Administrative law definition- embraces all laws that control or is intended to control the

administrative operations of the government

What is the aspect of administrative law that ---- the violation?

 What portion of admin law will affect the violation? For example in criminal law, you have the
RPC, special law, when you violate these, then what is done to you? You are prosecuted. - what
happens in admin law? Are you also charged? What makes it different in criminal case?
 A private person can be charged administratively when it conspired with a public officer.
 3 fold liability rule, when you file a case, when you file against a public officer, dalawa ang
finfile mo -criminal and administrative. When you violate a criminal case, it can happen that a
criminal case will push through but the administrative case will not or vice versa. Halimbawa,
you file a case in the Ombudsman, ang ombudsman, hindi sila you court but they can decide on
the aspects of the case. When you violate a criminal law, the information will be filed proper
court- Salary Grade 27 and above, Sandiganbayan. Pag nasa gobyerno kayo, you can be filed in 3
ways. Criminal, civil, administrative and each is independent with each other. *if one is
dismissed, it doesn't follow that the other will also be dismissed- they can proceed, but there
are also exceptions.
 Not only with respect to violations but also the IN AND OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT,
the organizations, PD 1807 created CSC.

ASSIGNMENT: LOOK FOR AN AGENCY , what is the law creating that agency. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

 Administrative agencies are created, they are by virtue of law. Like local govt, public offices are
also created by the legislative exception CONSTITUTION. -The Constitutional Commision-
COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISION but the CHR has been
createdby the Costitution, ASIDE from the 3 CONCOM (comelec, coa, csc) Office of the Pres,
NEDA is created by the Consti.
 Everything that has to do with the operation of the government form part of the adminidtrative
law.
 1. The law that created these organizations. These agencies are mandated to impose a law like
for ex. BFP, RA 6975 created BFP you are importing Fire Code of the Phil, FCP, is also an admin
law -the laws that impose in these agencies is also an admin law. The adminstrative agencies
have rule making power or what we call quasi-legislative power- bec they seem to be making
law in a form of rule. IRR.
 CSC - quasi judicial power parang korte. Meron dn bang subpoena power?contempt of court? To
execute its decisi9n?
 In the exercise their quasi judicial power, of course they have to make decisions. They call it
resolutions. These resolutions/decision are also administartive law. These decisions may also be
appealed to the court. Thats why there are also judicial review of administrtive decision. The sc
ruling, they also form part ofthe admin law.
 It start with the creation, they operate, they are organized, employees and their positions and
their functions, functipn of their agency, mandate of agency- form part of administartive law.
 Non-interference of the court in relation with the decision and facts of the case- when the
agency is in the discharge of its quasi judicial power, if the findings of the admin agency in the
facts of the case is this, it is not disturb by the courts, except if their is "grave abuse
of discretion", or when there is "culpable error"
 MEANING: when you appeal it, there is a presumption of regularity on the part of the
administrative agency rendering that decision

 The remedy that you avail of when your rightsare violated by a public official/employee, you
avail of a provisin of administrative law, and special law that is also part of administrative law.
 What created the local government unit? Does tye lgu have the power to hear or to try cases?
the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrat8ve Agency, example, you protest on who was
appointed, pwedeng sa csc ka magprotesta, pwede rin sa lgu. All the proces, rules that you
follow in the exhaustion of adm8nistrative cases, is part of administrative law. Meron kayong
grievance machinery sa lgu. What are the offences that are violated bya public official or
em0loyee? The provision of Code of Ethical Standards, RA 3019 ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
 The LGC provides that LGUs have the power to formulate its own organizational structure and
staffing pattern -these are formulated and enacted into a law by virtue of an ordinance and
must be approved by the CSC.

 When you file administrative case, you dont say acquitted, you say exonerated
 Can a public official be charged administrative for an act committed not in the performance of
his duty?

 The destination of public office will determine if the ombudsman have jurisdiction?whether the
sandiganbayan have jurisdiction? Whether this is an admin case? Or a criminal case or civil.
 PUBLIC OFFICE is not the structure. We are referring to right authority and duty because of it,
you are now exercising a portion of power of the government. You should attain the mandate of
your office by doing a part. Definition: A public office is the right, authority and duty, created
and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The
individual so invested is a public officer.

-How will you have a public office? appointment, election and contract.

 When you are holding a public office, you have a right, authority and duty. When you are
exercising these, are you limitless? You are bound by law.
 What are check and balances that an agency do? SPMS-how can you contribute to the
attainment of the vision of your agency. Measure of the performance of every employee.
 Ano ang bearing kung alam o ang meaning ng public office? Anong sabi sa consti that created
the csc? Art 9. What does cs embraces?
 Pag sinabing agency, kasama na chartedred, corporated, incorporated, When an agency is
covered by CSC, the csc has jurisdiction over the employment of the agency, so if anyone
commits an offense, he will be charged in the csc. If you are a public officer, the ombudsman has
jurisdiction over you.
Quimpo is covered by 1973 constitution, Khan 1987 consti. When is an agency considered a public office
and when a employee is considered a public officer.

 Public officer - public officers included elective, appointive officials and employees, permanent
or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the Government. (RA 3019)
 When you are a public officer what makes you different from somebody who is not a public
officer?

You have a portion of sovereign function and that is perform for the benefit of the public. When
you are a po, you are liable to the State- we included the entire government and people.

 LGU is created by the legislature, in the same manner, the public office is also created by the
legislature except those created by the constitution.

Quimpo vs Tanodbayan

Khan vs Ombudsman

Violation of RA 3019- against Quimpo (related with PNOC)

Issue: w/n the PETROPHIL is a government owned or controlled corp?

