ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND PURPOSE they fall within the concept of a “quasi-judicial
instrumentality”.

Central Bank vs Ablaza

● The term "PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT" are the The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state
expressions broad enough to include not only the function pursuant to a governmental power delegated to him
central government but also the provincial and under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code** and he falls,
municipal governments, chartered cities and other therefore, within the contemplation of the term
"instrumentality" in Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his
government-controlled corporations or agencies, like
functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does
the Central Bank.
not place him within the exceptions to said Sec. 9 since he is a
● However, Central Bank is not included in the term
quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated therein.
“NATIONAL GOVERNMENT”, which refers only to the
central government, consisting of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the
Preclaro vs Sandiganbayan
government, as distinguished from local governments
and other governmental entities.

The word “includes” used in defining a public officer

Bacani vs Nacoco indicates that the definition is not restrictive. The terms
“classified, unclassified or exemption service” were the old
Government of the Republic of the Philippines” used
categories of position in the civil service which have been
in section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to
reclassified into Career Service and Non-Career Service by PD
that government entity through which the functions of the
807 providing for the organization of the Civil Service
government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and Commission by the Administrative Code of 1987.
in this are included those arms through which political
authority is made effective whether they be provincial, A private individual hired on a contractual basis as
municipal or other form of local government. Therefore, NCC Project Manager for a government undertaking falls under the
is not a government entity and is not exempted from the non-career service category of the Civil Service and thus is a
payment of fees in question; petitioners are not subject to public officer as defined by Sec 2(b) of RA 3019.
reimbursement.

Luzon Dev’t Bank vs Ass’n of Devn’t Bank Employees

MIAA vs CA

Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National

An "INSTRUMENTALITY" is anything used as a means Government, not integrated within the department
or agency. Thus, the terms governmental "agency" or framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by
"instrumentality" are synonymous in the sense that either of law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers,
them is a means by which a government acts, or by which a administering special funds, and enjoying operational
certain government act or function is performed. The word autonomy, usually through a charter.
"instrumentality," with respect to a state, contemplates an
authority to which the state delegates governmental power for When the law vests in a government instrumentality
the performance of a state function. An individual person, like corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a
an administrator or executor, is a judicial instrumentality in the corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is
settling of an estate, in the same manner that a sub-agent organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a
appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality of the government instrumentality exercising not only governmental
court, and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is but also corporate powers.
an instrumentality of the state

It is the Court of Appeals who has the jurisdiction

over decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators, for the latter are
considered to be within the term “instrumentalities” because
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Republic vs Rambuyong Biraogo vs The Philippine Truth Commission Of 2010

The creation of the PTC is not justified by the

Presidents power of control. Control is essentially the power
Issue here was w/n Rambuyong who was an
to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
incumbent mayor sought to represent Alfred Chiu where the
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
adverse party is NAPOCOR , an instrumentality of the
substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter.
government.
Clearly, the power of control is entirely different from the
It was held that a sanggunian Member cannot engage power to create public offices. The former is inherent in the
in his legal profession if the adverse party is an instrumentality Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a valid
of the Government pursuant to Section 90 (b), (1) of RA 7160, delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully
which clearly states that lawyer-sanggunian members cannot execute the laws.
appear as counsel in any case where the adverse party is a local
government unit, office, agency or instrumentality. It argues
that courts are not authorized to distinguish where the law
makes no distinction.

Section 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that:

x x x x
(4) “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
corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.
x x x x

(10) Instrumentality—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 corporations.”

IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY vs THE COURT OF APPEALS

● Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) is regarded as a non-

incorporated agency or instrumentality of the
Republic of the Philippines.
● When the statutory term of a non-incorporated
agency expires, the powers, duties and functions as
well as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert
back to, and are reassumed by, the Republic of the
Philippines, in the absence of special provisions of law
specifying some other disposition thereof.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Q — What is the essence of due process in involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be
administrative proceedings? Explain. decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial
intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause
great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted
acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-
ANS: In administrative proceedings, due process simply exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered
means an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and
order complained of; it cannot be fully equated to due adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is
process in its strict jurisprudential sense. A respondent in involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. Exceptions
an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the (c) and (e) are applicable to the present case. (Rep., et al.
preliminary findings and recommendations; he is entitled v. Lacap, et al., G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007).
only to a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and to the
administrative decision based on substantial evidence.
(Vealasquez v. CA, G.R. No. 150732, August 31, 2004,
437 SCRA 357). Note that it is the administrative order,
not the preliminary report, which is the basis of any further The underlying principles of the rule on exhaustion of
remedies the losing party in an administrative case may administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the
pursue. (Viva Footwear Mfg. Corp. v. SEC, et al., G.R. No. administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to
163235, April 27, 2005). pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly.
There are both legal and practical reasons for the
principle. The administrative process is intended to
provide less expensive and speedier solutions to
Exhaustion of administrative remedies. disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a
procedure for administrative review and provides a
system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the
The general rule is that before a party may seek the courts – for reasons of law, comity, and convenience – will
intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the not entertain a case unless the available administrative
means afforded him by administrative processes. The remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
issues which administrative agencies are authorized to authorities have been given an opportunity to act and
decide should not be summarily taken from them and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.
submitted to a court without first giving such (Berdin, et al. v. Hon. Eufracio Mascarinas, et al., G.R.
administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the No. 135928, July 6, 2007, Tinga, J).
same after due deliberation.

ONG vs BOGALBAL September 12, 2006

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative G.R. No. 149140
remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is,
courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving
a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that It is true that, as a general rule, in the exercise of
question by the administrative tribunal, where the the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a
question demands the exercise of sound administrative trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience examination of the evidence presented by the contending
and services of the administrative tribunal to determine parties during the trial of the case considering that the
technical and intricate matters of fact. findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive
and binding on the Court. However, the Court had
recognized several exceptions to this rule, to wit:
Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, speculation, surmises or conjectures;
which are based on sound public policy and practical
considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many (2) when the inference made is manifestly
accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel mistaken, absurd or impossible;
on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where
the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is
(4) when the judgment is based on a
unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the misapprehension of facts;
amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;
impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
(6) when in making its findings the Court of urgency of judicial intervention, and
Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the
its findings are contrary to the admissions of both complainant; (12) where no administrative review
the appellant and the appellee; is provided by law; (13) where the rule of qualified
political agency applies and (14) where the issue
(7) when the findings are contrary to the trial of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has
court; been rendered moot.

(8) when the findings are conclusions without

citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well The prevailing rule is that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies
as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into
disputed by the respondent; play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of
issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the
(10) when the findings of fact are premised on
special competence of an administrative agency. In such a case, the
the supposed absence of evidence and
court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the
contradicted by the evidence on record; and judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative
(11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly
disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties, which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion.[8]

If the allegedly erroneous findings of fact by the

Court of Appeals amounts to grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction, the proper
remedy would indeed be a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. However, if the allegedly erroneous findings of
fact constitute only a mistake of judgment, the proper
remedy is a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45. Since the petition filed in the case at bar is one
under Rule 65, we would be constrained to dismiss the
same if we find a mere error of judgment.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is

not absolute as it admits of the following exceptions:

(1) when there is a violation of due process; (2)

when the issue involved is purely a legal
question; (3) when the administrative action is
patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; (4 ) when there is estoppel on the
part of the administrative agency concerned; (5)
when there is irreparable injury; (6) when the
respondent is a department secretary whose acts
as an alter ego of the President bears the implied
and assumed approval of the latter; (7) when to
require exhaustion of administrative remedies
would be unreasonable; (8) when it would amount
to a nullification of a claim; (9) when the subject
matter is a private land in land case
proceedings; (10) when the rule does not provide
a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11)
when there are circumstances indicating the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW