PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
law-making body to the administrative body to adopt rules
Chapter 1 - General Considerations
Administrative Law – that branch of modern law under
which the executive department of the government, acting in
a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with
the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the
well-being of the community.
Administrative law is a recent development , being a
consequence of the ever increasing complexities of society
and the proliferation of problems of government that cannot
readily or effectively be addressed by the public agencies or
solved by other disciplines of public law.
It was felt that the legislative and judicial departments no
longer had either the time or the needed expertise to attend
to these new problems.
Thus, the obvious solution was delegation of power.
Two major powers of the administrative agency:
1. Quasi-legislative authority– or rule making power
2. Quasi-judicial power – or adjudicatory function
Sources of Administrative Law
Administrative law is derived from four sources or is of four
(4) kinds:
1. Constitution or statutory enactments – e.g. Social
Security Act which established the Social Security
Commission.
2. Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of
administrative bodies
3. Rules and regulations issued by the administrative
bodies – e.g. Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
4. Determinations and orders of the administrative
bodies in the settlement of controversies
Administration
Administration is understood in two senses:
1. institution – administration as the aggregate of
individuals in whose hands the reins of government are for
the time being.
2. function – administration as the actual running of the
government by the executive authorities through the
enforcement of laws and implementation of policies.
Government (as distinguished from administration) is the
agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State
is formulated, expressed and realized.
Administration Distinguished from Law
Law is impersonal command provided with sanctions to be
applied in case of violation, while Administration is
preventive rather punitive and is accepted to be more
personal than law.
Law maintains a watchful eye on those who would violate its
order. While administration on the other hand seeks to spare
individuals from punishments of the law by persuading him to
observe its commands.
Chapter 2 - Administrative Agencies
Administrative agency – a body endowed with quasi-
legislative and quasi-judicial powers for the purpose of
enabling it to carry out the laws entrusted to it for
enforcement or execution.
Administrative agency may be regarded as an arm of the
legislature insofar as it is authorize to promulgate rules. It
may also be loosely considered a court because it performs
functions of a particular judicial character, as when it decides
factual and sometimes even legal questions as an incident of
its general power of regulation.
Creation and Abolition
The administrative body may be created by the Constitution
or by a Statute.
If created by the Constitution itself, the administrative body
can be altered or abolished only by Constitution. But where
the body was created only by statute, the legislature that
breathed life into it can amend or even repeal its charter,
thereby resulting in its abolition which is justified if made in
good faith.
Chapter 3 - Powers of Administrative Agencies
Quasi-Legislative Power – the authority delegated by the
and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a law
and implement legislative policy.
Quasi-Judicial Power – the power of the administrative
authorities to make determinations of facts in the
performance of their official duties and to apply the law as
they construe it to the facts so found.
Chapter 4 - The Quasi-Legislative Power
It has already been remarked that the rule-making power of
the administrative body is intended to enable it to implement
the policy of the law and to provide for the more effective
enforcement of its provisions.
Through the exercise of this power of subordinate legislation,
it is possible for the administrative body to transmit the
“active power of the state from its source to the point of
application,” that is, apply the law and so fulfill the mandate
of the legislature.
Kinds of Administrative Regulations
(a) Legislative – the administrative agency is acting in a
legislative capacity, supplementing the statute, filling in the
details, or “making the law”, and usually acting pursuant to a
specific delegation of legislative power.
(b) Interpretative – are those which purport to do no more
than interpret the statute being administered, to say what it
means. They constitute the administrator's construction of a
statute.
The interpretative regulation is issued by the administrative
body as an incident to its power to enforce the law and is
intended merely to clarify its provisions for proper observance
by the people.
It is an elementary rule in administrative law that
administrative regulations and policies enacted by
administrative bodies to interpret which they are
entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, are entitled to
great respect, and have in their favor a presumpption of
legality.
By contrast, the legislative regulation is issued by the
administrative body pursuant to a valid delegation of
legislative power and is intended to have the binding
the force and effect of a law enacted by the legislature
itself.
Classification of Legislative Regulation
(a) Supplementary – intended to fill in the details of the
law and “to make explicit what is only general.”
(b) Contingent – issued upon the happening of a certain
contingency which the administrative body is given the
discretion to determine or to ascertain some
circumstances and on the basis thereof may enforce or
suspend the operation of a law.
Requisites of Administrative Regulation
(a) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;
(b) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the
legislature;
(c) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed
procedure;
(d) It must be reasonable.
First Requisite: Promulgation Must Be Authorized by
the Legislature
Authority to promulgate the regulation is usually conferred by
the Charter itself of the administrative body or by the law it is
supposed to enforce.
When Congress authorizes promulgation of administrative
rules and regulations to implement given legislation, all that is
required is that the regulation be not in contravention with it,
but to conform to the standards that the law prescribes.
Second Requisite: Regulation Must Be Within the
Scope of the Authority Given by the Legislature
Assuming a valid authorization, it is still necessary that the
regulation promulgated must not be ultra vires or beyond the
authority conferred.
Third Requisite: Regulation Must Be Promulgated in
Accordance with the Prescribed Procedure
As in the enactment of laws, the promulgation of
administrative regulations of general application does not
require previous notice and hearing, the only exception being
where the legislature itself requires it . In the absence of such
a requirement, the administrative body can promulgate the
regulation in its exclusive discretion.
But where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a
