TABLE OF CONTENTS

Procedure

I.
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.

Introduction
Control of Administrative Action
Powers and Functions of Administrative
Agencies
Administrative Procedure
Judicial Review of Administrative
Decision
Modes of Judicial Review
Extent of Judicial Review
Enforcement of Agency Action
PART I.
INTRODUCTION

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - that branch of public

law dealing with the doctrines and principles
governing the powers and procedures of
administrative agencies including especially
judicial review of administrative action.
An ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY is any
governmental authority other than a court or
legislative body performing rule-making or
adjudicatory functions.
AGENCY includes:

any department, bureau, office, commission,

authority or officer of the National
Government authorized by law or executive
order to make rules, issue licenses, grant
rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases;
government corporations with respect to
function regulating private right, privilege, or
occupation or business;

officials in the exercise of disciplinary power

as provided by law.
(Sec. 2 (1), Book VII, Admin Code of 1987)
Powers of an administrative agency
a) rule-making
b) adjudicatory
c) licensing (permits)
d) price/rate-fixing
e) implementing/executory

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

minimum requirement

is the

Factors which gave rise to admin. agencies

1) growing complexity of modern life - as
society gets more complex, there are more
things to regulate
2) the multiplication of the subject of
governmental regulation
3) the increased difficulty of administering the
law
Constitutional status of admin. agencies

the admin. agency does not strictly belong to

one branch.

The agency does not constitute a 4th branch

of government because the constitutional
scheme (separation of powers) only allows 3
branches of government.

Role of Admin. Agencies

Residual Powers

the powers given to the three branches spill

over because of the 3 shortfalls. There is a
need for a body which would act as a
catching mechanism, otherwise, the three
branches would collapse. The AA supports
the trichotomy of powers.

How do these agencies come into being?

a) by statute
b) by the constitution
c) by Executive orders - usually fact-finding
agencies
CREATED
BY CONGRESS
1. can be modified
by congress
2. may be altered
or abolished

CREATED BY THE
CONSTITUTION
1. perform
more
sensitive functions
2. underscoring the
independence of
the agency thus,
insulate it from
political pressure

The Chief Executive exercises CONTROL

over agencies and offices which perform
rule-making / adjudicatory functions.
If the agency is created by Congress consider the law that created it. If the law is
silent as to the control which the President
may exercise, the President can only
SUPERVISE, i.e., to see to it that the laws
are faithfully executed.

Why are administrative agencies necessary?

Administrative agencies are necessary due

to the inadequacies of the executivelegislative-judicial trichotomy.

The 3 great branches of government lack:

(1) time; (2) expertise; and (3) organizational
aptitude for governmental supervision.

The doctrine of separation of powers:

To prevent absolutism.

Under the doctrine of separation of powers,

The Supreme Court cannot assume the
administrative function of supervisory control
over executive officials.

In Noblejas v. Teehankee (1963), the

Supreme Court struck down Noblejas claim
that the Commissioner of Land Registration,
being entitled to the same compensation,
emoluments & privileges as a CFI judge,
can only be investigated and suspended in
the same manner, and not by the Secretary
of Justice.)

Members of the Supreme Court cannot sit

as a board of arbitrators. (Manila Electric
Co. v. Pasay Transpo, 1932)

A judge cannot become a member of a

provincial committee on justice which
performs administrative functions. (In Re:
Rodolfo U. Manzano (1988)

A. Legislative Control
Ways of exercising control by Congress
a) Abolition
isnt effective because the admin. agencies
are needed.
b) Appropriation

isnt effective since appropriations are

always given. If no appropriation is given,
the public would suffer.
c) Investigatory

effective only as an aid in legislation and

cannot serve the need for constant
regulation
d) Prescription of legislative standards

ineffective because the standards should be

flexible and those who make the standards
lack the expertise. The standards must be
EFFECTIVE, SUFFICIENT.

Most of the time, Congress is not definite

because of (a) varying conditions and (b)
differences in the need for regulation

e) Prescription
requirements

the power to change, modify, alter decisions

of subordinates
SUPERVISION

of

minimum

procedural

There should be a shift to Administrative

standards which allows the agencies to
come up with the standards themselves.

This can be effected in these ways :

1) modify the doctrine
2) procedural due process

Congress
can
prescribe
minimum
procedural requirements which have a
general applicability to all agencies. But
even with this, there are sill problems,
namely;
1) Agencies are not bound by the technical
rules of procedure
2) agencies need flexibility to act

These minimum procedural requirements

may be found in Book 7 of the Admin. Code
of 1987.

PART II.
CONTROL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CONTROL

power to oversee

PART III.
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Substantial evidence - such relevant evidence

which a reasonable mind will accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
B. Executive Control

Executive power is vested in the President

(Art. VII, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution)

RULE: The President shall have control of

all the executive departments, bureaus and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be
faithfully executed. (Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987
Constitution)

EXCEPTIONS: In the case of agencies

created by the legislature (e.g. NLRC, BIR,
LTFRB), one must check the enabling law
regarding Congress intention regarding this.
If the law is silent, the President cannot
exercise control but merely supervision.
However, in cases involving agencies under
the executive branch, the President has
control.

C. Judicial Control
Judicial review of administrative actions
D. Ombudsman

Investigates and prosecutes

All elective and appointive officials, including

cabinet members, GOCCs and local
government are within his jurisdiction.

