evidence presented at the hearing or ascertained in the records or disclosed to the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC
OFFICERS, ELECTION LAW: CASE DOCTRINES
FINALS, PART II
DANIEL G. GUINIGUNDO, II-A, ATTY. ERENETA
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CHAPTER V: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
1. La Union Labor Union v. Philippine Tobacco: Wage Administration Service
(WAS) will only acquire jurisdiction if the parties submit the case before it via a
“written agreement” and if controversies involves only simple wage claims. Parties
agreed to have non-wage claims of laborers presented to a labor office (CIR) for
adjudication but it is not very clear as to the intent of the parties to submit the wage
claims to WAS. The court ruled that the function of the WAS was limited to
conciliation of dispute involving claims for wages, and if the parties are willing to
submit their case for arbitration, they have to execute a written agreement to that
effect. The kind of agreement entered into by the parties is insufficient to confer
jurisdiction to WAS. Its decision is nullified.
2. Roxas v. Sayoc: Governing law expired after Commissioner of Customs acquired
jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction duly acquired is not affected by expiration of
the governing law. It is a settled rule that a court, judicial/administrative, that has
acquired jurisdiction over a case, retains it even after the expiration of the law
governing the case. The case at bar is concerned with the expiration of a law, and
not with the abrogation of law.
3. Feliciano v. Director of Patents: Director of patents is asked by intervenor to rule
on the terms and stipulations of an executory contract whereby intervenor is to act
as selling agent for the investors of the patent. Motion of intervenor is denied on the
ground that Director of Patents lacks the jurisdiction to decide on the case. The case
involves contractual obligations, therefore jurisdiction pertains with the regular courts
(determination if there’s meeting of the minds, etc.)
4. Villa v. Lazaro: Commission conducted an inquiry in the most informal manner by
means only of communications requiring submission of certain documents. Imagine!
commissioner sent a mere letter requesting petitioner to give location clearance to
the HSR Commission for the construction of a funeral parlor. Then HSRC imposed
fine against petitioner for allegedly not complying with said request (when in fact she
did). It was only in this juncture that petitioner learnt of a complaint was lodged
against her when all she thought was that the request letter was mere routine.
Petitioner was absolutely denied due process! There is failure on the part of the
Admin agency to afford petitioner the ff: a) right to notice (actual or constructive); b)
reasonable opportunity to defend rights and present witness/evidence; c)
Tribunal=honest and impartial; and d) Decision of tribunal supported substantial
parties affected. Administrative proceeding against petitioner inexcusable or
indefensible since the petitioner was not informed of the complaint which initiated
the case. She was a victim of gross ignorance or negligence and abuse of power.
5. National Union of Printing Workers v. Asia Printing: Result of investigation
conducted by Court of Industrial Relations’ prosecutor showed employer guilty of
unfair labor practice. However, CIR still rendered a decision not favorable to the
union member after it adduced evidence from both parties. Union member contend
that the findings of the prosecutor must bind the CIR and therefore, they should win.
Court ruled that the investigation conducted by the prosecutor is ex parte, thus,
respondent employer was not given the opportunity to be present and take part in
said investigation. The investigation by the prosecutor is necessary in order to avoid
frivolous and unfounded charges against employers. Lastly, the law requires unfair
Labor practice cases to be heard by CIR only after investigation.
6. Bautista v. WCC: Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) dismissed claim
for compensation without passing upon the issue of denial of due process squarely
presented before it. Claimant always fails to attend the hearing because of lack of
notice or receipt of notice after scheduled date. Dismissal of claim was grave abuse
of discretion on the part of WCC according to the Court. Claimant deprived of its day
in court because WCC did not afford a reasonable notice of hearing to each party
interested.
7. Danan v. Aspillera: Certificate of public convenience was cancelled solely on the
basis of the report of an engineer of the Public Service Commission. Petitioner
formerly has permit to operate ice plant. Another company wants to put up same
business. A hearing was conducted who among the two companies will operate
plant. Petitioner failed to appear due to accident. Then cancellation of petitioner’s
certificate of public convenience was right away granted. This is a violation of
petitioner’s right to due process because they were not able to have their day in
court and opportunity to explain their side. SC also threatens public officials to
observe fundamental procedural requirements, or else they can be liable for their
negligence.
8. Manila Elec. Co v. Medina: Meralco applied for an increase in energy rates and
got a favorable decision. But Public Service Commission (PSC) suspended without a
hearing, the effectivity of its decision increasing rates to be charged. There was a
violation of right to notice and hearing. The PSC did not give Meralco the opportunity
to oppose the suspension of the decision under which, Meralco acquired valuable
rights. Plus, the law confers no discretion on the PSC to suspend its decision.
