Admin.

Law
De Silva, Guevara, Sebastian
Form of Decision
Section 14, Book VII, Administrative Code
In writing
shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it is based.

Period to decide: The agency shall decide each
case within thirty (30) days following its
submission. The parties shall be notified of the
decision personally or by registered mail
addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to
them.
Publication
Section 16
Every agency shall publish and make available
for public inspection all decisions and final
orders;
Duty of records officer to prepare a
compilation for the use by the public.
Authority to grant or impose
Relief includes the whole or part of any grant of money,
assistance, license, authority, privilege, exemption, exception, or
remedy; recognition of any claim, right, immunity, privilege,
exemption or exception; or taking of any action upon the
application or petition of any person. Sec. 2(13) Book VII, 1987
Administrative Code

Sanction includes the whole or part of a prohibition, limitation or
other condition affecting the liberty of any person; the withholding
of relief; the imposition of penalty or fine; the destruction, taking,
seizure or withholding of property; the assessment of damages,
reimbursement, restitution, compensation, cost, charges or fees;
the revocation or suspension of license; or the taking of other
compulsory or restrictive action. Sec. 2(12) Book VII, 1987
Administrative Code

Finality of decision
Section 15
Decision shall become final and executory 15
days after the receipt of a copy by the party
adversely affected UNLESS within that period,
an administrative appeal or judicial review has
been perfected.
One motion for reconsideration is allowed.
Promulgation, Notice, Final decisions
not reviewable
Promulgation delivery of the decision to the
clerk of court for filing and publication.
Notice Parties to be notified personally or by
mail.
Final decisions not reviewable non qieta
movere.
Appeal in Contested Cases
Section 19, 20, 21, 22
The decision of the agency shall become final and
executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a
copy thereof by the party adversely affected
unless within that period an administrative
appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been
perfected.
One motion for reconsideration may be filed,
which shall suspend the running of the said
period.
No law allowing appeal= cannot appeal.
Administrative Review
May be taken:
- motu proprio; or
-by appeal of aggrieved party.



Finality of decisions of appellate
agency
Shall be final and executory 15 days after the
receipt by the parties, UNLESS a motion for
reconsideration is seasonably filed with the
Court of Appeals within 15 days from receipt
of the decision.

Issue writ of execution of judgment.
Serrano v. PSC
The court ruled that the Public Service Commissions denial
of Serranos application to operate a taxicab automobile
service was incorrect. Quasi-judicial tribunals, including the
Public Service Commission, should, in all controversial
questions, 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. In
Ang Tibay v. Court, the Court emphasized that an
administrative tribunal possessed of quasi-judicial powers
like the PSC is "free from the rigidity of certain procedural
requirements," but, it does not mean "that
it can, in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely
ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential
requirement of due process.

Realty Exchange Venture Corporation
v. Sendino
The Realty Exchange Venture, Inc. (REVI) challenged the authority of the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to hear and decide the
complaint filed by Sendino to compel the petitioner to continue with the
sale of the house and lot with respondent as stipulated in their
reservation agreement. The court held that HLURB has quasi-judicial
functions, notwithstanding the absence of express grant by E.O. No. 90
which created it. The HLURB is the successor agency of the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission's powers and functions, it therefore
follows that the transfer of such functions from the NHA to the HRSC
effected by Section 8 of E.O. 648, series of 1981, thereby resulted in the
acquisition by the HLURB of adjudicatory powers which included the
power to "hear and decide cases of unsound real estate business practices
. . . and cases of specific performance." Obviously, in the exercise of its
powers and functions, the HLURB must interpret and apply contracts,
determine the rights of the parties under these contracts, and award
damages whenever appropriate.

DOH v. Camposano
The Health Secretarys decision to dismiss the respondents was invalid.
Administrative due process requires that, prior to imposing disciplinary
sanctions, the disciplining authority must make an independent
assessment of the facts and the law. On its face, a decision imposing
administrative sanctions must show the bases for its conclusions. While
the investigation of a case may be delegated to and conducted by another
body or group of officials, the disciplining authority must nevertheless
weigh the evidence gathered and indicate the applicable law. In this
manner, the respondents would be informed of the bases for the
sanctions and thus be able to prepare their appeal intelligently. Such
procedure is part of the sporting idea of fair play in a democracy. It is clear
that administrative due process was not observed in this case. The
decision of the Secretary should have contained a factual finding and legal
assessment of the controversy to enable the respondents to know the
bases for their dismissal and thereafter prepare their appeal intelligently,
if they so desire.

