TABLE OF CONTENTS Procedure

▪ PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS is the

I. Introduction minimum requirement
II. Control of Administrative Action
III. Powers and Functions of Administrative Factors which gave rise to admin. agencies
Agencies 1) growing complexity of modern life - as society
IV. Administrative Procedure gets more complex, there are more things to
VI. Judicial Review of Administrative regulate
Decision 2) the multiplication of the subject of governmental
VII. Modes of Judicial Review regulation
VIII. Extent of Judicial Review 3) the increased difficulty of administering the law
IX. Enforcement of Agency Action
PART I. Constitutional status of admin. agencies
INTRODUCTION ▪ the admin. agency does not strictly belong to one
branch.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - that branch of public ▪ The agency does not constitute a 4 th branch of
law dealing with the doctrines and principles government because the constitutional scheme
governing the powers and procedures of (separation of powers) only allows 3 branches of
administrative agencies including especially judicial government.
review of administrative action.
Role of Admin. Agencies
An ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY is any Residual Powers
governmental authority other than a court or ▪ the powers given to the three branches spill over
legislative body performing rule-making or because of the 3 shortfalls. There is a need for a
adjudicatory functions. body which would act as a catching mechanism,
otherwise, the three branches would collapse.
“AGENCY” – includes: The AA supports the trichotomy of powers.
 any department, bureau, office, commission,
authority or officer of the National Government How do these agencies come into being?
authorized by law or executive order to make a) by statute
rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, b) by the constitution
and adjudicate cases;
c) by Executive orders - usually fact-finding
 government corporations with respect to agencies
function regulating private right, privilege, or
occupation or business;
 officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as
provided by law.
(Sec. 2 (1), Book VII, Admin Code of 1987)

Powers of an administrative agency

a) rule-making
b) adjudicatory
c) licensing (permits)
d) price/rate-fixing
e) implementing/executory
CREATED CREATED BY THE
BY CONGRESS CONSTITUTION
1. can be modified by 1. perform more
congress sensitive functions
2. may be altered or 2. – underscoring the
abolished 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.
Why are administrative agencies necessary?
▪ Administrative agencies are necessary due to the
inadequacies of the executive- legislative-
judicial trichotomy.
▪ The 3 great branches of government lack:
(1) time; (2) expertise; and (3) organizational
aptitude for governmental supervision.
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)
PART II.
CONTROL
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CONTROL
▪ the power to change, modify, alter decisions of
subordinates
SUPERVISION
▪ power to oversee
A. Legislative Control
Ways of exercising control by Congress
a) Abolition
▪ isn’t effective because the admin. agencies are
needed.
b) Appropriation
▪ isn’t effective since appropriations are always
given. If no appropriation is given, the public
would suffer.
c) Investigatory
▪ effective only as an aid in legislation and cannot
serve the need for constant regulation
d) Prescription of legislative standards
▪ ineffective because the standards should be
flexible and those who make the standards lack
the expertise. The standards must be
EFFECTIVE, SUFFICIENT.
▪ Most of the time, Congress is not definite
because of (a) varying conditions and (b)
differences in the need for regulation
e) Prescription of minimum procedural
requirements
▪ There should be a shift to Administrative
standards which allows the agencies to come up
with the standards themselves.
▪ This can be effected in these ways :
1) modify the doctrine
2) procedural due process
▪ Congress can prescribe minimum procedural
requirements which have a general applicability
to all agencies. But even with this, there are sill
problems, namely;
1) Agencies are not bound by the technical rules
of procedure
2) agencies need flexibility to act
▪ These minimum procedural requirements may be
found in Book 7 of the Admin. Code of 1987.
Substantial evidence - such relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to
support a conclusion
B. Executive Control
▪ Executive power is vested in the President (Art.
VII, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution)
▪ RULE: The President shall have control of all
the executive departments, bureaus and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed. (Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution)
▪ EXCEPTIONS: In the case of agencies created
by the legislature (e.g. NLRC, BIR, LTFRB),
one must check the enabling law regarding
Congress’ intention regarding this.
▪ If the law is silent, the President cannot exercise
control but merely supervision.
▪ However, in cases involving agencies under the
executive branch, the President has control.
C. Judicial Control
▪ Judicial review of administrative actions
D. Ombudsman
▪ Investigates and prosecutes
▪ All elective and appointive officials, including
cabinet members, GOCC’s and local government
are within his jurisdiction.
▪ Those who may be removed only by
impeachment are not within his jurisdiction
 The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an
exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency
or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion
is lawfully vested, esp. where the matter involves
basically technical matters coming under the
special technical knowledge and training of the
agency / officer. (Concerned Officials of MWSS
v. Vasquez (1995), where the Ombudsman was
held to have interfered with a bid-and- award
contract.)