Q: if it is a gocc, what is the effect of that in the jurisdiction of the tanodbayan?

A: the tanodbayan has jurisdiction

Q: how will Quimpo case be compared with Khan?

A: In the case of Khan, the government acquired PAL's controlling interest bec of its inability to pay its
loans in GSIS. No governmental functions at all were involved. While in Quimpo case, it was aquired by
the government for the sole purpose of discharging governmental functions.

Q: how does the Phil constitution comes in?

A: Quimpo is governed by 1973 Constitution while Khan is governed by 1987. It was already specified in
1987 consti that only gocc's with original charter are embraced by the civil service.

Q: how do you apply that in the case of khan?

Q: When do you say that a GOCC has an original charter?

A: There is a law that created it which vested its original charter.

PETROPHIL has no original charter, but Tanodbayan has jurisdiction bec the 1973 governs it wherein
there is no specification about original charter.
While in Khan, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction because it was governed by 1987 consti wherein it
was specified that only goccs with original charter are under the jurisdiction of the ombudsman.

The power to create carries with it the power to abolish.

The power to abolish, often has an issue with the re-organization.

The power of the President to re-organization is often the issue. This power of the Pres to re-organize is
based on whether it is a valid re-organization. What is based on valid re-organization.

Abolition of public office

Eugenio vs CSC

RES. NO. 93-4359 -abolishing the CESB (Career Executive Service Board)

Q: What was the basis of the CSC in abolishing CESB

A: Administrative Code of 1987 granted the CSC the right to reorganize the CSC.

Q: Can CSC abolish CESB.

A: No, bec CESB is created by the legislature (P.D.1) theefore, only legislature may abolish it.

Q: Relationship of CSC and CESB

A: line of coordination not line of authority

DOCTRINE in Eugenio Case

The creation of CESB is legislative in nature hence, the power to create carries with it the power to
abolish. The abolition is also legislative in nature. The csc which is not a Congres, cannot abolish the
CESB.

Administrative Code of 1987

Revised admin code 1970

Revised again in 1978 but it was not published , it was repealed

EXECUTIVE ORDER 292 - Admin Code 1987 IT Repealed admin code 1970

Repealing clause - it only repeals law, decree which is inconsistent therewith. So that there is
provision in 1970, and this provision was not mentioned in 1987, neither it is inconsistent with 1987, it
does not follow that this provision is also repealed by the 1987 code. Only those that are inconsistent
in the new code was repealed.

Administrative code applies to all agencies of the government

The power to create a public ofice is vested with the legislature, and the President has the power to
abolish in the form of reorganization.

Buklod ng Kawani EIIB is a case of inactivation as distinguish from abolition

Power of the President

Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to conduct anti smuggling operations -Corazon
Aquino

223 Executive Order, deactivating the EIIB. And created Task Force Aduana.

Q. What is the effect of this deactivation in relation with the employees of EIIB.

A. They will be separated from service.

Issue. W/n the Pres has the power to abolish punlic office.

Power to reorganize. Is it reorganization.?

basis of SC that the act of the pres was valid

It is a general rule that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. "The exception
is when it comes to agencies, bureaus, and other offices under the executive department, the
president may deactivate them pursuant to control power over such offices, unless such office is
created by the Constitution"

Under Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of
1987), the President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity,
economy and efficiency, shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of
the Office of the President- legal basis of the President's power to reorganize.

Security of tenure of the employees: The right to security of tenure was not violated bec the
reorganization was done in good faith.

GOOD FAITH: If the reorganization is done for the purpose of economy and to make bureaucracies
more efficient.

When is a reorganization done in bad faith: RA 6566

1.significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern

2.when an office was abolished and a new one was created which performs the same functions

3. When the incumbents are replaced by those less qualified

4. When there is a classification of department/agencies and the reclassified offices performs the
same functions as the original offices
5. It violates the order of separation

Reorganize to economize and prevent redundancy.

 Valid reorganization of office Effect

Once your office is validly abolished, you cannot interpose the defense of your right to security of tenure
having been violated because there is no office to speak of. So no such thing as separation. You have not
been separated because there is no office from which you are separated from.

MENDOZA vs QUISUMBING "public officials or employees can only be removed or dismissed for a
cause and with due process"

Reorganization of DECS, removed Mendoza, Schools Division Superintendent, who was reappointedby
Quisumbing as such with a "permanent" status.

THE REORGANIZATION WAS NOT VALID because it is done in bad faith.

The right to security of tenure of a government employee- they can only be dimissed or suspended for a
cause and with due process.

 Mendoza is not accorded due process.

Exception to the general rule in the right to security of tenure: Strictly confidential positions are at the
mercy of appointing authority. They serve base on trust and confidence. Once the trust and confidence
is no longer there, they can already be removed. Like the case of Cabinet Secretaries, at the pleasure of
the Pres, they can be removed. Lack of trust and confidence.

Appointment in a position in a given work area and an APPointment in a position only.

Fernandez vs Sto. Tomas case trsnsfer

When you are appointed to the position but without specific office to which youbare appointed,
transfer, even without your consent, can be done. Because transfer can be done but not as a
"constructive dismissal". But in Fernandez case, the transfer is valid because the appointment did not
co-specify that he will be appointed in a given work area.

