have also the requirement that the respondent guilty of simple misconduct
evidence to support the decision must be and the penalty imposed on this public
substantial. Substantial evidence simply means officer was suspension for one month

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

and one day. And so this case was the

subject of an appeal to the Civil Service ZAMBALES CHROMITE vs.
Commission. GUZON
On appeal, the CSC set aside the
finding imposing the penalty of one FACTS: Guzon, while the then
month and one day suspension and it director of Bureau of Mines, rendered a
imposed a penalty of dismissal from the decision in a case filed by Zambales
service. The CSC found the respondent Chromite Mining. Zambales Chromite
guilty of grave misconduct and not Mining filed a petition seeking to be
simply of simple misconduct. Note that declared the rightful and prior locator
grave misconduct is a serious offense. and possessor of mining claims. But this
The first offense warrants already petition was dismissed by Director
dismissal from the service. And so this Guzon.
was the subject of petition before the And so the decision of Director
court. Guzon was appealed to the Secretary of
the DENR. On appeal, Director Guzon
HELD: There was a violation of due was promoted as Secretary of DENR.
process because the respondent here was And so here was this public official who
not informed of the charge. The charge is now called upon to review a decision
as found by the CSC was grave which was rendered by the same person
misconduct. But he was investigated for in his capacity as Director.
the offense of simple misconduct.
HELD: There was a violation of due
process because the Chromite Mining
Note that the right to appeal is not a cannot expect fair play in the appealed
natural right. So, it is really a right conferred case.
by statute. A statutory right may therefore be
withdrawn by law and there can here be no
denial of due process. Due process in SINGSON vs. NLRC
administrative adjudication does not mean that
there must be a formal trial type investigation FACTS: While as Labor Arbiter,
as that conducted in the courts of justice. In Singson rendered a decision adverse to a
fact, the administrative agencies are not party and this adverse decision was the
strictly bound to observe the rigid subject of an appeal to the NLRC. And
technicalities as applied in courts following this Labor Arbiter was likewise
the Rules of Court. promoted as a Commissioner of the
So the administrative officer is given
much leeway in the conduct of administrative HELD: There was violation of due
investigation. I mentioned to you the case process here. Notwithstanding, the fact
FORTUNE TOBACCO vs. BIR where the BIR that in this case subsequently there was
Commissioner Chato issued Revenue non-participation in the deliberation by
Memorandum Circular 37-93 in reclassifying the Commissioner. Nonetheless,
the Fortune brands of cigarette from local to according to the Supreme Court the
foreign. And thus on the basis of this resolution of the motion for
reclassification, there was an imposition of ad reconsideration, even without the
valorem tax on the Fortune Tobacco company participation of the Commissioner who
in the amount of 9.6 Million and this was rendered the decision in his capacity as
contested. The SC ruled that this rule was Labor Arbiter, violated due process. It
issued in the guise of rule-making power did not cure the infirmity.
(quasi-legislative power). But this violated due
process because this penalizes a particular
enterprise without prior notice and opportunity The requirement of a service of summons
on the part of Fortune Tobacco to be heard. is likewise very important and indispensable
This applied only to a specific enterprise and ingredient of due process. There must be a
not to firms similarly situated. Apart from this service of summons on the parties. But in a
violation of due process, the other finding was, case involving Civil Service Commission on
this memorandum circular issued by the BIR vandalism, I already gave this in our study of
violated the principle of uniformity of Law on Public officers, likewise the case of

In the case of

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

CODINIELO vs. EXEC. SEC. process because the notice adverse to

August 4, 1997 him was furnished to his former counsel
who failed to inform Lincoln Gerald and
FACTS: A party complained of failed to file the necessary pleadings.
denial of due process on non-observance
of this requirement because there was no HELD: Such fault on the part of his
participation in the formal hearing or former counsel is binding on Lincoln
investigation but nonetheless this party Gerald notwithstanding the claim that
was given the opportunity to file and in there was already withdrawal of counsel.
fact did file a motion for The basis here was because there was no
reconsideration. formal application for his withdrawal
before the administrative agency.
HELD: So there was here a cure of In other words. there must be notice
whatever infirmity because there was and application filed before the
opportunity given to the adverse party to administrative agency of such
be heard. So whatever defect in due withdrawal as counsel. In the absence of
process was cured by the subsequent act such application and the approval by the
of the party in filing a motion for administrative agency, the counsel
reconsideration wherein he argued his continues to be the counsel of record.
position where he presented his Thus, any notice given to the counsel is
evidence. binding and is a notice on the client.

So where a party appears by counsel in an

PEPSI COLA vs. NLRC action whether in court or before an
administrative agency, all notices required to
HELD: There is no denial of due be given must be served not to the client but to
process where the affected party is heard the counsel of record.
through his memorandum of appeal. In
the formal hearing, there was PNCC vs. REPUBLIC
nonparticipation but he did participate August 20, 1990
because he filed his memorandum of
appeal. Thus, whatever infirmity made ISSUE: In cases of increases in toll
in the course of proceedings by lower fees, is there a need for a prior notice to
body was cured. all persons affected such as the users of
this express way? Must there be notice
But where in the motion for to them before there be an increase in
reconsideration, only the entry of appearance the collection of maintenance fees?
by counsel and there was only a broad motion
to reconsider, the infirmity is not cured HELD: A public hearing is
because even when he filed his motion for mandatory only in cases of petition for
reconsideration but nonetheless there was no increases in toll rates. The purpose of
opportunity for him to present his evidence. In the public hearing is to give users of the
fact, what was made what was mentioned in express way who will be adversely
the motion for reconsideration was only an affected an opportunity to contest the
entry of appearance by counsel. Thus, this validity of the increase in the toll rates.
does not comply with the requirement of due
process. (Villarosa vs. Comelec, November
29, 1999) MALINAO vs. REYES
255 SCRA 616
Where an order cancels a certificate of
public convenience of a franchise holder (a HELD: Where the decision was
permittee) was entered ex-parte on the basis prepared and signed solely by a member
merely on a petition filed by the oppositor, of the Sanggunian, such decision cannot
there is here denial of due process because be regarded as the decision of the
there was no opportunity given to the franchise Sanggunian as whole precisely because
holder to oppose this petition of opposition. of the lack of signatures of the other
members of the Sanggunian.
July 23, 1990
Of course there is also the formal
FACTS: The party (Lincoln Gerald) requirement that administrative decisions must
complained that he was deprived of due be reduced in writing

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

Right Against Self-incrimination the remedies provided under the law and thus
expedite the proceedings and de-clog court
This right against self-incrimination is dockets. One other reason is [3] separation of
available in all kinds of proceedings whether powers which enjoins the judiciary to interfere
civil, administrative or criminal. But note that in matters falling within the primary
this right against self-incrimination can only competence of the administrative agencies.
be invoked by natural persons and not by
juridical persons. DELTAVENTURES vs. CABATO
327 SCRA 522
Why is this so? The intention here is, the
law wants to insure that there be compliance FACTS: There was a decision
by administrative authorities of the rendered by the labor arbiter and the
requirements of law such as the need for the NLRC and which decision was subject
filing of records. So, this right against self- of an alias writ of execution. On the
incrimination cannot be invoked by any basis of that writ, the property of the
administrative agency for that matter simply respondent Mr. Ongpin in the labor case
because there must be compliance with the was levied
requirements of the law such as those for the Now, there was this case filed
filing of public records or statements to before the RTC for damages, prohibition
ensure, let us say in the case of the SEC which and injunction against the same party
is mandated under the law to ensure that there who is the complainant in the labor case.
be periodic filing of corporate records, thus the
corporation cannot invoke that it has the right HELD: The action before the court
against self-incrimination. was really in the nature of a labor case
incident which should warrant the
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Power Of Contempt In other words, since the relief that
the party wants to get from the court was
Q: What about the power of contempt? in the nature of a prohibition i.e. one to
Can the administrative bodies exercise this prohibit the sheriff from executing the
power? decision over the property likewise
A: Yes but not automatic. The power of claimed by Deltaventures, the court
contempt is inherent in the courts but not in should not act on the matter. The body
administrative bodies. which has the authority to take
In other words, in order for the cognizance of the same issue is the
administrative agency to validly exercise the NLRC because this is an incident
power of contempt, there must be an express arising from the labor case and applying
conferment by the law to the administrative the doctrine of primary jurisdiction –
agency. There must also be a definition of the where the law has made a remedy, the
extent of such power of the agency, the canopy aggrieved individual must avail of such
must be provided. remedy.
The RTC is a co-equal body of
Therefore, in the absence of the provision NLRC and therefore it has no
on the power of contempt, contempt can only jurisdiction to issue a restraining order
be upon application with the court by the to prevent the NLRC from executing its
administrative body. decision.

In other words, this doctrine applies only

Doctrine Of Exhaustion Of where there is a provision of law describing
Administrative Remedies the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Supposing if the law does not describe the
The doctrine of exhaustion of filing of a motion for reconsideration, this
administrative remedies provides that where method may be dispensed with by the
the law prescribes a remedy against aggrieved party because there is no provision
administrative action, relief to court cannot in the law providing for the exhaustion of
immediately be have without first exhausting administrative remedies.
the administrative remedies.
Q: What is the effect of the failure to
The reason for this is [1] in order to give comply with this doctrine of exhaustion of
the administrative agency the opportunity to administrative remedies but immediately filed
correct errors it may have committed; the other the case before the court?
reason [2] is to compel the parties to avail of

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

A: The court will dismiss the case upon Department Secretary, the decision of
motion of the party on the ground of the director was set aside and the
prematurity. But it does not mean that the Secretary awarded the fish pond in favor
court has no jurisdiction over such issue. It of Buenaflor.
simply mean that the action is premature – no Dimaisip filed an action not before
cause of action yet and so, this is a ground for the administrative agency, not before the
the dismissal of the case before the court. office of the president, but before the
court. So, the issue is whether or not this
was valid.
Exceptions To The Doctrine Of
Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies HELD: The SC ruled that this is an
exception to the rule on exhaustion of
Now, the principle requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies because the
administrative remedies has exceptions. decision was one made by the
Department Secretary who is an alter
[1] One exception to the rule is where the ego of the President.
issue is purely legal. It is only the court which
has the power to rule with finality such legal
issue. [4] The doctrine of qualified political
agency likewise applies in this case. Under
If the petition states that the decision of this doctrine, the acts of the department
the administrative officer is contrary to law secretaries acting as agents or alter egos of the
and jurisprudence, then what is being raised President are considered the acts of the
here is purely a question of law and this is not president himself unless the President has
with in the competence of the administrative disapproved this official act made by the
officer. Department Secretary, or when the President is
required to act personally on the matter.
[2] or, when the issue is, which law
applies. In the case of
PROVINCE NOTE: The SC made a reversal of
its earlier decision in DIMAISIP.
FACTS: An action was filed by the FACTS: This case of CALO
province against NAPOCOR for the involves the award of homestead
collection of delinquent real property application of Fuentes. The homestead
taxes pursuant to PD 424. It was application of Fuentes was opposed by
contested however by the NAPOCOR Calo and this was subject of an appeal.
that in a motion to dismiss, that the court But nonetheless, the Department
did not acquire jurisdiction because PD Secretary sustained the findings of the
424 requires that the issue where the Director of Lands awarding the
matter involves a conflict between and homestead in favor of Fuentes. What
among offices and agencies should be Calo did was to initially file an appeal
settled amicably. before the Office of the President. But
even before the Office the President
HELD: Here, the issue is clearly a could act on the matter, he withdrew
legal one i.e. which law applies. Thus, such appeal.
the doctrine of exhaustion of What then is the effect of such
administrative remedies does not apply withdrawal?
in the case.
HELD: The withdrawal of such an
appeal before the Office of the President
[3] Or, where the decisions is rendered by was fatal because it was the last act
the Department Secretary, there is no need for required of him in compliance with the
complying with requirement of exhaustion of doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
administrative remedies. In the old case of remedies.

But in many other cases decided by the
FACTS: There was an order by the court, it went back to its earlier ruling. Thus,
director in favor of Dimaisip awarding you have the case of
fish pond. But on appeal to the

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

QUISUMBING vs. GUMBAN of the law makes the decision of the Office of
193 SCRA 523 the President final and executory but the same
has been made in abuse of authority, then it
FACTS: Then DECS Secretary can be the subject of judicial review.
Quisumbing issued an order transferring
one Mrs. Yap from one station to [5] Another exception is where the action
another in South Cotabato area. The of the administrative officer is clearly devoid
order was contested not before the of any color of authority or patently illegal.
Office of the Secretary but before the
sala of Judge Gumban. We know that in the conduct of
The motion to dismiss filed by the administrative investigation, there must be
Department Secretary on the ground that observance of procedural due process. One
there should be exhaustion was denied. requirement is the need for the service of
And so the matter was raised before the summons. Supposing there was no service of
SC. summons and the decision was rendered and
this was the subject of a case filed before
HELD: The Court ruled that there court.
was no need for exhaustion of Q: Is there still need to comply with this
administrative remedies because the act doctrine of examination of admin. remedies?
complained of was one made by the A: There is no need to comply precisely
Department Secretary as the alter ego of because the action here of the administrative
the President officer is clearly and obviously devoid of any
authority, patently illegal, contrary to law.

Q: So how then do you reconcile this [6] The other exception is when the
apparent contradictory rulings of the Court? administrative body is in estoppel.
A: The first basis is to look into the
provisions of the law i.e., where the law itself If in the course of proceeding before
prescribes remedy, then there must be administrative agency, there is representation
compliance with this doctrine of exhaustion of made by the administrative officer but it is
administrative remedies. But if the law is only an action before the court that will
silent – there is no such provision requiring resolve the issue and on the basis of this
exhaustion – there is no need to exhaust declaration, such court action was taken, the
administrative remedies. administrative agency is already in estoppel to
state that the matter ought to be decided within
Example: Under PD 1281, the matter of the administrative level.
the conflicting mining claims is now within
the competence of the Bureau of Mines. The [7] Or where the application of this
matter of resolving conflicting mining claims doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
is now purely administrative. Thus under remedies will only cause grave and irreparable
PD1281, the authority which has the say on damage or injury to any of the parties.
the matter is the Director of the Bureau of
Mines. But his decision is appealable to the Let us say in a matter involving timber
Department Secretary of Natural Resources concessions. There is here a dispute as to
and from the decision of the DENR Secretary, boundary of the concessionaires. The case was
if the party is still aggrieved, the same may be truly and rightfully filed before the
elevated to the Office of the President. administrative agency (DENR). But while the
case was pending before the DENR, let us say,
So, there is here in this case the need to the other party continued to make use of the
comply with the doctrine of exhaustion road constructed by the petitioner and no
administrative remedies. The doctrine of action was taken still by the DENR, then
qualified political agency does not apply here applying the exception, if the application will
because there is a provision in the law only cause irreparable damage or injury to any
requiring that an appeal be taken from the of the parties, then the party may immediately
decision of the Department Secretary to the have recourse to the courts. There is no need
President within a period of 5 days. The law to comply with the doctrine of exhaustion.
itself even provides that the decision of the
President on the matter of conflicting claims is [8] Or where the doctrine does not provide
final and executory. for a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

Of course, it does not mean that the party Example: In the matter of the collection of
has no remedy. Even the law if the provision small sum amount and you are being passed

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

from one office to another. The matter is SABELLO vs. DECS (bar)
pending before the administrative agency, and
even notwithstanding several follow ups, no FACTS: Sabello was accused in a
action has been taken on the matter. So, the criminal case and convicted. He was
action may immediately be filed before the actually a school principal in the Talisay
court. Barangay High School in Gingoog City.
He was convicted but was reinstated
[9] If further pendency of the case for the because there was an absolute pardon
administrative agency will only delay the given to him.
proceedings and thus you are deprived of your But he was reinstated not to his old
right to file an action before the court. position as principal but as a mere
classroom teacher. He complained, and
Example: An action involving a contest he did not file his appeal in the DECS.
over public office (quo warranto) and the same He immediately filed the case in court.
must be filed within 1 year. Supposing you are Was the action taken by Sabello valid?
already on the 11th month and the
administrative agency has not yet acted on the HELD: The rule on exhaustion of
matter. To await further would only cause administrative remedies and the
further delay and prejudice to the party and application of the exceptions is not a fast
thus he will be deprived of his right to file an and rigid rule.
action for quo warranto within the prescribed In the case of Sabello, the Court
period of 1 yr. So there is no need to exhaust granted the petition of the petitioner
administrative remedies. here. Sabello claimed that poverty
denied him the services of a lawyer. On
[10] The doctrine of exhaustion of that basis, the Court set aside this
administrative remedies applies only in public requirement of exhaustion of
lands. It does not apply where the subject of administrative remedies and looked into
controversy involves a private property. In the merits of the case and so, he was
such situation the body which has the power to reinstated to the position of school
take cognizance of the matter is the regular principal.
courts. In this situation, where the interest
of justice requires, the Court ruled that
[11] the other exception is, if the there was no need to exhaust
exhaustion of administrative remedies will administrative remedies because poverty
only result in the denial of due process. deprived the petitioner access to
We mention earlier the case of the
CHROMITE MINING where the same public Now, the decision of the administrative
officer is the one making a review of the same agency may be the subject of review. So the
said appealed case. So here, there is no need to aggrieved party may ask for the review of the
exhaust administrative remedies. decision by a superior administrative
Let us say, the bureau director making a
FACTS: This case involves the finding, such a finding is subject to the
dismissal of a laborer by the mayor of administrative review by the Department
the City of Manila because of the loss of Secretary because the latter has the power of
a personal property – a piano. The control over offices, bureaus and other
laborer contested the adverse decision. subordinate officers under them.
The law then at that time provided that
the action must be taken before the Example: The Bureau of Jail Management
Office of the President. is under the DILG. If the Director has rendered
But without complying with this a decision, the same is subject to review by the
requirement, this laborer claim he barely Department Secretary because the latter has
reached the 4th grade. He was the power of control.
uneducated and therefore there is no
need to comply with this doctrines. Note the distinction of the power of
control and power of supervision of the
HELD: Lack of education is not a President in relation to the Local Government
defense. There must still be compliance Unit:
with the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

Power of supervision simply means Executive Secretary because the presumption

overseeing that the subordinate officer is here is the regularity of the discharge of duties
observing the laws, acting within the scope of by the officers.
his assigned powers and functions as
prescribed by law. On the other hand, the Q: What is the basis of the doctrine of
power of control includes the power to set exhaustion of administrative remedies?
aside, amend, modify the action taken by the A: (1) Precisely to enable the
subordinate officer. The power of control administrative officer or agency to correct
includes the power of supervision. whatever errors committed; and (2) the need to
have a recourse to administrative agencies and
So, pursuant to the power of control, the not to the courts, thus de-clog the court
Department Secretary has the power to set dockets.
aside the decision rendered by a bureau
director. In the same manner that the Bureau Consistent with this doctrine, the review
of Immigration Commissioner is subject to the by the DOJ Secretary of the decision of the
power of control of the Department of Justice. Provincial or City Prosecutor is justified under
this doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
Please take note of that because there are remedies. Thus, he may even set aside, modify
so many decided cases by the SC involving the or alter the previous ruling of the subordinate
Bureau of Immigration. It has the exclusive prosecutor.
authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases
against alleged aliens. Deportation The power of the DILG Secretary to
proceedings are within the competence of the conduct investigation is likewise consistent
Bureau of Immigration. with the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Why? There is an
Q: What about the Collector of Customs appeal authorized by law to the Office of the
decision? President, and the Department Secretary acts
A: The decision may be the subject of as the alter ego of the President. Thus, it is
review by the Commissioner of Customs. within his (Dept. Secretary’s) power to order
the conduct of investigation against local
Is it possible for the Executive Secretary to elective officials pursuant to the provisions of
set aside the decision of the Department the Local Government Code.
Secretaries? Do they have the same ranks?
You know, the Executive Secretary is also
known as the “little President.” But all of them Review Of Administrative Decisions
are alter egos of the President. Their acts are By The Courts
considered the act of the President.
The review of administrative decisions by
Q: Supposing you have the decision of a the courts is limited to evidence already
bureau director brought on appeal to the submitted to the administrative officer or
Department Secretary, and the Department agency. The court is not authorized to receive
Secretary set aside the decision of the bureau additional evidence nor is it authorized to
director and the aggrieved party appeals to the waive conflicting testimonies of witnesses.
Office of the President and this appeal was Neither is it empowered to substitute its own
taken cognizance of by the Executive judgment for that of the administrative officer.
Is it within the power of the Executive Why? The simple reason for this is that,
Secretary to set aside the decision of the the findings of facts by the administrative
Department Secretary, thus, reverting to the agencies must be respected, if not accorded
decision rendered by the bureau director? with finality by the courts. So the presumption
A: The Executive Secretary acts by the here is that there is regularity in the discharge
authority of the President. It is erroneous to of duties by the administrative officer and that
say that his rank is co-equal to that of a the administrative officer, acting within the
Department Secretary. The Executive scope of his assigned powers, has impartially
Secretary is higher that the Department rendered a decision in the administrative case
Secretaries. brought before such officer or agency.

Thus, it is within the power of the The courts do not have supervisory power
Executive Secretary to set aside, modify, or over proceedings and actions taken by
affirm the decision rendered by the administrative agencies. For example, the
Department Secretary, unless of course the matter of determining whether or not the
President disapproves such action of the franchise applicant possesses the qualifications

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

required by law for the operation of a public

carrier is one of the finding of facts and must Q: So in what instances may there be a
therefore be respected by the courts. The review by the court of administrative
courts do not have such power to nullify such decisions?
factual finding made the administrative officer. A: The following are the instances:

1.) in an issue where it involves the

Review by Administrative Agencies vs. constitutionality or legality of law,
Review by the Courts treaty, ordinance or administrative
In the course of review by the courts of
administrative decisions, we have to 2.) where the issue involves the
distinguish: Take note that in a case of the jurisdiction of the administrative
review of the decision by the higher agency;
administrative officer of the decision of a
lower administrative officer, the superior 3.) where the findings of facts are
administrative official is authorized, in the necessary in order to determine the
exercise of his discretion, to receive additional findings of law; or
evidence. But NOT so when the review is
lodged to a judicial body or court. The review 4.) where there is an error of law
of the court is limited to that already submitted committed by the administrative
by the parties. officer.

Q: May the court be compelled to receive

additional evidence or to conduct a new Where There is No Substantial Evidence
hearing in an appealed case brought before it?
A: Since the authority of the court is So the rule that factual findings must be
simply to find out whether there is substantial given respect does not apply where the
evidence in support of the conclusion reached evidence is not substantial – where the
by the administrative officer, its power of decision is not supported by substantial
review is limited only to all the evidence evidence.
already submitted by the parties. It CANNOT
be compelled by the parties for them to submit Q: So in what instances may the factual
new evidence precisely because its role is not findings of administrative agencies be the
to determine conflicting claims which is a subject of judicial review?
power given to the administrative body. A: The following are the instances:
The role of the court is simply to find out
whether the evidence supports the decision – 1.) where the procedure followed by the
whether or not there is substantial evidence to administrative agency is irregular or
support the finding made by the administrative improper. E.g. non-compliance of
officer. procedural due process;

But in the review by the superior 2.) where there is capriciousness or

administrative officer of the decision of a arbitrariness committed by the
lower administrative officer, it is within the administrative officer in the course of
prerogative of the former to order the conduct the proceeding; or
of a new hearing or trial de novo, in the
exercise of his discretion, and even the 3.) where there is a clear lack of authority
admission of new evidence. But this is not so on the part of the public officer. So
in an appeal of an administrative decision there is a need to exhaust
before the courts. administrative remedies.

Q: When may courts review administrative 4.) where the issue involves pure
decisions? questions of law. Pure questions of
A: The general rule is that, factual findings law are subject to judicial review
must be accorded respect if not finality. This consistent with Article VIII, Section 5
presupposes that the administrative officer has of the Constitution: “All cases in
acted within the powers of his office, without which only an error or question of law
abuse of authority or without capricious is involved.” The administrative
exercise or grave abuse of discretion because officer cannot rule with finality on a
in the latter cases, the decision may be the legal issue.
subject of judicial review.

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

the minds of the public is an issue belonging to

Brandeis Doctrine Of Assimilation Of Facts the court and not to the administrative agency.

Mixed questions of facts and law are Of course, the law recognizes the
subject to judicial review under the Brandeis competence of administrative agencies, in this
Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts. case the Bureau of Patents, to allow
registration of trade names. BUT where there
Under this doctrine, where the factual is a question as to whether or not such a trade
finding relates to and dependent on a question name causes confusion, or similar to a prior
of law, then the court, in order to resolve the registered trade name or trademark, such issue
question of law, must therefore look into the is one belonging to the courts.
factual setting of the case. So there is here a
dependence on the issues of law as a means to The decisions of immigration authorities
gather the factual finding; there is an excluding an alien on the ground that he is not
assimilation of the facts under this doctrine a Filipino citizen are matters within the
and thus, there is authority for a review of both competence of the immigration bureau.
factual and legal issues by the court. Whether or not a person is authorized to reside
or is an immigrant or an alien is an issue
The issue of tenancy is not purely a factual within the primary jurisdiction of the
issue. It is an issue that involves not simply administrative officer. That is why the
whether or not there is a tenant on the land, or immigration authorities are very busy
whether or not tenants have done acts in screening the refugees from Malaysia because
violation of the agreement. More than this, the not all these refugees are definitely Filipinos.
legal issue involved is whether or not there is
indeed an agreement in the minds of the BUT where there is evidence deemed
landholder and the tenant – whether or not substantial that the individual possesses
there is an agreement – and this can only be Filipino citizenship, or the issue of citizenship
proven with finality by the court. So both in is put into issue, then it is within the power of
this case, there is a need for determination by the court to order the administrative agency to
the court of both factual and legal issues. defer action on the matter in order for the court
to look into the issue of citizenship. Why? The
In the case of issue of citizenship is one within the exclusive
authority of the court and not of the
MARPEX vs. HO PIA COMPANY administrative agency. That is the case of
Gatchalian vs. Board of Commissioners.
FACTS: Marpex already filed and
registered the trade name “Salonpas.” Now, PD 1445 provides for the
Subsequently, Petra Ho Pia filed an government conduct of audit, examination,
application for registration of the trade and even after such examination the
name “Lionpas.” The latter registration disallowance made by the auditors. In line
was questioned by Marpex but the with the doctrine of exhaustion of
Director of Patents denied the motion administrative remedies, the findings made by
and allowed the registration of the auditor on the matter of claims or
“Lionpas.” The matter was elevated settlement of accounts may be the subject of
before the court. an appeal to the COA within a period of six
ISSUE: Whether or not it is still (6) months from the findings made by the
within the power of the court to review auditor. And from the decision of the COA,
the decision made by the Director of the same may be the subject of judicial review
Patents. within a period of 30 days as mandated by PD
HELD: YES. The decision of the 1445.
Director of Patents allowed the
registration of the trade name “Lionpas”
over the objection of the competitor firm Criminal and Civil Immunities
which already registered the trade name
“Salonpas.” [y klaro!] Administrative bodies are not allowed to
grant criminal and civil immunities to persons.
BEER NA BEER [na!] case: The opposing But this rule is subject to an exception: where
party here is the San Miguel Corporation. the law itself authorizes the grant of such
Whatever findings made by the administrative immunity to the individual.
agency or officer is not final because whether
or not names are similar to cause confusion in So there must be express conferment by
the law just like the power of contempt and the

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

power to issue subpoena. These powers are not were both criminal and administrative cases
inherent in administrative agencies. There against the public officer. (Gatchalian vs.
must be a law conferring such authority to Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406)
administrative agencies. In the same manner Where there is a finding of guilt in the
that the grant of immunities to individuals in criminal case, it does not follow that this
criminal and civil cases must be one conferred would also result in a finding of liability in the
by law. administrative case.

Now, there are administrative agencies Q: Why?

which are empowered to grant criminal and A: The evidence required in one is
civil immunities to individuals such as the: different from the other: In civil case –
preponderance of evidence; in criminal cases –
1.) Presidential Commission on Good proof beyond reasonable doubt; and in
Government (PCGG) pursuant to E.O. administrative case – substantial evidence.
14 as amended by E.O. 14-A. The
PCGG has the power to grant In other words, even when these cases are
criminal, civil and administrative filed simultaneously, the finding in one is not
immunity to persons who testify on conclusive on the other. It is possible for an
the matter of alleged acquisition of ill- acquittal in the criminal case but there is a
gotten wealth by associates of the finding of guilt in the administrative case.
Marcoses; and the
Or, vice-versa: there is an acquittal in the
2.) Office of the Ombudsman, pursuant to administrative case but a conviction in the
Section 17 of RA 6770, may grant criminal case. This maybe for reasons beyond
immunity from criminal prosecution to the control of either proceedings such as when
any person whose testimony or there is a witness in the criminal case but none
possession and production of in the administrative case; or, there is a
documents and evidence may be recantation in the administrative case but in
necessary in any proceeding or the criminal case a documentary evidence was
hearing being conducted by the Office presented – the crime can be proved through
of the Ombudsman. documentary evidence in a criminal
proceeding – but in the administrative case,
Three-Fold Responsibility Of there was desistance.
Public Officers And Employees
Ordinarily, the rule is, even in
There is a basic principle that a public administrative law, the execution of an
officer or employee has “three-fold affidavit of desistance will not result in the
responsibility” – they have criminal, automatic acquittal of the respondent public
administrative and civil liabilities. An act or officer in the administrative case. But where
omission may give rise to criminal, civil and the conviction of the public officer can only be
administrative liabilities. (Tecson vs. had through the testimony of the desisting
Sandiganbayan, 318 SCRA 80) witness, but this witness is no longer available,
then the administrative agency will no longer
I (Sir Elman) was informed this morning have any option except to dismiss the
that one of the questions asked in the bar administrative case.
(September 2002) was on the filing of both
criminal and administrative cases against local The withdrawal of a complaint does not
elective official and the matter of preventive warrant the dismissal of the complaint. Of
suspension. Another question involves course in many decisions decided by the SC,
disqualification – where an individual holds where the case can only be prosecuted with the
dual citizenship which the case of Frivaldo active participation of a witness and this
together with the case of Manzano… witness is no longer around, definitely the
Manzano, your favorite actor. The question of administrative agency has to dismiss the
disqualification under the Local Government complaint.
Code is found under Section 40.

Q: Will the existence of a proceeding in

either criminal or administrative case pose a Doctrine Of Forgiveness And Condonation
prejudicial question for the holding of an
investigation in the other proceeding? Under this doctrine, public officials cannot
A: NO. The principle of prejudicial be subject to disciplinary action for
question does not apply where the actions filed

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

administrative misconduct committed during a the administrative case and impose the proper
prior term. penalty. Supposing this power to investigate is
delegated to a committee such as the blue
The doctrine is not only founded on the ribbon committee, is this allowed? Can this
theory that an official’s act re-election power to investigate be delegated to a
expresses the sovereign will of the electorate subordinate officer?
to forgive, or condone any act or omission A: YES. So long as the Sanggunian does
constituting a ground for administrative not simply rely on the findings of the
discipline which was committed during his subordinate official, body or committee, then
previous term, but also dictated by public the power to investigate may be delegated
policy, otherwise, his second term may just be BUT not the power to decide. The power to
devoted to defending himself in the said cases decide belongs still to the Sanggunian as
to the detriment of public service. This required under the LGC.
doctrine was applied in the case of


212 SCRA 768
FACTS: The matter of the conduct
FACTS: (This was asked in the bar) of administrative investigation against
Here, there was an administrative case the municipal mayor here was delegated
filed by then DILG Secretary Santos to a committee by the Sanggunian. The
against Governor Aguinaldo for committee report was signed only by the
disloyalty to the Republic. And there chairman of the committee. The
was a penalty of dismissal. Sanggunian deliberated on the report
But pending the administrative case, and made a votation on the matter.
he ran for the same elective position and By a vote of 5-3, the Sanggunian
got elected as the governor. voted to suspend the municipal mayor.

HELD: Applying the doctrine of ISSUE: Is the decision of the

forgiveness and condonation, Gov. Sanggunian valid?
Aguinaldo could not be held
administratively liable for a prior act HELD: NO. There was no decision
committed. Why? The previous term is signed by the members of the
distinct from the succeeding term. Sanggunian. They indeed voted on the
So where no sanction was meted for matter by a vote of 5-3 and
an act during a previous term, definitely recommended the penalty of suspension
no sanction should be allowed for such but it is not the decision contemplated
act committed during a previous term in by the law. Why? Section 6 of the LGC
a subsequent term of office. requires that the decision be made in
writing, stating clearly and distinctly the
factual findings and the reasons for such
But take note that this doctrine cannot be conclusion reached.
applied to criminal acts which the reelected So it follows that if there was a
official may have committed during his deliberation and voting but without the
previous term (Salima vs. Guingona, 257 decision signed by the members of the
SCRA 590). Sanggunian, the members of the
Sanggunian can still make a different
Now, let’s discuss the case of MALINAO ruling. So long as there is no affirmation
vs. REYES because here, the decision rendered of the decision, they can still change their
by the Sanggunian actually was not the votes.
decision of the Sanggunian as required by the
law because the matter of the conduct of the So that’s the ruling in MALINAO. You
administrative investigation against the know in the second deliberation made by the
municipal mayor was delegated to a Sanggunian, it voted 7-2. But this time for the
committee. But before that: acquittal of the respondent municipal mayor.
So the Sanggunian reversed its earlier decision
Q: Is it possible for the Sanggunian under which was not the one contemplated by law in
the Local Government Code (LGC) to the absence of a decision in writing. There
delegate the investigation of the administrative must be a written decision by the Sanggunian.
case against the elective official? Under the
LGC, it is the power of the Sanggunian to hear

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

Res Adjudicata in Administrative Cases demand. This involves the personal rights of
individuals, thus it has to be threshed out again
and again.
Now, the decision and orders of
administrative agencies or bodies have, upon Where for example, the matter is brought
their finality, the force and effect of a final before the administrative agency and the
judgment within the purview of res judicata evidence is substantial to support the claim of
principle. citizenship, then the administrative agency
must defer the case to the authority of the
So whatever has been threshed out by the court.
administrative officer in the administrative
case cannot anymore be the subject of a In the case of UCHO vs. CARLOS (245
subsequent action involving the same cause of SCRA 489), the principle of conclusiveness of
action, applying the doctrine of res judicata – judgment was applied.
the decision rendered by the department
officer or agency is final and conclusive.
Of course, the rule on res judicata does not 245 SCRA 489
apply where the exceptions apply such as [1]
when there was capriciousness or arbitrariness FACTS: Carlos was the landowner
in the exercise of the discretion. Or, [2] when of a three-hectare agricultural land.
there was summary dismissal. Summary The land was placed under the
dismissal has been ruled as unconstitutional Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
where simply on the basis of the pleading Program (CARP) of the government
submitted, a decision is rendered without and subsequently this property was
anymore proceeding. Thus, the concept of res distributed to supposed qualified
judicata does not apply because the procedure beneficiaries under the Operation Land
undertaken is irregular and violative of Transfer (OLT) of the government.
procedure due process. Subsequently, Ucho filed a petition for
the recovery of possession and
So there must be the conduct of formal ownership and the nullification of the
investigation unless there is a waiver of such transfer certificate of titles issued to the
formal investigation by the parties or when the beneficiaries.
party fails to present evidence. In this case, the The issue was brought before the
administrative agency can decide in the matter provincial adjudicator (PARAD). The
and allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex PARAD ruled in favor of the
parte. And thus, the respondent cannot landowner by ordering the cancellation
complain a violation of due process because he of the titles on the ground that the
was already given the opportunity to present beneficiaries were not really qualified
his side. and that some of them had already
agricultural land, thus, in violation of
Moreover, under the principle of res the Agrarian Law.
adjudicata, the decision of the administrative When the matter was evaluated by
agency is conclusive upon the rights of the the DARAB by applying the principle
parties, as though the decision was rendered of exhaustion of administrative
by the court. Under this principle, the matter remedies, the DARAB reversed the
cannot anymore be reopened once determined ruling of the PARAD. And so, the
with finality by the competent administrative matter was brought before the CA.
body. In other words, this doctrine applies to The CA affirmed the decision of
both judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. DARAB that the beneficiaries were
qualified under the Agrarian Reform
But there is one exception to this rule. In Law. But the CA made a finding that
the case of LABO vs. COMELEC, the principle Polinar should return the land
of res judicata does not apply where the issue possessed by and given to him under
is citizenship. Why? Because every time that the OLT, on the ground that he has
the citizenship of a person is material or already an agricultural land.
indispensable in a case, whether brought The matter was brought before the
before the Bureau of Immigration or before the SC because it was argued that there
court, whatever decision made by the officer was already a prior decision on the
on such issue is generally not considered as res matter of possession in another
judicata and there is a need for the same issue administrative case filed before the
to be threshed out as the circumstances may DAR legal officer – there was already

Administrative Law Review General Principles
2002 Edition

a ruling that Polinar does not own an So if the law does not grant authority to
agricultural land. the administrative officer to impose sanctions
or penalties for violations of the rules and
ISSUE #1: Is the principle of res regulations, in no case shall the administrative
adjudicata applicable in the instant officer be authorized to impose such penalty
case? on the private individual. There must be
HELD: YES. The SC ruled that express conferment by virtue of law given to
the principle of res adjudicata under the administrative officer.
Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of
Court applies not only to court
proceedings but even to quasi-judicial
proceedings – meaning, the proceeding =oOo=
brought before the DAR legal officer
in the case at bar.

ISSUE #2: Is it within the power ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

of the courts (CA) to nullify the REVIEW
finding made by the administrative
officer (legal officer of the DAR)?
Take note that the DAR legal officer Editors:
ruled that this person (Polinar) does not
have any agricultural land. This Jason John Joyce
decision became final because when
Nuj Dumbrigue
the motion for reconsideration was
denied, no appeal was taken.
Janis Dumama
HELD: Such decision of the Sheila Resabal
administrative officer has become final Jade Jamora
and thus cannot anymore be the subject Cam-cam Basa
of the same litigation before the courts, Tommy Veloso
applying the conclusiveness of Darry Gallego
judgment. Vanessa Bello
In other words, it does not matter Genie Salvaña
that the issues are different. The issue Kenneth Lim
here (DAR) is one of cancellation of Mortmort
title and recovery of possession and
ownership, whereas, the issue in the
CA pertains to whether or not this
person is the owner of another
agricultural land.
But nonetheless, since the facts are
the same, the issues are related, even if
the causes of action are different, the
doctrine of res adjudicata still applies.

So there is a need for giving finality not

only with respect to the decision of the
administrative officer. But such decision must
be accorded finality in the absence of
capriciousness or grave abuse of discretion.

