Pre-Bar Review
Administrative Law
By Asst. Ombudsman Rodolfo M. Elman, CESO lll
Ateneo de Davao Law School
• Republic of the Philippines (or GRP) as
distinguished from National Government
*Bacani vs. NACOCO
* CB vs. Ablaza
• Are GOCCs embraced in the term GRP?
• “instrumentality” as defined in EO 292
• Status of the Manila International Airport
Authority (MIAA vs. CA, 495 SCRA 592)
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Cases:
• Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga,
19 June 2008
~DENR responsible for enforcement of forestry
laws; forest products in custodia legis cannot be
subject of replevin before the court.
• Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, 598 SCRA 268
~authority of Bureau of Immigration to decide
deportation case and in the process determine
citizenship issue raised by the deportee.
• The doctrine applies only whenever it
is the court and the administrative
agency which have concurrent
jurisdiction. The doctrine is
inapplicable where there is
concurrence of jurisdiction between
two disciplining authorities over a
case.
HLURB (PD 957/PD 1344)
• Claims/cases over which the HLURB has
exclusive jurisdiction (Sec.1, PD 1344)
• CT Torres vs. Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268
(specific performance for delivery of CT)
• Home Bankers vs. CA, 547 SCRA 167
(declare void a mortgage of lot xxx and
annul a foreclosure sale)
• Cadimas vs. Carrion, 567 SCRA 103
(mere allegation of relationship bet. owner
and buyer: no automatic jurisdiction)
Securities Regulation Code (RA
8799)
• Amended PD 902-A and transferred
jurisdiction of SEC over intra-corporate
cases to the courts
• A criminal charge for violation of the code
is a specialized dispute that should first be
looked into by the SEC and if it finds
probable cause, it should refer to the DOJ
for PI (SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp.,
567 SCRA 365)
Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112)
• Remedy of the interested expressway user
who finds the toll rate adjustments to be
onerous, oppressive and exorbitant
(Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 664)
Quasi-Judicial Power
• express empowerment by law; merely
incidental and in aid of main function
• the action or discretion … to investigate
facts and draw conclusions from them as
basis for their official action
• involves: a) taking and evaluating
evidence; b) determining facts based upon
the evidence presented; and c) rendering
an order or decision supported by the facts
proved.
Cases
• Sanado vs. CA, 356 SCRA 546 (Action of POEA
to grant, deny, suspend,or revoke license of any
private placement agency)
• Eastern Telecom vs. Int’l Communication Corp.,
435 SCRA 55 (power of NTC to issue CPCN)
• Balangauan vs. CA, 562 CRA 186 (A PI is not a
quasi-judicial proceeding, and DOJ is not a
quasi-judicial agency when it reviews findings of
the prosecutor re presence of probable cause)
• UP Board of Regents vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404
(Board empowered to withdraw conferment of
degree founded on fraud).
• Carino vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483 (Fact-finding is
not adjudication) 2001 BQ
Rule vs. Forum Shopping
• applies to quasi-judicial proceedings.
• test of violation: a) where the elements of litis
pendenti are present; or b)where final judgment
in one case will amount to res judicata in the
other.
• requirement to file certificate of non-forum
shopping, although not jurisdictional, is
mandatory; if not complied, summary dismissal
is warranted.
• certification signed by counsel alone is defective,
unless clothed with special authority.
Cases
• General rule: certificate must be signed by all
plaintiffs in a case; exception (HLC Construction
vs. Emily Homes Homeowners Assn., 411
SCRA 504)
• Appellate court finds merit or compelling reason
for non-compliance with the rule (Ombudsman
vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 719)
• Rule not applicable to agency not exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial function (Cabarrus vs.
Bernas, 279 SCRA 388) or the cases do not
raise identical causes of action (Velasquez vs.
Hernandez, 437 SCRA 358)
Quasi-Legislative Power
• A relaxation of principle of separation…
• Requirements for validity of rules
• If issued in excess of rule making
authority, no binding effect upon the
courts; treated as mere administrative
interpretations of the law
• Mere absence of implementing rules
cannot effectively invalidate provisions of
law, where a reasonable construction may
be given
• Statute authorizing Pres. to suspend
Cases
• Phil. Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, 302 SCRA 241 (Rev.
Memo Circular 7-85 inconsistent with the NIRC)
• Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (AO 308
providing for adoption of a national
computerized identification reference system)
• Dadole vs. COA, 393 SCRA 272 (LBC of DBM
setting a maximum limit to additional allowances
to be given by LGU to national gov’t officials)
• Lupangco vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848 (PRC
resolution prohibiting attendance in
accountancy review classes)
• Confederacion National vs. Quisumbing,
26 January 1988 (MECS Order phasing
out Spanish)
• Sand vs. Abad Santos Educational Inst.,
18 July 1980 (Board of Examiners for
Nursing regulation for period inspection)
• Review Center vs. Exec. Secretary, 583 SCRA
428 (EO 566 authorizing the CHED to supervise
the operation of all review centers vis-à-vis RA
7722)
• KMU vs. Director General, 487 SCRA 623 (EO
420 directing all government agencies to adopt a
unified multi-purpose ID system)
• British American Tobacco vs. Camacho, 562
SCRA 519 (Revenue issuance empowering the
BIR to reclassify cigarette brands)
• Romulo & Mabanta vs. HDMF, 333 SCRA 777
(HDMF Board Regulations providing both
provident/retirement and housing benefits vis-àvis RA 7742)
Fiscal Autonomy
• entails freedom from outside control ad
limitations, other than those provided by law;
recognizes the power to levy, assess and collect
fees, fix compensation rates not exceeding the
highest rates authorized by law and allocate and
disburse such sums as may be provided by law
or prescribe by them in the discharge of their
functions; formulate and implement their
organizational structure and compensation of
their personnel.
Cases
• CHREA vs. CHR, 444 SCRA 300
(upgrading/creation of FMO and PAO in CHR)
• CHREA vs. CHR, 496 SCRA 227 (privilege of
having its approved annual appropriations
released automatically and regularly, but not
fiscal autonomy in its extensive sense)
• CSC vs. DBM, 22 July 2005 (no report, no
release DBM policy; P5.8M withheld amount)
• Re: Clarifying… 481 SCRA 1 (DBM has no
authority to downgrade SC positions/salary
grades)
Power to issue subpoena
• no inherent power to require attendance of
witnesses
• Sec. 13 & 37, Ch. 3, Bk. Vll, EO 292:
admin bodies now authorized to require
attendance of witnesses, or production of
records xxx; includes power to administer
oath, summon witnesses and issue
subpoenas
• administrative subpoena distinguished
from judicial subpoena
Power to punish contempt
• should be clearly defined and granted by
law and its penalty determined.
• limited to making effective the power to
elicit testimony and it cannot be exercised
in furtherance of administrative functions;
this limitation derives from its nature being
inherently judicial & need for preservation
of order in judicial proceedings.
• Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, 06 April 1995
(OMB power to punish for contempt xxx)
Implementing Rules or
Interpretative Policies
• authority to interpet…
• Not binding upon courts but have force/
effect of law and entitled to great respect.
• general policy to sustain decision of
administrative bodies on basis of
separation of powers and their
knowledgeability and expertise.
• abrogation of previous acts or rulings of
predecessor in office.
• Guidelines in resolving disputes re
interpretation by an agency of its rules
(Eastern Telecom vs. ICC, 481 SCRA
163)
• Non-effectivity of SEC 1990 Circular re
applicable filing fee at time of PICOP filing
of request (SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA
453)
• Requisites for validity of admin rules and
regulations; Art. 2, Civil Code
• What need to be published?
Cases
• Phil. International Trading vs. COA, 309 SCRA
177 (DBM Circular disallowing payment of
allowances)
• Philsa International Placement Corp. vs. Labor
Secretary, 356 SCRA 174 (POEA Circular not
filed with the National Administrative Register
cannot be basis for imposition of administrative
sanctions; a requisite under Secs. 3 & 4, Bk Vll,
EO 292)
• Honasan vs. DOJ Panel, 13 April 2004 (OMBDOJ Joint Circular 95-01 an internal circular)
• Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA
317 (1978 NTC Rules to apply in the grant
of provisional authority to BayanTel
despite filing of 1993 Revised Rules with
UP Law Center. The National Admin
Register is merely a bulletin of codified
rules…)
• SEC vs. GMA Network, 575 SCRA 113
(SEC Circular imposing a filing fee for
amendments extending corp. existence
needs to be published as it implements
mandate of RA 3531 and it affects public)
Requirement of Admin Due
Process
1. Impartial tribunal
*Fabella vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256
2. Due notice and hearing or opportunity to be
heard
*Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143
*Alcala vs. Villar, 18 November 2003
*OMB vs. Estandarte, 521 SCRA 155
*OMB vs. Masing, 542 SCRA 253
*Laxina vs. OMB, 471 SCRA 544
• Approval in a TRB resolution of provisional rates
of public utilities without hearing and by TRB
Directors who did not attend personally the
hearing (Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 666)
• Independent consideration of law and facts, and
not simply rely on dispositive portion of PCAGC
Reso (DOH Secretary vs. Camposano, 457
SCRA 440)
• Decision prepared by a SP Member (Malinao vs.