Gonzales vs Provincial Government of Camarines Norte

Gonzales was appointed as provincial administrator of the province of
camarines norte on a permanent capacity.
 Upon the passage of RA 7160 or the LGC, the position of provincial
administrator became a highly confidential positon and co-terminous with its
appointing authority.
 General rule: Public officers may only be removed for a cause EXCEPT those
occupying a highly confidential position, who may be removed on the
ground of loss of trust and confidence. They can be removed any time at the
pleasure of the appointing authority.
 W/N Gonzales has security of tenure over her position as the prov
administrator.
 Prior to the enactment of Local Govt Code, the position of provincial
administrator is permanent in nature and career service position. However,
upon the enactment of LGC, it was reclassified to primarily confidential
position.
 Those who are appointed with a position of primarily confidential position does
not have a security of tenure and can be removed on the ground of loss of
trust and confidence.
 Which will apply, the time when she was appointed or the time when she was
terminated?
 Since Congress has a power to reclassify position, then the law prevailing at
the time of the termination will also govern the termination.

"When there is a valid abolition of offices, there is no separation because

there is no position from which he is separated."

When you are a public officer, you act as an agent of the government because
you are exercising a portion of the sovereign power. But the government will
be bound only by the lawful act of the public officer. The government only
authorizes lawful acts of its agents. So that when public officer commits error
in the discharge of his government functions, the govt is not bound by such
error of the public officer.

State immunity from suit - The State may not be sued without its
consent. Consent may be express or implied. Express- provided in the law.
Implied- when the state steps down to the level of an individual/corporation by
entering into a contract.
Will state immunity from suit apply to all public officers?
When you are in the discharge of your governmental functions, you are
immuned from suit.
 When a p.o commits an error, will that also be tantamount to the govt
committing an error?
 The government only authorizes lawful acts of its public officers, that's why it
is not bound by their error. In the same way, the govt is not estopped. The
doctrine of estoppel does not lie against the govt when a p.o. commits an
error in the performance of his govtal duty.

Republic vs Bacases
The issue is the jurisdiction of the LRC in registering the land. The land is a
military reservation. Thus, it is inalienable. LRC only has jurisdiction to register
the lands that are alienable and disposable.
G.R. when you register a parcel of land, you will be issued with Title. "After 1
year reckoned from the entry of the registration, it can no longer be
questioned." (Prescriptive period) But, that restriction does not apply to the
govt.
The doctrine of estoppel does not lie against the government.
The govt is not bound by the error of its public officers.
Who was erroneous in the case?
The LRC. Bec it registered a land of public domain which is inalienable and
not disposable.

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY - when a p.o discharges his official

function, he enjoy this presumption.
But it is a "rebuttable presumption". You have to offer a strong, clear and
convincing evidence.
YAP VS LAGTAPON
A public official enjoys the presumption of regularity.
Principle in law: Mere allegations unsubstantiated by evidence deserves no
weight.
 Yap has not overcome the presumpyion of regularity in the performance of the
duty of public officer.
Since there was a valid service of summon, the court acquired jurisdiction.

Three fold liability rule

A p.o can be held liable criminially, civilly, and administratively.
These 3 cases will proceed independently of the other.
Meaning, the criminal case will not depend on the outcome of the
administrative case. And vice versa.
EXCEPTION:
When the basis of the administrative liability is the criminial liability.
Example-when an administrative liability is anchored on the --overpricing?--
that wasdone o the certain goods in an agency and the administrative liability.
When the overpricing is not in public, does it follow that the admini liability....

AMPIL case
Violation of Sec 3 a and e of RA 3019- when you violate that provision of the
law, that is tantamount to misconduct.
Espenesin acted only upon the verbal instruction of the lawyer of the joint
venture.
When the issue of ownership is resolved, that's the only time that we can say
that there is falsification.
Memorize the elements of sec 3 a and e
AND how sec 3 e is committed

Sec 3 a ELEMENTS
1. The offender is a public officer.
2. He persuades, induces, or influences another public officer to commit an
act or he allows himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an
act.
3. The act that was performed by the public officer constitutes a violation of the
rules and regulations promulgated by duly competent authority or an
offense in the discharge of his official functions.

Sec 3 e ELEMENTS:
 The offender is a public officer.
 The act was done in the discharge of the p.o's discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions.
 The act was done through (MEG)
manifest partiality,

evident bad faith, or

gross inexcusable negligence

 The act cause undue injury to any party, or to the govt, or gave any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference

What made the document already genuine?

-the signture of espenesin is already in the title given to ASB
What law did he violated by changing the name in the title?
Section 108 of PD 1529, which provides that upon entry of the certificate of
title, attested to by the Register of Deeds, no amendment shall be made
except upon lawful order of the court.
Non-interference of the court - in determining of probable cause by the
ombudsman
9 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE:
1. To afford protection of the constitunional rights of the accused.
2. When necessary for the orderly administraton of justice, to avoid
oppression or multipicity of actions.
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice.
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority.
5. When the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation.
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent.
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense.
8. When it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution.
9. When the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance.

Ombudsman as a prosecuting arm in criminal aspect of the case.

If there is a probable cause, the Ombudsman will file an information before the
Sandiganbayan if the accused has a salary grade of 27 and above, or in
regular court for those below.
In administrative case, they have an adjudicatory power to decide.
Grave misconduct [penalty is dismissal]
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definitie rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior, or gross negligence of a
public officer.
3 elements that will make misconduct, grave is
1. Corruption
2. Clear intent to violate the law
3. Flagrant disregard of established rules.

Naguilian Emision Center vs Rimando

A public officer cannot be compelled to exercise a discretionary duty.
Ministerial- so clear and and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of
discretion in its performance. It is one which an officer performs in a
prescribed manner, without regard to the existence of his own judgment.
Discretionary- when the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives
him a right to decide how and when the duty shall be performed.

Ministerial- writ of mandamus

Discretion- writ of certiorari
The power to create a public office is legislative in nature.

General rule.The power to ceate carries with it the power to abolish.

However, there is the power of the Pres to reorganize. -inactivation of a certain office. As long as the
reorganization is done in good faith, it is valid and does not violate the right to security of tenure of
those in the inactivated office.

Sometimes we interchangeably use "power" amd "function". But it's better to say you are exercising a
power to perform a function.

When you are a public officer you are exercising a portion of a sovereign power, in order to perform
your function, you need to have a power. In the same way, administrative agencies are vested with
power.

When a law is enforced a law, which an agency is mandated to enforce, in order to more efficiently
discharge their duty, they have to make rules. Every law which needs to be enforced, needs an IRR
which the agency makes.

Quasi-judicial function--- you are coming out with decisions,ruling, determination- you are trying to
determine the right of every party. PAO not engaged in QJF. PNP-IAS is vested with quasi judial power.

In the process of quasi-judicial function, there is a hearing. There are agencies which are vested only
with INVESTIGATORIAL / inquisitorial power.

Ex. COA, NBI, CHR.

In the statute, the power is expressly provided for. The agency may also exercise implied power to
discharge its functions. Although it is not exprelly provided for in the law, impliedly, it is vested of that
power. In the exercise of its administrative power, the agency is doing regulatory power- it is doing a
function for the benefit and welfare of the people not for the agency.

In the performance of quasi-legislative power. Pwede bang idelegate ang quasi legislative power?
general rule, legislative power cannot be delegated. Except, delegation of legislative power per se bec
the law is already there, only how to implement the legislative's work by making the rules.

Power of Subordinate Legislation- the LGU cannot amend the act of Congress. An ordinance is valid if it
not contravene the constitution or any national laws. Since the LGU is a creation of the Congress, the
LGU cannot go against the will of the congress.

The administrative agency cannot amend the act of congress, it cannot modify, alter, also by virtue of
the power of subordinate legislation. so that in coming out with the rules, in the exercise of its quasi-
legislative function, the admin agency cannot amend, alter, or modify an act of congress. The rule
should not amend, add, substract, alter the law which it seeks to implement so that the rule will be
valid. If the rule is not in consonance with the law, it will become void. The law will prevail.
HIJO PLANTATION vs CENTRAL BANK

DOCTRINE: Such regulations have uniformly been held to have the force of law, whenever they are
found to be in consonance and in harmony with the general purposes and objects of the law. Such
regulations once established and found to be in conformity with the general purposes of the law, are
just as binding upon all the parties, as if the regulation had been written in the original law itself.
Upon the other hand, should the regulation conflict with the law, the validity of the regulation cannot
be sustained.

 there is no dispute that in case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation
issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails because said rule or regulation cannot go
beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.

SEC OF JUSTICE vs LANTION

 Extradition--"the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at
the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in
connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty
imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government."

Role of the Dept of Justice at the evaluation stage of the extradition proceedings

 only duty of the Sec of Justice is to file the petition after the request and all the supporting
papers are forwarded to him by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
 Ministerial in nature

Role of Sec of foreign Affairs

 authorized to evaluate the extradition papers, to assure their sufficiency, and to determine
whether or not the request is politically motivated, or that the offense is a military offense
which is not punishable under non-military penal legislation.
 INVESTIGATIVE OR INQUISTORIAL

(a) taking and evaluation of evidence;

(b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and

(c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved

The Court laid down the test of determining whether an administrative body is exercising judicial
functions or merely investigatory functions: Adjudication signifies the exercise of power and authority
to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties before it. Hence, if the only purpose for
investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted before it based on the facts and circumstances
presented to it, and if the agency is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the
parties, then there is an absence of judicial discretion and judgment.

Due process is comprised of two components substantive due process which requires the intrinsic
validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, and
procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the
guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal

CIR vs CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORP

 The IRR cannot amend the law which it seeks to implement

 If there is a conflict between the law and the IRR, the law will always prevail.
 THE SPRING CANNOT RISE ABOVE THE SOURCE.

SOLID HOLMES vs PAYAWAL

 Statutes conferring powers on their administrative agencies must be liberally construed to

enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the legislative purpose.

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO PASTRAL vs SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS

In the absence of any illegality, error of law, fraud or imposition, none of which were proved by the
petitioners in the instant case, said findings should be respected.

General rule: Non-interference of the court

Exception: when there is ILLEGALITY, ERROR OF LAW, FRAUD or IMPOSITION (I.E.F.I)

Criminal case-acquittal (accused)

Administrative case-exonerated (respondent)

When there is already a complaint filed, he is already an accused

In administrative proceedings, -respondent

Even without the private complaint, a criminal case may proceed because the state is being offended by
the accused.
In admin proceedings, if the complainant filed an affidavit of desistance, it is not automatic that the case
will be dismissed, the government is now the adversed party.

Ombudsman can entertain anynomous complaint as long as there is substance-ultimate facts are there,
not generalization.

when there is a complaint, there will be a preliminary investigation by a committee created by that
purpose in the agency. The committee will come out with recommendation, whether to dismiss the case
or to file the case if there is a prima facie case.