Q: May an administrative officer may be

authorized to impose a penalty (e.g. fine) in
the administrative case against a private
individual? If so, what are the conditions in
order to have a valid imposition of a penalty
by the administrative officer?
A: The rules must have basis on the law.
The law itself must confer authority to the
administrative agency to impose a penalty for
violation not only of the rules and regulations
but also of the law.

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

OFFICE OF THE represented by the Office of the

Solicitor General.
SOLICITOR GENERAL HELD: Chavez should not be
represented by the Office of the

T he Office of the Solicitor General is

the counsel of the government, its
agency or instrumentality or officials in any
Solicitor General because the case for
damages cannot be attributable to the
State. If ever there is a judgment for
litigation, investigation or matter requiring the the payment of damages, the
services of a lawyer. government cannot be made
answerable therefor.
Q: What are the two (2) instances when
the Solicitor General is not allowed to Of course, it does not mean that the
represent government officials? Solicitor General should not represent a
A: The following: government official sued in his official
capacity where such representation would be
1.) where the government official is sued adverse to a position taken by another
criminally; government office. There have been so many
the reason here is that, the government as the instances where the Solicitor General takes a
principal, cannot commit a wrong. The illegal position contrary to that of another
acts or omissions committed by the agent government office. Like the case of
cannot be imputed on the principal;
2.) where the public officer is sued civilly September 12, 1990
for damages arising from a felony;
(Urbano vs. Chavez; Go vs. Chavez) FACTS: During the Aquino
Administration, then DOTC Secretary
Orbos made a reorganization in the
URBANO vs. CHAVEZ DOTC and there was this vacancy in the
position of heads of telecommunications
FACTS: A criminal case for engineer. Appointments were made to
violation of the Anti-Graft Law was Ayug and Maglayon.
filed against then DILG Secretary Luis The appointments were questioned
Santos before the Office of the by Madarang. He filed a motion for
Ombudsman. Secretary Santos was reconsideration before the reorganization
represented by the Office of the bureau and the motion was denied. So he
Solicitor General. The representation filed an appeal before the CSC. In the
made by the Office of the Solicitor exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the
General was questioned by Urbano CSC ordered the cancellation of the
contending that a criminal act allegedly appointments issued to Ayug and
committed by a public office is Maglayon.
personal to him. In due deference to the order of the
HELD: The SC sustained the CSC, Sec. Orbos convened the
argument of Urbano. Secretary Santos promotion board in order to deliberate
cannot be represented by the Solicitor who should be appointed to the position.
General in the criminal case for But the CSC disregarded the action taken
violation of the Anti-Graft Law filed by Sec. Orbos and ordered the issuance
against him before the Office of the of appointment in favor of Madarang. In
Ombudsman. our study of the law on Public Officers,
the order of the CSC is not valid. The
matter of appointment is one solely
GO vs. CHAVEZ belonging to the sound discretion of the
183 SCRA 347 appointing authority.
Of course, Sec. Orbos refused and
FACTS: (Solicitor General) Frank thus the Solicitor General raised the
Chavez was interviewed by Business matter before the court. The DOTC was
World and he uttered defamatory represented by the Office of the Solicitor
remarks. You know Chavez… General. The representation was
masyadong matapang…he just speaks questioned by the CSC and Madarang on
his mind out. the ground that the Office of the Solicitor
So Go filed a civil action for General is the counsel of the government
damages arising from these utterances and should not take a position contrary to
of malicious remarks. Chavez was

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

that taken by the CSC. Is the contention PEOPLE vs. DELGADO

of the CSC proper? September 18, 1990

HELD: NO. There have been so FACTS: This was an action filed by
many situations where the Commission the Commission on Elections in the
has taken a position different from that of name of the People of the Philippines a
an agency. Why? It is the duty of the petition questioning the authority of the
Solicitor General to make known to the RTC to review the actions taken by the
Court what position best upholds the COMELEC in the conduct of
position of the government. The Solicitor investigation and prosecution of
General should not abdicate this duty. election offenses brought before the
If ever such decision taken by the RTC.
Solicitor General is different from that of
another administrative agency or officer, HELD: The SC ruled that the
then the latter may represent itself petition has to be dismissed on the
through an in-house counsel. ground that the petition was not filed by
the proper counsel for the government
But of course, there are situations where which in this case is the Office of the
the other agency has already filed a pleading Solicitor General. Only the Office of
which is inconsistent with the stand taken by the Solicitor General can represent the
the Solicitor General. In such situation, the People of the Philippines. In the least,
Solicitor General may seek permission from the consent of the Office of the Solicitor
the courts not to represent such agency and for General should have been secured by
that agency to represent itself through its own the COMELEC before the filing of the
in-house counsel. petition.

Q: What about government owned and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL

controlled corporations (GOCCs)?
A: Upon the authority of the President or POLICE (PNP)
the head of office, the Solicitor General may
also represent GOCCs.

Thus, even under the law creating the

T he creation of the PNP is mandated
under the Constitution. Article XVI,
Section 6 of the Constitution provides that the
Office of the Solicitor General, it is State shall establish and maintain one police
empowered to deputize lawyers of other force which shall be national in scope and
government offices to act as deputized special civilian in character to be administered and
attorneys of the Office of the Solicitor controlled by the National Police Commission.
Q: What about the authority of local
Q: Suppose such authority is given to a government units?
lawyer of a GOCC, and there was a copy of an A: The authority of local executives over
order served on this deputized special attorney the elements of the PNP shall be provided by
acting on behalf of the Office of the Solicitor law. Thus, you have RA 6975 as amended by
General, for purposes of determining the RA 8851.
period for filing of appeal, is the service of the
order to the deputized attorney binding on the Some of the more important provisions of
Office of the Solicitor General? this RA 6975 are the following:
A: NO. The copy of order served on the
deputized special attorney acting on behalf of [1] Under Section 8, the question may be
the Solicitor General is NOT binding on the asked:
latter. Meaning, the counting of the period
within which to file an appeal starts only from Q: May a retired or resigned military
the time the notice (order) is served on the officer or police official be appointed by the
Solicitor General. (NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA President as Secretary of the DILG?
706) A: The law provides that no such military
officer or police official shall be appointed
Q: What is the effect of the filing of a suit within one (1) year from the time of his
which ought by an agency of government resignation or retirement. In other words, the
which ought to be represented by the Office of prohibition is only for a period of 1 year from
the Solicitor General? his separation from the military or police
A: In the case of service. Thereafter, the President is

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

empowered to appoint such retired or resigned [4] Section 45 provides for citizens’
military officer or police official. complaints. This provision authorizes the
filing by the private individual of a complaint
[2] Now under Section 12 of this law, this against a member of the PNP where the
provision defines the relationship between the offense calls for a penalty punishable by, let us
DILG and the Department of National say, a fine the amount, say 15-day salary of
Defense. suspension, the citizen’s complaint shall be
filed before the Chief of Police.
The primary role of the Department of
National Defense through the Armed Forces of Or where the penalty is not more than 30
the Philippines (AFP) is to secure and preserve days suspension, the complaint may be filed
the external security of the State. In other before the mayor,
words, the AFP has the primary, the principal
role of preserving external security. Or, where the penalty is more than that
period of suspension, let us say, more than a
Q: What about the DILG through the one month of suspension as penalty or even
PNP? Note that under the DILG are several dismissal from the service, a citizen may file
offices, bureaus. Some of them are the PNP, such administrative complaint before the
the National Police Commission which People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB).
exercises administrative control and
supervision over the PNP. You have also the There is created a PLEB in every
Bureau of Jail and Management. What then is municipality, city or legislative district. The
the role of the DILG thru the PNP? membership in the PLEB is a civic duty. This
A: It has the primary role of preserving the is one instance where an officer aware of a
internal security of the State. But where there private individual may be called upon to
are serious threats, through the national render public service, to membership in the
security of the State and in the interest of People’s Law Enforcement Board.
public order, the President may upon the
recommendation of the Peace and Order [5] Section 45 provides that a disciplinary
Council, may call upon the Armed Forces to action imposed by the PNP Regional Director
reassume the primary responsibility of or the PLEB involving demotion or dismissal
preserving not only the external but also the from the service, may be appealable to the
internal security of the State. Regional Appellate Board.

So where for example, there are serious There is created under this law an
threats posed by the Abu Sayyaf or other administrative disciplinary machinery, known
belligerent forces. In this situation, upon as the Regional Appellate Board (RAB) in
recommendation of the Peace and Order cases involving cases taken cognizance of by
Council, the President may call upon the the Regional Director or the PLEB; and the
Armed Forces to reassume its primary National Appellate Board (NAB) which
responsibility of preserving the internal involves cases taken cognizance of by the
security of the State. Chief of the PNP.

[3] Section 39 provides for the The law provides that the decision of the
compulsory retirement of officers and non- PNP Regional Director or the PLEB may be
officers upon reaching the age of 56 years – appealable within a period of 10 days to the
compulsory retirement. RAB which under the law is given a period of
60 days to decide on such an appeal. If no such
Q: Is there an instance where the services decision is made on such appeal by the RAB,
of such officer be extended? then it means that the decision appealed from
A: The law provides that in case an officer has become final and executory but subject to
with the rank of Chief Superintendent, the right by the aggrieved individual to appeal
Director or the Deputy Director General, the to the DILG Secretary. So notwithstanding the
National Police Commission may allow his lapse of the 60 day period and no action was
retention in the service for an unextendible taken on such appealed case by the RAB, the
period of one (1) year. matter can still be the subject of an appeal to
the DILG Secretary.
So for what positions? Positions of the
Director General, the Deputy Director It is erroneous to state that the appeal may
General, the Chief of the PNP, the Director, be taken to the NAPOLCOM. Why? The
and down the line is the Chief Superintendent. NAPOLCOM takes cognizance of appealed
cases only through its recognized disciplinary

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

machineries and these are the RAB and the

NAB. So the appeal should be taken to these Q: What ranks in the PNP service belongs
bodies and that is the appeal brought before to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan?
the NAPOLCOM. In the case of A: From the rank of Provincial Director
up, salary grade 27 and up (high-ranking
CABADA vs. ALUNAN officer). Below salary grade 27, superintendent
260 SCRA 839 is a low ranking officer of the PNP.

FACTS: The aggrieved individual So courts martial are not courts within the
filed the appeal addressed to the DILG Philippine judicial system. They pertain to the
Secretary in his capacity as ex-officio executive department and are simply
Chairman of the NAPOLCOM. instrumentalities of the executive branch of the
HELD: The appeal is defective
because the appeal should not be taken [7] Now Section 47, we mention
before the NAPOLCOM which already repeatedly the rule that the preventive
exercises appellate authority through the suspension of a public officer must be for a
NAB and RAB. the proper body should fixed period – 90 days, 60 days, etc.
be the Secretary of the DILG.
Of course, one exception to this rule is in
the case of a police officer who is charged
[6] Section 46 simply makes it clear that with a grave offense before the court pursuant
the members of the PNP are no longer subject to Section 47 of RA 7975. The preventive
to the provisions of court martial proceedings suspension from office of such PNP officer
nor under the provisions of the CA 408 known criminally charged with grave offense shall
as the Articles of War. last until the termination of the case.

You know before the effectivity of the The other exception is where there may be
Constitution, there was this Police indefinite preventive suspension such as under
Constabulary Integrated National Police. RA 3019 in relation to RA 1379 (Ill-gotten
There was fusion of these units – the Army, Wealth.) The intention here is to ensure the
the Philippine Air Force, the Navy and the safety of witnesses because the police officer
Philippine Constabulary Integrated National has the power of the gun (Himagan vs. People,
Police as belonging to the AFP. Thus, the 237 SCRA 538).
offenses committed then by the members of
the Integrated National Police were cognizable
by the courts martial and not by the regular [8] Section 51 defines the powers of local
courts. government executives over PNP units.

But the law now makes it clear in the Q: In the matter of the selection of the
implementation of the Constitutional provision Chief of Police, what is the extent of authority
that the PNP shall be national in scope and of the city mayor in appointing the Chief of
civilian in character. Meaning, all members of Police?
the PNP are now subject to the authority of A: His power to appoint is limited to a
civilian courts. So, if cases are to be filed selection of any of the 5 eligibles mentioned in
against the members of the PNP, the cases, if the list as submitted to him by the Senior
evidence warrants, should be filed before the Officers Promotion and Selection Board of the
regular courts and not before courts martial PNP in Camp Crame, Q. C.
pursuant to the provision of PD 1850 and the
matters be tried under the civilian laws. So the mayor cannot demand the inclusion
of the name of another police officer not stated
There was this case involving the issue of in the list. That power belongs to the Regional
whether or not courts martial are within the Police Director.
ambit of judicial force. It was ruled that courts
martial are not judicial bodies but are The Regional Police Director relies on the
implementing arms of the executive branch. names as submitted and screened by the Senior
So it is an administrative body under the Officers Promotion and Selection Board of the
executive branch and not a judicial body. PNP in Camp Crame and it is within the power
of the PNP Regional Director to submit such
But the Sandiganbayan is a regular court list to the (local?) Chief Executive.
where we made a classification whether high
ranking or low ranking police officers.