▪ The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to initiate an
investigation into the alleged delay in the
disposition of a judicial case. It is the Supreme
Court which has administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof. (Dolalas v.
Office of the Ombudsman, 1996)
PART III.
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
A. Legislative Functions
1. Non-Delegation Doctrine
▪ theoretically puts a check on the legislature from
abdicating its duty by delegating its power to
make law. This is a corollary to the doctrine of
Separation of Powers.
▪ the later attitude of the SC is more liberal and is
in favor of sustaining the validity of the
delegation.
▪ Courts have realized the necessity of delegation
of powers - broad or vague standards are
sufficient
1. Policies - limits, boundaries, complete in itself,
leaves nothing to the discretion; may be in
another statute (Chiongbian v. Orbos)
2. Standards - express or implied (Edu v. Ericta);
written administrative standards (White v.
Roughton)
What are the matters that Congress cannot
delegate?
▪ Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v. Auditor-
General)
▪ Imposition of criminal penalties (US v.
Barrias)
▪ 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 (Pelaez v.
Auditor General)
a) the law must be complete in itself; must set forth
a policy to be executed
b) must fix a standard, the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate or determinable, to
which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions.
▪ The standard may be express or implied (Edu v.
Ericta)
▪ The standard does not have to be found in the
law being challenged. It may be embodied in
other statutes on the same
 subject matter as that of the challenged In Santiago v. COMELEC, RA 6735 is incomplete,
legislation. [Chongbian v. Orbos (1995). Here, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
the challenged law was the ARMM Organic Act. conditions insofar as initiative on amendments
The standard was found in the Reorganization to the Constitution is concerned. COMELEC
Act.] resolution is void as there are no standards at
all, no legislative policy.
Examples of sufficient standards include: In Panama Refining Co. v, Ryan, for subordinate
▪ Assumption by Labor Minister over strikes rules to be valid, such must be within
affecting national interest (Free Telephone prescribed limits of the statute creating or
Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and granting such authority.
Employment, 1981) ▪ In A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., the
Reorganization of administrative regions in ARMM legislature cannot make a sweeping delegation of
(Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995) Standard may be legislative power.
implied from other laws,
e.g. RA 5435 (simplicity, economy, 2. Permissible Delegation
efficiency)
▪ The Legislature must establish the standard;
▪ Fixing of rates by National Telecommunications AAs only to make subordinate rules
Commission
(Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 1989) The standards used
were public safety, public interest, reasonable a. Ascertainment of fact (Lovina v. Moreno)
feasibility and reasonable rates (case to case b. Filling in of details (Alegre v. Collector of
basis) Customs)
▪ WON rate-fixing is legislative or quasi- judicial
3. Administrative Rule making
Legislative Quasi-judicial ▪ Administrative rule-making or subordinate
▪ No notice and ▪ Notice and legislation
hearing required hearing ⇨ Valid as long as germane, consistent,
unless the law required implements the law
requires ▪ To be able to ⇨ Normative and prescriptive in character
present ⇨ has the force and effect of law; affects
evidence and substantive rights
prove the
possible ⇨ must not go beyond the standards
adverse effects prescribed by the law.
on its financial ⇨ General in application
viability
INNOVATIONS IN BOOK VII
1) date of effectivity : 15 days after filing with
UP Law Center
- publication - submit to UP Law Center
a) Quarter bulletin
b) up-to-date codification
▪ EO 200 allowed publication I na newspaper of
general circulation
▪ Art. 2 NCC - 15 days after publication in the OG
▪ Adm. Code - 15 days after filing

2) Public Participation (Sec. 9)

▪ publish proposed rules and afford interested
parties the opportunity to submit views.
▪ What is sad is the law uses the phrase, “As far as
practicable” makes it look like it’s not
mandatory. Can be an excuse.
Public Participation
▪ To make a determination of facts/evidence
1) formal - trial type procedure
2) informal - more desirable and more effective
- public hearings, presentation of
papers and memo, resolutions, workshops,
conferences, seminars, dialogues)
Rate Fixing - even more specific
▪ 2 weeks before rate fixing, 1st hearing is
MANDATORY
▪ refers to ALL RATES
▪ Two ideas involving rate-fixing
1) proposed rate is published
2) must have public hearing
▪ Problem with not following requirements
- aggrieved party can always can go to
court
- the rate can be voided
▪ Rule-making
- an agency process for the formulation,
amendment or repeal of rule.
Limits on rule-making power:
a. authorized by law (Olsen v. Aldanese)
b. must not amend the law (Syman v. Jacinto)
c. must not define a criminal act (People v.
Maceren)
d. must be germane to the purpose of the law
which it was meant to implement (Toledo v.