Solid Homes Inc. v Laserna
The decision of the Office of the President, which merely adopted
by reference the Decision of the HLURB, without a recitation of the
facts and law, on which it was based, is not against Section 14,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. The Court ruled that the rights
of parties in an administrative proceeding are not violated by the
brevity of the decision rendered by the OP incorporating the
findings and conclusions of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB), for as long as the constitutional requirement of due
process has been satisfied such as the administrative decision is
grounded on evidence, and expressed in a manner that sufficiently
informs the parties of the factual and legal bases of the decision.

Section 14, Article VII of the Constitution applicable only to judicial
proceedings.

III. Judicial Recourse
Primary Jurisdiction
Definition
plaintiff should first seek relief in an administrative
proceeding before he seeks a remedy in court,
even though the matter is properly presented to
the court, which is within its jurisdiction.
Suspension of Court Proceeding
Exceptions to application of doctrine.

Villaflor v CA
The rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds
application in this case, since the questions on the identity of the
land in dispute and the factual qualification of private respondent
as an awardee of a sales application require a technical
determination by the Bureau of Lands as the administrative agency
with the expertise to determine such matters. Because these issues
preclude prior judicial determination, courts cannot and will not
resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters
of fact.

Philippine Veterans Bank v CA
The court held that the Department of Agrarian Reform, not the
Regional Trial Courts, has jurisdiction over cases involving the
determination of just compensation for the taking of lands under
CARP. There is nothing contradictory between the DARs primary
jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters and exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform, which includes the determination of questions of
just compensation, and the RTCs original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to the landowner. In accordance with settled
principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the
DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary
manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands
taken under CARP, but such determination is subject to challenge in
the court.

Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v CA
The Court of Appeals did not err in holding that it is the Bureau of
Energy Development (BED), not the civil courts, which has the
power to decide controversies relative to the exploration,
exploitation and development of coal blocks. The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction finds application in this case since the question
of what coal areas should be exploited and developed and which
entity should be granted coal operating contracts over said areas
involves a technical determination by the BED as the administrative
agency in possession of the specialized expertise to act on the
matter. The Trial Court does not have the competence to decide
matters concerning activities relative to the exploration,
exploitation, development and extraction of mineral resources like
coal. These issues preclude an initial judicial determination. It
behooves the courts to stand aside even when apparently they
have statutory power to proceed in recognition of the primary
jurisdiction of an administrative agency.

Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc v
The Province of Batangas
The Court held that the Commission on Audit has the primary
jurisdiction to pass upon petitioners money claim against the
Province of Batangas. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds
that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise,
specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief
must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort
to the courts is had even if the matter may well be within their
proper jurisdiction. It applies where a claim is originally cognizable
in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the
claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory
scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
administrative agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is
sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending
referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if
the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case
without prejudice.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
Definition
Recourse in the courts will not prosper until all
remedies have been exhausted at the administrative
level. Within the administrative level, the law may
provide for review of decisions by higher authorities.
When a statute provides a system of administrative
procedure for review, appeal, or reconsideration, the
court will not entertain a case unless all the available
administrative remedies have been used.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
Effect of failure to exhaust remedies
does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
Case may be dismissed for being premature and
for lack of cause of action.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
Exceptions to application of doctrine
when public interest requires immediate court resolution;
where administrative act is a nullity;
where the administrative remedy is not adequate;
where judicial relief is required to prevent violence;
where agency acted with no jurisdiction;
where there is yet no administrative order;
where there is estoppel
where there is urgency or irreparable damage;
where qualified political agency doctrine applies (department secretaries are alter
egos of the President and their acts are presumed to be those of the latter);
where issue is purely legal;
where administrative remedy is permissive;
where doctrine will result in nullification of claim;
in quo warranto cases;
where there is no law requiring remedies;
where agency has no jurisdiction.
Pascual v Provincial Board
Pascual was
Mayor of Nueva Ecija
re-elected
3 administrative
charges against
Pascual
Maladministrative, Abuse
of Authority, and
Usurpartion of Judicial
Function [CHARGE NO. 3}
For accepting the criminal
complaint filed in the court
As Justice of the Peace
Pascual filed motion to
dismiss
Wrongful acts alleged
were committed during
his previous term in office
Denied
Provincial Board
Pascual v Provincial Board
Pascual
Filed with SC to prohibit Provincial Board from taking
cognizance of CHARGE NO. 3
Denied
Filed with CFI to inhibit the Board from hearing the case
for lack of jurisdiction
Provincial Board
Moved for dismissal
Ground: no cause of action
CFI
Dismissed petition
Premature
Pascual should have first appealed to the Executive Secretary

