ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2006 CREATED CREATED BY THE

BY CONGRESS CONSTITUTION
( ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ) 1. can be modified by 1. perform more sensitive
congress functions
PART I. 2. may be altered or 2. – underscoring the
abolished independence of the
INTRODUCTION
agency thus, insulate it
from political pressure
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - that branch of public law dealing
with the doctrines and principles governing the powers and
procedures of administrative agencies including especially judicial  The Chief Executive exercises CONTROL over agencies and
review of administrative action. offices which perform rule-making / adjudicatory functions.

An ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY is any governmental  If the agency is created by Congress - consider the law that
authority other than a court or legislative body performing rule- created it. If the law is silent as to the control which the
making or adjudicatory functions. President may exercise, the President can only SUPERVISE,
i.e., to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed.

Powers of an administrative agency

a) rule-making The doctrine of separation of powers:
b) adjudicatory  To prevent absolutism.
c) licensing (permits)  Under the doctrine of separation of powers, The Supreme
Court cannot assume the administrative function of
d) price/rate-fixing supervisory control over executive officials.
e) implementing/executory  In Noblejas v. Teehankee (1963), the Supreme Court struck
down Noblejas’ claim that the Commissioner of Land
Registration, being entitled to the same compensation,
emoluments & privileges as a CFI judge, can only be
investigated and suspended in the same manner, and not by
the Secretary of Justice.)
Factors which gave rise to admin. agencies  Members of the Supreme Court cannot sit as a board of
1) growing complexity of modern life - as society gets more arbitrators. (Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transpo, 1932)
complex, there are more things to regulate  A judge cannot become a member of a provincial committee
2) the multiplication of the subject of governmental regulation on justice which performs administrative functions. (In Re:
3) the increased difficulty of administering the law Rodolfo U. Manzano (1988)

Constitutional status of admin. agencies

 the admin. agency does not strictly belong to one branch.
 The agency does not constitute a 4 th branch of government
because the constitutional scheme (separation of powers)
only allows 3 branches of government.

Role of Admin. Agencies

Residual Powers
 the powers given to the three branches spill over because of
the 3 shortfalls. There is a need for a body which would act
as a catching mechanism, otherwise, the three branches
would collapse. The AA supports the trichotomy of powers.

How do these agencies come into being?

a) by statute
b) by the constitution
c) by Executive orders - usually fact-finding agencies
 PART II.
CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CONTROL : the power to change, modify, alter decisions of
subordinates
SUPERVISION : power to oversee
A. Legislative Control
Ways of exercising control by Congress
a) Abolition
 isn’t effective because the admin. agencies are needed.
b) Appropriation
 isn’t effective since appropriations are always given. If no
appropriation is given, the public would suffer.
c) Investigatory
 effective only as an aid in legislation and cannot serve the
need for constant regulation
d) Prescription of legislative standards
 ineffective because the standards should be flexible and those
who make the standards lack the expertise. The standards
must be EFFECTIVE, SUFFICIENT.
 Most of the time, Congress is not definite because of (a)
varying conditions and (b) differences in the need for
regulation
e) Prescription of minimum procedural requirements
 There should be a shift to Administrative standards which
allows the agencies to come up with the standards
themselves.
 This can be effected in these ways :
1) modify the doctrine
2) procedural due process
 Congress can prescribe minimum procedural requirements
which have a general applicability to all agencies. But even
with this, there are sill problems, namely;
1) Agencies are not bound by the technical rules of procedure
2) agencies need flexibility to act
 These minimum procedural requirements may be found in
Book 7 of the Admin. Code of 1987.
B. Executive Control
 Executive power is vested in the President (Art. VII, Sec. 1,
1987 Constitution)
 RULE: The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed. (Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987
Constitution)
 EXCEPTIONS: In the case of agencies created by the
legislature (e.g. NLRC, BIR, LTFRB), one must check the
enabling law regarding Congress’ intention regarding this.
 If the law is silent, the President cannot exercise control but
merely supervision.
 However, in cases involving agencies under the executive
branch, the President has control.
C. Judicial Control
 Judicial review of administrative actions
D. Ombudsman
 Investigates and prosecutes
 RA 6770 mandates the ombudsman/deputies not only to act
promptly on complaints but also to enforce
administrative,civil and criminal liabilities of government
officers and employees in every case where evidence
warrants to promote efficient service by the government to
the people.
 The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an exercise of
judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom
that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested, esp. where the
matter involves basically technical matters coming under the
special technical knowledge and training of the agency /
officer. (Concerned Officials of MWSS v. Vasquez (1995),
where the Ombudsman was held to have interfered with a
bid-and-award contract.)
 The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to initiate an
investigation into the alleged delay in the disposition of a
judicial case. It is the Supreme Court which has
administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof. (Dolalas v. Office of the Ombudsman, 1996)
 And that ,Supreme Court will not interfere with
Ombudsman’s exercise of his constitutionality mandated
investigatory and prosecutory powers since it is beyond the
ambit of the court (Ledesma v CA, July 2005)
In Ledesma v CA: Petitioner contends that the word “recommend”
stated in sec 13(3) of Art XI of Constitution is only advisory in
nature rather than one having binding effect.Supreme Court
however ruled that the Ombudsman has authority to determine the
administrative liability of public official and employee and direct
and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to
implement the penalty imposed.
Ombudsman has power to investigate and prosecute illegal acts of
officials and employees (whereby such authority is concurrent with
other courts in respect of the offense charged).
It also has power to punish for contempt in accordance with Rules
of Court and it can preventively suspend any elective or appointive
official pending an investigation when the case so warrants.
Ledesma v CA abrogated the rule in Tapiador.
Grounds of Administrative Complaint ( AO 7 issued Sept 15,
2003) Modifies sec 19 of RA 6770:
1.contrary to law or regulations
2.unreasonable,unfair, oppressive or discriminatory
3.inconsistent w/ general course of an agency’s functions though in
accordance w/ law
4.based on mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts
5.exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose
6.irregular, immoral or devoid of justification
7.due to any delay or refusal to comply w/ referral or directive of
Ombudsman or any of his deputies against the officer or employee
to whom it was addressed
8.other ground provided under EO 292
Upon receipt of Administrative complaint, it shall be evaluated
to determine whether same may be:
1.dismissed outright for any of grounds stated in RA 6770
provided that dismissal is discretionary on Ombudsman.
2.treated as a grievance/request for assistance w/c may be referred
to the Public Assistance Bureau for appropriate action.
3.referred to other disciplinary authorities for taking of appropriate
proceedings
4.referred to appropriate office/agency or official for conduct of
further fact-finding investigation
5.docketed as an administrative case for the purpose of
administrative adjudication by Office of Ombudsman
 PART III.
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
What are the matters that Congress cannot delegate?
 Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v. Auditor-General)
 Imposition of criminal penalties (US v. Barrias)
Admistrative Rules with Penal sanctions:
must be published in full text (Sec. 6 (2), Book 7, Admin Code)
If a rule is penal in character, it is required that the rule is
published before it takes effect. (People v. Que Po Lay)
the law itself must so declare the act as punishable
penal statutes exclusive domain of the legislature, cannot be
delegated
In People v. Maceren, it was held that "Administrative rules and
regulations cannot amend or modify or expand the law by
including, prohibiting or punishing certain acts which the law does
not even define as a criminal act."
 Designation of a particular act as a crime (People v.
Maceren)
 Creation of standards on the part of the agency
Requisites for a valid delegation :
a) the law must be complete in itself; must set forth a policy to
be executed
b) must fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate or determinable, to which the delegate must
conform in the performance of his functions.
 The standard may be express or implied (Edu v. Ericta)
 The standard does not have to be found in the law being
challenged. It may be embodied in other statutes on the same
subject matter as that of the challenged legislation.
[Chongbian v. Orbos (1995). Here, the challenged law was
the ARMM Organic Act. The standard was found in the
Reorganization Act.]
KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES/REGULATIONS
a. Supplementary/Detailed legislation
Rules “to fix details” in the execution and enforcement of a
policy set out in the law (ex: Rules implementing the Labor
Code)
b. Interpretative legislation
Interpreting the provisions of a statute to be enforced and
they are binding on all concerned until they are change (ex:
BIR Circulars)
c. Contingent legislation
Rules/Regulations made by the administrative authority on
existence of certain facts or things upon which the
enforcement of the law depends.
Examples of sufficient standards include:
 Assumption by Labor Minister over strikes affecting national
interest (Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor
and Employment, 1981)
 Reorganization of administrative regions in ARMM
(Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995) Standard may be implied from
other laws, e.g. RA 5435 (simplicity, economy, efficiency)
 Fixing of rates by National Telecommunications Commission
(Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 1989) The standards used were public
safety, public interest, reasonable feasibility and reasonable
rates (case to case basis)
WON rate-fixing is legislative or quasi-judicial
Legislative Quasi-judicial
Extent of Rate applies to all Rate directed only at
applicabi- 1 entity
lity
Notice & May be dispensed Absolutely
hearing with unless the law necessary
provides otherwise
 A rate is any charge to the public for a service open to all
and upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates,
tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as
communication, mileage, kilometreage and other special
rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation to be
observed and followed by any person. (Sec. 2 (3), Book VII,
Admin Code)
 AA to publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and
afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views
prior to the adoption of any rule. (Bk. VII Sec 9(1))
 To be valid, proposed rates must be published in a newspaper
of general circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing
thereon (Bk. VII, Sec 9(2)).
 Function delegated to AAs because the legislature has not the
time, the knowledge nor the means necessary to handle the
matter efficiently.
 Need for dispatch, for flexibility and for technical know-how
better met by AAs.
PSC not authorized to delegate power to fix rates to a common
carrier or other public service. Power to fix rates, being a delegated
power cannot be delegated further (Panay Autobus v. Philippine
Railway)
Rate-fixing must be exercised by the agency directly. The power to
fix rates, which is a delegated power, cannot be delegated further
(KMU v. Garcia)
Principle on rate fixing and requirement of notice and hearing
 if the rate to be fixed applies to all utilities in general ---
LEGISLATIVE in character à Notice and hearing may be
dispensed with unless the law requires otherwise.
 If the rate to be fixed applies to one entity -- QUASI-
JUDICIAL in character à notice and hearing required.
(Vigan Electric v. PSC; Philcomsat v. Alcuaz)
 The power to hear a case can be delegated, but not the power
to decide. (American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents,
1975)
 The power to decide can be delegated provided that the
power to delegate such function was not withheld expressly
or impliedly. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino, 1994, where the
issue was whether the HLURB could split itself into
divisions when hearing cases instead of meeting en banc.)
1.QUASI-LEGISLATIVE/ RULE MAKING: Licensing Function

REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF RULES:  Licensing includes agency process involving grant, renewal,
denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal,
1.Issued under Authority of Laws limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning of a
 must not go beyond the standards prescribed by the law. license. (GR-DR-SAM-C)
 General in application  License includes the whole or any part of any agency permit,
 Valid as long as germane, consistent, implements the law certificate, passport, clearance, approval, registration, charter,
membership, statutory exemption or other form of
2.Within the scope and purview of the law permission, or regulation of the exercise of a right or
privilege. (PCPC-ARCM-SPR)
Sec 17 of the rules and regulations implementing RA 8171 which  When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is
provided that death penalty shall not be inflicted upon a woman required to be preceded by notice and hearing, it cannot be
w/in 3 years nxt following the date of sentence or while she is withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without notice
pregnant was declared invalid since the same being impermissible and hearing (Sec 17(1), Bk, VII)
contravention of Sec 83 of the RPC which provides that the death
penalty shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant  no license may be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or
or w/in 1 yr after delivery. annulled without notice and hearing (Sec 17(2), Bk VII)
EXCEPTIONS:
3.Reasonable
1. in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws,
4.Publication rules and regulations
2. when public security, health or safety require
Publication must be full or it is no publication at all. otherwise
 Every agency to file with the UP Law Center three (3)  Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient
certified copies of every rule adopted by it. (Bk. VII, Sec. 3) application for the renewal of a license, the existing license
 Date of effectivity of rule: 15 days from the date of filing shall not expire until the application shall have been finally
(Bk. VII, Sec. 4) determined by the agency. (Sec. 18, Bk, VII)
 EXCEPTIONS:  A license is always revocable. (Gonzalo Sy Trading)
1. different date is fixed by law or specified in the
rule
2. in cases of imminent danger to public health,
safety and welfare,
 Publication is indispensable
 Publication essential especially if general in character
 Rule on publication of administrative issuances different
from the Tañada ruling
 Tanada ruling: Publication in O.G. or newspaper of general
circulation is required for effectivity of administrative rules
and regulations.
 What need not be published:
1. interpretative regulations
2. internal regulations ( regulating only personnel of
agency
3. letters of instructions issued by administrative
superior to their subordinates

2005 notes: In the Admin Code of 1987: Filing of copy of

regulations is sufficient for effectivity

Limits on rule-making power:

a. authorized by law (Olsen v. Aldanese)
b. must not amend the law (Syman v. Jacinto)
c. must not define a criminal act (People v. Maceren)
d. must be germane to the purpose of the law which it was
meant to implement (Toledo v. CSC)
e. must not restrict, expand, diminish law (Commissioner
of Internal Revenue v. CA; Land Bank v. CA; GMCR v.
Bell Telecoms)
f. action of the AA to be set aside if there is an error of
law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either
the letter or the spirit of the law (Land Bank of the
Phil. v. CA) 2.DETERMINATIVE POWERS
 a. Enabling: Permit or allow something which the law
undertakes to regulate, (ex: grant or denial of licenses to
engage in a particular business)
b. Directing : Power of Assessment (ex: BIR)
c. Dispensing: Exempt from a general prohibition or
relieve an individual or corporation from an affirmative
duty (ex: authority of zoning boards to vary provision
of zoning ordinances)
d. Summary: Power to apply compulsion or force against
person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without
a judicial warrant to authorize such action (ex: health
inspection
e. Examining: Investigating power, requires the
production of books, papers and attendance of
witnesses.
-power to punish contempt must be expressly granted to
the administrative body and when so granted may be
exercise only when administrative body is actually
performing quasi-judicial functions
-officer must be authorized to administer oaths…
1. Power to issue subpoena and declare contempt
Subpoena
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to
issue subpoena?Yes. As long as in exercise of quasi- judicial –
even if charter is silent. Power is vested in the AA in the Admin
Code (see Sec 13 Bk VII)
Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:
1. w/in authority of the agency ( expressly authorized by law )
2. demand is not too indefinite – subpoena duces tecum
3. info is reasonably relevant
(Evangelista v. Jarencio)
rationale: power to adjudicate will be rendered inutile if can’t
subpoena
Contempt
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to cite
for contempt?
 No. Power must be expressly granted in the agency’s charter
(ex. PD 902-A creating the SEC)
 If no law, must invoke the aid of RTC
 Rationale: power to punish for contempt inherently judicial
 The power to cite for contempt can only be used in
connection with judicial and quasi-judicial functions and with
ministerial functions. (Guevara v. COMELEC)
2. Warrants of Arrest, Administrative Searches
Can administrative agencies issue warrants of arrest?
 No. In Salazar v. Achacoso, it was held that under the 1987
Constitution only a judge may issue search or arrest warrants.
EXCEPTION: in cases of deportation of illegal and
undesirable aliens following a FINAL ORDER OF
DEPORTATION, for the purpose of deportation
In Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, the two ways of deporting
are through the:
a.) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37 of CA 618
b.) President after due investigation pursuant to Sec 69 of
Revised Administrative Code.
- but no grounds needed – has sole discretion under
international law
Can immigration authorities issue warrants of arrest against
undesirable aliens?YES, but only if issuance is pursuant to a final
order of deportation. Immigration authorities cannot issue
warrants for purposes of investigation, as the Constitution provides
that only judges can issue warrants to determine probable cause.
(Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 1963) Note that the
Constitution does not distinguish between warrants in a criminal
case and administrative warrants in administrative proceedings.
3. Imposition of fines and penalties
Do agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties?
 Yes. In the case of Oceanic Steam Navigation v. Stranahan,
the Court laid down the tests for the validity of imposition of
fines
Test for validity of imposition:
1. subject matter is within the control of Congress
2. penalty is administrative or civil and not criminal which
would involve deprrvation of property
3. power must be expressly conferred to an administrative
agency; power cannot be exercised by implication
The fixing of penalties for criminal offense is the exercise of
legislative power which cannot be delegated to a subordinate
authority. (U.S. v. Barrios)
3.QUASI-JUDICIAL/ADJUDICATORY POWER

Proceedings partake of the character of judicial proceedings.
Administrative body is normally granted the authority to
promulgate its own rules of procedure provided they do not
increase, diminish or modify substantive rights and subject to
disapproval by the Supreme Court.
Cardinal Primary Rights
As held in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the seven cardinal primary rights for
Administrative due process are:
1. Right to a hearing
2. Right to have the evidence considered
3. Decision must be supported by evidence
4. Substantial evidence
5. Transparency of records
6. Independent consideration of the judge
7. Decision must reveal relevant issues
 absence of one of these 7 rights is sufficient to question the
proceeding
 Presence of a party at a trial is not always the essence of due
process. All that the law requires is that the parties be given
notice of trial, an opportunity to be heard. (Asprec v. Itchon)
 The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing
witnesses is a fundamental right which is part of due process.
If without his fault, his right to cross- examine is violated, he
is entitled to have the direct examination stricken out.
(Bachrach Motors v. CIR)
 The law, in prescribing a process of appeal to a higher level,
contemplates that the reviewing officer is a person different
from the one who issued the appealed decision. Otherwise,
the review becomes a farce; it is rendered meaningless.
(Zambales Chromitev. CA; Anzaldo v. Clave; Rivera v. CSC)
 Evidence on record must be fully disclosed to the parties.
(American Inter-Fashion Corporation v. Office of the
President)
In Matthews v. Eldridge, the U.S. Supreme Court enumerated the 3
factors determining constitutional sufficiency of administrative
procedures:
1. private interest that will be affected
2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest and probable
value of safeguards
3. public interest vis-à-vis government costs
1. Notice and Hearing
No Notice and hearing requirement in case of a mere conference
(Equitable v. NLRC)
Power to hear may be delegated but not the power to decide
(American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents)
When required
a. When law specifically requires notice and hearing
(Halili v. PSC; Bautista v. WCC; Equitable Banking
Corp v. NLRC)
b. When it affects a person’s status and liberty
(Commissioner of Immigration v. Fernandez)
If administrative action is based on an undisputed fact and not a
quasi-judicial function, notice and hearing may be dispensed with.
When not required
grant of provisional authority for increased rates or to engage in a
particular line of business
when discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an
undisputed fact (Suntay v. People : whereby officer cancelled
passport)
if it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse
of discretion (De Bisschop v. Galang)
when rules to govern future conduct of persons or enterprises,
unless law provides otherwise (Taxicab Operators of Manila v.
Board Of Transportation)
in the valid exercise of police power (Pollution Adjudication Board
v. CA)
summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon the property of
delinquent taxpayer or summary abatement of nuisance per se
2. Form and Promulgation of Judgment
Decision should state:facts ,issues andlaw
 Normally, this will be followed by the agency to the letter.
However, there are times when there is substantial
compliance (therefore not violative of due process)
 It is not necessary that the order make its own discussion of
the evidence and the findings of fact if the court is satisfied
with the report of the examiner which already contains the
discussions of the findings and conclusions. The rule is
otherwise when the court disagrees with the findings of the
examiner in which case the court must specify and discuss
the reasons for their dissent. (Indias v. Phil. Iron Mines)
 The requirement that all decisions should contain a statement
of facts and the law on which it is based is only applicable to
decisions of courts of record, not to quasi-judicial agencies.
However, the due process clause applies with regards to
procedural due process. (Valladolid v. Inchiong)
 If a power to decide is granted to a specific authority, it can’t
abdicate from this responsibility by delegating the duty to
decide the case. It must personally decide such. It can
delegate the power to hear but not the power to decide.
(American Tobacco v. Director of Patents)
 The Board’s act of dividing itself into divisions of three is
valid because under EO 648 the Board can adopt rules of
procedure for the conduct of its business and perform such
functions necessary for the effective accomplishment of its
functions. The power to delegate a particular function can be
implied from the power of AA to issue rules and regulations
necessary to carry out its functions. (Realty Exchange v.
Sendino)
Right to self-incrimination may be invoked by the respondent at
the time he is called by the complainant as witness, however ,if he
voluntary takes witness stand,he can be cross-examined but he
may invoke such right at time question calls for an answer which
incriminates him of an offense other than that charged is asked.
JURISDICTION