Those who may be removed only by

impeachment are not within his jurisdiction
The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an
exercise of judgment or discretion by an
agency or officer upon whom that judgment
or discretion is lawfully vested, esp. where
the matter involves basically technical
matters coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of the agency /
officer. (Concerned Officials of MWSS v.
Vasquez (1995), where the Ombudsman
was held to have interfered with a bid-andaward contract.)
The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to
initiate an investigation into the alleged
delay in the disposition of a judicial case. It
is the Supreme Court which has
administrative supervision over all courts
and the personnel thereof.
(Dolalas v.
Office of the Ombudsman, 1996)

A. Legislative Functions
1. Non-Delegation Doctrine

theoretically puts a check on the legislature

from abdicating its duty by delegating its
power to make law. This is a corollary to the
doctrine of Separation of Powers.

the later attitude of the SC is more liberal

and is in favor of sustaining the validity of
the delegation.

Courts have realized the necessity of

delegation of powers - broad or vague
standards are sufficient

1. Policies - limits, boundaries, complete in

itself, leaves nothing to the discretion; may
be in another statute (Chiongbian v. Orbos)
2. Standards - express or implied (Edu v.
Ericta); written administrative standards
(White v. Roughton)
What are the matters that Congress cannot
delegate?

Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v. AuditorGeneral)

Imposition of criminal penalties (US v.

Barrias)

Designation of a particular act as a crime

(People v. Maceren)

Creation of standards on the part of the

agency

Requisites for a valid delegation (Pelaez v.

Auditor General)
a) the law must be complete in itself; must set
forth a policy to be executed
b) must fix a standard, the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate or determinable, to
which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions.

The standard may be express or implied

(Edu v. Ericta)

The standard does not have to be found in

the law being challenged.
It may be
embodied in other statutes on the same

subject matter as that of the challenged

legislation. [Chongbian v. Orbos (1995).
Here, the challenged law was the ARMM
Organic Act. The standard was found in the
Reorganization Act.]
Examples of sufficient standards include:
Assumption by Labor Minister over strikes
affecting national interest (Free Telephone
Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and
Employment, 1981)
Reorganization of administrative regions in
ARMM (Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995)
Standard may be implied from other laws,
e.g. RA 5435 (simplicity, economy,
efficiency)

Fixing
of
rates
by
National
Telecommunications
Commission
(Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 1989) The standards
used were public safety, public interest,
reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates
(case to case basis)

In

Santiago v. COMELEC, RA 6735 is

incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
essential terms and conditions insofar as
initiative on amendments
to
the
Constitution is concerned. COMELEC
resolution is void as there are no
standards at all, no legislative policy.
In Panama Refining Co. v, Ryan, for subordinate
rules to be valid, such must be within
prescribed limits of the statute creating or
granting such authority.

In A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., the

legislature cannot make a sweeping
delegation of legislative power.

2.

Permissible Delegation

The Legislature must establish the standard;

AAs only to make subordinate rules

a.
b.

Ascertainment of fact (Lovina v. Moreno)

Filling in of details (Alegre v. Collector of
Customs)

3.

Administrative Rule making

Administrative rule-making or subordinate

legislation

WON rate-fixing is legislative or quasijudicial

Legislative

No notice and
hearing required
unless the law
requires

Quasi-judicial

Notice
and
hearing
required

To be able to
present
evidence and
prove
the
possible
adverse
effects on its
financial
viability

Valid as long as germane, consistent,

implements the law
Normative and prescriptive in character
has the force and effect of law; affects
substantive rights
must not go beyond
prescribed by the law.

the

standards

General in application
INNOVATIONS IN BOOK VII
1) date of effectivity : 15 days after filing with
UP Law Center
- publication - submit to UP Law Center
a) Quarter bulletin
b) up-to-date codification

EO 200 allowed publication I na newspaper

of general circulation

Art. 2 NCC - 15 days after publication in the

OG

Adm. Code - 15 days after filing

2) Public Participation (Sec. 9)

publish proposed rules and afford interested

parties the opportunity to submit views.

What is sad is the law uses the phrase, As

far as practicable makes it look like its not
mandatory. Can be an excuse.

power or lack of jurisdiction or grave

abuse of discretion clearly conflicting
with either the letter or the spirit of the
law (Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA)
Publication and effectivity

Every agency to file with the UP Law Center

three (3) certified copies of every rule
adopted by it. (Bk. VII, Sec. 3)

Date of effectivity of rule: 15 days from the

date of filing (Bk. VII, Sec. 4)

EXCEPTIONS:
1. different date is fixed by law or
specified in the rule
2. in cases of imminent danger to
public health, safety and welfare,

- even more specific

Publication is indispensable

2 weeks before rate fixing, 1st hearing is

MANDATORY

Publication essential especially if general in

character

refers to ALL RATES

Rule on publication of administrative

issuances different from the Taada ruling

Two ideas involving rate-fixing

1) proposed rate is published
2) must have public hearing

Tanada ruling: Publication in O.G. or

newspaper of general circulation is required
for effectivity of administrative rules and
regulations.

