Chapter 7

ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS
 BASIC CONCEPTS
a. every quasi-judicial body has its own rules of procedure;
RULES of
PROCEDURE b. which it issues as guides in its adjudication of cases filed with it.

1) nature of administrative bodies;

BASIS OF
2) purpose for which they are organized;
FORMULATION
3) persons who compose them.

POWER TO ISSUE RULES OF PROCEDURE

Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5), 1987 Constitution - …rules of procedure of quasi-judicial

CONSTITUTION bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.”

a. law creating the agency usually grants the agency;

CONFERRING LAW
b. express power to promulgate its rules of procedure.

a. even when law creating the agency is silent on the matter;

BY IMPLICATION
b. quasi-judicial body has implied power to issue procedural rules.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
a. results in an order;
1. ADVERSARIAL
b. in favor of one person against another.

a. taking of evidence;

2. QUASI-JUDICIAL b. determination of facts;

c. adjudication.

3. CIVIL IN NATURE a. civil rather than criminal in nature.

a. administrative proceeding is not a private one;

4. NOT AN ACTION AT LAW
b. but a public one with public ends.

5. RULES OF COURT Sec. 2, Rule 18, Revised Rules of Court - Pre-Trial: amicable settlement,
APPLY SUPPLETORILY referral to arbitration.

a. decisions may be reached;

6. TECHNICAL RULES OF COURT
ARE NOT APPLIED WITH RIGIDITY b. on the basis of position papers only.

7. SUPREME COURT MAY MODIFY Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5), 1987 Constitution - …rules of procedure of quasi-judicial
RULES OF PROCEDURE bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

a. such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept;

8. QUANTUM of PROOF IS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE b. as adequate to support a conclusion.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
1. Rules of Evidence are
not strictly observed in
proceedings before
administrative bodies.
2. Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5), 1987
Constitution - …rules of
procedure of quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
Bantolino vs. Coca Cola, GR No. 153660, June 10,
2003 - The argument that use of affidavits without
presentation of affiants for cross-examination is hearsay is
not persuasive because Rules of Evidence are not strictly
observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like
NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of
position papers only. To require otherwise would be to
negate the rationale and purpose of the summary nature
of the proceedings mandated by the Rules and to make
mandatory the application of the technical rules of
evidence.
First Lepanto Ceramics vs. CA, G.R. No. 117680,
Feb. 9, 1996 - While right to appeal granted by Omnibus
Investment Code is a substantive right, which cannot be
modified by a rule of procedure, question of where and in
what manner the appeal can be brought are matters of
procedure which the Supreme Court has power to
regulate pursuant to its constitutional rule-making power.
 HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY RULES

a. proof of such a convincing character that;

PROOF BEYOND criminal
REASONABLE DOUBT b. you would be willing to rely and act upon it proceedings
without hesitation.

a. evidence presented by a party during the trial;

CLEAR AND b. must be highly and substantially more probable to

habeas
CONVINCING be true than not;
EVIDENCE corpus
c. and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or
conviction in its factuality.

a. evidence as a whole adduced by one side is

PREPONDERANCE
OF EVIDENCE
superior to that of the other. - greater weight or civil cases
more convincing.

a. such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept;

SUBSTANTIAL administrative
EVIDENCE proceedings
b. as adequate to support a conclusion.
 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
1. in administrative proceedings,
the law does not require
evidence beyond reasonable
doubt or preponderance of
evidence. Substantial evidence
is enough. This presupposes,
however, that the evidence
proferred is admissible under
the rules.
2. in the hierarchy of
e v i d e n t i a r y v a l u e s , p ro o f
beyond reasonable doubt is at
the highest level, followed by
clear and convincing evidence,
then by preponderance of
evidence, and lastly by
substantial evidence, in that
order.
Ombudsman vs. Valencia, G.R. No. 183890,
April 13, 2011 - Substantial evidence is more
than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even
if other minds equally reasonable might
conceivably opine otherwise.
Dela Cruz vs. Malunao, A.M. No. P-11-3019,
March 20, 2012 - In the hierarchy of evidentiary
values, substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable man might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, is the
lowest standard of proof provided under the Rules of
Court. In assessing whether there is substantial
evidence in administrative investigations such as this
case, the Court is not bound by technical rules of
procedure and evidence.
 ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

VILLA vs. LAZARO, G.R. No. 69871, August 24, 1990

1. Right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the

proceedings that may affect a person's legal right.

2. Reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights, introduce witnesses

and relevant evidence in his favor.

3. tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and

impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction.

4. finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence

presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the
parties affected
 REQUIREMENTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS
1. Right to notice, be it actual or
constructive, of the institution of the
proceedings that may affect a person's legal
right.
2. Reasonable opportunity to appear and
defend his rights, introduce witnesses and
relevant evidence in his favor.
3. tribunal so constituted as to give him
reasonable assurance of honesty and
impartiality, and one of competent
jurisdiction.
4. finding or decision by that tribunal
supported by substantial evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the records or disclosed to the
parties affected.
Paterok vs. Bureau of Customs, G.R. Nos. 90660-61, Jan. 21, 1991 - In a
forfeiture proceeding where the owner of the allegedly prohibited article is known,
mere posting of the notice of hearing in the BOC’s Bulletin Board does not
constitute compliance with procedural due process.
Lumiqued vs. Exevea, G.R. No. 117565, Nov. 18, 1997 - Administrative due
process does not necessarily require the assistance of counsel. There is nothing in
the Constitution that says that a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to
be represented by counsel and that, without such representation, he shall not be
bound by such proceedings. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not
indispensable.
Casimiro vs. Tandog, G.R. No. 146137, June 8, 2005 - In administrative
proceedings, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one’s
side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. “To be heard” does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one
may also be heard through pleadings.
Lozano vs. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 125221,   June 19, 1997 - PD 902-A grants
the SEC original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. A
controversy between members of separate and distinct associations does not
involve intra-corporate dispute and the SEC has therefore no jurisdiction over it.
Globe Telecom vs. NTC, G.R. No. 143964, July 26, 2004 - The assailed Order
of NTC violated due process for failure to sufficiently explain the reason for the
decision rendered, for being unsupported by substantial evidence, and for imputing
violation to, and imposing a corresponding fine on, Globe, despite the absence of
due notice and hearing which would have afforded Globe the right to present
evidence on its behalf.
END