CSC)
e. must not restrict, expand, diminish law
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA;
Land Bank v. CA; GMCR v. Bell Telecoms)
f. action of the AA to be set aside if there is
an error of law, a grave abuse of
power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse
of discretion clearly conflicting with either
the letter or the spirit of the law (Land Bank
of the Phil. v. CA)
Publication and effectivity
▪ Every agency to file with the UP Law Center
three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted
by it. (Bk. VII, Sec. 3)
▪ Date of effectivity of rule: 15 days from the date
of filing (Bk. VII, Sec. 4)
▪ EXCEPTIONS:
1. different date is fixed by law or
specified in the rule
2. in cases of imminent danger to public
health, safety and welfare,
▪ Publication is indispensable
▪ Publication essential especially if general in
character
▪ Rule on publication of administrative issuances
different from the Tañada ruling
▪ Tanada ruling: Publication in O.G. or newspaper
of general circulation is required for effectivity
of administrative rules and regulations.
▪ What need not be published:
1. interpretative regulations
2. internal regulations ( regulating only
personnel of agency
3. letters of instructions issued by
administrative superior to their
subordinates
▪ In the Admin Code of 1987: Filing of copy of
regulations is sufficient for effectivity
Penal Regulations
▪ 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, ▪ AA to publish or circulate notices of proposed
prohibiting or punishing certain acts which the rules and afford interested parties the opportunity
law does not even define as a criminal act." to submit their views prior to the adoption of any
rule. (Bk. VII Sec 9(1))
Interpretative rules ▪ To be valid, proposed rates must be published in
▪ interprets the law enacted by the legislative a newspaper of general circulation at least 2
▪ does not and cannot control decisions as to the weeks before the first hearing thereon (Bk. VII,
proper construction of the statute; not binding Sec 9(2)).
but generally or in particular circumstances it is ▪ Function delegated to AAs because the
given great weight and has a very persuasive legislature has not the time, the knowledge nor
influence on the Court the means necessary to handle the matter
Interpretative Rule can be found erroneous by the efficiently.
successor (Hilado v. Collector of Internal ▪ Need for dispatch, for flexibility and for
Revenue) technical know-how better met by AAs.
Administrative interpretation merely advisory
(Victorias v. SSC) Legislative Quasi-judicial
▪ Wrong construction of the law cannot give rise
to a vested right. (Hilado v. CIR)
Extent of Rate applies to Rate directed
▪ Action of the AA will be set aside if there was applicabi all only at 1 entity
error of law, or abuse of power, or lack of -lity
jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion clearly Notice & May be Absolutely
conflicting with the letter and spirit of a hearing dispensed with necessary
legislative enactment. (Peralta v. CSC) unless the law
▪ The power to hear a case can be delegated, but provides
not the power to decide. (American Tobacco Co. otherwise
v. Director of Patents, 1975)
▪ PSC not authorized to delegate power to fix rates
▪ The power to decide can be delegated provided to a common carrier or other public service.
that the power to delegate such function was not Power to fix rates, being a delegated power
withheld expressly or impliedly. (Realty cannot be delegated further (Panay Autobus v.
Exchange v. Sendino, 1994, where the issue was Philippine Railway)
whether the HLURB could split itself into ▪ Rate-fixing must be exercised by the agency
divisions when hearing cases instead of meeting directly. The power to fix rates, which is a
en banc.) delegated power, cannot be delegated further
▪ NOTE: Is it not implied from the fact that the (KMU v. Garcia)
Board was constituted as a collegial body that
they were meant to decide as a collegial body?
Principle on rate fixing and requirement of
(Hence an implied prohibition on the delegation
notice and hearing
of quasi-judicial functions.)
▪ if the rate to be fixed applies to all utilities in
general --- LEGISLATIVE in character  Notice
Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices and hearing may be dispensed with unless the
▪ A rate is any charge to the public for a service law requires otherwise.
open to all and upon the same terms, including ▪ If the rate to be fixed applies to one entity --
individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or
QUASI-JUDICIAL in character  notice and
schedules thereof, as well as communication,
hearing required.
mileage, kilometreage and other special rates
which shall be imposed by law or regulation to (Vigan Electric v. PSC; Philcomsat v. Alcuaz)
be observed and followed by any person. (Sec. 2
(3), Book VII, Admin Code)

Licensing Function
Licensing includes agency process involving grant,
renewal, denial, revocation, suspension,
annulment, withdrawal, limitation,
amendment, modification or conditioning of a
license. (GR-DR-SAM- C)
License includes the whole or any part of any agency
permit, certificate, passport, clearance,
approval, registration, charter, membership,
statutory exemption or other form of
permission, or regulation of the exercise of a
right or privilege. (PCPC- ARCM-SPR)
When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a
license is required to be preceded by notice
and hearing, it cannot be withdrawn,
suspended, revoked or annulled without notice
and hearing (Sec 17(1), Bk, VII)
▪ no license may be withdrawn, suspended,
revoked or annulled without notice and hearing
(Sec 17(2), Bk VII)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. in cases of willful violation of pertinent
laws, rules and regulations
2. when public security, health or safety
require otherwise
▪ Where the licensee has made timely and
sufficient application for the renewal of a
license, the existing license shall not expire until
the application shall have been finally
determined by the agency. (Sec. 18, Bk, VII)
▪ A license is always revocable. (Gonzalo Sy
Trading)
B. Judicial Functions
1. Power to issue subpoena and declare
contempt
Subpoena
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have
the power to issue subpoena?