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

So the Chief Executive’s power to appoint Q: May such operational power be

is limited to the list submitted to him by the withdrawn by the President? Does the
PNP Regional Director. President have such power to withdraw this
right of the local chief executive to
In the provincial level, the Provincial operationally control PNP units?
Governor is limited to the list the names of 5 A: Yes. Under Section 52, the President
eligible police officers as screened by the may upon consultation with the Provincial
Senior Police Officer’s Promotion and Governor and the Congressman suspend the
Selection Board of the PNP Camp Crame, power of operational supervision and control
Quezon City. (Andaya vs. RTC, 319 SCRA of any Local Chief Executive over police units
616.) on any of the following grounds:

Now what about the relation of the Chief a.) abuse of authority by the local chief
executive to the PNP units or elements? I executive;
mentioned already the relationship of the b.) frequent unauthorized absences;
NAPOLCOM to the PNP and that is one of Note that this is also one of
administrative control and supervision. the grounds for the institution of
disciplinary action against a
On the other hand, the power of local local executive official under
executives is one of operational supervision Section 60 of RA 7160;
and control. Meaning, the Local Chief c.) providing material support to
Executive shall exercise operational criminal elements if the local
supervision and control over PNP units within chief executive is in cahoots, or
his territorial jurisdiction. maintains an army of goons who
are members of the PNP;
Q: The exception here, in what instance is d.) engaging in acts inimical to national
the local chief executive without authority security.
over such operational control over such PNP
units and elements?
A: Within a period of 30 days prior Another important case concerning the
immediately preceding a national, local or DILG law is the case of
barangay elections and 30 days thereafter, the
local chief executives do not have operational
control and supervision. It is the COMELEC ALUNAN vs. ASUNCION
which has the operational control over PNP 323 SCRA 623
units within 30 days before and 30 days after
the elections pursuant to Section 51 of the FACTS: Alunan, then Secretary of
PNP Law. the DILG, issued Resolution 93-032
stopping the members of the Criminal
Q: Now what then is this operational Investigation Service (CIS) from
supervision and control exercised by the local exercising certain powers. The CIS is
chief executive over PNP units? What does it actually a civilian component belonging
mean? to the Philippine Constabulary,
A: This means the power to direct, oversee possessed with police powers – power
and even inspect police units, police forces, to arrest, investigate commission of
and the power to employ and deploy PNP offenses as well as the power to effect
units through the Station Commander to seizures.
ensure public safety and the maintenance of Pursuant to the resolution issued by
peace and order within the territorial then Sec. Alunan, the members of the
jurisdiction of the local chief executive. CIS were deprived of their police
powers. Moreover, this resolution
So the operational power simply means classifies them as merely civilian
the power to employ and deploy units and components of the PNP. The resolution
elements of the PNP through the police station was questioned as violative of the DILG
commander to ensure the maintenance of law (RA 6975).
peace and order within the territorial
jurisdiction. HELD: The SC ruled that on the
contrary, the questioned resolution
[9] Section 52 is also an important implements RA 6975. The intention of
provision. A question may be asked: the law is to make the PNP wholly a
civilian in character and not a unit of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

If follows therefore that members of cases were filed against the governor
the PNP must be wholly uniformed and his escorts before the court martial
officers of the PNP. If no case therefore because at that time there was yet no
shall there be authorized non-uniform RA 6975 (DILG Law).
personnel with police powers. Thus, But before cases were filed, Deloso
there was option given to them claimed in the preliminary investigation
whenever they join the PNP. by the Ombudsman, that the crime of
The basis of the claim for the CIS multiple murder allegedly committed by
members was RA 5750 which provides him was not office-related, and
for the qualification, selection and therefore, the Ombudsman has no
appointment of the members of the CIS. authority to conduct the preliminary
It also provides police powers to them. investigation against his person.
But RA 5750 was effectively amended
by RA 6975. HELD: The authority of the
Ombudsman covers all kinds of
offenses, all misfeasances, malfeasances
and non-feasances committed by public
OFFICE OF THE officers and employees.
OMBUDSMAN The mandate given to the
Ombudsman under the Constitution is
et’s now go to the Office of the very broad that it covers even offenses
L Ombudsman (RA 6770). Of course,
we know the mandate given to the
not committed in relation to the duties
of a public officers.
Ombudsman under the Constitution as
protector of the people – the Ombudsman shall So the SC sustained the power of the
act promptly on any complaint filed in any Deputy Ombudsman for military to proceed
manner or form against any public officer or with the investigation and the filing of the
employee. cases before the Sandiganbayan.

You have the case of DELOSO vs. One other claim raised in the case of
DOMINGO (191 SCRA 545) which was DELOSO was the power of the Office of the
already asked in the bar at least twice already: Special Prosecutor (OSP). You know before
the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman,
DELOSO vs. DOMINGO what we had was the Tanodbayan.
191 SCRA 545 Subsequently, the Tanodbayan remained as the
FACTS: This Deloso, a very
notorious person but he still continue to Under the Constitution, the OSP became a
hold political position. This guy used to component unit of the Office of the
be the mayor of Botolan and was elected Ombudsman. The OSP can only proceed upon
governor of Zambales. the permission of the Ombudsman in the
Sometime in the evening of April matter of conducting preliminary investigation
22, 1988, Gov. Deloso together with his and the filing of cases before the
convoy of security of men composed of Sandiganbayan.
civilian and military personnel, attended
a basketball victory party. And from In the case of our favorite mayor,
there, at about 1:30 A.M. of April 23, ANTONIO SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU…
they proceeded to a pre-wedding you know Justice Demetriou is now the legal
celebration… we do not consider counsel of the daughter of Nida Blanca in the
wedding a victory… just joking. And Nida Blanca slay case. [Justice for Nida!] She
so, while on their way to a place in a was then the judge.
barangay in Botolan, they were
allegedly ambushed. When the firing SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU
started, he jumped out immediately of 227 SCRA 637
the car and hid behind the car.
And you know what, all the FACTS: Rape and homicide cases
casualties were the ambushers. Not one were filed against Sanchez. But before
of the convoy of Gov. Deloso was that, there was an invitation extended to
injured or killed. But in the the mayor by police authorities. And
investigation conducted by the PNP, it while he was already in the police
is found out that they (Deloso and his quarter, some witnesses pointed to him
men) were actually the ambushers. So as the culprit. So he was arrested. On

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

the spot, an inquest proceeding was The motion for reconsideration by

undertaken. the Ombudsman was denied and the SC
Sanchez questioned the authority of upheld its August 9 ruling on February
the DOJ prosecutors conducting the 22, 2000.
preliminary investigation on the ground But again, the Ombudsman again filed
that it is only the Ombudsman which a motion for further clarification. The
has the power to conduct preliminary SC on March 20, 2001 reversed its
investigation against a public officer. earlier ruling in the same UY case.

HELD: The authority of the HELD: The SC now went back to

Ombudsman is one of shared and its earlier ruling in the DELOSO case in
concurrent jurisdiction with other the matter of the broad jurisdiction of
investigating body of the government the Ombudsman to investigate any act
such as the DOJ. So what then is the or omission of any public officer and
effect of the filing of the information employee when such act appears to be
before the court by the DOJ without the illegal, improper, unjust or inefficient.
approval of the Ombudsman? Meaning, the Constitution does not
Since the jurisdiction of the make any distinction that the power of
Ombudsman is one of shared authority the Ombudsman to investigate covers
with other similar investigating body of only cases falling under the
the government, there is no infirmity in Sandiganbayan. The law states that it
the filing of the information before the has primary jurisdiction over such cases
REGULAR COURTS, in this case the cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
But essentially, the power of the
Ombudsman covers all kinds of
BUT the case would be different where the
malfeasances, misfeasances and non-
information is to be filed before the
feasances committed by public officers
even offenses committed not in relation
to their office.
Of course, the law recognizes the primary
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in cases
involving public officers cognizable by the
In the Davao City case of
Sandiganbayan. Meaning, if the respondent
public officer is a High-Ranking Officer
(Salary Grade 27 and above) and the case has
314 SCRA 452
to be filed before the Sandiganbayan, it must
have the approval of the Ombudsman.
FACTS: There was a request for
assistance filed by one Virgilia Yap
In fact, the law provides that at any stage
Morales who was a former government
of the proceeding, the Ombudsman may take
employee and was hired as a
over the investigation of the criminal case
coordinator in a study for the
from the other investigating body of the
codification of the Women Code of
government on cases within the primary
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
The project was terminated because
of lack of funds. She is now claiming
You have also the case of GEORGE UY
that there was non-payment of wages
vs. SANDIGANBAYAN. You know there are
due her in the amount of P70,800.00.
many SC rulings which are inconsistent.
The Office of the Ombudsman for
Mindanao ordered Councilor Nenita
Orcullo to submit her comment.
March 20, 2001
Notwithstanding her comment, the
Ombudsman was not satisfied of her
FACTS: In August 9, 1999, there
explanation on the alleged non-payment
was a ruling made by the SC in essence
of backwages. The investigating officer
that the power of the Ombudsman to
recommended that anti-graft charges be
prosecute cases extends only to those
filed against Orcullo. Such action was
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
questioned by Orcullo.
And thus in effect, the Ombudsman has
no power to investigate cases
HELD: The Ombudsman has no
cognizable by the regular courts. That
power to direct the payment of a
was the first ruling.
supposed money claim due an
employee. If the money claim is filed

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

against the City government, such claim lower courts or even order their
should be taken cognizance by the City dismissal.
Council of the LGU. Therefore, it is only the SC that can
The SC recognizes the power of the oversee the judges and court personnel’s
Ombudsman to take cognizance of compliance with all laws, and take the
complaints requiring assistance. But the proper administrative action against
power to order the payment of them if they commit any violation
backwages or other monetary claims thereof. No other branch of government
belongs to the court of competent may intrude into this power. Thus,
jurisdiction depending on the amount of where a criminal complaint against a
the claim. judge or other court employees arises
from their administrative duties such as
the filling of a certificate of service, the
NATIVIDAD vs. FELIX Ombudsman must defer action on said
229 SCRA 682 complaint and refer the same to the SC
for determination whether said judge or
FACTS: The provincial prosecutor court employee had acted within the
of Tarlac conducted a preliminary scope of their administrative duties.
investigation of a murder of an NPA
suspect Ceverino Aquino. The crime
was allegedly committed by Mayor The same ruling was reiterated in the case
Natividad of Ramos, Tarlac who of
claimed that it is only the Ombudsman
which has the power to investigate DOLALAS vs. OMBUDSMAN
because he is a high-ranking official 265 SCRA 819
FACTS: A criminal complaint for
HELD: The authority of the violation of the Anti-Graft Law was
Ombudsman is a shared and concurrent filed before the Ombudsman against
authority with the other investigative MTC Judge Dolalas of Zamboanga City
bodies of the government. for unreasonable delay in deciding a
Although it was argued by Mayor case for alarms and scandals filed
Natividad that the murder was before her sala.
committed in relation to his office
which is to maintain peace and order in HELD: The Ombudsman has no
the society since the victim is an NPA, jurisdiction to initiate an investigation
however, nowhere in Section 444 of the into the alleged undue delay by the
LGC is the commission of murder judge in the disposition of the criminal
among the duties and responsibilities of case which involves the determination
a municipal mayor. of whether, in resolving the alarms and
scandals case, petitioner-judge acted in
accordance with the Code of Judicial
221 SCRA 464 Such is clearly administrative in
nature over which the SC has
FACTS: A criminal action initiated administrative control and supervision.
by the Ombudsman against Judge
Maceda for falsification of his
certificate of service – that he had FUENTES vs. OMBUDSMAN
completed the number of resolutions October 23, 2001
within the period mandated. This matter
was taken cognizance by the FACTS: This case involves the
Ombudsman. construction of the fly-over in
Buhangin, Davao City. There were
HELD: The Ombudsman has no several private properties which were
jurisdiction. Under Sec. 6, Article XIII expropriated. There were also money
of the Constitution, the SC has the claims filed because some of the private
administrative supervision over all property owners were still not paid of
courts and the personnel thereof. And the amount due them.
under Sec. 11, the SC en banc shall A motion for execution of the
have the power to discipline judges of judgment was issued and Judge Fuentes
ordered the attachment of several