9. Manila Elec. Co v. PSC: PSC denied request for a hearing on rates set by the
Commission based on report of the General Auditing Office. The practice of PSC
breaches guarantees of due process when it did not (1) first reset the cases for
hearing. (2) by not giving meralco the right to cross-examine GAO’s employees. (3)
give meralco opportunity to adduce evidence. Notice and opportunity to be heard
guaranteed by due process.
1

10. Commissioner of Immigration v. Fernandez: New Board of Commissioners
reversed, without notice and hearing, decision of old Board affirming the ruling of the
Board of Special Inquiry that respondents were Filipino Citizens. There was a
violation on respondent’s right to due process. The right of respondent had already
been passed by a board of equally and duly constituted Commissioners. The review,
in affecting the rights of the respondent, must be made under compliance with the
due process requirement.
11. Maceda v. ERB: Energy Regulatory Board relaxed procedure by having all the
evidence-in-chief of all the applicants for oil price increase on record just before their
witnesses are crossed-examined. Does the relaxed procedure deny petitioner due
process? No. ERB is not bound by strict rules of procedure. But some dissenters in
the decision addressed the need of a Bona Fide and full-dress hearings necessary
for any increase. The oppositor to any price increase must be given the right to
cross-examine the witness of the adverse parties.
12. Suntay v. People: Petitioner was charged with seduction and left the country.
However, his passport was cancelled by the secretary of foreign affairs without
notice and hearing. The cancellation is not whimsical and capricious since there is a
clear reason for doing so. Hearing is not always necessary or required. When
discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as
the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing may be
dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport;
there is no violation of due process. But if hearing is mandatory or always required,
then a writ of preliminary injunction issued ex parte would be violative of the said
clause.
13. Bisschop v. Galang: Petitoner, an American citizen, staying in the Philippines for
an allotted 3 years, and subsequently applying for an extension, was suspected of
having evaded payment of his income tax and for running what appeard to be a
gambling house. His extension of stay was denied by the Board with no grant of
reinvestigation. Court ruled that Cmmissoners are not required by law to conduct
formal hearings on all applications for extension of stay of aliens as such is purely
discretionary on the part of immigration authorities and that right to notice and
hearing are not always essential to due process of law.
14. American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents: Director of Patents delegated
the hearing of petitioner’s cases to hearing officers. Law confers upon the director to
obtain assistance of “technical, scientific or other qualified officers or employees of
other department…” The Dir of Patents validly delegated its hearing function.
Administrative flexibility is necessary for the prompt and expeditious discharge of his
duties. Furthermore, subdelegation of power is justified by sound principles of
organization. This principle refers to allow top officers to concentrate on matters
bearing more significance in the accomplishment of its function and delegating
matters which would otherwise consume his time.
15. Santos v. Noble: In a reinvestigation to dismiss the decision of the CTA
upholding the assessment and demand made by the CIR on petitioner, the BIR could
not produce the former’s books, thus rendering it impossible for petitioner to prove
the errors allegedly committed by the BIR agent. The hearing was proceeded without
the books. Due to such loss of primary evidence and inferentially admitting that
taxpayer’s petitions were not groundless by granting his requests for reinvestigation,
petitioner was allowed to be given the last opportunity to prove even with secondary
evidence his contention that the assessment against him was incorrect.
16. Estate of Florencio P. Buan v. Pampanga Bus and Co. and La Mallorca:
Observation and inspection of Admin agency officers is justified to be the basis for a
decision. Thus, it is possible that even if parties present their evidence, admin
agency may disregard it and use only its own findings.
17. Philippine Movie Pictures Worker’s Assoc v. PPI: ocular inspection made was
held to be insufficient; allegations cannot be established by a mere inspection of a
place. In this case, as well as in the Estate case, In these two cases, the determining
factor in the applicability of an agency’s finding is if the findings of the agency is
supported by substantial evidence and provided it has the power to do so
18. Halili v. Flores: Halili filed opposition on application of respondent to operate an
auto-truck service, claiming that that he had already been rendering transportation
service along the same route, presenting testimonial evidence that proved that
passenger buses were overcrowded and overflowing and not sufficient in number to
the discomfort of passengers. The Court ruled that the PSC decision in granting
such application to Flores was not contrary to law or rendered without jurisdiction;
acknowledged that it could not substitute own findings for those of the Commission
as it was reasonably supported by evidence.