What need not be published:

1. interpretative regulations
2. internal regulations ( regulating only
personnel of agency
3. letters of instructions issued by
administrative superior to their
subordinates

In the Admin Code of 1987: Filing of copy of

regulations is sufficient for effectivity

Public Participation

To make a determination of facts/evidence

1) formal - trial type procedure
2) informal - more desirable and more
effective
- public hearings, presentation of
papers
and
memo,
resolutions,
workshops,
conferences, seminars,
dialogues)

Rate Fixing

Problem with not following requirements

- aggrieved party can always can go to
court
- the rate can be voided

Rule-making
- an agency process for the formulation,
amendment or repeal of rule.

Limits on rule-making power:

a. authorized by law (Olsen v. Aldanese)
b. must not amend the law (Syman v.
Jacinto)
c. must not define a criminal act (People v.
Maceren)
d. must be germane to the purpose of the
law which it was meant to implement
(Toledo v. CSC)
e. must not restrict, expand, diminish law
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
CA; Land Bank v. CA; GMCR v. Bell
Telecoms)
f. action of the AA to be set aside if there
is an error of law, a grave abuse of

Penal Regulations

must be published in full text (Sec. 6 (2),

Book 7, Admin Code)

If a rule is penal in character, it is required

that the rule is published before it takes
effect. (People v. Que Po Lay)

the law itself must so declare the act as

punishable

penal statutes exclusive domain of the

legislature, cannot be delegated

In People v. Maceren, it was held that

"Administrative rules and regulations cannot

amend or modify or expand the law by

including, prohibiting or punishing certain
acts which the law does not even define as
a criminal act."

AA to publish or circulate notices of

proposed rules and afford interested parties
the opportunity to submit their views prior to
the adoption of any rule. (Bk. VII Sec 9(1))

To be valid, proposed rates must be

published in a newspaper of general
circulation at least 2 weeks before the first
hearing thereon (Bk. VII, Sec 9(2)).

Function delegated to AAs because the

legislature has not the time, the knowledge
nor the means necessary to handle the
matter efficiently.

Need for dispatch, for flexibility and for

technical know-how better met by AAs.

Interpretative rules

interprets the law enacted by the legislative

does not and cannot control decisions as to

the proper construction of the statute; not
binding but generally or in particular
circumstances it is given great weight and
has a very persuasive influence on the Court
Interpretative Rule can be found erroneous by
the successor (Hilado v. Collector of
Internal Revenue)
Administrative interpretation merely advisory
(Victorias v. SSC)

Wrong construction of the law cannot give

rise to a vested right. (Hilado v. CIR)

Action of the AA will be set aside if there

was error of law, or abuse of power, or lack
of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion
clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of
a legislative enactment. (Peralta v. CSC)

The power to hear a case can be delegated,

but not the power to decide. (American
Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, 1975)
The power to decide can be delegated
provided that the power to delegate such
function was not withheld expressly or
impliedly. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino,
1994, where the issue was whether the
HLURB could split itself into divisions when
hearing cases instead of meeting en banc.)
NOTE: Is it not implied from the fact that the
Board was constituted as a collegial body
that they were meant to decide as a collegial
body? (Hence an implied prohibition on the
delegation of quasi-judicial functions.)

Extent of
applicabi
-lity
Notice &
hearing

A rate is any charge to the public for a

service open to all and upon the same
terms, including individual or joint rates,
tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as
well
as
communication,
mileage,
kilometreage and other special rates which
shall be imposed by law or regulation to be
observed and followed by any person. (Sec.
2 (3), Book VII, Admin Code)

Quasi-judicial

Rate applies to
all

Rate directed
only at 1 entity

May be
dispensed with
unless the law
provides
otherwise

Absolutely
necessary

PSC not authorized to delegate power to fix

rates to a common carrier or other public
service. Power to fix rates, being a
delegated power cannot be delegated
further (Panay Autobus v. Philippine
Railway)

Rate-fixing must be exercised by the agency

directly. The power to fix rates, which is a
delegated power, cannot be delegated
further (KMU v. Garcia)

Principle on rate fixing and requirement of

notice and hearing

Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices

Legislative

if the rate to be fixed applies to all utilities in

general --- LEGISLATIVE in character
Notice and hearing may be dispensed with
unless the law requires otherwise.

If the rate to be fixed applies to one entity -QUASI-JUDICIAL in character notice and
hearing required.
(Vigan Electric v. PSC; Philcomsat v. Alcuaz)

Licensing Function
Licensing includes agency process involving
grant,
renewal,
denial,
revocation,
suspension,
annulment,
withdrawal,
limitation, amendment, modification or
conditioning of a license. (GR-DR-SAMC)
License includes the whole or any part of any
agency permit, certificate, passport,
clearance, approval, registration, charter,
membership, statutory exemption or other
form of permission, or regulation of the
exercise of a right or privilege. (PCPCARCM-SPR)
When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation
of a license is required to be preceded by
notice and hearing, it cannot be
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or
annulled without notice and hearing (Sec
17(1), Bk, VII)

no license may be withdrawn, suspended,

revoked or annulled without notice and
hearing (Sec 17(2), Bk VII)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. in cases of willful violation of
pertinent laws, rules and regulations
2. when public security, health or
safety require otherwise

Where the licensee has made timely and

sufficient application for the renewal of a
license, the existing license shall not expire
until the application shall have been finally
determined by the agency. (Sec. 18, Bk, VII)

A license is always revocable. (Gonzalo Sy

Trading)

B. Judicial Functions
1. Power to issue subpoena and declare
contempt
Subpoena
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions
have the power to issue subpoena?