Reyes, 255 SCRA 616)
Cases on admin due process
• CSC as investigator, complainant,
prosecutor and judge (Cruz vs. CSC, 370
SCRA 650)
• Motu proprio CSC action under Sec. 12
and ordinary disciplinary proceeding under
Sec. 47, EO 292 (CSC vs. Albao, 472
SCRA 548)
• Reviewing Officer (Zambales Mining vs.
CA, 94 SCRA 261)
• Singson vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 358 (Labor
Arbiter Aquino promoted to Commissioner
as reviewing officer)
• Tejano vs. Ombudsman, 462 SCRA 568
• Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA
319 (NTC order reviving archived
application of BayanTel)
• CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560
(respondent must be duly informed of
charge)
• Procedural vs. substantive due process
• Ruivivar vs. Omb., 565 SCRA 325
(opportunity, on filing MR, to be heard)
• Gaoiran vs. Alcala, 444 SCRA 420
(unverified complaint filed w/ CHED)
• NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 707 (service of
summons or order on OSG)
• Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125
(assistance of counsel in admin
proceedings, not absolute requirement)
• Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing not
lost by cessation in office of respondent
during pendency of his case
• Instances of admin determination where
notice and hearing are not necessary
Right vs. self-incrimination
• Available in all kinds of proceedings
• Available only to natural persons and not
to a juridical person.
• Reason for rule
Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
• Reasons for the doctrine
• Effect of failure to observe doctrine
• Applicable only to acts in the performance of a
quasi-judicial, not rule-making, function (Holy
Spirit Homeowners Assn. vs.Defensor, 497
SCRA 582).
• MR must first be filed under NLRC Rules before
special civil action for certiorari
• Action to recover forestry products under DENR
custody (Task Force Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge
Paderanga, 19 June 2008)
Cases
• Increase in water rates, review by LWUA
(Merida Water Dist. vs. Bacarro, 567 SCRA 204)
• Third party claim questioning the validity of levy
in the labor case (Deltaventures Resources vs.
Cabato, 327 SCRA 522)
• OSP a component of OMB (Ombudsman vs.
Valera, 471 SCRA 717)
• RSP has administrative supervision, not control,
over CPs and PPs (Aurillo vs. Rabi, 392 SCRA
604)
• Protests re CARP implementation under
exclusive jurisdiction of DAR Secretary (DAR vs.
PCPI, 564 SCRA 80)
• Appeal the reassignment order of RM to NIA
Administrator and to CA (Corsiga vs. Defensor,
391 SCRA 274)
• Appeal the monetary award of the DOLE Reg.
Director to the Labor Secretary (Laguna CATV
vs. Maraan, 392 SCRA 226)
• Submission of dispute to Lupon for amicable
settlement under Sec. 408 LGC (Berba vs.
Pablo, 474 SCRA 686)
• Appeal the LLDA Order re payment of penalty to
the DENR Secretary in view of the transfer of
LLDA to DENR for admin supervision (Alexandra
Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 453)
Precepts to remember!