controversy between specific parties, it is considered an
administrative adjudication and so will require notice and
hearing.
As for publication, the applicable rule is now found in
Executive Order No. 200 which provides that laws “shall take
effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their
publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise
provided.”
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature,
that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative
agency and not the public, need not be published.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its
purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the law.
The Supreme Court, it would seem, requires publication of the
administrative regulation only if it is of general application
and penal in nature.
Fourth Requisite: Regulation Must Be Reasonable
Like statutes, administrative regulations promulgated
thereunder must not be unreasonable or arbitrary as to
violate due process.
Penal Regulations
The power to define and punish crime is exclusively legislative
and may not be delegated to the administrative authorities.
While administrative regulations may have the force and
effect of law, their violation cannot give rise to criminal
prosecution unless the legislature makes such violation
punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions.
Special requisites of a valid administrative regulation
with a penal sanction:
(a) The law itself must make violation of the administrative
regulation punishable;
(b) The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the
violation of the regulation;
(c) The regulation must be published.
Construction and Interpretation
Regulation should be read in harmony with the statute and
not in violation of the authority conferred on the
administrative authorities.
The administrative regulation that contravenes the statute is,
of course, invalid.
Enforcement
It is established that the power to promulgate administrative
regulations carries with it the implied power to enforce them.
This may be effected through judicial action or through
sanctions that the statute itself may allow the administrative
body to impose.
Amendment or Repeal
Like the statute, the administrative regulation promulgated
thereunder is subject to amendment or repeal by the
authorities that promulgated them in the first place. Of
course, it may be changed directly by the legislature.
Chapter 5 - The Quasi-Judicial Power
Quasi-judicial power – is the power of the administrative
agency to determine questions of fact to which the legislative
policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down
by the law itself.
The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power requires
compliance with two conditions, to wit:
(1) Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the
administrative body
(2) Due process must be observed in the conduct of the
proceedings
A. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – may be simply defined as the competence of
an office or body to act on a given matter or decide a certain
question.
Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the
administrative bodies are absolutely null and without any
legal effect whatsoever.
It is the legislature that has the power to confer jurisdiction
upon the administrative body and so limit or expand its
authority.
It can be said that each administrative body has its own
peculiar jurisdiction as conferred upon it by the specific
provisions of its charter.
The law may allow some administrative bodies to award
certain kinds of damages while denying the same power, for
no apparent reason, to other administrative bodies.
For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award
damages virtually to the same extent as a court of justice.
Yet similar authority has not been conferred by its charter to
NTC.
It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered,
administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial power.
1. Rules of Procedure
Where an administrative body is expressly granted the power
of adjudication, it is deemed also vested with the implied
power to precribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of
its proceedings.
But to be valid, the rules must not violate fundamental rights
or encroach upon constitutional prerogatives.
2. The Subpoena Power
The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is
not inherent in administrative bodies.
It is settled that administrative bodies may summon witnesses
and require the production of evidence only when duly
allowed by law, and always only in connection with the matter
they are authorized to investigate. Unless otherwise provided
by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the
aid or Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the
contested case falls. The Court may punish customacy or
refusal as contempt.
The Supreme Court distinguished between the power to
“investigate” and the power to “adjudicate:”
“The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to
finnd out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or
intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a
controversy involve in the facts inquired into by application of
the law x x.
In the legal sense, “adjudicate” means to settle in the
exercise of judicial authority x x. “Adjudge” x x implies a
judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of judgment.”
3. The Contempt Power
Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for contempt is
essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right
by the administrative body.
To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred upon
the body and, additionally, must be used only in connection
with its quasi-judicial as distinguished from its purely
administrative or routinary functions.
As a rule, where, say, a subpoena of the administrative body
is disregarded, the person summoned may not be directly
discipline by that body. The proper remedy id for the
administrative body to seek assistance of the courts of justice
for the enforcement of its order.
The power to hold in contempt must be exercised not on the
vindictive, but on the preservative principle.
B. Notice and Hearing
The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and
its non-observance will as a rule invalidate the administrative
proceedings. Persons are entitled to be notified of any
pending case affecting their interests so that, if they are
minded, they may claim the right to appear therein and
present their side or refute the position of opposing parties.
Nevertheless, there are instances when notice and hearing
can validly be omitted. Among the justifications for such
omissions are the urgency of immediate action (which does
not preclude the enjoyment of the right at a later time without
prejudice to the person affected) and the fact that the right
had previously been offered but not claimed.
1. Administrative Due Process
While administrative determinations of contested case are by
their nature judicial, there is no requirement for strict
adherence to technical rules as are observed in truly judicial
proceedings.
It is a general rule that they are unrestricted by the technical
or formal rules of procedure which govern trials before a
court. This rule is applied to questions of evidence, pleading
and other matters.
Nevertheless, it is essential that due process must be
observed, for the requirements of fair play are not applicable
to judicial proceedings only.
Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative
proceedings:
a. the first of these rights is the right to a hearing;
b. the tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
c. the tribunal must have something to support its
decision;
d. evidence must be substantial evidence –
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
e. the decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties;
f. the court must act on its or their own
independent consideration of the law and facts of
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision;
g. the court should render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions
rendered
It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the
administrative question be impartial, to ensure a fair decision.
The law does not require another notice and hearing for a
review of the decision of the board.
In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks vs. NLRC, there was no
denial of due process where the petitioners received notice of
the scheduled investigation the day before said date of the
hearing or investigation but failed to present evidence. On
the other hand, there was clearly such a denial where it
appears that a decision rendered against a person who was
not a party to or even notified of the proceedings taken before
a labor arbiter.
C. Administrative Appeals and review
Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order, an
appeal from a final decision of the administrative agency may
be taken to the department head, whose decision may further
be brought to the regular courts of justice, in accordance with
the procedure specified by law.
D. Enforcement of Decision
In the absence of any statute providing for the enforcement of
an administrative determination, the same cannot be
enforced except possibly by appeal to the force of public
opinion.
Usually, however, the administrative body is allowed certain
sanctions that it may impose directly for the enforcement of
its own decisions, i.e. revocation of or refusal to renew
licenses, destruction of unlawful articles, summary closure of
stores, refusal to grant clearances, issuance of cease and
desist orders, detention and deportation of aliens, and
imposition of fines.
Significantly, many administrative bodies, such as the SEC
and the NLRC, have been vested with authority to grant
provisional reliefs, such as writs of preliminary attachment or
injunction, intended to ensure the enforcement of their
adjudications.
It is established that administrative agencies who have not
been conferred the power to enforce their quasi-judicial
decisions may invoke court action for the purpose.
E. Res Judicata
The general rule is that an administrative decision is not
considered res judicata so as to preclude its subsequent
reconsideration or revocation. Decisions of the previous
incumbents of the administrative body may be modified or
reversed by their successors in the exercise of their own
powers of adjudication.
Where the administrative decision has been affirmed by a
court decision, the doctrine of res judicata is applicable. The
effect of res judicata attaches to the judgment of the
reviewing court rather than to the administrative judgment.
This rule has however been modified in this jurisdiction.
It is now well-settled in our jurisprudence that the decisions
and orders of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to
their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the
force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview
of the doctrine of res judicata.
This principle is, however, not applicable to all administrative
proceedings, such proceedings that are non-litigious and
summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities
obtaining in courts of law.
Chapter 6 - Judicial Review
General Rules
An administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of
justice only if the Constitution or the law permits it or if the
question to be reviewed is a question of law.
However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the
Supreme Court has applied the exceptions rather than the
rule.
In the case of the constitutional commission, i.e., the
Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, and the
Civil Service Commission, it is provided that “any decision
order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30
days from receipt of a copy thereof.”
On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guideline
implementing Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals
may “review final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions or
regional trial courts and of all quasi-judicial bodies, except the
Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, the
Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under the Labor Code of
the Philippines and by the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals.”
Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as RA No.
1125, providing for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any
decision rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
the Commissioner of Customs, or any provincial or city board
of assessment appeals.
Methods of review
The methods of judicial review are prescribed by the
Constitution, statutes or the Rules of the Court. These
methods may be specific or general.
It is provided in RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a final
award, order or decisions of the Patent Office shall be taken
by filing with said body and with the Court of Appeals a notice
of appeal within 15 days from notice of such award, order or
ruling, copies being served on all interested parties.
The Administrative Code generally provides that an appeal
from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the
agency within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice
of appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for review of
the order. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the
agency and all parties of record.
The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues
involved and the grounds relied upon for the review, and shall
be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from,
together with copies of such material portions of the records
as are referred to therein and other supporting papers.
The Supreme Court instructed certain universally accepted
axioms governing judicial review through the extraordinary
actions of certiorari or prohibition of determinations of
administrative officers or agencies:
First, before said actions may be entertained, it must be
shown that all the administrative remedies prescribed by law
or ordinance have been exhausted; and,
Second, that the administrative decision may properly be
annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the
administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with a grave abuse of discretion.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort
There are two doctrines that must be considered in
connection with the judicial review of administrative
decisions:(1) doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort;
and (2) the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the
determination of administrative questions, which
ordinarily questions of fact, by administrative agencies
rather courts of justice.

