5.

Quantum of Proof Needed in Administrative Cases

Department of Health v. Aquinley, 819 SCRA 249

Office of the Ombudsman v. Coronel, 493 SCRA 392

In administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence; that is, such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. In the instant case, the complainant did not present evidence to support his
theory that the photocopy of the original duplicate reflected the true amount, or that OR No.
0736 had indeed been falsified. That oversight was fatal to the discharge of his burden of proof.
A reasonable mind will not carelessly jump to the conclusion that respondent is the guilty party.

The complainants evidence to prove falsification consisted of an unauthenticated photocopy of

the original duplicate. He could have obtained an affidavit from the restaurant proprietor or
employee who had issued the receipt, in order to attest to its due execution and authenticity.
Absent any proof of due execution and authenticity, the alleged photocopy of the original
duplicate of OR No. 0736 does not convince us that it is an accurate reflection of the actual bill
incurred.

While this Court adheres to a liberal view of the conduct of proceedings before administrative
agencies, it also consistently requires some proof of authenticity or reliability as a condition for
the admission of documents. Absent any such proof of authenticity, the photocopy of the original
duplicate should be considered inadmissible and, hence, without probative value.

Given the flimsy charge and the paucity of the evidence against respondent, there is no need for
her to present additional evidence to vindicate herself. The Office of the Ombudsman should
have dismissed the Administrative Complaint against her in the first place. Clearly, her guilt was
not proven by substantial evidence.

Thus, Respondent Carmencita D. Coronel is hereby EXONERATED of the charge against her
for lack of substantial evidence.

IV

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

A. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative Decisions. Exceptions.

Antique Sawmill Inc. v. Zayco, 17 SCRA 316

Compliance with the period provided by law for the perfection of an appeal is not merely
mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement. Such failure has the effect of rendering
final the judgment of the court, and the certification of the record on appeal thereafter
cannot restore the jurisdiction which has been lost.
 That administrative rules and regulations have the force of law can no longer
be questioned. Zayco’s view that the period fixed in Administrative Order No. 6-2 of the
Director of Forestry cannot bind the Office of the President since the latter has supervision
and control over the former cannot commend itself to sound public policy. Even
administrative decisions must and sometime, as fully as public policy demands that finality
be written on judicial controversies. In other words, public interest requires that
proceedings already terminated should not be altered at every step. The rule of non
quiet a movere prescribes that what was already terminated should not be disturbed.

Manuel v. Villena, 37 SCRA 745

ISSUE: WON the decision of the Secretary of DENR should be set aside

RULING: Under Section 1838 of the RAC, this function falls within the jurisdiction of the
Director of Forestry with the approval of the Secretary of ANR.

The power thus conferred on the Director of Forestry with the approval of the Secretary of
ANR is basically executive or administrative in nature. And courts, as a rule, refuse to
interfere with the proceedings undertaken by the administrative bodies or officials in the
exercise of administrative functions. This is so because such bodies are generally better
equipped technically to decide administrative questions and that non-legal factors, such as
government policy on the matter, are usually involved in the decisions.

There are of course, limits to the exercise of administrative discretion. Administrative

proceedings may be reviewed by the courts upon the showing that “the board or official has
gone beyond his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted
arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion” or that the
decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake.
Since 1838 of the RAC does not require the investigation be in the nature of a court trial. In
deciding administrative questions, administrative bodies or officials generally enjoy wide
discretion. Technical rule of procedure are not strictly enforced and due process of law in the
strict judicial sense is not indispensable. It is sufficient that substantive due process
requirement of fairness and reasonableness be observed.

Absence of previous notice is not itself a substantial defect; what the law abhors is the lack of
opportunity to be heard.

It was not essential that the appellant be represented by a lawyer. The investigation
conducted by Bureau of Forestry was purely fact-finding. It was not required to be in a form
of a trial where both parties, each represented by a counsel, confront each other and their
witnesses. In any case, appellant does not allege that the presence of a lawyer could have
altered the result of the investigation. He does not even cite any substantial error in the
findings of the Director of Forestry which could have been avoided, if a lawyer had
represented him.
 It should be noted that the order of the Acting Secretary of ANR, a formal investigation of
the case was ordered. That the investigation was actually conducted was not denied, and is
borne out by the decision of the Secretary dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal.

We have examined the documents and pleadings reproduced in the appellant’s record on
appeal, particularly the decision of the Secretary of ANR which is sought to be set aside, and
we find that the said decision is based on a thorough analysis of the facts as revealed by
evidence.
Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121

B. The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. Reasons for the Doctrine

and its Exceptions.

Note: A separate lecture on this Doctrine will be presented.

C. Principle of Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort. Its Rationale.

C.1 Definition

Maria Luisa Park Assn. Inc. v. Almendras, 588 SCRA 663

Moreover, under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts cannot or will
not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.29

In the instant case, the HLURB has the expertise to resolve the basic technical issue of
whether the house built by the respondents violated the Deed of Restriction, specifically the
prohibition against multi-dwelling.

As observed in C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. v. Hibionada:30

The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate claims resoluble under the
provisions of the Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing times. There are
hundreds of administrative bodies now performing this function by virtue of a valid
authorization from the legislature. This quasi-judicial function, as it is called, is exercised
by them as an incident of the principal power entrusted to them of regulating certain
activities falling under their particular expertise.

