1

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

( 2024 EDITION ) 1. Perform some Business for the public (e.g. MWSS, PNR, NFA)

PART I. 2. Regulate businesses affected with public Interest (e.g. LTFRB, ERB)
ADMINISTRATION AND DELEGATION
3. Offer some Gratuity, grant or special privilege (e.g. GSIS, SSS, Philippine
Veterans Administration)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
4. Seek to carry on certain functions of the Government (e.g. BIR, Bureau of
Customs, Bureau of Immigration)
that branch of public law dealing with the doctrines and principles governing the
5. Seek to Adjust individual controversies because of some strong social
powers and procedures of administrative agencies including especially judicial
policy involved (e.g. NLRC, DAR)
review of administrative action.
6. Seek under Police power to regulate private businesses and individuals
(e.g. SEC, MTRCB, Dangerous Drugs Board) (De Leon, Administrative
Law: Text and Cases 32, 2016)

4blue95. The MMDA is a development authority created for the purpose of laying
down policies and coordinating with various agencies, organizations and the
private sector, which may enforce, but not enact ordinances. RA 7924 does not
grant the MMDA with the police power, let alone the legislative power, and that
all its functions are administrative in nature. (MMDA v. Garin, G.R. 130230,
2005).

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
is any governmental authority other than a court or legislative body performing
rule-making or adjudicatory functions.

Factors which gave rise to admin. agencies

1) growing complexity of modern life - as society gets more complex, there
are more things to regulate
2) the multiplication of the subject of governmental regulation
3) the increased difficulty of administering the law

Constitutional status of admin. agencies

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

Nature of Powers

1. Limited Jurisdiction - In general, the jurisdiction of administrative officers and

agencies is special and limited. They possess a limited jurisdiction, or purely
constitutional or statutory powers, and they possess only such powers and
authority as have been specifically conferred upon them by the Constitution or
specifically granted to them by their enabling statutes and those as may be
necessarily implied in the exercise thereof or incidental to the attainment of their
purposes or objectives.

2. Broad Powers within Jurisdiction - However, the powers conferred on them

must be commensurate with the duties to be performed and the purposes to be
lawfully effected. In various instances, the powers of particular administrative
bodies have been held broad and plenary within their fields, and in such case, it is
only where such power and authority have been manifestly abused that a court
may interfere.

3. Powers Limited by Constitution, Law, and Regulations - A government

agency must respect the presumption of constitutionality and legality to which
statutes and administrative regulations are entitled until such statute or regulation
is repealed or amended, or until set aside in an appropriate case by a competent
court, and ultimately by the Supreme Court.it is not authorized to substitute its
own judgment for any applicable law or administrative regulation with the wisdom 4blue95. The Laguna Lake Development Authority has power to impose fines in
or propriety of which it does not agree, at least not before such law or regulation is the exercise of its function as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to
set aside by the authorized agency of the government. (De Leon, Administrative pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region. (Public Hearing Committee of the
Law: Text and Cases 66, 2016) Laguna Lake Development Authority v. SM Prime Holding, G.R. 170599, 2010).

MATTER S ON DELEGATION
What are 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 (COMPLETENESS & SUFFICIENCY) :
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.
TAKE NOTE: According to 4BLUE95, to fail either of the tests would
already be tantamount to undue delegation of legislative powers.
Additionally, if the law passes the completeness test, there is no need to
comply with the sufficient standard test.
Exceptions (To the Rule Requiring Standards; When Not Required):
1. Handling of State property or funds
2. When the law does not involve Personal or property rights
3. Matters of Internal administration
4. Power of the board to make Recommendation
5. Matters involving Privileges (like use of property, engaging in
profession)
6. Regulation or Exercise of police power to protect general welfare, morals
and public policy
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)
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.]
4BLUE95. IN DELEGATED RULE MAKING. The power cannot be extended to
amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not
covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned.
(Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, 2013)
2
EXAMPLES OF VALID DELEGATION
1) Issuance prohibiting selling of shares without prior license for public interest.
(People v. Rosenthal, GR No. 46076, 1939)
2) Prohibition of animal drawn carriage to use the roads during certain times for
public convenience and welfare.
3) Authorizing President to make reforms and changes in GOCCs for economy
and efficiency. (Cervantes v. Auditor General, GR No. L-4043, 1952)
4) K to 12 Law implementation is complete in conditions and parameters through
the legislative policy on the power delegated to the DepEd, CHED, and TESDA.
(Council of Teachers v. Secretary of Education, GR No. 216930, 2018)
EXAMPLES OF INVALID/UNDUE DELEGATION
1) 2013 PDAF article – Post enactment identification of by the legislators.
(Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, 2013)
2) Section 8, PD 910 (Malampaya Fund) - The phrase "and for such other
purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. (Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No.
208566, 2013)
3) Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, indicates that the Presidential
Social Fund may be used "to [first,] finance the priority infrastructure
development projects” which gives a carte blanche authority to use the fund for
any infrastructure project that the President may deem as a priority. (Belgica v.
Ochoa, GR No. 208566, 2013)
4) EO 626 s.1980 that authorized the distribution of confiscated carabao to
charitable institutions that the Chairman of the National Meal Inspection
Commission “may see fit;” (Ynot v. IAC, GR No. 74457, 1987)
5) Act No. 2868 authorized Governor-General to issue “in his discretion” a
proclamation fixing price of palay and making the violation a crime. (US v. Ang
Tang Ho, GR No. L-17122, 1922)
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.
 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.)
Q: Are government-owned or controlled corporations within the scope and meaning of
the "Government of the Philippines"? (1997 BAR)
A: Section 2 of the Introductory Provision of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines the
government of the Philippines as the corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, same as the
contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is
made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the
provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.
Government owned or controlled corporation are within the scope and meaning of the
Government of the Philippines if they are performing governmental or political functions.

THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS:
 To prevent absolutism.
 Under the doctrine of separation of powers, The Supreme Court cannot assume
the administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials.
 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.)
 Members of the Supreme Court cannot sit as a board of arbitrators. (Manila
Electric Co. v. Pasay Transpo, 1932)
 A judge cannot become a member of a provincial committee on justice which
performs administrative functions. (In Re: Rodolfo U. Manzano (1988)
HOW DO THESE AGENCIES COME INTO BEING?
a) by statute
b) by the constitution
c) by Executive orders - usually fact-finding agencies
The inherent power of the Executive to adopt rules and regulations to execute or
implement the law is different from the delegated legislative power to prescribe
rules. The inherent power of the executive to adopt rules to execute the law does
not require any legislative standards for its exercise while the delegated legislative
power requires sufficient legislative standards for its exercise. (Cervantes v.
Auditor General, G.R. L-4043, 1952).
CREATED CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION
BY CONGRESS
1. can be modified by congress 1. perform more sensitive functions
2. may be altered or abolished 2. – underscoring the independence
of the agency thus, insulate it from
political pressure
 The Chief Executive exercises CONTROL over agencies and offices which
perform rule-making / adjudicatory functions.
 If the agency is created by Congress - consider the law that created it. If the law
is silent as to the control which the President may exercise, the President can only
SUPERVISE, i.e., to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed.
DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE.
Another basic principle is the doctrine of noninterference which should be regarded as
highly important in judicial stability and in the administration of justice whereby the
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by
any court or tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.([Freeman, Inc. v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 110265, [July 7, 1994], 304 PHIL 139-148 citing
Mercado v. Ubay, GR No. L-35830, 24 July 1990)
Courts may not interfere with administrative and discretionary functions of administrative
agencies.
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of
a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can
interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale
for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction
over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the
exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to
control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection
with this judgment. [Barroso v. Omelio, G.R. No. 194767 , 2015]
As a rule, where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of certain
administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-equal with
the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control
of the latter. [Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
83578, 1989]
ENFORCEMENT OF DECISIONS
It must be in accordance with the manner prescribed by the statute. If there is no
provision, resort to the courts is necessary for enforcement.
3
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
Q: State with reason(s) which of the following is a government agency or a government
instrumentality: a. Department of Public Works and Highway; b. Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas; c. Philippine Ports Authority; d. Land Transportation Office; e. Land Bank of
the Philippines. (2005 BAR)
A: An agency of the government refers to any of the various units of the government,
including
a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled
corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein [Section 2(4j,
Introductory Provisions, Administrative Code of 1987; Mactan Cebu v. Marcos,
261 SCRA 667 (1996)]. An instrumentality of the government refers to any agency
of the national government, not integrated within the department framework, vested
with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all
corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered
institutions, and government-owned or controlled corporation [Section 3(10),
Introductory Provisions, Administrative Code of 1987; Mactan Cebu v. Marcos,
261 SCRA 667 (1996)]. a. The Department of Public Works and Highways is an
agency of the government, because it is a department. b. The Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas is a government instrumentality, because it is vested with the special
function of being the central monetary authority, and enjoys operational autonomy
through its charter (Section 1, Republic Act No. 7653).
c. The Philippine Ports Authority is a government instrumentality, because it is
merely attached to the Department of Transportation and Communication, it is
vested with the special function of regulating ports, and it is endowed with all
corporate powers through its charter (Sections 4(a) and 6 (a)(2), Presidential Decree
No. 857).
d. The Land Transportation Office is an agency of the government, because it is an
office under the Department of Transportation and Communication (Section 4(a),
Republic Act No. 4136).
e. The Land Bank of the Philippines is a government instrumentality, because it is
vested with the special function of financing agrarian reform, it is endowed with all
corporate powers, and it enjoys autonomy through a charter (Section 74, Agrarian
Land Reform Code).