▪ Yes. As long as in exercise of quasi- judicial –
even if charter is silent. Power is vested in the
AA in the Admin Code (see Sec 13 Bk VII)
▪ Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:
1. w/in authority of the agency ( expressly
authorized by law )
2. demand is not too indefinite – subpoena duces
tecum
3. info is reasonably relevant
(Evangelista v. Jarencio)
▪ rationale: power to adjudicate will be rendered
inutile if can’t subpoena
Contempt
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have
the power to cite for contempt?
▪ No. Power must be expressly granted in the
agency’s charter (ex. PD 902-A creating the
SEC)
▪ If no law, must invoke the aid of RTC
▪ Rationale: power to punish for contempt
inherently judicial
▪ The power to cite for contempt can only be used
in connection with judicial and quasi- judicial
functions and with ministerial functions.
(Guevara v. COMELEC)
2. Warrants of Arrest, Administrative
Searches
Can administrative agencies issue warrants of arrest?
▪ No. In Salazar v. Achacoso, it was held that
under the 1987 Constitution only a judge may
issue search or arrest warrants. EXCEPTION: in
cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable
aliens following a FINAL ORDER OF
DEPORTATION, for the
purpose of deportation
▪
▪ In Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, the two
ways of deporting are through the:
a.) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37 of
CA 618
b.) President after due investigation pursuant to Sec
69 of Revised Administrative Code.
- but no grounds needed – has sole
discretion under international law
Can immigration authorities issue warrants of arrest
against undesirable aliens?
▪ YES, but only if issuance is pursuant to a final
order of deportation. Immigration authorities
cannot issue warrants for purposes of
investigation, as the Constitution provides that
only judges can
 issue warrants to determine probable cause. (Qua 4. What is moral, educational or amusing
Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 1963) Note that (Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial
the Constitution does not distinguish between Commission, 1914)
warrants in a criminal case and administrative
warrants in administrative proceedings. 5. Adequate and efficient instruction
(PACU v. Secretary, 1955)
6. Sound and reasonable discretion
3. Imposition of fines and penalties (implied standard) (Wisconsin
Do agencies have the power to impose fines and Inspection Bureau v. Whitman, 1928)
penalties? 7. Promotion of simplicity, economy or
▪ Yes. In the case of Oceanic Steam efficiency (Cervantes v. Auditor-
Navigation v. Stranahan, the Court laid General, 1952)
down the tests for the validity of 8. Maintenance of monetary stability,
imposition of fines promotion of rising level of production
▪ Test for validity of imposition: and real income (People v. Joliffe,
1. subject matter is within the control of 1959)
Congress
2. penalty is administrative or civil and not ▪ What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient
criminal which would involve standard. (Burstyn v. Wilson, 1952)
deprrvation of property
3. power must be expressly conferred to PART IV.
an administrative agency; power cannot
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
be exercised by implication

A. Rules of Procedure
▪ The fixing of penalties for criminal
offense is the exercise of legislative B. Due Process
power which cannot be delegated to a
subordinate authority. (U.S. v. Barrios) 1. Cardinal Primary Rights
As held in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the seven cardinal primary
C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of rights are:
Standards 1. Right to a hearing
▪ a reiteration of the non-delegation 2. Right to have the evidence
doctrine considered
▪ attitude of the courts is liberal in 3. Decision must be supported by
sustaining the standards even if such are evidence
broad 4. Substantial evidence
▪ The ff. have been held to be sufficient 5. Transparency of records
standards:
6. Independent consideration of the
judge
1. Interest of law and order (Rubi v. 7. Decision must reveal relevant
Provincial Board of Mindoro, 1919) issues
2. Public interest (People v. Rosenthal,
1939)
▪ absence of one of these 7 rights is
3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of sufficient to question the proceeding
the case (International Hardwood v.
Pangil Federation, 1940) ▪ Presence of a party at a trial is not
always the essence of due process. All
that the law requires is that the parties
be given notice of trial, an
 opportunity to be heard. (Asprec v.
Itchon)
▪ The right of a party to confront and
cross-examine opposing witnesses is a
fundamental right which is part of due
process. If without his fault, his right to
cross- examine is violated, he is entitled
to have the direct examination stricken
out. (Bachrach Motors v. CIR)
▪ The law, in prescribing a process of
appeal to a higher level, contemplates
that the reviewing officer is a person
different from the one who issued the
appealed decision. Otherwise, the
review becomes a farce; it is rendered
meaningless. (Zambales Chromitev.
