judicial

recourse, there must be compliance with this

doctrine.

There are three reasons for the doctrine:
1. The need for the administrative tribunal to correct
itself
2. The need to prevent premature resort to courts (still
related to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction the
ends of justice may be attained more effectively and
efficiently through this administrative process thus
there will be de-clogging of the court dockets)
3. Because of the basis on the separation of powers (if
the law allows the administrative tribunal, all
remedies must be availed of before going to the
court)

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. The failure to observe the doctrine
does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

The dismissal of the case of the court on the basis of
prematurity does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

Holy Spirit vs. Defensor: The doctrine applies only in the
discharge of a quasi-judicial power by the administrative
authority. This doctrine has no applicability or relevance
where what is being performed by the authority is quasi-
legislative. If what is in issue is the validly of these rules,
certainly, the administrative tribunal cannot decided the case
with finality.

The issue is the validity is the IRR of the National Government
Center Admin Committee pursuant to its quasi-legislative
power under RA 9207, the doctrine of exhaustion is not
applicable. It is only the court that has jurisdiction to pas
upon the issue on the validity of xxx.

Take note that the rules of any administrative authority or
tribunal may direct the party to first file a motion for
reconsideration.

Sunshine Transp. vs. NLRC: MR must first be filed under NLRC
Rules of Procedure before special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be availed of.

Task Force Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga: Action to
recover forestry products under DENR custody shall be
directed to that agency and not the courts thru a complaint
for replevin and damages. Any remedy should be filed before
the same administrative authorities. So if the DENR
confiscated the products, the remedy must be filed before
DENR and not the court. The remedy is not replevin. The
impounded timber products have already been the subject of

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

2nd Exam Lectures Atty. Elman
Notes typewritten during class (unedited)


January 20, 2015

Right vs. Self-incrimination
This right is applicable in all kinds of proceedings whether
criminal, administrative or civil. But this right applies or is
available only to natural persons and not to juridical persons
(corporations, enterprises). The reason for this is on the basis
for the need of xxx of particular laws like filing of particular
reports.

Reason for exclusion of juridical persons from no self-
incriminatory rule is the need for administrative bodies
tasked by legislature to see to the compliance with law and
public policy.

Nacu vs. CSC: You have here an employee of PEZA in Bataan
a service officer. He was charged administratively of grave
misconduct in his act of illegal collecting fees from Edison.
There was a complaint filed against here in the PEZA. She was
requested to submit her sample signatures to which she
willingly submitted. The signatures were examined by the
NBI.

After the investigation, the Board of the PEZA issued a
decision, as approved by the PEZA Director General, finding
her guilty of the charges and dismissing her from the service.
She went to the CSC but the latter affirmed the decision. So
she went to the CA and same ruling.

Among the issues she raised was that there was a violation of
her right against self-incrimination by reason of her
signatures. The SC said that the right vs. self-incrimination is
not self-executory or automatically operational, it must be
claimed at the appropriate time, or else it may be deemed
waived. So the SC said that she already waived her right
because of the voluntary submission of the signatures.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
This is very important. In the bar, most questions come from
this topic. Before a party can be allowed to seek judicial
intervention, he is required to exhaust all means of
administrative redress or remedies available under the law.

This principle applies whenever the is a provision under the
law giving a relief on the part of the party.

In the NACU case earlier, the remedy availed of was going to
the CSC first. After the CSC ruled affirmed the ruling the
administrative agency, she then went to the CA. Before a
1

seizure by the proper government agency. Therefore, the

remedies must be those provided under the law.

Whatever the action of the Bureau of Forest Director is the
subject of review by the DENR Secretary consistent with the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Section 8 of PD 705 States:
1. All actions and decisions of the Bureau of Forest
Development (now LMB) Director are subject to
review by the DENR Secretary
2. The decisions of DENR Secretary are appealable to
the President (not in all cases; if there is no such
provision in the law that the decision of the DENR
secretary should be appealed to the president, then
no appeal na)
3. Courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR
Secretary except thru a special civil action for
certiorari or prohibition

It is not in all cases that the decision on appeal rendered by
the department secretary ought to to be the subject of
appeal by the President. This can only be done if there is such
a provision of law. (Alter ego doctrine or doctrine of qualified
agency)

Distinction between Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction and
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Both deal with the proper relationships between
courts and administrative bodies.
Exhaustion applies where the claim is originally
cognizable in the first instance by the administrative
body alone, while Primary Jurisdiction applies where
the case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
court and administrative agency but the case
requires determination of some technical or factual
matter xxx.

Merida vs. Bacarro: Increase in water rates by LWD is subject
to review and approval by LWUA. After LWUA reviews the
rate established by a LWED, a water concessionaire may
appeal the same to the NWRB whose decision may then be
appealed to Office of the President.

Deltaventures Resources vs. Cabato: The Labor authorities
rendered an adverse decision so there was a levy of
properties. Delta claims that the property belong to them so
they filed a case before the court for the recovery of the
possession of the properties subject of the levy by reason of
the decision of the labor authorities.

The SC said that the proper remedy is not with the court. The
action is incident to the action before the administrative
authorities. Therefore, the complaint shall be lodged not with
the court but with the administrative agency.

Another issue here is WON the RTC have the competence to

prevent the NLRC from enforcing its decision? No. They
cannot enjoin the NLRC.

Ombudsman vs. Valera: OSP is merely a component of OMB
and may only act under the supervision and control of OMB.

Instead of exhausting administrative remedies, the aggrieved
party Valera went to court. One of the issues raised is WON
there should be exhaustion of admin remedies. Should the
remedy still be before the superior admin authority or in this
case, the ombudsman? The SC ruled here that the doctrine is
not applicable.

When the issue is legal, the doctrine of exhaustion of admin
remedies is not applicable. The legal issue is WON the special
OMB has the authority to issue preventive suspension. Kasi
under the law, only the OMB or the Dep. OMB may issue the
preventive suspension.

The review as an act of supervision and control by the DOJ
Secretary over fiscals finds basis in this doctrine. He may thus
affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. Mistakes, abuse
or negligence by an admin agency (or officer) in the initial
steps (preliminary) should be corrected by higher admin
authorities, and not directly by the courts. So the remedy is
not before the court.

The regional state prosecutor does not have the power to
conduct preliminary investigations. The power belongs to the
prosecutors. Basically, his power is administrative supervision
yung admin matters under the law gives them authority or
power to review.

RSP Aurillo vs. Rabi: In a criminal case decided by the city
prosecutor, the regional state prosecutor took over with the
proceedings and directed his assistant to conduct preliminary
investigation. In so doing, the office of the RSP already
exceeded its authority. It is no longer exercising admin
supervision but already the review power of the DOJ
Secretary.