POWERSOF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Q: What is a quasi-judicial body or agency? (2006 BAR) A: A quasi-judicial body is an
administrative agency which performs adjudicative functions. Although itis authorized by
law to try and decide certain cases, it is not bound strictly by the technical rules of
evidence and procedure. However, it must observe the requirements of due process. Q:
Section 9 of P.O. No. 1606, as amended, provides that the Sandiganbayan may adopt
internal rules governing the allotment of cases among its divisions, the rotation of justices
among them, and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court. Section 6
of Article IX-A of the Constitution allows each of the Constitutional Commissions "en
banc [to] promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before
any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights." Section 16(3) of Article VI of the Constitution states that "Each House may
determine the rules of its proceedings." Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution further
provides that "The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries... in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure." Finally, Section 3(8) of Article XI of the Constitution declares that "The
Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purposes
of this section." Are the rules promulgated pursuant to these provisions subject to review
and disapproval by the Supreme Court? (2018 BAR)
A: Section 5[5] of Article VIII of the Constitution clearly provides that the “Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court;” accordingly, it is clear that the Supreme Court may
review and reverse the rules of procedure of the Sandiganbayan and the Constitutional
Commissions. With respect to the rules of procedure of Congress in its proceedings,
legislative inquiries and on impeachment, while these rules may be generally considered
as political questions, when questioned before the courts in a proper case, they would
nevertheless be subject to the power of judicial review under the second paragraph of
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, which authorizes it to review and annul all
acts of any branch or instrumentality of the government which may be tainted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Although the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan are
covered by the disapproval authority of the Supreme Court as stated in Section 5(5) of
Article VIII of the Constitution, the same thing cannot be said for the Rules of Procedure
promulgated by Congress by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, unless these
rules are tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Rules of Procedure of Constitutional
Commissions are likewise outside the disapproval authority of the Supreme Court as
these commissions are deliberately placed in the Constitution to be independent, unless
these are tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Q: The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) issued new rules and regulations
governing pilotage services and fees, and the conduct of pilots in Philippine ports. This it
did without notice, hearing nor consultation with harbor pilots or their associations whose
rights and activities are to be substantially affected. The harbor pilots then filed suit to
have the new MARINA rules and regulations declared unconstitutional for having been
issued without due process. Decide the case. (2000 BAR)
A: The issuance of the new rules and regulations violated due process. Under Section 9,
Chapter II, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987, as far as practicable, before
adopting proposed rules, an administrative agency should publish or circulate notices of
the proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views; and
in the fixing of rates, no rule shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been
published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks before the first hearing
on them. In accordance with this provision, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA,
261 SCRA 236, it was held that when an administrative rule substantially increases the
burden of those directly affected, they should be accorded the chance to be heard before
its issuance. Administrative due process
Q: The S/S “Masoy" of Panamanian registry, while moored at the South Harbor, was
found to have contraband goods on board. The Customs Team found out that the vessel
did not have the required ship’s permit and shipping documents. The vessel and its cargo
were held and a warrant of Seizure and Detention was issued after due investigation. In
the course of the forfeiture proceedings, the ship captain and the ship’s resident agent
executed sworn statements before the Custom legal officer admitting that contraband
cargo were found aboard the vessel. The shipping lines object to the admission of the
statements as evidence contending that during their execution, the captain and the
shipping agent were not assisted by counsel, in violation of due process. Decide. (1993
BAR)
A: The admission of the statements of the captain and the shipping agent as evidence did
not violate due process even if they were not assisted by counsel. In Feeder International
Line, Pts, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 842, it was held that the assistance of
counsel is not indispensable to due process in forfeiture proceedings since such
proceedings are not criminal in nature. Moreover, the strict rules of evidence and
procedure will not apply in administrative proceedings like seizure and forfeiture
proceedings. What is important is that the parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard
and the decision of the administrative authority is based on substantial evidence.
4
Q: A complaint was filed by Intelligence agents of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) against Stevie, a German national, for his deportation as an
undesirable alien. The Immigration Commissioner directed the Special Board of Inquiry
to conduct an investigation. At the said investigation, a lawyer from the Legal
Department of the BID presented as witnesses the three Intelligence agents who filed the
complaint. On the basis of the findings, report and recommendation of the Board of
Special Inquiry, the BID Commissioners unanimously voted for Stevie's deportation.
Stevie’s lawyer questioned the deportation order: a. On the ground that Stevie was denied
due process because the BID Commissioners who rendered the decision were not the
ones who received the evidence, in violation of the “He who decides must hear" rule. Is
he correct? b. On the ground that there was a violation of due process because the
complainants, the prosecutor and the hearing officers were all subordinates of the BID
Commissioners who rendered the deportation decision. Is he correct? (1994 BAR)
A:
a. NO, Stevie is not correct. As held in Adamson & Adamson, Inc. vs. Amores, 152
SCRA237, administrative due process does not require that the actual taking of testimony
or the presentation of evidence before the same officer who will decide the case. In
American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, 67 SCRA 287, the Supreme Court has
ruled that so long as the actual decision on the merits of the cases is made by the officer
authorized by law to decide, the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which his
decision will be made can be delegated and is not offensive to due process. The Court
noted that: “As long as a party is not deprived of his right to present his own case
Political Law 98 and submit evidence in support thereof, and the decision is supported by
the evidence in the record, there is no question that the requirements of due process and
fair trial are fully met. In short, there is no abrogation of responsibility on the part of the
officer concerned as the actual decision remains with and is made by said officer. It is,
however, required that to give the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of
making determinations upon evidence the officer who makes the determinations must
consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them."
b. NO, Stevie was not denied due process simply be-cause the complainants, the
prosecutor, and the hearing officers were all subordinates of the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. In accordance with the ruling in Erlanger &
Galinger, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 110 Phil. 470, the findings of the
subordinates are not conclusive upon the Commissioners, who have the discretion to
accept or reject them. What is important is that Stevie was not deprived of his right to
present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof, the decision is supported by
substantial evidence, and the commissioners acted on their own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the case, and did not simply accept the views of their
subordinates in arriving at a decision.
JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND REVIEW
Q: a. Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. b. Does the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before
filing a case in court oust said court of jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain. (1996 BAR)
A:
a. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies both deal with the proper relationships between the courts and administrative
agencies. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is
cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is
withheld until the administrative process has been completed. As stated in Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426, the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an
administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of
the administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of
the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case.
b. NO, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court does
not oust the court of jurisdiction to hear the case. As held in Rosario vs. Court of
Appeals, 211 SCRA 384, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect
the jurisdiction of the court but results in the lack of a cause of action, because a
condition precedent that must be satisfied before action can be filed was not fulfilled.
Q: 1. Explain the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 2. Give at least three
(3) exceptions to its application. (2000 BAR)
A:
1. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies means that when an adequate
remedy is available within the Executive Department, a litigant must first exhaust this
remedy before he can resort to the courts. The purpose of the doctrine is to enable the
administrative agencies to correct themselves if they have committed an error (Rosales v.
Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 344).
2. The following are the exceptions to the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies: a. The question involved is purely legal; b. The administrative
body is in estoppel; c. The act complained of is patently illegal; d. There is an urgent
need for judicial intervention; e. The claim involved is small; f. Grave and irreparable
injury will be suffered; g. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; h. Strong
public interest is involved; i. The subject of the controversy is private law; j. The case
involves a quo warranto proceeding (Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Abad, 206 SCRA
48); k. The party was denied due process (Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 147); l. The decision is that of a Department Secretary
(Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131641, [2000]); m. Resort to administrative
remedies would be futile (University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Rasul, G.R.
No. 91551 [1991]); n. There is unreasonable delay (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 301
SCRA 237); o. The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land
(Gabrito v. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 771); p. The party is poor (Sabello v.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 180 SCRA 623); and q. The law provides
for immediate resort to the court (Rulian v. Valdez, 12 SCRA 501).