Yes. As long as in exercise of quasijudicial even if charter is silent. Power is

vested in the AA in the Admin Code (see
Sec 13 Bk VII)

Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:

1. w/in authority of the agency ( expressly
authorized by law )

2. demand is not too indefinite subpoena

duces tecum
3. info is reasonably relevant
(Evangelista v. Jarencio)
rationale: power to adjudicate will be
rendered inutile if cant subpoena
Contempt
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions
have the power to cite for contempt?

No. Power must be expressly granted in the

agencys charter (ex. PD 902-A creating the
SEC)

If no law, must invoke the aid of RTC

Rationale: power to punish for contempt

inherently judicial

The power to cite for contempt can only be

used in connection with judicial and quasijudicial functions and with ministerial
functions. (Guevara v. COMELEC)

2. Warrants of Arrest, Administrative

Searches
Can administrative agencies issue warrants of
arrest?

No. In Salazar v. Achacoso, it was held that

under the 1987 Constitution only a judge
may issue search or arrest warrants.
EXCEPTION: in cases of deportation of
illegal and undesirable aliens following a
FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION, for the
purpose of deportation

In Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, the

two ways of deporting are through the:
a.) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37
of CA 618
b.) President after due investigation pursuant to
Sec 69 of Revised Administrative Code.

but no grounds needed has sole

discretion under international law

Can immigration authorities issue warrants of

arrest against undesirable aliens?

YES, but only if issuance is pursuant to a

final order of deportation.
Immigration
authorities cannot issue warrants for
purposes
of
investigation,
as
the
Constitution provides that only judges can

issue warrants to determine probable cause.

(Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 1963)
Note that the Constitution does not
distinguish between warrants in a criminal
case and administrative warrants in
administrative proceedings.
3. Imposition of fines and penalties
Do agencies have the power to impose fines
and penalties?

Yes. In the case of Oceanic Steam

Navigation v. Stranahan, the Court
laid down the tests for the validity of
imposition of fines

Test for validity of imposition:

1. subject matter is within the control of
Congress
2. penalty is administrative or civil and
not criminal which would involve
deprrvation of property
3. power must be expressly conferred
to an administrative agency; power
cannot be exercised by implication

The fixing of penalties for criminal

offense is the exercise of legislative
power which cannot be delegated to
a subordinate authority. (U.S. v.
Barrios)

C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of

Standards

a reiteration of the non-delegation

doctrine

attitude of the courts is liberal in

sustaining the standards even if
such are broad

The ff. have been held to be

sufficient standards:

1. Interest of law and order (Rubi v.

Provincial Board of Mindoro, 1919)
2. Public interest (People v. Rosenthal,
1939)
3. Justice, equity and substantial
merits of the case (International
Hardwood v. Pangil Federation,
1940)

4. What is moral, educational or

amusing (Mutual Film Corp. v.
Industrial Commission, 1914)
5. Adequate and efficient instruction
(PACU v. Secretary, 1955)
6. Sound and reasonable discretion
(implied
standard)
(Wisconsin
Inspection Bureau v. Whitman,
1928)
7. Promotion of simplicity, economy or
efficiency (Cervantes v. AuditorGeneral, 1952)
8. Maintenance of monetary stability,
promotion of rising level of
production and real income (People
v. Joliffe, 1959)

What is sacrilegious is not a

sufficient standard. (Burstyn v.
Wilson, 1952)

PART IV.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
A. Rules of Procedure
B. Due Process
1. Cardinal Primary Rights
As held in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the seven cardinal
primary rights are:
1. Right to a hearing
2. Right to have the evidence
considered
3. Decision must be supported by
evidence
4. Substantial evidence
5. Transparency of records
6. Independent consideration of the
judge
7. Decision must reveal relevant
issues

absence of one of these 7 rights is

sufficient to question the proceeding

Presence of a party at a trial is not

always the essence of due process.
All that the law requires is that the
parties be given notice of trial, an

opportunity to be heard. (Asprec v.

Itchon)

The right of a party to confront and

cross-examine opposing witnesses
is a fundamental right which is part
of due process. If without his fault,
his right to cross- examine is
violated, he is entitled to have the
direct examination stricken out.
(Bachrach Motors v. CIR)
The law, in prescribing a process of
appeal
to
a
higher
level,
contemplates that the reviewing
officer is a person different from the
one who issued the appealed
decision. Otherwise, the review
becomes a farce; it is rendered
meaningless. (Zambales Chromitev.
CA; Anzaldo v. Clave; Rivera v.
CSC)
Evidence on record must be fully
disclosed to the parties. (American
Inter-Fashion Corporation v. Office
of the President)

In Matthews v. Eldridge, the U.S.

Supreme Court enumerated the 3
factors determining constitutional
sufficiency
of
administrative
procedures:
1. private interest that will be affected
2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such
interest and probable value of
safeguards
3. public interest vis--vis government
costs

b.

No Notice and hearing requirement

in case of a mere conference
(Equitable v. NLRC)

Power to hear may be delegated but

not the power to decide (American
Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents)

When required
a. When law specifically requires
notice and hearing (Halili v.
PSC;
Bautista
v.
WCC;
Equitable Banking Corp v.
NLRC)

If administrative action is based on

an undisputed fact and not a quasijudicial function, notice and hearing
may be dispensed with.