CA; Anzaldo v. Clave; Rivera v. CSC)
▪ Evidence on record must be fully
disclosed to the parties. (American
Inter-Fashion Corporation v. Office of
the President)
▪ In Matthews v. Eldridge, the U.S.
Supreme Court enumerated the 3 factors
determining constitutional sufficiency
of administrative procedures:
1. private interest that will be affected
2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such
interest and probable value of
safeguards
3. public interest vis-à-vis government
costs
2. Notice and Hearing
▪ No Notice and hearing requirement in
case of a mere conference (Equitable v.
NLRC)
▪ Power to hear may be delegated but not
the power to decide (American Tobacco
Co. v. Director of Patents)
When required
a. When law specifically requires
notice and hearing (Halili v. PSC;
Bautista v. WCC;
Equitable Banking Corp v.
NLRC)
b. When it affects a person’s status
and liberty
(Commissioner of Immigration v.
Fernandez)
▪ If administrative action is based on an
undisputed fact and not a quasi- judicial
function, notice and hearing may be
dispensed with.
When not required
▪ urgent reasons
▪ when discretion is exercised by an
officer vested with it upon an
undisputed fact (Suntay v. People)
▪ if it involves the exercise of discretion
and there is no grave abuse of discretion
(De Bisschop v. Galang)
▪ when rules to govern future conduct of
persons or enterprises, unless law
provides otherwise (Taxicab
Operators of Manila v. Board Of
Transportation)
▪ in the valid exercise of police power
(Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA)
3. Form and Promulgation of
Judgment
▪ Decision should state:
1. facts
2. issues
3. law
(Ang Tibay vs CIR)
▪ 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)
D. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
Arising from the same facts
C. 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)
▪ The difference in the proceeding (one
administrative, the other criminal) is not
legal incompatibility but merely
physical incompatibility. These 2
proceedings are independent of each
other involving different causes of
action and therefore can
proceed
simultaneously. (Galang v. CA)
▪ Matters that are material in
administrative case are not necessarily
relevant in criminal case. There are
excuses, defenses and attenuating
circumstances which are relevant in an
administrative proceeding which are not
admissible in trial in crim cases.
(Villanos v. Sabido)
▪ The trial court had no jurisdiction to
order reinstatement since the
 judgment in a criminal case is limited
to acquittal or conviction with accessory
penalties. Only the NLRC could have
ordered reinstatement with back wages.
(PNR v. Domingo)
▪ The criminal case for falsification is
entirely distinct from the administrative
proceedings
conducted by the COMELEC against
the petitioner although both arose from
the same set of facts. The dismissal of
the criminal complaint against Tan is
not a bar to the administrative
proceeding. (Tan v. COMELEC)
E. 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)
▪ AAs not bound by the strict or technical
rules of evidence governing court
proceedings. In the broad interest of
justice, the ERB may, in any particular
manner, except itself from these rules
and apply such suitable procedure as
shall promote the objectives of the
order. (Maceda v. ERB)
PART V.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
A. Factors Affecting Finality of
Administrative Decisions
1. Question of constitutionality
2. history of statute
3. nature of problem (question of law or fact)
4. finality of decision (non quieta movere)
▪ Silence of Congress should not be
interpreted as indicating a legislative
intent to preclude judicial review. (Uy
v. Palomar)
GEN RULE: Courts refuse to interfere with
proceedings undertaken by AA
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) AA has gone beyond statutory
authority
(2) AA exercised unconstitutionall
powers
(3) AA clearly acted arbitrarily and
without regard to his duty
(4) Grave abuse of discretion
(5) Decision vitiated by fraud,
imposition or mistake
(Manuel v. Villena)
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Where law has delineated a procedure by which
administrative appeal or remedy could be
effected, the same should be followed
before recourse to judicial action can be
initiated
▪ REASONS:
1. legal : law prescribes a procedure
2. practical : to give agency a chance to
correct its own error
3. for reasons of comity and convenience
EXCEPTIONS TO RULE
1. purely legal question (Pascual v. Prov.
Bd.)
2. patently illegal act - lack of jurisdiction
3. time is of the essence and will result into
nullification of claim (Quasha v. Sec; Alzate
v. Aldana)
4. would be oppressive and unreasonable
(Cipriano v. Marcelino)
 5. remedy only persuasive (Corpuz v.
Cuaderno)
6. estoppel by laches (Republic (PCGG) v. SB)
7. irreparable damage and injury will be
suffered by the party (De Lara v.
Clorivel)
8. private land in land case proceedings
9. not a plain, speedy, adequate remedy
10. doctrine of qualified political agency -
alter ego
11. blatant violation of due process
▪ 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, 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".
