Adm in Ist Rati Ve Law: Development of Administrative Law As A Distinct Field of Public Law

152
ADM IN IST RATI VE LAW

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
I. Historical and Constitutional laws are faithfully executed.
Considerations
• The 3 branches of government lack (1)
time, (2) expertise, and (3)

A. Development of Administrative Law as a
organizational aptitude for effective and
distinct field of public law
continuing regulation of new
developments in society [Stone]. Thus,
1. Factors Responsible for the Emergence of there is a need for a body which would
Administrative Agencies act as a “catchbasin,” otherwise the 3
a. Growing complexities of modern life; branches would collapse. The
b. Multiplication of number of subjects Administrative Agency supports the
needing government regulation; and trichotomy of powers.
c. Increased difficulty of administering laws.
[Laurel, J. in Pangasinan A. Definition of Terms
Transportation v Public Service
Commission (1940)] 1. Administrative Law
• Meaning: Branch of public law dealing

2. Doctrine of “Separation of Powers” and the
with the doctrines and principles
constitutional position of Administrative
governing the powers and procedures of
Agencies
administrative agencies, especially
• The Doctrine of Separation of Powers, including judicial review of administrative
though not mentioned anywhere by such action. [Prof. Kenneth Culp Davis]
name in the 1987 Constitution, can be • Meaning: Branch of public law which fixes
inferred from its provisions. The heart of
the organization and determines the
the doctrine is that the basic powers of
competence of administrative authorities
the government must be kept separate
and indicates to the individual remedies
from each other, each power being under
for the violation of his rights. [Nachura]
the principal control of a branch of
• Kinds of Administrative Law:
government. The legislative power is
a. Statutes setting up administrative
granted to the Congress, the executive
authorities.
power to the President, and the judicial
power to the Judiciary. b. Rules, regulations, or orders of such
administrative authorities
• The President as Chief Executive
promulgated pursuant to the
exercises control over agencies and
purposes for which they were
offices which perform rule-making or
created.
adjudicatory functions.
c. Determinations, decisions, and
• If the agency is created by Congress,
orders of such administrative
consider the law that created it. If the
authorities made in settlement of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures]
[Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law]
[Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
153
controversies arising in their administrative when it does not have
particular fields. discretion to determine what the law shall
d. Body of doctrines and decisions be but merely prescribes details for the
dealing with the creation, operation, enforcement of the law.
and effect of determinations and • Any department, bureau, office,

regulations of such administrative commission, authority or officer of the
authorities. National Government authorized by law
• Administration: or executive order to make rules, issue

licenses, grant rights or privileges, and
a. Meaning: Understood in 2 different
adjudicate cases; research institutions
senses:
with respect to licensing functions;
 As a function: The execution, in
government corporations with respect to
non-judicial matters, of the law or
functions regulating private right,
will of the State as expressed by
privilege, occupation or business; and
competent authority.
officials in the exercise of disciplinary
 As an organization: That group or
powers as provided by law. [Sec. 2, Book
aggregate of persons in whose hands
VII, Admin Code of 1987]
the reins of government are for the
time being.
3. Powers of an Administrative Agency
b. Distinguished from government:
a. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power.
c. Kinds:
b. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power.
 Internal: Legal side of public
administration (e.g. matters c. Determinative powers [Nachura]
concerning personnel; fiscal and • Licensing.

planning activities). • Price/rate-fixing.
 External: Deals with problems of • Implementing or executing.
government regulations (e.g.
regulation of professions, industries
4. Types of Administrative Agencies
or businesses).
a. As to purpose:
2. Administrative Agency
1. Government grant or gratuity, special
privilege.
• Meaning: Any governmental organ or
• Bureau of Lands, Phil. Veterans
authority, other than a court or legislative
Admin., GSIS, SSS, PAO, etc.
body, which affects the rights of private
parties, through rule-making and 2. Carrying out the actual business of
adjudication. [Davis; Nachura] government.

• BIR, Customs, Immigration, Land
• A body or agency is administrative where
Registration Authority, etc.
its function is primarily regulatory, even if
it conducts hearings and determines 3. Service for public benefit.
controversies to carry out its regulatory • Philpost, PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA, etc.
duty. On its rule-making authority, it is

154
4. Regulation of businesses affected with • National Language Commission. [Art.
public interest. XIV, Sec. 9]
• Insurance Commission, LTFRB, NTC,
• National Police Commission. [Art.
HLURB, etc.
XVI, Sec. 6]
5. Regulation of private businesses and
• Consultative Body on Indigenous
individuals.
Cultural Communities. [Art. XVI, Sec.
• SEC, etc.
12]
6. Adjustment of individual controversies
2. Legislative enactment / Congressional
because of a strong social policy involved.
Statute (regulatory agency).
• ECC, NLRC, SEC, DAR, COA, etc.
• National Labor Relations Commission.
7. Government as private party.
• Social Security Commission.
• GSIS, etc.
b. As to the organic law of creation: • Commission on Immigration and
1. 1987 Constitutional provision. Deportation.
• Civil Service Commission. [Art. IX-B] • Securities and Exchange
Commission.
• Commission on Elections. [Art. IX-C]
• Philippine Patent Office.
• Commission on Audit. [Art. IX-B]
• Professional Regulation Commission.
• Commission on Human Rights. [Art.
XIII, Sec. 17]

• Games and Amusement Board.
• Commission on Appointments. [Art. • Board of Energy.
VI, Sec. 18]

• Insurance Commission.
• Senate Electoral Tribunal. [Art. VI,
• Dangerous Drugs Board.
Sec. 17]
• House of Representatives Electoral

3. Executive Order (fact-finding agency) /
Authority of law.
Tribunal. [Art. VI, Sec. 17]
c. As to hierarchy:
• Judicial and Bar Council. [Art. VIII,
1. Office of the President and Cabinet.
Sec. 8]
2. Independent Constitutional Commissions.
• Office of the Ombudsman. [Art. IX,
• CSC, COMELEC, COA.
Sec. 5]
• National Economic and Development 3. Other Constitutional Bodies.
Authority. [Art. XII, Sec. 20] • Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, Office
• An agency on Cooperatives. [Art. XII, of the Special Prosecutor, Central
Sec. 15] Monetary Authority, Economic and

Planning Agency, Commission on
• An independent Central Monetary
Human Rights, National Language
Authority. [Art XII, Sec. 20]
Commission, National Police

155
Commission, Commission on b. It provides for action that will be based on
Indigenous Cultural Communities. technical knowledge, which would not be
4. Regulatory Commission. available, if it were taken through the

ordinary courts of law.
• SEC, NLRC, Office of the Insurance
c. It ensures that the action taken will have
Commissioner, Land Transportation
regard for the interests of the general public
Commission, Bureau of Customs,
in a way not possible if it were only the
CID, BIR.
outcome of a controversy between private
5. Public Corporation. parties to a suit.
• UP, NPC, MWSS, NDC, DBP. d. It permits the rules for the prevention of
socially hurtful conduct to be flexible rules
based on discretion, and thus make possible
5. Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations
the introduction of order in fields not
a) Supplementary / detailed legislation: To “fix
advantageously permitting the application of
the details” in the execution and enforcement rules of a rigid permanent character.
of a legislative policy (e.g. Rules and [Dickinson]
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code).
b) Interpretative legislation: To construe or B. Cases

interpret the provisions of a statute to be
enforced; binding on all concerned until
changed. They have the effect of law and are
entitled to great respect, having in their favor
the presumption of legality [Gonzalez v
Land Bank]. The erroneous application of
the law by public officers does not bar a
subsequent correct application [Manila
Jockey Club v CA (1998)] (e.g. BIR
Circulars, CB Circulars).
c) Contingent legislation: Made by an

administrative authority on the existence of
certain facts or things upon which the
enforcement of the law depends. [Cruz v
Youngberg]
6. Advantages of Administrative Regulation

a. Regulation by government opens a way for
action to be taken in the public interest to
prevent future harm when there would be no
assurance that any action would be taken if
the initiative were left wholly to interested
individuals.

156
• Manila Electric Co. v Pasay Transport (1932) Members of SC and inferior courts of justice shall
The SC should strictly confine its own sphere of not be designated to any agency performing
influence to the powers expressly or by quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. Administrative functions “involve the regulation
The SC and its members should not nor cannot be and control over the conduct and affairs of
required to exercise any power or to perform any individuals for their own welfare, and the
task, or to assume any duty not pertaining to or promulgation of rules and regulations top better
connected with administering judicial functions. A carry out legislative policy or such as are
board of arbitrators is not a court in any proper designated to any agency by the organic law of its
sense of the term, and possesses none of the existence.” RTC judges should render assistance
jurisdiction granted by the Organic Act to the SC. to said agencies only when such assistance may
• Noblejas vs. Teehankee (1968) be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their
The legislature could not have intended for the judicial duties.
Land Registration Commissioner and other • Puyat v De Guzman
similarly ranked officials to hold same rank as a An indirect appearance as counsel by an

judge of the CFI, because it would place upon the Assemblyman before an administrative body
SC the duty of investigating and disciplining these circumvents the Constitutional prohibition. A
officials, who are performing executive functions contrary rule would permit an Assemblyman to
and thus under the supervision and control of the influence an administrative body just by acquiring
President. It would be unconstitutional, being minimal participation in the “interest” of the client
violative of the separation of powers, and would and then “intervening” in the proceedings.
diminish the control of the Chief Executive over • Phil. Ass’n of Service Exporters v Torres
executive officials.
Both LOIs and EOs are presidential issuances;
• Garcia v. Macaraig (1971) one may repeal or otherwise alter, modify or
The line between what a judge may and may not amend the other, depending on which comes
do in working with other offices under the other later.
departments must always be jealously observed, • Eastern Shipping Lines v CA (1998)
lest the principle of separation of powers be An administrative agency has no discretion WON
eroded. No judge of even the lowest court should to implement a law. Its duty is to enforce the
place himself in a position where his actuations law. Thus if there is a conflict between the
would be subject to review and prior approval circular issued by the agency and an EO issued by
and, worse still, review, before they can have any the president, the latter prevails.
legal effect, by any authority other than the CA or
the SC. II. Control of Administrative Action
• In re: Manzano (1988)
A. Administrative agencies and the executive
power of the President
1. Legislative control
a. Powers of the Legislative
1. Creation and abolition.

157
• Congress can create, divide, • E.g. budgetary hearings – Allows
merge, modify, or even abolish economy and efficiency of
agencies.
government operations.
• Power to abolish is not effective
because administrative agencies 2. Congressional investigation.
are needed. • 3 limitations under the 1987

2. Appropriation.
Constitution:
• Congress has budgetary power. a) In aid of legislation;
In actual life, no appreciable
effect because annual b) Conducted in accordance
appropriation usually gets with duly published rules of

Congressional approval, procedure; and
otherwise, public suffers.
c) Persons appearing therein
3. Investigatory.
afforded their rights.
• Effective only as an aid in
3. Legislative supervision.
legislation and cannot serve the
need for constant regulation. • Legislative veto: Congress has
4. Pprescription of legislative standards. “right” to approve/disapprove

any regulation before it takes
• Ineffective because the
effect.
standards should be flexible and
those who make the standards
lack the expertise.
2. Executive control
• The standards must be effective

and sufficient. Art. VII, Sec.1, 1987 Consti. The executive
power shall be vested in the President of the
5. Prescription of minimum procedural Philippines.
requirements.
Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987 Consti. The
• There must be a shift towards President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
having administrative standards
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
instead to allow the agencies
enough flexibility. • Power of appointment, power of control
b. Congressional Oversight Committee
over all offices in the Executive branch,
[Macalintal v COMELEC]
and sworn duty to preserve and defend
1. Scrutiny. the Constitution and execute the laws
• Based on the power of (which entitles the President to influence

the conduct of administrative bodies if in
appropriation.
his view they violate the Constitution).
• Sec. 22, Art. VI, 1987
• The President controls administrative
Constitution: Department heads
agencies except when such agencies are
may be ordered to appear on any
created by the legislature. One must
matter pertaining to their
check the enabling laws regarding the
departments.
particular legislative intent. If the law is

158
silent, the President cannot exercise • The Ombudsman may not veto or
control but merely supervision.
revise an exercise of judgment or
discretion by an agency or officer
3. Judicial Control
upon whom that judgment or
• Power of judicial review over decisions of discretion is lawfully vested especially
administrative agencies. when the matter involves basically
• Radical view: Courts should review not technical matters coming under the
special technical knowledge and
only agency’s conclusions of law but even
training of the agency or officer.
its determinations of fact and policy.
[Concerned Officials of the MWSS
• Traditional/Accepted view: Judicial review
v Vasquez (1995)]
is allowed on questions of law and
• All elective and appointive officials,
jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact
including cabinet members, GOCC’s
and policy. Courts defer to the expertise
and local government are within its
and experience of agencies in their areas
jurisdiction, except those who may
of specialization. Courts are confined to
be removed only by impeachment.
seeing to it that agencies stay within the
limits of their power or to checking • The office of the Ombudsman has the
arbitrariness in the administrative power to investigate and prosecute

process. on its own or on complaint by any
person, any act or omission of any
4. Ombudsman public officer or employee, office or
a. Powers: agency, when such act or omission

appears to be illegal, unjust,
1. Investigatory.
improper or inefficient. This power
2. Prosecutorial.
has been held to include the
• Own initiative. investigation and prosecution of any
crime committed by a public official
• From a complaint.
regardless of whether the acts or
3. Public assistance functions. omissions complained of are related
4. Authority to inquire and obtain to, or connected with, or arise from,
information. the performance of his official duty.

It is enough that the act or omission
b. Necessary characteristics:
was committed by a public official.
1. Political independence.
The Ombudsman may review, revise,
2. Accessibility and expedition / direct, reverse or modify a decision
independence. of a prosecutor deputized or
3. Grant of investigatory power. designated to be under the
Ombudsman’s control and
4. Absence of revisory jurisdiction.
supervision. [Lastimosa v Vasquez
c. Jurisdiction:
(1995)]

159
 Note: The Ombudsman has
absolutely no revisory powers. III. Powers and Functions of Administrative
Rather, the delegated prosecutor acts Agencies
as the Ombudsman’s agent;
therefore, all actions/decisions made A. Legislative function
by the prosecutor are deemed as
action/decisions of the Ombudsman. 1. Non-delegation doctrine
Seen in this light, the Ombudsman
has the right to change his Potestas delegata non delegare potest.
action/decision. – What has been delegated cannot be
• The Ombudsman may not initiate a delegated.
criminal or administrative complaint

against a judge. The Ombudsman a. Requisites for a valid delegation: [Pelaez
must indorse the case to the SC for v Auditor General (1965)]
appropriate action. No other entity
1) The law must be complete in itself;
or official of the Government has the
it must set forth the policy to be
competence to review a judicial order
executed.
or decision and pronounce it
2) The law must fix a standard, the
erroneous so as to lay the basis for a
limits of which are sufficiently
criminal or administrative complaint.
determinate or determinable, to
[Fuentes v Office of the
which the delegate must conform in
Ombudsman (2001)]
the performance of his functions.
• Under Sec. 13(3), Art. XI, 1987
• The standard may be:
Constitution, the “recommendation”
that emanates from the Ombudsman (a) Express;
after it has conducted its
(b) Implied; [Edu v Ericta (1970)]
investigation is not merely advisory
or
but binding and mandatory. The
(c) Embodied in other statutes on
Ombudsman has the authority to
the same matter and not
determine the administrative liability
necessarily in the same law
of a public official or employee, and
being challenged. [Chiongbian v
direct and compel the head of the
Orbos (1995)]
office or agency concerned to
implement the penalty imposed. • Sufficient standard: One which
[Ledesma v CA (2005)] (a) Defines legislative policy,

• The pendency of an action is not a marks its limits, maps out its
prerequisite for the Ombudsman to boundaries and specifies the
start its own investigation. It can do public agency to apply it; and
so even on a verbal, unsigned, or (b) Indicates the circumstances
unverified complaint. [BIR v under which the legislative
Ombudsman (2002)]