If the case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper
administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate
questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will
be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the
proper jurisdiction of the court
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, an administrative decision must first be
appealed to the administrative superior up to the
highest level before it may be elevated to a court of
justice for review.
But when it comes to the question of law, the administrative
decision may be appealed to the courts of justice
independently of legislative permission or even against
legislative prohibition. The reason is that the judiciary cannot
be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions on
questions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and
more so by an administrative body.
A. Questions of fact
Even if allowed to review administrative decisions on
questions of fact, courts of justice generally defer to such
decisions and will decline to disturb them except only where
there is a clear showing of arbitrariness or grave abuse of
discretion.

A. Reasons
(a) The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity,
can correct the errors committed by their subordinates;
(b) Courts should as much as possible refrain from
disturbing the findings of administrative bodies in
deference to the doctrine of separation of powers;
(c) On practical grounds, it is best that the courts should
not be saddled with the review of administrative cases;
The Supreme Court ruled in Osias Academy vs. DOLE that
“findings of administrative agencies which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters are generally accorded not
only respect but finality.”
B. Questions of Law
Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of
law in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function as an
incident of their primary power of regulation.

(d) Judicial review of administrative cases is usually However as a rule, it is only the judicial tribunal that can
effected through the special civil actions of certiorari, interpret and decid the question of law with finality.
mandamus and prohibition, which are available only if
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

B. Exceptions
(a) When the question raised is purely legal (question of law
is involved);
(b) When the administrative body is estoppel;
(c) When the act complained of is patently illegal;
(d) When there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
(e) When the claim involved is small;
(f) When irreparable damage will be suffered;
(g) When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy;
(h) When strong public interest is involved;
(i) When the subject of the controversy is private land;
(j) In quo warranto proceedings

C. Appeal to the President

Of special interest is the question of whether or not a decision
of the cabinet member has to be appealed first to the
President before it may be brought to a court of justice.
Jurisprudence on this matter is rather indecisive.

In the early case of demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, the Court

held that appeal to the President was not necessary because
the Cabinet member was after all his alter ego and, under the
doctrine of qualified political agency, the acts of the secretary
were the acts of the President.

This view was abandoned in Calo vs. Fuertes, where it was

held that appeal to the President was the final step in the
administrative process and therefore a condition precedent to
appeal to the courts.

In Bartulata vs. Peralta, however, the court reinstated the

Demaisip doctrine, again on the basis of alter ego justification.

Tan vs. Director of Forestry, thereafter revived Calo andagain

required appeal to the President as a prerequisite to an
appeal of a Cabinet member's decision to the courts of Justice.

D. Effect of Non-compliance
The failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect
the jurisdiction of the court and merely results in the lack of a
cause of action which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.

If this ground to dismiss the court action is not properly or

reasonably invoked, the court may proceed to hear the case.