• Instances where a prior MR is
unnecessary
• Similarity/Distinction between doctrine of
exhaustion of admin remedies and
doctrine of primary jurisdiction
• Commonality/Distinction between
exhaustion of admin remedies and due
process concept
Exceptions to the doctrine of
exhaustion of admin remedies
• Demaisip vs. Bacal, 06 December 2000
• Arimao vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 75
• Lastimoso vs. Senior Insp. Asayo, 06 March
2007
• Quisumbing vs. Gumban, 193 SCRA 523
• Binamira vs. Garucho, 190 SCRA 154
• Castro vs. Gloria, 363 SCRA 423
• Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and
Technology, 443 SCRA 56
Doctrine of Qualified Political
Agency
• In the absence of a constitutional proviso
or statute to the contrary, official acts of a
dep’t secretary are deemed acts of the
President unless…
• Authority of Exec.Secretary to reverse
Decision of Director
• Doctrine not applicable to OMB
• Province of Camarines Norte vs. Province
of Quezon, 367 SCRA 91
• Delegation of duties of Department
Secretaries as members of NPB (NPC
Drivers and Mechanics Assn. vs. NPC,
503 SCRA 138)
• DENR Secretary’s Order transferring
regional office from Cotabato City to
Koronadal City (DENR Sec. vs. DENR
Employees, 409 SCRA 359)
Principle of Presidential Power of
Control
• President’s power over the executive
branch of government, including all
executive officers…
• Power to alter, modify or nullify or set
aside…
• Reorganization of DOH under EO 102: not
a usurpation of legislative power (Tondo
Medical Center Employees Assn. vs. CA,
527 SCRA 748)
Cases
• President’s directive for development of
housing project w/o DENR authorization
(Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA 241)
• Distinguishing power of control from power
of supervision (Bito-onon vs. Fernandez,
350 SCRA 732)
President’s Power of General
Supervision
• ensuring that laws are faithfully executed,
or the subordinate acts within the law
• President’s power of general supervision
extends to the Liga ng mga Barangay
• not incompatible with power to discipline
which includes power to investigate
• Jurisdiction over admin disciplinary cases
vs. elective local officials lodged in two
authorities: Disciplining Authority and
Investigating Authority
Findings of Facts
• General rule and exceptions
• Bautista vs. Araneta, 326 SCRA 234
(tenancy issue)
• Fabian vs. Agustin, 14 February 2003
(conflicting factual findings)
• Matuguina Wood Products vs. CA, 263
SCRA 508
• Evidentiary or factual matters not proper
grounds in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
• Requisites for petition for certiorari to proper
(Alexandra Condo. Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA
455)
• All errors or decisions of admin bodies involving
questions of law subject to judicial review under
Sec. 5 (2e), Art. Vlll of Constitution
• Mixed questions of facts and law are subject to
judicial review (Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts)
Immunities
• Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and
civil immunities to persons unless the law
explicitly confers such power
• PCGG under EO 14A
• Apply Art 2028, Civil Code: amicable
settlement in civil cases applicable to
PCGG cases
• OMB under Sec. 17 of RA 6770
Three-fold Responsibility
• Remedies may be invoked separately,
alternately, simultaneously or successively
• Rule: Admin cases are independent from
criminal cases
Exception: Law expressly provides for
prior final admin determination
(Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 232)
• Hierarchy of evidentiary values
• A criminal prosecution will not constitute a
prejudicial question even if the same facts are
attendant in the admin proceedings (Gatchalian
Talents Pool vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406)
• Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria
vs. Sunga , 368 SCRA 551)
• Sec. 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but
the discretion given to the OMB.
• Desistance will not automatically result to
dismissal of admin case. Complainant is a
mere witness xxx
• Rule on anonymous complaints
• Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation
• Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer
seeking elective office (Omb vs. Torres,
566 SCRA 365)
Aggrieved Party who may appeal
the admin decision
• Sec.39(a), PD 807: Appeals, where
allowable, shall be made by the party
adversely affected by the decision x x x.
• CSC vs. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426
• A party may elevate a decision of CSC
before the CA thru petition for review
under Rule 43 of Revised Rules of Court.
• OMB vs. Samaniego, 564 SCRA 569
• Gen. Rule: Decisions of admin agencies have,
upon their finality, the binding effect of a final
judgment w/in purview of res judicata doctrine.
• Exceptions:
a. supervening events make it imperative to
modify a final judgment
b. its application would sacrifice justice to
technicality
c. waiver of parties/not timely raised as a
defense
d. issue of citizenship
PNP
• Sec. 6, Art. XVl of 1987 Constitution
• Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members
upon citizen’s complaint under Sec. 42 of RA
6975 concurrent with PNP Chief/regional
directors under Sec. 45
• Appellate jurisdiction of NAPOLCOM thru
NAB and RAB
• Appeals from decision of NAPOLCOM
should be with DILG and then with CSC
• Criminal cases involving PNP
members are w/in exclusive
jurisdiction of regular courts. Courtsmartial are not courts
• Power to appoint chief of police in the LGU
(Andaya vs. RTC, 319 SCRA 696)
• Exercise of police powers reserved for
uniformed PNP personnel; RA 5750
superseded by RA 6975 (Alunan vs.