When not required

urgent reasons

when discretion is exercised by an

officer vested with it upon an
undisputed fact (Suntay v. People)

if it involves the exercise of

discretion and there is no grave
abuse of discretion (De Bisschop v.
Galang)

when rules to govern future conduct

of persons or enterprises, unless
law provides otherwise (Taxicab
Operators of Manila v. Board Of
Transportation)

in the valid exercise of police power

(Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA)

2. Notice and Hearing

When it affects a persons

status
and
liberty
(Commissioner of Immigration v.
Fernandez)

3. Form and
Judgment

Promulgation

of

Decision should state:

1. facts
2. issues
3. law
(Ang Tibay vs CIR)

Normally, this will be followed by the

agency to the letter. However, there
are times when there is substantial
compliance (therefore not violative
of due process)

It is not necessary that the order

make its own discussion of the
evidence and the findings of fact if
the court is satisfied with the report
of the examiner which already
contains the discussions of the
findings and conclusions. The rule
is otherwise when the court
disagrees with the findings of the
examiner in which case the court

must specify and discuss the

reasons for their dissent. (Indias v.
Phil. Iron Mines)

The requirement that all decisions

should contain a statement of facts
and the law on which it is based is
only applicable to decisions of
courts of record, not to quasi-judicial
agencies. However, the due process
clause applies with regards to
procedural due process. (Valladolid
v. Inchiong)
If a power to decide is granted to a
specific authority, it cant abdicate
from this responsibility by delegating
the duty to decide the case. It must
personally decide such.
It can
delegate the power to hear but not
the power to decide. (American
Tobacco v. Director of Patents)
The Boards act of dividing itself into
divisions of three is valid because
under EO 648 the Board can adopt
rules of procedure for the conduct of
its business and perform such
functions necessary for the effective
accomplishment of its functions. The
power to delegate a particular
function can be implied from the
power of AA to issue rules and
regulations necessary to carry out
its functions. (Realty Exchange v.
Sendino)

C. Jurisdiction

Refer to the enabling statute

creating the agency, especially its
powers and jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is created and conferred

by law

Pendency of a criminal case will not

divest the Deportation Board of its
jurisdiction over undesirable aliens
in a deportation proceeding. (Go
Tek v. Deportation Board)

The
Collector
of
Customs
constitutes a competent tribunal
when
sitting
in
forfeiture
proceedings. (Dela Fuente v. De
Veyra)

CHR can only investigate violations

of civil-political rights. It cannot try
and decide cases as ordinary courts

of justice, or even quasi-judicial

bodies do. (Cario v. CHR)

CHR cannot issue cease and desist

order since the CHR can only
investigate. The power to issue
cease and desist order is reserved
for quasi-judicial & judicial powers
(Simon, Jr. v. CHR)

The Bureau of Immigration has the

primary jurisdiction or exclusive
authority to try and hear cases
against an alleged alien. Judicial
intervention should be granted only
in cases where claim of citizenship
is so substantial that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that
the claim is correct. (Board of
Commissioners v. Dela Rosa)

The HLURB has jurisdiction over

specific performance, annulment of
mortgage and all other matters
which pertain to sound real estate
practice. (Union Bank v. HLURB)

The CAB is authorized by RA 776 to

issue temporary operating permit or
CPCN. (PAL v. CAB)

D. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings

Arising from the same facts

The difference in the proceeding

(one administrative, the other
criminal) is not legal incompatibility
but merely physical incompatibility.
These
2
proceedings
are
independent of each other involving
different causes of action and
therefore
can
proceed
simultaneously. (Galang v. CA)

Matters that are material in

administrative
case
are
not
necessarily relevant in criminal
case. There are excuses, defenses
and
attenuating
circumstances
which
are
relevant
in
an
administrative proceeding which are
not admissible in trial in crim cases.
(Villanos v. Sabido)

The trial court had no jurisdiction to

order reinstatement since the

judgment in a criminal case is

limited to acquittal or conviction with
accessory penalties. Only the NLRC
could have ordered reinstatement
with back wages.
(PNR v.
Domingo)

The criminal case for falsification is

entirely
distinct
from
the
administrative
proceedings
conducted by the COMELEC
against the petitioner although both
arose from the same set of facts.
The dismissal of the criminal
complaint against Tan is not a bar to
the administrative proceeding. (Tan
v. COMELEC)

E. Rules of Evidence

AAs not bound by technical rules of

evidence but due process must be observed

RATIO: to allow AA to act with speed and

flexibility
What is the pervasive principle?

Technical rules of evidence and procedure

do not strictly apply to administrative
proceeding, but this does not mean they can
disregard certain due process requirements.

