Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at any time directly or collaterally by
means of a separate action or proceeding where it is invoked. [Garcia v. Molina (2010)]
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process lies simply in the opportunity to explain ones side or to
seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. What is proscribed is the absolute lack of notice or
hearing. [Office of the Ombudsman v. Coronel (2006)]
Due process does not require that actual taking of testimony be before the same officer who will decide the case. As
long as a party is not deprived of his right to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof, and the
decision is supported by the evidence in the record, there is no question that the requirements of due process and fair
trial are fully met [American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents(1975)]
The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely
to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees,
with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service [Lumiqued v. Exevea (1997)]
Presence of a party at a trial is not always the essence of due process. All that the law requires to satisfy adherence to
this constitutional precept is that the parties be given notice of the trial, an opportunity to be heard. Where the
defendant failed to appear on the date set for the trial, of which he was previously notified, he is deemed to have
forfeited his right to be heard in his defense [Asprec v. Itchon (1966)]
All that the law requires is the element of fairness; that the parties be given notice of trial and
(1) An opportunity to be heard
(2) In administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek reconsideration
(3) Anopportunitytoexplainonesside
Any defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and that denial of
due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who was afforded the opportunity to be heard [Vivo v.
PAGCOR (2013)]
Is a trial necessary?NO. Holding of an adversarial trial is discretionary. Parties cannot demand it as a matter of
right. [Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. NLRC (1978)].
BUT the right of a party to confront and cross- examine opposing witness is a fundamental right which is part of
due process. If without his fault, this right is violated, he is entitled to have the direct examination stricken off the
record. [Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. CIR (1978)]
While the right to cross-examine is a vital element of procedural due process, the right does not necessarily require
an actual cross examination but merely an opportunity to exercise this right if desired by the party entitled to it.
[Gannapao v. CSC (2011)]
Admin. Code, Bk. VII, Sec. 14. Section 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case
shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency shall
decide each case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the decision
personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to them.
Exception (to #3 only): Notice and hearing not required in cases of (a) willful violation of
pertinent laws, rules and regulations or (b) when public security, health, or safety require
otherwise. [Sec. 17(2)]
NOTE: Under the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency [see Villena v. Secretary of Interior (1939)], a decision of
the department head generally need not be appealed to the Office of the President, since the department head (e.g.
Secretary) is the alter ego of the President, and the formers acts are presumably the Presidents. However, the
doctrine does not apply when (a) the act is repudiated by the President, or (b) the act is required (by law) to be
performed specifically by the department head.
Administrative Res Judicata
APPLICABLE WHEN:
The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of
purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary in nature;
hence, res judicata does not apply. [Nasipit Lumber Co. v. NLRC (1989)]
Requisites:
. (1) The former judgment must be final;
. (2) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
. (3) It must be a judgment on the merits; and
. (4) There must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action [Ipekdijan Merchandising v. CTA (1963)]
When the administrative proceedings take on an adversary character, the doctrine ofres judicata certainly applies.
[Heirs of Maximino Derla v. Heirs of Catalina Derla Vda. De Hipolito, (Apr. 13, 2011)]
EFFECT:
Decisions and orders of administrative bodies rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority have, upon their
finality, the force and effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata, which forbids the
reopening of matters once judicially determined by competent authorities.
General Rule: Res judicata does not apply in administrative adjudication relative to citizenship
Exception: for res judicata to be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:
(1) A person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party;
(2) The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof;
(3) the finding or citizenship is affirmed by SC [Board of Commissioners v. De la Rosa (1991)]
Res judicata may not be invoked in labor relations proceedings because they are non- litigious and summary in
nature. [Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. v. NLRC (1989)]
The basis of administrative liability differs from criminal liability. The purpose of administrative proceedings is
mainly to protect the public service, based on the time- honored principle that a public office is a public trust. On the
other hand, the purpose of the criminal prosecution is the punishment of crime. [Ferrer v. Sandiganbayan (2008)]
XPN:
xxx Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or
collusion. [San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC (1975)]
Rationale:
(1) There is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and
jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute;
(2) The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the
substantial rights of the parties;
(3) It is that part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and
unjust adjudications. [St. Martins Funeral Homes v. NLRC (1998)]
EFFECT:
While no prejudicial question strictly arises where one is a civil case and the other is an administrative proceeding,
in the interest of good order, it behooves the court to suspend its action on the cases before it pending the final
outcome of the administrative proceedings [Vidad v. RTC (1993)]
All the proceedings of the court in violation of the doctrine and all orders and decisions rendered thereby are null
and void [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp. (2013)]
NOTE:
The court may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction sua sponte and its invocation cannot be waived by the failure of
the parties
to argue it as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power between judicial
and administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties [Euro-Med
Laboratories Phil., Inc. v. Province of Batangas
(2006)]
Rationale:
(1) Legal reason: The law prescribes a procedure.
(2) Practical reason: To give the agency a chance to correct its own errors and prevent unnecessary and premature
resort to the courts
(3) Reasons of comity: Expedience, courtesy, convenience.
FAILURE TO EXHAUST:
A direct action in court without prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, when required, is premature, warranting
its dismissal on a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action.
Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the Courts jurisdiction.
If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try
it [Republic v. Sandiganbayan (1996)]