Asuncion, 323 SCRA 623)
AFP
• An Act Strengthening Civilian Supremacy over
the Military by Returning to Civil Courts the
Jurisdiction over Certain Offenses involving AFP
Members, Other Persons Subject to Military Law
(RA 7055)
• General Rule: AFP members … who commit
crimes penalized under RPC, other special
penal laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by
the proper civil court.
• Exception: Where the civil court, before
arraignment, has determined the offense to be
service connected, then the offending soldier
shall be tried by a court martial.
• Exception to the exception: Where the
President, in the interest of justice, directs before
arraignment that any such crime shall be tried
by the proper civil court.
• Lt. Gonzales et al vs. Abaya, 498 SCRA 446
*Necessity of delineation of jurisdiction between
civil courts and courts martial
OSG (PD 478; Admin Code)
• Gen. Rule: OSG represents the gov’t and its
instrumentalities.
~Actions in the name of the RP or its
instrumentality, if not initiated by the SolGen, will
be summarily dismissed.
• Exceptions:
1. When the gov’t office is adversely affected by
contrary stand of OSG (Orbos vs. CSC, 12 Sept.
1990)
2. SolGen deputizes legal officers xxx (Sec. 35,
Ch. 123. Bk lV, EO 292)
• Gen. Rule: SolGen can represent a public
official in all civil, criminal and special
proceedings when such proceedings arise
from the latter’s acts in his official
capacity.
• Exception: Such official or agent is being
charged criminally or being sued civilly for
damages arising from a felon.
Cases
• Telcom Dir. Pascual vs. Judge Beltran, 505
SCRA 559
• Urbano vs. Chavez & Co vs. Chavez, 183 SCRA
347
• NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 706 (proper basis for
computing the reglementary period to file an
appeal)
• Republic vs. Desierto, 389 SCRA 452 (petition
under Rule 65 by RP thru PCGG w/o OSG
participation re OMB dismissal of graft case vs.
Cojuangco et al.)
Ombudsman Constitutional
Mandate
• As protector of the people, OMB has the
power, function and duty to act promptly
on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials and to investigate
any act or omission of any public official
when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
Public Officers covered
• All elective and appointive officials of the
government and its subdivisions, including
GOCCs
* Laurel vs. Desierto, 381 SCRA 48
* RA 7975 as amended by RA 8249
* Javier vs. Sandiganbayan, 599 SCRA 325 (private
sector representative sitting as Board member of
the NBDB created by RA 8047)
Need for Prompt Action
• Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70
• Angchangco vs. OMB, 13 February 1997
• Ombudsman vs. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135
(FFI in 1992; admin case in 1997 and
decision in 1999 – 6 mos. Suspension of
Customs employee for neglect of duty)
Cases on OMB Jurisdiction
•
•
•
•
Deloso vs. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545
Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 637
Honasan vs. DOJ Panel , 04/13/04
Orcullo vs. Gervacio, 314 SCRA 452
Subpoena Power of OMB
 “Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum, and take testimony in any investigation or inquiry,
including the power to examine and have access to bank
accounts and records.” [Sec. 15(8), RA 6770]
 PNB vs. Gancayco, 15 SCRA 91
 Banco Filipino vs. Purisima, 161 SCRA 576
 Marquez vs. Desierto, 359 SCRA 773
 EO 251 dated 25 November 2003 of the Office of the
President
Who are not subject to OMB
Disciplinary Authority?
• Impeachable Officials
* In re: Raul M. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771
• Members of Congress
• OMB vs. Mojica, 452 SCRA 714
• Judiciary
* Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 46
* Caoibes vs. Alumbres, 07/19/01
* Fuentes vs. Ombudsman, 368 SCRA 36
* Garcia vs. Miro, 582 SCRA 127 (2009)
Formal Administrative Investigation
• Verified written complaint shall be accompanied by
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping (Rule III, Sec. 3, AO
No. 07).