AAs may act on its own and use

methods which may best constitute
substantial evidence. (Estate of
Buan v. Pambusco)
The SC not required to examine the
proof de novo. The only function of
the SC is to determine WON there is
evidence before the Commission
upon which its decision might be
reasonably be based. (Rizal Light
Co. v. Municipality of Rizal)
AAs not bound by the strict or
technical
rules
of
evidence
governing court proceedings. In the
broad interest of justice, the ERB
may, in any particular manner,
except itself from these rules and
apply such suitable procedure as
shall promote the objectives of the
order. (Maceda v. ERB)

PART V.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS

A. Factors
Affecting
Finality
of
Administrative Decisions
1. Question of constitutionality
2. history of statute
3. nature of problem (question of law or fact)
4. finality of decision (non quieta movere)

Silence of Congress should not be

interpreted as indicating a legislative
intent to preclude judicial review.
(Uy v. Palomar)

GEN RULE: Courts refuse to interfere with

proceedings undertaken by AA
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) AA has
gone beyond statutory
authority
(2) AA
exercised
unconstitutionall
powers
(3) AA clearly acted arbitrarily and
without regard to his duty
(4) Grave abuse of discretion
(5) Decision
vitiated
by
fraud,
imposition or mistake
(Manuel v. Villena)
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Where law has delineated a procedure by which
administrative appeal or remedy could
be effected, the same should be
followed before recourse to judicial
action can be initiated

REASONS:
1. legal : law prescribes a procedure
2. practical : to give agency a chance to
correct its own error
3. for reasons of comity and convenience

EXCEPTIONS TO RULE
1. purely legal question (Pascual v. Prov.
Bd.)
2. patently illegal act - lack of jurisdiction
3. time is of the essence and will result into
nullification of claim (Quasha v. Sec;
Alzate v. Aldana)
4. would be oppressive and unreasonable
(Cipriano v. Marcelino)

5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.

remedy only persuasive (Corpuz v.

Cuaderno)
estoppel by laches (Republic (PCGG) v.
SB)
irreparable damage and injury will be
suffered by the party (De Lara v.
Clorivel)
private land in land case proceedings
not a plain, speedy, adequate remedy
doctrine of qualified political agency alter ego
blatant violation of due process

In the case of Republic (PCGG) v.

SB, the Court held that failure to
observe the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies does not
affect the jurisdiction of the Court.
The only effect of non-compliance
with this rule is that it will deprive the
complainant of a cause of action,
which is a ground for a motion to
dismiss. If not invoked at the proper
time, this ground is deemed waived
and the court can take cognizance
of the case and try it. In this case,
seven years is hardly within "the
proper time".

The rule on non-exhaustion of

administrative
remedies,
being
based on sound public policy and
considerations, has EXCEPTIONS:
where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine;
where the challenged administrative act
is patently illegal amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant; and
where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts of justice.
The Rep. v. SB case falls under (I) and
(ii).

(i)
(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

C. Primary
Resort

Jurisdiction

or

Preliminary

doctrine applies when there is concurrence

of jurisdiction (regular court and AA)

Courts will not intervene if the question to be

resolved is one which requires the expertise
of the AA and the legislative intent on the
matter is to have uniformity in ruling

EXCEPTIONS:
1. not within competence of the AA
2. issue does not require technical
expertise of AA

Criteria for the application of the Doctrine as

laid down in the Texas and Pacific v. Abilene
Case:
(1) there is concurrent jurisdiction
(2) the agency has the necessary expertise to
competently rule on the issues (technical
expertise is crucial to resolution)
(3) In line with the legislative intent /objectives
of the law (e.g. uniform rates)

If
case
requires
expertise,
specialized skills and knowledge of
AA because technical matters or
intricate questions of fact are
involved, then relief must first be
obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be
supplied by the courts even though
the matter is within the proper
jurisdiction of the court. Application
of the doctrine does not call for the
dismissal of the case but only its
SUSPENSION till after the matters
within the competence of the AA are
threshed out and determined.
(Industrial Enterprises v. CA)

D. Standing to Challenge

LEGAL STANDING means a personal and

substantial interest in the case such that the
party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the govt. act that is
being challenged. (Joya v. PCGG; :Lozada
v. Comelec; Kilosbayan v. Guingona)

the result of the independent action of some

third party not before the court.
(3) it must be likely as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife)

Types of Standing:
1. provided by law
2. taxpayers' suit
3. class suit
4. suit as members of the Congress

E. Ripeness

If the law specifies in an exclusive manner

as to who may appeal those who are not
included have no personality to sue. (Ursal v
VTA; Acting Collector v. CTA)

One having no right or interest to protect

cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as
party-plaintiff in an action. (Joya v. PCGG)

The issue of standing is a procedural

technicality which may be waived if the issue
of is of transcendental importance to the
public. (Kilosbayan v. Guingona)

The Court differentiated concepts of

standing and real party-in-interest and
held that Kilosbayan is not a real party in
interest because it was not a party to the
contract. (Kilosbayan v. Morato)

Tests of standing as laid down in Assn of

Data Processing Service Organization v.
Camp
1) Test of injury in fact (economic injury)
2) Whether or not arguably in the zone of
interest sought to be protected by the statute
Three elements of the constitutional
minimum requirements of standing:
(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in
fact an invasion of a legally-protected
interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical
(2) there must be a causal connection between
the injury and the conduct complained of
the injury has to be fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not

Purpose of the doctrine of ripeness

(according to Abbott Laboratories v.
Gardner):
1. to prevent courts, thru avoidance of
premature adjudication, from entangling
themselves in abstract disagreements over
administrative policies
2. to protect agencies from judicial interference
until decision has been formalized and
effect felt in a concrete way or the
imminence of the effect is demonstrable
2-fold test (must concur):
(1) fitness of the issue for judicial decision
(question of law, not policy-making)
(2) hardship to the parties of withholding such
court action
General
ripeness
consideration
tests
according to National Automatic Laundry
and Cleaning Council v. Shultz:
1. WON
there is congressional intent
negativing judicial review
2. Possibility of courts entangling themselves
in abstract disagreement over administrative
policies due to premature adjudication
3. Fitness of issue for judicial determination
and hardship to parties of withholding
consideration

PART VI.
MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial Review

WON it is available is the threshold issue

If not available - end of litigation

If available - determine the

specific mode of review which must be
invoked

A. Provisions of Law

Grants CA with exclusive jurisdiction to

review decisions of 19 AAs.

