Course Outline (LAW 207 Administrative Law)1 PART III

Rizal Memorial Colleges-School of Law, SY 2022-2023

Ombudsman Prosecutor Ferdinand C. Tugas, Ch.E., JD

Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing of the complaint is not lost by

cessation in office of respondent during pendency of case. The body
retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce respondent official innocent
of the charges or declare him guilty thereof (Perez vs. Abiera, A.M. No.
223-J, June 11, 1975).

Where a party appears by counsel in an action in court or

administrative body, all notices required to be given must be served to
the counsel and not to the client (Lincoln Gerard Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
85295, July 23, 1990).

Negligence of counsel binds the client (Maquilan vs. Maquilan, 524

SCRA 166), the only exception is when the negligence of counsel is so
gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in
court (Razon vs. People, 525 SCRA 284).

Instances of administrative determination where notice and hearing

are not necessary:
a. Summary abatement of nuisance per se
b. Cancellation of passport by DFA
c. Summary proceedings of distraint and levy of property of
delinquent taxpayer
d. Preventive suspension
e. Grant of provisional authority for increased rates, or to engage in
particular line of business.

1
Credits to the Lectures and Notes of Atty. Rodolfo M. Elman

1 | Page
Approval in TRB resolution of provisional rates of public utilities without
hearing and by TRB Directors who did not attend personally the hearing
(Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 666)

Disciplining authority’s prerogative requires prior independent

consideration of law and facts, and not simply rely on the dispositive
portion of PCAGC resolution; must contain factual finding and legal
assessment (DOH Sec. vs. Camposano, 457 SCRA 440).

Decision prepared by a SP Member is not decision of SP for lack of

signatures of required majority; must conform with Sec. 66 of LGC
(Malinao vs. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616)

Right against self-incrimination

● Available in all kinds of proceedings
● Available only to natural persons and not to a juridical person.

Reason for exclusion of juridical persons from the no self-

incrimination rule: need for administrative bodies tasked by legislature
to ensure compliance with law and public policy.

The right against self-incrimination is not self-executory or

automatically operational, it must be claimed at the appropriate time,
or else it may be deemed waived (Nacu vs. CSC, 635 SCRA 766). PEZA
employee Nacu (who was charged with dishonesty and grave
misconduct for illegally collecting fees) did not invoke her right against
self-incrimination at the time she was asked to provide samples of her
signature. She is therefore deemed to have waived such right.

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Before a party can be allowed to seek judicial intervention, he is
required to exhaust all means of administrative redress or remedies
available under the law.
2 | Page
Three (3) reasons for the Doctrine:
● give the administrative body the chance to act and correct its
errors, or justify its resolution or decision
● prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts
● doctrine of separation of powers

What is the effect of failure to observe doctrine?

Distinction between Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction & Doctrine of

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (BQ)

Both deal with the proper relationships between courts and

administrative bodies.

Doctrine of Exhaustion Administrative Remedies applies where

the claim is originally cognizable in the first instance by the
administrative body alone, while Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
applies where the case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
court and administrative agency, but the case requires determination
of some technical or factual matter xxx.

CASES

Applicable only to acts in the performance of a quasi-judicial, not rule-

making, function; issue of validity of IRR issued by National
Government Center Administration Committee – that is it not in accord
with RA 9207 – is within the court jurisdiction (Holy Spirit Homeowners
Assn. vs. Defensor, 497 SCRA 582).

Motion for Reconsideration must first be filed conformably with Section

14, Rule Vll of NLRC Rules before special civil action for certiorari may
be availed of (Sunshine Transport vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 51).

3 | Page
Sec. 8 of PD 705, as amended states that:
(1) all actions and decisions of the Bureau of Forest Development (now
Land Management Bureau) Director are subject to review by the DENR
Secretary;
(2) the decisions of the DENR Secretary are appealable to the
President; and
(3) courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR Secretary except
through a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition (Task Force
Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga).

Increase in water rates by water district after conduct of public hearing,

subject to review and approval by Local Water Utilities Administration.
Where the rates presented in the hearing are not the same rates
approved by LWUA, this matter shall be resolved by the National Water
Resources Board (NWRB). The NWRB Decision may be appealed to the
Office of the President (Merida Water Dist. vs. Bacarro, 567 SCRA 204).

Third party claim by Ongpin for recovery of possession and injunction

before the court is an action questioning the validity of levy in the labor
case vs. Green Mountain Farm. It is an incident of labor case and
beyond jurisdiction of the RTC. The RTC is a co-equal body of the NLRC
(Deltaventures Resources vs. Cabato, 327 SCRA 522).

OSP is merely a component of OMB and may only act under the
supervision and control of OMB (Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA
717).

The review as an act of supervision and control by DOJ Secretary over

fiscals finds basis in this doctrine. He may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or
modify their rulings.