PART II.
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
I.DETERMINATIVE POWERS
To better enable the administrative body to exercise its executive functions, it is also
vested with Determinative powers classified generally by 4blue 95 as follows:
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…
INVESTIGATORY POWERS
Investigatory or inquisitorial powers include the power of an
administrative body to inspect the records and premises, and
investigate the activities of persons or entities coming under its
jurisdiction,' or to secure, or to require the disclosure of information
by means of accounts, records, reports, statements, testimony of
witnesses, production of documents, or otherwise. They are
conferred on practically all administrative agencies.
In fact, the investigatory powers of administrative agencies, or their
power and facilities to investigate, initiate action, and control the
range of investigation, is one of the distinctive functions which sets
them apart from the court. (De Leon, Administrative Law: Text and
Cases 75, 2016)
The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o
follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or
track; to search into
In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of
judicial authority. To determine finally. Synonymous with adjudge in
its strictest sense;"
5
MATTERS PERTAINING TO/IN CONNECTION WITH DETERMINATIVE
POWERS:
A.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
B.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)
C.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.
D. 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)
 6

E. RATE FIXING

The regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the

police powers of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and
regulation of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. (Republic v.
MERALCO, GR No. 141314, 2002)
4BLUE95 NOTE: Rate-fixing power does not necessarily include the right to
impose fines unless expressly provided by its charter.

4BLUE95. The power to regulate is not the power to destroy useful and harmless
enterprises, but is the power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and control with
due regard for the interest, first and foremost, of the public, then of the utility and
of its patrons. Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective
confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or unreasonable
infringement of property rights is void

PRESCRIBING RATES IS EITHER LEGISLATIVE OR ADJUDICATIVE

The grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of
due process. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the
validity of such rates. When the rules and/or rates laid down by an administrative
agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the
country, they may partake of a legislative character. Where the rules and the rates
imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then
its function is quasi-judicial in character.
PROVISIONAL RATES. An administrative agency may be empowered to
approve provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates of public
utilities without a hearing. The reason is easily discerned from the fact that
provisional rates are by their nature temporary and subject to adjustment in
conformity with the definitive rates approved after final hearing. [Padua v.
Ranada, G.R. Nos. 141949 & 151108, 2002].
SUBSEQUENT RATES. Subsequent toll rate adjustments are mandated by
law to undergo both the requirements of public hearing and publication.
[Francisco, Jr. v. Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. Nos. 166910, 169917, 173630
& 183599, 2010]
REASONABLE AND JUST RATE. In the fixing of rates, the only
standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the
administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just. (Republic v.
MERALCO, GR No. 141314, 2002)
AGAINST ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE RATES. the power to
regulate rates does not give the State the right to prescribe rates which are so
low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return on investment.
Thus, the rates prescribed by the State must be one that yields a fair return on
the public utility upon the value of the property performing the service and
one that is reasonable to the public for the services rendered. The fixing of
just and reasonable rates involves a balancing of the investor and the
consumer interests. (Republic v. MERALCO, GR No. 141314, 2002)
 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  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  notice and hearing required.(Vigan Electric v. PSC;
Philcomsat v. Alcuaz)

SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.

NOTICE AND HEARING:

While the power to fix rates is (generally) a legislative function, whether exercised
by the legislature itself or delegated through an administrative agency, a (the rules below also apply with regard to RATES)
determination of whether the rates so fixed are reasonable and just is a purely
judicial question and is subject to the review of the courts. (Republic v.
MERALCO, GR No. 141314, 2002) NO NOTICE & HEARING NOTICE & HEARING

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON THE RATE ARE RESPECTED. - Rule is PROCEDURAL or - administrative rule in
where rules are MERELY nature of SUBORDINATE
The findings and conclusions of the administrative body (e.g. ERB) on the rate LEGAL OPINION. LEGISLATION and is
that can be charged by MERALCO to the public should be respected. The function designed to implement a
of the court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is to determine whether lawy by PROVIDING
- No Notice is required in
DETAILS and that before
under the facts and circumstances, the final order entered by the administrative preparation of substantive
it is adapted there must be
agency is unlawful or unreasonable. Thus, to the extent that the administrative rules where CLASS TO
a HEARING.
agency has not been arbitrary or capricious in the exercise of its power, the time- BE AFFECTED IS
honored principle is that courts should not interfere. The principle of separation of LARGE and questions to
powers dictates that courts should hesitate to review the acts of administrative be resolve involve use of - The administrative rule
discretion by the rule substantially ADDS or
officers except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion. [Republic v.
making body. INCREASES the burden of
MERALCO, GR No. 141314, 2002]
those concerned, as such ,
an administrative agency
must accord those directly
affected a chance to be
heard.