• Concurrent Jurisdiction
*Laxina, Sr. vs. Ombudsman, 471 SCRA 544
• Referral of certain complaints to the proper disciplinary
authority (Sec. 23(2), RA 6770)
• Magna Carta Act for Public School Teachers (RA 4670)
• Higher Education Modernization Act (RA 8282)
*CSC vs. Sojor, 05/22/08
Cases On Magna Carta Act
• Fabella vs. CA, 378 SCRA 256
• Alcala vs. School Principal Villar, 18 November
2003
• Ombudsman vs. Estandarte,
521 SCRA 155 (transfer of case to OMB)
• Cruz vs. Civil Service Commission, 370 SCRA
650 (investigator, complainant, prosecutor and
judge)
• CSC vs. Sojor, 22 May 2008 (RA 8282 Higher
Education Modernization Act)
OMB Power of Preventive
Suspension
• Nature of and conditions required for
preventive suspension
• Salaries during preventive suspension
period
• Distinctions: vis-à-vis Civil Service Law
(PD 807 and E0 292) and the Local
Government Code (RA 7160)
Cases on Preventive
Suspension
• Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207
• Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 233
SCRA 311
• Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 646
• OMB vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 718
Administrative Adjudication, how
conducted (AO No. 17)
• Filing of pleadings/ position papers.
• Clarificatory hearings (discretionary)
• Non-litigious ; technicalities of law, procedure
and evidence not strictly applied
• Parties allowed the assistance of counsel;
due process clause does not encompass
right to be assisted by counsel (Lumiqued vs.
Exevea, 282 SCRA 125)
Some Rules in the Conduct of
Administrative Investigation
• An absolution from a criminal charge does not
affect administrative prosecution.
• Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria
vs. Sunga, 368 SCRA 551).
• The withdrawal of a complaint or desistance of a
complainant does not necessarily result in the
dismissal of the complaint.
• The death or retirement of a public officer from
the service does not preclude finding of
administrative liability (Judge Loyao vs. Caube,
402 SCRA 33).
Some Grounds for Administrative
Action
• To warrant removal from office of an employee,
the misconduct must be directly related to the
performance of official duties.
• For those not related to the functions of office,
the act should amount to a crime and conviction
by final judgment of the crime involving moral
turpitude or disqualification to hold office is prerequisite
• Dishonesty need not be committed in the
performance of duty.
• Non-payment of just debt.
Rule On Elective Officials
• Doctrine of Condonation or Forgiveness
(Aguinaldo vs. Santos, 212 SCRA 768)
• Doctrine not applicable to criminal acts
which the reelected official may have
committed during his previous term
(People vs. Jaloslos, 324 SCRA 692)
• Ombudsman vs. Torres, 566 SCRA 365)
*cannot benefit an appointive officer (Staff
Asst. seeking elective office).
Finality and Execution of Decision
• Decision is final, executory and unappealable if
respondent is acquitted, or penalty is
reprimand, suspension of not more than one
month, or fine equivalent to one month salary.
*Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753
• All other cases, appeal to the Court of Appeals
on verified petition for review within 15 days
• Remedy from OMB decision exonerating
respondent (LWUA Admtr. Reyes vs. Belisario,
596 SCRA 31)
Penalty
• The penalty of dismissal from the service
carries with it cancellation of eligibility,
forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the
perpetual disqualification for
reemployment in the government service.
• Exception: entitled to leave credits earned
Effect of Appeal on Decision
• An appeal shall not stop the decision from being
executory. In case penalty is suspension or removal and
respondent wins the appeal, he shall be considered as
being under preventive suspension and he shall be paid
the salary (OMB Administrative Order No. 17 dated
09/07/03).
• A decision of the Ombudsman shall be executed as a
matter of course. Failure or refusal to comply with the
OMB Order shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
Immediate Execution of
Administrative Decisions
• The decision of the Ombudsman imposing six
months’ suspension without pay upon Mayor
Buencamino for abuse of authority is
immediately executory under AO No. 17 of the
Ombudsman (Buencamino vs. CA, 12 April
2007)
• Stay of execution (OMB vs. City Treasurer
Samaniego, 564 SCRA 570)
Preliminary Investigation
DOJ prosecutors may investigate cases against
public officials in their capacity as either
Deputized Ombudsman Prosecutors or regular
prosecutors. However, the choice has been
made in favor of the former capacity (as
Deputized OMB Prosecutor) in the OMB-DOJ
Joint Circular No. 95-01, which together with AO
No. 08, provides for automatic deputization.