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

properties considered as junks found in MUST be a final and authoritative judicial

the compound of DPWH in Panacan. declaration that the decision or order of the
The order of the judge was judge is indeed unjust. In the absence of such
contested because the attached declaration, the filing of civil or criminal case
properties are not junks but still against the judge on such matter is premature
serviceable. The order was questioned and cannot prosper.
before the Ombudsman that there were
alleged anomalies in the issuance The pronouncement that the judgment is
thereof and in the service of the writ of unjust may result either from (1) an action for
execution. The fact-finding committee certiorari or prohibition against such action of
recommended the filing of a criminal the judge, or, (2) pursuant to the filing of an
case against Judge Fuentes. administrative case before the higher court
impugning the validity of such judgment or
HELD: The Ombudsman cannot order rendered by the respondent judge.
take action on the criminal case against
Judge Fuentes for alleged violation of
Anti-Graft Act because what is being Preventive Suspension
questioned is the order of the judge. It is By The Ombudsman
only the SC which can look into the
issue on whether or not the order issued On the matter of the power of the
by the judge is illegal or unjust, or Ombudsman to issue preventive suspension
whether or not it is within the scope of order, you have the case of
the judge’s official duties.
233 SCRA 311
335 SCRA 281 FACTS: This case arose because of
a traffic incident along the intersection
FACTS: A criminal case was filed of Makati Avenue and Gil Puyat
by private individual De Vera against Avenue. Then Vice-Mayor Arturo
RTC Judge Pelayo before the Yabut was directing traffic. A car driven
Ombudsman for alleged malicious delay by an American doctor made a U-turn
in the administration of justice and and shouted at Yabut for the delay.
knowingly rendering an unjust There was exchange of harsh words and
interlocutory order. resulted to fistfight between them [watch
Instead of taking an action on the UFC on Solar channel]. Both suffered
matter by requiring the judge to file an injuries.
answer, the Ombudsman referred the A case for simple misconduct and
case to the Supreme Court. It is now oppression was filed against Vice-
contended by De Vera that since his Mayor Yabut. Pending investigation,
complaint involves a criminal charge, it the Ombudsman issued a preventive
is within the power of the Ombudsman suspension order placing him suspended
and not with the SC. Note that the SC for 90 days which actually he served
has administrative supervision over only for 82 days.
courts. Subsequently after trial, the
Ombudsman meted the penalty of 90-
HELD: No other official of the day suspension. It is now contended by
government has the competence to Yabut that the period of preventive
review a court order or decision whether suspension must be credited to whatever
final or interlocutory. There must be a penalty of suspension that may be
judicial pronouncement that the order is imposed by the Ombudsman. Thus, the
erroneous as to lay the basis for the 82 days served by him as preventive
institution of a criminal or suspension should be credited to the 90-
administrative complaint before the day suspension penalty imposed.
Ombudsman. Thus, the matter has to be
referred to the SC. HELD: Vice-Mayor Yabut is
wrong. The nature of the preventive
Note that the rule here as held by the SC, suspension is merely a preliminary step
before a civil or a criminal case is filed against in the administrative adjudication
a judge for violation of Articles 204 and 205 precisely to protect and insure the
of the Revised Penal Code on rendering an veracity and security of vital records.
unjust judgment or interlocutory order, there Therefore, the period of preventive

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

suspension cannot be credited to What is determinative is the time of

whatever penalty that may be meted out. commission, i.e., during a previous
term. It does not matter that it took
place a few days before the elections.
GARCIA vs. LOGICA There was here a presumed knowledge
on the part of the people re-electing him
FACTS: Criminal and to the same office. Thus, there was
administrative cases were filed against condonation as in the AGUINALDO
Mayor Garcia of Cebu City in case.
connection with anomalous purchase of
asphalt by the City Government with BUENASEDA vs. FLAVIER
Swelley(?) Corporation. The contract 226 SCRA 646 (Bar)
with the corporation was signed four (4)
days before the local elections. Mayor FACTS: This case involves several
Garcia ran and was re-elected. employees including the Chief (Dr.
But even before the filing of the Buenaseda) of the Hospital of the
answer for the administrative case, the National Center for Mental Health who
Ombudsman issued preventive were accused of graft practices before
suspension order on Garcia for 6 the Ombudsman filed by then DOH
months. Garcia now claims that he Secretary Flavier.
could no longer be placed under The Ombudsman directed Dr.
preventive suspension because of his re- Buenaseda et al to file their answers.
election citing the case of After filing their answers, the
AGUINALDO. Ombudsman issued preventive
suspension order. The respondents
ISSUE: Is it still within the power contended that there was yet no formal
the Ombudsman to issue preventive hearing conducted on the matter and so,
suspension order despite the fact that the issuance of the preventive
the act complained of happened during suspension order violated due process.
a previous term? Is the case of Moreover, they contended that the
AGUINALDO applicable in the instant Ombudsman has no power to suspend
case? government officials or employees
working in offices other than the Office
HELD: The Ombudsman can still of the Ombudsman.
issue preventive suspension order even
if the act in question happened during a HELD: By nature, a preventive
previous term. The power of the suspension order is not a penalty.
Ombudsman to issue preventive Therefore, there was no violation of due
suspension order is provided for under process. The issuance of the preventive
Section 24 of R.A. 6670. The power to suspension order is not by reason of
investigate is separate and distinct from disciplinary action taken by the
the power to impose administrative administrative body.
sanctions. The power to investigate is And clearly under the law, the
also separate and distinct from the power of the Ombudsman covers not
power to preventively suspend a local only employees within its office but
elective official. also other offices of the government.
Although in the case at bar, the SC
reduced the preventive suspension from
6 months to a period until such time CASTILLO vs. BARBERS
there is an order issued by the SC for 290 SCRA 719
the maintenance of the status quo
pending investigation into the matter by FACTS: Gov. Jose Castillo of
the SC. Quirino Province was charged with graft
What is then the consequence of the practices because of the alleged
re-election of Garcia? Mayor Garcia purchase of a heavy equipment which
cannot be sanctioned administratively was not brand-new although the
because the subject of the administrative requirement was for a brand-new heavy
complaint was committed during a equipment. What was delivered and
previous term despite the fact that the accepted by the Provincial Governor
act complained of happened 4 days was a reconditioned heavy equipment
before the elections. and so, a graft case was filed together
with the administrative complaint.

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

Preventive suspension was decreed on appeal is simply granted by law. Thus, it

Gov. Castillo. is possible that such right may be
One issue raised was the fact that withdrawn by the law itself.
under the LGC, the maximum
preventive suspension is only 60 days HELD: Under the Ombudsman Act,
and he claimed that what should be where the penalty imposed in the
followed is the provision of Sec. 63 of administrative proceeding is suspension
LGC providing for the 60-day not exceeding 30 days or a fine not to
preventive suspension. exceed one month salary, the decision
shall become final and executory. It is
HELD: The SC ruled that the only where the decision imposes a
provisions under the LGC are different suspension of more than one month or a
from that under the Ombudsman Act. So fine of more than a month’s salary that
administrative proceedings taken by the there may be an appeal taken to the
Ombudsman pursuant to its provisions higher authorities.
under the Ombudsman Law ought to be So the SC ruled in this case that
followed. In other words, the there is no violation of due process
Ombudsman can mete out the maximum because the law has made such
preventive suspension of six (6) months. imposition of penalty as final and


300 SCRA 494 In those instances where the penalty
imposed by the Ombudsman is more than 30-
HELD: The matter of imposing the day suspension or up to one year (the period of
period of preventive suspension up to suspension as a penalty should not exceed one
six months lies within the discretion of year or dismissal from the service), where
the Ombudsman. should the appeal be taken? What should be
the proper remedy? In the usual course of
Generally, the SC will not interfere into proceedings, the review of the decision of the
the exercise of discretion by the Ombudsman. Ombudsman may be taken to the proper body.
Although in the case of GARCIA vs. LOGICA, Under Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act
the SC ruled that the imposition of six (6) providing that the decision of the Ombudsman
months preventive suspension on Mayor may be appealed to SC by way of petition for
Garcia was unreasonable and so the SC review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the
reduced the period. As a general rule Rules of Court. But this provision has been
however, the matter is within the sound declared by SC as unconstitutional in FABIAN
discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman. vs. DESIERTO (295 SCRA 478) because this
provision expanded the jurisdiction of SC
ALBA vs. NITORREDA without its consent and advice.
254 SCRA 753

FACTS: This involves a Davao Q: So what then is the proper remedy?

case. There was this complaint filed A: The petition for review on certiorari
before the Office of the Ombudsman applying Rule 43. That is the usual course is
against the Asst. Regional Director of review of the decisions of administrative
DECS. There were several graduates of bodies. It should now be brought before the
a school in Tagum. The head of the CA within 10 days.
school there refused to look into their In criminal cases decided by the
complaint. And so there was a request Ombudsman, the appeal should be taken to
for reconsideration but the Asst. SC.
Regional Director did not take
cognizance of the complaint. There was The other remedy in administrative
an allegation that he was partial to the proceedings decided by the Ombudsman is
owner of the school and so there was an under Rule 65 but only as an exception, i.e.,
administrative complaint. As a result of where there is grave abuse of discretion, error
such proceeding, a penalty of suspension of law and such other instances. Heire, the
was imposed. remedy is not under Rule 43 but Rule 65.
There was a complaint that there
was a violation of due process because Rule 65 is an independent special civil
Asst. Regional Director Alba was denied action precisely to question the decision of the
the right to appeal. Note that the right to Ombudsman on the ground that the

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

Ombudsman has abused its power or authority But let me inject some facts in the case of
or there is grave capriciousness, or there is MARQUEZ. Note that what happened in this
error of law committed by the Office of the case was that the cases brought before the
Ombudsman. Office of the Ombudsman were only in the
fact-finding stage, not in the formal
What about the approval by the COA of investigation of cases against the public
government officials’ disbursements? It may officer. Meaning, in essence, this is still
happen that the transaction post audited by subject to verification of evidence whether
COA has been passed in audit and found in there is evidence in support of the complaints.
order by COA. But nonetheless, despite such
findings by the Commission, it is deemed In other words, this fact-finding
possible for the Ombudsman to inquire into investigation is some kind of fishing
the criminal liability of Public Officers who expedition which would violate the secrecy of
were responsible for such contract or passage bank deposits under RA 1405 which prohibits
of the documents. the disclosure and provides for the absolute
secrecy of bank deposits and prohibits
So the clearance made by COA on the disclosure of such deposits to any person even
matter may only relate to the administrative including an officer of government unless the
aspect so far as the administrative exceptions apply.
accountability of the public officer or
employee who is subject to the auditorial The exceptions are: (1) in the course of an
power of the COA. But it will not prevent the examination by the bank pursuant to an
Ombudsman from investigating and finding authority given by the Central Bank; (2) an
out whether there is a crime to be prosecuted authority given to the auditor for the conduct
for violation of penal laws (Rodrigo vs. of an examination of audit; (3) upon written
Sandiganbayan, 303 SCRA 309) permission of the depositor; (4) in cases of
impeachment proceedings; (5) where the
money deposited or invested is the subject
MARQUEZ vs. DESIERTO matter of the controversy; and (6) upon order
G.R. 135882, June 23, 2001 of competent courts in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty on the part of the public
FACTS: There was an order by the officers.
Ombudsman for the bank manager of
Unionbank to produce the bank records Q: What about a case filed against a
or accounts of Lagdameo in connection public officer for violation of the Anti-Graft
with the fact-finding investigation Law? Is this still included as an exception?
conducted by the Ombudsman A: Yes because the nature of a charge
pertaining to alleged violation of the under the anti-graft law is similar to bribery
anti-graft and corrupt practices act. or with dereliction of duty of public officers.

ISSUE: Whether or not the

Ombudsman has power to issue
subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of PRESIDENTIAL
inquiring into the records.
HELD: SC disregarded its earlier GOVERNMENT (PCGG)
rulings in the case of Purisima and
Gancayco vs. PNB because in those two
cases, the SC upheld the power of the
investigative bodies of the government
such as the DOJ and the Tanodbayan to
T he laws creating PCGG are provided
under E.O.s 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
look into bank deposits of public E.O. 1 (February 28, 1986) mandates the
officers accused of violation of the anti- PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth
graft law and violation of RA 1379 (Ill- accumulated by the Marcoses, their immediate
gotten Wealth Law). families, relatives, subordinates, associates and
But in this case of MARQUEZ, SC cronies, whether such properties found in the
ruled that the Ombudsman has NO Philippines or abroad.
power to look into such bank deposits
although this is still subject to a motion And likewise includes the power to take
for reconsideration from the decision of over or sequester all business enterprises or
the Supreme Court. entities controlled or owned by them.