▪ The rule on non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies, being based on
sound public policy and considerations,
has EXCEPTIONS:
(i) where there is estoppel on the part of the
party invoking the doctrine;
(ii) where the challenged administrative act is
patently illegal amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(iii) where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant; and
(iv) where the question involved is purely legal
and will ultimately have to be decided by the
courts of justice.
The Rep. v. SB case falls under (I) and (ii).
C. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary
Resort
▪ doctrine applies when there is concurrence of
jurisdiction (regular court and AA)
▪ Courts will not intervene if the question to be
resolved is one which requires the expertise of
the AA and the legislative intent on the matter is
to have uniformity in ruling
▪ EXCEPTIONS:
1. not within competence of the AA
2. issue does not require technical
expertise of AA
Criteria for the application of the Doctrine as
laid down in the Texas and Pacific v. Abilene
Case:
(1) there is concurrent jurisdiction
(2) the agency has the necessary expertise to
competently rule on the issues (technical
expertise is crucial to resolution)
(3) In line with the legislative intent /objectives of
the law (e.g. uniform rates)
▪ If case requires expertise, specialized
skills and knowledge of AA because
technical matters or intricate questions
of fact are involved, then relief must
first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be
supplied by the courts even though the
matter is within the proper jurisdiction
of the court. Application of the doctrine
does not call for the dismissal of the
case but only its SUSPENSION till after
the matters within the competence of
the AA are threshed out and
determined. (Industrial Enterprises v.
CA)
D. Standing to Challenge
▪ LEGAL STANDING means a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the party
has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
result of the gov’t. act that is being challenged.
(Joya v. PCGG; :Lozada v. Comelec;
Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
▪ Types of Standing:
1. provided by law
2. taxpayers' suit
3. class suit
4. suit as members of the Congress
▪ If the law specifies in an exclusive manner as to
who may appeal – those who are not included
have no personality to sue. (Ursal v VTA; Acting
Collector v. CTA)
▪ One having no right or interest to protect cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-
plaintiff in an action. (Joya v. PCGG)
▪ The issue of standing is a procedural technicality
which may be waived if the issue of is of
transcendental importance to the public.
(Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
▪ The Court differentiated concepts of “standing”
and “real party-in-interest” and held that
Kilosbayan is not a real party in interest because
it was not a party to the contract. (Kilosbayan v.
Morato)
Tests of standing as laid down in Assn of
Data Processing Service Organization v.
Camp
1) Test of injury in fact (economic injury)
2) Whether or not arguably in the zone of interest
sought to be protected by the statute
Three elements of the constitutional
minimum requirements of standing:
(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in
fact” – an invasion of a legally-protected interest
which is
(a) concrete and particularized and
(b) “actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical”
(2) there must be a causal connection between the
injury and the conduct complained of – the
injury has to be “fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not
the result of the independent action of some third
party not before the court.”
(3) it must be likely as opposed to merely
“speculative”, that the injury will be redressed
by a favorable decision.
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife)
E. Ripeness
Purpose of the doctrine of ripeness
(according to Abbott Laboratories v.
Gardner):
1. to prevent courts, thru avoidance of premature
adjudication, from entangling themselves in
abstract disagreements over administrative
policies
2. to protect agencies from judicial interference
until decision has been formalized and effect
felt in a concrete way or the imminence of the
effect is demonstrable
2-fold test (must concur):
(1) fitness of the issue for judicial decision (question
of law, not policy-making)
(2) hardship to the parties of withholding such court
action
General ripeness consideration tests
according to National Automatic Laundry
and Cleaning Council v. Shultz:
1. WON there is congressional intent negativing
judicial review
2. Possibility of courts entangling themselves in
abstract disagreement over administrative
policies due to premature adjudication
3. Fitness of issue for judicial determination and
hardship to parties of withholding consideration
PART VI.
MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial Review
▪ WON it is available is the threshold issue
⇨ If not available - end of litigation
⇨ If available - determine the specific
mode of review which must be invoked
 ▪ Grants CA with exclusive jurisdiction to review
decisions of 19 AAs.