 Refer to the enabling statute creating the agency, especially
its powers and jurisdiction
 Jurisdiction is created and conferred by law
 Pendency of a criminal case will not divest the Deportation
Board of its jurisdiction over undesirable aliens in a
deportation proceeding. (Go Tek v. Deportation Board)
 The Collector of Customs constitutes a competent tribunal
when sitting in forfeiture proceedings. (Dela Fuente v. De
Veyra)
 CHR can only investigate violations of civil-political rights.
It cannot try and decide cases as ordinary courts of justice, or
even quasi-judicial bodies do. (Cariño v. CHR)
 CHR cannot issue cease and desist order since the CHR can
only investigate. The power to issue cease and desist order is
reserved for quasi-judicial & judicial powers (Simon, Jr. v.
CHR)
 The Bureau of Immigration has the primary jurisdiction or
exclusive authority to try and hear cases against an alleged
alien. Judicial intervention should be granted only in cases
where claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct.
(Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa)
 The HLURB has jurisdiction over specific performance,
annulment of mortgage and all other matters which pertain to
sound real estate practice. (Union Bank v. HLURB)
 The CAB is authorized by RA 776 to issue temporary
operating permit or CPCN. (PAL v. CAB)
 AAs not bound by technical rules of evidence but due
process must be observed
 RATIO: to allow AA to act with speed and flexibility
What is the pervasive principle?
 Technical rules of evidence and procedure do not strictly
apply to administrative proceeding, but this does not mean
they can disregard certain due process requirements.
 AAs may act on its own and use methods which may best
constitute substantial evidence. (Estate of Buan v. Pambusco)
 The SC not required to examine the proof de novo. The only
function of the SC is to determine WON there is evidence
before the Commission upon which its decision might be
reasonably be based. (Rizal Light Co. v. Municipality of
Rizal)
 AAs not bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence
governing court proceedings. In the broad interest of justice,
the ERB may, in any particular manner, except itself from
these rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall
promote the objectives of the order. (Maceda v. ERB)

A. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings Arising from the

same facts

 The difference in the proceeding (one administrative, the

other criminal) is not legal incompatibility but merely
physical incompatibility. These 2 proceedings are
independent of each other involving different causes of
action and therefore can proceed simultaneously. (Galang v.
CA)
 Matters that are material in administrative case are not
necessarily relevant in criminal case. There are excuses,
defenses and attenuating circumstances which are relevant in
an administrative proceeding which are not admissible in trial
in crim cases. (Villanos v. Sabido)
 The trial court had no jurisdiction to order reinstatement
since the judgment in a criminal case is limited to acquittal or
conviction with accessory penalties. Only the NLRC could
have ordered reinstatement with back wages. (PNR v.
Domingo)
 The criminal case for falsification is entirely distinct from the
administrative proceedings conducted by the COMELEC
against the petitioner although both arose from the same set
of facts. The dismissal of the criminal complaint against Tan
is not a bar to the administrative proceeding. (Tan v.
COMELEC)

