Quasi-Judicial Body or Agency (Q5-2006)

3. What is a quasi-judicial body or agency? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A quasi-judicial body or agency is an administrative body with the power to hear,
determine or ascertain facts and decide rights, duties and obligations of the parties by
the application of rules to the ascertained facts. By this power, quasi-judicial agencies
are enabled to interpret and apply implementing rules and regulations promulgated by
them and laws entrusted to their administration.
Government Agency vs. Government Instrumentality (Q7-2005)
Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
(3) State with reason(s) which of the following is a government agency or a
government instrumentality:
Department of Public Works and Highways;

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 (1996), 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.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Submission of the rule to the University of the Philippines Law Center for publication is
mandatory. Unless this requirement is complied with, the rule cannot be enforced.

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas;

Philippine Ports Authority;
Land Transportation Office;
Land Bank of the Philippines. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An INSTRUMENTALITY refers to any agency of the national government not
integrated within the departmental framework, vested with special functions or
jurisdiction by law, with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds,
and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. (Iron and Steel Authority
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102976, October 25, 1995)
AGENCY under the administrative code is 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 the disciplinary powers as provided by law.
There is NO PRACTICAL DISTINCTION between an instrumentality and agency, for
all intents and purposes. A distinction, however, may be made with respect to those
entities possessing a separate charter created by statute.
DPWH is an agency. It does not possess a separate charter.
BSP is an instrumentality because it was incorporated under the new Central Bank
Law (R.A. No. 7653)
PPA can be defined as both an instrumentality and an agency because it was
incorporated by special law and it has its own charter, yet it is integrated with the
DOTC.

Power of the President to Reorganize Administrative Structure (2003)

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
No VI The President abolished the Office of the Presidential Spokesman in
Malacanang Palace and a long-standing Bureau under the Department of Interior and
Local Governments. The employees of both offices assailed the action of the President
for being an encroachment of legislative powers and thereby void. Was the contention
of the employees correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of the employees is not correct. As held in Buklod ng Kawaning EHB v.
Zamora. 360 SCRA 718 [2001], Section 31, Book III of the Administrative Code of
1987 has delegated to the President continuing authority to reorganize the
administrative structure of the Office of the President to achieve simplicity, economy
and efficiency. Since this includes the power to abolish offices, the President can
abolish the Office of the Presidential Spokesman, provided it is done in good faith. The
President can also abolish the Bureau in the Department of Interior and Local
Governments, provided it is done in good faith because the President has been
granted continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the National
Government to effect economy and promote efficiency, and the powers include the
abolition of government offices. (Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1772; Larin v. The Executive Secretary. 280 SCRA 713
[1997]).

Meaning of Government of the Philippines (1997)

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
No. 3: Are government-owned or controlled corporations within the scope and meaning
of the Government of the Philippines?
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 subdivisions 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.

LTO is an agency. It is an office of the DOTC.

LBP is an instrumentality having a charter under a special law and is a government
financial institution (GFI) independent of any department of government.
Rules and Regulations; Due Process (2000)
Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
No III. -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. (5%)

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (1988)

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
No. 17: Apex Logging Co. and Batibot Logging Co. are adjacent timber concession
holders in Isabela. Because of boundary conflicts, and mutual charges of incursions
into their respective concession areas, the Bureau of Forestry ordered a survey to
establish on the ground their common boundary. The Bureau of Forestrys decision in
effect favored Batibot. Apex appealed to the Department of Natural Resources and
Environment and this department reversed the decision of the Bureau of Forestry and
sustained Apex. It was the turn of Batibot to appeal to the Office of the President. The
Office of the President through an Asst. Executive Secretary sustained the Department
of Natural Resources arid Environment. On a motion for reconsideration by Batibot,
however, an Asst. Executive Secretary other than the one who signed the decision
affirming the decision of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment
decided for Batibot, Dissatisfied with the Administrative action on the controversy. Apex

filed an action with the Regional Trial Court against Batibot, the Director of Forestry,
and the Asst. Executive Secretaries insisting that a judicial review of such divergent
administrative decisions is necessary to determine the correct boundary line of the
licensed areas in question.
Batibot moved to dismiss the action, but the Regional Trial Court denied the same and
even enjoined enforcement of the decision of the Office of the President. Batibots
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Batibot then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to review and annul the orders
of the Regional Trial Court. Do you believe the petition for certiorari and prohibition is
meritorious? Why or why not?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(c) What are the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies?

The petition for certiorari and prohibition is meritorious, The order of the trial court must
accordingly be set aside. As held in a similar case, Lianga Bay Logging Co. v. Enage,
152 SCRA 80 (1987), decisions of administrative officers should not be disturbed by
the courts except when the former have acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion. The mere suspicion of Apex that there were
anomalies in the nonrelease of the first decision and its substitution of a new one by
another Assistant Executive Secretary does not justify judicial review. Mere beliefs,
suspicions and conjectures cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of official
action.

(c) The following are the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies:

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. No search warrant from court needed.
(b) As pointed out in Chia us. 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.

1. The case deals with private land;

2. The question involved is purely legal;
3. The case involves a quo warranto proceeding;

Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2001)

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
No XIV 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the conditions for ripeness for judicial review of an administrative
action:
1. The administrative action has already been fully completed and, therefore, is a
final agency action; and

4. There is denial of due process;

5. The decision is patently illegal;
6. The aggrieved party will suffer irreparable injury;
7. There is estoppel;
8. Resort to administrative remedies would be futile;

2. All administrative remedies have been exhausted. [Gonzales, Administrative Law,

Rex Bookstore: Manila, p. 136 (1979)].
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Exceptions (1991)
Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
No. 8: 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) Should the petition be granted? Decide.
(b) 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?

9. The decision is that of a department head;

10. The law expressly provides for immediate judicial review;
11. Public interest is involved;
12. There was unreasonable delay in the administrative proceedings; and
13. The aggrieved party is poor.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies vs Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
(1996)
Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
No. 11: 1) Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
2) Does the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court oust
said court of jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER;
1) 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.
2) 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.

17. The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Rulian v Valdez, 12 SCRA 501
[1964]).

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (2000)

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
No XIII.
a) Explain the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (2%)

Wilson Doctrine vs. Estrada Doctrine (2004)

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer
(2-a-5) Distinguish: The Wilson doctrine and the Estrada doctrine regarding recognition
of governments.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b) Give at least three (3) exceptions to its application. (3%)

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 [19881)
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. v.
Abad. 206 SCRA 482 {1992);
11. The party was denied due process (Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 147 [1999]);
12. The decision is that of a Department Secretary. (Nazareno v. 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 v. Rasul 200 SCRA 685 [1991]);
14. There is unreasonable delay (Republic v, Sandiganbayan, 301 SCRA 237 [1999]);
15. The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land (Gabrito u.
Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 771 {1988]);
16. The party is poor (Sabello v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 180
SCRA 623 [1989]); and

Under the WILSON DOCTRINE, recognition shall not be extended to any government
established by revolution or internal violence until the freely elected representatives of
the people have organized a constitutional government.
Under the ESTRADA DOCTRINE, the Mexican government declared that it would, as
it saw fit, continue or terminate its diplomatic relations with any country in which a
political upheaval had taken place and in so doing it would not pronounce judgment on
the right of the foreign state to accept, maintain or replace its government. (Cruz,
International Law, 2003 ed.) (In view of recent developments, the Wilson doctrine and
the Estrada doctrine are no longer in the mainstream of public international law.)