Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition

* SP E CI C/C O UR S E D EN IT ION : “ It m ean s th at p art of p u b l ic
la w wh i ch go v ern s th e o rgan iza tion , f u n c tion s a n d
p roc ed u r e s o f ad m in i st r ati v e a g en c ie s o f g o ve rn m en t to
wh i ch q u a si - le gi s lat i v e p ow e rs an d q u a si -ju d i ci al p o w er s ar e
gran ted , an d th e ext en t an d man n er to wh ich s u ch a ge n c ie s
are su b j ec t to co n tro l b y th e co u rt s. ” ( ME MO RI ZE )
D EN IT IO N OF AN A DM IN IS TR A TI V E AG EN CY - An
ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy i s a b od y of go v e rn me n t c rea te d b y
th e l eg i sla tu r e an d ch ar ged with th e su p er v i sio n an d
re gu l ati on o f a p ar ti cu la r ar ea of c on c er n .
For e xa mp l e, th e In su ra n ce C o m mi s si on wh i ch r egu lat e s th e
in su ran c e b u s in e s s, th e E n er gy R egu lato ry Boa r d wh ich
re gu l at e s th e p o w e r an d en er gy b u s in e ss an d th e H ou sin g
an d Lan d Us e R egu lat or y Boa rd wh i ch r egu lat e s th e h ou si n g
b u s in es s . Th e s e a gen ci e s ex e rc is e s o me s i gn i can t
co mb in ati on o f ex e cu t i v e, le gi s lat i v e an d ju d i ci a l p o w er s.
➢ Br oad and n ar row d e nit i on of adm in ist r ati v e L aw 
A dm in is tr at i v e L a w is par t of or b e lo n gs to t he
f ie l d of p u b lic la w. P u b lic la w is d ef i n e d as t ha t
bra nc h of l a w wh ic h g o ver ns re l at i o ns b et we en
go v er nm ent an d i ts s u bj ec ts . It i nc l ud es
c ons t it ut i o na l l a w, c r i m ina l l a w an d i nt er n at i on a l
l a w.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
Br oa d d ef i n it i on of a d m inis tra t i ve la w- I t r ef ers to
a ll la ws t ha t r e gu l at e or c o ntr o l th e a dm in is t rat i v e
org a n i za t io n of th e ex ec u t i ve , l e gis l at i v e a n d
j ud ic i al bra nc hes of g o v ernm e nt . T h e e nt ir e
go v er nm ent is v as t an d h ug e. C o ns id er :
1. T he O f f ic e of t h e Pr es i de n t has 22 s ec re tar i e s
rep res e nt i ng t h e 2 2 de par tm en ts of t h e ex ec ut i v e, 9
ot h er ex ec u t i ves s uc h as th e pr es i de nt i a l l eg a l ad v is er
an d p o l it ic al ad v is er, 9 at t ac h e d ag e nc ies l i k e th e
M MD A, Pr es i d e nt i al C om m is s i on o n Vis i t in g Forc es
A gre em en t a nd O f f ic e of t h e Pr es id e nt i al A d v is er f or t h e
pe ac e pr oc es s an d 3 2 ot h er ex ec u t i ve of f ic es l ik e t he
P hi l i p pi n e S p orts C om m is s io n.
2. T he DO J h as 10 at tac he d a g enc i es to it n am e l y th e N BI ,
B ure a u of Im m igra t io n a n d De p ort at i o n, B ur e au of
Corr ec ti o ns , Par o l e a n d Pr o ba t io ns A dm in is tr at i on ,
PC G G , P AO , O f f ic e of A lt er na t i ve D is p ut e R e s o lu t io n,
O G CC , O S G an d L a nd R eg is tra t i on Au th or i t y.
3. T he DO F h as 9 a tt ac h ed ag e nc i es s uc h as t he BI R,
B ure a u of C us tom s , B ure a u of T re as ur y a n d I ns ur a nc e
Com m is s io n.
4. T he De p artm en t of T ra ns p or ta t io n a n d Com m un ic at i o n
has 20 a tt ac he d a g enc i es s uc h as th e LT O , L T FRB,
M AR IN A , C AA P , M RT , P h i l ip p i ne C o as t G u ar d, T ol l
Re g ul a tor y B o ar d, LR T A a n d M an i l a In t ern a ti o na l Ai rp or t
A ut ho ri t y.
CR E AT IO N O F A DM INI S T RA TI V E AG E NCI E S ( HO W AN D W H Y)
- Th e la w wh i ch cr eat ed ad m in i s tra ti v e a g en c i es , th e ru le s
1
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
an d r eg u la tion s p ro mu lg ated b y th e m, an d th e b od y o f
d ec i si on s th a t th ey h a ve fr o m ti m e to t i me r en d er ed in th e
ad ju d i cat ion o f c as e s b r ou gh t b e fo r e th e m n ow con st itu t e
th e b u lk of ad mi n i st rat i v e l a w.
D OC TRI N E O F Q UA LI F I E D PO L IT IC A L AG EN CY
CA RP IO V S. E XE CU T IVE S E CRE T AR Y
THE PRE SI DE N T HA S CO N T RO L P OWE RS O VE R T HE E XE C U TI VE
BR AN CH OF T HE GO VE R N ME N T; — It i s a fu n d a m en ta lly
acc ep ted p r in c ip l e in Co n st itu t ion a l La w th a t th e P r es id en t
h as con tro l o f a ll e x ecu t iv e d ep art m en t s, b u r ea u s, an d
of fi c e s. A s th e Pr e sid en t can n ot b e e xp e ct ed to ex e rc i se h i s
con t rol p o w er s a ll at t h e sa m e t i me an d in p er s on , h e wi ll
h av e to d el e gat e so m e of t h e m to h i s Cab i n e t m e mb er s, wh o
in tu rn an d b y h i s au th o rity , con tro l th e b u r eau s an d oth e r
of fi c e s u n d er th eir r e sp ec ti v e ju ri sd ic tion s in th e ex e cu ti v e
d ep a rt m en t.
· D ep a rt m en t s e cr eta ri e s a r e al te r eg o s or a s si s tan t s o f t h e
p re s id en t a n d th ei r a ct s ar e p r e su m ed t o b e th e act s of th e
Pr e sid en t, u n l e s s d i sap p ro ve d , r ep u d iat e s, or re p rob at ed b y
h im .
2.
PO W ER S AN D F UNC T IO NS OF A DM IN I STR A TI V E
AG EN CI E S/ S O URC E T H E RE O F
A. E xp r e s s an d I mp l i ed Po we r s - th e ju ri s d i cti o n an d p o w er s
of a d min is tra ti v e a g en c i e s a re m ea s u r ed an d l i m it ed b y t h e
Con st itu t ion or la w cr ea tin g th e m or g ran t in g th ei r p o w er s,
to th o s e con f er re d e xp r e s sly or b y n e c e s sary or fa ir
imp li cat ion . It mu st b e l ib e ral ly con st ru ed to e n ab l e th e m t o
d i sch a rg e th eir a s si gn ed d u ti e s i n a cco rd an c e wi th th e
le gi s lat i ve p u rp o se
*
Con st itu t ion – cr e at es a n d e mp ow e r s an
ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy t h rou g h a p ro vi s ion
*
Statu t es u n d er wh ic h ad min i st ra ti v e ag en cy cla i m s t o
act – so u r ce an d p o we r s of an ad m in i st rat i v e a g en c i e s
B.
INHE RE N T P OWE RS – An ad m in i s tra ti v e a g en cy h as
N O IN HE RE N T PO WE R S, alth ou gh i mp l i ed p o w er s may
so m et i me s b e s p ok en o f as in h er en t.
S EP AR A TI ON O F PO W E R S
PAN T RAN C O V . P S C - > T h e th e ory o f th e se p ara t ion o f
p ow e r s i s d e si gn ed b y it s o ri gin ato rs to s e cu r e a cti on an d at
th e s am e ti m e t o f or e st all o ve r a ct ion wh ich n e ce s sa ri ly
re su lt s fro m u n d u e con c en t rat ion o f p o we r s, an d th e r eb y
ob tain e f ci en cy an d p r e v en t d e sp oti s m.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
3.
SC O P E O F P OW E RS / EXT EN T OF P O W ER S
2
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
A. A s to Natu re :

In v es t i g at i v e or a d v is o r y ( ex ec ut i v e or
adm i n is tr at i v e)

Q u as i- l e g is l a ti v e or r u l e m ak in g

Q u as i- j u d ic i a l, de te r m ina t i ve or a dj u d ic a to r y po we rs
B. A s to D e gr e e o f su b j e cti v e ch o ic e :


Dis c r e ti o n ar y - p o wer or r i g ht c o nf err e d up o n th em
b y l a w of ac ti n g of c i a l l y u n d er c e rt a in c irc um s ta nc es ,
ac c or d i ng t o t he dic t at es of t h e ir o wn j u dgm e nt a n d
c ons c i e nc e , a nd n o t c on tr ol l e d b y t he j u d gm en t or
c ons c i e nc e of o th er s .
M in is ter i a l – p er f or m e d i n r es po ns e to a du t y wh i c h
has be e n pos i t i ve l y im pos e d b y l a w an d i ts
perf orm anc e r eq u ir ed at a t im e an d i n a m an ner or
up o n c o nd i ti o ns s p ec i c a ll y d es i gn a te d, t h e d ut y t o
perf orm un d er th e c o n d it i ons s p ec i ed n o t b ei ng
de p en d en t u po n t h e of c er ’s j ud gm en t or d is c ret i on .
A. Ju ri sd i ct ion li m it ed – Ju ri sd ict ion an d p o w e r s ar e
m ea su r ed an d li mi t ed b y th e co n s tit u ti on o r la w cr eat in g
th e m. Ju r is d i cti on o f ad min i st rati v e of c er s an d ag en c i e s i s
sp ec ia l an d li m it ed .
B. Po w er s wi th in th ei r j u ri sd i ct ion b oar d - Ad m i n i stra ti v e
b od i e s p o s s e s s on ly su c h p o we r s an d au th ori ty con f err ed to
th e m b y th e con st itu t io n or sp e ci cal ly gran te d t o th e m b y
th e ir en ab li n g st atu t e s an d th o s e t h at may n e n ec e s sa ri ly
imp li ed in th e e x er ci s e t h er eo f or in c id en ta l t o t h e
attai n m en t o f th e ir p u r p os e s.
C. Po w er s su b je ct to t h e Con s titu tion , ap p li cab l e l a w, o r
ad m in i s trat i v e r e gu la tio n – p r e su mp ti on o f con s titu t ion a li ty
an d l eg al ity t o wh i ch st atu t e s an d ad min i str ati v e
re gu l ati on s ar e en tit l ed u n til su ch s tatu e or re g u lat ion i s
rep ea l ed o r a m en d ed , o r u n t il s et as id e in an ap p rop r iat e
ca s e b y a co mp et en t c o u rt, an d u l ti mat e ly b y t h e Su p r e m e
Cou rt. Ad mi n i st rat iv e ag en c i e s h a v e n o in h e re n t p ow e r s,
th e ir p o we r s c an n ot b e as su m ed n or can su ch p ow er s b e
con f err ed b y c ou rt .D en i tion of Ad m in i st rat i ve L aw : I t i s th e
p art o f p u b l ic in t er n at io n al l a w wh i ch go v ern s t h e
orga n iz ati on , fu n cti on s an d p ro c ed u r e s of ad mi n i stra ti v e
ag en c i e s o f th e go v ern m en t to wh i ch q u a si - le g is lat i v e
p ow e rs ar e d e le gat ed a n d q u a si -j u d i cia l p o w e rs ar e g ran t ed
an d th e ext en t an d m an n er to wh ich s u ch ag en c ie s ar e
su b j e ct t o con t rol b y c o u rt s.
4. NA T UR E OF P O W ER S
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
3
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
Read: M a kat i S t oc k Ex c hange vs . S E C , 1 4 S CR A 62 0 - S ta tute s
c onfe r ri ng po we r s o n ad m in ag enc ie s m u st b e li bera ll y
c onst ru ed to enab le the m to d isc ha rge t hei r a s s igned duti es in
ac c ord anc e wi th th e le g is lat ive pu rpo se.
Ca s e #1 : M A K AT I ST O CK EX C HA NG E , INC . , p et it i on er , v s.
S EC UR IT I E S AN D EX CH A NG E C OM M I SS I ON a n d M AN IL A S TO C K
EX C HA NG E , r e sp o n d e n t s. [G .R . No . L- 2 30 04 . Ju n e 3 0, 1 96 5] - >
NO , th e S E C d o e s n o t h av e th e au th o r it y to p r om u l ga te th e
r u le in q u es tio n . It i s fu n d am en t a l th a t an ad m i n is tr at i ve o fc er
h as on l y su ch p o wer s a s ar e e xp r es s l y gr an t ed to h i m b y th e
sta tu te , an d th o se n ece ss ar i l y im p l ied in th e e x er ci se th er eo f .
1. T e st fo r d et er m in in g th e e xi st en c e o f au th or i ty ― Th e
co m mi s si on cit e s n o p r o vi s ion of la w e xp r e s sly s u p p ort in g it s
ru l e a gai n st d ou b l e l i st i n g. It su gg e st s t h at th e p ow e r i s
n ec e s sa ry for th e ex e cu tion of th e fu n c tio n s ve st ed in i t. It
argu e s t h at sa id ru l e wa s ap p ro v ed b y th e De p ar tm en t H ead
b e for e th e war an d it i s n ot in co n f li ct w ith t h e p ro vi s ion s o f
th e S ecu ri ti e s A ct . Th e a p p ro va l o f th e D ep a rt m en t, b y i ts e lf ,
ad d s n o w ei gh t in j u d i ci al l it iga tion . Th e t e st i s n ot wh eth er th e
Act f orb id s Co m mi s si on fro m i mp o s in g a p r oh ib i tion b u t
wh eth er it e mp ow e r s th e Co m mi s s ion t o p r oh ib i t. It i s n ot
fou n d in s e c. 28 (o f th e Se cu rit ie s A ct ), wh i ch i s en t it led
"Po w e rs ( of th e Co m mi s si on ) w ith R e sp ec t to E x ch an ge s an d
Se cu rit ie s . " A cc ord in g t o m an y cou r t p r e ce d en t s, t h e g en er al
p ow e r to " re gu l at e " wh i ch th e Co m m is s ion h a s ( Se c. 3 3) d o e s
n ot i mp ly au th or ity to p roh ib it . "
2. Co m mi s s ion w ith ou t p ow e r to i mp o s e p roh i b itio n ―T h e
Co m mi s s ion p o ss e s s e s n o p o w er t o i mp o se th e c on d it ion of th e
ru l e wh i ch re s u lt s in d i s cri m in at ion an d v iol ati o n of
con st itu t ion a l r ig h t s. It is fu n d a m en ta l th at an ad m in i s trat i v e
of ce r h a s s u ch p o we r s a s a r e exp r e s s ly g ran t ed to h i m b y
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
sta tu t e, a n d th o s e n e c e s sa rily i mp li ed in th e ex er ci s e th e re o f.
Ac cord in gly, th e l ic en s e of Mak ati St oc k E x ch an ge i s ap p ro v ed
wi th ou t s u ch con d it ion aga in st d o u b l e li st in g .
Cas e # 2: R UNO M AT I EN ZO , G O DO FR E DO E S P IR IT U,
DIO S CO R RO F R AN C O , AN D L A S U ERT E
T R AN S P O RT AT IO N CO R PO R AT IO N AN D L A SU E RT E
T R AN S P O RT AT IO N CO R PO R AT IO N, p etit ion er s , v s. H O N .
LEO PO LDO M . AB E LLE R A, ACT ING CH AI RM AN O F T HE
BO AR D HO N. L EO PO LDO M . AB E L LE R A, ACT I NG
CH AI RM AN O F T HE BO AR D O F T R AN S P O RT AT IO N, HO N.
G O DO F R EDO Q . AS UN CIO N, M EM BE R O F
T R AN S P O RT AT IO N , HO N . G O D O FR E DO Q . AS U N CIO N,
M EM BER O F T H E B O AR D O F T R AN S P O RT AT IO N,
ART URO D EL A C RU Z, M S O F T H E B O ARD O F
T R AN S P O RT AT IO N , ART URO D EL A C RU Z, M S
T R AN S P O RT AT IO N CO . , I NC ., N EW F AM ILI A
T R AN S P O RT AT IO N CO . , T R AN S P O RT AT I O N CO ., IN C. ,
NEW F AM I LI A T R AN S PO RT AT IO N CO ., R O B ERT O
M O J AR E S , ET AL . R O B ERT O M O J AR E S , ET AL .,
re sp ond ent s [ G . R. No . L- 4 58 3 9 Jun e 1 , 1 98 8] - > Y e s , th e
BO T hav e t he pow e r, at t he ti me th e pet it i ons w er e l ed, t o
leg iti miz e c la nd est in e o pe r ati on s u nde r P D no . 1 0 1.
1) E x er ci s e o f t h e p o w er n ot su b j e ct t o th e all e g ed t i m e l i mita tio n .
"A r ead i n g of S e cti on ! s h ow s a g ran t o f p o w er t o th e r e sp on d en t
Boa rd to i s su e p ro vi s ion al p er m it s a s a st ep t ow ard s th e
le ga liz atio n o f col oru m taxi cab op era tor s w ith o u t th e a ll eg ed ti m e
li mi tat ion . T h e r e i s n oth in g in Se ct ion 4 t o su g g e st t h e e xp i rat ion
of su ch p ow e r s si x ( 6 ) m on th s a ft er p ro mu lg ati o n of th e D e cr e e.
Rath er , it m e re ly p ro vi d e s for th e wit h d ra w al o f th e St at e' s w ai v er
of it s r ig h t t o p u n is h sai d co loru m op era tor s fo r th e ir il l ega l a ct s .
In oth er word s, th e c it e d s e cti on d ec lar e s wh en th e p e ri od o f
mo rato riu m su s p en d in g th e r el en t le s s d ri v e to e li min at e i ll e gal
op e rato r s sh a ll en d .
4
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
Cl ea rly, th er e i s n o i mp ed i m en t to th e B oard ' s ex er ci s e of
ju ri sd ic tion u n d er it s b r oad p o w er s u n d er t h e P u b li c Se r vi c e A ct to
is su e c ert ic at ed o f p u b l i c c on v en i en ce to ach ie v e th e a vo w ed
p u rp o s e o f PD N o. 10 1
It i s a se ttl ed p r in c ip l e of d et e rm in in g wh et h e r a b oa r d or
co m mi s si on h a s a ce rta i n p o we r, th e au th o ri ty g iv en s h ou l d b e
lib era lly co n stru ed in t h e l ig h t o f t h e p u rp o se s f or wh i ch it wa s
cr eat ed an d th at wh ich i s in c id en ta lly n e c e s sary to a fu l l
imp l e me n tat ion of th e l eg i sla ti v e in t en t sh ou ld b e u p h e ld a s b e in g
ge r man e t o th e la w. N e ce s sa ri ly , t oo, wh er e th e en d i s r eq u ir ed ,
th e ap p r op ri at e m ean s are d ee m ed gi v en .
A. In ve st i gat or y p o wer s – Th i s i s on e o f th e d i st in ct i v e
fu n cti on s wh i ch s et ad m in i st rat i ve ag en ci e s a p a rt fro m th e
cou r t, th i s p o w er i s con f err ed on p rac ti cal ly a ll ad m in i s trat i v e
ag en c i e s.
1. Scop e: a) in sp ec tion of re co rd s an d p r e mi s e s ; b )
in ve s ti gat ion o f th e ac ti vi ti e s o f p e r son s o r en ti ti es co m in g
u n d e r it s ju r i sd i ct ion ; c ) or s ecu rin g, re q u i rin g t h e d i sc lo su r e of
in f or mat ion b y m ean s o f r e cor d s , r ep o rt s, st at e m en t s,
te st i mon y of w itn e s s e s an d p ro d u c tion o f d o cu m en t s.
2) As so le p ow er s gr an t ed – ac t me r ely a s in v e s tig ator y or
ad v i sory b od ie s, th a t i s, th ey e xi st sol e ly to s e c u re an d p ro vi d e
in f or mat ion or ma ke r ec om m en d a tio n s .
3) As a id t o oth er p o we r s – In it s gath e rin g, o rg an iz in g an d
an alyz in g ev id en ce, it n ow b e co m e s a u s e fu l ai d or t ool in th e
ag en cy’ s p er for m an c e o f i t s ru l e- m akin g o r q u a si - ju d i cia l
fu n cti on s ( e g., L TF R B r e Ub er, G rab Ca r, E RC r e p ri ce
man ip u l ati on o f p o we r p rod u ce r s , et c. ). A s d i s t in gu i sh ed fro m
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
ju d i cia l fu n c tio n s, th e la tte r i s th e p o w er an d au th or ity t o
ad ju d i cat e u p on t h e ri g h ts an d o b li ga tion s b e fo re it. Th e p o w er
to in v e st ig at e c on si st s o n ly o f i n ve s ti gat in g th e fa ct s an d
mak in g n d i n g s a n d r e co m m en d at ion s th e r eto . I n ad min
p roc e ed in g s, r e sp on d en t h a s th e op ti on o f en ga gin g th e
s er v ic e s o f cou n s e l or n ot.
4) As d i st in gu is h ed fr o m ju d ic ia l fu n c tio n s – It s p ow e r i s
li mi ted to in v e sti gat in g th e fa ct s an d mak in g n d in g s an d
re co m m en d at ion s .
An a ge n cy can on ly co m p el att en d a n c e an d p r e s en c e o f
wi tn es s e s an d p u n i sh fo r co n t em p t in c a se o f n o n - co mp l ian c e i f
su ch p o w er s h a v e b e en con f err ed u p on it. In ad min
p roc e ed in g s, t ech n ic al r u le s o f p r oc ed u re an d e vi d en c e a re n ot
req u ir ed .
Ca se #3 : PAB L O C A T UR A an d LUZ S A LV A D OR , p e titi o n er s,
v s. T H E CO UR T OF IN D U ST RI A L R E LA T ION S an d CE L E ST IN O
TAB A NI AG , et al . , r e sp o n d en t s . [ G. R. N o. L- 2 73 92 . Jan u a ry 30,
19 71 ] - > Y E S, th e r esp o n d en t Cou r t c an r eq u ir e a lab or
or gan i zat ion ’ s d ocu m en ts r e l ated t o its n an c es b e d e li v er ed a n d
d ep os ited w ith it at th e h ear in g to con d u ct su c h in ve st i gat ion
wit h ou t th e o fc ia l s o f s u ch l ab or or g an i za tio n b ein g h ear d p r ior to
it s is su an ce. Th e p o w er to in v e st ig at e, to b e ra t ion a l at th e v ery
le as t, r eq u ir e s a n in q u ir y in to e xi st in g f ac ts an d con d iti on s.
Se c. 1 7 o f th e In d u st ria l Pe ac e Ac t stat e s th at m e mb er s
sh a ll b e en tit l ed to in sp ec t th e rep ort s o f al l n a n cia l t ran sa ct ion s
as p ro v id ed in th e c on st itu t ion an d b y -l aw s o f t h e o rg an iz ati on ;
th at fu n d s of th e o rgan i zati on sh a ll n ot b e ap p l i ed fo r an y p u rp o s e ;
an d th a t r ec ord s of th e n an c ial act i vi ti e s o f a l e git i mat e lab o r
5
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
orga n iz ati on sh a ll b e op en in sp ect ion b y an y of c ial or m e mb er of
th e lab o r o rg an iz ati on .
a. T he s ta tu t e is c om pl e t e i n i ts e lf , s e tt i ng f or t h th e p o l ic y
to b e ex ec ut ed b y th e ag e nc y.