As previously noted, the court has the discretion to require

the observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and may, if it sees fit, dispense with it and proceed
with the disposition of the case.

Questions Reviewable
Two kinds of questions are reviewable by the courts of justice,
to wit: the question of fact and the question of law.

On the question of fact, review of the administrative decision

lies in the discretion of the legislature, which may or may not
permit it as it sees fit.
Powers of Administrative Bodies
Administrative agencies possess both quasi-legislative
and quasi-judicial powers. The former pertains to the rule-making
power while the latter pertains to the adjudicatory power. Rule-
making power refers to the power to promulgate rules and
regulations in implementing a specific law while the adjudicatory
power refers to the power to make determinations and decisions
which are essentially judicial in nature but incidental to the
primary task in implementing laws.
The quasi-legislative function is the power to adopt
rules. It is one of the many functions that the legislative branch of
the government may delegate to administrative agencies. In a
Separate Opinion written by former Supreme Court Justice Josue
Bellosillo in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of
Appeals, quasi-legislative power is defined as: “… the power to
make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation
that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine
of non-delegability and separability of powers.”
The quasi-judicial power is the power of the
administrative agency to determine questions of fact to which the
legislative policy is to apply in accordance with the standards laid
down by the law itself. It is often referred to as the power of
administrative adjudication. It is the power of an administrative
agency to hear and determine, or to ascertain facts and decide by
the application of rules to the ascertained facts. By this power,
administrative authorities are enabled to interpret and apply not
only implementing rules and regulations promulgated by them but
also the laws entrusted to their administration.
DETERMINATIVE POWERS
1. Enabling Powers – those that permit the doing of an act
which the law undertakes to regulate and which would be
unlawful without government approval.
2. Directing Powers – order the doing or performance of
particular acts to ensure compliance with the law and are
often exercised for corrective purposes.
a. Dispensing Power – allows the administrative
officer to relax the general operation of a law or
exempt from the performance of a general duty.
b. Summary Power – are those involving the use by
administrative authorities of force upon persons or
things without the necessity of previous judicial
warrant.
c. Examining Power – enables it to inspect the
records and premises, and investigate the activities
of persons or entities coming under its
jurisdiction. Examples are issuance of subpoenas,
swearing in of witnesses, interrogation of witnesses
or inspection of premises. It also allows
administrative agencies to actually conduct
hearings, issue writs of preliminary injunction and
even punish contempt, in relation to its broad power
of investigation and examination. It also pertains to
visitorial power.
Kinds of Administrative Rules and Regulations
Kinds of Administrative Regulations
(a) Legislative – the administrative agency is acting in a
legislative capacity, supplementing the statute, filling in the
details, or “making the law”, and usually acting pursuant to a
specific delegation of legislative power.
(b) Interpretative – are those which purport to do no more than
interpret the statute being administered, to say what it means.
They constitute the administrator's construction of a statute.
The interpretative regulation is issued by the administrative body
as an incident to its power to enforce the law and is intended
merely to clarify its provisions for proper observance by the
people.
It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative
regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies
to interpret which they are entrusted to enforce, have the
force of law, are entitled to great respect, and have in their favor
a presumpption of legality.
By contrast, the legislative regulation is issued by the
administrative body pursuant to a valid delegation of
legislative power and is intended to have the binding the
force and effect of a law enacted by the legislature itself.
Classification of Legislative Regulation
(c) Supplementary – intended to fill in the details of the law
and “to make explicit what is only general.”
(d) Contingent – issued upon the happening of a certain
contingency which the administrative body is given the
discretion to determine or to ascertain some circumstances
and on the basis thereof may enforce or suspend the
operation of a law.
1. SUPPLEMENTARY or DETAILED LEGISLATION – They are rules
and regulations “to fix the details” in the execution and
enforcement of a policy set out in the law. The legislative rule
is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to
implement a primary legislation by providing the details
thereof. In the same way that laws must have the benefit of
public hearing, it is generally required that before a
legislative rule is adopted there must be hearing.
2. INTERPRETATIVE LEGISLATION – They are rules and
regulations construing or interpreting the provisions of a
statute to be enforced and they are binding on all concerned
until they are changed, They have the effect of law and are
entitled to great respect. They have in their favor the
presumption of legality. The inquiry is not into the validity but
into the correctness or propriety rule. As a matter of power
when confronted with interpretative rule, is free to –
a. Give the force of law to the rule.
b. Go to the opposite extreme and substitute its
judgment.
c. Give some intermediate degree of authoritative
weight to the interpretative rule.
3. CONTINGENT LEGISLATION – they are rules and regulations
made by an administrative authority on the existence of
certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law
depends. It is issued upon the happening of a certain
contingency which the administrative body is given the
discretion to determine or “to ascertain, under and pursuant
to the law, some circumstances on which the law, by its own
terms, makes its own action depend, or to find the facts or