OMB retains control and supervision if charge is
related to office. DOJ Prosecutors rule with
finality if charge is not related to office.
Cases on Preliminary Investigation
• Mamburao vs. Ombudsman, 344 SCRA
818
• Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA
721
• Garcia vs. Primo, 397 SCRA 41
• PCGG vs. Desierto, 22 January 2007
Effect on OMB re COA’s Non-Finding
of Liability
• COA’s approval of a government official’s
disbursements only relates to the administrative
aspect of the matter of his accountability but it
does not foreclose the Ombudsman’s authority
to investigate and determine whether there is
a crime to be prosecuted for which such
official is answerable. While COA may regard
the official to have substantially complied with
it’s accounting rules, this fact is not sufficient to
dismiss the criminal case. (Aguinaldo vs.
Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121)
• The fact that petitioners’ accounts and
vouchers had passed in audit is no ground
to enjoin the fiscal from conducting PI to
determine their criminal liability for
malversation. A finding of probable cause
does not derive its veracity from the COA
findings but from the OMB’s independent
determination (Dimayuga vs. OMB, 20
July 2006).
Remedies from a probable cause
finding
• Only one MR or reinvestigation allowed within
five (5) days from notice, with leave of court
where information has already been filed in
court.
• Validity of information is not affected by lack of
notice of adverse resolution to the respondent
(Kuizon vs. Desierto, 354 SCRA 158).
• Filing of MR/reinvestigation does not prevent the
immediate filing of information in court (Pecho
vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116).
Court of Appeals; No Authority
Over OMB Resolutions in Criminal
Cases.
• The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives
and decisions of the OMB in administrative
disciplinary cases only – it cannot review the
orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in
criminal or non-administrative cases. Since the
CA has no jurisdiction over decisions of the
Ombudsman in criminal cases, its ruling
directing the withdrawal of the criminal case filed
by the Ombudsman before the RTC against
respondent POEA employee Fung is void
(Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321).
Preventive Suspension
• Section 13, RA 3019
• Nature: mandatory after determination of
validity of information
Cases on Preventive Suspension in
Criminal Proceedings
• Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383
• Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA
409
• Berona vs. Sandiganbayan, 435 SCRA
306
• Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA
636
COA
• Constitutional mandate
• Coverage of COA’s jurisdiction
• COA and Central Bank have concurrent
jurisdiction to examine and audit gov’t banks, but
COA audit prevails for 2 reasons xxx
• Entitlement of informer’s reward as determined
by BIR and DOF, although conclusive on the
executive agencies, is not binding on COA
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. COA,
218 SCRA 204)
• COA cannot payment of back wages to
employees, w/c had been decreed pursuant to a
final CSC decision (Cagatin vs. COA, 21 March
2000)
• COA disallowance of extension of foreign
consultant’s services (NHA vs. COA, 226 SCRA
65)
• COA classification as to who were entitled to the
social amelioration benefits (Cruz vs. COA, 368
SCRA 85)
PCGG
• Empowered to bring proceedings for forfeiture of
property allegedly acquired unlawfully before
Feb. 25, 1986; those acquired after that date is
vested in OMB.
• Ramas’ position as Commanding General of the
Phil. Army not sufficient (Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 13)
• Sec. 4(b) of EO 1 declared unconstitutional
(Sabio vs. Chair Gordon, 504 SCRA 704)
Central Bank
• Actions of the MB in proceedings on insolvency
are final and executory and may not be set aside
except upon convincing proof the action is
plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith.
• “Close now and hear later” policy
~no prior notice and hearing required
~prerequisites to MB action to close down
a bank and appoint receiver
~rationale
DAR (RA 6657)
• Primary jurisdiction to adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform (Sec.
50)
• Original and exclusive jurisdiction of RTC
over: 1) all petitions for determination of
just compensation; and 2) prosecution of
all criminal offenses under the Act.
• Agrarian dispute: any tenurial arrangement –
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise –
over lands devoted to agriculture.
• Tenancy relation cannot be extinguished by
mere expiration of period in leasehold contract;
or by the sale, or transfer of legal possession of
the land.
• Home lot is incident to a tenant’s rights, even if
constituted on residential lot of landowner and
not on the farm.
end