1. What is the essence of due process in administrative proceedings? Explain.

ANS: In administrative proceedings, due process simply means an opportunity to seek a

reconsideration of the order complained of; it cannot be fully equated to due process in its
strict jurisprudential sense. A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be
informed of the preliminary findings and recommendations; he is entitled only to a
reasonable opportunity to be heard, and to the administrative decision based on substantial
evidence. (Vealasquez v. CA, G.R. No. 150732, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 357). Note that
it is the administrative order, not the preliminary report, which is the basis of any further
remedies the losing party in an administrative case may pursue. (Viva Footwear Mfg. Corp. v.
SEC, et al., G.R. No. 163235, April 27, 2005).

2. Give the two (2) requisites for the judicial review of administrative
decision/actions, that is, when is an administrative action ripe for
judicial review?

Suggested Answer:
1. The administrative action has already been fully completed
and, therefore, is a final agency action; and
2. All administrative remedies have been exhausted.
3. Are the government-owned or controlled corporations within the scope
and meaning of the "Government of the Philippines"?
Suggested Answer:
Section 2 of the Introductory Provisions 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, save 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
subdivisions or other forms of local government.
Government-owned or controlled corporations are within the scope and
meaning of the Government of the Philippines if they are performing
governmental or political functions.
4. On July 1991, the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), in response to
public clamor, issued a resolution approving and adopting a schedule
for bringing down the prices of petroleum products over a period of
one (1) year starting 15 August 1991, over the objection of the oil

companies which claim that the period covered is too long to prejudge
and foresee.
Is the resolution valid?
Suggested Answer:
No, the resolution is not valid, since the Energy Regulatory Board
issued the resolution without a hearing. The resolution here is not a
provisional order and therefore it can only be issued after
appropriate notice and hearing to affected parties. The ruling in
Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA
218, to the effect that an order provisionally reducing the rates
which a public utility could charge, could be issued without previous
notice and hearing, cannot apply.
5. A) Explain the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
B) Give at least three exceptions to its application.

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 vs. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 344 (198
.
B) The following are the exceptions to the application of the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
1. The question involved is purely legal;
2. The administrative body is in estoppel;
3. The act complained of is patently illegal;
4. There is an urgent need for judicial intervention;
5. The claim involved is small;
6. Grave and irreparable injury will be suffered;
7. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
8. Strong public interest is involved;
9. The subject of the controversy is private law;
10. The case involves a quo warranto proceeding (Sunville Timber
Products, Inc. vs. Abad, 206 SCRA 482 (1992);
11. The party was denied due process (Samahang Magbubukid ng
Kapdula, Inc. vs. Court Appeals, 305 SCRA 147 (1999);
12. The decision is that of a Department Secretary (Nazareno vs.
Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 131641, February 23, 2000);
13. Resort to administrative remedies would be futile (university
of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Rasul, 200 SCRA 685 (1991)
14. There is unreasonable delay (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 301
SCRA 237 (1999)
15. The action involves recovery of physical possession of public
land (Gabrito vs. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 771 (198
;

16. The party is poor (Sabello vs. Department of Education,

Culture and Sports, 180 SCRA 623 (1989); and
17. The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Rullan
vs. Valdez, 12 SCRA 501 (1964).