conditions properly prescribe under which a law as passed
will or will not operate, that is, for putting in effect, applying
or suspending a law.
Administrative Rules with Penal Sanctions
The power to define and punish crime is exclusively legislative
and may not be delegated to the administrative authorities. While
administrative regulations may have the force and effect of law,
their violation cannot give rise to criminal prosecution unless the
legislature makes such violation punishable and imposes the
corresponding sanctions.
Special requisites of a valid administrative regulation with
a penal sanction:
(a) The law itself must make violation of the administrative
regulation punishable;
(b) The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the
violation of the regulation;
(c) The regulation must be published.
Proper exercise of Quasi-judicial power
1. Jurisdiction must be properly exercised by the administrative
body.
2. Due process must be observed in the conduct of the
proceedings.
Doctrine of Necessary Implication
No statute can be enacted that can provide all the
details involved in its application. There is always an omission that
may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time
of enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be
inadequate to provide for the unfolding events of the future.
So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced.
One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is
the doctrine of necessary implication . . . . Every statute is
understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may
be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make
effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants,
including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may
be fairly and logically inferred from its terms.
Contempt Power of Administrative Agencies
Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for
contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as an
inherent right by the administrative body. To be validly exercised,
it must be expressly conferred upon the body and, additionally,
must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicial as
distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary functions.
As a rule, where, say, a subpoena of the administrative body is
disregarded, the person summoned may not be directly discipline
by that body. The proper remedy is for the administrative body to
seek assistance of the courts of justice for the enforcement of its
order. The power to hold in contempt must be exercised not on
the vindictive, but on the preservative principle.
Administrative Due Process
While administrative determinations of contested case
are by their nature judicial, there is no requirement for strict
adherence to technical rules as are observed in truly judicial
proceedings.
It is a general rule that they are unrestricted by the
technical or formal rules of procedure which govern trials before a
court. This rule is applied to questions of evidence, pleading and
other matters.
Nevertheless, it is essential that due process must be
observed, for the requirements of fair play are not applicable to
judicial proceedings only.
Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative
proceedings:
h. the first of these rights is the right to a hearing;
i. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
j. the tribunal must have something to support its
decision;
k. evidence must be substantial evidence – relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to
support a conclusion
l. the decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record
and disclosed to the parties;
m. the court must act on its or their own independent
consideration of the law and facts of controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a
decision;
n. the court should render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions
rendered
It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the
administrative question be impartial, to ensure a fair decision. The
law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of
the decision of the board.
Enforcement of Administrative Decisions
In the absence of any statute providing for the
enforcement of an administrative determination, the same cannot
be enforced except possibly by appeal to the force of public
opinion.
Usually, however, the administrative body is allowed
certain sanctions that it may impose directly for the enforcement
of its own decisions, i.e. revocation of or refusal to renew
licenses, destruction of unlawful articles, summary closure of
stores, refusal to grant clearances, issuance of cease and desist
orders, detention and deportation of aliens, and imposition of
fines.
Significantly, many administrative bodies, such as the
SEC and the NLRC, have been vested with authority to grant
provisional reliefs, such as writs of preliminary attachment or
injunction, intended to ensure the enforcement of their
adjudications.
It is established that administrative agencies who have
not been conferred the power to enforce their quasi-judicial
decisions may invoke court action for the purpose.
Doctrine of Res Judicata
The general rule is that an administrative decision is not
considered res judicata so as to preclude its subsequent
reconsideration or revocation. Decisions of the previous
incumbents of the administrative body may be modified or
reversed by their successors in the exercise of their own powers
of adjudication.
Where the administrative decision has been affirmed by
a court decision, the doctrine of res judicata is applicable. The
effect of res judicata attaches to the judgment of the reviewing
court rather than to the administrative judgment. This rule has
however been modified in this jurisdiction.
It is now well-settled in our jurisprudence that the
decisions and orders of administrative agencies, rendered
pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality,
the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview
of the doctrine of res judicata.
This principle is, however, not applicable to all
administrative proceedings, such proceedings that are non-
litigious and summary in nature without regard to legal
technicalities obtaining in courts of law.
Doctrine of Prior Resort / Primary Jurisdiction
There are two doctrines that must be considered in connection
with the judicial review of administrative decisions: (1) doctrine of