In the Solid Homes case for example the Court affirmed the competence of the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board to award damages although this is an essentially judicial power
exercisable ordinarily only by the courts of justice. This departure from the traditional allocation
of governmental powers is justified by expediency, or the need of the government to respond
swiftly and competently to the pressing problems of the modern world.31
 We also note that the parties failed to abide by the arbitration agreement in the MLPAI
by-laws. Article XII of the MLPAI by-laws entered into by the parties provide

C.2 Rationale:

Office of the Ombudsman v. Heirs of Margarita Vda. De Ventura,

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction over decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman.
HELD:
No. The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders,
directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
That since the CA has no jurisdiction over decisions and orders of the Ombudsman in
criminal cases, its ruling on the case is void
605 SCRA 1
Herbosa v. CJH Development Corporation, 810 SCRA 532
SMART v. National Telecommunications Commission, 408 SCRA 678
1ST ISSSUE – Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers
and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power
is the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the
confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers.

The rules and regulations should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by
the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the regulation be germane to the
objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the
standards prescribed by law. They must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the
enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid. The administrative body
exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is
essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is
incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty
entrusted to it.

In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an

administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.
This principle applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed
pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making
or quasi-legislative power.

Even assuming that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies apply in this
case, the records reveal that petitioners sufficiently complied with this requirement. Petitioners
were able to register their protests to the proposed billing guidelines. They submitted their
respective position papers setting forth their objections and submitting proposed schemes for the
billing circular. After the same was issued, petitioners wrote successive letters dated July 3, 2000
and July 5, 2000, asking for the suspension and reconsideration of the so-called Billing Circular.
This was taken by petitioners as a clear denial of the requests contained in their previous letters,
thus prompting them to seek judicial relief.
C.3 Other illustrative cases

Heirs of Simeon Latayan v. Tan, 776 SCRA 1

Water Utilities Administration Employees Association for Progress (LEAP)
v. Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), 802 SCRA 357
Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp.,
711 SCRA 60
POLITICAL LAW: doctrine of primary jurisdiction

COA has primary jurisdiction over private respondents money claims. Petitioner is not
estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination
requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative
bodies, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is
supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction.It
applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play
whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative
agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend
the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view
or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.

The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining
whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative
agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the
proceeding before the court.

As can be gleaned, respondent seeks to enforce a claim for sums of money allegedly
owed by petitioner, a local government unit.

Under Commonwealth Act No. 327,as amended by Section 26 of Presidential Decree No.
1445,it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction over money claims against
government agencies and instrumentalities.

Section 26. General jurisdiction. The authority and powers of the Commission shall
extend to and comprehend all matters relating to auditing procedures, systems and
controls, the keeping of the general accounts of the Government, the preservation of
vouchers pertaining thereto for a period of ten years, the examination and inspection of
the books, records, and papers relating to those accounts; and the audit and settlement of
the accounts of all persons respecting funds or property received or held by them in an
accountable capacity, as well as the examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and
claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies and instrumentalities. The said jurisdiction extends to all government-owned or
controlled corporations, including their subsidiaries, and other self-governing boards,
 commissions, or agencies of the Government, and as herein prescribed, including non-
governmental entities subsidized by the government, those funded by donations through
the government, those required to pay levies or government share, and those for which
the government has put up a counterpart fund or those partly funded by the government.

Pursuant to its rule-making authority conferred by the 1987 Constitutionand existing

laws, the COA promulgated the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on
Audit. Rule II, Section 1 specifically enumerated those matters falling under COAs
exclusive jurisdiction, which include "money claims due from or owing to any
government agency." Rule VIII, Section 1 further provides:

Section 1. Original Jurisdiction - The Commission Proper shall have original jurisdiction
over:

a) money claim against the Government;

b) request for concurrence in the hiring of legal retainers by government agency;

c) write off of unliquidated cash advances and dormant accounts receivable in amounts
exceeding one million pesos (P1,000,000.00);

d) request for relief from accountability for loses due to acts of man, i.e. theft, robbery,
arson, etc, in amounts in excess of Five Million pesos (P5,000,000.00).

Republic v. Gallo, 851 SCRA 570

D. The Doctrine of Locus Standi and The Concept of Intergenerational Responsibility

D.1 Definition

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), 776 SCRA 434
Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino III, 899 SCRA 492
Legal standing is the personal and substantial interest of a party in a case "such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged,
alleging more than a generalized grievance."83

Petitioners Joselito Ustarez, Salvador T. Carranza, Nenita Gonzaga, Prescila A. Maniquiz, Reden
R. Alcantara, and Anakpawis Party-List Representative Fernando Hicap, for himself, are Social
Security System members who stand to suffer direct and material injury from the assailed
issuances' enforcement. They are, thus, clothed with legal personality to assail the imposed
increase in contribution rates and maximum monthly salary credit.

On the other hand, petitioners Kilusang Mayo Uno, Anakpawis Party-List, Center for Trade
Union and Human Rights, and National Federation of Labor Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno all
failed to show how they will suffer direct and material injury from the enforcement of the
assailed issuances.

However, jurisprudence is replete with instances when a liberal approach to determining legal
standing was adopted. This has allowed "ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic
organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws,
regulations[,] and rulings."84

This Court has provided instructive guides to determine whether a matter is of transcendental
importance: "(1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence
of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent
agency or instrumentality of the government; and (3) the lack of any other party with a more
direct and specific interest in the questions being raised."85

Here, the assailed issuances set the new contribution rate and its date of effectivity. The increase
in contributions has been in effect since January 2014. As such, the issue of the validity of
increase in contributions is of transcendental importance. The required legal standing for
petitioners must be relaxed.

It is worth noting that this issue affects millions of Filipinos working here and abroad. A
substantial portion of members' salaries goes to the Social Security System fund. To delay the
resolution of such an important issue would be a great disservice to this Court's duty enshrined in
the Constitution.

For all these reasons, and despite the technical infirmities in this Petition, this Court reviews the
assailed issuances.