 The head of the agency will determine if the case should be filed
 in case of desistance of the private complainant, the administrative agency will be the
complainant but if without the testimony of the private complainant the case cannot be proven,
then the case will be dismissed. BUT it is not automatic.
 Formal charge- contains the substance of the complaint, summary of the ultimate facts, you are
entitled to have counsel (can be waived), and you may opt to undergo formal investigation (can
be waived)
 In criminal case, cannot waive the right to have a counsel. Unlike in admin, the right to have a
counsel ,may be waived and if u dont have one, it is not obligation of the agency to provide you
a counsel.
 Subpoena - the court has inherent power to issue subpoena. also admininstrative agency can
issue subpoena
 Contempt- inherent to the court , not absolute to administrative agency, when the rule so
provides. Or when the purpose is to get/illicit information from the witnesses
 Writ of execution- in quasi judicial- has the power to issue writ of execution. Implied power.
GSIS vs CSC
 Doctrine of res judicata- in criminal case, it applies. In quasi judicial proceedings- not absolute.
Yes if in the exercise of quasi judicial power, but when administrative, no.
 Forum shopping- applies to administrative proceedings

Besaga vs Acosta

PROVIDED UNDER THE RULE: Notice of appeal- must be filed to the RED

Must be filed before the court whose decision you are appealing

Appeal memorandum- DENR secretary

What is the difference? --- Notice of appeal, notice to the court that you are appealing its decision

Appeal Memorandum- appeal itself. Containing the summary of the case and the errors you want to
appeal amd your arguments.

The complainant argues that the rules are not met.

When does a decision become final?

General rule : 15 days

When aftervthebreglamentary period within which to appeal or file a motion of reconsideration, jo mr
has been filed, it attained finality.

Did it attain finality?

No. In proceedings before the administrative bodies, the general rule has always been liberality. Strict
compliance with the rules of procedure in administrative cases is not required. Therefore the appeal
memorandum is sufficient.

 Solid Holmes vs Payawal - Statutes conferring powers on their administrative agencies must be
liberally construed to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the
legislative purpose.

When it amount to deprivation of right, the rule can be liberally construed in judicial proceedings. But in
administrative proceedings, the general rule is that it should be liberally construed.

LIMIT: limited by the requiremwnts of the due process. Administrative due process is the opportunity to
be heard. Liberal construction has no application when due process is violated.

 The right to appeal is a statutory privilege meaning you can only appeal when it is provided for
in the statute and must do it accordance with the provision of the statute.

Between technicality and right, which will prevail?

-Right will always prevail.

PISON vs NLRC

In quasi-judicial proceedings, procedural rules governing the service of summons are not strictly
construed. Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient.

MONTEMAYOR vs BUNDALIAN

Administrative due process- it is enough that the party is given the opportunity to be heard before the
case against him is decided.

BASIC PRINCIPLES IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

1. burden is in the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his

complaint. -burden of proof

 Substantial evidence- It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable
might conceivably opine otherwise.
 2. in reviewing administrative decisions of the executive branch of the government, the
findings of facts made therein are to be respected so long as they are supported by
substantial evidence.
3. administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside
on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law G.F.E

Quantum of evidence
Administrative case- substantial evidence

Civil case- preponderance of evidence

Criminal case- proof beyond reasonable doubt

Res judicata applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative
power.

The investigation of petitioner is administrative in nature, therefore the doctrine of res judicata finds no
application to the case.

PPC vs CA

In order that res judicata may bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must
concur:

(a) the former judgment must be final;

(b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;

(c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and

(d) there must be between the first and the second actions

(i) identity of parties,

(ii) identity of subject matter, and

(iii) identity of cause of action.

A judgment may be considered as one rendered on the merits when it determines the rights and
liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory
objections; or when the judgment is rendered after a determination of which party is right, as
distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point.

JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS -there is disposal of the case

If what is done is not a judgement on the merits, such as when it is a result of "fact-finding
investigation", res judicata will not apply.

EVANGELISTA vs JARENCIA
Whether the Agency, acting thru its officials, enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of
fact-finding investigations.

It is not necessary that there is a complaint filed before a subpoena may be issued by an
administrative agency.

An administrative agency may be authorized to make investigations, not only in proceedings of a

legislative or judicial nature, but also in proceedings whose sole purpose is to obtain information upon
which future action of a legislative or judicial nature may be taken and may require the attendance of
witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature.

REQUIREMENTS OF SUBPOENA

1) within the authority of the agency;

(2) the demand is not too indefinite; and

(3) the information is reasonably relevant.

 Right against self-incrimination in administrative proceedings-- He can invoke this right in the
process of fact finding investigation but when he was issued subpoena to appear and to testify,
he cannot already invoke his right right against self-incrimination.
 COLLATERAL ATTACK OF EXECUTIVE ORDER -- Unfortunately, for reasons of public policy, the
constitutionality of executive orders, which are commonly said to have the force and effect of
statutes 32 cannot be collaterally impeached.

LASTIMOSA vs VASQUEZ

POWER OF THE OMBUDSMAN

--investigate and prosecute on its own on its own or on complaint against any act or ommission of
a public official , when such act or ommission is ILLEGAL, UNJUST, IMPROPER or INEFFICIENT, regardless
if it was made in the performance of the public official's duty or not. It is sufficient that the act or
ommission was committed by a public official.

In the existence of his power, the Ombudsman is authorized to call on public prosecutors for assistance,
(SEC 31of the OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1989)

Those designated to assisst him shall be under his supervision and control.

When a prosecutor is deputized by the Ombudsman, the former cannot act on her own or refuse the
order of the Ombudsman. SEC 15(g) of the Ombudsman Act give the Office of the Ombudsman the
power to punish for contempt in accordance with the rules of court.

It is true that, under Sec 24 of the Ombudsman's Act, to justify the preventive suspension of a public
official, the evidence against him should be strong, and any of the following circumstances is present:
(a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or
neglect in the performance of duty;

(b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or

(c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.

FINALS

RRACS-

Should anonymous complaint be entertained?