Applying the doctrine of exhaustion, what should have
happened here is that the decision of the city prosecutor
ought to be appealed the RSP may review it and then an
appeal with the DOJ Secretary. In this case, Rabi was not
given a right to appeal. The SC said here that RSP has
administrative supervision, not control over CPs and PPs.

CASES:
DAR vs. PCPI
Corsiga vs. Defensor
Republic vs. Extelcom
SEC vs. PICOP (566 S 451)
Laguna CATV vs. Maraan (392 S 226)
Berba vs. Pablo (474 S 686)

January 23, 2015

The basis for the dismissal would be no cause of action
because of the denial of the opportunity given to the admin
body to rectify whatever error it may have committed in the
process of adjudication.

We also mentioned the three causes for the doctrine of
exhaustion of admin remedies. We also stated so many
illustrations of this principle in different laws.

DAR vs. PCPI: This pertains to the action of the PARO
subjecting the properties owned by PCPI under the CARP. We
know that CARP is being administered and carried out by the
DAR. The DAR has exclusive jurisdiction over CARP cases.
There was such order issued by PARO. The aggrieved party,
the owner of the property, did not even contest the xxx.
What it did was to immediately file a petition for certiorari
before the CA. Is this the proper appeal? No. What the
aggrieved party should have resorted to was to first file the
motion for reconsideration before the PARO.

Protests regarding CARP implementation are under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.

Corsiga vs. Defensor: The complaint of Senior Engr. Ortizo for
prohibition and injunction should have been dismissed. He
should appeal the reassignment order of RM to the NIA
Administrator and if necessary, to CSC.

Applying the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies, the
party here should have first filed a MR before the issuing
authority the Regional Manager Corsiga. If this motion is
denied, the next step would be an appeal to a higher admin
authority the administrator.

If you recall in our study in PubCorp, whenever the issue is
reassignment, the exclsusive authority is with the CSC. In
other words, if the aggrieved party is still not satisfied (after
MR and appeal), the next step is an appeal to the CSC (from
the administrator to the CSC). This is consistent to the
doctrine of administrative remedies.

Republic vs. Extelcom: There was an order issued by NTC.
Under the rules, Extelcom should have filed an MR with in 15
days from the receipt of the NTC Rules.

Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of admin remedies
when it went directly to CA on a petition for certiorari and
prohibition from the NTC order without first filing a MR
within 15 days pursuant to NTC Rules. That the NTC order
became immediately executor does not mean foreclosure or
remedy of filing MR.

It does not mean that whenever the law provides that there
is a decision adverse to a party, that is already prevented
3

from taking the next step simply because the law itself allows
it to be executor. Even under the OMB Rules, dispute the
taking of an appeal, the decision is being executory. So it
depends on the provision of law. The law itself may provide
for the executory nature of the decision.

SEC vs. PICOP: Under Section 4 of Rule 43 of ROC, an appeal
(thru petition for review before CA), shall be taken within 15
days from the date of the denial of the first and only MR
allowed. The filing of the second MR by SEC before the OP
did not suspend the running of the period to file a petition for
review before the CA, which expired 15 days after petitioner
SEC received the OP Resolution denying the first MR of the
SEC and upholding the position of PICOP. The 2nd MR does
not have any legal effect.

It neglected the necessary appeal before the Office of the
President. So the SC ruled that the second MR does not have
any legal. The filing of the 2nd MR by the SEC before the Office
of the President will not stop the running of the period to file
the petition for review before the CA.

What should happen here; if the party receives the order of
the OP in this case denying its motion, it has a period of 15
days to appeal to the CA counted from the time of receipt of
order. When the SEC filed a 2nd MR before the OP, the period
xxx.

Laguna vs. Maraan: Under the Labor Code, Article 128 confers
visitorial power to the Department Secretary of Labor. This
power may be exercised by the delegated authority. Such
authority is delegated to the Regional Director.

Petitioner should have appealed the order denying tis motion
to quash the writ of execution re: monetary award of the
DOLE Reg. Director (in exercise of his visitorial and
enforcement powers) to the Labor Secretary, instead of filing
with CA a motion for extension of time to file a petition for
review.

What should be done was to appeal the order with the Sec.
of Labor. What the party did was to file a motion for
extension to file the petition for review so the period has
already lapsed.

Berba vs. Pablo: Submission of dispute to Lupon ng
Tagapamayapa for amicable settlement under Section 408
LGC. If complainant fails to comply with this requirement,
court may dismiss the complaint.

If the court finds that there is non-compliance with the
doctrine, it may dismiss the complaint. Or if the parties do not
timely invoke this doctrine, it is possible that the court may
take cognizance of the matter. That is why it is important for
the party to raise the doctrine. The failure to do so means a

waiver on their part. The invocation of this doctrine must be

made timely and before filing the answer to the complaint.

Alexandra Condominum Corp vs. Laguna Lake Development
Authority: LLDA has the power to award damages and fines
such as in this case because of its duty to discharge into the
Laguna de Bay. There was an order issued here by LLDA
against Alexandara Condo Corp. imposing the penalty of
P1.062M because of the latters discharge of pollutive
wastewater.

The aggrieved party here, applying the doctrine, ought to file
an MR. If the MR is still denied, the next step is still
administrative in nature before the DENR. The LLDA has
already been placed under admin supervision of the DENR
Secretary under EO 149. Therefore, there is no legal basis for
the immediate filing of a certiorari before the CA.

TACC should have appealed the LLDA Order, imposing
penalty of P1.062M for its pollutive wastewater discharge, to
the DENR Secretary in view of the transfer of LLDA to DENR
thru Pollution, Adjudication Board for administrative
supervision under EO 149, before filing a petition for
certiorari in the CA under Rule 65. On TACCs offer to pay a
reduced fine, power to compromise claims is vested with
COA under PD 1445 or Congress under EO 292.

Another issue raised here the offer of the petitioner to pay
the penalty but in a reduce amount, the power to
compromise really depends on the amount. If the amount is
more than P100k, the authority is conferred with Congress.
Otherwise, the power is vested with COA.

Province of Siquijor vs. COA: SC dismissed petitioners
petition for certiorari to nullify decision of COA Region VII
as affirmed by COA Legal diallowing the grant of P20T Xmas
bonues for failure to exhaust admin remedies. Petitioner
having failed to pursue an appeal with the Comission Proper
under COA Rules of Procedure, the disallowance as ruled by
COA LAO-Local has become final and executor. Remedy of
certiorari may be availed of only if there is no appeal, or plain,
speedy, adequate remedy xxx.

What should have been done is to appeal the matter with the
highest tribunal. This was not done in this case so what the
province did was to file a petition for certiorari before the
court. What should have been done is to file, within the
timeframe, an appeal to the commission proper. This was not
done so the disallowance already became final and
executory. So the province can no longer file the petition
before the court by reason that the allowance already
became final. There was a failure to exhaust admin remedies.
The remedy for certiorari under Rule 65 if there is no appeal
or recourse under the xxx. (?)

