Gil Mae N.

Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 1 of 9

San Miguel Corp. vs.
Sec. of Labor
Judicial review by the SC is questioned on the ground
that it is not provided by governing statute.
Does the SC have jurisdiction to review the
decisions of the NLRC and the Sec. of Labor?
YES. Power exists though not expressly given by statute.
Purpose: to keep the admin agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights
of parties affected by its decisions.
When judicial review proper: in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion,
error of law or collusion.
Board of Medical
Education vs.
Alfonso
Lower court issued an injunction to restrain
implementation the order of the Sec. of Education,
Culture and Sports directing the closure of a medical
college.
Does the lower court have the power to make its
own independent determination of WON medical
institution has complied with the minimum
standards laid down for its continued operation?
NO.
There is NO court that has competence to substitute its own opinion for that of the
DECS Secretary on such issue.
Decision of DECS Secretary within scope of his power is not subject to judicial review.
Courts have no supervisory power over purely administrative and discretionary
functions of AA because by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over
matters falling under their jurisdiction, the AA are in a better position to pass upon
judgment on such matters and their findings of fact in that regard are generally
accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts.
Gordon vs. Veridiano
II
Y is the owner of SS drugstore. A joint team
conducted a test buy to all drugstores.
The G mayor revoked summarily Ys mayors permit
for rampant violation of Dangerous Drugs Act, while
FDA directed the closure of the drugstore for 3 days
and payment of P100.00 fine but such order was
later lifted.
Y sought for reconsideration from G of the
revocation of the mayors permit. No reply
happened.
Y filed against G with the RTC a complaint for
mandamus and damages.
G came to SC in a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction, to challenge
the RTCs decision declaring the revocation of G as
null and void.
While admitting that the FDA possesses the
power to grant and revoke licenses for the
operation of drugstores, may the mayor G
nevertheless in the exercise of his won power,
prevent the operation of drugstores previously
permitted by the FDA?
NO.
The power to determine if the opening of the drugstore is conformable to the national
policy and the laws on the regulation of drug sales belongs to the FDA. Hence, a permit
issued by the mayor to a drugstore not previously cleared with and licensed by the said
agency will be a nullity.
Should the mayor find that the local requirements have not been observed, the mayor
must then, in the exercise of his own authority under the Charter, refuse to grant the
permit sought.
Power to approve license includes the power to revoke it. Thus, if the FDA grants a
license upon its findings that the applicant drugstore has complied with the
requirements of the general laws and the implementing admin rules and regulations, it
is only for their violation that the FDA may revoke the said license.
By the same token, it is only for the violation of such conditions that the mayor may
revoke the said permit.
Macailing vs.
Andrada
A party appealed the decision of the Sec. of
Agriculture and Natural Resources to the Office of
the President after said decision has become final
and executory.
Has A, etc., lost their right to appeal to the office
of the President?
YES,
Certiorari the appropriate remedy for review of admin action. Some statutes specially
provide for such judicial review; others are silent. Where the law stands mute, the
accepted view is that the extraordinary remedies in the Rules of Court are still available.
In admin law, an admin regulation adopted pursuant to law, has the force and effect of
law. The decision of the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources becomes final 30
days after receipt by the interested parties, EXCEPT in cases of mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, default or excusable neglect, in which case the Sec. may relieve a party of a
decision taken against him upon application made within 1 year after such decision is
taken. (AO #6)
Admin rule laid down by a Dept. Secretary is to all intents and purposes that of the
President unless countermanded by the latter.
When there are vested rights already acquired after decision has become final and
executory, the decision of the assistant Exec. Sec. reversing the decision of the Dept.

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 2 of 9

Sec. is null and void and of no effect.
Nation Multi-Service
Labor Union vs.
Agcaoili
3 unfair labor cases practice cases filed with the
NLRC. The matter was passed upon by the NLRC
and lastly by the Sec. of Labor.
A Hotel, Inc. instituted with the RTC of Manila and
without notice and hearing, it issued a preliminary
restraining order/prohibition.
Did the RTC Judge commit grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the restraining
order/prohibition?
YES. The issuing of restraining order was committed with grave abuse of discretion.
The appropriate step to take if private respondents were dissatisfied was to appeal to
the President.
Appeal to President is a remedy both adequate and appropriate. From the procedural
point of view, the prohibition is available only if theres no remedy by appeal.
PAL, Inc. vs. Civil
Aeronautics Board
PAL, Inc. filed a special civil action of certiorari to
set aside an order of the CAB granting provisional
authority to an air line operator to operate aircrafts,
alleging denial of due process.
1. Is certiorari available as a remedy against
admin agencies like CAB?
YES. What we have here is the special civil action of certiorari enabling a person
aggrieved to complain against any tribunal/board/officer exercising functions judicial in
character acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Requirement of due process was observed by CAB.
Quintos, Jr. vs.
National Stud Farm
Q, race-horse owner, did not move for the
reconsideration of the cancellation of his horses
certificate of registration nor appeal to superior
admin agency, before instituting a suit in court for
damages.
The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of
exhaustion of admin. Remedies.
CA certified the case to SC since it found that a
purely legal question was involved, to wit: WON the
trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Does Q have a valid cause for complaint?
NONE.
Suit is prematurely instituted. He gives no reason for his failure to exhaust admin
remedies. The order of dismissal, therefore, certainly cannot be considered as being in
derogation of the due process guarantee.
The precise function of doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining
whether the admin agency has determined some question or some aspect of some
question arising in the proceeding before the court.
In this case, there was an unwarranted disregard of the concept of primary jurisdiction.
The stage for ripeness for judicial review had not been reached.
Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. vs.
CA
IEI was granted a coal operating contract by the
govt thru the Bureau of Devt Energy (BED). IEI was
later advised that the logical area operator in the
area should be MMIC.
Thus, IEI and MMIC executed a memorandum of
agreement whereby IEI assigned to MMIC all the
formers rights in the 2 coal blocks covered by its
coal operating contract.
Subsequently, an action for rescission of the
memorandum agreement was filed against MMIC
and Sec. of Energy.
WON the civil court has jurisdiction to hear and
decide the suit for rescission of the memo
agreement concerning a coal operating contract
over coal blocks.
Considering PD 1206 and PD 972, the jurisdiction of the BED, in the 1
st
instance, to pass
upon any question involving the Memo of Agreement between IEI and MMIC, revolving
as it does around a coal operating contract, should be sustained.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies in this case since the question of what coal
areas should be exploited and developed and which entity should be granted coal
operating contracts over said areas involves a technical determination by the BED.
HOWEVER, the application of the doctrine in this case does NOT call for the dismissal of
the case below. It need only be suspended until after the matters within the
competence of the BED are examined and determined.
The petition for review of the decision of the CA holding that it is the BED that has the
power to decide controversies relative to the exploration/exploitation and devt of coal
blocks is denied.
Sec. Of Agriculture
and Natural
Resources vs. Judge
of the CFI
Appeal Appeal to the courts was taken within
reglementary period of 30 days counted not from the
receipt of the decision, but from the denial of the
motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Sec.
of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Should the time during which the motion for
reconsideration was pending be deducted from
the 30-day period for taking the decision to court?
Yes. Appeal to court is to be made as in ordinary civil action; it means that it will be
taken thereto by way of an appeal OR for review.
The time during which a motion to set aside has been pending shall be deducted.
The right to appeal form a decision of the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources is a
statutory right; it can be invoked only in accordance with the manner which the
legislature has provided for the purpose..
Aratuc vs. COMELEC
Petitioners brought the resolution of the Board of
Canvassers declaring result of the voting to the
COMELEC which subsequently declared the final
result of the canvass.
Whether the petitions should be granted or
dismissed for lack of merit.
From the Phil. Constitution and the Election Code of 1978, it is evident that there is
definite tendency to enhance and invigorate the role of the COMELEC as the
independent constitutional body charged with the safeguarding of free, peaceful and
honest elections. Actuations of the comelec are final, executory and even inappealable.