GR. No, unless the act complained of is a public knowlege and there is evidence, ultimate facts. Not
generalization.

Distinguish complaint in administrative proceeding in criminal case in who may initiate?

In admin proceedings, it may be filed motu proprio (by the disciplining authority) or by a complainant

Non-disciplinary cases, non validation of appointment- any person may file

Protest- next-in-rank

In criminal case, anybody may file the complaint except in private crime wherein the offended party may
only file such as seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness SAA

Civil cases, offended party may file

Multiple offenses - the most serious offense will be charged but the other offenses will serve as
aggravating circumstances

Simple miconduct first offense- less grave- dismissal for the 2nd offense

If the offense committed is not one those enumerated in sec 29 1-6, can there be preventive
suspension? -1-4 first offense dismissed 5-6 2nd or third dismissed

Right of notice and hearing not needed in preventive suspension because it is not a penalty. Before
there can be a preventive suspension, there must be a formal charge, but hearing is not needed. It can
be motu proprio imposed by disciplining authority.

Promotion is a discretionary duty, therefore you cannot compel.

Sec 9 - read and understand (EXCEPT) dept secretary

Withdrawal- not automatically dismiss sec16 unless upon withdrawal, case cannot be proved anymore,
but of can still be proven based on the records already provided, it can proceed

Clarificatory- when something must be clarified, not a full-blown trial

Right to counsel and formal investigation in administrative proceeding may be waived

Preventive suspension at hndi pa natatapos ang investigation, pag hindi nya kasalanan hindi
madadagdagan ang suspensive suspension. Dalawang p.suspension, nag overlap, it can happen

Dismissal kasali ang eligibility

Perpetual and retirement benefits

Demote no promotion for 1 yr

Suspension disqualified for promotion during the period of suspension

Reprimand- penalty

Warning/admunition- is not a penalty

Exonerated pati leave credits mo maibabalik

Promotion, unless approved by CSC, there must be no filling up of that position.

Qualified next in rank definition refers to an employee appointed on a permanent basis to a position
previously determined to be a next-in-rank to the vacancy and who meets the requirements for
appointment thereto as previously determined by the appointing authority and approved by the
Commission.

and how is filing?

Original concurrent jurisdiction between the agency and the csc

Pag may complaint, hindi automatic na may formal charge. It still has to go to preliminiary investigation ,
finding of probable cause, and then formal charge.

Disciplinary administrative cases can either be filed by a complainant or can be motu proprio - filed by
disciplining authority

COMPLAIN - P.I - (if there is probable cause or prima facie case) - FORMAL CHARGE

MOTU PROPRIO- SHOW CAUSE- FORMAL CHARGE

If motu proprio, you will receive a show cause order coming from disciplining authority.
Instances na hindi pwede and PAO lawyers? -nung nagprepare sila ng complaint nagpa-assist sila sa pao
kaya hndi na pwedeng yung pao ang maging defending lawyer.

SAUNAR vs Executive Sercetary

-GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY

It refers to negligence characterized by the glaring want of care; by acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally; or by acting with
a conscious indifference to consequences with respect to other persons who may be affected.

7 CARDINAL RIGHTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

1. Right to hearing- the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and
submit evidence in support thereof (can it be waived? YES.)
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented- "the right to adduce evidence, without the
corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously
futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without
notice or consideration."

3. There must be evidence - decision must be supported by a substantial evidence

4. It must be a substantial evidence -SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE- REASONABLE MIND MIGHT ACCEPT
AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION

5. Evidence must be PRESENTED and DISCLOSED - to the parties (Right to be informed of the
accusations against you and the right to meet the witnesses face to face)

6. INDEPENDENCE- judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the
law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a
decision

7. ISSUES must be made known to the parties and the reasons for the decisions rendered

 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING- In admin proceeding, there can only be submission of position

paper, but thesubmission position paper must NOT take the place of investigation/ a hearing. If
one of the parties opts to have an adversial proceeding, it is not inherent in admin proceeding
but it can be asked.
 Immediately after filing a formal charge, can parties be required to submit position paper?
Position paper nalang wala ng hearing? - FORMAL CHARGE, party may opt to have a formal
investigation.
 They can also opt to waive it and just submit position paper
  DOCTRINE: PARTIES MAY SUBMIT POSITION PAPER BUT IT MUST NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A
FORMAL INVESTIGATION/HEARING

Punishable by Dismissal in the first offense

Dishonesty

Oppresion

Grave Misconduct

Neglect of duty (GROSS)

Other offenses punishable by dismissal

Administrative offense punsihable by dismissal on its 2nd or 3rd instance

What is the consequence if the decision is exoneration?

-Reinstatement, Backwages, accessory penalties mawawala rin.

Saunar was not reinstated because he is already in retiring age, but received backwages and other
benefits.

Submission of position papers does not apply in administrative cases against elective officials - they
really go thru a formal investigation.

PPC vs CA

 There is a dilineation between the admin agencies and the courts.

 Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies - prior to resort to the courts, you should
exhaust all remedies available at the administrative level. Meaning, if there is still a remedy
which you can avail of within the administrative level, you cant proceed to the court.
 In the case of De Guzman, the PPC has used this doctrine, prior to going to CA De Guzman
should have appealed the case to the PPC Board or to CSC. But since he appealed directly to the
CA, there is a failure on his part to adhere to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
 FORUM-SHOPPING - consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment.
 Pursuing two (2) separate remedies –petition for certiorari and appeal –that have long been
held to be mutually exclusive, and not alternative or cumulative remedies. Evidently, the
ultimate relief sought by said remedies whichDe Guzmanfiled only within a few months from
 each other46 is one and the same – the setting aside of the resolution dismissing him from the
service.

Elements of Forum-shopping
(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;

(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and

(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata.

 Why are you invoking res judicata anyway? - to dismiss the present case
 There was no judgment on the merits. In fact-finding, admin agencies are only exercising their
investigatory/inquisitorial power. No judgment on the merits of the case bec they dont
determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.
 There was no formal charge against De Guzman so no judgment on the merits of the case. Thus,
re judicata does not apply.

OMBUDMSAN vs CABEROY

 Oppression- is also known as grave abuse of authority, which is a misdemeanor committed by

a public officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflict upon any person any bodily
harm, imprisonment or other injury. It is an act ofcruelty, severity, or excessive use of
authority
 Oppression must be attended with BAD FAITH. It must be stressed that like other grave offenses
classified under the Civil Service laws, bad faith must attend the act complained of.
 Bad faith connotes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a
wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature
of fraud
 DOCTRINE: In administrative cases, to be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense,
the evidence against the respondent should be competent and must be derived from direct
knowledge. *Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an
administrative complaint with no leg to stand on.

FAJARDO vs CORRAL

 Dishonesty - the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a

disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, or intent to violate the truth
 Punishable by DISMISSAL IN THE 1ST OFFENSE
 Dishonesty may be serious, less serious, or simple.
 Serious Dishonesty if with:

(1) the dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the Government;
(2) the respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act;
(3) where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property,
accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to
commit material gain, graft and corruption;

(4) The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of respondent;

(5) The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the
dishonest act related to his/her employment;

(6) The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions;

(7) The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irrregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such
as, but not limited to impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets; and

(8) Other analogous circumstances.

 Without any of the above circumstances, it can only be classified as - simple dishonesty.
 Less serious dishonesty if:

(a) the dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is not so serious as to
qualify as serious dishonesty;
(b) the respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the dishonest act; and

(c) other analogous circumstances.

 Grave Misconduct- transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavioror gross negligence by a public officer with the elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.
 Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the official or employee’s act of
unlawfully or wrongfully using his position to gain benefit for one’s self.
 Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service- deals with a demeanor of a public officer
which “tarnished the image and integrity of his/her public office”.
 DOCTRINE: Substantial evidence rule- "factual findings" of the Ombudsman and the CA are
conclusive and binding in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. Exception: When the
decision of CA and Ombudsman are conflicting.
 A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is
supported by substantial evidence that the [petitioner] has committed acts stated in the
complaint or formal charge.

OMBUDSMAN vs Espina

 Can it happen that you are charge with one offense and you will be held guilty of another
offense? -the designation of the offense or offenses with which a person is charged in an
administrative case is not controlling, and one may be found guilty of another offense where
the substance of the allegations and evidence presented sufficiently proves one's guilt.
  ARIAS DOCTRINE: Being the head of office, you do not have to go through every documents
filed before you. It is not incumbent on your part, as the head of office, to ho through all the
supporting papers, all you have to do is to rely on the recommendations of your subordinates.
Especially if you are the last one to sign and your subordinates have affixed their signatures.
 But ARIAS DOCTRINE does not apply in this case because it involves millions of taxes, thus, it
reasonably impose on Espina a higher degree of care and vigilance in the discharge of his duties.
 Jaca vs People: a superior cannot rely in good faith on the act of a subordinate where the
documents that would support the subordinate' s action were not even in his (the superior's)
possession for examination.
 Lihaylihay vs People: the nature of the public officers' responsibilities and their role in the
procurement process are compelling factors that should have led them to examine with greater
detail the documents which they are made to approve.

CSC jurisdiction as far as government employees are concerned?

*original concurrent jurisdiction - the agency can take cognizance and also csc if filed with them

Does DILG exercises quasi judicial function? YES.

No encroachment (doctrine of separation of powers)

When will there be a check and balance such that there will no encrachment - if it is provided for under
the law

Executive and Judiciary - JUDICIAL REVIEW

Generally, there's no such thing as delegation of legislative powers but by virtue of doctrine of power of
subordinate legislation, the legislative is allowed to delegate its power to administratjve agencies and
this is quasi-legislative power or the rule-making power of administrative agencies and since it is merely
delegated, these administrative agencies cannot promulgate rules and regulations which are not in
consonance to the law which they seek to implement.

By virtue of doctrine of separation of powers, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial power it rendered
decisions, can judiciary take a look on decisions of the administrative agency? - When can judiciary do
it? -When there is grave abuse of discretion

 Grave abuse of discretion- whimsical, arbitrary, despotic, capricious exercise of judgment as is

equivalent to lack of jurisdiction of the authority or the tribunal.
When an authority has discretionary power, how come that the judiciary can check if he is exercising his
discretion? - grave abuse of discretion resulting to lack or excess jurisdiction is a ground for judicial
review

 It is not the discretion that is being questioned, it is the validity of exercise of that discretion -is
it exercised in lawful manner ?
 REQUIREMENTS OF JR - read