Excludes the NLRC

Mentions only one constitutional body: CSC

Art. 9A, Sec 7, Constitution:

Decisions of the COA, COMELEC, and CSC
may be brought to the SC on CERTIORARI
within 30 days from receipt of copy of decision

Listing not exclusive - ejusdem generis

SC retains the special civil action for

certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

The constitution uses the word may,

meaning review is not mandatory by only
discretionary.

As to AAs exercising quasi-judicial functions,

there is an underlying power in the courts to
scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions
of law and jurisdiction even though no right
of review is given by the statute. (Meralco
Securities v. CBAA)

BP 129

Authority of CA to review decisions of quasijudicial agencies is EXCLUSIVE (if such is

listed in law or if its charter so indicates)
If it is not listed, its decisions can be
reviewed by the RTC through the special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65

Book VII, Section 25, Administrative Code of

1987
Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial
review in accordance with this chapter and
applicable laws. (par. 1)
WHO MAY SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW:

Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by

an agency decision. (par.2)
WHEN TO APPEAL:

Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a

copy (par. 4)
HOW:

File petition for review (par.4)

WHERE TO FILE:

In the court specified by statute or, in the

absence thereof, in any court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions
on venue of the Rules of Court. (par. 6)

Petition for Review - question of fact and law

Must comply with

The time period

Docket fees

Notice

SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95

(Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Procedure)

B. Certiorari
Two Kinds of Certiorari
1. Simple or Ordinary (Rule 45) - errors of
judgment; questions of law
2. Special Civil Action (Rule 65) - errors of
jurisdiction;
- SC has original jurisdiction, concurrent
with the RTC

Purpose: to
proceedings

nullify

or

set

aside

the

Requisites:
1. a) Lack of jurisdiction or
b) grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction
2. There is no other plain, speedy, adequate
remedy
3. Agency or tribunal is performing judicial or
quasi-judicial functions
C. Prohibition
Requisites:
1. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion
2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
3. Agency or tribunal is performing quasijudicial and ministerial functions
4. The act to be enjoined is yet to be
performed

Purpose

To stop or prohibit proceedings

from going on


If proceedings are already
finished - do not use prohibition as by
then it would be moot and academic
Unlike certiorari, prohibition
is more
expansive as it caters to quasi-judicial and
purely ministerial duties
D. Mandamus
Requisites:
1. Prove clear and controlling right - not
questionable and not subject to dispute
2. Duty of the person to whom mandamus
is directed is MINISTERIAL, not
discretionary
3. No plain, speedy, adequate remedy
under the ordinary course of law
Is it possible to ask for a writ of mandamus
against an agency exercising discretionary
powers?

for a declaration of his rights, duties

thereunder

can only be availed of before the breach

Yes,
when
the
writ
of
mandamus is in order to compel the
agency to exercise or use its discretion
but it will not prescribe the action to be
taken by the board/officer (Policarpio v.
Phil Veterans Board)

If there is a capricious exercise

of such discretion, the remedy is
CERTIORARI
WHEN IS MANDAMUS NOT PROPER:
to control or review the exercise of discretion of
a public officer (Blanco v. Board of
Examiners)
1. to compel issuance of visa (Ng Gioc Liu v.
Secretary of Foreign Affairs)
2. to enforce contractual obligations (Province
of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission)
3. where there is no clear legal right as the
source of the "right" is not authorized (Cruz
v. CA)
4. to compel tax assessment not due (Meralco
Securities v. Savellano)
E. Declaratory Relief
Function:
1. interested under a deed, will, contract or
written instrument affected by any
statute
2. to
determine
any
question
of
construction or validity arising from and

Requisites of Declaratory Relief

1. existence of a justiciable controversy capable of determination
2. between persons whose interests are
adverse
3. party seeking declaratory relief must
have a legal interest in the controversy
4. issue is ripe for adjudication

Citizenship cannot be declared in an action

for declaratory relief. (Azajar v. Ardalles)

DR must precede breach so as to avoid

multiplicity of suits. (De Borja v. Villadolid)

DR not available to a taxpayer who

questions his tax liability. (National Dental
Supply v. Meer)

F. Habeas Corpus

In what cases will habeas corpus pertinent

in administrative cases?

Deportation cases

It is a plain, speedy, adequate remedy to

secure release of persons under custody

Success of petition depends on the legality

of the detention

WHC would still issue even if the person is

already released if the release is conditional
such as when there is surveillance, there is
limitation in the place where he can go, etc.