160
command is to be effected. 1. Creation of municipalities.
[Santiago v COMELEC [Pelaez v Auditor General (1965)]
(1997); ABAKADA Guro • Note: Although the creation of
List v Ermita (2005)]
municipalities is purely a
• The Constitution has never been legislative matter, Chiongbian v
regarded as denying to Congress the Orbos says that the merging of
necessary flexibility and practicality administrative regions is an
which will enable it to perform its administrative matter.
function in laying down policies and 2. Defining a crime.
establishing standards, while leaving [US v Ang Tang Ho (1922);
to selected instrumentalities the People v Maceren]
making of subordinate rules within
prescribed limits and the 2. Permissible delegation
determination of facts to which the
a. Ascertainment of fact.
policy as declared by the legislative
• A statute may give to non-judicial
to apply. There is a distinction
officers the power to declare the
between (a) delegation of power to
existence of facts which call into
make the law and (b) conferring
operation its provisions and may
authority/discretion as to its
grant them and their subordinate
execution. [Panama Refining v
officers power to ascertain and
Ryan (1935)]
determine appropriate facts as a
 Cardozo, J. dissent: There has
basis of procedure in the
been no grant to the Executive of any
enforcement of laws. Such functions,
roving commission to inquire into
whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are
evils and then, upon discovering
merely incidental to the exercise of
them, do anything he pleases.
power granted by law to clear
Discretion is not unconfined and
navigable streams of unauthorized
vagrant. It is canalized within
obstructions. They are validly
banks that keep it from
conferable upon executive officials
overflowing.
provided the party affected is given
b. Valid delegation:
the opportunity to be heard. [Lovina
[People v Vera (1937)]
v Moreno (1963)]
1. Fix tariffs, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharfage fees. b. Filling in of details.
2. Emergency powers. • A statute which leaves to the

Executive the power to fill in the
3. Delegation to the people-at-large.
technical details in view of the latter’s
4. Delegation to local authorities. expertise is a recognized delegation
5. Delegation to administrative of legislative power.
agencies. • The legislature, from necessity and

c. What cannot be delegated as a means of enforcement and

161
execution, have to delegate such h) If there is discrepancy between
power. [Alegre v Collector of the basic law and an
Customs (1920)] administrative rule, the basic law
c. Administrative rule-making. prevails. [Maxima Realty v
Parkway Real Estate (2004)]
1. Limits on rule-making power:
i) May not unilaterally impose a
a) Must be authorized by law.
new legislative policy, requiring
[Olsen v Aldanese (1922)]
the adjustment of various other
b) Must not amend the law or must
contending policies. [Ople v
not be inconsistent with the law.
Torres (1998)]
[Syman v Jacinto (1953)]
j) May not dismantle a regulatory
c) Must not define a criminal act.
system that was set up by law.
[People v Maceren (1977)]
(Ass’n of Phil. Coconut
d) Must be germane to the purpose Desiccators v PHILCOA
of the law which it was meant to (1998))
implement; power to promulgate
k) May not delegate, to a mere
rules may be legitimately
constituent unit (e.g. Bureau of
exercised only for carrying the
Corrections), the rulemaking
provisions of the law into effect.
authority legislatively vested in
[Toledo v CSC (1991)]
the head of an executive
e) Must not restrict, expand, department (e.g. DoJ), such
diminish, supplant or modify the being an abdication of
law. [GMCR v Bell Telecom responsibility by the latter.
(1997)] [Echegaray v Secretary of
f) Action of the administrative Justice (1998)]
agency to be set aside if there is 2. Publication and effectivity.

an error of law, grave abuse or
lack of jurisdiction clearly
Art. 2, Civil Code (as amended by EO
conflicting with either the letter
200, June 8, 1987). –
or the spirit of the law. [Land Laws shall take effect after 15 days
Bank v CA (1995)] following the completion of their publication
g) The basic law should prevail as either in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation in the
embodiment of the legislative
Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
purpose; rules and regulations
cannot go beyond the law’s
Sec. 4, 1987 Admin Code. Effectivity.
terms and provisions. [China
– In addition to other rule-making
Banking v Member of the
requirements provided by law not
Board of Trustees, Home inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall
Development Mutual Fund become effective 15 days from the date of
(1999)] filing as above provided unless a different

162
date is fixed by law, or specified in the (a) Different date is fixed by law
ruling in cases of imminent danger to or specified in the rule.

public health, safety, and welfare, the (b) In case of imminent danger
existence of which must be expressed in a to public health, safety and
statement accompanying the rule. The welfare.
agency shall take appropriate measures to
• General rule: Publication is
make emergency rules known to persons
who may be affected by them. indispensable especially if the
rule is general in character.
Sec. 5, 1987 Admin Code. Publication  Exceptions:
and Recording. – The University of the (a) Interpretative rules.
Philippines Law Center shall: (b) Internal regulations (i.e.
(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting regulating only personnel of
forth the text of rules filed with it during
agency).
the preceding quarter; and
(c) Letters of instructions issued
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all
by administrative superior to
rules thus published and remaining in
effect together with a complete index and subordinates.
appropriate tables. • Circulars which prescribe a
penalty for its violation should be

Sec. 6, 1987 Admin Code. Omission of
published before becoming
Some Rules. – (1) The University of the
effective for the people to be
Philippines Law Center may omit from the
officially informed. Before the
bulletin or the codification any rule if its
publication would be unduly cumbersome, public may be bound by its
expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but contents, especially its penal

copies of that rule shall be made available provisions, a law, regulation or
on application in the agency which circular must be published and
adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a the people officially and
notice stating the general subject matter specifically informed of said
of the omitted rule and how copies thereof
contents and its penalties.
may be obtained.
[People v Que Po Lay (1954)]
• Publication in OG or newspaper
• General rule: Administrative
of general circulation is
rules and regulations are subject
indispensable in every case for
to the publication and effectivity
the effectivity of administrative
rules of the Admin Code in
rules and regulations. But the
relation to the Civil Code:
legislature may in its discretion
Effectivity is 15 days after
provide that the usual 15-day
publication, not 15 days from
period be shortened or extended.
date of filing with the UP Law
[Tanada v Tuvera]
Center. [Republic v Express
3. Penal regulations
Telecomm (2002)]
 Exceptions:

163
Sec. 6, 1987 Admin Code. Omission of • Administrative interpretations
Some Rules. – (2) Every rule establishing an are appropriate aids toward
offense or defining an act which, pursuant to eliminating construction and
law is punishable as a crime or subject to a uncertainty in doubtful cases.
penalty shall in all cases be published in full When laws are susceptible of two
text. or more interpretations, the
administrative agency should
• If a rule is penal in character, the make known its official position.
rule must be published before it
• Construction and interpretation
takes effect. (People v Que Po
by an administrative agency of
Lay (1954)]
the law under which it acts
• The law itself must so declare provide a practical guide as to
the act as punishable. The law how the agency will seek to
should also define or fix the apply the law, and to which
penalty for the violation. courts and litigants may properly
• The domain of penal statues is resort for guidance.
exclusive to the legislature and • The administrative construction

cannot be delegated. or interpretation is not
• Administrative rules and controlling as to the proper
regulations cannot amend or construction of a statute, but
modify or expand the law by generally it is given great weight,
including, prohibiting or has a very persuasive influence
punishing certain acts which the and may actually be regarded by
law does not even define as a the courts as the controlling
criminal act. [People v Maceren factor. Still, regulations enacted,
(1977)] pursuant to the broad rule-
4. Interpretative rules. making power under a statute
• Administrative agencies in the conferring a privilege to be

exercised "under regulations pre-
discharge of their duties are
caused" by an administrative
necessarily called upon to
agency, will not be disturbed
construe and apply the
except for cogent and persuasive
provisions of the law under which
reasons and clear conviction of
they function. This necessity for
error.
and power of construction and
interpretation does not change • There is no constitutional
the character of a ministerial requirement for a hearing in the
duty, or involve an unlawful use promulgation of a general
of legislative or judicial power. regulation by an administrative
They may also interpret their body. Where (a) the rule is
own rules which have the force procedural, or (b) the rules are
and effect of law. in effect merely legal opinions, or

164
(c) the rules are substantive, the what the law means. [Victorias
class to be affected is large, and v Social Security Commission
the questions to be resolved (1962)]
involve the use of discretion • Action of the administrative
committed to the rule-making
agency will be set aside if there
body, no notice or prior hearing
was error of law, or abuse of
is required. [Corona v United
power, or lack of jurisdiction, or
Harbor Pilots Ass’n of the
grave abuse of discretion clearly
Phils. (1997)]
conflicting with the letter and
• There is a distinction between spirit of the legislative
administrative rules in the nature enactment. [Peralta v CSC
of subordinate legislation and (1992)]
those which are merely • General requirements: (a) must
interpretative rules. The former
have been issued on authority of
is designed to implement a law
law; (b) must be within the
by providing its details; before
scope and purview of the law;
its adoption there must be a
(c) must be reasonable.
hearing under the Administrative
Code. When an administrative
Legislative Rules Interpretative Rules
rule substantially adds to or promulgated pursuant passed pursuant to its
increases the burden of those to its quasi-legislative quasi-judicial capacity.
/ rule-making
concerned, an administrative functions.
agency must accord those create a new law, a merely clarify the
new policy, with the meaning of a pre-
directly affected a chance to be force and effect of existing law by inferring
heard before its issuance. law. its implications.
need publication. need not be published.
• Interpretative rules may be So long as the court The court may review
finds that the their correctness of the
found erroneous by the legislative rules are interpretation of the law
successor of the promulgating within the power of given by the
the administrative administrative body, and
administrative official. A vested agency to pass, as substitute its own view
right cannot spring from a wrong seen in the primary of what is correct to the
law, then the rules administrative body. If
construction of law [Hilado v bind the court. The it is not within the scope
Collector (1956)]. Such wrong court cannot question of the administrative
the wisdom or agency, court can only
interpretation cannot place the correctness of the invalidate the same but
Government in estoppel to policy contained in the not substitute its
rules. decision or
correct or overrule the same. interpretation or give its
[Phil. Bank of own set of rules.
Due process involves Due process means that
Communications v CIR whether the parties the body observed the
(1999)] were afforded the proper procedure in
opportunity to be passing rules.
• Administrative interpretation at notified and heard
before the issuance of
best merely advisory; it is the the ruling.
courts that finally determine

165
d. Fixing of rates, wages and prices quasi-judicial. The distinction is not
idle:
Sec. 9, 1987 Admin Code. Public

Participation. – (1) If not otherwise required
by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, • Sec. 9 (2) of the Admin Code implies
publish or circulate notices of proposed rules
that all rules with respect to fixing of
and afford interested parties the opportunity to
submit their views prior to the adoption of any rates must be accompanied with
rule.
notice and hearing, regardless if
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order the rate-fixing function is legislative
shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall
or quasi-judicial.
have been published in a newspaper of general
circulation at least 2 weeks before the first • Notice and hearing necessary if the
hearing thereon.
rate to be fixed applies to only one
(3) In cases of opposition, the rules on
entity (quasi-judicial). [Philcomsat
contested cases shall be observed.
v Alcuaz (1989)]
Sec. 2(3), 1987 Admin Code. “Rate” means  Note, however, that the
any charge to the public for a service open to Administrative Code now does not
all and upon the same terms, including
individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or differentiate legislative from quasi-
schedules thereof, as well as communication, judicial rate-fixing: notice and
mileage, kilometrage and other special rates
which shall be imposed by law of regulation to hearing is required for both.
be observed and followed by any person.
• The power to fix rates cannot be
delegated to a common carrier or

• Function delegated to administrative
other public service. The latter may
agencies because the legislature does
propose new rates, but these will not
not have the time, knowledge and
be effective without the approval of
means necessary to handle the
the administrative agency. [KMU v
matter efficiently. Need for dispatch,
Garcia (1994)]
flexibility and technical know-how
better met by administrative • In fixing the rate, the present
agencies. valuation of all the property of a

• Generally, the power to fix rates is a public utility, viz, not only of the
quasi-legislative function. But if the assets used by the public but also of
rate is applicable only to an the fixed assets must be made on
individual, then the function becomes that basis so a fair return of
investment can be had. On principle,
Basis Quasi- Quasi-judicial
the property is deemed taken and
legislative
condemned by the public at the time
As to The procedure is The procedure must
of filing the petition, and the rate
procedural that normally observe the
standards observed in the requirements of due should go up and down with the
making of rules. process in the 7 physical valuation of the property.

cardinal rules. [Ynchausti v Public Utility
As to time Rule-making is Adjudication is Commissioner (1922)]
prospective in retrospective in
character, for it character, for it
only governs investigates acts
future acts. already done and
then applies the law
on the facts.
As to
[Jam_Jacob.design]Legislative rules Adjudicative
Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] rulings
[Miles_Malaya.lectures]
application are of general
[Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] apply only to
[Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
application parties
166
e. Licensing Function 1. Investigation and adjudication:
Sec. 17, 1987 Admin Code. Licensing

Sec. 10, 1987 Admin Code. Compromise
Procedure. – (1) When the grant, renewal,
and Arbitration. – To expedite administrative
denial or cancellation of a license is required to
proceedings involving conflicting rights or
be preceded by notice and hearing, the
claims and obviate expensive litigations, every
provisions concerning contested cases shall
agency shall, in the public interest, encourage
apply insofar as practicable.
amicable settlement, comprise and arbitration.
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of
pertinent laws, rules and regulations or when
Sec. 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested
public security, health, or safety require
Cases. - (1) In any contested case all parties
otherwise, no license may be withdrawn,
shall be entitled to notice and hearing. The
suspended, revoked or annulled without notice
notice shall be served at least 5 days before the
and hearing.
date of the hearing and shall state the date,
time and place of the hearing.
Sec. 18, 1987 Admin Code. Non-expiration
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to
of License. – Where the licensee has made
present evidence and argument on all issues. If
timely and sufficient application for the renewal
not precluded by law, informal disposition may
of a license with reference to any activity of a
be made of any contested case by stipulation,
continuing nature, the existing license shall not
agreed settlement or default.
expire until the application shall have been
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of
finally determined by the agency.
its proceedings.
Sec. 2(10), 1987 Admin Code. “License” Sec. 12. Rules of Evidence. - In a contested
includes the whole or any party of any agency case:
permit, certificate, passport, clearance, (1) The agency may admit and give probative
approval, registration, charter, membership, value to evidence commonly accepted by
statutory exemption or other form of reasonably prudent men in the conduct of
permission, or regulation of the exercise of a their affairs.
right or privilege. (2) Documentary evidence may be received in
the form of copies or excerpts, if the
Sec. 2(11), 1987 Admin Code. “Licensing” original is not readily available. Upon
includes agency process involving the grant, request, the parties shall be given
renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, opportunity to compare the copy with the
annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, original. If the original is in the official
modification or conditioning or a license. custody of a public officer, a certified copy
thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-
• No expiry date does not mean the examine witnesses presented against him
and to submit rebuttal evidence.
license is perpetual. A license permit (4) The agency may take notice of judicially
cognizable facts and of generally cognizable
is a special privilege, a permission or
technical or scientific facts within its
authority to do what is within its specialized knowledge. The parties shall be
notified and afforded an opportunity to
terms. It is not vested, permanent
contest the facts so noticed.
or absolute, but is always revocable.
Sec. 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case,
[Gonzalo Sy Trading v Central
the agency shall have the power to require the
Bank (1976)] attendance of witnesses or the production of
books, papers, documents and other pertinent
• Notice and hearing in licensing is only
data, upon request of any party before or
required if it is a contested case. during the hearing upon showing of general
relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law,
Otherwise, it can be dispensed with,
the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke
as in the issuance of driver’s licenses. the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose
jurisdiction the contested case being heard
falls. The Court may punish contumacy or
B. Judicial Function refusal as contempt.

167
Sec. 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered • What is not inherent, and therefore
by the agency in a contested case shall be in
writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the requires an explicit grant from law, is
facts and the law on which it is based. The their adjudicative power, i.e. the power to
agency shall decide each case within 30 days
following its submission. The parties shall be decide controversies involving rights and
notified of the decision personally or by obligations of 3rd persons appearing
registered mail addressed to their counsel of
record, if any, or to them. before them, or the power to pass upon
legal questions, which involve the
Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of
the agency shall become final and executory 15 application of the law to the facts.
days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the Except in the case of agencies with
party adversely affected unless within that
period an administrative appeal or judicial specific grant of adjudicative power
review, if proper, has been perfected. One (NLRC, SEC, CBAA), most other
motion for reconsideration may be filed, which
shall suspend the running of the said period. administrative agencies only have the
power of investigation and not of
• Just as there is no uniform procedure for adjudication.
all agencies, so also the procedure

depends on the function that the agency Kind of Administrative Judicial
Proceedings
is performing. Thus, when it is Nature of Inquisitorial Adversarial
performing its adjudicative function, Proceedings
Rules of Liberally applied Follow technical
the procedural safeguards akin to those Procedure rules in the
in courts must be observed. When Rules of Court
Nature and Decision limited Decision
performing its rule-making function, it Extent of to matters of includes matters
must follow the procedure adopted by Decision general concern brought as issue
by the parties
legislative bodies. When performing its
Parties The agency The parties are
licensing function, a modified judicial itself may be a only the private
party to the litigates
procedure is required. When dispensing
proceedings
government largess, it needs to before it
observe due process, since these
largesses (pensions, license to practice a 2. Power to issue subpoena and declare
profession, social benefits, basis services) contempt
are new forms of property.
• Administrative agencies have the power Sec. 13, 1987 Admin Code. Subpoena. – In
any contested case, the agency shall have the
to conduct investigations and hearings, power to require the attendance of witnesses or
the production of books, papers, documents
and make findings and recommendations
and other pertinent data, upon request of any
thereon, since these are inherent in party before or during the hearing upon
showing or general relevance. Unless otherwise
their functions as administrative
provided by law, the agency may, in case of
agencies. The findings of facts by disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional
Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the
administrative bodies which observed
contested case being heard falls. The Court
procedural safeguards (e.g. notice and may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.
hearing parties, and a full consideration
of evidence) are recorded the greatest
respect by courts.

168
Sec. 6, P.D. 902 – A. In order to effectively (ex. PD 902-A creating the SEC). If there
exercise such jurisdiction, the SEC shall possess is no express grant, the agency must
the following powers:
a) To punish for contempt of the Commission, invoke the aid of the RTC. Rationale:
both direct and indirect, in accordance with the Power to punish for contempt is
pertinent provisions of, and penalties prescribed
by, the Rules of Court. inherently judicial.
xxx
e) To issue subpoena duces tecum and summon • The power to declare contempt cannot be
witnesses to appear in any proceedings of the used in the discharge of ministerial
Commission and in appropriate cases order
search and seizure or cause the search and functions, but only in relation to quasi-
seizure of all documents, papers, files and judicial functions [Guevarra v COMELEC
records as well as books of accounts of any
entity or person under investigation as may be (1958)]
necessary for the proper disposition of cases
before it. • It is not for the SC to whittle down the
authority conferred on administrative

• All agencies with quasi-judicial functions agencies to assure the effective
have the power to issue subpoena, even administration of a statute. If the matter
if the administrative agency’s charter is is properly within its cognizance, the
silent as to such power. Rationale: Power means necessary to give it force and
to adjudicate will be rendered inutile if effectiveness should be deemed implied,
there is no power to issue subpoena. unless the power sought to be exercised

is so arbitrary as to trench upon private
• Subpoenas may be enforced WON
rights. [Catura v CIR (1971)]
adjudication is involved, WON probably
cause is shown, and even before the
• A public official exercises power, not
issuance of a complaint. It is not rights. The government itself is merely an
necessary that a specific charge or agency through which the will of the
complaint for a violation of law be State is expressed and enforced. Its
pending; it is enough that the officers are likewise agents entrusted
investigation be for a lawfully authorized with the responsibility of discharging its
purpose. The purpose of the subpoena is functions. As such there is no
to discover evidence, not to prove a presumption that they are empowered to
pending charge but upon which to make act. [Tolentino v Inciong (1979)]
one if justified. Test for valid

enforcement of subpoena: 3. Warrants of arrest, administrative searches
(a) Within the authority of the agency.

Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Consti. The right of
(b) Demand not too indefinite. the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against
(c) Information reasonably relevant. unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall
[Evangelista v Jarencio (1975)]
be inviolable, and no search warrant or
• Not all agencies with quasi-judicial warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined
functions have the power to cite for personally by the judge, after
examination under oath or affirmation by
contempt, as the power must be
the complainant and the witnesses he may
expressly granted in the agency’s charter produce, and particularly describing the

169
place to be searched and the persons or  Exception: deportation of illegal and
things to be seized. undesirable aliens following a final order
of deportation.
Art. IV, Sec. 3, 1973 Consti. The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, • Two ways of deporting:
houses, papers, and effects against (a) Commissioner of Immigration under
unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and whatever purpose Sec 37 of CA618
shall not be violated, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
(b) President after due investigation
probable cause to be determined by the pursuant to Sec 69 of Admin Code 
judge, or such other responsible
officer as may be authorized by law, no grounds needed; has sole
after examination under oath or affirmation discretion under international law
of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing • While it is clear that the President’s
the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized. power of investigation may be delegated
0 and the Deportation Board is his
• The phrase “or such other responsible authorized agent, the power granted to
officer as may be authorized by law” in the latter does not extend to the power
the 1973 Constitution was deleted to to arrest. The exercise of such power
forestall human rights abuses as during demands the exercise of discretion by the
Martial Law, when one could be arrested one exercising the same, to determine
by the military on mere suspicion by the whether under specific circumstances,
strength of the warrant of arrest, ASSO the curtailment of liberty is warranted.
or PDA issued by the Ministry of National And while ministerial duties may be
Defense or Generals in their respective delegated, official functions requiring
regions. exercise of discretion and judgment may

not be so delegated. Immigration
• The word “shall” was added to “warrant
authorities can issue warrants of arrest
of arrest shall issue” and finally the
against undesirable aliens only if such
subsequent phrase was reworded in this
issuance is pursuant to a final order of
wise: “to be determined personally” by
deportation. They cannot issue warrants
the judge. This is to give more
for purposes of investigation, as the
responsibility to the judge who will issue
Constitution provides that only judges
the warrant of arrest and be accountable
can do so to determine probable cause.
for it.
[Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board
• Both provisions are express guarantees
(1963)]
against unwarranted violations of the
 Note: The Constitution does not
privacy and security of persons and their
distinguish between warrants in a
properties.
criminal case and administrative warrants
• Administrative agencies cannot issue in administrative proceedings.
warrants of arrest. Only a judge may
• The CFI has no jurisdiction to restrain
issue warrants. [Salazar v Achacoso
deportation proceedings as they are
(1990)]
within the jurisdiction of the Immigration
authorities under the Immigration Act.

170
However, the issuance of the warrants of • The arrest and detention of Lucien by the
arrest by the Commissioner, solely for the
CID preparatory to the deportation
purpose of investigation and before a
proceedings is illegal, although the CID
final order of deportation is issued,
can order arrests for the purpose of the
conflicts with paragraph 3, Sec. 1, Art. III
deportation proceedings. Here, the
of the 1935 Constitution, which states
particular circumstances place doubt on
that the power to determine probable
the propriety of the arrest. The Mission
cause for warrants of arrest is limited to
Order was issued on the basis of sworn
judges. Notice and bonds are sufficient to
complaints of a single individual. The
ensure that the subject will appear at the
essential requisite of probable cause is
hearing without prejudice to more drastic
absent. But even assuming that the
measures in case of recalcitrant
arrest was at first illegal, supervening
respondents. Warrants of arrest issued
events have rendered this petition for
solely for the purpose of investigation
habeas corpus moot and academic.
and before a final order of deportation is
[Lucien Tran Van Nghia v Liwag
issued are therefore null and void. [Vivo
(1989)]
v Montesa (1968)]
 These two cases contradict the Qua Chee
• The deportation charges were in Gan doctrine because both allowed arrest by
accordance with the Philippine Commissioner upon determination of
Immigration Act and the Revised existence of a ground to deport.
Administrative Code, which empowers  Consider these two cases as a glitch. The
the Commissioner to arrest aliens upon a Qua Chee Gan doctrine prevails, as
warrant issued by him and deported upon supported by Salazar. Not only is Salazar a
warrant issued by the same after a later case, it was also decided en banc, while
determination of the existence of a Harvey was decided by a division.
ground for deportation by the Board of • Art, 38 of the Labor Code allowing the
Commissioners. Deportation proceedings
Secretary of Labor the power to issue
are administrative in nature, and are not
warrants of arrest is unconstitutional for
penal, but merely preventive. Thus, it
under the Constitution, only a judge may
need not be conducted strictly in
issue search or arrest warrants. Vivo v.
accordance with ordinary court
Montesa is not a precedent because the
proceedings. The requirement of probable
arrest warrant was given to carry out a final
cause, determined by a judge, does not
decision of deportation. The SC reaffirms the
extend to deportation proceedings. What
following principles: (1) Under Sec.2, Art. III
is essential however is that (1) there be a
of the Constitution, only judges may issue
specific charge against the alien, (2)
search warrants and warrants of arrest; and
there be a fair hearing conducted, and
(2) the exception is in cases of deportation of
(3) the charge be substantiated by
illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the
competent evidence. [Harvey v
President or the Commissioner may order
Defensor-Santiago (1988)]
arrested, following a final order of

171
deportation, for the purpose of the same. (d) Subpoena must designate the needed
[Salazar v Achacoso (1990)] documents.
 Note: Following (2), the Harvey and
(e) Subpoena may not be made and enforced
Lucien cases prove to be anomalies.
in the field.
• A warrant of arrest issued by a commissioner
(f) Subpoenaed party may obtain judicial
to be valid must be for the sole purpose of
review of reasonableness of demand prior
executing a final order of deportation. A
to suffering penalties for refusal to
warrant of arrest issued by the commissioner
comply.
for purposes of investigation only, is null and
The particular agency’s demand for access
void for being unconstitutional, following Qua
will be measured against a flexible standard
Chee Gan. [Board of Commissioners v
of reasonableness that takes into account the
Dela Rosa (1991)]
public need for effective enforcement of
• Warrantless non-emergency inspection of regulations. [See v Seattle]
residential and commercial premises by city
health officials are significant intrusions upon 4. Imposition of fines and penalties:
the interests protected by the 4th
• Agencies have the power to impose fines
Amendment. It is surely anomalous to say
and penalties.
that the individual and his private property
• Test for valid imposition:
are fully protected by the constitution only
(a) Subject matter must be within
when he is suspected of criminal behavior.
authority of Congress to legislate.
Warrants likely should normally be sought
only after entry is refused unless there is a (b) Penalty to be imposed must be
citizen complaint or other satisfactory reason administrative or civil in character.
for securing immediate entry. [Camara v (c) Agency expressly authorized to

Municipal Court (1967)] impose penalty. [Oceanic Steam
• A warrant must first be secured. There is no Navigation v Stranahan (1908)]
justification for relaxing 4th Amendment • Where the statute does not authorize
safeguards where the official inspection is executive officials themselves to impose
intended for the enforcement of laws the penalty, recourse will have to be
prescribing minimum physical standards for made to the ordinary courts.
commercial premises. Warrants are a • Imposition of criminal penalties, if not

necessary and tolerable limitation on the right clearly stated in the statute, is a judicial
to enter upon and inspect places of business. and not an administrative function
Limitations on administrative subpoenas of [Scoty’s Department Store v Micaller
corporate books and documents: (1956)]
(a) Limited in scope. • The fixing of penalties for criminal
(b) Relevant in purpose. offenses is an exercise of legislative

power which cannot be delegated by the
(c) Specific directives so that compliance will
Legislature. [US v Barrias (1908)]
not be unreasonably burdensome.

172
• A fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i.e. 8. Maintain monetary stability, promote rising
not in the nature of a criminal penalty) level of production & real income. [People v
that is exacted not so much as a penalty Joliffe (1959)]
for the violation of administrative rules • What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient

but for the need to stress desistance standard. [Burstyn v Wilson (1952)]
from wanton disregard of existing rules,
regulations, or requirements, is an IV. Administrative Procedure
administrative penalty which
administrative officers are empowered to A. In Rule-Making: Price, wage or rate-fixing
impose without criminal prosecution. If (see related areas in this reviewer)
every time the agency wishes to impose
a civil penalty for violations it had to B. In Adjudication of cases
resort to courts of justice in protracted
litigations, it could not serve its purpose 1. Rules of Procedure
as an administrative body. [Civil
Aeronautics Board v Phil. Airlines 2. Due Process
(1975)] a. Cardinal Primary Rights:
[Ang Tibay v CIR (1950)]
C. Judicial determination of sufficiency of 1. Right to a hearing.
standards • Includes the right of a part to
present his own case and submit
1. Interest of law and order. [Rubi v Provincial evidence in support thereof.
Board of Mindoro (1919)] 2. The tribunal must consider the
2. Public interest. [People v Rosenthal & evidence presented.
Osmeña (1939)] 3. Decision must be supported by

evidence.
3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the
4. Evidence must be substantial; i.e.
case. [International Hardwood v Pangil
more than a mere scintilla, such
(1940)]
relevant evidence as a reasonable
4. What is moral, educational or amusing.
mind might accept as adequate to
[Mutual Film Corp v Industrial
support a conclusion, even if other
Commission (1914)]
minds equally reasonable would
5. Adequate and efficient instruction. [PACU v opine otherwise.
Secretary (1955)] 5. Decision must be rendered on the
6. Reasonableness as an implied standard in evidence presented at the hearing or
every law. [Wisconsin v Whitman (1928)] at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected.
7. To promote simplicity, economy or efficiency.
[Cervantes v Auditor-General (1952)] • Only by confining the
administrative tribunal to the
evidence disclosed to the parties,
can the latter be protected in

173
their right to know and meet the one who issued the appealed
case against them. decision. Otherwise, the review
6. Independent consideration of judge. becomes a farce; it is rendered
• Must not simply accept the views meaningless. [Rivera v CSC
of a subordinate in arriving at a (1995)]
decision. • “To be heard” does not mean only

7. Decision rendered in such a manner verbal arguments only in court; one
as to let the parties know the various may also be heard through
issues involved and the reasons for pleadings. [Casimiro v Tandog
the decision rendered. (2005)]. WON to hold an adversarial
• Does due process always entail trial is discretionary and parties
notice and hearing prior to the cannot demand it as a matter of
deprivation of a right? No. right. [Vinta Maritime v NLRC
Hearing may occur after the (1978)].
deprivation, as in emergency • Administrative due process cannot be

cases [Goss v Lopez (1975)], fully equated to due process in the
in which case, there must be a strict judicial sense. [Ocampo v
chance to seek reconsideration. Office of the Ombudsman
[UP Board of Regents v CA (2000)].
(1999)] • No notice is necessary for
• The right to substantive and suspension, because the latter is only
procedural due process is applicable preventive in nature. [Busuego v CA
in administrative proceedings. [CSC (1999)].
v Lucas (1999)] • The right of a party to confront and
• Presence of a party at a trial is not cross-examine opposing witness is a
always the essence of due process. fundamental right which is part of
All that the law requires is the due process. If without his fault, his
element of fairness; that the right to cross-examine is violated, he
parties be given notice of trial and is entitled to have the direct
an opportunity to be heard examination stricken off the record.
[Asprec v Itchon (1966)] or, as [Bachrach Motors v CIR (1978)]
applied to administrative • Evidence on record must be fully
proceedings, an opportunity to disclosed to the parties. [American
seek reconsideration [De la Cruz Inter-Fashion v Office of the
v Abille (2001)] or an opportunity President (1991)]
to explain one’s side [Pilipinas • Respondents in administrative cases
Loan v SEC (2001)].
are not entitled to be informed of
• The law, in prescribing a process of findings of investigative committees
appeal to a higher level, but only of the decision of the
contemplates that the reviewing administrative body. [Pefianco v
officer is a person different from the Moral (2000)]

174
• Mere consultations and conferences [Equitable Banking v NLRC
may not be valid substitutes for (1997)]
observance of notice and hearing. (b) When it affects a person’s status

[Equitable Banking v NLRC and liberty. [Commissioner of
(1997)] Immigration v Fernandez]
• Three factors determining 2. When not required:

constitutional sufficiency of (a) Urgent reasons.
administrative procedures: (b) Discretion is exercised by an
(a) Private interest that will be officer vested with it upon an
affected. undisputed fact. [Suntay v
(b) Risk of erroneous deprivation of People (1957)]
such interest and probable value (c) If it involves the exercise of
of safeguards. discretion and there is no grave
(c) Public interest vis-à-vis abuse. [De Bisschop v Galang]
government costs. [Matthews v (d) When rules to govern future
Eldridge] conduct of persons or
• Due process is violated when there is enterprises, unless law provides
failure to sufficiently explain the otherwise. [Taxicab Operators
reason for the decision rendered; of Manila v Board of
lack of support therefor in substantial Transportation]
evidence; and the imputation of a (e) In the valid exercise of police

violation and imposition of a power. [Pollution Adjudication
corresponding fine despite the Board v CA (1991)]
absence of due notice and hearing. c. Form and promulgation of judgment
[Globe Telecom v NTC (2004)].
• The right against self-incrimination Sec. 2(8), 1987 Admin Code. ”Decision”
may be invoked by the respondent at means the whole or any part of the final
the time he is called by the disposition, not an interlocutory character,
complainant as a witness. However, whether affirmative, negative, or injunctive in
if he voluntarily takes the witness form, of an agency in any matter, including
stand, he can be cross examined; but licensing, rate fixing, and granting of rights and
he may still invoke the right when privileges.
the question calls for an answer
which incriminates him of an offense Sec. 14. Decision. — Every decision rendered
other than that charged. [People v by the agency in a contested case shall be in
Ayson] writing and shall state clearly the facts and the
b. Notice and hearing: law on which it is based. The agency shall
1. When required: decide each case within thirty days following its
(a) When the law specifically submission. The parties shall be notified of the
decision personally or by registered mail
requires notice and hearing.

175
addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or discuss the reasons for their dissent.
to them. [Indias v Phil Iron Mines (1957)]
• If a power to decide is granted to a

Sec. 15. Finality of order. — The decision of specific authority, it can’t abdicate
the agency shall be final and executory after from this responsibility by delegating
the receipt of copy thereof by the party the duty to decide the case. It must
adversely affected unless within that period an personally decide such. It can
administrative appeal or judicial review, of delegate the power to hear but not
proper, has been perfected. One motion for the power to decide. [American
reconsideration may be filed, which shall Tobacco v Director of Patents
suspend the running of the said period. (1975)]
• The date of the promulgation of the

Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of judgment is the date when the Board
Decisions. — Every agency shall publish and voted and resolved to admit the
make available for public inspection all alien. This date can be ascertained
decisions or final orders in the adjudication of from the minutes of the proceedings
contested cases. It shall be the duty of the had before the Board. The operative
records officer of the agency or his equivalent date of the Board’s action is that
functionary to prepare a register or compilation when the decision was voted and
of those decisions or final orders for use by the adopted by them as a Board,
public. regardless of the date when the
decision in extenso was prepared,
• Decision should state the facts, written and signed. [Neria v
issues and the law on which the Commissioner of Immigration
decision was based. [Ang Tibay v (1968)]
CIR] • The word “noted” on the decision
• Government agency decision must does not constitute an exercise of the
state the facts and the legal basis, Board of Commissioners’ power of
not merely conclusions of law. review. A decision by the latter
[Albert v Gangan (2001)] requires a judicious review and
• It is not necessary that the court deliberation as a body of the
make its own discussion of the proceedings, the evidence and law
evidence and findings of fact if the involved, the formulation of findings
court is satisfied with the report of of fact and conclusions of law.
the examiner which already contains Absent a reversal, the decision of the
the discussions of the findings and BSI prevails and becomes final after
conclusions. The rule is otherwise the lapse of 1 year from the rendition
when the court disagrees with the of the decision. However, in the case
findings of the examiner in which of a reversal, notice thereof may be
case the court must specify and sent even after the lapse of 1 year.
[Sichangco v Board of

176
Commissioners of Immigration relevant in the criminal case.
(1979)] Notwithstanding the fact that findings in
• The power to delegate a particular criminal cases must be beyond
function can be implied form the reasonable doubt, they cannot be
power of administrative agencies to conclusive for administrative purposes.
issue rules and regulations necessary There are defenses, excuses, and
to carry out its functions. [Realty attenuating circumstances of value in
Exchange v Sendino (1994)] admin proceedings that are not

admissible in trial of the criminal case
3. Jurisdiction which can have a blunting effect on the
• Administrative agencies may only conviction. Due process should be
exercise such powers as are explicitly or upheld. Conviction does not ex proprio
by necessary implication conferred on vigore justify automatic suspension.
them by law. The jurisdiction over the [Villanos v Subido (1971)]
subject matter of an administrative • Acquittal in the criminal case does not
agency depends on the terms of the carry with it relief from administrative
enabling statute delegating powers to it. liability. Different standards apply. The
Without jurisdiction, the decision administrative case may generally
rendered by the tribunal is void. proceed independently of a criminal
• Refer to the enabling statute creating the action for the same act or omission and
agency especially the powers and requires only a preponderance of
jurisdictions, as jurisdiction is created evidence to establish administrative guilt
and conferred by law. as against proof beyond reasonable doubt

of the criminal charge. [Police
4. Administrative and judicial proceedings Commission v Lood (1980)]
arising from the same facts  Note: Can there be a conviction in a
• The practice in the Philippines has been criminal case and an acquittal in the
to allow an administrative proceeding and administrative case? YES. See Villanos
a judicial proceeding to take place at the v Subido.
same time so long as the 2 actions are  Note: Can there be an acquittal in a
independent of each other. criminal case and a conviction in the

administrative case? YES. See PNR v
• The difference in the proceeding (one
Domingo. The case of PNR also states
administrative, the other criminal) is not
that while the accused acquitted of the
legal incompatibility, but merely physical
crime imputed against him may claim
incompatibility. These two proceedings
payment of back salaries during his
are independent of each other involving
suspension or reinstatement in case of
different causes of action and therefore
dismissal, his relief lies in the proper
can proceed simultaneously. [(Galang v
administrative or civil action prescribed
CA (1961)]
by law (NLRC). The trial court has no
• The matters that are material in an
jurisdiction to order reinstatement since
administrative case are not necessarily

177
the judgment in a criminal case is limited on the other. [Ocampo v Office of the
to acquittal or conviction with necessary Ombudsman (2000)]
penalties. However, this case also • The criminal and civil cases are
discusses the doctrine laid down in altogether different from the
Consigna where reinstatement was administrative matters such that
granted by the trial court because the disposition in the first two will not
acquittal was for absolute lack of inevitably govern the third, and vice
evidence and a concomitant finding that versa. [Mirales v Go (2001)]
the dismissal was unfair. Whether or not
the Consigna doctrine should be seen as 5. Rules of Evidence
an exemption is still a gray area. Some • Apply the specific rules of the
say that it is not to be considered as administrative agency. In the absence
good law, while others argue that if the thereof, apply the general rules on
criminal case results in an acquittal due procedure. However, administrative
to absolute lack of evidence, then the agencies are not bound by the technical
administrative case must also result in an rules regarding admission of evidence of
acquittal. ordinary courts of justice. So long as the
• Should a public official or employee be requirements of due process are
found guilty of violation of election laws observed. Rationale: to allow
or failure to comply with COMELEC administrative agencies to act with speed
instructions, orders, or decisions, the and flexibility.
corresponding proper authority shall, • Pervasive principle: Technical rules of
upon COMELEC’s recommendation, take evidence and procedure do not strictly
appropriate action. Notably, it is the apply to administrative proceedings, but
executive department to which the this does not mean that they can
charged official or employee belongs disregard certain due process
which has ultimate authority to impose requirements.
the recommended disciplinary action. • The rules of evidence in administrative
This respects the general administrative agencies are more relaxed than in judicial
authoriy of the government department tribunals, in at least three areas:
concerned over its own personnel. [Tan v
(a) Admissibility: Generally,
COMELEC (1994)]
administrative agencies are not
• The dismissal of the criminal case will not
bound by the technical rules of
foreclose administrative action.
admissibility.
Considering the difference in the
(b) Judicial Notice: Administrative bodies
quantum of evidence, as well as the
may take into account not only such
procedure followed and sanctions
evidence as may be presented by the
imposed in criminal and administrative
parties in the determination of the
proceedings, the findings and conclusions
case. They may also make their
in one should not necessarily be binding
inquiry into facts at issue, and take

178
judicial notice of certain other apply such suitable procedure as shall
matters. promote the objectives. [Maceda v ERB
(c) Quantum of Evidence: Only (1991)]
substantial evidence is required to • When findings of fact of administrative

support a decision. agencies are not conclusive upon the
• Ocular inspection is not equivalent to a courts:
trial or presentation of evidence, as it is a. When the decision was rendered by

only an auxiliary remedy. Parties are still an almost evenly divided court and
entitled to hearing. But if the issue can the division was precisely on the
be resolved through ocular inspection, facts as borne out by the evidence.
there is no prohibition. [Phil. Movie [Gonzales v Victory Labor Union
Pictures Workers Assoc v Premier (1969)]
Productions (1953)] b. When the decision was rendered in

consequence of fraud, imposition or
• Administrative agencies may act on their
mistake, other than error of
own and use methods which may best
judgment in estimating the value or
constitute substantial evidence. The
effect of the evidence. [Ortua v
court is not required to examine proof de
Singson (1934)]
novo. [Estate of Buan v Pambusco
c. When the decision is not supported
(1956)]
by substantial evidence. [Manahan
• The SC is not required to examine proof
v People (1988)]
de novo. The only function of the SC is
d. When the findings are not based on a
to determine WON there is evidence
thorough examination of the parties’
before the administrative agency upon
contending claims but merely on
which its decision might be reasonably
their position papers. There is no
based. [Rizal Light v Municipality of
trial through position papers where
Rizal]. However, evidence received at an
the adversarial process would ensure
administrative investigation conducted
a better presentation and
with manifest disregard of due process
appreciation of the evidence. [PAL v
may not justify the conclusion based
Confessor (1994)]
thereon. [Borja v Moreno].
 Reconcile with Bantolino case:
• The order of testimony is within the decisions based on position papers
discretion of the court and the exercise of allowed as expressly permitted by
this discretion in permitting witnesses to the law.
be introduced out of the order prescribed e. The SC will intervene only in what
by the rules is not improper. Such a ought to be the rare instance when
relaxed procedure is especially true in the standard appears to have been
administrative bodies. In the broad misapprehended or grossly
interest of justice, the administrative misapplied. [Universal Camera v
body may, in any particular manner, NLRC (1951)]
except itself from technical rules and

179
• Rules of evidence are not strictly • Exception: When there is grave
observed in proceedings before abuse of discretion –

administrative bodies where decisions capriciousness, arbitrariness,
may be reached on the basis of position partiality or hostile attitude.
papers only. [Bantolino v Coca-Cola  Question of Policy: Traditionally,
Bottlers Phils. (2003)] policymaking is not judicial business.
(d) Finality of the administrative

V. Judicial Review of Administrative decision.
Decisions • Can the doctrines of forum shopping, litis
pendentia and res judicata apply to
• Judicial review is an effective mechanism to
administrative agencies?
check acts which are arbitrary or beyond the
authority given to any agency by its enabling  YES. Under Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of
statute. Court, the certification against forum
• A generalization as to when judicial review is shopping shall state that the party “has
available is hazardous. Here are factors to not theretofore commenced any action or
consider: filed any claim involving the same issues
(a) If what is involved is question of in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
constitutionality, judicial review is agency, and to the best of his
available. knowledge, no such other action or claim

is pending therein…”
(b) History of the statute involved.
Intention of Congress prevails: If it  Res judicata applies to adversary
wanted judicial review to be available, it administrative proceedings, because they
would have said so. are quasi-judicial in nature. [United

Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union v
(c) Nature of problem involved:
Laguesma].
 Right (should be protected by law) v
 Litis pendentia can happen, taking into
Privilege (can be unilaterally withdrawn).
consideration not only the cases where
 Question of Law v Question of Fact.
forum shopping can happen, but also
• The Court is the final interpreter
those involving the doctrine of primary
of law: It depends on whether
jurisdiction.
or not the finding of fact is
supported by substantial
 The doctrine of res judicata, although a
evidence. If yes, it is not judicial concept, may be applied to
reviewable; otherwise, it is. administrative agencies performing
• If the question is on the quasi-legislative functions.
substantiality of evidence, then it  However, res judicata does not apply in

is a question of law. administrative adjudication relative to
 Question of Discretion: When citizenship, unless the following
discretion is granted by law, the conditions all obtain: (1) The question of
exercise of such is generally to be citizenship is resolved by a court or
disturbed by the court. administrative body as a material issue in

180
the controversy after a full-blown requirement. Thus, failure to comply with the
hearing; (2) with the active participation reglementary period has the effect or
of the Sol-Gen; and (3) The finding on rendering final the judgment of the court.
the citizenship issue is affirmed by the Even administrative decisions must end
SC. [Zita Ngo Burca v Republic] sometime, as fully as public policy demands
 Nor does res judicata apply where the that finality be written on judicial
controversies. Non quieta movere: What
administrative decision gives an award
was already terminated cannot be disturbed.
that is less than what the law provides.
[Antique Sawmill v Zayco (1966)]
[B.F. Goodrich v WCC (1988)].
• The Courts will not interfere with the decision
A. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative of the an administrative officer, unless the
Decisions Court is of the clear opinion that such

decision is (a) wrong, (b) manifestly arbitrary
• When a court reviews an agency’s and unjust, and (c) not based upon any
reasonable interpretation of the law. [Sotto v
construction, it deals first with the question
Ruiz (1921)]
whether Congress has directly spoken to the
precise question at issue. If intent of • General rule: Courts refuse to interfere with
Congress is clear, no problem. The court as proceedings undertaken by administrative
well as the agency must give effect to the bodies or officials in the exercise of
unambiguous expressed intent of Congress. If administrative functions.
not, the court does not simply impose its own  Exceptions: administrative proceedings
construction on the statute. If the statute is may be reviewed by the courts upon a
silent or ambiguous with respect to the issue, showing that the board or official:
the question for the court is whether the a. Has gone beyond his statutory authority;
agency’s answer is based on a permissible b. Exercised unconstitutional powers;
construction of the statute. [Chevron v c. Clearly acted arbitrarily and without
Natural Resources Defense Council regard to his duty, or with grave abuse of
(1984)] discretion; or
• When no one seasonably filed a motion for d. The decision is vitiated by fraud,
reconsideration, the Office of the President imposition or mistake. [Manuel v
lost jurisdiction to reopen the case, more so Villena (1971)]
modify its decision. It thus had no more • There is an underlying power in the courts to
authority to entertain the second motion for
scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies
reconsideration. The orderly administration of
exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power
justice requires that the judgments of a court
on questions of law and jurisdiction even
or quasi-judicial body reach a point of finality
though no right of review is given by statute.
set by the law, rules and regulations.
The purpose of judicial review is to keep the
[Fortich v Corona (1998)]
administrative agency within its jurisdiction
• Compliance with the period provided by law and protect substantial rights of parties
for the perfection of an appeal is not merely affected by its decisions. Judicial review is
mandatory but also a jurisdictional proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave

181
abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or 3. Whether the defendant is the proper
collusion. The court may also declare an defendant. The defendant could either be a
action or resolution of an administrative private party, or the very administrative
authority to be illegal because it violates or agency before whom the right is being
fails to comply with some mandatory applied.
provision of law, or because it is corrupt, 4. Whether the forum is the proper forum. The
arbitrary or capricious. [San Miguel Corp v forum is usually provided for in the enacting
Secretary of Labor (1975)] statute, but in its absence, the Uniform
• When judicial review is valid despite finality of Appeals Act should be applicable. It is very
administrative decisions: seldom that the forum is in the RTC, since
(a) Decision is wrong. administrative agencies are usually given the
(b) Manifestly arbitrary, capricious, unjust rank equal to or higher than the RTC.
decision. 5. Whether the timing for the filing of the case

(c) Decision is not based upon any is proper. The period for filing the case must
reasonable interpretation of law. also be considered in view of the statue of
(d) Administrative body or officer has gone limitations, as well as the period required by
the statute or rules for the filing of appeals.
beyond its/his statutory authority.
(e) Administrative agency exercised 6. Whether the case is ripe for adjudication.
When a person has not exhausted all the
unconstitutional powers.
administrative remedies available to him, his
(f) Decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or
case is said to be not ripe for judicial review
mistake.
yet. He is said to have invoked the
(g) Lack of jurisdiction.
intervention of the court prematurely.
(h) Grave abuse of discretion.
Although this is not a jurisdictional
(i) Decision violates or fails to comply with
requirement, failure to abide by the doctrine
some mandatory provision of law.
affects petitioner’s cause of action.
B. Availability of Judicial Review

C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
1. Whether the enabling statute permits judicial 1. When the doctrine applies
review. There is no problem when the
a. The administrative agency is performing
statute itself expressly grants or prohibits
a quasi-judicial function.
judicial review. But when it is silent,
b. Judicial review is available.
generally, judicial review is available. Since
c. The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction.
an administrative agency has a narrower view
• The regular courts have jurisdiction to
of the case, and its existence derogates the
judicial prerogative lodged in the courts by pass upon the validity or constitutionality
the Constitution, judicial review is needed to of an administrative rule or regulation
offer these considerations. issued in the performance of quasi-

legislative functions. [Smart
2. Whether the plaintiff is the proper plaintiff,
Communications v NTC (2003)]
that is, whether the plaintiff has standing.

182
2. Rationale authority to resolve, or interfere in, a
a. Legal reason: The law prescribes a controversy the jurisdiction over which is
procedure. lodged initially with an administrative
b. Practical reason: To give the agency a body of special competence. [Garcia v
chance to correct its own errors CA (2001)]
[Bernardo v Abalos (2001)] and

prevent unnecessary and premature 4. Exceptions
resort to the courts [Lopez v City of a. Purely legal questions. [Castro v

Manila (1999)]. Secretary (2001)]
c. Reasons of comity: Expedient courtesy, b. Steps to be taken are merely matters of

convenience. form. [Pascual v Provincial Board
(1959)]
3. General Rule: Where the law has delineated c. Administrative remedy not exclusive but
the procedure by which administrative appeal merely cumulative or concurrent to a
or remedy could be effected, the same should judicial remedy. [Pascual]
be followed before recourse to judicial action d. Validity and urgency of judicial action or
can be initiated. [Pascual v Provincial intervention. [Paat v CA (1997)]
Board (1959)] e. No other plain, speedy, adequate remedy
a. If a remedy within the administrative in the ordinary course of the law. [Paat;
machinery can still be resorted to by Information Technology Found’n v
giving the administrative officer COMELEC (2004)]
concerned every opportunity to decide on f. Resort to exhaustion will only be
a mater that comes within his oppressive and patently unreasonable.
jurisdiction, then such remedy should be [Paat; Cipriano v Marcelino (1972)]
exhausted first before the court’s juridical g. Where the administrative remedy is only
power can be invoked. Premature permissive or voluntary and not a
invocation of court’s intervention is fatal prerequisite to the institution of judicial
to one’s cause of action. [Paat v CA proceedings. [Corpuz v Cuaderno
(1997)] (1962)]
b. Courts will not interfere in matters which h. Application of the doctrine will only cause
are addressed to the sound discretion of great and irreparable damage which
government agencies entrusted with the cannot be prevented except by taking the
regulations of activities coming under the appropriate court action. [Cipriano;
special technical knowledge and training Paat]
of such agencies. [Lopez v City of i. When it involves the rule-making or
Manila (1999] quasi-legislative functions of an
c. Recourse through court action cannot administrative agency. [Smart v NTC
prosper until after all such administrative (2003)]
remedies would have first been j. Administrative agency is in estoppel.
exhausted. The doctrine does not warrant [Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)]
a court to arrogate unto itself the

183
k. Doctrine of qualified political agency: The t. Law expressly provides for a different
act of the department head is review procedure. [Samahang
presumptively the act of the President Magbubukid v CA (1999)]
(as his alter ego), unless revoked by the
latter. [Estrada v CA (2004); Paat] 5. Remedy: Failure to observe doctrine does not
• Note: Undersecretary is held to have affect jurisdiction of the court. The only
acted on behalf (as alter ego) of the effect of non-compliance is it will deprive
Secretary. [Nazareno v CA] complainant of a cause of action, which is a
• Exceptions: ground to dismiss. But if not invoked at the
• Where the law expressly provides proper time, this ground is deemed waived.
for exhaustion via an appeal to the [Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)]
President. [Tan v Director of

Forestry] D. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort
• where the appeal to the Office of
the President was not acted upon 1. When the doctrine applies
despite follow-ups, and in the a. The administrative body and the regular
meantime, the assailed court have concurrent and original
administrative resolution continued jurisdiction.
to be put in effect. [Ass’n of Phil. b. The question to be resolved requires
Coconut Desiccators v Phil. expertise of administrative agency.
Coconut Authority] c. The legislative intent on the matter is to

have uniformity in rulings.
l. Subject of controversy is private land in
d. The administrative agency is performing
land case proceedings. [Paat]
a quasi-judicial function.
m. Blatant violation of due process. [Paat;
Pagara v CA]
2. General rule: Courts will not intervene if the
n. Where there is unreasonable delay or
question to be resolved is one which requires
official inaction. [Republic v
the expertise of administrative agencies and
Sandiganbayan]
the legislative intent on the matter is to have
o. Administrative action is patently illegal
uniformity in the rulings. It can only occur
amounting to lack or excess of
where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction
jurisdiction. [Paat]
between the court and the administrative
p. Resort to administrative remedy will
agency. It is a question of the court yielding
amount to a nullification of a claim. [DAR
to the agency because of the latter’s
v Apex Investment (2003); Paat]
expertise, and does not amount to ouster of
q. No administrative review provided by law.
the court. [Texas & Pacific Railway v
[Estrada]
Abilene (1907)]
r. Issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
• It is the recent jurisprudential trend to
remedies rendered moot. [Estrada]
apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
s. In quo warranto proceedings. [Garcia]
in many cases that demand the special
competence of administrative agencies. It

184
may occur that the Court has jurisdiction
to take cognizance of a particular case, 4. Effect
which means that the matter involved is • Application of the doctrine does not call for
also judicial in character. However, if the the dismissal of the case but only its
determination of the case requires the suspension until after the matters within the
expertise, specialized skills and competence of the administrative agency are
knowledge of the proper administrative threshed out and determined. [Industrial]
bodies because technical matters or • If jurisdiction over a controversy is initially
intricate questions of facts are involved,
lodged with an administrative body of special
then relief must first be obtained in an
competence, the court should suspend its
administrative proceeding before a
action on the case before it pending the final
remedy will be supplied by the courts
outcome of the administrative proceedings;
even though the matter is within the
for while no prejudicial question arises in civil
proper jurisdiction of a court. The
proceedings, this is in the interest of good
doctrine of primary jurisdiction “applies
order. [Viadad v RTC (1993)]
where a claim is originally cognizable in
• While primary jurisdiction to determine
the courts, and comes into play whenever
preliminary matters is vested in an
enforcement of the claim requires the
administrative agency, such determination is
resolution of issues which, under a
subject to challenge in the courts. The
regulatory scheme, have been placed
court’s jurisdiction in such a case is not any
within the special competence of an
less original and exclusive as the judicial
administrative body”. [Industrial
proceedings are not a continuation of the
Enterprises v CA (1990)]
administrative determination. [Philippine
• It is presumed that an administrative
Veterans Bank v CA (2000)]
agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass
upon a matter, would decide the same
E. Standing to Challenge
correctly, or correct any previous error
committed in its forum [Caballes v
1. Meaning: Legal standing means a personal
Sison (2004)]
and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct
3. Exceptions
injury as a result of the governmental act
a. If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction.
that is being challenged [Joya v PCGG
[Texas]
(1993); Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)]
b. When the issue is not within the competence • The technical rules on standing comes
of the administrative body to act on. [Phil
from the general doctrine of separation of
Global Communications v Relova (1980)]
powers as there is a need for an actual
c. When the issue involved is clearly a factual case or controversy before judicial review
question that does not require specialized becomes available.
skills and knowledge for resolution to justify • Standing as opposed to real party-in-
the exercise of primary jurisdiction. [Conrad
interest: the former is a constitutional
v CA (1995)]
law concept which only concerns the

185
petitioner, while the latter is a concept in to suffer a legal injury or wrong from, the
procedural law which concerns both the administrative action has standing to seek
petitioner/plaintiff and the judicial intervention.
respondent/defendant. • The party must have personal and substantial
interest. “Interest” is material interest, as
2. Philippine law on standing v American law on distinguished from mere incidental interest.
standing [Joya v PCGG (1993)]
• The issue of standing is a procedural

Philippine law American law
technicality which may be waived if the issue
Challenged action caused
is of transcendental importance to the public
injury in fact, economic or
otherwise; [Assoc of [Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)]
Data Processing v
Camp (1970)] i.e.
• One who is directly affected by, and whose
Interest is: concrete/particularized interest is immediate and substantial in, the
• Personal, and actual/imminent, not
conjectural/hypothetical. controversy has the standing to sue. A party
- Except:
taxpayers; [Lujan v Defenders of must show a personal stake in the outcome
voters; Wildlife (1992)]
of the case or an injury to himself that can be
legislators;
Interest sought to be redressed by a favorable decision so as to
class suits.
protected is arguably
• Substantial warrant an invocation of the court's
within the zone of
interests protected by the jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the
statute or constitutional
guarantee in question court's remedial powers in his behalf. [KMU
[Assoc of Data v Garcia (1994)]
Processing]
• Kinds:
Causal connection
between the injury and a. Taxpayers: A taxpayer’s suit is generally
the action complained of:
Injury is fairly traceable to allowed to restrain the government from
the challenged action of spending public funds for a purpose
the defendant, and not
the result of the alleged to be illegal. [Lozada v
independent action of COMELEC (1983)]
some third party not
before the court. [Lujan]  A taxpayer’s suit is not allowed to
Injury is likely to be compel the spending of public funds.
Direct injury redressed by a favorable
[Occena v COMELEC]
decision. [Simon v
Eastern Kentucky b. Voters: A voter who impugns the validity
Welfare (1976); Lujan]
of a statute must have a personal and
Petitioner himself be
among the injured; i.e. substantial interest in the case such that
what is alleged is personal he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
stake, not merely a
specialized interest. injury as a result of its enforcement.
[Sierra Club v Morton [Lozada]
(1972)]
c. Members of Congress
d. Class suit: The subject matter of a class
3. When standing given
suit should be one of common and
• Only the proper party whose legal rights have
general interest, and the plaintiffs should
been adversely affected by, and who stands
be numerous and representative enough

186
to ensure full protection of all concerned  The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
interests. [Oposa v Factoran (1993)] applies only where the administrative
e. Consumers: Consumers can challenge agency exercises its quasi-judicial or
the validity of administrative actions in adjudicatory function, and not rule-
areas affecting their interests. making or quasi-legislative. However,
f. Competitors: A competitor has legal where what is assailed is the validity or
standing to challenge the official action of constitutionality of a rule or regulation
an administrative agency which favors a issued by the administrative agency in
competing entity. the performance of its quasi-legislative

function, the regular courts have
4. When standing not given jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
• Under RA 1125, only a person, [Smart v NTC (2003)]
association, or corporation adversely

affected by a decision or ruling of the 2. Purpose [Abbot Laboratories v Gardner
Collector may appeal to the Court of Tax (1967)]
Appeals. [Ursal v CTA (1957)] a. To prevent courts, thru avoidance of

premature adjudication, from entangling
• The question in standing is “whether such
themselves in abstract agreement over
parties have alleged such a personal
administrative policies.
stake in the outcome of the controversy
b. To protect agencies from judicial
as to assure that concrete adverseness
interference until a decision has been
which sharpens the presentation of issues
formalized and its effect is felt in a
upon which the court so largely depends
concrete way or the imminence of the
for illumination of difficult constitutional
effect is demonstrable.
questions.” The question as to real
party-in-interest, on the other hand, is
3. Two-fold test for a controversy to be ripe
“whether he is the party who would be
[Abbot]
benefited or injured by the judgment, or
a. Fitness of the issue for judicial
the ‘party’ entitled to the avails of the
decision.
suit.” Moreover, standing is an issue
b. Hardship to the parties of withholding
when constitutional issues are involved.
such court action.
[Kilosbayan v Morato (1995)]
G. Mootness
F. Ripeness
VI. Modes of Judicial Review

1. When doctrine applied
a. Finality of the administrative body’s
• Except when the Constitution requires or allows
decision.
it, judicial review may be granted or withheld as
b. Judicial review available/appropriate.
Congress chooses. Thus, the law may provide
c. Administrative agency exercising its rule-
that a determination made by an administrative
making or quasi-legislative function

187
agency shall be final and irreviewable. In such a • The Constitution uses the word may, meaning
case, there is no violation of due process. review is not mandatory but only discretionary.
• However, 2nd paragraph of Sec.1, Art. 8 of the • Classes of methods of obtaining judicial review:
1987 Constitution, which provides that the judicial (1) Statutory v Non-statutory:
power includes the power of the courts of justice • Statutory methods are available pursuant
to determine WON there has been a grave abuse to specific statutory provisions.
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of • Non-statutory methods are those taken
jurisdiction on the part of any government agency when there is no express statute granting
or instrumentality, clearly means that judicial review, and relief is obtained by means of
review of administrative decisions cannot be the common law remedies or by the
denied the courts when there is an allegation of prerogative writs of certiorari,
grave abuse of discretion. mandamus, habeas corpus, quo warranto
or prohibition.
1987 Consti, Art IX-A, Sec 7. Each Commission • If statutory methods for judicial review
shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members are available, they are ordinarily
any case or matter brought before it within 60 days exclusive, and the use of non-statutory
from the date of its submission for decision or methods will not likely be permitted.
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted (2) Direct v Collateral:
for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last • Direct attacks are those which attempt to
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the question in subsequent proceedings the
rules of the Commission or by the Commission administrative action for lack of
itself. Unless otherwise provided by this jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion,
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling etc.
of each Commission may be brought to the • Collateral attack is when relief from
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party administrative action is sought in a
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. proceeding where the primary objective
is the grant of a relief other than the
• There is an underlying power in the courts to setting aside of the judgment, although
scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies an attack on the judgment may be
exercising quasi-judicial power on questions of incidentally involved.
law and jurisdiction even though no right of • Judicial review is not trial de novo. It is merely an
review is given by the statute. Judicial review ascertainment of WON the findings of the
keeps the administrative agency within its administrative agency are consistent with law,
jurisdiction and protects substantial rights of free from fraud or imposition, and supported by
parties affected by its decisions. Judicial review is evidence.
proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of law,

grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion, or in Admin Code, Sec 25. Judicial Review. –
case the administrative decision is corrupt, (1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial
arbitrary or capricious. [San Miguel Corp. v review in accordance with this chapter and
Labor Secretary (1975)] applicable laws.

188
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an  Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by
agency decision may seek judicial review. an agency decision.
(3) The action for judicial review may be brought • When to appeal:
against the agency, or its officers, and all  Within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the
indispensable and necessary parties as defined in decision.
the Rules of Court. • How:
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be  File petition for review.
perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days • Where to file:
from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal,  In the court specified by the statute or, in the
and with the reviewing court a petition for review of absence thereof, in any court of competent
the order. Copies of the petition shall be served jurisdiction in accordance with the provision on
upon the agency and all parties of record. The venue of the Rules of Court.
petition shall contain a concise statement of the
issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the
BP 129, Sec 9 (as amended by RA 7902, Sec.
review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy
9). Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall
of the order appealed from, together with copies of
exercise:
such material portions of the records as are referred
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of
to therein and other supporting papers. The petition
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
shall be under oath and shall show, by stating the
and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,
specific material dates, that it was filed within the
whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
period fixed in this chapter.
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected within
annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and
15 days from receipt of the final administrative
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
decision. One motion for reconsideration may be
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards
allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant shall
of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
perfect his appeal during the remaining period for
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including
appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
denial. It the decision is reversed on
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15 days
Commission and the Civil Service Commission,
from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal.
except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction
(6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court
of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in
Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under
any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the
with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court.
provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the
(7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record
3rd paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the 4th
taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency
paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
when supported by substantial evidence shall be
final except when specifically provided otherwise by
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try
law.
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
• Who may seek judicial review:
issues raised in cases falling within its original and

189
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant justice whereby the judgment of a court of
and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials competent jurisdiction may not be opened,
or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be modified or vacated by any court of equal rank.
continuous and must be completed within 3 months,  Note that there are cases which held that
unless extended by the Chief Justice. review by the RTC of certain administrative
agencies (Commission on Immigration and
Deportation, Laguna Lake Development Authority,
• Authority of the CA to review decision of quasi-
and court martials) is valid.
judicial agencies is exclusive, if such is listed in
the law or if its charter so indicates. If it is not
B. Certiorari
listed, its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC
through the special civil action for certiorari under
1. Kinds
Rule 65.
a. Simple or ordinary, Rule 45 (Appeal by
• SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95
Certiorari to the SC)
(Rule 43, Rules of Court):
 Note, however, that in the case of
 Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
administrative agencies performing
provides that the Court of Appeals shall have
quasi-judicial functions, the proper mode
appellate jurisdiction over awards, judgments,
of appeal is through Rule 43 (Appeals
final orders of resolutions of or authorized by any
from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-
quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-
Judicial Agencies to the CA).
judicial functions.
• Grants the CA with exclusive jurisdiction to
 Rule 45: Considered as a “gatekeeper
provision”, it is applicable only when
review decisions of 19 administrative
questions of law are raised. Review
agencies.
under this rule is not a matter of right,
• Excludes the NLRC by virtue of BP 129 (as
but of sound judicial discretion, and will
amended by RA 7902).
be granted only when there are special
• Mentions only one constitutional body – the
and important reasons therefore (Rule
Civil Service Commission.
45, Sec. 6)
• Listing is not exclusive since it provides
b. Special civil action, Rule 65 (Petition for
“among these agencies” – ejusdem generis.
Certiorari)
• SC retains the special civil action for certiorari
if there is grave abuse of discretion
Rule 65, Sec 1. Petition for certiorari. -
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
• Where the law provides for an appeal from the
functions has acted without or in excess of
decisions of administrative bodies to the SC or to its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess
the CA, it means that such bodies are co-equal
of jurisdiction, and there is not appeal, nor
with the RTC in terms of rank and stature and, any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, a person
logically, beyond the control of the latter.
aggrieved thereby may file a verified
[Philippine Sinter v Cagayan Electric (2002)] petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that
This doctrine of non-interference by trial courts
judgment be rendered annulling or
with co-equal administrative bodies is intended to modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
board or officer, and granting such
ensure judicial stability in the administration of

190
incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a

certified true copy of the judgment, order
or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification
of non-forum shopping as provided in the
3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

152
2. Requisites (Rule 65) not errors of judgment. [Purefoods Corp v
Rule 43 Rule 45 Rule 65

CA has jurisdiction. SC has jurisdiction. The SC, CA and RTC have
concurrent jurisdiction.
Based on question of law, of fact or Based only on questions of law. Based on question of jurisdiction or
mixed question of law and fact. (Sec (Sec 1) grave abuse of discretion.
3)
This rules applies to appeals from This rule applies to appeals from This rule applies only to an order or
judgments or final orders or judgments or final orders or act of an officer or board exercising
resolutions of or authorized by any resolutions of the CA, the judicial or quasi-judicial functions,
quasi-judicial agency in the exercise Sandiganbayan, the RTC or other and not for judgments. [Republic
of its quasi-judicial functions (Sec courts. (Sec 1) v CA]
1). But this does not apply to
judgments or final orders issued
under the Labor Code. (Sec 2)
Appeal shall be taken within 15 days Petition shall be filed within 15 Within 60 days.
from notice of the award, judgment days from notice of the
or final order or resolution, or from judgment or final order or
the date of its last publication, or of resolution, or of the denial of the
the denial of the motion for new trial motion for new trial or
or reconsideration. Upon proper reconsideration. On motion with
motion & payment of docket fees payment of docket fees before
and before the expiration of the the expiration of the
reglementary period, the CA may reglementary period, the SC
grant an additional period of 15 may, for justifiable reasons,
days. No further extension may be grant an extension of 30 days.
granted except for the most (Sec 2)
compelling reason, and in no case
shall it exceed 15 days. (Sec 4)
Award, judgment, final order or Judgment is stayed. Order is not stayed unless a
resolution not stayed unless the CA preliminary injunction is issued.
directs otherwise. (Sec 12)
Parties are the original parties and Parties are the original parties Parties are aggrieved party
the court or agency is not impleaded who thus become appellant and (petitioner) against the
as petitioner or respondent. (Sec 6) appellee. administrative agency and the
prevailing parties (respondents).
The court exercises appellate The court exercises appellate Court exercises original
jurisdiction. jurisdiction. jurisdiction.
NLRC (1989); Azores v SEC (1996)]
a. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
b. Review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
jurisdiction. does not include a correction of evaluation of
b. No plain, adequate or speedy remedy. the evidence but is confined to issues of
c. Administrative agency performing a quasi- jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
judicial function. Grave abuse of discretion is committed when

the judgment is rendered in a capricious,
whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner.
3. Purpose: To set aside or nullify proceedings.
[Villaruel v NLRC (1998)]
4. When not applicable

c. It has been a long-standing policy and
practice of the Court to respect the
a. A petition for certiorari inquires into errors of
conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies. They
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and
are highly specialized bodies that have
necessarily developed an expertise on their

153
specific subjects. Thus, the Court adheres to The rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari
their findings, unless there is an abuse or will lie only if there is no appeal or any other
improvident exercise of authority. plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
[Commissioner of Internal Revenue v ordinary course of law against the acts of
General Foods (2003)] respondent.
The only question involved in certiorari is
5. Cases jurisdiction, either the want or excess thereof,
• St. Martin Funeral Homes v NLRC (1998) and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance
There is an underlying power of the courts to of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only
scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions of when the same is so grave, as when the
law and jurisdiction even though no right of power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
review is given by statute. The remedy of a manner by reason of passion, prejudice or
party is to file a motion for reconsideration at personal hostility, and it must be so patent
the administrative level, then avail of a and so gross as to amount to an evasion of
special civil action for certiorari under Rule positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to
65. In the case of NLRC decisions, the intent perform a duty enjoined, or to act at all, in
of the legislature was to make a special civil contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to
action for certiorari as the proper vehicle for having acted without jurisdiction. It must
review. Thus, all references in the law to emphatically be reiterated, since so often is it
“appeals” from the NLRC to the SC must be overlooked, that the special civil action for
interpreted to mean petitions for certiorari certiorari is a remedy designed for the
under Rule 65. All such petitions must correction of errors of jurisdiction and not
initially be filed in the CA following the errors of judgment. The reason for the rule is
hierarchy of courts. simple. When a court exercises its
• Police Commission v Bello (1971) jurisdiction, an error committed while so
While findings of facts of administrative engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction
bodies are entitled to great weight and should being exercised when the error is committed.
not generally be disturbed, there is grave If it did, every error committed by a court
abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every
the writ of certiorari when there is such erroneous judgment would be a void
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. This cannot be allowed. The
judgment as is equivalent to lack of administration of justice would not survive
jurisdiction as where the power is exercised such a rule. Consequently, an error of
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason judgment that the court may commit in the
of passion, prejudice or personal hostility exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible
amounting to an evasion of positive duty, or through the original civil action of certiorari.
to a virtual refusal to perform the duty • Meralco Securities Industrial v Central
enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of Board of Assessment Appeals (1982)
law. Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court
• Purefoods Corp v NLRC (1989) to an inferior court, board or officer

exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
whereby the record of a particular case is

154
ordered to be elevated for review and The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a
correction in matters of law. certified true copy of the judgment or order
subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
• Cruz v Gangan (2003) documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and
a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
Findings of fact of an administrative agency
provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3,
must be respected, so long as they are Rule 46.
supported by substantial evidence; but
lacking such support, the factual finding 1. Requisites
cannot stand on its own and is therefore not a. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
binding on the Court. discretion.
• De Leon v Heirs of Gregorio Reyes b. No plain, adequate and speedy remedy.
(1987)  Petitioner must first exhaust all
If all administrative decisions were conclusive administrative remedies, as prohibition is
upon the Court in any event, there would available only when there are no other
have been no reason at all to offer the plain, speedy and adequate remedies in
extraordinary remedy of certiorari to litigants the ordinary course of law. [Cabedo v
who otherwise would have been deprived of Director of Lands (1961)]
this only and last resort to the courts of c. Agency performs quasi-judicial and/or
justice. This remedy applies to administrative ministerial functions.
decisions up to the highest level and includes

even a decision rendered "by authority of the 2. Purpose: To prohibit or stop a proceeding.
President." That sacramental phrase does not  A preventive remedy – thus, not for acts
remove a decision from the certiorari already performed. If fait accompli,
jurisdiction of the Court or inhibit us from prohibition can no longer be filed.
reversing them when warranted by a clear  Exception: prohibition can restrain an act
showing of a grave abuse of discretion. which is already a fait accompli if such
act is patently illegal and
C. Prohibition unconstitutional, and it creates a mischief
and dangerous precedent whereby those
Rule 65, Sec 2: Petition for prohibition. – in the corridors of power could avoid
When the proceeding of any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether judicial intervention and review by merely
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial speedily and stealthily completing the
functions, are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion commission of an illegality [Tan v
amounting to lack or excess of its or his COMELEC (1986)]
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved 3. When not applicable
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
court, alleging the facts with certainty and a. Prohibition does not lie against legislative
praying that judgment be rendered functions. [Ruperto v Torres
commanding the respondent to desist from
further proceeding in the action or matter (Unreported)]
specified therein, or otherwise granting such b. Prohibition is a preventive remedy to
incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require. restrain the doing of an act about to be
done, and not intended to provide a

155
remedy for an act already accomplished. based on the quantum of evidence
[Simon, Jr. v CHR (1994)] required to justify judicial intervention
c. Prohibition is granted only where no before the termination of the deportation
other remedy, which is sufficient, is proceedings, the judgment reached by
available to afford redress. That there is the lower court may be termed as
another and complete remedy at law is suffering from the corrosion of
generally a sufficient reason for substantial legal error.
dismissing the writ. [Paredes v CA
(1996)] D. Mandamus
4. Cases Rule 65, Sec 3. Petition for mandamus. –

When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer
• Chua Hiong v Deportation Board
or person unlawfully neglects the performance
(1955) of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or station,
General rule is that the Deportation
or unlawfully excludes another from the use
Board has original jurisdiction to resolve and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and there is no other plain,
the issue of citizenship. Mere claim of
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
citizenship will not divest it of its course of law, the person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court,
jurisdiction. Exception is when there is
alleging the facts with certainty and praying
substantial or conclusive proof to support that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent, immediately or at some other time
the claim of citizenship, in which case the
to be specified by the court, to do the act
court, using its sound discretion, may required to be done to protect the rights of the
petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by
allow intervention.
the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of
The effect of granting the writ of the respondent.
prohibition is to suspend the
The petitioner shall also contain a sworn
administrative proceeding pending the certification of non-forum shopping as provided
in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
resolution of the issue of the citizenship
in the judicial proceeding.
1. Requisites
• Co v Deportation Board (1977)
a. Public officer or agency has a positive duty
When the evidence submitted by a
that is ministerial.
respondent in deportation proceedings is
 Exception: Mandamus will lie against a
conclusive of his citizenship, his right to
discretionary duty when the official or agency
immediate review should be recognized
refuses to exercise the duty itself.
and the courts should promptly enjoin
 Discretion means the power or right
the deportation proceedings. Question of
conferred upon the office by law of acting
alienage should be decided first in a
officially under certain circumstances
judicial proceeding, suspending the
according to the dictates of his judgment and
administrative proceedings. Judicial
conscience and not controlled by the
determination is allowable when the
judgment of conscience of others. [Meralco
courts themselves believe that there are
v Savellano (1982)]
reasonable grounds for the belief that the
 A purely ministerial act or duty is one
claim is correct. The question is whether,
which an officer or tribunal performs in a

156
given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, court. If the law imposes a duty upon a
in obedience to the mandate of a legal public officer, and gives him the right to
authority, without regard to or the exercise of decide how or when the duty shall be
his own judgment upon the propriety or performed, such duty is discretionary and not
impropriety of the act done. [Meralco] ministerial. [Blanco v Board of Examiners
 Duty to ascertain facts is discretionary. (1924)]
Duty to act after the facts have been  Exceptions: When mandamus lies to
ascertained is ministerial. [Tan v Veterans compel performance of discretionary duties.
Backpay Commission (1959)] a. There is grave abuse of discretion
b. Right of petitioner is clear and controlling. where the actuations are tantamount to
 Mandamus can be availed of only by the a willful refusal to perform a duty
party who has a direct legal interest in the specifically required by law.
right sought to be enforced. b. Where such discretion of the court can
 Exception: If the question is one of public be legally exercised in only one way
right and the object of mandamus is to and it refuses to act, mandamus will lie
procure the performance of a public duty, it is to compel the court to exercise it.
sufficient to show that the petitioner is a [People v Orias]
citizen even if he has not special interest in c. To prevent a failure of justice or
the result. [Tañada v Tuvera (1985)] irreparable injury where there is a clear
c. No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. legal right and there is an absence of
 Mandamus is premature if there are any adequate remedy; where there is
administrative remedies available to the no appeal; or when such remedy of
petitioner. [Perez v City Mayor of appeal is inadequate. [Orias]
Cabanatuan (1961)] d. To prevent an abuse of discretion or to
 Exception: Where the case involves only correct an arbitrary action which does
legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust not amount to exercise of discretion.
all administrative remedies before mandamus [Orias]
can be sought. [Español v The Chairman of
e. Where there has been grave abuse of
the PVA (1985)]
discretion, manifest injustice, or
palpable excess of authority, in which
2. Purpose: To compel a party to perform an act case the respondent can be ordered to
arising out of a positive duty enjoined by law. act in a particular manner, especially
where a constitutional right has been
3. When not applicable violated. [Kant Wong v PCGG
a. The writ of mandamus will not issue to (1987)]
control or review the exercise of discretion of f. Privilege is distinguishable from a
a public officer. Where the law imposes upon matter of right, the latter being
a public officer the right and duty to exercise demandable if denied. The courts may
judgment, reference to any matter to which not grant the writ of mandamus to
he is called upon to act, it is his judgment secure said privilege. [PRC v De
that is to be exercised and not that of the Guzman (2004)]

157
b. Mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance petition shall be filed not later than 60 days
from the notice of the judgment, order or
of a visa. Issuance of a visa is not a mater of
resolution. In case a motion for
course since it involves the exercise of reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is required or not, the
discretion on the part of the consular officer
60-day period shall be counted from notice
as to the question if the entry of the applicant of the denial of said motion.
would be contrary to public safety. [Ng Gioc
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme
Liu v Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1950)] Court or, if it relates to the acts or
omissions of a lower court or of a
c. Mandamus will lie only to compel the board or
corporation, board, officer or person, in the
officer to take some action when it refuses to Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction
over the territorial area as defined by the
BUT will not attempt to prescribe the action
Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the
to be taken and thereby control the discretion Court of Appeals whether or not the same
is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in
or judgment of the board or officer.
the Sandiganbayan if it is in the aid of its
[Policarpio v Phil Veterans Board (1956)] appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts
or omissions of quasi-judicial agency,
d. Mandamus does not lie to require anyone to unless otherwise provided by law or these
fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a rules, the petition shall be filed in and
cognizable only by the Court Appeals.
course of conduct. In these cases, the proper
remedy is specific performance. [Province of No extension of time to file the petition
shall be granted except for compelling
Pangasinan v Reparations Commission reason and in no case exceeding 15 days.
(1977)] (As amended by A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC,
September 1, 2000)
e. While mandamus lies to compel a court to
give due course to the appeal which it has 5. Cases
erroneously dismissed, mandamus will not lie • PRC v De Guzman (2004)
to compel a court to dismiss the appeal as
For mandamus to prosper, there must be a
the remedy is to assign such failure to
showing that the officer, board, or official
dismiss as an error in the course of the
concerned has a clear legal duty not involving
appeal. [Lapisan v Alfonso]
discretion. Moreover, there must be statutory
authority for the performance of the act, and
4. When and where filed
the performance of the duty has been
• Old rule: Although Rule 65 does not specify refused. The function of mandamus is not to
any period for the filing of a petition for establish a right but to enforce one that has
certiorari and mandamus, it must, been established by law. If no legal right has
nevertheless, be filed within a reasonable been violated, there can be no application of
time. In certiorari cases, such reasonable a legal remedy, and the writ of mandamus is
time is within 3 months from the commission a legal remedy for a legal right. There must
of the complained act. The same rule should be a well-defined, clear and certain legal right
apply to mandamus cases. [Cruz v CA to the thing demanded.
(1996)]
• New rule: E. Declaratory Relief
Rule 65, Sec 4, Revised Rules of Court: Rule 63, Sec 1. Who may file petition. –
When and where petition filed. – The Any person interested under a deed, will,