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

And under the same law (E.O. 1), PCGG only of immunity given by PCGG in
has the power to take over or place under its criminal cases.
control any property or office within its HELD: Section 5 must be related to
authority. Section 3 of E.O. 14 as amended which
provides for the procedure and the
Under the same law, there is no civil applicable laws in the prosecution of
action shall prosper against the PCGG or any civil cases, and applying the provision
member thereof for the discharge of their of the New Civil Code, Article 2028 –
functions and duties. the mandate is to conciliate civil cases.
Therefore the grant of civil
E.O. 2 empowers the PCGG to freeze all immunity in civil case to the son (Jose
assets and properties in the Philippines and Campos, Jr.) was within the powers of
likewise prohibit any person from transferring the PCGG.
or concealing such property alleged to be ill-

E.O. 14 and E.O. 14-A mandate the PCGG CRUZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
to file and prosecute all cases before the February 26, 1991
Sandiganbayan which has the exclusive
jurisdiction to try and hear cases of the PCGG. FACTS: Roman Cruz was then the
And likewise, Section 5 of E.O. 14 as President of GSIS. There was a graft
amended, empowers the PCGG to grant complaint against him for is act of
immunity from criminal prosecution of any entering a contract with a private
person who testifies. business allegedly causing injury to the
government. The contract was allegedly
In the case of anomalous.
Roman Cruz questioned the
PCGG vs. PEÑA authority of the PCGG to investigate
April 12, 1988 him for alleged violation of the Anti-
Graft Act.
FACTS: There was a freeze order
issued by the PCGG over the assets and HELD: Not all graft cases are
records of two government firms. This within the authority of the PCGG – only
freeze order was contested before the those graft cases in relation to the
RTC. Based on a complaint, the RTC mandate of the PCGG, are within the
issued a restraining order. authority of the commission.
In other words, IF there is NO
HELD: The RTC has no allegation as to the ill-gotten wealth
jurisdiction over PCGG. The SC applied accumulation of the public officer; he is
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and taking advantage of his public office; or
exhaustion of administrative remedies. his relation to the Marcoses, then the
The PCGG is a co-equal body with the investigation and prosecution of these
RTC and co-equal bodies have no cases must be undertaken not by the
power to control the other. PCGG but by the Office of the
It is only the Sandiganbayan which Ombudsman.An examination of the
has the exclusive jurisdiction over the pleadings filed against Roman Cruz,
PCGG. does not disclose any relation to the
Marcoses. Neither was there any
allegation of his alleged accumulation
REPUBLIC vs. of his ill-gotten wealth by taking
SANDIGANBAYAN advantage of his official position and
173 SCRA 72 his relation to the Marcoses. Thus, the
PCGG has no power to investigate
FACTS: There was a grant of civil Roman Cruz. The Ombudsman should
immunity to Jose Campos. Such be the proper office to investigate the
immunity was extended to his son, Jose allegation of graft committed by Cruz.
Campos, Jr. Meaning, only those cases for the
recovery of the ill-gotten wealth
ISSUE: Whether or not the PCGG accumulated prior to February 25, 1986
is empowered to grant civil immunity. are within the competence of the PCGG.
Note that Section 5 of E.O. 14 talks Those ill-gotten wealth cases after

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

February 25, 1986 are already within PCGG, Atty. Ramirez. He issued a
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. sequestration order over the assets and
properties of Dio Island Resort in Leyte
The case of CRUZ is similar to the case of allegedly owned by the Romualdezes.
PCGG vs. MIGRINO (August 30, 1990). Here,
there was an investigation conducted by the ISSUE #1: Is a sequestration order
new AFP Anti-Graft Board created by then issued by the head of a task force of the
chairman of the PCGG, on the complaint of PCGG valid?
the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Col. (Ivan HELD: The rules implementing the
Dkhd) Tecson. But there was no allegation law on PCGG empower the
linking Col. Tecson to the Marcoses. Thus, Commission upon authority of at least
the PCGG is without authority to investigate two (2) Commissioners before a writ of
the graft case against Tecson. sequestration may be issued by a
representative of the PCGG.

BASECO vs. PCGG ISSUE #2: What is then the effect

150 SCRA 181 of the ratification made by the
Commission on the order earlier issued
HELD: The PCGG cannot perform by a PCGG representative? Does it
acts of ownership or dominion over ratify the act of the representative?
sequestered properties. HELD: The writ of sequestration is
The essence of the sequestration null and void since the issuance made
order is not an act of ownership. It is by the representative of the PCGG did
simply an act to conserve properties to not conform to the rules implementing
prevent further dissipation of assets the law. No ratification by the PCGG
alleged to be ill-gotten. can cure the defect. Such non-
Since the PCGG is not the owner of compliance is a fatal defect.
the sequestered assets, it is not allowed
to vote sequestered shares of stocks or
even elect members of the board of COCOFED vs. PCGG
directors concerned (Cojuangco vs. October 2, 1989 (?)
Azcuna, [April 16, 1991]). The reason
here is that, PCGG is a mere HELD: For purposes of this
conservator and not an owner of the proceeding, all the Court needs to
sequestered property. determine is whether or not there is a
The exception to this rule is in case prima facie justification for the issuance
of a take over of a business belonging to of a sequestration order by the PCGG.
the government or whose capitalization In the case of COCOFED, the SC was
comes from government funds, but now satisfied that there was a prima facie
in the hands of the private business. In basis for the issuance of the
such situation, the PCGG may vote on sequestration order given the public
the sequestered shares not as an act of character of the coco levy funds.
ownership but to conserve properties There are also other circumstances
already in the hands of private considered by the SC such as the fact
businesses but which used to be owned that P20 million COCOFED funds were
by the government, or the capitalization delivered to Imelda Marcos through her
comes from the government. scholarship foundation without proper
accounting. One other factor was the
various cash advancements made by
And under the rules promulgated by the COCOFED officials including Maria
PCGG, there was a question on whether or not Lobregat (tita of Kenneth Lim!!)
the power to issue a writ of sequestration may Moreover, COCOFED purchased an
be delegated to an agent or representative of aircraft using levy funds. These
the PCGG. In the case of circumstances constitute sufficient
prima facie basis for the issuance of
sequestration order by the PCGG.
July 12, 1996

FACTS: There was a sequestration

order issued by a representative of the

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition


A s to the authority of the Central Bank
to close a bank, a question may arise:
whether or not the Central Bank under the
Central Bank Act has the power to order the
T he PAGCOR was created by virtue of
PD 1067 as amended by PD 1869.
Basically, the charter of the PAGCOR
closure of a bank even without prior hearing.
empowers the corporation to regulate and
centralize all games of chance authorized by
Now, the options of the Monetary Board
existing franchises and permitted by law. At
pursuant to the provisions of the Central Bank
the same time, the charter authorizes the
Act are said to be final and executory. This
PAGCOR to establish, operate and maintain a
refers to the proceedings on Insolvency –
gambling casinos in any part of the
known as “close now, hear later” policy of the
Central Bank.
In other words, the PAGCOR has two-fold
In other words, under this policy, the
character: (1) governmental and (2)
Central Bank can close down a bank for
proprietary functions.
insolvency without prior notice and hearing.
The reason for this policy is to prevent the
In its governmental character, the
unwarranted dissipation of the bank’s assets
PAGCOR is mandated to regulate and
and properties, and likewise to protect the
centralize all forms of games of chance in one
creditors, stockholders and depositors, and the
centralized agency known as the PAGCOR.
public at large. We go back to the issue:
The basis here is public welfare – the need to
regulate gambling and all the consequent evils
Q: Whether or not the Central Bank can
attendant to operations of gambling joints and
close down a bank for insolvency without
prior notice and hearing.
A: The answer is in the affirmative.
In its exercise of its proprietary function,
However, there are conditions for such actions
PAGCOR is therefore authorized to operate as
of the Central Bank as held in the case of
a business. You know, PAGCOR is the third
largest revenue earner for the government after
BANK (220 SCRA 536):
the BIR and the Bureau of Customs – about
P18 billion income a year. And most of these
1.) There must be an examination
income goes to the government in the form of
pursuant to the authority of the Central
social funds under the Office of the President.
Bank. In other words, the examining
You have also the President’s share. And all of
department of the Central Bank is
these are allocated to finance the economic
given the power by the Central Bank
programs of the government.
to look into the accounts and records
of the bank in question;
In the case of MAGTAJAS vs. PRYCE
PROPERTIES (253 SCRA 255), the issue
2.) On the basis of such examination, a
involves the power of the LGUs to impose a
report has to be submitted to the
tax on the PAGCOR. Clearly, under the
Monetary Board; and
charter of PAGCOR, it is exempt from local
taxes. And under the Constitution, the power
3.) The Monetary Board on the basis of
of the LGUs to tax is subject to such
such report finding that further
guidelines and limitations that Congress may
operation would only cause danger to
the bank and to the public, then it can
order the immediate closure of the
Re: Jai-Alai
Of course under the law, the aggrieved
Now there was a case involving the
bank is given the opportunity to sue the
authority of PAGCOR to operate Jai-alai. On
Central Bank within a period of ten (10) days
June 17, 1999, PAGCOR entered into an
from the date of closure.
agreement with private companies – the Grand
Jai-Alai Corporation and the PhilGame. The
agreement calls for the Grand Jai-Alai
PHILIPPINE Corporation to make available to PAGCOR
AMUSEMENT AND the required infrastructure and facilities and to
include the quantom(?)… have you seen how

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

this game is played? This was a very popular the PAGCOR was never given a legislative
game years ago involving some kind of a franchise to operate jai-alai. And subsequently,
pelota racket played by ancient Spaniards. there were several amendments to the charter
of PAGCOR – PD 1067, PD 1399, PD 1632
And so, under this agreement entered into and PD 1869. And in all of these amendments,
by PAGCOR, there was no financial cash out there was never a clear indication giving such
on the part of the PAGCOR – what the duty of grant to operate jai-alai to PAGCOR.
the PAGCOR is simply to manage and operate
– everything was provided by the private When the Aquino Administration took
corporations. And so there was a petition filed over, she issued E.O. 169 on May 8, 1987
by Congressman Del Mar of Cebu and later repealing PD 810. Thus, E.O 169 revoked the
joined by other congressmen like Defensor franchise of Philippine Jai-Alai & Amusement
(Lim, Calizo, Mortejo, Peloton, Pito) et al Corporation as operated by the Romualdezes.
questioning the legality of the agreement on But nevertheless, the State never passed any
the ground that PAGCOR has no power to modification to the charter of PAGCOR.
give such operation to private business. It is
observed that the franchise is essentially a The charter of PAGCOR deals with the
legislative power. details pertaining solely to the operation of
gambling casinos. In the mandate given to
HELD: The charter (PD 1869) of PAGCOR, it has the duty to centralize all
PAGCOR does not give it a franchise to games of chance. It is said that jai-alai is a
operate and manage jai-alai. There are game of skills, not a game of chance.
basically three (3) reasons given by the
Supreme Court: [3] The third reason cited by the SC is
that, PAGCOR is engaged in business affected
[1] One is, the nature of a franchise is a with public interest. A legislative franchise to
special privilege conferred by the State. It can operate jai-alai is imbued with public interest
be operated directly by the State, or indirectly and involves the exercise of police power.
through any corporation or any of its public
agents, in this case the PAGCOR. So it is only The statutory construction in the matter of
the State through Congress that is truly police power should be strictly construed
empowered to legally grant a franchise. It is a against the grant thereof. Why? Because this is
privilege of public concern which cannot be imbued with public interest. The rule here is,
exercised at mere pleasure of the PAGCOR. laws which grant the right to exercise police
power of the State are to be strictly construed
In the case of PAGCOR, clearly there was and any doubt should be resolved against the
no such express grant and conditions grant.
protective of public interest in its charter – the
manner of granting of the franchise to whom it So any doubt should be resolved against
should be granted. All of these issues were not the grant of such franchise to PAGCOR in the
answered in the charter itself of the PAGCOR. absence of a clear language indicating the
In other words, there was no clear authority intention of the State through Legislature of
given to PAGCOR for the operation of jai-alai. entrusting this power to operate to PAGCOR.

[2] The second reason is based on the

historical studies made by the organization
created during the Marcos era in 1977. But
even before 1977, there was already a law (COA)
enacted creating the Philippine Jai-Alai &
Amusement Corporation in 1975… and this
franchise to operate jai-alai was given to and
controlled by the Romualdezes. The
Romualdezes were given a 25-year franchise
T he mandate of the COA is found
under Article IX-B, Section 2 – the
COA has the power, authority and duty to
to operate jai-alai in Manila. That was in 1975. examine, audit, and settle all accounts
The charter of PAGCOR was enacted only in pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
1977. expenditures or uses of funds and property,
owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
So clearly, the matter of giving franchise Government, or any of its subdivisions,
to operate jai-alai was not intended for agencies, or instrumentalities x x x.
PAGCOR but to a different corporation
pursuant to PD 810 of October 16, 1975. So

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

Under the same section, the COA has also COA and the COA may disallow such
the power to promulgate rules and regulations grant of informer’s reward.
in order to prevent or disallow irregular, But the matter of disallowing the
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or informer’s reward may still be the
unconscionable expenditures of government, subject of review by the courts. The
the uses of government funds and property. courts may determine whether the
disallowance made by the COA of the
In the case of grant of informer’s reward is proper or
not. Thus, it is within the power of the
NHA vs. COA court to rule on the disallowance made
226 SCRA 65 by the COA in the grant of informer’s
FACTS: There was a loan
agreement entered into by the Republic
through the NHA with the KFW, a It is also possible that the COA on its audit
German entity. Under the contract, the report may find the public officer not
German firm would finance the urban responsible… or that the COA on its audit
housing – the Dagatdagatan project of report has cleared the public officer of any
the government. And there was a need wrongdoing. In the case of
to extend the loan contract and one of
the conditions for the renewal of the RODRIGO, JR. vs.
contract was the extension of the SANDIGANBAYAN
services contract of the German 303 SCRA 309
consultant. But the COA disallow such
renewal. Thus, the matter was raised HELD: The findings of the COA is
before the SC. not binding on the other investigatory
The NHA argued that the renewal office of the government, such as the
of the loan contract with the German Office of the Ombudsman, from taking
entity is necessary, otherwise, the cognizance of a criminal complaint on
loaned facilities would have been put in matters covered by the audit report.
jeopardy. As a rule, the audit report is given
respect. But nonetheless, if the
HELD: There is justification for not Ombudsman finds basis to proceed the
complying with the Constitutional conduct of the investigation, it is within
mandate prohibiting unnecessary its power to disregard the finding of
expenses of public funds which is non-wrongdoing by the COA and
beyond compromise. That is the power proceed with the investigation against
of the COA to look into any the public officer.
disbursement and to disallow such
disbursement if the same is irregular,
unnecessary, extravagant, excessive or
In the instant case, the renewal of DEPARTMENT OF
the services agreement in favor of the
German consultant was found by the AGRARIAN REFORM
COA as unnecessary expense on the (DAR)
part of the government.

In the case of
T he law of the DAR is R.A. 6657. It
confers to the DAR the original
jurisdiction over all cases involving agrarian
CIR vs. COA laws.
218 SCRA 204
Basically, you have Section 50 of PD
HELD: Under the law, upon the 6657. Under Section 50, the primary
recommendation of the BIR, the jurisdiction is given to the DAR to determine
Department of Finance which has the and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
supervision and control over the BIR, also the exclusive original jurisdiction over all
may grant an informer’s reward matters pertaining to the implementation of the
pursuant to the provision of the NIRC. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
This informer’s reward may be the (CARP) including the matter of determining
subject of the auditorial scrutiny of the the just compensation to be paid to the

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

landowner whose property is placed under the The primordial consideration here is
CARP of the government. the actual use of the property as stated
in the proclamation. In the instant case,
As a rule, when we talk of agrarian the actual use as stated in the
implementation of agrarian reform laws and proclamation is classified as a tourist
other matters, these are within the primary and zone.
exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR.

Q: In what instances may agrarian-related Section 50 vs. Section 57

issues be taken cognizance not by the DAR,
but by the COURTS? In so far as Sections 50 and 57 of R.A.
A: There are two (2) instances: 6657 are concerned, question may arise:
whether or not these provisions contradict
1.) prosecution of criminal cases under each other.
agrarian law; and
2.) petitions for the determination of just Section 50 gives the DAR the power to
compensation to be paid to the determine the value of just compensation to be
landowner under Section 57. paid to the landowner. In the same manner,
Section 57 confers to the RTC the exclusive
Now, the DAR’s exclusive original original jurisdiction to determine just
jurisdiction is exercised through compensation.
hierarchically-arranged agencies of the DAR,
namely: Q: How then do you reconcile these two
1.) DARAB (Department of Agrarian A: Section 50 refers to administrative
Reform Adjudication Board); proceedings which may be the subject of
2.) RARAD (Regional Agrarian Reform judicial inquiry. Generally, this is more in line
Adjudicator); and with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and
3.) PARAD (Provincial Agrarian Reform the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
Adjudicator) remedies.
Section 50 confers to the DAR the primary
Appellate jurisdiction to the RARAD and jurisdiction to determine agrarian reform
to the DARAB. matters and the exclusive authority over all
matters pertaining to the implementation of
Thus, all cases under the exclusive original agrarian reforms which necessarily includes
jurisdiction of the DAR must commence in the the determination of just compensation to be
PARAD of the province where the property is paid to the landowner.
On the other hand, Section 57 confers the
The DARAB only has appellate exclusive original jurisdiction to the RTC to
jurisdiction to review the orders and findings hear and decide petitions for the determination
of the PARAD. of just compensation. Section 57 refers to
judicial proceedings in determining just
ROXAS & CO. vs. CA compensation.
321 SCRA 106
In other words, Section 50 which refers to
FACTS: This involves the administrative proceedings is simply the
determination made by the DAR that preliminary determination made by the DAR
the property in Nasugbu, Batangas in the matter of the value of the land placed
should be brought under the coverage of under the CARP and the just compensation.
the CARP. This matter was brought
before the court because there was
already a Presidential Proclamation (15- Q: What are the STAGES required under
20) declaring the area (Nasugbu, Section 50 under this agrarian (administrative)
Batangas) as tourist zone. proceeding?
A: The following:
HELD: The Court ruled that the
DAR authorities must not simply 1. The Landbank determines a
disregard the Proclamation because it preliminary determination as to
has the effect of a law unless the same is the value of land placed under the
repealed. CARP and the compensation to be
paid to the landowner;

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

2. The DAR initiates the acquisition Whereas, the determination by the RTC is
of agricultural land by notifying judicial where there is a contest or petition
the owner of the property of the brought by the rejection by the landowner of
desire of the government to place the offer. In the case of
the property under the coverage of
the CARP together with the notice PHIL. VETERANS BANK vs. CA
and the valuation as initially 322 SCRA 140
determined by the DAR;
3. Within 30 days from notice given FACTS: Several properties of PVB
by the DAR, the landowner must were placed under the CARP. The offer
decide whether to accept or reject tendered by the government through the
the offer made by the DAR; DAR and Landbank was rejected by the
4. If there is rejection by the PVB. So the matter of just
landowner, there will be a compensation was put in issue.
summary administrative However, the PVB filed the petition
proceeding held by the PARAD or for the determination of just
RARAD, as the case may be, compensation beyond the 15-day period
depending on the value of the as required under Section 11, Rule 13 of
land, for purposes of determining the DARAB Rules. The RTC dismissed
just compensation; the petition. The CA affirmed the trial
5. Parties interested in the court.
transaction are required to submit
their respective evidence; HELD: The SC affirmed the RTC
6. The DAR adjudicator must decide and the CA. The petition must be filed
the matter within 30 days from within the 15-day period from the
submission of the case; receipt of the notice of the DAR in the
7. If the landowner still finds the summary administrative proceeding
price unsatisfactory, the conducted. The 15-day period to file the
landowner can bring the case petition for just compensation is
immediately and directly to the mandatory.
RTC WITHIN 15 DAYS. There is
no need to bring it to the DARAB.


It is wrong to say that since there is CORP. vs. CA, 335 SCRA 38
already an initial determination of just
compensation by the DAR authority, the RTC FACTS: A total of 234.76 hectares
now exercises appellate jurisdiction on the of agricultural land in Casili, Cabuyao,
matter. No! That is wrong. Laguna belonging to the Sta. Rosa
Realty Corporation were placed under
The RTC is exercising still its exclusive the CARP and subsequently awarded to
original jurisdiction. In fact, under Section 11, qualified beneficiaries.
Rule 13 of the DARAB Rules, the decision of But it so happened that the only
the adjudicator in the summary administrative passage way to these properties is only
proceeding on land-valuation and preliminary through the privately-owned road
determination and payment of just network of the Laguna Estate
compensation shall not be appealable to the Development Corporation and Canluban
DARAB but shall be filed directly with the Sugar Estate.
RTC which shall be constituted as a Special Consequently, an action was filed
Agrarian Reform Court. So this still is an by the beneficiaries before the DAR for
exercise of original exclusive jurisdiction of the grant of easement. The DAR, over
the RTC. the objection of Laguna Estate and
Canlubang Estate, argued that it has the
Again, this is consistent with the doctrine authority to hear and decide the issue of
of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of granting an easement.
exhaustion of administrative remedies. It only
means that primary jurisdiction is lodged in HELD: DARAB has NO power to
the DAR as an administrative agency to grant to the beneficiaries a right of way
determine in a preliminary manner the just (easement) over a private property, in
compensation. this case, the private road network of
the petitioners Laguna Estate and
Canlubang Estate. These are private

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

properties intended as for their do not show such consent. The

exclusive use. certifications show only that Bautista is
For the DARAB to have jurisdiction the possessor and the cultivator of the
over the case, there must be TENANCY land. These certifications are not
relationship between the parties in the sufficient to show that Bautista is a
first place. In the instant case, there tenant of Araneta.
exist no tenancy relationship between
the petitioner estates and the
There are three (3) requirements to LAND
consider that there exist a tenancy
(LTO) and
1. the parties are the land-owner and
the tenant or agricultural lessee; LAND
2. the subject matter of the TRANSPORTATION
relationship is agricultural land.
The case at bar involves an FRANCHISING AND
easement over private lands REGULATORY BOARD
intended for private business of
the petitioners and has nothing (LTFRB)
to do with agrarian laws;
3. there must be consent between the
parties to the tenancy
4. the purpose of the relationship is to T he LTO and the LTRRB are under the
supervision of the Department of
Transportation and Communication (DOTC).
bring about agricultural
5. there is personal cultivation on the The DOTC, through the LTO and LTFRB,
part of the tenant; and is mandated to implement laws pertaining to
6. the harvest is shared between the land transportation under RA 4136, otherwise
landowner and the tenant. known as the Land Transportation and Traffic

What if there is truly possession and The LTO has the duty to register vehicles
cultivation by the tenant? Are these factors and licensing of drivers. On the other hand, the
sufficient by themselves to conclude that LTFRB under E.O. 202, is tasked for the
indeed there exist a tenancy relationship? In regulation of public utility or “for-hire”
the case of vehicles and the grant of franchises or
certificates of public convenience.

BAUTISTA vs. ARANETA Take note that Section 458 of the Local
326 SCRA 235 Government Code confers to the LGUs the
regulation of operation of tricycles-for-hire
FACTS: There was a decision and grant of franchises for the operation
rendered by the PARAD. On appeal, the thereof, subject to the guidelines issued by the
DARAB affirmed the PARAD to the DOTC.
effect that petitioner Bautista is a tenant
on the landholding occupied by him The duty of LTO is not affected by
based on the certification issued by the Section 458 of the LGC. Still, the LTO is
agrarian reform technician and the mandated to require the registration of these
MARO (Mun. Agrarian Reform tricycles-for-hire. R.A. 4136 mandates the
Officer) based on interviews with the registration of all kinds of motor vehicles
persons in occupation of the property. “used or operated on or upon any public
highway” in the Philippines.
ISSUE: Is possession and
cultivation sufficient to make a You have also the case of
conclusion that tenancy exists?
HELD: NO. There must be a
consent by the landowner for the FACTS: A bidding was conducted
relationship to exist. The certifications by the Subic Bay Metropolitan

Administrative Law Review Administrative Agencies
2002 Edition

Authority (SBMA) for the operation of where the contract involves the amount
concession to operate container terminal of P2 million and above, awarded either
in Subic Bay. Only 3 bidders were through public bidding or negotiation.
declared as qualified to make the bid Notwithstanding the resolution
after passing the pre-evaluation made by issued by the SBMA Board of
the SBMA technical committee. Among Directors, the award cannot be said to
the 2 qualified bidders were the ICTSI be final and unassailable because
and the HPPL. SBMA and other instrumentalities of
But even before the opening of the the government is under the control and
sealed bidding, there was already an supervision of the Office of the
issue raised by HPPL. It wanted to President. It follows therefore, that it is
disqualify the bid submitted by the within the discretion of the President
ICTSI. You know, this ICTSI, up to either to overturn or reverse for
now, is still the operator of the Manila justifiable reasons any award already
International Container Port (MICP). made by the SMBA.
And under E.O. 212, there is prohibition And in the exercise of this
as to the operation of the same operator discretion given to the President under
of another similar facility. On this basis, LOI 620, the courts will not interfere
there was a protest on the bid of the with the exercise thereof, unless there is
ICTSI. injustice, arbitrariness, or unfairness.
The bid acceptable to the SBMA But none is shown in the case at bar.
was that of the HPPL because it offered
the lowest franchise fee. On this basis,
there was a resolution passed by the Epilogue
Board of Directors of the SBMA for the
award of the contract to the HPPL. So that ends our review on administrative
Before that, there was an appeal filed by law. So when will be our exams? Two weeks
ICTSI before the SBMA and before the after? One week after? So September 21
Office of the President because of the (PubOff) and 28 (Admin). What time?
rejection of the SBMA of its bid. The Morning? Ok… when your mind is still
appeal was based on violation of E.O. fresh… yes… it’s good to have your exam in
212. the morning rather in the afternoon… really!
On the basis of this appeal before So agreeable, morning? Ok. So, 10 to 12
the Office of the President, then noon? Ok. The same time sched for September
Presidential Adviser Cayetano wrote a 28 exam… Good luck to all of you…. All
memorandum to then Pres. Ramos absent now are considered present…
recommending the re-evaluation of the
bid. And there was a re-evaluation made
by the SBMA. After re-evaluation, the END
recommendation was still to the effect
that award be given to HPPL.
But subsequently, there was another ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
memorandum made by Executive
Secretary Ruben Torres recommending
for the re-bidding of the project. The
HPPL argued that there was already a
perfected contract because the SBMA
Board of Directors already awarded the Jason John Joyce
contract to HPPL. Nuj Dumbrigue
Janis Dumama
HELD: Petitioner HPPL has not Sheila Resabal
shown that it has a clear right to be Jade Jamora
declared as the winning bidder with Cam-cam Basa
finality. The award given by the SBMA Tommy Veloso
was not yet final and thus still can be Darry Gallego
assailed. Vanessa Bello
The basis here is LOI 620 (Oct. 27,
Genie Salvaña
1997) which mandates that the approval
of the President of the Philippines is
Kenneth Lim
required in all contracts of the national Mortmort
government offices, agencies and
instrumentalities including GOCCs