A. Provisions of Law ▪ Excludes the NLRC
▪ Mentions only one constitutional body: CSC
Art. 9A, Sec 7, Constitution: ▪ Listing not exclusive - ejusdem generis
Decisions of the COA, COMELEC, and CSC ▪ SC retains the special civil action for certiorari if
may be brought to the SC on CERTIORARI within there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to
30 days from receipt of copy of decision lack or excess of jurisdiction
▪ The constitution uses the word may, meaning ▪ As to AAs exercising quasi-judicial functions,
review is not mandatory by only discretionary. there is an underlying power in the courts to
scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions of
BP 129 law and jurisdiction even though no right of
review is given by the statute. (Meralco
▪ Authority of CA to review decisions of quasi- Securities v. CBAA)
judicial agencies is EXCLUSIVE (if such is
listed in law or if its charter so indicates)
B. Certiorari
▪ If it is not listed, its decisions can be reviewed by
the RTC through the special civil action for Two Kinds of Certiorari
certiorari under Rule 65 1. Simple or Ordinary (Rule 45) - errors of
judgment; questions of law
Book VII, Section 25, Administrative Code of 2. Special Civil Action (Rule 65) - errors of
1987 jurisdiction;
▪ Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial - SC has original jurisdiction, concurrent
review in accordance with this chapter and with the RTC
applicable laws. (par. 1) ▪ Purpose: to nullify or set aside the
WHO MAY SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW: proceedings
▪ Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an ▪ Requisites:
agency decision. (par.2) 1. a) Lack of jurisdiction or
WHEN TO APPEAL: b) grave abuse of discretion amounting to
▪ Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy lack or excess of jurisdiction
(par. 4) 2. There is no other plain, speedy, adequate
HOW: remedy
▪ File petition for review (par.4) 3. Agency or tribunal is performing judicial or
quasi-judicial functions
WHERE TO FILE:
▪ In the court specified by statute or, in the
C. Prohibition
absence thereof, in any court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on Requisites:
venue of the Rules of Court. (par. 6) 1. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion
▪ Petition for Review - question of fact and law 2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
▪ Must comply with 3. Agency or tribunal is performing quasi-
judicial and ministerial functions
⇨ The time period
4. The act to be enjoined is yet to be
⇨ Docket fees performed
⇨ Notice ▪ Purpose
⇨ To stop or prohibit proceedings
SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 from going on
(Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Procedure)
 ⇨ If proceedings are already finished
- do not use prohibition as by then it would
be moot and academic
▪ Unlike certiorari, prohibition is more expansive
as it caters to quasi-judicial and purely
ministerial duties
D. Mandamus
Requisites:
1. Prove clear and controlling right - not
questionable and not subject to dispute
2. Duty of the person to whom mandamus is
directed is MINISTERIAL, not discretionary
3. No plain, speedy, adequate remedy under
the ordinary course of law
 Is it possible to ask for a writ of mandamus against
an agency exercising discretionary powers?
⇨ Yes, when the writ of mandamus is
in order to compel the agency to exercise or
use its discretion but it will not prescribe the
action to be taken by the board/officer
(Policarpio v. Phil Veterans Board)
⇨ If there is a capricious exercise of
such discretion, the remedy is
CERTIORARI
WHEN IS MANDAMUS NOT PROPER:
to control or review the exercise of discretion of a
public officer (Blanco v. Board of
Examiners)
1. to compel issuance of visa (Ng Gioc Liu v.
Secretary of Foreign Affairs)
2. to enforce contractual obligations (Province of
Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission)
3. where there is no clear legal right as the source
of the "right" is not authorized (Cruz v. CA)
4. to compel tax assessment not due (Meralco
Securities v. Savellano)
E. Declaratory Relief
Function:
1. interested under a deed, will, contract or
written instrument affected by any statute
2. to determine any question of construction or
validity arising from and
for a declaration of his rights, duties
thereunder
▪ can only be availed of before the breach
Requisites of Declaratory Relief
1. existence of a justiciable controversy -
capable of determination
2. between persons whose interests are
adverse
3. party seeking declaratory relief must
have a legal interest in the controversy
4. issue is ripe for adjudication
▪ Citizenship cannot be declared in an action for
declaratory relief. (Azajar v. Ardalles)
▪ DR must precede breach so as to avoid
multiplicity of suits. (De Borja v. Villadolid)
▪ DR not available to a taxpayer who questions his
tax liability. (National Dental Supply v. Meer)
F. Habeas Corpus
▪ In what cases will habeas corpus pertinent in
administrative cases?
⇨ Deportation cases
▪ It is a plain, speedy, adequate remedy to secure
release of persons under custody
▪ Success of petition depends on the legality of the
detention
▪ WHC would still issue even if the person is
already released if the release is conditional such
as when there is surveillance, there is limitation
in the place where he can go, etc.
▪ Detention is legal if it is reasonable (Mejoff v.
Director of Prisons)
▪ Bail renders a WHC moot and academic as the
bail bond gives him liberty. (Co v. Deporation
Board; Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag) Note
though that in Crim Pro we were taught that
WHC may still issue despite the granting of bail
when there is still effective detention.
G. Injunction as a Provisional Remedy
Purpose:
1. To prevent the commission of certain acts
complained of
2. Commission or continuance of act complained of
would probably work injustice to him
3. Defendant is doing, threatens or about to do an
act in violation of petitioner's rights which may
render the judgment ineffectve
▪ If the plaintiff wins the main case, injunction
becomes permanent, if he does not, injunction is
dissolved
▪ Ancillary remedy to principal action while main
action is pending
▪ To preserve rights while main action is pending
▪ Who issues the injunction
⇨ Superior court to an inferior court
▪ The SEC and the RTC are co-equal (Pineda v.