4 | Page
Regional State Prosecutor has administrative supervision, not control,
over City Prosecutors and Provincial Prosecutors. In taking over the PI,
Aurillo nullified the Resolution of the Inquest Prosecutor as approved
by City Prosecutor and deprived Rabi of his right to file MR and if
denied, to appeal to DOJ Sec. (RSP Aurillo vs. Rabi, 392 SCRA 604).

Protests regarding CARP implementation are under exclusive

jurisdiction of DAR Secretary. The petition for certiorari by Polo
Coconut before CA asserting that the PARO gravely abused his
discretion in placing Polo estate under the CARP will not prosper until
all remedies under DARAB Rules have been exhausted (DAR vs. PCPI,
564 SCRA 80).

Appeal the monetary award (in exercise of visitorial and enforcement

powers under Art. 128 of Labor Code) of the DOLE Regional Director to
the Labor Secretary (Laguna CATV vs. RD Maraan, 392 SCRA 226)

Submission of dispute to Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for conciliation or

amicable settlement under Sec. 408 LGC (Berba vs. Pablo, 474 SCRA
686)

In Prov. of Siquijor vs. COA (12/04/09), the SC dismissed petitioner’s

petition for certiorari to nullify the decision of COA Region Vll – as
affirmed by COA Legal Office – disallowing the grant of P20, 000.00
istmas Bonus, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner
having failed to pursue an appeal with the Commission Proper under
COA Rules of Procedure, the disallowance as ruled by COA LAO-Local
has become final and executory. Remedy of certiorari may be availed of
only if there is no appeal xxx

Cases where a prior MR is not necessary:

● the order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal has no
jurisdiction;
5 | Page
 ● there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and
any further delay would prejudice the interests of Government or
of the petitioner;
● deprivation of due process and there is urgency for relief;
● issue is purely legal;
● public interest is involved.

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:

Whether respondent’s transfer to lower position of RD PAO, which was

made without her consent, amounts to a removal without cause is a
legal issue (Demaisip vs. Bacal, 12/06/2000)

Whether the Memo of the ARMM Governor ordering the reinstatement

of petitioner who was already declared AWOL and dropped from the
rolls was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a legal question (Arimao vs.
Taher, 498 SCRA 75).

Whether or not petitioner’s dismissal from the service is the proper

penalty for first offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is a
question of law (Castro vs. Gloria, 363 SCRA 423).

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY

In the absence of a constitutional proviso or statute to the

contrary, official acts of a department secretary are deemed acts of the
President unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter. Except where
the Constitution or law requires that he acts in person, multifarious
functions are performed by department heads.

This recognizes the existence of a single executive; all executive

organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department and the heads
of these departments are agents of the Chief Executive.
6 | Page
Authority of Executive Secretary to reverse Decision of Director which
has been affirmed by the Department Secretary.

Doctrine is not applicable to the Office of the Ombudsman (Perez vs.

Sandiganbayan, 503 SCRA 254).

Special Order issued by DENR Secretary for delineation of boundary and

resolution of territorial conflict is presumed the act of the President
(Province of Camarines Norte vs. Province of Quezon & Mun. of
Calauag, 367 SCRA 91).

Department Secretaries as members of National Power Board (NPB)

cannot delegate their duties, like power to vote and approve board
resolutions. Their personal judgment must be exercised. NPB
Resolution terminating National Power Corporation (NPC) employees
on 1/31/03 is void (NPC Drivers & Mechanics Assn. vs. NPC, 503 SCRA
138). But he is not precluded from utilizing the aid of subordinates as
long as he makes the final decision through his personal judgment.

Under Sec. 17, Art. Vll of the Constitution, the President has control of
all executive departments xxx. DENR Secretary’s Order transferring
Regional Office from Cotabato City to Koronadal City is valid (DENR
Secretary vs. DENR Employees, 409 SCRA 359).

Presidential Power of Control

The President’s power over the executive branch of government,
including all executive officers from Cabinet Secretaries to lowliest
clerk.
● Power to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
had done
7 | Page
Reorganization of DOH under EO 102 of President Estrada: not a
usurpation of legislative power. EO 292 also gives continuing authority
to the President to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office
of the President to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency (Tondo
Medical Center Employees Assn. vs. CA, 527 SCRA 748).

The President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in
the executive department in line with his constitutionally granted
power of control and by virtue of a valid delegation of the legislative
power to reorganize executive offices under existing statutes (Banda vs.
Ermita, 618 SCRA 448).

The President can exercise executive power motu proprio and can
supplant the decision or act of the subordinate with his own. When the
President ordered the development of a housing project (Smokey
Mountain) with reclamation work, making the DENR part of the
implementing committee, the required authorization of DENR to
reclaim land was deemed satisfied. The ultimate power over alienable
and disposable public lands is reposed in the President and not the
DENR Secretary. To still require DENR authorization on Smokey
Mountain would be a derogation of the President's powers as head of
the Executive Branch (Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA 241).