II, QUASI-LEGISLATIVE/ RULE MAKING:
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE V. QUASI-JUDICIAL
4blue95. The Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) does NOT exercise quasi-
judicial functions. When the Supreme Court, as the PET, resolves a presidential or
vice-presidential election contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power.
(Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. 191618, 2010).
4blue95. The classification of positions in career service is a quasi- legislative, not
a quasi-judicial, issuance. This distinction determines whether prior notice and
hearing are necessary. It was an internal matter which did not need prior
publication. It had been issued as an incident of the administrative body’s power to
issue guidelines for government officials to follow in performing their duties.
7
KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES & REGULATIONS
An administrative regulation may be classified as f ollows (Republic v.
Drugmaker's Laboratories, Inc., G.R. No. 190837, 2014):
1) LEGISLATIVE RULES are in the nature of subordinate legislation and
designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. They
usually implement existing law, imposing general, extra-statutory obligations
pursuant to authority properly delegated by Congress and effect a change in
existing law or policy which affects individual rights and obligations.
1. Non-Legislative Rule
a. No force of law
b. No need for notice, comment and publication
c. Exception: When rule affects third persons (Tañada v. Tuvera)
Examples:
i. Supplementary - Those which supply details, also known as detailed
legislation.
ii. Interpretative - Those that do no more than to interpret a statute.
These are given weight and respect but are not conclusive to the courts.
4BLUE95 NOTE: Recall that administrative agencies are possessed of
specialized knowledge
iii. Procedural - Those which describe the method by which the agency
will carry out its appointed functions
iv. Internal - Those issued by a superior administrative or executive
officer to his subordinates for the proper and efficient administration of
law.
2. Legislative/Substantive Rule
a. With force of law
b. Needs notice, comment, and publication (Chap 2. Book VII,
Administrative Code and Art. 2, Civil Code)
c. Examples: (PCS)
i. Penal - Those that carry out penal or criminal sanctions for violation
of the same.
ii. Contingent - Those which determine when a statute will go into
effect. Power to ascertain the happening of such facts may be delegated
to administrative agencies
iii. Supplementary - Those which only supply details, also known as
detailed legislation.
2) INTERPRETATIVE RULES
intended to interpret, clarify or explain existing statutory regulations under
which the administrative body operates. Their purpose or objective is merely
to construe the statute being administered and purport to do no more than
interpret the statute. Simply, they try to say what the statute means and refer
to no single person or party in particular but concern all those belonging to
the same class which may be covered by the said rules.
When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its
applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real
consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When,
upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing
for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the
implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden
of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly
affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that
new issuance is given the force and effect of law. (CIR v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 119761, 1996)
3) CONTINGENT RULES
are those issued by an administrative authority based on the existence of certain
facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends.
Congress may provide that a law shall take effect upon the happening of future
specified contingencies leaving to some other person or body the power to
determine when the specified contingency has arisen.
1. It may delegate a power not legislative which it may itself rightfully
exercise. The power to ascertain facts is such power which may be delegated.
2. The finding by an administrative authority of the existence of conditions
defined in the statute under which its provisions shall become operative
comes under the head of rulemaking since it usually involves judgment, if
not discretion.
 8

REQUISITES OF A VALID ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCE, RULE OR EXCEPTIONS: Publication not required in the following:
REGULATION
i) Interpretative rule/circular/regulations, which add no real consequence more
1) ITS PROMULGATION MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE than what the law itself prescribes (Cawad v. Abad, GR No. 207145, 2015;
LEGISLATURE Tañada v. Tuvera, GR No. L-63915, 1986)

There is a delegation made by Congress subject to the Completeness Test ii) Those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the
and the Sufficent Standard Test. administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.

2) IT MUST BE PROMULGATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE iii) Letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules
PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE; or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their
duties. (Tañada v. Tuvera, GR No. L63915, 1986)
a) Notice and Hearing

GENERAL RULE: Prior notice and hearing not required in the following
(Provincial Bus Operators v. DOLE, GR No. 78385, 2018, J. Leonen):

i) Interpretative Rule - no real consequence more than what the law itself
prescribes (Cawad v. Abad, GR No. 207145, 2015);

ii) Administrative regulation or issuance is of general application (i.e.

applies to all; not just to a selected class) (Philippine Consumers
Foundation, Inc. v. Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, G.R. No.
78385, 1987);

iii) Internal in nature (Board of Trustees v. Velasco, GR No. 170463,

2011)

iv) Rule is procedural (Rules of Procedure; since it’s also of general

application);

v) Rule is merely a legal opinion (hence, advisory and no adjudication;

e.g. BIR or SEC opinions);

vi) Substantive rule where class affected is at large and questions to be

resolved require use of discretion by the rule-making body. (Corona v.
United Harbor Pilots, GR No. 111953, 1997)

EXCEPTIONS: Prior notice & hearing required if:

i) Legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall

be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate hearing or
consultation (i.e. contained in the law itself);

ii) Rule requires determination of past events or facts (through a

hearing or proceeding);

iii) Regulation is settlement of a controversy between specific

c) Filing with the UP Law Center-Office of the Administrative Registrar
parties (hence, considered as adjudication) (Philcomsat v. Alcuaz,
GR No. 84818, 1989);
Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center
three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Each rule shall become
iv) Rate-fixing in the exercise of quasi-judicial authority (Philippine
effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing. [Secs. 3-4, Chapter 2, Book
Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. Secretary of Education, Culture and
VII, Administrative Code of 1987]
Sports, G.R. No. 78385, 1987)
According to the Administrative Code, 3 copies of every rule should be filed
in the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the UP Law
Center. Failure to comply with this makes the administrative issuance
b) Publication
ineffective & may not be enforced. (GMA v. MTRCB, G.R. 148579, 2007)
This registration requirement is part of publication.
GENERAL RULES: Publication required in the following:
Not all rules and regulations adopted by every government agency are to be
i) Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their
filed with the UP Law Center. Only those of general or of permanent
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid
character are to be filed. Internal rules which are meant to regulate the
delegation. (Tañada v. Tuvera, GR No. L-63915, 1986)
personnel of the GSIS are not subject to filing with the UP Law Center.
(Board of Trustees v. Velasco, G.R. 17046, 2011).
ii) If the administrative rule substantially adds or increases the burden of
those governed, publication is required. (Manila Public School Teachers v.
Garcia, GR No. 192708, 2017)
3) IT MUST BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY
THE LEGISLATURE (MUST NOT BE ULTRA VIRES);
iii) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which, pursuant to
law, is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be
The administrative agency issuing the IRRs may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the
published in full text. [Sec. 6(2), Chapter 2, Book VII, Administrative Code
provisions of the law it administers and enforces, and cannot engraft additional
of 1987]
non-contradictory requirements not contemplated by the Legislature. (Lokin, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 179431-32 & 180443, 2010)
Special Requisites of Penal Rules:
4blue95. The DOH’s power under the Milk Code to control information regarding
1. The law which authorizes the promulgation of rules and regulations must
breast milk vis-a-vis breast milk substitutes is not absolute, as the power to control
itself Provide for the imposition of a penalty for their violation;
does not encompass the power to absolutely prohibit the advertising, marketing,
and promotion of breast milk substitutes. Neither the Milk Code nor the Revised
2. The law must Fix or define such penalty;
Administrative Code grants the DOH the authority to fix or impose administrative
fines. Without any express grant of power to fix or impose such fines, the DOH
3. The violation for which the rules and regulations impose a Penalty must be
cannot provide for those fines in the RIRR. The DOH exceeded its authority by
punishable under the law itself; and
providing for such fines or sanctions in the RIRR. (Pharmaceuticals and Health
Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque, G.R. 173034, 2007)
4. The rules and regulations must be published in the Official Gazette or
Newspaper of General Circulation and archived at the UP Law Center.
4) IT MUST BE REASONABLE

III. 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: absence of one of these 7 rights is sufficient to
question the proceeding
As held in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the seven cardinal primary rights for Administrative
due process are:
1. Right to a hearing
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.
A failure to comply with the requirements may result in failure to
acquire jurisdiction.
Generally, the right to notice in an administrative proceeding may be
waived.
If a general appearance is made, jurisdiction over the person is
conferred even though there was no proper notice or process.
Personal notice is not required where it is impossible to give such
notice.
Exceptions to Requirement of Notice and Hearing:
1. Urgency of immediate action
2. Tentativeness of the administrative action
3. Right was previously Offered but not claimed
4. Summary abatement of a nuisance per se
5. Cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal
prosecution
6. Summary proceedings of Levy upon properties of a delinquent
taxpayer
7. Replacement of a temporary or Acting appointee
8. Preventive suspension of a public servant facing administrative
charges
9. Padlocking of filthy restaurants/ theaters showing obscene movies
4blue95. The filing of formal charges against the respondents without
complying with the mandated preliminary investigation (provided by
law) or at least giving the respondents the opportunity to comment
violated their right to due process.
9
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
4blue95. Authority to hear can be delegated. This subdelegation of power
has been justified by "sound principles of organization" which demand that
"those at the top be able to concentrate their attention upon the larger and
more important questions of policy and practice, and their time be freed, so
far as possible, from the consideration of the smaller and far less important
matters of detail." Thus, it is well-settled that while the power to decide
resides solely in the administrative agency vested by law, this does not
preclude a delegation of the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which
the decision of the administrative agency will be made. (American Tobacco
v. Director of Patents, GR No. 26803, 1975)
4blue95. POWER to PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT is inherent in all courts.
(power emanates from the Rules of Court)
7. Decision must reveal relevant issues
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.
 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)

RULES ON ADJUDICATION (EO 292, BOOK VII)
1. Compromise and Arbitration - every agency shall, in the public interest,
encourage amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration.
2. All parties shall be entitled to notice and hearing; the notice shall be served at
least 5 days before the date of hearing and shall state the date, time, and place of
the hearing.
3. Parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all
issues.
4. Rules on Evidence - May admit evidence commonly accepted by reasonably
prudent men.
5. Right to cross-examine witnesses.
6. Agency may make judicial notice to any technical or scientific facts within in its
specialized knowledge.
7. The agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the
production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data; may invoke the
aid of the RTC within whose jurisdictionthe contested case falls.
8. Decision - every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in
writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based; shall decide within 30 days following the submission.
9. Finality of Order - decision shall be final and executory 15 days after the receipt
of a copy thereof.
10. Publication and Compilation of decisions - Every agency shall publish and
make available for public inspection all decisions and final orders. It shall bethe
duty of the records officer of the agency to prepare a register or compilation of
those decisions or final orders.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND REVIEW APPEAL
An appeal from a final decision of the agency may be taken to the department
head.
Perfection of Administrative Appeals
Appeals shall be perfected within 15 days after the receipt of a copy of the
decision complained of by the party adversely affected.
Effect
The appeal shall stay the decision appealed from if the appellate agency does
not direct otherwise.
Action on Appeal
The appellate agency may review record and receive additional evidences.
Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency
It becomes final 15 days after receipt of the decision by the parties.
Judicial Review
Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review. The action may be
brought against the agency, its officers, and all indispensable and necessary
parties.
Perfection of Appeal
1. The appeal shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days
from receipt of copy; copies shall be served upon the agency and all parties
of records.
2. A petition for review shall be perfected within 15 days from receipt of the
final administrative decision, 1 month’s extension may be allowed.
10
MATTERS ON 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)
MATTERS ON RULES OF EVIDENCE
 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)
4BLUE95. The determination of factual issues may be made by
arbitration panel composed of representatives from each party,
presided over by Secretary of Justice.
General Rule: the decision of Solicitor-General and Secretary of
Justice is binding and final.
Exception: When the claim involves 1 million pesos, in which
case, the dispute is appealed to the Office of the President.