Pascual v Provincial Board
It was legally proper for petitioner-appellant to
have come to court without first bringing his case
to the Executive Secretary for review.

Exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies
where the only question to be settled in the
prohibition proceedings is a purely legal one
whether or not a municipal mayor may be subjected to an
administrative investigation of a charge based on
misconduct allegedly committed by him during his prior
term.
Alzate v Aldana
R. A. No. 842
Adjust salaries of
Public School
teachers
Adjustment of 4
grades for every
five years of
service
One more grade
for passing the
examination for
superintendent
of Private School
Alzante
Principal of High
School in La Union
Service for 24
years
Salary was
adjusted based
only on years
served as
secondary
principal (9 yrs. 8
mos. 15 days)
Passing the test
was also not
considered.
Appealed even
before the ruling
from the Bureau
of Public School
Filed mandamus
proceeding in CFI
Alzate v Aldana
The CFI of La Union is incorrect in dismissing the
case for non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies.

Reason why petitioner filed:
urgency of preventing the automatic reversion as of
July 1, 1958, after the expiration of the fiscal year, of
the sum appropriated in Republic Act No. 2042 for the
adjustment of salary of public school officials and
teachers pursuant to Republic Act No. 842.

Cipriano v Marcelino
The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies may be
disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy. It may and should be relaxed when its
application may cause great and irreparable damage.

To require the Cipriano to go all the way to the President of the
Philippines on appeal in the matter of the collection of P949 would
not only be oppressive but would be patently unreasonable.

By the time her appeal shall have been decided by the President,
the amount of much more than P949, which is the total sum of her
claim, would in all likelihood have been spent.

Paredes v CA
Public Respondent promulgated AO
No 1 and 2
Revising rules of practice before the
Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer (BPTTT)

Increased fees payable to BPTTT
and prohibited filing of multi-class
applications
Petitioners, registered patent
agents
Filed with CA to stop public
respondents from enforcing the
AOs and to declare certain
provisions null and void
CA dismissed on the ground of non-
exhaustion of administrative
remedies
Paredes v CA
Prohibition is not the proper remedy.

Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
administrative review, and provides a system of
administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts, for
reasons of law, comity and convenience, will not entertain a
case unless the available administrative remedies have
been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been
given opportunity to act and correct the errors committed
in the administrative forum.

Prohibition is granted only in cases where no other
remedies are available which is sufficient to afford redress.
Quasha v SEC
The petitioners did not fail to exhaust all
administrative remedies before filing their
complaints with the court.
In view of the limited time, and considering the
issuance of the order denying injunctive relief
only at the height of the Christmas holidays,
petitioner properly filed directly with the Court
without going through the prescribed procedure
of filing before the SEC en banc within the 30-day
reglementary period since such recourse would
not be a plain, speed and adequate remedy.

Paat v CA
A suit for replevin cannot be sustained against the
petitioners for the subject truck taken and retained by
them for administrative forfeiture proceedings.