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 3 of 9

The petition alleged that comelec exceeded its
jurisdiction and denied due process to petitioner M;
such raised pure questions of law; the comelec
committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Petitioners invoke SCs certiorari jurisdiction over
the COMELEC, not its appellate jurisdiction.
However, the Supreme Court have the certiorari jurisdiction over orders, rulings and
decisions of the COMELEC but this is confined only to instances of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process. (when certiorari
jur. may be invoked?)
Certiorari deals exclusively with grave abuse of discretion, which may not exist even
when the decision is otherwise erroneous. It implies an indifferent disregard of law,
arbitrariness and caprice and omission to weigh pertinent considerations, a decision
arrived at without rational deliberation.
Review includes digging into the merits and unearthing errors of judgment.
Elks Club vs. Rovira
The form of petition against CIR is that of a special
civil action of certiorari but appeal by certiorari is
intended.
Appellant contended that the CIR has jurisdiction
only to consider industrial and agricultural disputes;
and the controversy between the petitioner and its
labourers and employees is not an industrial
dispute, because petitioner is not an industrial
organization.
May the SC pass upon this question?
NO.
Special civil action of certiorari only question that may be raised is whether or not the
respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion.
Appeal by certiorari (petition for review on certiorari) mode of appeal; raises
questions of law
The question whether or not the petitioner corporation is an industrial organization
taking into consideration its purpose and activities that can be determined only by the
evidence, if there is any in the record, CANNOT now be pass upon because:
1. Only questions of law may be raised on appeal, and
2. From the records of the court below, it does not appear that such question has
never been raised in the lower court.

CIR vs. Eznar
CTAs resolution enjoins the Collector of Internal
Revenue from enforcing collection of the alleged
income tax liability of a taxpayer thru summary
admin methods.
He filed a petition for review by certiorari/ appeal by
certiorari (in which notice of appeal is not
necessary). But a notice of appeal was filed
May the SC consider the questions of facts
involved in the controversy?
YES
Two ways of elevating ruling, etc. of CTA to SC:
1. By filing in the court a quo a notice of appeal and with SC a petition for review
within 30 days from the date he receives notice of said ruling, order or decision
adverse to him
- Court would go over the evidence on record and pass upon the questions of
fact
2. By causing such ruling of the CTA likewise reviewed by the SC upon a writ of
certiorari
- Court only pass upon issues involving questions of law
SC may interchangeably consider petitions for review as petitions for writ of certiorari
and vice versa when the interest of justice so demands
Collector of Internal Reference filed notice of appeal with the CTA (petition for review);
the SC said that no matter how inappropriate may be the wording of the petition filed
in this instance, it could not conceal that respondents intention was to appeal the
matter to SC, as otherwise he would not have filed the notice of appeal which is
required in petitions for review.
SC passed upon not only the legal issues involved but ALSO the findings of facts upon
which the decision of the CTA is based.

Blanco vs. The Board
of Medical
Petition for mandamus asks the SC to order the
Sec. of Interior to confirm the final results of the
Is this official duty of the Sec. of Interior
ministerial in nature?
NO.
The duty of secretary is discretionary under the law.

