QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

A. GENERAL
Are government-owned or controlled corporations within the scope and meaning of the
“Government of the Philippines”? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 2 of the Introductory Provision of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines the government of
the Philippines as the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are
exercised throughout the Philippines, including, same as the contrary appears from the context, the
various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to
the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivision or other forms of local
government.
Government-owned or controlled corporation are within the scope and meaning of the Government of
the Philippines if they are performing governmental or political functions.
PRINCIPLES
some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions, and
government-owned or controlled corporation. [Section 3(10), Introductory Provisions, Administrative
Code of 1987; Mactan Cebu v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667 (1996)].
1. The Department of Public Works and Highways is an agency of the government, because it is a
department.
2. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is a government instrumentality, because it is vested with the special
function of being the central monetary authority, and enjoys operational autonomy through its charter.
(Section 1, Republic Act No. 7653.)
3. The Philippine Ports Authority is a government instrumentality, because it is merely attached to the
Department of Transportation and Communication, it is vested with the special function of regulating
ports, and it is endowed with all corporate powers through its charter. (Sections 4(a) and 6 (a)(2),
Presidential Decree No. 857.)

B. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES 4. The Land Transportation Office is an agency of the government, because it is an office under the
Department of Transportation and Communication. (Section 4(a), Republic Act No. 4136.)
Administrative Agencies
1. Definition 5. The Land Bank of the Philippines is a government instrumentality, because it is vested with the
2. Manner of creation special function of financing agrarian reform, it is endowed with all corporate powers, and it enjoys
3. Kinds autonomy through a charter. (Section 74, Agrarian Land Reform Code.)

State with reason(s) which of the following is a government agency or a government
instrumentality:
1. Department of Public Works and Highway; 2. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas;
3. Philippine Ports Authority;
4. Land Transportation Office;
5. Land Bank of the Philippines. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An agency of the government refers to any of the various units of the government, including a
department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local
government or a distinct unit therein. [Section 2(4j, Introductory Provisions, Administrative Code of
1987; Mactan Cebu v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667 (1996)].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An agency is defined as any government authority other than a court or a legislative body which affects
private rights, either through rule-making or adjudication.
Agency includes any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National
Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or
privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to licensing functions; government
corporations with respect to functions regulating private rights, privileges, occupation or business; and
officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law. (Book VII, Chapter 1, Sec. 2,
Administrative Code of 1987).
In view of this definition, all of the above mentioned are considered agencies because they perform
either adjudicative or rule-making function.

An instrumentality of the government refers to any agency of the national government, not integrated
within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with C. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Which one of the following theories does not support the valid delegation of authority by the
Congress to an administrative agency: (2012 BAR EXAMS)
a. an administrative agency may "fill up the details" of a statute;
b. the legislature may leave to another body the ascertainment of facts necessary to bring the
law into actual operation;
c. an administrative agency has equal expertise with the legislature in crafting and implementing
laws;
d. contingent legislation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
D. UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS BF HOMES INC. 310 SCRA 304
Which one of the enumeration below does not come under the Administrative Code definition of
a "rule": (2012 BAR EXAMS)
a. agency statement of general applicability that implements or interprets a law; b. fixes and
describes the procedures in or practice requirements of, an agency; c. includes memoranda and
statements concerning internal administration;
d. an agency process for the formulation of a final order.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(D) Section 2(2), Chapter 1, Book Vii Of Administrative Code
The requirement of the Administrative Code on "public participation" is that, if not otherwise
required by law, an agency shall: (2012 BAR EXAMS)
a. in all cases, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the
opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule;
b. in all clear and proper cases, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford
interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule;
c. as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford the party-list
parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule;
d. as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested
parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(D) Section 9(1), Chapter 2, Book Vii Of Administrative Code
Under the Administrative Code, "adjudication" means: (2012 BAR EXAMS)
a. whole or any part of any agency permit, certificate, or other form of permission, or regulation
of the exercise of a right or privilege;
b. an agency process for the formulation of a final order;
c. agency process for the formulation, amendment, or repeal of a rule;
d. agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial, revocation or conditioning of a license.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) SECTION 2(9), CHAPTER 1, BOOK VII OF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
One of the cardinal primary due process rights in administrative proceedings is that evidence
must be "substantial." "Substantial evidence" is: (2012 BAR EXAMS)
a. less than a mere scintilla;
b. less than preponderant scintilla;
c. more than a glint of scintilla;
d. more than a mere scintilla.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(D) Ang Tibay Vs Court Of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635
Under the Administrative Code, in the fixing of rates, no rules or final order shall be valid unless:
(2012 BAR EXAMS)
a. the proposed rates shall have been submitted to the U.P. Law Center for publication at least
two weeks before the first hearing thereon;
b. the proposed rates shall have been published in the Official Gazette at least two weeks before
the final hearing thereon;
c. the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least
two weeks before the first hearing thereon;
d. the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least
two weeks before the final hearing thereon.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(C) Section 9(2), Chapter 2, Book Vii Of Administrative Code
The Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) passed a rule authorizing traffic enforcers to
impound illegally parked vehicles, for the first offense, and confiscate their registration plates
for the second. The MMDA issued this rule to implement a law that authorized it to suspend the
licenses of drivers who violate traffic rules. Is the MMDA rule valid? (2011 BAR)
(A) No, since the MMDA does not have rule-making power.
(B) Yes, it is a valid exercise of the power of subordinate legislation.
(C) Yes, it is an implicit consequence of the law upon which it acted.
(D) No, the rule goes beyond the sphere of the law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(D) No, the rule goes beyond the sphere of law.
A law authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to require the quarantine of animals that suffer
from dangerous communicable diseases at such place and for such time he deems necessary to
prevent their spread. The Secretary of Agriculture issued a regulation, imposing a penalty of
imprisonment for 10 days on persons transporting quarantined animals without his permission.
The regulation is (2011 BAR)
(A) a valid exercise of the power of subordinate legislation.
(B) invalid for being ultra vires.
(C) a valid exercise of police power.
(D) invalid for being discriminatory.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) invalid for being ultra vires
An administrative rule that fixes rates is valid only when the proposed rates are (2011 BAR)
(A) published and filed with the UP Law Center.
(B) published and hearings are conducted.
(C) published and posted in three public places.
(D) published and all stakeholders are personally notified.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) published and hearings are conducted
What is a quasi-judicial body or agency? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A quasi-judicial body is an administrative agency which performs adjudicative functions. Although it is
authorized by law to try and decide certain cases, it is not bound strictly by the technical rules of
evidence and procedure. However, it must observe the requirements of due process.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A quasi-judicial body is an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature which
affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule- making. (Presidential Anti-Dollar
Salting Task Force v Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 348, [1989]; EPZA v. CHR, 208 SCRA 125, [1992];
Carifio v. CHR 2045 SCRA 483, [1991]).
The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) issued new rules and regulations governing pilotage services
and fees, and the conduct of pilots in Philippine ports. This it did without notice, hearing nor consultation
with harbor pilots or their associations whose rights and activities are to be
substantially affected.
The harbor pilots then filed suit to have the new MARINA rules and regulations declared
unconstitutional for having been issued without due process. Decide the case. (2000)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The issuance of the new rules and regulations violated due process. Under Section 9, Chapter II, Book
VII of the Administrative Code of 1987, as far as practicable, before adopting proposed rules, an
administrative agency should publish or circulate notices of the proposed rules and afford interested
parties the opportunity to submit their views; and in the fixing of rates, no rule shall be valid unless the
proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks
before the first hearing on them. In accordance with this provision, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v. CA, 261 SCRA 236, it was held that when an administrative rule substantially increases the burden of
those directly affected, they should be accorded the chance to be heard before its issuance.