January 27, 2015

PD 242
PD 242 dated July 9, 1973 is a general law which provides for
admin settlement or adjudication by the DOJ of disputes,
claims and controversies between or among agencies of the
government.

But if the general law conflicts with a special law (ex. PD 464
which deals specifically with assessment and appraisal of real
property for purposes of taxation by LGUs), the special law
prevails.

This is the general law dealing with the settlement of
conflicts and matters involving government agencies. It is
vested with the Department of Justice.

Between a special law and a general law, what ought to apply
is the special law dealing with the assessment, appraisal and
collection of taxes. So there is no basis here for the dismissal
of the case for collection of such taxes filed by the province
before the court. So PD 464 does not applies.

Distinction: Exhaustion of Admin Remedies and Due Process
Both embody linked and related principles
Exhaustion principle is based on the respective of
the ruling tribunal, while due process is considered
from the viewpoint of the litigating party against
whom a ruling was made
The commonality they share is in the same
opportunity that underlies both, ie. opportunity for
the ruling tribunal to re-examine its findings and
opportunity to the party to be head

The principle of exhaustion of admin remedies is taken from
the viewpoint of the adjudicative tribunal the ruling tribunal
or body. While the due process principle is considered from
the viewpoint of the adverse party or the party against whom
the complaint has been filed. There is a requirement that the
person must be given an opportunity for due process this
may extend to appeal when such is accorded by the law.

We mentioned that there are cases where an MR is required
to be filed when there is a requirement provided under the
law. But there are instances where they may be no need to
file MR.

Cases where a prior MR is not necessary
The order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal
has no jurisdiction
There is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of Government or of the petitioner
Deprivation of due process and there is urgency for
relief
Issue is purely legal
5

Public interest is involved

Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies

Demaisip vs. Bacal: Demaisip was appointed as the head of
PAO replacing the incumbent Bacal. Bacal got appointed
during the time of Ramos but when Estrada took over the
presidency, Bakal was transferred to region 10. If what is
being raised is that there is constructive dismissal, that the
transfer was illegal and it was done without his consent, this
raises legal issue. Therefore, there is no need to exhaust
admin remedies.

Whether respondents transfer to the position of Reg. Dir. of
PAO which was made without her consent, amounts to
removal without cause is a legal issue.

Arimao vs. Taher: Then ARMM Governor promoted Arimao,
who at the time was occupying the position of education
supervisor. He was promoted to the position of director but
his appointment was disapproved by the CSC. During the
period of occupancy of Arimao, Taher got his designation as
the education director. So when CSC disapproved the
appointment of Arimao, the ARMM Government issued an
order appointing Arimao back as education supervisor
despite the fact that he was already dropped by the rolls.

Whether the memo of ARMM Governor, ordering the
reinstatement of petitioner already declared AWOL and
dropped from the rolls, was issued in excess of jurisdiction is
a legal question.

Clearly, there was arbitrariness committed by Governor so an
appeal may be directly raised by the court.

Lastimoso vs. Senior Insp. Asayo: Case filed against a police
by a private individual. Whether or not the PNP Chief had
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by a
private citizen vs. him is a legal question.

What is being raised is a legal matter who has jurisdiction
over the complaint? So no need to comply with the
exhaustion of admin remedies.

Quisumbing vs. Gumban: Where respondent is a department
secretary, whose acts as alter ego of the President, bear
implied or assumed approval of the latter.

Binamira vs. Garucho: Where the doctrine of qualified
political agency applies.

Garucho was the then-secretary of Tourism. The pre-decessor
of Garucho was Gonzales. An order was issued designating
Binamira as xxx. Take note, it was not the president who
designated him. Later on, when a new secretary of Tourism
assumed office, Binamira was replaced. Of course, one of the

issues raised here is that according to Binamira, there was a

violation of her security of tenure. Another issue: WON there
is a need to exhaust admin steps by taking an appeal before
the OP.

Here, the doctrine of qualified political agency is applicable so
there is no need to exhaust admin remedies. There is no need
to appeal the matter with the office of the President.

Castro vs. Gloria and Gutang: Castro filed a complaint against
his school teacher against Gutang. Gutang has an illicit affair
with Castros wife. The DEPED issued an order dismissing
Gutang. The issue is WON it was the proper penalty for this
conduct. Is there a need for Gutang to exhaust admin
remedies by seeking relief first before the Secretary of
Education or even before the CSC?

What is being raised clearly is a elgal matter. The legality of
the imposition of dismissal from the service for the first
offense so there is no need to apply the exhaustion of
admin remedies.

Whether or not petitioners dismissal form the service is the
proper penalty for the first offense of disgraceful and
immoral conduct is a question of law.

Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology:
Where petitioner is not asking for the reversal of policies of
PCST nor demanding that she be allowed to take the final
exams.

Should there first be exhaustion of admin remedies? No
because Regino was not seeking the remedy of reversing the
policies of the school or that she be allowed to take the final
exam. What she was seeking was for payment of damages.

Sabello vs. Decs: Asked in the bar. Sabello used to be a school
principal in Gingoog City. He was charged and convicted but
later on he was granted pardon. Because of the pardon, he
got reinstated but not to his original higher position of
principal but to the position of teacher so he complained.

Was there a violation of doctrine of exhaustion of admin
remedies without seeking relief first before the DepEd? Let
me get back to what we mentioned earlier re: administrative
proceedings liberally applied. So here, the SC was quite
lenient or liberl taking into account that the petition filed
before the court was filed by a non-lawyer who claims that
poverty denied him the services of the lawyer so the SC may
set aside the requirement of exhaustion of admin remedies
and resolve to go direct to the merits of the petition.

Sta. Maria vs. Lopez: There is nothing left to be done except
to seek court action. This is about the dean of the UP who
received an order resigning him from the Office of the Dean

of Arts. Here, there was constructive dismissal. There is no

need to exhaust admin remedies.

Other instances when the doctrine is not applicable
There is estoppel on the part of the party invoking it
There is unreasonable delay of official action that will
irreparably prejudice the complainant
There is no plain, adequate and speedy remedy
except court action
The land in question is private
The amount is too small so as to make the rule
impractical
There is nothing left to be done except court action

CASES:
Perez vs. Sandiganbayan
Province of Cam. Norte vs. Province of Quezon
NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assoc vs. NPC
DENR Sec. vs. DENR Employees

February 3, 2015

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
This has been asked in the bar. Its also known as the alter-
ego principle.

In the absence of a constitutional proviso or statute to the
contrary, official acts of department secretary are deemed
acts of the President unless disapproved or reprobated by
the latter. Except where the Constitution or law requires that
he acts in person, multifarious functions are performed by
department heads.

Recognizes the existence of a single executive, all executive
organizations are adjuncts of Exec. Department and the
heads of these departments are agents of the Chief
Executive.

Under this principle, there is only one chief executive. All the
bureaus in the executive department are said to be
extensions of the chief executives. All the heads of these
bureaus or offices are agents of the chief exec.

Any action taken by the department head is also the action of
the president. Example: What bureaus are under the
Department of Finance? BIR, BoC. An action of BIR
commissioner will be elevated in the Secretary of Finance.
Whenever on appeal, the Sec. of Fin. Appeals or affirms the
action of the commissioner, that action is the action of the
President under the doctrine of qualified political agency.
What about the executive secretary? Ochoa.

The executive secretary has the authority to reverse the
decision of the direction which has been affirmed by the
department secretary.

In the hierarchy in the exec. branch, the exec secretary is said
to be acting in behalf of the president. In fact, many of the
issuances by the President are signed not by the President
but by the exec sec.

Is it possible for the exec sec to reverse or modify the
decision of the Bureau of Director which has been affirmed
by the Dept. Sec? Yes. He is not equal but higher in rank to
the department of sec. Therefore, he has the power to
affirm, modify, or set aside the decision even if the said
decision has already been overturned by the department sec.
but it must be done within the bounds of the law.

This concept does not apply to constitutional offices.

Perez vs. Sandiganbayan: Doctrine is not applicable to the
office of the ombudsman. The office is an independent office.
Its not part of the executive branch of the government. It
should be a non-political office.

7

Province of Cam. Norte vs. Province of Quezon: The

authority of the DENR technical team which conducted the
survey emanated from the Special Order issued by the DENR
Sec, the alter ego of the President. His acts are presumed to
be the acts of the President, unless repudiated by the latter.

The DENR Sec issued an order creating a xxx. This issuance
was questioned by the parties on the ground that it was not
authorized. According to them, it was made without the
authority of the President.

The official action taken by the DENR Sec is the act of the
president applying the doctrine. The DENR Sec here is the
alter ego of the President so his acts are definitely the acts of
the President unless the latter disowns or repudiates the acts
of the former.

NPC Drivers vs. NPC: Department secretaries cannot delegate
their duties as members of NPB, much less their power to
vote and approve board resolutions.

The department secretaries who are ex-officio members of
the boards of the GOCCs cannot delegate acts of discretion. It
involves exercise of personal judgment. Acts of discretion
cannot be delegated. Only ministerial functions may be
delegated.

DENR Sec. vs. DENR: DENR Secs order transferring the
regional office from Cotabato city to Koronadal city is
deemed the Presidents act. As executive head, President
under Article 7 Section 17 has continuing authority to
reorganize any agency of executive branch. This power may
be delegated to his cabinet members under the doctrine of
qualified political agency.

Because of the conduct of the plebiscite in the ARMM area
that time, there was this transfer of provinces. The provinces
of Saranggani and South Cotabato that time were part of
Region 11 but now Region 12 na. Because of this transfer, the
sec of DENR issued an order transferring the regional office
of the DENR from Cot. To Kor. This move was questioned by
the employees of the office based in Cotabato. They claimed
that the issuance was illegal because it was not approved by
the President.

The SC again applied the principle or doctrine of qualified
political agency. The issuance of the dept. secretary is the
issuance of the President.

The authority of the President under the Constitution, power
of control, includes the power or authority to effect changes
in the organization in the executive branch. (?) Does the
president need to get executive xx? No. There is a continuing
agency given to the President based on the power of control.
Under E0 292, he has the continuing authority to effect
changes.

This power to organize by the President may be delegated to
cabinet members under the doctrine.

Power of control of the President applies to executive
branch. Power of supervision applies to local government
units - The authority to insure that laws are faithfully
executed by the local chief executives.

Principle of Presidential Power of Control
The power of control is exercised by the President.
Presidents power over the exec branch of government,
including all executive officers xxx (Section 17, Article 7).

Power of control power to alter, modify or nullify or set
aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of his
duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that
of the latter.

Tondo Medical Center vs. OP. Reorganization of DOH under
EO 102: not a usurpation of legislative power. EO 292 gives
continuing authority to the Pres to reorganize the admin
structure of the OP.

WON there was usurpation for the issuance without getting
the authority from Congress? No.

Banda vs. Ermita: The President has the power to reorganize
the offices and agencies in the exec department in line with
his constitutionally granted power of control and by virtue of
a valid delegation of the legislative power to reorganize exec.
offices under existing statutes.

Chavez vs. NHA: President can exercise exec power motu
proprio and can supplant decision or act of the subordinate
with his own. When the President ordered the development
of housing project (Smokey Mountain) with reclamation
work, making the DENR part of the implementing committee,
the required authorization of DENR to reclaim land is deemed
satisfied. The ultimate power over alienable and disposable
public lands is reposed in the President and not the DENR
Sec. To still require DENR authorization on Smokey Mountain
would be a derogation of Presidents power as head of exec
branch.

The SC said that who is higher? Of course the Chief Executive
so there is no need for him to get authority from the
department sec because the latter is just his subordinate. The
power here is vested with the Pres and not with the sec of
the DENR.

CASES:
Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora
Domingo vs. Zamora
Bito-onon vs. Fernandez 350 S 732
David vs. Paredes 439 S 130


February 10, 2015

What is the difference between the power of control and
power of supervision? The power of control is based on the
Constitution (Article 7). The power of supervision of the chief
executive is one which is usually ensures the laws are
faithfully executed by the local executives.

When you talk of the power of control, we are talking of
existing offices.

Biraogo vs. PTC: The creation of PTC is not justified by the
Presidents power of control. The power of control is
different from power to create public offices the former is
inherent in the executive, while the latter finds basis from
either a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty
to faithfully execute the laws. PTCs creation is justified under
Section 17, Article 7 imposing on President the duty to ensure
that laws are faithfully executed.

The power to create a public office is exclusively legislative.
But what would be the basis of xxx in creating the public
office? It is because of the continuing authority under EO 292,
Book 3. This applies to all department bureaus and offices so
it follows that the President has the power to transfer this
from one to another so long as it falls within the executive
branch.

Note: PTC is not borne out of restructuring of the OP since
PTC is not part of the OP structure prior to EO 1.

Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora: Although the general
rule is power to abolish a public office is lodged with
legislature (unless created by the Cons. Itself), the exception
is that as far as agencies or offices in the Exec Dept are
concerned, the Presidents power of control may justify him
to inactive the functions of a particular office, or a law may
grant him broad authority to carry out organizational
measures.

Also, under Section 31 of Book 3 of EO 292, The president in
order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency shall have
the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative
structure of the OP. For this purpose, he may transfer
functions of other departments or agencies to the OP. The
EEIB is a bureau attached to the Bureau of Finance.

Domingo vs. Zamora: Rationale of this continuing authority:
OP is nerve center of executive branch. To remain effective
and efficient, OP must be capable of being shaped and
reshaped by President in the manner he deems fit to carry
out his policies or directives OP is a command post of the
President.

Since EO 81 (transferring sports activities of DECS to PSC) is
based on Pres.s continuing authority under EO 292, EO 81 is a
9

valid exercise of the Presidents delegated power to

reorganize OP.

Presidents power of general supervision:
Ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or the
subordinate acts within the law
Not incompatible with power to discipline which
includes power to investigate
Jurisdiction over admin disciplinary cases vs. elective
local officials lodged in two authorities: Disciplining
Authority and Investigating Authority

The power to discipline includes the power to investigate.
What is being delegated in not really the power to discipline
but the power to investigate. But of course, the President has
the final say.

Bito-onon vs. Fernandez: Distinguishing power of control
from power of supervision: the latter is the power of mere
oversight over LGUS, checking whether LGU or its officers
perform their duties as provided by law and whether the
rules are followed.

He cannot lay down the rules for the doing of the act. If rules
are not observed, the superior may order the work done or
redone to conform to prescribed rules but he cannot
prescribe his own manner for doing of the act.

If the rules are not being observed by the local government
official, the President here can of course ensure that the laws
are faithfully executed. He cannot prescribe the manner of
doing the act.

Presidents power of general supervision extends to the Liga
ng mga Barangay. The representatives of the Liga sit in an ex
officio capacity at the municipal, city and provincial
sanggunians. Liga is the vehicle through which the barangay
participates in enactment of ordinances.

David vs. Paredes: The Liga ng mga Barangay is not subject to
control by Chief Executive or his alter ego. The acts of the
DILG in nullifying results of Liga elections and appointing
Rayos as President of Liga-Caloocan went beyond
supervision.

There was this order issued by the court and the DILG was
designated as the administrator. Here, the DILG cancelled the
Liga elections. Here, the DILG is not exercising merely the
power of supervision but power of control. There is already
an abuse.


February 24, 2015

Review of Admin Decisions
General rule: Factual findings are not subject to judicial
review and must be accorded not only utmost respect but
finality as long as decisions are supported xxx

Factual findings of admin authorities are not only accorded
with respect but with finality so long as the decisions are
made within the area of competence and on the basis of
requirement of substantial evidence.

Exceptions: Misappreciation of facts; not supported by
substantial evidence; when so warranted, there may be
judicial review; findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or
collusion; procedure is irregular, palpable or serious errors
have been committed; grave abuse of discretion,
arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest

Baustista vs. Araneta: Factual finding of DARAB which relied
on certification by MARO that petitioner is a tenant is not
conclusive on courts. Tenancy is not purely a factual
relationship but also a legal relationship.

What is the factual manner in administrative proceedings?
What the tenant is doing with the land. Tenancy is also a legal
relationship between the supposed tenant and the lawful
owner. There should be a relation which should be more than
factual issue that indeed, consent has been given by the land
owner.

Rep vs. Imperial: Classification of public land is a function of
the Director of LMB and his decision when approved by DENR
Sec. as to question of fact is conclusive and not subject to
judicial review.

Take note that I emphasized that whenever the property is
classified as public, it is within the xxx of the administrative
authority not so with those covered by titles. The LMB is
under DENR and the decision of the director of LMB is
conclusive when approved by the DENR secretary. It is within
the expertise of the administrative authorities.

Samson vs. OMB: The calibration of evidence to assess
whether a prima facie graft case exists vs. private
respondents is a question of fact. Mandamus will lie to
compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty but not to
compel the performance of a discretionary act requiring the
exercise of judgment, as in determining whether or not
probably cause exists vs. them.

In the exercise of the discretionary power by the prosecutor
or fiscal of the DOJ, he cannot be compelled by mandamus to
perform such action. Mandamus lies only in the xxx of a
ministerial duty but not in the exercise of an act of discretion
on the part of the officer. Whether or not there is a probable

10

cause to file the case in court is solely within the discretion of

the prosecutor so you cannot compel it by mandamus.

Fabian vs. Agustin: Inconsistency of facts conflicting factual
findings. Contractor Fabian here was able to get projects
from DPWH on the basis of her relationship with Agustin. The
affair did not last so this woman filed a case against Agustin
for grave misconduct and acts of immorality.

The penalty was modified from dismissal to 1 year
suspension. Later on, the OMB 1 inhibit from the case so a
new OMB took place. The penalty was again dismissal from
the service. The CA made another finding. The factual
findings here were conflictinf and thus this would be the
basis for the court to include them.

Matuguina Wood Products vs. CA: The issue of won
petitioner is an alter ego of Milgaros Matuguina, the losing
party in the MNR case, is one of fact, and should be threshed
out in said admin proceedings and not in prohibition
proceedings in court.

This is simple in compliance with the exhaustion of admin
remedies. Whatever related issue should be threshed out in
the same admin proceeding and not before the court. If the
issue requires admin expertise, then the court will not look
into it.

When may courts review administrative decisions?
Determine constitutionality of law, treaty or order
Determine jurisdiction of admin body
Determine any other question of law
Determine question of fact when necessary to
determine either a constitutional or jurisdictional
issue, the commission of abuse of authority or error
of law

Under Article 8, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, all errors
or decisions of admin bodies involving questions of law are
subject to judicial review.

Principle that only questions of law shall be raised in an a
appel by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
admins of exceptions, namely:
1. Findings are grounded entirely on speculations or
conjectures
2. Inference made is manifestly mistaken
3. There is grave abuse of discretion
4. Judgment is based on his appreciation of facts
5. Findings of facts are conflicting
6. Findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based
7. Factual findings are premised on supposed absence
of evidence but contradicted by evidence on record
(Bernaldo vs. OMB). Here, the OMB decision
suspending Bernaldo for 9 months (as affirmed by


CA) was not supported by substantial evidence SC
granted her petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45.

Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper grounds in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Such petition will
prosper only if there is showing of grave abuse of discretion
or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction of admin
tribunal.

Requisites for petition for certiorari to prosper:
Petitioner TACC must show that:
a. LLDA acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion and
b. There is no appeal or a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy is a MR of the assailed decisions (Alexandra
Condo Corp vs. LLDA)

Lacson vs. PEA: The PEA decision to dismiss petitioners from
the service, upon recommendation of PAGC as proved by the
President after due proceedings, should have been appealed
to the CSC under EO 292. From CSC, it can be elevated to the
CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. From there, it can
be appealed to the SC thru a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45.

Petitioners chose wrong remedy by appealing under Rule 65
their dismissal by the PEA to the CA instead of CSC. As their
dismissal has become final and executor, SC no longer has
power to review and act.

Difference between Rule 45 Petition (Petition for Review on
Certiorari) and Rule 65 Petition (Petition for Certiorari): A
Rule 65 petition is an original action that dwells xxx

In judicial review of administrative decisions:
a. Courts can re-examine the sufficiency of evidence
and are authorized to receive additional evidence
not submitted earlier
b. A trial de novo is not contemplated
c. Factual findings are accorded not only respect but
finality binding on the court as long as supported by
preponderance of evidence
d. Errors or decisions of administrative bodies may be
questioned in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

Correct answer: B (You cannot do a new trial in admin xxx)

11


March 3, 2015

Immunities
Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and civil
immunities to persons unless the law explicitly
confers such power
PCGG under EO 14A may grant immunity from
criminal prosecution xxx
Apply Article 2028, Civil Code: amicable settlement in
civil cases applicable to PCGG cases
OMB under Section 17 of RA 6770 may grant
immunity from criminal prosecution xxx

PCGG under EO 14A may grant immunity from criminal
prosecution to any individual who testifies in any
investigation of the PCGG. For this successful prosecution of
the case of the PCGG, the law itself empowers the PCGG to
grant immunity to the person who is deemed to act as a
witness.

It follows that whenever there is failure to comply with the
obligations under the agreement, he can still be impleaded as
a respondent. If there is no law giving or granting the admin
body or tribunal such power, the remedy available is to file
before the court. The court may grant such immunity subject
to the conditions. Under the Rules of Court, immunity may be
given to a person who gives testimony provided that he is the
least guilty and that his testimony is necessarily for the
successful prosecution of the case.

What about civil immunity from prosecution? What law will
apply? Even if there is no such authority with respect to the
grant of immunity from civil suit, nonetheless, Article 2028 of
the Civil Code will apply. PCGG may, therefore, on the basis of
said provision, grant immunity from civil suit to a person
testifying in a PCGG case.

Illustration under RA 6770, Section 17. The ombudsman may
grant immunity to any person who testifies in the case
pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. Just like the
other requirements, the persons granted this immunity must
have in his possession information or testimony
indispensable for the successful prosecution of the case filed
against the public officer.

Before the filing of the PDAF cases, there was this issue: Won
the ombudsman ought to grant immunity to Napoeles. The
OMB decided that the case can still be successful prosecuted
even in the absence of the testimony of Napoles. There are
evidence independent to the testimony of Napoles. The
person must be the least guilty among the accused. His
testimony must be necessary.

Three-fold responsibility

12

A public official may be held criminally, civilly and

administratively liable for violation of duty or for
wrongful act or omission
Remedies may be invoked separately, alternately,
simultaneously or successively
Rule: Administrative cases are independent from
criminal cases

In other words, the prosecution of one case is not dependent
upon the other. The filing of the criminal suit against the
public officer is independent from the filing of the admin suit
arising from the same facts and circumstances against the
same officer. The principle of prejudicial question does not
apply even if we are talking about the same facts arising from
the wrongful act of the officer.

The quantum of evidence is different. In admin cases, the
requirement is substantial evidence. But in penal cases, proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Before the institution of the case
before the court, there is a finding of the government body
(DOJ) whether or not there is probable cause for the
commission of the crime. If yes, the case is filed before the
DOJ. It is still the court which ultimately decides whether the
required quantum of evidence is satisfied.

If the accused is exonerated in criminal case does not mean
that he is not guilty for the admin cases. If the criminal case
will be dismissed does not mean that the admin case will be
dismissed. Substantial evidence, the lowest in the hierarchy,
lang ang need sa admin.

Admin cases are independent from crim cases. Exception: If
the law itself makes it a prime requirement that there should
be an administrative determination. In such case, the criminal
case cannot be instituted or filed without determining the
admin liability of the person.

Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final
administrative determination.
Example: In prosecution of unfair labor practice under Labor
Code, no criminal prosecution for ULP can be filed without a
final judgment in a previous administrative proceeding.

Chua vs. Ang: The dismissal by the CP of petitioners criminal
complaint vs. Fil-Estate for violation of PD 957 in failing to
construct and deliver to petitioner the condo unit on the
view that an administrative finding of violation must first be
obtained before resort to criminal prosecution is wrong.

Nothing in PD 957 expressly requires prior administrative
finding. Where the law is silent on this matter, the
fundamental rule that the administrative case is independent
from criminal action fully applies.

ERB vs. CA: Hierarchy of evidentiary values: Proof of guilty
beyond reasonable douct is the highest level, followed by


clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence
and substantial evidence, in that order.

Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. Naldoza: A criminal prosecution
will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same
facts xxx

Naldoza was the legal counsel of Gatchalian. There was this
POEA case wherein the respondent was Gatchalian. The
decision was adverse to Gatchalian. On the part of Naldoza,
he made his representation that an appeal can still be taken
of the POEA decision. He collected the amount of $2,555.
Admin and penal cases were filed against Naldoza. The
criminal case for estafa was dismissed. On that basis, Naldoza
argues that the disbarment case against him should also be
dismissed. He is wrong. The dismissal of the criminal case
does not have anything to do with the disbarment case.

Ocampo vs. OMB: Absence of proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence for there is
another class of evidence which, though insufficient to
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in
admin case.

The same issue with the case of Gatchalian. He pocketed a
certain amount. The RTC dismissed the RTC cases here. There
was an admin case filed before the OMB. He claimed na dapat
i-dismiss na din ang admin case. The SC said na the crim and
admin cases are entirely different not related with one
another. In admin case, a lower form of evidence is required.
The requirement simply is substantial evidence.

Floria vs. Sunga: Administrative offenses do not prescribe.

Floria was charged administratively. She was the employee of
the CA and she had an affair with a co-employee whose
spouse was also working in the same office. The defense here
of Floria was that this was a thing of the past tapos na, Ive
moved on. The issue now is whether or not the action has
prescribed. In criminal cases, meron diba? Pero sa admin
cases, walang prescription. Kahit matagal na, the SC said that
the stigma still lingers. The SC meted the penalty to a fine of
P10,000.

What do you think is the reason for this principle? Unlike in
criminal cases, the subject is the punishment of the wrong
doer. Here, the SC ruled that there is no such prescription of
offenses in admin proceedings but the law itself may provide
for the exercise of discretion on the part of the body or
tribunal whether or not to proceed with admin adjudication.