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 4 of 9

Examiners physicians examinations.
Medical Law provides that the results of all
examinations including the average and grades
obtained by each applicant shall be submitted for
confirmation to the Department Head (Sec. of
Interior) and make known to the respective
candidates within one month after the date of the
exam.
Under the plain terms of the Med. Law, it is the discretionary duty of the Sec. to confirm
or, as in this instance, to annul the report of the medical exam.
To hold that the secretary must in all cases confirm, shutting his eyes to any irregularity,
no matter how glaring/evident, would convert him into an automatic rubber stamp for
imprinting the requisite approval.
Writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of the discretion of a
public officer.
Likewise, mandamus may issue to correct abuse of discretion, if the case is otherwise
proper. But here, the record discloses that the Sec. of Interior did not exercise the
power granted to him with manifest injustice, or with grave abuse.
Policarpio vs. Phil
Veterans Board
RTC declared for the issuance of writ of mandamus to
compel the release of treasury warrants which were
delivered to petitioner P, but subsequently stopped,
for the reason that the preparation of warrants was
ordered by mistake because petition had not been as
yet acted upon by the Board.
Was it proper for the RTC to compel the delivery
of warrants?
NO.
The RTC improperly intervened in ordering delivery, it being established facts that the
resumption of pension had not yet been approved by the Veterans Board. The Board
might, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to restore petitioners pension; and even
if its refusal should be wrongful or erroneous, the court could not properly intervene
until the appellee-petitioner should have exhausted her administrative remedies.
Therefore the RTC should have limited itself into ordering the Board to take action upon
Ps petition that her pension payments be resumed.
Chua Hiong vs.
Deportation Board
Proceedings were instituted before the
Deportation Board against CH who is alleged to
have secured the cancellation of his alien
certificate of registration with the Bureau of
Immigration through fraud and misrepresentation.
CH filed petition for prohibition asking to prohibit
the Deportation Board from continuing
deportation proceedings against him who claims
to be a Filipino Citizen.
Should the question of alienage or citizenship be
decided first in a judicial proceeding suspending
the deportation proceedings in the meantime?
YES.
Jurisdiction of Deportation Board is dependent upon alienage of CH in deportation
proceedings.
- The power to deport is limited to aliens only.
- If the alienage of CH is not denied, the Boards jurisdiction and its proceedings are
unassailable.
- If the respondent is admittedly a citizen, or conclusively shown to be such, the
Board lacks jurisdiction and its proceedings are null and void ab initio and may
summarily enjoined in the courts.
A respondent in deportation proceedings, who claims to be a citizen and not therefore
subject to deportation, has the right to have his citizenship reviewed by the courts,
after deportation proceedings.
- When the evidence submitted by a respondent in a deportation proceeding is
conclusive of this citizenship, the right to immediate review should be recognized
and the courts should promptly join the deportation proceedings. If he is a citizen
and evidence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense of justice in allowing the
deportation proceedings to continue; granting him the remedy only after the
Board has finished its investigation of his undesirability.
- Jurisdictional fact alienage.
However, judicial determination is not allowed in all cases. The remedy should be
allowed only when the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence
supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for
the belief that the claim is correct.
In the case at bar, SC finds that only an impartial judicial investigation can evaluate the
evidence, with fairness to the petitioner and with justice to all concerned.
Cabanero vs. Torres Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, licensed to Does ground exist from the issuance of a writ of No ground exists for issuance of writ.

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 5 of 9

recruit, contract and embark labourers for the
Territory of Hawaii, renewed its license.
Petitioner objected alleging that the association
had no juridical personality in the Philippines.
Respondent Sec. of Labor issued a provisional
license to the association, but is subject to the
condition that the license will ipso facto expire
after 90 days, upon a satisfactory showing that it
had already acquired a juridical personality under
the laws of the Phil Islands by registration as a
foreign corporation company/association.
Petition for writ of prohibition was filed by
petitioners to prohibit the Sec. of Labor form
renewing license to recruit labourers or issuing
new license.
prohibition? Prohibition is not the proper remedy.
Its function is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done; not intended to
provide remedy for acts already accomplished. If the thing be already done, it manifests
that the writ of prohibition cannot undo it for that would require an affirmative act.
Its only effect is to suspend all action, and to prevent any further proceeding in the
prohibited direction.
The secretary has thus announced in his petition that no new license will be issued,
unless the Association duly registers itself before any license may be issued under the
law.
Lemi vs. Valencia
Petitioner L applied for renewal of his license to
operate radio station and paid its corresponding
fees. But the Radio Control Office did not acted at
all on this application, so L continued the
operation.
L again applied for another renewal of license and
again the RCO took no action on it.
Respondents served a search warrant issued by
the RTC and seized the transmitter then being
used by L for being different from the one he was
authorized to use for the purpose.
L prays for the return of his radio transmitters
seized under a search warrant.
Is there justification for the grant of the
preliminary writ of mandatory injunction prayed
for?
YES.
The seizure amounted to closure of station and/or non-renewal of license because by
reason of such seizure effected in the middle of a broadcasting program, Ls radio
station had to be discontinued.
Ls last application for renewal of license has not been disapproved. The SC believe that
the requirement of a hearing applied:
1. if a radio license is to be revoked or
2. before the Radio Control Office may lawfully do anything that, for all practical
purposes, would amount to such revocation
- because it makes it impossible for the radio station concerned to continue
broadcasting.
SC set forth grounds for entitling the writ of injunction:
1. To preserve the status quo between the parties AND to compel one of them to
perform a positive act in cases of extreme urgency
2. Where considerations of relative inconvenience are strongly in his favor
3. Where there appears to be a wilful invasion of petitioners right, the injury inflicted
in him being a continuing one
4. Where the effect of the writ would not be to create a new relation bet. the parties
but solely to re-establish a pre-existing relation bet. them recently and arbitrarily
interrupted by respondent.
CIR vs Reyes and CA
A petition for certiorari seeks to nullify resolution
of Court of Tax Appeals restraining the Collector
of Collector of Internal Revenue from collecting
taxes allegedly due from a taxpayer.
It contended that CTA disregard Sec. 305 of NIRC
prohibiting injunction to restrain collection of tax.
But Sec. 11 of RA No. 1125 prescribes for an appeal.
May the Collector of Internal Revenue be
restrained from proceeding with the collection,
levy, distraint and/or sale of any property of the
taxpayer?
YES.
Sec. 11 of RA 1125 must be deemed to have amended Sec. 305 of NIRC. It is premised on
the assumption that the collection by summary proceedings is by itself in accordance
with existing law; and then what is suspended is act of collecting, whereas in the case
at bar, what the respondent Court suspended was the use of method employed to
verify the collection which was evidently illegal after the lapse of the 3-yr limitation
period.
Azajar vs. Ardales
abd Bureau of Lands
In a complaint filed in the CFI, AZ seeks a
declaratory judgment or relief pleading that she
May appellants citizenship be determined in the
complaint for declaratory relief?
NO.
Complaint for declaratory judgment of relief is not a proper remedy for determination

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 6 of 9

applied for the purchase of a parcel of land
belonging to public domain.
FA opposed to the application on the ground that
AZ is a Chinese citizen.
Upon allegations in the complaint, she prays that
after due hearing, judgment be rendered declaring
her to be a Filipino citizen and be entitled to
acquire lands of the public domain.
of citizenship.
- If she is a Filipino citizen as she claims, she should go ahead with the
administrative proceedings in the Bureau of Lands and submit the
evidence to prove her citizenship.
- The appellant may resort to courts, if the exercise of her rights as citizen
be prevented or denied her exercise of her rights as a Filipino citizen, to
allow her to exercise such rights.
- Such is not the action brought t=herein. Consequently, the court below
should have dismissed it.
It is true that CFIs have general jurisdiction for all cases except those the cognizance of
which have been vested by law in other courts. BUT it is not the jurisdiction of the court
below that is involved but the availability of the remedy sought on the basis of the
averments in the complaint.
Bureau of Lands Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources
- The court may only compel the Director of Lands or the Secretary on
appeal to decide any sale application as that is vested in them after all
admin remedies shall have been exhausted.
Chang Yung Pa vs.
Guanzon
Petitioner prays in a declaratory relief that the CFI
of Manila declare if the Commissioner of
Immigration (in Commonwealth Act. No. 613) has
a right to limit period of stay in the Philippines of
petitioners as immigrants.
Appellants contend that they should have been
admitted for permanent residence in this country
because the word immigrant is defined to be a
person who comes into the country and
permanent residence and therefore the imposition
of limiting their stay to not more than 2 yrs by the
Commissioner is in violation of law
Is the contention of appellants tenable?
NO.
The Act makes its own definition, which is, that the term immigrant means any alien
departing from any place outside the Phil. destined for the Phil.
The limitation imposed upon petitioner as regards their stay in the Philippines by the
Commissioner of Immigration does NO violence to the law since it does not clearly
appear therein that such class of aliens can only be admitted with the status of
permanent residence.
Mejoff vs. Director
of Prisons
Alien who was ordered to be deported had been
in detention for more than 2 years because the
Government had been unable to ship him abroad.
Is M entitled to protection equally with citizens?
YES.
The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for
crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to phil. citizens but extends
to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.
M must be released from custody but be placed under reasonable surveillance of the
immigration authorities to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Govt is
ready to deport him. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Phil. in its constitution adopts
the generally accepted principles of law as part of the law of the land.
Board of
Immigration
Commissioners vs.
Domingo
Board of Special Inquiry recommended the
exclusion and deportation of M, who was said to
be an alien who entered the country through false
& misleading statements.
M filed in the RTC of Pangasinan a petition for
declaratory judgment with mandamus and
injunction asking that he be declared a Filipino
Was M entitled to the declaratory judgment he
filed in the trial court?
NO.
The proper remedy to test legality of detention is habeas corpus and NOT an action for
declaratory judgment with incidental mandamus to release him.
The action should be brought in Manila where he was detained.

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 7 of 9

Citizen and to restrain his deportation and order
his release.
Ignacio vs. CA
Re: Homestead application in the Bureau of Lands
Regional Land Officer Director of Lands Sec.
of Agriculture and Natural Resources Office of
the President (thru Assistant Exec. Sec.)
LB filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC for
review and annulment of the decision, alleging
that the decision was rendered with grave abuse
of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction.
RTC dismissed the petition for failing to allege any
error committed by exec. Sec. in his findings of
facts/conclusions which would constitute a grave
abnuse of discretion as required by R65.
LB appealed to CA which certified the case to SC
as one having only questions of law.
1. Are the issues raised by LB before the CA
involved only pure questions of law?
2. Assuming there was error committed by
the Exec. Sec., did it constitute a grave
abuse of discretion and consequently,
annullable by certiorari?
1. YES.
The issues raised by LB involved only pure questions of law, not calling for an
examination of the probative value of evidence. The only issue is the correction of the
legal conclusions drawn or the construction made by the trial judge of the pleadings or
averments in LBs petition before said court.
Question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what is the law on a certain
state of facts.
Question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of the
facts alleged.
2. NO.
The alleged error of the Exec. Sec. is merely an error of judgment, not constituting
grave abuse of discretion and consequently, not annullable by certiorari.
Findings of facts by executive officials generally conclusive upon the courts.
Decisions of admin officers should NOT be disturbed, EXCEPT when they have acted:
1. Without or in excess of their jurisdiction; or
2. With grave abuse of discretion
When grave abuse of discretion committed-
The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. Not every error in the proceeding or
erroneous conclusion of law or fact is abuse of discretion.
Orlina vs. Singson
Encarnacion
Director of Lands rejected sale application for a
tract of public land on his conclusion from the
facts found that the applicant was a Chinese
citizen.
O seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus
directed against the Sec. of Agriculture and
Commerce and the Dir. Of Lands, for the purpose
of compelling them to give due course to his sales
application for a tract of public land.
Was the question of law if O should be
considered a Filipino citizen arising from the
undisputed evidence, correctly decided upon by
the Dir. Of Lands?
NO.
The Director of Lands performs his functions pursuant to the provisions of the Public
Land Law. Acc. to it, the Dir. Of Lands is vested with direct executive control over land
matters and his decisions as to question of fact shall be conclusive on the courts WHEN
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce.
As a QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICER, the Dir. of Lands makes findings of fact, even passes
upon questions of mixed fact and law, and considers and decides the qualifications of
applicants for the purchase of public lands.
The decisions of Director of Lands on the construction of the Public Land
Law were entitled to great respect by the courts.
BUT, certain decisions of the director are subject to review by the courts, such as
decisions/actions which is based upon a misconstruction of the law. They can be
corrected by the courts.
In this case, facts show that petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
Gonzales vs. Victory
Labor Union
The charge of unfair labor practice is based on the
bare testimony of complainants.
Whether or not the conclusion of the bare
majority of the Court of Industrial Relations that
complainants were dismissed for their union
application meet the test of substantial evidence.
The testimonies of complainants witnesses were contradictory.
Being contradictory, it clearly indicates that the employer has no knowledge of their
membership at the time.
When an employee has committed an act unfavourable to the employers interest, his
dismissal is just cause and may be permitted by the SC.
Edwards vs. McCoy British subject under detention was denied entry Is the decision of the Board final where no abuse YES.

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 8 of 9

by the Board of Special Inquiry on the ground that
he was a person of Chinese descent. It is urged
that no abuse of authority or discretion by the
board has been shown.
of authority is shown? The right to adduce evidence is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom
the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration.
The body to which the law permits the presentation of evidence is undoubtedly
designed by the law to be a deliberative body. Deliberation is its chief function. If it
declines to deliberate, it abdicates its function and its decisions are entitled to no more
consideration than if made with no hearing at all.
To deliberate is also to have something to support its decision.
If the decision has absolutely nothing to support it, it is subject to judicial review -
because the drawing of such decision is an arbitrary act, an abuse of discretion and
wholly, without authority.
Decision in case at bar based upon conceded facts.
HE Heacock Co. vs.
National Labor
Union
Court of Industrial Relations found that the
company made a promise that a bonus of one
month salary would be distributed to all its low-
salaried employees yearly as long as the company
would realize sufficient profits.
This is based on the newspaper advertisement
which featured Heacock Supplement.
When this was not realized, the employees
declared a strike. After a hearing, the CIR rendered
a decision ordering company to pay the
employees.
Mr. Orosa, VP of the company, contends that he
has never assumed the obligation of paying bonus.

