Docshare - Tips - Admin Finals Reviewer 2 PDF

Administrative
Law – Atty. G. Soriano FINALS REVIEWER CagampanDiatoMendozaMelgar

Chapter 1
Administrative Law
Broad Sense Law, which provides structure of government and prescribes its procedure.
Law which is intended to control administrative procedures of government

Widest Sense Entire system of laws under which the machinery of state works and by which the state
performs all government acts
Goodnow’s (less comprehensive) Part of the public law, which fixes the organization and determines the competence of
the authorities which execute the law, and indicates to the individual remedies for
the violation of his rights.
Dean Rosco Pound’s (narrower) Branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government
acting in a quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative capacity, interferes with the conduct
of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community, as
under laws regulating public corporations, business affected with public interest,
professions, trades, and callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of the public
health and safety and promotion of the public convenience and advantage.
All of the definition has similarities

o Laws
o State – government
o Performs or Acts specific functions
Under Goodnow’s definition – it added an additional a new concept which is REMEDIES – that the government interferes in administrative
action
Under Pounds definition
o It justified why the government interferes
§ “purpose of promoting the well-being of the community”
o It expounded why the government interferes from Goodnow’s definition
ELEMENTS
Branch of modern law
o Recent origin – enforcing stage
Under executive department
o Inly under executive department
Acting in quasi legislative and quasi-judicial capacity
o Functions administrative law can act – its powers
Interferes with rights of the individual
o Limits or expand a right for the benefit of society
Justification
o General : welfare or promotion of society
Criticisms Advantages
1. Tendency towards arbitrariness 1. Advantages of administrative adjudication vs. Executive action
• Can be restrictive or lax – law is given wide latitude
of discretion thus they can decide either way ( in Executive action: insures greater uniformity and impersonality of action.
favor or against)
• CON: whimsical actions or decisions Congress resorted to administrative process as an alternative to executive action
2. Lack of legal knowledge and aptitude in sound judicial 2. Limitations upon powers of court
technique
Congress has entrusted the administration of some laws to administrative agencies
instead of the courts
3. Susceptibility to political bias or pressure, often brought 3. Trend towards preventive legislation
about by uncertainty of tenure
4. Disregard for the safeguards that insure a full and fair hearings 4. Limitations upon effective legislative action
• More leeway or lax to implement – expedite the case
5. Absence of standard rules of procedure suitable to the 5. Limitations upon exclusively judicial enforcement
activities of each agency
• Every agency – own specialization
• Give way for adoption – can adjust
6. Dangerous combination of legislative, executive and judicial
functions
• Discharge of functions
• Unclogged the courts
• Expertise:
a. Regulates acts – legislative
b. Implement – executive
c. Enforce - judicial
Cases:
1
Administrative Law – Atty. G. Soriano FINALS REVIEWER CagampanDiatoMendozaMelgar

Topic: Origin and Development of Administrative Law
1. SOLID HOMES, INC., vs. TERESITA PAYAWAL and COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 84811 August 29, 1989)
• Whether or not the courts under BP 129 (RTC has jurisdiction over the case or under PD 597 as amended by PD 1344 (empowering the NHA to
take cognizant of cases between owner, contractor, developer or salesman)
• PD 597 as amended by PD 1344 states that
SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in
Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the
following nature:
A. Unsound real estate business practices;
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractuala statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. (Emphasis supplied.)
• This construction must yield to the familiar canon that in case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail
regardless of the dates of their enactment - general law in this case is BP No. 129 and PD No. 1344 the special law.
• the Court sustained the competence of the respondent administrative body, in the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction vested in it by PD No. 957
and PD No. 1344, to determine the rights of the parties under a contract to sell a subdivision lot.
2. CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, INC., vs. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO and PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO (G.R. No. 164789 August 27,
2009)
• know
o what kind of real estate : SUBDIVISION SELLER
o HOW it was sold - installment
• SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases of the following nature:
A. Unsound real estate business practices;
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer
against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of
subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
• Note particularly pars. (b) and (c) as worded, where the HLURB’s jurisdiction concerns cases commenced by subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyers. As to par. (a), concerning “unsound real estate practices,” it would appear that the logical complainant
would be the buyers and customers against the sellers (subdivision owners and developers or condominium builders and
realtors ), and not vice versa. [Emphasis supplied.]
• CGA principally wants is a refund of all payments it already made to the respondents. This intent, amply articulated in its complaint, places its
action within the ambit of the HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction and outside the reach of the regular courts. Accordingly, CGA has to file its
complaint before the HLURB, the body with the proper jurisdiction.
o SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases of the following nature:
xxx
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium
unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
o NOTE: BUYER à against project owner, developer, dealer, broker, salesman (NOT VICE VERSA)
Topic: Criticism vs. Administrative Action

3. LOLITA DADUBO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (223 SCRA 747)
• HELD:
o We must also dismiss the petitioner's complaint that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to comply with the constitutional requirement
to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which a decision is based. We have held that this provision applies only to courts
of justice and not to administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission. 16 In any event, there was an earlier statement of the
facts and the law involved in the decision rendered by the MSPB dated February 28, 1990, which affirmed DBP's decision to dismiss
the petitioner. In both decisions, the facts and the law on which they were based were clearly and distinctly stated.
• NOTE: Administrative decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of
discretion, fraud or error of law (which the COURT can now take action on)
Topic: Advocates of Administrative Law

4. LIANGA BAY LOGGING, CO., INC., vs. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, and AGO TIMBER CORPORATION, (G.R. No. L-30637 July 16,
1987)
• Ago vs Lianga Bay Logging : determining the correct boundary line of the licensed timber areas of the contending parties
• Director of Forestry (decided in favor or Lianga) à Appealed to Dept. of Agriculture and Naturan Resources à appealed to the Office of the
President (decided in favor of Lianga
2

• Ago – went to court to determine boundary line à Lianga elevated the case via Certiorari to the SC
• HELD:
o court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of Civil Case No. 1253 of the Court of First Instance of Agusan nor has it jurisdiction
to decide on the common boundary of the licensed areas of petitioner Lianga and respondent Ago, as determined by respondents
public officials against whom no case of grave abuse of discretion has been made. Absent a cause of action and jurisdiction,
respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and excess, if not lack, of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the case under
review and in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the final decision
• NOTE:
o courts of justice will generally not interfere with purely administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of
government agencies and their expertise unless there is a clear showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may amount to an excess or lack of
jurisdiction.
Topic: Elements of Administrative Law

5. IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS (249 SCRA 538)
• This case is about ISA commencing expropriation proceedings – but during the proceedings ISA expired ( the government granting its power
now ceases to exist)
• HELD:
o ISA was held to be under National Government – it is under the executive department
o Non incorporated – delegate or agent of the Philippines à responsibility reverts back to the Philippines upon expiration
• NOTE:
o Courts have no jurisdiction over decision of administrative body EXCEPT upon abuse of discretion
6. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, vs. ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES (249 SCRA 162)
• Arbitration case: violation by LDB of collective bargaining agreement
• LDB did not pass its position paper as required by the Arbiter thus it decided in favor or LDBE
• It was appealed to the SC
• BP129 – CA has appellate jurisdiction over quasi judicial agency decisions
• SC said
o Voluntary arbitration not government employee / department BUT considered quasi judicial instrumentality
o Instrumentality – authority to which the state delegates power to perform state function
• NOTE
o An "instrumentality" is anything used as a means or agency. 12 Thus, the terms governmental "agency" or "instrumentality" are
synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by which a government acts, or by which a certain government act or function
is performed. 13 The word "instrumentality," with respect to a state, contemplates an authority to which the state delegates
governmental power for the performance of a state function. 14 An individual person, like an administrator or executor, is a judicial
instrumentality in the settling of an estate, 15 in the same manner that a sub-agent appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality
of the court, 16 and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an instrumentality of the state. 17
o In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition
for certiorari from that award or decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme
Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper disposition.
CHAPTER 2
BASIC CONCEPTS:
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY a.
Is an organ of government, other than a court and other than a legislature
b.
Which affects the rights of private parties
c.
Through either adjudication or rule – making
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY a.
Refer to any of the various units of the government
(administrative Code of 1987) b.
Including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or GOCC or local government or a distinct unit
therein.
COVERAGE Boards, commission, division, bureaus, departments, office, authority, corporation, administration, division or
agency
4th BRANCH OF THE a. It is either executive (administrative) or judicial
GOVERNMENT OR
b. It is quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial
TYPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES (PROCIP)

Performing business service for public Phil Postal Corp
PNR
MWSS
NEA
NFA
NHA
Regulating business affected with public interest Insurance Commission
LTFRB
ERB
NTC
HLURB
Offering grant, gratuity, special privilege PVAO
GSIS
PAO
3

Philhealth
Carry function of government BOC
BIR
BID
LRA
Imbued with social policy NLRC
ECC
SSC
SEC
DAR
COA
Police power to regulate private business or individuals SEC
MTRCB
GAB
DDB
CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

MANNER OF CREATION EXAMPLES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Constitutional Commission Art 9 1987 Constitution
(maybe self-executing)
Ombudsman Art 11 Sec 5 1987 Constitution
CHR Art 13 Sec 17 1987 Constitution

LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS OMB RA 9239 Optical Media Act of 2003
(usual source of creation)
National Computer Center PD 1480 June 11 1978
Toll Regulatory Board PD 1112

AUTHORITY OF LAW Presidential Communications Groups EO 4 July 30 2010
(delegated executive)
ORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