Dr. Melendres, Exec. Of Director of Lung Center of Phil vs.
PAGC: The dismissal of the two criminal cases by the
Sandiganbayan and of several criminal complaints by the
Ombudsman did not result in the absolution of the petitioner
from the admin charges.
13

Section 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but the
discretion given to the OMB not to conduct the investigation
if filed after one year from occurrence xxx

Is this mandatory? Is this connected with the concept of
prescription? No. Section 20 simply means that the law itself
gives the utmost discretion on the part of the OMB whether
the corresponding investigation could still be made. The OMB
may deem is no longer necessary if the case is filed more than
1 year from the happening of the act.

It involves an exercise of judgment on the aprt of the OMB. In
most cases, the OMB still continues with the conduct of
investigation even if the complaint is filed more than a year
from the happening of the act.

OMB vs. BAC Chair De Sahagun of Intramuros
Administration: The object sough is not the punishment of
the officer but the improvement of public service and
preservation of public faith and confidence. While complaint
was filed by FFIB of OMB only in September 2000 or more
than 7 years after commission (1992) of the act, OMB may still
investigate said anonymous complaint filed in 1996.

In this case, the issue here was about the late institution of
the charge against De Sahagun. The act complained of
happened in 1992. An anonymous complaint was filed before
the OMB. It took a while from the OMB to file the formal
charge. The wrongful act was committed in 1992 and the
complaint was filed in 1996 before the office of the OMB. It
took the OMB 4 years to docket the case in 2000 after
gathering evidence from its fact-finding body.

De Sahagun complained that there was a violation of his
rights and the case should have been dismissed. He raised
Section 20 of the Ombudsman Act. The SC ruled that the
OMB still has the discretion whether to proceed in the
investigation or not.

Exec. Judge Loyao vs. Clerk of Court Caube: The death or
retirement of officer from service does not preclude a finding
of admin liability to which he shall be answerable. Jurisdiction
over the admin complaint was not lost by mere fact of
respondent Caubes death during the pendency of the admin
case. The tribunal retains jurisdiction to pronounce him
innocent or guilty.

At the time of the institution of the case against Caube, he
was still connected with the Judiciary as a Clerk of Court.
During the pendency of the case, he died. Is his death during
the pendency of the admin proceedings a legal basis for the
dismissal for such proceeding? The rule here is that: The
death or retirement of officer from service does not prevent
a finding of admin liability. The person can still be held
answerable. The tribunal continues to retain jurisdiction and


therefore, is empowered to pronounce him innocent or
guilty.

OMB vs. Dep. Dir. Andutan: Prevailing doctrine: Admin
jurisdiction can no longer be exercised by OMB if public
officer has already separated from the service prior to the
filing of charges regarding illegal transfer of tax credit
certificates. Andutan was no longer a public servant at the
time the case was filed.

Andutan here was asked to tender his resignation because he
was not eligible. He complied. Subsequently, a case was filed
against him before the OMB. Did the OMB acquire
jurisdiction? No. At the time of filing the admin case, he was
no longer connected with the office. He was asked to tender
resignation letter here.

What is the exception to this rule? If his separation was the
cause of the intention to evade liability.

Pagano vs. Nazarro: Exception: When public officer resigned
in bad faith or specifically, when resignation was done in
anticipation of charges (P1.4M shortage) to be filed against
her.

Even if the officer filed his certificate of candidacy, the officer
is still made liable because it was done in bad faith.

Rules
The withdrawal of a complaint or desistance of
complainant will not automatically result to dismissal
of admin case. Complainant is a mere witness xxx
The tribunal has an interest apart from complaints
own in determining the truth and when necessary,
imposing sanctions versus erring employees (This is
the reason)
Rule on anonymous complaints: such complaints do
not always justify outright dismissal, particularly
when allegations may be easily verified an
established by other competent evidence
Under Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation,
elective officials cannot be subject to disciplinary
action for admin misconduct committed during a
prior term. Reasons for the rule. (Applies only when
the officer is elected to the same position)

Garcia vs. Mojica: While a re-elected official may no longer be
held administratively liable for singing a questionable
contract before his reelection, this will not prejudice the filing
of any case other than the administrative versus him.

OMB vs. Torres: Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer
seeking elective office.

14


March 7, 2015

Aggrieved party who may appeal the administrative decision
Section 39a PD 807: Appeals, where allowable, shall be made
by the party adversely affected by the decision

CSC vs. Dacoycoy: CSC as aggrieved party may appeal the CA
decision to SC. By this ruling, SC abandoned and overruled
prior decisions that the Civil Service Law does not
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating public officers
from administrative charges.

The real party in interest in admin cases is the state. The
complainant is only the witness.

Section 37 of PD 807: CSC decides on appeal all admin
disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of
suspension for more than 30 days, or a fine in an amount
exceeding 30 days slaray, demotion, transfer or dismissal
from service

A party may elevate a decision of CSC before the CA thru
petition for review under Rule 43 of Revised Rules of Court

OMB vs. CT Samaniego: The OMB has clear legal interest to
intervene in the petition for review on certiorari before the
CA.

The respondent city treasurer was sanctioned with
suspension for one year. CT appealed the decision of the
OMB. The petition for review as filed by CT. The OMB filed a
motion to intervene and it was denied by the CA. The OMB
went to the high court. The SC said that the OMB has a legal
interest because precisely, it was the decision of the OMB
which is now pending with the CA. In fact, it is the real party
representing the state.

General rule: Decisions of admin agencies have, upon their
finality, the binding effect of a final judgment within purview
of res judicata doctrine

Exceptions to the res judicata doctrine:
a. supervening events make it imperative to modify a
final judgment to harmonize it with prevailing
circumstances
b. its application would sacrifice justice to technicality
c. parties involved waived it or do not timely raised it as
a defense
d. issue of citizenship

PNP
o Section 6, Article XVI of 1987 Constitution
o Authority of local chief executives: one of
operational control and supervision (Section 62, RA
8551)
15

o
o

Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members upon

citizens complaint under Section 42 of RA 6895 is
concurrent with PNP Chief or regional directors
under Section 45
Appellate jurisdiction of NAPOLCOME through NAB
and RAB
Appeals form decisions of NAPOLCOM should be
with DILG and then with CSC

Under Article 16, the state shall establish and maintain xxx to
be administered by the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM). One of the more doubtful provisions of this
draft, proposed Bangsamoro Law, this is really
unconstitutional in the matter of MILF having its own police
force. Even if we say that they are still part of the PNP

Criminal cases involving PNP members are within exclusive
jurisdiction of regular courts. Courts-martial are not courts
but are instrumentalities of executive power.

Andaya vs. RTC: Regional Police Director has prerogative to
name the 5 eligibles for position of city police chief (3 for
provincial police chief) from a pool of eligible officers
screened by the Senior Officers Promotion and Selection
Board of the PNP without interference from local executives.
The mayor has limited power to select one from among the
list of the eligible as police chief.