Th e Cou rt ju s t ex er ci s ed it s sta tu to ry p o w er o f i n v e st iga tion
to in v e st ig at e an d to a s su r e co mp lia n c e, on th e p art of p etit ion e rs ,
wi th th e in t ern al lab o r orga n iz ati on p r oc ed u re s . A ll t h at t h e
ch al l en g ed ord er d id w a s t o r eq u ir e p et iti on er s of t h e lab or to
"d el i ve r an d d ep o si t" w i th r e sp on d en t C ou rt al l of it s d o cu m en t s
re lat ed t o i t s n an c e s at th e h e arin g.
b. T he s ta tu t e x es a s t an dar d a n d x es t he b o un dar i es of
th e a ge nc y’ s a ut h or it y.
Th er e for e, th er e sh o u ld b e n o q u e st ion ab ou t t h e
cor re ctn e s s o f th e or d e r h er e in ch al l en g ed . It ca n n ot b e sa id th at
su ch a r eq u i re m en t i s b ey on d th e sta tu to ry p o w er con f er re d . Th e
d ocu m en t s re q u i red to b e p rod u c ed c on sti tu t e s e vi d en c e o f t h e
mo st s ol id ch ar act e r a s to wh eth er or n ot th e re wa s a fai lu r e to
co mp ly w ith th e man d a t e s o f th e la w.
B . Ru le - m ak in g p o wer s
1. Ba si c p rin cip l e s
-D oc tri n e o f se p ara tio n of p o we r s
-D oc tri n e o f n on -d el e ga tion of p o w er s
-D oc tri n e o f n on -d el e ga tion n ot ab s olu te
-N e ed for d e l ega tio n
Ru l e ma kin g p o w er s i mp ly me an s th e p o we r to mak e ru l e s a n d
re gu l ati on s n ec e s sa ry to car ry ou t i ts f u n ct ion s an d to
imp l e me n t th e la w it i s en t ru st ed to e n f or ce . I t is al so ca ll ed
ad m in i s trat i v e l e gi sl ati o n , d e l ega te d l e gi sl ati on , ord i n an c e
mak in g an d q u a si - le gi s l ation . Th e st atu to ry gr an t o f r u l e mak in g p o w er to ad m in i st rat i ve ag en ci e s i s a va lid ex c ep t ion on
n on -d e l ega tion o f l e gi s l ati v e p o w er p ro v id ed 2 con d iti on s ar e
p re s en t n a m ely :
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
A val id ru l e o r r e gu l ati o n d u ly p ro mu lga ted b y a n
ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy h as th e f or c e an d e f fe ct of la w an d i s
b in d in g o n th e a g en cy a n d al l th o s e d ea li n g w it h th e ag en cy.
An ad m in i st rat i ve ag en c y may mak e on ly r u l e s a n d r egu lat ion s
wi th in th e l i mit s o f th e p ow e r s g ran t ed to it b y th e la w
cr eat in g it an d in c a se o f con fl ict b et we en th e b as ic la w a n d th e
ru l e o r r e gu la tion , th e f or me r p r e va il s . R u l e p ro mu l ga tion o f
ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n c ie s can n o t o v er rid e, su p p la n t, mod i fy or
am en d th e la w b u t mu st re m ain con s i st en t w ith th e la w t h ey
in t en d t o c arry ou t .
-L e gi sl ati v e an d i n t erp r eta ti v e ru l e s - Th e p o w e r to cr ea te n e w
an d ad d iti on al p ro v i si on s th at h a ve th e ef f e ct o f la w i s
le gi s lat i ve w h i le in t e rp r eta ti v e ru l e s in te rp r et e xi st in g la w s an d
p ro vid e gu i d e lin e s to th e l a w th a t th ey in t erp r e t (r en d e rin g o f
an op i n ion , stat e m en t o f p o li cy ). Th e d i st in c ti on i s i mp or tan t
b ec au s e d u e p r oc e s s g e n er all y ap p ly to l eg i sl ati v e ru lin g s.
Le gi s lat i ve ru l e s m ay r e q u ir e n o ti c e an d h e ari n g i f t h e la w so
req u ir e s a n d th e ru l e a d d s a b u rd en to t h e go v e rn ed .
Pu b l ica tion i s a l so r eq u i red f or le gi s lat i v e ru lin g s ex c ep t if th ey
are in t e rn al r eg u lat ion s .
1.) Ef fe ct o f va l id r u le s o r r egu l at ion s
a. Th e ru l e s an d r egu lat ion s mu st h a ve b ee n i s s u ed o n th e
au th or ity of la w
6
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
b . Th ey mu st n ot b e con trary to la w an d th e Con st itu t ion
c. Th ey mu st b e p ro m u l gat ed in a cc ord an c e wi t h th e p r e sc rib ed
p roc ed u r e
d . Th ey mu st b e re a son a b le , f ai r an d n ot d i sc ri m in ato ry
e. Th ey mu s t b e wi th in t h e p o w e r s g ran t ed to it b y la w
2.) A m en d m en t/Rep ea l o f a d m i n i str at iv e r u le s an d r e gu lat ion s
- > A n ad mi n i st rat i ve ag en c y or d in a ri ly h a s th e au th or ity to
ch an ge , al te r, a m en d , o r co rr e ct th e ru l e s a n d r egu lat ion s d u ly
p ro mu l gat ed b y i t. Th e f act th at an ad m in i st rat i v e ru l e h a s b e en
am en d ed d o es n ot n e c e s sa rily me an th at th e ea rli er ru le wa s
u n re a son ab l e. Sin c e i t i s d i sc re tion ary w ith su c h an a ge n cy
wh eth er it w il l ta ke su c h act ion , th e ex er ci s e of su ch d i sc re tion
in th e p u b li c in t er e st i s n ot su b j e ct t o ju d ic ial c on tro l.
(a) In ord er to b e va lid , a ch an g e i n a re gu lat ion mu st b e mad e
in a cco rd an c e wit h stat u tory p ro ce d u ra l r eq u ir e m en t s , su ch a s
req u ir e m en t s w ith re sp ec t to n ot ic e a n d h ear in g a s w el l a s w ith
re sp e ct t o th e vo te n e c e s sary to ma ke a ch an ge .
(b ) A s a g en er al p rac ti c e, an ad mi n i st rat iv e ru l e sh ou ld n ot b e
am en d ed s o a s t o ef f ec t a r etr oa cti v e ch an g e, a n d th e r igh ts o f
a p e r son a cq u ir ed b e fo r e th e am en d m en t o f a r u le h a v e b e en
h el d d et er mi n ab l e u n d e r th e p r o vi s ion s o f su ch ru l e p r io r to
su ch a m en d m en t . Ho w e v er, wh e re an a d m in is tr ati v e r e gu la tio n
wh i ch p u rp o rt s t o in te r p re t a st atu t e b u t i s ou t of h ar mon y
th e re w ith i s a m en d ed s o a s to co rr e ctly ap p ly s u ch sta tu t e,
su ch a m en d m en t h a s b e en h el d n ot su b j ec t to t h e ob j ect ion of
b ei n g re tro act i v e, sin c e it i s, in fa ct, th e r st co rr ec t ap p li cat ion
of t h e la w .
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
(c ) W h e r e ad mi n i st rat i v e b od i e s ex er ci s e re gu la tory o r q u a s i le gi s lat i ve p o w er, lay in g d ow n ru l es an d r egu lat i on s, e v en
sp ec ic ord e r s to b e ob s e rv ed b y p er son s s u b j ec t th e re to, t h e
d oct rin e o f r e s ju d ica ta is n ot ap p l ic ab l e. Su ch r u le s an d
re gu l ati on s, o r or d e r s m ay b e a m en d ed , mod i ed , or re v ok ed to
con for m to t h e r eq u i r e m en t s o f th e la w or th e d e man d s of
p u b li c i n t er e st. Bu t e ve n th ou gh an ad min i str at iv e ag en cy i s n ot
b ou n d b y th e ru le o f r e s ju d i cata , it i s b ou n d t o re co gn iz e th e
va lid ity o f a ru l e o f con d u ct p r es cr ib ed b y it, a n d n ot t o r ep ea l
it s o wn en a ct m en t w ith ret roa ct i ve e f f ec t.
(d ) In t h e ca s e o f p ro c e d u ral ru l e s, it i s o ft en e xp ed it iou s fo r an
ag en cy to ign or e a c ert a in ru l e in a p a rti cu lar ca s e an d ad op t
th e re in a d i f fe r en t p ro c ed u r e th an th at con te m p lat ed b y th e
ag en cy’ s ru le .
> o f cou r se, th e p a rti e s may v olu n tar ily w ai v e c omp lia n c e w ith
p roc ed u ra l ru le s , an d su ch wai v e r may b e fou n d ed on a ct s a s
w el l a s u p on v erb al d e cl arat ion s.
> si m ila rly , d i s re ga rd o f m in u ti a e o f p r oc ed u ral n ic et ie s w il l b e
tol era te d , wh er e it cl ea rly ap p e ar s n o p r eju d i ce re su lt ed .
> so too, i f i t c an b e sh o wn t h at a p ar ti cu l ar ru l e wa s
e stab li sh ed s ol ely f or t h e a g en cy’ s sol e con v en i en c e, it m ay b e
wa i ve d b y th e ag en cy
> a t th e op p o sit e e xtr e m e, i t i s cl e ar th at a n a gen cy w il l n ot b e
p er m itt ed to ad op t a sp ec ia l ru le o f p r oc ed u re f or th e p u rp o s e
of a f f ec tin g th e ou t co m e o f a p ar ti cu l ar ca s e, o r ( w ith a
con sc iou s d e s ir e t o ward s th e en d ) w il lfu lly to ig n or e a ru l e in a
p arti cu lar ca s e. Bu t in c as e s wh er e th e r ec ord c le arly
e stab li sh e s t h at d i sr e ga rd o f an ag en cy’ s p roc e d u ral ru l e s cou ld
n ot h a v e p re ju d i c ed an y p arty to th e p ro c ee d in g , th e d ep ar tu r e
fro m p r e sc rib ed p ro c ed u re s i s n o t fata l.
7
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
-c o mp l ian ce w ith d u e p r oc e s s (n oti c e an d h ear i n g)
-n o r etr oac ti v ity
-n o t b ou n d b y th e d oc tr in e o f r e s ju d i cata
3.) Req u ir em en t s o f No tic e, h ear in g an d p u b l ic at ion
(a) Gen e ral ly, p rio r n o ti ce an d h ea rin g a r e n ot e s s en ti al to th e
va lid ity o f ru l e s an d r e g u lat ion s p ro mu l gat ed to go v ern fu tu r e
con d u ct. Qu a s i l e gi s lat i v e p o w er i s ex e rc i sed b y ad min is tra ti v e
ag en c i e s th r ou g h th e p r omu lg ati on o f r u l e s wi t h in th e con n e s
of t h e g ran t in g s tatu e a n d th e d o ctr in e o f n on - d el e gat ion of
ce rta in p o w e rs f lo w in g f ro m th e s ep a rat ion o f t h e th r ee
b ran c h e s o f th e go v ern m en t. Pr io r n ot ic e an d h ear in g o f e v ery
af f ect ed p ar ty i s n ot re q u ir ed s in c e t h e r e i s n o d et er m in at ion
of p a st e v en t s o r fac t s t h at h a v e t o b e e stab li sh ed o r
as c erta in ed .
(b ) Wh er e ru l e s d o n ot ap p ly t o n a m ed or sp e ci ed p a rt ie s –
wh er e a f u n ct ion , l eg i sl ati v e in n atu r e, r ath er t h an a ju d i cia l
fu n cti on , i s d e l eg at ed t o an ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy, th e
le gi s latu re n ee d n ot r eq u ir e a n oti c e o r h ear in g as a
p re re q u i s it e to th e a ct of t h e ad min i str ati v e ag en c y, sin c e th e
le gi s latu re c ou ld it s el f h av e p e rf or m ed th at a ct wi th ou t n ot ic e
an d h ear in g p ar ti cu la rly wh er e th e ru le s ar e o f a g en era l
ap p li cat ion , or p ro c ed u r al in n atu r e, o r ar e n o mo re th an
ad m in i s trat i v e in te rp r et ation s . Th u s, it h as b ee n h e ld th at wh en
th e ru l e s, e v en wh en th ey i n vol v e th e x in g of ra te s, ar e m ean t
to ap p ly to al l en t erp ri s e s o f a g i ven kin d th rou gh ou t th e
Ph il ip p in es ( e g DE C S O r d er p r e sc rib in g th e ma xi mu m s ch o o l
f ee s th at m ay b e ch ar g e d b y al l p ri vat e s ch o ol s in th e cou n t ry
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
for a p a rt icu lar s ch o ol y ear ), n o p r e v iou s n oti c e or h ea rin g i s
req u ir ed .
(c ) W h e r e ru le s ap p ly to n am ed or sp e ci ed p art i e s – wh er e su ch
ru l e s an d /o r ra te s ap p l y ex cl u s i v ely to a p ar ti cu lar p arty an d
are p r ed ica te d u p on a n d in g of f ac t ( e g b a s ed u p on a rep ort
su b m itt ed b y th e Co m mi s si on on Au d it ), wh i ch f act i s d en i ed b y
sa id p a rty, th e ag en cy i n ma kin g su ch n d in g o f fa ct, p er f or m s a
fu n cti on p a rtak in g o f a q u as i -ju d ic ial ch ara ct er th e v ali d
ex er ci s e of w h i ch d e ma n d s a p r e v iou s n o ti c e an d h ea rin g t o
sat i s fy th e req u ir e m en t of d u e p ro c e ss .
(d ) Wh er e re q u i re m en t s p re s cr ib ed b y la w – u n d er th e
Ad min i stra ti v e Cod e of 19 87, n ot ic e s o f p rop o s ed r u l e s mu st b e
gi v en wh en re q u ir ed b y la w; oth er w i se , su ch n o tic e s sh a ll b e
cir cu lat ed a s f ar a s p ra c tic ab l e t o a f ford in t e re s ted p art i e s th e
op p ort u n ity to su b m it t h ei r vi e w s p rio r t o th e a d op ti on o f an y
ru l e. Bu t an y ru l e wh ich xe s rat e s sh al l n ot b e v alid u n l e s s th e
p rop o s ed rat e s sh a ll h a v e b e en p u b li sh ed an d h ear in g s
con d u ct ed w ith th e ru l e s o n c on t e st ed ca s es to b e ob s e r ve d in
ca s e o f op p o sit ion .
(e ) Wh er e ru l e s h a v e t h e for c e an d e f f ec t o f l a w – is s u an c e s b y
an ad min i str ati v e ag en c y to en for c e o r i mp le m e n t an ex i sti n g
la w h a v e th e f orc e an d e ff e ct o f la w.
(f ) Wh er e r e gu la tio n s m er el y in te rp r et ati v e a n d in t ern al in
n atu r e – in t erp re tat i ve re gu l ati on s an d th o s e m er el y in te rn a l in
n atu r e, t h at i s, r e gu l ati n g on ly th e p e r son n el o f th e
ad m in i s trat i v e a ge n cy a n d n ot t h e p u b l ic , n ee d n ot b e
p u b li sh ed . N eit h e r i s p u b li cat ion req u ir ed o f so - cal l ed l et te r s o f
in stru ct ion s is su ed b y a d mi n i st rat i ve s u p eri or s con ce rn in g t h e
ru l e s o r gu id el in e s to b e fo llo w ed b y th ei r su b o r d in at e s in th e
p er fo r man ce o f th ei r d u ti es .
8
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
Ca s e # 4: KI LU S AN G M AY O U NO L AB O R
CE NT E R, p et i t io n er , v s . HO N . J E SU S B . G ARC I A, JR ., th e
L AN D T R AN S P O RT AT IO N FR AN C H I SI NG AND R EG UL AT O RY
BO AR D , and th e P RO VI NC I AL BU S O P ER AT O RS
AS S O C I AT IO N O F T H E P HI LI P PI N E S, r es p o nd e nts . [G .R . No .
11 5 38 1 D ec e mb er 2 3 , 1 9 94] - > No , t h e a ut hor it y g iv en b y
LT FRB and D O T C t o PB O AP t o in c re a se /d ec r e as e t he f ar e
w it hout app li c at io n w it h LT FRB an d w itho ut h ea r ing a nd
app rov al i s n ot v al id .
Se ct ion 16 ( c) of th e Pu b li c S e r vi ce A ct, a s a me n d ed , r ead s : S ec. 1 6.
Pr o ce ed in g s o f th e Co m m i ss io n , u p o n n o t ice an d h ear in g. — The
Co m m i ss ion sha ll ha ve po we r, u po n p ro pe r no tic e a n d he a ring in
ac c o rd anc e wit h the ru l es a n d p ro vi s io n s o f thi s Ac t, subjec t hea rin g
in ac c o rdanc e w ith th e r ule s a n d p ro vi sio ns o f th is Ac t, subjec t to the
lim itat ion s an d exc ept i o ns m ent io ned a n d sa vi ng p rov i sion s to th e
lim itat ion s an d exc ept i o ns m ent io ned a n d sa vi ng p rov i sion s to th e
c o ntr a ry :
xxx
(c ) To x a n d d e t er min e in d i vid u al o r joi n t ra te s, t oll s, ch ar g e s,
cla s s ica tio n s , or sch ed u le s th er e of, a s w el l a s c om mu t ati on ,
mi l eag e ki lo m etr ag e, an d oth er sp e ci al rat e s w h ich sh al l b e
imp o s ed , ob s er v ed , an d fo ll ow ed th er ea ft er b y an y p u b li c
s er v ic e : Pr o v id ed , T h at t h e Co m m i s sion may, in i ts d i s cr et ion ,
ap p ro v e r at e s p r op o s ed b y p u b l ic s e r vi ce s p ro v is ion ally an d
wi th ou t n e c e s sity of an y h ea rin g; but it s ha l l c al l a hea r ing
ther eon w ith in t hi rt y d ays t her ea fte r , up on p u bl i cat ion and
not ic e to the co nce rn s o per at ing in the te rr it or y a ff ec ted …
Gi v en th e c o mp l ex ity of th e n atu re o f th e fu n ct ion o f rat e -x in g an d
it s f ar -r ea ch i n g e ff e ct s on m il lio n s o f co m mu te rs, go v er n m en t mu st
n ot r el in q u i sh th i s i mp o rtan t fu n cti on in fa vo r of th os e wh o wo u ld
b en et an d p r ot f ro m t h e in d u s try . N ei the r s hou ld the req ui si te
not ic e a nd hea r ing be d one awa y w ith . The peo ple , r ep rese nted b y
rep utab le oppo si to rs , dese rve t o be g iv en f u l l opp ort un it y to be
hea rd in the i r op pos it io n to a ny fa re i nc re ase .
Th e p r e s en t a d m in i s tra ti ve p ro c ed u r e, a lr ead y mi rro r s an o rd erly
an d s ati s fa cto ry a rran g e m en t for all p ar ti e s in vo l ve d . To do aw ay
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
wit h s uc h a p ro cedu re a nd a l lo w just on e p art y , an in te rest ed pa rty
at th at , t o de te rm ine what the r ate shou l d b e w i ll un de rm ine the
ri ght o f th e ot her pa rt i es to due pr oc ess . Th e p u rp o s e o f a h ear in g
is p r ec is e ly to d et er m in e wh a t a ju st an d rea s on ab le rat e i s .
Di s card in g su ch p r oc e d u ral a n d con s titu tio n al ri gh t is c ert ain ly
in i mi ca l to ou r fu n d a m e n tal la w an d to p u b l ic in ter e st .
Aga in , u n d er th e Se ct io n 16 ( a) o f Pu b li c S er v ic e A ct, th er e mu st b e
p rop er n ot ic e an d h ea ri n g in th e xi n g o f rat e s, t o arri v e at a ju s t an d
rea s on ab le r at e ac c ep ta b le t o b oth th e p u b l ic u til ity an d th e p u b l ic .
C. Ad j u d i cator y p ower s
Oth er wi s e kn o wn a s q u a si - ju d i cia l fu n cti on , it i s a t er m wh ich
ap p li e s to th e act ion s, d is cr et ion , e t., of p u b l ic ad m in i s trat i v e
of ce r s o r b od i es th a t ar e r eq u ir ed to in ve s ti gat e fa ct s, a s c ert ain
th e e xi st en c e o f fa ct s, h old h ea rin g s an d d ra w c on cl u s ion s f ro m
th e m as a b a s i s for th ei r of ci al a ct ion an d to e x e rci s e d i sc r eti on
of j u d i cia l n a tu r e. A go v ern m en t ag en cy p er fo r m s ad ju d i cat ory
fu n cti on s wh en i t r en d e rs d e ci s ion s or a w ard s t h at d et er m in e
th e ri gh t s of ad v er sa ria l p art ie s w h i ch h a v e t h e sa m e b in d in g
e ff e ct a s a ju d g m en t of a cou rt of la w t h at e v en th e cou rt s of
ju s ti ce h a v e to r e sp ect .
a. Ex t e nt /L im it a ti o n ( p p. 23 1- 2 35 , De Le o n)
D ep en d s l ar ge ly on e n a b lin g a ct a n d th e gran t of p o we r mu st
b e fou n d in th e la w it s el f.
1) A s t at ut e p as s e d b y C on gr es s m us t b e c l e ar i n i ts t erm s
wh e n c l ot h in g a dm in is tra t i ve b o d ies wi th qu a s i- j u d ic i al
f unc t i o ns , a n d s uc h c o nf erm en t c an n ot b e im p li e d f rom
a m ere gra nt of p o wer to a bo d y or a g enc y.
2) T he de l e ga t io n b y C o n gres s t o ex ec ut i v e or
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc i e s of f u nc ti o ns of j u d ic i a l, or a t
9
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
l eas t q uas i- j ud ic i a l f u n c ti o ns wh ic h ar e i nc id en t al t o t he
ex erc is e b y s uc h a g en c i es of t h eir
ex ec u ti v e /a dm in is tr a t i v e p o wer s is n o t a v i o l at i on of t he
doc tr in e of s e par a ti o n of p o wer s .
Ca se #5 : B I L L M IL L ER , p eti tio n er -ap p el le e , v s . AT AN A CI O A .
M AR D O , an d M AN U EL G ONZ A LE S , r e sp on d en ts - ap p e ll an t s.
G.R . No . L -1 51 38 [ Ju l y 3 1, 1 96 1] - > Y E S, th e Reo r gan i zat ion P lan
N o . 20 - A , in s of ar a s co n fer s ju d ic i a l p o w er to t h e Re g ion a l O fce s
over ca ses oth er th an t h ese f al l in g u n d er th e Wor km en 's
Co m p en sat ion o n Law , i n va l id an d o f n o ef fec t. Th e " fu n ct i on s"
re f er red to in R. A. N o. 1 24 1 wh i ch cou ld th u s b e cr eat ed , ob v iou sly
re f er m er e ly to ad min i st rati v e, n ot ju d i ci al fu n ct ion s. Fo r th e
Go v ern m en t Su r v ey an d R eor gan izat ion Co m m i s si on wa s cr ea ted to
car ry ou t th e r eo rg an i za tion of th e E x e cu t iv e B r an ch of th e
N ation al G o ve rn m en t w h ich p la in ly d id n ot in c l u d e t h e c re ati on o f
cou r t s.
It may b e con c ed ed th at th e l e gi sl atu r e may con f er on ad mi n i st rat iv e
b oard s or b od ie s q u a s i -ju d ic ia l p o w er s in v ol vi n g th e e x er ci s e o f
ju d g m en t an d d i sc re ti on , as in c id en t to t h e p er for m an c e o f
ad m in i s trat i v e fu n ct ion s . Bu t in so d o in g, th e l e gi sl atu r e mu st s tat e
it s in t en t ion in exp r es s t er m s th at wou ld l ea v e n o d ou b t , a s e v en
su ch q u as i -ju d ic ial p r er ogat i v e s mu st b e li m it e d , i f th ey ar e t o b e
va lid , on ly t o th o se i n cid en t al to or in co n n e cti on w ith th e
p er fo r man ce o f j u ri sd ic tion o v er a mat te r ex cl u s iv e ly v e st ed in th e
cou r t s.