Modes of Appeal

 APPEAL (43) [Appeals From the court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-judicial Agencies to the Court
of Appeals] - ordinary appeal filed before Court of Appeals - those agencies listed in sec 1 is not
exclusive , as long as such agency is exercising quais-judicial power - reviews question of law,
question of facts or both - Question of Fact is more on the appreciation of the court over the
evidence, doubt as to the truth/falsehood of of alleged facts - Question of law is a doubt as
to what law should be applied in the given set of facts. Period of appeal is 15 days from the
notice judgment
 What are excluded in rule 43? -Labor law (appealed in NLRC) , COMELEC and COA
 If after appeal, still not favorable to you, go to SC by virtue of Rule 45
 CSC vs Sebastian Section 6, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides, among
others, that the petition filed under it shall be made without impleading the court or agencies
which rendered the assailed decision or resolution, either as petitioners or respondents; and
that under Section 7 of the same Rule, failure to comply with the requirements shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
 PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI (45) [Appeal by Certiorari to the SC] - ordinary appeal
- appeal the decision of CA -limited to questions of law bec SC is not a trier of facts - period of
appeal: shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution appealed from - there must be a final decision already
 PROHIBITION (65) -to command the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the action
or matter spevified therein
 MANDAMUS (65) -to command the respondent to do the act required to be done to protect the
rights of the petitioner,
 PETITION FOR Writ of CERTIORARI (65) - special civil action which is an *original civil action -
60 days from notice of judgment

If by virtue of rule 43 you filed an appeal for final decision or order of the quasi-judicial agency, it
it necessary for u to avail rule 65 to have a final decision?
Can you also file a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order? YES

*Interlocutory order - between the commencement and the end , not yet at the end . An order
may be final but it does not dispose of the case -interlocutory does not dispose the case . Ex.
There is a motion for preventive suspension and it is granted, you can file rule 65 if there is grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction. Hindi pa tapos ang kaso pero pwede
mong ipetition for certiorari
If I was not able to file a petiton for appeal, can i file petition for certiorari? NO. [INDOYON vs CA]

 what is required before filing petition for certiorari? -there should be no appeal, nor any
plain, speedy, and adequate PSA remedy in the ordinary course of law
 Ex. When the decision is such that the respondent is sentenced to a period of less than 30 days -
unappealable. Also if the fine is less than a monthly salary of the respondent -unappealable so
you can file petition of certiorari +GAD
 Rule 65- covers ques of law or (errors of jurisdiction - can be grounded on grave abuse of
discretion amounting lack or excess of jurisdiction)
 Can you file a petition for certiorari when an agency is not performing quasi-judicial function? Ex
COMELEC - when exercising administrative function,can you file a petition for certiorari? No,
excluded in the province of petition for certiorari is When an agency performs an admin
function unless there is also grave abuse of discretion.
 Where do u file a petition for certiorari? - quasi-judicial--- SC . RTC - When it involves rule-
making power and administrative function
 If the decision in APPEAL is not favorable to you, can you file a petition for certiorari? Yes, if the
motion for reconsideration was denied. REMEDY OF APPEAL AND CERTIORARI ARE MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE - when you avail of one, it will exclude the other (indoyon vs ca ) .EXCEPTION: the
availability of an appeal does not foreclose recourse to the extraordinary remedies of certiorari
or prohibition where appeal is not adequate, or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient. (PNB
vs SAYO)

GR : you can only file a petition for certiorari after your motion for reconsideration has been denied
[APPEAL - MR (denied) - CERTIORARI]

EXCEPTION: TAN vs CA [APPEAL - CERTIORARI]

where the special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before allowing
the correction of errors, it admits of certain exceptions such as

(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the Court a quo had no jurisdiction;

(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by
the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;

(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable;

(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;

(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in
a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial Court is
improbable;

(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;

(h) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.

 In the exercise of their power of judicial review, the courts are bound by certain rules bec
findings of facts of administrative agencies are accorded great respect and finality, are
conclusive upon the Supreme Court especially when the finding of fact of admin agency and the
finding of fact of CA are the same
 GR :SC is not a trier of facts. EXCEPTION :When there is conflict bet finding of facts of admin and
CA - SC will take cognizance on the facts of the case

NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES CAN BE A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL

Is there a need to exhaust administrative remedies when an agency is performing an administrative

function? - When rule making function? - When quasi judicial function?

When an eo has been issued (administrative) memorandum circular (rule making) pwede kang
dumiretso to question validity/constitutionality.

Only in quasi judicial that DEAR applies

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

 The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires
the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative agency, relief
must be first obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the
courts.
 Effect: It will not be dismissed, it will only be suspended and remanded to the proper admin
body. Hanggat hndi nareresolve yung matter with expertise ..etc

SAN MIGUEL vs REYES

 When a case requires for its determination the expertise, specialized skills, and knowledge of
some administrative board or commission because it involves technical matters or intricate
questions of fact, relief must first be obtained in an appropriate administrative proceeding
before a remedy will be supplied by the courts although the matter comes within the
jurisdiction of the courts.
 The application of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the case in the court but only
for its suspension until after the matters within the competence of the administrative body are
threshed out and determined.
Substantial Evidence Rule - findings of facts of admin agencies are conclusive in the court as long as they
are supported by substantial evidence

EXCEPTION: FUENTES vs CA

The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which are as a general rule deemed conclusive, may admit
of review by the SUPREME Court:

(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;

(2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

(3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken,
absurd, or impossible;

(4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;

(5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such
findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

(6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;

(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will
justify a different conclusion;

(8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;

(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are
based; and

(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such
findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.

Office of the Ombusdman vs Delos Reyes

Misconduct has been defined as a "transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.

The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law or disregard of established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence."

Meanwhile, gross neglect of duty is:

"[N]egligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that
care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to giveto their own property." It denotes a
flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.
In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach ofduty is flagrant and
palpable.

 Liberal application of the rules cannot be invoked to justify a flagrant disregard of the rules of
procedure.
 the writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted when "there is no appeal,
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. . . ."
 The remedies of appeal and certiorariare mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.