You cannot appoint somebody who is not named in the list.
The mayor has a limited power. The mayor here wanted to
include somebody not included in the list. So, he filed a
peititon before the RTC. The SC ruled that it is clearly
provided under the law that the mayor cannot appoint
somebody who is not included in the list from the Regional
Director.

AFP
o RA 7055: An act strengthening civilian supremacy
over the military by returning to civil courts the
jurisdiction over certain offenses involving AFP
members, other persons subject to military law

General rule: AFP member and other persons subject to
military law, who commit crimes penalized under RPC (like
coup detat), other special penal laws, or local ordnances
shall be tried by the proper civil court

Who are the other persons here? CAFGU.

Exception: Where the civil court, before arraignment, has
determined the offense to be service connected, then the
offending soldier shall be tried by a court martial.

Exception to the exception: Where the President, in the
interest of justice directs before arraignment that any such
crime shall be tried by the proper civil court.



Gonzales et. al. vs. Abaya: Service-connected offenses are
limited to those defined in the Articles of War (CA 408),
violations of which are triable by the court martial.

The delineation of jurisdiction between civil courts and courts
martial over crimes committed by military personnel is
necessary to preserve the peculiar nature of military justice
system, which is aimed at achieving the highest form of
discipline to ensure the highest degree of military efficiency.
The charge vs. petitioners concerns their alleged xxx.

Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) PD 478, Book IV, Admin
Code
General rule: Solicitor General is the lawyer of the
government, its agencies and officials. He represents a public
official in all civil, criminal and special proceedings, when such
proceedings arise from the latters acts in his official
capacity.

Rule: Actions in the name of the RP or its instrumentality, if
not imitated by the Solicitor General, will be summarily
dismissed.

Exceptions:
1. When the government office is adversely affected by
the contrary stand of OSG (Orbos vs. CSC, 12 Sept.
1990)
2. SolGen deputizes legal officers xxx (Section 35,
Chapter 123, Book IV EO 292)

General rule: SolGen can represent a public official in all civil,
criminal and special proceedings when such proceedings
arise from the latters acts in his official capacity.

Exception: Such official or agent is being charged criminally
or being sued civilly for damages arising from a felony.

Dir. Pascual vs. Judge Beltran: The mention of petitioners
name in the complaint for damages with the RTC as TelCom
Director, arising from the alleged malicious administrative
suit vs. respondent Raymundo, does not transform the action
into one vs. him in his official capacity.

Urbano vs. Chavez: OSG cannot represent a public official at
any stage of a criminal case or in a civil case for damages
arising from a felony. A public official sued in a criminal case is
actually sued in his personal capacity since the State can
never be the author of a wrongful act. Similarly, any
pecuniary liability an official may be held to account in the
civil suit is for his own account.

Republic vs. Desierto: Assuming the PCGG has no authority to
file the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the
dismissal by OMB of the graft complaint vs. Cojuangco et al,

16

its unauthorized filing was ratified and the defect was cured
with the OSG signed as co-counsel.

Ombudsman Constitutional Mandate
As protector of the people, OMB has the power, function and
duty to act promprtly on complaints filed in any form or
manner against public officials and to investigate any acts xxx

Need for Prompt Action
o Delay od 3 years in PI violates accuseds right to due
process xxx (Tatad vs. SB)
o Anchangco vs. OMB (1997) same principle was
applied
o Constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases
extends to all parties in all cases and in all
proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial
hearings (OMB vs. Jurado)
o No violation of due process here. (FF) in 1992: admin
case in 1997 and decision in 1999 6 months,
suspension of Customs employee for neglect of duty

OMB Jurisdiction
o Jurisdiction encompasses all kinds of malfeasance,
misfeasance and nonfeasance committed by any
officer during his tenure of office

UY vs. OMB: OMB is clothed with authority to conduct PI and
to prosecute all criminal cases involving all public officers and
employees not only within the jurisdiction of the SB, but
those within the jurisdiction of regular courts

Sanchez vs. Demetriou: OMB authority is shared or
concurrent with similarly authorized government offices.

Honasan vs. DOJ Panel: DOJ is not precluded from
investigating the case, but if the case falls under exclusive
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, then OMB may in exercise of
its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage of the
investigation of such case.

If the case filed against a high-ranking officer is under the
jurisdiction of the SB, meaning office-connected, under the
law, the OMB has the primary authority or jurisdiction. It
means that the OMB may take over the conduct of
investigation at any stage of the proceeding.

Orcullo vs. Gervacio: A money claim vs. a councilor is within
the jurisdiction of court, not the OMB. If money claim is vs.
City Government, claim is within the jurisdiction of the SP.

Under OMB-DOJ MOA date March 29, 2012 (which modifies
Join OMB-DOJ Circular of 10/05/95), OMB has primary
jurisdiction in conduct of PI and inquest over cases
cognizable by Sandiganbayan.


Both have concurrent jurisdiction over cases within
jurisdiction of RTC/MTC; but the office where such complaint
is filed for PI acquires jurisdiction to exclusion of other
provided that OMB may refer any complaint to DOJ. Also, the
prosecution of cases investigated by OMB but referred to
DOJ for prosecution is under the DOJ control.

Lets say the complaint a high-ranking officer is filed with the
OMB, then it is to the exclusion to the DOJ. But under the
new MOA, the OMB has the discretion to have the DOJ to
prosecute the case. So if the OMB asks the DOJ to prosecute
the case, even if the PI was conducted by the PI, then it is the
DOJ which shall decide it.

Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary Authority?
o Impeachable officials (In re: Raul M. Gonzales)
o Members of Congress (Section 16, Article VI)
o OMB vs. Mojica
o Judiciary (Sec. 6, Article VIII)
*Maceda vs. Vasquez
*Caoibes vs. Alumbres
*Fuentes vs. OMB
*Garcia vs. Miro

Maceda vs. Vasquez: Where a criminal complaint vs. a judge
or court employee arises from this admin duties, the OMB
must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to
the SC for determination whether said judge or employee
had acted within the scope of his admin duties.

Dolalas vs OMB: OMB has no jurisdiction to investigate the
alleged undue delay in the disposition of criminal case
which involves determination whether the judge acted in
accord with Code of Judicial Conduct

Fuentes vs. OMB: Before a civil or criminal action vs. a judge
for violation Article 204 (knowingly rendering unjust
judgment) and Article 205 RPC can be entertained, there
must be a final and authoritative judicial declaration that the
decision is unjust.

Garcia vs. Mojica: Meaning of phrase under his authority in
RA 6770, all officials under investigation by his office
regardless of the branch of government which they are
employed

*Yabut vs. Ofifce of the OMB
* Buenaseda vs. Flavier
*OMB vs. Valera

17