If a st atu t e it s el f a ctu a l ly p a s s ed b y th e Con gr e s s mu st b e c l ear in
it s t er m s wh e n cl oth in g ad min i str ati v e b od i e s wit h q u a si -j u d i cia l
fu n cti on s, th en c ert ain l y su ch con f er m en t c an n ot b e i mp li ed fro m a
m er e gran t o f p o w er to a b od y su ch a s th e Go v ern m en t Su r vey an d
Re or gan i zat ion Co m mi s s ion to cr e at e " fu n ct ion s " in con n e ct ion wi th
th e r eor gan izat ion of th e E x e cu t i ve B ran ch o f th e Go v ern m en t.
RA TI O: Re st r ic tio n o n gran t o f ju dic ial po we r. T he doc t r ine o f
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
sepa ra tion o f p ow er s o f g ove rn ment al so ope r ates to re st ric t the
exe rc i se o f j udic ial func tion s to admi ni st rat iv e agenc ie s. S inc e the
legi sl atu re c annot ex erc i se jud ic ia l func tio ns, it c e r tain l y i s
prec lu d e d f rom dele ga ting t he exe rc i se o f j udic ia l func t ion s to
admin is t rat ive agenc i es o r o fc e r s.
Whi le the leg is latu r e i s powe r le ss to c on fe r pu r ely o r st r ic tl y ju dic ial
powe r s, f unc t ion s, a nd dutie s to a n a dmi ni st rat ive agenc y, it, b y n o
mean s, fol lo w s th at it m a y n o t pe rfo r m func t i ons w hic h a re in t hei r
natu re, ju dic ial, a n d po s se ss a n d e xe rc i se qu as i -j udic ia l po we r s. It i s
rec og nize d tha t s ome j udic ia l po we r s m a y b e c onfe r red u p o n a nd
exe rc i sed b y a dmi ni st rat ive a genc i es w itho ut vio l ating c on stit utio nal
p o we r s inhi bit ing the "d elegat ion " o f j udic ial po we r.
Howe ve r, the jud ic ia l po we r w hic h
admin is t rat ive agenc ie s is a re st r ic ted
inc ide nta l a n d r ea sona bly nec e ss a ry to
admin is t rat ion o f the stat ute s tha t a re
admin is t rat ion.
ma y b e e xe rc i se s b y
one, li mite d to what i s
th e prop er a n d efc ient
c om mitte d to the m fo r
O f c o ur se, a rb it ra r y po we r s o r unc o nt rol led di sc ret ion m a y no t b e
c onfe r red u pon adm in is t rat ive agenc i es e ithe r in the exe rc ise o f ru le making o r adj utic ato ry f unc tion s .
---
Ca s e #6 : PH IL E X M INING CO R PO R AT IO N , pe t it i on er , vs . L UZ
M . Z AL D I VI A a nd T HE S E CR ET ARY O F AG RI CULT U RE AN D
N AT UR AL R E SO UR C E S, r es p o nd e nts . [G .R . N o. L- 29 6 69
Feb ru a r y 2 9 , 1 97 2]
Th e m in i n g c on tr ov er s y i nv o lv es c o n trac t ua l re la t io ns b et w ee n
th e l i ti g an ts - > NO , th e Di r ect or of M ine s d oe s n ot h av e
jur i sdi ct ion ov e r th e cont rov ert ed i s su es .
(1) Is s u e i n vo l v es pur e q ues t io n of l a w - - - - “ T h e s o l e is s ue
ra is e d b y P h il ex is a pur e q ues t io n of la w. T here is n o
qu es ti o ns of f ac t no r m att ers r eq u ir in g t ec h n o lo g ic a l
k no wle d ge an d ex p e ri enc e. T h e is s u e is o n e to be
10
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
res e r ve d in c onf or m in g wi t h le g a l r u l es a n d s t an d ards
go v er n in g t he po we r of a n a g en t, wi th le g a l r u les an d
s ta n dar ds g o v er ni n g t he po we r of a n a g en t, an d t h e l a w’s
res tr ic t io ns u po n t h e l a tt er ’s r i gh t t o ac t f or h is o wn
ex c lus i v e b en e t wh i l e th e a ge nc y i s i n f orc e . D ec is i o n of
s uc h q ues t io ns in v o l v e s t h e i n ter pr et at i o n a n d a p pl ic at i o n
of th e l a ws a nd n or m s of j us t ic e es t ab l is he d b y s oc i et y
an d c o ns t i tu tes e s s e nt i a ll y a n ex erc is e of t he j u d ic i a l
po we r wh ic h u n der t he Co ns t i tu t io n is ex c l us i ve l y
a ll oc at e d t o t he S up r em e C o ur t a nd s uc h c our ts as t he
Le g is la t ure m a y e s t a bl is h, a n d o ne t h at m in i n g of c i a ls ar e
i l l- e q u ip p ed t o d ea l wi th .
(2) J ud ic i a l po wer n o t c on f er r e d up o n D ir ec tor o f Mi n es . - - - “W e s ee n ot h i ng in S e c . 6 1 a nd 73 of t h e M i n i ng La w t ha t
i nd ic at es a l eg is l at i v e i nt en t to c o nf er r e a l j u d ic i a l p o wer
up o n t h e D ir ec t or of M i nes . T he v er y t erm s of Sec . 7 3 i n
req u ir i ng th at th e a d v er s e c l a im m us t s t at e i n f u l l de ta i l
th e na tu re , bo u nd ar i e s an d ex t e nt of t he a d vers e c l a im
s ho w th at t h e c o nf l ic t s to b e d ec i d ed b y re as o n of s uc h
ad v ers e c la im r ef er p r im ar i l y to q u es t i ons of f ac t. T h e
c on tr o vers i es t o b e s u bm it te d a n d res o l v ed b y t he
Dir ec tor of M i nes u n de r t he s ec t io ns r ef er , th eref ore , o nl y
to t h e o v er la p p in g c l a im s , a nd a dm in is tr at i v e m at ter s
i nc i d en t al t h er et o” .
(3) A d vers e c la im n ot wi t h in t h e ex ec u t i ve or a dm in is tr a ti v e
au t hor i t y of t h e m in i n g d ir ec t or to r es o l v e. - - - - ‘ P h il ex
M in i n g ’s ad v er s e c l a im is n ot on e gr ou n de d o n
o ver l a pp i n g of c l a im s nor is it a m in i ng c o nf l i c t aris i n g ou t
of m in in g l oc at i ons bu t on e or i g in at i n g f rom t he a l l eg e d
duc i ar y or c o ntr ac t u a l r el a ti o ns h i p b e t wee n Ph i l ex a n d
Sc ho l e y a n d h is tr a ns f er e es , Za l d i v ia an d Yr as t or za . As
s uc h , t he ad v er s e c l a im is n o t wi t h in th e ex ec u ti v e o r
adm i n is tr at i v e a ut hor i t y o f t h e m i ni n g d irec t or to s o l v e,
bu t i n t ha t of t h e c o ur t s .
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
(4) Q u es t i on pres e nt e d i n Ph i l ex M i ni n g ’s a d ve rs e c l a im is
j ud ic i al in na t ure .
Pow er s o f ad m in istr at i v e a gen c ie s
▪
▪
Ex pres s an d Im pl i ed P o wers – t he j uris d ic t i o n
an d p o wers of a dm in is tra t i ve a g e nc i es ar e
m eas ur ed a n d l im it ed b y th e C ons t it ut i o n or l a w
c rea t in g t h em or gra n t i ng t h eir po we rs , t o th os e
c onf erre d ex pr es s l y or b y n ec es s ar y o r f a ir
im pl ic at i on . It m us t b e l i b era l l y c o ns tr u e d t o
en a b le t h em to d is c ha rge t h e ir as s ig n ed du t i es i n
ac c or d a nc e wi th t h e l e g is l a ti v e p ur pos e .
✓
Co ns t i tu t io n – c r ea tes an d em po we rs an
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y thr o ug h a pr o v is io n ’
✓
St a tu tes un d er wh ic h adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y
c l aim s t o ac t – s o urc e an d p o wers of a n
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y
In h ere nt P o wers – A n adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y has
no in h er en t p o wers , it has im pl i ed p o wers
i ns t ea d .
B. Sc op e of A dm in is tr a ti v e A ge nc i es
▪
As t o Na tu re :
✓
In v es t i g at i v e or A d v is or y
❖ Ex ec u t i ve
❖ A dm in is tr at i v e
11
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
✓
Q u as i- l e g is l a ti v e
✓
✓
▪
A id t o o th er p o wers – ga t her i n g, or g an i zi n g
an d a n al yzi n g e v id e nc es
✓
Dis t in g u is h e d f rom j u d ic ia l p o wers –
i n ves t ig at i n g th e f ac ts a n d m ak in g n di n gs
an d rec om m enda t io ns
Ru l e m ak in g
Q u as i- j u d ic i a l
✓
De ter m i na t i ve
✓
A dj u d ic a t or y
As t o De gr ee of S u bj e c ti v e C ho ic e:
✓
Dis c r e ti o n ar y – d ic t at e s of th e ir o wn
j ud gm en t an d c o ns c ie nc e
✓
M in is ter i a l – i n r es p on s e to a du t y wh ic h
has be e n pos i t i ve l y im pos e d b y l a w an d i ts
per f or m anc e is r e qu ir e d at a t im e a nd in a
m anne r or u po n c o n di t i ons s p ec ic al l y
des i g na te d .
C. Na tur e of P o wer s
▪
✓
▪
Q u as i- l e g is l a ti v e (R u l e - m ak ing )
✓
De n it i on – ag e nc y pr o c es s f or f orm ul a t in g,
am end i n g, a l ter i n g, re v is in g , or r e pe a l i ng
r u les , r e gu l at i o ns a nd pr ior is s u a nc es
wh ic h ar e i nc o ns is t e nt .
✓
Na tur e – p o wer t o m ak e r u les an d
reg u l at i ons wh ic h ar e nec es s ar y to c arr y
ou t i ts f u nc ti o ns a nd t o im pl em en t th e l a w
it is e ntr us t e d to e nf or c e.
✓
Nec es s it y – k no wn al s o as a dm in is tr a ti v e
l eg is l at i on , d e le g at ed l eg is l at i on ,
ord i n anc e m ak ing a n d qu as i- l eg is l at i on ,
bec a us e t h e p er vas i v e l e g is l a ti v e p o wer of
m ak in g r u les an d re g u l at i ons wer e
c onf erre d u p on a dm in i s tra t i ve a g e nc i es .
No w, a n a dm in is tra t i v e b od y m a y
im pl em ent bro a d p ol ic i es l a id d o wn in a
s ta tu t e b y l l in g i n o n l y d et a i ls wh ic h t he
l eg is l at ur e m a y n e i th e r h a v e tim e n or
c om pet e nc e t o pr o v id e , pro v i d ed t h at t h ere
ex is ts a la w wh ic h d e l eg a tes t h is p o wer t o
th em .
✓
Co n di t io ns – s t at u tor y gra n t of r ul e- m ak in g
po we r to a dm in is tr at i v e a ge nc ies is a v a l i d
In v es t i g at i v e or A d v is or y ( ex ec u t i ve or
adm i n is tr at i v e)
✓
Sc op e – i ns p ec t i on of rec o rds a n d
pr em is es ; in v es t i g at i o n of t h e ac t i v i ti es of
per s o ns or e nt i t ies c o m ing u n der its
j ur is d ic t i o n; s ec ur i ng , req u ir i ng t h e
d is c l os ur e of inf or m at i on b y m ea ns of
r ec o r ds , r e por ts , s t a te m ents , t es t im on y of
wi t nes s es , an d pr o duc ti o n of doc um en ts .
✓
S ol e p o wer s g r a nt e d – ac ts m ere l y as
i n ves t ig at or y or ad v is o r y b o di es . T h e y
ex is t s o l e l y to s ec ur e an d pr o v i de
i nf or m at io n or m ak e re c om m end at i o ns .
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
12
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
ex c e p ti o n o n no n- d el e ga t io n of l eg is l at i v e
po we r , pr o v i de d t hes e t wo c o n d it i ons wer e
c om pl i ed wi th :
o
T he s ta tu t e is c om pl e t e i n i ts e lf ,
s et t in g f or t h th e p o l ic y t o b e
ex ec u te d b y t he ag e nc y.
o
St a tu te x es a s ta n d ard , m ap p in g o ut
th e b ou n da r i es of th e ag e nc y’ s
au t hor i t y to wh ic h it m us t c o nf orm .
✓
B in d i ng f or c e a nd ef f ec t – A va l i d r u le or
r eg u l at i on du l y pr om ul ga t ed b y a n
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y has t h e f orc e a n d
ef f ec t of l a w a n d is b i nd i n g on t h e a ge nc y
an d a l l t hos e d ea l i n g wi t h th e a ge nc y.
✓
Pr os p ec ti v e /R e tr o ac t i v e a pp l ic at i on
✓
o
G e ner a l r u l e: A s t a tu t e o per at es
pr os p ec t i v e l y a nd n o t retr o ac t i v e l y.
o
Ex c ep t io n: U n l es s th er e is a s t at u te
ex pr es s l y m a nif es t i ng or b y
nec es s ar y im pl ic at i o n th e l e gis l at i v e
i nt en t t o th e c o ntr ar y.
Re q uis i tes f or va l i d it y of a dm in is tra t i ve
r u les a n d r e gu l at i o ns :
❖ Is s u e d on au th or i t y of l a w
❖ Mus t n ot b e c o nt rar y t o l a w or t h e
Co ns t i tu t io n
❖ Pr om ul ga t ed in ac c or d anc e wit h t he
pr es c r i b ed pr oc e du re
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
❖ W ithi n th e p o wers gr a nt e d to it b y
law
❖ Mus t b e r e as o n ab l e, f a ir an d n o t
d is c rim i na t or y
▪
Q u as i- j u d ic i a l ( D et erm i na t i ve o r A dj u d ic a t or y)
✓
It i n v o l ves s p ec ic p art i es – d ec is i o n
or d et erm in at i o n b y a d m inis tra t i ve
ag e nc ies of t he r ig h ts , d ut i es a nd
ob l i ga t io ns of s p ec ic i nd i v i du a ls a n d
pers o ns . Ap p l ies t o t h e ac t i o ns ,
d is c re t io n of p ub l ic a d m inis tr a t i ve
of c ers or b o d ies .
✓
In v o l ve j u d ic ia l f u nc t i o n ex erc is e d
b y a p ers o n o t her t h an a j u d ge – t h e
term s “ q u as i - j u d ic ia l” an d
“ adj u d ic a tor y” are s yn on ym ous or
c orr el a ti v e , bu t n ot a l l
de t erm in at i ons b y a n adm i n is tr at i v e
ag e nc y ar e j ud ic i a l i n na t ure o r
qu as i- j ud ic i al .
✓
In v o l ve ex erc is e if j ud i c i al po we r
c on v e n ie nt l y s t yl e d “ q uas i- j u dic i a l”
– It is t h e p o wer of an
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y to h e ar a nd
de t erm in e, or t o as c er ta i n f ac ts a nd
dec i d e b y th e a p pl ic a ti on of ru l es to
th e as c ert a i ne d f ac ts . Inc l us i ve in
th is p o wer is en a b li n g th em to
i nt erp re t a nd a p p l y n ot o n l y th e
im pl em ent i n g r u les an d r e gu l at i o ns
13
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
pr om u lg a te d b y t hem bu t a ls o th e
l a ws e ntr us te d t o th e ir
adm i n is tr at i on . T h e us e of t erm s
s uc h as “ qu as i- j ud ic i a l ” or “ j u d ic i al
i n na t ur e” is s im pl y a c on v e n ie n t
wa y of a ppr o v i ng t h e e x erc is e of a
j ud ic i al po we r b y a n a dm in is tr a ti v e
ag e nc y, a ls o, t h es e t e rm s are us ed
to d es i gn at e t he c har a c ter of
par t ic u l ar pr oc ee d i ngs or p o wers
an d i ts ex er c is es .
2. S ep ar at ion of P ow er s /D el eg at i on of L eg is l ativ e
Pow e r t o Ad m ini st r at iv e Ag e n ci e s/ Sub or di nat e
Leg is l atio n
Doc tr in e of S ep ar at i o n – a f u nd am en ta l pr i nc i pl e i n o ur
s ys tem of go v er nm en t, o bt a i ne d n ot t hr ou g h ex pr es s
pro v is i o n bu t b y ac tu a l d i v is io n i n o ur C ons t it ut i on .
A l loc at es t h e go v er nm en t al po we r s of : l eg is l at i v e
po we rs to t h e l eg is l at i v e br anc h, ex ec u ti v e p o wers t o
th e ex ec u t i ve br a nc h a nd j u d ic ia l p o wers t o t he j u d ic ia r y
bra nc h. Mos t im por ta n tl y, th e p o wers as s i g n ed t o o n e
de p artm en t s h ou l d n ot b e ex er c is e d b y e i th e r of th e
ot h er de p ar tm e nts , an d th a t no de p artm en t o ug h t to
pos s es s , d ir ec t l y or i n d ir ec t l y, a n o v err u li n g i nf l ue nc e or
c on tr ol o ver t h e ot h er s .
✓
Ef f ec t t o A dm in is t r a t i v e A ge nc i es – D oes n o t
prec l u de a c er t a in de g r ee of a dm ix t ur e of t h e
thr e e po we r s of go v er nm ent in a dm in is tr at i v e
ag e nc ies .
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
A. Re q uis i tes f or t h e v a li d d el e ga t io n of
l eg is l at i v e po we rs :
✓
W hat c a n b e de l e ga te d is t he dis c r e t io n t o
de t erm in e ho w t he la w m a y b e e nf orc ed a n d no t
wh at t h e l a w s h a l l b e.
o
Com pl e te n es s T es t - t he c om pl et en es s of
th e s t at ut e m ak in g t he d e le g at i on
o
S uf c i en t S ta n da rds T e s t - t he pres e nc e of
a s uf c i e nt s t an d ar d
P o wer of S ub or d in at e Le g is la t io n
✓
W ith t he pro l if er at i o n of s p ec i al i ze d ac t i v it i e s a n d
th e ir at t en d an t p ec u l i a r pr o b lem s , t h e n at i on a l
l eg is l at ur e has f o un d i t m ore a n d m ore nec e s s ar y
to e n trus t to adm i nis tr at i v e a ge nc ies t h e a ut hor i t y
to is s u e r u l es to c arr y ou t t he g e ne ra l pr o v is i ons
of t h e s t a tu t e.
B. Re as ons f or i nc r eas i n g tre n d to wa rds
s ub or d in a te le g is la t io n :
o
G ro wi n g c om pl ex it i es of m ode rn
go v er nm ent
o
T he m ul t ip l ic at i on of s ubj ec ts of
go v er nm ent a l re g ul a ti on
o
Inc r e as e d d if c u l t y of a dm in is t er i ng t h e l a w
14
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
❖ Com pl e te n es s of t h e L a w - A n ot her ac c e p te d t es t t o
de t erm in e wh et h er or no t t her e is a v a li d d e l eg a ti o n of
l eg is l at i v e po we r .
✓
✓
✓
A s t at ut e m us t be c om p le te in its e lf s o t h at b y
ap pr o pr i a te j u d ic ia l r e v i e w a n d c on tr o l, a n y
ac t i on t ak en pur s u an t to d e l eg at e d a ut ho ri t y m a y
be k ep t wi t h in t h e de n ed l im its of t h e a ut hor i t y
c onf er r e d .
A s t at ut e m a y b e c o ns i der e d c om pl et e wh e n th e:
o
S ubj ec t
o
Ma n ne r
o
Ex t e nt of i ts o per a ti o n wh ic h is s ta te d i n i t
o
De l eg a te wi l l o n l y enf orc e it wh en it
r eac h es h im
T es t of C om pl et e nes s : W heth er th e pr o v is io n is
s uf c i en t l y d en i te a n d c er t a in t o e n ab l e o ne t o
k no w h is r i g hts a n d o b l ig a ti o ns
Doc tr in e of Cas es : T h e l a w, to be c om p le t e, m us t
des c r i b e wh a t j ob is to b e d on e , wh o s h ou l d do it a n d
wh at is th e s c o p e of t h e a ut hor i t y.
Case#1: THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANG TANG HO, defendantappellant. G.R. No. 17122 February 27, 1922 -> NO. The Legislature did not specify
or dene what was "any cause," or what was "an extraordinary rise in the price of
rice, palay or corn." Neither did it specify or dene the conditions upon which the
proclamation should be issued. In the absence of the proclamation no crime was
committed. The alleged sale was made a crime, if at all, because the Governor-
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
General issued the proclamation. The act or proclamation does not say anything
about the different grades or qualities of rice, and the defendant is charged with
the sale" of one Janet of rice at the price of eighty centavos (P0.80) which is a price
greater than fixed by Executive Order No. 53."
The Legislature does not specify or dene what is "an extraordinary rise." That is also
left to the discretion of the Governor-General. The Act also says that the GovernorGeneral, "with the consent of the Council of State," is authorized to issue and
promulgate "temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the
purposes of this Act." It does not specify or de􀁈ne what is a temporary rule or an
emergency measure, or how long such temporary rules or emergency measures
shall remain in force and effect, or when they shall take effect. That is to say the
Legislature itself has no in any manner specified or defined any basis for the order,
but has left it to the sole judgment and discretion of the Governor-General to say
what is or what is not "a cause," and what is or what is not "an extraordinary rise in
the price of rice," and as to what a temporary rule or an emergency measure for the
carrying out the purpose of the Act Under this state of facts, if the law is valid and
the Governor-General issues a proclamation fixing the minimum price at which rice
should be sold, any dealer who, with or without notice, sells rice at a higher price, is
a criminal. There may not have been any cause, and the price may not have been
extraordinary, and there may not have been an emergency, but, if the GovernorGeneral found the existence of such facts and issued a proclamation, and rice is sold
at any higher price, the seller commits a crime.
When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the proclamation of the
Governor-General which constitutes the crime. Without that proclamation, it was
no crime to sell rice at any price. In other words, the Legislature left it to the sole
discretion of the Governor-General to say what was and what was not "any cause"
for enforcing the act, and what was and what was not "an extraordinary rise in the
price of palay, rice or corn," and under certain undefined conditions to x the price at
which rice should be sold, without regard to grade or quality, also to say whether a
proclamation should be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the law should be
enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should be suspended.
15
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
The Constitution is something solid, permanent and substantial. Its stability protects
the life, liberty and property rights of the rich and the poor alike, and that
protection ought not to change with the wind or any emergency condition. The
fundamental question involved in this case is the right of the people of the
Philippine Islands to be and live under a republican form of government. We make
the board statement that no state or nation, living under a republican form of
government, under the terms and conditions specified in Act No. 2868, has ever
enacted a law delegating the power to any one, to fix the price at which rice should
be sold. That power can never be delegated under a republican form of
government. In the fixing of the price at which the defendant should sell his rice,
the law was not dealing with government property. It was dealing with private
property and private rights, which are sacred under the Constitution. If this law
should be sustained, upon the same principle and for the same reason, the
Legislature could authorize the Governor-General to fix the price of every product
or commodity in the Philippine Islands, and empower him to make it a crime to sell
any product at any other or different price.
Case#2: EDU V. ERICTA G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970 -> Yes. Reflector Law is
enacted under the police power in order to promote public safety and order. Justice
Laurel identified police power with state authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.
Persons and property could thus "be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens
in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state." The
police power is thus a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely
defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing
upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend
thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to insure
communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare.
The same lack of success marks the effort of respondent Galo to impugn the validity
of Administrative Order No. 2 issued by petitioner in his official capacity, duly
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, for being contrary
to the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. Such administrative order,
which took effect on April 17, 1970, has a provision on reflectors in effect
reproducing what was set forth in the Act.
It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of powers that
Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two other branches of the
government, subject to the exception that local governments may over local affairs
participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the
Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the
completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands
of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of
legislative power the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the
measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes
what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. It
bears repeating that the Reflector Law construed together with the Land
Transportation Code. Republic Act No. 4136, of which it is an amendment, leaves no
doubt as to the stress and emphasis on public safety which is the prime
consideration in statutes of this character. There is likewise a categorical
affirmation Of the power of petitioner as Land Transportation Commissioner to
promulgate rules and regulations to give life to and translate into actuality such
fundamental purpose. His power is clear. There has been no abuse. His
Administrative Order No. 2 can easily survive the attack, far-from-formidable,
launched against it by respondent Galo.
Pe rtin en t p r o vi si on s o f RE P UB L IC A CT No. 7 92 5 - AN A CT T O
PR OM OT E AN D G OV ER N T H E D EV E L OPM E NT O F P HI LI P PIN E
T EL E COM M U NI CA T IO NS AN D T H E D EL IV E RY O F P UB L IC
T EL E COM M U NI CA T IO NS S ER VI C ES
AR TI CL E I I - P O LI CY A ND OB J EC TI V E S
16
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
Sect ion 4 . Dec l ar at io n o f N at io n a l Po l ic y. - Te le com m u n icat ion s i s
ess en t ia l to th e eco n o m ic d ev el o p m en t , in t egr i ty an d secu r it y o f
th e Ph i l ip p in e s , an d a s su ch sh a l l b e d e ve lop ed an d ad m in i ster ed
as t o s a fe gu ar d , e n r i ch an d s tr en gth th e ec on o m ic , cu ltu r a l , so ci a l
an d p o l it ica l fab r ic o f t h e Ph i l ip p in e s. Th e gr o wth an d
d eve lop m en t o f te leco m m u n ic at io n s s er v ic e s sh a l l b e p u r su ed in
acco r d an ce wi th th e f o l lo w in g p o l ic ie s:
tech n ica l an d co m m er c i al cr i ter ia as m ea su r e s to en s u r e a f a ir
r ate o f r e tu r n an d a s a too l to en su r e econ om i c an d soc ia l
d eve lop m en t;
(a)
A fu n d am en t al o b j ect i v e o f go v er n m en t i s to d eve lop an d
m ain ta in a vi ab le , e f f ic i en t, r e li ab le an d u n i ver sa l
tel ecom m u n ic at ion in fr astr u ctu r e u s in g th e b e st a v ai l ab le an d
af fo r d ab l e te ch n o lo gi es , a s a vi ta l to o l to n at io n b u i ld in g an d
d eve lop m en t;
(f)
A h e a lth y com p et it i ve e n v ir on m en t sh a ll b e fos ter ed , o n e
in w h i ch te le com m u n ic at ion s car r ier s ar e fr ee to m ak e b u sin es s
d eci s ion s an d to in ter ac t w ith on e an o th er in p r ov id in g
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice s, w ith th e en d i n v i ew o f en c ou r a g in g
th eir f in an c ia l v iab i l it y wh i le m a in t a in in g a ffor d ab l e r a tes ;
(b )
Th e e xp an s io n o f th e t e leco m m u n ica tio n s n etw or k sh a ll
g iv e p r ior it y to im p r o v i n g an d e xten d in g b as ic ser vi ces to ar ea s
n o t y et ser ved . F or th is p u r p o se , go ver n m en t s h al l p r o m ote a fa ir ,
ef fi c ien t an d r e sp o n si v e m ar k et to st im u l ate t h e gr o wth an d
d eve lop m en t o f th e t el eco m m u n ica t io n s f ac il it ie s an d ser v ic es ,
wit h em p h as i s o n th e a cces s ib il it y b y p er son s t o b as ic ser v ic es in
u n ser ved an d u n d er ser v ed ar e as at a ffo r d ab le r ate s;
(g)
A fa ir an d r e ason ab le in ter con n ec ti on o f fac i l it i es o f
au th or ize d p u b li c n et w or k op er ator s an d o th er p r ov id er s o f
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice s is n ece ss ar y in or d er to a ch ie ve a
v iab le , e f f ic ien t , r el i ab l e an d u n i ver sa l t e le com m u n ic at ion s
ser vi ces ;
(c)
Th e r ad i o fr eq u en c y sp ectr u m is a sc ar ce p u b l i c r esou r ce
th at sh a l l b e ad m in is ter ed in th e p u b l ic in ter e s t an d in accor d an ce
wit h i n ter n at ion a l a gr e em en t s an d co n ven t ion s to wh ich th e
Ph il ip p in e s i s a p ar t y a n d gr an ted to th e b e st q u al i f ied . Th e
go ver n m e n t sh a l l a l lo c a te th e sp e ctr u m to s er v ice p r ov id er s wh o
wi l l u se it ef f ic ien t l y an d ef fec ti v el y to m e et p u b l ic d e m an d for
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice an d m ay a va i l o f n ew an d co st
ef fect i ve tech n o lo g ie s i n th e u se o f m eth o d s f o r it s u t i l iz at ion ;
(d )
Rate s a n d tar i f f ch ar g es sh a l l b e f a ir , ju st an d r easo n ab le
an d f or th is p u r p o s e , th e r e gu l ato r y b o d y sh al l d eve lop tar i ff
str u ctu r es b as ed o n so c io ec o n o m ic fac to r s an d o n f in an ci a l ,
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
(e)
Pu b li c te le com m u n ic at i on s ser vi ces sh a ll b e p r ov id ed b y
p r i vat e en t er p r i se s. Th e p r i v ate sec tor sh a l l b e th e e n g in e o f r ap id
an d e ff ic i en t gr ow th in th e te le com m u n ic at ion s in d u s tr y ;
(h )
Th e go ver n m en t sh a l l g i ve a ll th e as s ist an c e an d
en cou r a gem en t t o Ph i l i p p in e in ter n a tio n a l c ar r ier s in or d er to
est ab l i sh in ter con n ec ti on w ith oth er cou n tr i es so as to p r o v id e
acce ss to in ter n at ion al com m u n icat ion s h i gh w a ys o n a
com p et it i ve b as i s;
(i)
For e f fi ci en c y , p r ac ti ca b i li ty , an d c on v en ien ce , b u t w ith
d u e r e gar d to th e ob s er van ce o f d u e p r oce ss at al l ti m es ,
r egu la ti on o f te le com m u n ic at ion s en t it ie s sh a l l r e l y p r in c ip a l l y o n
an ad m in i str at i ve p r oce ss th at i s stab le , tr an sp ar en t an d fa ir ,
g iv in g d u e em p h as i s to tech n ica l , le g al , econ o m ic an d f in an c i al
con s id er at ion s ;
17
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(j)
No s in g le fr an c h i se sh al l a u th o r ize an en t it y to en g a ge in
b o th te lec om m u n ica ti o n s an d b r o ad c a st in g , e i th er th r ou gh th e
air wa ve s o r b y c ab le;
(k)
Own er sh ip o f p u b l ic t e l eco m m u n ica t ion s en t it i es to a s
wid e a n u m b er o f p e o p l e a s p o s s ib le , p r e fer ab l y to i ts cu st om er s ,
in o r d er to en cou r a ge e ff ic i en c y an d p u b l ic ac c ou n tab i li ty an d to
tap p er son a l s av in g s sh al l b e en co u r a ged ;
(l)
Th e d e v elo p m en t o f a d o m est ic te leco m m u n ica tion s
m an u f actu r in g in d u str y to m ee t th e n eed s o f t h e Ph i l ip p in e s an d
to ta ke ad v an t ag e o f e x p o r t o p p o r tu n it ie s sh a l l b e p r om ot ed
wit h ou t p r e ve n t in g , d et er r in g o r h am p er in g th e go al o f fu l l
u n i ver sa l ser vi ce; an d
(m )
Hu m an r e so u r ce s sk i ll s an d ca p ab i li ti es m u s t b e h ar n e ss ed
an d im p r o ved to su st ai n th e gr o w th an d th e d eve lop m en t o f
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s u n d er a fa st c h an g in g te le com m u n icat ion s
en v ir on m e n t.
(a)
Ad op t an ad m in istr at i v e p r oce ss wh ich wou ld f aci l it ate th e
en tr y o f q u a l if i ed s er v i ce p r o vid er s an d ad op t a p r i ci n g p o li cy
wh ic h wou ld g en er a te s u ff ic i en t r et u r n s to en c ou r ag e th em to
p r ov id e b as ic te leco m m u n ic at ion s ser v ice s in u n ser ved an d
u n d er ser ved ar e as ;
(b )
En su r e q u al i ty , sa fe ty , r el iab i l it y , s ecu r it y , com p at ib i l it y
an d in ter -op er ab i li ty o f tel ecom m u n i cat ion s fa ci l it ie s an d ser v ice s
in con for m it y w ith stan d ar d s an d sp ec i f icat ion s s et b y
in ter n at ion al r ad io an d tel ecom m u n ic at ion s or g an i zat ion s t o
wh ic h th e Ph i l ip p in es i s a s i gn ator y;
(c)
M an d at e a f a ir an d r ea s on ab le in ter con n ec tion o f fac i l it ie s
o f a u th or ize d p u b li c n e twor k op er at or s an d ot h er p r ov id er s o f
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice s th r ou gh ap p r op r ia te m od a l it ie s o f
in ter con n ec tio n an d at a r ea son ab l e an d f a ir le ve l o f ch ar ges ,
wh ic h m a ke p r o v is ion f or th e cr o ss su b s id y to u n p r of ita b l e loca l
exch an ge ser vi ce ar ea s so a s to p r om ot e te lep h on e d en si ty an d
p r ov id e t h e m o st ext en si ve ac ces s to b a s ic te l e com m u n icat ion s
ser vi ces a va i la b l e at a f f or d ab l e r a tes to th e p u b l ic;
(d )
Fos ter fa ir an d e f fi ci en t m ar ke t con d u c t th r ou g h , b u t n o t
l im ited to, th e p r otect i on o f te lecom m u n icat io n s en t it i es fr om
u n fa ir tr ad e p r act ic es o f oth er car r ier s;
AR TI CL E I II - A DM INI S T RA TI ON
Sect ion 5 . R esp on s ib il it ie s o f th e Na tio n a l Te le com m u n icat ion s
Co m m is s ion . - Th e Na ti o n al T el eco m m u n ic at io n s Co m m i s si on
(Co m m i ss ion ) sh al l b e t h e p r in cip a l ad m in i str a tor o f th is Ac t an d
as su ch sh a l l t ak e th e n eces sar y m ea su r e s to i m p lem en t th e
p o l ic ie s an d ob j ect i ve s set fo r th in th is Ac t. Ac cor d in g l y, i n
ad d i ti on to it s e x is tin g fu n ct io n s , th e Co m m i ss i on sh a l l b e
r esp o n si b l e f or th e fo l l o win g :L awp h i l &1 5 9;
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
(e)
Pr om ot e con su m er s w el far e b y f ac i li tat in g acce ss to
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s s er v ice s wh o se in fr a str u ct u r e an d n etwor k
m u st b e gear ed to war d s th e n eed s o f in d iv id u a l a n d b u s in es s
u ser s ;
(f)
Pr ote ct con su m er s ag a i n st m i su se o f a te lecom m u n ic at ion s
en ti ty ' s m on op ol y o r q u as i -m on op o l i st ic p o wer s b y, b u t n o t
l im ited to, th e in ve st i g at ion o f com p l ai n ts an d ex act in g
com p l i an ce w ith ser vi ce sta n d ar d s fr om s u ch en tit y; an d
18
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(g)
In th e ex er c is e o f its r e gu lat o r y p o wer s , con tin u e to
im p o se su ch fe es an d c h ar g es as m a y b e n ec es sar y to co ver
r easo n ab le cost s an d e x p en se s fo r th e r e gu lat i on an d su p er v is ion
o f th e op er at ion s o f te l eco m m u n ica t io n s en t it i es.
Sect ion 6 . R esp on s ib il it ie s o f an d L im it at io n s t o De p ar tm en t
Po w er s . - T h e Dep ar tm e n t o f Tr an sp o r tat io n an d Com m u n ic at ion s
(De p ar tm en t) sh a l l n o t exer c i se an y p o w er wh i ch w il l ten d t o
in flu en ce o r e ff ect a r e v iew o r a m o d if ic at ion o f th e Com m i s si on ' s
q u as i -ju d i ci a l fu n ct io n s .
❖ S uf f ic i e nc y i n S ta n dar ds - T h er e m us t b e a n ad e qu a te
gu i d el i n es or l im it at i o ns i n th e l a w to m ap o ut t h e
bo u nd ar i es of t h e d el e ga t e au t hor i t y a nd pr e v en t t he
de l e ga t io n f r om run n i n g r i ot .
✓
De p en d en t u po n c er ta i n c o ns i d er at i ons - th e
s uf f ic i e nc y of a pa rt ic u lar s t a nd ar d or l im it
go v er n in g t he au th or i t y a n d d is c re t io n of th e
adm i n is tr at i v e a ge nc y i n ef f ec t in g t he po l ic y of
th e l e gis l at ur e gr e at l y de p en ds u p on t h e n at ure
of t h e po we r ex erc is e d a n d th e n at ur e of t h e ri gh t
res tr ic te d b y s uc h p o wer. I t a ls o de p en ds u p on
wh et h er or n ot pro p er reg u l at i on or c on tr o l
req u ir es th e ves t in g of s uc h d is c r et i on .
✓
De ta i l ed s t a nd ar d n ot req u ir ed - t he nec es s it i es
of m ode rn le g is la t io n de a l in g wit h c om p lex
ec o n om ic an d s oc i al p rob l em s h a ve le d t o j u d ic i a l
ap pr o v al of br o ad s t a n dar ds f or a dm in is tr a ti v e
ac t i on . D et a il e d s ta n d ards are no t r e qu ir e d,
es p ec i al l y i n r eg u la t or y e n a c tm en ts u nd er t h e
po l ic y p o wer . T h e l e gi s l at ure is n ot re q u ire d t o
pro v i d e s uc h a s ta n da rd as c o nf ers t he le as t
am oun t of d is c re t io n . I n m an y s it ua t i ons , d et a il e d
s ta n dar ds i n pr ec is e a nd un v ar yi n g f orm s wo u ld
be wh o ll y u nr e a lis t ic a nd m ore ar b itr ar y t h an a
ge n er al in d ef i n it e o ne .
✓
Ex am pl es of s t a nd ar ds h e ld s uf f ic i e nt - th e
f ol l o wi ng le g is la t i ve s pec if ic a t io ns ar e am on g
th os e wh ic h h a ve b e e n h el d t o s ta t e a s uf f ic i en t l y
def in i te s t a nd ar d f or a dm in is tr a ti v e ac t io n i n
s pec if ic f i e l ds : “ n ec es s it y” , “ n ec es s ar y o r
In co or d in at ion w it h th e Co m m i ss io n , h o we ver , th e Dep ar tm en t
sh a l l , in ac cor d an ce w it h th e p o l ic ie s en u n c i ate d in t h i s Act , b e
r esp o n si b l e f or :
(a)
th e d e ve lop m en t a n d m ain ten an ce o f a lon g- te r m str ate g ic
n at io n a l d ev el op m en t p lan fo r te leco m m u n ica ti on s to ser ve a s a
gu id e t o th e in d u str y a n d p o ten t i a l in ve sto r s a s we l l as to th e
Co m m is s ion ;
(b )
th e coor d in at io n o f r e s ear ch an d d e ve lop m en t act i vi ti es in
go ver n m e n t w ith th e w o r k o f o th er in st itu t ion s in th e f ie ld o f
tel ecom m u n ic at ion s;
(c)
th e r ep r e sen t at io n an d p r o m o ti o n o f Ph i l ip p in e in t er es ts in
in ter n at ion al b od ies , a n d th e n e go ti at io n o f t h e n at ion ' s r igh ts
an d o b l ig at ion s in in ter n at io n a l t e leco m m u n i ca tion s m atter s; an d
(d )
th e op er at io n o f a n at i o n al co n su l tat i ve for u m to f ac i l itat e
in ter act ion am on g st th e te leco m m u n icat io n s i n d u str ie s, u s er
gr o u p s, ac ad em ic an d r ese ar ch in s ti tu t io n s in t h e a ir in g an d
r eso lu t ion o f im p o r tan t i ssu e s in t h e f ie ld o f co m m u n ic at ion s.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
19
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
ex p e d ie nt ” , “ a p pr o pr i a te” , “ r e as o n a bl e ” , “ j us t a n d
reas o n ab l e ” , “ f a ir a n d eq u it a b le ” , “ s uf f ic ie n t ” ,
“ ex c es s i v e pr of i ts ” , “ u nd u l y c om pl ic at e d
c orp or at e s tr uc t ur es a nd in e qu i ta b l e d is tr i bu ti o ns
of vo t in g p o wer ” , “ f it” , or “ u nf i t” , “ s u i ta b l e ” ,
“ uns u it a b le ” , “ c om pe t e nc y, a b i l it y, i nt eg ri t y” ,
i l lum i na t in g wh ic h o i l i s “ s af e , p ur e, a n d af f ords a
s at is f ac tor y l i g h t, ” “ wo r th y c a us e” , “ dec e nc y an d
go o d or der ” , “ s u bs t a nt i al” , “ u n des ir a bl e
res id e nts ” , “ u nd es ir ab l e b us i n es s pr ac t ic es ” ,
“ un pr of es s i on a l c o nd u c t ” , “ m is c o nd uc t ” ,
“ of f ens i v e b ec a us e of i nj ur i ous an d o bn ox i ou s
no is e, v ib r a t io ns s m ok e, g as , an d o th er f ac t o rs ” ,
“ i nj ur i ous s ubs ta nc es ” , “ da n ge r to p e ac e or
s af et y” , “ p u bl ic in te r es t ” , “ p u b lic c on v e ni e nc e or
nec es s it y” , “ a c le ar a n d pr es e nt da n ger ” , a n d
“ im m in en t a n d gr a ve da n ge r of a s ubs ta n ti v e
e v il . ”
✓
P ers o n a l j ud gm en t of t he ag e nc y as s ta n da rd th e p er s o n a l j ud gm en t of th e a g enc y, wh er e
unr es tr a i n ed , is n ot a s ta n dar d or a s uf f ic i e n t
s ta n dar d. E v en wh er e br o a d s ta n d ards a re la i d
do wn , s uc h s t an d ar ds ar e no t s uf f ic ie n t if t h e
s ta tu t e ex pr es s l y a d ds “ i n t he op i n io n” of th e
ag e nc y, or ex pr es s l y c onf ers po l ic y- m ak in g p o wer
up o n th e a g enc y.
Doc tr in e of Cas es : T h e l a w m us t s et o r es t a b lis h
gu i d el i n es o n t h e b ou n dar i es a n d l im ita t i ons reg ar d in g
th e a ut h or it y d e le g at e d.
Case #1: RUBI, ET AL. (manguianes), plaintiffs, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF
MINDORO, defendant. [G.R. No. L-14078 / March 7, 1919] -> I. No, Section 2145 of
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
the Administrative Code does not constitute undue delegation. By a vote of five to
four, the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of this section of the
Administrative Code. Under the doctrine of necessity, who else was in a better
position to determine whether or not to execute the law but the provincial
governor. It is optional for the provincial governor to execute the law as
circumstances may arise. It is necessary to give discretion to the provincial
governor. The Legislature may make decisions of executive departments of
subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain
acts, final on questions of fact.
II. No, the Manguianes are not being deprived of their liberty. Among other things,
the term ―non-Christian‖ should not be given a literal meaning or a religious
signification, but that it was intended to relate to degrees of civilization. The term
―non-Christian‖ it was said, refers not to religious belief, but in a way to
geographical area, and more directly to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low
grade of civilization. In this case, the Manguianes were being reconcentrated in the
reservation to promote peace and to arrest their seminomadic lifestyle. This will
ultimately settle them down where they can adapt to the changing times. The
Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro was
neither discriminatory nor class legislation, and stated among other things: ―. . .
one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the
degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their
own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due
process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of due process of
law and equal protection of the laws, there exists a law; the law seems to be
reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.
Case #2: PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC.,
petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF TEXTBOOKS,
respondents. [G.R. No. L-5279. October 31, 1955] -> NO, petitioner’s contention
that the standards on the Secretary of Education unlimited power and discretion to
20
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
prescribe rules and standards enclosed in Sections 1 and 6 of Act No. 2706 is
extremely vague, indefinite and uncertain thus constituting an unlawful delegation
of legislative power is incorrect. The best answer is that despite such alleged
vagueness the Secretary of Education has fixed standards to ensure adequate and
efficient instruction, as shown by the memoranda fixing or revising curricula, the
school calendars, entrance and final examinations, admission and accreditation of
students etc.; and the system of private education has, in general, been
satisfactorily in operation for 37 years which only shows that the Legislature did and
could, validly rely upon the educational experience and training of those in charge
of the Department of Education to ascertain and formulate minimum requirements
of adequate instruction as the basis of government recognition of any private
school.
At any rate, petitioners do not show how these standards have injured any of them
or interfered with their operation. Wherefore, no reason exists for them to assail
the validity of the power nor the exercise of the power by the Secretary of
Education. True, the petitioners assert that, the Secretary has issued rules and
regulations "whimsical and capricious" and that such discretionary power has
produced arrogant inspectors who "bully heads and teachers of private schools."
Nevertheless, their remedy is to challenge those regulations specifically, and/or to
ring those inspectors to book, in proper administrative or judicial proceedings—not
to invalidate the law. For it needs no argument, to show that abuse by the officials
entrusted with the execution of a statute does not per se demonstrate the
unconstitutionality of such statute.
Anyway, we find the defendants' position to be sufficiently sustained by the
decision in Alegra vs. Collector of Customs, 53 Phil., 394 upon holding the statute
that authorized the Director of Agriculture to "designate standards for the
commercial grades of abaca, maguey and sisal" against vigorous attacks on the
ground of invalid delegation of legislative power.
Indeed "adequate and efficient instruction" should be considered sufficient, in the
same way as "public welfare" "necessary in the interest of law and order" "public
interest" and "justice and equity and substantial merits of the case" have been held
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
sufficient as legislative standards justifying delegation of authority to regulate. (See
Tañada and Fernando, Constitution of thePhilippines, p. 793, citing Philippine
cases.)
On this phase of the litigation we conclude that there has been no undue
delegation of legislative power. In this connection, and to support their position
that the law and the Secretary of Education have transcended the governmental
power of supervision and regulation, the petitioners appended a list of circulars and
memoranda issued by the said Department. However they failed to indicate which
of such official documents was constitutionally objectionable for being "capricious,"
or pain "nuisance"; and it is one of our decisional practices that unless a
constitutional point is specifically raised, insisted upon and adequately argued, the
court will not consider it. (Santiago vs. Far Eastern, 73 Phil., 408.)
We are told that such list will give an idea of how the statute has placed in the
hands of the Secretary of Education complete control of the various activities of
private schools, and why the statute should be struck down as unconstitutional. It is
clear in our opinion that the statute does not in express terms give the Secretary
complete control. It gives him powers to inspect private schools, to regulate their
activities, to give them official permits to operate under certain conditions, and to
revoke such permits for cause. This does not amount to complete control. If any of
such Department circulars or memoranda issued by the Secretary go beyond the
bounds of regulation and seeks to establish complete control, it would surely be
invalid. Conceivably some of them are of this nature, but besides not having before
us the text of such circulars, the petitioners have omitted to specify. In any event
with the recent approval of Republic Act No. 1124 creating the National Board of
Education, opportunity for administrative correction of the supposed anomalies or
encroachments is amply afforded herein petitioners. A more expeditious and
perhaps more technically competent forum exists, wherein to discuss the necessity,
convenience or relevancy of the measures criticized by them. (See also Republic Act
No. 176.)
If however the statutes in question actually give the Secretary control over private
schools, the question arises whether the power of supervision and regulation
21
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
granted to the State by section 5 Article XIV was meant to include control of private
educational institutions. It is enough to point out that local educators and writers
think the Constitution provides for control of Education by the State. (See
Tolentino, Government of the Philippine Constitution, Vol. II, p. 615; Benitez,
Philippine Social Life and Progress, p. 335.)
The Constitution (it) "provides for state control of all educational institutions" even
as it enumerates certain fundamental objectives of all education to wit, the
development of moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and
vocational efficiency, and instruction in the duties of citizenship. (Malcolm & Laurel,
Philippine Constitutional Law, 1936.)
The Solicitor General cities many authorities to show that the power to regulate
means power to control, and quotes from the proceedings of the
Constitutional Convention to prove that State control of private education was
intended by the organic law. It is significant to note that the Constitution grants
power to supervise and to regulate. Which may mean greater power than mere
regulation.
Case #3: GIL BALBUNA,, ET AL., petitioners and appellants,, vs. THE HON..
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, respondents and appellees. -> NO, the Department
Order is not an undue delaegation of legislative power. The Department Order
constitute an adequate standard, to wit, simplicity and dignity of the flag
ceremony and the singing of the National Anthem — specially when
contrasted with other standards heretofore upheld by the Courts: "public
interest" "public welfare" "interest of law and order" ; justice and equity
and the substantial merits of the case" or "adequate and efcient instruction"
That the Legislature did not specify the details of the flag ceremony is no
objection to the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the
laying down of standards and policy that will limit the discretion of the regulatory
agency.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
Case #4: THE INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD AND VENEER COMPANY vs. THE
PANGIL FEDERATION OF LABOR. 1940 -> YES, the CIR has the power to determine
minimum wages for an individual employer in connection with an industrial dispute
under provisions of Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 103, and such grant of power is
constitutional. SEPARATION OF POWERS; DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS;
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. — Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103
prescribes that in the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or
controversy and in exercising any duties and power under this Act, the COURT
SHALL ACT according to JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUBSTANTIAL MERITS OF THE
CASE, without regard to technicalities or legal forms. ** The National Assembly,
under Sec. 20 of the CA No. 103 has also furnished a sufficient standard by which
the court will be guided in exercising its discretion in the determination of any
question or controversy before it. The requisites for such delegation therefore
were complied with, namely: a.) The completeness of the statute making the
delegation; and b.) The PRESENCE OF SUFFICIENT STANDARDS Such discretionary
power which is in judicial character being conferred to the CIR does not infringe
upon the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. It is recognized in administrative law
that such doctrine does not preclude a certain degree of admixture of the three
powers of the government to administrative agency. The non-delegation of powers
is not absolute. Exceptions are circumstances which are brought by the
complexities in our government. Example is that there are matters which really
requires specialized knowledge and expertise which is possessed by administrative
agencies. STANDARDS ____ EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; POWER OF COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO DETERMINE MINIMUM WAGES; COMMONWEALTH ACT
NO. 103. Petitioner’s view was without merit. Petitioner gave only a narrow
construction under Section 5 of CA No. 103. The Court of Industrial Relations was
granted the plenary powers to ―settle all questions, matters, controversies, or
disputes arising between, and /or affecting employees and employers.‖ The
Commonwealth Act should receive a construction that will lead to its very objective
namely, which is to create an instrumentality through which intervention of the
government could be made effective in order to prevent non-pacific methods in the
determinations of industrial or agricultural disputes. — The Court of Industrial
22
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
Relations has the power to determine minimum wages for an individual employee
in connection with an industrial dispute which said court might take cognizance of
under the provisions of section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, and such grant of
power is constitutional. — Under section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the
Court of Industrial Relations is empowered to "take cognizance for purposes of
prevention, arbitration, decision, and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural
dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lock-out, arising from differences as
regards wages, shares or compensation, dismissals, lay-offs, or suspensions of
employees or laborers, tenants or farm-laborers, hours of labor, or conditions of
tenancy or employment, between employers and employees or laborers and
between landlords and tenants or farm- laborers." -Under section 1, the court has
"jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle
all questions, matters, controversies, or disputes arising between, and/or affecting
employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers,
and regulate the relations between them, subject to the provisions of this Act (as
amended by Com. Act No. 254); -and by section 13, it is provided that "in making
an award, order or decision, under the provisions of section four of this Act, the
court shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made by the
parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order
or decision any matter or determination which may be deemed necessary or
expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial
or agricultural dispute." ___ “The theory of the separation of powers is designed by
its originators to secure action and at the same time to forestall overreaction which
necessarily results from undue concentration of powers, and thereby obtain
efficiency and prevent despotism. Thereby, the "rule of law" was established which
narrows the range of governmental action and makes it subject to control by
certain legal devices... One thing, however, is apparent in the development of the
principle of separation of powers and that is that the maxim of delegatus non
potestdelegari / ―no delegated powers can be further delegated‖ — or
delegatapotestas non potestdelegari/ ―one to whom power is delegated cannot
himself further delegate that power", has been made to adapt itself to the
complexities of modern governments, giving rise to the adoption, within certain
limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation"... Accordingly, with the growing
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental
regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a
constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the
legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the courts.‖
Case #5: EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS
EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, (POEA), MINISTER OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, HEARING OFFICER ABDUL KASAR and KATHLEEN D. SACO -> No,
Memorandum Circular No. 2 does not violate of the principle of non-delegation of
legislative power. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative
regulation.The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in
requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard
guiding the delegate in the exercise of the said authority. That standard is
discoverable in the executive order itself which, in creating the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino
workers to "fair and equitable employment practices." The authority to issue the
said regulation is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 797,
reading as follows: "...The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), as
hereunder provided, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern
the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the Administration (POEA)… It is true
that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be
delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may
be enforced, not what the law shall be. There are two accepted tests to determine
whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness
test and (2) the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that
when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it. Under
the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the
law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the
delegation from
23
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative
authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the
legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. The principle of nondelegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the Government.
The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing
inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its
attention. To many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the
legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and
efficacious, not to say, specific solutions.These solutions may, however, be
expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields
assigned to them. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their
attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more
necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry
out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the "power of subordinate
legislation." The petition is DISMISSED. ❖Permissible delegation of legislative
power under the Constitution ✓To the President * Section 23(2) - In times of war
or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorise the President, for
a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof. *Section 28(2) - The Congress may, by law, authorise the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations as it may
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program
of the Government. ✓To Local Government Units * Section 3 - The Congress shall
enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralisation with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum. *
Section 5 - Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own
sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, subject to such guidelines
and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of
local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local
governments. * Section 10 - No province, city, municipality, or Barangay may be
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in
accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject
to approval by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly
affected. ✓People’s Initiative and Referendum * Section 32 - The Congress shall, as
early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the
exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or
approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local
legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor, signed by at least ten
per centrum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters
thereof. ✓Autonomous Regions * Section 18 - The creation of the autonomous
region shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the
constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only
provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favourably in such plebiscite shall be
included in the autonomous region. * Section 20 - Within its territorial jurisdiction
and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act
of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
(1) Administrative organisations;
(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
(4) Personal, family and property relations;
(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;
(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;
(7) Education policies;
(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage
(9) Such other matters as may be authorised by law for the promotion of the
general welfare of the people of the region.
24
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
In administrative proceedings, the function and power of administrative
agency principally concerned here is the adjudicatory or determinative
powers.
Case #6: PRIMITIVO LOVINA, and NELLY MONTILLA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. HON.
FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works and Communications, and
BENJAMIN YONZON, defendants-appellants. G.R. No. L-17821
November 29,
1963 -> NO, RA 2056 is not unconstitutional and it does not vests undue delegation
of judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The
objections of the appellees to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 2056, not
only as an undue delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works but
also for being unreasonable and arbitrary, are not tenable. It will be noted that the
Act (R.A. 2056) merely empowers the Secretary to remove unauthorized
obstructions or encroachments upon public streams, constructions that no private
person was anyway entitled to make, because the bed of navigable streams is
public property, and ownership thereof is not acquirable by adverse possession. It
is true that the exercise of the Secretary's power under the Act necessarily involves
the determination of some questions of fact, such as the existence of the stream
and its previous navigable character; but these functions, whether judicial or quasijudicial, are merely incidental to the exercise of the power granted by law to clear
navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions or encroachments, and authorities
are clear that they are, validly conferable upon executive officials provided the
party affected is given opportunity to be heard, as is expressly required by Republic
Act No. 2056, section 2.
(1) Agency acts both in legislative and judicial capacity -> In a single
determination, an administrative agency may act in both a legislative and
judicial capacity. Although it is still important to distinguish “rule-making” and
“adjudication” by administrative agencies, since in some areas there are
important procedural differences in these functions.
(2) Fundamental procedural requirements to be observed -> Duty imposed
upon an administrative agency which requires a quasi-judicial proceeding as
a requisite of action - duty which carries with it fundamental procedural
requirements to the end that arbitrary action be excluded. It is widely different
from ordinary executive action.
(3) Proceeding terminates when appeal has been taken -> The
administrative proceeding is at end when an appeal has been taken to court,
and it is merged in the decree of the court when the agency has procured a
judicial decree enforcing its order.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS
2.
Administrative proceedings - According to the Administrative
(1) Adversary in nature -> Every proceeding is adversary in substance if it
Code of 1987 -> an agency process with respect to rule-making,
may result in an order in favour of one person against another, and the
adjudication and licensing.
proceeding is nonetheless an adversary one because the primary purpose of
the agency is to protect the public interests. (Example: case of proceedings
before the National Labor Relations Commission, revocation of a license
GENERALLY
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
upon an order to show cause)
25
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(2) Quasi-judicial or judicial in nature -> Proceedings before administrative
bodies partake of the nature of judicial proceedings if it involves the (a) taking
to collateral attack. A void judgment is no judgment at all. It can never
become final and executory; hence, an appeal is out of the question.
and evaluation of evidence; (b) determination of facts based upon the
evidence presented, and (c) rendering an order or decision supported by the
facts proved.
(3) Civil, not criminal, in nature -> Proceeding has been held civil rather than
criminal even though the charge before the agency is based upon a violation
of the penal law. However, in such cases, fairness may require the
observance of the salutary purposes behind certain rules of criminal
procedure. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and
(2) Scope -> An administrative tribunal has only such jurisdiction and power
as are expressly or by necessary implications conferred upon it by law. Thus,
all controversies or matters relating to the subject matter pertaining to its
specialisation are deemed to be included within its jurisdiction since “split
jurisdiction is not favoured.” An administrative agency may have jurisdiction
over a case before it, but where it acts in a spirit of hostility and unfairness in
the examination of a party’s witnesses, thereby depriving him of a full and fair
hearing, its decision will be set aside for it has rendered itself incapacitated to
consider and weigh the evidence impartially.
fundamental procedural principles such as the right to due process in
investigations and hearings. (Example: departmental trials or proceedings for
the discipline of police officers, license revocation, quarantine proceedings,
and deportation proceedings)
(4) Not an action at law -> An adjudicatory proceeding before an
administrative agency is not an action at law; nor is it a litigation between
private parties. Under some statutes, an administrative proceeding is not a
private one but is a public one looking to public ends. Some administrative
proceedings are neither preventive nor compensatory, but are preventive and
remedial to implement a public policy.
JURISDICTION
•
It is a power and authority given by law to hear and decide a case. It
consists of two elements - jurisdiction over the subject matter and
jurisdiction over the person.
(1) Necessity -> Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations
of administrative agencies. Without jurisdiction, their acts are void and open
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
(3) Source -> Administrative agencies, acting in their quasi-judicial capacity,
are tribunals of limited and special jurisdiction, that is to hear and determine
a class of cases within their peculiar competence and expertise. Their
jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the validity and the terms of the
statutes reposing power in them, and they cannot confer jurisdiction on
themselves. Where the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal is established
by the Constitution, a statute attempting to enlarge such jurisdiction is
unconstitutional.
(4) Conduct; waiver; estoppel -> An administrative agency cannot enlarge its
own jurisdiction nor can jurisdiction be conferred upon the agency by parties
before it. Accordingly, it is held that deviations from an agency’s statutorily
established sphere of action cannot be upheld because it is based upon
agreement, contract, consent of the parties; nor can they be made effective
by waiver or estoppel. It is elementary, however, that the active participation
of a party in a case pending against him before a court or quasi-judicial body,
is tantamount to a recognition of that court’s or body’s jurisdiction and a
willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from
later on impugning its jurisdiction.
26
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(5) Determination of existence -> When a particular statute authorises an
administrative agency to act in a particular situation, it necessarily confers
upon such agency authority to determine whether the situation is such as to
authorise the agency to act - that is, to determine the coverage of the statute
- and this question need not, and in fact cannot, be initially decided by a
court. However, an administrative agency’s determination as to its jurisdiction
is not conclusive upon the courts.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction -> if the case is such that its determination
requires the expertise, specialised 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 a court.
(6) Failure to exercise power -> While failure of an agency for a long time to
use an important power indicates a practical construction that the power
does not exist, a failure to exercise jurisdiction does not result in its loss. The
principle is applicable where an agency has declined in certain cases to
assume jurisdiction which it possesses.
Case #1: LA UNION LABOR UNION vs . PHILIPPINE TOBACCO FLUECURING & REDRYING CORPORATION -> YES, the assailed decision was
rendered without authority. The Wage Administration Service is not
empowered to render a decision binding on the parties in cases involving
claims for wages, underpayment, etc., unless the parties enter into a written
agreement to submit their dispute or differences to the WAS for arbitration,
pursuant to Section 9, Article 7 (c), Chapter 3 of the Code of Rules and
Procedure promulgated on January 20, 1953 by the Secretary of Labor, to
implement the provisions of the Minimum Wage Law. The ordinary function
of the
Wage Administration Service is to hear complaints or claims for
wages; and conciliate the parties if possible, and if they are willing to
submit the case for arbitration, to have said parties enter into a written
agreement that they submit the case for arbitration and decision, and
that they would abide by the result of said arbitration, otherwise, all
that the WAS could do if it found the claim for wages meritorious, is to
file the corresponding complaint in a competent court. The agreement
of the parties before the Industrial Court and the stipulation of the
proviso did not fully authorized the WAS thru its agent to render a
decision. We consider that stipulation to be insufficient to confer
power and jurisdiction on the WAS to decide the case. The law and
the Code of Rules and Procedure issued by the Secretary of Labor
require a written agreement signed by the parties to submit to
arbitration and to abide by the result of the decision flowing from said
arbitration. Furthermore Tobacco Corporation was not able to present
evidence and later to appeal from this co-called decision of the Labor
(7) Expiration or repeal of statute -> Expiration of a statute may be held not
to deprive an administrative agency of jurisdiction to enforce the statute as to
liabilities incurred while the statute was in force, where a general saving
statute continues such liabilities. Where there is no saving clause, repeal of a
statute while proceedings are pending and prior to the filing of an order, may
remove any support in law for such order.
(8) Jurisdiction of courts -> Administrative agencies are creatures of law, and
they have no general powers but only such as have been conferred upon
them by law.
(a) Where the law confines in an administrative office the power to determine
particular questions or matters upon the facts presented, the jurisdiction of
such office shall prevail over the courts.
(b) It may occur that the courts have jurisdiction to take cognisance of a
particular case although it involves a matter that demands the special
competence of administrative agencies because the matter is also judicial in
character.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
27
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
Attorney because he was in a hurry and the Corporation was under
the impression that the Attorney was merely conducting an
investigation.
Case #2: DOLORITO M. FELICIANO and MAXIMO B. TAPINIO,
applicants- appellees. MELITON D. ALBAÑA, petitioner-appellant, vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, respondent-appellee. G.R. No. L4572 -> NO, the Director of Patents has no jurisdiction over the case.
Assignments of patents and inventions covered thereby may be
recorded in books and records kept for the purpose in the Patent
Office if presented in due form. But where a person other than the
inventor files a motion with the Director of Patents praying that the
applicant-inventor be compelled to sign the contract executed by a
co-applicant-inventor and both applicant-inventors to acknowledge it
before a notary public and then to have both documents recorded in
the Patent Office and in the office of the registrar of deeds, the
Director of Patents has no power and authority to compel the
applicant-inventors to do what the movant is asking them to perform.
What the movant asks the Director of Patents to do for him is
essentially a judicial function which would require the determination of
finding by a court of competent jurisdiction as to whether there was a
meeting of the minds of the contracting parties before it could compel
any of them to perform what the movant prays the court to order him
to do.
2.
Rules on Adjudication under the Administrative Code
Administrative Due Process
(1) Nature -> The right to due process is not merely statutory. It is a
constitutional right. It applies to, and must be observed in judicial as well as
administrative proceedings to every case which may deprive a person of life,
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
liberty, or property. The liberality of procedure in administrative actions is still
subject to limitations by the fundamental requirement of this constitutional
guarantee.
(2) Essence -> The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the
basic requirement of notice and real opportunity to be heard. As applied to
administrative proceedings, it simply means an opportunity to explain one’s
side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of, and to submit any evidence a person may have in support of
his defense.
(a) For as long as the parties were afforded fair and reasonable opportunity
to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their arguments before
judgment was rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.
(b) Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.
Administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict
judicial sense for it is enough that a party is given the chance to be heard
before the case against him is decided.
(c) One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and
perhaps many times more creditably and practicable than oral agreement,
through pleadings. There is no violation of procedural due process even if no
formal or trial-type hearing was conducted, where the party was notified of
the charge against him and given a chance to defend himself or explain his
side of controversy. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for an
administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers,
affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of
witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.
(d) What is frowned upon or repugnant to due process is the denial of the
opportunity to be heard. Hence, a party cannot complain denial of due
process on the ground that he was not given the chance to cross-examine
the adverse party and his witnesses where he had been afforded every
opportunity to present his side, or that he was not allowed to present
additional evidence before a quasi-judicial official where said party, in the
28
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
appeal before said official, had already submitted voluminous supporting
documents.
(3) Requisites:
(a) The right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the
proceedings that may affect a person’s legal right.
(b) The night to reasonable opportunity to appear personally or with the
assistance of counsel and defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and
relevant evidence in his favour, by testimony or otherwise, and to controvert
the evidence of the other party.
(c) The right to a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction, so constituted as
to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality.
(d) The right to a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial
evidence presented at the hearing or at least ascertained in the records, or
disclosed or made known to the parties affected. The rule is that a decision
rendered without due process is void ab initio, and may be attacked at
anytime directly or collaterally by means of a separate action or proceeding
where it is invoked.
Case #1: AIR MANILA vs. HON. MARCELO S. BALATBAT -> Whether or
not the Civil Aeronautics Board acted without jurisdiction when it issued
Resolution No. 139 (68): Administrative proceedings are not exempt from
the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedural principles, such
as the due process requirements in investigations and trials. And this
administrative due process is recognized to include (a) the right to notice,
be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may
affect a person’s legal rights; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and
defend his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor, (c)
a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of
honesty and impartiality, and one of competent Jurisdiction; and (d) a finding
or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented
at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
affected. In the present case, the provisional approval by the Board of
PAL’s proposed DTS-35 does not violate the requisites of administrative due
process. Admittedly, after PAL’s proposal to introduce new night flights had
been referred to a hearing examiner for economic justification, PAL
submitted a so-called consolidated schedule of flights, DTS-35, that
included the same night flights involved in Case 1414, and this was allowed
by Resolution No. 139 (68). Also, the provisional authorization of DTS-35
does not violate the requisite hearing and investigation of the new flight
schedules, and consequently, it did not deprive Air Manila of its right to be
heard. In allowing the operation or effectivity of PAL’s consolidated flight
schedule, it was precisely prescribed that ―all schedules under the DTS-35
for which no previous approval has been granted by the Board, are hereby
referred to a hearing examiner for reception of evidence on its economic
justification. Such hearings were actually conducted by the hearing examiner
and a report on the result thereof was submitted to the Board. And the
Board, considering the said report, passed Resolution no. 190 (68)
approving the 3 or 4 frequencies of the 7 new flights. There is no proof, not
even allegation, that in all those bearings, Air Manila was not notified
or given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of its opposition.
It may be true that the temporary approval of DTS-35 resulted in the
immediate operation of the opposed flights before the existence of
economic justification therefor has been finally determined. But this fact
alone would not work against the validity of the provisional authorization thus
issued. For, under the law, the Civil Aeronautics Board is not only
empowered to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity; it
can also issue, deny, revise, alter, modify, cancel suspend or revoke, in
whole or in part, any temporary operating permit, upon petition or
complaint of another or even at its own initiative. It may be also pointed out
that the new schedule objected to by Air Manila will affect its services in six
routes, but, the schedule of flights provisionally approved in Resolution No.
139(68) was subsequently readjusted by the Board in order to conform with
its established policy on separation time between flights. It is evident from
the foregoing facts that not only has the resolution subject of the present
petition been modified, but its effectivity had been fixed up to 30
29
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
September 1968. There being no proof that the situation existing
when Resolution No. 139 (68) was issued still persists, the issue herein
presented apparently has become moot and academic.
Case #2: CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING v. LORETTA ANN
P.ROSALES + [ GR No. 209283, Mar 11, 2015 ] -> NO, Quisumbing's
contention that she was denied due process is incorrect. The petition
also fails with respect to the petitioner's claim of denial of due process. There
can be no denial of due process where a party was afforded an opportunity
to present his case. In the present case, the petitioner was given ample
opportunity to air her side on the allegations against her after being
sufficiently apprised of the allegations against her; she was afforded the
chance to submit her written explanation. Unfortunately, the petitioner failed
to avail of that right, and chose to directly seek the intervention of this Court.
These circumstances, by themselves, point the prematurity of the petition.
Jurisprudence tells us that the essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is the chance to explain one's side, or seek a reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the
opportunity to be heard before any definitive action is taken, the demands
of due process are sufficiently met.
We stress, at the outset, that the subsequent referral of the case to the
Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate prosecutorial action rendered
the issues raised in the present petition moot and academic insofar as the
CHR is concerned. Records disclose that the CHR, through Chairperson
Rosales and Commissioners Dela Cruz and Mamauag, issued an Order
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
stating that it could no longer act on the petitioner's Motion to Dismiss since
the case had been forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman. Thus, no
practical relief can be granted to the petitioner by resolving the present
petition since the proceedings before the CHR the initiation of an
investigation through the issuance of the assailed Show Cause Order had
been terminated. The petition likewise fails for plain lack of merit. The OSG
correctly argued that the respondents, in their official capacities as
Chairperson and Members of the CHR, did not engage in judicial or quasijudicial functions; they did not adjudicate the rights and obligations of the
contending parties but simply undertook to initiate the investigation of the
allegations against the petitioner. The inquiry was not a quasi-judicial
proceeding, where offenses were charged, parties were heard and
penalties were imposed. It was at most, an exercise of fact-finding
investigation, which is entirely distinct and different from the concept of
adjudication. The power to initiate an investigation and to refer the matter
to the Office of the Ombudsman is within the power of the CHR as an entity
with its own distinct personality and is recognized by no less than the
Constitution. Thus, the CHR did not commit any grave abuse of discretion
in its actions. In sum, we find that the petition for certiorari and prohibition
should be dismissed for mootness and for lack of merit.
(4) Right to counsel -> While investigations conducted by an administrative
body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, a party in an
administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel irrespective of
the nature of the charges and of the respondents capacity to represent
himself. No duty rests on such body to furnish the person investigated with
counsel. The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations
because the inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are
facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and
employees with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
The right, while desirable is not indispensable to due process unless required
by the Constitution or the law. An administrative body is thus under no duty
to provide a person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an
30
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
absolute requirement. This is especially true in military academy disciplinary
action, while the respondent Commission took cognizance of the compl
proceeding.
aint and by
telegram required Villa to submit a locational clearance, said responden
(5) Effect of denial of due process -> Constitutes grave abuse of discretion
t did not then or at any time before issuance of the order and writ of
and may result in the invalidation of the administrative proceedings and the
execution
order or determination entered against a party. A decision is void for lack of
complained of bother to put her on notice, formally or otherwise, of
due process if as a result a party is deprived of an opportunity to be heard. A
Veneracion's complaint. It was therefore wholly natural for Villa to assume,
void decision may be assailed or impugned at any time either directly or
as it is apparent she did, that no formal adversarial inquiry was underway
collaterally by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in
and that the telegram was what it purported to be on its face: a routinary
any action or proceeding where it is invoked.
request, issued motu
Case: ANITA VILLA vs. MANUEL LAZARO, as Presidential Assistant for
Legal Affairs, Office of the President, and the HUMAN SETTLEM
ENTS REGULATORY COMMISSION. 1990 |-> Yes, the petitioner is denied
of due
process. These facts present a picture of official incompetence or
gross negligence and abdication of duty, if not of active bias and partiality,
that is
most reprehensible. The result has been to subvert and put to naught
the judgment rendered in a suit regularly tried and decided by a court of
justice, to deprive one party of rights confirmed and secured thereby and to
accord
her adversary, in a different forum, the relief he had sought and been
denied in said case. Dr. Veneracion had resorted to the proscribed practice
of forum-shopping when,
following adverse judgment of the CFI in his suit to enjoin the constru
ction of
Villa's funeral parlor, he had, instead of appealing that judgment, lodge
d a
complaint with the respondent Commission on substantially the same g
round litigated in the
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
proprio/ on his own impulse, to submit proof of compliance with locatio
nal
requirements. And such assumption was doubtless fortified by petit
ioner's knowledge that she already had in her favor a judgment on the
subject against which her opponent had taken no recourse by appeal or
otherwise. Neither is there any serious dispute about what transpired
thereafter, about the
fact that in response to that first and the subsequent demands
sent by Commissioner Dizon, Villa not once but thrice furnished the
Commission by
registered mail with copies, variously, of official documents certifying to
her compliance with the pertinent locational, zoning and land use
requirements and plans. None of these documents appears to have made
any impression on Commissioner Dizon, whose show-cause order of
April 28, 1982 and order of June 29, 1982 imposing a P10K fine on p
etitioner made no mention of them whatsoever. Not even Villa's submission
of said documents a fourth time to support her motion for reconsideration of a
writ
of execution could move Commissioner Dizon to stop acting as if said
documents did not exist at all. True, only copies had been submitted, but
ordinary prudence and fairness dictated at least some inquiry into their
31
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
authenticity, and this would not have posed any great difficulty considering
and trials. And this administrative process is recognized to include: (a)
their purportedly official
the
origins. There was absolutely no excuse for initiating what is held
RIGHT TO NOTICE, be it actual or constructive, of the institution OF
out as an
THE PROCEEDINGS that may affect a person’s legal right;
administrative proceeding against Villa without informing her of the com
(b) REASONABLE
plaint which initiated the case; for conducting that inquiry in the most informal
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND DEFEND HIS RIGHTS, INTRO
manner
DUCE
by means only of communications requiring submission of certain docu
WITNESSES AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE in his favor; (c) a TRIBUNA
ments, which left the impression that compliance was all that was expected
L SO CONSTITUTED as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and
of her and with which directives she promptly and religiously complied;
impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction; and (d) a FINDING OR
assuming that one of the documents thus successively submitted had been
DECISION BY THAT
received, but given the fact
TRIBUNAL SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED
that on at least two occasions, their transmission had been preceded
at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties
by
affected. -- And it being clear that some,
telegrams announcing that they would follow by mail, for failing to call
at least, of those essential elements did not
Villa's attention to their non-
obtain or were not present in the proceedings complained of, any judg
receipt or to make any other attempt to trace their whereabouts; for
ment rendered, or order issued, therein was null and void, could never
ruling against Villa on the spurious premise that she has failed
become final and could be attacked in any appropriate proceeding. Also, an
to submit the documents required; and for maintaining to the very end
earlier judgment on the merits by a competent court cannot be negated
pretense of lack of compliance even after
by a result of administrative proceedings. What the record shows is th
being presented with a fourth set of documents and the decision in the
at the petitioner responded promptly to orders and communications sent to
court case upholding her right to operate her funeral parlor in its questioned
her. At any rate, this court will not permit the result of an administrative
location. Whether born of ineptitude, negligence, bias or malice, su
proceeding riddled with serious defects already pointed out to negate an
ch lapses are indefensible. Petitioner is plainly the victim of either gross
earlier judgment on the merits on the same matter regularly rendered by
ignorance or negligence or abuse of power, or a combination of both. All of
competent court.
the foregoing translate to a DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS against which the
defense of failure to take timely appeal will not avail. ——
— Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain
basic and fundamental
procedural principles, such as the due process requirements in investig
ations
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
3. Applicability of rules governing judicial proceedings
(1) Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily -> the differences in origin and
function of courts and of administrative agencies preclude the wholesale
32
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
transportation to administrative proceedings of the rules of procedure, trial,
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court -> Sec. 24. Proof of official record.
and review which have evolved from the history and experience of courts.
- The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of section 19,
The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to
when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
proceedings before an administrative body with quasi-judicial powers only in
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
the absence of different and valid statutory or administrative proceedings
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
prescribing the ground rules for the investigation, hearing and adjudication of
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the officer in
cases before it.
which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-
(2) Strict legal rules not applicable -> Usually, the procedure of administrative
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
agencies is not as formal and strict as that of the court, and the regularity of
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
such proceedings is not to be tested by the strict legal rules which prevail in
the authenticated by the seal of his office.
courts of law.
(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative
(a) The atmosphere of administrative tribunals may be one of
agencies are, as a rule, unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of
expeditiousness, expertness, or liberally conceived remedies.
procedure applicable to courts in the adjudication of cases, administrative
(b) All the strict rules of evidence governing judicial controversies do not
need to be observed; only such as are fundamental and essential like the
agencies, the same as courts, must act within, and cannot exceed, their
jurisdiction, nor entirely dispense with the basic rules on proving allegations.
right of cross-examination. Hearsay evidence may even be admitted,
provided the party interested is given the opportunity to explain or rebut it.
Documents which cannot eb admitted in a judicial proceeding where the
•
Rules of Court are strictly observed may be accepted.
(c) Conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies have consistently
required some proof of authentication or reliability as a condition for
admission of documents. An official document from a foreign government
can be admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body
even without observing the rules on presenting official documents of a
foreign government as provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
where the opposing parties have a copy of said document, and they can
easily verify its authenticity and accuracy.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
•
An administrative agency’s exemption from strict legal rules of
procedure does not empower it to act arbitrarily, and even a statutory
exemption from rules of procedure cannot authorise exemption from
the due process guarantee in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
powers. Thus, it has no power to make conclusions of fact before
hearing all the parties concerned. The right to notice and hearing is
essential to due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, will
invalidate administrative proceedings.
Due process, however, in an administrative context does not require
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. The
constitutional mandate is deemed fully satisfied where the parties are
33
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand.
such proceedings is not to be tested by the strict legal rules which prevail in
courts of law.
(a) The atmosphere of administrative tribunals may be one of
expeditiousness, expertness, or liberally conceived remedies.
(b) All the strict rules of evidence governing judicial controversies do not
need to be observed; only such as are fundamental and essential like the
right of cross-examination. Hearsay evidence may even be admitted,
provided the party interested is given the opportunity to explain or rebut it.
Documents which cannot eb admitted in a judicial proceeding where the
Rules of Court are strictly observed may be accepted.
(c) Conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies have consistently
required some proof of authentication or reliability as a condition for
admission of documents. An official document from a foreign government
can be admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body
even without observing the rules on presenting official documents of a
3. Applicability of rules governing judicial proceedings
(1) Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily -> the differences in origin and
function of courts and of administrative agencies preclude the wholesale
transportation to administrative proceedings of the rules of procedure, trial,
and review which have evolved from the history and experience of courts.
The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to
proceedings before an administrative body with quasi-judicial powers only in
the absence of different and valid statutory or administrative proceedings
prescribing the ground rules for the investigation, hearing and adjudication of
cases before it.
(2) Strict legal rules not applicable -> Usually, the procedure of administrative
foreign government as provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
where the opposing parties have a copy of said document, and they can
easily verify its authenticity and accuracy.
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court -> Sec. 24. Proof of official record.
- The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of section 19,
when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the officer in
which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, viceconsul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
agencies is not as formal and strict as that of the court, and the regularity of
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
34
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
the authenticated by the seal of his office.
(d) Due process requirement to be observed -> Although administrative
agencies are, as a rule, unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of
procedure applicable to courts in the adjudication of cases, administrative
agencies, the same as courts, must act within, and cannot exceed, their
jurisdiction, nor entirely dispense with the basic rules on proving allegations.
•
•
An administrative agency’s exemption from strict legal rules of
procedure does not empower it to act arbitrarily, and even a statutory
exemption from rules of procedure cannot authorise exemption from
the due process guarantee in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
powers. Thus, it has no power to make conclusions of fact before
hearing all the parties concerned. The right to notice and hearing is
essential to due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, will
invalidate administrative proceedings.
Due process, however, in an administrative context does not require
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. The
constitutional mandate is deemed fully satisfied where the parties are
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand.
Case: CONSOLACION BAUTISTA, in representation of deceased
ANDRES
BAUTISTA,
vs.
WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS -> Yes the
petitioner was deprived of due process. Failure of the counsel of claimant
to appear on the scheduled hearings is excusable because he either
received the notice of hearing by ordinary mail several days after the
scheduled date or he was not notified of the said hearings. Furthermore,
the WCC record does not show that indeed counsel for claimant received
notice of hearing prior to the aforesaid scheduled date of hearing.
The Court ruled that the respondent Commission gravely abused its
discretion in ignoring and in not passing upon the issue of denial of due
process squarely presented by claimant's counsel. The very rules of the
Commission require the giving of reasonable notice of hearing to each
party interested by service upon him personally or by registered mail of a
copy thereof at his last known post office address or if he is represented
by a counsel, through the latter, so as to ensure observance and protection
of an interested party's right to a hearing.
Patent therefore is the failure of the hearing officer to observe these rules.
Under
the circumstances, claimant was clearly deprived of his day in court.
Consequently, the dismissal of the claim premised on claimant and his
counsel's "repeated non-appearance" at the aforestated hearings cannot
stand.
ON JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
It is the contention of the petitioner that the evidence on record is already
sufficient as a basis for the rendition of a decision on the merits; and prays
that the claim be now resolved on the basis thereof.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
35
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, We agree with petitioner.
WE have previously ruled that on the basis of the pleadings before Us,
despite a technical or procedural lapse in the hearing below, We can
decide a compensation claim and terminate the matter here and now. WE
reasoned out that, the law being in claimant's favor, humane reasons
aimed at promoting justice and the general welfare of the workingman,
justify the rendition of a decision on the merits. The niceties and
refinements of technical rules on procedure must give way to effect
substantial justice to the claimant.
does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases or
preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. A statute may specially provide
for a greater or a lesser degree of proof than simple preponderance.
Findings of facts of administrative agencies must be respected as long as
they are supported by substantial evidence even if they are not
overwhelming or preponderant as in civil cases. Substantial evidence, as has
been stated before, is more than a mere scintilla, it means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
It must be clarified that although Andres applied for retirement on August
16, 1973 on the ground of disability and stopped working on that date, he
apparently resumed working when his retirement application was not
acted upon and thereafter again filed and/or reiterated his application for
retirement. These account for his conflicting claims as to the exact date
when he filed his application for retirement and stopped working for
respondent employer. At any rate, those conflicting dates cannot prejudice
this compensation claim as it is clear that claimant's illness supervened in
the course of employment and his disability took place before the
compulsory age of retirement.
The absence of an x-ray report cannot prejudice claimant's right to
compensation. For We have already ruled that an x-ray report/result is not
an indispensable prerequisite to compensation; and that said x-ray finding
need not be attached to the Physician's Report, because it can be logically
inferred from the said report that a previous x-ray examination was made.
Otherwise, the physician could not have arrived at his diagnosis.
4. Quantum of proof required in administrative cases
The degree of proof required by which a case must be established before an
administrative tribunal is not satisfied by proof creating an equipoise, but it
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
conclusion even if other equally reasonable minds conceivably opine
otherwise and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is a contrary
evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the court in determining
wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief,
cannot substitute its own judgment or criteria for that of the administrative
agency.
•
•
substantial evidence vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt
substantial evidence vs. preponderance of evidence
Case #1: RICARDO S. SANTOS, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON.
MARIANO NABLE, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellees. [G.R.
No. L-12073. May 23, 1961.] -> YES, the petitioner must be given
an opportunity to prove by secondary evidence. Upon the other hand
— as far as the record discloses — when the first reinvestigation was
made, appellant's books were not returned to him in order that he
may use them to prove the inaccuracy of some of the findings of
agent Cosare, and the reinvestigation consisted merely in Cosare
going over the books again by himself. When during the hearing
before the Conference Staff, the Bureau of Internal Revenue could
not produce appellant's books when such production was
demanded, the latter was virtually deprived of the opportunity to
prove his case with the best possible evidence — his own books. It
36
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
is true — as appellee says in his brief — that a taxpayer who
contests the correctness of an assessment has the burden of proving
his contention. This, appellant was willing to do but, as already
stated, he was deprived of the best means of doing it with the loss of
his books. His only error, perhaps, was in not producing secondary
evidence of their contents during the hearing before the Conference
Staff.
In view of the circumstances disclosed by the record, we believe that, in
equity, appellant should be given a last opportunity to prove — even
with secondary evidence —
TAXATION; ASSESSMENT QUESTIONED; TAXPAYER'S BOOKS LOST
BY B.I.R. AGENT; TAXPAYER MUST BE GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE CONTENTION BY SECONDARY
EVIDENCE. — Where a taxpayer questions the correctness of an
assessment against him and is apparently not acting in bad faith or
merely attempting to delay payment, but is deprived of the best
means of proving his contention because his books of account were
lost by the B.I.R. agent who examined them, said taxpayer must be
given an opportunity to prove, by secondary evidence that the
assessment is incorrect.
Case #2: ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN, petitioner, vs.
PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY AND LA MALLORCA COMPANY,
respondents. GR L-7996-99 -> No, the Public Service Commission
have not erred in denying the application of Buan for additional lines.
The law, in investing the Public Service Commission with power
of supervision and control over public transportation has also
clothed it with broad discretion in the exercise of that power.
With that discretion Supreme Court is not supposed to interfere
except in case of clear abuse. Where the findings of the Public
Service Commission are obviously supported by more than
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
substantial evidence the same are binding upon the Supreme
Court and the latter is not required to examine the proof de
novo and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance
of evidence really justified the decision appealed from. The
Commision sent 2 checkers to inspect the situation to aid in the
determination of whether additional service is needed by the public.
The Commission was able to conclude that there was indeed no
need for additional services. Absent proof that the Commission
abused its discretion/powers, Court respects Commission judgment.
Case #3: GLENIA UY, for and in behalf of her minors,* REYNALDO,
MARIA ELENA (MARILEN), and CONCHITA, all surnamed UY,
petitioners, vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION
and LUCY PEREZ, respondents. [G.R. No. L-43389 April 28,
1980] -> NO, Perez's contention that the Uys failed to support its
claim of employment with documentary evidence but only through
oral testimonies of witnesses is incorrect. Again, the SC cannot
agree with Perez for "an employee is any person in the service of
another under a contract for hire, express or implied, oral or written
(Sunripe Coconut Products Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
& Sunrise Coconut Workers' Union [CLO], L-2009, April 30, 1949,
XIV L.J. 472; citing Medermott's Case, 283 Mass. 74; Werner vs.
Industrial Comm., 212 Wis. 76; Emphasis supplied). Moreover, it is
true that the existence of employer-employee relationship is often
difficult of determination because it was purposely made so by
employers bent on evading liability under the Workmen's
Compensation and Nationalization Laws.
In the case at bar, records disclosed that deceased Ki Lam Uy was employed
as "machine operator," "overseer" or "cashier" of Perez. The
respondent Commission failed to give due weight to the police report
of Patrolman Amador Profetana, which Identified the deceased as
37
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
"the overseer of Lucy Perez," the private respondent who resides in
Ormoc City. Patrolman Profetana, who investigated the killing made
an initial spot report stating among other things "(t)hat at about
1900H [7:00 P.M.] 27 September 1974 an incident took place in the
house of a certain Lucy Perez at Sitio Agay- ayan Bo. Tugbong,
Kananga, Leyte per verbal report of the rice mill caretaker thereat
received at the Police Headquarters on the same evening of 27 Sept.
1974 at around 203OH [8:30 P.M.].
A combined PC-Police Team was sent to conduct an on-the-spot
investigation and it as found out that a certain Vicente Uy (alias Ki
Lam Uy), 67 years, married, Chinese citizen under ACR# and an
overseer of Lucy Perez with residence at Ormoc City was killed
inside his dwelling after having been hacked several times on
different parts of his body that resulted in his immediate death. A
portion of the decision of the Hearing Officer, who found the
existence of employer-employee relationship between the deceased
and private respondent, is hereunder quoted: The said witness
(Patrolman Amador Profetana) further testified that the deceased, Ki
Lam Uy, was in charge of the management of the farm of Lucy
Perez, as well as the rice mill, the buying and selling palay and other
activities in connection with the business of the respondent, Lucy
Perez; that the respondent, Lucy Perez, was engaged in buying
palay and milling said palay in her rice mill at Bo. Tugbong,
Kananga, Leyte and selling the milled palay at Ormoc City; that
because of the activities of the deceased, he considered the
deceased as an overseer of the respondent, Lucy Perez, that he
found from his investigation that the cause for which the chinaman Ki
Lam Uy alias Vicente Uy was murdered it as because of the demand
of the robbers for money from him as the deceased was the one
handling the money of the respondent in buying palay, and as such,
he was entrusted with the same; that he further found out that at the
time of the robbery there was no sufficient cash in the possession of
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
the deceased and the cash he had was hardly sufficient to buy five
(5) sacks of palay, but in spite of that, the deceased Ki Lam Uy alias
Vicente Uy refused to surrender the same to the robbers as the
same was in his possession, so he was killed by the assailants
(robbers). There is no quarrel as to the admissibility of said police
report as Section 1 (d), Rule 16 of the Workmen's Compensation
Commission Rules specifically affirms the admissibility of reports of
government agencies covering material facts. Additionally, Section
5318.01, Labor Manual impliedly supports the admissibility of police
reports. It reads: The cooperation of the following government
agencies or officials may be sought in developing evidence to
establish claims:
a. The Bureau of Mines & Bureau of Health ... b. The Bureau of Customs ...
c. The Weather Bureau ...
d. Provincial, City or Municipal Officials — When appropriate, the aid of these
officials may be requested in securing copies of police reports,
locating claimant's or employers' whereabouts, or in making
payments of compensation to claimants (Fernandez & Quiazon,
Labor Standards & Welfare Legislation 689 [1964]).
xxx xxx xxx
The findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commission that an
employment relation existed was upheld as supported by substantial
evidence. In a police investigation conducted on the very day of the
accident, two workers of the petitioners declared in the course of the
investigation that the deceased was their co-worker. Considering that
these statements were made at a time when connivance was most
remote, because the question of
compensation had not yet arisen, these must be accepted as truthful,
although subsequently these workers tried to repudiate their own
38
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
declarations (Fernandez & Quiason, supra, Appendix, citing the case
of Jueco vs. Flores,
L-19325, Feb. 28, 1964, 10 SCRA 304, 307; Emphasis supplied).
The initial spot report (Annexes "L" & "M") made by the police officer in the
case at bar as to surrounding circumstances of the killing of Ki Lam
Uy merits belief as it was likewise made at a time when connivance
between the persons investigated was most remote and the question
of compensability under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not
yet in their minds. It may not be amiss to state further that nothing
appears in the record that would sufficiently overcome the
presumption that official duty had been performed. Henceforth, there
being no showing that the police officer in the present case
maliciously or recklessly conducted the investigation and prepared
the police report, the police report must be given more probative
weight than the bias testimonies of private respondent's witnesses.
The ruling of respondent Commission was in effect not in furtherance
of the presumption of moral sense of responsibility of police officers
and the presumption of regularity of acts of military officers contrary
to Our ruling in the case of People vs. Dela Cruz (L-1745, May 23,
1950; 5 Martin, Rules of Court 480 [1974]). While as a rule, matters
of credibility and weight to be assigned to a particular item of
evidence are primarily for the Commission, the same is true only
where the findings of the Commission are supported by substantial,
credible and competent evidence.
Case #4: PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE
MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, respondent. [G.R.
No. L-7338. May 31, 1955] -> NO, the Court of Industrial Relations
authorize the layoff of workers on the basis of an ocular inspection
without receiving full evidence to determine the cause of motive of
such layoff. In the course of the ocular inspection Judge Roldan
proceeded to interrogate the workers he found in the place in the
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
presence of the counsel of both parties. The testimony of those
interrogated was taken down and the counsel of both parties were
allowed to cross-examine them. Judge Roldan also proceeded to
examine some of the records of respondent company among them
the time cards of some workers which showed that while the workers
reported for work, when their presence was checked they were found
to be no longer in the premises. And on the strength of the findings
made by Judge Roldan in this ocular inspection he reached the
conclusion that the petition for layoff was justified because there was
no more work for the laborers to do in connection with the different
jobs given to them.
The record before the court on this matter is not clear and for such reason it
has no way of determining the truth of both claims.
-
The stenographic notes taken during the ocular inspection have not
been elevated for the reason undoubtedly that this is a petition for
review and the only issue before the court is one of law.
-
The only guide that the court finds is the order itself of the court of
origin which contains a reference to the evidence that it has
considered for the layoff of the workers. – NOV 8 Order
- Although the CIR, in the determination of any question or controversy, may
adopt, its own rules of procedure and may act according to justice
and equity without regard to technicalities, and for that matter is
not bound by any technical rules of evidence, this broad grant of
power should not be interpreted to mean that it can ignore or
disregard the fundamental requirements of due process in the
trials and investigations of cases brought before it for
determination. As aptly pointed out by this court,there are certain
cardinal primary rights which the CIR must respect in the trial of
every labor case. One of them is the right to a hearing which
39
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
includes the right of the party interested to present his own case
and submit evidence in support thereof.
- An ocular inspection of the establishment or premises involved is proper if
the court finds it necessary, but such is authorized only to help the
court in clearing a doubt, reaching a conclusion, or finding the
truth. But it is not the main trial nor should it exclude the
presentation of other evidence which the parties may deem
necessary to establish their case. It is merely an auxiliary remedy
the law affords the parties or the court to reach an enlightened
determination of the case.
- Considering the merits of the controversy before us, we are of the opinion
that the required due process has not been followed. The court a
quo merely acted on the strength of the ocular inspection it
conducted in the premises of the respondent company. The
petition for layoff was predicated on the lack of work and of the
further fact that the company was incurring financial losses. These
allegations cannot be established by a mere inspection of the
place of labor specially when such inspection was conducted at
the request of the interested party.
Case #5: FORTUNATO F. HALILI, petitioner, vs . JORGE R. FLORO,
respondent. [G.R. No. L-3465. October 25, 1951.] -> No. (1)
Oppositor waived his preference. — "Halili should have applied to
the Commission for that purpose before the respondent had
presented this application and made the requisite preparations for
increasing his carrying capacity. The oppositor has waived his
preference, if he had any, in supplying deficiency."
As counsel for petitioner says, such inspection could at best witness "the
superficial fact of cessation of work but it could not be determinative
of the larger and more fundamental issue of lack of work due to lack
of funds". This fundamental issue cannot be determined without
looking into the financial situation of the respondent company. In
fact, this matter is now being looked into by the court a quo in
connection with the fourteen demands of the labor union, but before
finishing its inquiry it decided to grant the lay- off pending final
determination of the main case. This action is in our opinion
premature and has worked injustice to the laborers.
(3) Factual findings supported by ample evidence binding upon the courts. —
"After a review of the evidence presented in connection with the
arguments of the parties regarding the conclusions of fact reached
by the Commission, We find that there is ample evidence to support
the decision in question with very cogent reasons. We are not at
liberty to substitute our own findings for those of the Commission
reasonably supported by the evidence even if We had some
plausible ground to make the modification, which in the present case
We do not have.”
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
(2) No showing that PSC decision contrary to law or rendered without
jurisdiction.
— "Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, known as the Public Service
Act, provides, among other things, that the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to modify or set aside an order, ruling, or decision of the
Public Service Commission 'when it clearly appears that there was
no evidence, before the Commission to support reasonably such
order, ruling, or decision, or that the same is contrary to law, or that it
was without the jurisdiction of the Commission.' It is not pretended
that the decision under review is contrary to law or that it was without
jurisdiction of the Commission."
40
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
5. Administrative res judicata
The doctrine of res judicata -> Provides that a final judgment on the merits
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of
the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent
action involving the same demand, claim, or cause of action. The doctrine
operates only upon the parties and prevents them, on account of a prior
determination, from litigating a controversy or issue which, except for the
prior determination, could have been litigated in the subsequent proceeding.
It, thus, forbids the reopening if a matter once determined by competent
authority acting within its jurisdiction.
As to determinations in the field of administrative law -> it is said that the rule
of res judicata is applicable to determinations in the field of administrative law
as well as to courts whenever consistent with the purposes of the tribunal,
board, or officer. Such departures from the rule as there may be in
administrative law appear to spring from the peculiar necessities of the
particular case or the nature of the precise power being exercised, rather
than from any general distinction between courts and administrative
tribunals. Even administrative proceedings must end sometime just as public
policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies.
6. Administrative appeals and review
(1) Hierarchy of authorities -> in many administrative systems, there is a
hierarchy of authorities so that by express provision of statute or otherwise:
(a) A review may be had within the administrative system itself of the action
of lower administrative authorities by their superiors
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
(b) A particular administrative body is authorised to hear and decide appeals
from, and review the determinations of, certain other administrative bodies or
officers.
(2) Types and kinds:
(a) That which inheres in the relation of administrative superior to
administrative subordinate where determinations are made at lower levels of
the same agency or department;
(b) That embraced in statutes which provide for a determination to be made
by a particular officer or body subject to appeal, review, or redetermination by
another officer or body in the same agency or in the same administrative
system;
(c) That in which the statute makes or attempts to make a court a part of the
administrative scheme by providing in terms or effect that the court, on
review of the action of an administrative agency, shall exercise powers of
such extent that they differ from ordinary judicial functions and involve a trial
de novo of matters of fact or discretion and application of the independent
judgment of the court;
(d) That in which the statute provides that an order made by a division of a
Commission or Board has the same force and effect as if made by the
Commission subject to a rehearing by the full Commission, for the
“rehearing” is practically an appeal to another administrative tribunal;
(e) That in which the statute provides for an appeal to an officer on an
intermediate level with subsequent appeal to the head of the department or
agency;
(f) That embraced in statutes which provide for appeal at the highest level,
namely, the President.
41
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(3) Partly entitled to appeal and review -> In order to be entitled to appeal
and review by an appellate administrative body of the determination of a
subordinate or another administrative body, a party must have been affected
or aggrieved by it, and must so prove.
standards of purity, quality and fitness for consumption. There is no such
provision in the Act No. 2613. It does not provide the basis for a standard or
how and in what manner it shall be ascertained.
Case: WALTER OLSEN VS. ALDANESE AND TRINIDAD March 29, 1922
-> NO. Note Clause A and Clause B of Section 6 of Act No. 2613. * The
power of the Collector of Internal Revenue to make rules and regulations is
confined to the making of rules and regulations for the classification, marking,
and packing of tobacco, and that such power is further limited to the making
of such rules for the classification, marking and packing of tobacco as may
be necessary to secure leaf tobacco of good quality and its handling under
sanitary conditions. * This power is further limited to the end that leaf tobacco
be not mixed, packed and marked as of the same quality when it is not of the
same class and origin. * The Legislature has not defined what shall be the
standard or the type of leaf or manufactured tobacco which may be exported
to the US, or even specified how or upon what basis the Collector of Internal
Revenue should fix or determine the standard. All of that power is delegated
to the Collector of Internal Revenue. * Moreover, neither the Collector of
Internal Revenue nor the Legislature itself has any power to discriminate in
favor of one province against the other. The purpose of the Legislature was
that a proper standard of the quality of tobacco should be fixed and defined,
and that all of those who produce tobacco of the same standard should have
equal rights and opportunities. It was never intended that a standard should
be fixed which would limit the manufacture of cigars for export to certain
provinces of the island. That would amount to discrimination and class
legislation which even the Legislature has no power to enact.* The
defendants rely on the case of Buttfield vs. Stranahan (the tea case). That
case, however, is not on all fours with the present case in that in the tea
case, a board was created, composed of tea experts who shall prepare and
submit the standard samples of tea, and that upon the recommendation of
the said board, the Secretary of Treasury shall fix and establish uniform
1) Policy of the courts in general
2.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
Judicial Review of or Reliefs against Administrative Actions
> Non-interference unless there is a clear showing of whimsical
exercise of judgment or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction
General rule: It is the policy of the courts not to interfere with the actions of
government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under
their special knowledge and training or specific field of specific expertise,
considering that by their nature and functions they are in the best position to
know the limits of their powers under prevailing circumstances or situations.
This is applicable in the grant of licenses, permits, leases, or the approval,
rejection, or revocation of applications therefor, subjected to well-settled
exceptions, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus do not lie against the
legislative and executive branches or the members thereof acting in the
exercise of their official functions, basically in consideration of the respect
due from the judiciary to said departments of co-equal and coordinate ranks
under the principle of separation of powers.
Exception: Unless there is a clear showing of capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
2) Right to judicial review
42
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
-> It has reference both to the power and right of the court to grant the
judicial review. The courts have been established to prevent executive or
review sought and the right in the person who invokes the power of the court.
administrative officials from exceeding their jurisdiction or taking arbitrary and
unreasonable action and no special provision of law is necessary to confer
> Right granted by statute or where review a matter of right under the
upon the courts, authority already possessed by them under the Constitution.
Constitution -> The legislative practice has ordinarily been to provide
judicial review for administrative adjudications, whether required by
Case: THE SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and FRANCISCO ANDRES,
constitutional commands or not.
petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GREGORIO YANGLAY, JR.,
(a) Where judicial review is provided in the statute, the right if appeal to the
respondents. G.R. No. L-39195 May 16, 1975 -> YES, Supreme Court has
courts is to be determined by looking at the statute, the valid regulations
the jurisdiction to review the decisions of NLRC and
promulgated pursuant to it, and proven administrative practice throwing light
upon their meaning.
Secretary of Labor. That contention is a flagrant error. "It is generally
understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or
(b) As a rule: where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of
legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the
certain administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that such
acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no
bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of role and
right of review is given by statute”
stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter. It is well-settled that
Regional Trial Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity
"The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its
or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted in the Bureau of
jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions"
Customs even through petitions of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
(73
C.J.S. 507, Sec. 165). It is part of the system of checks and balances which
> Where right of review not provided by statute -> There is no inherent
restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust
right to judicial review of the action of an administrative agency.
adjudications.
(a) Appeal is of a statutory origin; it is not a requirement of due process. The
Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of
fact, however, that a statute does not provide for judicial relief or review does
discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion.
not mean that there is no power or right of relief or review in a proper case
under the general powers and jurisdiction of the courts.
(b) In many situations, the Constitution is held to require judicial review even
The courts may declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority
though a statute does not, and even though the statute attempts to preclude
to be illegal
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
43
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(1) because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of
(b) By reason of their special knowledge, expertise, and experience, gained
the law or (2) because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious. Taking into
from the handling of specific matters falling under their respective
account the circumstances of the case, particularly Yanglay's initial attitude
jurisdictions and which are addressed to their sound discretion, the courts
of confessing that his error was dictated by necessity and his promise not to
ordinarily accord great weight and respect, even finality, to factual findings (ie
repeat the same mistake, we are of the opinion that his dismissal was a
veracity or falsehood of alleged facts) of administrative tribunals. The wide
drastic punishment. He should be reinstated but without back wages
latitude given to administrative agencies in the evaluation of evidence and in
because the company acted in good faith in dismissing him (Findlay Millar
the exercise of their adjudicative functions includes the authority to take
Timber Company vs. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union, L-18217 and L-
judicial notice of facts within their special competence. Occasionally,
18222, September 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 226). He has been sufficiently
however, courts may delve in such matters for compelling reasons as where
penalized by the loss of his wages from July 19, 1972 up to this time.
such findings are not supported by substantial evidence or are vitiated by
fraud, mistake, illegality, imposition or collusion; or where grave abuse of
discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest; or where a gross
3) Conclusiveness of administrative findings
> Factual findings supported by substantial evidence -> In reviewing
administrative decisions, the reviewing court cannot re-examine or weigh
once more the factual basis and sufficiency of the evidence submitted before
the administrative body and substitute its own judgment for that of said body
or to receive additional evidence that was not submitted to the administrative
agency concerned.
(a) A litany of cases has consistently held that substantial evidence is all that
is needed to support an administrative finding of fact. The general rule is that,
courts will not disturb on appeal the factual findings of administrative
agencies acting within the parameters of their own competence so long as
such findings are supported by substantial evidence (particularly when
passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals which is normally the final
arbiter of questions of facts), albeit such evidence may not be overwhelming
or merely preponderant, or negatively stated, it is sufficient that findings of
fact are not shown to be unsupported by evidence. This is known as the
substantial evidence rule.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
misappreciation of evidence can be shown; or where there is a conflict in the
factual findings as to compel a contrary conclusion. As a corollary, the
Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they
are not assigned as errors in the appeal, if it finds that their consideration is
necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case.
Case: THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION and the HON. LOURDES
R. QUISUMBING, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports and Chairman, Board of Medical
Education, petitioners, vs. Hon. DANIEL P. ALFONSO, Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Fourth Judicial region, Antipolo,
Rizal, and the PHILIPPINE MUSLIM- CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF
MEDICINE FOUNDATION, INC., respondents -> No less than five surveys
were conducted to determine the school's compliance with the minimum
standards established for a medical college. The members of the evaluating
team came from the different sectors in the fields of education and medicine,
and their judgment in this particular area is certainly better than that of the
respondent Judge whose sole and only visit to the school could hardly have
given him much more to go on than a brief look at the physical plant and
44
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
facilities and into the conduct of the classes and other school activities. The
•
respondent College knew that the recommendation for its closure was made
as early as 1986, that the recommendation was reiterated and reaffirmed
Order or decision - > statutes relating to judicial review of action of
an administrative agency commonly provide for review of “orders”,
“any order”, “final orders”, “final agency action”, or final decisions”.
four times thereafter until it was finally approved and acted upon by the
Secretary, whose action was confirmed by the Office of the President. Said
respondent was given notice in 1988, that in consequence of all these, the
time for its definite closure had been unalterably set at 1989, a notice which
was accompanied by assurances of assistance in the relocation of its
students and in its rehabilitation as a school for other courses. Given these
(a) Particular order or determination may be held not subject to review
because it does not constitute an “order” or “decision” or because it does not
meet other requirements specifically laid down in the statute providing for
review. Thus, review may be denied as to mere pronouncement or
recommendation not acted upon.
facts, and it being a matter of law that the Secretary of Education, Culture
and Sports exercises the power to enjoin compliance with the requirements
laid down for medical schools and to mete out sanctions where he finds that
violations thereof have been committed, it was a grave abuse of discretion
for the respondent judge to issue the questioned injunction and thereby
(b) The mere informality of a decision does not prevent its review if it is
otherwise final. Thus, a letter may constitute an appealable order or
determination. “Findings” may constitute reviewable “order” where further
proceedings have been ordered discontinued.
thwart official action, in the premises correctly taken, allowing the College to
operate without the requisite government permit. A single ocular inspection,
did not, in the circumstances, warrant overturning the findings of more
qualified inspectors about the true state of the College.
> Only administrative actions which have attained finality are subject to
judicial review -> Courts are reluctant to interfere with action of an
administrative agency prior to its completion or finality, the reason being that
absent a final order or decision, power has not been fully and finally
exercised, and there can usually be no irreparable harm. It is only after
judicial review is no longer premature that a court may ascertain in proper
cases whether the administrative action or findings are not in violation of law,
or are free from fraud or imposition or find substantial support from the
evidence.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
•
Threatened or pending action -> Judicial relief or review is often
denied for lack of finality where action of the administrative agency is
only anticipated, even though threatened, or where the action is still
pending without final disposition.
Several different grounds are stated by the courts in denying relief or review
in such situations. Thus, it is said that:
(a) Jurisdiction lies in the administrative agency rather than in the courts;
(b) An administrative officer to whom public duties are confided by law is not
subject to the control of the courts in the exercise of the judgment and
discretion which the law reposes in him as part of his official functions;
(c) Determinations by subordinate officials, acting under the instruction of
their official superiors, are, in the nature of things, under the control of and
subject to review by their official superiors;
(d) The courts will not render a decree in advance of the agency’s action and
thereby render such action nugatory;
45
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(e) It is not for a court to stop an administrative officer from performing his
statutory duty for fear he will perform it wrongly, particularly where the statute
is not unconstitutional on its face, that to interfere with action which is simply
“threatened” would render a statute unworkable and unenforceable and
would unduly hamper the discharge by the administrative agencies of their
responsibility; or
(f) Prior to final administrative determination, the party seeking relief has not
suffered a present injury.
administrative appellate tribunal reversing and remanding a case to
the hearing officer to take further testimony. But certiorari is available
against administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions,
whether the order is interlocutory or not where the due process was
not followed.
4) Division of functions between courts and administrative agencies
-> it inevitably creates problems of determining which tribunal may take initial
•
•
•
•
•
Action requiring approval by superior -> An order required to be
submitted to a superior for approval is not final for purposes of
review. However, the fact that in some circumstances the grant of
relief might have to be submitted for approval does not detract from
the finality of an order denying relief.
Pendency of rehearing or administrative appeal -> The pendency of
an application for a rehearing or recommendation filed within the
time prescribed by law or regulations deprives the original order of
finality. However, a statute may provide otherwise.
Rules and regulations -> Regulations of an administrative agency
are addressed to and set a standard of conduct for all to whom their
terms apply.
Purely administrative matters -> It is a well-recognised principle that
purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be
interfered with by the courts.
Preliminary, procedural and interlocutory determinations -> The
universal rule is that appeal to the courts will not lie from an
interlocutory order unless such order affects the merits. Examples:
(a) orders directing an investigation and inquiry, appointing a
conservator or conciliator, providing for a hearing and requiring
corporations under investigation to appear and present certain data;
(b) denial of a motion to change place of hearing; (c) denial of
application for a stay; (d) approval or disapproval of a compromise
agreement; (e) denial of application for rehearing; (f) an order of an
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
action and at what stage of administrative action an aggrieved party may go
to court. These problems are governed by three main doctrines:
(a) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction -> is not concerned with judicial review
but determines in some circumstances whether initial actions should be
taken by a court or by an administrative agency.
(b) The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies -> is designed
primarily to control the timing of judicial relief from adjudicative action of an
agency. It is customarily applied to adjudication and not to rule-making.
(c) The doctrine of ripeness for review -> in essence, it is the same as that of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making
and to administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making and to
administrative remedies, except that it applies to rule-making and to
administrative action which is embodied neither in rules or regulations nor in
adjudication or final orders.
1.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
46
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
-> is not concerned with judicial review but determines in some
circumstances whether initial actions should be taken by a court or by an
administrative agency.
> Concept -> This principle has been also referred to as the doctrine of prior
resort, or exclusive administrative jurisdiction, or preliminary resort. The term
“primary jurisdiction” is the most common in recent treatment of the subject. It
usually refers to cases involving specialised disputes which are referred to an
administrative agency of special competence to resolve the same.
*> Application involves exercise of judicial discretion -> The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction is not an inflexible mandate. It is predicated on an attitude
of judicial self-restraint, and its application involves the exercise of a judicial
discretion. Whether or not the requirement of prior resort should be imposed
is said to depend on the court’s determination whether Congress intended
the issues to be left to the administrative agency for initial determination.
When an affirmative indication of legislative intent does not clearly appear,
the courts are on the whole, free to determine on the basis of policy
considerations the need (or desirability) of prior resort to administrative
determinations
> Application -> The doctrine applies only where the administrative agency
exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Strictly speaking, the
objective of the doctrine is to guide a court in determining whether it should
refrain or not from exercising its jurisdiction over a matter or question even if
it may well be within its proper jurisdiction where relief may be obtained in
administrative proceeding. Under the doctrine, "courts cannot and will not
determine 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 tribunal to determine technical and intricate
*> Issues involve question of law -> Be that as it may, prior resort to an
agency should be limited to questions of fact and questions requiring the
skills of administrative specialists. Question of law may appropriately be
determined in the first instance by courts, because uniformity may be
secured through review by a single Supreme Court, and that unifying
influence will involve neither factual determination nor the exercise of
specialised judgment. There is no danger of by-passing administrative action.
Purely legal questions will ultimately have to be decided by courts of justice;
hence they are within the competence and jurisdiction of the courts and not
an administrative agency.
matters of facts and where a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with
the purposes of the regulatory statute administered.
(a) Where elements of administrative discretion important considerations ->
Courts are in agreement that prior resort should be required where the
reasons mentioned justify its application. Thus, prior resort would be required
where elements of administrative discretion are often important
considerations, such as in cases involving issuance and revocation of
licenses and the enforcement of licensing rules.
(c) Where concurrent jurisdiction conferred -> The doctrine is clearly
applicable whenever courts and administrative agencies have concurrent
jurisdiction.
Case #1: VICENTE VILLAFLOR, substituted by his heirs, petitioner,
vs OF APPEALS and NASIPIT LUMBER CO., INC. vs. COURT .
COURT OF APPEALS and NASIPIT LUMBER CO., INC., respondents.
(b) Where reasons for doctrine inapplicable -> May prior resort be required
even in cases where the reasons on which the rule is based are
inapplicable?
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
-> Yes, the findings of Bureau of Lands which was affirmed by the Secretary
of Natural Resources can be relied by the appellate court. The findings of
47
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
fact of an administrative agency, such as the Bureau of Lands and the
Minister of Natural Resources, must be respected as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence, even, if such evidence might not be
overwhelming or even preponderant. By reason of the special
knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters
falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass
judgment thereon; thus, their findings of fact in that regard are
generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts. 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
IEI would be in line with the integrated national program for coaldevelopment and with the objective of rationalizing the country's over-all
coal-supply-demand balance, IEI's cause of action was not merely the
rescission of a contract but the reversion or return to it of the operation of the
coal blocks. These are matters properly falling within the domain of the
BED.BED is tasked with the function of establishing a comprehensive and
integrated national program for the exploration, exploitation, and
development and extraction of fossil fuels, such as the country's coal
resources; adopting a coal development program; regulating all activities
relative thereto; and undertaking by itself or through service contracts
such exploitation and development, all in the interest of an
effective and coordinated.
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,
it behooves the courts to stand aside even when they apparently have
statutory power to proceed, in recognition of the primary jurisdiction of
the administrative agency. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly
applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve
a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence.
Case #2: INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., vs. THE HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, THE
HON. GERONIMO VELASCO, in his capacity as Minister of Energy AND
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK [G.R. No. 88550. April 18, 1990.] -> HELD:
YES BED HAS JURISDICTION. While the action filed by IEI sought the
rescission of what appears to be an ordinary civil contract cognizable by a
civil court, the fact is that the MOA sought to be rescinded is derived from a
coal-operating contract and is inextricably tied up with the right to
develop coal-bearing lands and the determination of whether or not the
reversion of the coal operating contract over the subject coal blocks to
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
Case #3: NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. and NESTLE WATERS
PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly HIDDEN SPRINGS & PERRIER, INC.) vs .
UNIWIDE SALES, INC., UNIWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., NAIC RESOURCES
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, UNIWIDE SALES REALTY AND
RESOURCES CLUB, INC., FIRST PARAGON CORPORATION, and
UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC. -> NO. The Court takes
judicial notice of the fact that from the time of the filing in the Court of the
instant petition, supervening events have unfolded substantially the factual
backdrop of this rehabilitation case. In light of supervening events that have
emerged from the time the SEC approved the SARP on 23 December 2002
and from the time the present petition was filed on 3 November 2006, any
determination by this Court as to whether the SARP should be revoked and
the rehabilitation proceedings terminated, would be premature. Undeniably,
supervening events have substantially changed the factual backdrop of this
case. The Court thus defers to the competence and expertise of the
SEC to determine whether, given the supervening events in this case,
48
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
the SARP is no longer capable of implementation and whether the
rehabilitation case should be terminated as a consequence.
-> is designed primarily to control the timing of judicial relief from adjudicative
action of an agency. It is customarily applied to adjudication and not to rulemaking.
> Concept -> It requires that where a remedy within an administrative
Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts will not
determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand 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. In other words, 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 court is had even if the matter
may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction. The objective of the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it
should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative
agency has determined some question or some aspect of some
question arising in the proceeding before the court. It is not for the Court to
intrude, at this stage of the rehabilitation proceedings, into the primary
administrative jurisdiction of the SEC on a matter requiring its technical
expertise. Pending a decision of the SEC on SEC En Banc Case No. 12-09183 and SEC En Banc Case No. 01-10-193, which both seek to resolve the
issue of whether the rehabilitation proceedings in this case should be
terminated, the Court is constrained to dismiss the petition for prematurity.
agency is provided by law or available against the action of an administrative
board, body, or officer, and can still be resorted to by giving the said agency
every opportunity to decide correctly a given matter that comes within its
jurisdiction, relief must be first sought by availing and exhausting this remedy
before bringing an action in or elevating it to the courts of justice for review.
(a) The thrust of the doctrine is to allow first the administrative agency to
carry out its functions and discharge its responsibilities within the specialised
areas of its competence as a pre-condition before resort can be made to the
courts.
(b) The premature invocation of a court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause
of action. Absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the complaint is
susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. The doctrine which is
based on sound public policy and practical grounds (like the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction) is, however, flexible depending on the peculiarity and
uniqueness of the factual settings of a case. It admits of certain exceptions.
> Application
(a) As a prerequisite of judicial review -> In some instances, the statute
makes the exhaustion of the remedies a pre-condition of the right to seek the
intervention of the courts. The principal application is to compel parties to an
administrative proceedings to take full advantage of all the means of
2.
Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
administrative processes afforded them. It serves to prevent private litigants
from ousting administrative bodies from the exercise of adjudications
properly committed to them. The classic example of failure to exhaust
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
49
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
administrative remedies is a failure to appeal from an administrative decision
dismiss. Failure to invoke it at the proper time operates as a waiver of the
to a higher administrative authority or tribunal within the administrative
objection as a ground for a motion to dismiss and the court may then
system; and even the filing of an appeal does not exhaust the remedy where
proceed with the case and try it as if the doctrine had been observed. Thus,
there is failure to await the determination thereon before seeking the aid of
the only effect of non-compliance with the doctrine is to render the action
the courts. In like manner, only judicial review of decisions of administrative
premature, ie. the claimed cause of action not ripe for judicial determination
bodies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function (ie, adjudicative,
and for that reason a party has no cause of action to ventilate in court.
not rule-making or legislative power) is subject to exhaustion doctrine.
Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case is susceptible
of dismissal for lack of cause of action.
(b) As affecting one’s cause of action -> The authorities are not in accord as
to whether the application of the doctrine lies in the discretion of the court or
> Exceptions -> The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, like
goes to its jurisdiction and does not permit the exercise of discretion.
the corollary doctrine of primary jurisidiction, does not preclude in all cases a
party from seeking judicial relief. The rule is not a hard and fast one but a
*> some cases have held that the requirement may be waived by the parties
relative one. It is subject to limitations and exceptions provided by law or
and the proceedings entertained by the court, and that the court in some
required by public interest. Its observance has been dispensed with or
situations may, in its own discretion, relax the rule.
relaxed or disregarded, among others, in the situations mentioned below:
*> other cases have held that, where the rule applies, the court lacks
(a) Where by the terms of the statute authorising an administrative remedy,
jurisdiction to act and may not relax the rule in its discretion. This is
such remedy is permissive warranting the conclusion that the legislature
particularly true where the statute in terms vests exclusive jurisdiction in the
intended to allow the judicial remedy even though administrative remedy has
administrative agency, and in view of the rule that a right of appeal is purely
not been exhausted, or where the administrative remedy is not exclusive but
statutory and is dependent upon compliance with the terms of the statute
merely cumulative or concurrent to a judicial remedy, or there is grave doubt
authorising review.
as to the availability of the administrative remedy.
*> in our jurisdiction, it has been held that failure of a party to exhaust the
(b) Where the issue involves not a question of fact, but one of pure law and
procedure of administrative remedies provided by law therefor affects his
nothing of an administrative nature is to be done or can be done particularly
cause of action, not the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter.
where the controverted act is patently illegal, arbitrary and oppressive (eg
Hence, such failure is a ground for dismissal of the action for lack of a cause
violated petitioner’s constitutional right to security of tenure) or clearly devoid
of action which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court for the dismissal
of any colour of authority, or has been performed without or in excess of
of a complaint.
jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion.
*> exhaustion must be raised at the earliest time possible, even before filing
(c) Where the issue raised is the constitutionality of the statute under which
the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim by a motion to
the administrative acts, or providing the administrative remedy, of itself, as
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
50
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
distinguished from a possible exercise of administrative power under the
statute. But the doctrine is not prevented from operation solely by the fact
that the party applying for judicial relief urges a violation of rights secured by
the Constitution and the holding of the administrative hearing would result in
irreparable damage in the absence of a sufficient showing of inadequacy of
prescribed administrative relief and threatened or impending irreparable
injury.
•
Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or
regulation issued by the administrative body in the exercise of its
quasi-legislative power, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass
upon the same, but an act performed by it pursuant to its quasijudicial function is subject to the exhaustion doctrine.
(d) Where questions involved are essentially judicial. Thus in Bueno vs
Paterno (9 SCRA 794, 1963) although the boundary dispute between the two
concessionaires of adjacent forest lands was still pending investigation in the
Bureau of Forestry, yet in view of showing of violence or riotous acts that
would necessitate the immediate interference of the courts and the questions
involved pertained to the contractual relations between the parties, it was
held that the principle was not applicable because considerations of the
public order must transcend the mere administrative issue of conflict of
boundaries.
(e) Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine or
where the administrative body is in estoppel to invoke the doctrine. Thus,
where the respondent Commission, in its resolution, declared that the
opinions of the Secretary of Justice (to which it refused to abide) were
“advisory in nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office
seeking the opinion and the aggrieved party has the court for recourse,”
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
thereby leading the petitioner in the case of Tan vs Veterans Backpay
Commission (105 Phil. 377, 1959) to conclude that only a final judicial ruling
in her favour would be accepted by the Commission, the rule of exhaustion
does not apply.
(f) If it should appear that an irreparable damage or injury will be suffered by
a party unless resort to the court is immediately made. A preliminary
injunction will usually be granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing
an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause
irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full
hearing can be be had on the merits. The invocation of the urgency of judicial
intervention in such case would be in keeping with the court’s broad
discretion in granting injunctions.
(g) In special circumstances where there is no other plain, speedy, or
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, where the order
terminating the services of the appellee as Chief of Police was immediately
executed and another was appointed to the position on the same day, an
appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service, even if available, was ruled not
an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Furthermore, appeal to
the Commissioner is not prerequisite to, nor a bar to the institution of quo
warrants proceedings so that to require the appellee in the cases of
Laganapan vs Asedillo; Palma-Fernandez vs Dela Paz (160 SCRA 751,
1988) to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the action (which
prescribes in one year and an administrative appeal does not interrupt the
running of the period could easily result in grave injustice of barring him
forever from bringing the matter to the courts of justice for judicial
determination.
(h) Where respondent officer acted in utter disregard of due process as
where one had been dismissed without any administrative charges having
filed nor any investigation conducted, or where the Collector of Customs
imposed a fine without first giving the petitioner opportunity to be heard.
51
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(i) Where insistence on its observance would result in the nullification of the
claim being asserted, as where the period within which to bring the case to
court (ie quo warranto) is limited by law, said period not being interrupted by
the filing of any administrative remedy. Also, where petitioner in the case of
Savoy vs Tantuico Jr. (50 SCRA 455, 1973) failed to get the relief sought
after filing formal protests with the Commissioner of Civil Service against
their dismissal and in the meantime, the period of one year from the date of
removal within which a judicial action of this nature should be commenced
was fast running out, it was held that the petitioners had substantially
complied with the rule before applying for judicial relief.
(j) When there is long-continued and unreasonable delay or official inaction
that will unretrievably prejudice the complainant. In Gonzales vs Aldana (107
Phil. 754, 1960), the petitioners wrote to the Commissioner of Civil Service
and to the Secretary of Education. They failed to obtain the relief sought, and
instead the Director of Public Schools threatened to replace them. It was held
that they had already given an opportunity to these high officials to act on
their petition for relief which practically was equivalent to an exhaustion of the
administrative remedies provided by law. In Camus vs Civil Service Board of
Appeals (2 SCRA 370, 1961), two letters sent by the petitioner to the
President seeking reinstatement was held to constitute a substantial
compliance with the requirement.
(k) When there are special reasons or circumstances demanding immediate
judicial intervention, in the case of Alzate vs Aldana (105 Phil. 298, 1960), as
where the account claimed by the petitioner and which respondent had
committed to pay would be reverted to the general funds of the government if
he waited for the final decision on his petition for reconsideration and
whatever action may thereafter be taken by the respondent even if
favourable to the petitioner would be of no avail.
(l) Where the amount involved is relatively small so that to require exhaustion
would be oppressive and unreasonable. In the case of Cipriano vs Marcelino
(43 SCRA 291, 1972), it was held that to require a clerk in the municipal
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
treasurer’s office claiming a salary and computation pay equivalent to the
small account of P949, to pursue his administrative appeal all the way to the
President of the Philippines would not only be oppressive, but patently
unreasonable for by the time her appeal shall have been decided by the
President the amount of much more than P949 would all in likelihood have
been spent.
(m) When no administrative review (ie by the President or the Executive
Secretary) is provided as a condition precedent to the taking of an action in
court, a party, without awaiting the action of the President to which he
elevated the case or without first bringing his case to the Executive Secretary
for review, may seek judicial relief.
(n) In land cases, where the land subject of litigation is not part of the public
domain. The legal provisions giving the government the exclusive authority to
seek cancellation of a title issued in conformity with a homestead patent and
a reversion of “land to the public domain are, in the very nature of things,
confined in their application to lands of the public domain which have been
granted in pursuance of the Public Lands Act. The doctrine is not applicable
even to private lands acquired by the government by purchase for resale to
individuals.
(o) On the other hand, the application of the principle of the exhaustion of
administrative remedies with reference to public lands as a condition
precedent to the filing of a judicial action is confined to controversies arising
out of the disposition or alienation of public lands, or to the determination of
the respective rights of rival claimants to public lands, and not to possessory
actions involving public lands which are limited to the determination of who
has the actual physical possession or occupation of the land in question.
Pending final adjudication of ownership by the Bureau of Lands, the courts
have jurisdiction to determine in the meantime the right of the possession
over the land.
52
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
(p) Where the respondent is a Department of Secretary whose acts, as an
alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter,
unless actually disapproved by him, particularly where they are declared as
“final and unappealable. “ In the absence of a constitutional or statutory
provision to the contrary, the official acts of the Department Secretary “when
performed and promulgated in the regular course of business” are deemed or
are presumptively the acts of the President unless disapproved or reprobated
by the latter. This is the doctrine of qualified political agency under which the
action of a department secretary, as the alter ego of the President, is
deemed to be that of the latter; and therefore, the failure to appeal to the
Office of the President cannot be considered a violation of the exhaustion
rule.
(q) Where the administrative officer has not rendered any decision, or made
any final finding of any sort, the rule of prior exhaustion of administrative
remedies does not apply. The principle rests upon the assumption that the
administrative body, board, or officer, if given the chance to correct its/his
mistakes or errors, may amend his/her decision on a given matter. It follows,
therefore, that there has some sort of a decision, order, or act, more or less
final in character, that is ripe for review and properly the subject of an appeal
to a higher administrative body or officer, for a principle to operate.
(r) Where plaintiff in the civil action for damages has no administrative
remedy available to him, he is not required to exhaust administrative
remedies before filing his complaint, although the same incident complained
of in the administrative case filed by the defendant (who was allegedly
humiliated by the plaintiff) against the plaintiff is the subject of the action for
damages filed by the plaintiff. As in the case of Escuerte vs Court of Appeals
(193 SCRA 541, 1991), the cause of action in the administrative case is
different from that of the civil case for damages. While the complainant in the
former may be a private person, it is the government that is the aggrieved
party and no award for damages may be granted in favour of private
persons. In the civil actin for damages, the trial court’s concern is whether or
not damages, personal to the plaintiff, were caused by the acts of the
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
defendant. The civil action for damages may proceed notwithstanding the
pendency of the administrative action.
(s) Where a strong public interest is involved, the doctrine may be dispensed
with the judicial action validly resorted to immediately.
(t) Other cases -> said principle may also be disregarded as where the
controverted act is patently illegal; or was performed without or one excess of
jurisdiction; where the controverted act violate due process; where the
protestant has no other recourse, or when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be unreasonable; where the issue of nonexhaustion has been rendered moot and academic; where a government
corporation had an affirmative statutory duty to disclose to the public the
terms and conditions of the sale of its lands and was even in breach of this
legal duty; where nothing of an administrative is to be or can be done, such
as where the issue does not require technical knowledge and experience out
one that involves the interpretation and application of the law; in quo
warrants proceeding; where the petitioners raising the issues have voluntarily
submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court, and where there are
circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
Case #1: CATIPON vs JAPSON -> The Court denies the Petition, Macario
violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and he should
be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Our
fundamental law, particularly Sections 2 (1) and 3 of Article DC-B, state that
– Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including governmentowned or controlled corporations with original charters. Section 3. The Civil
Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government,
shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale,
efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the
53
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all
appealed to the Commission Proper within a period of fifteen days from
human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and
receipt thereof. ―Commission Proper‖ refers to the Civil Service
institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It
Commission-Central Office.
shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its
remedies requires that ―before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of
personnel programs.
Thus, ―the CSC, as the central personnel agency of
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of
the Government, has jurisdiction over disputes involving the removal and
administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy
separation of all employees of government branches,
within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the
administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including government-owned or
comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted
controlled corporations with original charters. Simply put, it is the sole arbiter
first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. The premature
of controversies relating to the civil service.
invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action.
In line with the above
provisions of the Constitution and its mandate as the central personnel
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical
agency of government and sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil
and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser
service, the CSC adopted Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999 (MC
expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.
19), or the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience,
Service, which the CA cited as the basis for its pronouncement. Section 4
will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has
thereof provides: Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. —
been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency
The Civil Service Commission shall hear and decide administrative cases
concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.
instituted by, or brought before it, directly or on appeal, including contested
Indeed, the administrative agency concerned – in this case the Commission
appointments, and shall review decisions and actions of its offices and of the
Proper – is in the ―best position to correct any previous error committed in
agencies attached to it. Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or
its forum.
by law, the Civil Service Commission shall have the final authority to pass
petition for review, as ―[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant
upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and employees
a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the
in the civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special
efficiency of such officers and employees.
competence.‖7 When petitioner’s recourse lies in an appeal to the
As pointed out by the CA,
The CA is further justified in refusing to take cognizance of the
pursuant to Section 5(A)(1) of MC 19, the Civil Service Commission Proper,
Commission Proper in accordance with the procedure prescribed in MC 19,
or Commission Proper, shall have jurisdiction over decisions of Civil Service
the CA may not be faulted for refusing to acknowledge petitioner before it.
Regional Offices brought before it on petition for review. And under Section
We likewise affirm the CA’s pronouncement that petitioner was negligent in
43, ―decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities,
filling up his CSPE application form and in failing to verify beforehand the
municipalities and other instrumentalities imposing a penalty exceeding thirty
specific requirements for the CSPE examination. Petitioner’s claim of good
days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, may be
faith and absence of deliberate intent or wilful desire to defy or disregard the
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
54
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
rules relative to the CSPE is not a defense as to exonerate him from the
the best interest of the service; the absence of a willful or deliberate intent to
charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; under our
falsify or make dishonest entries in his application is immaterial, for conduct
legal system, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service ―may or may not be
therewith.8 Moreover, petitioner – as mere applicant for acceptance into the
characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard
professional service through the CSPE – cannot expect to be served on a
established rules.
silver platter; the obligation to know what is required for the examination falls
on him, and not the CSC or his colleagues in office. As aptly ruled by the
appellate court:
The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public officer as
long as the questioned act or conduct taints the image and integrity of the
office; and the act need not be related to or connected with the public
officer’s official functions. Under our civil service laws, there is no concrete
description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, but the following acts or omissions have been treated
as such: misappropriation of public funds; abandonment of office; failure to
report back to work without prior notice; failure to safekeep public records
and property; making false entries in public documents; falsification of court
orders; a judge’s act of brandishing a gun, and threatening the complainants
during a traffic altercation; a court interpreter’s participation in the execution
of a document conveying complainant’s property which resulted in a quarrel
in the latter’s family; selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program
exemption cards to his officemates during office hours; a CA employee’s
forging of receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations; a Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS) employee’s act of repeatedly changing his
IP address, which caused network problems within his office and allowed him
to gain access to the entire GSIS network, thus putting the system in a
vulnerable state of security;11 a public prosecutor’s act of signing a motion
to dismiss that was not prepared by him, but by a judge;12 and a teacher’s
act of directly selling a book to her students in violation of the Code of Ethics
for Professional Teachers.13 In petitioner’s case, his act of making false
entries in his CSPE application undoubtedly constitutes conduct prejudicial to
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
Case #2: [G.R. No. 139302.October 28, 2002] EDUARDO P. CORSIGA,
Former Deputy Administrator, National Irrigation
Administration,petitioner, vs. HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Iloilo City, and ROMEO P.
ORTIZO,respondents -> NO, Civil Case No. 22462 is not an exception to
the general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and thus, Ortizo
has no a cause of action. Being an NIA employee covered by the Civil
Service Law, in our view, private respondent should have first complained to
the NIA Administrator, and if necessary, then appeal to the Civil Service
Commission. As ruled in Abe-Abe vs. Manta, 90 SCRA 524 (1979), if a
litigant goes to court without first pursuing his administrative remedies, his
action is premature, and he has no cause of action to ventilate in court.
Hence, petitioner asserts that private respondent's case is not ripe for judicial
determination. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence of grave abuse of
discretion on petitioners part. This is a mere allegation which private
respondent failed to substantiate. Official functions are presumed to be
regular unless proven otherwise. However, under Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Civil Service Law, a recourse is available to him by way of
appeal which could be brought to the agency head, with further recourse, if
needed, to the Civil Service Commission. Worth noting, the possibility of an
administrative charge was only speculative on the part of private respondent,
who could avail of administrative remedies already cited. Ortizo failed to
reckon with the fact that the issue in Civil Case No. 22462 was not purely a
55
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
question of law. Most importantly, the Court of Appeals, in our view,
committed reversible error in finding that the trial court did not err nor gravely
abused its discretion for taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462.
“civil action”, petitioner to a court of original jurisdiction. Where the right to
appeal is granted by statue, one who seeks to avail of it must comply with the
statute or rule in effete of when that right arose.
DISPOSITION: Petition was granted, setting aside the decision of the CA.
1.
5.
Statutory methods of review
-> it may be divided into three groups:
Appeal -> Appeal to the courts was taken within reglementary period
of 30 days counted not from the receipt of the decision but from the
denial of the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Case: THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF MINES AND MINLAWI MINING
(a) Where remedy itself governed by statute -> Statutory methods in the
broad sense of the term are afforded where the remedy itself is governed by
statutory provisions, although the express terms of such statute relating to
administrative agencies make no provision that this remedy shall be available
for the review of agency action. Illustration: declaratory judgment, which is
purely a creation of statute;
ASSOCIATION vs. THE HON. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF MANILA, Branch IX and LOUIS W. HORA. 1955 -> Yes,
the time during which the motion for reconsideration was pending be
deducted from the 30-day period for taking the decision to court.
APPEAL AND ERROR; DECISION OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
TO A COURT OF JUSTICE FOR REVIEW; RULE IN ORDINARY CIVIL
(b) Where proceedings in court required by statute for enforcement of
administrative decision -> A statutory method of review is afforded where a
statute governing the action of a particular administrative agency does not
permit the enforcing of an administrative decision except by proceedings in a
court to be instituted by the prevailing party or the administrative agency
itself, and these proceedings are designed for judicial review of the agency
action;
CASES APPLICABLE. — Pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of Republic
Act 739 an appeal may be had against the decision of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources to court of justice. That an appeal is
meant may be inferred from the use of the words "decision" and of the clause
"may be taken to a court it means that it will be taken thereto by way of an
appeal for review. The law also significantly provides that the decisions shall
be taken to the court as in ordinary civil cases, in another words, the appeal
(c) Where direct judicial review afforded by legislation providing generally for
such a review -> Statutory methods of review in a narrower sense,
sometimes called “direct review proceedings”, are afforded by legislation
providing generally for review of action of administrative agency and
prescribing the manner and extent of such review, whether by way of appeal,
injunction, declaratory judgment, or simply by a provision for “suit”, “action”,
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
may be taken in the same manner as appeals are made in the courts of
justice in ordinary civil actions defined in section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court. TIME DURING WHICH MOTION HAS BEEN PENDING TO BE
DEDUCTED FROM PERIOD FOR APPEAL. — Appeal may be taken by
serving upon the adverse party and filing with the trial court within thirty days
from notice of order or judgment a notice of appeals, an appeal bond, and a
56
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
record on appeal. The time during which a motion to set aside has been
income tax return said to be false, fraudulent or erroneous had been filed,
pending shall be deducted. REASON FOR ADOPTING -- The right to
may no longer be effected by means of administrative methods but only
appeal from a decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
through judicial proceedings. In the light of the aforementioned ruling, were
is a statutory right; it can be invoked only in accordance with the manner
We to consider as valid and in order the disputed warrant dated February 17,
which the Legislature has provided for the purpose. The considered opinion
1953, placing the properties of the taxpayer under constructive destraint and
of the members of the Court is that the Legislature has adopted the principle
levy, the collection of the taxes for 1949, 1950 and 1951 by extra-judicial
contained in the Rules as to the manner of perfecting appeals in ordinary civil
methods would be proper and the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals as
actions for the purpose of uniformity and to prevent the confusion that may
far as it concerns this later period would be erroneous, although summary
be caused to litigants and lawyers by an appeal different from that applicable
administrative means would no longer be the proper recourse for the
in courts of justice. => For the foregoing consideration, the petition should
collection of taxes corresponding to 1948 and the years previous to that as 3
be granted. The order denying the dismissal of the action in the CFI is hereby
years, 11 months and 22 days has already elapsed from the time the income
reversed and the complaint in said court filed by the respondents herein
tax return for that year was filed. Syllabus: 1. TAXATION; COLLECTION OF
ordered dismissed. With costs against the respondent Louis W. Hora. 2.
INCOME TAX AFTER THE THREE YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD, HOW
CERTIORARI -> The Supreme Court passed upon not only the legal issues
EFFECTIVE. — The collection of income taxes, after the lapse of three years
involved, but also the findings of facts upon which the decision of the Court of
from the date the income tax return said to be false, fraudulent or erroneous
Tax Appeals is based.
had been field, may no longer be effected by means of administrative
methods but only through judicial proceedings. 2. ID.; INJUNCTION TO
RESTRAIN COLLECTION; AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO ISSUE. —
While Section of the National Internal Revenue Code precludes the use of
injunction to restrain the collection of taxes, however, Section 11 of Republic
2.
Certiorari -> The Supreme Court passed upon not only the legal
issues involved, but also the findings of facts upon which the
decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is based.
Act No. 1125 allows the Tax Court to issue said writ of injunction subject to
certain limitations, provided the taxpayer either deposits the amounts claimed
or files a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the court.
Republic Act No. 1125, being of later enactment, is deemed to have modified
said Section 305 of the National Internal Revenue Code. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.;
Case: THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.
FILING OF BOND WHEN REQUIRED. — The requirement of a bond before
MATIAS H. AZNAR and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. ->
a writ of injunction could be issued by the Tax Court applies only to cases
ISSUE: Whether the Collector of Internal Revenue could enforce collection of
where the means sought to be employed for the enforcement of the
the alleged deficiency income taxes of Matias H. Aznar through the summary
collection of the tax are by themselves legal and not where same were
methods of distraint and levy? RULING: Supreme Court said that the
declared null and void, as where the summary methods of distraint and levy
collection of income taxes, after the lapse of three years from the date the
would be utilized in the collection of deficiency income taxes, after the 3-year
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
57
Administrative Law
REVIEWER (Midterms)
Source: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Texts and Cases by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr. 2016 edition
prescriptive period as provided by Section 51-d of the Internal Revenue Code
has already elapsed. 4. COURT OF TAX APPEALS; REMEDY OF
PERSONS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY RULING OF THE COURT;
POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW QUESTIONS OF FACT.
— Any party adversely affected by any ruling, order or decision of the Court
of Tax Appeals has by law two ways of elevating his case to the Supreme
Court, i.e., firstly, filing in the Court a quo a notice of appeal and with this
Court a petition for review within 30 days from the date he receives notice of
said ruling, order or decision adverse to him (Sec. 18, Rep. Act 1125), and
second, by causing such ruling, order or decision of the Court of Tax Appeals
likewise reviewed upon a writ of certiorari in proper cases(Sec. 19, R.A. No.
1125). In the first case, this Court could go over the evidence on record and
pass upon the questions of fact. In the second case, this Court could only
pass upon issues involving questions of law. However, when the interest of
justice so demands, petitions for review may be considered as petition for a
writ of certiorari and vice-versa, and if this Court has the power to consider
the evidence to determine the facts in cases of review, there is no plausible
reason for depriving this Court of such power in petitions for certiorari
specially because in the latter cases the petitioner oftenly charges the
respondent Court with the commission of grave abuse of discretion the
determination of which usually depends on the facts and circumstances of
the points in controversy.
Prepared by: Team Bessy ☺
58