Distinguishing power of CONTROL from power of SUPERVISION: the

latter is the power of mere oversight over Local Government Units;
checking whether LGU or its officers perform their duties as provided
by law and whether the rules are followed. He cannot lay down the
rules for the doing of the act. If rules are not observed, the superior
may order the work done or redone to conform to prescribed rules, but
he cannot prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act. (Bito-
onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732)

8 | Page
The creation of the Phil. The Truth Commission (PTC) is not justified by
the President’s power of control. The power of control (to alter, modify
or nullify) is different from power to create public offices – the former
is inherent in the Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a
valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully
execute the laws. PTC’s creation is justified under Sec. 17, Art. Vll
imposing on the President the duty to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed (Biraogo vs. PTC, 637 SCRA 78). Note: PTC is not borne out of
restructuring of the Office of the President since PTC is not part of the
O.P. structure prior to EO No. 1.

REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

General rule: Factual findings are not subject to judicial review and
must be accorded not only utmost respect but finality as long as
decisions are supported xxx
Exceptions:
~misappreciation of facts; not supported by substantial evidence;
when so warranted, there may be judicial review; findings are vitiated
by fraud, imposition or collusion; procedure is irregular; palpable or
serious errors have been committed; grave abuse of discretion,
arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest.

CASES

Factual finding of DARAB which relied on certification by MARO that

petitioner is a tenant is not conclusive on courts. Tenancy is not purely
a factual relationship but also a legal relationship (Bautista vs. Araneta,
326 SCRA 234).

Classification of public land is a function of the Director of LMB and his

decision when approved by DENR Secretary as to question of fact is
9 | Page
conclusive and not subject to judicial review (Rep. vs. Imperial, 303
SCRA 127)

Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper grounds in a petition for

certiorari under Rule 65. Such a petition will prosper only if there is a
showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal.

All errors or decisions of administrative bodies involving questions of

law are subject to judicial review under Sec. 5 (2e), Art. Vlll of
Constitution. Mixed questions of facts and law are subject to judicial
review (Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts)

DOCTRINE OF ASSIMILATION OF FACTS

When a finding of fact is so intimately involved and dependent upon a

question of law, the court will, in order to resolve the question of law,
examine the factual setting including the evidence adduced. The more
important issue, which is law, assimilates the facts.
Example: Tenancy involves both factual and legal questions.

The PEA decision to dismiss petitioners from the service, upon

recommendation of PAGC as approved by the President after due
proceedings, should have been appealed to the CSC under EO 292.
From CSC, it can be elevated to the CA via a petition for review under
Rule 43. From there, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court through a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (Lacson vs. PEA, PAGC,
30 May 2011). Here, petitioners chose the wrong remedy by appealing
their dismissal by the PEA to the CA instead of SC. As their dismissal has
become final and executory, the Supreme Court no longer has power to
review and act thereon.

10 | Page
Difference between Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari) and
Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari): A Rule 65 petition is an original action
that dwells on jurisdictional errors of whether a lower tribunal acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
A Rule 45 petition is a mode of appeal which centers on the review on
the merits of a judgment, final order or award rendered by a lower
court involving purely questions of law.

General Rule: Administrative cases are independent from criminal

cases.

Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final administrative

determination. Example – In prosecution of ULP under Labor Code, no
criminal prosecution for ULP can be filed without a final judgment in a
previous administrative proceeding.

The dismissal by the CP of petitioner’s criminal complaint against Fil-

Estate for violation of PD 957 in failing to construct and deliver to
petitioner the condo unit – on the view that an administrative finding of
violation must first be obtained before resort to criminal prosecution –
is wrong. Nothing in PD 957 expressly requires prior administrative
finding. Where the law is silent on this matter, the fundamental rule
that the administrative case is independent from criminal action fully
applies (Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 232).

HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES:

a. Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is the highest level,
followed by,
b. clear and convincing evidence,
c. preponderance of evidence,
d. and substantial evidence, in that order. (ERB vs. CA, 357 SCRA 30)

11 | Page
A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if
the same facts are attendant in the administrative proceedings
(Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406).

Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria vs. Sunga, 368 SCRA

551, OMBUDSMAN VS. ANDUTAN).

Sec. 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription, but the discretion given to

the Office of the Ombudsman.

Desistance will not automatically result in dismissal of administrative

cases. Complainant is a mere witness xxx The aim in administrative
proceedings is not the punishment of officers but improvement of
public service and the preservation of public’s faith and confidence.

Rule on anonymous complaints

Doctrine of Condonation cannot benefit appointive officers seeking

elective office (Ombudsman vs. Maricar Torres, 566 SCRA 365).

12 | Page