19. Uy v. WCC: WCC reversed decision of the hearing officer awarding a claim for
death compensation on the ground that there was no employer-employee
relationship. The Court ruled on the records and substantial evidence, showing that
Uy was indeed an employee, working as early as 1968.
20. Indias v. Phil Iron Mines, Inc. : The CIR’s decision did not contain any facts but
merely affirmed the decision of its examining officers. This kind of decision is allowed
because it is purposeless to repeat the examiner’s findings to which it agrees. But, in
case the decision did not affirm the findings of its examiners, then, CIR must cite the
facts and law which will support their decision.
21. Gracilla v. CIR: Court of Industrial Relation dismissed the complaint of employee
but failed to render a decision regarding monetary claims. This is a violation of due
process of law. The issues raised by a party should not be ignored or left undecided.
22. Serrano v. PSC: Serrano filed an application requesting authority to operate a
taxicab automobile service in Manila. His application was dismissed for lack of
interest or failure to prosecute or denied for failure to qualify. The Court ruled that the
PSC committed an error in summarily denying Serrano’s application without setting
2
forth the facts on which the decision was based; Although the PSC is administrative
in nature, it does not mean that such fact would justify the summary disposition of
petitioner’s application.
23. Heirs v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications: A number of
residents filed complaints with the Secretary of PWC denouncing the heirs for
alleged encroachments into the Tulao river. The Secretary then proceeded to order
the removal of such encroachments complained of within 3 days. The heirs sought
annulment due to lack of jurisdiction and issuance of a writ of prohibition claiming to
have title. The court ruled that the secretary did not rule on the removal of the
encroachments and at the same time rule on the validity of petitioner’s title. This is
because the fact-finding power of the Secretary is incidental to his duty and
authority to clear all navigable streams of unauthorized constructions and that uch
authority prevails over petitioner’s title.
24. Weigall v. Shuster: Collector of Customs imposed a fine in the belief that he had
such authority because the law failed to provide the machinery for the enforcement
of its penal provisions. The Collector cannot impose any fine since the power is not
expressly given by the statute. The imposition made is penal in nature.
25. Civil Aeronautics Board v. PAL: CAB imposed a fine against PAL for making an
unauthorized flagstop to pick up passengers. The fine was held administrative in
nature as provided in CAB’s charter. Hence, the imposition is allowed although the
determination of the exact amount to be imposed was not contained in the charter.
26. Yao Git v. Geraldez: Yao Git, an alien, was prosecuted without the intervention
of the Commissioner of Immigration, as he was acting suspiciously and was found in
his possession a Chinese jueteng list, by Fiscal for non-exhibition of his alien
certificate of registration. The Court ruled that such Fiscal has no authority to initiate
the prosecution and take cognizance of the case, as the Commissioner was given
the option by law to subject erring alien to administrative fine or to endorse his
prosecution. Thus, the Fiscal may not initiate the prosecution until and unless the
Commissioner has election and decided upon his choice.
27. Apelaga v. Dizon: H filed a claim for compensation with the DOL for injury
sustained under the employ of Apelaga. The award was declared final and executory
by the WCC under Section 41 of the WCC Act as amended by Sec. 17 of RA 4119.
The Court ruled that the power of WCC to enforce its awards is transferred to it from
the courts of justice, thus having such authority to do so.
28. Potente v. Saulog Transit, Inc.: Potente , a former bus inspector of a public
utility operator, seeks, without an ordinary action, issuance by a court of a writ of
execution of a “decision” rendered by the Wage Administration Service against his
employer. The Court ruled that such may not be executed by a court of justice
without an ordinary action for recovery of a sum of money as it is required by law.
CHAPTER VI: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF, OR RELIEF AGAINST, ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTIONS
1. SMC v. Secretary of Labor: The Secretary of Labor affirmed NLRC decision on
reinstatement of a dismissed employee with Y raising a jurisidictional question on
WON the SC has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the NLRC. Court ruled that
that the SC does not have jurisdiction; it may only declare an action or resolution of
an administrative authority illegal if it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory
provisions of the law or because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious.
2. Board of Medical Education v. Alfonso: The Secretary of Education ordered the
closure of a medical college on the ground of failing to meet minimum standards.
Lower court issued an injunction based on its own findings. Such issuance is not
proper. No court has competence to substitute its own opinion for that of the DECS
Secretary on matters falling under the latter’s prerogative.
3. Gordon b. Veridiano II: Food and Drug Admin lifted the closure order to a
drugstore after the penalties imposed have been discharged. City mayor wants the
FDA to review its decision in allowing the drugstore to operate again. The Court ruled
that the Mayor cannot, in the exercise of his own power, prevent the operation of
drugstores previously permitted by SEC. FDA is vested by law w/ all drug inspection
functions. Though establishments still has to comply with local regulations to be
granted a permit, the previous issuance of the permit (by the mayor himself) shows
compliance with local regulations. Only a violation of such will authorize the mayor to
revoke the permit.