Detention is legal if it is reasonable (Mejoff

v. Director of Prisons)

Bail renders a WHC moot and academic as

the bail bond gives him liberty. (Co v.
Deporation Board; Lucien Tran Van Nghia v.
Liwag) Note though that in Crim Pro we
were taught that WHC may still issue
despite the granting of bail when there is still
effective detention.

G. Injunction as a Provisional Remedy

Purpose:
1. To prevent the commission of certain acts
complained of

2. Commission or continuance of act

complained of would probably work injustice
to him
3. Defendant is doing, threatens or about to do
an act in violation of petitioner's rights which
may render the judgment ineffectve

If the plaintiff wins the main case, injunction

becomes permanent, if he does not,
injunction is dissolved

Ancillary remedy to principal action while

main action is pending

To preserve rights while main action is

pending

Who issues the injunction

Question of Fact - reviewable only when not

supported by substantial evidence (findings
of fact, if supported by substantial evidence,
is conclusive on the court)

A conclusion drawn from series of facts is a

question of law which may be reviewed
(Dauan v. Secretary)

B. Question of Law

Examples are issue of constitutionality,

validity of agency action, and correctness of
the interpretation of law

Other examples:
1. question of citizenship (Ortua v. Vicente
Singson)
2. WON there was a landlord- tenant
relationship (Mejia v. Mapa)
3. Questions
arising
from
proper
interpretation of the Articles of
Incorporation (Japanese War Notes
Claimants v. SEC)
4. Existence of an ER-EE relationship
(Ysmael v. CIR)

Superior court to an inferior court

The SEC and the RTC are co-equal (Pineda

v. Lantin; Phil Pacific Fishing Co. v. Luna)

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction

Commands an act to be done for the

purpose of restoring a pre-existing right and
to prevent damage

Would be issued if:

1. right is clear
2. considerations of relative inconvenience
strongly in favor of petitioner
3. there appears to be a willful invasion of
petitioner's right and the injury is a
continuing one
4. PMI will not create a new relation
between the parties

C. Question of Fact

GEN RULE: findings of fact of AA, if

supported by substantial evidence, is
conclusive on the courts

EXCEPTIONS:
1. not supported by evidence presented
2. not supported by substantial evidence

EXAMPLES:
1. WON thing exists
2. WON event took place
3. Which of 2 conflicting versions is correct

SC may not accept AAs findings of fact

when the decision was rendered by an
almost evenly divided court and that the
decision was precisely on the facts as borne
out by the evidence. (Gonzales v. Victory
Labor Union)

When there is grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is a
justification for the courts to set aside the
administrative
determination
reached.
(Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board)

H. Suit for Damages as an Indirect Method

Even if damage ensues because of acts in

excess of authority, damages will not be
awarded if such act was (1) done in good
faith and (2) with color of title. (Philippine
Racing Club v. Bonifacio)
PART VII.
EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. Law - fact distinction

Important because of substantial evidence

rule (i.e., AA decision, if supported by
substantial evidence, will not be reviewed by
the court)

Questions of Law - always reviewable

Sir Carlota says there is substantial

evidence when there is a semblance of
reasonableness in your conclusion

Substantial evidence does not require you to

be sure but merely REASONABLE

Court must review the ENTIRE records.

Substantial evidence must be taken as a
whole - should not be selective in reviewing
the case. (Universal Camera Corporation v.
NLRB)

D. Questions of Discretion

If there is GAD, subject to certiorari

GAD - Capricious, whimsical, arbitrary,

despotic

1.
2.
3.
4.

WRITS OF EXECUTION
GENERAL RULE:
Agencies performing quasi-judicial functions
have the implied power to issue writs of
execution.
EXCEPTION:
If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise

If the law is silent, presume that the agency

has the power to enforce its decisions
emanating from its quasi-judicial powers.
(Apolega v. Hizon)

If the writ of execution is refused to be

implemented, the proper remedy is
MANDAMUS because by virtue of the writ of
execution, the duty has become ministerial.
(Vda. de Corpuz v. the Commanding
General of the Philippine Army)

CFI and the NLRC are co-equal such that an

order even if not directed against the NLRC
when it's effect would be to freeze it's
executory decision should be nullified.
(Ambrosio v. Salvador)

The authority to decide cases (quasi-judicial

powers) should normally and logically begin
to include the grant of authority to enforce
and execute the judgment it thus renders,
unless the law otherwise provides. (GSIS v.
CA)

PART VIII.
ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION
How are agency
enforced?

actions

going

to

be

Examine the pertinent provisions of the

enabling statute

Examples: issue permits, fix wages,

summary actions without notice and hearing,
ex parte order to cease and desist

RES JUDICATA
Does res judicata apply to administrative
agencies?

Yes, if it is exercising it's QUASI-JUDICIAL

FUNCTIONS (Ipekdjian Merchandising v.
CTA)

Res judicata is a judicial concept.

It does not apply if the exercise is purely

administrative

Res judicata may not be invoked in purely

administrative proceedings. (Nasipit Lumber
v. NLRC)

Decisions and orders of AAs rendered

pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority
have, upon their finality, the force and effect
of a final judgment within the purview of the
doctrine of res judicata. (Dulay v. Minister of
Natural Resources)

Requisites of res judicata:

previous final judgment

rendered by court with jurisdiction
must be a judgment on the merits
identity of parties, subject matter and
cause of action