primary jurisdiction or prior resort; and (2) the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the
determination of administrative questions, which ordinarily
questions of fact, by administrative agencies rather courts of
justice.
If the case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper
administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate
questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained
in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied
by the courts even though the matter is within the proper
jurisdiction of the court.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and the
Exceptions
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
provides that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or
threatened injury until the prescribed statutory administrative
remedy has been exhausted; the Supreme court has repeatedly
held that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is grounds for
dismissal; exhaustion of remedies is not required, however, where
it would be futile to do so.
Basic is the rule which has been consistently held by this
Court in a long line of cases that "before a party is allowed to seek
the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should
have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded
him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can
still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before
the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature
invocation of court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action.
[Union Bank vs Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198]
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, an administrative decision must first be appealed to the
administrative superior up to the highest level before it may be
elevated to a court of justice for review.
A. Reasons
(e) The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity, can
correct the errors committed by their subordinates;
(f) Courts should as much as possible refrain from disturbing
the findings of administrative bodies in deference to the
doctrine of separation of powers;
(g) On practical grounds, it is best that the courts should not be
saddled with the review of administrative cases;
(h) Judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected
through the special civil actions of certiorari, mandamus
and prohibition, which are available only if there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
B. Exceptions
(k) When the question raised is purely legal (question of law is
involved);
(l) When the administrative body is estoppel;
(m) When the act complained of is patently illegal;
(n) When there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
(o) When the claim involved is small;
(p) When irreparable damage will be suffered;
(q) When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(r) When strong public interest is involved;
(s) When the subject of the controversy is private land;
(t) In quo warranto proceedings
Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Actions
No resort to the courts will be allowed unless the
administrative action has been completed and there is nothing left
to be done in the administrative structure.
In the case of SSS Employees Association v. Bathan-
Velasco, because the petitioner did not take an appeal from the
order of the Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, to the Secretary
of Labor and Employment, but went directly to court, it was held
that the court action was prematurely and the petitioner failed to
exhaust administrative remedies.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
merely one aspect of the broader doctrine which requires final
administrative action as prerequisite of judicial review. In general,
the two principles are applied in situations in which a like result
could be reached. However, in a few instances the doctrine of
exhaustion of remedy may not be available in a particular court,
but the lack of finality of administrative action may yet be urged.
the principle of finality of administrative action is thus broader in
scope and application than the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
In, Zabat v. Court of Appeals, A party aggrieved must
not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to
obtain relief, but must also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion
before seeking judicial intervention in order to give that
administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter by
itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to
the courts
Public Office and Public Officers
Public Office - Right, authority, 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 sovereign power of government to be exercised by him for
the benefit of the people.
Elements:
1. created bylaw or by authority of law
2. possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign powers of
government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public
3. powers conferred and duties imposed must be defined by the
legislature or by legislative authority
4. duties must be performed independently and without control
of the superior power UNLESS they be those of an inferior or
subordinate officer created or authorized by the legislature
and placed under the general control of a superior officer or
body
5. permanence or continuity
Creation:
1. Constitution
2. statutory enactment
3. authority of law
Public Officer –
 Article 203. any person who, by direct provision of law,
popular election or appointment by competent authority shall take
part in the performance of public functions in the Government; or
shall perform in said Government public duties as an employee,
agent, or subordinate official of any rank or class, shall be deemed
to be a public officer.
 RA 3019. includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary whether in the classified,
unclassified or exempt services, receiving compensation, even
nominal from the government.
Read:
Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Torres. 212
SCRA 298
Philsa International Replacement and Services Corp vs.
Sec of Labor, G.R. No. 103144. April 4, 2001.
Read:
Piclaro vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 110544. October 16,
1995
Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan. 268 SCRA 747
Read:
Rodriguez vs. Tan. 91 Phil 724.
Monroy vs. Court of Appeals. 20 SCRA 620.
Malaluan vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 120193. March 6, 1996.