Procedural due process in administrative proceedings (2011 BAR)
(A) requires the tribunal to consider the evidence presented.
(B) allows the losing party to file a motion for reconsideration.
(C) requires hearing the parties on oral argument.
(D) permits the parties to file memoranda.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) requires the tribunal to consider the evidence presented
The ABC Realty. Inc. filed a complaint against Rico for the collection of unpaid installments on a
subdivision lot purchased by the latter. Rico failed to file an answer, was declared in default;
and after reception of plaintiff’s evidence ex parte, judgment was rendered against him. The
decision became final, and upon motion by ABC Realty, the judge issued a writ of execution.

Rico now files a motion to quash the writ and to vacate the Judgment contending that it is the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) which is vested with original and exclusive
Jurisdiction over cases involving the real estate business. Rico prays for the dismissal of the
complaint and for the nullity of the decision. The realty firm opposes the motion arguing that
under BP 129, RTCs have exclusive and original Jurisdiction over cases in which the amount of
controversy exceeds P20.000.00. Answer the following queries:
A. Who has jurisdiction over the collection suit? (1993 Bar Question)
B. The RTC decision, having become final and executory, can it still be vacated? (1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. As held in Estate Developers and Investors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 213 SCRA 353,
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1344, it is the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board which has
jurisdiction over the claim of a developer against a buyer for the payment of the balance of the purchase
price of a lot. The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over cases in which the amount of controversy
exceeds P20.000.00 exists only in all cases where the case does not otherwise fall within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
B. Yes, the decision of the Regional Trial Court can still be vacated, even if it has become final and
executory. Since the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the case, the decision is void.
The Manila Transportation Company applied for upward adjustment of its rates before the
Transportation Regulatory Board. Pending the petition, the TRB, without previous hearing,
granted a general nationwide provisional increase of rates. In another Order, TRB required the
company to pay the unpaid supervisory fees collectible under the Public Service Law. After due
notice and hearing, on the basis of the evidence presented by Manila Transportation Company
and the Oppositors, TRB issued an Order reducing the rates applied for by one-fourth.
Characterize the powers exercised by the TRB in this case and determine whether under the
present constitutional system the Transportation Regulatory Board can be validly conferred the
powers exercised by it in issuing the Orders given above. Explain. (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The orders in this case involve the exercise of judicial function by an administrative agency, and
therefore, as a general rule, the cardinal primary rights enumerated in Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635
(1940) must be observed. In Vigan Electric Light Co. v. PSC, 10 SCRA 46 (1964) it was held that a rate
order, which applies exclusively to a particular party and is predicated on a finding of fact, partakes of
the nature of a quasi judicial, rather than legislative, function.
The first order, granting a provisional rate increase without hearing, is valid if justified by urgent public
need, such as increase in the cost of fuel. The power of the Public Service Commission to grant such
increase was upheld in several cases. (Silva v. Ocampo, 90 Phil. 777 (1952); Halili v. PSC, 92 Phil.
1036 (1953))
The second order requiring the company to pay unpaid supervisory fees under the Public Service Act
cannot be sustained. The company has a right to be heard, before it may be ordered to pay. (Ang Tibay
v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (1940))
The third order can be justified. The fact that the TRB has allowed a provisional rate increase does not
bind it to make the order permanent if the evidence later submitted does not justify increase but, on the
contrary, warrants the reduction of rates.
The S/S “Masoy" of Panamanian registry, while moored at the South Harbor, was found to have
contraband goods on board. The Customs Team found out that the vessel did not have the
required ship’s permit and shipping documents. The vessel and its cargo were held and a
warrant of Seizure and Detention was issued after due investigation. In the course of the
forfeiture proceedings, the ship captain and the ship’s resident agent executed sworn
statements before the Custom legal officer admitting that contraband cargo were found aboard
the vessel. The shipping lines object to the admission of the statements as evidence contending
that during their execution, the captain and the shipping agent were not assisted by counsel, in
violation of due process. Decide. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The admission of the statements of the captain and the shipping agent as evidence did not violate due
process even if they were not assisted by counsel. In Feeder International Line, Pts, Ltd. v. Court of
Appeals, 197 SCRA 842, it was held that the assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due process
in forfeiture proceedings since such proceedings are not criminal in nature.