158
contract or other written instrument, or whose f. Contro4ersy must be ripe for adjudication
rights are affected by a statute, executive order
[Mirando], where all administrative remedies
or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or have been exhausted. [Tolentino v Board
violation thereof, bring an action in the
of Accountancy]
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine
any question of construction or validity arising g. Adequate relief is not available through other
and for a declaration of his rights or duties,
means or other forms of action or proceeding.
thereunder.
[Ollada v Central Bank (1962)]
An action for the reformation of an instrument,
to quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under 2. Purpose: To determine the construction, validity
Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought
under this Rule. and declaration of rights thereunder.
• Note: Prof. Avena says that while the (1)
• Note: An action for declaratory relief must be determination of any question of validity or
brought in the RTC. It is not among the actions construction and (2) declaration of rights
within the original jurisdiction of the SC even if apply to statutes, executive orders, etc.,
only questions of law are involved. [Remotigue v validity/construction does not apply to cases
Osmeña (1967); Rural Bank of Olongapo v involving deeds, will, contracts or other
Commissioner of Land Registration (1981)]. written instruments.
However, if the petition has far-reaching

implications and it raises questions that should be 3. When not applied
resolved, it may be treated as one for prohibition a. In securing a judicial declaration of

[De la Llana v Alba (1982)] or for mandamus. citizenship. [(Azajar v Ardalles (1955)]
[Alliance of Government Workers v Minister b. Where petition for declaratory relief is filed
of Labor and Employment (1983)] after the breach of law took place. [De
Borja v Villadolid (1949)]
1. Requisites c. Where a taxpayer questions his liability; the
a. Subject matter must be a deed, will, contract proper procedure is for the tax to be paid first
or written instrument in which petitioner is and to sue for its recovery afterwards.
legally interested, or law or governmental [National Dental Supply v Meer (1951)]
regulation which affects his rights. d. Where petitioner never acquired any interest
b. The terms of the written instrument are, or in the object of the controversy, and enjoyed
the validity of the law or regulation is, no rights which were violated. [Mirando]
doubtful and requires judicial construction. e. Where declaratory relief would not terminate
[Santos v Aquino] the uncertainty of controversy.
c. Petition is filed before breach or violation of f. Where the relief sought would be
the instrument or regulation. [Reparations determinative of issues rather than a
Commission v Northern Lines (1970)] construction of definite stated rights, status
d. There must be an actual justiciable and other relations commonly expressed in
controversy between persons with adverse written instruments – since this remedy is
interests. [Mirando v Wellington (1978)] available only if it is limited to a declaration of
e. Petitioner must have legal interest in the rights, and not to a determination, trial or
controversy. [Mirando]

159
judicial investigation of issues. [Kawasaki v functus officio and the alien is being held
Amores (1991)] without authority of law.
• Co v Deportation Board (1977)
F. Habeas Corpus Bail renders a writ of habeas corpus moot and
academic, as the bail bond gives petitioner
Rule 102, Sec 1. To what habeas corpus liberty.
extends. – Except as otherwise expressly
 Note, however, that in Criminal Procedure,
provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall
extend to all case of illegal confinement or a writ of habeas corpus may still issue
detention by which any person is deprived of
despite the granting of bail when there is
his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of
any person is withheld from the person entitled still effective detention.
thereto.
• Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag (1989)
The release of a detained person, whether
1. Nature: The great writ of liberty is intended as a
permanent or temporary, renders a petition
speedy remedy to secure the release of a person
for the writ of habeas corpus moot and
deprived of his liberty. A person detained upon
academic, unless there are restraints
the orders of an agency may test the validity of
attached which precludes his freedom.
his detention through the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, which is a constitutionally
G. Injunction as provisional remedy
guaranteed right.
Rule 58, Sec 1. Preliminary injunction

2. Requisites
defined; classes. – A preliminary injunction is
a. There is illegal confinement or detention. an order granted at any stage of an action or
proceeding prior to the judgment or final order,
b. There is illegal restraint of liberty.
requiring a party or a court, agency or a person
c. Rightful custody of any person is withheld to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may
also require the performance of a particular
from the person entitled thereto.
acts or acts, in which case it shall be known as
a preliminary mandatory injunction.
3. Purpose: Secure the release of a person deprived
of his liberty, and test the validity of detention as 1. Nature: An ancillary remedy provided to preserve
ordered by an agency. the petitioner’s rights while main action is
pending.
4. Cases
• Mejoff v Director of Prisons (1951) 2. Purpose:
The writ of habeas corpus will issue when: a. Prevent the commission of certain acts
complained of; or
a. An alien has been detained by the DOJ
for an unreasonably long period of time b. Order the continued performance of some act
after it has become apparent that the for the purpose of preventing further injury.
deportation order cannot be effectuated;

and 3. Requisites:
b. No criminal charges have been formally a. Plaintiff is entitled to relief demanded.

made or a judicial order issued for his b. Commission or continuance of an act
detention. In such case, the order of complained of would probably work injustice
deportation which was not executed is to him.

160
c. Defendant, is doing, threatens or about to do such other questions such as state immunity
an act in violation of petitioner’s rights which from suit and the applicable statutes.
may render the judgment ineffective. • A quasi-judicial officer is usually given
d. Injunction can only be issued by superior to immunity from liability to persons who may
an inferior body; if co-equals, the injunction be injured as a result of an erroneous or
cannot prosper. [Honda v San Diego mistaken decision, provided that the acts
(1966)] complained of were done under the color of
authority and in good faith. [Philippine
4. Types Racing Club v Bonifacio (1960)]
a. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff
wants to compel defendant to do something. VII. Extent of Judicial Review
b. Preliminary Injunction – To prevent or stop
defendant from doing something • Generally, laws creating administrative
c. Restraining Order – Life span of 20 days, agencies and providing for judicial review
after which hearing is then held to decide may indicate the scope of that review.
propriety of the injunction. Whether the courts may inquire into
d. Permanent Injunction – If plaintiff wins the questions of law, of fact or of both as well as
case, injunction becomes permanent of administrative discretion will depend on the
(otherwise, the writ is dissolved). enabling act.
• General rules:
5. Cases 1. Questions of law are always reviewable
• Collector vs. Reyes (1957) by the courts;
The general rule is that injunction cannot be 2. Substantial Evidence Rule: Findings of
issued in tax collection. An exception is that if fact, if based on substantial evidence, are
the collection of the tax is prejudicial to the conclusive and binding on the courts;
interest of the government and of the 3. If the decision of a case is discretionary
taxpayer, CTA is authorized to restrain the on the part of the agency, courts can
Collector from proceeding with its collection. review if the decision is attended with
capriciousness; and
• Lemi vs. Valencia (1966)
4. Questions of jurisdiction are always
The right to the writ is clear when: 1) there is reviewable as they go into the question
willful invasion of the petitioner’s right, and of authority to decide.
the injury is a continuing one; and 2) effect
of the writ is to re-establish the pre-existing A. The Law-Fact Distinction
relation. • There is no clear-cut line that separates
questions of law from questions of fact.
H. Suit for damages (indirect method) There may be cases where the issues raised
• Parties aggrieved by some agency action may may easily be classified under one or the
be able to obtain judicial review in an action other, but some cases may involve mixed
for damages brought against the agency or questions of law and fact.
its officials. Whether or not the action will
prosper will depend on the determination of

161
• The problem with these shady areas is that considering the less specialized nature of
they are usually dependent on the their jurisdiction.
predilection of the judge reviewing the case. • A party challenging an administrative action
If he is inclined to review it, he will treat it as may direct his attack against the:
a question of law; otherwise, he will waive it 1. Constitutionality of the statute creating
off as a question of fact. As a reviewing the agency and granting its powers;
judge though, he must ascertain whether the 2. Validity of the agency action if this
agency’s decision is supported by substantial transcend the limit established by law; or
evidence for him to do the waiving-off act. 3. Correctness of the agency’s
• Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts: interpretation and application of the law.
Where what purports to be a finding upon a • An administrative official’s action which is
question of fact is so involved with and based on a misconstruction of law can be
dependent upon a question of law as to be in corrected and is not conclusive upon the
substance and effect a decision on the latter, courts. [Ortua v Singson (1934)]
the court will, in order to decide the legal • When the conclusion drawn by an
question, examine the entire record including administrative official from the facts found is
the evidence if necessary. erroneous or not warranted by law, it is a
• If the reviewing court is convinced that question of law reserved to the court’s
determination. [Mejia vs. Mapa (1954)]
substantial evidence supports the agency’s
ruling, the court may confirm findings. • Judicial review is proper where the act of the
Otherwise, it should review. [Donato v. administrative official constitutes not only an
Philippine Marine Officer Association excess of regulatory power conferred upon
(1959)] him, but also an exercise of legislative power

which he does not have. [People v Santos
• The conclusion drawn from facts is a question
(1936)]
of law, which the courts may review. [Dauan
• The interpretation of articles of incorporation,
v Secretary (1959)]
which involves a question of law, is
• Whether a question of fact overcomes a
reviewable by the courts. [Japanese War
presumption of law, is a question of law
Notes Claimants vs. SEC (1957)]
reviewable by the court. [Reyes Vda. De
• The issue of WON an ER-EE relationship
Santiago v Reyes (1960)]
exists is a question of law. [Ysmael v CIR
• Non-controversion of a claim for workmen’s (1960)]
compensation simply means an admission of  Note: There is an alternative view saying
facts and not an admission of a legal that the question of WON there is an EER is a
conclusion. [Aboitiz v Pepito (1966)] mixed question of fact and law, because the
court has to examine the facts vis-à-vis the
B. Question of Law four-fold test.
• General rule: Questions of law are subject to • Inferences and findings of fact of
judicial review, since the courts are generally
administrative agencies are to be accepted,
more competent to resolve these issues
unless they are irrational or unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record as a

162
whole. [O’Leary v Brown-Pacific-Maxon the evidence, must consider evidence not
(1951)] only in its quantitative but also in its
qualitative aspects. For, to be substantial,
C. Question of Fact evidence must first of all be credible.
• A question of fact exists if the issue [Gonzales v Victory Labor Union
involved is: (1969)]
1. WON a certain thing exists; • A quasi-judicial body can determine any
2. WON an event has taken place; or question without regard to technicalities.
3. Which of the two versions of the General rule: Because of the expertise
happening of an event is correct. which an administrative agency has, its
• Finality is attached to findings of fact of findings of facts which are supported by
some agencies when these findings are substantial evidence are accorded by the
supported by substantial evidence. This courts with conclusiveness, as long as
is but a recognition of the expertise of there was no grave abuse of discretion.
the agency as to questions in matters [Suarnaba v WCC (1978)]
which have been entrusted to them for • Only errors of law, and not rulings on the
regulation or decision. But the courts weight of the evidence, are reviewable by
have the power to review the findings of the courts. [Acting Commissioner of
fact when the evidence on record is not Customs vs. MERALCO (1977)]
substantial, and whether or not such is
• Administrative and discretionary
substantial is for the court to say.
functions may not be interfered with by
• It is not for the reviewing court to weigh
the courts. This is generally true with
the conflicting evidence, determine the respect to acts involving the exercise of
credibility of witnesses, or otherwise judgment or discretion and findings of
substitute its judgment for that of the fact. But when there is grave abuse of
administrative agency on the sufficiency discretion amounting to lack of
of evidence. The court recognizes that jurisdiction, there is a justification for the
the trial court or administrative body, as courts to set aside the administrative
a trier of facts, is in a better position to determination. [Banco Filipino v
assess the demeanor of the witnesses Central Bank (1991)]
and the credibility of their testimonies as
• The court is inclined to review the
they were within its proximal view during
findings of fact of an administrative
the hearing or investigation. [Mollaneda
official if they are not based on a
v Umacob (2001)]
thorough examination of the parties’
• One circumstance where the court may
contending claims, wherein the
not accept the agency’s findings of fact is adversarial process would ensure a better
when the decision rendered by an almost presentation and appreciation of
evenly divided court and the division was evidence. [PAL v. Confessor (1994)]
precisely on the facts as borne out by the
evidence. In such a situation the court, in
order to determine the substantiality of

163
• In administrative or quasi-judicial 1. Discretionary acts v Ministerial acts
proceedings, proof beyond reasonable Discretionary Ministerial
doubt or preponderance of evidence is When applied to public A ministerial act has

not required as a basis for a judgment, functionaries, been defined as one
discretion may be performed in response
substantial evidence being sufficient. defined as the power or to a duty which has
[Meralco v. NLRC (1991)] right conferred upon been positively imposed
them by law to act by law and its
• In administrative proceedings, the officially under certain performance required at
circumstances, a time and in a manner
complainant has the burden of proving,
according to the or upon conditions
by substantial evidence, the allegations in dictates of their own specifically designated,
judgment and the duty to perform
the complaint. Substantial evidence does
conscience and not under the conditions
not necessarily import preponderance of controlled by the specified not being
judgment of others. dependent upon the
evidence as in an ordinary civil case.
officer’s judgment or
Rather, it is such relevant evidence as a discretion.
reasonable mind might accept as
Discretion is the power Ministerial duty is one in
adequate to support a conclusion, even if to make a choice respect to which
among permissive nothing is left to
other minds equally reasonable might
actions or policies. The discretion. It is a
conceivably opine otherwise. [Tapiador very essence of simple, definite duty
discretionary power is arising under conditions
v Office of the Ombudsman (2002)]
that the person or admitted or proved to
• Administrative proceedings are governed persons exercising it exist, and imposed by
may choose which of law.
by the substantial evidence rule. A several courses of
finding of guilt in an administrative case action should be
followed.
would have to be sustained for as long as
it is supported by substantial evidence
that the respondent has committed the
acts stated in the complaint or formal
charge. This is different from the
quantum of proof required in criminal
proceedings which necessitates a finding
of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable 2. Judicial review of administrative discretion v
doubt. Ergo, the dismissal of the criminal Substitution of judicial discretion for
case will not foreclose administrative administrative discretion
action against respondent. [Velasquez v • Questions of policy or discretion are
Hernandez (2004)]
reviewable only for
• The substantial evidence standard is not unreasonableness, departure from
modified in any way when officials of an statutory standards, or lack of
administrative agency disagree in their evidentiary support; and questions of
findings. [Universal Camera v NLRC wisdom, propriety or expediency are
(1951)] for the agency and not for the courts.
The court will not substitute its
D. Question of Discretion discretion or judgment for that of the
administrative agency, but will