4. Macailing v. Andrada: A Department Secretary is an alter-ego of the President.
The decision made by the former is, for all intents and purposes, a decision of the
latter. Moreover, the parties already acquired vested rights from a decision that has
become final.
5. Nation Multi-Service Labor Union v. Agcaoili: The Secretary of Labor rendered
a decision on a labor dispute. The Judge however entertained such suit where the
decision had already attained status of finality. The SC ruled that such is NOT proper
and that the Judge has committed GAD—proper appeal is to the President.
6. PAL v. Civil Aeronautics Board: Civil Aeronautics Board Order granting
provisional authority to an air line operator. SC reviewed on a special civil action for
certiorari. Such is valid as Certiorari is an available remedy against administrative
agencies
7. Quintos v. National Stud Farm: National Stud Farm cancelled a certificate of
registration on a horse without due process. Relief was sought in the lower courts.
Such action is not proper; petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Proper remedy was to ask the Board of Trustees of National Stud Farm regarding the
cancellation. From there appeal may be taken to the Games and Amusement Board
or to the Office of the President.
8. Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA: There was a rescission of a memorandum of
agreement between coal mine operators where relief was sought in the TC. Such is
3
not proper as Primary jurisdiction lies with the Bureau of Energy Development as
provided by statute—since matter involves coal-operations or coal-development.
9. Secretary of Agriculture and National resources v. CFI judge: Time during
which the motion for reconsideration was pending MUST BE DEDUCTED from the
30 day period for taking the decision to court.
10. Aratuc v. Comelec: Petitioners invoke the SC certiorari jurisdiction over the
COMELEC, not its appellate jurisdiction. Such action must not prosper as the
COMELEC’s actuations are final, executory and inappealable. While such
construction does not exclude the general certiorari jurisdiction of the SC, it narrows
down the scope and extent of the inquiry the Court is to undertake.
11. Elks Club v. Rovira: In a special civil action of certiorari, the only question that
may be raied is WON the respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with GAD and the SC cannot correct errors of fact or law which the TC may have
committed.
12. CIR v. Eznar: The SC passed upon not only the legal issues but also the findings
of fact upon which the decision of the CTA is based. Such is not proper and the SC
may NOT consider such questions of fact. When a case is taken up to Court by
petition to review, it could go over the evidence on record and pass upon the
questions of fact; but that in cases of review upon petition for a writ of certiorari, this
Court could only pass upon issues involving questions of LAW.
13. Blanco v. BME: Petitioners took examinations for a physician’s certificate and
passed the same. The findings of an investigator revealed that some answers on
said examination were leaked before such exam dates. Following the
recommendation of the Undersecretary, the Secretary of Interior annulled the results
of the exam. In an issue to determine whether such is ministerial, it is NOT—it is a
discretionary duty under the law.
14. Policarpio v. PVB: Courts cannot properly intervene until the petitioner should
have exhausted her remedies.
15. Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board: Petition asks the SC to prohibit the
Deportation Board from continuing deportation proceedings against petitioner who
claims to be a Filipino Citizen. The SC ruled that such question of alienage and
citizenship shall FIRST be decided before engaging in a judicial proceeding
suspending the deportation proceedings in the meantime. Thus, judicial
determination should be allowed in all cases.
16. Cabanero v. Torres: The function of the writ of prohibition is to prevent the
doing of an act which is about to be done. It is NOT intended to provide a remedy for
acts already accomplished.
17. Lemi v. Valencia: While courts should exercise great care in granting preliminary
mandatory injunctions as the writ operates not merely to preserve status quo
between parties but to compel one of them to perform a positive act, in cases of
extreme urgency, where petitioner’s right to the writ is clear, the courts should not
hesitate to grant such writ.
18. CIR v. Reyes and CA: Petitions for certiorari seeks to nullify resolutions of the
CTA restraining the CIR from collecting taxes allegedly due from a taxpayer. The SC
ruled that the CIR may be restrained from proceeding with the collection, levy,
distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer. The CTA is empowered by law
to grant injunction to restrain collection of IR tax.
19. Azajar v. Ardales and Bureau of Lands: Complaint filed by petitioner prays that
the plaintiff be declared as a Filipino citizen and entitle to acquire lands of the public
domain. The SC ruled that the appellant’s citizenship CANNOT be determined in the
the complaint for declaratory judgment/relief as such is not a proper remedy for
determination of citizenship.