Moreover, the strict rules of evidence and procedure will not apply in administrative proceedings like
seizure and forfeiture proceedings. What is important is that the parties are afforded the opportunity to
be heard and the decision of the administrative authority is based on substantial evidence.
A complaint was filed by Intelligence agents of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID)
against Stevie, a German national, for his deportation as an undesirable alien. The Immigration
Commissioner directed the Special Board of Inquiry to conduct an investigation. At the said
investigation, a lawyer from the Legal Department of the BID presented as witnesses the three
Intelligence agents who filed the complaint. On the basis of the findings, report and
recommendation of the Board of Special Inquiry, the BID Commissioners unanimously voted for
Stevie's deportation. Stevie’s lawyer questioned the deportation order:
A. On the ground that Stevie was denied due process because the BID Commissioners who
rendered the decision were not the ones who received the evidence, in violation of the “He who
decides must hear" rule. Is he correct? (1994 Bar Question)
B. On the ground that there was a violation of due process because the complainants, the
prosecutor and the hearing officers were all subordinates of the BID Commissioners who
rendered the deportation decision. Is he correct? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. No, Stevie is not correct. As held in Adamson & Adamson, Inc. vs. Amores, 152 SCRA 237,
administrative due process does not require that the actual taking of testimony or the presentation of
evidence before the same officer who will decide the case.
In American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, 67 SCRA 287, the Supreme Court has ruled that so
long as the actual decision on the merits of the cases is made by the officer authorized by law to decide,
the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which his decision will be made can be delegated and is not
offensive to due process. The Court noted that: “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. In short,
there is no abrogation of responsibility on the part of the officer concerned as the actual decision
remains with and is made by said officer. It is, however, required that to give the substance of a hearing,
which is for the purpose of making determinations upon evidence the officer who makes the
determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them."
B. No, Stevie was not denied due process simply be-cause the complainants, the prosecutor, and the
hearing officers were all subordinates of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation. In accordance with the ruling in Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations,
110 Phil. 470, the findings of the subordinates are not conclusive upon the Commissioners, who have
the discretion to accept or reject them. What is important is that Stevie was not deprived of his right to
present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof, the decision is supported by substantial
evidence, and the commissioners acted on their own independent consideration of the law and facts of
the case, and did not simply accept the views of their subordinates in arriving at a decision.
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) found Atlantic Homes, Inc. liable in
damages arising from its delayed release of the title to the house and lot that it sold to
Josephine. Atlantic appealed to the Office of the President which rendered a one page decision,
affirming the attached HLURB judgment. Atlantic challenges the validity of the decision of the
Office of the President for not stating the facts and the law on which it is based. Is the challenge
correct? (2011 BAR)
(A)No, the Office of the President is governed by its own rules respecting review of
cases appealed to it.
(B)Yes, the decision of the Office of the President must contain its own crafted factual
findings and legal conclusions.
(C)Yes, administrative due process demands that the Office of the President make
findings and conclusions independent of its subordinate.
(D)No, the Office of the President is not precluded from adopting the factual findings
and legal conclusions contained in the HLURB decision.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(D)No, the Office of the President is not precluded from adopting the factual findings and legal
conclusions contained in the HLURB decision
Ting, a student of Bangkerohan University, was given a failing grade by Professor Mahigpit. Ting
confronted Professor Mahigpit at the corridor after class and a heated argument ensued. Cooler
heads prevented the verbal war ending in physical confrontation. Mahigpit left the campus and
went shopping in a department store. Ting saw Mahigpit and without any warning mauled the
latter. Mahigpit filed an administrative complaint against Ting before the Dean of Students for
breach of university rules and regulations. The Dean set the complaint for hearing. However,
Ting filed a petition before the RTC to prohibit the Dean and the school from investigating him
contending that the mauling Incident happened outside the school premises and therefore,
outside the school’s jurisdiction. The school and the Dean answered that the school can
investigate Ting since his conduct outside school hours and even outside of school premises
affect the welfare of the school; and furthermore, the case involves a student and faculty
member. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I would dismiss the petition. In Angeles u. Sison, 112 SCRA 26, it was held that
school can subject to disciplinary action a student who assaulted a professor outside the school
premises, because the misconduct of the student involves his status as a student or affects the good
name or reputation of the school. The misconduct of Ting directly affects his suitability as a student.
D. JUDICIAL REVIEW
In the judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies, the Administrative Code requires
that the review shall be made: (2012 BAR EXAMS)
a. on the basis of the pleadings taken as a whole;
b. on the basis of the record taken as a whole;
c. on the basis of the evidence taken as a whole;
d. on the basis of the memoranda taken as a whole.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) Section 25(7), Chapter 4, Book Vii Of Administrative Code
In the judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies, the Administrative Code requires
that, except when specifically provided otherwise by law: (2012 BAR EXAMS)
a. the findings of law of agency when supported by substantial evidence, shall be final;
b. the findings of fact of the agency when supported by preponderant evidence, shall be final;
c. the findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence, shall be
final;
d. the findings of law of the agency when supported by credible evidence, shall be final.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. the findings of fact of the agency when supported by preponderant evidence, shall be final
The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued
Memorandum Circular No. 123-15 prescribing the administrative requirements for the
conversion of a timber license agreement (TLA) into an Integrated Forestry Management
Agreement (IFMA). ABC Corporation, a holder of a TLA which is about to expire, claims that the
conditions for conversion imposed by the said circular are unreasonable and arbitrary and a
patent nullity because it violates the non-impairment clause under the Bill of Rights of the 1987
Constitution.
ABC Corporation goes to court seeking the nullification of the subject circular. The DENR
moves to dismiss the case on the ground that ABC Corporation has failed to exhaust
administrative remedies which is fatal to its cause of action. If you were the judge, will you grant
the motion? EXPLAIN. 2015 BAR EXAMS
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable:
(1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, or
(2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction; or
(3) where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear
the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or
(4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, (Gonzales vs.
Hechanova, L-21897, October 22, 1963, 9 SCRA 230; Abaya vs. Villegas, L-25641, December 17,
1966, 18 SCRA; Mitra vs. Subido, L-21691, September 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 127)
Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
(Cipriano vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291), when there is no due process observed (Villanos vs. Subido, 45
SCRA 299), or where the protestant has no other recourse (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637)
A. Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
B. Does the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court oust said
court of jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain. (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies both
deal with the proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies. The doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an
administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been
completed. As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426, the doctrine of
primary Jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent Jurisdiction of the court and an
administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the
administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must
yield to the Jurisdiction of the administrative case.
B. No, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court does not oust the court
of jurisdiction to hear the case. As held in Rosario vs. Court of Appeals. 211 SCRA 384, the failure to
exhaust administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court but results in the lack of a
cause of action, because a condition precedent that must be satisfied before action can be filed was not
fulfilled.
Give the two (2) requisites for the judicial review of administrative decision/actions, that is, when
is an administrative action ripe for judicial review? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the conditions for ripeness for judicial review of an administrative action:
- The administrative action has already been fully completed and, therefore, a final agency action; and
- All administrative remedies have been exhausted. [Gonzales, Administrative Law, Rex Bookstore:
Manila, p. 136 (1979)].
On the basis of a verified report and confidential information that various electronic equipment,
which were illegally imported into the Philippines, were found in the bodega of the Tikasan
Corporation located at 1002 Binakayan St., Cebu City, the Collector of Customs of Cebu issued,
in the morning of 2 January 1988, a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the corporation for
the seizure of the electronic equipment. The warrant particularly describes the electronic
equipment and specifies the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code which were violated by
the importation.
The warrant was served and implemented in the afternoon of 2 January 1988 by Customs
policemen who then seized the described equipment. The inventory of the seized articles was
signed by the Secretary of the Tikasan Corporation. The following day, a hearing officer in the
Office of the Collector of Customs conducted a hearing on the confiscation of the equipment.
Two days thereafter, the corporation filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus to set aside the warrant, enjoin the Collector and his agents from
further proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and to secure the return of the confiscated
equipment, alleging therein that the warrant issued is null and void for the reason that, pursuant
to Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, only a judge may issue a search warrant. In his
comment to the petition, the Collector of Customs, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
contends that he is authorized under the Tariff and Custom Code to order the seizure of the
equipment whose duties and taxes were not paid and that the corporation did not exhaust
administrative remedies.
A. If the Court would sustain the contention of the Collector of Customs on the matter of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, what is the administrative remedy available to the
corporation? (1991 Bar Question)
B. What are the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies? (1991 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. As pointed out in Chia vs. Acting Collector of Customs, 177 SCRA 753, the administrative remedy
available under Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code is to appeal to the Commissioner of
Customs, from whose decision an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals lies.
B. The following are the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies:
- The case deals with private land;
- The question involved is purely legal;
- The case involves a quo warranto proceeding;
- There is denial of due process;
- The decision is patently illegal;
- The aggrieved party will suffer irreparable injury;
- There is estoppel;
- Resort to administrative remedies would be futile;
- The decision is that of a department head;
- The law expressly provides for immediate judicial review;
- Public interest is involved;
- There was unreasonable delay in the administrative proceedings; and - The aggrieved party is poor.
For being notoriously undesirable and a recidivist, Jose Tapulan, an employee in the first level
of the career service in the Office of the Provincial Governor of Masbate, was dismissed by the
Governor without formal investigation pursuant to Section 40 of the Civil Service Decree (P.D.
No. 807) which authorizes summary proceedings in such cases.
As a lawyer of Jose what steps, if any, would you take to protect his rights? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 40 of the Civil Service Decree has been repealed by Republic Act No. 6654. As lawyer of Jose
Tapulan, I will file a petition for mandamus to compel his reinstatement. In accordance with the ruling in
Mangubat vs. Osmeña, G.R. No. L-12837, April 30, 1959, 105 Phil. 1308, there is no need to exhaust
all administrative remedies by appealing to the Civil Service Commission, since the act of the governor
is patently illegal.
A. Explain the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
B. Give at least three (3) exceptions to its application. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies means that when an adequate remedy is
available within the Executive Department, a litigant must first exhaust this remedy before he can resort
to the courts. The purpose of the doctrine is to enable the administrative agencies to correct themselves
if they have committed an error. (Rosales v. Court of Appeals. 165 SCRA 344 11988J.)
B. The following are the exceptions to the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies:
- The question involved is purely legal:
- The administrative body is in estoppel:
- The act complained of is patently illegal;
- There is an urgent need for judicial intervention;
- The claim involved Is small;
- Grave and irreparable injury will be suffered;
- There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
- Strong public interest is involved;
- The subject of the controversy is private law;
- The case involves a quo warranto proceeding [Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Abad, 206 SCRA 482
(19921):
- The party was denied due process (Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula, Inc. u. Court of Appeals, 305
SCRA 147 [1999]);
- The decision is that of a Department Secretary. [Nazareno u. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131641,
February 23, 2000);
- Resort to administrative remedies would be futile (University of the Philippines Board of Regents v.
Rasul 200 SCRA 685 [1991]):
- There is unreasonable delay (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 301 SCRA 237 [1999]):
- The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land (Gabrito v. Court of Appeals, 167
SCRA 771 11988]):
- The party is poor (Sabello v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 180 SCRA 623 [1989D:
and
- The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Rullan v. Valdez, 12 SCRA 501 [1964]).