164
determine the lawfulness of its
action. The ruling of an 1. When it applies
administrative agency, on questions
• The doctrine of res judicata applies
of law, while not as conclusive as its
only to judicial or quasi-judicial
findings of facts, is nevertheless
proceedings and not to the exercise
persuasive and given much weight
of purely administrative functions.
especially if the agency is one of
Administrative proceedings are non-
special competence and experience.
litigious and summary in nature;
hence, res judicata does not apply.
3. General rule: In the exercise of discretion lawfully
[Nasipit Lumber Co. v NLRC
given, the court will not interfere.
(1989)]
 Rationale: Recognition of the expertise of the
agency.
2. Cases
 Exception: If discretion was exercised in a • Ipekdijan Merchandising v CTA
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, abusive,
(1963)
partial, and hostile manner.
To say that the doctrine applies
exclusively to court decisions would
4. Cases
be to unreasonably circumscribe the
• Laguna Tayabas v PSC (1957)
scope thereof. The more equitable
The erroneous appreciation of the significance attitude is to allow extension of the
of the facts before the administrative agency defense to decisions of bodies upon
does not mean that the administrative agency whom judicial powers have been
had abused its discretion. conferred, so long as their decisions
• PLDT v NTC (1995) meet the doctrine’s requisites. The
Courts should not intervene in that essential requisites of res judicata
administrative process, save upon a very are:
clear showing of serious violation of law or of 1) The former judgment must be
fraud, personal malice or wanton oppression. final;
Courts have none of the technical and 2) It must have been rendered by a
economic or financial competence which court having jurisdiction over the
specialized administrative agencies have at subject matter and the parties;
their disposal, and in particular must be wary 3) It must be a judgment on the
of intervening in matters which are at their merits; and
core technical and economic in nature but 4) There must be identity of parties,
disguised, more or less artfully, in the subject matter and cause of
habiliments of a "question of legal action.
interpretation." • Dulay v Minister of Natural
Resources (1993)
VIII. Enforcement of Agency Action Decisions and orders of
administrative bodies rendered
A. Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment pursuant to their quasi-judicial

165
authority have, upon their finality, otherwise provides. [GSIS v CSC
the force and effect of a final (1991)]
judgment within the purview of the • The legislature may aid the enforcement of
doctrine of res judicata, which forbids administrative determination by providing a
the reopening of matters once penalty for failure to comply therewith. Also,
judicially determined by competent direct and positive sanctions (grant of
authorities. subpoena power and contempt powers) are
• MERALCO v Phil Consumers afforded by provisions for administrative or
Foundation (2002) judicial processes to compel obedience or
For purposes of res juridicata, a prevent violation of the determination.
judgment is on the merits when it • Administrative functions:
determines the rights and liabilities • Administrative enforcement includes:
of the parties based on the disclosed Adjudicative Enforce decision.
facts, irrespective of formal, technical function
Rule-making Promulgate rules.
or dilatory objections. Moreover, res function
juridicata is not defeated by a minor Executive function Issue or withhold license.
difference of parties, as it does not Dispensing Dole out or withhold.

government largess
require absolute but only substantial
identity of parties. With respect to  Focusing on public opinion;
identity of causes of action, this  Revocation;
requisite is present whenever parties

are litigating for the same thing and
for the same contentions.
B. Writ of Execution; Mandamus

• General rule: Administrative agencies  Suspension;
performing quasi-judicial functions have the  Refusal to renew license;
implied power to issue writs of execution.  Refusal to grant clearance paper to ships;
 Exception: If the enabling law expressly  Withholding or denying benefits;
provides otherwise.  Imposing conditions seizure and sale or
 If the law is silent, presume that the destruction of property;
agency has the power to enforce its  Exclusion and deportation;
decisions emanating from its quasi-  Imposition and collection of fines and
judicial powers. [Apolega v Hizon penalties; and
(1968)]  Summary enforcement without need for
 The authority to decide cases (quasi- adjudication:
judicial power) should normally and • Distraint of personal property or levy
logically begin to include the grant of on real property (Commissioner of

authority to enforce and execute the Internal Revenue);
judgment it renders, unless the law • Abatement of nuisance (Secretary of
Health); and

166
• Sequestration of ill-gotten wealth and describes the procedures in, or practice
(PCGG); requirements of, an agency, including its regulations.
• If officials refuse to implement a final and The term includes memoranda or statements
executory judgment, the remedy is concerning the internal administration or
mandamus. [Vda. De Corpuz v The management of an agency not affecting the rights of,
Commanding General of the Philippine or procedure available to, the public.
Army (1978)] (3) "Rate" means any charge to the public for a
service open to all and upon the same terms,
• Execution must conform to that ordained or
including individual or joint rates, tolls, classifications,
decreed in the dispositive part of the
or schedules thereof, as well as commutation,
decision. Where the order of execution is not
mileage, kilometerage and other special rates which
in harmony with and exceeds the judgment
shall be imposed by law or regulation to be observed
which gives it life, the order pro tanto has no
and followed by any person.
validity. [Clavano v HLURB (2002)]
(4) "Rule making" means an agency process for the
formulation, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
-END-
(5) "Contested case" means any proceeding,
including licensing, in which the legal rights, duties or
APPENDIX
privileges asserted by specific parties as required by
BOOK VII: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
the Constitution or by law are to be determined after
hearing.
Chapter 1
(6) "Person" includes an individual, partnership,
GENERAL PROVISIONS
corporation, association, public or private organization
Sec. 1. Scope. - This Book shall be applicable to all
of any character other than an agency.
agencies as defined in the next succeeding section,
(7) "Party" includes a person or agency named or
except the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional
admitted as a party, or properly seeking and entitled
Commissions, military establishments in all matters
as of right to be admitted as a party, in any agency
relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the
proceeding; but nothing herein shall be construed to
Board of Pardons and Parole, and state universities
prevent an agency from admitting any person or
and colleges.
agency as a party for limited purposes.
Sec. 2. Definitions. - As used in this Book:
(8) "Decision" means the whole or any part of the
(1) "Agency" includes any department, bureau,
final disposition, not of an interlocutory character,
office, commission, authority or officer of the National
whether affirmative, negative, or injunctive in form, of
Government authorized by law or executive order to
an agency in any matter, including licensing, rate
make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges,
fixing and granting of rights and privileges.
and adjudicate cases; research institutions with
(9) "Adjudication" means an agency process for the
respect to licensing functions; government
formulation of a final order.
corporations with respect to functions regulating
(10) "License" includes the whole or any part of
private right, privileges, occupation or business; and
any agency permit, certificate, passport, clearance,
officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as
approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory
provided by law.
exemption or other form of permission, or regulation
(2) "Rule" means any agency statement of general
of the exercise of a right or privilege.
applicability that implements or interprets a law, fixes

167
(11) "Licensing" includes agency process involving Sec. 4. Effectivity. - In addition to other rule-making
the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, requirements provided by law not inconsistent with
annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, this Book, each rule shall become effective 15 days
modification or conditioning of a license. from the date of filing as above provided unless a
(12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part of a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule
prohibition, limitation or other condition affecting the in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety
liberty of any person; the withholding of relief; the and welfare, the existence of which must be
imposition of penalty or fine; the destruction, taking, expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The
seizure or withholding of property; the assessment of agency shall take appropriate measures to make
damages, reimbursement, restitution, compensation, emergency rules known to persons who may be
cost, charges or fees; the revocation or suspension of affected by them.
license; or the taking of other compulsory or Sec. 5. Publication and Recording. - The University of
restrictive action. the Philippines Law Center shall:
(13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of any (1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth the text
grant of money, assistance, license, authority, of rules filed with it during the preceding quarter; and
privilege, exemption, exception, or remedy; (2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus
recognition of any claim, right, immunity, privilege, published and remaining in effect, together with a
exemption or exception; or taking of any action upon complete index and appropriate tables.
the application or petition of any person. Sec. 6. Omission of Some Rules. - (1) The University
(14) "Agency proceeding" means any agency of the Philippines Law Center may omit from the
process with respect to rule-making, adjudication and bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication
licensing. would be unduly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise
(15) "Agency action" includes the whole or part of inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made
every agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief or its available on application to the agency which adopted
equivalent or denial thereof. it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the
general subject matter of the omitted rule and new
Chapter 2 copies thereof may be obtained.
RULES AND REGULATIONS (2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining
Sec. 3. Filing. - (1) Every agency shall file with the an act which, pursuant to law, is punishable as a
University of the Philippines Law Center 3 certified crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be
copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on published in full text.
the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed Sec. 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. -
within 3 months from that date shall not thereafter be The University of the Philippines Law Center shall
the basis of any sanction against any party or furnish 1 free copy each of every issue of the bulletin
persons. and of the codified rules or supplements to the Office
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his of the President, Congress, all appellate courts and
equivalent functionary, shall carry out the the National Library. The bulletin and the codified
requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary rules shall be made available free of charge to such
action. public officers or agencies as the Congress may
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept select, and to other persons at a price sufficient to
by the issuing agency and shall be open to public cover publication and mailing or distribution costs.
inspection.

168
Sec. 8. Judicial Notice. - The court shall take judicial the original is in the official custody of a public officer,
notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as a certified copy thereof may be accepted.
published in the bulletin or the codified rules. (3) Every party shall have the right to cross-
Sec. 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise examine witnesses presented against him and to
required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, submit rebuttal evidence.
publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and (4) The agency may take notice of judicially
afford interested parties the opportunity to submit cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical
their views prior to the adoption of any rule. or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity
be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been to contest the facts so noticed.
published in a newspaper of general circulation at Sec. 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case, the
least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon. agency shall have the power to require the
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested attendance of witnesses or the production of books,
cases shall be observed. papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon
request of any party before or during the hearing
Chapter 3 upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise
ADJUDICATION provided by law, the agency may, in case of
Sec. 10. Compromise and Arbitration. - To expedite disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial
administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case
or claims and obviate expensive litigations, every being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or
agency shall, in the public interest, encourage refusal as contempt.
amicable settlement, comprise and arbitration. Sec. 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the
Sec. 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. - (1) agency in a contested case shall be in writing and
In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
notice and hearing. The notice shall be served at least on which it is based. The agency shall decide each
5 days before the date of the hearing and shall state case within 30 days following its submission. The
the date, time and place of the hearing. parties shall be notified of the decision personally or
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to by registered mail addressed to their counsel of
present evidence and argument on all issues. If not record, if any, or to them.
precluded by law, informal disposition may be made Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency
of any contested case by stipulation, agreed shall become final and executory 15 days after the
settlement or default. receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its affected unless within that period an administrative
proceedings. appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been
Sec. 12. Rules of Evidence. - In a contested case: perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be
(1) The agency may admit and give probative filed, which shall suspend the running of the said
value to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably period.
prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. -
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the (1) Every agency shall publish and make available for
form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily public inspection all decisions or final orders in the
available. Upon request, the parties shall be given adjudication of contested cases.
opportunity to compare the copy with the original. If

169
(2) It shall be the duty of the records officer of the resolution of reversal within which to perfect his
agency or his equivalent functionary to prepare a appeal.
register or compilation of those decisions or final (3) The agency shall, upon perfection of the
orders for use by the public. appeal, transmit the records of the case to the
Sec. 17. Licensing Procedure. - (1) When the grant, appellate agency.
renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required Sec. 21. Effect of Appeal. - The appeal shall stay the
to be preceded by notice and hearing, the provisions decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by
concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as law, or the appellate agency directs execution pending
practicable. appeal, as it may deem just, considering the nature
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent and circumstance of the case.
laws, rules and regulations or when public security, Sec. 22. Action on Appeal. - The appellate agency
health, or safety require otherwise, no license may be shall review the records of the proceedings and may,
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without on its own initiative or upon motion, receive additional
notice and hearing. evidence.
Sec. 18. Non-expiration of License. - Where the Sec. 23. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency. - In
licensee has made timely and sufficient application for any contested case, the decision of the appellate
the renewal of a license with reference to any activity agency shall become final and executory 15 days after
of a continuing nature, the existing license shall not the receipt by the parties of a copy thereof.
expire until the application shall have been finally Sec. 24. Hearing Officers. - (1) Each agency shall
determined by the agency. have such number of qualified and competent
members of the base as hearing officers as may be
Chapter 4 necessary for the hearing and adjudication of
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IN CONTESTED contested cases.
CASES (2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the
Sec. 19. Appeal. - Unless otherwise provided by law performance of prosecuting functions in any contested
or executive order, an appeal form a final decision of case or any factually related case.
the agency may be taken to the Department head. Sec. 25. Judicial Review. - (1) Agency decisions shall
Sec. 20. Perfection of Administrative Appeals. - (1) be subject to judicial review in accordance with this
Administrative appeals under this Chapter shall be chapter and applicable laws.
perfected within 15 days after receipt of a copy of the (2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by
decision complained of by the party adversely an agency decision may seek judicial review.
affected, by filing with the agency which adjudicated (3) The action for judicial review may be brought
the case a notice of appeal, serving copies thereof against the agency, or its officers, and all
upon the prevailing party and the appellate agency, indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the
and paying the required fees. Rules of Court.
(2) If a motion for reconsideration is denied, the (4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be
movant shall have the right to perfect his appeal perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days
during the remainder of the period for appeal, from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and
reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. If with the reviewing court a petition for review of the
the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the order. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the
aggrieved party shall have 15 days from receipt of the agency and all parties of record. The petition shall
contain a concise statement of the issues involved and

170
the grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be
accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed
from, together with copies of such material portions of
the records as are referred to therein and other
supporting papers. The petition shall be under oath
and shall show, by stating the specific material dates,
that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter.
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final
administrative decision. One motion for
reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is
denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the
remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of
the resolution of denial. It the decision is reversed on
reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15 days from
receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal.
(6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the
court specified by statute or, in the absence thereof,
in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance
with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court.
(7) Review shall be made on the basis of the
record taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the
agency when supported by substantial evidence shall
be final except when specifically provided otherwise
by law.
Sec. 26. Transmittal of Record. - Within 15 days from
the service of the petition for review, the agency shall
transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of
the entire records of the proceeding under review.
The record to be transmitted may be abridged by
agreement of all parties to the proceedings. The court
may require or permit subsequent correction or
additions to the record.


Adm in Ist Rati Ve Law: Development of Administrative Law As A Distinct Field of Public Law

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Adm in Ist Rati Ve Law: Development of Administrative Law As A Distinct Field of Public Law

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

152

ADM IN IST RATI VE LAW

time, (2) expertise, and (3)

• Meaning: Branch of public law dealing

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

dealing with the creation, operation, enforcement of the law.

and effect of determinations and • Any department, bureau, office,

• Administration: or executive order to make rules, issue

concerning personnel; fiscal and • Licensing.

adjudication. [Davis; Nachura] government.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

1. 1987 Constitutional provision. Deportation.

• Civil Service Commission. [Art. IX-B] • Securities and Exchange

XIII, Sec. 17]

• Commission on Appointments. [Art. • Board of Energy.

VI, Sec. 18]

• House of Representatives Electoral

• National Economic and Development 3. Other Constitutional Bodies.

Authority. [Art. XII, Sec. 20] • Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, Office

• An agency on Cooperatives. [Art. XII, of the Special Prosecutor, Central

Sec. 15] Monetary Authority, Economic and

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

4. Regulatory Commission. available, if it were taken through the

b) Interpretative legislation: To construe or B. Cases

c) Contingent legislation: Made by an

6. Advantages of Administrative Regulation

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Land Registration Commissioner and other • Puyat v De Guzman

similarly ranked officials to hold same rank as a An indirect appearance as counsel by an

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

are needed. • 3 limitations under the 1987

appropriation usually gets with duly published rules of

4. Pprescription of legislative standards. “right” to approve/disapprove

• The standards must be effective

• Based on the power of (which entitles the President to influence

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

arbitrariness in the administrative power to investigate and prosecute

a. Powers: agency, when such act or omission

4. Authority to inquire and obtain to, or connected with, or arise from,

information. the performance of his official duty.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

criminal or administrative complaint

[Ledesma v CA (2005)] (a) Defines legislative policy,

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

2. Emergency powers. • A statute which leaves to the

5. Delegation to administrative of legislative power.

agencies. • The legislature, from necessity and

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

agency to be set aside if there is 2. Publication and effectivity.

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

ruling in cases of imminent danger to or specified in the rule.

appropriate tables. • Circulars which prescribe a

penalty for its violation should be

expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but contents, especially its penal

Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

• The domain of penal statues is resort for guidance.

exclusive to the legislature and • The administrative construction

• Administrative rules and controlling as to the proper

regulations cannot amend or construction of a statute, but

modify or expand the law by generally it is given great weight,

including, prohibiting or has a very persuasive influence

punishing certain acts which the and may actually be regarded by