20. Mejoff v. Director of Prisons: Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have NO
right of asylum therein even if they are stateless. However, the SC ruled that foreign
nationals, not enemy, whom no charge has been made may not indefinitely be kept
in detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process is not
limited to Philippine citizens but also to all residents, except enemy aliens,
regardless of nationality.
21. Bureau of Immigration Commissioners v. Domingo: The proper remedy to test
the legality of detention is habeas corpus and NOT an action for declaratory
judgment with incidental mandamus to release him.
22. Ignacio v. CA: Decision of administrative officers may NOT be disturbed except
when acted with GAD.
23. Orlina v. Singson Encarnacion: Director of Lands rejected the sale application
for a tract of public land on his conclusion from the facts found that such applicant is
a Chinese citizen. SC ruled that the decisions of such Director when approved by
Secretary generally conclusive. As a quasi-judicial officer, entitled to great respect of
the Courts.
24. Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union: Charge of unfair labor practice is based on
the bare testimony of complainants. The SC ruled that it shall that is should go over
the record, and in order to determine substantiability of the evidence, consider it not
only for quantitative e but also its qualitative aspects.
25. Edwards v. McCoy: A verdict or decision with absolutely nothing to support is a
nullity at least when directly attacked, and a body which affirms such a decision
does not exercise either a deliberative discretion or ability.
26. Lambino v. Baens: WCC contends that in the circumstances, the death of a
street cleaner or sweeper was NOT caused by the nature of his work. The SC ruled
4
that such conclusion by the COMELEC is NOT tenable— as such conclusion is Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, which among other laws defined what a citizen
unreasonably harsh for the deceased. was.

27. H.E. Heacock Co. v. NLU: If there is not evidence in support of the findings of
the CIR, then such action CANNOT be denied.
28.ERB v. CA: The interpretation of an administrative government agency which is
tasked to implement a statute, is accorded GREAT weight and respect.
29. Caspera v. Salisi: The Public Service Commission en bank has the authority to
review on evidence and record the factual findings and conclusion of the decision
rendered by a division.
30. Borja v. Moreno: Where substantial evidence rule applicable, courts are bound
to look no further.
Philippine Bill of 1902: inhabitants of the Philippine islands who were Spanish
citizens on April 11, 1899 and continued to reside in the Philippines, and any of their
children born subsequent thereto.
Jones Law: all inhabitants of the Philippine islands who were Spanish subjects on
April 11, 1899 and resided on the islands and their children born subsequent thereto
are deemed to be citizens of the Philippines
Under both laws, Telesforo Ybasco (father of respondent) was a Filipino citizen, and
pursuant to the laws covering her at the time of her birth, so is respondent. Proving
her citizenship as FILIPINO, she is thus ELIGIBLE to run for public office.

LAW ON ELECTIONS

1. Valles v. COMELEC:
a. FACTS: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father
and an Australian mother. At the age of 15, she left Australia to settle in RP. Since
she got married in 1952, she has been active in the electoral process. She ran fwas
elected governor of Davao Oriental where her citizenship was questioned by her then
opponent Taojo, Jr. but it was dismissed due to lack of proof. In May 1998, she ran
again for re-election where her citizenship is once again being assailed, this time by
the present petitioner. Because no new evidence was presented, the COMELEC
dismissed the petition, as well as the MR, thus finding its way to the SC. The
COMELEC ruled that respondent Lopez is a Filipino citizen for several reasons: 1.)
Her father is a Filipino citizen, and so she is a Filipino by virtue of jus sanguinis; 2.)
She is married to a Filipino citizen, making her a Filipino citizen ipso jure, according
to Commonwealth Act 673; 3.) She renounced her Australian citizenship on January
15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia and
her Australian passport was cancelled; 4.) The aforementioned COMELEC
resolutions resolved the issue of citizenship. Petitioner states on the other hand that
private respondent still considers herself an Australian national, owing to several
documents issued in 1988, including an Australian passport, an Immigration
Certificate of Residence and an Alien Certificate of Registration. He also contends
that the act of renouncing done by the petitioner in 1992 does not automatically
restore Filipino citizenship.

b. ISSUE: WON COMELEC erred in declaring Lopez eligible to run for public office.

c. HELD/ RATIO: NO!

Philippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis, whereby a person’s citizenship

follows that of his parents’ regardless of the place of birth, as opposed to the
principle of jus soli, which does just that. Respondent Lopez was born in 1934, a
year before the 1935 Constitution took effect, so the law in effect at the time was the
5