PART III.
REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
GENERAL RULE: THE COURTS ACCORD GREAT WEIGHT AND
RESPECT TO FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.
Exceptions:
1. The findings are vitiated by Fraud, mistake, illegality, collusion or
imposition;
2. Where the procedure which led to the factual findings is Irregular;
3. When Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is
manifest and
4. The findings are not supported by Substantial evidence;
5. Where palpable Errors are committed;
6. When there is a Conflict in the factual findings.
The determination of where, as between two possible routes, to construct a road
extension is obviously not within the province of the Court. Such determination
belongs to the executive branch. There can be no judicial review of a question of
executive policy. (Torrecampo v. MWSS, G. R. 188296, 2011)
4BLUE95. Silence of Congress should not be interpreted as indicating a legislative
intent to preclude judicial review. (Uy v. Palomar)
2022 Notes: Exhaustion and its Colloraly Principles are applicable only in case
where the Administrative Agency concerned exercises Quasi-Judicial Powers. If
such Administrative Agency exercises Quasi-Legislative function, then immediate
judicial recourse is permitted.
GUIDELINES FOR THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES EXERCISING QUASIJUDICIAL POWER.
In Montemayor v. Bundalian, this Court laid down the guidelines for the judicial
review of decisions rendered by administrative agencies in the exercise of their
quasi judicial powers, as follows:
First, the burden is on the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the
allegations in his complaint. 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.
Second, in reviewing administrative decisions of the executive branch of the
government, the findings of facts made therein are to be respected so long as
they are supported by substantial evidence. Hence, it is not for the reviewing
court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of
witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative
agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence.
Third, administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction
can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of
law. These principles negate the power of the reviewing court to re-examine
the sufficiency of the evidence in an administrative case as if originally
instituted therein, and do not authorize the court to receive additional
evidence that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned.
[emphases ours] [Cited in Miro v. Vda. de Erederos, G.R. Nos. 172532 &
172544-45, November 20, 2013]
11
DOCTRINES:
1. Finality of Administrative Action: decision of the tribunal must be final
first before it may be reviewed by the courts.
In the following cases, the action is considered ripe for judicial review despite lack
of final order or decision from the administrative agency:
1. To grant relief to preserve Status quo pending further action by the
administrative agency;
2. Essential to the Protection of rights asserted from the injury threatened;
3. When Allowed by law;
4. When the order is not reviewable in any other way and the complainant will
suffer great and obvious Damage if the order is carried out;
5. An Interlocutory order affecting the merits of a controversy;
6. Where an administrative officers acts in Violation of constitution and other laws;
and
7. To an order made in Excess of power, contrary to specific prohibitions in the
statute governing the agency.
4BUE95. Appeal to the CA is allowed because a quasijudicial agency is equivalent
in rank with the RTC. (Rules of Court, Rule 43) The CA has the discretion on
whether to allow the appeal or not.
2. Primary Jurisdiction - Not concerned with judicial review but determines
in some circumstances whether initial action should be taken by a court or by
an administrative agency
Exceptions to Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction:
1. Congress does not intend that the issues be left solely to the administrative
agency for initial determination; (De Leon, Administrative Law: Text and Cases
400, 2016)
2. When issues purely involve questions of law (Aklan v. Jody King Construction
& Development Corp, G.R. No. 197592, 2013) ;
3.When courts and administrative agencies have concurrent jurisdiction. (Republic
v. Martinez, G.R. No. 158253, 2007)
4. The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction does not apply in a case seeking to enjoin
the Senate Committee from conducting further hearings against Senator Villar on
the alleged double insertion of P200 million for the C-5 Road Extension Project in
the 2008 General Appropriations Act. The issues presented here do not require the
expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of respondent for their resolution. On
the contrary, the issues here are purely legal questions which are within the
competence and jurisdiction of the Court, and not an administrative agency or the
Senate to resolve. (Pimentel v. Senate, G.R. No. 187714, 2011)
3. Ripeness for Review - The same as that of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, except that it applies to the rule making and to administrative
action which is embodied neither in rules or regulations nor in adjudication
or final order.
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:
WON there is congressional intent negativing judicial review
Possibility of courts entangling themselves in abstract disagreement over
administrative policies due to premature adjudication
Fitness of issue for judicial determination and hardship to parties of
withholding consideration
4blue95. Only an exercise of a quasi-judicial function is reviewable by
Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari.
 12

4. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies - Designed primarily to control the EXCEPTIONS TO EXHAUSTION:

timing of judicial relief from adjudicative action of an agency. It is
customarily applied to adjudication and not to rule-making. 1. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (Alter Ego)

Where law has delineated a procedure by which administrative appeal or When the Undersecretary of the Secretary of Natural Resources denied the
remedy could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to motion for reconsideration, he was acting on behalf of the Sec. of Natural
judicial action can be initiated Resources, accordingly,administrative remedies had been exhausted.

GEN RULE: Courts cannot interfere with proceedings undertaken by 2005 notes: Where Appeal to the President had been made and before the
AA President could act on the appeal, the same was withdrawn, there was
EXCEPTIONS: deemed to have been failure to exhaust remedies, besides, by appealing to
a.AA has gone beyond statutory authority the Pres.,the party recognized palin, speedy and adequate remedy still open
b.AA exercised unconstitutionall powers to him in the ordinary course of law & thus his special civil action must
c.AA clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty fail.
d.Grave abuse of discretion
e.Decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake 2022 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
(4blue 95: the exceptions mentioned above are also the grounds where an AA Court of Appeals.
exercising Quasi-Legislative function may sought immediate recourse to the
court of law)
2. Where Administrative Remedy is fruitless

FAILURE TO EXHAUST :
3. Where there is estoppel on the part of administrative agency
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 4. Where issue is purely a legal question
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". In Castro v Gloria, 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

The special civil actions against administrative officers should not be

entertained if there are superior administrative officers who could grant
relief. (Dimson v. Local Water Utilities Administration, G.R. 168656,
2010)
The validity and the enforceability of the “Contract of Agreement” entered
into by the parties are questions purely of law and clearly beyond the
expertise of the Commission on Audit or the DPWH. (Vigilar v. Aquino,
G.R. 180388, 2011)
The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies may be discarded when
to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable,
such as in cases when the Comelec En Banc already approved the award of
the bid to MPC, without the BAC informing the bidders, thus depriving the
bidders of their opportunity to avail of administrative remedies.
(Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC
(citing Paat v. CA), G.R. No. 159139, 2004).

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

4blue95: WHERE THERE IS NO SPECIAL LAW, APPEAL TO OFFICE

OF THE PRESIDENT
4blue95: WHERE THERE IS A SPECIAL LAW, GO TO COURT

MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
1) Rule 43, Rules of Court
This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of
Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
authorized by any quasi-judicial agencies in exercise of its QUASI-JUDICIAL
functions
2022 NOTE: Enumeration of quasi-judicial under Rule 43 is not exclusive; hence,
appeal from the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies like the Professional Regulatory
Commission and the Food and Drug Administration, even if not in the list, can be
appealed to the CA via Rule 43.
Appeal to COURT OF APPEALS shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the
award, judgment, final order or resolution. ONLY ONE MOTION for
reconsideration shall be allowed. No Further extension shall be granted except for
the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed 15 days.
2) Rule 65, Rules of Court
When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
3) SPECIAL NOTES on COMELEC ,COA AND CSC
Why is COMELEC and COA under Rule 64 via Rule 65 while CSC is under Rule
43?
ART. IX-A, Sec. 7, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty
days from receipt of a copy thereof.
RA 7902 (EXPANDING THE CA JURISDICTION) is the law
that expressly provided that the Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or commissions, including xxx the Civil Service Commission
xxx. Thus, by special law, final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of the CSC must be appealed to the CA; hence,
CSC under Rule 43.
Thus, the judicial review scenarios are as follows:
Ordinary Appeal (Rule 43)
1) Quasi-Judicial Agency to CA – Rule 43 (Question of Fact or Question of Law
or Mixed Question of Face and Question of Law)
2) Quasi-Judicial Agency to CA via Rule 43; then CA to SC via Rule 45
3) Quasi-Judicial Agency to SC – Rule 45? – NO! – Must go through CA even if
only Question of Law.
4) CSC to CA – Rule 43 (Question of Fact or Question of Law or Mixed Question
of Face and Question of Law)
Special Civil Action (Rule 65)
1) Quasi-Judicial Agency to CA – Rule 65 (quasi-judicial power + with grave
abuse of discretion + WITH plain, adequate, speedy remedy, which is through
CA)
2) Quasi-Judicial Agency to SC – Rule 65 (quasi-judicial power + with grave
abuse of discretion + WITHOUT plain, adequate, speedy remedy; hence, direct
resort to SC.)
3) COMELEC and COA to SC – Rule 64 via Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari)
13
Q: Give the two (2) requisites for the judicial review of administrative decision/actions,
that is, when is an administrative action ripe for judicial review? (2001 BAR)
A: The following are the conditions for ripeness for judicial review of an administrative
action:
a. The administrative action has already been fully completed and, therefore, is a final
agency action; and
b. All administrative remedies have been exhausted (Gonzales, Administrative Law, Rex
Bookstore: Manila, p. 136 [1979]).
The President can also abolish the Bureau in the Department of Interior and Local
Governments, provided it is done in good faith because the President has been granted
continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the National
Government to effect economy and promote efficiency, and the powers include the
abolition of government offices. (Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1772; Larin v. The Executive Secretary, 280 SCRA 71).
Q: Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (a) An investigation conducted by
the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious
misconduct. (b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme Court, from issuing
a writ of injunction against an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman. (c) A
law prohibiting any appeal from the decision or final order of the Ombudsman in an
administrative proceeding, except through a petition for review on certiorari filed before
the Supreme Court. (2018 BAR)
A:
(a) The act is constitutional. Article XI, Section 13(1) of the Constitution expressly gives
the Ombudsman the power to investigate on its own or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The act is constitutional. Although a Commission of any of
the Constitutional Commissions is removable only through impeachment, this rule does
not preclude the Ombudsman from conducting an investigation into the alleged serious
misconduct committed by impeachable officials for the purpose of filing a verified
complaint for impeachment (Section 22, RA 6770; Carpio-Morales v. CA, GR 217126-
27, 10 Nov 2015). ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The act is unconstitutional
since serious misconduct is not a ground for impeachment. Given the limited facts of the
case, it cannot be assumed that serious misconduct in this case amounts to betrayal of
public trust.
(b) The law is unconstitutional. The power to issue injunctive writs is part of judicial
power. The rules governing the exercise of this power are within the powers of the
Supreme Court to promulgate. The law therefore is an encroachment of the Court's
rulemaking power (Carpio-Morales v CA, GR 217126- 27, 10 Nov 2015).
(c) The law is unconstitutional. In Fabian v. Desierto (G.R. No. 129742, 16 September
1998), the Court invalidated Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 insofar as it provided for appeal
by certiorari under Rule 45 from the decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases. Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 had the effect, not only of increasing
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence in
violation of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution; it is also inconsistent with Section
1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which provides that a petition for review on certiorari
shall apply only to a review of "judgments or final orders of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts
authorized by law." In the absence of concurrence by the Supreme Court, such a law
would be unconstitutional.
Q: The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
issued Memorandum Circular No. 123-15 prescribing the administrative requirements for
the conversion of a timber license agreement (TLA) into an Integrated Forestry
Management Agreement (IFMA). ABC Corporation, a holder of a TLA which is about to
expire, claims that the conditions for conversion imposed by the said circular are
unreasonable and arbitrary and a patent nullity because it violates the nonimpairment
clause under the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution. ABC Corporation goes to court
seeking the nullification of the subject circular. The DENR moves to dismiss the case on
the ground that ABC Corporation has failed to exhaust administrative remedies which is
fatal to its cause of action. If you were the judge, will you grant the motion? EXPLAIN.
(2015 BAR)
A: The motion to dismiss should be denied. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies applies only to judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies in the
exercise of their quasijudicial power. It has no application to their exercise of rule-
making power. (Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Defensor, 2006)