Lantin; Phil Pacific Fishing Co. v. Luna)
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
▪ Commands an act to be done for the purpose of
restoring a pre-existing right and to prevent
damage
▪ Would be issued if:
1. right is clear
2. considerations of relative inconvenience
strongly in favor of petitioner
3. there appears to be a willful invasion of
petitioner's right and the injury is a
continuing one
4. PMI will not create a new relation between
the parties
H. Suit for Damages as an Indirect Method
▪ Even if damage ensues because of acts in excess
of authority, damages will not be awarded if such
act was (1) done in good faith and (2) with color
of title. (Philippine Racing Club v. Bonifacio)
PART VII.
EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
A. Law - fact distinction
▪ Important because of substantial evidence rule
(i.e., AA decision, if supported by substantial
evidence, will not be reviewed by the court)
▪ Questions of Law - always reviewable
▪ Question of Fact - reviewable only when not
supported by substantial evidence (findings of
fact, if supported by substantial evidence, is
conclusive on the court)
▪ A conclusion drawn from series of facts is a
question of law which may be reviewed (Dauan
v. Secretary)
B. Question of Law
▪ Examples are issue of constitutionality, validity
of agency action, and correctness of the
interpretation of law
▪ Other examples:
1. question of citizenship (Ortua v. Vicente
Singson)
2. WON there was a landlord- tenant
relationship (Mejia v. Mapa)
3. Questions arising from proper
interpretation of the Articles of
Incorporation (Japanese War Notes
Claimants v. SEC)
4. Existence of an ER-EE relationship
(Ysmael v. CIR)
C. Question of Fact
▪ GEN RULE: findings of fact of AA, if supported
by substantial evidence, is conclusive on the
courts
▪ EXCEPTIONS:
1. not supported by evidence presented
2. not supported by substantial evidence
▪ EXAMPLES:
1. WON thing exists
2. WON event took place
3. Which of 2 conflicting versions is correct
▪ SC may not accept AA’s findings of fact when
the decision was rendered by an almost evenly
divided court and that the decision was precisely
on the facts as borne out by the evidence.
(Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union)
▪ When there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is a
justification for the courts to set aside the
administrative determination reached. (Banco
Filipino v. Monetary Board)
▪ Sir Carlota says there is substantial evidence
when there is a semblance of reasonableness in
your conclusion
▪ Substantial evidence does not require you to be
sure but merely REASONABLE
▪ Court must review the ENTIRE records.
Substantial evidence must be taken as a whole -
should not be selective in reviewing the case.
(Universal Camera Corporation v. NLRB)
D. Questions of Discretion
▪ If there is GAD, subject to certiorari
▪ GAD - Capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, despotic
PART VIII.
ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION
How are agency actions going to be
enforced?
▪ Examine the pertinent provisions of the enabling
statute
▪ Examples: issue permits, fix wages, summary
actions without notice and hearing, ex parte
order to cease and desist
RES JUDICATA
Does res judicata apply to administrative
agencies?
▪ Yes, if it is exercising it's QUASI-JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS (Ipekdjian Merchandising v. CTA)
▪ Res judicata is a judicial concept.
▪ It does not apply if the exercise is purely
administrative
▪ Res judicata may not be invoked in purely
administrative proceedings. (Nasipit Lumber v.
NLRC)
▪ Decisions and orders of AAs rendered pursuant
to their quasi-judicial authority have, upon their
finality, the force and effect of a final judgment
within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.
(Dulay v. Minister of Natural Resources)
Requisites of res judicata:
1. previous final judgment
2. rendered by court with jurisdiction
3. must be a judgment on the merits
4. identity of parties, subject matter and
cause of action
WRITS OF EXECUTION
GENERAL RULE:
Agencies performing quasi-judicial functions have
the implied power to issue writs of execution.
EXCEPTION:
If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise
▪ If the law is silent, presume that the agency has
the power to enforce its decisions emanating
from its quasi-judicial powers. (Apolega v.
Hizon)
▪ If the writ of execution is refused to be
implemented, the proper remedy is
MANDAMUS because by virtue of the writ of
execution, the duty has become ministerial.
(Vda. de Corpuz v. the Commanding General of
the Philippine Army)
▪ CFI and the NLRC are co-equal such that an
order even if not directed against the NLRC
when it's effect would be to freeze it's executory
decision should be nullified. (Ambrosio v.
Salvador)
▪ The authority to decide cases (quasi-judicial
powers) should normally and logically begin to
include the grant of authority to enforce and
execute the judgment it thus renders, unless the
law otherwise provides. (GSIS v. CA)