PART IV.
B. Rules of Evidence
 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
2006 Notes:Silence of Congress should not be interpreted as
indicating a legislative intent to preclude judicial review. (Uy v.
Palomar)
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Where law has delineated a procedure by which administrative
appeal or remedy could be effected, the same should
be followed before recourse to judicial action can be
initiated
GEN RULE: Courts cannot interfere with proceedings undertaken
by AA
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) AA has gone beyond statutory authority
(2) AA exercised unconstitutionall powers
(3) AA clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to
his duty
(4) Grave abuse of discretion
(5) Decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake
(Manuel v. Villena)
FAILURE TO EXHAUST :
In the case of Republic (PCGG) v. SB, the Court held that failure
to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. The only effect of non-
compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of
a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not
invoked at the proper time (BY FILING A MOTION TO
DISMISS), this ground is deemed waived and the court can take
cognizance of the case and try it. In this case, seven years is hardly
within "the proper time".
EXCEPTIONS TO EXHAUSTION:
1. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (Alter Ego)
When the Undersecretary of the Secretary of Natural
Resources denied the motion for reconsideration, he was
acting on behalf of the Sec. of Natural Resources,
accordingly,administrative remedies had been exhausted.
2005 notes: Where Appeal to the President had been made
and before the President could act on the appeal, the same
was withdrawn, there was deemed to have been failure to
exhaust remedies, besides, by appealing to the Pres.,the party
recognized palin, speedy and adequate remedy still open to
him in the ordinary course of law & thus his special civil
action must fail.
2005 notes: Decision of DAR Secretary cannot be questioned
before the DARAB since exhaustion is improper in this case
since RA 6657 specifically provides that decisions and
awards of DAR be brought to the Court of Appeals.
2. Where Administrative Remedy is fruitless
3. Where there is estoppel on the part of
administrative agency
4. Where issue is purely a legal question
In Castro v Gloria, Aug 20,2001: Petitioner was disputing the
admin finding of guilt since he claimed that penalty for
offense is not dismissal from service. As such, the issue
pertains is a pure question of law.
5. Where Administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
6. Where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction.
7. Where there is irreparable injury or threat, unless,
judicial recourse is immediately made.
8. In land cases, where subject matter is private land.
9. Where law does not make exhaustion a condition
precedent to judicial recourse.
10. Where observance of doctrine will result in
nullification of claim
11. Special reasons demanding immediate court action
Apex v DAR , April 10,2003: PARO did not take immediate
action and it was already 1 year,as such exhaustion must be
disregarded when i)circumstances indicating urgency of
judicial intervention ii) admin action is patently illegal and
amounts to excess of jurisdiction
12. Due process is clearly violated or when rule does not
provide for speedy, plain and adequate remedy
Civil action for damages is personal to the plaintiff, it can
proceed independently of administrative action
COROLLARY PRINCIPLES TO EXHAUSTION:
A. Primary Jurisdiction or PRIOR Resort
 Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon an
adiministrative body to act upon a matter, no resort to the
courts may be made before such administrative body shall
have acted upon the matter.
 Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one
which requires the expertise of the AA and the legislative
intent on the matter is to have uniformity in ruling. As such
after decision of such executive body, the
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY OF APPEAL TO THE
CIVIL SERVICE OR SECRETARY AS STATED BY LAW
(and not to the RTC or CA) would still be available.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. not within competence of the AA
2. issue does not require technical expertise of AA
Criteria for the application of the Doctrine as laid down in the
Texas and Pacific v. Abilene Case:
(1) there is concurrent jurisdiction
(2) the agency has the necessary expertise to competently rule on
the issues (technical expertise is crucial to resolution)
(3) In line with the legislative intent /objectives of the law (e.g.
uniform rates)
If case requires expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of AA
because technical matters or intricate questions of fact are
involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even
though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of the court.
Application of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the
case but only its SUSPENSION till after the matters within the
competence of the AA are threshed out and determined. (Industrial
Enterprises v. CA)
B. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action
No resort to the courts will be allowed unless the administrative
action has been completed and there is nothing left to be done in
the administrative structure.
STANDING TO CHALLENGE
LEGAL STANDING means a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the gov’t. act that is being challenged. (Joya v.
PCGG; :Lozada v. Comelec; Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
Types of Standing:
1. provided by law
2. taxpayers' suit
3. class suit
4. suit as members of the Congress
If the law specifies in an exclusive manner as to who may appeal –
those who are not included have no personality to sue. (Ursal v
VTA; Acting Collector v. CTA)
One having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. (Joya v.
PCGG)
The issue of standing is a procedural technicality which may be
waived if the issue of is of transcendental importance to the public.
(Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
The Court differentiated concepts of “standing” and “real party-in-
interest” and held that Kilosbayan is not a real party in interest
because it was not a party to the contract. (Kilosbayan v. Morato)
Tests of standing as laid down in Assn of Data Processing
Service Organization v. Camp
1) Test of injury in fact (economic injury)
2) Whether or not arguably in the zone of interest sought to be
protected by the statute
Three elements of the constitutional minimum requirements of
standing:
(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an
invasion of a legally-protected interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized and
(b) “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”
(2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the
conduct complained of – the injury has to be “fairly traceable
to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result
of the independent action of some third party not before the
court.”
(3) it must be likely as opposed to merely “speculative”, that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife)
Ripeness
Purpose of the doctrine of ripeness (according to Abbott
Laboratories v. Gardner):
1.to prevent courts, thru avoidance of premature adjudication, from
entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over
administrative policies
2.to protect agencies from judicial interference until decision has
been formalized and effect felt in a concrete way or the imminence
of the effect is demonstrable
2-fold test (must concur):
1.fitness of the issue for judicial decision (question of law, not
policy-making)
2.hardship to the parties of withholding such court action
General ripeness consideration tests according to National
Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council v. Shultz:
1. WON there is congressional intent negativing judicial
review
2. Possibility of courts entangling themselves in abstract
disagreement over administrative policies due to premature
adjudication
3. Fitness of issue for judicial determination and hardship to
parties of withholding consideration
 PART V. B. Certiorari
MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Two Kinds of Certiorari
1. Simple or Ordinary (Rule 45) - errors of judgment; questions
JUDICIAL REVIEW of law
2. Special Civil Action (Rule 65) - errors of jurisdiction;
WON it is available is the threshold issue - SC has original jurisdiction, concurrent with the RTC
 If not available - end of litigation  Purpose: to nullify or set aside the proceedings
 If available - determine the specific mode of review
which must be invoked Requisites:
1. a) Lack of jurisdiction or
A. Provisions of Law b) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
Art. 9A, Sec 7, Constitution: 2. There is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy
Decisions of the COA, COMELEC, and CSC may be brought to 3. Agency or tribunal is performing judicial or quasi-judicial
the SC on CERTIORARI within 30 days from receipt of copy of functions
decision
 The constitution uses the word may, meaning review is not C. Prohibition
mandatory by only discretionary.
Requisites:
BP 129 1. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
 Authority of CA to review decisions of quasi-judicial 2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
agencies is EXCLUSIVE (if such is listed in LAW OF SUCH 3. Agency or tribunal is performing quasi-judicial and
ADMIN BODY or if its CHARTER so indicates) ministerial functions
 If it is not listed, its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC 4. The act to be enjoined is yet to be performed
through the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
 Purpose
 To stop or prohibit proceedings from going on
Book VII, Section 25, Administrative Code of 1987
 If proceedings are already finished - do not use
Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance prohibition as by then it would be moot and academic
with this chapter and applicable laws. (par. 1)
 Unlike certiorari, prohibition is more expansive as it caters
to quasi-judicial and purely ministerial duties
WHO MAY SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW:
 Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency D. Mandamus
decision. (par.2)
Requisites:
WHEN TO APPEAL:
1. Prove clear and controlling right - not questionable and
 Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy (par. 4) not subject to dispute
HOW: 2. Duty of the person to whom mandamus is directed is
 File petition for review (par.4) MINISTERIAL, not discretionary
WHERE TO FILE: 3. No plain, speedy, adequate remedy under the ordinary
 In the court specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in course of law
any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the  Is it possible to ask for a writ of mandamus against an agency
provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. (par. 6) exercising discretionary powers?
 Yes, when the writ of mandamus is in order to compel
 Petition for Review - question of fact and law the agency to exercise or use its discretion but it will
 Must comply with not prescribe the action to be taken by the board/officer
 The time period (Policarpio v. Phil Veterans Board)
 Docket fees  If there is a capricious exercise of such discretion, the
 Notice remedy is CERTIORARI

SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 WHEN IS MANDAMUS NOT PROPER:

(Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Procedure) 1. to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public
officer (Blanco v. Board of Examiners)
 Grants CA with exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of
19 AAs (like CTA and CSC) 2. to compel issuance of visa (Ng Gioc Liu v. Secretary of
Foreign Affairs)
 Excludes the NLRC
3. to enforce contractual obligations (Province of Pangasinan v.
 Listing not exclusive - ejusdem generis Reparations Commission)
 SC retains the special civil action for certiorari if there is 4. where there is no clear legal right as the source of the "right"
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of is not authorized (Cruz v. CA)
jurisdiction
5. to compel tax assessment not due (Meralco Securities v.
 As to AAs exercising quasi-judicial functions, there is an Savellano)
underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of
agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no
right of review is given by the statute. (Meralco Securities v.
CBAA)
E. Declaratory Relief Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
Function:  Commands an act to be done for the purpose of restoring a
1. interested under a deed, will, contract or written pre-existing right and to prevent damage
instrument affected by any statute  Would be issued if:
2. to determine any question of construction or validity 1. right is clear
arising from and for a declaration of his rights, duties 2. considerations of relative inconvenience strongly in
thereunder favor of petitioner
 can only be availed of before the breach 3. there appears to be a willful invasion of petitioner's
right and the injury is a continuing one
Requisites of Declaratory Relief 4. PMI will not create a new relation between the parties
1. existence of a justiciable controversy - capable of
determination H. Suit for Damages as an Indirect Method
2. between persons whose interests are adverse  Even if damage ensues because of acts in excess of authority,
3. party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal damages will not be awarded if such act was (1) done in good
interest in the controversy faith and (2) with color of title. (Philippine Racing Club v.
4. issue is ripe for adjudication Bonifacio)

 Citizenship cannot be declared in an action for declaratory
relief. (Azajar v. Ardalles)
 DR must precede breach so as to avoid multiplicity of suits.
(De Borja v. Villadolid)
 DR not available to a taxpayer who questions his tax liability.
(National Dental Supply v. Meer)
2005 notes: COLLATERAL : relief from adiministrative action
sought in a proceeding the primary purpose of which is some relief
other than the setting aside of the judgement, although an attack on
the judgement may be incidentally involved (ex: A damage suit
against the administrative officials)

F. Habeas Corpus
 In what cases will habeas corpus pertinent in administrative
cases?
 Deportation cases
 It is a plain, speedy, adequate remedy to secure release of
persons under custody
 Success of petition depends on the legality of the detention
 WHC would still issue even if the person is already released
if the release is conditional such as when there is
surveillance, there is limitation in the place where he can go,
etc.
 Detention is legal if it is reasonable (Mejoff v. Director of
Prisons)
 Bail renders a WHC moot and academic as the bail bond
gives him liberty. (Co v. Deporation Board; Lucien Tran Van
Nghia v. Liwag) Note though that in Crim Pro we were
taught that WHC may still issue despite the granting of bail
when there is still effective detention.

G. Injunction as a Provisional Remedy

Purpose:
1. To prevent the commission of certain acts complained of
2. Commission or continuance of act complained of would
probably work injustice to him
3. Defendant is doing, threatens or about to do an act in
violation of petitioner's rights which may render the
judgment ineffectve
 If the plaintiff wins the main case, injunction becomes
permanent, if he does not, injunction is dissolved
 Ancillary remedy to principal action while main action is
pending
 To preserve rights while main action is pending
 Who issues the injunction
 Superior court to an inferior court
 The SEC and the RTC are co-equal (Pineda v. Lantin; Phil
Pacific Fishing Co. v. Luna)
 PART VI.
EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Law - fact distinction
 Important because of substantial evidence rule (i.e., AA
decision, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be
reviewed by the court)
 Questions of Law - always reviewable
 Question of Fact - reviewable only when not supported by
substantial evidence (findings of fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, is conclusive on the court)
 A conclusion drawn from series of facts is a question of law
which may be reviewed (Dauan v. Secretary)
Question of Law
 Examples are issue of constitutionality, validity of agency
action, and correctness of the interpretation of law
 Other examples:
1. question of citizenship (Ortua v. Vicente Singson)
2. WON there was a landlord- tenant relationship (Mejia
v. Mapa)
3. Questions arising from proper interpretation of the
Articles of Incorporation (Japanese War Notes
Claimants v. SEC)
4. Existence of an ER-EE relationship (Ysmael v. CIR)
Question of Fact
 GEN RULE: findings of fact of AA, if supported by
substantial evidence, is conclusive on the courts
 EXCEPTIONS:
1. not supported by evidence presented
2. not supported by substantial evidence
 EXAMPLES:
1. WON thing exists
2. WON event took place
3. Which of 2 conflicting versions is correct
 SC may not accept AA’s findings of fact when the decision
was rendered by an almost evenly divided court and that the
decision was precisely on the facts as borne out by the
evidence. (Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union)
 When there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, there is a justification for the courts to set aside
the administrative determination reached. (Banco Filipino v.
Monetary Board)
 There is substantial evidence when there is a semblance of
reasonableness in your conclusion
 Substantial evidence does not require you to be sure but
merely REASONABLE
 Court must review the ENTIRE records. Substantial evidence
must be taken as a whole - should not be selective in
reviewing the case. (Universal Camera Corporation v.
NLRB)
Questions of Discretion
 If there is GAD, subject to certiorari
 GAD - Capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, despotic
PART VII.
ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION
How are agency actions going to be enforced?
 Examine the pertinent provisions of the enabling statute
 Examples: issue permits, fix wages, summary actions without
notice and hearing, ex parte order to cease and desist
RES JUDICATA
Does res judicata apply to administrative agencies?
 Yes, if it is exercising it's QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
(Ipekdjian Merchandising v. CTA)
 Res judicata is a judicial concept.
 It does not apply if the exercise is purely administrative
 Res judicata may not be invoked in purely administrative
proceedings. (Nasipit Lumber v. NLRC)
 Decisions and orders of AAs rendered pursuant to their quasi-
judicial authority have, upon their finality, the force and
effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine
of res judicata. (Dulay v. Minister of Natural Resources)
Requisites of res judicata:
1. previous final judgment
2. rendered by court with jurisdiction
3. must be a judgment on the merits
4. identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action
WRITS OF EXECUTION
GENERAL RULE:
Agencies performing quasi-judicial functions have the implied
power to issue writs of execution.
EXCEPTION:
If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise
 If the law is silent, presume that the agency has the power to
enforce its decisions emanating from its quasi-judicial
powers. (Apolega v. Hizon)
 If the writ of execution is refused to be implemented, the
proper remedy is MANDAMUS because by virtue of the writ
of execution, the duty has become ministerial. (Vda. de
Corpuz v. the Commanding General of the Philippine Army)
 CFI and the NLRC are co-equal such that an order even if not
directed against the NLRC when it's effect would be to freeze
it's executory decision should be nullified. (Ambrosio v.
Salvador)
 The authority to decide cases (quasi-judicial powers) should
normally and logically begin to include the grant of authority
to enforce and execute the judgment it thus renders, unless
the law otherwise provides. (GSIS v. CA)
Brandies Assimilation of Facts:
Finding of fact upon the question of law, the court will, in order to
resolve the question of law, examine the factual setting including
the evidence adduced thereto.