THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER -is the power of the administrative agency to determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with standards laid down by the law itself. The administrative body exercises the quasi-judicial power when it performs JUDICIAL MANNER an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to, or reasonably necessary for, the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. When it resolves factual questions in certain controversies in order to give effect to mandate and policy of law it is supposed to enforce.

QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION a term that apples to actions or discretion of public administrative officers or bodies, that are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings and draw conclusions from them, as their basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. 2 conditions of proper exercise of quasi-judicial power: 1. Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body. 2. Due process must be observed in the conduct of proceedings.

A. JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION The competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question. -w/o jurisdiction, the determinations made by the administrative bodies are absolutely NULL and VOID and WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT. Subject to collateral attack and may be assailed any time since they are regarded as invalid ab initio. PCGG VS Pea - RTC and CA have no jurisdiction over Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in the exercise of its power under the applicable Executive Orders and Art. XVIII, Sec. 26 of the Constitution and therefore may not interfere with and restrain or set aside orders and actions of the commission. *** In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, the Commission is a co-equal body with the RTCs and co-equal bodies has no power to control the other.

Cario vs. CHR - The Supreme Court declared that the most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may INVESTIGATE, i.e. receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is NOT adjudication and cannot be likened to judicial function of a court of justice, or even quasi-judicial agency or official. To be considered as a judicial function, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusion in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. The function that the CHR does not have.

A tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial function acts w/o jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred by law to hear and decide the case. Cases: Lastimosa v. Vasquez Syquia v. Board of Power and Water Works Manila Electric Company v. CA RCPI v. Board of Communications Globe Wireless Ltd. V. Public Service Commission Boiser vs. CA

Unfair labor cases, complaints for reinstatement and claims for back salaries and wages, including even moral and other damages are all now clearly cognizable and may be heard and decided by the NLRC.

1. RULES OF PROCEDURE
Where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of adjudication, it is deemed also vested with implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of its proceedings. Angara v. Electoral Commision Where the statute does not require any particular method of procedure to be followed by an administrative agency, the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions. But to be valid, the rules must not violate fundamental rights to encroach upon constitutional prerogatives, like the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. Cases: Phil. Lawyers Association v. Agrava Agusmin Promotional Enterprises, Inc. v. CA

2. THE SUBPOENA POWER

The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in administrative bodies. Bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. This power may be expressly granted in the charter of the administrative body, as in the case of the NLRC and the Civil Service Commission to mention a few of there privileged administrative bodies. In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon request of any party before or during any hearing upon showing general relevance. ( Sec. 13, Chapter 3, Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987 ) Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the RTC within whose jurisdiction the contested case falls. However, the fact that an administrative body has been authorized to conduct an investigation does not necessarily mean it can also summon witnesses and take testimony in the absence of a clear grant of this power from the legislature. (Carmelo v. Ramos)

Investigate vs. Adjudicate Investigate to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. - The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, and obtain information. - In legal context means to follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination; taking of evidence; a legal inquiry; to inquire; to make an investigation (in administrative function-investigation does not require hearing) Adjudicate means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on, settle. - In legal sense, to settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally. - To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or condemn, xx Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgement.

3. THE CONTEMPT POWER

The power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as inherent right by the administrative body. To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred upon the body and, additionally, must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicial as distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary function. If subpoena is disregarded , the person summoned may not directly disciplined by that administrative body. The proper remedy is to seek the assistance of the courts of justice for the enforcement of its order. Cases: Guevara v. Commission on Election Tolentino v. Inciong Dumarpa vs. Dimaporo

B. NOTICE AND HEARING

The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-observance will as a rule invalidate the administrative proceeding. Persons are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their interests so that, if they are minded, they may claim the right to appear therein and present their side or refute the position of opposing parties. The essence of DUE PROCESS in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain ones side or a change to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. EXCEPTION : urgency of immediate action; the fact that the right had previously been offered but no claimed.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS