Slide Title

• 13.8. Doctrine of Conclusive Finality of Administrative Decisions. – In Danagn vs.

National Labor Relations Commission (127 SCRA 706), the Supreme Court
reiterated the principle long upheld by it that administrative findings of fact that
are supported by substantial evidence must be treated by courts as final. This
follows a trend in modern legislation kwon as the doctrine of conclusive finality,
which is justified by the comity that courts extend to the executive branch and the
recognition of the expertise of administrative agencies in dealing with particular
questions of facts. Since Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relatives (69) Phil. 635), a
classic ruling in Philippine jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has utilized a
convenient rule of thumbs that defines substantial evidence as evidence that need
not be overwhelming or preponderant, but what a reasonable mind will accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. In looking for substantial evidence, a court will
not weigh conflicting evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, or
substitute its judgment for that of administrative agency. As said in Loa Tang Bung
vs. Fabre (81 Phil. 682), the Supreme Court will merely see whether adequate
evidence sustains the administrative finding, and if it does, keep off the judicial
band. It is perfectly consistent for a court to find substantial evidence even if it
may find differently on the whole evidence presented.
•
 Slide Title
• 13.9. Administrative Appeal and Review.- The decision of the Board
Dentistry shall, unless appealed to the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC), become final and executory after fifteen (15) days
from receipt of notice of judgment or decision.
•
• The Court of Appeals shall exercise execlusive appellate
jurisdiction over all final judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or commission.
•
• Independently of statutory authority, the President, as the
administrative head, and under his constitutional power of control of
executive department, bureaus and offices, on his motion or on
appeal of some individual who might deem himself aggrieved by the
action of an administrative official, exercise his power of revision.
• 13.10. Judicial Remedies.- The following are judicial remedies
of parties to administrative decisions:
•
• 1. Certiorari – It is a special civil action directed against any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions which or who has acted without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, whereby a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying
the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
•
• 2. Prohibition – It is a special civil action directed against
any tribunal, corporation, board officer or person,
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions, which or who has acted without or in excess
of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, whereby a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying the judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the
action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require
• 3. mandamus – It is a special civil action directed against any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person which or who
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled,
and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, whereby the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at
some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and
to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of
the wrongful acts of the respondent.
•
• 4. Preliminary Injunction – It is an order
granted at any stage of an action or proceeding
prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a
party or a court, agency or a person to refrain
from a particular act or acts.
•
• 5. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction – It is an
order granted at any stage of an action or
proceeding prior to the judgment or final order,
requiring a party or a court, agency or a person
to perform a particular act or acts.