Is there evidence to support the findings of the
CIR?
YES.
There was no denial or correction made by the company of newspaper advertisement
re: promise to give bonus.
The CIR gave no weight to the denial of Mr. Orosa, and observed that the latter was
aware, or should have read and known the Supplemental in question, and his failure to
make any correction or denial of its contents shortly after its publication negates any
stand now taken by him.
Energy Regulatory
Board vs. CA
Shell filed with the former Bureau of Energy
Utilization an application for authority to relocate
its Station still within Pasay City (but nearer to
PDSC, another gasoline station)
PDSC opposed the application contending that
ruinous competition will result from the
establishment of the proposed new station and
that there is a decline in the volume of sales in the
area.
Shell asserts that the construction of an advanced
gasoline station in the area is a necessity dictated
by the emerging economic landscape.
ERB approved Shells application.
CA reversed ERBs decision on the ground that
there is no substantial evidence to support its
decision.
The propriety of building such a modern edifice is
the bone of contention in the consolidated
petitions for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court.
SC disagrees with CA. The decision of ERB was supported by substantial evidence: hard
economic data on devtal projects, residential subdivision listings, population count,
public conveyances, commercial establishments, traffic count, fuel demand, growth of
private cars, public utility vehicles, etc.
It is NOT for the reviewing court (like CA) to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine
the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the
AA on the sufficiency of evidence.
Admin decision in matters within the executive decision can only be set aside on proof
of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.
ERB is in a better position to resolve Shells application, being primarily the agency
possessing the necessary expertise on the matter, not the appellate courts.
In this regard, it is the policy of the govt to allow a free interplay of market with
minimal govt supervision. This is to liberalize the downstream oil industry in order to
ensure a truly competitive market under a regime of fair prices, adequate and
continuous supply, environmentally clean and high-quality petroleum products. Indeed,
exclusivity of any franchise has not been favoured by courts.
The mere possibility of reduction in the earnings of a business is not sufficient to prove
ruinous competition.
Caspena vs. Salisi En banc order of Public Service Commission Must en banc order be set aside? YES.

Gil Mae N. Huelar Administrative Law, Chapter 6 Case Digest, De Leon - Page 9 of 9

setting aside a decision of its division does not
recite any circumstance to justify reversal.
The Commission en banc when passing upon a motion for reconsideration of a decision
rendered by division occupies, by analogy, the position of a reviewing court, and hence,
would ordinarily be bound by factual findings made in the decision except:
1. Where such findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises/guesswork,
or conjectures; or
2. When based on an inference that is manifestly mistaken, absurd or are impossible
or conflicting
3. When based on misapprehension of facts or mistake
4. When findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties.
There are no contrary findings of fact made to justify reversal order since it is the
same commission with full membership that acted to rule upon motions for
reconsideration of decisions of its 2 divisions.
Borja vs. Moreno
An admin complaint was filed with the office of
the Sec. of Public Works and Communications
against landowners for abatement of nuisance
and demolition of illegality constructed dams.
Secretary ordered the removal of dams.
Does the substantial evidence rule in admin
decisions apply to the adjudications of a claim of
private ownership of property vis-vis the govt?
YES.
Where substantial evidence rule applicable, courts are bound to look NO further. But a
decision of the admin official which carries with it a finding that certain property
claimed by a private party to be his while in fact is a public domain findings are not
conclusive upon the courts even if supported by substantial evidence.
There is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the Secretary that the stream
is a public navigable river. (testimonies of a farmer and a fisherman, and of the result of
the ocular inspection conducted by the investigator as embodied in the report
subsequently submitted by him and depicted in a sketch prepared by an assistant
engineer)
HOWEVER, the investigation wherein the evidenced receive was conducted with
manifest disregard to the requirements of due process.