Dismissal of the replevin suit for lack of cause of action
in view of the private respondents failure to exhaust
administrative remedies should have been the proper
course of action by the lower court instead of assuming
jurisdiction over the case and consequently issuing the
writ ordering the return of the truck.
Republic v Sandiganbayan
PCGG issued separate
sequestion orders against
Sipalay Trading Corp. and Allied
Banking Corp., allegedly part of
Lucio Tans ill-gotten wealth
2 separate petitions filed before
the SC
SC referred cases to
Sandiganbayan
Petitions were jointly heard
PCGG instead of submitting
formal evidence in writing filed
a Motion to Dismiss

Seven years after filing their
original petition before the SC
PCGG argued that Sipalay and
Allied should have first appealed
before the Office of the
President

PCGG Rules and Regulations
Republic v Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayans denial of the PCGGs motion to
dismiss is proper.
Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not affect jurisdiction of
the Court.
The only effect of noncompliance with this rule is that
it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action,
which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not
invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed
waived and the court can take cognizance of the case
and try it.
PCGG is guilty of estoppel by laches.
Lopez v City of Manila
Section 219 of Republic Act 7160 (R.A. 7160) or the Local Government
Code of 1991 requires the conduct of the general revision of real property.
not yet enforced in the City of Manila

Memorandum Circular No. 04-95 from the Bureau of Local Government
Finance
City Assessor began the process of general revision based on the updated
fair market values of the real properties.
enacted City of Manila Ordinance No. 7894
tax on the land owned by the petitioner was increased.
Filed for its nullity as it is unjust, excessive, oppressive or confiscatory.
Manila Ordinance No. 7905 took effect thereafter, reducing by fifty percent
(50%) the assessment levels .
Case still proceeded
The trial court dismissed the case for failure of the petitioner to exhaust
administrative remedies




Lopez v City of Manila
As a general rule, where the law provides for the remedies against
the action of an administrative board, body, or officer, relief to
courts can be sought only after exhausting all remedies provided.
The reason rests upon the presumption that the administrative
body, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error, may amend
its decision on a given matter and decide it properly. Therefore,
where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery,
this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts,
not only to give the administrative agency the opportunity to
decide the matter by itself correctly, but also to prevent
unnecessary and premature resort to courts.

This case does not fall within the exceptions to the rule.

DAR v Apex Investment and Financing
Corp
Pursuant to RA 6657, compulsory
acquisition proceedings over
several lots owned by respondent
were initiated by the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office (MARO).
Respondent denied having
received the Notice of Coverage
and Notice of Acquisition.
They learned of a lot having been
placed under compulsory
acquisition from Balita.
They filed a Protest.
Only after more than one year
from said Protest was it
forwarded to the DAR. In the
meantime, respondents title had
been cancelled and a new one
issued to another

Respondent filed petition for
certiorari and prohibition with
CA.
DAR v Apex Investment and Financing
Corp
In Natalia Realty vs. Department of Agrarian
Reform, we held that the aggrieved
landowners were not supposed to wait until
the DAR acted on their letter-protests (after it
had sat on them for almost a year) before
resorting to judicial process.
Respondent here could not be expected to
wait for petitioner DAR to resolve its protest
before seeking judicial intervention.

Smart Communication, Inc. v NTC
National Telecommunications
Commission issued a Memorandum
Circulars on the billing of
telecommunications services and
on measures in minimizing, if not
eliminating, the incidence of
stealing of cellular phone unit.
Isla Communications Co., Inc.
(IslaCom) and Pilipino Telephone
Corporation (PilTel) filed an action
for the declaration of nullity of the
memorandum circulars, alleging
that NTC has no jurisdiction to
regulate the sale of consumer
goods.
Jurisdiction belongs to the DTI
under the Consumer Acts of the Philippines.
Globe Telecom, Inc. and Smart
Communications, Inc. filed a joint
motion for leave to intervene and
to admit complaint-in-intervention.
Smart Communication, Inc v NTC
In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a
rule or regulation issued by an administrative
agency, a party need not exhaust administrative
remedies before going to court.
The principle applies only where the act of the
administrative agency concerned was performed
pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not
when the assailed act pertained to its rule-
making or quasi-legislative power.
Smart Communication, Inc v NTC
In Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v.
Philippine Coconut Authority, it was held:

The rule of requiring exhaustion of administrative
remedies before a party may seek judicial review, so
strenuously urged by the Solicitor General on behalf of
respondent, has obviously no application here. The
resolution in question was issued by the PCA in the
exercise of its rule- making or legislative power. However,
only judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies
made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function is
subject to the exhaustion doctrine.

THANK YOU