ACTIVITY DEFINITION EXAMPLE
1. a. Bringing into existence EO 122 –A (Jam. 30 1987)
CREATION b. Of an administrative agency Creating OMA
2. a. Alternation of the structure EO 297 (July 25, 1987) Reorganization of OPS
REORGANIZATION b. Of an administrative body
3. a. Terminating the existence EO 13 (Nov 15, 2010)
ABOLITION b. Of an administrative office Abolishing PAGC
4. a. Office continues to exist EO 191 (Jan 7, 2000)
DEACTIVATION b. Albeit dormant Deactivation of EIIB
REORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

PURPOSES a. Simplicity Larin vs Executive Secretary 280 SCRA 713
b. Economy
c. Efficiency FACTS: in 1993 Pres. Ramos issue EO 132 streamlining BIR, Excise Tax Service, headed by
Larin was abolished. Then, Pres Ramos appointed 10 BIR assistant commissions, excluding
Larin
HELD: if abolition is done for political reasons or to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise not
in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and whatever abolition is done is void ab initio
LIMITATIONS Good Faith Dario vs Mison 176 SCRA 84
FACTS: on Jan 26, 1988 Commission Salvador Mison notified various Customs officials that
their services were terminated. Deputy Commissioner Cesar Dario was one of the 394 officials
and employees of BOC who were separated from service
HELD: Terminating 394 BOC employees and thereafter hiring 522 replacements is a revamp
pure and simple. Mison may carry out reorganization under the transitory provisions of the
1987 Constitution. But such reorganization should be subject to the criterion of good faith
POWER TO REORGANIZE
EXECUTIVE Art VII Sec 17 1987 Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs Zamora
POWER Constitution: The President GR no 142801-802 July 10, 2001
shall have control of all the
executive departments, FACTS: on Jan 7, 2000 Pres Estrade issue EO 191, ordering deactivation of EIIB and transfer
bureaus, and offices. He shall of its function to BOC and NBI. On March 29, 2000 Estrade issue EO 223 proving that EIIB
ensure that the laws be personnel shall be deemed separated from service effective April 30, 2000
faithfully executed.
HELD: as far as offices in the executive department are concerned, President’s power of control
may justify him to inactivate functions of particular office, or certain laws may grant him
authority to carry out reorganization measures
4

CONTINUING Sec 31 Book III Chap 10 EO Bagaoisan vs National Tobacco Authority
AUTHORITY 29: The President, subject to GR No 152845 Aug 5, 2003
the policy in the Executive
Office and in order to achieve FACTS: On Sept 30, 1998 Pres Estrada issued EO 29 “Streamlining NTA” Dranita Bagaoisan,
simplicity, economy and etal all occupying different positions at NTA-Batac, received notices of termination of their
efficiency, shall have employment effective 30 days from receipt thereof
continuing authority to
reorganize the administrative HELD: in the present instance, involving neither an abolition nor transfer of offices, the assailed
structure of the Office of the action is a mere reorganization under the general provisions of the law consisting mainly of
President streamlining the NTA in the interest of simplicity, economy, and efficiency. It is an act well
within the authority of President motivated and carried out in good faith.
POWER TO REORGANIZE UNDER EO 292

OP PROPER PRESIDENT CAN: Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs Zamora
a. Abolish,
consolidate or
merge units
OR
b.
Transfer functions Bagaoisan vs NTA
from one unit to
another
OUTSIDE OF OP PRESIDENT CAN: Domingo vs Zamoura
PROPER a. Transfer functions GR no 142283 Feb 6, 2003
or agencies OP to
But still within OP other departments FACTS: In 1999 Pres Estrada issued EO 81 transferring the Sports Programs of DECS to PSC.
or agencies Rosa Domingo etal went to SC, arguing that
a. EO 81 is unconstitutional for being an undue legislation by Pres. Estrada
OR b. DECS is not part of OP
b. Transfer function HELD: Under EO 292 DECS is a Department of Executive Branch, Even if DECS is not part of
or agencies other OP. Sec 31 (2) (3) of EO 292 authorizes Pres to transfer any function or agency of DECS to OP.
department or PSC is attached to OP. Therefore, Pres has authority to transfer functions of DECS to PSC
agencies to OP
ABOLITION
BY VIRTUE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES COVERED
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS a. For constitutionally created offices
b. Those created pursuant to law
c. Those created pursuant to delegated authority
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS a. Those created pursuant to law
b. Those created pursuant to delegated authority
AUTHORITY OF LAW a. Pursuant to such delegated authority
CHAPTER 3
Power and Functions
Power Function
Means by which function is fulfilled Which one is bound or which it is one’s business to do
Issues rules and regulations Mandate of the administrative body
Adjudicatory – power to hear and decide cases Example: LTFRB – regulate public transportation
Not synonymous with each other
Sources of Function / Power

Legislative Enactments / Statutes Example: Charters
Constitution Examples: COMELEC, COA, Constitutional Commission
Hybrid Combination from legislation and constitution
Example: Office of Ombudsman
Constitution: Article 11 Section 5

Legislation: RA 6770 (additional powers)
Different Classification of Powers

As to Nature As to Degree of Subjective Choice
Investigatory Power Include power to inspect the records and Discretionary Applied to public functionaries as to the
premises and investigate the activities power or right conferred upon them by law
coming under jurisdiction or to secure or to of acting officially under certain
5

require the disclosure of information by circumstances according to the dictates of
means of accounts, records, reports, their own judgment and conscience and not
statements, testimony of witnesses, by others.
production of documents or otherwise.
Quasi – legislative / Rule - Permissible Delegation of Powers: Ministerial Performed in response to a duty which has
Making been imposed by law and not dependent
Tariffs upon an officer’s discretion
Emergency Power
Administrative Bodies
Local Government
Initiatives
Quasi – judicial / Must be expressly granted and cannot just

Adjudicatory be implied
Cases
Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. v. SEC, G.R. No. L-23004, June 30, Makati Stock Exchange: applied for a permit for a Stock Exchange in addition to
1965 Manila Stock Exchange
SEC: approved; BUT with the condition of NO DOUBLE LISTING.
Makati SE: complained that SEC has no power to impose such condition
SEC: averred that no stock exchange shall operate without authority from them because
they have the power to license
Makati SEC: no express provision; denied application – went to court.
SC: admin body can only exercise power expressly provided / necessarily complied
therefrom.
Ultra Vires: actions taken by government bodies or corporations that exceed the scope
of power given to them
Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, August 29, 1989 “Once power is expressly granted” = construction is liberal
(FOCUS: issue interpretation of laws grantingpowers / statcon)
Express powers are liberally interpreted to exercise functions intended by law
In case of doubt: resolved in favor of admin body to exercise power granted to it
Transaction: sale of condo/subdivision lots (installments) = if NOT expressed = NHA

no jurisdiction to assume case
PD 957 = general rescission = involves breach contract = court of general jurisdiction

RTC
Taule v. Santos, G.R. No. 90336, August 12, 1991 Taule:
-‐ Elected with 4 other barangay captains
-‐ President of Association of Federation of Brgy. Captains in Catanduanes
(more like a city councilor / member of provincial board kind of position)
DILG: nullifies the elections because the election process was not followed.
Taule: was not happy
Not COMELEC = not barangay elections
Sec. Santos: contention was the conduct of elections of the federation or the guidelines
followed.
No express provision; since power to issue guidelines can be implied in this provision
Doctrine of Necessary Implication: The doctrine which states that what is implied in
a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed
SC: when results were nullified Santos heard and determined the rights of the parties
which is a QUASI – JUDICIAL power
No express provision = no right to nullify
General Rule: expressly granted / necessary implication
Exception: QJP must be expressly granted
Payawal Makati SE Taule
6

-‐ Power to assume jurisdiction Express and Implied Power to issue complied?
PD957 NO!
-‐ Included: activity arises from No express grant of power = no provision QJP should be expressly granted
transaction of sale of to liberally interpret
legislative content = liberal = No express grant of power = no provision to liberally interpret
valid PD957
BASIC CONCEPTS
INVESTIGATORY POWER a. Power to carry out a systematic or formal inquiry
(inquisitorial power) b. On violation of laws
c. And to gather information on proposed legislations
JUDICIAL FUNCTION a. Power to adjudicate
b. Upon rights and obligations of parties
JUDICIAL DISCRETION a. Power to evaluate evidence submitted to it
b. On the facts and circumstances presented
TEST OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS a. Not the exercise of judicial discretion
b. But the power and authority to adjudicate
c. Upon rights and obligations of parties before it
INVESTIGATORY POWER
PRINCIPLE NO 1 To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge
CARINO VS CHR 204 SCRA 483
FACTS:
MPSTA and ACT Members – on Sept 17, 1990 undertook “mass concerted action” to “dramatize” theur plight for failure of authorities to act
upon their grievances
Sec. Isidro Carino – issued return to work order in 24 hrs to striking teachers or face dismissed for failure to heed the order, teachers were
charged, preventively suspended for 90 days and temporarily replaced
Teachers – complained to CHR that they were replaced without notice and for no reason. Carino moved for dismissed for lack of jurisdictions.
CHR denied the motion and ruled that there had been violation of the teachers’ civil and political rights which CHR was empowered to
investigate Carino elevated the case to SC
HELD
The only thing CHR can do, if it concludes that Sec. Carino was in error, is to refer matter to appropriate Government agency or tribunal for
assistance, that would be CSC, it cannot arrogate unto itself the appellate jurisdiction of the CSC
The most that may be conceded to CHR is that it may investigate i.e receive evidence and make findings of facts as regards claimed human
rights violations involving civil and political rights
PURPOSES OF GRANT OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS

INFORMATION GATHERING CHR Sec 18 Art XIII (1) Investigate, on its own or on
NBI complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights;
Sec 1 RA 157 (a) To undertake investigations of

crimes and other offenses against the laws of the
Philippines, upon its own initiative and as public
interest may require;
PROSEUCTION PURPOSES Public Proseuctor Sec 13 Art XI 1987 Constitution (1) Investigate
Ombudsman on its own, or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public official, employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.
AID TO OTHER POWERS SEC Sec 5 (a) Securities Regulation Code (RA8799)
(a) Have jurisdiction and supervision over all
corporations, partnership or associations who are
the grantees of primary franchises and/or a
license or a permit issued by the Government;
Sec 5(d) Securities Regulation Code (RA8799)

(d) Regulate, investigate or supervise the
activities of persons to ensure compliance;
SCOPE AND EXTENT OF INVESTIGATIVE POWERS

SCOPE EXTENT ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
1. INITIATION OF On complaint Villaluz vs Zaldivar (15 SCRA 710) power of control of President
INVESTIGATION (examine, Or may extend to power to investigate, suspend or remove officers and
explore, inquire) Own motion employees who belong to executive department (presidential
appointees)
2. CONDUCT OF May be held in private Ruiz vs Drilon 209 SCRA 695 – respondent in administrative case is
INVESTIGATION (audit, physical not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of
investigation, monitoring) investigating committee
7

Sec of Justice vs Lantion 332 SCRA 160 – due process rights of notice
and hearing may be invoked at evaluation stage of extradition
proceedings
Pefianco vs Moral 322 SCRA 439 – respondent in administrative case

is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of
investigating committee
3. INSPECTION AND No search warrant required Camara vs Mun. Court 387 US 523 – There was no emergency
EXAMINATION (routine demanding immediate access. Yet no warrant was obtained.
inspection for enforcement of Conduct inspection during reasonable
regulation) hours Salazar vs Achacoso 183 SCRA 145 – Art 39 Labor Code, which
grants Secretary of Labor authority to issue orders of arrest, search and
seizure, is unconstitutional, because Secretary is not a judge
4.ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, Access to documents of person being Catura vs CIR 37 SCRA 303 – documents required to be produced
REPORTS OR STATEMENTS investigated constitutes evidence of most solid character as to whether or not there
was failure to comply with mandates of the law.
5. ATTENDANCE OF No inherent power to: Evangelista vs Jarencio 69 SCRA 99 – subpoena is within legal
WITNESSES competence of PARGO to issue pursuant to EO 4 which empowered it
1. Require attendance to “summon witness… relevant to the investigation”
2. Put under oath; require to
testify
6.HEARING May be held but not necessary part of Office Court Administrator vs Canque 588 SCRA 226 –
investigation administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in
its strict judicial sense. A formal or trial-type hearing is not required.
7. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS Requisites: Carmelo vs Ramos 116 Phil 1152 – one who invokes Sec 580 RAC
(failing to appear or refusing to 1. Statutory grant must first show he has “authority to take testimony or evidence”
produce document) 2. Performing quasi – judicial before he can apply to courts for punishment of hostile witnesses
functions
Masangcay vs Comelec 6 SCRA 27 – when comelec exercises
ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish contempt
because such power is inherently judicial in nature
Bedol vs Comelec 606 SCRA 554 – to withhold from comelec the

power of contempt would render nugatory its investigation power
which is an essential incident to its mandate to secure honest and
credible elections
8. RULES OF PROCEDURES Administrative agency is given wide Gaoiran v Alcala 444 SCRA 428 – in administrative proceedings,
AND EVIDENCE latitude technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.
I. INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION
PRINCIPLE Administrative agency or official may initiate investigation on a complaint or on its own motion
VILLALUZ vs ZALDIVAR 15 SCRA 710
FACTS:
Ruben Villaluz – was appointed Administrator of Motor Vehicles Office (MVO)
Cong. Joaquin Roces (Chairman of the Committee on Good Government) – informed the President about the findings of his Committee
concerning alleged gross mismanagement and efficiency committed by Villaluz in MVO. Cong. Roces recommended the replacement of Villaluz
President = dismissed Villaluz, after the investigating committee created thereby its report
Villaluz – claims that the administrative proceedings conducted against him are illegal since there was no previous verified complaint against him
HELD:
The chief executive, as administrative head of Villaluz, is empowered to commence administrative proceedings motu proprio, without need of
any previous complaint.
II. CONDUCT INVESTIGATION

PRINCIPLE NO 1. Respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of
investigating committee.
RUIZ VS DRILON 209 SCRA 695
FACTS:
Dr. Eliseo Ruiz - was ordered dismissed by Pres. Aquino for dishonesty and grave misconduct as President of Central Luzon State University
(CLSU) ES Franklin Drilon denied Ruiz MR
Ruiz – filed petition for prohibition with CA, which issued TRO. After 8 days, Ruiz filed with SC petition for annulment of AO 218 as well as
orders of Drilon denying his MR. CA dismissed the petition as forum shopping. Thus, Ruiz went to SC alleging that he was not informed of the
findings of the investigation conducted against him.
HELD
Ruiz is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against
him
He is entitled only to an administrative decision that is based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made
against him and the evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigating committees.
PEFIANCO V MORAL 322 SCRA 439
FACTS:
Maria Luisa Moral (Chief Librarian National Library) – was charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudiced to the best
interest of the service (pilferage of historical documents)
DECS Investigating Committee – conducted hearings. Thereafter DECS Sec Ricardo Gloria ordered Moral dismissed from government service
8

Moral – filed Petition for Production of Investigating Committee Report purportedly to guide her on whatever action to take. Her petition was
denied. She filed for mandamus. RTC denied motion to dismiss filed by Gloria. On appeal CA, sustained RC. Gloria went to SC
HELD
A respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to
inquire into charges filed against him.
He is entitled only to the decision based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and evidence presented against
her during the hearings of the investigation committee
PRINCIPLE NO 2. Due process rights of notice and hearing may be invoked at evaluation stage of extradition proceedings
SEC. OF JUSTICE VS LANTION 332 SCRA 160
FACTS:
Sec Franklin Drilon - formed a panel to evaluate the request for extradition by the US government of Mark Jimenez, who is wanted in the US
for various crimes
Jimenez – pending evaluation, requested for copies of extradition request and documents submitted
Drilon – denied the request on the ground, inter alia, that its premature to furnish Jimenez document
Judge Ralph Lantion – upon petition of Jimenez directed DOJ to maintain status quo. Drilon went to SC
HELD
One will search in vain the RP-US Extradition Treaty, the Extradition Law ( PD1069), as well as American jurisprudence and procedures on
extradition, for any prohibition against the enforcement of 2 basic due process rights of notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition proceedings
Jimenez does not only face clear and present danger and loss of property or employment, but of liberty itself, which may eventually lead to his
forcible banishment to a foreign land
III. INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION

PRINCIPLE NO 1. No search warrant is required but inspection must be conducted during reasonable hours
CAMARA V MUNICIPAL COURT 387 US 523
FACTS
Camara – was a lessee of the ground floor of an apartment building
San Francisco Health Department – received information that Camara, was using the rear of his leasehold as residence. Claiming that the
building’s occupancy permit did not allow residential use of the ground floor, inspector of the Health Department demanded that Camara permit
an inspection of the premises
Camara – refused to allow the inspection because the inspector lacked search warrant
HELD
There was no emergency demanding immediate access; in fact the inspectors made three trips to the building in an attempt to obtain Camara’s
consent to the search
Yet no warrant was obtained and thus Camara was unable to verify either the need for or the appropriate limits of the inspection
PRINCIPLE NO 2. Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge
SALAZAR VS ACHACOSO 183 SCRA 145
FACTS
Timas Achacoso (POEA Adminsitrator) – ordered the seizure of documents and paraphernalia being used as means of committing illegal
recruitment owned by Hortencia Salazar
Salazar – requested POEA that the personal properties seized be immediately returned on the ground that said seizure violate Sec 2 Art 3 of the
Philippine Consitution which guarantees right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose” Before POEA could act on the request, Salazar filed suit for Prohibition with SC
HELD
The Secretary of Labor (or the POEA Administrator), not being a judge may no longer issue search or arrest warrants
Art 38 par. C of the Labor Code empowering the Labor Secretary to issue search and arrest warrants in illegal recruitment cases is declared
unconstitutional.
IV. ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, REPORTS OR STATEMENTS

PRINCIPLE Accounts, records, reports or statements may be required to be delivered and deposited with administrative body at
the hearing.
CATURA VS CIR 37 SCRA 303
FACTS
Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador – President and Treasurer, respectively, of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administrative Employees Association
(PVTAEA) were charged before the CIR with “unauthorized disbursement of union funds”
CIR – required Catura and Salvador to deliver and deposit all Association’s book of accounts and other documents related to finances of the
union
Catura and Salvador – filed MR on the ground that the order was beyond the power of CIR to issue
HELD
All that the challenged order did was to require said union officers to “deliver and deposit” with CIR all documents related to its finances at the
hearing
The documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to whether or not there was a failure to comply with
the mandates of the law
V. ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES
PRINCIPLE It is common for statutes to confer such powers on administrative agencies
EVANGELISTA VS JARENCION 69 SCRA 99
FACTS
Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations ( PARGO) – created through EO 4, with power to investigate immoral practices,
graft and corruptions, and to investigate any public official or employee. Further, it is vested with power to summon witnesses, administer oaths,
take testimony or evidence relevant to investigation.
9

Usec. Quirico Evangelista – issued subpoena to Fernando Manalastas, Public Service officer of Manila
Manalastas – instead of obeying subpoena, filed with CFI-Manila petition for prohibition contending that Pargo’s subpoena power is exercisable
when it is performing quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function
Judge Hilarion Jarencio – granted the Petition. Thus Usec. Evangelista went to SC
HELD
The subpoena is well within the legal competence of PARGO to issue pursuant to EO 4 (5) which empowered it to “summon witness… relevant
to the investigation”
Subpoena power operates in all functions of PARGO. It is not merely exercisable in quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. To hold that
subpoena power of PARGO is confined to mere quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions would inactivate the Agency in its investigatory
functions.
VI. HEARING
PRINCIPLES In administrative investigation, formal or trial type hearing is not required.
OFFICE OF COURT ADM. V CANQUE 588 SCRA 226
FACTS:
Sylvia Canque (Clerk of Court of Cebu) – was arrested by NBI after an entrapment operation. SC treated the NPI entrapment as administrative
complaint for grave misconduct. Case was referred to OCA for investigation, report and recommendation. SC, upon recommendation of OCA,
reassigned case to RTC-Cebu for investigation, report and recommendation
Investigating Judge – found Conque guilty of grave misconduct and recommended penalty of dismissal
OCA – recommended that report of Investigating Judge be set aside and complaint be reinvestigated upon finding that Canque was not informed
of her right to be heard by herself and counsel during the investigation which allegedly amounted to denial of her right to due process
HELD
The essence of due process is that a party be afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of
his defense
Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. Thus, administrative due process cannot be fully
equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. A formal or trial-type of hearing is not required.
VII. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

PRINCIPLE NO1. Power to punish contempt must be expressly granted to administrative body
CARMELO VS RAMOS 116 PHIL 1152
FACTS
Jesus Carmelo – tasked by virtue of an EMO issued by the Mayor of Manila to head a committee to investigate anomalies involving certain city
personnel, issued subpoenas to Amando Ramos, bookkeeper, to appear in connection with an administrative case but Ramos refused. Carmelo
filed in CFI- Manila to declare Ramos in contempt. CFI ruled that there is no law empowering committees created by municipal mayors to issue
subpoenas and demand witnesses to testify under oath
Carmelo – appealed to the SC invoking Sec 580 Revised Administrative Code which provides “when authority to take testimony or evidence is
conferred upon… any… committee… such authority shall… comprehend the right to administer oaths and summon witnesses… Any on without
lawful excuse, fails to appear upon summons… shall be subject to discipline as in case of contempt of court”
HELD
One who invokes Sec 580 must first show he has authority to take testimony or evidence before he can apply to courts for punishment of hostile
witnesses
There is nothing in the EO about such grant of power. All that the order gives to this body is power to investigate anomalies involving certain city
anomalies. Delegation of power to investigate does not imply delegation of power to take testimony or evidence of witnesses whose appearance
may be required by the compulsory process of subpoena.
PRINCIPLE NO 2. Effectiveness of quasi-judicial power hinges on its authority to compel attendance of parties and their witnesses at
hearings.
BEDOL VS COMELEC 606 SCRA 554

FACTS:
Comelec Task Force Maguindanao – was tasked to conduct fact-finding investigation of allegations of fraud and irregularities in the onduct of the
May 14,2007 elections in Maguindanao
Lintang Bedol (PES for Maguindanao) – for refusing to appear during hearings and to answer questions before the task force, was found guilty of
Contempt of the Commission and meted 6 months imprisonment. He filed MR, which was denied. He elevated case to SC contending that
COMELEC, sitting as National Board of Canvassers, was performing administrative and not quas-judicial functions. He argued that COMELEC,
in that capacity, could not punish him for contempt.
HELD
COMELEC, through task force Maguindanao was exercising its quasi-judicial power in pursuit of truth behind the allegations of massive fraud
during the elections in Maguindana
To withhold from COMELEC the power to punish individuals who refuse to appear during the fact-finding investigation, would render nugatory
COMELEC’s investigatory power, which is an essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of honest and credible
elections.
PRINCIPLE NO 3. When granted power to contempt may only be exercised only when administrative body is performing quasi-judicial
functions
MASANGKAY V COMELEC 6 SCRA 27
FACTS:
Benjamin Masangcay (Provincial Treasurer of Aklan) – was charged before COMELEC with contempt for having opened three boxes containing
official and sample ballots for Aklan, in violation of Comelec, resolution inasmuch as he opened said boxes not in the presence of division
superintendent of schools, provincial auditor, and representatives of NP, LP and Citizen’s party, as required in said resolution
Masangkay – elevated the case to SC contending that even if he can be held guilty of contempt, the decision is null and void for lack of valid
power on the part of the Commission to impose such disciplinary penalty.
HELD:
10

When Comelec exercises ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature
The resolution which COMELEC tried to enforce and for whose violation the charge for contempt was filed against Masangcay merely call for
the exercise of an administrative or ministerial function for they merely concern the procedure to be follower in the distribution of ballots and
other election paraphernalia among the difference municipalities.
GAOIRAN VS ALCALA 444 SCRA 428

FACTS
Florian Gaoiran (Head Teacher, Angadanan Agro-Industrial College) – was charged by Edmon Castillejo (Administrative officer of the same
school) before the CHED, for mauling him while he was performing his duties. Appended to complaint were verified criminal complaint filed by
Castillejo and sworn statements of his witnesses for assault to person in authority. Caoiran was preventively suspended for 90 days. He sought
reconsideration contending that complaint was not under oath citing EO 292
Angel Alcala (CHED chairman) – dismissed Gaoiran from service Gaoiran filed petition with RTC, which ruled in his favor. On appeal, CA
reversed RTC. Aggrieved, Gaoiran went to SC.
HELD
The verified criminal complaint that Castillejo filed against Gaoiran, as well as the sworn statements of his witnesses could be very well
considered as constituting the complaint against him
Government agency is given wide latitude in the scope and exercise of its investigative powers. After all, in administrative proceedings, technical
rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.
VIII. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE
PRINCIPLE Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings
ANG TIBAY VS CIR 60 PHIL 635
FACTS
Ang Tibay – owned and operated by Toribio Teodoro, is a leather company which supplies Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather
soles, Toribio laid off members of National Labor Union
NLU – sought relief from CIR alleging that this was but scheme to discharge members of NLU from work as borne out by “records of Bureau of
Customs and Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather”
CIR – ruled in favor of Ang Tibay. NLU now petitions for new trial as they were able to come up with new evidence that they were not able to
obtain before as they were inaccessible and thus were not able to present them in the CIR
HELD
CIR more an administrative than part of the integrated judicial system of the nation
The fact that CIR may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before
it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative
character
Rule Making Power
BASIC CONCEPTS
RULE-MAKING POWER a. Power given to administrative agencies
(power of subordinate legislation) b. To issue or promulgate rules and regulations
c. Necessary to carry out its functions
RULES AND REGULATIONS a. Those issued by administrative or executive officers
b. In accordance with and as authorized by law
RATIONALE Administrative bodies have:
a. Competence
b. Opportunity
NECESSITY a. In order to adopt to the increasing complexity
b. Of modern life and variety of public functions
NATURE OF GRANT a. Relaxation of separation of powers; and
b. An exception to non-delegation of legislative powers
PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

RULE RULE: potestas delegata non delegari potest
BASIS: Delegated Power = (Right + Duty) – Further Delegation = Negation
KMU V GARCIA (239 SCRA 386)
FACTS:
LTFRB Circular – Authorized provincial bus operators to increase or decrease prescribed fare without first having filed a petition
Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines (BOAP) – pursuant there, announced 20% fare increase
KMU – opposed the move. However, LTFRB dismissed the petition. KMU went to SC assailing he constitutionality of said Circular on the
ground that it violates Sec 16© of Public Service Act (CA 146), which tasks the LTFRB with the duty to fix and determine just and reasonable
fares
HELD
a. Legislature delegated to the defunct PSC the power of fixing rates of public services. LTFRB (regulatory board today) is likewise
vested with the same under EO 202
b. Nowhere under said law is LTFRB authorized to delegate that power to transport operators. The authority given by LTFRB to
provincial bus operators to set fare range is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative authority. Potestas delegate non delegari
potest.
3 ISSUES ON RULE MAKING POWER

11

1. PERMISSIBILITY OF Whether or not there is: 1. Delegation of tariff powers to the
DELEGATION a. Legislative grant of authority president
b. To administrative bodies 2. Delegation of emergency powers to the
c. To issue rules and regulations president
3. Delegation to the people at large
4. Delegation to local government
5. Delegation to administrative bodies
2. VALIDITY OF DELEGATION Whether or not the grant meets the 1. Statute is complete in all its essential
a. Completeness test terms and conditions when it leaves
b. Sufficient standard test legislature so that there will be nothing
left for delegate to do when it reaches
him except to enforce it
2. Statute fixes a standard, mapping out the
boundaries of the delegate’s authority
by defining the legislative policy and
indicating the circumstances under
which it is to be pursued an effected
3. VALIDITY OF EXERCISED Whether or not regulation conforms with: 1. Not inconsistent with constitution
a. What the statute provides 2. Not inconsistent with statute
b. Whether the same is reasonable 3. Cannot amend act of congress
4. Cannot exceed provisions of basic law
5. Uniform, reasonable, not unfair or
disciminatory
1ST ISSUE : PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION

1. Delegation of tariff powers to the president SECTION 28.(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to
fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development program of the Government.
2. Delegation of emergency powers to the president SECTION 23. (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the
Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and
subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers
necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless
sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall
cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
3. Delegation to the people at large Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification
of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
4. Delegation to local government Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which
shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government
structure instituted through a system of decentralization
5. Delegation to administrative bodies By Legislative Act – authorizing it to promulgate rules and regulations
By implication – adopt rules and regulations deemed necessary to the
efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted
1st ISSUE – PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION

I. Delegation to By Legislative Act – authorizing it to promulgate rules and regulations
Administrative Bodies By implication –necessary to the efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted
PASEI V TORRES
212 SCRA 298
FACTS
DOLE SEC. RUBEN TORRES- as a result of the published stories regarding abuses suffered by Filipino housemaids in Hong Kong, issued Department
Order No. 16 temporarily suspending recruitment by private employment agencies of “Filipino helpers going to HK”
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. (PASEI) - filed for prohibition on the grounds that
1. Respondents acted in excess of their rule making authority
2. Circulars are contrary to constitution, are unreasonable, unfair and oppressive
HELD
a. Art 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities. Department Order
No. 16 merely restricted the scope of petitioner’s business operations by excluding therefrom recruitment and deployment of domestic helpers for
Hong Kong till after the establishment of the “mechanisms” that will enhance the protection of Filipino domestic helpers going to HK
b. Circulars are valid exercise of the police power as delegated to the executive branch of the Government
12

SANTIAGO V COMELEC
270 SCRA 106
FACTS
Comelec Resolution No 2300 – was issued to govern “the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and Initiative and Referendum and National and Local
Laws”
Sen Miriam Santiago- argues that Comelec resoslution 2300 is ultra vires since only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing
law pursuant to Art. XVII, Sec 2(2) which provides thus, “The Congress shall provide for the implementation of this right”
HELD
a. Comelec does not have the power under RA 6725 to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through initiative
b. Reliance on Sec 2(1) Art IX-C Constitution is misplaced for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by Comelec under
Sec 3 Art IX-C and a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the completeness and the sufficient standard tests
2ND ISSUE – VALIDITY OF DELEGATION
I. COMPLETENESS TEST a. Statute is complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves legislature
b. So that there will be nothing left for delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it
Illustrative Case US v Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1 – Legislature did not specify under what conditions the rules may be
issued and did not define what constitutes extraordinary increase in price of cereals. Promulgation of
rules is left to sole discretion of Governor General Law thus it is incomplete as a legislation
II. SUFFICIENT STANDARD a. Statutes fixes a standard, mapping out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority
TEST b. By defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be
pursued and effected
Illustrative Case Ynot v IAC 148 SCRA 659 – one searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable
guideline, or better still, the limitations that said officers must observe when they make their
distribution. There is none
I. COMPLETENESS TEST Statute is complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves legislature so that there will
be nothing left for delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it
US. V. ANG TANG HO

43 Phil 1
FACTS
Act No 2868 (1919) – authorizes Governor – General to issue and promulgate rules ‘”whenever, for any case, conditions arise resulting in extraordinary rise
in price of palay, rice or corn”
Governor General - pursuant there, issue EO 53 fixing the price at which rice should be sold
Ang Tang Ho – was charged with the sale price greater than that fixed by EO 53. He was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 5 months
imprisonment plus P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence countering that there is undue delegation of power to the Governor General
HELD
a. Promulgation of rules is left to the discretion of the Governor General. Legislature did not define under what conditions the rules may be issued
b. Legislature also does not define what constitutes extraordinary increase in price of cereals. Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon
which the proclamation should be issued,
II. SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST Statute fixes a standard, mapping out boundaries of delegated authority by defining the legislative
policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected
YNOT V IAC
148 SCRA 659
FACTS
EO 626-A - prohibits inter-provincial transportation of carabaos, and provides further that such, “carabao transported violation thereof shall be subject to
confiscation and forfeiture by government, and that the confiscated property shall be distributed to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of
Animal Industry may see fit”
RESTITUTO YNOT – on January 13, 1984, transported 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo in a pump boat. His carabaos were confiscated by the police for
violation of EO 626-A
YNOT – filed a suit for recovery with RTC-Iloilo, which sustained the confiscation. On appeal, IAC, upheld RTC. Thus Ynot went to SC contending that
EO 626-A is unconstitutional
HELD
a. That phrase “may see fit” is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, even
corruption. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guideline, or better still, the limitations that said officers must observe
when they make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless
13

b. There is an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of
the properties arbitrarily taken.
3RD ISSUE – VALIDITY OF EXERCISE
1. Not inconsistent with the Constitutional Provisions Control DAR V SUTTON GR NO 162070 Oct 19 2005 – DAR has no
constitution what rules and regulations may be power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by
promulgated by administrative the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform
bodies
2. Not inconsistent with statute Statutory provisions control what SOL GEN V MMA 204 scra 837 – PD 1605 (granting MMC
rules and regulations may be powers related to traffic management and control in Manila) does
promulgated by administrative not allow either removal of licenses plates or confiscation of
bodies driver’s licenses for traffic violations. MMA Ordinance imposes
sanctions PD 1605 does not allow and actually prohibits.
3. Cannot amend act of Congress May not amend, alter, modify, BOIE- Takeda V DE LA SERNA 228 SCRA 329 - in
supplant, enlarge or expand, restrict including commissions in the computation of the 13th month pay,
or limit the provisions or coverage DOLE unduly expanded the concept of “basic salary” as defined
of the statute in PD 851. Implementing rules, cannot add or detract from the
provisions of the law it is designated to implement.
4. Cannot exceed Provisions of They must be within the scope and UNITED BFHA V BF HOMES 310 SCRA 304 – There was a
Basic Law purview of the statutory authority clear attempt to unduly expand the provisions of PD 902-A. The
granted by legislature inclusion of the phrase “GENERAL PUBLIC OR OTHER
ENTITY” is a matter which HIGC cannot legally do
5. Not unreasonable, unfair or They must not act arbitrarily and LUPANGCO V CA 160 SCRA 848 – PRC Resolution is not
discriminatory capriciously in promulgating rules only unreasonable but arbitrary, it infringes on the examinees
and regulations right to liberty granted by the constitution
1. Not inconsistent with Constitutional provisions control what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative
Constitution bodies
DAR VS SUTTON
GR NO 162070 OCT 19 2005
FACTS
The Suttons (Delia, Ella, Harry) – in 1987, voluntarily offer to sell (VOD) to DAR their landholdings
Luz Farms v Sec of DAR - in 1990 SCR ruled that lands devoted to livestock and poultry – raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land.
Thus, the Suttons filed request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle raising
DAR Administrative Order No 9 - issued Dec 27, 1993, provided that only portions of private agricultural lands was used for the raising, of livestock,
poultry and swine as of June 15 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of CARL
HELD
a. AO No 9 is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. AO sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform
and prescribing maximum retention limit for their ownership
b. DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has
exceeded its power in issuing the assailed AO
2. Not inconsistent with Statute Statutory provisions control what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative bodies
SOL GEN v MM
204 SCRA 837
FACTS
MTC V Ganong GR No 91023 July 13, 1990 - SC held that confiscation of license plates for traffic violations was not among the sanctions MMC could
impose under PD 1605. Even confiscation of driver’s licenses was not prescribed nor was it allowed to be imposed by MMC
Motorists - complained to the Court, on various dates (1990-1991), on the confiscation of their driver’s licenses and removal of license plate numbers of
their vehicles
MMA – contended that since Goong decision said that confiscation of license plate was invalid in the absence of valid law or ordinance, MMA Ordinance
No. 11 was issued, authorizing itself “to detach license plate of motor vehicles… obstructing flow of traffic in metro manila”
Solicitor General – viewed said ordinance as invalid exercise of delegated legislative power
HELD
14

a. PD 1605 does not allow either removal of license plates or confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations committed in Metro Manila.
Ordinances in question does not merely add to requirement of PF 1605 but, worse, impose sanctions the decree does not allow and in fact actually
prohibits
b. In so doing, ordinances, disregard and violate and in effect partially repeal the law
3. Cannot amend Act of Congress May not amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge or expand, restrict or limit the provisions or coverage
of the statute
BOIE-TAKED V DELA SERNA

228 SCRA 329
FACTS:
PD 851 – required all employers to pay their employees basic salary of not more than P1,000.00 a month, 13th month pay
DOLE Implementing Guidelines- included “”commissions” in the computations of the 13th month pay
BOIE- Takeda Chemicals - did not include commissions of its medical representatives in the computation of their 13month pay. Thus it was ordered by
DOLE to pay the differential. BOIE- Takeda argues that PD 851 and its implementing rules speak of BASIC salary and therefore exclude all other
remunerations which are not part of the BASIC salary
HELD:
a. In including commissions in the computation of 13th month pay, DOLE unduly expanded concept of “basic salary” as defined in PD 851
b. Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law it is designed to implement. They cannot widen its scope. Administrative
agency cannot amend on Act of Congress
4. Cannot Exceed Provisions of They must be within the scope and purview of the statutory authority granted by legislature
Basic Law
UBFHAI V BF HOMES
310 SCRA 304
FACTS
PD 902-A - vested Home Insurance Guarantee Corp. (HIGC) with jurisdiction over homeowners’ dispute controversies arising “between such association
and the state, insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exists as such entity”
HIGC’s Revised Rules of Procedure – the phrase “general public or other entity” was added
HELD
a. HIGC went beyond authority provided by the law when it promulgated the revised rules of procedure. There was clear attempt to unduly expand
the provisions of Presidential Decree 902-A
b. The inclusion of the phrase GENERAL PUBLIC OR OTHER ENTITY is a matter which HIGC cannot legally do. The rule- making power of a
public administrative body is delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by Congress or the
Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended.
5. Not unreasonable, unfair or Administrative bodies must not act arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating rules and regulations
discriminatory
LUPANGCO v CA
160 SCRA 848
FACTS
PRC Resolution NO 105 - prohibits examinee from attending any review class or receiving any hand-out or review material 3 days before the examination
day, and provides sanctions for its violation. One who is caught committing the prohibited act is barred from taking future examinations
Lupo Lupangco, etal. - reviews for the licenses examinations in accountancy filed with RTC- Manila, an injunction against PRC and to declare the same
unconstitutional. RTC declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. PRC appealed to CA, which reversed the decision of RTC. Hence, the petition to SC
HELD
a. PRC Resolution No 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also infringes on the examinees’ right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution
b. PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. It is inconceivable
how PRC can manage to have watchful eye on each and every examinee during the 3 days.
15

PENAL RULES & REGULATIONS
· Refer to those carrying penal or criminal sanctions for violation of rules and regulations
· Lawmaking body cannot delegate to an administrative agency the power to declare what acts should constitute criminal offense and how shall it be
punished
· Prescribing of penalties is a legislative function. However, Congress may validly provide in the law itself for the imposition of the penalty for violation of
rules and regulations which it has empowered administrative authorities to enact
· Publication (15 days following completion in Official Gazette) is necessary because such rules contain penal provisions, thus, the people must be officially
informed
General Rule: power to punish and define crimes cannot be delegated essentially within the legislature.
-‐ legislative act cannot be delegated. WHY?

o Delegation of discretion = power to fill in details: NOT ALLOWED
Exceptions: REQUISITES
1. Law which authorizes promulgation of R&R must itself be declared as punishable the violation of rules and regulations issued thereunder
2. Must define and fix penalty for violation of R&R
3. Published in official gazette
Format:
1. Law
2. Admin R&R
3. Violation
4. Imposition of Penalty
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
Definition
• Power to determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by law
• The exercise of such power is only incidental to their main function of enforcing the law
3 Elements of Adjudicatory Powers

1. That there must be a specific controversy involving rights of the persons or property and said controversy involving rights of persons and
property and said controversy is brought before a tribunal, board or officer for hearing and determination of their respective rights and obligations
2. The tribunal, board or officer before whom the controversy is brought must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a
decision on the controversy construing and applying the laws to that end.
3. The T, B, O must pertain to that branch of the sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or at least which does not belong to the legislative
or executive department
v CASES: President Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v CA, RTC Judge Guadiz, Karamfil Import Export Co
• Facts: PD 1936 amended by PD 2002 - assigned PADS to investigate and prosecute so-called "dollar salting" activities in the country
• The application for the issuance of said search warrants was filed by Atty. Napoleon Gatmaytan of the Bureau of Customs who is a
deputized member of the PADS Task Force. Attached to the said application is the affidavit of Josefin M. Castro who is an operative and
investigator of the PADS Task Force. Said Josefin M. Castro is likewise the sole deponent in the purported deposition to support the
application for the issuance of the six (6) search warrants involved in this case.
• Held: The court ruled that PADS was not granted by law to issue a warrant of arrest.
• It is the basic function of these bodies to adjudicate claims and/or to determine rights, and unless its decision are seasonably appealed to
the proper reviewing authorities, the same attain finality and become executory.
• The Task Force was not meant to exercise quasi-judicial functions, that is, to try and decide claims and execute its judgments. As the President's arm called upon to combat the vice of
"dollar salting" or the black marketing and salting of foreign exchange, it is tasked alone by the Decree to handle the prosecution of such activities, but nothing more
• To permit him to issue search warrants and indeed, warrants of arrest, is to make him both judge and jury in his own right, when he is
neither. That makes, to our mind and to that extent, Presidential Decree No. 1936 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2002,
unconstitutional.
v Eduardo Cojuanco Jr. v PCGG
16

• President Corazon C. Aquino directed the Solicitor General to prosecute all persons involved in the misuse of coconut levy funds. Pursuant
to the above directive the Solicitor General created a task force to conduct a thorough study of the possible involvement of all persons in the
anomalous use of coconut levy funds.
• Upon the creation of the PCGG under EO. 1 issued by President Aquino, the PCGG was charged with the task of assisting the President not
only in the recovery of ill gotten wealth or unexplained wealth accumulated by the former President, his immediate family, relatives,
subordinates and close associates but also in the investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may assign to the
Commission from time to time and to prevent a repetition of the same in the future.
• Petitioner alleges that the PCGG may not conduct a preliminary investigation of the complaints filed by the Solicitor General without
violating petitioner's rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and that the PCGG has no right to conduct such preliminary
investigation
• Held: Considering that the PCGG, like the courts, is vested with the authority to grant provisional remedies of (1) sequestration, (2)
freezing assets, and (3) provisional takeover, it is indispensable that, as in the case of attachment and receivership, there exists a prima facie
factual foundation, at least, for the sequestration order, freeze order or takeover order, an adequate and fair opportunity to contest it and
endeavor to cause its negation or nullification.
• The general power of investigation vested in the PCGG may be divided into two stages. The first stage of investigation which is called the
criminal investigation stage is the fact finding inquiring which is usually conducted by the law enforcement agents whereby they gather
evidence and interview witnesses after which they assess the evidence and if they find sufficient basis, file the complaint for the purpose of
preliminary investigation.
• The second stage is the preliminary investigation stage of the said complaint. It is at this stage, as above discussed, where it is ascertained if
there is sufficient evidence to bring a person to trial.
• One cannot be a prosecutor and a judge at the same time
v Teodoro Santiago Jr. v Ms. Juanita Bautista
• Facts: The appellant was a grade 6 pupil in Sero Elementary School. As the school year was then about to end, the "Committee On the
Rating Of Students For Honor" was constituted by the teachers concerned at said school for the purpose of selecting the "honor students" of
its graduating class.
• With the school Principal, as chairman, and the members of the committee deliberated and finally adjudged Socorro Medina, Patricia Liñgat
and Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as first, second and third honors, respectively. The school's graduation exercises were thereafter set for May
21, 1965; but 3 days before that date, the "third placer" Teodoro Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother, and with his father as counsel,
sought the invalidation of the "ranking of honor students" thus made, by instituting the above-mentioned civil case in the CFI of Cotabato,
committee members along with the District Supervisor and the Academic Supervisor of the place.
• Held: It is not essential that the proceedings should be strictly and technically judicial, in the sense in which that word is used when applied
to the courts of justice, but it is sufficient if they are quasi judicial. It is enough if the officers act judicially in making their decision,
whatever may be their public character
• It is evident, upon the foregoing authorities, that the so called committee on the rating of students for honor (Service Manual for Teachers)
whose actions are questioned in this case exercised neither judicial nor quasi judicial functions in the performance of its assigned task.
• Nothing on record about any rule of law that provides that when teachers sit down to assess the individual merits of their pupils for purposes
of rating them for honors, such function involves the determination of what the law is and that they are therefore automatically vested with
judicial or quasi judicial functions.
• It is the nature of the act to be performed, rather than the office, board or body which performs it, that determines whether or not it is
exercising judicial/quasi judicial function
3 Steps to Exercise Quasi-Judicial Power
1. Submit position paper: to know the facts of the case
2. Determine applicable law, know legal rights of the party
3. Adjudication / Decision
Administrative Function vs Quasi-Judicial Function

Administrative or Ministerial Quasi-Judicial Function
Function
- one which an officer or tribunal - one which applies to the actions,
performs in the context of a given set discretion of public administrative
of facts in a prescribed manner and officers or bodies that are required to
17

without regard to the exercise of his investigate facts or ascertain the
own judgment upon the propriety or existence of facts, hold hearings,
the impropriety of the act done weigh evidence and draw
conclusions from them as basis for
their official action and exercise of
discretion in a judicial nature (Smart
Comm v NTC)
v CASES: Smart Communications, Pilipino Telecom v NTC
• Facts: Petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the NTC, an action for declaration of nullity of
NTC Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular).
• Petitioners allege that the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction
belongs to the DTI under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing Circular is oppressive, confiscatory and violative of the constitutional
prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the
prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the requirements of
identification of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable.
• Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio.
• Held: What is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its
quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
• The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts
• The administrative body exercises its quasi judicial function when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an
executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of
the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it
v Pedro Guerzon v CA, Bureau of Energy Utilization, Caasi Jr., Pilipinas Shell
• Facts: Petitioner executed with Basic Landoil Energy Corp (later acquired by Shell) a “Service Station Lease” for the use and operation of
Shell’s properties (fuel pumps, air compressor) for 5 years and “Dealer’s Sales Contract”. Respondent Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU)
approved the latter contract and issued a Certificate of Authority
in Petitioner’s favour
• After the contract, respondent Shell wrote Guerzon informing him that they are not renewing the contract. A copy of said letter was
furnished to BEU. Thereafter, BEU issued an order directing petitioner to vacate the premises and to show cause in writing why no
administrative order and/or criminal proceedings shall be instituted for his violations.
• Shell was able to secure the possession of the gas station. Guerzon then filed with the RTC a complaint but such was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction to annul the order of a quasi-judicial body of equivalent category as the RTC.
• Held: The power of an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted (here PD 1206) to it by law and those that are
necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. Said PD states that after notice and hearing, it can impose and collect a fine and failure to pay
the fine or to cease and discontinue the violation of the law (i.e. illegal trading in petroleum products) shall be sufficient reason for
suspension, closure or stoppage of operations.
• Nowhere in the order is it stated that petitioner engaged in illegal trading or any other violation of BP 33. It merely made a vague reference
to “violation of BEU laws, rules and regulation”. The BEU (like its predecessor, the Oil Industry Commission) has no power to decide
contractual disputes between gasoline dealers and oil companies.
• It cannot order petitioner to vacate the premises as this is an appropriate case in the civil courts for unlawful detainer. Assuming arguendo
that it did had the authority, it still failed to comply with the requirement of notice and hearing.
v Antipolo Realty Corp v NHA, Gen. Manager Tobias, Virgilio Yuson
• Facts: Jose Hernando acquired ownership over Lot. No. 15, Block IV of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision from the Antipolo Realty. Mr.
Hernando transferred his rights over Lot No. 15 to Virgilio Yuson. However, for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the subdivision
project. Yuson paid only the arrears pertaining to the period up to, and including the month of August 1972 and stopped all monthly
installments due thereafter. In October 1976, the President of AR sent a notice to Yuson advising that the required improvements in the
subdivision had been completed and requesting resumption of payment of monthly instalments on Lot 15.
• Yuson refused to pay the Sep 1972-Oct 1976 monthly instalments but agreed to pay the post Oct 1976 installments. AR responded by
rescinding the Contract to Sell and claiming forfeiture of all instalment previously made.
• NHA ordered reinstatement of the CTS. AR questioned jurisdiction of NHA but it was denied.
• Held: NHA has jurisdiction. Admin agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited extent only.
Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative agencies is well recognized in our jurisdiction, basically because
18

the need for special competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized
character and because of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged.
Different classification of AP with examples: memorize

1. Enabling powers
• Refer to those powers granted to permit or allow something which the law undertakes to regulate to be done by their approval.
• The chief application of this power is in the granting or denial of licenses to engage in a particular business or occupation.
• Examples:
o Power of the Board of Transportation to issue certificates of public convenience or necessity.
o Power of SEC to permit the issuance of securities
o Powers of Phil Patent Office to issue patents and copyrights, and register trade-marks and trade names
o Power of Central Bank to license Banks
2. Directing powers
• These include the powers of abstract determination – such as definition, valuation, classification and fact finding – and dispensing,
examining and summary powers
• Examples:
o Corrective powers of Public Utility Commissions
o Powers of assessment under the revenue and assessment laws
o Reparations under Public Utility Laws
o Awards under the workmen’s compensation laws
3. Dispensing powers
• Authority to exempt from or relax a general prohibition
• Example:
o Authority of zoning boards to vary the provisions of a zoning statute or ordinance.
• To relieve from an affirmative duty.
• Example:
o Authority of Public Service commission to permit the abandonment of service by carriers.
4. Summary powers
• Those that apply compulsion or force against person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such
action. Usually without notice and hearing.
• Examples:
o Abatement of nuisance, summary destraint, levy of property of delinquent tax payers
5. Equitable powers
• Those that pertain to the power to determine the law upon a particular state of facts. It refers to the right to, and must, consider and make
proper application of the rules of equity.
• Examples:
o Power to appoint a receiver, power to issue injunctions
Chapter 5: Administrative Proceedings
Functions
· Primarily administrative and power to hear and determine controversies is granted as an incident to the administrative duty
Where do they derive their powers?

· Law itself
· Art. 8, Sec. 5, par. 5
· Necessary implication
Characteristics
1. Adversary in nature – the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it; primary
purpose is to protect public interests
2. Quasi judicial or judicial

a) taking and weighing of evidence
19

b) determination of facts based upon evidence presented
c) rendering an order or decision supported by facts presented
3. Civil, not criminal
4. Not an action at law – not a litigation
5. Rules of Court – applies suppletorily
6. Technicalities
7. SC may modify the rules
8. Quantum of proof is substantial evidence
Cardinal Principles
1. Right to hearing
2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented
3. Decision must have something to support itself
4. Evidence must be substantial
5. Decision based on evidence presented
6. Board or judge must act on its own
7. Decision must be rendered in a manner that all parties can know the issues and reason for such decision
v _CASES: Bantolino vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers
Ø _Court ruled that although the affiants had not been presented to affirm the contents of their affidavits and be cross-examined, their affidavits may be
given evidentiary value; the argument that such affidavits were hearsay was not persuasive
Ø _To reiterate, administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law.
Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and
effect.
Ø _A criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of an administrative proceeding. Under the Rules of the Commission, the
Labor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine the necessity of a formal trial or hearing.
Ø _Hence, trial-type hearings are not even required as the cases may be decided based on verified position papers, with supporting documents and their
affidavits
Lepanto Cosolidated vs. Dumapis

Ø _Evidence is not substantial to hold respondents guilty of highgrading so as to warrant the dismissal of respondents.
Ø _While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases,
this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must at least have a
modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value.
Ø _Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere
scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Ø _Thus, even though technical rules of evidence are not strictly complied with before the LA and the NLRC, their decision must be based on evidence that
must, at the very least, be substantial.
Hierarchy of Evidentiary values of Quantum of Proof
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt – requires moral certainty or such degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind
2. Clear and convincing evidence – more stringent standard that requires the allegation to be proven to the firm belief or satisfaction of the trier of fact
3. Preponderance of evidence – the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence of one is superior to the other; greater weight of evidence
20

4. Substantial evidence
Quantum of proof: Admin proceedings

· Substantial evidence – It is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion
Administrative Due Process
· Right to due process is a constitutional right
· It is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, and to submit any evidence a party may have in
support of his defense
· The demands of due process are met when parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered
· Administrative agencies are not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure
Requisites:
1. Right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may affect a person’s legal right
2. Right to reasonable opportunity to appear personally or with the assistance of counsel and defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and relevant
evidence in his favour, by testimony or otherwise, and to controvert the evidence of the other party
3. Right to a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction, so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality
4. Right to a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing or at least ascertained in the records, or disclosed
or made known to the parties affected
CASES:
Villa vs. Lazaro
Ø There was absolutely no excuse for initiating what is held out as an administrative proceeding against Villa without informing her of the complaint which
initiated the case
Ø It was thus not even necessary for petitioner to bring that document to the notice of the Commission which, together with Commissioner Dizon, was
chargeable with knowledge of its own workings and of all acts done in the performance of duty by its officials and employees. Petitioner is plainly the victim
of either gross ignorance or negligence or abuse of power, or a combination of both.
Ø All of the foregoing translate to a denial of due process against which the defense of failure to take timely appeal will not avail.
Ø Some of those essential elements did not obtain or were not present in the proceedings complained of, any judgment rendered, or order issued, therein was
null and void, could never become final, and could be attacked in any appropriate proceeding.
Paterok vs. Bureau of Customs

Ø The Court agrees with the petitioner that a notice of hearing posted on the bulletin board of the public respondent in a forfeiture proceeding where the
owner of the alleged prohibited article is known does not constitute sufficient compliance with proper service of notice and procedural due process.
Ø Facts evidently show that the petitioner could not have been unknown. The petitioner had previous transactions with the Bureau of Customs and in fact,
the latter had earlier released the first container consisting of household goods and the Bourgetti car to the former at her address (as stated in the Bill of
Lading).
Ø If only the public respondents had exercised some reasonable diligence to ascertain from their own records the identity and address of the petitioner as the
owner and the consignee of the property in question, the necessary information could have been easily obtained which would have assured the sending of the
notice of hearing properly and legally. Then, the petitioner would have been afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present her defense which is the
essence of procedural due process. But the public respondent regrettably failed to perform such basic duty.
Lumiqued vs. Exevea

Ø While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a party
in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent
himself and no duty rests on such a body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel.
Ø In an administrative proceeding such as the one that transpired below, a respondent (such as Lumiqued) has the option of engaging the services of counsel
or not.
Ø Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are
facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
21

Ø _As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this
opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process.
Globe Telecom vs. NTC

Ø Every party subject to administrative regulation deserves an opportunity to know, through reasonable regulations promulgated by the agency, of the
objective standards that have to be met. Such rule is integral to due process, as it protects substantive rights.
Ø Globe and Smart were denied opportunity to present evidence on the issues relating to the nature of VAS and the prior approval. Until the promulgation of
the assailed Order Globe and Smart were never informed of the fact that their operation of SMS without prior authority was at all an issue for consideration.
As a result, neither Globe or Smart was afforded an opportunity to present evidence in their behalf on that point.
Ø NTC violated several of these cardinal rights due Globe in the promulgation of the assailed Order. The NTC Order is not supported by substantial
evidence. Neither does it sufficiently explain the reasons for the decision rendered.
Casimiro vs. Tandog

Ø “To be heard” does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral
arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
Ø Neither are we persuaded by petitioner’s argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the complainants were never presented for cross examination. In
administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due
process in its strict judicial sense.
Ø The law requires that the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion
Ø Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof is sufficient basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon an employee. The standard of
substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his
participation therein renders him unworthy of trust
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Period required in rendering decision

• Within 30 days following submission
Section 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it is based.
The agency shall decide each case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered
mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to them.
Section 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party
adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected.
One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period.
Format of decision
• No prescribed form
• But Sec. 14 Revised Admin Code states that: decision must be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which
it is based
• No verbal decision
Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

• Doctrine of PRIOR RESORT
• Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal
• Such question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge and expertise
• Judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to an administrative body
What are the Limitations on Prior Resort?
• Doctrine does not apply in relation to a question where the following circumstances concur:
a) What is involved is not a question of fact, but one of pure law;
22

b) The question is determinable apart from the exercise of administrative discretion (meaning admin discretion is not essential to the
determination of the question.)
c) Requisite uniformity of determination is attainable otherwise than by confining determination of the question to the admin tribunal.
v CASES: Villaflor v. CA
v Comm. Of Customs v. Navarro
v Centeno v. Centeno
v Nuesa v. CA
v Regional Dir., Region 7 DECS v. CA
o SC: the issuance of the restraining order of the lower court was out of place
Doctrine of Exhaustion
• Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been
availed of and exhausted
• An administrative decision must be appealed to the administrative superior up to the highest level before elevating it to the Court for review
• Only applicable when there is competence on the part of the agency to act on the matter complained of
• Doctrine need not be observed when it is not expressly required by law or when the statute providing for the administrative remedy is merely
permissive
General rule: Failure to exhaust administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action which is one of the grounds for dismissal (Rules of Court). The
case may also be dismissed for failure to comply with condition precedent, which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.
Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedy: PPPNNNQCISE

EXCEPTION CASE CASE DOCTRINE
1 When administrative remedy is Corpus v Cuaderno o When administrative remedy is permissive only
permissive only o Contested dismissal with courts, the Central Bank contends
that the Civil Service Rule shall apply.
o SC said that officers of the CB are subject to civil service
rules and regulations but Central Bank Law provides an
option to be dismissed whether to appeal decision to CSC or
to the courts.
o Use of “may” makes it permissive to go to CSC or courts
o Rationale: permissive. So choice is yours. Whether to go to
court or not.
2 Issue involved is purely legal Madrigal v Lecaroz o Issue involved is purely legal question of law
question of law o Issue: whether the Capatas because of lack of funds involves
pure question of law?
o Rationale: When a thing involves a question of law is useless
to continue to avail remedies because whatever the admin
body does because it will never gain finality. Power to
interpret the law is essentially a judicial prerogative.
3 Involves patently illegal act of Cabada v Alunan o Involves patently illegal act of administrative body
administrative body o Dismissed for scalawags in uniform by the RD of PNP should
have appealed to Secretary of DILG and then forwarded to
PNP Commission
o Only one commissioner decided so they went to OP. Patently
illegal act of commissioner. Supposed to be collegial body.
o Rationale: when involves patently illegal, administrative
office/body acting ultra vires. Acts in excess of jurisdiction or
excess of jurisdiction then can go to the courts
4 No administrative order yet N Datiles and Co. v Sucaldito o Ripeness for review
o No administrative order yet
o No order has yet been issued by AB or AO there is nothing
yet to review
o To protect interest and no basis: go to trial courts
5 No other plain, speedy, or adequate NFA v CA o No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary
remedy in the ordinary course of course of law
law N o Went through the process, but on the bidding day there was
already a pre-fixed contract for a fixed bidder.
o Which department has jurisdiction over NFA? Department of
Agriculture
o Greenview and other Security services went directly to SC: no
need because the bringing of the case to the court and there is
no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy to protect their
rights
23

o NFA said they had to exhaust administrative remedies BUT
SC said no need.
o Because of the urgency of the situation
6 Result to nullification of claim Gravador v Mamigo o Result to nullification of claim being ascertained
being ascertained N o Director of Public Schools forced him to retire because he
was not believed to be of the age he is claiming
o Gravador file a quo warranto with the court, the Director of
PS contended that there should be exhaustion
o Under the ROC, the right to file a quo warranto expires in one
year from illegaly dismissed
o MR has been pending for 8 months so 4 month left for him to
file quo warranto proceedings
o Filing of the MR does not stop the prescriptive period in the
quo warranto
o If he waits for decision of Director of PS, it will result to
nullification of claim
o Rationale: because time is of the essence
7 When the Doctrine of Qualified Almine v CA o When the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency is
Political Agency is applicable (Sec. applicable
is the alter ego of the Pres.; Q o Secretaries are alter egos of President
o Safe to assume that what the Cabinet does is also the decision
of the President
o Minister of Agrarian reform has not been given to the OP,
because it was presumed that the president knows
o BUT in practice, always exhaust remedies elevate the matter
to the OP.
o Rationale: when Doctrine is applicable, useless to go to
president because it will be a redundant exercise
8 Issue raised is the constitutionality Smart v NTC o Issue raised is the constitutionality of the statute under
of the statute under which which administrative agency acts
administrative agency acts C o If what is assailed is a rules or regulation or circular in the
exercise of QJ or RM power the doctrine of exhaustion does
not apply
o What is involved is the constitutionality this is a judicial
prerogative therefore courts cannot be deprived of their
decision
9 Result to irreparable UP v BOR
injury/damage to a party unless o Result to irreparable injury/damage to a party unless resort
resort to the court is immediately to the court is immediately made
made I o Director of PGH appointed for a fixed term, and the UP Board
of Regents decided to reorganize PGH
o Dr. Estrella had a reason to be aggrieved by decision, the
problem is he did not contest the reorganization to the UP
Board of Regents
o UP Board of Regents created a nomination committee, and
when applicants are already qualified and Estrella will be
replaced
o So since the court sees that the Estrella will be aggrieved,
court allowed him to file immediately
o Rationale: innate in every human or living thing the right of
self preservation so if it will result in injury or damage so it
can be brought to the court
10 Strong public interest is involved S Arrow Transport v BOT o Strong public interest is involved
o Arrow given franchise to operate taxi in Cebu.
o Sultan was given a provisional franchise
o SC: yes remedy is still applicable but it got flattered that it
went directly to SC and there is a strong public interest
involved
o SC knew that BOT made money out of the franchise
11 When there is Estoppel on the part Tan v Veterans o When there is Estoppel on the part of the party
of the party E o Served war but not part of the members of the AFP so no
veterans compensation
o In the Hauge convention, in terms of war whoever is the
aggressor and loses in the war will pay.
o VBC said Chinese husband so no compensation, but wife said
that DOJ said that it does not distinguish
o But VBC said that DOJ was merely advisory and does not
bind us to adapt these opinions so you can go to court
o Then when Mrs. Tan said went to court then VBC said that
she cannot go to court because there are still remedies
o Rationale: Estoppel is allowed because your agency is bound
by your actions
24

v CASES:
v Laguna CATV Network v. Maraan
Ripeness for Review

• Judicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are real and present or imminent and should not be squandered on problems which
are future or remote
• An issue is normally ripe for judicial determination when interests of the plaintiff are subjected to or imminently threatened with substantial
injury
• Ex. When plaintiff is substantially harmed by the vagueness of the statute
What are questions open for Review?

Questions of Law
• When do we determine?
• Arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts
o Ex: Jurisdiction, Procedures
• Rule: Admin agencies determine facts of controversy and apply it
• Reviewing court: determine if correct rule is applied and if there is enough evidence
Questions of Fact
• When the doubt / falsity arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts
• No case is exactly the same case
• Rule: Finding of fact of admin agencies are conclusive upon court; supported by substantial evidence
• 3 Requisites when QF becomes conclusive
o Supported by SE
o Involve matter which refers to doubt or differences as to the doubt / falsity of the alleged facts
o Not subject to review by courts
• Exceptions:
o Allowed by law
o Fraud, imposition or mistake or error other than error in judgment is involved
o Error in application of pleadings and interpretation of evidence
Mixed (Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts) Both of QL and QF
• Where what purports to be a finding upon question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a question of law (as to be in substance and
effect a decision on the latter, the Court will, in order to decide the legal question, examine the entire record, including the evidence if necessary
as it does in cases coming from the highest court of the State)
• Example: Whether a thing is considered nuisance
o If it is nuisance then the action is considered as summary, no need to comply with due process of notice and hearing
o If it was a nuisance: time is of the essence
§ Example: if a building is on the verge of collapsing then it can be demolished without notifying the owner or subjecting to
hearing in summary
25

§ If the owner does not want it then the demolish expenses will be at the expense of the owner
§ Nuisance is a question of fact but also a question of law since there is no hearing
o If both concurs what prevails?
§ GENERAL RULE: question of fact is not subject to review, while question of law is subject to review
• EXCEPTION: since a reviewing court may review the question of law and the question of fact is merely
attached to it, then the reviewing body may review not only the question of law but also question of fact, since it
cannot be entirely divorced from the issue. Question of fact is subsumed in the question of law thus the
reviewing court has jurisdiction
• Falsity or truthfulness of fact and law (ex. Determination whether a thing is a nuisance)
• Rule: Courts cannot review findings of admin body
• Exception: Courts can review and substitute judgment
• Under this doctrine, the more important question assimilates the other.
26

Docshare - Tips - Admin Finals Reviewer 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Docshare - Tips - Admin Finals Reviewer 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrative

Law – Atty. G. Soriano FINALS REVIEWER CagampanDiatoMendozaMelgar

Law which is intended to control administrative procedures of government

All of the definition has similarities

A. Unsound real estate business practices;

Topic: Criticism vs. Administrative Action

Topic: Advocates of Administrative Law

Topic: Elements of Administrative Law

TYPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES (PROCIP)

CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

CHR Art 13 Sec 17 1987 Constitution

Toll Regulatory Board PD 1112

ORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

REORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

POWER TO REORGANIZE UNDER EO 292

Issues rules and regulations Mandate of the administrative body

Sources of Function / Power

Example: Office of Ombudsman

Constitution: Article 11 Section 5

Different Classification of Powers

Quasi – judicial / Must be expressly granted and cannot just

SEC: approved; BUT with the condition of NO DOUBLE LISTING.

Makati SEC: no express provision; denied application – went to court.

In case of doubt: resolved in favor of admin body to exercise power granted to it

Transaction: sale of condo/subdivision lots (installments) = if NOT expressed = NHA

PD 957 = general rescission = involves breach contract = court of general jurisdiction

Taule: was not happy

Not COMELEC = not barangay elections

No express provision = no right to nullify

General Rule: expressly granted / necessary implication

Exception: QJP must be expressly granted

Payawal Makati SE Taule

PURPOSES OF GRANT OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS

Sec 1 RA 157 (a) To undertake investigations of

Sec 5(d) Securities Regulation Code (RA8799)

SCOPE AND EXTENT OF INVESTIGATIVE POWERS

Pefianco vs Moral 322 SCRA 439 – respondent in administrative case

Bedol vs Comelec 606 SCRA 554 – to withhold from comelec the

II. CONDUCT INVESTIGATION

III. INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION

IV. ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, REPORTS OR STATEMENTS

VII. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

BEDOL VS COMELEC 606 SCRA 554

GAOIRAN VS ALCALA 444 SCRA 428

VIII. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE

Rule Making Power

PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

3 ISSUES ON RULE MAKING POWER

1ST ISSUE : PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION

1st ISSUE – PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION

2ND ISSUE – VALIDITY OF DELEGATION

US. V. ANG TANG HO

3RD ISSUE – VALIDITY OF EXERCISE

BOIE-TAKED V DELA SERNA

-­‐ legislative act cannot be delegated. WHY?

3 Elements of Adjudicatory Powers

v Eduardo Cojuanco Jr. v PCGG

v Teodoro Santiago Jr. v Ms. Juanita Bautista

3 Steps to Exercise Quasi-Judicial Power

1. Submit position paper: to know the facts of the case

2. Determine applicable law, know legal rights of the party

Administrative Function vs Quasi-Judicial Function

v CASES: Smart Communications, Pilipino Telecom v NTC

-‐ legislative act cannot be delegated. WHY?